Superman III (1983)

Overall: C-
Cast: C
Plot: B-
Special Effects/Stunts: C-
Similarity to Comic: B-
Director: Richard Lester
Comic Company:
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Margot Kidder
Rating: PG 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

They took this movie in a different direction, and it worked out alright.  The plot was an improvement (thank God) and overall this film was considerably more enjoyable than the first two Superman movies.  They had to sacrifice a few things though such as the similarity to the Superman comics and a couple key characters.

The Good: FINALLY they made a decent plot line that didn't end with too much science fiction crap (minus the supercomputer possessing Vera).  It was actually somewhat believable especially for the time period.  I like how they sparked our imaginations about what computers are capable of, especially for the early 80's that must have been very intriguing.  It had done before though, not quite like this, but it'd been done.  I absolutely loved how they brought out a darker Superman character in this movie.  Even though it was only for a few minutes, it was done really well, and given the technology of the time I can understand why they didn't want the same actor having to play two roles for more than a couple minutes anyway.

The cast did an okay job.  I liked Richard Pryor as Gus, although his facial expressions were a little over the top sometimes I feel he played his character well and was legitimately funny most of the time.  Christopher Reeve turned in another great performance as Superman and an even better one as Clark Kent, and the fight between himself and himself was done very well from an acting perspective.  Margot Kidder had a much smaller role as Lois Lane in this movie but she still did well and the supporting actors and actresses all did well in their respective roles.  Jackie Cooper did a good job again as Perry White, although I still prefer J.K. Simmons as J.J. in the Spider-Man movies for that crazy newspaper boss role.

The Bad: Margot Kidder's fake tan in the last scene of the movie, she looks like a human Dorito.  On that topic, where was she this whole movie?  Apparently she was sent to Bermuda, and Clark didn't follow her.  He was practically stalking her throughout the first two movies and all of a sudden he just lets her fly off to Bermuda for an entire movie and doesn't even give her a second thought.  In fact, he even tries to get frisky with his high school crush AND he hooks up with one of the villain chicks.  It really baffles me how they can just throw the Clark and Lois romance under the bus like that.  My only other problem with the plot was the absence of Lex Luthor.  I know he's not Superman's only villain but he's the most common one, I expected him to have some part in this evil scheme, or at least have one or two lines at the end to signal him being in the sequel.  And let's face it, Gene Hackman was the best actor in the cast, they took a hit losing him, especially since they hardly gave Margot Kidder any face time too.

I'm really getting tired of bashing the special effects of these movies, but come on, I saw strings and wires so many times while watching this I almost gave up.  The computer generated stuff was slightly better, and there wasn't much noticeable artwork like the second movie, but the effects still weren't very good.

The Interesting: Gus skiing off the top of a skyscraper and not dying was pretty interesting to me.  The most interesting thing about this movie though was when Superman turned bad.  First off, it didn't happen right when he touched the kryptonite; it happened like ten minutes later, it just hit him, which was weird.  Also, he was so "bad" but what did he really do?  He straightened the Leaning Tower of Pisa, saved an evil lady from the top of the statue of liberty (then hooked up with her), and had a couple drinks at the local bar?  Hell, he didn't turn bad he just turned into a normal guy, using his powers to fix things that needed to be fixed and hook up with girls.  Everyone in the world started freaking out too, it's not like Superman had turned evil, he just wasn't as happy go lucky and noble anymore.

Conclusion: This movie was an improvement on the first two and actually somewhat enjoyable.  The addition of Richard Pryor made up for losing Gene Hackman and not giving Margot Kidder a big role, kind of.  It's worth watching, especially if you've had it with the first two movies and need a new perspective of the character that is Superman.

Superman II (1980)

Overall: D
Cast: B+
Plot: D
Special Effects/Stunts: D+
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Richard Lester, Richard Donner
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Rating: PG
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I was really hoping this movie would be better than the first, but sadly it wasn't.  In fact it was almost exactly the same. 

The Good: They kept the same cast, which was good.  Gene Hackman was great again and so was Margot Kidder.  Christopher Reeve impressed me again, he's a strong actor while he's in the suit but even better as Clark Kent.  The three actors they got to play the Krypton criminals did alright, I wasn't super impressed but they weren't distractingly bad either.  Despite the bad special effects and plots so far in these Superman movies, they have a way of getting you on his side.  I've always been more of a Batman fan, and despised Superman because he has every power ever and no real weaknesses except kryptonite, whatever the hell that is.  After watching these first two movies though I've definitely gained a greater appreciation for this character and that's saying a lot.

I like how they brought back the criminals that they banished in the beginning of the first movie, it made for an interesting plot, not a good one mind you, an interesting one.  I'm glad Lois discovered Clark's true identity.  I feel that she's too good a journalist to let that one get past her for more than a movie, and it's always bothered me anyway how a pair of glasses seemingly changes his entire appearance so I'm glad someone caught on.

The Bad: Where to begin, where to begin... Well as always I guess I'll start with the plot.  Similar to the first one, it had some good things happening, then it's torn apart with scientifically impossible feats, and not the cool other worldly advanced technology kind.  In the end when he hits that guy with the cellophane Superman symbol, what is that?  They just come into his super-lair and he all of a sudden has a secret weapon: a giant throw-able cellophane symbol capable of entrapping evil doers?  And in the end when he kisses Lois and her memory is erased?  I wish I could kiss that well.

The special effects were bad, again.  You'd think they would have improved at least a little bit in three years but they actually got worse.  There were a few effects that were obviously just artwork in motion.  There was also quite a few times you could tell that the characters were standing still and it was the backgrounds moving behind them, it looked cheap, simply cheap.

The Interesting: This whole movie was interesting.  One of the most interesting things about it is it's patriotic theme.  The final scene is Superman delivering a new American flag to the white house and talking to the President.  It's weird though, because even though this movie is so pro-America, the American military personnel are portrayed as kind of dumb, and they surrender almost without a fight.  If you really wanted to make a pro-America movie wouldn't you portray us as being strong and courageous? Just a thought.


Conclusion: If you really enjoyed the first movie you'll love this one, and if you hated the first movie, you'll hate this one, it's that simple.

Superman: The Movie (1978)

Overall: D
Cast: B+
Plot: D
Special Effects/Stunts: D+
Similarity to Comic: A+
Director: Richard Donner
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Rating: PG
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

So aside from the fact that Superman is the cheapest superhero ever this movie was... well, interesting.  I liked the plot up until the very end, and the cast did well and the movie as a whole was a good representation of the hero, but the special effects (an essential part of ANY Superman movie) were lacking.

The Good: This movie was a spitting image of what the writers of the Superman comic intended him to be.  His origin story was told with surprising accuracy and in great detail, and backed up by a great musical score.  I liked the cast; they had a good mix of funny characters, tough characters, and deep characters.  I can see why they picked Christopher Reeve to be the man of steel, he played the part great.  Margot Kidder played a strong Lois Lane and the supporting cast of characters did well.  The real show stealer in this movie though was Gene Hackman.  He was fantastic, bringing out the funny, intelligent, and insane sides of Lex Luthor all at once; I'm looking forward to seeing him play the part again in the next movie.  And oh yeah even The Godfather Marlon Brando makes an appearance.

One thing that was different in this movie that separates it from most other superhero movies is all of the innuendos and sexual references throughout the movie.  I'd never seen such blatant sexual references in a superhero movie before, but they pulled it off well.  This film was also pretty funny; it had a lot of jokes that subtly make fun of the comic book, which always makes these unrealistic movies better.


The Bad: Oh my God, the plot.  I actually thought it was pretty good up until the end, but wow, it sure died.  I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure flying backwards around the Earth isn't going to start spinning it in the opposite direction/ not kill EVERYONE/ turn back time/ bring back the dead.  It was too far-fetched, even for Superman; I would expect something like this in the 5th or 6th movie after they'd exhausted every other good plot line, not in the first bloody movie.  The only reason I didn't give it an F- is because the first 9/10th's of the plot was pretty well done.

The special effects were pretty bad.  I know it was 1978 and yes the special effects were miles ahead of the 1977 film 'Star Wars' but... they still sucked.  I feel that if you're going to make a movie that REQUIRES good special effects, you either need to give it good special effects or wait until technology catches up and then do the movie.  Superman is one of those movies that probably shouldn't have been made until nowadays.  But then I guess we all would have missed out on Gene Hackman's Lex and Christopher Reeve's Superman.

The Interesting: I don't understand how you can make a movie with such a good plot and then ruin it with such a dumb ending.  I just don't get it.  The movie would have been great if they just had Superman save Lois right before she dies but instead they let her die and then make him fly around the Earth to go back in time/bring her back to life.  Here's a question for you, Superman:  If you could turn back time like that, why didn't you just go back another 10 minutes and stop the bomb from blowing up the freaking San Andreas Fault?! Better question:  If you can fly fast enough to go around the world fast enough to change its rotation, why couldn't you fly fast enough to catch BOTH bombs, they were only on opposite sides of the country?!  Too far-fetched, I rest my case.


Conclusion: This movie is worth seeing; there was some great acting, a perfect representation of his origin, and some funny special effects.  If I may make a suggestion though, turn it off about an hour and forty five minutes in and make up your own ending.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Overall: A-
Cast: A
Plot: A
Special Effects/Stunts: A+
Similarity to Comic: B-
Director: Louis Leterrier
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth
Rating: PG-13 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

Well if any of the other Avengers movies are this good we're in for a real treat.  This movie has it all- action, love, angry giant monsters, what more could you ask for?

The Good: As usual with the Marvel movies the cast was superb.  Edward Norton was probably the perfect person to cast for Bruce Banner.  His experience in the roles he played in 'Fight Club' and 'American History X' gave him the calm collected exterior he needed to portray along with the toughness it would take to keep yourself from getting angry in certain situations.  Liv Tyler was beautiful and showed more than one emotion which is more than I was expecting from her.  The General played his role well and Tim Roth did an excellent job as an obsessive, aggressive, and arrogant Emil Blonsky.  The cast was relatively small, which is probably why they could afford such talent, it sure paid off though.  Even good old Lou Ferrigno made an appearance as a security guard.

I can't say enough about the special effects and CGI in this movie.  They obviously spent a good deal of the budget on computer imagery but didn't waste it on landscapes or cars, instead they put it all into the Hulk, making him the best looking green beast I've ever seen in hi-def.  The stunts were not only well done visually, but they were creative as well, one of the most awesome things I've ever seen in a movie was the part at the end when the Hulk used two cars like boxing gloves as he fought the monster Emil.

The Bad: Not much to say here, it was too short maybe? I could have happily sat through another hour of this movie to be honest.  I guess I should get down to the nitty gritty though, I didn't like the fact that the Hulk could take grenades the whole movie.  He could take a bunch of little bullets maybe, but not a grenade, he's still a mammal, still has warm soft flesh, it should for all intensive purposes blow right off.  Also on that note, why is it he could take a grenade but then a couple wimpy sonic cannons almost take him out?  His ears are his weakness now?  He spends the entire movie smashing cars and being shot at by .50 cals and a little noise brings him to his knees?

How come when the Hulk transforms all of his clothes rip off except his pants?  I mean I get it, that's inappropriate, but it doesn't make sense to me how his cotton shirts tear right off but his denim jeans expand to no end.  I suppose that's a little nit-picky, but really there aren't a lot of bad things about this movie.

The Interesting: His blood falls into one of the soda bottles in the factory and somehow manages to not get discovered and gets shipped out.  The drink is then consumed by none other than Stan Lee and all that happens is his character falls over.  Did he die?  Did he become an elderly Hulk?  We don't know, it is never explained, but gosh dar it I want it to be!

Mr. Blue helps Bruce throughout the movie in trying to cure his affliction.  At one point Mr. Blue is able to suppress one episode.  Only one.  Why didn't the military use that as a weapon against the Hulk instead of killing (?) Mr. Blue after forcing him to create another Hullk-like monster?  When Mr. Blue creates the new monster the formula that created him drips onto his head and makes it start to bubble.  Does it kill him?  Does he turn into another Hulk monster?  We don't know!  The open ends needed to be taken care of a little better in this movie.

Conclusion: Definitely one of my top five superhero movies of all time.  Despite the little things wrong with it, the real disservice to the viewers in this one is that they never managed to make a sequel with Edward Norton.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Overall: B
Cast: B
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: B+
Similarity to Comic: C
Director: Sam Raimi
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco
Rating: PG-13 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This is my favorite of the Spider-Man movies so far.  They finally have a good balance of CGI and real props and the plot rivals that of the first.  The overall theme of revenge is consistent throughout the movie with more than one character and is done very well, a good way to end Tobey Maguire's reign as Spider-Man.

The Good: The cast is good again in this movie, although most of the characters returned they added Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy, Thomas Haden Church as the Sandman, and Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom, all of which did excellent jobs.  J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris continue to be the rocks of this series with their third straight amazing performances in their respective roles as J.J. and Aunt May.  I was impressed with Kirsten Dunst, she reverted back to the way she was in the first movie, she wasn't sickly and dead looking.  Tobey Maguire seems to have grown while filming these these movies, he played his part well.  Even the actor who played Harry Osborn's butler did well and Peters Romanian landlord too.  James Franco redeemed himself with a strong performance as his character seemingly goes in and out of sanity.

The CGI was better than it was in the second movie, and used in the right places.  I was especially impressed with the CGI for the sandman, it couldn't have been an easy thing to do because he's so grainy but they pulled it off well.  The plot was much better than in the second movie, there was no stupid power loss and everything that happened was explained well.


The Bad: The scene where emo Peter is walking through the street snapping his fingers needed to go, and same with his pelvic thrusting dance moves later in that scene, and same with the entire next scene in the jazz club.  This movie probably would have been an 'A' if it weren't for that seven minutes.  Mary Jane was still mad at Peter for most of the movie, more appropriately this time seeing as Spider-Man kissed another girl and spent the first half of the movie talking about himself, but still it was annoying because she was mad at him for almost the entire second movie, get over it he's freaking Spider-Man and has more important things to do than listen to you complain about your life.  She's always a damsel in distress too, either she needs to learn to take care of herself, or the villains need to find a new victim, this theme is getting a little old.  It's the third of three movies that she's had to be saved in the climax.

Venom could have been done better.  Brock's character seemed too funny to all of a sudden turn into a bloodthirsty killing machine.  On top of that, Venom isn't even in most of the movie.

The Interesting: I didn't understand how when the symbiote got on Peter it because just a black suit but when it got on Brock it transformed him completely.  Also, during the climax, there's a giant sand monster and an evil black creature attacking a hostage on a skyscraper and the city of New York doesn't even call in a chopper or fighter jet or anything?  I don't know, superhero movies aren't supposed to be the most realistic things out there but that seemed like a no-brainer.

They also got the origin story slightly wrong for Venom and for the black suit.  Those are kind of big details to get right if you make a Spider-Man movie, but what they did worked for the amateur Spider-Man fan and the rest of the plot.


Conclusion: I'll say it again; it's my favorite of the Spider-Man movies.  I love the plot, theme, cast, and the improved special effects.  The only real deal-breaker is the two scenes in the middle where Tobey Maguire is emo.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Overall: B
Cast: B
Plot: B+
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: B-
Director: Sam Raimi
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

They fixed a bunch of stuff that the first movie was lacking, like the cheapy props and the bad costumes, but they sacrificed some of the things that made the first movie so popular.  I had the pleasure of watching 'Spider-Man 2.1' which is the version of the movie with some cool added scenes (J.J. jumping around in the spider-suit was PRICELESS), I definitely recommend it if you have the chance.

The Good: First things first, props to my boy Tobey Maguire for learning how to cry, seriously thank you.  The cast took a hit by losing William Dafoe, but made up for it by getting Alfred Molina to play Dr. Octavius and Dylan Baker to play Dr. Connors.  J.K. Simmons steals the show again with another outstanding performance as J.J. and Aunt May is played beautifully again by the same actress.  Even the actor who plays Uncle Ben made a short appearance and did a good job.

They replaced the ketchup with stuff that actually looks like blood, thank God, and they revamped the Spider-Suit to look a lot better.  The computer generation is a lot better than in the first movie, the part where the car is thrown through the coffee shop window at Peter and Mary Jane is really cool.  The plot is good for the most part, it's pretty science-y and may take a couple of viewings to completely understand but it flows and the science details aren't detrimental to your understanding.

The Bad: The worst part about this movie was Kirsten Dunst.  I went into this movie expecting the cute nipping girl that made out with an upside down Spider-Man in the first film, but instead I got a freakishly skinny sickly girl with fried hair, I don't get it, what happened?  Her character is even different; she's kind of snappy with Peter and is mad at him for almost the entire movie just because he didn't go to her play.  And her snaggle-teeth bug me.

Another thing I think this movie could have gone without is Spider-Man's problem with his powers.  The plot was strong enough without him having to struggle with whether or not his web will shoot.  They don't even give a good explanation of why he's losing his powers; just that he's stressed and conflicted over his role as Spider-Man.  Batman gets conflicted over his role as a hero too but he doesn't puss out and stop performing.

The action sequences are a bit overdone, they're cool and all but how many walls can they really break through without getting hurt or calling timeout or something? I liked the train fight a lot, but even then I was wondering how much punishment Spider-Man could take without showing any signs of being hurt.

The Interesting: They went from not using enough CGI in the first movie to using too much in this one.  Almost everything that moved seemed to be computer generated except the cars.  They used real cars for the effects and stunts in this movie and the cars were all computer generated in number one, weird change if you ask me.  Another interesting change is James Franco, he really beefed up, and physically filled the shoes of the Goblin role he plays in the next movie.  His acting isn't nearly as strong in this movie though, which was disappointing, not bad, just not as strong.

Conclusion: Pretty decent movie, not as good as the first in a lot of ways but better in a lot of ways too.  It's a good adaption of Spider-Man to the big screen but it left me wanting more, I feel this franchise has more up its sleeve and I can't wait to see what it is.

Spider-Man (2002)

Overall: B-
Cast: B
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: B-
Similarity to Comic: B-
Director: Sam Raimi
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, William Dafoe
Rating: PG-13 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I consider this to be the father of all modern day superhero movies.  Movies like 'The Dark Knight' and 'Iron Man' wouldn't exist if it weren't for the success of 'Spider-Man'.  There are definitely things that could have been better, but this movie was a pioneer and deserves respect.

The Good: This movie has a fantastic plot, I know the whole "kid has an accident-then discovers superpowers" plot is overused, but seeing as Spider-Man was among the first to employ it I'm granting an exception.  They got that part out the way pretty quickly too and got on with the rest of the movie, which also had an amazing plot line.  I like how they created the Green Goblin and Spider-Man at the same time, instead of having the hero form after or because of the villain.  It followed the comic books fairly well, except that it doesn't have Gwen Stacy, Spider-Man doesn't need web cartridges, and the final scene is actually based off the scene Gwen Stacy dies, but they use Mary Jane instead and she lives (of course, don't act like I spoiled that).

Most of the cast is pretty good, I liked the actors who played Aunt May and Uncle Ben, and Kirsten Dunst was a great Mary Jane.  The actor who made this movie though was J.K. Simmons, whos role as J.J. literally had me rolling on the floor laughing, he was PERFECT.  I felt William Dafoe did a great job as the Green Goblin and James Franco had his usual stellar performance.

SOME of the special effects were good, especially for the time, way back in '02.  Spider-Man's costume was well done, they used a mix of CGI for the flying shots and real fabric for the acting/fighting shots and you could hardly tell the difference.  Finally, I love the themes in this movie: "With great power comes great responsibility" and "No matter how hard I try, the ones I love will always be the ones who pay".  They transferred over from the comic books well and were well developed throughout the film.

The Bad: The Green Goblin costume.  It's that simple.  It was almost IMPOSSIBLE to take this movie seriously while watching Spider-Man fight what looked like the Green Rangers lovechild from his dinosaur mistress.  Tobey Maguire could have been a stronger actor and he could at least cry like a man instead of the pansy picking schoolgirl he looked like when Uncle Ben gets killed.  I know Spider-Man isn't supposed to have a deep intimidating voice like Thor or Batman but come on, Tobey sounded like he was just going through puberty.  There were parts of this movie that didn't really make sense, like when Peter Parker gets bitten by the radioactive spider.  His hand was swollen to the size of a baseball and he didn't go to the hospital?  I guess there are things like that in every movie though.  Oh one more bad thing: William Dafoe's topless scene, seriously, cover that up.

The Interesting: I don't understand how some parts of this movie could have amazing special effects and then two seconds later they would use ketchup for blood.  It didn't add up, like they blew their entire budget on computer generated effects for Spider-Man and they had no money left for the normal props.  At least this movie paved the way for bigger budgets for later superhero movies.

Conclusion: All in all this is a movie that everyone into superheroes needs to see.  It has a great storyline, a good cast (and Tobey), and it's everything we dreamed a Spider-Man movie should be when we were kids, but like I said, it's not perfect.

Thor (2011)

Overall: B+

Cast: A+

Plot: C+

Special Effects/Stunts: A+

Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman
Rating: PG-13 

See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

To be honest, Thor was not one of my favorite superheroes growing up, this movie really won me over though.  It's not one of the more realistic superhero films, but what it lacks in realism it makes up for with great effects and the perfect cast.  And as in any superhero film that isn't very realistic, it's usually a sign that the director followed the comic book well.

The Good: The CGI and special effects were really really good, like "Avatar" status but in a good movie.  Asgard was stunning, and the effects as they were beamed to Earth through a giant rainbow cannon were pretty cool.  Once on Earth, though not as spectacular, the action sequences were good and so were the explosions, but it wasn't anything that hasn't been done before.  The fight scenes consisted of Thor smashing crap with his hammer, which was cool. This movie was also really funny, which isn't uncommon in the Marvel movies, yet always seems to come as a nice surprise.  This movie was funnier than most other Marvel movies though, probably the director's way of counteracting the surrealism so the audience doesn't get too hung up on it.

The cast is what really made this movie; it would have BOMBED if they didn't have these actors.  Chris Hemsworth played his role perfectly; I have absolutely no criticisms in his work, and was very surprised that such a performance came from a relatively unknown actor.  The way he carried himself throughout the entire movie with that confident swagger and his bad-ass voice really made an impression.  Natalie Portman was hot as usual but in a quirky, almost geeky kind of way, she didn't play a bombshell but rather that girl in your science class you want to ask to prom.  Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgard supported Portman well and Anthony Hopkins finally appeared to play someone other than Hannibal Lecter.  Thor's crew of heroes all did well and Tom Hiddleston did a good job as Loki although I would have preferred him to be a little less whiny.

The Bad: This movie was a little too science fictiony for my taste, and though it was well done, I kept losing focus trying to think of how they're going to tie Thor back into the Avengers movie.  It was more realistic than Hellboy though, which isn't saying much.  My other big beef with this movie was the 3D.  I know it's the "in" thing right now, but does everything need to be in 3D?  All the intense action sequences started to hurt my eyes after awhile just because there was so much going on with the 3D, maybe it's just me, but this is one movie that should stay in only two realms, oh wait sorry, I meant dimensions.

Now this is slightly nit picky, but I thought Agent Coulson was a really cool character until this movie.  He was cleaver, funny, and always had short little lines that hinted at him being a smart ass.  In Thor though he's a tool.  He yells the whole movie and isn't nice to anyone, not to mention he wasn't funny at all.

The Interesting: I liked how the plot of this movie was different from other superhero movies, they got away from the "person has accident and discovers super powers" template and really tried to do something different.  They landed right in Spider-Man 2 territory though, since Thor's powers were taken from him and he spent half the movie trying to get them back.  It was done well, but I don't think it was as original as they thought.

At the end of the movie I was still confused as to how they are going to tie Thor back into the Avengers, since he is seemingly stranded in Asgard.  I'm sure they'll either find some brilliant way to bring him back to Earth, or they'll just write some cheap line into the script and he'll just show up or something.

Conclusion: No matter how they bring Thor back for the next movie I'm glad he's going to be a part of it, he's a fun superhero to watch and one that definitely deserves to be mainstreamed.  If you want to see what would happen when a science fiction movie and an action movie have a little movie baby, Thor won't let you down.

Batman Begins (2005)

Overall: A

Cast: A

Plot: A+

Special Effects/Stunts: A

Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Christopher Nolan
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes
Rating: PG-13 

See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

Wow, what an incredible way to begin my blog.  This has to be one of the greatest superhero movies of all time, and yes for the purposes of this blog I AM counting batman as a superhero, we don't need to get into that argument just yet.  This movie was a pretty good representation of the darker batman comics, and in my opinion a great way to tell his origin story.

The Good: The cast, almost all of them.  Liam Neeson was at his best in his role as Ra's Al Ghul and Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine provided excellent comic relief as well as memorable deep lines that really makes you fall in love with their characters.  Gary Oldman is the perfect Gorgon, exactly how his character should be portrayed.  Christian Bale does a great job as Batman, although he left me wanting a little more out of his Bruce Wayne character.

The general plot of the movie was entertaining, deep, and complex, everything a Batman movie should be.  I like that they went with Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow for the villains, instead of the Joker or other better known Batman villains.  The action sequences were spectacular and the special effects were good for the most part.  The most fascinating and riveting part of this movie was how realistic they made it, it really gets your mind thinking about what one man could possibly accomplish in a city of scum.

The Bad: Is anybody else going to say it?  Christian Bale's Batman voice is almost unbearable.  I nearly died laughing when he said "SWEAR TO ME!" as he was questioning the crooked cop on the rooftop.  Arkham Asylum wasn't portrayed as sinister as I've always imagined, or as it is in other Batman representations like the animated series or the Arkham Asylum video game (GREAT game by the way).  Other than that the only other drawback to this movie is Katie Holmes.  Her acting is not very good, and that's putting it nicely, she looks like she struggles saying every word longer than 5 letters throughout the entire movie, yet she's supposed to be an assistant D.A.? No way, she's a pretty face, and although this movie needed one they should have found someone, anyone, better.

The Interesting: I was confused throughout the whole movie as to who Rachel Dawes was.  Her character isn't in any other Batman representation I could find, at least, not in such a big role.  I don't understand why they felt the need to add in a character like that to a franchise that already has so many memorable characters, did they really need another?  If they were to add another character to this movie shouldn't it have been detective Bullock? Or at least some other character that helps Bruce Wayne that isn't a love interest.

The batsuit.  Where to begin.  Well, at least it didn't have nipples.  But on a serious note, it needed a little more color; the all black thing didn't look as cool as it could have.  The mask didn't have very many intense or intimidating lines, making it appear a bit dull, and not very threatening.  Along the theme of bat gadgets, the batmobile was definitely a shock.  I was expecting a long narrow rocket on wheels like it's always portrayed, but instead got a stubby thing that looks like a mix between a tank and a lunar vehicle.  It wasn't bad by any means; I liked how it sounded like a pod-racer, and had some pretty neat gadgets of its own.

Conclusion: This is a must-see movie.  There are so many good things to say about this movie and not very many bad things at all, if you can stand Christian Bale's bat-voice and a ditsy Katie Holmes, you're really going to enjoy this movie.