Tag: marvel

Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm channels cosmic energy in Fantastic Four (2025)

The Fantastic Four: First Steps

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Marvel returning to form.

Color me impressed.

The term blockbuster should carry more weight. All big-budget summer films fall under that umbrella, but it ought to mean more – like: worth seeing on the big screen. As if the filmmakers made something big-budget and inspired. Or better yet…

Worth seeing in IMAX.

Where the comic brands diverge.

Compare this to DC, which did not put its large-screen resources to good use. Fantastic Four feels designed for IMAX – whereas Superman feels digitally formatted to pass as IMAX. You can feel the difference. One justifies the format. The other hopes you won’t notice.

That’s why the unique release schedule makes sense. Fantastic Four gets a two-week IMAX run – double the usual.

The ticket costs $31.35, which is approaching outrageous. But it’s worth paying the premium for this one. Budget accordingly. Skip two or three forgettable films so you can afford this.

Some people hear my criticism about the excessive volume in modern blockbusters and immediately push back.

“I didn’t notice anything wrong with the volume,” they say.

…usually the same people who don’t mind CGI.

Volume Control

Fantastic Four is loud, but never too loud. Machinery crashes together, characters exchange blows, objects rocket through deep space – but none of it grates. The sound is sharp yet velvety.

Sensible, considering the ambition of the story.

The baby effects are outstanding. No uncanny weirdness. Just charm.

The opening scene is predictable, but the plot steadily improves – unfolding in unexpected directions.

Using the colossal screen.

The villain choice is bold. Possibly the most invulnerable character in comic history. Usually too difficult to bring to live action, but here Marvel succeeds completely. A near-impossible story element, adapted with precision and confidence.

The scenes involving this massive character overflow the screen with commanding visuals – absolutely made for IMAX.

Action sequences are balanced, grounded, and clear. The fantasy mechanics are acceptable. The fictional science doesn’t distract.

There’s consistent, understated humor that doesn’t try too hard. The drama may not surprise, but it compels.

Many of the usual Marvel trappings have been stripped away. There are too many shots of civilian life for my taste, but they contribute to a tone Marvel’s trying to build. Still – I’m not a fan of this trend. I don’t need to see my fellow viewers on screen.

Marvel’s new love for everyday nobodies – extras treated like heroes – just distracts. I came to watch heroes, not audience stand-ins. It shrinks the myth.

The Silver Surfer

Changing the gender is bold – not political, just creatively sharp. It opens new angles without preaching. Smart.

Like Ben, The Thing, SS is a completely CGI humanoid. Both rendered excellently – Silver surfs molten lava. Ben lifts a Volkswagen.

Mr. Fantastic stretches minimally – and that’s for the best. His superpower should be flexed the least on-screen.

The final bit with the car seat – three grown men fumbling like sitcom dads – feels like a studio-mandated chuckle. Pointless.

An excellent example of Disney doing what it does best. A well-packaged narrative, executed so proficiently, the content commands attention beyond the screen.

Here, Disney folds narrative into structure – making the title card and the rolling credits feel less like bookends, more like part of the plot.

In reviewing Snow White, I highlight an event that communicates back with the preceding title card. Fantastic Four transitions cleanly from the film’s end into an engaging form of rolling credits. Music pulls us forward. The screen holds us. Then – an early-credits sequence.

A thoughtful coda. Marvel gives us one last experience before sending us back to real life – an event that transitions us to the next.

It doesn’t end with a bang or a wink – it ends with control. Theatrical restraint. A blockbuster that earns its screen time.

And for once, you leave not just impressed – but grateful.

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

Compact versions here: IMDb & Letterboxd.

Yelena Belova raises a gun and one hand in a tense moment - thunderbolts review

Thunderbolts*

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Should fans give Marvel another shot?

For a while, the answer was a clear: Nope!

Since Avengers: Endgame, Marvel has released 14 films. Two were great: Black Widow and Spider-Man: No Way Home. The rest? Inadequate. Unworthy of our time.

Marvel’s Strongest Effort Since No Way Home

Thunderbolts* is different. If you’ve been waiting for a reason to re-engage, this is it. Just… don’t start here. Most of these characters originate elsewhere. This is a reengagement, not an introduction. Much of the good is nostalgia-driven.

The marketing is clever. One piece of trailer footage—featuring a character who dies before the scene actually occurs—is a fake-out. Three days after release, the theatrical poster transforms and the film is seemingly retitled!

The altered IMAX countdown featured Fantastic Four iconography. Subtle hype, expertly placed. I didn’t watch the trailer, but still felt the spark: Perhaps things won’t be so bad after all…

e-Ticketing for the Economist

Don’t use Fandango.

AMC or Regal apps are cleaner. Fewer traps.

Fandango auto-checks charity boxes and charges more. Their schedule UI is solid, but they leave out key cinemas like Nashville’s Belcourt.

IMAX only ran briefly – but if it returns, use it.

Still worth seeing in Standard.

A Thunderbolts critique

The lore’s interwoven deep. Captain America: Brave New World plays heavily into the backstory. Falcon and the Winter Soldier threads are present too. We even hear dialogues justify the permanence of The Avenger’s end. 

If you know the three Russians by heart, you’re in too deep. I need the refresher:

  • Alexei Shostakov (Red Guardian, played by David Harbour)
  • His daughters:
    • Natasha Romanoff (aka Black Widow, Scarlett Johansson)
    • Yelena Belova (aka Black Widow, Florence Pugh)

Same dad, same mom. Both unmarried. Three different, Russian last names.

Natasha Romanoff

I’m not a fan of resurrecting dead characters. Comics do it all the time, and it cheapens everything. This Thunderbolts* confirms: Black Widow is gone. Scarlett Johansson’s arc is over. Permanently.

It’s the right call. But a hard one.

Yelena Belova

This film is Florence Pugh’s now. And smartly so.

Her character’s flaw – talking over people, ignoring advice – is somehow both endearing and infuriating. It creates tension. Her performance may not be flawless, but she wrangles some clunky jokes. Flo carries the weight of imperfect writing.

Nobody replaces Scarlett. But Florence carves her own space – darker, snarkier, less serious, still compelling. The camera loves her differently, but just as hungrily.

Yelena even ventures into a metaphysical realm – something Marvel’s ham-fisted in recent years (Quantum Realm, Multiverse of Madness, Deadpool & Wolverine). But this one’s clean. The fantasy space feels tactile, well-measured and narratively necessary. Not just a visual stunt.

Alexei Shostakov

David Harbour gives everything. Every scene. He’s fully in character – vulnerable, absurd, inspired. He believes in heroism. You can feel it radiating off him.

At times, his performance transcends genre. It becomes a metaphor – for genuine acting, for inspired filmmaking, for the potential of comic cinema. He argues for the value of art, and he does it while dressed like a Russian super soldier.

That’s something.

Can you please just review Thunderbolts?

Florence and Harbour together? They’re acting on a different tier than most of their co-stars.

No disrespect to Sebastian Stan or Wyatt Russell. Who are both excellent here. Their performances tend toward mechanical on occasion.

Russell’s dialogue is bloated. The action demands are heavy. But he pulls it off.

Falcon headlines a film. Bucky and Walker show up here. But Agent 13? Missing!

Moving along with the Thunderbolts review…

Not Another Suicide Squad

The comparisons are inevitable – but inaccurate. SS assembles unknown villains and forces them into death missions. T-bolts brings together known antiheroes, each with deeper roots in the MCU.

Ayer’s Squad introduced Harley Quinn. This one reintroduces Florence Pugh and David Harbour at full strength. And unlike Suicide Squad, the government antagonist (Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Valentina Allegra de Fontaine) isn’t just a puppetmaster – she’s commonly regarded as a crooked politician. She’s being investigated, and much of the film’s narrative tension centers around exposing her.

Her survival instincts border on Lex Luthor levels of absurdity. She’s pure evil. Not in a cartoonish way – just in the bureaucratic, untouchable way that makes your skin crawl.

To Valentina, people are tools – discardable, replaceable and always beneath her.

Bankrobber Garb

Marvel’s still stuffing background extras into black ski masks. This time, they’re generic military goons. Covering their faces doesn’t make them less human – or their deaths less visible. It’s lazy. And distracting.

After all, Marvel’s got four films on the horizon.

Those two Avengers films have Anthony and Joe Russo listed as the directors.

See? Hope.

This writer will dare to dream. For now, Thunderbolts* earns Marvel one more shot.

★★★★ ★★★★

TLDR? Read my briefer analysis on IMDb or, for max brevity, Letterboxd.

For more Marvel read The Fantastic Four: First Steps. Check out Iron Man 3!

Natasha Romanoff sitting in a diner with light red hair in Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Avengers: Endgame

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Has all the elements needed for an all-time great finale. Meant to conclude the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s first perfect run of films. And while it delivers in many ways, a few bad decisions hold it back from perfection.

I’ve seen it twice, once upon release in the theater and again yesterday. The first viewing was somewhat devastating. The content, obviously, but also the experience for your handsome writer.

The “hail hydra” moment encapsulates Avengers: Endgame’s primary flaw. In an early trailer, Steve Rogers says those words to a sinister-seeming character.

“What do you think of the whole, ‘Hail Hydra’ thing?” folks would ask.
“I wouldn’t know because I never watch trailers,” I reply.
“Well, Captain America says it to a bad guy at one point,” they continue, not getting it.
“Okay.”
“So that means Cap’s, like, a bad guy.”

We don’t need to ask this person about their comic reading background. They haven’t read the source material in which Hydra (an assuredly evil organization) originates. They have not. They’ve read an internet article outlining the potential implied by referencing such a group famous in the comics.

But intuition tells anybody familiar with comics this is a marketing mislead. A red herring. Cap is the most incorruptible character in comic books – the narrative would never bend in that direction.

I still find it silly, this type of talk. Every comic book fan is expected to know the reference to “Hydra.” Those of us who don’t will scramble to our computers to find out. As events play out in the film, this moment’s inconsequential. It’s strong writing. It is a callback and an inversion from an earlier film. Not in the trailer or the mouths of the public before the feature. It unfolds exactly as a comic fan would expect. Cap then exits the elevator with a grin towards the camera. He seems to say, “Tricked you with that trailer there, didn’t we?” Which is also fun, in its way.

But it is utterly needless discussion. A marketing ploy forced into the collective discourse of the enthusiastic public.

Sometime before this, Disney/Marvel announced publicly that all their good ideas run out with Endgame. The natural implication being that the major players (Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr., especially) had contracts that were up. We will give them a final-feeling send-off.

There is nothing productive in this self-consciousness projected by the filmmakers. Don’t front-load us with, “These actors were expensive. We won’t renegotiate over justifiable scripts. Things will (mostly) be ending here, because we’re out of good ideas.”

And don’t title it Endgame. Incorporating the business machinations into the rendering of this narrative caused a corruption. This corruption began before the film’s end. It has really taken hold since.

“Consider this the end. Not to Marvel content – we’ll still produce plenty. It will suck, though. But hey, have you seen the teaser?”

Endgame‘s strengths are undeniable. The film earns its emotional weight. Moments like Tony Stark’s ‘I love you 3000’ land so sweetly. This is a rare instance where the film’s self-awareness doesn’t diminish its sincerity. Thanos remains a compelling villain, with his past self’s arrival adding an intriguing layer to the film’s conflict. The climactic battle sequence is a grand spectacle. The character arcs for Tony Stark and Steve Rogers (minus the shield nonsense) conclude their journeys fittingly.

Certain choices undermine the film’s integrity. The all-female hero team-up moment feels inorganic. Too contrived to be taken seriously within the narrative. (The first moment I felt I no longer suspend disbelief since the MCU began.) Captain America’s decision to give away his shield is another baffling misstep, an unnecessary move that weakens the film.

The time travel mechanics are murky at best, leading to a host of logical inconsistencies. So past Thor no longer has Mjolnir? Young Captain America stubbornly disregards his obviously older self. This does not feel like the same behavior of young Cap in The Avengers.

Doctor Strange’s mass circle teleportation sequence, particularly Falcon’s “On your left” line, raises questions about the film’s contrivances. Strange rematerializes on Titan with omniscience. He teleports all Earth’s heroes to the same position at once. This includes the small group on Titan and all other super groups spread across the Earth. No precedent has been set for such an act. Plus, teleportation on this scale is dangerous for the MCU mechanics. Why not just teleport Thanos (and his army) into deep space instead? Why not teleport his head off his shoulders? 😉

Even so, mass teleporting all those characters into the main battle feels like an unnecessary spectacle. I did not need them all there. A more plausible, basic progression would have been preferable. Does Wasp have a relationship with Dr. Strange, or anybody other than Ant-Man in that final battle?

These choices – the forced spectacle, the contract-conscious character sendoffs and the misdirected marketing – highlight a larger issue. This film’s main flaw stems from its marketing-driven decision-making. Marvel/Disney’s overenthusiastic meddling compromised the integrity of the narrative, preemptively closing doors for contractual rather than storytelling reasons. The self-consciousness of its ‘finality’ was projected onto the audience, disrupting immersion.

Endgame is a mostly well-constructed conclusion, but it falls short of the perfect sendoff it could have been. The final battle is overstuffed. Forced moments of modern Hollywood posturing and a few narrative choices also leave a mark on an otherwise strong film. Ultimately, Infinity War remains the superior entry. Its narrative cohesion elevates it. The devastating emotional stakes place it above Endgame‘s more scattered execution.

A good film, but not the seamless masterpiece it was poised to be.

★★★★ ★★★★

Less detailed analyses at IMDb and Letterboxd.

Read why teleportation doesn’t work in Deadpool & Wolverine. Or uplift your spirits with Thunderbolts*. The Batman for DC!

Wolverine’s claw in Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) – Featured image for the movie review.

Deadpool & Wolverine

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

A film caught between two identities. On one side, it’s a continuation of the irreverent, boundary-pushing Deadpool series. On the other, it’s a corporate-mandated multiverse spectacle designed to please an algorithm more than an audience. Somewhere along the way, it lost balance.

Desecrating the Sacred

The film announces its misguided approach from the very first scene. Deadpool desecrating Wolverine’s corpse is an immediate red flag – not for being edgy, but for being lazy. It leans grotesque not to shock the audience in a meaningful way, but simply because it can. This type of humor isn’t boundary-pushing; it’s just a shortcut for actual clever writing.

Much of Deadpool & Wolverine follows this pattern, choosing cheap, grotesque gags over engaging storytelling. Deadpool shredding dudes while taunting the audience through fourth-wall breaks might be what fans expected – but does it actually add anything? The film mistakes excess for entertainment, a flaw that only snowballs as it goes on.

Meta Humor & Fan Service

Meta humor has always been Deadpool’s bread and butter. This time around, it feels like the writers confuse meta with meaning. Instead of adding depth, much of the self-awareness serves as a crutch. An excuse for lazy writing rather than an enhancement to the narrative. The film pauses many times to wink at the audience. As if acknowledging its own absurdity absolves it of needing to tell a compelling story.

Deadpool dancing to the backstreet boys IS funny. But why would such footage exist?

Fan service is weaponized here – relentless and exhausting, rather than used to enhance the story. The film leans heavily into cameos, references and multiversal chaos. It often forgets to be a story in its own right. If Spider-Man: No Way Home is the gold standard for using fan service, it serves a compelling narrative. In contrast, Deadpool & Wolverine serves as a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when a film relies on nostalgia without earning it.

The Lack of Stakes in a Multiverse

The multiverse is both the film’s biggest hook and its greatest flaw. The idea of Deadpool jumping across universes is inherently fun. But it quickly becomes an excuse to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. This leads to a chaotic and unfocused narrative where stakes are nonexistent.

The problem is exacerbated by Wade and Logan’s near-invulnerability. The best fights in the Deadpool series work. They are effective even though Wade Wilson can heal. The violence has weight, impact, and consequence. Here, the excessive mutilation crosses the line from darkly humorous to grotesquely pointless. Watching Deadpool and Wolverine repeatedly slice each other to ribbons loses its appeal. Neither of them is ever truly in danger.

The TVA’s (Time Variance Authority’s) presence, lifted from Loki, is another example of a narrative decision that removes tension rather than adds to it. When the film leans into the TVA’s metaphysical mechanics, it feels less like a Deadpool film and more like a Loki spin-off trying too hard to justify its own existence.

Masked Background Talent

One of the film’s most frustrating elements is its over-reliance on masked, faceless background actors. This was a glaring issue in Deadpool & Wolverine’s fight sequences, where an army of generic, masked goons serves as cannon fodder.

The overuse of these faceless enemies undercuts the impact of the violence. There’s no emotional connection, no investment—just a barrage of blood and limbs flying in every direction. Compare this to the fights in Deadpool 2, where every enemy had a personality, and the difference is stark.

The Absence of Romance

One of the most glaring omissions in Deadpool & Wolverine is the near-total absence of Vanessa, whose presence was instrumental in grounding the first two films. Deadpool’s love for Vanessa provided an emotional throughline that gave weight to his irreverence. Deadpool 2 even hinged its entire premise on him trying to reunite with her in the afterlife.

Yet, in Deadpool & Wolverine, Vanessa is barely acknowledged. The opportunity to expand her presence – to use her as a counterbalance to the multiversal chaos – is completely squandered. Without this emotional core, the film feels hollow, transactional and overly fixated on spectacle.

Predictably Nice

One of the film’s few memorable bits involves “Nicepool,” a version of Deadpool with an uncharacteristically gentle demeanor. Ryan Reynolds delivers a strong performance in these scenes, showcasing his comedic range. But the film leans too heavily into predictability. The moment Nicepool appears, it’s obvious he won’t have a healing factor, leading to his predictable demise. Deadpool’s humor thrives on subverting expectations. But here, the setup itself is the joke. Making it feel less like a clever gag and more like a telegraphed punchline.

The Deadpool franchise thrived on subverting expectations. Here, the beats are too obvious, the punchlines too telegraphed. The film feels less like a chaotic force of nature and more like a carefully constructed, over-calculated product.

Final Verdict

Deadpool & Wolverine is a deeply frustrating experience. It has flashes of brilliance but is ultimately weighed down. By its own excesses, an overreliance on fan service and overall lack of a compelling narrative. It mistakes more for better, flooding the screen with references, blood and CGI without providing a reason to care.

Deadpool was always about controlled chaos – this is just a mess.

★★★★

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.

Check out my review of Endgame for more teleportation complaints.

Kraven the Hunter stands in a forest, surrounded by flames, wearing a leather vest and bracing for battle

Kraven the Hunter

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Factory Fresh Tomatoes

Know how Rotten Tomatoes works? It calculates the Kraven review two ways:

  1. The Critics’ score (Tomatometer)
  2. The Users’ score (Popcornometer)

The second is usually the better measure of a film’s value. Kraven the Hunter sits at 15% / 73% – a textbook case. Audiences clearly found something here that critics didn’t. Maybe it’s the inventiveness, the self-serious intensity or the sheer commitment to its absurd premise. The bigger the gap, the better the movie. There’s a dark satisfaction in watching critics collectively harumph while audiences dig in.

Villainous Studio

Kraven the Hunter’s 15% critic score isn’t just about the film. It’s about Sony’s failed grand plan. Initially intended as a step toward a Sinister Six movie that never materialized. Now, it’s an artifact of an abandoned roadmap. But does that justify dismissing the film entirely? Critics seem to think so. There’s an odd wish to punish Kraven for existing. Like it’s an embarrassment that needs to be erased rather than a film to evaluate.

But that’s a mistake. If anything, Kraven deserves respect for not leaning into the worst tendencies of modern superhero films. It’s not a CGI crossover event; it doesn’t shoehorn in multiverse nonsense or cameos that mean nothing. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and J.C. Chandor clearly worked like mad to carve out something fresh in a genre of diminishing returns. The result’s imperfect, but also a rare thing: a superhero film that’s actually trying something different.

Even its most controversial decision — the reimagining of Kraven as virtuous — feels deliberate. In the comics, Kraven is one of Spider-Man’s most morally bankrupt villains. Yet here, he’s positioned as the strongest, most principled hero in a world where power should mean something. It’s a fascinating inversion. Even if it’s the result of corporate maneuvering, isn’t it at least interesting? After all, Kraven’s first comic appearance stood out for a reason. He wasn’t just another villain – he changed the rules. Isn’t that better than yet another recycled origin story?

Lee, Stan and Steve Ditko. The Amazing Spider-Man, no. 1, Marvel Comics, Mar. 1963.

The Lee/Ditko duo produced 38 issues together before Ditko’s departure in 1966. Lee stayed on as writer until 1972. The series hasn’t stopped since. Later this year, Amazing Spider-Man #1 (aka issue #944) will hit shelves.

As a kid, I read those first Spider-Man issues in bound volumes from Barnes & Noble. Even then, it was clear: Spider-Man was softer-edged than his bat-winged counterpart. His “Spidey Signal” projected a spider silhouette into the night, like a discount Bat-Signal. His science was more fiction than science – he once defeated Sandman with a household vacuum. If Sandman can break through concrete, a canvas dust bag shouldn’t be an issue.

The series’ lack of stakes creates an inevitable drag. Kraven’s introduction in Amazing Spider-Man #15 was a jolt. His presence elevated the stakes. Not another scientist-turned-mad or an animal-themed gangster — Kraven is human. A hunter. He doesn’t concoct death rays or mutate in a lab accident. He tracks, he studies and he kills. His target? Not just any human but the strongest one. Finally, a true challenge to Spider-Man – not to his virtue, but to the world he operates in. Kraven pulls the narrative out of its sci-fi comfort zone and into something more elemental. For a moment, Spider-Man belongs to a different, slightly elevated genre.

Kraven the Hunter is not the film anyone expected, but it’s something the genre desperately needs. A break from formula. It won’t lead to Sony’s Sinister Six, but does that even matter? In a world of corporate-driven franchise-building, it’s refreshing to see a film daring to stand alone.

Its estimated budget was $110 million, and it has only recouped $61 million worldwide.

A shame for a film this ambitious.

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

For tangentially related reviews: The Amazing Spider-Man & The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.

Guardians of the Galaxy

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Don’t be fooled by my review.

Guardians of the Galaxy won’t help you achieve enlightenment, fall in love or lose weight.

Especially if you’re the chick who sits beside me, crushing a popcorn tub singlehanded.

But if you’re looking for a great movie this weekend, you won’t find anything better on the big screen. Guardians delivers what it promises, and more.

That being said.

As is always the case with Marvel Studios productions, some won’t enjoy it. Guardians isn’t part of the superhero genre, however.

It’s science fiction. None of the characters are ‘superheroes.’

Technically thus comprises the ragtag band: one human, two aliens (one genetically enhanced), one anthropomorphic raccoon and one humanoid plant.

It belongs in the intergalactic genre; the same barrel as Star Wars and Star Trek.

If that sounds displeasing, you may be in the same boat as the douchey dude two seats down from me.

The opening scene’s a tearjerker, and I’m ‘swept up,’ so to speak.

It takes place on Earth and involves nothing extraterrestrial. At the emotional climax he speaks.

“Is this when the raccoon shows up?” Douchey Dude asks the Popcorn Vacuum.

Not only is it unfunny and in bad taste, it’s illustrative of his mindset. He’s completely unwilling to buy in.

His wrap-up comment post-viewing is, “It was all corny.”

If he’s so above it, why go in the first place?

I try to avoid personal yarns but am astounded by the behavior of other adults. If you can’t let yourself enjoy the movie, then don’t go see it.

James Gunn, the writer/director is just a great guy. He’s been on the Adam Carolla Show twice recently. He’s enthusiastic, intelligent and wants to do the sequel if the first is received with public favor.

In his latest appearance on Carolla’s podcast, Gunn claims they cast Chris Pratt as the lead when the actor was out of shape. But it’s clear Pratt got physically fit by the time shooting rolled around.

Zoe Saldana is the queen of science fiction. She plays a major role in both of the more recent Star Treks and wears similar makeup in Avatar. Saldana’s phenomenal as Gamora, and you can tell she does a lot of her own stunts.

Plus she’s enchanting. It’s odd how lovable she can be with all that makeup on.

Bradley Cooper is almost unrecognizable as the voice of Rocket, the raccoon everybody’s been talking about. As per the usual, Cooper’s great.

This is Vin Diesel’s second voiceover role as a humanoid being. Not only is he the voice of Groot in Guardians, he’s also the robot in The Iron Giant (1999).

Karen Gillan’s performance is particularly noteworthy. She’s a Scottish actress who’s quite prevalent in Doctor Who, and played a role in last year’s Oculus.

Gillan’s terrifically menacing as the bionic woman. She’s creepy and evil and fits the tone of the movie perfectly. Hopefully we see more of her in the future.

It’s overall a balanced, vastly diverse cast of characters. The sum total of which makes for a well-acted movie.

Guardians does a lot of things right. The writing constantly defies convention and satirizes common sci-fi themes.

For example, when the heroic outlaws ask for help from the authorities, it’s a relief to see their call’s considered, rather than immediately dismissed.

Much like the humorous discussions of plan creation, Guardians masterfully navigates clichés.

Location and contextual details appear onscreen in a cool efficient fashion. Digital readouts accompany interstellar approach shots of planetary environments as the perspective transitions between settings.

The shooting, editing, cinematography, music and score are all impressive. I think it’s time we retire “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough,” from all future soundtracks, though. That song belongs to Remember the Titans.

Despite some overcompensating laughter in the theater, the humor is strong and consistent.

The end credits are dissatisfactory. The opening credits are informative and wildly entertaining.

There is a lot of action, both hand-to-hand and aerial combat. It’s thrilling. Great choreography.

I wonder what percentage of the on-screen material is CGI. It must be upwards of fifty, but it all looks realistic.

My only criticism regards the scene after the credits.

It’s a major disappointment if you don’t understand the reference. I’m almost twenty-five and despite my vague familiarity, I’m still outside the joke.

It seems like this film is for an older audience. Why not make it R?

I know all the answers to my question; they’re just infinitely dissatisfying.

And I was hoping for something that gets us looking forward to the sequel.

Regardless. It’s a tiny failure in an otherwise remarkable film.

Guardians of the Galaxy is cute, thrilling and fun.

It’s everything we can ask from PG-13.

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Briefer takes at IMBd & Letterboxd.

Check out Hercules for more fantasy action in 2014.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Wouldn’t it be best to change the team name to X-Humans?

Consider a ‘loose canon.’

The exact origin of the nautical phrase is uncertain. It’s presumably sailor jargon for a canon breaking free of the rigging keeping it stationary. Imagine one hundred pounds of cast iron rolling about a storm beaten ship deck.

The phrase is overused. But one can understand this reviewer’s hesitation, when associating the live-action depiction of Wolverine with a loose canon.

Ever since Cyclops’s cinematic demise, the clawed crusader’s gone a little soft.

Jackman’s Wolverine is much less of an antihero. He’s more compassionate, no longer a recluse. And wouldn’t you know it – he stars in this film, too.

Despite the saccharine portrayal, I’ll take plenty more sequels with Hugh at the helm, because Days of Future Past is excellent.

What sets the X-Men apart from other comic creations is time travel, success through crafty teamwork and mutant segregation. This movie tackles the entire thematic trio with vigor.

First some notes on the acting, directing and writing. Then the fighting. And finally, a gloriously thought-provoking takeaway.

Before any of that, a warning to spoiler-sensitive readers. Cease your literary digestion and devour DOFP before it vacates the big screen.

James Marsden is excellent as Cyclops in X-Men (2000), and fourteen years later proves he’s still got it.

By the by, after all this talk of ‘getting the gang back together,’ it’s a bit underwhelming with only one scene featuring Cyclops, Rogue or Jean Grey.

All’s forgiven, because DOFP’s greatest achievement is the creation of a ‘narrative reset.’ The denouement (the falling action after the climax) indicates the button’s been depressed, removing any narrative restrictions set by the previous films.

There are too many characters to mention but for hints toward each player’s prominence, check the theatrical poster (not pictured). The relative size of the character’s image to screen time ratio looks exactly to scale.

Ellen Page returns for a particularly great performance as Kitty Pryde. Her only previous appearance is from The Last Stand back in 2006, making her unique amongst the supporting players.

Another reliable favorite from the earlier films, Shawn Ashmore, delivers as Iceman. He’s easy to love and fights quite a bit, too.

Jennifer Lawrence reprises her role as Mystique and doesn’t disappoint. The blue beauty engages in some serious hand-to-hand combat, and it’s consistently thrilling.

She’s an enormous talent. My sister groans every time the young actress’s name is uttered. However, if pressed, even my sister will agree J-Law’s a dynamite thespian.

Perhaps she doesn’t usurp her last performance in American Hustle. But Mystique is one of the more difficult roles. She must remain on the villainous side of morality while conveying a pitiable sense of decency.

There’s a nod to Rebecca Romijn in the movie, as well as a reference I can’t quite figure out. In Shanghai Noon, Owen Wilson quotes James Brown in saying, “I don’t know karate, but I do know ka-razy.”

So when Wolverine says it, I assume it’s a nod to Shanghai Noon. Perhaps others disagree?

Michael Fassbender plays young Magneto, and delivers a fitting performance as one of our best actors working today.

A major personal criticism of earlier X-Men films is the underwhelming action. There are always fight scenes, but oftentimes they’re brief and never elaborate enough. For example, consider the action involving Banshee in First Class, the most recent film from 2011.

To be clearer, consider the two major fights involving Beast. In First Class, Nicholas Hoult doesn’t throw a single punch on-screen during the final brawl on the Cuban beach. Whether or not Hoult lands a blow, his battlefield presence pales in comparison to Kelsey Grammer’s ferocity at Alcatraz in The Last Stand.

DOFP opens with a spectacular fight sequence. Really, it’s one of the best superhero battles ever. But it’s brief, and trumps all other physical conflicts (in terms of quality) occurring later on.

The sentinels are superbly rendered, and the teamwork dynamic is explored throughout various altercations between mutants and robots. Sending Colossus falling through warp holes (in order to achieve maximum velocity) is genius.

My sole request from the X-Men franchise remains the same: A further exploration of collaborative battle tactics. Engage the audience with higher stakes, alternative bits of terrain, contrasting settings, differing elevations, complex character pairings, elaborate face-offs; more tense and intricate ‘continuous action’ sequences that last for minutes, rather than seconds.

Good examples of what I refer to are found in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (but without the teamwork dynamic.)

What’s absent is ultimately inconsequential. I want a final fight scene, one in which the X-Men collaborate to triumph over the ultimate villain. One in which they don’t all die.

I never receive my bejeweled battle. But I ultimately find this decision satisfying. Everybody loves a superhero movie that doesn’t fit the mold.

Besides, I’ll trade anything for the narrative reset.

When Magneto informs Charles (James McAvoy) of a misunderstanding (pertaining to J.F.K.’s assassination) a hearty stroke of laughter pierces the canopy of suspended disbelief.

Apparently a fellow moviegoer buys into the whole story. But JFK being assassinated for being a mutant; that’s too silly.

That, my friends, is a person looking for a place to laugh.

‘Because everybody’s thinking it, right?’

No, you scoundrel!

Moving right along; Beast’s serum is tough to swallow, but other than the lackluster fighting and Professor X’s whining, here’s my final criticism.

Magneto’s mutation allows him to manipulate metal. This doesn’t include an ability to remotely control or reprogram computerized machinery. Therefore, the process by which he gains their support would be much more complicated than simply imbuing the sentinels with metallic cables.

That’s a major inconsistency, and like the serum, I’m sure it’s necessary to tie up loose narrative threads. For my tastes, it’s not quite tidy enough.

Superhero films are criticized for their male orientation.

In DOFP there is one scene involving nudity, and it’s Wolverine from behind.

I’m not complaining.

When the political correctors start to cry out for a more ‘accepting’ team moniker, I’ll remind them of this previous gender imbalance.

How’s that for conclusive?

Breathtaking, isn’t it?

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Certifiably rotten, huh? I politely disagree.

Like the phrase dictates: ‘It takes a big man to admit he’s wrong.’

Well, I’m not large in stature. So imagine the superhuman integrity it takes for me to say:

I was incorrect, ladies and gentlemen.

But only partially.

(Check out my review of The Amazing Spider-Man to see why. It’s factually accurate, but my skepticisms surrounding a series reboot come across too boldly.)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a fantastic movie, particularly as it pertains to the superhero genre.

Frankly I’m surprised the movie’s been received unfavorably by critics. After rifling through several reviews, I find few criticisms worthy of contention. I suppose, ultimately, the appreciation is very subjective.

In my review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire I put forward a thesis about what makes a sequel ‘great.’ I reworked it for the purposes of this review.

A great sequel furthers and expands the central narrative. It introduces relevant new elements offering alternative perspectives resonating within thematic ideas established by the previous film; all while maintaining suspenseful thrills and compelling character interactions. Finally, it evolves the conflict, and (in the case of a multi-part series) offers an emotional bridge tethering us from one film to the next.

Therefore, in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) is overwhelmed.

Garfield is an excellent web-slinger, he ratchets up the witty banter in the second installment and is quite lovable as the protagonist. Peter’s relationship with Gwen (played by Emma Stone) is cute, relatable and touching.

The more (for lack of a better word) ‘romantic’ parts are fast paced and riveting. So the movie doesn’t get mired in lovey-dovey gobbledy gook.

Jamie Foxx as Max Dillon/Electro is a highly sympathetic character. Which works great for a supervillain! We feel for his desire for verification, his dreams of celebrity and notions of grandiosity.

Speaking of well-written supervillains, one of the best parts of the movie is when the bad guys conspire. It’s a believable scene, justifying an evil alliance, and it’s an aspect of cinematic superhero stories that’s never executed properly.

Dane DeHaan is solid as Harry Osborn, especially in the form of the Green Goblin.

The primary complaints are an unfocused narrative, an overabundance of characters and an overly action-packed final battle scene. These are all generalized, subjective criticisms and I couldn’t disagree more.

One review compares the final fight scene to the destructive culmination of Man of Steel. I don’t appreciate critics ‘shocked’ by the chaotic final battle sequence in last year’s reboot of Superman. And I still think it’s ridiculous to criticize a superhero film for being ‘overly destructive.’

We’re dealing with superhuman beings here, folks; if we’re to accept this reality then buildings must tumble.

There are two points of contention worth discussing: Paul Giamatti’s character (Aleksei Sytsevich) and the needless scene where the airplanes avoid collision.

Beginning with the former, this is Giamatti’s worst role ever. For whatever reason, his character feels very artificial, primarily because we can’t understand his dialogue. The film also doesn’t explore his background; probably a contributing factor to the ‘overabundance of characters.’

As for the latter point, there’s a scene in which the city’s power becomes compromised. Numerous minor characters. We meet them briefly. Basically, these scenes illustrate the potential problems resulting from losing electricity. The air traffic control team waits for the power to turn on so they can warn two planes of imminent collision.

The sequence isn’t pointless; they’re trying to show us something. But why not remove it from the final cut? It’s ultimately a major derailment that doesn’t justifiably build on the story.

I have one final thing to mention, but can’t do it without spoiling something major. If you haven’t seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet, stop reading here.

Lastly, the confusion surrounding Aunt May’s role is worthy of note.

Post-viewing, my buddy mentioned being bored by the interactions between Peter Parker and his aunt (played by Sally Field.)

Whether you appreciate it or not; the filmmakers are establishing a contrast between Aunt May and Gwen Stacy. This dichotomy illustrates a correlation to Peter. The knowledge of his alter ego seems to place his loved ones in danger.

When Peter and Aunt May are interacting, he’s attempting to keep one variable in his experiment constant. Towards the end, he proves his hypothesis and sees a clear path forward. By refusing verification, he can protect Aunt May from the dangers of his other life.

I’m trying to be careful about spoiling a plot point I consider crucial, but will conclude with the following remark.

Your appreciation of this movie will depend much, it seems, on your willingness to engage with the narrative. If you’re a superhero/Spidey fan, you should like this film, even if you don’t love it as much as me.

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is an innovative and original flick, with a polished narrative that takes chances and attempts to illustrate aspects of superhero stories we’re unfamiliar with.

Good on you, director Marc Webb, for throwing together a sequel worthy of a trip to the theater.

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.

Natasha Romanoff leans over a SHIELD desk in Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Our hero is a symbol.

It’s not what you’re thinking.

The Captain’s a metaphor for America.

Look down. Did I fake you out of your shoes?

It seems a simple conclusion to arrive at, but ogle this concept through a different lens.

Captain America encapsulates a philosophical notion; a mindset transcending time, war and politics. He is twentieth century patriotism. In the face of any enemy, be it systematically internal or external, while others may waver Captain America perseveres.

A hefty portion of this concept lies in his commitment to the notion everybody may live free. But it’s something more than just freedom. It’s an incorruptible belief; a manner of ‘striving for righteousness’ that lives on through the death of many American soldiers.

Speaking of, should you see the second installment?

Io account for my proclivity toward comic books, you can give or take a star.

Remember it’s a sequel to both The Avengers and Captain America: The First Avenger. Those who haven’t seen these earlier films may find this bothersome, but the majority probably won’t.

Never forget if you’re looking for things to complain about, you’ll find them.

It’s the same track I spin when any other comic book movie (Marvel or DC) comes out nowadays. If you’re willing to like it, and not overly critical, there’s no reason you’ll hate this film.

Logically, females with zero interest in superheroes should probably keep their distance. But even the pythons dangling from Chris Evans’s tank-topped shoulders can sway the naysayers.

It’s somewhere between twelve and nineteen minutes too long, so prepare for potential fidgeting around the two hour mark. And I’ve heard from NPR’s podcast, Pop Culture Happy Hour, the second scene after the closing credits is underwhelming. But I can speak for the mid-credits sequence, which didn’t bowl me over. Sure it’s slightly ominous, but the reference is outside my wheelhouse, so the reveal’s rendered inconsequential.

The scene’s directed by Joss Whedon and I like it; it just doesn’t get me looking forward to the next film.

The Avengers: Age of Ultron is slated for release on May 1, 2015. Marvel will follow up two months later with Ant Man.

The use of negative space in the post credits sequence is smart, fun and intricate. Lend it five extra minutes if you appreciate this sort of thing.

The fight sequences are nothing short of spectacular. The use of different camera angles throughout the battleship in an early scene is elaborate and magnificent.

Overall, the narrative derives its strength from the movement of our hero through manufactured space. The shifting of the threats and the threatened assets often evokes the classic chess metaphor. On a more evolved scale of course; where time, height and game piece type become more varied and critical factors.

Things get really interesting when examining the intricacies of battle tactics and choreography. I won’t dive in too much, but simply consider the strengths and weaknesses of the main trio. Consider the setting of an elevator; the more bad guys filling it, less the chance Black Widow has of escape. She can probably take upwards of five or six, especially because short range and close quarters are optimal combat conditions for her superhumanity.

The same can’t be said for Falcon. At most he can handle two or three thugs trapped in a lift.

The depth to the settings is truly spectacular. The epic nature of it all is so fantastic, while maintaining a secure tether to realism.

So far CATWS contains the second-best Stan Lee cameo, after The Amazing Spider-Man.

I like how the Captain wears the old suit at the end. Solid costumes are a great touch.

A major criticism I can understand but don’t share personally: Several moments are reminiscent of plot devices from other films. For example, Black Widow utilizes a similar means of concealment as Jim Phelps (played by Jon Voight) in Mission: Impossible. But that was released in ’96 so I give it a pass.

A similar example (spoiler alert) involves the fate of Brock Rumlow, the lead thug played by Frank Grillo. During a brief shot at the end, his broken body’s raised on a stretcher, in a similar state to that of Kruger (played by Sharlto Copley) in Elysium. There’s a major difference between their sustained injuries, but all bets point towards Brock rising again.

Another obvious connection mirrors a trend in superhero cinema: What I call, “The Citizen’s Call to Arms.” It’s the moment when the fate of ‘the good’ is partially placed in the hands of the regular humans. This notion’s explored in The Dark Knight and is part of the climactic sequence in Amazing Spider-Man.

Robert Redford does a spectacular job acting as Agent Alexander Pierce, but it’s to no avail. The highest upside to his performance is his appearance and demeanor are completely different from that of his last role in All is Lost.

He’s easily the worst part of Captain A. His character isn’t all that compelling, and it’s a bit unclear what he wants and whom he poses a threat to. He’s not a detractor but there’s nothing exciting about him whatsoever.

Pierce isn’t particularly menacing and neither is Hydra as an overall villain. But that’s okay, it seems like an attempt to break convention; a good idea that sizzles out with Redford’s uneventful performance.

The other thing I don’t love is the glossing over of Falcon’s background. The reveal’s a delight, but further detail on his history (particularly his superhuman abilities) is highly desirable.

Major nuance derives from the supporting players. In the realm of sidekicks, Captain’s got two complicated, original and fully-fleshed-out allies.

Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson plays a great sidekick to Cap. He turns in a subtly fantastic performance.

And so does Black Widow as the other co-goody. How can you not admire Scarlett Johansson?

But Widow’s got me worried something fierce. She’s up to something fishy.

This movie’s final shortcoming is the lack of screen time for Natasha Romanoff. I’ll scream from the mountaintop until Avengers 4 we can always use more Black Widow, both in combat, and just as much outside of it.

And for Pete’s sake, I want Cap and Widow to fall in love like nobody’s business. Sure it could happen someday, in another movie, but it’s the fact that it also couldn’t that worries me.

To wrap up, Captain America: The Winter Solider is another solid entry in the esteemed superhero canon.

The one I can’t wait for?

The Hulk. And he better be rocking purple slacks.

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.

One decade later: Captain America: Brave New World.

Iron Man 3

On By Stephen LoveletteIn Film ReviewsLeave a comment

Ever wonder what a great superhero movie looks like?

Iron Man 3 lands at #9 on the “Top Films of 2013” list.

To begin with, Marvel executes its franchise with astonishing efficiency. Honestly, it’s almost unbelievable how quickly the studio produces these films while still maintaining their quality.

By contrast, Iron Man 2 didn’t meet that standard—not even close. Think about it: the sequel essentially retells the same story as The Great Mouse Detective.

Mind blown?

Thankfully, the third entry changes course.

First and foremost, the fights and action sequences absolutely dazzle. Marvel frames elaborate cinematic moments with stunning camerawork and near-perfect CGI.

And boy oh boy, the story grips from the start. It’s packed with tension and emotion.

So let’s talk about what works in the fourth installment (counting The Avengers) in Iron Man’s narrative arc.

To start, the film features a deceptively small, yet tight and focused, cast.

Robert Downey Jr. carries the film…

Just kidding—he’s flawless, as always.

Meanwhile, some critics have targeted the introduction of voiceover narration this late in the series. Sure, you can permit that critique, but on the other hand, you can also argue the opposite just as easily.

Personally, I never felt the voiceover clashed with the story. It fits—especially considering how personal this chapter feels. We’ve grown used to Tony’s public-facing heroism. This time, the film explores the man inside the suit.

In fact, the voiceover deepens the narrative.

Stark feels trapped inside his own mind. He’s a hyperintelligent machine running out of time to fulfill his potential.

For example, in one moment, he literally wakes up midair—and we, as the audience, wake up right alongside him.

That moment uses a standout visual trick, placing the viewer inside the iron faceplate. The effect lands perfectly.

More importantly, the film weaves together plot, emotion, and style with seamless precision.

Now, some viewers might call a few plot points contrived. I’d push back on that. After all, where else could the writers pull from? They work within a world shaped by earlier films. And let’s be honest—these are exactly the kinds of issues a modern-day Tony Stark would face.

Shane Black earns serious credit here. Not only did he direct the film—he also co-wrote the script.

And Don Cheadle? The man charms every time he’s onscreen.

Also—hilarious that no one noticed the Terrence Howard switch until way after the third movie dropped. (If you want more on that, check Prisoners.)

Furthermore, Jon Favreau nails every scene as Happy Hogan. You keep expecting the punchline to miss—and it never does. Favreau plays it pitch-perfect.

Guy Pearce, meanwhile, delivers a transformative performance as Aldrich Killian across two separate timelines. He might be lesser known, but he matches the rest of the cast beat for beat.

And Gwyneth Paltrow? Excellent as Pepper Potts. Her overall filmography might feel surprisingly thin, but she shines in this role.

Honestly, I think Paltrow’s fantastic here—and Pepper is one of the biggest reasons Iron Man 3 goes beyond the basics.

Typically, Pepper plays the lovable, dependable partner. Tony fights to protect her while trying to keep their relationship intact. That’s exactly what fans expect from the comics. But in one standout moment, the film flips the script: Pepper ends up inside the suit and saves an unarmored Tony from certain death.

That’s great writing. It feels touching, fun, and empowering. Plus, it satisfies even the pickiest audience members.

Finally, speaking of great writing—Ben Kingsley plays a brilliant villain.

So whether or not you follow the comics or care about superhero movies, Iron Man 3 delivers a spectacular film experience for any audience.

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.

Read my review of Captain America: The Winter Soldier.