2016: A Year in Review

   Things have a frustrating habit of getting away from me - you may have noticed a few event movies came and went with nothing but silence from this corner.  As it is, 2016 is rapidly winging its way towards the past tense, and frankly, I could not be happier.  This has not precisely been a banner year, for a variety of reasons, and I'll not be sorry to see the back end of it.  I suppose the cynical approach would be to anticipate an even worse 2017, but I'll err on the side of optimism and simply be grateful to start again in January.

Mad Photoshop Skills, Yo:  I Has Them.

   With that said, I've decided to take a few moments and look at some of the highs and lows of the year, strictly in the geek arena.   Others can dissect the weightier real-life elements.  This is hardly meant to be comprehensive, but is rather just a quick retrospective on the winners and losers, as I see them, in my particular bailiwick.  The 'awards' are entirely capricious, and I have no idea if this will be a regular thing or not, going forward.  So, without further ado:

BEST IN SHOW: CAPTAIN AMERICA - CIVIL WAR

If I had to pick one single stand-out from the huge variety of fantasy, sci-fi, superherodom, etc. this year, this is where I'd go.  Despite being crammed with characters and probably largely inaccessible to anyone who hasn't seen the umpteen previous MCU entries, Civil War proved to be an engaging, well-crafted, fun movie with nuanced performances, especially from its two leads.  It moved the overall story along, introduced new characters while developing older ones, featured a pleasant blend of humor and action, and had actual consequences.  Civil War did quite a bit to get rid of the unpleasant taste most of the Phase II entries left in my mouth, and frankly I enjoyed it more than I did the comic story upon which it was based.

BEST DEBUT: WESTWORLD

Technically, Westworld is not new, coming as it does from a Michael Crichton story/film some forty years ago.  But it takes the concept and brings into the modern age with questions of identity, morality and implications of technology in a staggeringly deep and beautiful way that all but eclipses the original story.   While the first season of the HBO series had some pacing problems, it was a magnificently written and acted effort that proved utterly captivating - with the unfortunate side effect that fans will have to wait over a year before the show returns.  It certainly didn't feel like a 'we've been here before' moment, and the show introduced so many ideas that bear exploring that it may have years and years to run before it gets stale.

BEST SAVE: STAR TREK BEYOND

After the debacle that was Star Trek: Into Darkness, and with the departure of director J.J. Abrams to a galaxy far, far away, it seemed as though the Star Trek franchise was in trouble.  Indeed, an early trailer for Beyond did little to allay those fears.  But then, surprise, surprise - we got a Star Trek movie that wasn't a series of coy references and 'aren't-we-clever' in jokes.  We got an exciting original story that injected desperately needed new blood, developed the relationships between classic characters, and reinvigorated the franchise.  Thanks to the way Beyond is set up, Into Darkness can be ignored, and we can look forward to a future that may boldly go in new directions.  Sadly, it will have to do so without Anton Yelchin, who we lost too soon, but at least his participation in Star Trek was a high note.

BIGGEST IMPROVEMENT OVERALL: DC COMICS/ENTERTAINMENT

I'm certainly not going to attempt to analyze every element of every franchise, and even as a DC fan, I freely admit that not everything they've done has been a hit.  But I have to acknowledge that as an overall effort, DC has made leaps and bounds this year.  A large part of that has been a learning curve, and DC has acknowledged (finally) mistakes made along the way, and more importantly, taken steps to improve and cohere.  From Rebirth on outwards to their various media and merchandising tie-ins, there's an energy and enthusiasm I've not seen in a while, and it's refreshing.  DC has relaunched and reinvigorated the comics, released two live-action blockbusters, dominated television channels (beyond what's pictured here, they've had Lucifer, Teen Titans Go!, Preacher, and even announced a revival of Young Justice), and seem to be getting their toy store presence back in hand.   So while there's definitely room for improvement, especially cinematically, DC has shown they're looking to do so.

BEST JUSTIFICATION OF A CASH GRAB: ROGUE ONE/FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM (tie)

 That probably sounds snarkier than I mean it to, but I would argue that any prequel is, by definition, a cash grab.  So if you're going to do it, at least do it well.
    Which both of these movies did.  I don't know that there was a particular 'need' for either of them - indeed, this part of the Star Wars saga had already been told a few times over in the EU/Legends reality.  But both were extremely engaging films filled with interesting new characters, exciting set pieces, and quality development.  Fantastic Beasts, in particular, got to do some serious worldbuilding that only enriches the Harry Potter universe, while Rogue One offered a darker, more complex worldview of the Star Wars universe, and plugged the single most glaring plot hole in the entire canon.  Both were led by immensely talented young stars (thank you, "The Theory of Everything"?), featured some fanservice moments, and gave us new things to consider.  While Rogue One was a standalone, it certainly makes me feel a bit better about Disney's milking of the franchise, while Fantastic Beasts seems to justify starting a new film series even if the main one is long since complete.  So yes - Disney and WB were looking for dollars, but they didn't cheap out or phone it in, and so gave us the value of the product they're in the business of selling. 

MVP: BEN AFFLECK (with honorable mentions)

"Batfleck Thucths", we heard ad nauseam for the better part of two years.  And then Batman v Superman came out, and the only people still saying that were the people you'd cross the street to avoid anyway.  Despite the narrative flaws of BvS, Affleck's take on a grizzled, angry Batman looking for redemption shut down critics and amped up enthusiasm for an already popular character, so much so that his stand-alone film has already been moved up.  Not only that, but Affleck is taking a firmer hand on the tiller of the DCU, and given his success behind the camera of late, that's an encouraging sign.   He may prove to be the biggest gun in DC's arsenal.
   That said, it's a close call.  Gal Gadot's turn as the Amazon Princess electrified audiences, and may have been the best single element of BvS.  Similarly, Tom Holland's debut as Spider-Man in Civil War was the jewel in an already impressive film.  Both of these actors were supporting stars this year, but I'd give the nod to Affleck since both Gadot and Holland will be headlining their own films next year, and each could prove to be breakout stars.  They're certainly the two performances I am most excited to see in 2017.

BIGGEST "I AM SO EMBARRASSED BY OTHER NERDS" MOMENT: GHOSTBUSTERS (2016)

It's a remake, and by definition, NOT the original.  But the fan reaction to this movie in advance of its release was one of the most embarrassing situations of this nature I can recall experiencing.  The idiocy of the entitled-fan commentary, the disgusting sexism, and the blatant stupidity of pre-assessment were all presented in lurid ugliness for all the world to see, and made a fantastic argument for creators to not listen to fans.  The original Ghostbusters is one of my favorite films, and that said, I loved the remake - I thought it was fun and different.  Most of the people I've spoken to who actually saw the film enjoyed it as well.  In the final analysis, the movie was cursed by butthurt fanboys and disgraces to the male gender more than it was flawed of its own nature.  If I ever seen the perfect illustration of "don't read the comments", it's this movie.

BIGGEST DISAPPOINMENT: X-MEN APOCALYPSE/THE MUPPETS (tie)

A strange pairing, I admit.  And a bit of a technicality, since the Muppets series started in 2015.  But of the various letdowns I experienced this year, these two were the biggest.
    After the success of the last two X-Men films, I had high hopes for Apocalypse, which were utterly dashed by a smug, self-satisfied script that ended up being a phoned-in collection of rehashes, unnecessary flourishes, and an extremely silly plot that turned one of the biggest Marvel villains into a goofy, Power Rangers nutball.  It turned what could have been a fantastic film into an utterly pointless piece of nonsense.
   And the Muppets - this hurts my heart.  To see a group of characters I've cherished since infancy turned into crass, cynical exploitation was awful.  Some of the choices and topics on the show were so bizarre (Fozzie's sex life???) that it became almost meta in its ability to be terrible.  The show's creators realized they were in trouble about halfway through the season and attempted to course-correct, but it was too little, too late, and the show met its cancellation after one season.  While there may have been hope, the cancellation was probably a mercy, so that the Muppets can move on with their puppety lives.  The sooner this show is forgotten, the better.

BIGGEST ASS:  GEORGE R.R. MARTIN

I don't care how much you may love the books or the series, but this man is an utter buffoon.  Another year has gone by and we are still no closer to the Winds of Winter, apparently, even though the show has now passed the written narrative and is heading to a conclusion that will render the two remaining books moot.  Some may argue that's impossible, as the books are the source material, but given how awful the last two books in the series were, combined with the stellar quality of the series and the fact that there's only so much shock value you can mine from slaughtering characters, I don't feel the books are adding much at this point beyond overkill of detail and unnecessary side plots.  It's not as though he's creating high art - or even good literature.  Regardless, for a creator to dither and waste time as much as Martin has is embarrassing - he has, in essence, made himself entirely superfluous to his own work before it's finished, as he's proven that others can do it better than he can.  He's proven that the books are not always better than the adaptation, and has, no doubt, infuriated both his fans and his publishers.  Stop smirking, George - stop being so impressed with yourself.  You can be replaced.  You're heading towards being the man who published the last book in A Song of Fire and Ice many years after Game of Thrones had already ended.

BIGGEST WASTE OF TIME:  AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.

Seriously, why is this show even still on the air?  Is anyone still actually watching it?  I suppose technically I am, even if most of this season is still moldering on the DVR queue.  It's either OCD or gluttony for punishment.  I'll let you know.

BIGGEST SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING: POKEMON GO

"Global phenomenon".  Yep.  For a few weeks, this was everywhere you went this summer.  And then it was nowhere.  Ah, the brief life of a mayfly.  I think the Gangnam Style craze lasted longer.  Oh, well - at least it got people outside.

IN MEMORIAM:

The Starman, The Potions Master, The Princess, The Candyman

It seems like 2016 took an excessive number of beloved celebrities from us this year.  (And Fidel Castro).  From Muhammad Ali to John Glenn to Prince to Nancy Reagan to Richard Adams to Leonard Cohen and many, many more, it felt like every week we were losing somebody near and dear to millions, and quite often, unexpectedly.
    There are some who sneer at the mourning of celebrities, but I think that's a rather small, nasty mentality.  Quite often, celebrities are creators whose work has enriched the lives of those who experienced it, many of whom come to be valued as parts of peoples lives, even if they never meet.  For me, the losses of David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Carrie Fisher and Gene Wilder are the saddest, but they leave behind work that will endure, and if nothing else, we'll always have that.

So that about covers the topics I wanted to hit.  As I mentioned, it's hardly a comprehensive list, but I've already relived this year enough thanks.  As a side note, perhaps we could award 2016 as "THE YEAR THAT MOST RESEMBLED FINDING FORGOTTEN ROTTING VEGETABLES IN THE BACK OF THE FRIDGE."   At any rate, we're wrapping it up now, at last.

So from all of me here at Batcaveat Emptor, I wish all of you out there a very Happy New Year, with hopes for a bright, rewarding, fun, and hopefully uplifting 2017.

Some of the many things we have to look forward to in the next twelve months. 

REVIEW: Doctor Strange

   By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth, I have returned!

   After a lengthy hiatus, I'm back, this time taking a look at the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Doctor Strange.  With this newest feature, the MCU delves head-on into magic, as opposed to the 'it's-just-futuristic/alien-technology' approach we've seen in earlier entries.  We also get to peer into a corner of Marvel that we've not looked at so far, but which I suspect will be popping up more frequently now that it's been introduced.  There's also a new Marvel opening, seguing from the classic 'thumbing through the comics' into a highlights real of the MCU showing in an impressive reminder of  just how broad the universe has become.

   Doctor Strange is a rather satisfactory film.  That may be damning it with faint praise; I can't rightly say that I loved it, but I enjoyed it.   The plot is prosaic and predictable, the dialogue is mostly trite, and the ending is a little silly,  but it's well-paced and the characters are at least entertaining if a bit formulaic.  The visuals are easily the most captivating element of the film, and I can absolutely see this movie getting an Oscar nod in one or more of  the technical categories.  The Doctor Strange comic has always been a bit on the far-out side, and the movie heads down that path with gleeful abandon.   It's colorful and eye-catching, and you can't help but be mesmerized by the other-dimensional and transmogrifying effects as they unfold (literally) across the screen.

   Benedict Cumberbatch is spot-on as Stephen Strange.  He's perfectly cast, even if he is playing to his 'type'...an arrogant, wry but ultimately well-meaning genius.  It's always a little...well, strange,  hearing him with an American accent, though at times here he comes across with a bit of a twang.  He makes for a likeable protagonist, and Cumberbatch manages to keep the character somewhat aloof and sarcastic without going too far down the Robert Downey Jr. route. 

The Doctor is In:  I confess that I hope at some point for a meeting between Strange and Everett Ross.

   Those who have read previous entries on MCU offerings on this blog know that I am in the camp of those who have been frustrated with the way Marvel has been dealing with its villains.  Doctor Strange falls into the same problem as most other MCU entries, but with a qualification.  Mads Mikkelsen plays Kaecilius, the primary antagonist -  a very minor character in the comics who here serves as yet another cool-looking but unexplored and underdeveloped stock villain.   Once again, we have a villain of cardboard - he's got a backstory and motivation lightly sketched in, but is in no way sympathetic, relatable, or compelling, and who serves merely as a device to move the hero's plot along.  However, this time the villain issue isn't as much of a problem, for two reasons:  one, that Kaecilius is such a non-entity in the comics that there's not a whole ton of source material to honor/ignore anyway, and two, it's made clear in the movie that he is in fact just a plot device to set up more prominent villains.

"VISINE, man!  For the love of God, get me Visine!"

   We have two other classic Doctor Strange foes along for the ride this time, and while there's definitely a sense of  'to be continued' with both, the groundwork laid here is sufficient enough to make me feel like there's something to build on.  Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Karl Mordo, a fellow student of the mystic arts, who as comic fans know goes on to become Strange's chief rival.  Mordo's eventual arc is set up here - always remember with comic book films to stay all the way through the credits - and it's a little roughshod towards the end, but serviceable.  Mordo has chemistry with Strange, and gets enough development to make him a more interesting villain going forwards.

"My name is Karl, but you can call me Baron."

   And of course, there's one of my favorite Marvel baddies along for the ride.  Glimpsed briefly in the trailer, and created entirely via CGI, with Cumberbatch doing the mo-cap  - I'm not sure who does the voice (it's uncredited) - is the lord of the Dark Dimension, the Dread Dormammu.  I love that name.  Say it five times fast...it's hard not to love it.    Dormammu's played here - rightly so - as the big bad of Strange's universe.  He doesn't get a lot of screen time, and there's a certain element of silliness in Strange's confrontation with him...if anything, Dormammu comes across as a bit exasperated.  He's one of those comics characters like Rocket Raccoon or the Warriors Three before him who I never thought I'd ever get to see on the big screen, so getting him at all makes me give points to the movie simply for his inclusion.  And I get to use the name in conversation.   Dormammu.  Dormammu Dormammu Dormammu.

Dormammu.

"Dude!  Your head is on fire!!!"

   Rachel McAdams appears as Christine Palmer, a fellow doctor and ex-lover of Strange's, and he aptly-named Benedict Wong plays Strange's long-standing supporting character Wong.   Benjamin Bratt has a small part as a man who plays a key factor in starting Strange on his studies in sorcery, and there is a brief, mid-credit appearance by another Marvel hero.  The movie does make one rather bizarre misstep in casting, though - Academy Award-winner Tilda Swinton plays Strange's mentor, known only as the Ancient One.  In the comics, the Ancient One is an elderly Asian man.   I can easily accept changing the gender of the character, but making that character a pale forty-something British woman is a bewildering choice.  I'm not clear what they were going for - this was a role that should certainly have gone to older actor of Asian descent, and given the discussion in Hollywood about the lack of representation for non-white actors, it feels like a tone-deaf and pointless decision.  There's nothing wrong with Swinton's performance, but you almost get the feeling that the producers cast Ejiofor (Mordo is white in the comics), and felt like that was as much of non-white diversity as they could handle.   The casting of Swinton added nothing, and is in fact something of a distraction.

However, Dormammu.

Miscasting 101.  Next up, we'll cast Kristin Chenoweth as Toshiro Mifune.

   Weird casting aside, though, the movie is energetic, a little trippy, and fun.  The world of Doctor Strange in the comics is an odd one, full of unique characters (like Dormammu!) and surreal settings, and this film does a nice job of setting the groundwork for a new franchise that holds a somewhat different flavor from the rest of the MCU.   Outside of one of the mid-credits scene, there's very little of the broader MCU that intrudes on this movie...Avengers Tower is visible in the NYC skyline, and we do touch base with the Infinity Stones again...but for the most part Doctor Strange is allowed to stand on its own, which helps it form its own identity.   There's definite potential for development in the franchise, and I would love to see Marvel get truly bold and push the boundaries of film-making out of the softball comfort zone they seem to want to play in; I'd love to see a sequel that's a truly weird, maybe even chthonic in the Lovecraftian sense, to play towards just how out there the comics can be.   As it stands, we have a serviceable first entry, anchored by a charismatic lead and incredible special effects, making it a worthwhile effort with potential to grow.

And Dormammu.

FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10):

Also: Dormammu

MINI-REVIEW: Suicide Squad

  Due to some rather unfortunate developments, I wasn't able to catch Suicide Squad on Friday as I'd hoped, and didn't get to see until this afternoon.  As such, I feel a bit like I've lost my window, so rather than a full review, I'm just going to put together a few thoughts.

   This movie is getting shredded by critics, inspiring a certain, fairly consistent bile.  Having now seen it, I have to say...

   I don't get the bile.  I really don't.  Because frankly, I rather loved Suicide Squad.

    It's over the top, at points, I admit, but it's fun as well as funny, with great action sequences and more importantly, well-done characters.   If I wasn't in love with Margot Robbie before now, I may be a bit, and Will Smith and Viola Davis both turn in fantastic, spot-on performances.  The rest of the cast is solid...it was a particular treat to see Killer Croc realized onscreen.  Jared Leto's Joker is interesting...I know that there were additional scenes that got cut, so I'm hoping they make it onto the DVD, but his performance is fun to watch, and manages to be different from his cinematic predecessors.  And Batman/Bruce Wayne is not used much, but is used to great effect.

   A few quick thoughts:

   *I love the soundtrack to this movie - up-tempo, with tongue-in-cheek song choices.  And that "Heathens" song is becoming an earworm.
   *If any character could be said to be underused, it's Katana, who does feel somewhat 'tossed in'.
   *Enchantress is creepy in a very cool way, but there are some points where she becomes a bit goofy.
    *The interplay between the cast is really well-done - most of the dialogue is smooth and true.
   *Jay Hernandez's El Diablo was a surprisingly sympathetic character.
   *Fans of Slipknot - (the character) - I'm sorry, but it was realllllly telegraphed.
   *ARKHAM!!!
   *There IS a mid-credits scene.
   *We do get a quick flash of...well, The Flash...
   *and fans of classic Harley...it's brief, but we DO get to see Margot Robbie in the full classic outfit during a flashback, complete with a full-on nod to Alex Ross.  As easter eggs go, it's a beaut.

    What's telling to me is that the vast majority of comic fans - especially DC fans - seem to really enjoy the Squad, whereas the critics loathe it.  There's something odd going on here, but ultimately, I can't worry about it too much.  Squad's doing solidly at the box office, and is definitely DC moving in the right direction.  Harley Quinn and Deadshot in particular will benefit from this project moving forward, earning some well-deserved publicity.  And I very much look forward to seeing more of Joker & Harley in future DCEU projects.

   Also, I might have mentioned, but...

..just WOW.

     I'm honestly much happier with this movie than I thought I'd be.  Maybe it was a bit of lowered expectation, but I'm quite satisfied.  I had a lot of fun with it, the characters are accurate and well-written, and it's got energy and ...spunk.  I'm sold.

FINAL RATING: 8 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

REVIEW: Ghostbusters (2016)

     Perhaps no other movie in recent memory has engendered (ahem) as much internet controversy, at least in terms of fan outcry and high-emotion commentary as Paul Feig's reboot of the classic comedy Ghostbusters.  Released this weekend, the film is a remake of an 80's classic, with the obvious but notable casting of four comedians in the titular roles who just so happen to be female.  These decisions - choosing to remake the film, choosing to cast women in the main roles - have led to a furor that makes the disgust over Jar Jar Binks' existence pale by comparison.

   So with all the hubbub going on, there is, of course, one question that needs to be addressed:  How is the movie?

   Well...

    Let me just get this out of the way:  I absolutely LOVE the original film.  I actually love the whole franchise, at least the components from the 80's.  The original film was actually the first movie I ever owned, and I still have that battered VHS tape.  I can quote it pretty much verbatim, and it remains one of my top ten movies.  It's near and dear to my heart.

   So with that said...

   I actually kind of loved the reboot.

   Yep, I said it.  Deal.

    Here's the thing - it is a remake, but it also has its own identity.   Yes, it follows the same premise and general plot points of the original film, and yes, there are a number of references to the 1984 classic.  But at the same time, the movie works quite well on its own merits...it's more kid friendly than the original, but not exclusively so.  The characters are not direct analogs of the classic characters, and while the script does cite the original, it does so far less frequently than I would have expected.  The movie seems to know just the right level of seriousness to give itself.  After hearing so much bashing of the movie, I didn't expect to like it - but I found it enormously fun.  Which really should be a reminder that listening to the opinions of people who haven't (or refuse to have) seen a movie is a futile exercise.

   

Welcome to the new age.

    The four protagonists are new characters - they are not Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston, though in many ways they fulfill the same general roles.   They're distinct from the classic characters and from each other; each of the four actresses gets good moments and lines throughout, and there is a very genuine and lively chemistry between the four leads.  The humor is fairly tame; there are a few ribald lines, to be sure, but that's hardly a franchise first.    I'm finding myself slowly becoming a fan of Melissa McCarthy, and she does quite well here, though Kate McKinnon is probably the funniest of the quartet - certainly the quirkiest.  Kristen Wiig does fine as the 'straight woman' of the group, usually ending up on the receiving end of both antics and slime; if anything, Leslie Jones' character gets a bit over the top in somewhat stereotypical fashion at points, but most of the time manages to keep it reined in.  There are a few scenes in the movie that seem to strive for a poignancy that isn't necessary, but fortunately those moments are few.

    Chris Hemsworth, as the Ghostbusters' ludicrously dimwitted receptionist, is clearly having a blast with his role, getting to show off some comedic chops as brainless beefcake.  There are a ton of cameos, including many members of the original cast (living and spectral, and some set pieces too), as well as some other clever bits of casting.  There is even a little nod to the departed Harold Ramis near the beginning of the film, and the movie is dedicated to his memory as well.   The villain of the piece, a nerdy bellhop named Rowan, is more of a plot device than a character, only there to move the plot along without being particularly interesting in and of himself, and such is probably the weakest component of the film.

Buster's let himself go in recent years.

   The movie is silly, yes - but in an engaging way.  There's an earnestness to this movie, a kind of goofy sincerity that gives it an energy and playfulness that belies the online angst that has surrounded it since its announcement.  It's a different style of humor than the original - it's obviously not as Bill-Murray-ish - but that doesn't keep it from eliciting a lot of laughs.  Some of the jokes are telegraphed, but for all of that there are quite a few moments that end up being surprisingly worthwhile.  There's a running soup gag that I rather liked, in particular.

   The effects are clearly CGI, but still rather neat - I enjoyed the variety of spooks that showed up, referencing the wide variety of those who have inhabited (and passed away in) New York City over the centuries.    Some of the ghosts have menace, but it's something of the Scooby-Doo variety, which again plays into being kid-friendly...not that the ghosts of the classic film were particularly terrifying in their own right.  And while the classic theme was revamped, the original version is present as well at points in the remake, with the signature musical motif of the siren present throughout.

  

It would appear that female Ghostbusters needn't have to worry about crossing their streams.

   I realize as I write this that much of this review is taking the form of comparison; that's probably to be expected when discussing a remake, but that's actually doing something of a disservice to the film- it deserves to be judged on its own merits as much as any film, but with something this iconic, I think the comparisons are inevitable.  Anyone seeing this movie without knowledge of the original (specifically, kids), will be able to approach it without a biased opinion, and I suspect that will lead to greater enjoyment for them.  The children in the theater I attended seemed to love the film, at any rate.  I'm usually not thrilled at the concept of remakes of original pictures (I don't mind multiple incarnations of adaptations, generally), but if you're going to remake a movie, this is how you do it - put your own spin on it, and do it with heart.

   Unfortunately, many of the armchair warriors of the internet don't see it that way.  Offense has been taken as to the movie's existence.  Some of that comes in the form of objection to a beloved movie being remade, as though that somehow desecrates the original movie.  These objecting individuals seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the Reboot Police will come along and confiscate their DVD of the original (which is strange, considering how most retail chains are currently offering fantastic sales of Ghostbusters I and II).  This remake takes nothing away from the first movie - no, it's not as good as the first movie, but very, very few comedies are - and it's okay, fellas - you can still watch the 1984 movie.  I certainly will.  No big scary person's going to come steal your movie.  (I assume.)

   

Things we learned:  aquariums are submarines for fish.

   Then there are the hipsters who sneer at anything and everything to establish their credibility as the effete elite regardless of experience or honesty; woe betide the unsuspecting soul who dares to like something common or - gasp - popular.   There are the fans of the franchise, clinging despairingly to the lost hopes of a third film with the original team (25% of which is deceased), seemingly oblivious to reality and bleating ever more piteously about some non-existent "disrespect".  And then, of course, there are the devolved troglodytes who have lambasted this film for committing the unforgivable sin of casting women as the leads.  On the one hand, these 'fans' have revealed something deeply disturbing about the rampant sexism that's not only tolerated but often encouraged in pop culture, but on the other hand, have descended into such unwitting self-parody that they ironically befoul themselves with their own filth.  If THAT is your objection to this movie, then I do not care to know you, whomever you may be.  I was pleased to see the movie itself got a few laughs on that subject.  I'm even more pleased to see how much this movie is appealing to young girls.

"Choose!  Choose the form of the Destructor!"

   A writer to whom I am partial once devised a description that was "full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing", which is an apt assessment of the negative reaction to this movie.  Far too many people attacked the film based on nothing more than their own prejudices.  An enormous amount of the e-vitriol spewed against the project now seems to me as nothing more than the ectoplasmic spittle of misplaced nerdrage.  I have a suspicion that of the people who have said they dislike this movie, a fair number have not seen it, nor will they, and a further percentage will simply refuse to give it a fair chance.  Of course there will be some who simply will not care for it - but among certain circles, I will likely always wonder about why.  I like to think of these people as the Walter Pecks of the real world - and everything that implies.

   I've devoted too much time to dignifying the primordial response against the film, but it's hard to disentangle discussion of the movie from its publicity, good or bad.  Ultimately, it's a perfectly fine film - enjoyable, clever, funny, and cheerful about four New Yorkers, three of whom are scientists, who find and trap ghosts.  With plenty of enthusiasm - and support from the original creative team, including original director Ivan Reitman - this movie makes for a nice addition to the franchise.   Speaking as one of the fans of the franchise since the beginning, I can only say this to the new movie:

   "We're ready to believe you."

FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

REVIEW: X-Men: Apocalypse

     "Mutants are very real.  We must know who they are, and above all, we must know what they can do."  It's been sixteen years since that phrase kicked off the marketing campaign for the original X-Men film, which in turn kicked off the massive superhero film craze that's been dominating cinema screens ever since.  X-Men: Apocalypse can be seen as a third, sixth, or ninth film in the X-franchise, depending on how you view the series.  It's the third of the 'semi-prequel' Origins series, the sixth overall main X-Men movie, and the ninth in that particular universe, when factoring in the two stand-alone Wolverine movies and Deadpool.

   So this is a franchise with some legs under it, in other words.  Let's take a look:

The Good

    X-Men: Apocalypse (XA) is set in 1983, continuing the trend of these newer X-films by jumping ahead ten years from the previous entry.  In one scene, several of the characters leave a showing of Return of the Jedi, and have a conversation that goes a little bit meta, in which they discuss the virtues of first, second, and third entries in a movie trilogy.  The conversation is nominally about Star Wars, but it's clear that director Bryan Singer is being oh-so-cute, as the characters are actually referencing the original X-Men trilogy.  Jean Grey has a line to the effect of "Well, we can all agree the third is the weakest".  This little bit of smirking smugness is a reference to the much-derided third film in that series, which was the only one Singer did not direct, and which has been largely precluded by the time-traveling effects of the most recent X-film, Days of Future Past (also directed by Singer).   However, there's a presumably unintended bit of irony in play in this dialogue, as Jean has pretty accurately summed up the state of this prequel trilogy at the same time.

The Bad

    X-Men: Apocalypse is not a good film.  It's not necessarily a bad film either, but it is by far the weakest of the new trilogy.   Much of the dialogue is banal - perhaps a side effect of the film being thrown into production immediately upon the release of its predecessor.   It is absolutely packed with characters, many of whom are there for no discernible purpose or are thrown in for the hell of it.  The movie jumps all over the place, and very few of the characters are given adequate development or even explanation.  There are sixteen principle characters in the story, and a few other minor ones, and in trying to get them all shoehorned in, Singer comes close to giving the audience whiplash, flying back and forth between them, and as a result giving far too many short shrift.   Angel and Psylocke are particular casualties, as they have little dialogue and no character exposition; their only function in the film is too look (admittedly) cool in battle sequences.

     It's also pretty clear that the continuity of these movies has become somewhat disposable, which is not necessarily a problem, but relies on the audience having to make a number of assumptions.  The way XA ends has a nice bit of resonance circling back to the ending of the original movie, but the actions of at least one of the major characters, possibly two, make the premise of the first film seem unlikely to play out in the same way.   So who's to say even X1 and X2 happened the way we'd originally seen?  Most of the changes can be explained away, but we would have to assume that certain characters, like Jubilee or Angel, must have been born at earlier times in this revised timeline.

    All that said, XA has one enormous, glaring, movie-thrashing problem with it, a problem that makes the entire film suffer.

    That problem?  In a word:  Apocalypse.

The Ugly.  Alas, poor Isaac.  I knew him, Magneto.

   In the comics, Apocalypse is an incredibly powerful, deadly character, born in ancient Egypt, powered by alien technology, and determined to create a world order driven by a survival-of-the-fittest philosophy with mutants vying for supremacy over an enslaved or extinct human population.  He is the overlord of one of the most famous X-Men stories of all time, the year long epic "Age of Apocalypse".  He's a nigh-unstoppable megalomaniac whose presence, more than any other X-foe, causes the protagonists nightmares.

   In this film?  He's a melodramatic blue goofball with a propensity for graphic design.

   Oscar Isaac, the fantastic up-and-coming actor most recently seen in Star Wars: the Force Awakens, is all but unrecognizable as the titular villain, whose voice is heavily modulated and whose costume and makeup are just...silly.  I appreciate that Singer tried to give us a comics-accurate look for the character, but the X-films have been somewhat more visually grounded, and designing Apocalypse the way they did makes the villain seem cartoony.  In close-ups, it's all too clear that Isaac is wearing makeup.   He bellows at the drop of a hat, he repeats himself an awful lot, and he comes across not so much as evil as he does...cranky.

     What's worse, though, is that his plans and powers are all rather nebulous.  The movie establishes his age and level of powers well enough, but his technology -somewhat key to the plot - is never explained or even touched upon, and his big plan appears to be the rather stale "let's destroy everything and start over"...as Eddie Izzard would call it, the "Etch-a-Sketch Ending of the World".  I counted two offhand bits of dialogue where he alluded to his 'only the strong survive' credo, and they're throwaway lines - and he comes across as a less of a character and more of a big 'ol plot device.  His appearance, demeanor, and lack of gravitas makes him lack all menace, even with his power levels.  The film wants us to understand that he's really, really dangerous, but frankly he comes across as a dork on steroids.  When the entire movie is built around the premise that this is an omega-level threat, it trivializes the whole thing and makes much of the action seem rather specious.

Apocalypse's main gripe in this movie can, in all seriousness, be summed up as "You damn kids, get off my lawn!"

   The movie's not without its good points, though...in fact, there are a lot of moments within the film that are enormously fun.  In fact, most of the time when the camera's not on Apocalypse, the movie's quite enjoyable, even if it is sloppy and crowded.  The action sequences are all incredible, and the score and look of the film are otherwise top-notch.  The opening credits, traveling through time via the usual inner workings of Cerebro, are particularly cool.  The lighter tone of this movie does allow for some flexibility in the costume design of the characters, and much as X-Men First Class featured movie versions of the classic blue and yellow basic X-costumes, so does XA offer cinematic takes on some of the more distinctive outfits from the comics.  The final scene of the film is actually a bit of welcome fan-service in that regard.  Psylocke, in particular, looks like she walked right off the pages of the comic.

   The cast is decent - the returning actors are all solid; Michael Fassbender's Magneto is, as always, a particular highlight and has the best emotional arc.  I understand that Jennifer Lawrence's rising star has led to a greater amount of attention on Mystique, but I have to say that Mystique-as-hero is still somewhat disconcerting from a comics background.   I enjoyed the new actors playing youthful versions of the heroes we've already seen as adults: Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Alexandra Shipp as Cyclops, Jean Grey, Nightcrawler and Storm, respectively.  Their presence gave the movie a bit of flavor from the X-Men Evolution cartoon, and a welcome jolt of energy. 

Strangely, there are a LOT of blue characters in this movie.

   As much as I wanted to enjoy this film, especially as I've really liked the X-Men franchise overall, I can't help but feel that XA comes across as rushed, sloppy, and over-the-top.  There are certainly elements to like, but in general the film is something of a letdown, particularly in coming after two such thoroughly enjoyable entries.  I suspect that Bryan Singer, who comes across as glib and self-satisfied in interviews, may be falling into the 'Lucas trap' in overestimating his own abilities, and is therefore not working as hard or carefully as he could or should.  Too much of this movie is shallow or phoned in; it lacks diligence and craft, and it's not his usual caliber of work.

  Still, the X-Men universe marches forward.  This movie does have a post-credits scene which presumably heralds the now-in-production Wolverine 3 (and which teases a character I have very, very much wanted to see on screen ever since the X-Men films began), and we can also look forward to Deadpool 2, a Gambit film, and The New Mutants, which will presumably be the sequel to XA.  But at the moment, Jean Grey has proven to be correct.

   The third film is the weakest.

FINAL RATING: 5 PAWS (OUT OF 10):

REVIEW: Captain America: Civil War

    ....and we're back, after a month off.  Sorry, I know you've all been feeling deprived, so to remedy that, let's take a look at the latest entry in the MCU - Captain America: Civil War.

      The third movie in the Captain America franchise, the thirteenth (!) feature film in the overall Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the first entry into "Phase Three" of said MCU, Civil War (CW), directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, sends the Avengers into an ideological schism which threatens to tear the team apart.  So how does it fare?

Staring: The Movie

   First off, let me just say this:  the MCU has been on somewhat shaky ground with this humble blogger of late.  While most of the Phase One entries were quite solid, Phase Two was hit-and-miss, with a number of underwhelming entries, particularly Avengers: Age of Ultron.  If you've been following this blog, you'll know that AoU was the last appearance to date of Cap and Iron Man, and it is a film which I all but loathed.   Sloppy character arcs, ignored continuity, utter lack of consequence, trivial antagonists, sporadic sexism, cutesy dialogue that was both banal and precious, and an insipid cookie-cutter formulaic approach made me feel that the Marvel juggernaut (ahem) was about to self-destruct.

   I feel much better now.

    Civil War is a fantastic superhero movie, and rectifies most of the issues that have been plaguing the more recent entries in the MCU.   It's a well-paced, energetic, sharply written, perfectly-acted film that not only functions well as a summer blockbuster tentpole, but also has depth, character development, and yes...actual consequences.   It's smart, it's careful, and it's fun.  It's what Age of Ultron should have been.

Sharon and Steve ponder; Nat don't care.

   Drawing inspiration from the seeds of the now-famous 2006 comic storyline of the same name, Civil War sees the Avengers split down the middle of an ideological divide after the United Nations demands that superheroes agree to international oversight.   When the actions of the Avengers during a mission lead to the accidental death of a number of innocents, the UN, having witnessed large-scale destruction thanks to the the team in previous adventures, decides that the heroes must be reigned in.  Tony Stark, reeling with guilt over the consequences of his actions and what they've cost him, agrees.  Steve Rogers, feeling that both justice and his own conscience cannot be dictated by the whims of a changeable government, disagrees.  When the Winter Soldier is implicated in a bombing attack with personal ramifications, sides are taken, and problems ensue.

   Chris Evans as Captain America and Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man own this movie.  They both give performances that are nuanced and sincere, trying to overcome the growing divide between them.  There's a depth to both characters, a gravity which comes with the growth of the two over multiple films.  It's fantastic to watch both of them and reflect back over the turns that have brought them to this point.  Evans manages to convey sincerity without arrogance, and Downey is especially good, his gabby sarcastic nature belying the conflict with which he's wrestling.

  

Fans of the comics will recognize this shot.

   While Evans and Downey dominate the plot, this is very much an ensemble picture, and surprisingly, even with about eighteen other prominent characters, just about everyone gets decent screen time and several choice moments.  Standouts include Sebastian Stan as the tormented Winter Soldier, trying to piece his life together after decades of brainwashing and brutality, Scarlett Johansson as She-Who-Really-Needs-Her-Own-Movie aka Black Widow, caught between two friends and trying to find the middle ground, and Chadwick Boseman, playing T'Challa aka the Black Panther, in an incredible debut which cannot help but make me very excited about his forthcoming solo shot.  A few of the characters do feel a little bit thrown-in...Hawkeye in particular, but on the other hand we also get to see several characters showcased who haven't had as much screen time as yet in the MCU - Falcon, Scarlet Witch, Vision and Ant-Man most notably.

   Oh, and this guy:

"....does whatever a spider can..."

    Yes, Spider-Man finally makes his official entry in the MCU, and while he is sort of dropped into the movie about halfway through, every moment he has on screen is a gem.  As much as I liked Andrew Garfield in the role, Tom Holland absolutely nails it, crawling right out of the comic onscreen, with his signature dynamic agility on display no less than his incessant yakking and energetic humor.  This was a long-awaited treat, one which I wasn't sure we'd ever get to see, but Spidey's back and well worth the wait.   I can't help but continue to hold out hope the Fantastic Four or X-Men might someday find their way into the mix, but for now, having Spidey part of the gang is enough.

   Civil War is not, like some previous MCU entries have been, simply an excuse to sell the franchise and promote the next upcoming movie, although there are the inevitable carrots being dangled.  CW stands on its own merits, with a compelling story that asks tough questions about the natures of heroism, justice, guilt, and responsibility.  There's no real 'right' or 'wrong', and the protagonists find the ground constantly shifting under them.  Some characters display more certainty than others, but all of them are clearly uncomfortable with the situation in which they find themselves.  The character motivations are well established, and the conflicts which had arisen in prior movies, which Age of Ultron glibly ignored, are brought back and addressed.  This is the kind of thing I've been wanting to see, because if you're going to develop an intricate continuity, and ask your fans to follow along, then there needs to be payout to that investment, and CW delivers admirably.

Team Iron Man (with Spidey edited out of the shot for promotional secrecy)

     The movie bounces all over the globe, but manages to pace itself well.  The airport showdown, a centerpiece of the film's marketing, is a tremendous sequence, with the various superpowers of twelve individuals trying to subdue the others without hurting them, is one of the most fun scenes I've ever seen in an action movie.  (Added to the category of  "I Can't Believe I Get To See This Onscreen":  Hawkeye firing an arrow with Ant-Man perched atop it.)   The interplay in the action sequences as well as the less high-octane moments is on point - the dialogue is clever where it needs to be, as well as potent, and never comes across as "Look We Are Bantering Wittily."  There are some surprisingly funny bits as well - the interactions between Winter Soldier and Falcon are a highlight.

Team Cap:  Not afraid to do the classic two-teams-charging-each-other moment.

   One of the few criticisms I have is that this movie isn't exactly Captain America 3.  It's also not exactly Avengers 3, either, though - it's something of a cross between the two, which is a little disappointing, but necessary.  I had been hoping for a different direction for the Cap franchise (early rumors pointed to the film being about the Serpent Society), so I feel a bit that Cap's series was sacrificed in favor of the Avengers.  On the other hand, this movie needed to exist in the greater scheme of the MCU, so I can't begrudge it.  I do hope we get another non-Avengers Captain America movie at some point down the road, though, since we know we'll be seeing more of the Avengers themselves soon enough.

  The other criticism I have is one which I've had about most of the other movies, and it's becoming frustrating: the lack of quality villains.  Now, in the case of CW, it's not quite as glaring because the heroes themselves are their own antagonists, which makes for a great conflict.  But CW also features two classic Cap foes - Crossbones in an all-too-brief appearance as the MacGuffin following up on his arc from Winter Soldier, and Baron Zemo...who is here "Doctor Zemo", and has almost no connection to his comics counterpart, as a character or in design.  He could, quite frankly, be absolutely anybody...he has as much connection to the classic character as most of Michael Bay's Transformers have to their original counterparts.   Like most of the other MCU villains, Zemo is not much of a character.  He's given a few lines of backstory to give him some kind of motive, but he's only there to be a plot device, not a fleshed out character, and given the complete rewrite of his backstory, he might as well have been a completely new creation.  And unlike previous two-dimensional foes like Whiplash or Yellowjacket, Zemo doesn't even look all that interesting...he's a guy in a sports coat.  No action figure for you, Zemo.

"Oh, yeah - I can totally see the resemblance", said no one.

   Despite this, I still found Civil War to be an incredibly enjoyable movie, rejuvenating the MCU as it heads up for Phase III.  This is Marvel's big entry for the year; Doctor Strange follows this fall but will likely not be on the same 'blockbuster' level as Civil War.   It's a breath of fresh air and a lot of fun, and it makes me feel confident in Marvel's decision to allow the Russo brothers to take the reigns of the overall MCU going forward.  As an aside, I'm getting the feeling that Joss Whedon may have long since peaked, but that's a potential blog for another day.  For the time being, though, I think Whedon standing down in favor of the Russos is an absolute plus.

     Captain America: Civil War delivers in a refreshing, energetic way, both as a superhero flick and as a character piece, and is a satisfying continuation of multiple storylines.  It'll be at least a year before we see any of these characters again, but CW is a great entry in the series to tide us over.   Marvel's got the train back on the right track, and it's making for a fun ride once again.

FINAL RATING: 9 PAWS (OUT OF 10):

REVIEW: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

     Day versus night.  God versus man.  Son of Krypton versus Bat of Gotham.

     The DCEU returns in this much-ballyhooed, long-awaited showdown - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.   Who wins?  Well, as I'm endeavoring to keep this spoiler-free, I'm not telling.   But let's take a look at the movie itself, shall we?

   Set eighteen months after Man of Steel, BvS picks up with Superman taking on a role of mankind's savior, either feared or adored by the population.  But Batman, who as Bruce Wayne was present for, and lost friends in, the destructive battle at the end of Man of Steel, has decided Superman is too great a threat to be ignored.   As Wayne creates contingency plans to take out the Kryptonian, Clark Kent begins to investigate the dark vigilante of Gotham City, and billionaire genius Lex Luthor manipulates events to set the one against the other in a final showdown.

   So let's get right to it: this movie is a case of the whole of the parts being greater than the sum.  There is a lot of truly excellent work in this film, with incredible visuals, a fantastic cast, some weighty ideas with more meat to them than one finds in your average superhero movie, and a number of comic-nerd moments that made this lifelong DC fan very happy.  However, the movie itself doesn't really coalesce as a whole.  Much like Man of Steel, this film has some pacing problems and a number of redundant scenes, especially in the first half.  It takes quite a while to get where it's going, and there are some odd edit choices, and given that we already know an extended director's cut is forthcoming, makes it clear that there have been scenes removed.  Outside of the last half an hour, I also can't say this is a particularly fun film, and a number of points in the movie are predictable or obligatory.

Knight Light

   I think it's safe to say this movie is a world-building exercise rather than an artistic effort in and of itself.  Much of the movie is given to setting up future DC entries, which weakens the overall effort.  There are a number of sequences which are not explained; I think that as a comics fan I made sense of most of them, but I have a feeling the less superhero-literate may be left in the dark.   The movie is almost like a crash course in the DCU, to establish the major players and themes, but in so doing, BvS fails to make a coherent work on it's own.  Rather than having a number of threads coming together to form a tapestry, it ends up being...well, a number of threads.

   Without getting bogged down in comparisons to other superhero movies, BvS is not as much fun as your average Marvel movie, but then again, it has far more depth and is far less glib.  It takes itself more seriously, which on one hand is good as it gives gravity and strength to the characters, fleshing them out and making them less cartoony, but on the other can feel quite ponderous at times.  In that respect it is similar to the Dark Knight Trilogy, but is not quite so joyless.  BvS is definitely comics-friendly, and I'd put it about halfway between Nolan's trilogy and the MCU in terms of its spirit.   The problem is that it's not a popcorn movie like the Marvel films, and it's not artistic like the Dark Knight Trilogy - it tries to be a little of both while failing to truly be either.

"Do you swear to tell the whole Truth, nothing but the Justice, so help your American Way?"

   Now with all that said, I do find myself rather content with the film, because as much as the movie itself is a hodgepodge, the individual components are fantastic.  First of all, it's a gorgeous movie - director Zack Snyder has a true eye flair for the visual, and frames shots and sequences to tremendous effect.  The costumes are excellent adaptations of the comics - Batman has never looked so good on film - and speaking as a DC vet from way back, I absolutely felt like these *were* Batman and Superman.  The motives and dialogue were on point for the characters, and the concepts of the movie, which deal with one of the core conflicts at the heart of the DCU - Gods and Monsters - were spot on.  From the perspective of a fan, I think one of the best things I can say of the film is that it rings true to the spirit of the source.

   The cast is excellent.  I can say with no equivocation that Ben Affleck is an absolutely perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne.  In terms of performance, delivery, movement, look, bearing, he absolutely had the Dark Knight down, even better than Christian Bale did.  It doesn't hurt that his 'Batman voice' is a hell of a lot less silly, by the way.  But anybody who's spent the last two years sneering or mocking 'Batfleck' has some serious crow to eat.  So if that's you - right now, get up, walk away from the computer, find a mirror and take a long hard look at yourself, apologize to the universe, and make a donation to the charity of your choice.  We'll wait.

"Go ahead.  Make one more Daredevil comment.  See what happens."

    Henry Cavill embodies Superman, and is the first actor since the late Christopher Reeve to really sell the part and make it his own; he radiates power, compassion and conflict and makes the character believable.   Jesse Eisenberg makes for an interesting Lex Luthor - Eisenberg made an acting choice here, and while I can see how some might not like the take, which is more energetic and more unhinged than the usual portrayal of the character - it works and adds a level of menace.  The rest of the cast is composed of quality actors all giving solid if unremarkable performances: Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Jeremy Irons as Alfred Pennyworth, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White and Diane Lane as Martha Kent.  Holly Hunter appears as Senator June Finch, a role created for the film.   A few secondary villains make it into the film as well; Tao Okamoto plays Lex's assistant Mercy Graves, and Callan Mulvey plays Russian criminal Anatoly Knyazev, better known to comics fans as the KGBeast.   Also appearing in brief, future-scene-setting moments are Ezra Miller as The Flash, Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and Ray Fisher as Cyborg.

   Oh - and Gal Gadot.   Easily my favorite part of the movie, even more than Affleck's stellar Batman, is Gadot as the long-cinematically-overdue Wonder Woman/Diana Prince.  It's a supporting role, to be sure, and an enigmatic one, but it is perfect.  Gadot looks the part - imposing and gorgeous, and plays Diana with a mixture of playfulness, intrigue, and dynamic energy.  We don't see Wonder Woman as such enter the fray until late in the movie, but when she does, she's incredible.  And the moment when she, Batman, and Superman all come face to face is the stuff that DC dreams are made on.

"Together again!  Gee, it's good to be together again!"

   As a standalone movie, Batman v Superman is far from perfect, suffers from long-windedness and plodding, and lacks cohesion.  As a world-building episode to set up future entries, though, it is a rousing success.  If the goal of this movie was to whet appetites for the DC universe, it more than succeeded...I find myself eagerly wanting to see more of Batman and Wonder Woman in particular, not to mention the Justice League.  And of course, the Suicide Squad is coming later this year.  In a way, BvS is self-sacrificing, if it helps to get people taking and makes audiences want to see more of its cast.  Without giving anything away, the conclusion of this movie not only leaves open room for a sequel, but flat out demands one, which we already know is coming, and I look forward to it immensely.

   As for now, we've got our world set up for us.  One wishes the vehicle which delivered it was in better working order, since all of the parts are high-quality, but the end result doesn't service those parts to a worthy degree.  I've been critical of other films for sacrificing present quality for future imaginings, and that same criticism applies here...don't worry about selling the next movie, make this one work.  So in that respect, the movie fails that critical test - but it does sell the next films quite well.   It's got a great cast, solid dialogue, beautiful visuals and choreography, and powerful themes; all the ingredients are there, but the final blend doesn't quite take.

   For me, ultimately it comes down to a divide:  as a movie fan, I'm underwhelmed.  As a comics fan, I'm ecstatic.

   Oh, and as for who wins the title fight?   Well, as to that.....



FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10):

(I went back and forth between six and seven on this one; in the final analysis the strength of the parts outweighed the deficit of the whole.)