Blade: Trinity (2004)

Superheroes come in all shapes, all sizes, and with all kinds of special abilities. But none are quite like Blade. Instead of fighting megalomaniacs, aliens, insane clowns, or green goblins, Blade's enemies are those classic villains, vampires. Himself a half-vampire, it's Blade's job to eliminate every supernatural bloodsucker he comes across. Though Blade is a relatively obscure character in the Marvel Comics pantheon, New Line Cinema bought the movie rights to the character and released a live-action adaptation in 1998.

Though the movie was only a moderate financial success, its impact is still being felt ten years later. I spoke of this in my review of it, but Blade revolutionized the entire superhero movie genre. Bryan Singer's X-Men might get the lion's share of the glory due to both the Blade character's lack of notoriety and X-Men's genre-revolutionizing special effects, but Blade truly got the ball rolling. A sequel was released in 2002, which turned out to be even more popular than its predecessor. So reasoning that they should probably ride this money train as long as they could, New Line released a third movie, Blade: Trinity, in 2004. It might not be as good as Blade II, but it's not so bad.

Our story naturally picks up sometime after the events of Blade II, and the tireless vampire slayer Blade (Wesley Snipes) is continuing his seemingly unending war against the vampire race. Realizing that they're on the losing side of this war, a group of vampires have concocted a plan to turn the tables on their foe. As he tears through a vampire hideout, Blade is tricked into killing a normal human being used as bait. News footage of this is used to spin Blade as a psychotic serial killer, shooting him to the top of the FBI's most wanted list. The FBI manages to track Blade to his hidden compound, and although his sidekick Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) sacrifices himself in the ensuing fracas, Blade is defeated and taken into police custody.

But as certain vampire-sympathetic police officers prepare to hand Blade over to the vampire sect who set him up, they're interrupted by Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds) and Whistler's long-lost daughter Abigail (Jessica Biel). The duo breaks Blade out, rushing him back to their own hideout. There, they introduce him to their own ragtag group of vampire slayers, dubbed "the Nightstalkers." Though initially reluctant to join the Nightstalkers due to their relative inexperience, Blade agrees to partner with them after Hannibal reveals himself to be a former vampire who had been cured. During the following grand tour of the Nightstalker facility, they tell Blade of their discovery that Danica Talos (Parker Posey) and her posse of bloodsuckers have found and awakened the ancient — and the very first — vampire known as Dracula (Dominic Purcell), who now answers to the name "Drake." With Drake on their side, Danica hopes that they can finally eliminate Blade and instigate the vampire version of the "final solution."

To combat this newfound threat, the Nightstalkers have developed a biological weapon they've named the Daystar. The Daystar is designed to kill any and every vampire in the nearby area, but there's two catches. The first is that they need to add some of Drake's blood to the Daystar recipe. Because he is the progenitor of the entire vampire race, his pure blood could maximize the Daystar's potency. The second catch: Because of Blade's unique situation as a half-vampire, the Daystar could possibly kill him too. But that is a risk Blade is willing to take if it means another step towards winning his fight against vampires.

Since its release in 2004, Blade: Trinity has often been referred to as the weakest chapter in the Blade trilogy. And I can't really argue with that, because it's the truth. From both a critical and a financial standpoint, Blade: Trinity was the least successful of the entire trilogy. But I don't think it's the truly bad movie that critics like Roger Ebert and the like might have you believe. Sure, it isn't as great as it could have been. But I still thought it was a fun, enjoyable movie in spite of the flaws it may have. I liked it, and I'll make an attempt tell you why.

Let's start with the direction from David Goyer. Goyer steps into the director's chair after Blade II director Guillermo Del Toro passed on the job so he could make Hellboy, and I have to applaud him for taking a shot. He'd only helmed one other movie prior to this, and his inexperience shows. However, Goyer also shows signs of competence as a director too. He gets some fine camerawork from cinematographer Gabriel Beristain, and he succeeds in maintaining a relatively quick pace so that the movie never lulls for too long at any given time.

There are a few scenes that could have stood being trimmed or cut entirely, like the revelation of the "vampire final solution" and the scene where Drake kills two unassuming Goth kids just because they were selling crappy Dracula merchandise. But outside of that, I didn't think Goyer did that bad of a job as director. I also liked the music composed by Ramin Djwadi and The RZA from the Wu-Tang Clan. Their hip hop and techno-oriented score suits the movie well. Their music fits the tone that Goyer was aiming for, and really backs up the visuals.

Meanwhile, Goyer's script isn't too bad, but it isn't really as strong as it could have been. Could it be that after writing the first two movies in the trilogy, Goyer simply ran out of steam? It just seems that the jokes are way too plentiful (and in some cases, way too lame), some scenes don't contribute as much to the overall narrative as they could, and Drake doesn't really come across as the end-all, be-all of enemies. He just doesn't feel all that threatening. And why do they say he changed his name from "Dracula" to "Drake"? What's so wrong with just calling him Dracula? Was there some kind of copyright problem where they were only allowed to call him Dracula once or twice? If Buffy the Vampire Slayer can fight a vampire that's actually named Dracula, then why can't Blade? Sigh.

Lastly is the cast, most of whom do as fine a job as they can. Wesley Snipes is once again engaging as the titular vampire hunter. The character's evolution from stoic, emotionless badass to snarky tough guy — an evolution that began in Blade II — seems complete here, and Snipes handles the role with a certain enthusiasm. I know in retrospect that Snipes was less than thrilled with Blade: Trinity for reasons that include his screen time being cut in order to place more emphasis on the Nightstalkers, but that doesn't change the fact that they couldn't have asked for a better person to play Blade.

I also enjoyed Jessica Biel and Ryan Reynolds as Blade's new backup. Biel is credible as Abigail Whistler, giving the character a tough courageousness that makes her thoroughly likeable. And Reynolds... well, if you've seen practically any of Ryan Reynolds's movies, you know what to expect from him. The role was supposedly specifically written with his comedic talents in mind, so he's able to comfortably assume the role of Hannibal King and make it his own. The only really bad part is that virtually every word he says and every move he makes is some kind of wisecrack. After a while, you begin to think that the character is just a cheap one-trick pony, and you just want him to shut up for two seconds and be serious.

The rest of the cast is something of a mixed bag. Parker Posey and pro wrestler Triple H are both effective in their roles as members of the vampire clan trying to vanquish Blade, and Patton Oswalt is funny is what is essentially an extended cameo as the armorer for the Nightstalkers. And once again, I enjoyed Kris Kristofferson's performance, despite his glaring lack of screen time. I'm disappointed that Goyer felt the need to kill his character off, especially so early in the movie, but Kristofferson still plays the role like a champ.

But the only member of the extended cast who I wasn't really impressed by was Dominic Purcell as Drake. If his performance was a dog, they'd have taken him out behind the shed and shot him. Drake is perhaps the least frightening depiction of Dracula that I've personally ever seen, thanks to a combination of poor writing and Purcell's poor acting. Seriously, Leslie Nielson made a better Dracula in Dracula: Dead and Loving It than Purcell did in Blade: Trinity. And that's terrible.

David Goyer handles Blade: Trinity differently than the directors of the prior Blade movies. It isn't the gritty, no-nonsense action movie that Stephen Norrington made, or the would-be Brothers Grimm tale that Guillermo Del Toro crafted. Instead, Goyer gives us something that is style over substance, an odd amalgamation of elements of the first two movies with a glossier, mainstream sheen and a silly sense of humor. That's why Blade: Trinity is often looked at as the trilogy's redheaded stepchild. (But that's still better than the television series, which could be viewed as the franchise's answer to Cousin Oliver.) I still thought it was an amusing movie in spite of its flaws, so I'll give it three stars on my Five Star Sutton Scale. Now if only Wesley Snipes would stay out of legal trouble for them to make Blade 4...

Final Rating: ***

Blade II (2002)

There once was a time when superhero movies weren't the money-making juggernauts they are today. In that day and age, you could count the number of truly good superhero movies on one hand and have fingers left over. But times change. The superhero movie genre underwent a dramatic change at the turn of the twenty-first century, and it's all thanks to the movie Blade. The titular vampire slayer from the pages of Marvel Comics is neither a mainstream nor a traditional superhero by any means, but when the live-action movie he inspired was released to theaters in 1998, its success prompted movie studios to take a fresh look at how they adapted comic book properties into feature films.

And of course, the success of Blade meant that New Line Cinema wouldn't hesitate in approving a sequel. That sequel — the appropriately-titled Blade II — greatly improves upon its predecessor by not only trying to avoid Blade's flaws, but delivering more of what we'd expect: lots of vampires, exciting action, and good old-fashioned violence.

Two years have passed since the events of the first movie, time that Blade (Wesley Snipes) has spent searching for the missing body of his lost mentor, Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson). He eventually finds his old friend in the Czech Republic, turned into a vampire and kept alive in suspended animation. Bringing Whistler back to his base of operations, Blade administers an accelerated version of the anti-vampirism cure developed in the first movie. The cure works, and while Whistler is grateful to be a human again, he isn't exactly enthused with some of the changes made to he and Blade's operation in his absence.

And by that, I mean Whistler is less than impressed by Blade's choice in a new sidekick, a disrespectful goon named Scud (Norman Reedus). But while Whistler and Scud squabble, a bigger problem presents itself when two vampires infiltrate their hideout and propose a temporary truce with Blade. He agrees to this truce, and the vampire pair escort him to the fortress of Eli Damaskinos (Thomas Kretschmann), an ancient vampire elder.

He brings to Blade's attention Jared Nomak (Luke Goss), an incredibly violent vampire who is spreading a new, evolved form of vampirism named "the Reaper virus." Nomak's bloodlust drives him to not only attack humans, but vampires as well. Nomak is slowly but surely infecting others with the Reaper virus, and its spread threatens both the human and vampire races. Damaskinos and his clan offer to temporarily suspend their hostilities with Blade and partner with him in order to combat Nomak and the growing number of Reapers he has created. Blade accepts, entering into an uneasy alliance with Damaskinos's daughter Nyssa (Leoner Varela) and a squad of vampire assassins known as the Bloodpack. But as Blade and the Bloodpack prepare to wage war with Nomak, secrets soon come bubbling to the surface that ally against ally.

I enjoyed the first Blade movie, but that didn't change the fact that it had its share of flaws. Blade II improves upon its predecessor's methods, operating with more focus, greatly improved special effects, and more imagination. Now that's not to say that this movie doesn't have its own flaws, but that doesn't stop it from being an entertaining piece of action cinema. Blade II might still just be your typical modern action movie, but it is handled in such a way that puts it at a higher quality than other movies such as this. It's also a stronger movie than Blade, so let's get into what makes it that way, shall we?

A lot of the movie's fantastic quality comes from the work of director Guillermo Del Toro. He's no stranger to vampires, as his debut movie — the 1993 Mexican flick Chronos — also delves into the realm of undead bloodsuckers. But Blade II is a much different beast than the other, more fantasy-oriented work that Del Toro is known for. It is, as I said, pretty much a straightforward action movie with vampires as the villains. However, Del Toro is a very artistic filmmaker, which means good things for Blade II. The movie is visually astounding, with stunning camerawork (thanks to cinematographer Gabriel Beristain), CGI and special effects that have vastly improved upon the original movie's, and a Brothers Grimm-like tone.

Blade II might not be the same kind of glorified fairy tale like Pan's Labyrinth or the Hellboy movies, but Del Toro's work here gives the movie that sort of vibe. There's a reason why Blade II is considered by quite a few people to be the best chapter in the trilogy, and I'd reason to bet that Del Toro's direction is the reason why. There's also some great music composed by Marco Beltrami that, when combined with the hip hop songs comprising the soundtrack, the movie boasts an auditory experience that greatly backs up the visual one.

Next up is the screenplay, penned once again by David S. Goyer. Goyer seems to have learned from the mistakes made in the first Blade movie by eschewing some of the cheesy, over-the-top dialogue and characters that were so prevalent. Goyer's script does include a joke or two that don't really work, a character who is quite annoying, and a twist regarding one character's allegiances that is both lame and obvious in retrospect. But other than that, Goyer's script is tighter and more streamlined, more focused. He actually works harder in order to create intimidating villains and characters you can root for.

But as I said, there are weak spots in the script, particularly the occasional gaping hole in the movie's logic. The biggest one is at the very beginning of the movie, when the two vampires deliver their message of a truce to Blade. They sneak into the building dressed like ninjas, then engage in a fight with Blade. I know it was done to add a little excitement to the movie, but for their own sake, wouldn't it have been easier for the two characters to simply knock on the door and deliver the message without having to be so sneaky about it? What if Blade had killed them before they could say anything? Then their whole mission would have been shot, and it would have blown the entire movie within the first twenty minutes. Maybe I'm looking too deeply into things, but seriously, it's the little things that get noticed the most.

Last but not least is the cast. As with the prior movie, the acting portion of Blade II is primarily dominated by Wesley Snipes. He's not as stoic nor as conflicted as he was previously. Instead, Snipes seems more focused on making Blade the ultimate ass-kicker. Through Snipes's performance, we get the impression that Blade is having fun hunting vampires, offering the occasional bit of sarcastic trash talk while reducing his bloodsucking foes to piles of ash. And because of his engaging, charismatic performance, Snipes draws us in and makes the movie as a whole more entertaining.

The rest of the cast, for the most part, do well too. Kris Kristofferson is once again amusing as Blade's perpetually grumpy sidekick and father figure, while Ron Perlman is fun as a member of the Bloodpack that finds great amusement in antagonizing Blade. I also thought Leoner Varela was engaging in her role as a potential love interest for our hero, while Thomas Kretschmann did a fine job playing the creepy vampire elder. And I would be remiss if I failed to mention Luke Goss as our lead villain. Goss's performance as the vampire's vampire is everything that Stephen Dorff wasn't in the first movie: intimidating, no-nonsense, and just plain scary. Goss is great, one of the movie's real bright spots.

However, I'd be lying if I said that I thought all of the cast put forth their best efforts. I don't know whether it's the actor's fault or Goyer's fault for the creation of such an irritating character, but every second Norman Reedus was in a scene, I wanted him to go away. That's one misfire that's managed to carry over from Blade into Blade II: the annoying sidekick. I don't see the necessity for that same character archetype to be used again, something that isn't helped by the fact that if I could have, I'd have reached into the screen and smacked the Scud character every time I saw him. Though I will admit that the character being such a pain in the neck makes his final fate that much more gratifying.

That aside, Blade II is quite simply a fun and entertaining movie from start to finish. The cast and crew should be proud of themselves for putting together such a solid movie. Sure, Blade isn't among the most recognizable characters in Marvel's stable of superheroes, but that doesn't stop Blade II from being a fun way to spend two hours of your time. It's everything that you could want to see in a movie cut from this kind of cloth. So on the patent-pending Five-Star Sutton Scale, Blade II earns a solid four stars. Go check it out, and you'll see what I mean.

Final Rating: ****

Blade (1998)

Comic books are a medium primarily dominated by superheroes. Anyone why tries telling you otherwise is either a fool or a liar. But while the majority of them wear spandex costumes and have fantastic powers like flight or super-strength, others deviate greatly from that mold. They might be called "superheroes," but the supernatural nature of both their origins and the enemies they face are what sets them apart from their caped brethren. Perhaps the most notable of these heroes is Blade, the resident vampire hunter at Marvel Comics.

Created in 1973 by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan, Blade was a frequent supporting character in Tomb of Dracula, while making semi-occasional appearances in Marvel's other horror comics at the time. His visibility dropped during the '80s after Tomb of Dracula was cancelled, but he regained into his share of the spotlight through a number of miniseries and one-shot comics published in the early '90s.

Blade has never been one of Marvel's A-list characters (or even one of their B-list characters, if you want my opinion on it), but that didn't stop New Line Cinema from purchasing the movie rights. And let me tell you, folks, if you want to know what got the ball started on the current superhero genre, you can point the finger directly at this movie.

We begin with a brief prologue in 1967. A pregnant woman (Sanaa Lathan) is rushed into a hospital's emergency room, hemorrhaging blood after being bitten by a vampire. The trauma ends up inducing labor, and she dies giving birth. Thirty years pass, and that baby has become a prolific vampire hunter known as Blade (Wesley Snipes). Thanks to a genetic alteration passed to him by the bite that killed his mother, Blade is known amongst the vampire underworld as "the Daywalker," a vampire/human hybrid with all of a vampire's strengths and only one of their weaknesses: the thirst for blood. Keeping the thirst at bay with a serum developed by his cantankerous weaponsmith and mentor, Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson), Blade has made it his life's work to destroy every bloodsucker he comes across.

While tracking a vampire one night, Blade crosses paths with Dr. Karen Jenson (N'Bushe Wright), a hematologist whom the vampire had bitten. He brings the injured doctor back to his lair and patches her up, but can ultimately do nothing to prevent Dr. Jenson from eventually becoming a vampire herself. Not willing to resign herself to that fate, she begins working on a cure. Her work leads her to discover an anticoagulant that causes a violently fatal allergic reaction in vampires. So violently fatal, in fact, that it makes them explode.

Blade arms himself with darts filled with this anticoagulant to use as weapons, and he's going to need them. A brash, impudent vampire named Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) has grown tired of living in the shadows, believing that vampires should rise up and enslave humanity. And to achieve this lofty goal, Frost seeks to instigate his answer to the apocalypse. To do so, he plans on harnessing the power of an ancient god known "La Magra" so that he might wipe humanity off the face of the planet.

Prior to Blade, movies based on Marvel Comics properties weren't really all that great. Those that had seen production were awful beyond words. We'd seen Captain America with rubber ears, Johnny Storm depicted as cheesy animation, Lea Thompson making out with Howard the Duck, and David Hasselhoff in an eye patch. Dolph Lundgren's Punisher movie was the only one out of the bunch that was halfway watchable, and even that was no great shakes. Even DC's movies were struggling at the time, thanks to the one-two punch of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. But when Blade came along, that all changed. Sure, the first X-Men movie may get all the glory, but Blade was definitely the catalyst for the superhero movie genre as we know it today. The movie isn't a perfect one, but it's definitely a solid venture that's exciting and entertaining, which is exactly what it needs to be.

Let's hit up the direction first. Stephen Norrington hasn't had what you'd call a prolific career as a director, but he sure gives the impression of someone who knows exactly what kind of movie he wants to make. His work is slick and stylish, coming just a year before the Matrix trilogy turned the idea of fast-paced fight scenes pitting guys in sunglasses and trenchcoats against a big group of people into a cliché. Norrington (and his cinematographer, Theo Van De Sande) use long tracking shots, odd angles, and quick editing to help establish the tone of the movie, while utilizing shadows and a pale blue-gray color palate to enhance the atmosphere in many scenes. The enhancement of the atmosphere is also helped by the fine score composed by Mark Isham. I've made note in numerous reviews of my firm belief that, if used properly, music can go a long way in helping a movie in telling its story. Isham's music accomplishes that, helping to create an auditory experience that is equal to the visual one. Even the techno music used on the soundtrack works well too, but after a while, it kinda started to give me a headache.

But not everything about the production is aces. My main gripe is with the downright ugly CGI. Now I'll admit that for the majority of the movie, the CGI is relatively solid. But during the climactic final battle between Blade and Deacon Frost, there's two instances where it's so awful that it brings down the quality of the rest of the movie. It doesn't even look fake. It looks worse than fake. It looks... cheap. You know how a lot of supermarkets will sell crappy imitation versions of name-brand cereals? The CGI in that fight scene is the cinematic equivalent of those imitation cereals. Yeah, it might get the job done in a pinch, but it just doesn't have the same quality as the better stuff. The CGI looks half-finished, like they stopped working on it at some arbitrary point during the process. To sum it all up with another metaphor, the digital effects team could have used Photoshop and went with Microsoft Paint instead.

Next up is the screenplay, written by David Goyer. One of several superhero movies written by Goyer over the years, Blade doesn't really need much of a story. And truth be told, it doesn't really have much of one, either. The movie and its sequels are defined by their action sequences, not their writing. But that doesn't stop Goyer from doing as fine a job as he can here. Yeah, we do end up with some corny dialogue and a couple of characters who could have been removed with no major effect on the movie as a whole, but his writing didn't completely suck.

And I have to credit him with giving us a style of vampire that I personally hadn't seen before. The vampires of Blade are almost like the Mafia, an underground society making back-alley deals and getting involved with things like politics and law enforcement, all to further their grip on society. And there's also the familiars, humans loyal to vampires and marked with tattoos as if they were branded cattle. It's definitely a take on vampires that you don't see everyday.

Finally, there's Blade's cast. You really can't talk about the cast in any of the Blade movies without first talking about the franchise's leading man, Wesley Snipes. Snipes plays Blade with a certain macho ambiguity that makes Blade an intriguing character to follow. His performance gives off the impression that the character's outward appearance of a hardcore vampire killer is a cover for a deeper conflict within him. It makes it a little hard to connect with him since he isn't laying all his cards on the table, but Snipes's performance makes it easy to cheer for him when he's kicking all that vampire butt.

It's also easy to like Kris Kristofferson as Whistler, Blade's gruff, grizzled sidekick. Kristofferson is a lot of fun in the role, and he practically steals every scene he's in. Stephen Dorff, meanwhile, is watchable and suitably over the top in his role. Unfortunately, thanks to how the character of Deacon Frost is written, Dorff comes off not as an intimidating, ferocious villain, but as impetuous young punk trying to steal a little glory for himself. It isn't all Dorff's fault, though, and his work is acceptable in my eyes.

The fourth member of the leading cast, N'Bushe Wright, is... well... she's not all that great. Matter of fact, she's pretty darn bad. The character of Karen Jenson serves its purpose within two or three scenes, yet continues to stick around for the rest of the movie without any reason to do so. Yeah, sure, she's there so the necessary exposition could be explained to the audience, but I'm sure that it could have been handled in such a way that would have made it feel more organic. And it doesn't help that Wright has all the charisma of a wet mop, not to mention that her performance is so wooden, you'd think that they'd hired a tree to play the role. The more she was onscreen, the more I wanted a vampire to show up and tear her head off.

There is no deeper meaning to Blade. It doesn't have any sort of hidden social commentary or message. It doesn't elevate the cinematic discourse. But Blade is appealing because sometimes, you just want to see a movie where a character beats the snot out of as many people as he possibly can between the opening and closing credits. It works on a visceral level, and in spite of its flaws, the whole thing gels together to make a thoroughly energetic, entertaining experience. It is a movie that not everyone will find themselves liking, but those there do will have enjoyed themselves by the end of it. So I'm going to give Blade three and a half stars and a thumbs up.

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: ****

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

I think it's safe to say that Spider-Man is, if I may use a metaphor, the goose that laid the golden egg for Marvel Comics. In the forty-five years since he was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, Spider-Man has not only become Marvel's flagship character, but one of the most beloved characters the comic book industry has ever seen. That popularity has been most evidenced as of late by the incredible success of the live-action movies starring the web-slinging superhero.

The movies have raked in a lot of cash from both moviegoers and the resulting merchandise sales, and helped to revolutionize the way superhero movies are made. But with the first Spider-Man movie and its sequel earning recognition as two of the best comic book adaptations ever put to film, a question ends up being raised. That question: What happens when an ultra-popular movie franchise starts to run out of steam? The answer: You end up with movies like Spider-Man 3.

While it advanced an important story arc within the movies and introduced characters who've been important parts of Spider-Man's history, it fell into the same trap that Batman Forever and X-Men: The Last Stand fell into by proving that on occasion, the third time isn't exactly the charm.

Life couldn't be much better for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire). He's dating the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he's doing well in college, his work as a freelance photographer for the Daily Bugle is going well, and New York City has finally grown to love his alter ego, their friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. But as always in movies like this, a rocky road lies ahead for our hero. Harry Osborn (James Franco) continues to blame Peter for killing his father, and with the discovery of a hidden cache of Green Goblin equipment, he plans on having his revenge.

That's not the only kink in the road, either. Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), the true murderer of Peter's beloved uncle, has escaped from prison. And thanks to an accident at a scientific testing facility, his entire body has turned into living, malleable sand. Using his newfound condition as a way to commit daring bank robberies, he crosses paths with a vengeful Spider-Man, who intends to make Marko pay for his crimes. These feelings of anger along with the pride in himself that he's developed thanks to Spidey's surging popularity, are only made worse by a symbiote from outer space that has bonded with Peter and manifested itself as a black duplicate of his Spider-Man costume.

All of the negative elements of Peter's personality — particularly that pride and anger — are amplified to an extreme degree by that costume. His growing hubris alienates Mary Jane and pushes her away, while his enhanced aggression leads him to become more violent. This violent behavior evidences itself when he nearly kills Marko, then disfigures Harry's face with a live grenade during a fight. After a subsequent argument with Mary Jane ends with him punching her, a shocked Peter forcibly tears himself away from the symbiote... only for it to end up in the hands of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace). A rival photographer who lost his job at the Daily Bugle after Peter proved he'd doctored a picture of Spider-Man, Brock has been praying for Peter's death. And with the symbiote, his prayers are one step closer to being answered. Now faced with three new villains and a crumbling relationship with Mary Jane, Peter's life couldn't be much tougher.

Did that plot synopsis sound complicated and convoluted? Try writing it all. You'd be surprised at how much I actually left out in order for it to make any sense. Spider-Man 3 is a straight-up mess of a movie from start to finish, with too much going on and not enough effort put into making sense of it. The movie is two hours and nineteen minutes long, which should have been plenty of time to properly develop something and make a movie befitting of the reputation the other two have developed.

But there's just so much going on, that 139 minutes still isn't enough time to do it all. It's a movie that could have benefited from being either forty-five minutes longer in order to resolve things properly, or had something (or some things, plural) taken out so more concentration could be put on something else. The flawed narrative ends up hurting the movie, resulting in a failure to come close to any sort of expectations that anyone could have for it. After two awesome movies starring Spider-Man, how do the creative forces behind Spider-Man 3 look at this movie and decide that it's a worthy successor? Could someone answer that question for me, please?

I guess we'll start with Sam Raimi's directorial work first. I'll give credit where credit is due and say that he does a fine job here. It doesn't seem quite as good as how he handled the previous two movies, but Raimi's efforts are still solid. He's shown time and time again that he has a knack for creativity when he's working behind the camera, and he doesn't disappoint with Spider-Man 3. Raimi also gets some fantastic camerawork from cinematographer Bill Pope, along with great a musical score from composer Christopher Young (who excellently duplicates the themes crafted by Danny Elfman in the previous movies). My only real problem with Raimi's work, though, is that he feels like he's just going through the motions. Maybe doing three of these movies in six years has worn him out?

I felt like he'd put it into auto-pilot, and thus, we end up feeling like we've seen this all before. It doesn't help that the CGI effects have taken a big step backward. With the exception of the scene where Sandman initially reconstitutes himself after being atomized at the test facility (a scene that looks absolutely amazing, I must admit), the CGI appears to have reverted to the not completely convincing nature of the original movie. I said in my review of the first Spidey movie that the hero and the villain looked like video game characters, something I can also say about Spider-Man 3.

To be more specific, the initial fight between Peter and Harry looks like a cartoon, with not that many realistic-looking moments to be found. It's still an exciting scene, don't get me wrong. It would be fantastic if the movie was done entirely in CGI. But because in a live-action movie, it looks sloppy. I know that's not entirely Raimi's fault, since he's not in charge of the computer imagery department, but you'd think he would have the final say in what went into his movie.

Next up is the screenplay, written by Raimi, his brother Ivan, and Allen Sargent. I'll put it simply: the script is bad, very bad. It not only suffers from many of the same flaws that plagued the previous two movies (like Spidey somehow managing to lose his mask over the course of the final battle), but is hindered by the aforementioned problem of bringing way too much to the table. It's like the Raimis and Sargent had the idea to cram as much stuff into the movie as they could, just in case there wasn't a Spider-Man 4. There's Sandman, the Venom symbiote, the romantic squabbles between Peter and Mary Jane, the introduction of Gwen Stacy, and the further evolution of Harry's hatred of Spider-Man. They even work in a little time for Curt Connors, a character who becomes the villainous Lizard in the comics. So much stuff is crammed into this movie that there's not enough space for things to develop in a satisfactory matter.

Because there are so many dangling threads, it takes forever to tie them all up. By the time they circle back around, you've almost forgotten about what's happened previously. It doesn't help that a lot of things, like the poor attempt at resurrecting the Peter/Mary Jane/Harry love triangle, just spin their wheels and don't accomplish anything. The scene where Mary Jane rebuffs Peter's marriage proposal is an effectively sad one, but other than that, we're presented with some of the cheesiest melodrama since Degrassi Junior High.

And that's what makes things so bad. The whole script poorly handles everything that comes along. Take Gwen Stacy, for example. She's one of the most critical supporting characters in Spider-Man's history, a character who shook up the entire American comic book industry when she was killed off back in the '70s. She is finally introduced into the movie franchise here, but despite her importance to the Spidey mythos, she's treated almost as an afterthought. She's given right around ten minutes of screen time in the finished film, which amounts to practically nothing in the grand scheme of things. For all the movie version of Gwen is worth, they could have given the character any random name and it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever. It's as if the Raimis and Sargent saw how the Alicia Masters character had been rendered virtually useless in the Fantastic Four movies, and said to themselves, "Yeah, we can do that."

The script also suffers from the cheapest, most contrived climax imaginable. There's Mary Jane playing the damsel in distress (again!), the downright silly way that we arrive at Sandman's fate, and an astoundingly stupid deus ex machina that resolves the "Harry hates Spider-Man" arc in a way that insults the intelligence of everyone who has become emotionally invested in this trilogy. Did the writers paint themselves into a corner during the writing process and have to rush the ending?

That's one of the movie's biggest problems; everything feels rushed, which ends up making everything look bad. That deus ex machina is particularly offensive, as there is absolutely no logic behind it. Without spoiling too much, I'll say that it involves Harry learning the truth about the Green Goblin's death. That might not have been such a big deal had this discovery been handled differently. But it's done here in a way that makes you wonder why nobody said anything about it sooner. It's lame beyond words.

And speaking of lame, how about the movie's depiction of Venom? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Venom is one of Spider-Man's most popular villains, but the character's fans are utterly crapped on by Spider-Man 3. Eddie Brock is only a minor annoyance throughout the movie, and he doesn't even turn into Venom until the last thirty minutes of the movie. And when Venom does appear, he ends up looking really weak in the long run. Venom's entire run in the movie consists of asking Sandman if he wants to team up, fighting Spider-Man, and dying like a punk. That's it!

I've heard from various sources that Sam Raimi has never been a fan of Venom, but that producer Avi Arad pretty much forced him to shoehorn the character a movie that had no place for him. Even if Arad did force that, there's no reason to write such an awful version of the character. Frankly, Venom is a character that could have used his own movie without the two other villains bogging him down. It would have been a lot better had they put New Goblin and Sandman together in this movie, then saved Venom for Spider-Man 4. But instead, we're stuck with this big ol' letdown.

I guess we'll wrap things up with the acting, which is the very definition of "mixed bag." Some of the cast is good, some of them are bad, and a few of them are mediocre at best. On the good side, let's start with the leading man, Tobey Maguire. Maguire puts forth an impressive performance, playing the role as if he were a drug addict. The black suit is like Spider-Man's heroin, and his infatuation with it leads to terrible changes in his personality and ruins his relationships with his loved ones. That stress pushes him deeper into the addiction that is slowly ruining his life, and he's forced to live with the consequences once he finally breaks away from it.

Maguire handles this with conviction, making a performance worth watching. The aforementioned scene where Mary Jane dumps Peter when he tries to propose is so sad, and it's all because of Maguire. But as good as he is, did we really need the the scene where he struts down the street in a fancy suit? Okay, he's supposed to be a narcissistic douchebag, I get it. I don't need to see him with a goofy haircut that makes him look like the lead singer of some lame emo band, strutting around like he's a only paint can and a Bee Gees song away from doing his interpretation of Saturday Night Fever. And did we need the whole jazz dance routine? Why not just rename the movie to Spider-Man: The Musical and be done with it? There were other ways to build up to Peter punching Mary Jane, but they went with this awful scene? None of the lame parts are Maguire's fault, since he isn't the one who decided to put those scenes in the movie, but they make him look really bad.

And in the role of the female lead, Kirsten Dunst isn't as good as she was previously. Dunst's interviews during the promotional campaign made her sound likes he only agreed to do the movie because Sony offered her a huge paycheck. Perhaps they paid her too much, because I personally felt that her work wasn't all that impressive. (I could say Maguire's interviews came across the same way as Dunst's, but he still did a decent enough job.) I enjoyed Dunst's performances in the first two movies and thought she and Maguire had good chemistry together, but I really can't say either of those things came across Spider-Man 3. Yeah, Dunst plays a believable damsel in distress, and there are a few scenes where she isn't all that bad But other than that, I have to say I wasn't exactly impressed.

On the other hand, I did like James Franco as the ultra-cocky, slightly insane Harry Osborn. The character's evolution throughout the trilogy has been worth following, and Franco's consistent performances in all three movies has really helped that. The other villains also do their fair share of good work. Topher Grace wasn't exactly the first person I'd have thought of when it comes to casting Venom, mainly due to his comedic work on That 70s Show. But Grace shows that he's up to the challenge, playing Eddie Brock as a total and complete weasel. And when he finally gets the all-too-brief opportunity to play Venom, he pulls off the "drunk with power" aspect convincingly.

Perhaps the best performance in the movie, however, comes from Thomas Haden Church. The Sandman character is depicted here not as being truly villainous, but as someone who fell into a life of crime only because it was the quickest way to help his sick daughter. Sandman's intentions are noble even if his methods are not, and Church's sympathetic portrayal excellently conveys that. It's a shame such fine work is stuck in such a mediocre movie. The rest of the cast, the ancillary performers left to the background, also do very well. Bryce Dallas Howard and Rosemary Harris are likeable as Gwen Stacy and Peter's aunt May, despite their characters being shuffled off into almost complete irrelevance. The movie's comic relief are particularly great. Bruce Campbell's extended cameo as a maître d' at a French restaurant is hilarious, and J.K. Simmons and Elizabeth Banks have a fun comedic timing together that makes the Daily Bugle scenes thoroughly entertaining.

I really wanted to like Spider-Man 3. The first time I saw it, I actually didn't think it was all that bad. But just like the movie's hero, the negative aspects become more pronounced the the more times I watch it. There are some good things in there, mainly amongst the cast. However, the truth is that Spider-Man 3 is one of the most frustratingly disappointing movies I've ever seen. By the time the closing credits roll, you're left asking, "Where the hell did this go wrong?" That's a good question, but I'm not really sure if I have an answer. Obviously, something went wrong during the creative process. It's just a shame that nobody caught that problem, and we thusly ended up with what we got. I guess I'd give Spider-Man 3 two and a half stars on my usual Five Star Sutton Scale, and I hope that future Spider-Man sequels don't suffer like this one did.

Final Rating: **½