Green Lantern (2011)

Overall: B
Cast: B
Plot: C
Special Effects/Stunts: A-
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Martin Campbell
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This is an example of how the Superman franchise should have gone about making their movies.  By that I mean they should have waited until technology could keep up with the demands of their character and then start making movies, not the other way around.  This movie was exciting, and they played it by the book (literally). 

The Good: The special effects were pretty darn good.  I was skeptical about the Green Lantern's suit being completely CGI, but they really did a good job with it, there were only a few instances where it didn't look perfect.  On that note, the Green Lantern is the perfect superhero to do something like that with, given his powers and the fact that the ring is what produces his suit.  Not only was the suit done well, but the special effects throughout the entire movie are well done, I particularly liked what they did with the rest of the Lantern Corps and the various aliens within.

The one thing this plot did well is it really explained the science fiction parts of the story line and powers of the Lantern Corps as well as their origin.  A movie like this really needs that, seeing as most moviegoers aren't as knowledgeable about the Green Lantern as they are with heroes like Batman or Spider-Man.  This movie was also very similar to Thor in that they basically portrayed two worlds, and blended them smoothly using a good mix of humor, and no real cross contamination of the worlds until the climax of the movie.  Blake Lively did well in this role, maybe I've watched too much Gossip Girl but I always expect her to be one sided and I've been pleasantly surprised as of late.  Peter SarsGaard was amazing and I also really liked Michael Clarke Duncan and Geoffrey Rush as the main alien friends Hal meets.

The Bad: Ryan Reynolds (or as my girlfriend refers to him, Ryan 'Hotnolds') kind of let me down.  Something was just off the entire movie and I couldn't place it until the very end, but it was him.  He just didn't have the right personality at all to play the character of the Green Lantern.  He kept trying to be too funny.  Not every line is a punch line, Ryan, I'd be more impressed if you cried.  Also, Tim Robbins wasn't the best choice for the senator, he also seemed like he was trying to make everything too funny.

So the plot sucked, and it sucked for many reasons.  First off, this film had no real theme, it didn't make me think deeply at all, or make me think about anything for that matter.  It was too much of what I call a 'cookie cutter' movie, which means it didn't do anything in the plot that deviates from a typical superhero movie.  Man gets powers-man fights evil man-man saves world-man gets girl, there's just nothing interesting there and most of those points almost seemed forced in this movie.  The climax was also very anti-climactic; you'd think one man fighting fear incarnate would make for a pretty epic fight scene especially with the good effects in this movie, but no.  And for a movie with two super villains they didn't tie the two together very well.

The Interesting: Next time I'm fighting a cloud form of fear, I'll be sure to simply push it into the sun, that seemed to take care of everything.  You know for a being that envelopes entire planets and eats everything there I found it a little hard to swallow that the gravity from the sun was enough to pull it in but not the Green Lantern.  I also didn't like how one being was enough to chase fear incarnate away from it's planetary lunch, you'd think it'd have better things to do.

Sinestro.  This character confused me the entire movie.  He's all red, and mean, and his name sounds very much like the word 'sinister', but he's a good guy? That's got to be some kind of typo in the script or something.  Have the writers of The Green Lantern ever even read a comic book?  That's like rule number one, never make a good guy look evil.

Conclusion: This movie was the superhero movie equivalent to Avatar.  It had great special effects but not an original storyline.  It was a great way to introduce the Green Lantern to the mainstream public without confusing everyone, and isn't a bad movie if you just want to sit back, relax, and enjoy some mindless entertainment.

X-Men (2000)

Overall: B
Cast: B+
Plot: A
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: C+
Director: Bryan Singer
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

The thing about the X-Men is that there are so many characters it's almost impossible to make a movie that is accurate to the comic books and has a good cast of recognizable faces with enough money left over for good special effects.  This movie however delivers it all and is probably the best way to represent this famous superhero team in film.


The Good: As always I'll start with the cast.  Ian McKellen did well as Magneto, he truly came across as sinister but doing so for the good of his kind.  Hugh Jackman really brought the edge that the character of Wolverine needs, I'm glad they didn't just get some pretty boy with a girl voice like they do for some other superhero movies.  Patrick Stewart was probably the only person in the entire world they could have cast for the role of Professor Xavier, nobody else would have made sense at all.  Famke Janssen, James Marsden, and Halle Berry turned in some pretty good performances too.  The supporting cast, mainly the students at Xavier's school did well too.  The only acting I didn't really like was that of Toad and Sabretooth, and that still wasn't too bad.

I absolutely love the overall theme of mutants vs. humans that they got started in this movie, it can be a metaphor for so much and at the same time still be entertaining over and over again.  I also really like the fact that they didn't destroy the relationship between Xavier and Magneto.  I like the fact that they're old friends and can actually be in the same room with each other even though they represent polar opposites.  I respect the fact that there didn't seem to be too much CGI in this movie and they used real materials for most of the special effects, it made things much less distracting and believable.  Of the CGI that was in the film I found it pretty good, at least for the year, I've seen worse since the year 2000.

The Bad: So Cyclopes wears oakleys now?  I'm a fan of the sunglasses, but I seemed to have missed that part in the comic book.  I must have also missed that they wear blueish leather suits and that Wolverine doesn't have a mask.  It makes sense, I mean he's hundreds of years old, can't really die, and lives in a mansion with other mutants so why hide his face, but I'm not a fan of making changes like that to a superheroes costume just for a movie.

Here's a plot hole for you, Professor Xavier said he couldn't use cerebro to find Magneto, which is because of Magneto's helmet which blocks telepathy.  So why couldn't he use cerebro to find Toad, Sabretooth, or Mystique?  I guess that would be just too easy.  AND what about the times that Magneto isn't wearing his helmet?  He isn't wearing it in every shot (why, by the way, wouldn't he if he knows a telepathic dude is looking for him?) so that means that Professor Xavier could very well use cerebro to locate him.  That's the only real plot hole I could think of though.

The Interesting: So I recently saw the new X-Men: First Class movie, and in it there is a romance between Mystique and Magneto.  Then here we are, set years later, and no romance at all?  I feel like if they'd broken up or something she wouldn't be doing his bidding, but at the same time there was no reference at all to them being anything other than business partners really, it just doesn't make too much sense to me.

Also, Wolverines claws seem to change sharpness throughout the movie.  When he's fighting Mystique, he can slice clean through a metal chain link fence, but when she wraps his claws in the chain they don't break through it.  And when they're fighting on the statue of liberty in one shot his claws completely take off a chunk of her hat but seconds later they're stuck in the side and holing all of his body weight.

Conclusion: This is a pretty good movie.  They made some pretty big changes from the comic book but overall it's probably better this way, although slightly disappointing, they make up for it with a good cast, good themes, and a great plot line.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Overall: B+
Cast: B-
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: D
Director: Mathew Vaughn
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I can't lie to you guys, this was probably the best X-Men movie, I saw it twice.  Sure it had some minor plot holes, scientific discrepancies, and a relatively unknown cast, but overall it was put together well and was very entertaining.

The Good: For a large cast made up of relatively unknown actors I was impressed with the acting.  MOST of the supporting characters did well.  I was very skeptical of how James McAvoy would play Professor Xavier, because well, he walks and has hair.  He ended up doing a really good job though, as did Michael Fassbender did a good job playing Magneto, the old man was very bad ass back in his day apparently.  Kevin Bacon... Kevin Bacon?  Why wasn't he advertised as much in the previews for this movie?  He did a fantastic job.  Finally they made an X-Men movie with the actual X-Men costumes, was that so hard?  Although they do make a comment about them being bulletproof then Xavier gets shot but I'm not going to get into that.

My favorite part about this movie was how well they tied together the fictional and the historical.  I thought it was genius how they intertwined the Cuban missile crisis with Shaw and his ability to absorb power.  It also did a good job setting up the humans vs. mutants theme that's prevalent in all of the other movies.  I also liked that they used the SR-71 Blackbird as the X-Men's official plane and throughout the movie I enjoyed seeing how they made almost everything look like it was in the 60's, it was a nice change of pace from the futuristic or modern day superhero movies.

The Bad: Okay, if you absolutely need to cast a ginger, there is only one acceptable circumstance, and that is if you're making a Harry Potter movie and are casting Ron Weasly.  I thought the ginger actor who played Banshee was incredibly annoying.  I also didn't like the guy who played Darwin, his body was so awkward looking it was distracting, he was too buff, but too skinny at the same time.  I didn't like the girl who played Raven either, she was okay in her normal looking form but when she's in her natural blue form I don't think she acts very well.

This movie is very far from being what I would consider accurate to the comic book.  They completely ruined Angel, made Banshee WAY less bad ass, killed off Darwin, and didn't even mention Cyclopes or Dr. Grey.  Not to mention the fact that at the end of X-Men: Origins Professor Xavier is clearly walking, and that was set in 1979, so why does he get paralyzed in this movie?  I also didn't like that they changed the SR-71 Blackbird by giving it enough room for the whole team and by giving it hover capabilities.

The Interesting: I want to have been at the meeting when somebody said "Hey, you know what would be cool?  If we changed Angel from being a really buff tough guy to a teenage stripper that looks like a dragonfly!"  I mean come on, I'm all for using hot girls to attract the teenage boys that make up this movies target audience, but there were enough almost-boobs between Emma Frost and blue Raven to do that.  I just don't get it, either change only one little thing about a character or change everything about a character and give them a different name.  Turning Angel into a teenage dragonfly stripper is like turning Cyclopes into a robot prostitute or something, you just don't do that.

I liked how they did Beast, but did he really need his glasses?  He doesn't wear his glasses in the later movies, and you'd think "enhancing" his DNA would include improving his sight.  He also wore glasses that were almost exactly like Shaw's from the beginning of the movie.  Hugh Jackman had a funny cameo and I was kind of surprised that they used the F bomb in a PG-13 movie, and why did they get Jack Nicholson to play the Captain of the U.S. ship at the end of the movie?


Conclusion: I really liked this movie, and I hope someday I can own it.  If you want to see a great movie that slightly alters history and offers a different perspective on superheroes, this is a great choice.

Superman Returns (2006)

Overall: B
Cast: B
Plot: B-
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Bryan Singer
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Brandon Routh, Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This movie was like a breath of fresh air after the first four Superman movies.  The special effects were finally improved and the science of today wasn't challenged very much so it was much more realistic and MUCH more enjoyable. 

The Good: Kevin. Spacey.  If you had asked me last week if I thought anyone could ever successfully pull off playing Lex Luthor as well as Gene Hackman I would have said it wasn't possible.  Mr. Spacey proved me wrong though, in fact, I actually like his representation of the character better than Gene's, which is saying a lot.  I also liked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane and Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olson, I thought they did a good job staying true to their characters, staying similar to the previous actors who played those parts, and putting a slightly new spin on their respective characters.  Brandon Routh was a great Superman, though I still prefer Christopher Reeve for the part of Clark Kent.  James Marsden did an excellent job in the "nice guy" role as Lois's husband and Tristan Lake Leabu did well as Jason.

They FINALLY fixed the special effects problems and this movie was actually possible to watch without stopping every two seconds to laugh at the cheesy effects.  They kind of pulled a Spider-Man 2 though and they made too much stuff computer generated, but hey it was MUCH better than the old Superman movies in that category so I'm okay with it.  The plot wasn't too bad.  They didn't give Superman a bunch of new crazy powers and they didn't challenge modern science too much, which kept it much more believable that the old movies.  The plot was also fun.  It's been awhile since the public has seen a new Superman movie so I'm glad they stuck with the Superman-Lois Lane romance plot line as well as Lex Luthor, his most famous foe.

The Bad: The most distracting part of the plot is the fact that Superman actually returns.  He shows up in the beginning of the movie by crash landing on his farm.  He didn't leave in the last movie to go anywhere, so I was really confused, at first I thought they may have been retelling his origin story, but his dad wasn't there and he showed up as a man (in a black suit).  By the time they explained where he had been it was halfway through the movie, so that was frustrating.  Also, they end up implying that Jason is Superman's son, not Richards.  What?  When did Superman get it on with Lois?  Not in the last four movies I can tell you that.

I didn't like Frank Langella in this movie or how they chose to portray Perry White.  He wasn't anything like he was in the first four movies which sucked because he was one of my favorite characters.  Instead of being comically mean, disruptive, and eccentric he was just a grouchy old man, not nearly as entertaining.

The Interesting: So never in the last four movies did they mention that Superman gets his power from the sun.  That was Nuclear Man's thing, not Superman's.  Also, not only do they just throw that out there but all of a sudden the sun gave him enough energy to use his powers even though he's got a sliver of kryptonite inside him and he's surrounded by a giant land mass full of the stuff, it just didn't make much sense to me.

So Jason pushes an entire grand piano at a bad guy to save his mom, then he does absolutely nothing amazing for the rest of the movie.  That was lame.  I have to say though that if he all of a sudden discovered his own powers and used them a bunch in the rest of the movie it would have been even lamer, but why bring it up if you're not going to follow through?

Conclusion: Overall I'd recommend this movie over the first four any day.  If you can handle being a little confused and one or two of the characters not being played like they're supposed to then you'll probably like this movie.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Overall: C+
Cast: B
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: C-
Similarity to Comic: C-
Director: Sidney J. Furie
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Rating:PG
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

Hmm.  This movie was about what I expected, nothing more and nothing less.  The plot was a nice surprise, but I was quickly let down by the special effects.  I'm glad this is the last old school Superman movie I'll have to watch, I don't think I could have handled another one.

The Good: Thank God they got Gene Hackman back, he really saved this movie.  The rest of the cast did a good job as usual, although there were fewer supporting characters in this movie and that added up to less humor.  Jackie Cooper had a much smaller role which was disappointing but he still did well and Margot Kidder did a good job as Lois Lane again (and had a much bigger part than she did in the last movie.  Christopher Reeve probably had his best performance as Clark Kent (which was fitting since he helped write the movie) and he did okay as Superman again.  I was really surprised to see Jon Cryer make an appearance and impressed that his character was so unlike 'Alan' from Two and a Half Men which is what I'm so used to seeing him play.

This was probably my favorite plot line f the Superman movies so far.  That has a lot to do with the subject matter though and the fact that this movie is actually making a big statement.  Reeve said that this was his most personal of the Superman films because he felt so strongly about globally disarming nuclear weapons.  Despite a few scientific impossibilities I think this film does a good job discussing the subject and what it would take if it were ever to really be attempted.  It was brilliant coming up with a villain that completely personifies and humanizes the evils of nuclear energy.

The Bad: So... humans can breathe in space now?  I almost turned off the movie when Lacy was being flown into space by Nuclear Man and she was gasping and breathing deeply the whole time.  That was just one of the many scientific facts they butchered while making this movie, others included slow motion space fights, flapping capes in space, talking in space, people flying upwards, and daylight being all over the world at the same time.  There were so many scientific and factual errors it was almost hard to watch.  Not to mention the crappy special effects yet again.  At least there were more explosions in this one.  And for the love of God use more than one shot of Superman flying at the camera!  They used the same shot of him flying for the ENTIRE movie.  I didn't like how in the last movie they totally threw the Superman-Lois lane romance under the bus, and in this movie they went back to it.  If you're going to destroy a plot line, keep it that way, don't try to resurrect it.

One more thing, shoving a giant rock into the top of a volcano won't stop it from erupting, take a science class.

The Interesting: Superman seemed to have learned four or five new powers since the last movie including but not limited to electric feet, super duper strength (enough to move the moon out of orbit), two new languages, and force powers in his eyes.  It was funny how he rebuilt the Great Wall of China just by looking at it, and I guess the humor I found in his dumb new powers and bad special effects made up for a lackluster supporting cast, but just once I want some consistency with this superhero.

I don't understand why Nuclear Man had to roar every time the camera panned to him.  It's like he thought he was the king of the jungle, and let's be honest, it didn't really scare anybody.  It was also kind of hard to tell that Gene Hackman did the voice for Nuclear Man, because Lex Luthor always talks intelligently, and Nuclear Man was always acting like a lion.  My final critique of Nuclear Man is his name, Nuclear Man.  You'd think they could be a little more creative, but I guess we're talking about the same people who created a hero with every imaginable superpower and named him Superman, so it makes sense.

Conclusion: I liked this movie because it is one of the few superhero movies I've seen that makes a relevant point about society and the direction we're going in.  Reeve and Hackman do a good job but its bad special effects yet again keep me from giving it a really good rating.