by Michael Henley

Latest

Ed Wood (1994)

Bella Lugosi (Martin Landau) and Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) plan their art.

Directed by Tim Burton. Written by Scott Alexander, Larry Karaszewski; based on the book “Nightmare of Ecstasy” by Rudolph Grey. Produced by Tim Burton, Denise Di Novi. Music by Howard Shore. Photographed by Stefan Czapsky. Edited by Chris Lebenzon. Production designed by Tom Duffield. Starring Johnny Depp, Martin Landau, Sarah Jessica Parker, Patricia Arquette, Jeffrey Jones, G.D. Spradlin, Vincent D’Onofrio, Bill Murray, Mike Starr, Max Casella, Brent Hinkley, Lisa Marie.

In all of Hollywood history, there was never a director quite like Edward D. Wood, Jr. That is meant as a compliment. Sure, Wood was voted posthumously as the “worst director of all time” by those who make such decisions, and his body of work (Plan 9 From Outer Space, Glen or Glenda, etc.) lacks a certain…polish, let’s say. But what they do feature is a sort of perverse charm, and that’s a testament to the fact that the man who made them may not have had talent, but he had a vision.  You could list the hacks all day, but what made Wood special was that he was impassioned, a perfectionist, an auteur: the Kubrick of Z-grade schlock. He may not have ever directed a competent shot, but he was so in love with filmmaking that trying to tell him that his babies were ugly was a useless gesture. To this day, his crowning achievements are heaped with scorn, and perhaps they deserve it, but they were made with such zeal that what, in the end, are we really complaining about?

Tim Burton’s Ed Wood gets this about its subject, and that’s what makes it work. It’s not a sneering hit piece on a no-talent. Nor does it inflate the achievements of a man with questionable taste. It looks him straight in the eye. There’s no pity, no smugness, and also no grandiose mythmaking, except perhaps a few moments that are sympathetic to the way we are all living legends, in our own eyes. Burton, who can often be an arch, distanced storyteller, finds the appropriate tone with which to tell the tale of Ed Wood: not condescension or biopic pretentiousness, but a touching, sweet earnestness. It plays fair.

When critics discuss Burton, they tend to focus on his fondness for the gothic, the grotesque, and the bizarre. And he is frequently lauded for his visuals, collaborating with production designers and cinematographers to create twisted, haunted landscapes. And, it must be charged, he frequently populates these places with characters that seem like afterthoughts. But Burton’s hidden strength has been a unique ability for identifying (to uneven degrees of success, certainly) with pale, uncomfortable loners (see Batman, Edward Scissorhands). This is why he is probably the only person who could have made Ed Wood, because as framed by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski’s screenplay, it demands sympathy for a creature most filmmakers would simply wish to mock. Burton will not mock Ed, cannot mock Ed. He loves Ed. And that goodwill radiates throughout the whole picture.

Ed is played here by Johnny Depp, in what can only be called a fearless performance. It is fearless precisely because it is devoid of the usual defensive mechanisms an actor will employ when embracing uncertain material: irony, camp, a desire to be in on the joke (if there is one). The movie is funny in the way that Ed’s life must have been funny, but it doesn’t try to be funny, you understand. When Ed Wood storms onto the set of Plan 9 From Outer Space wearing high heels and a fluffy angora sweater, Depp knows that the situation is not humorous because it’s ridiculous—it’s because Ed Wood is taking it very seriously indeed, and everyone else thinks it’s ridiculous. We sympathize with both viewpoints, and we laugh in recognition, not contempt.

The movie is basically the tale of a young man on the rise, only with pointedly not much of a rise. Wood, who is a studio gopher by day and a cut-rate theater director at night, desperately wants and needs to be a big name in the movie business, but the odds seem stacked against him. In bed one night with his girlfriend Dolores (Sarah Jessica Parker), he tosses and turns and rails against himself: “What if I just don’t got it? Orson Welles made Citizen Kane when he was 26, and I’m 30.” (Welles is a hero to Ed.) In desperation he interviews for a directing job for a hole-in-the-wall production company (lorded over by pitch-perfect character actor Mike Starr). The film is a barely-on-the-cusp-of-legal sex change exploitation picture. Ed leans in close, and whispers (with no shame) that he is the perfect choice to direct this movie, because he is…a transvestite.

Remember that this is Hollywood, a land where meetings just as bizarre as this happen three times a day. In a way, the moment where Ed reveals the truth about himself to get a job will underpin every scene in Ed Wood, because this is a movie about scrappers on the outside of the most magical place on Earth, who are kicking and screaming at the door, trying to get in with every weapon in their peculiar arsenals. The movie understands that desperation, and the guerrilla tactics that one must use daily in order to survive such a universe. (When filming a street scene, a cop car comes around the corner, leading Ed to scream: “We don’t have a permit! Run!”) Los Angeles is a city that feasts on uncertainty, which is why there are so many cults and therapists: in order to succeed, many turn inward to try to finally figure themselves out and attain superhuman confidence. You can understand the pride with which Ed reveals his secret to Dolores, standing in the middle of their living room in a full woman’s outfit. Dolores is chagrined, and you can understand that too. She’s just a little too sane.

The key relationship in the movie is between Ed Wood and Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau), legendary star of Dracula and numerous other horror pictures, now a washed-up heroin addict who curses the name of Boris Karloff and hides his despair and loneliness under angry outbursts. He falls into Ed’s orbit the way most anyone else does: Ed just kinda collects people with his cheerfulness and talk of big plans, despite their dubious merits. It is probably true that if you simply tell 100 people in Los Angeles that you are a director, by the end of the day, you will have 10 resumes. Lugosi is as eager to star in films again as Ed is eager to make them, and the two form an unlikely bond. One Halloween night, the two watch scary movies and when Bela goes to the kitchen to take a hit, the camera stays on Ed’s face as he comes comes agonizingly close to actually noticing what’s happening, but doesn’t. This encapsulates the Ed Wood philosophy: only dreams matter; the details aren’t important.

It is through Bella that Ed gains upward mobility, and also some semblance of what he mistakes for respectability. Bella is a star, after all, even though he is now known primarily for being a has-been addict. Glen or Glenda, the transvestite picture, is orphaned by its fleapit studio and flops. Ed tries to seek independent backers for his next movie, Bride of the Monster, and fails, although the lovely Loretta King (Juliet Landau) delivers some upfront cash and then, while on set, tells Ed the worst two sentences a z-grade producer could ever hear: “You misunderstood me, Ed. I already gave you everything I have.” The production is shut down, with all props, cast and crew thrown out into the street. It happens. Even then, Ed is positive, because he’s most certainly living the life.

Intercut between the production schedules is the plight of Bella Lugosi, who is often involved with the movies but at curious angles to them. In one, he frames the story from a drawing room, playing the part of some sort of alien being who, as he says “Pulls ze strings!” At one point Lugosi fights an overgrown sea monster that is supposed to be mechanical, but that doesn’t work out; the sight of the prideful Hungarian actor sipping from a flask in between rows with a dummy octopus is heartbreakingly pathetic. And through it all Ed becomes a student, a friend, and practically a guardian to the dying Bella, waking in the middle of the night to pained phone calls and staying with him till the very end. So deep is their friendship that Ed is determined to use Lugosi’s last footage in his movie, Plan 9 From Outer Space. No matter that his part wasn’t completed, it can be filled in with a double in a cape. Yes.

Others drip towards (and away from) Ed’s career. There’s the Amazing Criswell (Jeffrey Jones), who makes theatrical predictions that are shockingly correct, except for the ones that aren’t. And the dry and very gay Bunny Breckenridge (Bill Murray), who plans to go to Mexico for a sex change operation, but seems to more enjoy talking about it and explaining why he didn’t go through with it. There is Tor Johnson (George “The Animal” Steele), a behemoth who could take acting lessons from Andre the Giant. And Vampira (Lisa Marie), an apathetic TV hostess who somehow can never quite shake the magnetism of Ed Wood, and ends up in his cadre. One shot shows the bunch of them (along with Bella) on the way to a premiere, and they look like a road company version of the Addams Family. Dolores grows disenchanted with the whole lot of them eventually…but that is, significantly, only after when she is shoved out of the spotlight for financial reasons.

There is a buried theme in all of this, and that is how completely blind a person can be while on the road to fame, a phenomenon never more rampant than in Hollywood. Success is the most elusive of mistresses, and to pursue it, seemingly intelligent people will abandon all reason and sense, clinging to the slimmest of hopes. Ed has self-doubts (don’t we all?) and only by sweeping them away does he achieve…well, anything at all. A creative endeavor must sacrifice some perspective in order to take shape, and Ed throws commitment into his art so fervently that only an outsider would have the ability to perceive (perhaps correctly) that his results are terrible. One dark afternoon Ed runs into Orson Welles (Vincent D’Onofrio) at a bar, and the two men connect by seizing upon the tiniest of common principles: that when the art works, it’s worth it. What else really matters?

This material is touching in its unshakable sympathy for the Ed Woods of the world. They may have little talent, but they want to share all that they have with us, and is that so bad? There’s generosity even in such squalid surroundings, and a lovely sense of dogged community: you get the feeling that if Ed ever closed up shop and told his merry band of stars to go away, they would have nowhere to go. Hollywood is a cruel place, and people must stick together and keep their hopes alive. Even if their skills are hopeless. In fact, especially then. Or, as Bunny puts it, when Ed allies himself with a strict Baptist church for funds: “How did you get all your friends to get baptized just so you can make a monster movie?”  Ed barely answers even considers the question. The tunnel vision is kind of inspiring.

The film is made in black and white, to approximate the style of Wood’s movies, and also to do stark things with the L.A. locations—never before in a movie have low-budget filmmaking felt so pointedly low. Several scenes take place on empty streets, as if an existential film noir is being shot somewhere nearby. The result is a picture that feels lonely and desperate, as it should. The b & w photography also allows Burton to slip in some effects and tricks that are conscious nods to the Ed Wood school. And there’s a humdinger of a musical score by Howard Shore (stepping in for the oddly absent Danny Elfman). The cast is excellent, except for Lisa Marie, whose range is limited, even when playing the barely-expressive Vampira. Otherwise, even Sarah Jessica Parker shines.

Ed Wood is essentially based on fact. It cheats a bit towards the end, where a movie premiere is thrown for Plan 9 (never happened, but good drama). And it ends on a note of hope for Ed’s new life and happiness, before immediately undercutting it with title cards explaining that Ed descended into alcoholism and pornography before dying in 1978. And yet these days, Ed Wood is practically a household name, synonymous with terrible movies. He is known the world over. He will never be forgotten. Success.

All artists dream for fame. Some get it. Some get nothing. And the most life-affirming thing that Ed Wood teaches us is that sometimes instead we get infamy. Horrible, messy, ugly, wonderful infamy. It’s better than nothing. By a whole heck of a lot.

GRADE: A-

The Avengers (2012)

L-R: Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). Not pictured: no one who matters.

Directed by Joss Whedon. Screenplay by Joss Whedon; screen story by Zak Penn, Joss Whedon; based upon characters created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby and published by Marvel Comics. Produced by Kevin Feige. Music by Alan Silvestri. Photographed by Seamus McGarvey. Edited by Jeffrey Ford, Lisa Lassek. Production designed by James Chinlund. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Clark Gregg, Cobie Smulders, Stellan Skarsgård, Samuel L. Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow.

The Avengers is The Dirty Dozen of superhero movies. Like The Dirty Dozen, The Avengers is a war film about a team of misfits brought together to form something grand, all of them selected, essentially, because they are all movie stars. Instead of Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine, however, The Avengers brings us Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and a handful of peers. True, they don’t add up to a dozen, but when you figure that most of them have secondary personalities, the math is agreeable.

The Avengers is also a trial by fire for geek titan Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and the joy of many), who wrote and directed. And it is the culmination of a concerted effort by Marvel Studios to interconnect their various filmic properties. It’s the payoff to four years of Marvel comic book movies (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger) teasing something bigger; something huge. So now here it is: that huge thing. It’s big. It’s gigantic. And it is, quite frankly, one of the single best comic book films I have ever seen.

I don’t say that lightly. Throughout the years, I’ve seen numerous comic book films and liked-to-loved many of them. But The Avengers vaults to the top of whatever list you could compile that ranks superlative funnybook epics. It sits in well alongside Iron Man, Spider-Man 2, Superman and even (although it’s a film with quite different aims) The Dark Knight. It’s a generous and stylish picture that, if it doesn’t transcend its genre, honors it to such a giddy degree usually restricted to movie fans. If you’ve ever read a great comic book and have longed for a movie to fully capture its exhilarating mix of character interaction and splash-page ambitious mayhem, then stop reading right now. Go to the movie-ticket ordering kiosk of your choice, and say “One for The Avengers, please.” This movie is for you. GO NOW.

Here’s our roster of heroes. You have Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), also known as Tony Stark, millionaire technological super-genius. And Captain America/Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans), supersoldier relic of WWII whose still full of p & v (long story). And there’s Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the Norse thunder God and alien from the planet Asgard. You have Bruce “The Incredible Hulk” Banner (Mark Ruffalo), who you wouldn’t like to see angry, unless you like to see The Hulk, and we do. And there’s the athletic assassin Natasha Romanov/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), who is romantically paired with Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), the tricks-up-his-sleeve-and-then-some archer. Rounding out the team is Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who is mainly a mentor but sure packs a mean bazooka. Most of these characters have appeared in their own films, the rest in guest spots within that set. Unaccounted for are Marvel stablemates Spider-Man and The X-Men, due to legal woes with competing studios. But the core gang is all here.

What on Earth…strike that. What at all could possibly compel these guys to join forces? How about an intergalactic army bent on a full-scale invasion, led by the treacherous Loki (Tom Hiddleston)? Yeah, that’ll do. In a decent-if-unassuming prologue, Loki, last seen floating in space at the conclusion of last summer’s Thor, arrives at a deep underground facility that is home to S.H.I.E.L.D, super-secret government agency that is sympathetic to superheroes. Loki emerges from a glowing space portal powered by what’s called The Tesseract, last seen being coveted by a red-faced Nazi in Captain America: The First Avenger. Important tip: don’t trust beings that emerge from energy portals powered by objects desired by red-faced Nazis. Just don’t do it. An ensuing catastrophe leads Nick Fury to make the ultimate call: assemble The Avengers. And wouldn’t you know it, that’s when The Avengers truly begins to take its own wonderful shape.

We meet the would-be Avengers right where we left them in their respective movies. Tony Stark is furthering his empire and having a little time alone with now-girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Captain America is still reacclimating to society after having been in suspended animation for seventy years. The Hulk is still laying low in a foreign country. Thor…well, he remains offstage, prudently waiting for a thunderstorm to make his grand re-entrance. Following the group’s apprehending of Loki, Thor kidnaps their prisoner (the two are brothers, after all). This leads to a rock-em, sock-em forest battle between Iron Man, Cap and Thor, while meanwhile Bruce Banner smiles like a good schoolboy who really longs for the day that he can go bad.

Things barely improve when Loki is brought aboard Nick Fury’s airship/military base/aircraft carrier/submarine (trust me, it’s cool). Loki stalks in his cell and plants a seed of mistrust that finds plenty of soil to take root. After all, Tony Stark is an egomaniac, Captain America a square-jawed boy scout, and Thor has a bit of a temper, which pales only in comparison to…well, The Hulk. Here is where Whedon’s gifts as a screenwriter truly show themselves, because while the first act of The Avengers is fun but simple, in the second act it transforms into a wickedly perceptive locked-room dramedy: Long Day’s Journey Into Night reimagined as a graphic novel. And here he cannily uses the same skill he used on television to believably pit people we equally like against each other. Marvel’s strategy to establish these characters in individual films and then draw them together into conflict was, turns out, precisely right.

Whedon is sometimes criticized for writing all his characters the same. I fear such complaints will hit The Avengers, but they’re dead wrong. He has fun with Tony Stark (he and Robert Downey Jr. are a match made in heaven), but he gives all the characters distinctive voices. He keeps Thor’s tendency to burst into iambic pentameter. Straight-laced Steve Rodgers is a straight man, but never ever the butt of a joke. Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner is compelling, mumbly and shy. Black Widow has a knack for tricking people into thinking she’s weak (not in the way you might expect). The only one underutilized is Renner’s Hawkeye (a function of the plot), but Whedon is careful to at least give the man a reserve of private moments. And then there is Loki, who at one point lashes out at Black Widow and dubs her a “mewling quim.” You don’t hear that every day. (Also: look it up.)

Yet, that’s avoiding the real asset here: the reason why many (myself included) love Whedon as a storyteller is because his fundamentals are strong: character development, plot, theme. Most filmmakers can’t be bothered with servicing one character within their action movie, but in The Avengers Whedon has to juggle half a dozen, giving them all equal power, and not tilting the film too hard in one direction: if The Avengers became Tony Stark and Friends, there’d be a riot. That Whedon keeps all these plates spinning so well is a minor miracle; the fact that he then ties it to a plot that matters and keeps the action sequences in proper proportion is even moreso. Not only does Whedon succeed in retaining this franchise’s disparate voices for its characters, he even reformats its weakest links into strong ones (Black Widow benefits greatly from the rewritten sensibility that noted feminist Whedon brings to her). Whedon is also clearly passionate about the material, in a way that does him proud.

But what is most surprising about Whedon’s work here is that as the director of a $200 million dollar effects-laden fantasy epic, he acquits himself with shocking aplomb. Whedon has directed dozens of ambitious hours of TV and a feature (the Firefly sequel Serenity), and yet this, I’d argue, is his first movie. It starts a little pedestrian with standard James Bond-style visual ticks, and then expands along with its cast into a determined action-adventure film with scope and weight. Even when it barrels into CGI-driven sequences (intercutting between Loki’s escape, Iron Man and Cap’s attempts to repair their attacked ship and an unfortunate run in with The Hulk, for example), Whedon delivers them with epic style.

I’m not spoiling anything if I suggest that the Avengers, do, ultimately, come together, right? That they marshall their forces and prepare for a battle royale against Loki and his army? That they sweep aside their differences and become the kick-ass team that they were destined to be? Of course not. It’s the journey that matters, not the destination. This is off-the-shelf stuff to be sure. But it’s built up to with such genuine skill that damn it, we’re swayed all the same. Captain learns to be less naïve, Thor gets schooled in family matters, Hulk manages some anger (or at least finds a healthy outlet), and Tony Stark discovers that maybe he can be just a little selfless. Simplistic, yes, but we don’t read comic books for depth. We read them for reaffirmations of archetypes, told with new words that make them feel fresh.

And then. Oh, and then. I shan’t really spoil too hard the third act of The Avengers, except to say that it bears a remarkable similarity to another alien-invasion movie that came out last year. No matter. Whedon, a craftsman even at his new trade, makes the Michael Bays of the world look demonstrably pathetic with his impressively-mounted and insanely complex  action climax set in the heart of Manhattan, as aliens scream out of a dimensional portal and Loki struts his stuff, and the Avengers peel off for individual battles: on the street, on a skyrise rooftop, in the air, through buildings, into outer space. Everything. It’s the most assured leap of a newcomer into epic Hollywood filmmaking since Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings.

If you remember the mind-bogglingly complicated top-this-no-top-this-now-top-this-dear-God-this-is-still-going ending of James Cameron’s Terminator 2: Judgment Day, you have an idea of the level of creative aggression to expect in The Avengers’ grand finale. You know that shot in all the ads, where the camera swoops around the group as they form a tight circle? That’s not even the best or coolest shot in the sequence. Swear to God. You’ll know which one it is. And yet, at no point does Whedon lose it all to chaos: he focuses on the characters throughout—the crowd-pleasing moments extend from the writing, they’re not engineered by it. It all could have been trimmed, perhaps a little, but by the time The Avengers comes to a halt, we’re pretty much too wrung out—in the best way—to quibble too much.

The actors are pretty much across-the-board terrific. Downey comes on screen already owning the Iron Man character; he needs no further praise from me. What’s surprising is how well he does working with others this time around, and how easily the others match his level. Evans shows the same charisma he displayed in last year’s Captain America, as does Hemsworth from Thor. Hiddleston, now shuttled into a more eye-catching leading villain role, is a worthy adversary, and he does a smart thing in keeping his performance the right mix of light and dark: wryly vinctive, you might say. But the film’s MVP is most assuredly Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, who together with the CGI creates the very best Hulk seen yet on film. And the two performances are perfectly in sync, for once: Ruffalo steals scenes as Banner, and the CGI Hulk frequently does the same when the comic-book action hits the fan.

Marvel’s experiment to release five movies that came to pay off in one super-movie was a gutsy play. It must have been trying. Was it worth it? Four years build-up to this? I can answer without hesitation. Yes. A thousand times yes. The Avengers is not just terrific entertainment, but it’s perfect. Not a perfect movie per se, but a perfect summer movie: joyful, inventive, fun and wonderfully energetic. As a superhero pic, it’s tremendous, and best of all has an enormously broad appeal, even to those who would never ever touch a comic book. You’ve got to hand it to Joss Whedon. At the end of the day, he makes being a geek feel…well, just plain super.

GRADE: A

NOTES: There are two end-credits surprises. The first guarantees an Avengers 2. The second…you must wait till the very end to see. Yes, it is worth it. Also, keep your eyes peeled for one or two cameos.

Who gets the funniest line? I expect much debate about this. For my money, it’s…surprisingly…Agent Phil Coulson. Yes, his name is Phil.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Three cheers for the red, white and blue! (Shh! Don't be so loud. We need to open this in other markets.) "Captain America: The First Avenger."

Directed by Joe Johnston. Screenplay by Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely; based on characters created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby and published by Marvel Comics. Produced by Kein Feige, Amir Madani. Music by Alan Silvestri. Photographed by Shelly Johnson. Edited by Robert Dalva, Jeffrey Ford. Production designed by Rick Heinrichs. Starring Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Dominic Cooper, Stanley Tucci, Toby Jones, Neal McDonough.

Captain America: The First Avenger is the final film in the prequel quintet that started in 2008 with Iron Man and leads all the way to The Avengers, which opens Friday. It is the prequeliest prequel of them all, because it takes place during World War II and is essentially about America’s first superhero, Captain America (aka Steve Rodgers). Cap is less a freak transformed by unfortunate circumstances and more a regular and willing average guy pushed to the limits of human perfection by a super-serum: he goes into a test chamber as scrawny Steve and exits as Captain America, a slab of grade A all-American beefcake. He goes on to become a key figure in World War II, so much so that to this day in the Marvel Universe regular folks revere him as a legend. Of all the pre-Avengers movies, Captain America is perhaps the one that most needed to be made, since audiences may be the most unfamiliar with him. It’s also the riskiest venture in this five-movie buildup enterprise, because how can you sell a superhero this clean-cut and nice in today’s climate?

Well, they did, and they did it with style. Captain America: The First Avenger, I am pleased to say, is a colossal entertainment that honors the Captain America legend and has a great deal of fun with it. Good clean fun, I should say. This is maybe the most good-natured and innocent comic book made in several years, not because it doesn’t have rousing fights or dastardly villains (it most certainly does), but because it places those elements within a story that would feel precisely at home within a four-color panel printed on newspaper. For that matter, it feels not-so-far removed from the kind of adventure serial they would make in—hey, whaddayaknow—the 40’s. In fact the single time the movie missteps is in a closing sequence that tries too hard to tie this film into the leadup for The Avengers. We kinda feel used and overly marketed to, because the movie actually has a perfect closing shot that it unfortunately fails to realize as such.

This film has two parents, I’d argue, both of which have nothing to do with Marvel Comics: Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Rocketeer. The director is Joe Johnston, and you may not be surprised to learn he worked on both of them (art department for Raiders, director for Rocketeer). Not only is there a sly nod to Raiders in the film’s opening set in a Norwegian church (as well as Marvel neighbor Thor), but all three films embrace the iconography and tropes of 40’s action adventure serials: Nazis, jackboots, brown colors schemes that evoke the dustbowl and Depression, men in hats and perfectly-tailored suits, and gorgeous gals in red lipstick with great–if I may be so bold–gams. Just like in Raiders there’s a supernatural MacGuffin, and just like in The Rocketeer there’s another MacGuffin holding amazing power that everyone wants but which falls into the lap of our hero.

That hero is Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans), who begins as a proverbial 99-pound weakling and ends up as Captain America, with some trials along the way. He’s the kind of kid who’s made of nothing but skin and bones, but he’ll proudly stand up to a bully at a movie theater, wiping his jaw after a knockdown and exclaiming “I can do this all day.” His good-heartedness attracts the attentions of Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a German-American who is working on a top-secret formula to create a race of supersoldiers that will help win the war. When he asks Steve why he keeps trying so desperately to enlist in the army, the response he gets perfectly encapsulates the Captain America philosophy: “I don’t want to kill anyone. I just hate bullies. I don’t care where they’re from.”

That essential strand of good character will propel Captain America through his adventures, assisted, it must be said, by a terrific support team. We have Dr. Erskine, who believes in Steve all the way through boot camp. And gruff, no-nonsense Col. Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones), who gets some of the film’s surliest and best lines. Steve’s best friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) plays a crucial role, and their friendship feels sweet and real. There’s technology guru Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper): if Iron Man 2 posited the elder Stark as the Walt Disney of science, then here are his early animation days. And most of all there’s luscious Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), a British agent and inevitable love interest who is first attracted to scrawny Steve’s bravery and good heart; the muscles are just a bonus.

But of course, all this wouldn’t do without a great villain. And we have one: Nazis. But of course. Comic books during World War II typically avoided the Nazi menace within their pages, limiting their influence to front covers where Superman, for example, punches Hitler in the face. The reasoning is sound, because a story where a superhero swoops in and solves a real-world problem only trivializes the issue being represented. Captain America sidesteps this problem by employing Nazis and specifying them as a secret branch of Hitler’s army. Code-named Hydra, they’re a  force to be reckoned with and have dreams of overthrowing Hitler. And at their head is Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), a.k.a the Red Skull. How did he get that name? Well, he’s a former experiment of Dr. Erskine’s, where the unfinished serum turned him into a crimson-faced demon who wears a human mask. Of course.

As Schmidt, Weaving is splendid. I don’t know if he ever specifically gnashes his teeth, but he certainly enters teeth-gnashing territory. Weaving has made a good line in villains the past few years, going all the way back to his odious agent in The Matrix, but here he outdoes himself with a nasty disposition, more smarts than you’d expect, a series of remote and humongous laboratories that would make a James Bond villain envious, and a convincing German accent that makes everything sound vindictive. Of course the plot demands that he face off against Captain America in a battle to the death, but Schmidt earns his stripes as a nasty so well that we’re more than willing to go along with what is, essentially, a very basic conclusion.

Along the way, Captain America grows into his role with gradually increasing confidence. In a delightful sequence, he’s placed on a USO Tour filled with showbiz and hokum (set against a delightful theme song written by Alan Menken and David Zippel), and then finds himself as an entertainer on the front lines facing a group of not-at-all-amused grunts. His romance with Peggy is done with a chastity and surefootedness that’s kind of charming, and as Cap starts making more decisions for himself, he never wavers from his core ideals, adopting a costume and shield that looks at home, of course, in the funny pages. But in the end he really wears the hell out of it.

Captain America takes place in what you’d call a parallel universe. Of course, the Marvel Universe is by definition parallel, since we have no Iron Men or Hulks wandering around our world. But with Captain America we realize the differences between these planes stretch all the way back to World War II, where in the Marvel realm, underneath Germany’s assault on the world, there was a secret war being waged with intergalactic energy weapons between supermen. But there are still resonances to our world, since Schmidt and Rodgers become dueling sides in a discussion about the Übermensch. Schmidt believes he is worthy of the power given to him, even destined for it, but Steve remains humble even in the face of his great abilities. “Who am I? Nobody. Just a kid from Brooklyn.”

What I like most about Captain America is that it earns its title through integrity rather than bullishness. This is not xenophobic nonsense that would be home in a Michael Bay production, but instead Cap is held to an ideal that crosses tribal borders. He’s patriotic but not oafish about it. He believes in flags, but not simply his own. As he assumes his title, he reflects that being Captain America means he represents America, and he doesn’t dare assume the responsibility of standing in for the world. And plus he gets able assistance from all corners of the globe: not just the British Peggy but also a ragtag team of “Howling Commandos” that cross all ethnicities, and even Dr. Erskine has a nice line that sweeps away any sense of scapegoating the entirety of Germany (“People often forget the first country the Nazis invaded was their own.”)

Through all of this extended comic-book nonsense, our rock at the center is Chris Evans, who as an actor is starting to overcome the shoddy material he’s had to work through (remember him from Fantastic Four? Anyone?) As Steve and later Cap, Evans is tough but never becomes a thug. He stands up for what he believes in and avenges his loved ones. He’s so stalwart and true and goshdarn lovable without being a klutz or sap. And he even inspires courage in those around him:  when a German spy throws a kid into the East River, and Cap of course goes to rescue him until the child calls back: “Go get him! I can swim.” It’s gee-whiz and really corny, but the movie earns it all with the courage of its convictions.

What’s most encouraging about Captain America, however, is that upholds traditional values not just within the story but outside: it’s told with craft, care and affection, and not the usual assembly-line process that influences so many comic book films. There’s a story here, and arcs, and characters. And also pretty good action choreography and direction by Johnson. As opposed to so many action films that dissolve into chaos, we get a good sense here of geography and who is doing what to whom, where and when. There are modern tricks on display (Evans’ scrawny early scenes are accomplished through spectacular CGI), but they’re so well done you wouldn’t really notice it.

As I said, there’s a flaw. The movie goes on just a little bit too long, with a coda that seems antithetical to what Johnson’s trying to accomplish (and as a matter of fact, it wasn’t even directed by him, but instead by Avengers helmer Joss Whedon). It’s cold and bleak and a little tragic, but I got all that before with the actual ending. All of this is stuff that’s trying to lead up to The Avengers, but do we need it here? Couldn’t we have it halfway through the credits, or at the end? Or something? Why punish the people who may not necessarily care what this movie is leading into? Here we’re told a real story with characters we care about, and in the very last scene it’s all swallowed up by what is pretty much a marketing gimmick. It’s unworthy.

It has been a mixed bag, these pre-Avengers movies. Some of them have tried too hard to interweave their ongoing mythology self-contained narratives, and have made themselves a little unwieldy (and also significantly difficult to pitch to newcomers). But the best ones have been done by phenomenal directors who bring fresh sensibilities to comic book tropes, which, I think are perhaps starting to get a little weary. But I have to admire the spirit in which these were made, as marketing-controlled as they have been.

This really has never been done before. Five movies that tell interconnected narratives that span 70 years, two distributors, and multiple big-name movie stars. All leading up to one massive super-movie that wraps everything up (to a point). Some of the films have been weak, but even those have provided important pieces of the ongoing puzzle. Even the least impressive of them (Thor), I’m glad was made, because it will provides context for what Thor will be doing when he find him in The Avengers. Like the Harry Potter films, The Avengers movies will be a little slice of film history for accomplishing never tried before, and my hat is off to them.

What does that have to do with Captain America? Something, but not a lot, because one of its pleasures is that it works best on its own. Here’s a thrilling and exciting action/adventure story that is probably a truer successor to Indiana Jones then even the most recent Jones film itself. It’s a tremendous amount of fun, and is happy to be such a thing. You can imagine the writers punch-drunk on their own audaciousness, and Johnston rolling up his sleeves, knowing he’s in his comfort zone. The result is a spectacular piece of blockbuster filmmaking. Like all great showmen, the people at Marvel Studios, leading up to their biggest film of all time, saved the best for last.

GRADE: A-

NOTES/AVENGERS CONNECTIONS: The whole movie is actually a flashback housed within a present-day framing structure that influences Cap in a rather direct way, and leaves him in a prime position to lead “The Avengers.” And of course, you have Howard Stark (who gives a presentation at the New York World’s Fair that is a direct precursor to the Stark Expo we see in Iron Man 2, replete with dancing girls). S.H.I.E.L.D. will one day try again to harness the power of supersoldiers, with less-than-ideal results.

Thor (2011)

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins) argue about which of their capes is prettier. "Thor."

Directed by Kenneth Branagh. Screenplay by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne; screen story by J. Michael Straczynski; based upon characters (I guess) created by Stan Lee, Larry Liber, Jack Kirby and published by Marvel Comics. Produced by Kevin Feige. Music by Patrick Doyle. Photographed by Haris Zambarloukos. Edited by Paul Rubell. Production designed by Bo Welch. Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Kat Dennings, Clark Gregg, Idris Elba, Colm Feore.

It has often been said that comic books are our modern mythology. In the case of Thor, that is the literal truth. Here is a character who has been ripped from the pages of Norse folklore and transplanted to the Marvel Comics stable, and now splashed across a movie screen. And yet, here’s the irony: Thor pretty much makes the transition intact, and that makes him an unfortunately bad fit for the Marvel Universe. Marvel characters are typically loners tortured by their gifts and bestowed with psychological complexity, but here Thor is just…Thor. He’s a big strong guy who wields a magic hammer. True, his surroundings have been colored with greater imagination than he was given in Norse mythology, and the Marvel backstory takes the typical sci-fi back door from the religious angle (he wasn’t a god, just worshipped as one). But the character is…here’s the issue: essentially the same.

It must be hard for a character from mythology trying to break into today’s multiplex. Much of the time we like our heroes conflicted and our storytelling layered, and that is not the mode that myth plays in. Gods and goddesses from all cultures typically have traits, but only so that they can be distinguished from each other. They are not psychologically deep, because they essentially star in parables and too much ambiguity would dilute the purpose. Some filmmakers have experimented with giving mythology more complex backstories and motivations, but push that too far and you get a mess like Wolfgang Peterson’s Troy, which ripped the gods away from Homer’s The Iliyad and twisted itself into knots to pretend the story still made sense, when of course it didn’t.

It’s a tricky balance to be sure, but Thor doesn’t even try – this is a superhero tale told in a straightforward, uncomplicated style that would perhaps be at home with Superman. But Thor is not Superman: he’s not nearly as much fun, iconic, or easy to define. Thor is essentially a comic book movie for fairly undemanding comic book geeks, which is odd because usually they’re the most demanding bunch around. While watching it we see a lot of overdone special effects and get told a story about love and honor and betrayal that is told in very very simple terms, either so the kids in the audience can follow it without a problem, or perhaps so that Thor himself can.

That Thor, he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Maybe we could tell that by the fact that he’s always swinging a hammer. Over a long and overwrought prologue we get a fantasy history lesson, as Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), king of Asgard, leads his brothers in a battle against the Frost Giants of Jotunheim. The war is won when Odin steals the Frost Giants’ power source and also a baby: Loki, who is adopted into Odin’s family. Odin’s other son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) grows big and muscular and really stupid. Loki (Tom Hiddleston), while uninformed about the whole baby-stealing thing, grows up rebellious and bitter, but smart. Am I missing the point to be immediately Team Loki?

There is a crisis. Frost Giants break into Asgard, which looks like an intergalactic mecca that worships Frank Frazetta. Thor, who is soon to be king and has never had an unexpressed thought, argues with his father over how to proceed. Thor wants to kill them all, but Odin pushes for peace and tolerance, although it’s unclear where “stealing your power source and crippling your civilization” falls within that philosophy. Thor goes against his father’s wishes and beams (or whatever) into the Frost Giant’s capital and gets into a massive super-fight with Laufey (Colm Feore) the king, and his minions, all conducted with impenetrable and murky special effects that fail to deliver anything except…well, special effects.

Odin is angered. We know that because he shouts a lot, and when Sir Anthony Hopkins shouts at you, you pay attention, boy. He casts Thor down to Earth to humble the boy’s arrogance, which puts him in the path of Jane (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who’s watching the skies in New Mexico for unusual bodies, and boy, does she find one. Heyoo! Jane is such an accomplished astrophysicist that when she drives Thor to the hospital she completely fails to notice the giant meteorite falling to Earth nearby, which contains Thor’s hammer, now locked in the desert sands until someone worthy can wield it. Of course, a whole host of truckers and hicks swarm around the crater and try their hand at it, leading to history’s first meeting of the legend of Excalibur with the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.

You may think you know exactly where this is going. You are exactly right. Will Thor be changed by his experiences on Earth? Of course he will. Will he fall in love with the cute astrophysicist, who most improbably has the looks of, again, Natalie Portman? Of course he will. Will he be allowed to wield the hammer just in the nick of time? What do you think? Meanwhile, will Loki try to wrest control of the throne from his not-father, Odin? Yes, indeed. Will the whole thing come down to a big fight between brothers on a glittering rainbow bridge that travels the lip of a huge abyss? Well…kudos on guessing the rainbow bridge; that one was tough. But yes. Spot on.

It’s not the predictability that’s the enemy, really. It’s the relentless ticking of a screenplay that moves through these items like a checklist. None of it feels earned, like the “humbling of Thor” angle, which is lamely realized. But worst of all is the romance between Portman and Hemsworth: both actors are fine performers, and you’d think they’d be game, but there’s no passion. Just exchanges of rueful smiles, and the work seems to be mostly Portman’s. While she does have a killer smile, is it really such a great thing to depict a smart and confident astrophysicist who becomes an awkward schoolgirl when coming near the big hunk that makes her heart go pitter-patter? It must be very tough to be a strong female character in a Marvel comic.

There is wacky comedy. Too much. Thor doesn’t fit in on Earth: he smashes coffee mugs when he wants more and then walks into a pet store and exclaims “Give me a horse!” Get it? Oh, not since Crocodile Dundee has a fish been so out of water! There’s also the recurring (in the Marvel films, anyway) Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg), who is a dry presence but is given too many “funny” lines to say. Meanwhile, Jane’s assistant, the deeply annoying Darcy, played by the deeply annoying Kat Dennings, drops little bon mots and pop culture references to Facebook, iPods, and so on. Pop culture references are so funny! Like many comic relief characters, Darcy seems at times disconnected from the narrative in a near-sociopathic fashion.

Wait, I forgot Darcy’s other function. As an intern for an astrophysicist you’d expect her to know an Einstein-Rosen bridge from a quantum singularity, but she does not (a dumb joke explains why), so she gets to function as a our old movie friend, the cabbagehead. A cabbagehead is when a character who is supposed to be capable is written to be dumb so that other characters can explain things to her, and by extension, us. Here she gets told a lot about scientific stuff that is an attempt to contextualize Thor’s world in rational terms. The movie is big on the famous quote by Arthur C. Clarke: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Okay, fair enough. So that’s why Thor can stand in the middle of the desert, shout into the sky and be heard millions of light years away by the Asgard gatekeeper, who stands in a big room and looks out ponderously into space? Hmm. No…sorry, guys. That’s magic.

Tonally, the film is all over the map. The opening battles feel like rejected scraps from Lord of the Rings, and the opening scenes in Asgard have a pseudo-classical quality that wavers between Shakespearean and Cecil B. Demille-style minor camp. The scenes on Earth vacillate between being a goofy sitcom and a cliché action extravaganza. There’s a robot that recalls the sci-fi of The Day The Earth Stood Still, but sadly it’s not the good version that’s being recalled. And the New Mexico small town location, while different from the typical New York or Los Angeles, makes the whole production feel cheap. It may be an intentional reference to the kind of tiny-budget alien movies about small desert towns that they made a lot of in the ‘50s, but I’m uncertain if that’s what you want your frame of reference to be if you’re trying to make Thor feel less silly.

Because Thor is really, really silly. Lots of comic book movies are comparably silly (do we need to talk about the origins of Spider-Man or The Hulk again?), but this one, with its towering cities of Asgard and glittering rainbow bridges that lead into space and it’s sidekicks for Thor that seem to have walked in from Masters of the Universe pushes us too far. Oh, and don’t forget where Odin, attached by Loki, falls into the “Odin-sleep.” The what? Where’s Darcy when you need her? But don’t worry! Odin wakes up in time for the big finale, where he is able to cross great distances in what feels like seconds. I’d quibble but the man is who he is, so why complain? I don’t mean Odin. I mean Sir Anthony Hopkins.

We can accept the craziness, but give us someone to latch onto. Anything. Thor’s a one-trick pony, his friends are goofy and the less said about Jane and Darcy, the better. The neatest player is the cool and thoughtful Heimdall (Idris Elba), and he’s a bit part. Not a good sign. And I practically forgot: poor Stellan Skarsgård is in this movie, because damn it, we need a Swede! He plays a scientist mentor of Jane’s named Erik Selvig, who drops some exposition about Norse legends, gets drunk with Thor one night, and then leaves. That paycheck must have been huge for Skarsgård to convince him to sign up for something like this. As big as Thor’s hammer. Thor’s hammer, I will remind you, is plenty big.

There are two things that save Thor from the morass of its production design and paucity of imagination: Hemsworth and Hiddleston. Hemsworth turns in a star-making performance as Thor, almost making us forget that he’s so flatly written. A lesser actor would throw up his hands at the lack of script support for who this character is, or tilt everything towards satire, as if Thor is a reject from The Expendables. Instead, he turns in a sincere and nice performance that proves he has better movies ahead of him.

Hiddleston is relatively low-key as Loki (sorry), but he has a nice anger that goes a long way to making us wish he was in a more interesting project. The brother against brother whinging doesn’t really amount to much dramatic stuff, but persuades us that maybe it could, in a different movie. Hey, maybe in a movie like The Avengers, which opens on Friday and features Thor as a hero and Loki as a villain. I’m looking forward a great deal to seeing Hiddleston as Loki again, although some of that may have something to do with the fact that I’m looking forward to Tony Stark making fun of his costume.

Thor was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who has directed more separate Shakespeare productions than there are plays by Shakespeare. He is a gifted actor and has a classically-educated mind. What is he doing directing Thor? Apparently he was a big fan, but since he will not be directing Thor 2 apparently he wasn’t enough of one. I’m not begrudging Branagh for having a little fun. But where is his presence in this movie, aside from perhaps delivering guys in costumes who talk in slightly elevated language? The last summer blockbuster that Kenneth Branagh had a hand in was the horribly bad Wild Wild West, so I have an urgent plea to Branagh: stay away from summer blockbusters. Please.

Thor is not a terrible film. At times it’s maybe even a little fun. But it is also, in the end, singularly underwhelming. Comic books may be our modern mythology, but they should not be told in the same style as the classic myths. They can’t be. Not anymore. We want rough edges and complexity. What want a reinterpretation of Thor, with surprises. If you’re going to recycle a Norse legend for your comic book movie, then reconceptualize it, don’t just give it a sci-fi front end. When Thor’s Greek cousin Hercules was redone for TV, even then the filmmakers recognized they needed to take the character somewhere new. Since Branagh has directed Hamlet, how about a version of Thor that could answer Hamlet’s question of “to be or not to be?” Now that’s a superhero movie we haven’t seen before.

GRADE: C+

NOTES/AVENGERS CONNECTIONS: Agent Coulson meets Thor. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) has a cameo. Reference is made to an infamous scientist who studied Gamma radiation and “disappeared.” In the end, Selvig goes to an underground lair and encounters Nick Fury, who has a mysterious box. Also, Loki turns up still alive and inbetween dimensions or something, and might be controlling Selvig. Or maybe not.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) prepares for a night on the town. An odd duck, that Ivan. "Iron Man 2."

Directed by Jon Favreau. Screenplay by Justin Theroux; based upon characters created by Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby and published by Marvel Comics. Produced by Kevin Feige. Music by John Debney. Photographed by Matthew Libatique. Edited by Dan Lebental, Richard Pearson. Production designed by J. Michael Riva. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke, Samuel L. Jackson, Clark Gregg, John Slattery, Garry Shandling, voice of Paul Bettany.

Iron Man 2 is pretty much exactly what most people expect from a superhero sequel: it takes everything present in the first movie and dials it up to 11. It is bigger, louder, busier. Oh God, is it busier. And at the end of the day, it’s a little deadening. Don’t get me wrong; this is an entertaining movie. I’d hesitate to even think of calling it a bad one…per se. But it’s an ungainly and cluttered one, and seems to want to wow us more with the prospect of juggling several things at once then with actually doing it.  Compared to the efficient storytelling that distinguished movie number one, it comes up short.

Once again we focus on Tony Stark, billionaire defense contractor playboy, who is (as he made clear during the press conference that closed the previous movie and opens this one) Iron Man. Rather than fret about a secret identity, Stark embraces the new angle on fame he has as America’s premier superhero: deterring war across the globe, landing onstage in the middle of his company expo and emerging from the Iron Man suit like a rock star, then scurrying down to a congressional meeting to work the crowd and crow “I have successfully privatized world peace.” Inside, Stark is dying: as the technobabble front piece on his chest that he must wear to keep shrapnel from entering his heart is made of a material that is itself poisoning him. Between events, he checks a little blood toxicity monitor—a handy dandy tool, to be sure.

But we all know that every superhero saga needs a villain. But this is a sequel. And so we get two. First: the odious Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a competitor of Stark Industries who desperately wants his own piece of the Iron Man pie. And then there’s Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke),  a tattooed, gold-toothed, impoverished mumbling Russian tough guy. Vanko, the son of a castoff from Stark Industries, has a nasty trick up his sleeves: he has mastered the same technology that Stark has and builds himself his own suit with electromagnetic whip hands. Yes. Electromagnetic whip hands, fastened to his body with a chestplate that makes him look like He-Man crossed with a meth addict. An altercation on a Monaco racetrack pits Vanko against Stark, in a scene well-staged by director Jon Favreau. It goes on from there. So far, so very comic book.

It is the great misfortune of Iron Man 2 that it is a superhero sequel, and so it has high standards to live up to: every Marvel franchise has had a second chapter that improves upon the original, and Iron Man 2 was the first major superhero movie to come out after the triumph of The Dark Knight. In fact, Iron Man 2 has a surprising amount in common with The Dark Knight. Both are superhero sagas that try to bring more to the table than is expected, and both are about flawed millionaires trying to fight a multi-front war. Both films even have a key scene where hero and villain sit down and chat following the latter’s imprisonment, and in both cases the evil mastermind makes it clear that what he represents is more important than whether or not he actually succeeds in his mission.

Here’s where the comparison falls apart. Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight actually conceives of a second half that matches the build up of the first. The Joker, even though he escapes, makes good on his promise to test and corrupt the “pure-hearted” citizenry that Batman protects, and the film deals with that fact. Vanko, in contrast, gets in a good speech about what thieves the Starks are, and how now they’re going to lose everything: “If you can make God bleed, people will stop believing in him.” Interesting themes are sounded here of the fickle nature of fan adulation, sins of fathers weighing on their sons, parental secrets, and the horrifying vulnerability and self-destructive tendencies of Tony Stark. Then Vanko escapes, teams up with Justin Hammer, and does the exact same thing he did in the first half: plot to kill Tony Stark with some cool weaponry. Iron Man fights him. Iron Man wins. End of movie.

Okay, so yes, there is slightly more to it than that. But here’s the thing: at no point is the screenplay interested at all in doing something with the ideas it raises. Iron Man’s popularity never wavers with the public, even though it’s implied the racetrack incident should be the beginning of the end for him. Later revelations make it painfully clear that Tony’s dad (Tony Slattery) was right in booting Papa Vanko, so that moral dilemma is nice and quashed. And yeah, Stark is dying, and boy does he make a drunken ass of himself at a party, but don’t you know that when the element that your body depends upon is killing you, all you have to do is invent a new element? (Yeah. I know.) Bonus round: Tony is convinced his dead father hated him, but fifteen seconds of a never-before-seen home movie manages to wipe all that away like magic.

Oh, and who gives Tony that magic film reel, the info about Vanko, and the motivation for Tony Stark to figure out a way to cure himself? Why, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), the man who wants to recruit Iron Man for the Avengers, of course! Nick Fury, who has a drink with Tony Stark, drops off a case full of lost family mementos, and then leaves with such abruptness that it’s a miracle his line of dialogue wasn’t “Well, the cameo’s over, I gotta go.” How convenient that the time he picks to deposit all this information is the exact moment that the screenplay requires him too, eh? Damn, he’s good.

Also convenient: Fury’s other Avengers cohort, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), who looks really sexy and later dispatches a room full of guards with such utility that you’d swear somewhere a screenwriter is engineering a room full of guards just for Black Widow to easily dispatch while looking really sexy. To be fair, Black Widow is just her stage name. I mean, her superhero name. Wait, she has no superpowers. So…is she a super model? Her real name is Natasha Romanov, and she uses it when she goes undercover as a notary for Stark Enterprises, although someone should probably tell her that real notaries button the top half of their blouses. Yes, even in California.

You see the problem. There is a lot of stuff in this movie dedicated to setting up The Avengers…a movie that when this film was released was two years away, and as of this writing, I remind you: is still not out yet. It’s neat to see Marvel blatantly tying their films together after the tenuous trial balloon that was Iron Man 1, but it ultimately gets in the way of the storytelling here. I can imagine a version of Iron Man 2 that asks harder questions about Tony Stark: his alcoholism, narcissism, and above all the way he treats being a superhero like it’s simply an elaborate way to get ink and babes. Maybe that version could even include the somewhat disturbing knock-down metal-to-metal fight he has here with Col. Rhodes (Don Cheadle), now suited as War Machine. But the actual Iron Man 2 doesn’t have time to be that movie; it’s much more concerned with setting up other movies and giving fan service.

Parts of the film are just plain confusing. If Natasha is supposed to be keeping an eye on Tony Stark, then why does she have a conversation with him that practically encourages and enables his destructive behavior at the party?  For that matter, why does she immediately blow her cover as a notary by knocking Tony’s pal Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) around the boxing ring? How much time did Howard Stark have in order to plant a crucial clue inside a giant tabletop model, and why keep such a thing hidden, anyway? Does Vanko really have the willpower and knowledge to single-handedly build an army of drones and a prototype super-suit in about a week without Justin Hammer noticing? And could someone explain the legal logistics of Justin Hammer’s departure from this film?

Here’s the most shocking thing about Iron Man 2: much of the humor doesn’t work. The first film had a breezy charm, aided immensely by Downey’s gift for ad-libbing, which helped even during the scripted scenes. Here, everything feels scripted. The worst offender is the blossoming love story between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow): in the original movie it was tender and nicely subdued. Here it’s underlined and shrill, and their rapport feels like a depressingly forced attempt to channel Nick and Nora Charles. So bad is the romantic material here that one scene (in Pepper’s office) stops the film absolutely dead in its tracks. It’s not funny, it’s not dramatic, it’s not even about anything, except dispensing a tiny plot point.

The acting is fine. Well, everyone except Paltrow; I found Ms. Goopy to be surprisingly endearing in Iron Man 1, but here she’s not likable in the least. Rourke is good, but doesn’t really get up to much except some easy actorly ticks that scream “villain!” Jackson plays Jackson. Johansson has the right body for Black Widow, but I would love to have seen what a more powerful actress would have done (someone like Emily Blunt, who was the original choice). The standout here is actually Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer, who ably portrays a nerd who thinks of himself as a rock star—watch the false swagger as he steps onstage during the Stark expo, and how flat his presence falls for the audience.  Rockwell does a very tricky thing here: giving a great performance about a man who essentially lacks charisma. Think about that. That is very difficult to do.

As for Robert Downey Jr…well, he is this franchise. Period. He remains deeply watchable and compelling, even when saddled with a screenplay that asks him to do a lot without paying any of it off. Some actors are movie stars, and are bankable and magnetic. Others are real actors, and with their talent can find hidden notes within their roles. Downey rests firmly in the third category: those who are undeniably both. It’s clear in both films that he is having a lot of fun being Iron Man, and I think it’s the surest testament to his skill that I would gladly sign up for an Iron Man movie where Tony Stark just walked around his house. He would make it so very entertaining. Plus, at least that one would do what it set out to do.

NOTES/AVENGERS CONNECTIONS: First appearances of Black Widow and Howard Stark. Agent Coulson returns, notes the presence of a mysterious shield in Tony Stark’s workshop, and then departs for New Mexico, where he finds a big hammer lying in the desert sands. Hmm. Who could that belong to? 

GRADE: B-

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Hulk smash! Marvel get cash! Audience? Shrug. "The Incredible Hulk."

Directed by Louis Leterrier. Screnplay and screen story by Zak Penn; based upon characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and published by Marvel Comics. Produced by Avi Arad, Gale Ann Hurd, Kevin Feige. Music by Craig Armstrong. Photographed by Peter Menzies Jr. Edited by John Wright, Rick Shaine, Vincent Tabaillon. Starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell.

Amongst comic book and film fans, there seems to be a sharp divide between those who favor Ang Lee’s 2005 Incredible Hulk movie (called Hulk) and those who prefer Louis Leterrier’s 2008 reboot (The Incredible Hulk). Both sides of the argument are clear, because the two films are very distinctive. Lee’s film is a psychologically-driven fantasy that meditates on pain, anger, and father-son conflicts, with precious few action scenes. Leterrier’s movie is wall-to-wall action, with only cursory exclamations of character development, themes…stuff like that. You pick your poison when you declare a side in the Hulk discussion, but at the risk of sounding cowardly, I have to confess I don’t think either film works.

The Ang Lee film has the courage to take the material seriously. Perhaps too seriously. Its plot is exceptionally silly, and not helped by a screenplay that fails to realize that. And it doesn’t exactly have weighty drama—it’s more like facile character beats that constantly repeat themselves for emphasis. Lee’s aim is to create a thoughtful comic-book epic, and he doesn’t really succeed. Leterrier’s movie has the opposite problem: he wants to make a dumb comic-book movie, and he succeeds all too well. The Incredible Hulk has plenty of stunts and special effects and exploding buildings and all the CGI that money can buy…and it fails to give us a reason to really care about any of it. The well-crafted Incredible Hulk movie has, in my opinion, yet to be made.

The Incredible Hulk has always been one of the trickier characters to dramatize within the Marvel Comics stable, and that’s because he’s not a superhero. The Hulk, who is a behemoth powered by gamma radiation, is essentially a Mr. Hyde to the Dr. Jekyll that is Bruce Banner. Hulk, like Hyde, is pure id—a channel for all the serious issues that Banner has repressed. This means that when audiences line up for an Incredible Hulk movie, what they really want to see is a werewolf story mingled with Godzilla. And just like Godzilla, Hulk is usually given definition by pitting him in battle against foes who are even nastier and bigger than he is, although you’ll forgive me if I’ll not bestow much nobility to the destructive giant green thing who is desperately pointed in the direction of the destructive giant yellow thing.

What typically informs any Incredible Hulk story, is, in other words, Bruce Banner. He represents the humanity that allows insight into the  moments when Hulk goes berserk. Hulk by himself is not at all interesting, but Bruce Banner can be, and consequentially Hulk can be if the connections between the two are made vivid and clear. In a well-told Incredible Hulk story (and there are some), psychology can lend context and weight to the Hulk’s actions. Without that clarity, any Hulk story is fundamentally flawed. There’s nothing to interest us in the Hulk unless he has a strongly-defined character, and in The Incredible Hulk he does not.

The fault is not Edward Norton’s. Not just because he ably plays Bruce Banner, but because this film was apparently hacked to ribbons in the late stages of editing. There’s a version of The Incredible Hulk floating around in the ether that apparently does fix all the problems found in the theatrical version, although such a claim has been made of every bad movie. Norton, a lifelong Incredible Hulk fan, spearheaded this project and was ultimately disappointed with the result, possibly because like many fan projects the end result is something that obviously holds its subject in great reverence, and is completely inarticulate in being able to explain why.

There’s a lot of things that are not really explained in The Incredible Hulk. Like how Bruce Banner, now living in Rio de Janiero, could be so cautious to avoid capture from the US Army but also so careless that he allows a drop of his blood to fall into the the bottling machine at the juice plant he works in. For that matter, what happens to the poor guy who drinks Bruce Banner’s gamma-irradiated blood? Why is Bruce in Brazil, of all places, anyway? Oh, wait—I know the answer to that one. It’s because Leterrier wants to import some exotic color and maybe catch a little second-hand prestige by filming in the same locations that Fernando Meirelles used when he directed City of God (2002). Leterrier’s camera does make the city look nice, at least.

The movie doesn’t really waste time in trying to link itself to the earlier Hulk film. I guess if you squint you can kinda say they’re related, but the movie insists that you enjoy it on its own terms. Ok, so fine. Bruce is hiding out from the US Army, S.H.I.E.L.D, and General Ross (William Hurt). Ross, who presided over the experiment that turned Banner into the Hulk, now wants to hunt down the man—oh, and also use that gamma radiation to create an army of Hulk-like super soliders, the practicality of which is…not explained. William Hurt is a very good actor. You may know that. You may forget that if you see this movie, in which Hurt’s function is primarily to be a walking, barking mustache.

Also a good actor: Tim Roth. Also crippled by a terribly-written script: Tim Roth. He plays a nasty sonofagun marine named Emil Blonsky. He’s evil. We know that because in an early chase scene he shoots a dog. Two dogs, in fact. How else is he evil? Well, I don’t know, really. He has an altercation with the Hulk that puts him in traction, and I guess that’s supposed to be our hook for him, since he’s a nasty now embarrassed by how the Hulk showed him up. During that hospital scene, he glares at the camera with such intensity—he doesn’t actually come out and say “This time its personal!” But he does think it. Very loudly.

A fine actress enters. Liv Tyler. She plays Betty Ross, not to be confused with Betsy Ross. Yes, she’s the general’s daughter, and she’s also Bruce’s main squeeze, and she was played by Jennifer Connelly in the other movie. Tyler is a step up, because Connelly in the Ang Lee film played it the way she plays everything these days: cold and easily hurt. Tyler is warm and inviting, so much so that she invites Bruce in a tender moment all the way into her bed, and Bruce hungrily accepts until he catches himself, remembering that he turns into The Hulk whenever his heart rate goes up. So…no sex for Bruce Banner. Maybe for the Hulk, but let’s not go there. Betty, taken aback by this news, doesn’t actually say “That’s okay, we can just cuddle.” But she does think it. Very loudly.

The plot can be summarized thusly: Hulk gets chased. Then Hulk gets away. It’s so easy that even the Hulk could understand it. Banner, who is trying desperately to control his body and not become the monster, has a heart rate monitor, which lends a nifty twist to the scenes where he’s being chased by the military guys across rooftops and down alleys. But it’s just a gimmick, because all he has to do is pause for two seconds to bring his heart rate down a few ticks—and then, back to the chase. Eventually, he drops much of the pretense about denying the monster his moment in the spotlight, because what did we come here to see, anyway?

The Ang Lee film showed us a little of the Hulk. This one shows us a lot of him. Less is more. He fights tanks and gunships and helicopters and men on the ground, and very little fazes him. Bullets even bounce off, which should probably be the final word on whether or not you should keep wasting ammunition on him, right? Meanwhile, Bruce and Betty travel to New York City to try to find something that will cure Bruce’s affliction, while at the same time the army tries to catch him, and…guess what? Neither of those things are actually going to happen, are they? If they do, the series is over, so any attempt to make us believe they will is an example of a screenplay that’s content to tread water. Compared to most comic characters, the choices for dramatic tension in a Hulk movie are arguably limited.

There are several action sequences. Chases through Rio de Janeiro. Encounters with street toughs. Wild and crazy events on college campuses. Super battles in the streets of New York City. And then there are dialogue sequences, which mainly as useful tools to separate those action sequences, like one of those blank pages you occasionally find in an instruction manual. There are fugitive notes sounded about love and inner peace and daughters who hate their fathers, but nothing that would indicate a screenplay that actually wants to explore these topics. And there’s a mad scientist who is played by Tim Blake Nelson. Remember what I said about William Hurt? Nelson is also a good actor. I have the same rationale for mentioning that.

A quick page through the annals of the Hulk rogues gallery is not an encouraging sight. They mainly exist to be foils for the Hulk’s super strength and super gait (and his decidedly not super intelligence). Enter The Abomination, which is what happens to Blonsky when he jabs himself with a serum to make himself the equal of the Hulk. Why does he do this? What does he have to prove? And why does his aim become so indiscriminate after becoming the Abomination? There are no real answers to any of these questions, except for the fact that this movie needs a showstopping villain, and Blonsky apparently had no qualms about signing up to be it.

So Blonsky becomes a menace walking the streets of New York, and the army must turn to the Hulk to stop him. Which Bruce Banner does, by jumping out of a plane, hoping that the frefall with Hulk-ify him. But it doesn’t, and he slams into the pavement and dies. Oh, wait. Except he doesn’t, because from the deep hole he made the Hulk emerges, even though the Hulk is larger than the hole, so obviously Banner was Banner when he hit the ground. Why didn’t he die? Doesn’t matter. He lunges out of the hole and attacks the Abomination.

About this final battle. It takes place at night, so that the special effects can be properly obscured. And it goes on and on, draining of us of whatever modicum of interest we had before it started. The two characters, who are entirely CGI creations, are thrown around the city with great skill on the part of the effects people…but no pizzazz. Of course the effects are competent, but all effects are competent these days. Where’s the extra spark of creativity?

But then, who can blame the CGI techies for being uninspired? This is a deeply uninspiring film. During this climactic battle, instead of being wowed by what should play as a symbolic, psychological battle between two oversized personalities transformed into titans, we just get a lot of flashy colors and bright lights. And crashes and booms and shakes and bangs and roars. And occasionally some dialogue, which someone should have advised against. And at no point do we care, because the film has not given us reason to. If you were to take the previous 90 minutes of the film and chop them out, the final battle would play no differently. Just very loudly.

The Incredible Hulk feels like the middle chapter in a trilogy that only partially got made. It’s a sequel to a movie that doesn’t exist, although in a parallel universe it might be the Ang Lee film. And it’s a prequel to a film that won’t exist—the upcoming Avengers may provide a missing piece of closure, but since Bruce will now be played by Mark Ruffalo, I’m not counting on it. The movie stops in mid-sentence, with every reason to believe that the army will keep on a-chasin’ The Hulk, and Betty will pine for her lost love with doe eyes. At the end of The Incredible Hulk, the two lovers exchange a sad look, and then Hulk escapes. As he must. If he ever were to settle down, not only would his story be over, but marrying his girl would make them both…shudder…Bruce and Betty Banner.

GRADE: C

NOTES/AVENGERS CONNECTIONS: The opening title sequence references “Stark Industries.” Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has a scene with General Ross at the very end.

Iron Man (2008)

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) prepares to be a superhero, and hopes that someday he'll costar with a Hulk. "Iron Man."

Directed  by Jon Favreau. Screenplay by Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway; based upon characters created by Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber, Jack Kirby and published in Marvel Comics. Produced by Avi Arad, Kevin Feige. Music by Ramin Djawadi. Photographed by Matthew Libatique. Edited by Dan Lebental. Production designed by J. Michael Riva. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, Leslie Bibb, Shaun Toub, Faran Tahir, Clark Gregg.

On the list of superhero movies that catalogs everything from 1978′s Superman to the present, Iron Man ranks pretty high. It’s a daunting list of movies, ranging from the brilliant (The Dark Knight), to the decent (The Phantom) to the downright lousy (Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, Green Lantern, et al), but Iron Man surpasses the lower grades and sits comfortably in the highest echelon, alongside not just The Dark Knight and Superman, but Spider-Man 2, The Incredibles, and other rare examples. That isn’t just due to impressive production values or perfect  casting, but also solid craftsmanship that follows larger principles than what’s going to excite a Friday night action audience. Atypical for a Hollywood blockbuster action film, Iron Man has moments of contemplation, and even has things it gently wants to say.

In fact, Iron Man is surprisingly low on action sequences, favoring instead scenes of dialogue and interaction. That’s good, because we come to care about the characters so that when the film lands on a setpiece, we’re ready for it. And it might very well be an unconscious reaction to where an audience is coming from in regards to Iron Man. He lacks the iconic quality of Superman, the film noir grit of Batman, or the broad coming-of-age appeal of Spider-Man. As a general audience who is presumably not familiar with the comic book, we have to be sold on him. Most superhero origin films hurry past the formative moments and into the action, but Iron Man stops for a lengthy sequence where Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is imprisoned by Afghanistan terrorists and must use his smarts to escape. And later, he molds himself into Iron Man carefully, over time, in sequences that engage in delight and discovery.

Iron Man is a character from Marvel comics—we know that because he is troubled, lives in a real-life city, and because his altar ego as Tony Stark pretty much overpowers the character of Iron Man. That isn’t a criticism, but is instead an attempt to note how different superhero brands tell their stories. In DC Comics, the human characters are filtered through the prism of their superheroics- Clark Kent is Superman first, mild mannered reporter second. Batman’s identity as Bruce Wayne is subservient to his true role as the Dark Knight, and similar fates befall The Flash, Green Lantern, etc. In Marvel’s world, the personalities are more complex. And the superpowers are less of a gift and more a burden, because they’re consistent reminders of the characters’ faults: Spider-Man is a rebuke to the weaknesses of Peter Parker, The Hulk is unleashed when Bruce Banner is angry, and the X-Men are split between camps because some use their powers for good and others for evil.

Iron Man is cut from the same cloth. Tony Stark, CEO of a major weapons firm, is amoral and flippant, and the movie steps confidently through early passages that explore just how damn fun it would be to be a billionaire with a gorgeous Malibu house, dozens of cars, an artificially intelligent butler, and the charisma to get any woman he wants to share his bed. But when he’s captured by a group of rebels in the desert mountains of Afghanistan and asked to build a weapon out of spare Stark Technologies equipment, Stark digs deep underneath himself and discovers (a) that there’s an underneath after all and (b) it contains a conscience. So he engineers an escape by rigging those spare parts into a suit of armor—becoming, yes, an Iron Man.

There are complications – a nasty piece of Stark technology has left shrapnel embedded in his chest, and the only thing that keeps them from burrowing into his heart is the consistent activity of a mini-electromagnet, the wunderkind Stark’s own personal design. Fair enough in the deplorable conditions of captivity, but why does he refuse medical attention when he comes home, opting instead to fine tune his invention that barely keeps him alive? I think because the shrapnel is his perverse badge of honor: a memento of the damage he’s done as a weapons manufacturer, and would rather force himself to live on the edge then let health push him back into complacency. Like a recovering alcoholic (which Stark also is, minus the “recovering” part), he fears a relapse that would turn him back into the man he was.

So instead he builds himself into man he wants to be, refining his prototype into a crimson-and-gold supersuit that is so loaded with defensive weaponry that I could be the ultimate deterrent.  He flies into action as Iron Man, but not before learning to use the controls and his armor in concert together, in scenes that capture the joy of someone inventing something in his basement that could be truly amazing, with just the right level of care. Eventually, he fights some villains, including the nefarious Obediah Stane (Jeff Bridges), but they’re not really important—which might explain why a concluding battle feels kinda perfunctory. Despite the ideological differences between Stane and Stark that are made manifest by combat, the picture is mostly about Tony Stark becoming Iron Man: not since Richard Donner’s original Superman has a comic book movie so enthusiastically thrown its focus to the sheer pleasures of its title character—a gutsy move, since most of the time these films are marketed entirely upon who the super villain is.

That’s all what makes Iron Man good. What makes it terrific is its cast, starting with Robert Downey Jr. It’s hard to remember now that there was once a serious time in Downey’s life (1996-2001, after over a decade of early acclaim) when he was geared to lose big: not just movie roles, but his life, thanks to drug addiction. But after rehab he slowly started to build an impressive resume with small parts in interesting films: Good Night and Good Luck, A Scanner Darkly, etc. Then he moved closer to the fore with the delightful comedy of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and his depressed newspaper reporter in David Fincher’s brilliant Zodiac. He was primed for a comeback, and Iron Man was it.

To see Downey in the role is to love Downey in the role. He’s a perfect fit; in much the same way that Christopher Reeve is Superman, Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark. Glib, sarcastic, quick, Downey is highly entertaining as the playboy turned do-gooder Stark, possessing the dry brilliance that would befit a genius inventor. His zingers feel unrehearsed and real, especially in the way they jimmy in between the straight-men supporting players. We’re even charmed by Stark’s initial apathy and avarice, because Tony Stark, despite his faults, would never be a boring dinner guest. So strong is Stark’s presence that even if this movie ended up not being about a superhero, we wouldn’t really mind: a rare measure of richness in a blockbuster.

And when Stark finally develops empathy and remorse, it feels genuine, coming from a wounded place, and very likely informed by Downey’s humbling stint in rehab (in the same way that his history with drugs provides an all-too-recognizable subtext to the early scenes of hedonistic excess and arrogance). There’s even a nod to that history, when Pepper bursts in on Tony struggling in the Iron Man suit. Tony: “Let’s face it, this is not the worst thing you’ve ever caught me doing.” His ongoing conversation with others drive the deeper underpinnings of Iron Man— not just the arguments with Stane and the burgeoning relationship with Pepper, but with his fellow captive Yinsen (Shaun Toub). The two prisoners share a bond tinged with loss and regret, and Yinsen’s ultimate exit from the picture is sentimental without being mawkish.

And yet, all that subtext and sweet stuff never really get in the way, either: the one thing I love most about Iron Man is how funny—and fun—it is. Not just Downey’s lines (which are uniformly great), but the way he bounces off the supporting players—there’s one key scene between Tony and his assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), in which he talks through a little minor surgery, that is downright hilarious—in a perverse and cute way. The movie even resorts to a little slapstick every once in a while, and the film is so in command of its tone that it actually works.

Paltrow is an actress who does little for me, typically. But I’ll confess she is deeply charming here: a freckled Girl Friday for Stark; independent but also suitable as a traditional love interest, and the two have an easy rapport. One of my favorite things about the way the movie handles their relationship is the way it gradually works its way up to the implication of romance, and in fact no other superhero movies has had the guts to make its love story as understated as it is here: instead of depicting two people falling in love, Iron Man shows Pepper and Tony realizing that—hey, maybe, sorta—they could fall in love, someday, if they worked at it a little bit. A major theme of the Iron Man mythos is that of a powerful man learning selflessness, and the subdued romance becomes part of that effect, because Stark learns to respect and care for Pepper far too much to reduce her into an object. It’s a little touching, in fact. The rest of the cast is very good, as well, especially Bridges’ Obediah Stane: he is a believable corporate weasel who hides his flaws in plain sight—he never wears a label that says “I’m the villain,” that’s just the way things turn out.

Iron Man is, of course, the first piece of a larger puzzle, one that has extended from 2008 until May 4, which is when Marvel releases The Avengers. It’s never been done before. To make five movies that are a part of a single universe about unrelated characters, culminating with a showcase for all of them in one movie? Highly ambitious. Also threatening, because each movie falls under the danger of being more about setup than being a movie. I think that malady is true of Iron Man’s sequel, and to an extent the other films in the lineup (The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America). But Iron Man captures a perfect balance in telling a self-contained story that gives nods to a larger continuity, like when Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) flashes a card for the “Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.” “You gotta get a better name of that,” deadpans Stark. Coulson: “We’re working on it.” Fun, and not intrusive.

The Marvel movies have always had a good line in choosing the right director for the right project. Well, perhaps not Barbershop director Tim Story for Fantastic Four, but look at their roster. Sam Raimi for the quirky Spider-Man? Of course! Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughn for the moody pop heroism of X-Men? Yes! Kenneth Branagh to harness the Shakespearean dimensions of Thor, the thunder god? Naturally. Joe “Rocketeer” Johnston to bring us the period origin of Captain America? Absolutely. Joss Whedon for handling the ensemble that is The Avengers?  Brilliant. Iron Man and its sequel were directed by Jon Favreau, who made Elf and Zathura (and also entered Hollywood as an actor co-starring in Swingers). This film is not his directorial debut, but is definitely more expansive than his previous ones, and here he delights in what he’s been given, like a kid handed a new toybox stuffed with goodies. He shows a director’s love and control with the material, favoring shots that do several things at once instead of frames that are edited to the millisecond, like some of his contemporaries. There’s craft here.

And there’s a bit of substance, too. Stark’s ultimate move to turn his weapons corporation into a twisted olive branch may not be a million miles removed from the hippie-dippy motivations that propelled Superman IV (the one where Supes throws all nuclear missles into the sun, while everyone at the UN cheers, because nukes are bad!). But it feels more tortured here, and more understandable given Stark’s descent into confronting his own demons and hypocricy. I think there’s even room to disagree with Stark’s intentions while liking him as a hero. Say what you will about Tony Stark, the person, but isn’t it just plain interesting to see a superhero who has serious problems, likes a good scotch, and ultimately wants to fix the world through disarmament?

Of course, not everyone thinks that’s a smart idea. And thank goodness, folks. Because we have a lot of sequels and spin-offs to make.

GRADE: B+

NOTES/AVENGERS CONNECTIONS: First appearances of Tony Stark, Iron Man, Pepper Potts, Agent Coulson, S.H.I.E.L.D. Samuel L. Jackson shows up in the end as Nick Fury, who wants to enlist Tony Stark for “The Avengers Initiative.”

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Marty (Fran Krantz), Curt (Chris Hemsworth) and Jules (Anna Hutchison) investige spooky happenings. Wackiness ensues. "Cabin in the Woods."

Directed by Drew Goddard. Written by Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard. Produced by Joss Whedon. Music by David Julyan. Photographed by Peter Deming. Edited by Lisa Lassek. Production designed by Martin Whist. Starring Kristen Connelly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams, Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford.

Cabin in the Woods, the new horror entry from Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard, is an extremely difficult movie to talk about. Most movies have spoilers. This one has super-spoilers. And spoilers on top of spoilers. And spoilers that hinge upon other spoilers. And that ending? Huge freaking spoiler. Hell, the fact that I just mentioned that this movie has spoilers is kind of a spoiler itself because, really, how many spoilers do you expect in a movie called Cabin in the Woods, and would you want to go to a movie called that if you didn’t know exactly what to expect? Well, if not, you’re going to be disappointed, because this is not that movie. Wait, what? Right.

We’re in dangerous territory here. So let’s do this. In this paragraph I will give my vague thoughts on Cabin in the Woods. And then in the next paragraph I will start discussing secrets. Not super-spoilers, and not the ending spoilers…except maybe in the most considered of terms possible. But yes, secrets. Secrets that perhaps you owe yourself not to know ahead of time. So here: my spoiler-free thoughts on Cabin in the Woods. This is a good film. Playful. Inventive. Great? Perhaps not, but it has a lot of fun toying with greatness. Goddard, who co-wrote the screenplay with Whedon, also directs for the first time here, and on the basis of this film he makes a satisfactory case for directing other horror movies. In fact, you could say… Damn it, almost slipped up. Okay, I will end my guaranteed spoiler-free thoughts on Cabin in the Woods with this simple message: go see Cabin in the Woods.

Alright. Are all the innocents gone? Great. Hi, everybody who’s still here! Let’s talk about Cabin in the Woods.

Cabin in the Woods collects all the standard elements you would find in a movie with that title. There’s a cabin. There are woods. The cabin is in the woods. And there are five characters who seem perfectly at home in a movie with that title. There’s the sweet girl, Dana (Kristen Connolly). There’s the jock, Curt (Chris Hemsworth). There’s the slutty girl, Jules (Anna Hutchison). There’s the goofy clown/pothead, Marty (Fran Kranz). And there’s the nice and strapping (but geeky) Holden (Jesse Williams). Curt’s cousin owns the titular cabin. The group piles in a Winnebago for a weekend in the cabin. They meet an ominous gas station attendant. Jules, who is dating Curt, really wants to set up Dana with Holden (either because she’s a good friend or she maybe wants the two couples to have really competitive sex…it can always be read multiple ways). The kids bond on the road. They go to the cabin. They find spooky things. Then spooky things find them. We’ve seen this before.

But not like this, we haven’t. Let’s go over the types again: jock, virgin, slut, clown, nerd. We meet the characters first, before we get the labels. And guess what? They don’t fit. The “jock,” for example, is smart and sweet…only at the cabin does he slowly morph into a braying tough guy. The “slut” is nothing of the kind, until she starts doing a sexy striptease during their drinking party. Drunk? (“I’ve seen her drink,” says the stoner, shaking his head). And the virgin? She has a sordid past and seems hardly frail, and yet even she falls into what feels like a pre-determined role. While making out with Holden on the couch, she murmurs “I’ve never…well, not never…” What’s going on here?

There is another layer. Literally, in fact. This second layer deals with two government functionaries (Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford), who preside over a large control room with banks of monitors that peer into the cabin in the woods, which is not a cabin at all…it’s a laboratory. Hidden deep underground, these men study their captives, engineer elaborate plans for them, and even make bets on their behavior—behavior which can be goosed by air vents that distribute chemicals, and drugs that have been supplied to the kids in advance. Why do they go to this elaborate trouble? There are vague rumblings that these kids constitute a ritual sacrifice, and that this laboratory is one of several in the world, all intended to placate something…evil…below. And so the poor kids are put through their paces, their actions manipulated by invisible forces to resemble what would happen in…well, a dumb slasher pic.

In other words, Cabin in the Woods is not just about cabins and woods—it’s about horror movies. And about itself. Like Scream, this is a movie where characters find themselves trapped within conventions. But whereas Scream is about people who fall into those patterns as a default, this one is about human beings who are stripped of their free will by outside pressures. The overlords of the facility first objectify their prey into symbols (the jock, the fool, the—gulp—virgin) and then push buttons and levers to influence their decisions. And for those actions we could read those of Goddard and Whedon, or anyone else who has ever made a horror movie about people behaving idiotically so they can be murdered. Cabin in the Woods, like many stories that dance with metafiction, speculates on what responsibility an artist has to the people within the art he creates. If he is essentially their God, and he wants nothing but to see them all suffer, then what should they make of him, if they were to ever meet him?

And then the movie takes the extra step of attacking viewers. Yes, even us. You. Notice a key scene in a basement where a major threat is—um…discovered (yeah, that’s it). Notice how a crowd in the underground facility vocally disapproves of what that threat turns out to be (routine, a little boring to watch, but gets results). Or how the Jenkins and Whitford shoo that same crowd away and orchestrate a lewd sex scene for the entertainment of the demons below. But…it’s for our entertainment too, because it’s in the movie. Right? One sensational scene occurs at an office celebration where all the partygoers couldn’t be the least bit interested in the graphic carnage happening on the TVs behind them. Because it’s simply a TV show to them. Or a movie to us.

The demons behind (or under) the men pulling the strings are referred to as “The Old Ones,” and references to Lovecraft aside, there is a wicked subtext here that the demons, the audience for all these shenanigans, are us. Horror is a genre that can often surprise and instead typically goes down a worn path, because it gets financial results. Audiences, in other words, demand the familiar in their horror movies, and want things to go in pre-determined ways, come hell or high water. So when the characters here are twisted out of shape, their friends are horrified while the audience is delighted to see comfortable tropes. Formula. Just like what audiences want to see at a Friday night date movie. After all, what are stereotypes if not an attempt to categorize (however unfairly) human behavior? In fact, that is precisely what we may need psychologically after dealing with unspeakable horrors, but how does that help the person being stereotyped?

So  then—this is interesting—something happens in the movie that might spoil the whole game, and boy is there not a happy reaction from below to that. I’m tiptoeing right to the edge here. So I’ll be careful. Let me just say that Cabin in the Woods’ third act is joyously, stupendously, bug-eyed, bat-guano insane. Not “weird.” Not “different.” Insane. Not just because of what happens, but whom it happens to, and who is even alive at this point. And then there’s the movie’s last shot, which in a way is its ultimate statement about what it’s doing. This one moment may feel to some like it’s too smug—the movie maliciously plays with form and then has a built-in raspberry for those who don’t like it. But I’d rather see a movie that is protectively elitist that one that aims for nothing and achieves nothing. I’ll take smart-with-a-chip-on-its-shoulder any day over stupid. Cabin in the Woods is not, I argue, stupid.

Cabin in the Woods is not for everyone. Some will not get its central joke. Others will “get it” and not find it funny (which is valid, by the way). Even more others will “get it” and find it offensive, as if they are being called out. Well, perhaps they are. Fanboys, be careful when starting arguments about this movie or otherwise you’ll do damage to a cause. But at the end of the day, this is a good cause, and I support it. And I’m making this movie sound like it’s nothing but a senior thesis, when in actuality it’s wonderfully giddy. Two shots in particular made me laugh harder than I have at a movie in a while: one is a quick cutaway involving Whitford and Jenkins, and the other is a wide shot that is the funniest curtain-raiser to a third act I’ve seen in a long, long time.

What is The Cabin in the Woods, really? It’s a lot of things: horror film, comedy, fantasy, satire, confessional, and in the end it’s nothing less than a genre-busting meta-narrative. It wants to confront horror filmmakers, and horror audiences. And most especially it wants to take down horror films–all of them, and it does it by breaking the shackles of horror characters, allowing them to grow outside their cliches, and eventually travel into that great abyss: what happens outside the plot. Note how Cabin makes the point that most horror films are the same plots with interchangeable parts, and note how that informs Cabin’s third act, where effectively the barriers between worlds shatter in an intoxicating mess. Not since Adaptation has a movie so delightfully toyed with the mixing of realities.

But what is Cabin in the Woods ultimately about? The importance of making your own choices. Yes, even when you’re stuck as a character in a horror movie, it’s important to be true to yourself. And that means yourself, not what others think of you. Cabin in the Woods springs its final death trap, that of an apocalyptic moral dilemma, with such subtlety that a lot of viewers will miss what it’s doing, or what it represents. But it’s an element proving that Goddard and Whedon aren’t being all meta just for the hell of it–they have something to say about the importance of living in the way that you choose. Or dying. Or both.

Goddard and Whedon collaborated first on TV with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That series delighted in mocking and deconstructing horror clichés. This one takes it a full step further, and could perhaps be seen as the ultimate extension of the Whedon ethos: it doesn’t just tease or kid a genre. It pokes it, and then hits it, abuses it, and kills it, and then makes fun of anyone who liked it. Is that bullying or mercy? Or criticism? In a way, Cabin in the Woods is maybe the most ironically straightforward title you could ask for, because here’s a movie that starts with a cabin in the woods, and then burns it all to the ground, with a little sprinkle of salt so that nothing could grow again. Someone else will try, though. Damn fool kids.

NOTES: SPOILER! Are cameos spoilers, by definition? I think so. This movie has a few. Some will only register to fans of Whedon’s prior work. One of them, Hemsworth, hadn’t worked with Whedon when this film was made in 2009 (MGM’s bankruptcy delayed distribution), but now plays Thor in Whedon’s The Avengers, due out next month. Neat. Also, special attention goes to Amy Acker, who is just prominent enough that I don’t think she really counts as a cameo. But maybe you didn’t want to know that anyway…although if you didn’t, how did you get this far?

Another cameo is with someone Whedon has never worked with before (heh), and yet it brings his career full circle with satisfactory thoroughness. Not just for who this person is, but for what they represent. A lot of that happening in this movie, isn’t there?

GRADE: B+

Cloverfield (2008)

Rob (Michael Stahl-David), Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) and Lily (Jessica Lucas) regard a 50-foot monster and wonder what they will call him. Certainly not "Cloverfield."

Directed by Matt Reeves. Written by Drew Goddard. Produced by J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk. Photographed by Michael Bonvillain. Music by Michael Giacchino. Edited by Kevin Stitt. Production designed by Martin Whist. Starring Michael Stahl-David, T.J. Miller, Jessica Lucas, Odette Yustman, Lizzy Caplan, Mike Vogel.

Cloverfield is to Godzilla movies what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is to Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, for those unaware, is Tom Stoppard’s famous 1966 play about the disconnect that occurs within an audience when two minor characters in a work they are familiar with are brought to the forefront. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are characters in Hamlet, supporting players at best, but in Stoppard’s play we follow them and only play peripheral attention to Hamlet, Ophelia, Claudius, etc. Hamlet may be about Hamlet, but what do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern care about Hamlet? Or, for that matter, Hamlet?

This device speaks to an essential human truth: in the show that is our life, we are the star, and that wouldn’t change even amongst people in a show where the hero is literally someone else. As a species, we humans are masters of self-absorption: in the grand story of our life, we are the hero, some are the sidekicks, and others are the villains. Any other configuration just would not do. How does the old joke go? When the actor who just got cast as the gravedigger in Hamlet is asked what the play is about, he responds: “It’s about a gravedigger who meets a prince.” Because of course it is.

Cloverfield is about some yuppies who meet a Godzilla-like monster. The yuppies are: Rob (Michael Stahl-David), Jason (Mike Hawkins), Hud (TJ Miller), Beth (Odette Yustman), Lily (Jessica Lucas) and Marlena (Lizzy Caplan). The monster is, well…it’s unnamed. We don’t learn about its origin. We don’t discover its plans. Our information about its anatomy and physiology is limited to exactly what our six characters learn, usually at unfortunate levels of first-hand knowledge. Absent are any brainy scientists, hotshot fighter pilots, or anyone else that would provide a familiar dramatic throughline for what to do about the monster. These people probably exist in the world of Cloverfield, but they are far offstage. Instead we’re stuck with Hud and the events that play before his camera, that most democratic of storytelling engines.

What does that leave us with? The affirmation that within any durable story, there are hundreds or thousands of stories happening simultaneously, and here the balance is shifted in one of those narratives’ favor. We’ve seen New York turned into a wartorn backdrop for standard action heroics more than once…but in Cloverfield what we get instead is a desperate—and poignant—gesture of pure human nature. The heroes’ motivation is simple: get off Manhattan. When that fails: survive the monster attack. When that looks bleak, it becomes simply a desire to find each other. There’s something touching about a movie that begins with happiness and ends with the near-hopeless desire to not die alone.

It’s probably true that every age gets the monster that it deserves. Dracula is of course an exploitation of Victorian-era sexual and venereal horrors, and Frankenstein is an answer to untempered technological revolution. The Mummy is a critique of rampant, careless British colonialism. The Wolfman is a comment on the hypocricy of civilization buttressed against baser instincts. Godzilla and his brethren are reactions to nuclear fears (especially post-Hiroshima Japanese fears). Freddy Krueger is a manifestation of “victimless” crimes committed by the Baby Boom generation. The Creature From The Black Lagoon is…OK, I’m not so sure about him. Jason’s…a guy in a hockey mask… Okay, so not every monster can have something deep read into him.

But this one can. Cloverfield is a deeply felt post-9/11 movie. While the effects of the September 11th tragedy continue to be felt like ripples in blockbuster entertainments (most perceptively, for example, in The Dark Knight’s meditations on the immoral totality of domestic terrorism), Cloverfield wears its iconography on its sleeve: this movie is about New Yorkers, wandering through a destroyed Manhattan, and while no dialogue references the events of 2001, there is a tinge to everyone’s state of shock that feels effectively weary: the subtext of almost every disaster scene is “We’ve been here before.” While the film’s signature shot of the Statue of Liberty’s head skating down a city street is strictly the stuff of movies, the scenes of terrorized mobs figuring out where to run or tearful phone calls about instant (and horrible) developments are, in a way, real. Not to mention a key (and terrifying) sequence that takes place in a shattered skyscraper. Many movies with 9/11 themes promote closure, but Cloverfield’s approach is like ripping open a fresh wound.

The overall effect could be tasteless. What is the height of escapism, after all, but silly monster movies, and this one dares to draw from the same bank of shared dread as the victim of the World Trade Center attacks? And yet Cloverfield is, on its own terms, a pretty terrific movie. Like many found-footage films, its aims are small: it wants to thrill, entertain, and drop a little dollop of story in your lap. Only a little, and that’s fine, because movies like this usually operate under harshly constricted timelines, and how much does a person really change in six hours? The movie is more intrigued with capturing moods than plot: the drama of a friendly party, a series of horrific attacks, and above all tiny, sweet registers of the little things that make us human and not monsters ourselves. Is there any logic for Rob, the guy who’s ostensibly our hero, to flee deep into the ruins of Manhattan to find the love of his life, Beth? Probably not. She’s probably dead. But, damn it, he goes, because that’s what people do.

The whole film unspools as if it is unedited footage from a sole video camera. The camera is actually owned by Rob, but falls into Hud’s hands when the latter is asked to film tearful goodbye messages for Rob’s going away party (he is moving to Japan on business). Hud, however, is not a skilled documentarian, or even much interested in anything other than the pretty Marlena, who brushes him off in a way that absolutely explains why a guy like Hud would be interested in a girl like her. Meanwhile, Rob swoons over the absent Beth, and then turns bitter when she shows up with a boyfriend in tow—other footage that occasionally breaks into the main story indicates that Rob and Beth are two good friends who became romantic, and Beth now seems to think that time has passed.

The party scenes go on just long enough, I think—like many horror movies Cloverfield gives the sense of one narrative slowly slipping into the control of another, and the party helps accentuate that feeling: the opening does feel like a slightly spiffier version of one of those videos a friend would show you that he shot as he got progressively drunk one night. The dialogue is not very polished, nor should it be, because it heightens the illusion that these are real people with everyday problems who do not have a flock of writers on their side crafting their every word. People criticize “found footage” movies for “bad dialogue” often, and I have to say I don’t get the criticism. Doesn’t real life have bad dialogue, too? The counter to that might be that such a thing isn’t entertaining, but I, personally, would gladly sacrifice a few entertainment points if it means a more persuasive sense of immersion.

The lovers part in a huff. Beth leaves angrily. And then—shortly after Rob’s brother Jason pulls him out to the fire escape and shares an important life lesson–something attacks the city. In agonizing real-time, the partygoers go from curious to alarmed to terrified as they peer into the skyline while standing on the roof of Rob’s apartment, and soon are dodging fireballs. The streets are littered with debris and dust, uncannily evoking post-9/11 imagery. (I’ll stop harping on it in a moment, but I really have to underline that the feeling is palpable). I won’t be spoiling anything by telling you a monster has attacked New York City, and for once the characters in a monster movie are terrifically unskeptical about the thing facing them. Usually in a movie like this, you get the one loudmouth who insists it’s all a mass hallucination or something, and then dies for his trouble. That doesn’t happen here. Except for the people dying part.

Cloverfield now settles into a very basic structure: one damn thing after another. The group make their way to the Brooklyn Bridge, which suffers a catastrophe…while everyone is still on it. Rob desperately retrieves a voicemail from Beth, trapped in her apartment building, in a well-acted moment that holds on the actor’s face for a long time. Rob goes on a suicide mission to find Beth, and the others, perhaps because they have nowhere else to go, accompany him: through subway tunnels, abandoned department stores, through Central Park and even up every stair of a skyrise that happens to adjoin Beth’s near-toppled apartment building. Along the way, the monster terrorizes the city as an amorphous menace that can pop up in front of our heroes at any moment (and frequently does). One shot goes from a quiet stroll to a chaotic battle between monster and marines with jaw-dropping scope, while Hud, against all reason, keeps right on a-filmin’.

The characters all slide into sorta pre-assigned roles, each of them embracing something that gives them purpose. For Rob, it’s finding Beth. For Hud, it’s capturing the whole incident on film (“People are going to want to know how it went down.”) Jason’s purpose ends up being not what he thought it would be. Lily insists on standing by her friends. Marlena becomes the most shell-shocked of the group, as she sees the creature the earliest and perhaps taps into defeatism from that moment on—it is noted that she’s not really friends with any of them, but it’s plain on her face that she’s given up thinking where she goes ultimately matters. What purpose Beth ends up serving I will not reveal.

It’s hard to talk much about Cloverfield since so much of its power resides in its ending, and the really nice way it discards nihilism (which you’d expect from a hopeless monster attack) in favor of existentialism—particularly the notion it has that tragedy through camaraderie is ultimately not tragedy at all. I’ll instead focus on the fact that the movie is pretty frightening at times, especially during an unnerving sequence in abandoned subway tunnels. You’d think that a 50-foot monster would not be able to threaten our heroes when they are underground, and technically you would be right. And yet.

Cloverfield was written by Drew Goddard, a frequent collaborator of two of the most influential names in television drama: Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and J.J. Abrams (Lost). Goddard is a natural fit for both men because he loves (as they do) to pitch worn tropes on their side. Here Goddard upends decades of accumulated familiarity with monster movies, but it’s not a gimmick, because through it all he crafts compelling characters (as shallow as they may first appear) who justify the narrative upheaval. The same technique is used in the forthcoming Cabin in the Woods (co-written by Whedon and Goddard), which also spins a hoary conceit and populates it with broad characters…except…well, that would telling. Let’s just say things are never what you think they are when these guys are around. Perfect example: Cloverfield cost $25 million (chump change in the studio system), and looks like it cost at least twice that.

I’ve always had an uncertain relationship with monster movies. For many, they are staples of childhood, but I pretty much missed the boat. Maybe I was always disturbed how monsters always come back and essentially become the hero of their own series. But Cloverfield is really something special—a horror/monster film that bestows a humanity to everyone, and keeps it in play all the way to the end. Lots of horror movies end with despair, which is gutsy. But this one is gutsier still, because after it’s all over we feel not misery but hope. Hope that when the time eventually comes, we should all be so—now isn’t this strange—lucky.

NOTES: Goddard mentions in an interview that an earlier draft of the script had the camera pass by a stock hero character having an argument, implicitly suggesting that the Michael Bay version of this material is happening just offscreen, somewhere. They were right to take it out. Too cheeky.

There is a surprise secret in the film’s final shot. I would describe it, but I don’t really know what It means. I kinda like not knowing what it means.

There is a musical score. Pay attention to the end credits to hear Michael Giacchino’s really rather terrific suite, entitled–heh–”Roar!”

Finally: The title means whatever you want it to mean. However, I will say this: it’s frequently been noted that clovers are the first things that grow back after nuclear fallout. So…that’s something.

GRADE: A-

Sucker Punch (2011)

I'm sorry...what? "Sucker Punch."

Directed by Zack Snyder. Screenplay by Zack Snyder, Steve Shibuya; story by Zack Snyder. Produced by Deborah Snyder, Zack Snyder. Music by Tyler Bates, Marius de Vries. Photographed by Larry Fong. Edited by William Hoy. Production designed by Rick Carter. Starring Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac, Jon Hamm.

Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch is a pseudo-female empowerment epic that is pitched entirely at the level of stereotypical thirteen-year-old boys. Just like boys of that age love boobs, girls in tight clothes, guns, zombies, robots, monsters and brainless action, so does Sucker Punch, which tries to dress all those elements with a safety cloak of remedial, phony feminism as if it fits. If there’s anything worse than a dumb movie that thinks it’s smart, it’s a dumb movie that thinks it’s saying something smart, and Sucker Punch fits that bill: it gleefully delivers pure exploitation and then clucks its tongue at us for watching pure exploitation, as if that built-in level of hypocrisy is meaningful. Snyder wants to have it both ways, by giving us trash and then trying to implicate us in its creation, which lets him off the hook, right? I can deal with mixed messages in art, but this is not art, because art is never this obnoxiously self-serving.

Whether the movie is misogynistic or not is almost beside the point, because the film’s real problem is the cowardice with which it sidesteps every complaint you could lob against it. Dislike the way the narrative wallows in female objectification? That’s because it’s a dream state and an immediate psychological reaction to an implied victimhood, so how dare you judge those poor girls! What’s that? Shaking your head at how cartoonish the whole enterprise is? That’s because it keeps playing games with levels of reality, so who knows what’s really true, you fool? Have a problem with the meaningless and rather sexist action scenes? They’re supposed to be meaningless and sexist, because we’re trying to indict the male gaze, which is held by you, you man, you. And the lesbian overtones are absolutely not there for titillation, but instead they’re a snare for you, who would go looking for that kinda thing. Sicko. Tsk tsk. Okay, so what does that say about Zack Snyder, who conceived, wrote and directed all of these elements? He’s above it all, I guess.

What I’m trying to say is that Sucker Punch plays a defensive, rigged game in which we are constantly distracted into thinking that something larger is going on. Its characters are hyper-sexualized ciphers, its environs are lurid, and its set pieces play like video game cut-scenes scotch-taped together. But hey, this immature mode of storytelling represents exactly what these girls are trying to escape from, so you don’t mind if we enjoy ourselves while they try, right? While the film tells a story of bondage and slavery, it retreats to fantasy sequences that are still well-couched within terms of bondage and slavery. Oh, and some amped-up CGI battle stuff involving monsters and robots, because the world of Sucker Punch is incapable of relating to women as anything other than sexualized playthings or honorary boys.

Like Inception (but with a much lower level of ambition), Sucker Punch is essentially a labyrinth of dueling realities. The fundamental one—let’s call it Reality A—involves Babydoll (Emily Browning), a sweet-faced urchin in the 1930s who faces abuse at the hands of her alcoholic caricature of a stepfather, and she is sent to an asylum via trumped-up charges and institutional corruption. We don’t see very much of Reality A, because just as it looks like Babydoll is going to get a lobotomy we flash to Reality B, where Babydoll is the new girl in a brothel owned by the lecherous mobster Blue (Oscar Isaac) and run by Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino), who has a Russian accent simply because Russian accents are scary. This reality is trashy, with the girls being used as prostitutes, exotic dancers and free labor, and the constant threat of rape is referred to again and again. I know to vilify something you have to show it, but Snyder really really likes showing it.

In Reality B, we meet a handful of other girls in similar straits as Babydoll. There’s Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), and Amber (Jamie Chung), all of which are distinguished almost single-handedly by the skills of the actresses, because the screenplay certainly doesn’t treat them as individuals. The girls band together to escape and in order to do so need to steal five objects from the brothel employees. This is pure video game logic, because there’s no reason for it to be five objects any more than there is for it to be ten or twenty: the structure is there so that when each attempt is made, we fall into Reality C, which is a malleable dimension where the girls are sent on missions against adversaries like stone samurais, robots, steampunk nazi corpses, Lord of the Rings-style goblins, and so on.

Reality C is where the over-the-top set pieces live, and where many of the problems lie. Each scenario in reality C is pointless, and exists merely to provide an exhaustive special-effects demo reel. There is supposed to be a connective tissue between Realities B and C, as Reality C is triggered whenever Babydoll dances, mesmerizing whoever her audience is and leaving them susceptible to having their pockets picked. But there’s no correlation between Babydoll’s dancing and what actually happens in reality C except the basest, easiest archetypes. Nor is there any explanation for why Babydoll’s fantasies correspond exactly to what a twenty-first century teen would think is “cool.” Nor is much interest generated in the elaborate special effects sequences that compose Reality C—we’re basically watching cartoons fight each other with no regard to physics, common sense, or any known logic. Reality C is, in other words, that most maddening of movie worlds: the one where anything can happen at all. And so nothing truly does happen there, at all.

More troubling is that those scenes are supposed to be about these victimized women taking control of their destinies, but even within them they’re still dressed in tawdry attire—sexy leather commando outfits that accentuate their skin and curves. And we see every inch of those curves, because Snyder fetishizes these characters with all the subtlety of a thirteen-year-old pouring over his first Frank Miller comic book. There is some homoerotic tension between the girls while on their mission–which, hey, at least give Snyder credit for fairness, because he did the same thing for the guys when he made 300. Don’t give me that look. He did.

Is all this ultimately supposed to be a confrontation of male expectations for all-female action scenes? The CGI sequences are pitched at a level of comic-booky video game reality that the male characters on-screen would have no frame of reference for, so it can’t be an attack on them.  So is Snyder blaming us, the twenty-first century audience, for presuming an action scene to play out this way? Is it a critique of sexist fanboys? That’s what he says. How convenient for him that something he excels at can be explained with that ironic distance. There’s no difference in delivery between the action scenes here and those in any other Zack Snyder film, so if this is meant to be ironic than that would mean they all are, and I don’t think that’s true.

Even if we accept the notion that Sucker Punch is a critique, however, it still doesn’t work, because the film makes no place for those who don’t buy into this horsepucky for a second.  If we really are to believe that Snyder is smarter than this, and wanted to make a movie that held a light up to the buried sexism in action-adventure popcorn entertainment, he should have been less thuggish with his approach: his wall-to-wall carnage is so off-putting we’re given every opportunity to walk away and stand apart from the material. Instead of being implicated, we’re condescended to. He presumes a latent sexism on our part when he’s the one force-feeding us this imagery. Snyder is not a subtle director, and his desire to challenge those who would see a movie like Sucker Punch is not only unfocused but ultimately inconsequential. Because no one went to see this movie.

We already mentioned that the connections between Reality B and C don’t work. What about between B and A? There are vague implications that Reality B is some sort of heightened version of Reality A, which is not a brothel but is still a corrupt organization that looks the other way to sexual assault and murder. But Reality A, despite being more “normal” than the other two, doesn’t play as naturalistic—it plays like another Snyder fantasy sequence with its cartoonish melodrama and subtler (but still oppressive) special effects. I don’t know where the film’s opening takes place, for example, but it isn’t reality, and doesn’t that undermine the purpose? Another movie that played this game was David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive, but eventually Mulholland Drive does wake up and give us hints about what was real. Here, none of it’s real. Or some of it’s real. Or all of it’s real. Who knows? Who cares?

That really hurts the material. Not inherently, understand, but instead because Snyder gives us nothing to latch onto as an alternative. He can deflect criticisms of the movie’s objectification of women all he wants, but that doesn’t change the fact that his female characters are shallow, none more so than Babydoll, who is practically a blank slate. We have no backstory for her, just plot mechanics. She never says, thinks or does anything interesting, credible, or even relatable—Snyder is so desperate to construct her as a symbol cum-action figure for rah-rah female empowerment that he lends absolutely no interest to who she is as a person, which is so ironic it’s sad. The film’s assumed social statements have all the honesty of an undergraduate attending a feminist march because he really wants to get laid.

What’s most aggravating about all this is that at every moment Snyder swings for the fences—so when he’s wrong, he’s wrong huge. Take the film’s soundtrack, which is full of anachronisms (a Eurythmics cover turns up at one point, and a Queen/Armageddon hip-hop mash-up appears at another), but the songs aren’t wrong because they’re out of time or place. They’re wrong because they’re so flipping obvious.

I haven’t really mentioned the acting much. It’s fine. Browning, who showed charisma in Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, turns off that charisma here, but that’s less a fault of hers and more the fault of a screenplay that insecurely toggles her between two modes: weepy or hardass. The rest of the girls are perfectly fine, too, and everyone seems to be really under the impression that a good movie is being made, which, if you’re an actress and for weeks you’re dressing up in skimpy corsets and gaudy makeup and fishnet stockings, maybe you simply have to believe that something good is being made, for your own sanity’s sake.

I like Snyder as a director. Sort of. I admired his remake of Dawn of the Dead, even though it ultimately pushed it with a meandering second act and a nihilistic post-script that reeks more and more of his now well-illustrated lack of discipline. I disliked 300 and liked Watchmen, perhaps because the former is slavishly devoted to a graphic novel I hate, and the latter is pretty faithful to one that I love. Now here is Sucker Punch, which comes right before his new Superman movie due next year, which thankfully for him he was signed to before Sucker Punch bombed in theaters.

What are we to make of Zack Snyder? He’s an aggressive director. A stylish one. An inventive one. And also one who lives or dies based on the material handed to him: his two smartest movies are that way because they came from smart sources: George A. Romero and Alan Moore. With Sucker Punch, he wrote the original screenplay with Steve Shibuya, which for Snyder I think is working without a net. Now free of having to adapt another’s work, he blasts pure id across the screen, and while I think it’s possible to form this debris into a statement, it’s not worth the effort. I’m not saying Snyder is sick, understand. I’m saying he should not be behind a typewriter unless he knows what he’s doing, and here he does not.

Is Sucker Punch a bad film? Yes, but the real problem is that it’s an indefensible one. As an action movie it’s tedious, and as a paean to female solidarity it’s utterly misguided. And for a movie that purports to have an important lesson within, it really seems tongue-tied about what it’s trying to say. I could imagine the sight of scantily-clad female commandos being subversive or satirical, or…whatever. Something smart and incisive. Here it’s just a calculated self-indulgence: the unfortunate decision of a man who ultimately wants to have his cheesecake, and eat it too.

Note: Jon Hamm (who plays the villainous character called “High Roller,” as well as a skeevy doctor) is not in the movie enough. However, I like Jon Hamm a lot and I am very protective of him, so perhaps I should say instead that he is in the movie too much simply by wasting his time being in the movie at all.

GRADE: D

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.