Category Archives: Marvel comics movies

My favorite movies of 2012

3 Replies

avengers assembled

Here’s another “let’s pretend it’s the end of the year instead of a couple of days into the new year” recap of what I enjoyed in pop culture in 2012.

This time, movies.

For more than a decade, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, I reviewed movies as part of my job. I saw a movie or two or three every week. Considering I was a lifelong movie fan, it was cool to be paid (even minimally) to review them.

Reviewing movies for a living meant going to see movies even if you didn’t feel like it and – goes without saying – movies that you had no interest in seeing. I still haven’t fully recovered from “My Dinner with Andre.”

All this is by way of saying that I don’t see nearly as many movies in theaters nowadays. When I do see a movie, I’m pretty likely to really want to see it and have a good idea of how much I’ll like it.

So here’s a look at a few favorite movies – and why they were favorites – for 2012.

For me, no pop culture movie of 2012 topped “The Avengers.” Joss Whedon’s very-nearly-perfect big-screen version of Marvel’s ultimate superhero team was the culmination of four years of Marvel solo superhero movies that kicked off with “Iron Man.”

I don’t have to tell you that Whedon’s “Avengers” worked and worked beyond the expectations of most fans, expectations that have been building since the early 1960s but seemed pretty unlikely during the dark days of lame “Captain America” TV movies with Cap sporting a motorcycle helmet. And now, on to Marvel’s big-screen phase two!

“Dark Knight Rises” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” were, in ways different than “The Avengers,” good treatments of their durable comic book characters. “Dark Knight” had a fairly lame villain but still thrilled with its dark vision. “Spider-Man” promised something it didn’t deliver – a mysterious reworking of Peter Parker’s origin – but it didn’t matter. The characters and performances really swung.

“Chronicle” was a dark and unsettling take on the kind of superhero/super villain fodder that sprang from “The X-Men” stories. Bonus: The director is remaking “Fantastic Four.”

Outside the realm of superhero stories, another movie with Whedon’s imprint, “Cabin in the Woods,” was very nearly as good as “The Avengers.” “Cabin” was a first-rate thriller with a great, twisty plot.

Backlash to the absurd title or not, “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter” was a competent version of a really very good fantasy novel.

Likewise, “The Hunger Games” was a good approximation of a really good book. I’m looking forward to the sequels.

And I guess we’re back in the realm of superheroes for “Skyfall,” but the latest James Bond action picture was one of the best in the series. It felt like a reboot, in some ways, and has me looking forward to the next adventure of 007.

 

 

 

Thoughts on Disney becoming the master of jedis

1 Reply

So you might have heard this a few days ago, but Disney – home in recent years to Pixar and Marvel – bought Luscasfilm. For a cool $4.05 billion.

Setting aside that staggering figure for a moment – hella big even though the price tag was probably a bargain – the announcement made the Internet freak out and produced wonderful memes like the one above by Geek Girl Diva.

It also left us wondering what happens next. Well, some of that we already know. Disney immediately announced it would make three more “Star Wars” films, with the first coming out in 2015 (the summer of the “Avengers” sequel). The films would be episodes 7, 8 and 9, the long-rumored continuation of the story that left off with “Return of the Jedi.” Will we see aging Han Solo? Luke leading a rebuilding of the Jedi order?

There was some degree of fanboy moaning about the news, but probably less than there might have been if “Star Wars” creator George Lucas hadn’t made so many mis-steps with the prequel trilogy beginning in 1999.

A lot of people – and I think I count myself in this crowd – think that it’s perfectly fine for somebody other than Lucas to oversee the fate of his creations, for a couple of reasons:

Lucas has been pretty tone-deaf about what’s wrong with the (particularly later) movies.

A billionaire many times over, he’s shown little inclination to make new “Star Wars” movies (maybe that’s not a bad thing considering the prequels).

I will say, however, that Lucas and his people made a very good decision regarding the “Clone Wars” animated series on Cartoon Network. The series has been far more adult, far more diverse and far more interesting than the prequel movies.

Most importantly, although 30- and 40- and 50-something fans don’t like to admit it, the “Clone Wars” series reached a whole new generation of fans.

I just asked my son if, when he thought of “Star Wars,” he thought of the movies or “Clone Wars.” He answered, “Clone Wars.” He’s seen the live-action movies on DVD but that didn’t have the impact on him that seeing the original trilogy had on me, as a teenager and young adult.

“Clone Wars” has kept “Star Wars” alive and relevant for a new generation.

Although a lot of people have complained about changes Lucas made to the original movies – the Han Solo/Greedo shootout comes to mind, of course – for subsequent re-releases, he has, at least, kept them in the public eye and at the top of fanboy discussions. When was the last time somebody had an Internet meltdown about “The Last Starfighter?”

Beyond the new trilogy, what are we likely to see?

More merchandising, of course. Not that there wasn’t plenty of that anyway.

Regular theatrical movies and new TV series and releases of original content on disc.

Someday, in the future, dramatic mashups and re-imaginings of the existing movies and characters. Disney based “Pirates of the Caribbean” on a Disney park ride, after all, so there’s a willingness to try new things if audiences will respond. Who’s to say we won’t see feature films or series based on minor characters and events from the familiar stories, ala “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead?”

And that’s a good thing. There’s always been debate about whether “Star Wars” was for kids or for the general moviegoing audience or for the fans who’ve kept it alive and relevant and in the public eye for decades, even during some pretty lean times.

I think the answer is that “Star Wars” has been for all of those audiences. And Disney has the power to reach all them.

Questions about the ‘Iron Man 3’ trailer

Leave a reply

So the teaser trailer for “Iron Man 3” came out today and the Interwebs got mighty, mighty excited.

We see Tony Stark in action. We see some sinister doings by Iron Man suits. We see beloved gal pal Pepper Potts having a bad day.

We see Tony Stark himself having a very bad day. Besides getting the heck blown out of his Malibu digs, Tony obviously takes a beating himself.

We get our first look at the Mandarin, the longtime Iron Man foe played in the movie by Ben Kingsley. We even get a look at his rings.

A few big questions come to mind.

What’s up with the kinda sorta Captain America shield tattooed on the neck of the Mandarin? We’re assuming that’s the Mandarin since we saw Kingsley sporting a hirsute look not unlike the wearer of this tat, which has an “A” in the middle to differentiate it from Cap’s shield.

Is Tony suffering from post traumatic stress disorder? He mentions the battle of New York – as depicted in “The Avengers” – and indicates he’s still troubled.

What’s happening with Happy Hogan? The quick glimpse we set of Jon Favreau’s character looks pretty dire.

Who’s in the Iron Man suit that’s menacing Pepper and Tony? Or is that one of the rumored remote-control suits Tony supposedly creates for the movie?

What the heck happens that destroys all those earlier Iron Man suits?

What’s Tony doing out in the snow?

Director Shane Black’s movie reportedly isolates Tony and gives him huge obstacles and challenges to overcome. The trailer sure makes it look like that’s the case.

Here’s looking forward to May.

 

 

 

Why we should care about ‘Ant-Man’

Leave a reply

Disney announced today the Nov. 6, 2015 release of “Ant-Man,” directed by Edgar Wright and featuring the longtime Marvel Comics hero. No casting has yet been announced.

Why should we be excited about “Ant-Man?” He’s just a guy who shrinks, right?

Wrong. Here’s why we’re excited about “Ant-Man.”

Edgar Wright. This is the guy who directed cult classics like “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” And he loves Ant-Man. He’ll bring an offbeat approach to a somewhat offbeat hero.

He’s important. Ant-Man, also known as Henry Pym, was a founding member of the Avengers. He’s been there since the beginning – in the comics, at least. He’s linked to the Wasp, his girlfriend/wife Janet Van Dyne, who in the comics gave the team its name.

He might be edgy. If they choose to go that way, “Ant-Man” as a solo movie or member of “The Avengers” paves the way for some domestic drama. In some versions of the character, Pym has anger control issues and even abuses his wife. It’s a character point not unlike Tony Stark’s alcoholism. It might not make its way into the movies, but a lot of people will be wondering and speculating, and that creates buzz.

Ant-Man is not Aquaman. I love Aquaman as much as anybody, but he’s (unfairly) received a reputation as the worst member of the Justice League. And to the outside observer, Ant-Man seems just as limited. He shrinks. Hmm. But in reality, Henry Pym has a lot of cool capabilities – apparently the Ant-Man test footage screened this summer at conventions demonstrated this – and they’re not all based around shrinking. Pym has also, at various times, adopted other personnas including Giant-Man (Guess what? He not only shrinks!) and Yellowjacket (Goes with Wasp, get it?). Plus he’s a genius, not unlike Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. Getting Pym on the team will add a lot to the roster.

Most of all, Ant-Man’s existence in the Marvel movie universe paves the way for my favorite Avengers villain of all time, Ultron, an android created by Pym who becomes a recurring and deadly enemy for the supergroup. If the next “Avengers” movie – due out a few months before “Ant-Man” – revolves around Thanos – that guy glimpsed in the end credits of “The Avengers” – then Ultron would make a great bad guy for the third movie.

Excited yet?

Coulson Lives? Coulson Lives in new ‘S.H.I.E.L.D’ series?

Leave a reply

Is Clark Gregg destined to return as Agent Phil (“His first name is Agent”) Coulson in the upcoming “SHIELD” TV series?

Those newsy guys and gals at Comic Book Resources are reporting that Jeph Loeb, head of Marvel’s TV unit, and Joss Whedon, “Avengers” director and Marvel movie and TV universe consultant, took the stage (the latter via video) at New York Comic Con and announced that Clark Gregg would be part of the upcoming “SHIELD” TV series:

“He’s headlining the S.H.I.E.L.D. show and always was.” said Whedon.

Loeb confirmed Clark Gregg is the first member cast in Whedon’s “S.H.I.E.L.D.”

Gregg was on hand too.

Assuming this wasn’t some kind of joke that was misinterpreted, it’s pretty cool news. As everyone who saw “The Avengers” knows, Coulson – who had small roles in most of the Marvel movies leading up to “The Avengers” – died by Loki’s hand in the movie.

His death gave the Avengers something to avenge.

Despite an on-stage reference – which might have been a joking one – to Life Model Decoys (lifelike robots developed by SHIELD in the comics and mentioned by Tony Stark in “The Avengers”), we’re left wondering how Coulson will return in the “SHIELD” TV series.

Did he not really die at Loki’s hand in “The Avengers?” If so, that kind of cheapens his death.

Will the TV series be set before the events of “The Avengers?” If so … not another prequel.

Will Coulson be a hologram, something like the hologram doctor in “Star Trek: Voyager?”

Or will Phil be reborn as the Vision, the android Avenger?

We’ve already seen this cool fan-made sculpture of Gregg as the Vision, and we’ve noted here before that “The Avengers” seems to hint at Coulson being the Vision. Remember the whole “cellist girlfriend” thing? Remember how Ain’t It Cool noted that Vision’s wife in the comics, Scarlet Witch, is a cellist?

Here’s to some more news, and soon.

 

Shailene Woodley in ‘Spider-Man’ sequel? Gwen’s fate coming?

1 Reply

 

 

Word broke today that Shailene Woodley was close to being cast as Mary Jane Watson in the sequel to “The Amazing Spider-Man.”

Woodley, of the “Secret Life of an American Teenager” TV series and the movie “The Descendants,” looks perfectly fine for the part. At just about 21, she still looks like a teenager.

But the news of the addition of Mary Jane to the rebooted “Spider-Man” series carries with it, of course, the implication that director Marc Webb’s series might soon address the famous “Death of Gwen Stacy” storyline from the comics.

Issues 121 and 122 of the original “Amazing Spider-Man” – published in the summer of 1973 – were famous, and justifiably so, for featuring one of the most shocking comic storylines published to that point. In a battle between Spidey and the Green Goblin, Gwen is thrown from the top of a bridge. Spidey shoots a web to catch her and, at first, believes that he has saved her.

Then he realizes the horrible truth.

Gwen’s sacrifice put Peter Parker/Spider-Man back on the market, so to speak, and eventually redhead Mary Jane – a character previously only glimpsed – was introduced.

 

Granted, the Gwen Stacy story – not including some regrettable retrofitting a few years ago – has been comics history and thus familiar to fans for decades.

But it will be interesting to see how movie fans in general react.

Cool set pic from ‘Iron Man 3’

Leave a reply

Here’s a nice look at Tony Stark’s new armor – reportedly the Mark XLVII – from “Iron Man 3” and – bonus – another shot of the red-white-and-blue armor that everybody believed was Iron Patriot a while back but might be the more commercialized version of the War Machine armor worn by Jim Rhodes.

The movie’s shooting for a May 3 release date.

 

Our favorite geek year: Marvel comics milestones

Leave a reply

It’s a staggering thought: Many of the Marvel comics characters that dominate modern movies were created, by a handful of talented artists and writers, within the space of little more than a year about five decades ago.

Sure, everybody knows Marvel of the early 60s was an a creative hothouse. But it’s truly impressive how quickly the staff turned out one soon-to-be classic comic and character after another.

It started with Fantastic Four No. 1, with a cover date of November 1961. An important word about cover dates: Then, as now, comics and magazines were given cover dates that were slightly in advance of the period they were actually available. I’m guessing that if you went to a newsstand (remember those?) today, in early October, you’d find November or December or even January editions of many monthly magazines. The practice was (is?) aimed at making comics and magazines look like they have a longer shelf life (literally). So while FF was dated November 1961, it was in the hands of fans weeks before that.

Writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby (with inker George Klein) introduced Reed Richards and the rest of the FF in that November 1961 issue and Marvel published several issues until, six months later, the first issue of The Incredible Hulk came out in May 1962. To create just the Fantastic Four would be an accomplishment for any two men. But for Lee and Kirby to create the Hulk within weeks or months is truly impressive.

Then things got crazy.

August 1962 saw the publication of Amazing Fantasy No. 15, which fans know introduced Spider-Man and his mild-mannered alter ego, Peter Parker. Lee and artistic genius Steve Ditko get the credit here for creating one of the world’s most enduring superhero characters.

That same month, August 1962, saw Journey into Mystery No. 83, with Lee and his brother, Larry Lieber, behind the plot and script and Kirby and inker Joe Sinnott introducing none other than Thor.

(Now keep in mind that during this time, Marvel continued to produce follow-up issues of FF and Hulk.)

In September 1962, Lee, Lieber, Kirby and Dick Ayers gave the world Tales to Astonish No. 35, introducing scientist Henry Pym, better known as Ant-Man.

Remember, by this point, we’re still not a year past the introduction of the FF.

By March 1963, another major character was introduced when Iron Man debuted in Tales of Suspense No. 39. Lee and Lieber and artist Don Heck were the men behind the future Avenger.

That same month, the unexpected response to Amazing Fantasy No. 15 led to the debut of Amazing Spider-Man No. 1, by Lee and Ditko.

The Marvel era was firmly in place in September 1963 with the debut of Avengers No. 1, featuring characters from the recent Marvel comics teaming up. Lee and Kirby and inker Ayers were reacting to – but actually topping – DC’s Justice League.

So, in the space of less than two years – little more than a year if you’re counting only the debuts of most of these characters – Lee, Kirby, Ditko and their cohorts gave us characters that not only entertained many readers but laid the foundation for the biggest movie hits of today.

‘Fantastic Four,’ ‘X-Men’ movies getting back on track?

Leave a reply

We’re accustomed by now to how Marvel’s in-house movie process works – and how well it works. With “The Avengers” done and Marvel’s big-screen “phase two” on the calendar, leading up to an “Avengers” sequel in 2015, the comic characters controled by Marvel seem on track.

This week, news broke of moves that could help ensure some continuity for other Marvel characters that don’t fall under Marvel’s control.

No surprise here, really, but “Amazing Spider-Man” director Marc Webb and star Andrew Garfield will return for a sequel and Emma Stone is likely to return as Gwen Stacy.

There were a number of things to like about Webb’s first shot with the character. While the Lizard wasn’t a compelling antagonist, Garfield and Stone were well-cast and had great chemistry. The tone of the movie was right, although the story failed in its (I think) misguided efforts to build some mystery into Peter Parker’s past.

But the movie was pretty entertaining and a sequel – without the burden of having to explain the origin story yet again – could be fun.

Maybe more importantly, 20th Century Fox announced this week that they’ve signed longtime comic writer Mark Millar to consult on future film adaptations of Marvel comics like “Fantastic Four” and “X-Men.”

Millar’s Ultimate X-Men comic forged a new direction for the longtime super team and his Ultimates take on the Avengers influenced the movie version.

Millar has plenty of experience writing comics, but more importantly he might be a creative decision-maker not unlike Joss Whedon has become for Marvel’s in-house movies.

Marvel movies producer Kevin Feige provided the structure and strategy that led to Whedon’s “The Avengers.” Whedon might also help shape the future of Marvel movies. It’s the kind of long-term cohesive thinking that Warner Bros. wishes it had with its DC adaptations.

It’s too much to hope for, but Millar’s role in both these properties might also lead to some cross-over on film.