Captain America: Civil War (2016)

It was in the summer of 2006 that Marvel Comics published Civil War, a massive company-wide storyline built around a seven-issue series by writer Mark Millar and artist Steve McNiven. Civil War had a huge (albeit somewhat temporary) effect on the Marvel universe, shaking up the status quo in a number of ways, most notably with the public revelation of Spider-Man's secret identity and the assassination of Captain America.

And despite the mixed reaction it got from readers and critics during its original run, it still remains one of Marvel's most talked-about stories even a decade later. Elements of it appeared in the Avengers cartoons on Disney XD, it inspired the story for Activision's Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 video game in 2009, and now, ten years later, it has crept into the live-action Marvel Cinematic Universe with the release of Captain America: Civil War.

Much like the comic that inspired it, the movie seeks to shake up the status quo by pitting the Avengers against not a god, not alien invaders, not an army of killer robots, but one another. And in a summer that already gave us one horrible attempt at pitting hero against hero, it's nice to see someone take that idea and make a good movie out of it.

We begin in Lagos, as the Avengers have arrived to stop members of Hydra from acquiring a deadly biological weapon. They are successful in stopping Hydra, but an attempt by Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) to thwart a suicide bomber accidentally causes a number of civilian casualties. With public opinion of the Avengers already drastically declining following the incident with Ultron, this only adds fuel to the fire and leads to the United Nations to pass what it calls "the Sokovia Accords." These accords would establish a committee to oversee the Avengers, essentially putting them at the UN's beck and call.

The Sokovia Accords split the Avengers right down the middle, with Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) on one side, believing that forfeiting the team's autonomy would make them political pawns instead of protectors. On the other side, however, is Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), whose guilt over his role in Ultron's rampage has convinced him that the Avengers need to be governed by outside sources who would hold them accountable for their actions.

But things get really shaken up when it comes time for the Accords to be ratified in Vienna. Ten people — among them, the king of the African nation of Wakanda — are killed when the UN conference building is bombed, with all evidence pointing to Steve's old friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan). Already an international fugitive because of his past actions as the Winter Soldier, he immediately shoots to Public Enemy #1 across the globe despite his protests of innocence.

Not only does this mean that every law enforcement agency in Europe is looking for Bucky, but so are the Avengers that have agreed to sign the Accords. Also on the hunt is Prince T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman) of Wakanda, who has vowed to kill him and avenge his father's death. Steve is steadfast in his defense of Bucky, however, further ruining the strained relationship between he and Tony and forcing the Avengers to pick sides as the tensions rapidly reach a boiling point.

DC Comics just can't catch a break. It's bad enough that Batman v Superman was met with terrible reviews and awful word of mouth, but Civil War is pretty stiff evidence that Marvel Studios can make what is essentially the same movie and do it a hell of a lot better. Civil War is everything that Batman v Superman is not: fun, exciting, serious but never dour, and willing to let its heroes actually be heroic even in spite of their personal flaws and their quarrels with one another. And even when the movie is at its weakest, Civil War is still proof that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is firmly standing at the top of the superhero movie mountain.

Returning to direct the continuing adventures of Captain America are Joe and Anthony Russo, who once again do a fantastic job behind the camera. The movie itself is essentially Avengers 3 in all but name, but considering that the Avengers are actually fighting one another instead of some giant alien threat or an army of killer robots, it has a different feel than Joss Whedon's two movies. It feels more personal, more intimate. By putting the focus entirely on the Avengers themselves rather than their battles with some new supervillain, the Russo brothers add a level of drama you don't really see in movies like these. We the audience have spent the better part of the last decade watching these characters develop on the big screen, seeing their universe blossom and grow as they fought alongside one another. And to see them come to blows really makes the movie feel a lot more drawn in, if that makes sense. Things look differently when you're fighting your friends instead of your enemies.

But that's not to say the Russos don't cut loose and give us the spectacle we've come to expect. Oh, there's plenty of that. While I'd say the airport battle royale pitting Captain America's Avengers against Iron Man's Avengers is most certainly the movie's biggest draw and quite a bit of focus is put on it, the Russos make sure that each action sequence is the right blend of exciting, tense, and emotional. And as I said before, that feeling of intimacy makes the action feel different. The stakes feel higher since the Avengers are their own opponents for a change.

While the Russos direction is solid, the script penned by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely isn't always perfect. I doubt Mackie and McFeely wanted to write another political thriller in the same vein as The Winter Soldier, but I actually would've liked seeing that. The Sokovia Accords don't really seem that important in the scope of things, as the movie becomes more about the Winter Soldier being the wedge driven between Captain America and Iron Man rather than the Accords. The fact that this seemingly important plot device doesn't really seem that important at all makes me wonder why they even bothered. I mean, I'm sure future Avengers movies will show us that it's changed the MCU's status quo much like Millar and McNiven's comic book did, but for now, it feels a little pointless.

Speaking of pointless, I really don't see why the movie needed appearances from Ant-Man and Spider-Man. Outside of showing off that Marvel Studios had reached a deal with Sony that allowed Spidey to join the greater Marvel Cinematic Universe, I just don't get why either he or Ant-Man really needed to be in the movie. But I will admit, however, that their presence here is still quite welcomed at the very least.

I'm also surprised by just how little the movie's actual villain appears in the movie. The vast majority of the movie's plot is set into motion by Helmut Zemo (played by Daniel Brühl), who is barely in the movie at all. I'd honestly be surprised if the total sum of his screen time surpassed twenty minutes. Did they just not come up with anything for Brühl to do? Did they prefer a villain who was working in the background so as not to distract from the whole "Steve vs. Tony" dynamic? It's probably more the latter than the former, but it still sometimes gives the impression that Zemo is a non-factor. Maybe I'm just used to seeing the villains being put on something even remotely resembling equal footing with the protagonists in these movies as far as screen presence goes, I don't know.

But let's move along to the cast, pretty much all of whom hand in strong performances. It seems like that's par for the course with the MCU, but it's still worth saying. Tom Holland and Chadwick Boseman are great as Spider-Man and Black Panther respectively, and I really liked what Elizabeth Olsen brought to the table as Scarlet Witch. I wish she'd been able to do this in a smaller movie more focused on her character rather than playing a secondary role among an ensemble cast, because I'd love to see how Olsen would play Wanda when the spotlight is shining on her alone. Olsen playing Wanda as being scared of her powers accidentally hurting people and being unsure of herself make for a fascinating bit of character study had the character's arc not been one of a whole bunch of different things going on in the movie.

The movie also boasts some great moments from Sebastian Stan and Paul Bettany (who returns as Vision), and the aforementioned Daniel Brühl makes the most of his limited screen time. But the stars of the show are very obviously Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. Both of them once again step up to the plate and knock it out of the park as Captain America and Iron Man. Their performances are exactly whet this movie needed; both characters are justified in their beliefs, and Evans and Downey play their parts in a way that a viewer leaning one way or the other as to whose side they'd chose to be on is totally reasonable.

While I personally think Civil War is the weakest of the Captain America trilogy, it's only because The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier are just that damn good. Civil War is still a very entertaining, very exciting way to spend two and a half hours at the movies. And that's a hell of a lot more than I can say for that absolute mess Zack Snyder and DC Comics made with Batman and Superman.

Final Rating: ***½

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

It's weird thinking that what started in 2009 with a movie based on the Marvel Comics superhero Iron Man has blossomed into a mega-franchise that has grossed over seven billion dollars worldwide and shows absolutely no signs of stopping. Some people thought that the franchise's final endgame would have been The Avengers in 2012, but here we are three years and five movies later talking about an Avengers sequel. The hype machine is in full gear and the anticipation is high, but Avengers: Age of Ultron isn't quite as good as I'd hoped it would have been. But you know what? It's still pretty fun.

The movie takes us immediately into the action, as the Avengers launch a raid on a secluded Eastern European laboratory where Hydra scientists have been using the mystical powers of Loki's scepter for human experimentation and creating super-soldiers for Hydra. Despite the interference of Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), twin siblings granted superpowers through Hydra's experiments, the Avengers' raid is successful. The bad guys are apprehended and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) claims Loki's scepter for himself so that he can study it further.

His research proves fruitful, as Stark discovers that the gem within the sceptre contains a hyper-advanced artificial intelligence that Stark and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) believe could be the key to perfecting "Ultron," Stark's unfinished global defense system. But upon its activation, Ultron (voiced by James Spader) proves to be not only sentient, but also very, very angry. It downloads itself into Stark's mechanical peacekeeping drones and attacks the Avengers before escaping with the sceptre.

Using it in tandem with the now-abandoned Hydra lab's leftover resources, Ultron builds himself a new, more powerful body and a personal army of robots. He recruits Pietro and Wanda to help him in his fight against the Avengers so that they might settle an old grudge with Stark, but what the Maximoffs don't know is that he has more than just killing a group of superheroes on his mind. In truth, his final goal is far more sinister: human extinction.

I entered Age of Ultron excited to see it, but afraid that it wouldn't live up to the hype or that it wouldn't be as good as the first Avengers movie. And while I did think Age of Ultron was a tremendously fun, exciting ride, I simply didn't think it was as strong as the first one. It's a solid movie, don't get me wrong, but I felt a little... I don't know, perhaps "underwhelmed" is the word I'm looking for.

Returning to the Avengers saga is writer/director Joss Whedon, who, from the looks of it, adopted an "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" approach to making the movie. I saw a double feature of both Avengers movies at my local theater, and in watching them back to back, I couldn't help but notice so many similarities that it's like they're practically the same movie. There are differences, sure, but Whedon hits so many of the same notes that he hit back in 2012 that it feels like he isn't interested in bringing a lot of new to the table. Perhaps it was a case of burnout or being exhausted creatively, or maybe Whedon was being hassled by Marvel and Disney executives to deliver a certain kind of movie. I wasn't on the set, so I don't know for certain.

And maybe it's me, but the film's pacing seems to stutter and stumble every so often almost as if it was being put together from scraps. And truth is, Whedon's original version of the movie is supposedly over three hours long, but word on the street is that he had to do a bunch of haphazard editing due to Marvel executives being unhappy with some of the material he was producing along with wanting to keep the movie under two and a half hours.

But what I thought was the movie's real problem was its script. The plot is typical paint-by-numbers superhero stuff, and the returning characters are written pretty much the same way they were before. That's not what bugged me, though. What got me was the addition of some unexpected subplots that don't really go anywhere or add anything to the movie. Case in point: the Hulk/Black Widow quasi-romance felt awkward and forcibly tacked on. I didn't think it was really all that necessary to the story (or even well put-together, really), and all it did was make me wonder what the heck ever happened to Betty Ross? Did Liv Tyler not want to return, and Marvel Studios didn't want to replace her? Or could they be distancing themselves from The Incredible Hulk due to its relative lack of success compared to the rest of the franchise?

There were some things I did enjoy, though, like the additions of Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and The Vision to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I though each of them added something very cool to the movie, like there's more to the world of the Avengers than just good guys fighting bad guys. And I know a few people who were curious to see how this version of Quicksilver would compare to the one that appeared in X-Men: Days of Future Past last year. They're so completely different, though, that it's almost not worth comparing them. X-Men's Quicksilver was barely in the movie but contributed the movie's best, most memorable scene, while Age of Ultron's is an important character and appears throughout, which means he might not make as huge an impact as the one from Days of Future Past but still plays a continually important part of the story. Apples and oranges, the two Quicksilvers are.

The movie might have its share of weaknesses, but it also has its strengths as well, the greatest of which is its cast. Many of the returning actors have played their characters so many times that they could probably do it in their sleep, and although they're not given any material to shake things up, the cast is still top notch. Mark Ruffalo and Jeremy Renner get to do a bit more dramatic heavy lifting, with their characters being the only ones to experience any kind of growth or evolution. Both Ruffalo and Renner are great, showing why both of them were great choices for their roles. And despite the contractual hangups regarding it, I still want to see Ruffalo get his own solo Incredible Hulk movie.

But of the actors returning to the franchise, I thought Paul Bettany really stood out in particular. Having only appeared previously as the voice of Iron Man's snarky digital assistant Jarvis, Bettany gets to stretch his legs as the android superhero The Vision. While Vision doesn't appear until the third act of the movie, Bettany still gets to make a heck of an impression. He's really likable in the role, and it left me wanting to see more of the character.

Among the franchise's newcomers, we get some really great performances from Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, and James Spader. Taylor-Johnson still plays his role in a way that's fun to watch, but he ends up being overshadowed by Olsen. Olsen is a very talented actress, and she brings a lot of depth and a sympathetic nature to Scarlet Witch. And like with Bettany as The Vision, I'm genuinely excited to see Olsen turn up in future movies in the franchise.

The real star of the show, though, is James Spader. One could make the argument that the Ultron we see here is kinda boring and underdeveloped (could his "kill all humans" supervillain plan be any more clichéd?), but Spader's charismatic voicework makes the character captivating to watch. He's essentially playing a dark, twisted version of Tony Stark, believing his intentions are noble but in truth causing more harm than good yet with a more intimidating, angry, evil tone to it all. Ultron takes Stark's egotism and "know it all" nature and cranks them up to a million, and Spader plays it up for all it's worth. He absolutely steals the entire movie, and despite Age of Ultron's flaws, Ultron himself makes the movie worth seeing.

I know that for a lot of this review, I've been kinda down on the movie. And personally, after how good Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy were, Age of Ultron is a bit of a letdown. But I really couldn't imagine a better way to open 2015's summer blockbuster season. Even if it's nothing we haven't seen a million times before, I can't ague that the movie isn't a totally fun way to spend two and a half hours. I enjoyed the hell out of it, but then I'm totally a sucker for this kind of stuff. And there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Final Rating: ***

Iron Man 3 (2013)

It was around this time one year ago that we saw the release of The Avengers. The climax of "Phase One" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Avengers brought together characters from five different movies to create a comic book geek's dream movie. But if all of those movies were building for one billion-dollar epic, where do they go after that? There's only one thing you can do: go forward with "Phase Two" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And it begins the same way that Phase One began, with a new movie starring Iron Man. And like the previous movies starring the character, Iron Man 3 is a fun watch.

Some time has passed since the Avengers repelled the alien invasion instigated by Loki, but his near-death experience during the battle has left Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) suffering from severe post-traumatic stress. Unable to sleep and plagued by panic attacks, Stark spends every moment he can obsessively building new Iron Man armor, his suits now numbering in the dozens. His behavior is such that he's started alienating his girlfriend, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), who is left confused and agitated by Stark's emotional distance.

But life is about to get much more complicated for our armored superhero. A terrorist known as "the Mandarin" (Ben Kingsley) has been orchestrating a series of bombings around the United States, one of which leaves Stark's friend Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) in a coma. Stark publicly swears revenge, an act that leads the Mandarin to destroy his house and seemingly kill him.

While Jim Rhodes (Don Cheadle), in his own suit of armor as "the Iron Patriot," scours the globe in search of the Mandarin, an off-the-grid Stark follows a trail of clues that connects the Mandarin to Aldritch Killian (Guy Pearce), a bitter scientist whose ideas were rebuffed by a more egotistical Stark a decade earlier. Utilizing the research of Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), one of Stark's past one-night-stands, Killian has developed Extremis, an experimental treatment designed to assist with the healing of devastating injuries. As he follows the trail of clues further, Stark discovers that not only are the Mandarin's bombings are tied to Extremis, but that both the U.S. President (William Sadler) and Pepper are in great danger.

After the pure, unbridled spectacle that was The Avengers, Marvel Studios would have been out of their minds to try topping it so soon. I guess they had the same idea, because Iron Man 3 doesn't try to top or even match The Avengers. Instead, it's a more intimate affair. Yes, it still has the same action and humor one would expect from Tony Stark's solo adventures, but it's more about how the character is affected by his exploits than the exploits themselves. This shift in focus allows Iron Man 3 to be a more intriguing movie than it might have been otherwise.

Jon Favreau doesn't return to direct this third leg of the Iron Man trilogy, instead handing the reins over to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang director Shane Black. Black does an admirable job with the movie as he goes his own way rather than ride Favreau's coattails. The movie still boasts some tremendously fun action sequences, but Black instead brings the movie closer to the characters. Things are paced and composed in such a way that the movie feels more like a standard action movie than a grand superhero blockbuster. I honestly don't think that's a bad thing, however. It's actually refreshing to see a superhero movie where the human side of heroism takes center stage. Black throws everything into making the movie about Tony Stark and the world he occupies rather than Iron Man, and it really pays off.

I don't know if can say the same for the screenplay, though. Written by Black and Drew Pearce, the script takes the finale of The Avengers and uses it as the basis for what one could call Tony Stark's midlife crisis. Getting a glimpse of his own mortality really messed with Tony, and now he's not sure if he's building the armor or if the armor's building him. Black and Pearce don't delve into this quite as deeply as they could have; they could have turned the whole movie into a deep, dramatic character study, but were seemingly obligated to deliver a standard superhero movie.

That's where I felt Iron Man 3 stumbled. Black and Pearce come up with a number of really cool ideas, but don't quite build them together into something awesome. I understand that they probably wanted to write a movie that was a bit more low-key so the franchise could catch their breath after The Avengers, but they could have developed their ideas beyond something simple. Their script also suffers from being a little overlong and probably could have used a bit of trimming. I mean, did we need that subplot where Tony makes friends with some precocious kid? Did that kid contribute anything to the story that couldn't have been handled by another character?

I was also disappointed by the movie's 3D effects too. The movie was converted into 3D during post-production, and it really feels like it was done just because the Marvel Cinematic Universe's movies pretty much have to be in 3D now. There's no real need for it, and the movie is plagued by the same troubles that have plagued most movies that are converted into 3D. Not much depth is added to the visuals, with only a handful of scenes really benefiting from it. You honestly won't be missing much if you choose to see Iron Man 3 in 2D, to tell you the truth.

But as less-than-impressive as I thought the script and 3D conversion were, I thoroughly enjoyed the cast. Ben Kingsley is a lot of fun as the Mandarin, but I felt Guy Pearce's villainous turn outshined him. Pearce's character is such a snake, and he embraces the role and runs with it. While I think the movie could have benefited more from simply adapting the "Five Nightmares" comic book story written by Matt Fraction in 2008 and had Pearce play Ezekiel Stane, Pearce is still a damn fine bad guy.

I also thought Don Cheadle was really good as Rhodey. He plays the part like he was built for it and makes an amusing foil for our leading man. I don't know if they'd ever do an Iron Patriot/War Machine solo spinoff or include the character in one of the Avengers sequels, but if it means I get to see Cheadle play the character again, I'd be all for it. The same can be said for Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts. She plays Pepper as smart and strong, and you really believe that Tony Stark would fall in love with her. Paltrow provides some of the sweetest, most heartwarming moments of the movie, and the movie is better for having her here.

But once again, the movie belongs to Robert Downey Jr. For the fourth time, Downey contributes an absolutely excellent performance and once again steals the whole movie. He not only brings the charming irreverence he always approaches the character with, but also a vulnerability that makes him sympathetic. All you want to do is reach into the movie and give him a big hug. I honestly cannot imagine anyone being able to equal Downey were he to ever bow out of playing the role.

Rumor has it that this might be the last solo movie for Iron Man. A tag at the end of the movie's credits promises that "Tony Stark will return," but beyond Avengers sequels and cameos in other movies, the character's future seems uncertain. And while I will not call Iron Man 3 the best of the trilogy, it's a great way to end the story should this actually be the final Iron Man movie. It has its flaws, sure, but it's still an entertaining movie that I actually enjoyed a lot. It gets the Marvel Cinematic Universe's "Phase Two" off to a great start, and is certainly worth seeing. And between you and me, I can't wait to see where this franchise goes from here.

Final Rating: ***

The Avengers (2012)

When I say "the Avengers," your mind probably goes in one of two directions. One direction will take you towards the British TV show from the '60s, which was adapted into a movie starring Uma Thurman and Sean Connery in 1998. Or if you're like me, you automatically associate "the Avengers" with the team of superheroes that call the pages of Marvel Comics home.

Created in 1963 by industry legends Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, the Avengers have long been an important part of comic book history. And though the team's roster has changed dozens of times over the last forty years, it's the one comic where you're guaranteed to see Marvel's A-list (and a number of their top B-list) superheroes team up and fight a common foe.

When Marvel announced a few years ago that they would start producing their own movies based on characters whose film rights hadn't been sold off to other studios, it was also decided that these movies would follow in the footsteps of their comic book counterparts and have them coexist in a shared universe. The whole thing was set to build to a big payoff in the form of an Avengers movie. And after five movies that introduced the major players, the Avengers movie has finally arrived. I've been looking forward to it since 2008, and let me assure you that it was totally worth the wait.

As the movie begins, we discover that the espionage agency SHIELD has retrieved the Tesseract, the mysterious artifact that the Red Skull had tried using as a weapon of mass destruction during World War II, and has been conducting their own experiments on it. During one of these experiments, the Tesseract spontaneously opens a wormhole out into deep space. From this wormhole emerges the exiled Norse god Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who steals the Tesseract and uses a number of brainwashed SHIELD personnel ― including consulting scientist Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and master archer Clint "Hawkeye" Barton (Jeremy Renner) ― to make a daring escape from the facility.

Facing a powerful opponent armed with an even more powerful weapon, SHIELD director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) reactivates the dormant "Avenger Initiative." He sends agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) and super-spy Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johannson) to bring Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) into the fold to study Dr. Selvig's research and track the trace amounts of gamma radiation the Tesseract produces. Fury himself approaches Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), who is still getting accustomed to life in the twenty-first century, and asks him to lead the mission to arrest Loki and retrieve the Tesseract.

Loki is found in Germany, but he almost immediately surrenders without a fight. He is apprehended and taken into SHIELD custody despite the protests of Thor (Chris Hemsworth), who tries desperately to talk his adoptive brother out of attacking the world he considers his second home. But Loki is seemingly content to remain incarcerated by SHIELD, secretly sowing the seeds of dissent and discord among his captors. As they bicker among one another, the still-brainwashed Selvig is using the Tesseract to build a tool for Loki that would open another wormhole. Waiting on the other side are the Chitauri, a race of aliens from a distant planet looking to claim Earth for their own. And though their wildly different personalities and methods cause them to come to blows on occasion, the team known as the Avengers must assemble together to fight a battle no single superhero could withstand alone.

If there is anything, anything at all, that I can say about The Avengers, it's that the movie is 100% pure fun. From beginning to end, The Avengers never ceases to be one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in a while. If the movie is the culmination of several years of planning and effort, then this final payoff is absolutely worth it. It is two and a half hours of unrelenting, unadulterated awesome.

The man in charge of things is the one and only Joss Whedon, who is no stranger to the world of Marvel Comics (having written 24 issues of their Astonishing X-Men book a few years back). The Avengers marks only his second go at directing a feature film, and I thought Whedon did an admirable job behind the camera. He utilizes some slick cinematography and fantastic special effects to make The Avengers a tremendous experience. Even the occasional quiet, dramatic moments feel like they have a sense of urgency. Whedon knows exactly what to do to keep the viewers engaged in what's happening on the screen.

Whedon also serves as the movie's writer, having rewritten a previous script by Zak Penn (who gets a "story by" credit). Whedon's writing style is often polarizing, due in large part to his fondness for snarky, sarcastic dialogue and killing off popular ancillary characters just to mess with the audience. I'll admit to thinking that much of Whedon's writing is guilty of thinking it's cooler than it really is, but Whedon's Avengers script is quite good. He really nails what makes each of the characters awesome in their own ways. You would think that a movie that combines so many dissimilar characters from so many movies would cause some people to get lost in the shuffle, but Whedon makes a point of letting everyone get a few moments to shine.

And while a lot of movie mash-ups ― Freddy vs. Jason, Alien vs. Predator, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man ― tend to struggle somewhat with merging otherwise unrelated continuities, Whedon effortlessly makes The Avengers feel natural. Sure, he had five movies worth of buildup to work with, but the fact that he made a movie where Iron Man, Thor, the Incredible Hulk, and Captain America seamlessly coexist like they do in their comics is something awesome. Whedon also makes it worth all the buildup by making everything as big and as bold as a movie like this deserves. He never lets it get over the top, but makes the story feel like a grand epic. And I am happy to report the whole thing works.

But it's not just Whedon's efforts behind the camera that make The Avengers what it is. He also has a tremendous group of actors in front of the camera to bring these characters to life. Each and every member of the cast is on their A-game, with not a bad performance among them. Robert Downey Jr. returns to the role of Iron Man for the third time (well, fourth if you count his cameo at the end of The Incredible Hulk), and he continues to show why he was the perfect choice for the character. Downey gives Tony Stark the right amount of brash cockiness yet charming likeability, and the movie is all the better for having him around.

Chris Hemsworth also brings a fine performance to the role of Thor, making the character engaging while adding the necessary pathos that's needed to play a godlike being that must fight his brother. Chris Evans also does a great job as Captain America, as he once again plays Cap as the brave, strong soldier that his counterpart from the printed page is.

And while Edward Norton is missed, Mark Ruffalo is great as Bruce Banner. I don't really want to compare Ruffalo to Norton because that's unfair to both actors, but Ruffalo really shines here. He plays Banner as being haunted by yet accepting of his mean green alter ago. The only crazy thing about it is that the actual Hulk might actually overshadow Ruffalo. Created via CGI and a motion-capture performance from Ruffalo, the Hulk almost completely runs away with the movie. He provides some of the movie's best moments, so I can't complain.

Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner also make fine contributions as Black Widow and Hawkeye, while Samuel L. Jackson is once again fantastic as Nick Fury. I also thought that Clark Gregg, who returns to play Agent Coulson one more time, was amusing as always. And as our resident villain, Tom Hiddleston actually manages to outdo his performance in Thor. He makes Loki such a vile, cold-hearted monster that it's going to take something huge to top him in Avengers 2. (And if that scene in the middle of the credits is any indication, then the Avengers 2 villain could actually do it.) But Hiddleston's performance here is really good, and though he gets a little hammy at times, he's still a damn good bad guy.

And while I'm here, I should probably mention the 3D effects. The Avengers was shot in 2D and converted into 3D in post-production, a technique that in my experience has been hit or miss. But in the case of The Avengers, it's a big hit. It looks just as good if not better than some movies that were natively shot in 3D. The 3D makes a real difference in some scenes as well. Having seen the movie in both 3D and 2D, I can say I thought there were more than a few action sequences that benefit from the added depth that 3D brings. The movie is still effective in 2D, so if the glasses give you headaches, go ahead and see the 2D release. I'm just saying that I thought the 3D added to the fun.

And really, that's all The Avengers is: fun. From the moment the Marvel Studios logo appears to when the final images of Earth's mightiest heroes flicker on the screen, The Avengers never once ceases to be anything other than genuine entertainment. And there's not a single thing wrong with that. So yeah, as you may have imagined, the work that was put into building the Marvel Cinematic Universe and crafting this movie was totally worth it. And thus, I'll gladly give The Avengers four and a half stars on the scale. I've said it before, but I'm really hoping that the movie's record-setting opening weekend would cause DC Comics to take the hint and start building to a Justice League movie. That'd be awesome.

Final Rating: ****½

Iron Man 2 (2010)

When Paramount Pictures and Marvel Comics teamed up to make a cinematic adaptation of Marvel's Iron Man character two years ago, they pretty much struck gold. It was a huge hit with both readers and non-readers of comic books, and helped reestablish Robert Downey Jr. as a bankable star after his battles with substance abuse.

And as Iron Man began Marvel's build to a movie based on the Avengers, it was also successful enough to warrant a sequel of its own. With a ton of promotion and marketing behind it, that sequel has now arrived in theaters, and it's my opinion that Iron Man 2 is a worthy follow-up to its predecessor.

Six months have passed billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) revealed to the world that he is the armored superhero known as "Iron Man." He has put his armor to good use in that time, having negotiated peace among the world's political superpowers. And thanks to both his activities as Iron Man and the success of his "Stark Expo" technology show, Tony's popularity with the general public is at an all-time high.

But all is not well in the world of Tony Stark. The United States Senate is breathing down his neck, demanding he turn over the Iron Man armor for military application. Though Tony casually shrugs them off, things get far worse from there. The palladium used in the "arc reactor" that keeps Tony's heart beating has begun poisoning his body. Unless he can discover a replacement element, the thing keeping him alive will eventually kill him.

And because bad news always seems to come in threes, a new threat looms on the horizon. While racing in the Monaco Grand Prix, Tony's car is cut in half by Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian inventor who has constructed his own arc reactor and channeled its energy through two whip-like attachments. Tony is able to win the ensuing fight, but Vanko is soon sprung from prison by Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), Tony's unscrupulous business rival. Each having their own grudge against the Stark family, Hammer and Vanko are quick to put their heads together and organize a way to eliminate their common enemy.

When a sequel to a movie as fun as Iron Man is released, you go into it with certain expectations. And while your opinion of it may differ from mine, I got everything I wanted out of Iron Man 2. The action was exciting, the jokes were funny, the effects were top-notch, the soundtrack was pretty darn rockin', and the acting was great. It may not hit the exact same mark the first movie did, but I have no problem calling Iron Man 2 a creative success.

Returning to the helm is Jon Favreau, whose direction is once again excellent. He knows exactly what kind of movie he wants to make, and he does a great job at it. (He also isn't bad in his beefed up role as Tony Stark's bodyguard/chauffeur, Happy Hogan.) Favreau's direction gives the movie so much energy, keeping the excitement and the entertaining as high as he can for as long as he can.

But it is in Favreau's favor that he has a number of elements that he can assemble to make the movie what it is. There's the stellar cinematography by Matthew Libatique, an awesome rock-styled score from composer John Debney (with help from Tom Morello), and the amazing visual effects courtesy of Industrial Light and Magic. All of it gels together to help make Favreau's direction that much better.

Another of the elements Favreau has at his disposal is the screenplay. It's credited to Tropic Thunder writer Justin Theroux, but I wouldn't be surprised if, like in the first movie, Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. did a little script doctoring. (So I don't know that for sure. Let's just take the credits at face value and assume Theroux did all the writing himself, okay?)

I can't say that I have a problem with Theroux's script... except for this one little thing. What I didn't like about it — and the big reason why I felt Iron Man 2 didn't surpass the first movie in terms of quality — is that I got the feeling that there's too much going on. There's the whole thing with Ivan Vanko and Justin Hammer, the subplot with the Senate trying to get the Iron Man armor, the parts with Nick Fury and SHIELD, and Tony's palladium poisoning. Couldn't Theroux have gone with one, maybe two stories and streamlined things?

The first movie was a lot more focused in that regard, and while Iron Man 2 isn't the complete opposite of that, I do think it tries juggling too much at once. There's so much going on that outside of a handful of moments, the action never really hits any sort of stride until the last half hour. The first ninety minutes are far from boring, I'll give it that, but I wanted a little more Iron Man mixed in with all that Tony Stark. Know what I mean?

The absolute best part of Iron Man 2, however, is the same as its predecessor: the cast. The actors and actresses gathered for this movie are all excellent at what's asked of them, even if some are better than others.

Reprising his role as the title character is Robert Downey Jr., who once again completely steals the movie. Some superheroes may mope and be sullen about a perceived negative impact that heroism has on their lives, but Downey's Stark gives them the finger and proudly announces to the world that being a superhero kicks ass.

He's absolutely tremendous in the part, playing Tony as a cocky prick who is still a pretty endearing guy even when you want to strangle him. Downey is so charming and so much fun to watch that I honestly cannot picture the Iron Man movie franchise without him. The combination of arrogance and charisma makes Downey a real blast to watch, and I hope they make a dozen more Iron Man movies so he can keep playing the character.

But while Downey steals the movie, that doesn't mean the supporting cast isn't good as well. They're actually pretty darn great. While the chemistry between she and Downey may not be quite what it was two years ago, Gwyneth Paltrow is still very good. The character of Pepper Potts has a little more meat this time around, giving Paltrow more to work with. She aces it, playing Pepper with the same warmth and charm as before, but with a certain sence of frustration with her boss's recklessness. It's believable and it works.

I must also admit that I enjoyed Don Cheadle in the role of Tony's best friend, Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes. There was a bit of a stink raised over the announcement that Cheadle would be replacing Terrence Howard, but I thought Cheadle did an admirable job. The only flaw I could find with his performance is that he didn't have the same strong, confident presence as Howard did, but that's minor at worst. Cheadle is still worth seeing here, if you ask me.

Among the other newcomers to the franchise is Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff, who comic fans will recognize as the secret agent otherwise known as "Black Widow." Her role seems relatively minor in the grand scheme of the movie, and it feels like she was only here to add sex appeal and introduce Black Widow to the movie continuity (and thus give SHIELD more of a presence in Iron Man 2).

Outside of her fight scenes during the climax, there isn't really a lot for Johansson to do. If all that was expected of her during filming was to stand around and look pretty before kicking the crap out of people, then she knocks that out of the park. As far as the actual acting goes, Johansson isn't too bad at that either.

But what would a superhero movie be without the supervillains? One of the common complaints about the first movie is that there wasn't a very strong villainous presence until the third act. Iron Man 2 remedies that, giving us two villains right from the start.

The first villain is Mickey Rourke, whose performance is exactly what it needs to be. Rourke plays the character as cold, calculating, and unwaveringly determined to bring down Tony Stark's empire. And it may sound hyperbolic, but he's perfect here. You can tell just by looking at him that he means business and will go to any lengths to accomplish his goals.

Rourke's counterbalanced by the movie's other villain, Sam Rockwell. His character is everything Rourke's isn't: cocky, brash, and somewhat ineffectual. If you created an Iron Man 2 drinking game, you could probably make a case for taking a shot every time Justin Hammer is made to look like a fool. Rockwell is fantastic in the role, giving him an arrogance that says he'd be as big as Tony if only Stark Industries were out of the picture.

While I don't think it's as good as its predecessor, Iron Man 2 is two hours of pure entertainment. I won't try to dispute any allegations that it's not much more than a glorified stepping stone towards the Avengers movie in 2012, but whether it is or isn't, it's still one heck of a sequel and one heck of a fun flick. So on my usual scale, I'm going to give Iron Man 2 three and a half stars (leaning towards four) and a recommendation to go check it out if you haven't seen it yet. Now if only they could get someone to invent the Iron Man armor for real so I could take it for a test drive...

Final Rating: ***½

Iron Man (2008)

Not every superhero is blessed with otherworldly powers. They all don't have the X-Men's various mutations, the arachnid ability of Spider-Man, or the multitude of powers at Superman's disposal. Some have to get by on natural talent alone, or in some instances, they create their own powers via fancy gadgets. Such is the case of Tony Stark, known more commonly as Iron Man.

Created by writers Stan Lee and Larry Lieber, and artists Don Heck and Jack Kirby, Iron Man made his first appearance in 1963, in Tales of Suspense #39. The armor-wearing hero began targeting Communism, but as the world evolved, so did Iron Man. He's struggled with alcoholism and a bad heart, was a charter member of the superhero all-star squad known as the Avengers, and was even regarded by many readers as Marvel's top villain during the company's epic "Civil War" story in 2007. And though it may have taken a while to get around to him, Iron Man finally followed in the footsteps of numerous Marvel heroes when his very own movie kicked off 2008's summer blockbuster season. And guess what? It's a fantastic movie.

Billionaire playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has it all. Money, fame, fast cars, beautiful women, all that awesome stuff. He's also developed a reputation as the world's leading purveyor of military weaponry thanks to the success of his company, Stark Industries. While in Afghanistan to demonstrate his company's new missile, his convoy is attacked and Stark is kidnapped.

His abductors — a terrorist group identifying themselves as the Ten Rings — order him to build them a missile of their own, using a stockpile of Stark Industries technology acquired through nefarious means. Under the guise of crafting their weapon, he and fellow captive Dr. Yinsen (Shaun Toub) spend the next three months building a powerful suit of armor to facilitate their escape. Though Yinsen is killed during their breakout, Stark fights his way through the terrorists, destroys their stockpile of weapons, and gets away.

Stark is greeted by devoted assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), an old friend who holds a high-ranking position in the Air Force, upon his return to the United States. But the effects his abduction have had upon him begin to reveal themselves via a noticeable change in his demeanor. Rattled by the fact that both sides of the Middle Eastern conflict have access to the weapons his company has engineered, his plane home is barely on the ground before he announces the dissolution of the Stark Industries weapons division. The announcement causes the company's stock to plummet, and Stark's hard-nosed business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) makes it no secret that he's displeased by this turn of events.

But Stark remains undaunted in his decision. Having seen his company's weapons fall into the hands of the Ten Rings, Stark sets forth to refine and improve his armor so that he might use it to eliminate the caches of Stark Industries weapons being hoarded by terrorists. And he's picked the right time to do it, because Stane's backdoor dealings in regards to the company's weapons division have evolved from shady to downright sinister.

Iron Man is, at its core, your typical superhero origin story. But the differences between this and other, similar movies is the way that it's told. Sure, there's the moments that will make devoted comic book fans giddy, but it's the kind of movie that even those who are completely unfamiliar with Iron Man or comics in general can walk into and enjoy. Making a movie such as this has allowed director Jon Favreau and his cast and crew to create one of the most entertaining and engaging comic book adaptations ever made. It's a downright fun movie from start to finish. Nearly everything about it is effective and makes Iron Man worth watching.

The movie marks Favreau's first action movie as a director, and teaming with cinematographer Matthew Libatique, he shows that there's more in his repertoire than comedies and family movies. You'd never know Favreau was an action movie rookie by watching Iron Man, because he keeps the pace brisk and the action exciting while inserting the humor at just the right places.

It helps that the movie boasts some incredible visual effects from Industrial Light and Magic, with assistance from effects studios The Orphanage and The Embassy. Their work is slick, at times looking so convincing that it's hard to tell the difference between the CGI and the practical effects. And those practical effects are quite good, specifically the Iron Man and Iron Monger suits designed by the late Stan Winston. Inspired by the work of comic book artist Avi Granov, the armor looks superb, some of the best superhero and supervillain costumes I've seen in quite a while.

I also really liked the original music composed by Ramin Djawady. The rock-oriented music perfectly carried the onscreen happenings while being exciting in its own right, especially when combined with the heavy metal stylings of AC/DC, Suicidal Tendencies, and Black Sabbath. My only real complaint with Djawady's music is the lack of a memorable theme song. Yes, there are some recurring musical elements, but nothing that really stands out.

That's the big problem with most modern comic book movies, especially those inspired by Marvel properties. Sure, Spider-Man's movies had a theme song, but did you leave the theater humming the tune, like you would with John Williams's Superman music or Danny Elfman's Batman music? Outside of Black Sabbath's "Iron Man" and Djawady's various interpolations of the jazzy theme song from the Iron Man cartoon that ran in syndication at the end of 1966, I couldn't really pick up anything that would get stuck in my head. It might be the most obvious answer, but maybe they should stick with Black Sabbath as the franchise's theme song? Of course, I'm fully expecting the use of Kiss's "War Machine" to turn up in future Iron Man movies. You comic nerds know what I'm getting at.

Next up is the screenplay, credited to Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, and Matt Holloway. I'm not quite sure just how much of the final script actually ended up in the movie, thanks to not only Favreau and Robert Downey Jr.'s contributions to the writing process, but Favreau's encouragement of improvisation during filming. This ends up being a good thing, though, because it makes the interaction between the actors feel more natural, more real. However, what the script definitely does contribute to the movie is well done. The inside jokes referring to notable parts of Iron Man's history on the printed page are a nice touch, and I felt the initial red herring in regards to the identity of the movie's villain was well done.

The real draw of the script, however, is how it treats the title character. It seems like in most superhero origin movies, the lead character immediately becomes a straight-laced crimefighter as soon as he adopts his new identity. But that isn't quite the case with Iron Man. Tony Stark might have become a hero, but gaining a conscience and a little maturity doesn't mean he's immediately going to stop his boozing, womanizing, high-rolling behavior. Personally, I think it makes for a more believable way to begin the story of a superhero.

Last, but most certainly not least, is the movie's greatest component: its cast. Boy, what an impressive group of actors and actresses Iron Man has. Every person that steps in front of the camera is up to the task given to them, no matter how important or insignificant their role is. The movie is strengthened by their positive contributions to it, so yeah, they'll all get a thumbs up from me. Let's begin with our star, Robert Downey Jr. I know many movie reviewers, both in print and online, have commented on the irony of hiring an actor who's had a prolonged battle with drug addiction to play an alcoholic superhero. And it is funny in an odd sense.

But while Tony Stark's alcoholism isn't a major factor in the movie, it does give Downey a way to connect to the character. And not only does he make a connection, he jumps into the role headfirst. I can't imagine anybody else playing the role, because Downey is perfect in it. I know it will sound like hyperbole, but hiring Downey to play Iron Man has to be one of the most inspired bits of casting in the history of the genre. Downey is fun to watch, playing the role as (in Downey's own words) a "likeable asshole." You honestly can't not like him. He's so good in the role that the supporting cast almost becomes completely ancillary. It's most assuredly one of the most entertaining performances to come along in quite a while, and the entire movie is better for it.

But let's not forget the rest of the cast, whom all put forth fine performances. Gwyneth Paltrow is very charming as Pepper Potts, Tony Stark's "Girl Friday." Paltrow wouldn't have been very high on the list of people I would have expected to star in a superhero movie (even if she does have unsophisticated flicks like Shallow Hal and View From The Top on her résumé), but hiring her proved to be quite beneficial to the movie. She brings a certain warmth to the role that makes her that much more endearing and amiable. It helps that she and Downey also have an engaging chemistry together, their scenes coming across as flirtatious even at their most innocent. Considering that pretty much sums up the entire relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts, Downey and Paltrow did a fantastic job together.

I also have to say that I thought Terrence Howard did some fine work as Jim Rhodes. Unfortunately, thanks to the amount of time spent developing Downey's character, Howard's screen time is limited. It's not like they edited him out of the movie or anything, but Howard's presence doesn't seem very... prevalent, I guess is the word I'm looking for. However, Howard does put forth a solid performance, and it's a shame that he only gets maybe forty-five minutes of screen time, if that.

Jeff Bridges is also solid as the sleazy, and thoroughly unethical, businessman Obadiah Stane. The character isn't really all that developed, and it seems like he was only stuck into the movie in order to give Iron Man a villain to fight at the end of the movie. That doesn't deter Bridges, though. He plays the role exactly needs to be played, as a greedy, power-hungry yuppie. It's like Bridges decided play the role as if he were Gordon Gecko from Wall Street, only as a 21st-century weapons dealer instead of a mid-'80s stock broker.

Other ancillary members of the supporting cast — particularly Faran Tahir as the leader of Stark's abductors, Shaun Taub as Stark's cellmate in Afghanistan, and Leslie Bibb as a Vanity Fair reporter — all do fine work as well, surrounding the strong main characters with credible support.

Iron Man is not only a fantastic comic book adaptation, but a great movie in general. It can not only appeal to comic readers with its inside jokes and references to Iron Man's history, but it's also open enough so that non-fans can have fun watching it without feeling like they have to catch up on forty-five years of comic book adventures. Iron Man is, without a doubt, a thoroughly entertaining motion picture from beginning to end.

With outstanding direction, flashy special effects, and stellar acting, Iron Man is a good step forward on the road to proving that superhero movies can be created for and enjoyed by people other than your typical dorky fanboys like yours truly. And even if it wasn't, it'd still be one heck of a movie. So on my patent pending Five-Star Sutton Scale, I'm going to give Iron Man four stars and my stamp of approval. Go check it out.

Final Rating: ****