CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER - A Retro Review

We're now one week away from the US release of 'Captain America: Civil War' and to celebrate this highly anticipated superhero smashup, let's take a look back at the best film in the MCU - 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier'

Spoilery Alert - This movie came out two years ago, so there actually may be a few of you who haven't seen it. Well, that's still your fault, because it's damn good, but whatever. You're warned. Spoilers are mentioned all up in hurr. 


Prior to the release of 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier', Phase 2 of the MCU had gotten off to a rocky start; 'Iron Man Three' was a disaster, 'Thor: The Dark World' lacked much of the fun as well as the character development that made the original work. But when the trailers for Captain America 2 started to drop, anticipation started to build, and the feeling was that this film would put Phase 2 and the MCU back on track.

And man alive, it succeeds. It is a wonderfully intense movie, filled with intrigue, twists and turns (the first film's bad guys, Hydra, has been infiltrating S.H.I.E.L.D. for years, positioning themselves to carry out a horrifying endgame) that actually are in service to the story. There are action scenes that are among the best in Marvel's entire 12-film library. And it still has time makes a few jokes that don't detract from the overall serious tone of the picture. Brothers Joe and Anthony Russo took the director's chair from Joe Johnston, and despite only having two small comedy credits to their name, they infused Cap 2 with something truly extraordinary. With direct influences from a spate of 70's political intrigue thrillers, 'Winter Soldier' is easily my favorite film in the entire Marvel catalog and the only one that could stay in a conversation when one compares the MCU with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. It also manages to feel like the most interwoven of the MCU's stories, while still maintaining the ability to stand on its own. You don't need to know that Senator Stern (the late, great Garry Shandling, reprising his role from 'Iron Man 2') has butted heads with Tony Stark, but if you do, it definitely paints a clearer picture of his motivations.

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back in uniform, after the events of 'The Avengers'. Still a man out of time, he's making the best of things, while working directly for Nick Fury* (Samuel L. Jackson) and S.H.I.E.L.D. He makes peace with his lost-to-time love Peggy Carter (a digitally aged Hayley Atwell) and has a semi-friendly relationship with the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) even if he maybe, kinda, doesn't totally trust her. Once he figures out that he can, though, Evans and Johansson have such a wonderful chemistry together, that the few moments where Steve and Natasha can just quietly talk to one another work very well.

*This is easily Sam Jackson's best turn as Nick Fury; he's not being Sam Jackson-y, he's exuding both the confidence and the moral flexibility that being the head of an intelligence agency must have. For the first time since he appeared in the MCU, Fury doesn't seem like he's all-knowing and infallible. He seems like he's on his heels, and unsure both of who he can trust and where he can go. But just because he's been knocked on his ass, doesn't mean he doesn't still have a few aces up his sleeve.

Anthony Mackie also joins the MCU as Sam Wilson, aka The Falcon, a retired soldier who now helps other veterans with PTSD. Mackie's integration into the fabric of the story is nearly effortless. A shared military background gives Wilson and Cap a quick connection, and Wilson's admiration for Cap's heroics leads him to offer his help with no hesitation. Mackie is also just plain cool in the role. He comes across as genuine and friendly, but also as a very charismatic and capable ally. And his wings look totally awesome.

In addition to the principal characters, the film boasts a large supporting cast, and even though some of them don't get a lot of screen time, what they do get is used very effectively, and gives us enough insight into their character's personality that we have a clear view of where they're coming from and what drives them. Robert Redford plays Secretary of Defense Alexander Pierce, who starts off as an ally, but still exudes a faint whiff of menace, enough of which tips off Steve to his true intentions. Maximiliano Hernandez's turn as recurring/rogue S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Jasper Sitwell (he's the bald hispanic fella who usually pal'd around with Coulson before he died) not only shocks those viewers who follow the MCU closely enough to know his name, but also gives you a very efficient way of illustrating the depth of the Hydra infestation, while also undermining the trust Steve has in S.H.I.E.L.D. itself. Frank Grillo, Callan Mulvey, and Emily VanCamp also bring their own depth to the goings-on at S.H.I.E.L.D. headquarters.

Despite the huge cast, which can bog down lesser films, the story moves along at a brisk pace, and the action scenes in this movie are thrilling. They feel intimate and brutal, and never so big that you lose track of what's going on. The Russo brothers wanted it to look as real as possible, so they took cues from Chris Nolan and shot as much as they could practically. The resulting visuals are fantastic. Steve running down a hallway, smashing through doors and walls that seem to have real weight to them gives the viewer a useful idea of how strong Steve has become. A freeway confrontation with Hydra and the Winter Soldier is probably the strongest action set-piece in the movie. The masked-and-metal-armed Winter Soldier always seems to be just a half-step ahead of the good guys, and unlike his battles with the Nazis, Steve has to actually put real effort into just trying to stay alive, never mind escaping or defeating these goons.

Aside from the edge-of-your-seat action, this is a movie that takes its emotional realism very seriously, as well. Steve is just starting to get used to living his life after a 70-year ice nap, and all of a sudden, the ground he'd grown so comfortable on suffers a cataclysmic shift. Drawn in by their actions, Cap gets understandably pissed at Fury's and Romanoff's moral relativism, and hates being manipulated into doing their potentially illegal bidding. Yes, they're the good guys, but that doesn't mean that sometimes they don't do the wrong things. And yes, the eponymous Winter Soldier is revealed to be Cap's "dead" friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) but just because he's now a brainwashed assassin doesn't mean Steve suddenly hates him and will have no trouble killing him. Bucky was Steve's friend before he was Captain America, and he can't just let that go because everyone around him is saying "he's your enemy now." Cap cannot and does give up hope just because it seems like there is none.

In fact, things look so grim for Cap by the end of the film, you actually start to wonder if "jesus...are they really gonna kill Captain America??" Even if you rationally know "ok, they can't kill Cap", the fact that the story can suck the viewer in so much that you think, even if just for a moment, that he may die is quite an achievement.

For the Russos, the idea of putting the most honest superhero in the Marvel Universe in a sea of deceit and duplicity is a pretty solid plan. And most of the time, when you talk about a character arc, you're talking about a character who changes the way they are because of the events in the world around them. What makes 'Winter Soldier' so unique is that Cap's arc isn't how he changes because of the world, but how he changes the world itself, through the sheer conviction of his principles. Cap, the character, is just about as close as you can get to being an absolute force for good, and the Russos do a truly wonderful job of taking this character someplace unique and fascinating to watch.


FINAL SCORE 9/10


Captain America: Civil War is out next Friday (or really, Thursday night). The first trailer was amazeballs, so check that out on YouTube, and then go see the movie next week, because for the first time, I'm going to try write a timely review.

IRON MAN THREE - A Retro Review

I've been dreading this one. It's time to look back on the insult to not only comic book fans, but moviegoers everywhere, 'Iron Man 3'.

Rarely...RARELY do I walk out of a movie angry. I may be disappointed. I may be bored. I may be dismissive. But I left 'Iron Man 3' angry as hell. For starters, I was mad because the trailer for the film promised something completely different from what we were given. Not only were we promised Iron Man's arch-nemesis, the Mandarin, but we were also promised Extremis and several scenes that hinted that this might finally be a foe too strong for Tony Stark to defeat.

Long before this movie came out, when they announced that Jon Favreau would give up director duties, I thought "ok, maybe it's for the best." Iron Man 2 wasn't the greatest, and putting in the writer of 'Predator' and 'Lethal Weapon', two of the all-time great 80's action movies seemed like an interesting idea.

Basically...yeah.

Instead, what we got was a snarky, disdainful movie that has a major tonal shift from everything that had preceded it, and a handful of half-baked plot threads all leading to a major twist which is completely unnecessary to the story. Not only that, but there was a major change to the character of Tony Stark that comes totally out of left field.

Director Shane Black seems more interested in putting together a series of scenes for varying reasons, rather than a coherent story. Aldrich Killian hates Tony for being an asshole to him way back in the day, but how do you go from business rival to complete psychopath? The movie never stops to explain. However, since he felt compelled to create a piecemeal story that never really coheres into an actual movie, I'm just going to rip his efforts apart, piece by shitty piece.

Throughout the first two acts of the movie, Tony struggles with PTSD following the Battle of New York. All we ever get for explanation is that he is struggling to understand those events. It's never even hinted that he's dealing with his own mortality. Not only that, but once the third act arrives, Tony's PTSD seems to have vanished without any sort of resolution.

Man, fuck this bullshit.

The kid. Oh god, the kid. The kid makes me think of that line in 'Barton Fink' (if you haven't seen it, good lord, rent it or stream it. It's one of the Coen Brothers' best) where Judy Davis is talking about the famous screenwriter and how he developed a formula for "wrestling pictures" that usually involved the protagonist becoming invested in the life of a small child. Harley, the kid, brings literally nothing to the table. He exists to elicit laughs and to be a foil for Stark's quips, once Tony is removed from the company of Pepper, Rhodey, and Jarvis. The kid is just there for Stark to antagonize. If you disagree, ask yourself if the kid was removed from the film, would it be fundamentally different?

And remember how in 'The Avengers' Iron Man got hit with Mjolnir and took the hit rather well? No dents or explosions or anything? Well, apparently Tony Stark was done building suits with that sort of durability, because MK42 suit is routinely broken apart by things like getting hit by a truck, getting hit with its own faceplate, and getting tugged on by a small child. Killian's Extremis thugs, too, have very little trouble in dispatching Tony's many autonomous suits with their hot hands. Nevermind that Tony's armor has, in the past, absorbed lightning (which, if you google it, burns more than five times hotter than the surface of the sun), Extremis people are indestructible, regenerating monsters! Except when they're not.

I MADE IT ALL UP FOR...REASONS!!!

Let's examine the Extremis issues. The main conceit of this particular Macguffin is that it will heal your broken body, regnerating severed or damaged tissue and also, if you can control it, allow you to burn things with your hands. And spout fire (an idea so ludicrous, even the movie stops to be like "wtf?"). The Extremis explosions, passed off as bombings carried out by the Mandarin, are caused by Killian's test subjects not being able to regulate their body temperatures (although what exactly that entails and why it's so difficult is never really explained. I can't regulate my body temperature either, but somehow it manages to regulate itself pretty ok). So if Killian's goons can go off at any moment, why the hell does he let them out of his sight? This leads to the idea that Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) will manipulate Tony into fixing the flaws in Extremis. However, why she doesn't just come to him straight up is never explained either.

The regeneration thing is also inconsistent. Killian's two top goons, Savin (James Badge Dale) and Brandt (Stephanie Szostak) are both seen regenerating from severe injury repeatedly until the moment when they just don't. Tony tosses Brandt into a transformer, and he blows a hole* through Savin's chest. But instead of regenerating, they just die. Why? Did they run out of Extremis juice? And how was it Savin and Brandt managed to master the whole 'regulating' thing? Why are they so special? With so much Extremis nonsense, it's really annoying that the only purpose it really serves is to provide a reason for the Mandarin to exist.

*while everyone gets all up in arms that Superman and Batman kill in the DCEU, nobody seems to give a shit that Stark kills...a whole lot of people, too. Also, Captain America is a total killing machine. Just sayin'.

From the outset, the Mandarin is presented as a grave threat, responsible for numerous deadly bombings (that turn out to be bogus) around the country, but right from the start, we see that Killian is the one that is somehow tied to the explosions and that is clearly has something to do with Extremis. But before the big reveal, the Mandarin is so shortchanged in screen time that, even though we know he and Killian are somehow tied together, he still doesn't seem like the primary threat.

We were promised this.

Which brings us to the twist. The Mandarin is not a real villain, but an actor portraying a terrorist. This is a plot twist that makes absolutely no goddamn sense at all, except to generate laughs because Ben Kingsley plays actor Trevor Slattery as a debauched lout who is barely aware what is going on around him, let alone capable of being a dangerous terrorist. Nevermind that he's claiming responsibility for actual deaths and acts of terrorism; nevermind that he shoots a dude in the head; Trevor claims that none of it is real. Shane Black did this because he thought it'd be funny. Not because it served the story. How am I so sure? Because it doesn't serve the story**.

We got this. THIS is bullshit.

Killian claims he created the Mandarin so that the the U.S. government would be too distracted looking for him to really investigate the Extremis explosions. But there is literally nothing to indicate the government doesn't trust Killian or AIM (his company), or even suspect that there is anything out of the ordinary about the bombings. The Mandarin was created by Killian to throw off a hunting party that doesn't exist. Therefore, he doesn't serve the goddamn story one bit.

**a good plot twist makes you want to go back and watch the movie again. The Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects - you go back and watch the film again and look for clues that should have tipped you off to the twist ending. It's enjoyable to see what you missed. But aside from the twist itself, it usually helps if said twist is in service to a good story in a good movie.

This is physically impossible. 

'Iron Man' was good. 'Iron Man 2' was flawed, but still had its moments. Tony's turn in 'The Avengers' was at least fun, and provided him with a nice little soliloquy about the shrapnel in his chest and the role it plays in motivating him to do the most with his life as he possibly can, as well as leading Bruce Banner to accept his Hulk powers and channel them into heroics. Shane Black literally undoes everything that was good about those three outings as he decides to end Tony Stark's solo tales with Tony just up and deciding to have heart surgery to remove the shrapnel, despite the fact that we've been repeatedly told it's too dangerous. It proves that Shane Black was only interested in telling a Shane Black story, not an Iron Man story. He was the wrong writer, the wrong director, and the entirely wrong way to go for this complete and utter failure of a movie.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

FINAL SCORE 1/10

Iron Man will next be seen apparently making a lot less jokes in 'Captain America; Civil War' out Friday in most of the world, and next Friday in America. Which is totally unfair. America created Cap and Iron Man and we gotta wait an extra week to see them? F that S, Feige, you rat bastard!! 

ONE MORE WEEK??? GAHHHH!!! 

PURPLE RAIN - A Quickie Review

The sudden death of Prince last week has affected me much more than I would have ever expected. I was never what you might call a fan of his work, but maybe more of an admirer. I enjoyed seeing him perform at the Super Bowl. I found his interviews very interesting, and definitely felt like he had a prodigious talent.

So Saturday night, I was able to see a vehicle for that prodigious talent in 1984's 'Purple Rain'. This is by no means a great movie. The acting is over the top, the main story is fairly simple and definitely very 80's - bad guy is trying to push out the good guy, good guy must perform some Herculean task in the finale to defeat the bad guy's efforts, all underscored by a cat-and-mouse style love story. In this semi-autobiographical tale, The Kid (Prince) is a talented performer heading up his band, The Revolution, in Minneapolis' famed First Avenue nightclub. While he's definitely got the musical chops to be a great act, his ego and attitude alienate the club owner, his band mates, his rival (Morris Day and The Time) and his new lady friend Apollonia (Apollonia Kotero). Throughout the story, The Kid's music underlines the plot (especially When Doves Cry and Darling Nikki) and when he finally writes and then sings Purple Rain at the end, he is overcome by the power of all the emotions he's been trying to hold in check, and it comes out in a very moving performance.

As a film alone, it has lots of flaws, but as a vehicle to showcase Prince's talent, Purple Rain is amazing. When he's on stage (which is a lot of the time), he's absolutely magnetic, and it makes me regret never having seen him live. Darling Nikki is especially effective in showcasing his musical skills, raunchy lyrics, and dancing moves. It's a fun movie, silly most of the time, yet definitely has some really dark moments, and explores themes of emotional conflict in a particularly visceral way. I had a really good time with this movie.

FINAL SCORE - 7/10

THE AVENGERS - A Retro Review

Ed. Note - I meant to edit and publish this yesterday, but then Prince died, and his Royal Badness took up most of my attention the rest of the afternoon. If we get halos in the afterlife, I'm sure his will be purple and funky shaped. Also, I'm going to go back and revisit not only Burton's '89 'Batman', but Prince's kooky/genius addition to the finished product. Rest easy, Prince. 


The MCU's Phase Three is about to begin with 'Captain America: Civil War'. And so we're taking a look back at all the films that feed into this conflagration. Today, we review the end of Phase One, 'The Avengers'.

Disney made no attempts to hide which actors they favored.

Summer 2012. It all came down to this. This was the end result of four years of teasing end-credit stingers, cameo appearances, linked macguffins, and public knowledge that the team-up was coming. No studio had ever tried what Marvel/Paramount/Disney was trying to do. Aside from the Fantastic Four and the X-men, who were already established superhero "teams", no one had ever succeeded in bringing individual superheroes from their own solo movies into a team-up situation. And now it was about to happen. Anticipation was sky-high. Expectations? My own thoughts were along the lines of "just don't fuck it up, and I'll be happy."

Let me break for a moment to say that usually, when I think about/review a movie, I want to focus more on what was intended by both the director and the screenwriter more than what *I* expect and want from the story. Yes, my preference is for darker stories, with a more emotional impact than action for the sake of action. I'm not saying that lighthearted or fun or just plain action movies are bad - not at all. I'm just saying my preference is for something with more substance. And even though a movie might aim for just being a crowd pleaser, it still has to have a good story. And a good story should always have an answer for any moment where someone asks "why?"

Back to my expectations. When I saw 'The Avengers', I was happy. It is a very fun movie, that succeeds in doing what it sets out to do - entertain audiences. The acting was about what you'd expect, the visuals were colorful and vibrant. The superhero action was exciting. And the film's many money shots were satisfying.

But nobody was reinventing the wheel. It wasn't genre-breaking, or high art. It didn't really want you to have to think too hard. The characters weren't conflicted, or morally ambiguous. It was just a lark. That's all it wanted to be (and with a director like Joss Whedon, that's all it ever could be)

But this does not mean the movie is without it's fairly major flaws. Super fun, yes, but I wish that it had aspired to be more than just fun. Finally, Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye were on the screen together, taking on the best villain Phase One had to offer. Loki's Shakespearean arc from the first Thor is one of the strongest points of what I consider one of the strongest Marvel films to date, so I was quite happy he was going to be the big-bad who'd necessitate the assembly of The Avengers. While his goal of world domination seems like something that would require six superheroes to band together, his plan is pretty much nonsense.

And there are far too many moments where the "why?" just kinda gets ignored in favor of doing something that looks cool. Thor, Iron Man and Captain America having a fight in the woods. Why? Because Iron Man was mad that Thor kidnapped Loki? Ok, but when you stop and think about it, SHIELD already knows who Thor is, and Tony did his homework ("Am i the only one who did the reading?") so he should know who Thor is, too, and not be so eager to get into a fistfight with him. Maybe try something like asking "hey, who are you? what do you want?" So what's the real "why"? Because it looks cool to have three heroes fight.

Then, in a sequence that seems directly inspired by the Joker's arrest mid-way through 'The Dark Knight', Loki finds himself captured and held prisoner aboard the SHIELD helicarrier. But while the Joker had a reason to get himself locked up, Loki's desire for capture is explained away by "Loki means to unleash the Hulk". Ok. But again, let's think. How and why will he achieve this? What good will it do? Hulk flips out and wreaks havoc for about four minutes before jumping out of the ship. So what's the real "why"? Because it gives us an opportunity to see Hulk and Thor fight.

Why do the Avengers finally assemble? To avenge Coulson, and then to protect from an alien invasion. Except the audience has more of a connection to Coulson than any of the actual Avengers (save Widow and Hawkeye, who are SHIELD agents). Tony briefly interacts with him during 'Iron Man 2', and makes a point that he doesn't even know his first name. Thor briefly meets him during 'Thor'. Cap for a few moments early on in 'The Avengers'. So really, Coulson's death hits us* harder than the Avengers.

*This is one of my main beefs with Joss Whedon. He doesn't know how to elicit a genuine emotional response without killing off a character. Look at Buffy! Season one - Buffy dies. Two - Jenny and Angel die. Three - Angel leaves Buffy (which is a different sort of death), Five - Joyce dies, and Buffy dies again! Six - Tara dies. Seven - Anya and Spike die. Going into 'Age of Ultron' we all knew an Avenger would bite it, because that's what Whedon does. That's ALL he does! YOU CAN'T STOP HIM! HE'LL WADE THROUGH YOU, REACH DOWN YOUR THROAT AND PULL YOUR FUCKIN' HEART OUT!!

Yes, they must defend the Earth from alien domination, and yet, Loki's plan to take over the world is particularly foolhardy. He has an army that can essentially be kept in check by six people, and it only invades from a single bottleneck entry point. Normandy was bigger in scale than the Chituari's attempt to take over Earth. Iron Man's bullets and missiles deal out a pretty good amount of damage to the Chitauri, so military fighters would probably help as well.

The Avengers themselves do a pretty good job of keeping the invading army busy, and yet the World Security Council decides to nuke Manhattan. While this does allow for the great Nick Fury line (I recognize the council has made a decision, but seeing as it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected ignore it), it REALLY is a stupid-ass decision. The Chitauri are not advancing outside Manhattan, and really, they're not causing all that much damage either, so why the hell would they elect to obliterate a few million people?? Because it affords Iron Man an opportunity to be selfless and risk his own life to destroy the enemy.

I'm rambling a bit, but I'm also making a point - any movie, when you start dissecting a movie, you can discover that it's chock full of flaws, plot holes, silly story choices. Does that take away from the enjoyment of the movie? Sometimes. It depends on how well the movie achieves it's primary objective. And in the case of 'The Avengers', that was to bring all the heroes together in a way that created a sense of fun and wonder. And it did that very well. Not perfectly, but very well. Which is why it's still a movie that I quite enjoy.

FINAL SCORE 8/10


Most of the Avengers will next be seen in Captain America: Civil War, which is coming out in two weeks. Be there, or be square.

UNBREAKABLE KIMMY SCHMIDT, Season 2 - A Quickie Review

I'm going to break for a moment from our usual routine of comic-booky and sci-fi type stuff and talk about the wonderful Netflix series, 'Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt' and it's simply transcendent second season.

The story of this show's creation is fairly unique - after the success of '30 Rock' Tina Fey and Robert Carlock came up with another idea for a show for NBC: a woman who was kept in a doomsday bunker for 15 years is finally released back into the world, but instead of being the seeds of a grim drama, the woman, Kimmy Schmidt, is relentlessly upbeat, optimistic, and just plain happy to be alive and free. Before a single episode aired, NBC decided they'd pass on the series and Netflix not only picked it up, but signed everyone to a two season deal right off the bat. And season one was a smash success. Constantly laugh-out-loud hilarious, and at times poignant and touching, Kimmy developed a very devoted following who anxiously awaited season 2's premiere.

And what happens in season 2 is truly amazing. 'Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt' moves far beyond its origin, into something that is still insanely and absurdly funny (watching Lillian fight gentrification in the name of a non-existent gang, Kimmy and Dong's misadventures in the Poconos, and Jacqueline's madcap attempts to maintain her billionaire lifestyle on her millionaire budget) but even in between the laughs, the show hints at something much more emotionally honest and even painful. Titus stages a one-man show that shuts down his haters and showcases his actual stunning talent. He enters a heartwarming relationship with a young man who is just starting to come out of the closet and we get glimpses of the painful life Titus once led before he came out. Jacqueline transforms herself into a genuinely nice and considerate person. And in a surprising turn for what is undeniably a comedy show, Kimmy enters therapy, and for the first time, we see that despite her constant smile and whimsical nature, she's a woman who is hiding from the true horror of her past. It makes your heart ache intensely for Kimmy when you realize certain things (especially one thing made clear by the final line of the season). So when I say it is transcendent, I mean it in the most literal sense of the word - this is a show that has moved far above and beyond it's start as the zany misadventures of a girl out of her time and moving to Manhattan, and has become something much more moving and emotionally real. Season 2 is perfect.

FINAL SCORE 10/10

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER - A Retro Review

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is kicking off their third phase of films next month with 'Captain America: Civil War'. Because of that, the multitudes here at Park Row Comics have begged me without dignity to explore the films leading up to this battle of heroes.

So with that in mind, I bring you my response to the introduction of Steve Rogers, also known as 'Captain America: The First Avenger'

Spoiler Warning: Guys, do we really need to do this again? Fine. Whatever. There are spoilers in this review. You're warned.

Before it was released in the summer of 2011, if i remember correctly, there was an air of doubt surrounding 'Captain America'. Cap was an old-fashioned hero, and this was a period picture. A lot was at stake with 'The Avengers' on the horizon, 'Thor' had been released to a positive critical and commercial response, and now Marvel was bringing one of their original superheroes to the big screen. But of course, everything turned out fine, the critical response was positive, and the movie did well enough at the box office to leave Marvel in a comfortable position before the next summer's assembly. 

Director Joe Johnston, who helmed the art-deco and appallingly overlooked masterpiece 'The Rocketeer', brought those swashbuckling sensibilities to the WWII-era action piece. Chris Evans stars as Steve Rogers, a painfully thin young man with the heart of a soldier, who volunteers to be injected with a serum that will turn him into the world's first Super Soldier. Evans, who already had a background in superheroics, seemed to be made to play Cap. As was veteran bad guy Hugo Weaving, who took the role of the Red Skull, Cap's archenemy. Hayley Atwell stole many scenes playing british agent Peggy Carter, the opposite of a damsel in distress, and Steve's love interest. The amazing composer Alan Silvestri brought his A-game, the story was solid, and the rest supporting cast, including Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, Dominic Cooper, and Sebastian Stan, were all outstanding. 

And yet, in the end, 'Captain America' is just OK.

Perhaps it is Steve's unflappable goodness that is just kinda...dull. He's not so "golly gee willikers!" good in the sequel, so perhaps it's the fault of the director, who presents him as possessing an almost unbelievable earnestness. With his laundry list of health issues, Steve should not be surprised (disappointed, i'm sure, as many real men were when they were categorized as 4F) to be rejected for the armed services repeatedly. It's not as if he's not hiding his age - he's hiding several debilitating problems that would not only endanger his life, but potentially the lives of any soldiers around him. So that unquenchable eagerness to leap into battle is foolhardy at best. But of course, it makes him perfect for an experimental program to create the super soldier. 

But despite this nearly distracting goodness, Evans sells it well. He does make Steve's earnestness endearing enough for us to like him. Which creates another problem - he may care about him, but we never fear for his safety.

At this point, I'm going to blame Marvel's habit of announcing all the movies in their respective phases ahead of time. Before 'The Avengers' came out, we already knew of Iron Man 3, so Stark's mission to stop the nuke was moot. Before 'Age of Ultron' came out, we already knew we were getting 'Civil War' with Iron Man, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. as well as another Thor. The Hulk literally cannot die, so before the Four Days Age of Ultron even began, we know the Avengers were all safe. Likewise, here, with 'The First Avenger' we knew Steve Rogers was alive and well, and ready to fight Loki the following summer. 

In fact, considering the common knowledge that Bucky Barnes would rise from the grave to become the Winter Soldier, the biggest stakes played for in this movie are "will Steve and Peggy Carter get to go on their date?" No, they won't. And yes, that's sad, but really... a movie should have bigger stakes than this. 

Atwell's performance as Carter is wonderful, and I'm glad it's led to her becoming a recurring fixture in the Marvel Universe. But if their romance is the heart of this story, then Steve's assumed death at the end should be shown to have more of an impact than it does.

Which brings up another issue - what IS the heart of the story? Steve does not have a character arc, because his character does not change. His body and his abilities do, but he is essentially the same man in the end as he was in the beginning? 

Is it Captain America vs. Hydra and the Red Skull? Maybe. But from the moment Cap actually enters the war, Hydra's defeat is all but certain. He is totally successful in every attack against them. So there is really no drama to it. Nor do we get any prolonged scenes of attacking the Hydra bases.

Yet, it's exciting to see Steve's new powers. It's a cool effect to see Chris Evans face on an drastically unhealthy body. It's a lot of fun to see Cap and his nearly invincible Howling Commandos whoop up on some Hydra Nazis. But you rarely ever feel like they're in any danger. It's entertaining to watch Hugo Weaving ham it up as the Red Skull, and see how villainous he can be, but he never really feels dangerous. Not to Cap, or to America. I will get to this when I review 'The Winter Soldier' but Cap is on his heels throughout the majority of that movie. He's up against an enemy that he doesn't understand or know how to defeat. And I think that's a large part of why it succeeds. And a large part of why this movie doesn't fully reach it's potential. Cap is a little too infallible.

I read once that Christopher Nolan never worried about what was going to be leftover for the sequel when he was making 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'. That he wanted to put every good idea he had into this movie so that it would be the best movie he could make. And I think about this because 'Captain America: The First Avenger' is more or less entertaining, but never really serves to do anything besides set up the macguffin of 'The Avengers' and give you some background information on their leader. If that was all Marvel Studios wanted to accomplish, then they succeeded. But if anyone wanted to make more out of it, then, in that respect, they were kinda damned from the start. Which is a shame, because making a WWII superhero story is a pretty unique idea. It's just too bad that they confined this story to such a constricted space. 

FINAL SCORE 6.0/10

Cap is obviously back next month in 'Civil War'. I'm pretty GD excited for it, to be honest! I hope the Russo Brothers go the Nolan route and put every good idea, no matter how explosive to the future, on the screen.

Comic Writer Jeph Loeb - Why He Rocks

For as much as I love Frank Miller's take on Batman, for as much as I admire Warren Ellis's Transmetropolitan, for as much as I think Geoff Johns kicks all sorts of ass, Jeph Loeb is my favorite comic book writer.

It's impossible for me to not think of my father's death when I think of Jeph Loeb. In fact, I link that enormous event in my life to Batman for a few reasons, not the least of which is that interminable plane ride home after my mom had called me while I was on vacation. I think I will explore that link more at a later date, but for now, just know that in the day after I learned he'd died, I read "The Long Halloween" and "Dark Victory" both. In one day.

That's about 28 issues worth of Batman right there. And it comforted me, and made me feel a little less alone. Mostly because it put me in the headspace of Batman, who had let his life become defined by the death of his parents, but not destroyed, channeling his grief into something greater.

That, I think, is what makes Jeph Loeb such an amazing writer. He frequently uses internal monologue blocks rather than dialogue. There's plenty of dialogue of course, but that consistent expression of the thoughts of the hero, it lets you get into his or her mind. It lets you know exactly what they are thinking and feeling; what they know, what they believe, what they're scared of, if anything, and what they want. 

Who is Holiday? Who is The Hangman? Who is Hush?

Written by Loeb and pencilled by Tim Sale, "The Long Halloween" and "Dark Victory" are the unofficial "years two and three", pretty much taking place in the same canonical world as Frank Miller's "Year One". Both stories, as well as Loeb's follow-up some years later with superstar artist Jim Lee* are mysteries. The reader gets to be inside Batman's mind as he shows off those master detective skills. Not only that, you see his insecurities and his fears. Should he trust Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent? Is the genesis of Two-Face his fault? Can he trust a young Dick Grayson? Should he let Dick become Robin? Years later, during the "Hush" story arc, is his solitude a problem? Can he trust the people in his life? Can he trust and love Selina Kyle? Loeb lets you inside Batman's mind like few other writers, and it creates such a emotional attachment to him that when you get to the end of each story, you grasp the full psychological weight of everything that has happened to him and how it affects his life from then on.

*I like Lee's work, but it has its...i don't want to say flaws, but drawbacks. I do love that everyone looks like a pure superhero, with no fat, no soft lines, and no imperfections. But it's not really realistic, either, and all the men essentially have the same face. Sale's art in LH and DV is so amazingly moody and gothic, I absolutely get pulled into the dark world that Gotham City inhabits. It's a scary place I'd never venture if I lived in their world.

His work with Marvel (I'm sure I'm missing some, because I have not read every single story arc in the history of comics but I've read these) frequently seems to focus on grief and regret. "Spiderman: Blue" focuses on Peter's memories of Gwen Stacy. "Daredevil: Yellow" showcases Matt Murdock's memories of his love before Karen Page died. And "Captain America: White" explores Cap's regret at the things he didn't get to say to Bucky before he was killed. 

Likewise, his miniseries "Fallen Son" explicitly follows the traditional five stages of grief through five issues of heroes all reacting to the death of Captain America: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Wolverine, the Avengers, Iron Man, Spider-Man and Falcon are all shown reacting to their grief with painful believability. Spider-Man's depression issue is especially heartbreaking as we are taken through all his failures, and made conscious of the fact that he blames himself for every death he has failed to prevent, including Cap's.

Following a similar structure, but stepping away from grief, "Superman: For All Seasons" reunited Loeb and Sale to give four tales of the Man of Steel told from four other perspectives: Pa Kent. Lois Lane, Lex Luthor and Lana Lang. All four of them have different feelings regarding Clark, and they are all written in such a way that we are capable of understanding pride and love as well as hate and fear. 

Loeb's style of getting into his character's head is perhaps best exhibited by his run on Superman/Batman. With the first two major arcs (Public Enemies and The Girl From Krypton**) you first see the striking similarities between Batman and Superman, before seeing what makes them so different. Superman's admiration for Batman's almost superhuman abilities is contrasted with Batman's observations about Superman's intense humanity. They trust each other, even when they don't see eye to eye, but recognize that they will forever see the world differently due to their respective childhoods - one filled with love and nurturing, one destroyed in an instant. Loeb's writing excels at exploring this dichotomy. 

**as with all Loeb's stories, I became incredibly invested in the newest incarnation of Kara Zor-el. So much so that the moment when she seemingly died at the hands of Darkseid and his omega beams, I audibly gasped, and started to feel a pain in my chest. The grief thoughts hit me. "This can't be. There must be some sort of mistake. I can't believe she's gone. Superman must be in so much pain."

Loeb's ability to get into the head of his main characters allows the reader to so completely assume their point of view that for a while, you can feel like a superhero. You're Batman, supremely confident in yourself, but unsure of those around you; you're Spider-man, happy, but still aching over a death you couldn't prevent. You're Captain America, at ease with your men when the plane carrying you explodes. Other writers show you the adventures of their heroes. Loeb makes you feel the adventure. He makes you the hero.

BLADE - A Quickie Review

With the success of 'Deadpool', the upcoming R-rated cut of 'Batman v Superman', and the continuing rumors that 'Suicide Squad' is flirting with that line between PG-13 and R, it's time we looked back on the original R-rated superhero. The Daywalker himself, Blade.

If you look at a movie through the lens of what the director is wanting to do, then 'Blade' is an unqualified success. Director Stephen Norrington wants to give you a fun, thrilling ride through a film that trades it's stock in equal parts "cool" and "badass". Seemingly born to play this role, Wesley Snipes plays it completely straight, but still as if he knows he's the hero of the story. The cool, badass hero. When cops shoot at him instead of the bad guy, he shouts "motherfucker, are you outta your damn mind??" as if the cops forgot he was the star of this picture. Stephen Dorff too, as the villain Deacon Frost, exudes such confidence in his role because Frost himself absolutely loves being the bad guy. He dresses cool, he has cool hair, a disdain for the vampire authority, and a whole band of groupies who treat him like a rock star. Any time you question the genuineness of the movie, here comes Kris Kristofferson or Donal Logue to say something with such casual normalcy, it puts you back at ease so you can continue the ride. I mean, this is a movie that casts Udo Kier as a vampire chairman of the board. And anytime you have Udo Kier in a role, you're not going for subtlety.

The action scenes are immensely fun, as it is anytime you have a hero who's just really good at his job. And Blade IS really good at killing vampires in ways that look amazing. Gunplay, swordplay or just good ol' martial arts badassery, no one is a match for Blade until the very end. And even then, it's not like you think he's going to lose the climactic fight. He's Blade, for god's sake! He defeats the bad guy, spouts of a one-liner than makes no goddamn sense at all, and you're still smiling ear to freakin' ear, because you've had such a good time.

FINAL SCORE 7.5/10

How can you root against this shit-eating grin?? 

IRON MAN 2 - A Retro Review

Marvel Studios' Phase Three begins next month with 'Captain America: Civil War'. Because of that, we (I...the royal we, you know, uh, the editorial...) are passing the time by going back and checking out the movies that have lead up to this conflagration. Namely, the Iron Mans, the Captains America, and the Avengerses. Earlier this week, we took a look back at Jon Favreau's career high point, the 2008 hit 'Iron Man'.

Today, we're focusing on the follow-up, Iron Man 2. And the ride's gonna get a little bumpy, y'all. Because this movie has issues.

Spoiler Warning - Seriously? Six years ago, people. If you haven't seen it and you're upset that I may or may not talk about explicit plot points, I suggest going to Wikipedia and reading a plot summary. Then get mad at them. They were rude enough to publish that shit back in 2010, and I waited until now. Just for you. I'm nice like that.

Back in '08, everyone LURVED 'Iron Man'. Part of it was just that it was a fun movie, and part of it was that people were happy that Robert Downey Jr. had orchestrated a career comeback for himself with the two hits that year (the other being the hilarious 'Tropic Thunder'). The man himself just seemed to be likeable, with all his charitable actions, his hilarious personality, and his overall charm. The real world seemed to embrace Downey with the same fervor the fictional Marvel world had for Tony Stark. Needless to say, not only was Marvel hot to trot on getting an Iron sequel going, those post-credits scenes from 'Iron Man' and 'The Incredible Hulk' had generated enough momentum to get Marvel to fill out the plans for the completion of Phase One. Thor and Captain America were coming, The Avengers were coming, but first we needed 'Iron Man 2'.

Despite coming frustratingly close to being a good film, 'Iron Man 2' has a lots of problems. And in a movie with a bunch of problems, maybe this was the source of the biggest one. Maybe Marvel began to get too preoccupied with selling a franchise rather than creating the best possible sequel to a story they'd begun so strongly two years prior. Whatever the cause, 'Iron Man 2', while having the same surface level thrills and laughs, and a better developed villain, doesn't come close to having the same heart of the first one.

The movie starts out promisingly. One of my favorite movie tropes is revisiting the events of the previous film from a different point-of-view, and that's how this one starts. A dying old russian named Anton Vanko watches his television, as Tony Stark reveals to the world that he is Iron Man. His son, Ivan (Mickey Rourke) ignores the goings on, hides in the shadows, and drinks his vodka. Ivan's rage, though, is stoked when his father dies. For reasons clarified later in the movie, Ivan blames Stark for his father's ill fortune and death. In a particularly strong sequence, the opening credits roll over John Debney's menacing score as Ivan builds his own version of Stark's arc reactor and a pair of deadly electric whips to take out Iron Man.


Unfortunately, that's as good as the movie gets. We're then treated to Tony making a pair of public appearances where he arrogantly defends his invincibility, and it seems as though any lessons he's learned from the previous films have been forgotten as his narcissism rears its ugly head. In a storyline cribbed from the famous "Demon in a Bottle" comic arc, Tony's being slowly poisoned by the palladium* powering his suit. And since he thinks he's on his way out, Tony behaves poorly. He inexplicably keeps it to himself, refuses to give up being Iron Man, and acts like a complete ass, alienating Pepper, Happy, and Rhodey.


*While I was willing to forgive the junk science of the first film because it was so entertaining, this time, the science is front and center for a couple of major plot points. Palladium is not radioactive, and not really toxic, so Tony's rapidly increasing "poisoning" is nonsense. Especially since I can't figure out how his blood is being poisoned considering the arc reactor is separated from his actual body by a metal chest cavity. And you can't just create a new goddamn element with a laser. It's such a poorly conceived deus ex machina to a poorly developed problem. I think the original plan was that Tony would just be struggling with alcoholism and the emotional weight of being Iron Man, but Marvel Studios intervened and they decided to go...with fucking Palladium poisoning. It's such a nonsensey thing that, despite living in a completely nonsensey universe, this stands out as being distractingly bullshit.



Stark is questioned before Congress in a scene that doesn't make much sense until you see 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' and Rhodey is called as a witness in perhaps the clumsiest introduction of a recasted character ever. It comes off with the same sort of cheesy wink-wink nature you'd get from a sitcom that just introduced a new Becky. Instead of scene that could have actually explored the global ramifications of a one-man-army, we get Tony being snarky and showing up both a senator and his business rival, Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell.

Hammer's a problematic character because he's so goofy and clueless, there's no way he's believable as someone ingenious enough that he could actually be seen as competition for Stark Industries. He's more of a plot device instead of a character, and his one-sided rivalry with Stark makes no sense when you consider that Tony's company doesn't even make weapons anymore. When Vanko's plan to attack Tony (in another actually pretty solid action sequence, again with Debney's score underlining it) goes predictably awry, Hammer orchestrates Vanko's release from prison, and the freedom to make another attempt on Tony's life. That's. About. It. He moves the plot forward, and provides comic relief** in a film that's never really tense enough to require it.


**Honestly, I'm not a fan of Sam Rockwell, but his idea to smear his palms with the coppery brown goop you use to fake tan was pretty genius. And it does say a lot about the kind of guy Justin Hammer is.



Because Marvel decreed it so, we're also introduced to Natalie Rushman, a.k.a. Natasha Romanoff, a.k.a. Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson. She's another wasted asset in a pretty spectacular cast. Instead of actually being essential to the plot, she and Nick Fury are shoehorned into the movie to make sure no one forgets "hey, we're planning an Avengers movie in two years!"

And while the introduction of Rhodey's armored alter-ego, War Machine, isn't as non-essential to the plot as all the S.H.I.E.L.D. elements, it still feels like a pretty dramatic shift from the Rhodey we saw in the first movie. This one has much less patience for Tony's antics, doesn't seem particularly trusting, seems suspicious of Tony's illness more than concerned, and then just flat out steals the Mk II armor. Tony and Rhodey are supposed to be best friends, but instead of trying to talk his friend down when he's being an asshole, Rhodey puts a suit of armor on and tries to kick the shit out of him. Ok. Sure. Whatever. We're just having action scenes now, for like...no reason.

All this leads to another showdown with Vanko, now in full-body armor that seems like they're just copying the climax of the last movie. Tony and Rhodey take out a bunch of paper-droids before squaring off against Vanko. And a fight scene that might have actually had some tension when their first salvo against the new-and-improved Whiplash fails completely, fizzles when the whole thing is over in the next 10 seconds.



You may have noticed in my reviews that I mention character development a lot. To me, that's one of the most important things a good movie does. The plot may be fascinating as hell, but if you, as the viewer, don't really care about the characters, you'll only ever grow so invested in the outcome. You want to see them grow and change and end up somewhere different from where they started. That's what made the first Iron Man as enjoyable as it was. But this movie's ending skips all that. Throughout the course of the film, Tony reverts back to the hedonistic self-serving ass he was before, while alienating his friends and loved ones. But as soon as he fixes his chest piece with his made-up-bullshit new element, everyone is ready to forgive and forget. Even Pepper lets him off pretty damn easily considering that her life was endangered by Tony and Rhodey's house-throwdown. Tony learns nothing. He does not grow. There is no point to his story.

And unfortunately, other than furthering the Marvel brand, and setting up a few pieces for 'The Avengers' there wasn't much point to this movie. Which is really too bad. It definitely could have been a worthy sequel.

FINAL SCORE 5.5/10


Iron Man 2 is probably already in your library, because you have to own it due to your 'complete collection' mindset. It's the same reason anyone owns 'The Incredible Hulk'. Tony Stark will next be seen in 'Captain America: Civil War' which opens May 6. If I was in charge, I'd kill him off, but you have to wait until my 'Age of Ultron' review to hear why. mwah ha ha ha!!

Frank Miller - Brief Thoughts

The Dallas Comic-con (technically, i think they're legally obligated to call it "Fan Expo Dallas" because SDCC has gotten so big for their britches, i think they've trademarked the phrase 'comic con', which is lame) puts on three conventions a year.

February, May/June, and October.

The Feb. and Oct. ones are usually smaller affairs, in a smaller venue but they're also usually pretty fun, with cool guests and lots of vendors. But the summer con...that's the big enchilada.

This year, they've managed to get some really amazing celebrities to come out and greet the fans, and I'm super excited to meet (my picks) Hayley Atwell, Lena Headey, John and Joan Cusack, Mike Colter, and my ultimate TV character crush, Fred Burkle herself, Amy Acker. Comic guests also include Brian Azzarello, Klaus Janson, and Andy Kubert. As well arguably one of the greatest writers of all time, Frank Miller.

They offered a special ticket package for Frank Miller, and I was lucky enough to get one, and it made me think for a moment about my feelings regarding Frank Miller.

'The Dark Knight Returns' is probably my favorite graphic novel of all time, and my second is probably 'Batman: Year One'. I love the first few chapters of the Sin City series, '300', 'Ronin', and his work on Daredevil and Wolverine was outstanding. There was a time when I'd say he was my favorite writer working in comics. But 'The Dark Knight Strikes Again' was...odd. And then I heard he was going to do Batman with Jim Lee in a series called 'All-Star Batman and Robin' set in the same world as TDKR and Year One.

'All-Star Batman and Robin' is the single worst comic I've ever read. Not the worst Batman book. Not the worst Frank Miller story. The single worst comic I've ever read. I thought to myself "Frank Miller lost his goddamn mind, and no one bothered to tell him." It was sick, demented, exploitative, fascist and completely incongruous with the rest of the world he'd established (this story took place between Year one and TDKR) and while I'd typically just say "well, it's not my cup of tea" I was really bothered by the way he'd changed the canon he'd created.

So when, several years later, I'd read that Miller was returning to the DK series one more time, I was like "nuh unh". But then I'd heard that he was being reigned in a bit by DC. He'd have help from Brian Azzarello and Andy Kubert, two amazing writers. Lo and behold, three issues in, I absolutely love DKIII. It still has Miller's quirky penchant for writing in "street dialect" (seriously, wtf does "licken chegs, chicken legs" and "love chunks" even mean, Frank???), but it is a compelling story with visually arresting artwork. And I can't wait to see how it pans out.

So despite my fluctuating feelings for Frank Miller's writing, I cannot deny the man his place in the pantheon. I cannot deny that he's shaped the way I read comics, especially Batman, and I can't deny, if DKIII is his last hurrah with the dark knight, it's a helluva way to go out.

Happy to meet you, Frank*

*and Brian Azzarello. I can't promise I won't give him a back breaking bear hug because of the utterly amazing work he did on Wonder Woman.

IRON MAN - A Retro Review

Warning - This movie is almost eight full years old. Obviously there are going to be spoilers up in this piece. If you haven't seen this movie, that sounds like your fault. So don't get all mad because I spoiled how it ends. (Iron Man wins)

Despite being labeled as the opening to Phase Three, one could almost argue that next month's 'Captain America: Civil War' is the culmination of Marvel's Phase Two. As Phase One was brought to a head in 'The Avengers', last year's ultimately disappointing 'Age of Ultron' seemed more like a placeholder than a culmination of events. 'Civil War', on the other hand, definitely feels like the climax of tension that has been building since Iron Man and Captain America first met back in 'The Avengers'. And so, since we've got that coming up in just a few short weeks, I thought now would be a good time to reexamine the opening gambit from Marvel studios, 2008's 'Iron Man'. 

It's hard to think of a time when Marvel was taking a big gamble, but everything leading into Iron Man felt risky. Back before Disney bought them, Paramount was financing a film based on a (at best) C-list Marvel superhero, directed by a guy whose biggest film to that point was a Will Ferrell comedy, and had gone waaaaaaaay out on a limb with a star in Robert Downey Jr. who hadn't headlined a major film in almost fifteen years. and had spent the majority of that time in and out of rehab and jail. Yet despite the production seeming, on a surface level, super risky, once that first trailer hit, tension started to ease and excitement started to build.

Despite it definitely being a superhero movie, I don't think it's a stretch to call 'Iron Man' Marvel's most character driven film to date. And Favreau casting Downey could be called the true beginning of the juggernaut that is the MCU. In hindsight, it seems like such an obvious choice. Even Tony Stark's personal history paralleled with that of RDJ. Genius talent, haunted by addiction. The fact that he slips into the skin of Tony Stark with such ease makes the movie work, because he's not just Iron Man. He is the film itself.

'Iron Man' opens with a jolting sequence that jerks the audience sharply between a lighthearted ride in a humvee, to a horrifying run-in with an IED, a jarring kidnapping, and then rewinds things to 36 hours before Tony Stark's life changed forever. Showing Tony's life prior to the events in the Afghan cave, we see that Stark is every bit that "genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist". And while he definitely has a charitable streak in him, his bread and butter is still weapons and women. Just like the AC/DC he blasts everywhere he goes, Tony is a walking, unrestrained id. Even though we only get a short glimpse of this pre-cave Stark interacting with his assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and friend, Rhodey (Terence Howard, seeming much more at home in a military uniform than Don Cheadle*), it firmly establishes that even though he can be a brash, womanizing and narcissistic ass, Tony still has people who care about him pretty deeply. And if he has that, he can't be an all-bad guy. These sort of moments are where this movie excels.

His chemistry with Paltrow is wonderful, and she does a great job playing the foil to Stark's oddball sensibilities. Likewise, Terence Howard establishes Rhodes' character so easily, that while he does grow frustrated with Tony's antics, he still considers him a friend and is fully capable of relaxing enough to have a good time together. This is a superhero film that is subtly drives the plot forward while taking the time for Tony to talk to the other characters so that we can fully learn who this guy is. 

*I really like Don Cheadle. I do. But I think Marvel made a huge mistake in replacing Terence Howard. He just seems like Rhodey, whereas Don Cheadle seems like Don Cheadle playing James Rhodes. Also, I just happen to think Howard has better chemistry with RDJ, although this movie gives more time for the two to establish rapport than IM2 or IM3. Either way, when Rhodes looks longingly at the unpainted Mark II armor and says, "next time, baby" I wince a little inside at the missed opportunity.

When the action catches up to the present, Tony finds himself stuck in a cave with another hostage, Ho Yinson (Shaun Toub). Yinson is responsible for saving Tony's life, but instead of just being Stark's assistant in creating his first proto-Iron-Man suit, he's the driving force behind Tony's complete shift in perspective. Yinson doesn't let Stark off the hook for his responsibility in sowing chaos in the middle-east, but he is gentle in his demand that Tony be honest with himself, and forces him to take an unflinching look in the mirror and take stock of his life's real legacy.

The opening and cave sequences are the strongest in the film. And RDJ does a wonderful job of going from constantly wisecracking smartass to horrified, outraged, and determined. In a movie that is pretty lighthearted from beginning to end, these are the least lighthearted moments; appropriate, considering the stakes involved. And then Tony escapes. In a thrilling set piece showcasing an old-school Iron Man armor and several rudimentary weapons, Tony outsmarts his captors and returns to his former life. But this is a Tony Stark who has seen some shit, and he is no longer able to be the man he once was. Driven by both guilt at his role in the death of his military escorts, and Yinson's sacrifice during his escape, Tony is determined to redefine his life's work. As he tweaks the designs of his armor**, now dubbed Mark II, he clearly doesn't have a plan yet, but he knows this armor is part of it.

**While in reality, the Iron Man suit is impossible for...a shit ton of reasons, the movie does a good job of making you believe in Tony's genius enough to disregard fundamental laws of, you know, physics, gravity, and the sheer number of times Tony would have likely died during his various escapades. Basically, RDJ > inertia

To this point, the movie has been damn near flawless. But about the halfway point, it starts to buckle under the pressure of being the typical superhero movie. Character development starts to take a back seat to the necessities of the plot, and with little in the way of combat experience, Stark manages to become a pretty adept superhero in no time at all.

After the terrorists who took him hostage resurface, Tony develops the final version of the Iron Man suit, manages to fly it halfway around the world, attacks and effortlessly frees a group of hostages by killing all the bad guys. To this point, the film has been so wonderful in it's development of Tony-as-a-real-person, but it completely glosses over the fact that he's now an armed combatant and efficient killer. The story has gone out of its way to establish that Tony is now taking responsibility for his actions, but here, we see him jump headlong into the fray without regard for the consequences, not only political, but...I mean, dude, you're a killer now. Yes, they're bad guys. Terrorists. But you're killing people now and you seem to be ok with that. And to me, that is problematic.

More problematic, however, is the revelation of the true antagonist of the film: Tony's adopted father figure and corporate right-hand, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). While the movie does a great job of creating a multi-dimensional hero, the villain is pretty one-dimensional. And not only that, his motivations are never really clarified. Sure he wants control of Stark's company and tech, but given that he was already succeeding in doing all the nefarious shit he had been getting away with before Tony was nearly killed, why does he all of a sudden decide to have Tony killed? Stane's shift from harmless colleague to homicidal nutjob** is so sudden, it feels like the screenwriters were just like "oh, shit...forgot to put a villain up in here. Um...how about Iron Monger?" Stane builds himself a suit of armor (in which, I still can't figure out how his arms and legs fit, especially when you see his torso revealed beneath) and of course, the Iron Monger vs. Iron Man is the big fight at the end.

**During the climax of the film, Stane's monologuing is so drawn-out and forced, I halfway expected Syndrome to show up and shout "you sly dog!" to Tony.

There's also some minor confusion on my part as to what Tony's chest piece is doing. Is it a electromagnet keeping shrapnel out of his heart as is explicitly stated? Or is it running his heart, as if his heart actually needs batteries as is repeatedly implied. Why does he go into cardiac arrest immediately without the chest piece? Yes, this is a minor nitpicky thing, but it still bugs me! 

That being said, the little nitpicky things, and Stane's immediate switch from good guy to bad guy with little preamble does nothing to ruin the fun of this movie. It's a pretty entertaining character study wrapped in the cloak of action, superheroes and wish fulfillment - owning the ultimate toy. Put it on, and you can be a superhero with little to no training! It's a good movie, that could have been really great, but I think it's elevated in the public perception based on the idea that it began the MCU. I have no idea if they actually planned the entire Phase One story out before filming Samuel L. Jackson's cameo as Nick Fury, but in hindsight, it was a genius move. Coupled with RDJ's unexpected cameo in 'The Incredible Hulk' later that summer,(made even more special by the fact that rival studios, Paramount and Universal, allowed the connection in the first place)  what might have just been a fun little easter egg turned into crazy hype and speculation that we were headed toward a much larger Marvel Universe.

FINAL SCORE - 7.75/10

Iron Man has been available on Blu-ray and DVD for several years now. You probably own it. Tony Stark will next be seen in Captain America: Civil War, opening May 6, wherein he's being kind of a dick.