Dick Tracy (1990)

Batman may lay claim to the title of "the world's greatest detective," but that only accounts for superhero comics. When it comes to crime comics, no detective can top Dick Tracy. The creation of cartoonist Chester Gould, the square-jawed Tracy debuted in a comic strip published by the Detroit Mirror newspaper on October 4, 1931. The syndicated strip grew in popularity (due largely to the bizarre-looking villains Gould would have Tracy regularly face), being adapted into a radio drama and movies during the '30s and '40s, a TV show in the '50s, and a series of five-minute cartoons in 1961.

But while the original strip is still being published to this day, it's been decades since Dick Tracy has had any sort of real mainstream notoriety. He did make something of a comeback in 1990, however, in the form of a live-action movie starring and directed by Warren Beatty. Perhaps in an attempt to capitalize on the success of Tim Burton's Batman a year prior, the movie was promoted like crazy upon its release. It had its own video game and toy line, a tie-in with McDonald's, and even a midnight release decades before midnight releases for summer blockbusters became the norm. But while the movie was a huge success at the box office, and was nominated for seven Oscars (three of which it won), it was met with only moderate critical approval. But I enjoyed the movie a lot, and I'll tell you why.

Some cops are just cops. But Dick Tracy (Beatty) is a force of nature, an unstoppable warrior dispensing justice in a city overrun by organized crime. Tracy's determination has nearly put the city's various mob bosses out of business, which gives ambitious gangster Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) an idea. He proposes that the remaining mob bosses pool their resources and snuff out Tracy for good. Not all of them agree to his terms, but soon find Big Boy violently taking their turf for himself. But it primarily brings him more attention from Tracy, who ramps up his attempts to bring Big Boy to justice.

The ordeal with Big Boy isn't the only thing Tracy must deal with, though. He's become the temporary guardian of a nameless street urchin (Charlie Korsmo) who answers only to "Kid." He gets some help in dealing with Kid from his devoted girlfriend, Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly), though their relationship has hit a rough patch due to the flirtatious advances of a sultry lounge singer named Breathless Mahoney (Madonna), And when a mysterious, faceless figure called "The Blank" begins eliminating members of Big Boy's gang, things couldn't get hairier for Tracy.

Okay, so Dick Tracy might not be the best movie it could have been. It has its share of flaws, sure. But even at its worst, it's still a serviceable flick that's more entertaining that some might give it credit for. A lot of it is because of just how earnest the movie is. It never seems to want to be anything more than the sum of its parts. And that sum is a comic strip brought to a brightly-colored life, a 100-minute amusement park ride that's as fun as it could possibly be.

As I said before, Warren Beatty is not only Dick Tracy's star, but its director as well. And while it did not earn him an Oscar nomination for Best Director as his efforts on Heaven Can Wait and Reds did, I thought his work here was still pretty good. Beatty's extensive use of oversaturated primary colors and flat matte paintings are a little jarring at first, but they actually help to establish the comic strip atmosphere that Beatty was aiming for. It's apparent that he's a fan of the Dick Tracy property, because his enthusiasm shows. You can tell he wanted to make the best movie he possibly could. And to be honest, I think he succeeded.

But where I thought the movie struggles a bit was in the writing department. Written by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr. (with uncredited rewrites by Beatty and Bo Goldman), the script is what I felt was the movie's weakest element. But it's primarily due to how fast-paced it is. The story moves along so quickly that it's hard for anything to sink in. And there's a lot of going on here, too. The movie is practically rendered a blur because it keeps moving from scene to scene without allowing the audience to catch up.

Outside of that, the script isn't wholly awful. It's obviously a simple tale of good vs. evil, as most comic book movies are. That sort of thing can be hackneyed if handled poorly. But Dick Tracy does it well enough for me. Dick Tracy might not be the brooding loner that Burton's Batman was, but his determination and devotion to justice make him a fine hero. And although the villains were basically one-dimensional gangster caricatures, the script still crafts those caricatures in such a way that they're perfectly acceptable bad guys.

The cast, meanwhile, all put forth very strong performances. Beatty is impressive, playing the titular detective with conviction. Though he doesn't quite match the hawk-nosed, square-jawed look that Dick Tracy's had since his creation, Beatty still does a fantastic job in bringing the character to life.

In the role of our primary villain, Al Pacino is as over-the-top as one could possibly get. Pacino goes beyond chewing the scenery; he practically devours it. Every second he spends on the screen is a lot of fun, as he plays Big Boy Caprice with everything he's got. But I'm honestly surprised that he was actually nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He didn't win, losing out to Joe Pesci's performance from Goodfellas, but the fact he was even nominated is still astounding. It just doesn't seem like the kind of movie or performance that would get the Academy's attention.

The rest of the cast put forth respectable performances as well. I don't think many people will argue with me if I say Madonna is a better singer than an actress, but her work here isn't bad at all. The role of Breathless Mahoney was pretty much built for her; it suits her sultry early-'90s persona so well that she's practically playing herself. Of course, it helps that having her play a lounge singer gives her a chance to display what made her famous to begin with. The three songs Madonna performs for the movie's soundtrack are catchy and entertaining, and Madonna belts them out like a champ.

I liked Glenne Headly a lot too. She provides the perfect counterbalance to Madonna's sexy "bad girl" personality, and was charming and likable to boot. Dustin Hoffman and William Forsythe also provided amusing yet sadly minor performances, while Mandy Patinkin isn't bad at all in his tiny role as Caprice's club's piano player and The Blank's sidekick.

The only performance I didn't really care for was Charlie Korsmo. It's actually not Korsmo's fault, as he completely throws himself into the role and makes a memorable effort. The problem I had was with how the character was written. Kid is an annoying little brat for a lot of the movie, to the point that I found it hard to like him. Again, that's no fault of Korsmo's, but still, it's annoying to have to deal with Kid so much.

Dick Tracy may have been made in an effort to ride Batman's coattails, but it totally works on its own efforts. It's actually a pretty hard movie to dislike. The movie's a bright, colorful affair where the good guys will always beat the bad guys no matter the odds against them. And what's wrong with a movie like that once in a while?

Final Rating: ***½

Survival of the Dead (2010)

George A. Romero has long been a beloved figure among horror fans. It's because of him that zombies as we know and love them today even exist. But outside of his zombie movies, he hasn't really had a whole lot of success. I mean, Creepshow was great, and The Crazies has found some cult popularity, but it's Romero's zombie movies that people want to see. So I guess that's why, with the surge in popularity that the living dead have enjoyed over the last several years, Romero just keeps coming back to them.

I can't say I blame him. Any zombie movie with his name slapped on it will immediately have an audience. That's probably why he's ventured away from his previous "one zombie movie a decade" format and cranked out three of them since 2005. Unfortunately, those three movies are marked by a noticeable decline in quality. While I enjoyed Land of the Dead more than I probably should have, Diary of the Dead was disappointingly mediocre. And that brings us to Romero's latest effort, Survival of the Dead. And let me be honest with you: it's not his worst, but it most certainly is not his best.

As our story begins, we're introduced to a group of National Guardsmen led by Sgt. Crockett (Alan van Sprang). With the zombie outbreak becoming more and more widespread, the soldiers have gone rogue, robbing civilians and killing whatever zombies stand in the way between them and their survival. They find an online invitation to Plum Island, a small island off the coast of Delaware, and set a course for what they believe might be a safe haven from the zombie horde.

But they arrive to find that Plum Island is the scene of a tense family feud between the O'Flynns and the Muldoons. The feud is caused by the clashing ideals of the family patriarchs; Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Walsh) wants eliminate the zombies on Plum Island, while Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick) simply wishes to keep them restrained until they can learn to be docile. The rogue soldiers are caught in the middle of the war, one that's only made worse by the zombies running loose on the island.

While the movie is an improvement over Diary of the Dead, it still gave me the feeling that Romero is starting to run out of steam. It's as if he's making these zombie movies because it's what people expect from him and because he knows there's an easy paycheck in it. I hate saying that, but that's the impression I got from Survival of the Dead. It's not that bad of a movie in spite of the overwhelmingly negative reviews it's gotten on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's nowhere near the quality of some of his other movies.

One of the biggest problems I had with Survival of the Dead was its lack of scares. If you're going to make a scary movie, why the hell would you leave out the scares? While Romero's direction was technically sound, the fact that it just wasn't scary at all really hurts it. That really crummy CGI gore doesn't help anything either. It looks way too fake to be taken seriously. And to top it off, the whole thing doesn't even feel like it should be a Romero movie. The whole movie has the presence of some direct-to-video zombie movie made by somebody who wished they were Romero. The whole thing is just plain disappointing.

And I unfortunately thought Romero's script was a little on the weak side too. The whole thing is pretty much Romero utilizing every possible entry from the "George Romero Trope/Cliché Handbook." There are the amoral soldiers, a battle of "kill zombies vs. experiment on them," zombies remembering habits from their old lives. A character afraid of turning into a zombie asks to be shot. And it even ends the same way as all of Romero's others zombie movies, with the living dead getting loose and wiping out most of the characters.

There's nothing new in Survival of the Dead. Romero doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, but it's like he wasn't even trying to go beyond the ordinary. I don't ask for much out of zombie movies, but I'd at least appreciate something that wasn't the same old thing I'd seen a million times before. But at least he didn't try shoving his usual social satire down the viewer's throat like he did in his previous two zombie movies. It was more subtle than that, to the point that I'm not even 100% sure there was a social satire beyond his usual "the living are more dangerous than the dead" concept that Romero has been using since all the way back in 1968 with Night of the Living Dead. Again, it's nothing new.

At least I dug the cast. Alan van Sprang puts forth a good performance as the leader of the National Guardsmen, and though he has a few iffy moments, he manages to pull through with a respectable performance. Richard Fitzpatrick wasn't bad either, though I thought he came off as a little too hammy. Devon Bostick and Kathleen Munroe put forth some good performances, and Stefano Collaciti is funny and likable. But my favorite performance came from Kenneth Walsh. Walsh is a lot of fun, playing the role with a charm that makes his presence a welcome one. He's the best part of this whole thing, and the movie is better for it.

There once was a day when news of a new zombie movie from George Romero would be a cause for celebration among horror fans. But after Survival of the Dead, I'm not sure if that's news I want to hear anymore. If Diary of the Dead was the equivalent of a race car driver hitting the wall at 200 miles per hour, then Survival of the Dead is the race car flipping and catching fire. The movie is an utter disappointment all the way through. It's a by-the-numbers effort with as much life in it as the zombies. It's watchable, at the very least. But it's nothing special at all. I've heard Romero thinks he has two more zombie movies in him, so let's hope those can improve upon this.

Final Rating: **

Diary of the Dead (2008)

With everyone packing cameras built into their cell phones, dozens of news networks airing 24 hours a day, and widespread Internet access, information can travel faster than ever before. It's that sort of thing that can change the world, as evidenced by how quickly news of the recent political protests and revolutions in the Middle East spread and sparked other countries in the region to do the same thing. And that information can be spun in a million different directions. Whoever's telling the story can pass it along however they feel, embellishing and omitting things as they please.

This proved to be a prime target for George A. Romero, the horror maestro whose zombie movies have almost always been flavored with a touch of social commentary. The prevalence of social media and news spin led Romero to combine it with the "found footage" genre for his 2008 movie Diary of the Dead. Taking things in a different direction than Romero's four prior zombie movies, Diary of the Dead is one of his more blatant attempts at a social commentary to the point that it's almost overbearing. But we'll get into that later.

Rather than continue the ever-worsening zombie apocalypse depicted previously, the movie takes us all the way back to the beginning. We're quickly introduced to a group of University of Pittsburgh film students creating a low-budget horror movie — boasting the rather apropos title The Death of Death — out in the Pennsylvania woods. During a lull between takes, the group overhears a radio newscast about widespread rioting and mass murder. These stories soon begin to include reports of cannibalism committed by reanimated corpses.

Project director Jason Creed (Josh Close) has the bright idea to turn The Death of Death into a documentary chronicling the zombie outbreak. He and the crew pile into an RV and hit the road, heading for the house owned by Jason's girlfriend Debra (Michelle Morgan). As they journey across the state, Jason continues to chronicle every tiny detail while life as they knew it crumbles to ruins around them.

Every time I've sat down to watch one of Romero's zombie movies, I've come away having enjoyed it. But while I didn't outright hate Diary of the Dead, it disappointed me. Comparing it to the other chapters in Romero's zombie saga, I felt it represented a rather steep decline in terms of quality. Granted, it's gotten some rather positive reviews online. (The ones I've read were positive, anyway.) But I didn't really get it. Diary of the Dead just didn't do anything for me at all.

I would imagine that utilizing the "found footage" style after spending forty years as a traditional filmmaker would be a rough transition, but Romero's direction isn't that bad. It's not without its flaws, though. The whole mockumentary thing seems like a cheat at times, since the characters start splicing in footage from security cameras and news reports as the movie goes on. That's forgivable, though, since the whole concept of the movie is that the characters were making a documentary. But it becomes a little distracting on occasion.

I can get past that, but the other problems were a little harder for me to overlook. There are very few moments of tension or suspense, and not many scares either. It's like Romero got so wrapped up in his social satire that he forgot horror movies were supposed to be scary. And let's not forget the CGI gore. Yeah, CGI gore in a movie directed by George Romero. That was tolerable in Land of the Dead, but for a movie supposedly shot with handheld cameras, the gore looks tremendously fake. It usually looks fake anyway, but it's faker than usual here. Could they not have gotten credible practical effects for the movie?

But at least Romero's direction is better than his screenplay. The lame dialogue is bad enough, but his social satire is even worse. I thought his satire of class warfare in Land of the Dead was bad, but wow. The whole "new media is evil" commentary Romero goes for is really bad. It's incredibly pretentious, and done rather poorly to boot. All it does is make the characters stupid and annoying, And oh boy, are those characters stupid and annoying. I spent the whole movie wanting to jump into the movie and feed them to the zombies.

And the acting isn't that great either. Due in large part to how badly the characters are written, none of the cast are very endearing. The vast majority of them are actually rather forgettable. The only one who stood out in my mind was Michelle Morgan, whose bitchiness and stiff line delivery put her a bit on the insufferable side of things. I also didn't particularly care for Josh Close, but that was mostly due to just how awful Romero has written his character.

I wanted to like Diary of the Dead. But while I appreciate Romero taking a rather novel approach to his bread and butter, I simply couldn't bring myself to like the movie. It simply wore out its welcome way too quickly. That's really a shame too, because Diary of the Dead could have been awesome. It could have been one of the coolest movies in Romero's filmography. Sadly, it's not. It's just one big 95-minute disappointment. Maybe if somebody ever remakes Diary of the Dead like they have some of Romero's other movies, they'll do a better job with it.

Final Rating: **

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Call me crazy, but I always get a kick out of movies that come right out and tell you everything you need to know right in the title. Snakes on a Plane had, get this, snakes on a plane. Zack and Miri Make a Porno saw the titular characters do exactly that, and the Harold & Kumar movies — ...Go To White Castle and ...Escape From Guantanamo Bay — had Harold and Kumar go to White Castle and escape from Guantanamo Bay.

And this brings us to the release of Cowboys & Aliens. There's cowboys, there's aliens, and that's pretty much it. It's actually based on a comic book, a graphic novel published by Platinum Studios in 2006. Created by Scott Michael Rosenberg and written by Fred Van Lente and Andrew Foley, I actually hadn't ever heard of it until about two or three weeks ago. But since this is a movie review site, let's stick with the Cowboys & Aliens movie. And you know what? The movie is pretty great.

Welcome to New Mexico, circa the 1870s. As the movie begins, a man (Daniel Craig) awakens in the desert with no idea how he got there. He cannot remember the past few days, or even his own name. All he does know is that he's got a strange metal cuff strapped to his wrist. The man heads for the nearby town of Absolution, where the local sheriff (Keith Carradine) recognizes him as the wanted outlaw Jake Lonergan. The sheriff tries arresting him, only succeeding when Jake is knocked out by a mysterious woman named Ella (Olivia Wilde).

The sheriff takes Jake into custody and prepares to hand him over to federal marshals, only to be interrupted by Colonel Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), a wealthy cattleman who practically owns the entire town. Jake and his gang robbed Colonel Dolarhyde's stagecoach, and demands that Jake be turned over to him so that he can claim the bounty. But before things can get settled, alien spaceships attack the town and start abducting people. The ships are only repelled by what I can only describe as a ray gun that emerges from Jake's cuff. Jake and Colonel Dolarhyde round up a posse of survivors and, teaming with Jake's gang and a local Apache tribe, try to hunt down the aliens and rescue those they've kidnapped.

Cowboys & Aliens is not a perfect movie. But its cast and crew do such a great job putting it together that any flaws it had can be overlooked easily. It's a damn fine flick, one that revels in its ludicrous concept yet admirably avoids drifting into camp territory. You would think a movie about cowboys in the Old West fighting malicious beings from another planet would be treated as some kind of B-movie parody like Snakes on a Plane. But Cowboys & Aliens is a serious flick and is better for it.

Jon Favreau is our director here, and whoever made the call to hire him made a great choice. No stranger to effects-heavy summer blockbusters, Favreau manages to delicately balance both the Western and science fiction genres. You'd think that those two genres wouldn't really gel all that well, but he pulls it off without making it seem forced. Favreau actually makes you come away with the impression that Westerns and sci-fi were meant to go together all along.

But it helps that Favreau has some fantastic elements at his disposal. Take, for example, the cinematography. Handled by Matthew Libatique, who had previously collaborated with Favreau on the Iron Man movies, the cinematography is very, very good. It perfectly establishes the necessary tone, while effortlessly evoking the style of both of the genres that the movie dips into. And the special effects and CGI are also top notch, feeling believable and seamlessly blending in with what's actually there in front of the camera.

Unfortunately, I thought the script — credited to Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, and Hawk Ostby — was where the movie's flaws started to seep in. I have no problem with the fact that the comic book's story being watered down to the point that it's basically "cowboys and Indians vs. generic alien invaders" and not much else, but that's all there is. The story is about as basic as you can get, and the characters are one-dimensional. The whole script is just like how I described the aliens: generic. I mean, I can't say I thought the writing was overwhelmingly bad, but it was just there. And that helps nobody.

At least the cast tries making up for it. While I thought the supporting cast — primarily Clancy Brown and Sam Rockwell — contribute fine performances, they were all overshadowed by the three leads. Playing the mysterious Jake Lonergan is James Bond himself, Daniel Craig. Craig is great in the role, though it doesn't require much of him outside of being an enigmatic tough guy. I can say the exact same thing about Harrison Ford, who only has to be a grizzled Civil War veteran with a short fuse. Both Ford and Craig are likable in their roles, playing them wholeheartedly. But thanks to the writing, they're playing characters who aren't much more than how I described them.

Olivia Wilde actually gets the worst of it. Her character is so flat that if it were a swimming pool, Wilde would have cracked her skull open if she dove in headfirst. She's charismatic and is obviously trying her hardest, but the role isn't much. Wilde does everything she can to overcome that, however. Her performance is quite good, her presence making a weak character seem a lot better.

The 2011 summer blockbuster season has seen its share of bland, less than stellar movies. And I know this review started to take a turn where it sounded like I was being overly negative. But I actually really liked Cowboys & Aliens. In spite of its flaws, it's a fun flick that is entertaining from the first frame to the last. I'm actually surprised that it's gotten so much competition from The Smurfs this weekend and last; because why would you want to see some awful-looking (and badly reviewed) movie when you could see James Bond and Indiana Jones fight aliens for two hours? So yeah, I liked Cowboys & Aliens, but I'm still waiting for the sequel, Cavemen & Astronauts.

Final Rating: ***½

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

During World War II, American comic book publishers started cranking out tons of patriotic characters as a way to boost morale. While many of them would disappear as quickly as they were created, one would stand the test of time to become one of the most enduring characters in the industry. Created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby for Timely Comics, Captain America was introduced before the United States even entered the war, debuting a full twelve months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

With its title character memorably punching Adolf Hitler in the face on the cover of the first issue, Captain America's book was a success. But his comic was ultimately cancelled in 1950, thanks in large part to the decline in popularity superheroes suffered after the war ended. Timely's successor, Atlas Comics, tried reviving him in 1953, but it was a commercial failure and Cap was cancelled again only a year later.

But as superheroes regained their popularity and the company that was once Timely Comics evolved into Marvel Comics, Captain America would make a comeback. He was formally reintroduced by Kirby and Stan Lee in 1964 and immediately inducted into the Marvel superteam known as The Avengers. He's been around ever since and earned status as one of Marvel's most venerable and courageous superheroes. He's been adapted into video games, cartoons, action figures, and other merchandise, and he's even been portrayed in movies. The first three of these movies were pretty awful, but the latest one more than makes up for those prior attempts. In short, it rules.

As the movie begins, so has the involvement of the United States in World War II, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) wants nothing more than to serve his country. But because he's a frail little runt with a long list of health issues, recruitment centers repeatedly turn him away as being unfit for duty. Steve's conviction catches the attention of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a scientist working with the government's Strategic Scientific Reserve. Dr. Erskine enlists Steve into a small group of Army recruits and puts them into basic training, where the one with the best performance will undergo an experiment to create the first super-soldier. And despite Steve constantly bringing up the rear in practically every training exercise, the intelligence and courage he shows are enough to make him the perfect candidate for the procedure.

This experiment proves to be success, with Steve emerging from it taller and with a physical strength that matches his determination. But it ends in disaster as well. A German spy infiltrates the laboratory, killing Dr. Erskine and destroying the lab. Without Dr. Erskine's expertise, it will take years to create a duplicate of the super-soldier formula from Steve's blood. Rather than let him sit around as a lab rat, the government puts Steve to work promoting war bonds and performing at USO shows as the costumed "Captain America."

But he'll soon venture into combat, as the military has learned that dozens of soldiers have been captured by Hydra, the Nazi regime's scientific research division. This news hits Steve particularly hard, as one of the prisoners is his best friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Shaw). Steve goes behind enemy lines against orders and frees the soldiers from a Hydra laboratory, in the process discovering that the group's commander — the megalomaniacal Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) — intends to break Hydra away from Hitler and the Nazis with his own plans for complete global domination.

To accomplish this, Schmidt has acquired a seemingly magical object known as the Tesseract, harnessing its immense power and channeling it into high tech weaponry. And with these weapons, the destruction of all those who oppose Schmidt is imminent. An all-out attack on the United States is looming on the horizon, prompting Steve to assemble a team of commandos to lead into battle against Schmidt and Hydra.

I went into Captain America: The First Avenger hoping for the best. I've been enjoying Marvel's build to the Avengers movie thus far, and the trailers for the movie were promising. It looked like it would be pretty good. I just didn't realize that it would be this awesome. No joke, the movie is fantastic. It definitely rivals X-Men: First Class for the title of "best superhero movie of 2011." The movie is fun, charming, exciting, and entertaining, giving me all I wanted out of it and more.

At the helm is Joe Johnston, who I thought was a perfect choice to direct. If you're going to make a movie about a WW2-era superhero, who better to have direct it than the guy who made The Rocketeer? Johnston's direction is tremendous here, boasting a fantastic energy that really pulls the audience into the movie. While he doesn't quite give the truly epic feel that it probably should have, Johnston still does a damn fine job putting this thing together. The only bad part is that there are a few instances the CGI and green-screen effects looked really hokey. It's like the effects guys spent so much time making Chris Evans look puny (which I personally thought was pulled off really well) that they had to start rushing things towards the end of the movie.

And really, I didn't think the movie needed to be in 3D either. Having seen it in both 3D and 2D, there are a few instances where the 3D does give the movie a grander, more epic feel. But I felt that the movie still works in 2D. That, though, may be in part to Captain America being one of those 2D-to-3D post-production conversions. Those can be pulled off successfully, like how it was done for Thor. And like I said, there are moments in Captain America that look really cool in 3D. But you're not going to be missing too much if you choose the 2D version instead.

But let's move along to the script by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. I actually felt that the script's flaws were few and far between. Mainly, there were two flaws I found. One problem I had with the script was how the Howling Commandos were handled. The team of soldiers assisting Captain America is basically a group of one-note characters who sadly don't contribute much to the movie. I know this is the Captain America movie and not the Howling Commandos movie, but you'd think they could have done more with the characters.

I also thought the ending came rather abruptly. It felt like the climax started trucking along at a pretty good pace and then it just plain tapered off. I don't exactly know what I was expecting, but I thought it felt a little on the rushed side. It felt abrupt enough that the emotional punch they were going for is somehow lessened a little bit. The whole thing is sadly anticlimactic, making it more disappointing than anything else.

The rest of the script, though, is aces. Markus and McFeely perfectly captured the essence of Steve Rogers, making him look like a hero even before he's introduced to the super-soldier serum. And outside of my complaint about the misuse of the Howling Commandos, the writers handled all of the other characters incredibly well. And the way that they crafted the story, with all its triumphs and tragedies, is well done. The combination of the story and the characters really makes you care about the protagonists and what happens to them, making it an effective piece of storytelling.

But it would have all been for naught had the cast been anything less than great. However, the actors are indeed up to the task and deliver solid performances across the board. Most of the reviews I've seen have pretty much ragged on Chris Evans's performance, but I thought he did a fine job. Evans plays the part believably, giving Captain America the strength and determination that he needed. He portrays the character as courageous and willing to fight for what he believes in, everything that the comic book Captain America is

But Evans comes dangerously close to being out-shined by Hugo Weaving, who is a hell of a lot of fun in the role. Weaving is perfect as the Red Skull, playing the role with a psychotic menace and a certain hammy Bond villain flair. He always plays great villains, though, and his performance here is no exception.

And the rest of the cast all provide fine performances. Hayley Atwell is enjoyable as British officer (and Steve's love interest) Peggy Carter. Atwell plays the role with charm and strength, and she and Evans have a nice chemistry together that makes their romance believable. I enjoyed their scenes together, but they could have used more scenes together in the final cut of the movie. It isn't bad as it stands now, but I thought it could have stood being developed a bit further.

Tommy Lee Jones and Toby Jones are also really entertaining as their respective roles, while I thought Sebastian Stan was also good despite not having a lot of screen time. It really did feel like a lot of Stan's scenes were left on the cutting room floor, because his role is played as being bigger than evidenced by the amount of time he's actually in the movie. His character, Bucky Barnes, is an important part of the Captain America mythos and the movie version is depicted as Cap's closet friend, yet he feels like he's barely in the movie at all. But Stan still contributes a solid performance that I can't complain about.

And last but most certainly not least is Stanley Tucci. Tucci makes the role feel bigger than it is, bringing a sense of hopefulness and kindness to the character. He plays the role so well that, even though my existing familiarity with Captain America's origin meant I knew going in that Dr. Erskine wouldn't live to see the movie's closing credits, I was still a little saddened by his demise. Tucci was that good.

I've read more than one review of Captain America negatively critiquing it, railing against the movie because of their perception that it's just an extended commercial for next year's Avengers movie. (And wouldn't you know it, there's a teaser for The Avengers following the movie's credits.) But to knock it for hyping The Avengers just seems like nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking. As a standalone movie, I thought it worked. The movie is a lot of fun, a really entertaining way to spend two hours. And while we wait another year for The Avengers, I wonder how foreign territories will respond to this movie. Will Captain America be well-received overseas? Hmm...

Final Rating: ****