Marvel Mania 2: X-Men

X-Men (2000)
Starring: Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman
Directed by: Bryan Singer


We've got another X-Men movie coming out this year (this month, in fact), so there's no time like the present to give my thoughts on all the previous X-Men movies (not counting Deadpool, because I already reviewed that earlier this year when it came out). By the time the first X-Men movie was released in 2000, Marvel had already received a modest amount of critical and financial success with Blade in 1998. However, X-Men was really the first major success story Marvel had at adapting a globally known comic book franchise to the big screen. People knew X-Men through the comics or the '90s animated series, so when it was announced it would be a movie, it was a big deal. And Marvel movies from a decade earlier were horrible, so the pressure was on to make sure this was a success. With how the landscape is for comic book movies, it comes as no surprise that the film struck a chord with its core audience at the time. But that was 16 years ago when all the concepts felt new. With how saturated the genre has become, can one of the originals still hold strong all these years later? Well, I'm going to look at X-Men and base my thoughts on two playing fields. The first is the directing style of Bryan Singer and the second is looking at the early 2000s style decisions (I'm already assuming the latter is going to show some serious signs of aging). And of course, I'll take a look at those iconic characters and how many were (and some weren't) adapted properly in the original X-Men trilogy. So for now, let's focus our attention to the one that started it all, 2000's X-Men.

Let's start with the character that has become the icon of this series: Wolverine, played by Hugh Jackman. It's almost impossible to separate the two in today's society. Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine and has been for quite some time. It's a shame that's all coming to an end next year, but we can look back on his debut performance in this film and smile. Wolverine was the fresh set of eyes the audience needed to be introduced to this strange world of mutants. Wolverine is that proper blend of attitude and humor that works really well in all the scenes he's in and I honestly couldn't see anyone else play him at this point. Once Jackman is done as Wolverine, retire the character for at least a decade and maybe then we can find an actor who would be willing to fill out those claws.

Another iconic performance in the X-Men trilogy is Patrick Stewart as Professor Charles Xavier. Not much else needs to be said. Watch the films, look at that guy and tell me that isn't Professor X. It's a perfect casting. He can be a compassionate mentor, but knows how to get serious when it's towards the proper objective. When he speaks, I'm glued to the TV. Maybe it's not an act. Maybe Patrick Stewart really has mutant powers to control my mind. With how good he plays Xavier, I'd believe it.

The third major staple of the X-Men series is Magneto, played expertly by Ian McKellen. It's already a plus that Magneto has awesome powers, but where McKellen really gets to shine in the role is through Magneto's motivations and rules. When he gets a chance to speak, you really understand where he's coming from and you know what his objective is. You may not agree with it, but there's not a whole lot you're gonna do to be able to stop him. I recently heard a critique of the performance saying McKellen felt too old and wasn't as physically imposing as other villains, but I kinda liked that. He's not supposed to be like the other villains. He should have his own style and flavor that makes him stand out as one of the greats, and I think McKellen helps make that very possible as these films go on.

For all the iconic performances we had in the original X-Men series, we had a few that fell a little flat. The first major one is Halle Berry as Storm. Berry is a good actress when she wants to be, but something fell flat when she was Storm. I didn't get this strong and empowered vibe with her, but more of a '90s "girl power" vibe. And that was the problem. Berry as Storm felt more like she was playing up to the girls, rather than play the dignified woman she is in the comics. Her performance is especially awkward in this first film due to an accent that comes and goes throughout the entire film. It's entirely dropped with the sequels, but listening to her talk in this first film is very confusing. The other character that disappointed was Cyclops, played by James Marsden. However, I don't blame Marsden. I actually didn't think he was bad at Cyclops in his performance. The problem throughout the entire trilogy was that I don't think the writers knew what to do with him. He was always the noble character, almost a boy scout, which doesn't lead to the most interesting opportunities for a character that's supposed to lead this team. Because of that, he always feels in the background and he doesn't deserve that. Mardsen could've shined as Cyclops had they just figured out his purpose to the main plot.

When Bryan Singer was selected to direct X-Men, he hadn't really paid any attention to the comics or the animated series. Not that he hated the idea of comic books, as he has stated he values the art of storytelling and has a passion for science fiction. With how we perceive his movies today, it's hard to see anyone else direct an X-Men movie because he's so good at it, yet he's not an expert on the source material. I think Singer is a great filmmaker for the reason that he isn't necessarily a fanboy. He takes in the source material and finds an opportunity to adapt it into a story that makes sense on film. That's why I didn't mind the costume design for the film. People were probably holding out for the yellow and blue spandex, but at the time, it probably wouldn't have translated as well as we think it would. We needed a good, but serious superhero movie at the time so the genre could have some faith and credibility restored. Where the story needed to succeed on was in the story and the characters, something Singer knows how to do very well. Because of that, the movie was a huge success, opened the door for other superhero movies to get the green light, and left the door wide open for this successful film to turn into a franchise.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

X-Men holds up very strong as a superhero movie thanks to many standout performances, as well as the storytelling and directing style of Bryan Singer. Sure a few of the major characters aren't handled the best and this film is teeming with filmmaking tropes from the late '90s and early 2000s, but I still think this is a crucial point in the history of superhero films that deserves to be watched by all comic book fans.

X-Men and movie images are copyrighted by 20th Century Fox

Marvel Mania 2: MCU Phase 3- Captain America: Civil War Review

Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson
Directed by: Anthony and Joe Russo


There I was, sitting in the movie theater waiting for all the hype to be over. I was beyond nervous. The MCU has been around since 2008 and we've arrived at the 13th installment. Adapting a big comic book like Civil War could result in something utterly disappointing. Having groups of superheroes fight each other could come off as underwhelming. Trying to get so many things in one film could have been catastrophic. Insert your own joke about Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Anyways, I knew heading in that Captain America: Civil War had a lot to live up to. It needs to be a good adaptation of the Civil War comic, be a successful sequel to Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and needs to get Phase 3 of the MCU off to a good start with the introductions of new characters in Black Panther and Spider-Man. The deck was stacked against them and they didn't flinch for a second. I sat there for 2 1/2 hours absolutely mesmerized by their efforts. By the end of it, I wanted to see it again right away. It's the same kind of feeling I had with Iron Man, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Ant-Man. Marvel had done it again for this comic book fan, and I'd argue that with repeat viewings this could go down as the best movie the MCU has given us thus far. But for now, let's look at my first impressions for Captain America: Civil War.

Let's start with the Civil War aspect. The two sides are very split and it was very easy for fans to be split heading in. But I found that I was constantly changing sides as the narrative was unfolding. You can see the ideologies of both sides. See where they're in the right and when they're in the wrong. You can see how the others are able to pick a side and stick to it. This doesn't feel like a minor squabble. Stakes feel real, political, and physical. And then when they got to the big fight at the airport, I'll say that there's probably no other scene that'll keep me THAT entertained this year and maybe for a few years. As a comic book fan, seeing Iron Man, Captain America, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Spider-Man all fighting at one time was a dream come true.

But, if people are going in expecting this to be another Avengers movie, I think they'll have the wrong idea. This should be, first and foremost, a sequel to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. A good focus in the plot has to do with progressing the storyline between Captain America and Bucky. And one of the highlight performances in the film is Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes. You can see the amount of torment and grief he is putting himself through during all of this. You feel the pain he feels and you want to see him overcome all this. The best friendship that he has with Steve Rogers is something that most audience members can identify with and serves as a building block that'll help cement what initial side of this battle you're on. For me, it was really easy to be on Team Captain America thanks to the story that was being told.

Gravitating over to Team Iron Man is a bit more on the surface and materialist. It's the unveiling of new characters that brought a lot of intrigue for Civil War. The first is Black Panther, played by Chadwick Boseman. I'm a tad unfamiliar with the folklore of Black Panther, but this movie did a great job of giving me the general idea. I had no idea how vengeful Panther could be and I loved seeing his motivations play out on the side of rage and revenge. It's a different side to a mainstream Marvel character that I've seen in the MCU and I hope that carries over into his own movie. If the Panther we saw in Civil War is the same we'll see in the Black Panther movie, I'll be a happy customer. But the thing I think most comic book fans were anxious to see was Tom Holland portray Spider-Man in the MCU. While not in the film entirely too long, I got the impression for Spider-Man that I was hoping for. He had that wit to him when he was in the suit, but had that braininess to him when he was playing Peter Parker. This left a permanent smile on my face, as I had seen the best version of my favorite superhero come to life on the big screen in as little as a half hour. The fact that they were able to do all that in that short of time, I'm beyond excited for him to get his own full-length movie franchise.

With how much they put in this film, you'd think it would end up like all the other messy comic book movies we've had in the past. Yet, Captain America: Civil War feels like the exception to that rule. For 2 1/2 hours, it's nothing but quality. We're seeing our favorite characters faithfully adapted for film. We're given fantastic writing, as well as a captivating and thought provoking plot. The action is off the charts for the amount of choreography and fun that goes into it. All I can say is that if you even remotely value comic book movies, this is a necessity for you to see in theaters. It's THAT good. The Russo Brothers continue to show me why they're a pair of directors I trust most to adapt comic books to film. This film validated to me that if they can tackle Civil War and succeed, then Infinity War will be in good hands.

And now I'm going to flash the word *SPOILERS* so I can talk about the post-credits scenes. In the mid-credits, we see that Bucky has chosen to be frozen again. Interestingly, it is T'Challa who has chosen to keep him protected. We get a small glimpse at Wakanda, which is sure to make any fans anticipating the Black Panther movie very happy. In the post-credits scene, Peter is at home nursing a black eye he received in the fight, when he tampers with his web-shooter and the Spider-Signal flashes on the wall. Not much, but it guarantees Spider-Man will be back, and that made me really look forward to seeing him again in Spider-Man: Homecoming.


Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Marvel continues to amaze me with how many great movies are constantly being churned out by them. Captain America: Civil War is a phenomenal endeavor for Marvel that works as both a sequel to Winter Soldier and an adaptation of the Civil War comic. It might take me one or two more viewings to say for sure whether this is my favorite film in the MCU, but I can safely say the bar has been set very high for Phase 3. Let's hope they can keep it going.

Captain America: Civil War and movie images are copyrighted by Marvel Studios

Marvel Mania 2: MCU Phase 2- Ant-Man

Ant-Man (2015)
Starring: Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly
Directed by: Peyton Reed


For a lot of people, this was the moment to assume the MCU had gone too far. What, they're gonna make a movie about Ant-Man interesting? Ant-Man? Freaking Ant-Man? Fans were assuming this was going to be the big failure for Marvel, that there was no way they'd make a movie about a hero with powers that silly and have it be good. That's what a lot of people said the year before with Guardians of the Galaxy, and look how that turned out. So, because Marvel Studios had that kind of history behind it, I walked in with an open mind. What I walked out with was one of my favorite movies in the MCU so far. The ones that stand out for me are the ones that don't feel as formulaic and have a different tone to them. With Ant-Man, it kind of meshed the origin elements of Iron Man, the spy thriller elements of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the quirky comedic elements of Guardians of the Galaxy together. Some have pointed out that that doesn't make for a fully original superhero movie concept, but Marvel's been churning so many out over the years that it's hard for every movie of theirs to feel 100% fresh and innovative every time. If the formula works, you can use it again as long as it feels different in a positive way and Ant-Man definitely did that thanks to the effects, the comedy, and the characters. This film is a lesson to all skeptics out there that with Marvel, anything is possible with their movies.

One thing I really loved about the movie was how it brought two generations of Ant-Man together on film. The main hero is Scott Lang, played by Paul Rudd. He's just a very likable dude, being the MCU's biggest equivalent of the everyday common man. He has a criminal past, but wants to move past that and be there for his daughter. You can't help but like the guy, making it a real win for the crowd when he has the chance to be a superhero. The other Ant-Man in the film is the former Ant-Man Hank Pym, played by Michael Douglas. I felt Douglas had been away from the Hollywood spotlight before his appearance in this film, but his portrayal as Pym shows he's still an acting force to be reckoned with. Their scenes together are really the glue that holds everything together for the film and helped sell the surface appeal of the film and its characters.

Along the way, Scott gets some assistance from Hank's daughter Hope, played by Evangeline Lilly. She definitely wears a chip on her shoulder, keeping her relationship with her father at a distance and not giving Scott an ounce of credit due to his criminal past. Throughout the film, she evolves as the plot unfolds and becomes a very likable character to root for. Plus, she kicks some serious butt in the training scenes and you can't help but support her when she claims to be able to do the job. If only there was some kind of female equivalent to Ant-Man that Hope could become. Oh well, anyways on to the villain. Corey Stoll plays Darren Cross, aka Yellowjacket. I know a lot of people think he's just being another generic MCU villains, but I like the depth that is on the surface with him. There's a lot of context that is within Darren's character, thanks to his relationships with Hope and Hank. Plus, I really like the design of the costume and I really like Stoll as an actor. So, I was thoroughly buying into him playing the bad guy.

One thing that amazed me about Ant-Man is how they brought his powers to life with special effects. That was one of the elements a lot of people were skeptical about. How could they make shrinking look cool on film? Through the effects, we had our answer. Many of the scenes allow you to be put into Scott's perspective and see just how massive and disorienting objects can look when you're so tiny. The details and textures that went into creating those worlds were so intricate, that I actually felt I'd shrank to the same size as Scott. It's a great visual presentation that puts you in the character's perspective and I think that's one of the film's biggest highlights.

A lot of people are quick to say that Ant-Man reminds them of the first Iron Man movie, but that's only in a few small areas. For one thing, it's amazing how much comedy they're able to pump into this movie, especially with Scott's friend Luis, played by Michael Pena in a huge show-stealing role. The humor alone makes this a worth-while film experience and had me laughing constantly. This is a heist movie, with a lot of the plot and action scenes focus on heroes that don't do your usual heroic deed, but are rather stealing stuff to save the day. That's very different from what we've come to expect from our usual MCU heroes. The combination of the two styles really make a nice blend in this story, putting a superhero in an Ocean's Eleven type of environment. I was absolutely floored with how much fun I had watching this. You don't have to be the most overly complex superhero movie out there to be good. You just need to tell a good story, have compelling characters, and allow the viewer to have fun. Ant-Man did that and then some, making it one of the most enjoyable movies in the MCU that I can watch over and over again.

The post-credits scenes, *SPOILER* warning are two of the best I think we've seen from Marvel at this point. The mid-credits scene teased that a sequel is on the way with Hope taking the mantle of The Wasp. It's like in the early Iron Man movies when they would tease Captain America's shield or Thor's hammer. The arrival of Wasp is going to be a landmark for comic fans, as she is the last founding member of the Avengers to come to film. Awesome! The post-credits scene is a tease for Marvel Phase 3, showing us a scene that is taking place DURING the events of Captain America: Civil War. We don't know the full context yet, but Cap, Bucky, and Falcon are in some kind of trouble and Falcon says he "knows a guy" that can help them, referring to the scene he had with Ant-Man earlier in this film. Both scenes promise us that Ant-Man will be back, with the first guaranteeing a sequel and the other scene showing he'll show up in the MCU again sooner than we expected. As a fanboy, you can't help but be hyped for Phase 3.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

I'm surprised at how well Ant-Man works as a film. It's a humorous, heist film centered on a Marvel superhero. At a time when the MCU has cranked out so many sequels as of late, it's refreshing to return to the traditional origin story type of film. It has a very unique flavor to it as a superhero movie and I truly recommend all fans and skeptics to give it a watch and see if you enjoy it as much as I did.

Ant-Man and movie images are copyrighted by Marvel Studios

Marvel Mania 2: MCU Phase 2- Avengers: Age of Ultron

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo
Directed by: Joss Whedon


It feels good to be back and reviewing the films in the MCU. We have another film in the MCU on the horizon within the next week, so I need to tie up the loose ends heading in and review the last 2 films in Phase 2. The first one is Avengers: Age of Ultron. When the first Avengers came out, it was one of the most insane movie experiences of my life. Add on to some of the key films in Phase 2, like Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy, and Marvel was quickly racking up a steady momentum of churning out groundbreaking hits. And heading into this movie, they announced their Phase 3 lineup. The world was full of hype, but the problem was that they had hype from the past and hype for the future, that it left the hype for the film they were about to see up in the air. Heading into the movie, I realized that this was most likely going to be a transitional movie in the MCU and it's fine to have one of those every once in a while. Not all the movies in the MCU are going to be equally as important, but you don't exactly want an Avengers movie to be simply "good." You're looking for a little extra effort and this movie had a lot to live up to. For me, it couldn't live up to quite the level of hype I was hoping for, but it has highlights that I really do enjoy. It's a mixed bag, leaning more positive than negative, so I'm going to weigh the elements here and see what rises to the occasion and what falls short of greatness with Avengers: Age of Ultron.

One of the big issues I had with the movie was with the Avengers themselves. A lot of them felt like they were phoning in their development. With Iron Man and Captain America, we're holding off on any major development for Civil War, so their routine was pretty by the books if you've seen their other movies. Same with Thor, except he's getting ready for Ragnarok. With The Hulk and Black Widow, their development came in the form of a romance that was hit or miss for me depending on the scene. Honestly, the only original Avenger I got a kick out of in this film was Hawkeye, played by Jeremy Renner. He took the backseat to the other five in the last film and here, he's much more fleshed out. We learn some of his secrets, his backstory, he gets to crack a lot more jokes and take part in more action scenes, and there's a sequence in the film where he has to help get the other Avengers back on their feet, assuming a pseudo-leadership role for the time being. Not bad for the guy on the team that is "simply good with a bow and arrow."

We have some new additions to the team in the forms of Pietro and Wanda Maximoff, better known as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. The one major issue with their inclusion in the MCU is that they're tied down by Marvel Studios' copyright restrictions for the characters. Because they don't have the rights to X-Men, they actually can't use the phrase "mutants" to describe the twins and it can never be revealed that Magneto is their father. Stuff like that just sticks in your craw and makes you wish these studios would get on board and work together to make the most faithful product imaginable for the fans. But I digress. The twins have their hits and misses depending on which character you're talking about. Scarlet Witch, played by Elizabeth Olsen, nearly steals the show. Her powers are really cool to see and her character is flushed out a bit more, with her being the mouthpiece for a lot of the exposition with the twins. Quicksilver, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, was pretty much facing an uphill battle from the start. X-Men: Days of Future Past already had an amazing sequence with an amazing Quicksilver, meaning Marvel had to bring their A game to top that, and I really didn't think they were able to do that. Plus, while I don't think either of their accents were the greatest, it was clear that Olsen's was the most passable of the two. Taylor-Johnson's felt so out of place and was so laughably stereotypical, that it was very distracting whenever his character spoke. The inclusion of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch was welcoming, but it was clear that there was a superior performance and character between the two.

The same can be said for the characters of Ultron and Vision. They're two sides of the same coin, with similar agendas and thought processes, but one fights for good, the other for evil. Ultron, voiced by James Spader, is supposed to be this great big baddie, but Spader goes more for a humorous approach. I know I never read Ultron from the comics, but I had the idea he'd be this imposing, menacing, villain with a calm, calculating persona. Instead, he's cracking jokes that fits Tony Stark's personality, which makes sense because Tony created Ultron in the movie, but that doesn't mean I was really into that idea. The idea I DID like was the introduction of Vision, played by Paul Bettany. In this film, they use Ultron's plot to take over the world and turn it into a positive by taking the J.A.R.V.I.S. technology and put it into a body. It works really well, with Vision being the equivalent of a god based on his abilities and moral code. I also liked how they brought Bettany in to physically do the role, since he's been voicing J.A.R.V.I.S. in numerous MCU movies. This was a character I was really looking forward to seeing come to life and they pulled it off really well. Granted, he's not in the movie until the third act, but he's a highlight that comes in clutch towards the end.

When The Avengers came out, it was full of plot holes and issues that most people looked past because of how excited they were to see our favorite heroes team up for the first time. With Age of Ultron, they did so little to change up the formula that the cracks began to show. The suspension of disbelief for plot holes grew smaller and our desire to nitpick grew deeper. In many ways, it felt like a carbon copy of the first movie, but the novelty wore off. And the studio's interference to make sure this film would lead into future releases really hindered the creative process for Joss Whedon. The man is awesome at direction and storytelling, but they didn't really let him do that here. He wasn't focusing on telling a story, he was forced to focus on introductions and teases to be used for bigger, more important films down the road, while also trying to do a film that tells one of the most beloved Avengers storylines ever to film. That's a hard task for any director to do and I can easily see why Whedon was fed up by the time the film was released and won't be back to do another MCU movie. It wasn't a horrible effort, but it wasn't his actual vision for the movie and it shows.

It's time to bring back the *SPOILER* talk, as I look at the one mid-credits scene to take place in Avengers: Age of Ultron. There's not a whole lot to talk about actually, except we see the Infinity Gauntlet in all its glory. Thanos, voiced by Josh Brolin, comes into the shot, puts the glove on and says he'll "do it himself." Clearly this is the tease for all we've been waiting for in the MCU, getting to Infinity War, but I was kind of hoping we'd get something a little more exciting. This was a given, we knew we'd get some kind of scene to get us one step closer to Thanos. A post-credits scene would've been nice. Tease Black Panther, tease Doctor Strange, tease Captain Marvel, heck even give us something funny like the shawarma scene from the first Avengers film. Oh well, another minor disappointment with the film, but nothing overly devastating.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Watch it with the rest of the MCU, and this will feel like a letdown. Watch it on its own and you'll find a bit more entertainment value in Avengers: Age of Ultron. It adds a few more characters to the MCU and sets things up for a much bigger picture down the road in Phase 3. Although, if you expect this to be one of the great masterpieces in the MCU, you'll probably be disappointed.

Avengers: Age of Ultron and movie images are copyrighted by Marvel Studios

Marvel Mania 2: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx
Directed by: Marc Webb


While The Amazing Spider-Man had its fair share of critics, the film was still a financial success and laid the groundwork to expand the Spider-Man universe. So when plans for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 were being developed, I was pretty excited. I went to go see the movie in theaters, and I really enjoyed it. Then I got home, and over the course of that weekend, I heard nearly everyone hated the movie. I was at a loss for words. I couldn't believe that people were comparing this film to Spider-Man 3 and Batman & Robin. I can admit the film is flawed, but it's nowhere near THAT bad. I think a lot of the complaints fans had for this movie is the typical one you hear about when comic book movies fail. There's too much going on. But I think the fanboys had a bit more poison in their words because they were still bitter that these movies existed at a time when Spider-Man should be part of the MCU. In less than 2 weeks, that dream will become reality, but until then, let's look at what got fan boys so worked up about The Amazing Spider-Man 2, while I also note some of the unsung praises the film deserves.

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is one of the key things holding these two movies together so strongly. The fact that she is a competent female character who actually assists Spider-Man in his saving of New York City is actually very refreshing. Sure, there are times when she's in danger, but can hold her own for the most part. She's certainly miles ahead of Mary Jane. She's also a natural spitfire, which leads to a lot of clever humor and timing for her character. And I think the relationship Gwen has with Peter is absolutely adorable. You can really believe the love story that's going on and a lot of that is from the natural chemistry Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield had. A lot of that was because they were actually dating at the time and it's a shame they aren't anymore. If those scenes of Peter and Gwen are any indicator, the emotion they were giving at that time was very real.

One of the things most criticized about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is Jamie Foxx's hammy portrayal of Electro. Yeah, I'd be lying if I said I didn't see the problem. It's just so over the top that it's really distracting for a main villain. The design is interesting and Foxx can be entertaining when he's really trying, but this wasn't a good portrayal of Electro. He goes from an obsessive, unassuming geek to a neon blue killer. It doesn't really add up. His motivations are all over the place and it really feels like they're making up his powers as they go. He would have probably done better in the supporting villain role than the main baddie.

The villain that steals the show is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn. Like Andrew Garfield, DeHaan is one of those up-and-coming actor's actors and he really sinks his teeth into playing Harry. Some of his performance seems a bit goofy, but I really liked what he did with Harry. You see a tormented soul, feeling neglected by his father. He finds some solace in rekindling an old friendship with Peter, and we see him have a personal hatred for Spider-Man because he's the hero that's supposed to help everyone, but won't help him. It's all very identifiable and when he transforms into the Green Goblin, it's very tragic. They go for a biological approach to the Goblin's look and I think it works when you see it in action. You look at it in a still picture from the film, and you'll probably laugh it off. Watch the film and his transformation scene, and it will actually be a bit frightening to some viewers. Kudos to the makeup team and the editors for putting that scene together. It actually makes me cringe, especially if see the extended version in the bonus features. They tested that scene with audiences and there were complaints it frightened the children too much. That's when you know you're doing it right, in my opinion.

There's a lot crammed into this film, and in doing so, many questions or characters were teased to be more involved in later films. While that's all nice and dandy if you're planning for a bunch of sequels, you still need to give enough substance to make us enjoy the current film we're watching. One example of them getting carried away was the near disrespect they gave to The Rhino. While I'm sure he was going to be a big part of the future of this franchise, his lack of screen time is hugely noticeable. Plus, they wasted the talents of a perfectly good Paul Giamatti, who really liked the character and was looking forward to playing The Rhino. I can only imagine his disappointment in this series getting cancelled.

At the end of it all, this felt like a Spider-Man film to me. It just didn't register well with everyone else. Yes, moments in it can be silly, there are a ton of plot holes, and it feels like filler as they were building to a bigger movie. But this is an adaptation of a comic book we're talking about, there's a suspension of disbelief that comes with that and there are comics in which many issues are bridging chapters, taking us from one major story to the next. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, to me, is misunderstood. You can see from the filmmakers that they had an idea and vision for this series, but the studios interfered and the fans weren't patient enough for the big payoff. Everything needed to happen then and there, and when it didn't, people got upset. They have that right to be, but I think a film like this is a lesson in how good things come to those who wait. Had we been patient, we would have gotten to see Spider-Man take on The Sinister Six in a future movie, and there were talks of a Venom spinoff as well. Now, we're starting all over. I'm not complaining, since I love Spider-Man and always will, but we have to wait even longer now to get to some of those stories we really wanted to see. Here's hoping the Spider-Man that Sony and the MCU have put together is here a lot longer than the last Spider-Man was.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

While far from perfect, this film certainly kept me entertained as a Spider-Man fan. While we'll never get to see that Sinister Six film, making this whole reboot a waste of time, there's still some stuff to enjoy here. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 gave us an idea of what a larger Spider-Man world could look like, and I think it needed a few more sequels and a little bit of hindsight to let everything play out and show the bigger picture.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and movie images are copyrighted by Columbia Pictures

Marvel Mania 2: The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans
Directed by: Marc Webb


After the critical failure that was Spider-Man 3, the studio was left in a state of flux on what to do next. They tried to get the original gang back for a Spider-Man 4 and finally said "screw it!" It was time to start fresh and try again at telling the story of how Peter Parker became Spider-Man, but with a darker, grittier tone than we'd seen before. In retrospect, it was also to make sure they'd keep the rights to Spider-Man from falling into the hands of Marvel Studios. The good thing about that is that history always has a way of weaving itself out and now Sony AND Marvel Studios have an opportunity to do the Spider-Man movies they want in a much bigger universe. But that's a discussion for another time. On with this film, The Amazing Spider-Man. As far as this film series goes, it's very polarizing. People either love or hate what they did in the Spider-Man reboot, but all I could see was that there was room for at least 2 Spider-Man adaptations that worked for different reasons. We were given a lot of things we've seen before, but with a new spin (pun intended). And there was definitely room to improve on some things that the other movies didn't get right, so let's see how The Amazing Spider-Man fares out as a comic book film, a standalone film, and a reboot to a property we've previously seen on film.

Let's get to the first major positive for the movie, the choice for Spider-Man. I loved Andrew Garfield's work in The Social Network (one of my all-top favorite movies), so I was on board with him playing Peter Parker. And when I saw the film, I was very into his performance. He's a character that shows a lot of promise in the realms of growth and development. He makes mistakes, but he learns from them. He's socially awkward and nerdy, but has the ability to crack a lot of jokes and gain confidence when he's Spider-Man. He feels much more based on the Ultimate Spider-Man comics than the traditional Spider-Man comics. The older comics felt reflected by MaGuire, but Garfield has the more up to date approach to the character. We live in a world where the stereotypical nerds can be handsome and popular, so the formula doesn't translate on film as well. To play Peter as more of a loner to be picked on was a smarter decision creatively. On top of that, I know a lot of people complained about the costume, but I really enjoyed it. It was a style of suit that felt very resourceful for Peter to build, while also being a suit that is easily recognizable as something Spider-Man would wear. I know people really like Tobey MaGuire's performance, but I think that's out of nostalgia. If you hold both performances and what the actors bring to both Spider-Man AND Peter Parker, I think Garfield is the superior portrayal.

Part of Spider-Man's origin comes with getting to know Peter Parker and his family. His Uncle Ben and Aunt May are played by Martin Sheen and Sally Field in this film. I really liked what these veteran actors did, particularly with Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. You can tell he's having a blast in the role, so you can't help but have fun with him. And that makes it more tragic when he's gunned down. Sally Field is a great actress without even trying and I got that vibe with Aunt May. She's gone out recently to pretty much disown her performances in these movies, but I don't see the bad performance she sees. Maybe she just doesn't like superhero movies, to each their own. I saw the chemistry these two had with each other and with Garfield and I saw a family out of that. I saw the relationship I have with my Uncle and Aunt and I mean that in the best possible way.

To add even more to the awesome cast in this film is Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy. What else needs to be said? Denis Leary is the man and he is absolutely great as Captain Stacy. A minor character, but definitely is an ideal casting that leaves a lasting impression, just like what J.K. Simmons did with J. Jonah Jameson in the original trilogy.

If there was one negative the movie offers, it's Rhys Ifans as The Lizard. Don't get me wrong, I think he does fine when he's playing Dr. Curt Conners, but there's just something about the giant lizard creature that just doesn't work. I think it boils down to the design. The Lizard has always been one of Spider-Man's most visually appealing villains for me, so I can honestly say I was disappointed when he didn't look like what I was hoping for.

The new look at the story of Spider-Man maybe came a lot sooner than we were expecting, but it was an enjoyable alternate to the nostalgic Spider-Man movies of the past. The Amazing Spider-Man had a great cast and a unique style to it that feels like its own. Of course it has problems, but I think people have been extra harsh on this one, simply because it's different. Yes, many of the plot elements are hard to take seriously but let me remind everyone this is based off something that exists in the forms of comic books and children's cartoons. This is one of those reboots that has a lot of expectations to live up to the stuff we've seen from previous Spider-Man movies, as well as its competition in the form of the MCU. Because of that, I think a lot of people were quick to nitpick and were unable to take in the full experience. For me, I really liked what I saw and I'd even call The Amazing Spider-Man one of the best Spider-Man films to date.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

I know that people out there either love this reboot or hate it. Personally, I love it. The Amazing Spider-Man gave me a fresher, darker take on the Web-Slinger than I'd seen before. The cast is great, the action is well-executed, and the tone feels gritty, but not forced. There's room for more than one good adaptation out there, so if you enjoy all things Spider-Man, give this a watch to see what side of the debate you stand on.

The Amazing Spider-Man and movie images are copyrighted by Columbia Pictures

Marvel Mania 2: Spider-Man 3

Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco
Directed by: Sam Raimi


When you're a filmmaker like Sam Raimi, who has completely changed the landscape of superhero movies with the first two Spider-Man movies, you would hope the studio lets you do the movie you want to do. Because if they interfere, you get Spider-Man 3. Raimi, a fan of the older Spider-Man stories, really wanted to do a film that tied a dual plot with Spider-Man having conflicts with both Sandman and his former best friend Harry Osborn. The studio, looking at characters and stories that viewers thought were the most popular, suggested adding the Symbiote story to this all. They also wanted to create as many love triangles as possible, so they also tried to introduce the character of Gwen Stacy into the mix. So, Raimi went from a film that needed to focus on Spider-Man, Mary Jane, Harry, and Sandman to a film that needed those four characters, plus the black-suit Spider-Man storyline, plus Venom, plus Gwen Stacy, and have all of them link up to each other and make sense in a reasonable amount of time. No wonder this movie was a critical disaster. Let's take a look at how some very good ideas are lost in some really bad ideas to give us the messy results of Spider-Man 3.

Let's just get right off the bat and talk about one of the dumbest aspects of this movie: the Symbiote suit. This storyline, while one the big cornerstones of comic book folklore, was so poorly handled that it took a dark and tormenting story and turned it into what fans lovingly refer to as Emo Peter. For the most part, they properly showed how much of a power boost the new suit is for Peter, but they really mishandle how it alters Peter's personality. In the movie, they even say it alters aggression and we have one scene of that. After that scene, they play it up for comedy. Screw an emotionally tormenting story when you have humorous dance sequences and Peter demanding cookies. When you give us the amazing imagery from the teaser poster and teaser trailer that told the fans we were getting the black-suit story and then you give us the horrendously awful scenes of Spider-Man dancing like a reject from a Broadway musical (not HIS Broadway musical, but that's beside the point), you aren't going to have happy viewers.

And if THAT wasn't going to piss off comic book fans enough, what they did to Venom certainly was the straw that broke the camel's back on this film. Again, when you're looking at storylines involving Venom, you're looking at emotionally tormenting material. Venom is supposed to be everything Peter Parker, both physically and morally. In this film, they were going for a character that mirrored Peter physically, with the major difference being their moral code. I like Topher Grace when I watch him on That '70s Show, but he's not a good Eddie Brock at all. And then when Venom shows up, he's there for maybe the last half hour of the movie and is taken out very easily. This is FREAKING VENOM we are talking about here. If there was any character in the entire Spider-Man universe that is just as popular, if not MORE popular than Spider-Man, it's freaking Venom and they absolutely wrecked him in this film. In my opinion, any future reboots that are coming out and are thinking of tackling the Symbiote storyline need to plan for 2 movies. Introduce the suit and all of Peter's torment in the first film, then reveal Venom to close out your movie. Then you have an entire second movie where Spider-Man and Venom go at it. That isn't THAT difficult, so filmmakers please take my advice and plan it out that way.

One of the things I thought the film got right was Thomas Haden Church as Sandman. Admittedly, the story of him being Uncle Ben's killer might be a bit hokey to some, but with the original idea that Sam Raimi had for this story to fuel Spider-Man in a battle of revenge vs. forgiveness, it worked for what it was. The sand effects are actually done really well, including one scene that is absolutely beautiful thanks to the film's score. While maybe some of the creative elements of Sandman's involvement in the plot are questionable in quality, Church's performance is definitely not. He does a good job as Sandman and I wish he was in a better Spider-Man movie as Sandman.

The final main character in the trilogy that I can talk about is Harry Osborn, played by James Franco. With how big a name Franco is in the comedy world today, I wasn't expecting much looking back on his performance as Harry, but I was pleasantly surprised. He's one of the only characters that shows any major growth over the course of these three movies, but Spider-Man 3 is the one where they gave his character a few hiccups. After taking the mantle of being the New Goblin, they rush a fight between Peter and Harry only to give Harry amnesia so they can keep him out of the main story for a while. The amnesia is a little goofy and I could've done without that. Everything else with his character in this movie works for me. Seeing him blinded by rage, much like how Peter is towards Sandman, and seeing whether he'll bury the hatchet to help Peter take on Sandman and Venom. There's a considerable amount of growth from Harry when you go through these three movies. He's not following the same beats of his character in the first movie by the time you get to the third movie. Peter and Mary Jane always feel like they're doing the same old routine with every film, so I like that Harry is given material to exercise and play with over the course of this trilogy.

Spider-Man 3 had so much potential going for it, but ended up having too many cooks in the kitchen. There are so many storylines and characters to balance that it can't really satisfy anyone. Not a financial failure by any means, but people definitely noticed a change in quality and this movie has been the butt of numerous jokes in the comic book movie community. This was a comic book failure that came out at the wrong time. At this point EVERYTHING was going wrong with the Marvel movies. Shortly afterwards, the MCU took over (Thank God!) and we can look back on a movie like this and enjoy it for its silliness. If you're a comic book purist, you probably still have some sour grapes about how the creative process was handled on a lot of these things, but it holds that cheese value to it that a Batman & Robin would. But unlike that abomination, this has a lot more moments that are strong and well handled, they're just covered up by a lot of moments that make you smack your forehead and go "What?!?!"


Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

A hot mess that will leave fans of the Venom and Symbiote stories highly disappointed, Spider-Man 3 is one of those superhero movies that probably could've been better had studios not interfered. Had it followed Sam Raimi's original vision for the film, it probably would've been fine. But it is what it is and even though it's a franchise killer, it's one of those bad superhero movies with a bit of charm to its horribleness.

Spider-Man 3 and movie images are copyrighted by Columbia Pictures