My review of the Batman films

My review of the Batman films 

Intro: Why was this movie popular again? 

Batman 1989: I wish I could give a summary of this movie, but I can't because this film has no story beyond Batman trying to stop the Joker from killing people. The title of this movie should have been called Joker, because it's centered on the Joker. The movie suffers from plot holes, dumb moments, and a twist that's hard to swallow. Another thing that bugs me about this movie is that the people of Gotham did something stupid towards the end of the movie. I wish I could give the creators credit for trying to make a mature Batman film, but I don't get the sense that this movie was trying to do that. However, without this movie, we wouldn’t have other Batman films. plus the animated series. We don’t learn anything about Batman, the Joker, or any other character.   

I like how mysterious Batman is; however, I wish he was more of a detective, stealthier, intimidating, and didn't (My editor censored me.) I don't have much to say about Bruce Wayne because he's an enigma. The supporting characters were annoying; they didn’t do anything useful, especially the love interest, Vick Vale. All she did was scream. I'm not fond of the Joker, even though he can be amusing. I don't understand how Mr. Nicholson won an Oscar for this role. I mean, it's not hard to do physical comedy; that's what he did. When The Joker kills people, he's not scary or demented; it's hard for me to care about what the Joker is doing if I don’t know what motivates him. What does he want? 

A line from the movie

Vick: What do you want? 

the Joker: My face on the one-dollar bill.

WOW! He could have said anything like...

Me: What do you want?

the Joker: A happy meal, no, a flat-screen TV, no-no a lap dance from Naomi. Where did that come from?   

What makes this worse is that he's competing for the affection of the love interest, are you kidding me? There is one thing this movie got right about the Joker, and that is, he loves attention.  I'm annoyed that people compare this to other Batman films because that's not fair, that's like comparing LeBron James to Michael Jordon. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's stylish and entertaining. This movie could have been better if it had a story. 

all in all, this is one of those movies that lost its novelty over time. 

Rating = Rental



Intro: What the fudge did I just watch!?! 

Batman Returns: Oswald Cobblepot/the Penguin wants revenge on Gotham City for reasons that make no sense, so Batman has to stop him. You can say whatever you want about Batman and Robin, I'd rather watch that than this because that movie didn’t make me feel dead inside like this movie did. Also, you can make fun of how bad Batman and Robin is. What made WB think that this movie is appropriate for kids? 

One question. Why is this movie called Batman Returns? I mean, Batman didn’t go anywhere, plus he's just in the movie because his name is in the title, so again, why is this movie titled Batman Returns? This movie has the same problems as the previous film, like it's not about anything, continuity issues, Batman being overshadowed by the bad guys, and the villains having no motivations. I'm tired of villains being driven by insanity; for the most part, it's not a good or deep motivation. the fight scenes are lame because Batman can barely move in his Batsuit.   

We don't learn anything new about Batman/Bruce Wayne in this movie. 

This movie wasted the villain Oswald/the Penguin, I mean, the writers could have made him sympathetic, but they blew it. Instead, he's creepy and disturbing. 

Max Shrek (He's an ally of the Penguin.) is a ruthless businessman. I wish he hadn't stepped on the Penguin's toes. 

Selina Kyle/Catwoman is useless, and how she's portrayed in this movie might offend women. Selina Kyle is timid as Catwoman, she's a live wire. What bugs me about her is how did she become hard to kill?  

There isn't a lot I like about this movie. I mean, I enjoy the visuals. Overall, this movie failed to be just as entertaining or better than the first film. I would recommend this if you like Mr. Burton's films.     

Rating = Trash



Intro: WOW! We got Batman Begins before Batman Begins. 

Batman Mask of the Phantasm: This movie is about a masked killer called the Phantasm who is going around killing mobsters, and the police mistake this person for Batman, so Batman has to figure out who the Phantasm is, plus clear his name. 

This movie is a fine companion piece to the animated series! Not only is this a mystery film, but a tragic love story. That's one of the many things I like about this movie, which is making Batman a love story. Something that the other films are having trouble doing. What makes this movie a good mystery is that the director did things to throw us off, and the reveal has a slow build-up. I'm surprised by how violent this movie is. Don't worry, it's not too violent for kids. I'm also fond of how this movie gives us bits and pieces of Batman's origin. The theme of this movie is the future vs fate.     

This movie did a good job of humanizing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He's conflicted with the promise he made to his parents and having a life. What bugs me about Bruce is that we learn something about him that undermines his motivations to become Batman.

Andrea Beaumont is a good leading lady because she isn't helpless and she's full of personality. That's sad, I mean, it took an animated film to give us that. Despite being different from Bruce, we see how these two parallel each other. The only complaint I have with her is that when she reunites with Bruce, she's rude to him. We don't understand why she's like that.  

There isn't much to say about the Phantasm because this person is barely in the movie. When we do see this person, he or she is scarier than Batman. What makes the Phantasm scare is not only the mask, it's that the Phantasm can do things that Batman can't. 

Arthur Reeve is a pretty boy city officer who could be connected to the killing.     

The Joker is in this movie, and he's not here for fan service. He can be amusing and scary at the same time. My gripe with him is that he doesn't add anything to the story. Also, I'm not crazy about his involvement in all of this because it's similar to what was done with the Joker in the 89 film, but not as bad.  

One of the problems with the movie is that there are plot points that didn't get resolved. Another issue with this movie is that the mystery could have been better if there were more suspects, and the director didn't cheat us out of figuring out who the Phantasm is. The movie drops subtle hints about who the Phantasm is. What happened between Bruce and Andrea could have been prevented. There are plot holes with the ending. Also, I wish Jim Gordon had a bigger role in the movie. 

If I had a list of underrated movies, this is one of them. I would recommend this if you like mystery films.     

Rating = Worth seeing   


       
Intro: Am I the only one who finds it funny that parents complain that Batman Returns was too dark for kids? This is what I mean by parents ruining things. Batman is not for kids! That's why Robin was created in the comics to attract younger readers. If you want a family-friendly Batman film, rent the 1966 Batman. 

Batman Forever: The story involves Harvey Dent/Two-Face wanting revenge on Batman for an accident that wasn't his fault! Meanwhile, Edward Nygma/ The Riddler invents a device that will control the minds of Gotham’s citizens, so Batman has to stop him plus deal with his haunted past. 

This movie is mixed for me; it has elements that could make this film better; however, the creators didn't focus on them. Instead, they made this movie marketable for kids. It's hard for me to consider this a sequel to the first two films because of how different it is from the other two movies. This movie is more lighthearted than the last two. The themes of this movie are revenge and responsibility. I appreciate the director being creative with the look of Gotham in this movie. I'm fond of this movie addresses how trauma can affect your mind.   

I kind of like this Bruce Wayne/Batman because he's self-aware to some degree. We see how his parents murder still affects him after all these years. That's what bugs me about this character. The movie tried to get inside this character's head, but it didn't go far enough.   

Dick Grayson/Robin is a troubled young man who wants payback for his parents being murdered. You can relate to his pain because, before they died, they tried to do something noble, and Bruce tries to help him deal with that pain. The casting of Dick Grayson/ Robin bothers me because I don’t know how old this character is suppose to be in this movie, and the actor playing him is a grown man. Why would Bruce take him in? Also, he did something that ruined his arc in the movie.   

Once again, I was let down by the love interest, Dr. Chase, because there is a scene that gave me the impression that she wasn’t going to be the damsel in distress. How is she a therapist? I'm asking this because when she first meets Batman, she hits on him in the middle of a hostage situation. Are you kidding me? Also, she seems to be more interested in wanting Batman to get into her Batcave. (My editor pops me upside my head.) I mean, get in her head, then study him. That's my gripe with her; why have a therapist if the writers are not going to use her to get into the psyche of Batman?     

Two-Face is a joke. Whenever I see him trying to catch Batman, it reminds me of the Road Runner cartoon. What bugs me about him is that as soon as The Riddler appears, he makes Two-Face look useless. 

Edward Nygma/The Riddler (One of the villains) is a brilliant and disturbing man who has a grudge against Bruce Wayne. When he becomes the Riddler, he's over the top! I was let down that his riddles are not hard to figure out because it doesn't make Batman look like a detective.   

My grievance with this movie is the plot holes. The movie didn't take advantage of the character dynamics. The tone in this movie is uneven. One minute it's serious and the next minute it's funny. There is a moment where the villains could have killed Batman, but they didn't take it. WOW!?! Sidenote; why didn’t Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carry win an Oscar for playing baddies, I mean, they mimic Mr. Nicholson's performances as The Joker, so why didn’t they get Oscars? 

In closing, this movie was a waste of potential! The flaws with the film outweigh anything good about this movie.  

Rating = Rental    




Intro: What!?! Did you think I was going to pull my punches just because Mr. Schumacher (the director of this film) and everyone else who worked on this film apologized for how this movie turned out? Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that this movie exists. If anyone should apologize for how this movie turned out, it's Warner Bros studios because it was their idea to take the Batman films in this direction in the first place. 

Batman and Robin: Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy want to freeze Gotham City and give it back to the plant kingdom, so Batman and Robin have to stop them. This is not a movie; it's a two-hour-long toy commercial written by kids. This is just like the previous movie, but worse. Yes! There were some comedic elements in that film, but there were also some serious moments. 

Why would WB give us four serious Batman films and have the last one be the opposite of those films? What really bothers me about this movie is that I don’t know who the target audience is for this movie. I mean, I thought the ice puns were annoying, but sex puns, why would the writers put sex puns in a film that's suppose to be a family film? Once again, whatever good this movie has it's overshadowed by the film being marketable. What this movie has done with the characters bothers me because the creators could have done so much more with them.  

Bruce Wayne/Batman has an arc of learning how to work with others. 

Dick Grayson/Robin doesn't have much to do in this movie. The writers tried to do the Nightwing story, but it fell flat. Also, I wish the conflict between him and Batman hadn't been manipulated for the most part.   

Barbara Wilson shouldn't be in this movie because she doesn't offer anything to the story beyond adding emotional weight to a subplot. 

Alfred gets more screen time in this movie because of his subplot. This subplot helps Bruce appreciate that he's his rock, and the scenes between the two are touching. He's a good supporting character by telling Bruce what he needs to hear. The reason I didn't mention this character before is because the other movies haven't done much with him. 

Dr. Isley/Poison Ivy (One of the villains) is crafty and seductive by default. The reason I say that is because she blows Pheromone dust that hypnotizes people. What bugs me about her is that the actress who plays her is over the top. 

I'm not happy with what this movie has done to Mr. Freeze (another bad guy) because the creators tried to combine the goofy and serious aspects of the character. That wasn't a smart move because the end result was terrible. 

Bane (Poison Ivy's muscle) shouldn't be in this movie because A he serves no purpose in this movie. B he's a mindless muscle guy in this movie, this is a far cry from how he was in the comics.       

The only thing I like about this movie is the two scenes in the movie. Overall, this movie almost killed superhero films! I can't recommend this if you like the 1960s Batman because that's better than this.  

Rating = Trash 

Intro: This movie should be used in a writing class called How to Revive a Franchise? 

Batman Begins: This movie is centered on Bruce Wayne/Batman, who left Gotham City seven years ago to do some soul searching after he experienced a traumatic event when he was little. After that, he comes back to Gotham and decides to go on a crusade to save his city with the help of allies. During his fight against crime, he learns about a conspiracy that could destroy Gotham, so Bruce/Batman has to stop it before it's too late.   

This is a classic one person can make a different story! I love how this movie tells Batman’s origin, because this movie answers some of the unanswered questions about his origin that the comics didn’t. For example, what happened to the man who killed Bruce's parents and who supplied Bruce with his gadgets? Also, the movie gave us a deeper reason why Bruce Wayne became Batman? The downside to this is that it doesn't make him mysterious. Bruce's parents being murdered is sad, not because it happened, it's because we got to know them a little bit before they died. The movie also works as a father-and-son story. Fear is a major theme in this movie; the movie deals with different aspects of that theme. That's something I appreciate about this movie because we have problems controlling that emotion. I'm fond of the way this movie ended; you have to watch the movie to see why.   

Bruce Wayne/Batman is a self-centered, fun-seeking playboy to the public; in private, he's a man on a mission to save his city. He's driven by his parents murder to help fix the city and inspire others to do the same. This is what makes this Bruce Wayne/Batman different from the comics. People might have issues with what he did in the climax.          

Alfred (Bruce's Butler) feels like a surrogate father to Bruce, and he's his voice of reason. Plus, he can be sarcastic. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't consider or realize that he's putting Bruce in his father's shadow.   

Lucius Fox (Someone who works at Wayne Enterprises) provides tech support for Bruce. 

Sgt. Gordon is an improvement over how he was portrayed in the early films. The reason why I didn't mention him in my reviews is because he was incompetent in those films. Seriously, where did he get his badge from Toy R Us? He's an upstanding cop trying to do the right thing. I'm surprised at how much he was able to do in this movie.   

Rachel Dawes is Bruce's childhood friend, who is a determined Lawyer. What bugs me about her is that she's a helpless love interest; this wouldn't bother me if she didn't come off as tough at times. There is a scene where she expresses disappointment with Bruce. I understand why she felt that way, but it's easy to berate someone when you don't experience their pain. Plus, she's making things worse for Bruce.     

Henri Ducard is Bruce's mentor when he was away; he teaches him what he needs to know about fighting crime. 

Dr. Crane/Scarecrow (One of the baddies) is like his comic book counterpart as far as studying people's fears and using them against others.   

The problems I have with this movie are that some of the fight scenes are shot too close to the point where you don't know what's going on? The twist in the movie won't surprise you if you're a Batman fan. This movie has another Batman villain, and he's kind of wasted in this movie. His plan will bug you if you're a science person. Basically, this is one of those movies that's been overshadowed by the sequel; because of that, I feel bad that this film is not on the list of my favorite movies. 

Rating = Treasure Chest  



Intro: We have another Batman movie that shouldn't be marketed towards kids, what gives WB? 

The Dark Knight: This movie takes place a year after Batman started his war against crime. He has made progress with the help of Lt. James Gordon and DA Harvey Dent. Meanwhile, someone called the Joker makes things difficult for them by putting them in a tough position. So, the three men have to figure out a way to stop him without throwing away all the work they have done. 

WB is lucky that this movie lived up to the hype! Seriously, isn't that what hurt the 98 Godzilla movie? Despite feeling like I've seen a movie that deals with order vs chaos before, the director made it feel fresh. You can see the action scenes a little bit better, and I learn something new about the justice system. Batman fans will be happy to see him do some detective work in the movie. I like the message this movie has, that is, we shouldn’t rely on one person to fix everything; everyone has a role to play in that. This movie may be long, but it's well-paced. The love triangle is handled well, for the most part, part of the reason is because the characters a mature about it.  

Bruce Wayne/Batman is put to the test as far as figuring out how far he's willing to go to stop the Joker and maintain order? The only complaint I have with him is that he didn't have a strong reaction about (My editor censored me from spoiling anything.) Batman. Also, he looks foolish for not listening to Alfred when he tried to warn him about the Joker. 

Alfred is more supportive of Bruce being Batman.

Despite Rachel being played by a different actress, she didn't give this character any justice. 

There isn't much to say about Lt. Gordon; he's doing his part to clean his city of crime. 

Harvey Dent is a ray of sunshine! My only gripe with him is that I don't know why he got his nickname? 

This Joker is one of the best villains on screen! What makes him a good villain is that he's so unpredictable because he represents chaos. He also provides most of the humor in the movie; he gets us to laugh at things that we shouldn't laugh at, like killing people. You start to wonder if he's psychic due to how he plans things. There is a scene that makes the Joker's henchmen look scarier. Do I really have to explain why that's an issue?      

One of the problems I have with this movie is that Batman didn't use fear against criminals like he did in the previous movie; however, it's tricky for him to do that in some scenes in the movie. Some of the dialogue is misplaced; there are things that characters should have said sooner. This movie would have ended sooner if one of the mobsters hadn't been stupid. The director made some mistakes directing this movie. 

Overall, this is one of the best sequels I've seen since T2. I would recommend this to everyone.    

Rating = Treasure Chest    



Intro: Mr. Nolan would be a better director if he learned how to film a fight.           

The Dark Knight Rises: This movie takes place 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, and Gotham has been peaceful to the point where Bruce stops being Batman. Meanwhile, a new enemy name Bane has come to disrupt that peace. So, Bruce Wayne, despite his condition, has to become Batman again and stop this new foe with the help of old and new allies. 

This movie was a huge disappointment! Just like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand, this should have been two movies because A, the movie is almost three hours long. B, the creators tried to adapt the No Man's Land story, that story lasted over a year. Speaking of No Man's Land, the movie focuses on the visual aspect of that story, not the story itself. The movie foreshadows how it's going to end, and it's too connected to the first film. I thought this movie would extend on the themes from the last film, but the film did a poor job at doing that.  

This movie didn't mention or reference a character from the previous film. For the sake of spoilers, I'm not going to say who it is, really. I'm surprised that I'm the only person who's complaining about this, as far as I know. The fight between Batman and Bane was lackluster. I wish the fight hadn't been shot so close. I can understand the problems that people have with this movie, like Batman is barely in this movie, intelligent, insulting moments, and Bane’s voice. My grievance with this movie involves plot holes; the first act and other parts of the film feel rushed, and plot points need more work. Also, am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that nothing happened in eight years?  

Bruce Wayne/Batman is a mess in this movie. I understand why he's like this; however, I'm having a hard time buying that what happened in the last movie would affect him this much. Plus, it ruined the ending of the last film, and it makes it difficult for me to feel sorry for one thing that happened to him in this movie. Also, he did things that should have given the people of Gotham the idea that he's Batman. I know what the writers were trying to do with this character, but it was done in poor taste. 

I don't like Alfred in this movie because he feels like a different person. I mean, he's against Bruce becoming Batman again for reasons that I don't buy. The writers tried to get us to feel sorry for him, but you don't because he kind of brought this pain on himself. 

I feel bad for Commissioner Gordon because we see how the events in the last film affect him. However, we don't know how they affect him. Sadly, he doesn't do much in this movie, plus he did something to give Bane the upper hand. 

John Blake is a stand-up guy. What bugs me about him is how he knows one thing. I'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. The explanation he gave us wasn't bad; however, he could have been wrong. Plus, I'm not crazy about what we learn about him.       

Selina Kyle is a street-smart woman who knows how to manipulate her way out of almost every situation. What bugs me about her is that her motivations are understandable, but they're not justified. Plus, her goal in the movie makes no sense. Her dynamic with Batman could have been better; they can relate to each other, but Batman has no reason to trust her.    

What this movie has done with Bane (The main villain) angers me; he's the same Bane from Batman and Robin. The only difference between the two is his attire; he doesn't have venom, and he talks. Sometimes he sounds smart, other times he doesn't. His plan to destroy Gotham makes no sense because it contradicts itself. Also, the creators did something that made him look less credible; they changed his backstory, and I didn’t like what happened to him in the last act.   

The things I like about the movie are that it's well-made, the character moments, comic book references, some funny moments, and addressing the ups and downs of lying for the greater good. Basically, this movie didn't give us the best ending for this trilogy. That's a shame because the story was fine; it's just that the screenplay needs more work. I would recommend this if you like Rocky 3. 

Rating = Trash

My review of the Spider-Man films

My review of the Spider-Man films 

Intro: It's a miracle that this movie got made considering the production history of this film. Seriously is anyone interested in James Camron's version of this movie?  

Spider-Man: This movie is centered on a boy name Peter Parker/Spider-Man who gets spider-like abilities after getting bit by a spider. After experiencing a tragedy, he decides to use his abilities to help others. One day someone called the Green Goblin is wreaking havoc on New York, so Spider-Man has to stop him. 

This movie didn't live up to the hype! It wasn't bad but it wasn't good either. Besides the origin story, there isn't much going on in the movie beyond Spider-Man trying to stop the Green Goblin. The movie would have ended sooner or been better if the characters were proactive. Some of the dialogue in this movie makes some of the scenes awkward. The tragic thing I mentioned would have worked if it had emotional weight. The character stuff are underwhelming because the movie does the bare minimum with most of them. 

Peter Parker/Spider-Man is smart and depressing. This interpretation of the character cramps the movie's tone and atmosphere. What bothers me about this character (Besides him having no reason to be into MJ.) is that the movie doesn't showcase how smart he is. For example, there is a scene where he did something stupid. I don't like how he got bit by the spider I'm going to leave it at that. Plus we don't get to know Peter before he gets his powers. Peter barely jokes when he's Spider-Man when he does it feels tacked on. 

I don't have much to say about Uncle Ben and Aunt May because the movie hasn't done much with them. 

The Mary Jane in this movie could have been like her comic book counterpart if she was confident. I mean she let her home life affect her moon. It's hard to appreciate her dynamic with Peter because she's the girl next door. Why didn't she talk to him sooner?  

Harry Osborn is Peter's best friend who has daddy issues. The only complaint I have with him is that he violated the bro code. 

Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin is a businessman who's too busy to be there for his son Harry. He gets overlooked for being sympathetic, but the movie doesn't focus on why we should feel his pain. When he becomes the Green Goblin, he's scary and demented. 

With that said this doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible villain. He causes trouble with no rhyme or reason, he does have a goal, but the movie rushed it. I feel bad for saying that because the actor who plays him does an excellent job playing this role, but the character wasn't written well. What annoys me about him is how he become the green goblin was contrived. Also, when the villain is scarier without the costume a redesign is in order. 

The movie can be enjoyable with its entertainment value. I like that it sets up conflicts for the next movie plus the opening credits. The City of New York feels like a character itself in this movie. The movie made references to the source marital and I enjoy certain scenes in the movie. J. Jonah Jameson is the best thing in this movie because he feels like a cartoon character. The actor playing him embodied this character. 

Overall, this is a stander superhero film that could have been better than it was. 

Rating = Rental 

Intro: This movie is overrated! I'm just kidding. 

Spider-Man 2: This movie takes place two years after the first film and we see how much of a toll being Spider-Man has on Peter. Meanwhile, a scientist is working on an experiment that could endanger the city. So he has to decide if he's going to stay the course or quit being Spider-Man before that can happen.

This movie leaps and bounds over its predecessor! The movie is funnier no thanks to Spider-Man with its gags. I also like the opening credits because it shows us what happens in the previous film which makes this film standalone. The movie recreates some of the scenes in the last movie but they're done differently. What makes this movie stand out is the character stuff, the movie focus on that first and the story second. I'm impress with how this movie manages to balance all of the subplots in this movie, it's done in a way that the movie doesn't feel stuffed. Sacrifice is the theme of this movie, we see characters make sacrifices and deal with the consequences of those choices. This movie took inspiration from Spider-Man no more as you will see for those who read comic books. The train scene is the best scene in this movie! You'll understand why when you see it. 

Peter Parker/Spider-Man goes through a trial by fire in this movie. Peter gets pounded in this movie by almost everyone and he's even taunted by the things he wants to the point where you feel like the universe is punishing him. (Peter being taunted by his desires would have been funny if someone was playing MC Hammer's can't touch this in the background.) I'm surprised that the subtitle for this movie wasn't everyone hates Peter if it had one. 

To be fair Peter broth some of the misery on himself by making promises he can't keep. It's understandable why he would consider quitting being Spider-Man because his life is going down the toilet because of it. Also quitting is not always a bad thing. What bothers me about this character is that there is a plot point that creates a plot hole. I thought this would lead to something in the next movie but it ends up being a metaphor. 

Aunt May is Peter's voice of reason in this movie. 

I don't have much to say about Mary Jane in this movie besides her being in a good place in this movie as far as being famous. What annoys me about her is that she did something at the end of the movie that's messed up. Also, the movie doesn't justify why we should care about her and Peter wanting to get together. 

Harry Osborn is unstable in this movie. I say that because he's become almost obsessed with Spider-Man and this causes a strain between him and Peter. That's what bugs me about him I understand why he blames Spider-Man for his father's death but that doesn't make him look less irrational about his hate for him. 

Dr. Otto Octavius / Dr. Octopus (the main villain.) is a brilliant scientist who's also a tragic character. I say that because awful things happen to him in this movie that causes him to throw caught to the wind to make his experiment work. This is what makes him one of the best bad guys. He's doing this experiment because he believes it will help mankind not because he wants death and destruction. He fights Spider-Man because he's in his way not because he has a grudge against him. 

One of the problems I have with this movie is that there is a scene in the movie that feels like it doesn't belong in the film. The conflict between Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus wouldn't exist if ( Censor) with Dr. Octopus. Also, the movie has editing problems. 

All in all, this movie deserves to be considered one of the best superhero movies because it breaks away from what these films use to be. If you didn't like the first film I would recommend this. 

Rating = Worth Seeing    

            

Intro: This is going to be difficult I mean what can I say about this movie that's already been said? 

Spider-Man 3: Peter Parker/Spider-Man is on top of the world in this movie I mean things are working out in his favor for the most part. That change when a symbiote gets on his Spider-Man suit, it enhances his abilities and affects his personality. So Peter have to get rid of the symbiote before it gets too attached to him, plus deal with Harry wanting retribution and a bank robber.  

This movie is a prime example of what happens when you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. Not splitting this film into two movies was a mistake because the movie tried to do some much that it ends up accomplishing nothing. The movie feels like it's running around in circles, it establishes a plot point and then ignores it for another one. Things wouldn't have played out the way they did if it didn't have a lot of contrives. The movie features two other characters from the Spider-Man comics and they're pointless. I mean one feels like a cameo and the other is there to add drama between the characters. 

How the symbiote is introduced in the movie was lazy, I thought it was going to be incorporated the way the animated series did it. The movie doesn't explain how the symbiote works? There is a scene in the movie that's suppose to be funny but it ends up being a distraction because it belongs in a parody. Speaking of parodies there's a fight scene in the movie that's treated as a joke why!?! The movie has another scene that should have been cut out of the movie because it doesn't add anything to the story. I find it hard to believe that Sam Raimi (The director of the last two films.) directed this one because he borrowed elements from the last film and made them worst. The way this movie resolved things was troubling I'll leave it at that. 

Peter Parker/Spider-Man feels like the master of the universe in this movie to the point where he kind of lets it go to his head. That's understandable considering how he was treated beforehand. I'm surprised that he wants to take his relationship with MJ to the next level because his money situation hasn't seem to change. What bugs me about this character is when the symbiote attaches itself to Peter it suppose to make him do awful things but most of the things he did are not terrible. Heck, he did more messed up things before the symbiote like not telling "Censor" father and "Censor" MJ. Why is this movie's tagline the battle within if we don't see it? 

Mary Jane is unlikeable in this movie, to be fair Peter has a role to play in that. I say that because she being pity, takes jabs about how much money Peter has and when Peter try's to boost her morale she blows him off. Yeah! I can see why Peter wants to put a ring on it Oops! Their relationship is unhealthy because one person is full of himself and the other doesn't talk about her shortcomings in life. MJ needs therapy because her daddy issues will ruin her life.

Harry Osborn got the short end of the stick in this movie and that's saying a lot. His only function in the movie is to seek revenge against Peter for killing his father. I wouldn't have mind that if he was crafty about it. The movie had a chance to do that but didn't take it. What annoys me about him is what happened to him in the climax because he didn't deserve that.  

Aunt Mary is awesome as always, she continues to give Peter words of wisdom.        

Flint Marko/Sandman (One of the villains.) is not a character in this movie he's an empty vessel. The movie tries to make him sympathetic instead we got a sob story, it's done in a way that's manipulative and offensive to anyone who's in the same situation as Flint. If the writers feel the need to have this guy say he's not a bad person that's not a good sign. How he becomes Sandman will leave you speechless, I hope NASA isn't this careless. What bothers me about this character is how he's connected to Peter's past. I understand why this was done however I would prefer to have Flint do something in the present to get peter's attention instead of shoehorning him in like this. Sandman shouldn't be in the film because he's too powerful for Spider-Man if you ask me. 

I'm not happy with what this movie has done with Eddie Brock/Venom, he's a delusional slime ball in this movie. This is a far cry from his characterization from the comics. I know Mr. Raimi doesn't like this character but he could have shown the character enough respect to do him right. He's underdeveloped in this movie and his rivalry with peter is underwhelming. 

What I like about this movie is that it can be funny at times. I appreciate this movie tried to deal with the theme of forgiveness despite dropping the ball on that subject. Peter gets to do science stuff in this movie. I feel bad for bashing this movie because it was a victim of studio interference and being overshadowed by its predecessor. However, that doesn't change how the finale produce turned out. If this was two movies instead of one it could have been a great film, but instead, we got this mess of a film. I would recommend this if you like soap operas because this movie reminds me of that. 

Rating = Trash     

Intro: Sony what's the point of rebooting this franchise if you're not going to do anything new? 

The Amazing Spider-Man: This film is about a boy name Peter Parker/Spider-Man who's an outcast that wants to find out what happened to his parents? He gets sidetracked after getting bitten by a spider that gives him unnatural abilities so he has to deal with them. Meanwhile, a scientist from Oscorp name Dr. Connors is working on a treatment that will benefit humanity. Doing that turns into an issue that will affect the city so Peter have to fix it.

Amazing is the last word I would use to describe this movie! The way this movie was advertised affects my enjoyment of it. For example, this movie ruined the small knives gag it was handled better in the trailer. Also, some scenes were cut out of the film for studio reasons because of that the movie suffered from editing problems. Retelling Peter's origin was almost pointless because A there are parts of it that was handled worse and B the creators could have done a better job at making his origin connected to the overall plot. 

Fans are not going to be happy with how the web shooters are incorporated in this movie. The movie makes it seem like Peter is destined to be Spider-Man, if this movie was about destiny, I wouldn't have minded it. This movie focusing on Peter's parents is not enough to call this the untold story. Speaking of that what was the point of having the untold story in the ads if we're not going to see it? The movie tries to separate itself from the first film, but it ends up repeating that film in some aspects. There were two plot points that when nowhere did the writers forget? The movie didn't incorporate the famous line, I understand why the director did it this way however it still could have been put in the movie. 

Peter Parker/Spider-Man is a brilliant and troubled young man. I say that because despite having an Aunt and Uncle he feels lost without his parents. What bugs me about him is that once again the movie doesn't display how smart his, when it does it feels tacked on. The writers give this character a lot of traits without flushing them out. Also, he doesn't do a good job at keeping a low profile. Plus he did something to Gwen Stacy that's messed up. Another thing is it me or does his Spider-Man suit look like it was made out of the same material as a basketball? 

Aunt May is stern and overprotective. 

Uncle Ben is a good male figure in peter's life. You feel his pain I mean he tries his best to help Peter but he can't. He's (censor) may be considered worse depending on who you ask. 

Gwen Stacy is a smart girl who's also a daddy's girl. Unlike MJ she isn't helpless. I don't like the romance between her and Peter, they didn't go on a date, they don't have much in common all they want to do is liplock. Heck, they don't talk about science, (That's the reason why they were drawn to each other in the comics.) when Peter says he loves science Gwen's shocked. I get why these two are into each other, but we don't understand why until after the fact.  

I don't have much to say about Capt. Stacy, he's a standard by-the-book cop and protective father.  

Dr. Connor's/The Lizard (the main villain.) is wasted in this movie. I say that because the writers could have done more with him but they didn't. Seriously what's the point of having him in the movie if he's just going to be a plot device? When he's the Lizard he's forgettable. His plan towers the end of the movie was lame, I know it's in the comics but it doesn't make it better. 

I like that Spider-Man is sarcastic in this movie. It sets up a conflict for the next movie. Overall, I don't think this movie was bad I was just let down by it. It looks like it took inspiration from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics but it's not as good as those comics. I would recommend this if you want to see if this is different from the first film. 

Rating = Rental 

My review of the secret of NIMH

 My review of the secret of NIMH 

 

Intro: What was Disney thinking letting the director of this movie go? 

The secret of NIMH: This movie is centered on a mouse name Mrs. Brisby who's trying her best to care for her ill son. Things are about to get worse for her when a farmer is about to plow her home and she can't move her son. So, she goes on a journey to figure out how to get out of this dilemma? 

If I had a list of the best underdog stories this movie would be on it. The conflict in this movie feels like a no-win situation. That gets us interested in seeing how Mrs. Brisby is going to resolve things? This is a mature story for kids for its time. I say that because of the tone of the movie, the deaths and the subjects this movie deals with. Speaking of those subjects, this movie deals with morality and evolution. I like the world-building in this movie because it seems like there are different factions with the animals. We also see them adapt to being at the farmer's mercy. I appreciate that science and magic don't overshadow each other. What can I say about the animation, it's beautiful! 

Mrs. Brisby is a timid mother. Despite that, she's willing to face any danger to save her sick son. That's what I like about this character is that she's brave despite her fears. The only complaint I have with her is that her journey gets kind of easy when she learns about how her late Husband is connected to NIMH.   

Jeremy is annoying! He suppose to be the comic relief but he's aggravating. Plus, he doesn't know when to stop talking! He does help Mrs. Brisby but he could have been written out of the movie. 

Mr. Ages is a brilliant and cranky man who helps Mrs. Brisby with her son.  

Jenner (One of the rats.) is conniving and power-hungry. That's what bugs me about this character he's underdeveloped. The movie paints him as the villain and he didn't need to be one. 

One of the problems I have with this movie is the title, I mean this movie doesn't focus on the secret of NIMH. I wish the movie had the same title as the book it's based on. This movie could have been about unity, but the writers didn't take advantage of that idea. Just because I don't mind magic being in the movie doesn't change the fact that it's distracting. 

Overall, this is one of the best kid's films that other films like this should strive to be. I would recommend this to everyone. 

Rating = Worth Seeing

My Blade Runner review

 My Blade Runner review

Intro: This movie puts the saying life is too short into perspective.

Blade Runner: The movie takes place in the future of L.A. in the year 2019. There are bio-androids called replicants that are created to do the work most people won’t do on space colonies. Four advanced replicants rebel, and they go to Earth to look for their creator. Because replicants being on Earth is illegal, a police division called blade runners have to retire them. (by retire I mean kill)

This is one of those movies that I don’t think is bad, I don’t put it in high regard as everyone else does. This is one of the hardest movies for me to review because this film is about the ideas it presents than telling a story. That’s not a bad thing; however, it makes the movie boring due to its lack of action and engaging characters. This leads to another problem I have with the movie, the slow pacing; it doesn’t help the movie either. The movie could have been better if the director focus on the replicant’s dilemma first and what separates them from humans second.

Also, I’m not impressed with how this movie goes about separating humans from the replicants, the movie goes about it by asking them 20 or 35 questions to get an emotional response. I don’t consider this the best method because, first of all, there are things that can dehumanize us, like being subjected to war, slavery, rape, working for the Government, State, or organizations and being alienated by your friends, family or peers. Second, prosecutors do this all the time. Heck, there are religious groups that tell you not to respond emotionally. This is kind of pointless later on in the film because it shows that there are ways around this.

Deckard is a former blade runner who’s a loner. Because he was good at his job, he was brought back to retire the four replicants. What bugs me about him is that the movie drops hints that he could be a replicant. If that’s true, then this could open up a can of worms.

Racheal is an assistant of Eldon Tyrell CEO of the Tyrell corporation. (The company that created the replicants.) She put Deckard in a difficult situation. What bugs me about her is that she doesn’t do much as a supporting character.

Despite Roy, the leader of the rogue replicants, being a ruthless killer in the movie, I do feel sorry for him. He feels like he was ripped off because the replicants have a short life span. I wish this movie was told from his point of view. I have an issue with the replicants, they are better than humans physically, but not mentally, due to their aging the same as humans mentally. If that’s the case, then how can they do labor work if they are not mature enough to do them?

I like the movie’s visuals and the cyberpunk look of the film. I’m also fond of the ending. I can’t get into this without spoiling it. Overall, this movie fell short for me. With that said, I would recommend this if you like noir films.

Ranting = Rental    

My Minority Report review

My Minority Report review 

Intro: Mr. Spielberg (The director of this movie.) dropped the ball on this one.

Minority Report: This movie takes place in the year 2054 a police department called Precrime are arresting people for crimes they will commit in the future. One day one of the officers name John Anderton learns that he will kill someone that he doesn’t know. So he has to avoid precrime and figure out why he’s going to kill the person in question? How in the world was this movie well received and won awards!?! I’m sorry but having the idea of dealing with free will versus predetermination means nothing if the writers don’t do anything with those themes.

That’s one of the many things that bugs me about this movie, preventing crimes isn't the best thing for the movie to do social commentary on. First of all this idea is not new, second the Department of Justice didn't make a big deal about it until six years after the fact. Don't get me wrong just because an idea isn't new that doesn't mean it can't be thought-provoking but that's not the case here. We have one conversation about how precrime is stopping crimes and it’s terrible because precrime doesn’t give us a straight answer. 

Here's an example of how the conversation played out. 

 

Also, it’s missing the human factor, I mean how does the general public feel about Precrime only stopping murders, are the other crimes a big deal to them? Also are they happy that the people who were about to commit the crime are not getting the same punishment as if they committed the crime? Speaking of punishment in order for Precrime to get the information that crimes will happen they have to torture three Psychics, I’m sure the public might feel differently about Precrime if they learn that. The movie does acknowledge how the religious community feel about the three Psychics but the movie could have done more with that. Another thing that hurts this movie is the pacing, it gives the Star Wars prequels a run for its money. Plus, the movie looks bland due to a lack of color palette. 

The movie also has dumb moments in it for explain precrime has John Anderton cornered instead of rushing him they approach him slowly like he's a wild animal, why!?! The mystery of why John is going to kill the person in question wasn’t good because A the reason was foreshadowed and B there are smarter ways for him to avoid him. The only good thing about this movie is the future tech and this movie is almost accurate to the book it's based on. The bottom line is this is not a clever sci-fi movie it’s a chase movie for the most part. I would recommend this if you want a good nap.

Rating = Trash            

My review of Marvel films that led up to the Avengers

My review of Marvel films that led up to the Avengers 

Intro: Am I the only one who thinks this movie is overrated? (Everyone is pointing their guns at me.) 

I was just asking.  

Iron Man: This movie is centered on Tony Stark/Iron Man, who runs a company that manufactures weapons. After presenting his latest weapon, he goes through an ordeal that helps him see the downside of the type of business he's running. Because of that, Tony wants to take his company in a different direction; that becomes difficult when he is being undermined. So he has to overcome that the best he can. 

Basically, this movie is a redemption story. Tony is rebuilding himself both publicly and privately. Just like Batman Begins, this film focuses more on the Protagonist than the alter ego. Unlike Batman Begins, this movie made Tony become Iron Man fun; we enjoy watching Tony figure out what he wants his Iron Man suit to do. The story may be simple, but you don't mind it because of how engaging the main character is. I notice two Easter eggs for Iron Man fans. This movie can work as a social commentary on our destructive nature and seeing both sides of the argument. 

I was surprised that people liked Tony Stark/Iron Man for three reasons. First of all, he makes weapons for the Government, enough said. Second, he’s wealthy; how can we relate to someone rich? Third, he’s arrogant and self-centered. Those are annoying character traits to have; despite that, Tony is entertaining and has a heart. Also, the writers use his character traits for some of the humor in the movie. What bugs me about Tony is that he has such a big personality that he overshadows everything else in the movie.   

Pepper Potts is Tony's assistant, who can be sarcastic in her own right. You can tell that she and Tony have known each other for a long time. The movie would have played out differently if it wasn't for her. 

Rhodey Rhodes is Tony's best friend, and he doesn't do much in the movie besides cover for Tony. 

Obadiah Stane (Tony's business partner) is wasted; the movie could have used him more often. That's a shame because I appreciate what little the writers have done with him.   

One of the problems I have with this movie is the subplot involving an agency, but that went nowhere. The story could have been better if the creators had expanded on it the way the tie-in video game did. The biggest issue with this movie is the villain, because there are other ways for the villain to achieve his or her goal. Plus, the baddies dialogue is ridiculous towards the end of the movie, and I wish the fight would last longer. Also, there are other ways Tony could do damage control. 

Overall, this is an entertaining movie that left more to be desired, but I would recommend.   

Rating = Worth seeing 

The Incredible Hulk: Bruce Banner/Hulk is trying to find a cure for his condition. Meanwhile, an army led by General Thunderbolt Ross is chasing him because General Ross wants to turn the Hulk into a weapon. So, Bruce has to avoid the army and cure himself of the Hulk. 

This movie is what people expect the 2003 Hulk movie to be, and that's a popcorn flick. The movie has some references to the 1978 Hulk show and has some of the elements from Ang Lee’s Hulk film. The theme of this movie is control. I enjoy the fight towards the end. I'm fond that the movie is connected to another Marvel character. I like how this movie sets up a possible sequel. 

   
I like Bruce Banner/the Hulk because he's proactive in trying to fix his circumstances and make the best of his situation. Anger is not the only thing that can turn him into the Hulk, which makes it harder for him to control the Hulk.   

Betty Ross is useless in this movie. 

Gen. Ross is heartless. He's so obsessed with the Hulk that he doesn't see Bruce as a person or consider how chasing after him affects his daughter. Father of the year, people.

Emil Blousky (the main villain) is a veteran soldier who is bloodthirsty. I say that because he's always looking for a fight. I wish we had learned more about him.   

There is a deleted scene that I wish was in the movie. However, I understand why it was removed because it would ruin the tone of the film. Beyond that, the only problem I have with the movie involves plot holes. The bottom line is this is a solid movie. I would recommend this if you like monster movies because this movie reminds me of the first Godzilla movie. 

Rating = Average 


Intro: Marvel Studios, did you learn anything from Spider-Man 3? 

Iron Man 2: The movie takes place 6 months after the first Iron Man film, and Political leaders want Tony to give up the Iron Man suit. Meanwhile, Ivan Vanko/Whiplash wants revenge on Tony Stark for unknown reasons. So Tony has to protect his suits, stop Ivan, and fix his dilemma.  

If I have a list of the worst sequels I have seen so far, this would be one of them. This movie was more of a comedy than an action/adventure film. It has the same problems as Spider-Man 3, like too many subplots, characters, dumb decisions, and trying to be about the word legacy just by having the characters say it a few times. What really bothers me about this movie is that the director brings a character halfway through the movie without telling us anything about this person. What made the director think that this was a good way to introduce a new character? You might as well watch a foreign language film with no subtitles because that's what this is like. Another thing, if you need this movie to promote another movie, that's not a good sign. Plus, the last act was a video game, and the film got away with using the F word twice. For those of you who don't know, you can only use that word once in a PG-13 movie ( If I'm wrong about that, then I stand corrected.)  

Tony Stark/Iron Man is more of a clown in this movie. I say that because he doesn't take anything seriously for the most part. What bugs me about him is that the writers wasted his subplot.  

Ivan Vanko (one of the baddies) is an idiot! I mean, the reason why he's after Tony makes no sense. Also, he doesn't feel like the main villain. 

Justin Hammer is Tony's business rival, and he tries to mimic his Playboy persona, but he comes off as goofy. 

I wish I could say that the one good thing about this movie (besides the CGI) is Scarlett Johnson; however, that's another issue I have with the movie. There is a scene that reinforces how attractive this actress is. We get it! She's gorgeous, a lot of guys want to bang her, I mean, play bingo with her. At the end of the day, this movie is awful; half of this movie is a rough draft, and the other half is setting up the Avengers movie. This film was one of the many reasons why I didn’t want to give The Avengers movie a chance at first. This movie could have been better if it didn't have too many characters, Focus on Ivan Vanko/Whiplash, and focus on Tony Stark/Iron Man's situation. 

P.S. If you want to know who the mysterious character is, you have to watch the Iron Man DVD after the ending credits. I'm not kidding about that. 

Rating = Trash      

Thor: This movie is about Thor, the GOD of Thunder, who is about to become the new King of Asgard, until someone breaks into Asgard. Thor's response by retaliating against the invader's homeland, that move cost him his powers, to be exiled from Asgard and start a war. So Thor has to figure out how to get his powers back and return to Asgard before things get out of hand.  

This movie was a better coming-of-age story than The Lion King. I say that because this movie handles certain aspects of that movie better. This movie looks beautiful; it did a good job capturing the late Jack Kirby's design of Asgard. The movie creates a social commentary on family dynamics. The comedy helps balance the drama in the movie. There's also world-building in this movie; however, it's done in a way that doesn't distract me from the movie.   

Thor is like Tony/Iron Man as far as being arrogant; however, he can be charming. I'm not crazy that this movie uses him as a punching bag for some of the comedy in the movie. 

Odin (Thor and Loki's father) is a wise sage kind of he does some questionable things that play a role in the events in this film. Also, he's not in most of the movie. 

Loki ( Thor's brother) is level-headed. Despite having an inferiority complex, you do feel sorry for him. His motivation can be unclear.   

Jane (Thor's love interest) is a course scientist. The fact that she builds her own equipment should give you a clue to how smart she is. The only complaint I have with her is that I don't buy her as a love interest; she seems to be more interested in where Thor comes from than in him as a person. 

Darcy is the comic relief. That's what bothers me about her; it's not that I don't find her funny, it's just that the movie can provide humor without her.        

The problems I have with this movie are that the writers could have fleshed out two plot points and developed Thor to get out of his dilemma better. One of the fights was too short. The Asgardians talk a certain way in the comics, but they don't do that in this movie. I would like to know why? All in all, this is a good film! I would recommend this if you like The Lion King. 

Rating = Worth Seeing  

Captain America: The First Avenger: This film is centered on a man name Steve Rogers/Captain America who wants to join the Army, but he can’t get in because of his health. So a doctor gives him a chance with his super soldier serum. Meanwhile, the war becomes more difficult thanks to the Red Skull and his Hydra army. They develop advanced weapons thanks to a MacGuffin he found, so Steve has to stop them.   

This movie gives you the feeling that you're watching a Captain America comic on screen for the most part! I like that not everyone can use the super soldier serum because it holds no value if everyone can use it. Just like Iron Man, the origin story is told well. I'm impressed with how this movie managed to pull off Steve's signature suit without having him look ridiculous.       

Steve Rogers/Captain America is a stand-up guy. I wouldn't call him one-dimensional because he doesn't always follow the rules, and despite his size, he doesn’t back down from a challenge. I don't like the way he was treated before and after he became Captain America. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't have a strong reaction to tragic events.  

Peggy Carter is a good supporting character who helps Steve when she can. I don't buy their dynamic. I understand what the writers are trying to do, but it's not convincing. 

Red Skull is an egotistical maniac. My gripe with him is that he's underdeveloped. Also, he could have used the MacGuffin for other things.    

I have problems with the editing, I mean, the movie looks like it was filmed with two different cameras. I wish the movie would focus on the things that it establishes. Speaking of focus, the movie doesn't focus on Captain America fighting the war. The dynamic between Him and Red Skull is weak. The way this movie ended feels forced. 

Overall, this movie is a good introduction to this character! I would recommend this if you like period pieces.      

Rating = Rental  


Intro: So, after four years and five movies, we are here. Was it worth it? Let's find out...

 The Avengers: The premise for the movie is this. Loki has come to Earth looking for a MacGuffin called the Tesseract that can help him rule the Earth. So Nick Fury ( the Director of S.H.I.E.L.D.) recruits a group of superheroes to help them stop Loki. That could be difficult because of their personality conflicts. So the group has to overcome their differences if they are going to stop Loki.   

This movie may be entertaining; however, I don't consider it the best Marvel movie. I wish I could say this is a milestone for cinema, but we had a crossover before, but not like this. Despite this movie being predictable, it took me by surprise. I enjoy watching their characters play off each other. The theme of this movie is control, and it's applied in the story and the characters. This film has a good message about teamwork, and one character addresses the issue of what makes a hero? I'm fond of how the Hulk is portrayed in this movie; it's better than his last two movies. After learning that Loki is going to be in this movie, I was worried that this would be Thor 1.5; it was, but not at the expense of the other characters. 

Speaking of Loki ( the main villain), he is a manipulator that's saying a lot considering that he doesn't do it directly. Plus, he isn't fooling anyone. I don't like what this movie has done to him because he feels like a different character. 

Tony Stark/Iron Man is Mr. Personality. I like how chummy he is with Bruce. Why does Tony have to learn how to be a team player? Didn't he learn that in Iron Man 2?

I was let down that the creators didn't go all the way with Steve Rogers/Captain America having a hard time adjusting to the 21st Century. I'm guessing Marvel Studios is saving that for his next movie. His costume cracks me up. When you look like you're going to a kid's birthday party instead of fighting a war, a redesign is in order.   

Bruce/the Hulk is doing his best to keep a low profile. What bugs me about The Hulk is that he's too powerful in this movie to the point where he makes the other Avengers look useless. 

Thor is still dealing with the consequences of his and Loki's actions. I find it annoying that he comes off as hotheaded for no reason.    

Natasha Romanova/Black Widow feels like a real person more than she did in Iron Man 2. ( Is it me, or was she prettier in Iron Man 2?) She's someone with a past who's trying to redeem herself. Plus, she knows how to get inside your head. What's the point of this character being Russian if she doesn't have a Russian accent? 

Agent Barton/Hawkeye got the cold shoulder in this movie. Considering how good of an archer he is, it makes you wonder is he human? 

Nick Fury is a conflicted character. Despite working for an organization that's paranoid and distrustful, he wants to believe in the idea of heroes. Also, there are lines he will not cross. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't do a lot in this movie. That's a shame because he has the same arc Thor had in his movie. He does help the Avengers; however, that wasn't executed well.   

One of the many problems with this movie is that something tragic happened, and it didn't have the emotional weight that it should have. The director of this movie made directing mistakes that hurt the film. Marvel Studios should have hired a more experienced director, no offense to Mr. Whedon. This movie feels like it was made for Marvel fans. Don't worry, you don't need to read Marvel comics to understand this movie. Also, this movie has the same issue I have with the Transformers films, that is, fighting in the middle of the city. Other issues involve plot holes, editing, comedy being overdone, and having too many characters. 

Overall, this movie was a blast. I would recommend this if you like Action/Adventure. 

Rating = Worth seeing