The dialogue smashes the plot over your face like The Beast wants you to believe the movie is good. And the sudden inclusion of a secret organization tossed haphazardly into the end ruins an otherwise decent premise that belief can make all things possible. Perhaps the sun really has set on M. Night's good ideas, right about the time The Lady in the Water came out.
Reviews
7 Reviews
The Big Short
(2015)
"The system is ran by stupidity..." The truest truth I've heard in a movie.
30 May 2016
Presented to the audience with a mixture of award winning performances, fourth-wall breaking narration, and snippets of documentary type photos, this true story breaks down the limits Hollywood seems to usually put on itself and lets the truth ring like the Stock Market's closing bell.
Summary: Because I'm one of the simple folk that this movie talks down to in a playful, I can't accurately summarize the movie except to say that some people see the housing market bubble before anyone else, and decided to gamble against the housing market to make money. I've enjoyed this movie so much, I'm writing the review before I even finish it, so you don't have to worry about spoilers.
As a simple folk myself, who happens to work in an organization in which I can truly see stupidity marching in front of the pack in the most self-assured way as it leads its way right on into proverbial hell, I can honestly say that this movie makes an artful and accurate representation of what happens when greed is allowed to breed within society, and within those who hold the 1% of the nation's wealth. But the movie is not a statement on which political party should accept fault for the housing market bubble bursting. Instead it simply looks at the big name banks that were either too shady or too stupid to see the bubble themselves and do something to prevent millions of Americans from being forced from their homes and fired from jobs.
This isn't the kind of drama that has weepy tears and over the top scenes of intense passion... although you might be able to count the snippets of cynicism and anger, or maybe the confusion and excitement. I don't count it, because the information and dialogue thrown at you at a pace that makes random numbers and technical jargon sound so cool and exciting that the emotions and feelings come second to the full force of how so many people could be blinded to one simple truth. That is, until the very end, when the "heroes" of the film realize that even if they get a 20 to 1 or 200 to 1 return on their investments, they're winning at the expense of those millions of Americans. That weight is palpable as it comes crashing through each scene, "the housing market is built on lies and deceit."
The movie should be watched by every young adult to explain how a mindless, self-absorbed approach to life can lead to far-reaching, terrible, consequences. It's theme that I find most appealing, and the is that apathy that comes as a consequence of self preservation may usually seem like a low risk decision, but it is in fact an investment into a hollow way of life that will simply collapse under the weight of its massive fallibility.
Summary: Because I'm one of the simple folk that this movie talks down to in a playful, I can't accurately summarize the movie except to say that some people see the housing market bubble before anyone else, and decided to gamble against the housing market to make money. I've enjoyed this movie so much, I'm writing the review before I even finish it, so you don't have to worry about spoilers.
As a simple folk myself, who happens to work in an organization in which I can truly see stupidity marching in front of the pack in the most self-assured way as it leads its way right on into proverbial hell, I can honestly say that this movie makes an artful and accurate representation of what happens when greed is allowed to breed within society, and within those who hold the 1% of the nation's wealth. But the movie is not a statement on which political party should accept fault for the housing market bubble bursting. Instead it simply looks at the big name banks that were either too shady or too stupid to see the bubble themselves and do something to prevent millions of Americans from being forced from their homes and fired from jobs.
This isn't the kind of drama that has weepy tears and over the top scenes of intense passion... although you might be able to count the snippets of cynicism and anger, or maybe the confusion and excitement. I don't count it, because the information and dialogue thrown at you at a pace that makes random numbers and technical jargon sound so cool and exciting that the emotions and feelings come second to the full force of how so many people could be blinded to one simple truth. That is, until the very end, when the "heroes" of the film realize that even if they get a 20 to 1 or 200 to 1 return on their investments, they're winning at the expense of those millions of Americans. That weight is palpable as it comes crashing through each scene, "the housing market is built on lies and deceit."
The movie should be watched by every young adult to explain how a mindless, self-absorbed approach to life can lead to far-reaching, terrible, consequences. It's theme that I find most appealing, and the is that apathy that comes as a consequence of self preservation may usually seem like a low risk decision, but it is in fact an investment into a hollow way of life that will simply collapse under the weight of its massive fallibility.
Saturday Night Fever
(1977)
Sex, drugs and disco.
28 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
John Travolta busts out when he busts a move, and I finally watched this for the first time on Netflix. I'm pretty shocked that it's not really about dancing, and seems to be more about growing up with a little bit of rape and racism.
Summary: I didn't take notes or anything when I watched it, so I have to give a very brief synopsis. Tony (Travolta) is a dancing God in his neighborhood, and he can slay whatever woman he wants. He has loyal fellow Italian-American friends in his group, and they all have a little taste for a little bit of drugs, a little bit of racism, and a whole lot of disco, even if there isn't as much dancing as you would expect in the movie. When Tony decides to enter a contest as if dancing "is the ticket out of here," like most "teenager has to get away from home" movies have. He falls for his dance partner, but she won't have him. Somewhere along the way, racial turmoil between his Italian friends and a rival Hispanic group of friends escalates, and one of his friends- who is a devout Catholic- knocks up some girl, which of course is terrifying. In the final minutes of the movie, the younger friend commits suicide right after the other two friends take turns with the obsessed girl in the backseat of the car, raping her in a short scene where she cries and wishes Tony would stop it. After a fight with the wrong people, the rape, the suicide, and even trying to rape his own love interest, Tony finally realizes maybe it's not jive to act like he has been.
Review: I'm not 70's era guy, so I don't know how well the movie captures the essence of disco for sure, but I think the movie does a pretty good job. And it has the feel that all critically acclaimed movies from a couple of generations ago have- that feel of just telling a story, and just letting it unfold. The story itself lends to the overarching themes, rather than over emphasis on a scene or a line or a particular frame. And though there are some times where the scenes are sort of saturated to show how Tony gets a high from dancing, the story is a rather poignant representation of what I suspect life was like in the 70's. Races were still widely divided. Women were second to men. Youths made rash decisions, and rarely considered the consequences. Well, I suppose that's not so secluded to the 70's after all, some may say, which is why Saturday Night Fever can certainly be found to still be relevant.
Regardless of the "era," it is in those moments that choices are made that lives truly unfold. And life is rarely much different: from the 70's to the 90's to the now, being good at one thing (dancing) doesn't mean a damn thing when you're not being good for something.
Summary: I didn't take notes or anything when I watched it, so I have to give a very brief synopsis. Tony (Travolta) is a dancing God in his neighborhood, and he can slay whatever woman he wants. He has loyal fellow Italian-American friends in his group, and they all have a little taste for a little bit of drugs, a little bit of racism, and a whole lot of disco, even if there isn't as much dancing as you would expect in the movie. When Tony decides to enter a contest as if dancing "is the ticket out of here," like most "teenager has to get away from home" movies have. He falls for his dance partner, but she won't have him. Somewhere along the way, racial turmoil between his Italian friends and a rival Hispanic group of friends escalates, and one of his friends- who is a devout Catholic- knocks up some girl, which of course is terrifying. In the final minutes of the movie, the younger friend commits suicide right after the other two friends take turns with the obsessed girl in the backseat of the car, raping her in a short scene where she cries and wishes Tony would stop it. After a fight with the wrong people, the rape, the suicide, and even trying to rape his own love interest, Tony finally realizes maybe it's not jive to act like he has been.
Review: I'm not 70's era guy, so I don't know how well the movie captures the essence of disco for sure, but I think the movie does a pretty good job. And it has the feel that all critically acclaimed movies from a couple of generations ago have- that feel of just telling a story, and just letting it unfold. The story itself lends to the overarching themes, rather than over emphasis on a scene or a line or a particular frame. And though there are some times where the scenes are sort of saturated to show how Tony gets a high from dancing, the story is a rather poignant representation of what I suspect life was like in the 70's. Races were still widely divided. Women were second to men. Youths made rash decisions, and rarely considered the consequences. Well, I suppose that's not so secluded to the 70's after all, some may say, which is why Saturday Night Fever can certainly be found to still be relevant.
Regardless of the "era," it is in those moments that choices are made that lives truly unfold. And life is rarely much different: from the 70's to the 90's to the now, being good at one thing (dancing) doesn't mean a damn thing when you're not being good for something.
Legend
(I) (2015)
A brotherly bond builds, and then entirely ends, an empire.
28 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know the Kray history, I don't know it's lore or legend in London. But I like Tom Hardy, and I like gangster movies.
Summary: When two twin-brother gangsters Reggie (The "good" one)and Ronnie (the "bad" one) take opportunity of rival gangs being imprisoned by making a deal with the American Mafia, things seem to be looking promising for the two. But Reggie's affection for Frances, a fellow East Ender, drives a subtle stake between the two brothers. Even as Ron's outlandish decisions when his brother is put back in prison for violating probation accidentally do all but secure the Krays' untouchable status by befriending fellow gay politicians, he ultimately starts to ruin the relationship between the two lovers. Reggie remains loyal to his brother as Ron gives more leads for the police to reopen an investigation when he murders a rival in cold blood with witnesses. This starts the ending of the marriage, but Reg himself ends it when he rapes his wife out of anger with her- for making him choose between her and his brother, perhaps. This in turn ends Frances as it all drives her to kill herself. Ron then acts on his paranoia and psychotic tendencies, attempting to kill an accountant he thinks knows to much and plans to talk, which actually makes the accountant talk to the police. Reggie, in a fit of rage, kills the stooge who tried to kill the accountant on Ron's behalf, because he "can't kill 'Ron,' no matter how much he wants to." Both brothers are later arrested and imprisoned for murder.
Review: As a gangster movie, this one was surprisingly soft. The violence, while visually compelling and believable, is certainly not as bloody and gory as some old Gangster movies like Good Fellas or Scarface. The sexual scenes are even very mild, particularly when compared to the crime dramas like Wolf of Wall Street- even the gay orgy was mild; the rape was implied rather than shown. Though some may discredit the movie for these reasons, I applaud the film for not lumping in with the lot by making a bloody, debauchery filled film, under the guise of "being true to the truth." Ron's psychosis and Reggie's charm are all well understood through Hardy's excellent portrayal of both brothers, without overly graphic scenes to emphasize the point. The gangsters in this film are not made out to be a "Band of Thieves to steal from the rich and give to the poor." Though "high society," aristocrats and politicians, are shown to exert dirty influence into the world of London, they are not made out to be the bad guys who gangsters wield like a tool. Rather, the politicians are just put next to the criminals and shown that there really is no difference between the two. Although the pace of the plot felt a little off, the main point did seem to come across:
People are just people, and they are bound to each other, particularly by choices, and without those people that connect you, you become a living ghost.
Summary: When two twin-brother gangsters Reggie (The "good" one)and Ronnie (the "bad" one) take opportunity of rival gangs being imprisoned by making a deal with the American Mafia, things seem to be looking promising for the two. But Reggie's affection for Frances, a fellow East Ender, drives a subtle stake between the two brothers. Even as Ron's outlandish decisions when his brother is put back in prison for violating probation accidentally do all but secure the Krays' untouchable status by befriending fellow gay politicians, he ultimately starts to ruin the relationship between the two lovers. Reggie remains loyal to his brother as Ron gives more leads for the police to reopen an investigation when he murders a rival in cold blood with witnesses. This starts the ending of the marriage, but Reg himself ends it when he rapes his wife out of anger with her- for making him choose between her and his brother, perhaps. This in turn ends Frances as it all drives her to kill herself. Ron then acts on his paranoia and psychotic tendencies, attempting to kill an accountant he thinks knows to much and plans to talk, which actually makes the accountant talk to the police. Reggie, in a fit of rage, kills the stooge who tried to kill the accountant on Ron's behalf, because he "can't kill 'Ron,' no matter how much he wants to." Both brothers are later arrested and imprisoned for murder.
Review: As a gangster movie, this one was surprisingly soft. The violence, while visually compelling and believable, is certainly not as bloody and gory as some old Gangster movies like Good Fellas or Scarface. The sexual scenes are even very mild, particularly when compared to the crime dramas like Wolf of Wall Street- even the gay orgy was mild; the rape was implied rather than shown. Though some may discredit the movie for these reasons, I applaud the film for not lumping in with the lot by making a bloody, debauchery filled film, under the guise of "being true to the truth." Ron's psychosis and Reggie's charm are all well understood through Hardy's excellent portrayal of both brothers, without overly graphic scenes to emphasize the point. The gangsters in this film are not made out to be a "Band of Thieves to steal from the rich and give to the poor." Though "high society," aristocrats and politicians, are shown to exert dirty influence into the world of London, they are not made out to be the bad guys who gangsters wield like a tool. Rather, the politicians are just put next to the criminals and shown that there really is no difference between the two. Although the pace of the plot felt a little off, the main point did seem to come across:
People are just people, and they are bound to each other, particularly by choices, and without those people that connect you, you become a living ghost.
Zoolander 2
(2016)
"It's like...being retro slash joking about being retro...slash... literally"
28 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I'm generally a fan of Ben Stiller, and his works. However, as much as I wanted to like this movie, I couldn't. This contains some light spoilers, but I'll try not to ruin the entire thing... it kind of does that on its own anyway.
Summary: The basic premise of the movie is that in 2001, Derrick's "Center for kids...blah blah blah..." fell apart and crushed his wife Matilda and "disfigured" Hansel. Then years later, Derrick loses Derrick Jr to Child Services because he can't "make spaghetti soft," and is a bad parent for DJ. Then Derrick and Hansel are called out of their prospective exiles, the former from being alone and the later for being disfigured, to return to some sort of fashion event that doesn't really seem to mean a damn thing to the plot at all. Of course, as the trailer gave away and you probably guessed, Mugatu is behind it all and Derrick and Hansel must figure out "who am I," just like in the first one, as well as save DJ and prevent Mugatu from killing some people. Which is done, in much the same manner as the first.
Review: What I find interesting about the movie is that it had the potential to be a sort of big satire- albeit over-the-top satire- like the first one, about the fashion industry and how society has a twisted view of self-image, self-confidence, and all things related to vanity. Instead, the second seemed like it wanted to tackle some pretty relevant issues like "new" sexual identities and sexual exploitation in the media and fashion industry. It was poorly executed.
For example, All- a character in the trailer yet only seen for about two minutes- is a bit of a caricature. In the media today, you can see men with beards dressed as women and being relevant, being "in," being role models and even fashionable because of the courage it takes to be so sexually self-aware and confident. And personally, I think that makes a lot of sense to poke fun of this in the fashion industry and the media, because of the courage it takes for the LGBT community to fight for acceptance. It is a noble thing to recognize the LGBT community's struggle. Yet, the fashion industry and the media seem to have exploited it the same way youth- particularly young women- have been exploited for ages, and they should be made fun of for it.
But Zoolander 2 doesn't really tackle that- the exploitation of the young and the bold. It makes some attempts at jokes, but nothing specific or distinguishable. Derrick makes some comments about working at a bathhouse when he was younger that gave out hand jobs. Some evil lady with too much Botox that turns out to be Mila Jovovich in a mask and wig makes a funny comment about wanting to rip the skin off of a teenage girl. It seems like Stiller and Theroux had some sort of social commentary in mind, but were too lazy or too afraid to really explore that in satire form well executed in the original.
I mean, the fact that "Don Atari" can be so funny- SNL Cast Member Kyle Mooney- as he represents the millennial's generation beyond the coming of age moment struggle to find a sense of identity and just latching on to 90's stuff as being "retro," and all things ugly and terrible being deemed cool... like an uber-hipster, but worse... The fact that the script can nail that character right makes me feel like it must have been fear to really adequately tackle a mature subject and make a funny comment about it.
Another example seemed to be the idea that God created "Adam and Eve... and Steve." Another reference to homosexuality and sexuality in general being more than just a man and a woman reproducing? Steve is the original male model and can... I don't know what the hell the movie said Steve could do, it was just all magical and stuff, like, the reason Derrick could stop a Chinese throwing star or whatever. It didn't really translate well.
The fact that the movie had Hansel's orgy representing sexual promiscuity down to the craziest of taboos represented, All representing sexuality going to beyond the-love-of-all-people to the extreme of loving (and marrying) of one's self, and then the addition of Adam and Eve and Steve being the original beings... There's even a young teenager getting a ball gag stuffed in his mouth to keep him quiet. There's jokes about a teenager boy being fat and therefore unfit to be a son to a better- more beautiful- being. Surely there must have been a hope to poke fun? At sexual identity, at sexual confusion, at sexual exploitation, at the fashion industry "Killing itself," as Mugatu said... And I like that... it just wasn't funny. It was not executed into a funny, enjoyable movie.
You know what it was? It was like a lot of the movie was just a teenage boy in the midst of puberty still finding it funny to wipes boogers on girls even as they dream of groping them under the stadium bleachers. It's just... awkward. Like Dumb and Dumber Too, it was a 90's-era comedy that should have been left alone because no one was ready (or everyone was too old) to get it right a second time. It made me glad to have waited so long to see it from a RedBox rather than in the theater.
Summary: The basic premise of the movie is that in 2001, Derrick's "Center for kids...blah blah blah..." fell apart and crushed his wife Matilda and "disfigured" Hansel. Then years later, Derrick loses Derrick Jr to Child Services because he can't "make spaghetti soft," and is a bad parent for DJ. Then Derrick and Hansel are called out of their prospective exiles, the former from being alone and the later for being disfigured, to return to some sort of fashion event that doesn't really seem to mean a damn thing to the plot at all. Of course, as the trailer gave away and you probably guessed, Mugatu is behind it all and Derrick and Hansel must figure out "who am I," just like in the first one, as well as save DJ and prevent Mugatu from killing some people. Which is done, in much the same manner as the first.
Review: What I find interesting about the movie is that it had the potential to be a sort of big satire- albeit over-the-top satire- like the first one, about the fashion industry and how society has a twisted view of self-image, self-confidence, and all things related to vanity. Instead, the second seemed like it wanted to tackle some pretty relevant issues like "new" sexual identities and sexual exploitation in the media and fashion industry. It was poorly executed.
For example, All- a character in the trailer yet only seen for about two minutes- is a bit of a caricature. In the media today, you can see men with beards dressed as women and being relevant, being "in," being role models and even fashionable because of the courage it takes to be so sexually self-aware and confident. And personally, I think that makes a lot of sense to poke fun of this in the fashion industry and the media, because of the courage it takes for the LGBT community to fight for acceptance. It is a noble thing to recognize the LGBT community's struggle. Yet, the fashion industry and the media seem to have exploited it the same way youth- particularly young women- have been exploited for ages, and they should be made fun of for it.
But Zoolander 2 doesn't really tackle that- the exploitation of the young and the bold. It makes some attempts at jokes, but nothing specific or distinguishable. Derrick makes some comments about working at a bathhouse when he was younger that gave out hand jobs. Some evil lady with too much Botox that turns out to be Mila Jovovich in a mask and wig makes a funny comment about wanting to rip the skin off of a teenage girl. It seems like Stiller and Theroux had some sort of social commentary in mind, but were too lazy or too afraid to really explore that in satire form well executed in the original.
I mean, the fact that "Don Atari" can be so funny- SNL Cast Member Kyle Mooney- as he represents the millennial's generation beyond the coming of age moment struggle to find a sense of identity and just latching on to 90's stuff as being "retro," and all things ugly and terrible being deemed cool... like an uber-hipster, but worse... The fact that the script can nail that character right makes me feel like it must have been fear to really adequately tackle a mature subject and make a funny comment about it.
Another example seemed to be the idea that God created "Adam and Eve... and Steve." Another reference to homosexuality and sexuality in general being more than just a man and a woman reproducing? Steve is the original male model and can... I don't know what the hell the movie said Steve could do, it was just all magical and stuff, like, the reason Derrick could stop a Chinese throwing star or whatever. It didn't really translate well.
The fact that the movie had Hansel's orgy representing sexual promiscuity down to the craziest of taboos represented, All representing sexuality going to beyond the-love-of-all-people to the extreme of loving (and marrying) of one's self, and then the addition of Adam and Eve and Steve being the original beings... There's even a young teenager getting a ball gag stuffed in his mouth to keep him quiet. There's jokes about a teenager boy being fat and therefore unfit to be a son to a better- more beautiful- being. Surely there must have been a hope to poke fun? At sexual identity, at sexual confusion, at sexual exploitation, at the fashion industry "Killing itself," as Mugatu said... And I like that... it just wasn't funny. It was not executed into a funny, enjoyable movie.
You know what it was? It was like a lot of the movie was just a teenage boy in the midst of puberty still finding it funny to wipes boogers on girls even as they dream of groping them under the stadium bleachers. It's just... awkward. Like Dumb and Dumber Too, it was a 90's-era comedy that should have been left alone because no one was ready (or everyone was too old) to get it right a second time. It made me glad to have waited so long to see it from a RedBox rather than in the theater.
Sherlock
(2010–2017)
A not-so-surprising modern twist on Sir Doyle's works.
23 May 2016
Though I enjoyed binge-watching the episodes on Netflix, they are not overwhelmingly surprising, particularly since I was such an avid fan of the books as a young boy and read all of the stories and short stories.
However, I couldn't help but fall onto the band-wagon and enjoy Cumberbatch and Freeman's performances as Holmes and Watson respectively. Even more so than Cumberbatch's performance of the self-described sociopath genius who wields his powers of observations and deduction for the forces of good, I enjoy Freeman's portrayal of Watson as a true "everyman," a solid foundation for the fantastic stories that unfold around him, much like Watson the narrator and participant in the original stories.
The show's modern twists are rather enjoyable, such as Holmes' use of a cell phone to help bridge the gap between the original stories' portrayal of Holmes' massive memory and intellect and current technology's ability to let the average person find just about anything via the Internet.
I believe that as long as the viewer detaches themselves from expectations- much like I believe one should for any viewing experience- they can revisit the world of Holmes with renewed wonder.
However, I couldn't help but fall onto the band-wagon and enjoy Cumberbatch and Freeman's performances as Holmes and Watson respectively. Even more so than Cumberbatch's performance of the self-described sociopath genius who wields his powers of observations and deduction for the forces of good, I enjoy Freeman's portrayal of Watson as a true "everyman," a solid foundation for the fantastic stories that unfold around him, much like Watson the narrator and participant in the original stories.
The show's modern twists are rather enjoyable, such as Holmes' use of a cell phone to help bridge the gap between the original stories' portrayal of Holmes' massive memory and intellect and current technology's ability to let the average person find just about anything via the Internet.
I believe that as long as the viewer detaches themselves from expectations- much like I believe one should for any viewing experience- they can revisit the world of Holmes with renewed wonder.
Captain America: Civil War
(2016)
As complex as the division line between Democrats and Republicans, the division of the Super Heroes in Civil War...
23 May 2016
As complex as the division line between Democrats and Republicans, the division of the Super Heroes in Civil War - the conflict driving force of the plot- comes from the question, "How do we hold the heroes accountable for their actions;" a question posed soon after the massive destruction from the previous Marvel movies, which is answered by Iron Man and Captain America as they head up the two opposing factions attempting to answer that question with their own: "to accept government oversight... or not."
Marvel, in my humble opinion, has proved its superiority over DC in the realm of live-action movies for the current generation, posing real world, thought provoking questions such as "Is security worth sacrificing freedom?" Particularly in Civil War, where that question is posed to the super heroes who take up a place in the fantastic world of Marvel where they can give security without taking away freedom... or so it seemed, until their actions resulted in the recent destruction of major cities in Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and even Thor, Captain America: Winter Soldier, and Thor.
Though DC posed religious and social questions in Batman V. Superman, whilst simultaneously trying to keep up with Marvel's rigorous pace of pumping out super hero movie after super hero movie as it heads towards the most ultimate of ultimate super hero team-up movies, it cannot compete with Marvel's combination of Quantity AND Quality. In this movie, viewers can enjoy wonderful fight scenes, a near-perfect pace that is only somewhat hindered by having to take what was presumably a 4-hour movie worthy script and editing it into about a 2 hour long movie, and a star-studded cast (as they say) who all have trouble playing well with others on screen, but seem to boast a wonderful collaboration off camera.
The only down-side is that character development is all but removed from the script, for the sake of moving the plot along towards it's wonderful conclusion. This is understandable, however, since Marvel has had all of Phase One and Two to set up the characters.
Marvel, in my humble opinion, has proved its superiority over DC in the realm of live-action movies for the current generation, posing real world, thought provoking questions such as "Is security worth sacrificing freedom?" Particularly in Civil War, where that question is posed to the super heroes who take up a place in the fantastic world of Marvel where they can give security without taking away freedom... or so it seemed, until their actions resulted in the recent destruction of major cities in Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and even Thor, Captain America: Winter Soldier, and Thor.
Though DC posed religious and social questions in Batman V. Superman, whilst simultaneously trying to keep up with Marvel's rigorous pace of pumping out super hero movie after super hero movie as it heads towards the most ultimate of ultimate super hero team-up movies, it cannot compete with Marvel's combination of Quantity AND Quality. In this movie, viewers can enjoy wonderful fight scenes, a near-perfect pace that is only somewhat hindered by having to take what was presumably a 4-hour movie worthy script and editing it into about a 2 hour long movie, and a star-studded cast (as they say) who all have trouble playing well with others on screen, but seem to boast a wonderful collaboration off camera.
The only down-side is that character development is all but removed from the script, for the sake of moving the plot along towards it's wonderful conclusion. This is understandable, however, since Marvel has had all of Phase One and Two to set up the characters.
Tell Your Friends