Les Misérables

***
Dir. Tom Hooper

I went into this film thinking it would be one of my five star reviews, an instant classic that would leave a legacy for generations to come. In 2010, Tom Hooper blew me away with The King's Speech, and I expected no less from this film. However, while this did do justice to the broadway musical and to Victor Hugo's novel for the most part, it was not the epic masterpiece I anticipated.

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, it takes place in the wake of the French Revolution, and is centered around the life of a man named Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman). After spending 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, he undergoes a great change when he is shown mercy by a Bishop he meets. As the years go by and he becomes a respected member of society, he meets a helpless woman named Fantine (Anne Hathaway) who desperately tries to care for her daughter Cosette. As he takes the girl in, all the while pursued by the tyrannical Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), his life plays a pivotal role in a number of other characters. The plot is epic, and I'm not gonna waste time summarizing every aspect of it.

Let me go ahead and say what kept me from giving this film five stars. It's no doubt the music and acting are great, but I expected more from Hooper from a cinematic standpoint. Nearly every shot is a close-up, to the point where it is tedious to watch. While I understand the desire to emphasize the facial expressions of the actors on screen, I also want to see more of the elaborate settings which the production crew has so artfully constructed. This film is just under 3 hours, and there's virtually no variety with the camera angles.

Furthermore, the pacing was very rushed. Most movies today have an average shot length of 1-1.5 seconds, if that. I expected something different from a film like this. There are several really spectacular images, especially at the beginning and end, that I wanted to see more of.

The best aspect was Hooper's choice to use live music rather than pre-recorded. Anne Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" was the most breathtaking scene for me. The way she embodied the character was truly remarkable. Next to her, the best acting was done by Jackman and Eddie Redmayne as Marius. Crowe gives a decent performance, but nowhere near as good as his work in Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind.

The screenplay combined elements from the Broadway Musical script and the novel, and was written beautifully. All 49 songs included, it was definitely one of the highlights of the film. The disappointing aspect was in how it was presented.

While Hooper's version of this classic tale was well done and satisfactory, I wasn't blown away as I thought I'd be. I went in thinking it would be as spectacular as Scorsese's Hugo last year, and found myself not half as moved by the time the credits rolled.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

****
Dir. Peter Jackson
This is a film over 70 years in the making, ever since J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved novel captured the hearts of readers across the globe. Marking the return of LOTR writer/director Peter Jackson, this first installment in the prequel trilogy is a brilliantly composed high fantasy film, bringing viewers back to the emotions and wonder experienced 12 years ago.

Set 60 years before The Lord of the Rings, we open in the land of the Shire, where the overtly conservative hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) dwells, wishing nothing more than to remain there and do nothing out of the ordinary. Yet the character's life turns upside down upon a visit from the old wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), who appoints the unlikely hero for the most daring quest of his life. Joining a band of dwarves under the leadership of the great warrior Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), this small company sets out to reclaim their homeland Erebor from the mighty dragon Smaug.

With trolls, goblins, orcs, and the shadowy Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch) standing in their way, these adventurers must cast all fear aside as they set out on this journey.

Although I had seen some interviews and read a few articles discussing Jackson's plans for expanding the story into a full trilogy, using Tolkien's appendixes as well as LOTR material which they hadn't yet worked with, I was nevertheless hesitant about how they would accomplish this. However, after having seen this film I am very pleased at how Jackson and his co-writers have structured the plot. In this installment, heavy emphasis is put on the White Council: Gandalf, Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and Saruman (Christopher Lee). This subplot is used very effectively, as it foreshadows the return of Sauron and the ultimate fight for Middle-Earth.

As with the first trilogy, this is a visual spectacle. From the elaborate images of the various settings to the magnificent make-up work done on each character, Jackson's innate ability in this area of storytelling is impossible to deny. While the CGI was a bit overused at points, there are few filmmakers who know how to effectively use it.

I was particularly intrigued by the amount of detail dedicated to each dwarf. Unlike LOTR, the various creatures of Middle-Earth are not represented in this company. In order for viewers to be able to distinguish between the dozen dwarves on screen, the producers had to make each costume and make-up component original. This was done beautifully, and there is great depth devoted to the composition of each character and setting.

Needless to say, the tremendous cast added to the film's success. While many of the actors from LOTR returned, the new additions were equally effective in bringing this classic tale to life. Freeman really complimented Ian Holmes' performance, while bringing something fresh to the character.

Furthermore, it was a delight to here the beautifully composed soundtrack by Howard Shore once more. His gaelic theme reflects Jackson's artistic vision just as it did a decade ago.

All in all, this was certainly worth the wait. Fans everywhere flocked to the midnight showing, and I have no doubt were as pleased by the film as I was.

Skyfall

*****
Dir. Sam Mendes

The James Bond franchise has had its fair share of ups and downs over the years, but Sam Mendes' Skyfall is certainly among the best, worthy of comparison to the Sean Connery classics. After the failure of Quantum of Solace, this 23rd installment in the series is a fresh and compelling take on the character for a new generation of fans.

After faking his own death and taking some time off, 007 (Daniel Craig) is called back into action when a band of cyber-terrorists threaten the stability of the MI6 agency. M (Judi Dench) is particularly plagued by these events, as she knows these madmen must be dealt with prior to her retirement. Soon to take her place is Agent Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), a worthy successor to the legendary director.

The villain is Silva (Javier Bardem), a mastermind crime lord and ex-MI6 agent, bent on destroying the organization and killing M. His motivations are not random, but personal as he seeks vengeance on M for having nearly been responsible for his death years earlier. With the help of his partner Eve (Naomi Harris) and tech assistant Q (Ben Wishaw), Bond must stop at nothing to bring this terrorist to justice.

Rather than follow the standard formula for a Bond film, Mendes (Jarhead, Road to Perdition) rejects these conventional elements so as to produce a genuinely intriguing thriller, giving these iconic characters much more depth than their predecessors have allowed. The script was left in the hands of some of the best writers in the business: John Logan (The Aviator, Hugo), Neal Purvis (Casino Royale), and Robert Wade (Die Another Day). With the story containing a great amount of emotional appeal, the dialogue really delved into the internal conflicts of these characters. While there were plenty of explosive action sequences and firefights, this was nonetheless one of the more plot-driven Bond movies.

After his legendary performance in No Country for Old Men, Javier Bardem was perfect for the role of the antagonist here as well. That innate ability he has to strike fear into viewers was well utilized, making the scenes between Silva and Bond all the more intense. His sheer presence is something rarely seen in action movies today. Furthermore, it's no question that Craig is one of the best 007 actors. This being his third time playing the iconic spy, it certainly won't be his last. And because the script was so good, it finally gave him and Dench the opportunity to show younger audiences how great they can act. While Ben Wishaw was slightly annoying, the cast was nevertheless very impressive.

Beyond the story and superb acting, the action scenes also demonstrated a nice deal of originality. Having been influenced by classics such as Apocalypse Now, Mendes uses tactics from previous filmmakers to engage his viewers. This is a fast-paced and gritty installment in the series which will keep you on the edge of your seat up until the very end.

I was never a big Bond fan in the first place, especially because the first ones I saw were the unwatchable Pierce Brosnan disasters. Yet whether you are a hard-core fan or have never seen any of them, go see this movie. Just as Christopher Nolan reinvented Batman, Sam Mendes has done the same with 007.

Lincoln

*****
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Steven Spielberg's latest film is both an excellent portrayal of Abraham Lincoln as a genuinely down-to-Earth historical figure, as well as a remarkable political drama. Based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's novel Team of Rivals, with the screenplay by Tony Kushner, this picture is yet another edition to Spielberg's long list of masterpieces.

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Lincoln, with the film focusing on his last days as President and the extensive debate regarding the 13th Amendment. With his primary supporters being Secretary of State William Seward (David Straithairn) and Representative Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), these abolitionists will stop at nothing to get the bill passed. Tim Blake Nelson and John Hawkes play their chief negotiators, and Jared Harris also has a fair amount of screen time as Ulysses S. Grant. Then there's none other than Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as their son Robert to top off the blockbuster cast.

It's rare that a film like this delves into the politics of the story so extensively and effectively. Spielberg uses the atmosphere of bickering Representatives and Senators to parallel the anguish of the Civil War which rages on as they mindlessly argue. Over the span of two and a half hours, the setting is primarily contained within the White House and the courtroom. With Kushner's script demonstrating such rich dialogue, the manner in which it plays out provides the basis for the film's significance.

For once, Lincoln isn't made out to be some kind of chosen one figure destined to bring justice to a plagued society, but as a man of dignity and humility who was right for the job. Day-Lewis' portrayal of him is believable to say the least, as he willfully presents both the good attributes and flaws of the character. He masters both Lincoln's intentions and motivations, while also exemplifying his various mannerisms and somewhat subtle characteristics. He poises himself slightly hunchbacked, uses parables to get his ideas across, and has that soft voice which makes him so distinguishable. There's no doubt he'll  be in the running for an Oscar.

Needless to say, the supporting roles were equally well casted. Jones and Straithairn embrace the distorted aspects of the time period to display the conflicted spirits of their characters. I also loved how Gordon-Levitt utilized the tensions between Robert and his father in his performance. The young actor is certainly making a name for himself, and this role was very well suited for him. Field's portrayal of Mary also really drove the story, using her part in all this to reflect the manifestation of women's role during this time.

While the pacing is rather slow, this film is nonetheless a stirring portrait of a man who many Americans think they know. If Spielberg's goal was to bring history to life like never before, he certainly accomplished that objective.

Cloud Atlas

****
Dir. Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwerand
To even remotely describe this film, I'm gonna steal from Roger Ebert the Winston Churchill quote which he used in his review: "it is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Cloud Atlas is a remarkably ambitious picture, which delves into an assortment of philosophical concepts by merging a multitude of stories and characters together. Written for the screen and directed by Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, and Tom Tykwerand, and based on the novel by David Mitchell, this is a movie which will be discussed for a long time.

As for the plot, I can tell you that it intertwines 6 stories together; each which take place in different time periods, ranging from the mid 19th Century to the aftermath of the apocalypse. I can tell you that Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, and several others portray multiple characters. Combining speculative science-fiction with European romanticism, this complex and deeply provocative script rejects the standard formula for narrative storytelling; taking audiences inside the lives of a wide range of characters to present its overarching message. The central theme is that everything is connected, incorporating mythological and historical components to express this idea.

What makes this film so daring is the manner in which it is presented. Based on my interpretation, its targeted audience is much more selective than most movies. Rather than strive to entertain, it seeks to invoke the deepest layers of the viewer's consciousness and instill in him or her an inquisitive mentality. The pure intrigue and imagination which it possesses is impossible to deny.

Although the Wachowskis and Tykwerand were each in charge of three of the six stories, the artistic vision which they shared makes the experience of watching it less episodic and more centralized. While it is somewhat easy to distinguish the two different styles, the manner in which they merge into this epic makes it all the more fascinating.

The acting reflects the bold and ambitious attributes of this film. Hanks and the other leads play such a wide range of characters that it's almost impossible to tell who's who. In one scene Hanks is a survivor of the apocalypse residing in the wilderness, and in another he's a Scottish writer/cult hero who achieves fame through murdering one of his critics. There are also several interlocking love stories which the cast executes brilliantly. Between their performances and the incredible work of the make-up artists, the portrayal of these various characters is truly mesmerizing.

There are very few other films which I can relate this one to. While watching it, I was reminded at certain points of the Japanese anime classic Akira (1988, Katsuhiro Otomo); but even then, this contains so many more elements which make it all the more complex and daring. Cloud Atlas is quite a riveting experience, marking itself as a moment in the history of cinema which will leave a legacy for generations to come.

Flight

*****
Dir. Robert Zemeckis
This has been a monumental year for movies. We've seen and are about to see works from Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Tim Burton, Wes Anderson, Tom Hooper, Robert Zemeckis, and many more legendary filmmakers. Flight is by far Zemeckis' most ambitious film, and one of his best. I can't think of a drama over the last decade which has managed to reach this level of character development, rather than rely on a wide range of conventional elements to drive the story.

Denzel Washington plays Whip Whitaker, an alcoholic pilot whose life takes a dramatic turn when his plane crashes. When he wakes up in a hospital a few hours later, he finds out that 96 of the 102 people on board survived, and he is for some time hailed as a hero. Having some time to reflect upon his distorted lifestyle, he decides to try and quit drinking, emptying every bottle of beer and vodka in his house. Yet while this presents an optimistic change for some time, his rehabilitation is short-lived when his Union Director (Bruce Greenwood) and lawyer (Don Cheadle) inform him that a toxicology report indicates that he was severely drunk when the flight took off. Knowing that he could face up to five or more years in prison if he is found guilty, Whitaker is plagued by the stress of the investigation, with alcohol being his only means of escape.

Beyond the superb acting displayed in this film, the script is what makes it worthy of at least one Oscar. There's a subplot involving a romance between Whitaker and an equally addicted woman named Nicole (Kelly Reilly); and the way the writing merges their stories together is remarkably compelling. Both characters strive to put their pasts behind them, inwardly searching for meaning and satisfaction. As Whitaker's relationship with his ex-wife and son, his career, and his view of himself are all broken by his addiction, this one woman plays a pivotal role in finding his true identity.

As if Washington has ever not demonstrated excellent acting, this is quite possibly his best performance. He embodies this character in a manner which is rarely seen in Hollywood. Rather than do his best to bring the script to life, he simply allows Whitaker to tell his story. Greenwood and Cheadle also provide excellent support in their roles. I really liked seeing Washington and Cheadle work together again, after having been in the 90s classic Devil in a Blue Dress. Then there's John Goodman as Whitaker's drug-dealing friend, with his personality providing virtually the only comedic relief in the film.

What makes Zemeckis one of the best filmmakers of all time is his strive to explore new areas of the medium. While known for his classics like Back to the Future and Forrest Gump, he's also produced some very intriguing animated films in recent years such as The Polar Express and Beowulf. This picture is yet another highlight of his career, because it invokes such a deep and provocative response among viewers. As Zemeckis directs with such an artistic vision, audiences are immersed in the lives of these characters. Furthermore, Alan Silvestri's music is as fantastic as his previous works.

A movie which examines subject matter like this in extensive detail is bold to say the least. Flight is an intense and riveting experience. With a tremendous cast, script, and director, this is hands down one of the year's best films.

Disney alligns with Lucasfilm? May the Force be with us all.

Unless you live under a rock, you are aware that Disney just bought Lucasfilm, and that more Star Wars movies will definitely be put into production. With legendary creator George Lucas stepping down, what exactly does this mean for the future of this monumental franchise?

First off, let me say that I really don't think Disney will have virtually any input regarding the actual film production. The company did the same thing when they bought Marvel. They didn't even have their logo in the Avengers credits, because they simply did it as a business move. It's the same thing here, they wanted more money because they don't have enough from the enormous theme park in Orlando, or from their hundreds of movies and thousands of products they market.

That being said, the most important factor in ensuring the success of future films is selecting quality filmmakers to take up Lucas' mantle. Here are my top directors to do the job, in no particular order.

1) Christopher Nolan

2) James Cameron

3) J.J. Abrams

4) Peter Jackson

5) Guillermo del Toro

6) Joss Whedon

7) Kevin Smith

8) Alex Proyas

9) Sam Raimi

10) Steven Spielberg

11) Jon Favreau

12) Bryan Singer

13) Wachowskis


Each of these filmmakers are veterans of the science-fiction/fantasy genre, and each have things to contribute towards the Star Wars universe.

In spite of Nolan's reputation for more gritty films, I wouldn't immediately disregard him from working with a more lighthearted story. Look at Scorsese. While the legendary director is primarily known for his gangster films such as Goodfellas and Gangs of New York, he also made Hugo, which is arguably his best work. Nolan is obviously a genius at constructing quality stories, and worlds of cinematic brilliance. To me, he would definitely be a worthy successor of Lucas.

After Avatar, Cameron has proved his ability to make a remarkable sci-fi epic. The master behind Aliens and Titanic has demonstrated his spirit of imagination and wonder throughout his career. He too is an ideal choice to take on Episodes 7,8, and 9.

The only reason for Abrams not to take on this project is because he already has Star Trek under his belt. He's the Spielberg of the 21st Century, and has every quality that would give him the ability to make the next set of movies within the saga.

Jackson and Del Toro go hand in hand, as they've each made the best fantasy films of all time. Imagine the awe and wonder of Lord of the Rings and Pan's Labyrinth in the Star Wars universe. My nerd senses go crazy just thinking about it.

I wouldn't put Whedon first, but I think he would have something substantial to offer. Avengers is what fans expected for the most part, and Firefly is one of the best shows ever. With a solid script, he could do an effective job.

As for Smith, I had to put him on here since he's such a hard-core fan. While his films are very adult, putting him pretty much on Tarantino's level, he's had so much experience with the comic book world that I'd be interested in seeing what he could come up with.

Proyas is also up in the running to direct a Batman reboot, and is therefore another solid choice here. Dark City demonstrates his innate artistic ability as a storyteller, and he could just as well deliver a wide range of other great sci-fi films.

Between Evil Dead, Spider-Man, and now his upcoming Oz: The Great and Powerful, Raimi has a lot of experience in this genre. He too is a fan favorite, and is definitely worthy of making this list.

After over thirty years of filmmaking, Spielberg continues to inspire a wide range of audiences with his pictures. With the work he and Lucas have done together, there's no reason not to put him on here.

Iron Man is worthy of comparison to Batman Begins in terms of effectively exploring the origins of a superhero. Favreau was no doubt inspired by Lucas in his youth when he saw A New Hope on the big screen. This Marvel veteran is ideal to continue Lucas' legacy.

Singer's made his fair share of mistakes, but X2 is hands down one of the best superhero films, as well as one of the greatest sequels ever made. Superman Returns, while not the best, also demonstrates his potential from a cinematic perspective nonetheless.

Like Nolan and Smith, the Wachowskis would also have to tone things down to be considered. Regardless, they're obviously experts at what they do, and I think they'd have some fun with Jedi.

As far as the story goes, I personally think it should be set in the era of the Old Republic. There's a lot of areas to explore in this time period, and whoever does it has plenty of material to work with between all the books and comics on this subject.

Time will only tell the future of Star Wars, but we can only hope the next series of films don't bomb. In the meantime, I agree with many of my fellow fans in that the original unaltered trilogy should be released on Blu-Ray. I'm sick of watching Greedo fire first and all the CGI garbage in the edited versions. Until we know the outcome of these events, may the Force be with us all.

Argo

*****
Dir. Ben Affleck
Ben Affleck has made some excellent dramas and thrillers over the course of his career, and Argo is no exception. This true story of the joint American-Canadian operation to extract six American diplomats from revolutionary Iran is one of the best historical dramas of the 21st Century.

The film opens with a narrative description of the events which led to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, and then displays a gritty and realistic depiction of the occupation of the U.S. Embassy. In spite of the 52 that spent 444 days in captivity, six escaped and were taken in by the Canadian Ambassador to Iran. When the C.I.A. finds out about this, exfiltration expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) proposes an idea to get them out of the country. His plan is to make the Iranian government think the hostages are Canadian filmmakers there to scout locations for a movie. Once he manages to get approval, he contacts producers Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and John Chambers (John Goodman), friends of his who work for a Hollywood studio. The fake film they schedule to make is Argo, a science-fiction picture set in the Middle East. With the help of this crew and his partner Jack O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston), Mendez embarks on the most daring mission of his life to save these men and women.

This is one of several films Affleck has both directed and starred in; but what makes it even more gripping than ones like 2010's The Town is how it delivers the story with an incredibly emotional appeal, and a tone that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats throughout.

Chris Terrio's script provides the basis for Affleck's artistic direction. In spite of this being a Hollywood thriller, Terrio puts such emphasis on his characters that the action itself proves to be a less significant component of the film's success. While the main story is centered around the mission, there are some great subplots involving the hostages, as well as Mendez's relationship with his wife and son. From the opening sequence to the climactic finale, audiences are immersed in both the characters and the distorted world which they find themselves in.

From a cinematic standpoint, it's quite remarkable how Affleck makes you feel a part of the story. By implementing actual footage from the events depicted into the film, and at appropriate times, history is brought alive. Using primarily low-key lighting and a good number of close-up shots, the dramatic plot-line is made all the more intense. This is a dismal atmosphere in a time of fear and confusion, and Affleck utilizes a wide range of elements to make viewers connect with these characters' lives on an emotional level.

Acting wise, it couldn't have been better casted. Cranston and Affleck embrace their roles with a spirit of fierce determination. There's a scene at the end after the hostages have made it out, where Cranston's display of joy and relief is very reminiscent of Ed Harris' performance in Ron Howard's Apollo 13. Goodman and Arkin also give great performances, as their characters provide the film with a humorous element, while still maintaining serious objectives and motivations. Other noteworthy actors include Victor Garber as Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor, and Kyle Chandler as C.I.A. operative Hamilton Jordan.

All in all, this film is nothing short of breathtaking, presenting itself as a unique and brilliantly constructed thriller, after a series of flashy and unoriginal action movies over the last few years. Two thumbs way up.

DC News: Justice League is in the Works

On June 6, DC and Warner Bros. officially announced that a Justice League film is set to arrive in theaters in the summer of 2015, which is also when Marvel is scheduled to release Avengers 2. If this does indeed happen, it's obvious that DC is going ahead without first making movies for individual superheroes, such as Flash and Wonder Woman. Also, Nolan's Batman will not be featured, making yet another reboot of the character inevitable. I thought I'd share my thoughts on this project, and where I think it'll go.

First off, let me go ahead and share my ideal JLA cast and crew, which can also be found on IMDb.

Directors: Andy and Lana Wachowski; Writers: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof; Producers: Wachowskis, Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas; Cinematographer: Wally Pfister; Composer: Hans Zimmer; Consultants: Bruce W. Timm, Geoff Johns

Now for the cast: Henry Cavill-Clark Kent/Superman, Nathan Fillion-Bruce Wayne/Batman, Terrence Howard-John Stewart/Green Lantern, Michael Fassbender-J'onn J'onzz/Martian Manhunter, Chris Pine-Wally West/The Flash, Kate Beckinsale-Wonder Woman, Elizabeth Banks-Hawkgirl, Brad Pitt-Steve Trevor, Angela Bassett-Amanda Waller, Mark Hamill-Voice of Darkseid 

Those are my picks, but who knows how close it'll be to the finished product. While I am a hard core DC fan, I have plenty of concerns as to how they're gonna handle this project. The reason behind the success of Avengers (say what you want about it as a movie, but it did the characters justice) is because Marvel had it in mind from the beginning. There have been so many separate franchises within the DC cinematic universe that it will be difficult to culminate each one into a single film, especially for viewers outside the comic book world.

Despite the enormous impact and success of Nolan's Batman trilogy, the character will have to be reinvented in order to be incorporated into a world of aliens and monsters beyond Gotham. Whoever is given the task of composing this film's script will need to keep this in mind, so as to avoid duplicating Nolan's version.

Choosing which characters to include is another vital aspect of bringing JLA to the big screen. There are as many JLA heroes in the comics as there are Avengers, if not more. I picked these seven not only because they're the main force in the animated series, but because they're the best. This team has a great mix of personalities, powers, and each play a pivotal role in each other's stories. Once they are used, an assortment of others can be featured in sequels.

As far as the plot goes, I'm hoping DC will make this a trilogy, so long as the first installment proves successful. I would imagine an apocalyptic war with Darkseid to initially unite the team. If you look at the animated series and the New 52 comics, you'll see Batman investigating C.A.D.M.U.S. closely prior to an invasion of Earth, and Martian Manhunter's origin linked to these events. Get a solid writer or two on board and we can expect a good epic to launch the series.

My ideal title for a sequel would be JLA: Project C.A.D.M.U.S., which will document Amanda Waller's strive to end the ever-growing superhero organization, along with Lex Luthor's rise to becoming President (whom I think should be portrayed by Timothy Olyphant.)

Other heroes and villains I feel should come about in sequels would be Green Arrow (Norman Reedus), Red Tornado (Jon Hamm), The Atom (Ben Affleck), Dr. Fate (Laurence Fishburne), Black Canary (Morena Baccarin), Deathstroke (Liev Schreiber), Solomon Grundy (Ron Perlman), and Vandall Savage (Javier Bardem).

Justice League will be one of the biggest comic book films of all time, and has the potential of being one of the best. If done right, it will be gritty, compelling, and contain a wide range of characters. In order for this to happen, each cast and crew member must be carefully selected; and the script needs to be a knockout.

Memento (2000)

*****
Dir. Christopher Nolan
Before The Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception, Christopher Nolan was critically acclaimed for his independent films. These mind-boggling thrillers and film noir pictures included Following (1998), Insomnia (2002), and Memento (2000).

Memento is the story of a widower named Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), who suffers from short-term memory loss, and uses a system of notes and tattoos to hunt down his wife's murderer. Limited by his condition, he recruits the aid of a young woman named Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), and a crooked cop Teddy Gammel (Joe Pantaliano). As he pursues his detective life, we see another plot line involving one of his former clients when he was an insurance agent, who also carries the burden of this disability. While this story is presented to viewers in chronological order, Leonard's is told backwards. As more and more pieces of the puzzle are displayed as the film progresses, they each culminate into a climactic finale which continues to mesmerize audiences over a decade after its release.

The most intriguing aspect of this film is the psychological impact it has on one's mind. Not only does Nolan tell a truly remarkable and unique story, but his ability as a director allows him to penetrate the deepest layers of the viewer's consciousness. His script, based on his brother Jonathan's short story, is a brilliantly composed piece of writing. While perplexing, it contains excellent characterization and well formulated dialogue. The construction of the plot departs from the standard Hollywood format, preventing viewers from guessing what will happen next, and instead allowing them to be fully captivated.

Pearce, Moss, Pantaliano, and every other cast member give terrific performances. Pearce presents his character as emotionally conflicted and for the most part alienated from society, but not unrealistic. Moss and Pantaliano are both dynamic and unique in portraying their characters, and how they relate to others. The internal and external conflicts are well balanced, effectively used, and very original.

This is a film which makes you think, experience, and interact with an assortment of characters and conflicts. Nolan's ability to incorporate a wide range of psychological themes into his movies, and use them effectively, is what makes him one of the best directors of the 21st Century.

Note: This and the last film I reviewed on here are both available to stream on Netflix.

My IMDb Lists

Follow this link to see all the lists I've compiled on IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur36611787/lists

These range from various titles and directors which I feel deserve recognition.

The Next Three Days (2010)

**** 
Dir. Paul Haggis
I saw this film when it first came out, and forgot how good it was until I watched it again on Netflix earlier today. Writer/director Paul Haggis (Crash) delivers a crime drama with a clever and intriguing plotline in The Next Three Days, moreso than a number of other modern thrillers have been able to achieve.

The story is centered around an English teacher named John Brennan (Russell Crowe), whose life is turned upside down when his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is arrested for the murder of her boss. Left to care for their son by himself, John longs for his family to be reunited. Positive of Lara's innocence, this upstanding middle-class citizen will use any means necessary to liberate his beloved wife from a lifetime behind bars.

Upon seeking the advice of Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson), an escape artist turned author, he is given this warning prior to embarking on this mission:"But before you do anything, you have to ask yourself if you can do it. Can you forget about ever seeing your parents again? Can you kill a guard? Leave your kid at a gas station? Push some nice old lady to the ground just because she gets between you and the door? Because to do this thing, that's who you have to become. And if you can't, don't start, 'cause you'll just get someone killed."  With these words in mind, he trades his life for that of a vigilante, risking everything he has left to save Lara. 

Haggis is a master storyteller, with a style of filmmaking that is more independent than many other directors of this genre. This is a thriller with great depth to its characters, and a story much less outlandish than a number of other crime dramas. Not only are we able to sympathize with the conflicting emotions of Brennan, but viewers also continually gain insight into his motivations as the film progresses. The way Haggis develops the relationship between him and his son is brilliant, presenting numerous psychological themes throughout. 

There is also an excellent display of cinematography in this picture to enhance the story. We see multiple close-up shots, which allow us to examine the emotional state of each character, and put less emphasis on the overall action. Aspects like these are the mark of a great filmmaker. Rather than follow the standard structure for a Hollywood thriller, Haggis' style offers a unique approach which focuses more on story and character development than anything else. The pacing is just right, and Danny Elfman's score correlates well with the mood. 

Other noteworthy thrillers I've seen in recent years include Limitless (Neil Burger, 2011), Source Code (Duncan Jones, 2011), and Deja Vu (Tony Scott, 2006). What stands out about The Next Three Days is Haggis' effective use of characterization and film noir elements, all which culminate into a unique and intriguing story which keep viewers engaged up until the very end.

The Importance of Fiction

With garbage franchises like Twilight and The Hunger Games, I feel that the nature of fictitious novels and films is steadily declining as a result of society's poor taste and low expectations for this genre. Over the last couple weeks at NCSU, I've engaged in some very compelling discussions in class regarding this subject.

In order to understand the significance of fiction, we must first establish a clear and precise definition for it. Is fiction nothing more than made-up tales presented through the minds of imaginary characters, allowing us to escape from the constraints of reality? Or does this medium of storytelling serve a greater purpose?

The first novel we've been reading in Studies in Fiction is Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, a literary piece which has stood the test of time as one of the most definitive works in this genre. However, in spite of its legacy, this book is filled with numerous inconsistencies. There are time gaps, unnecessary repetitions, and characterization choices which leave readers puzzled. These things make us wonder exactly what intentions Defoe had when he wrote it. We know from the preface that he used Crusoe's character to project his ideas about the world and the direction of society; which to me should be the goal of every great writer.

At the time when Robinson Crusoe was written, the very concept of a fictional novel was a radical concept in it of itself. Although we as humans have always had an innate desire for storytelling, this particular medium had not yet developed. Furthermore, novels acquired just as much controversy as movies would at the birth of the film industry. The risk Defoe and other writers took at this time, and still take today, points to the fact that fiction is an important genre which allows us to reflect upon the questions that we all long to answer.

Let's look at one of my favorite pieces of fiction in both literature and cinema: Cormac McCarthy's best-selling novel No Country For Old Men, adapted into an Academy Award Winning film by Joel and Ethan Coen. Not only is this story a grotesquely intriguing tale of vengeance and mystery, but the manner in which it is presented enables us to examine the depths of our capacity for evil.

A common aspect of fiction is the idea that there are two sides to us all, which is explored in McCarthy's novel and the Coen Brothers' film. The moral implications of us possessing a split personality can be portrayed in numerous ways, as seen throughout a multitude of fictitious works. Because fiction has such an appeal to a wide range of audiences, writers and filmmakers are able to use it as a gateway to express their ideas regarding the nature of good and evil, along with a variety of other subjects.

My concern is that because so much of our society is easily wooed by anything (Hunger Games has the linguistic level of a 12 year-old), I'm afraid people fail to recognize the power of this genre. Too many make a conscious decision to turn their minds off when going to the movies or reading books, which lowers the bar for quality fiction.

Hence, my hope is that writers won't allow society's idea of good fantasy (crappy vampire romance), and good science fiction (a poorly written futuristic Lord of the Flies), to influence them.

Season Finale of Falling Skies

Sorry I'm a week late, but I wanted to comment on season two of this TNT series. Just to give you a heads up, you kinda have to be a fan of the show in order to really understand my points in this post.

First off, I wanna say how epic this season was; and how there were so many components which culminated together in an effective manner to develop the story. The states of both each character and of the 2nd Mass as a whole have changed dramatically since the show began. Karen's gone bad, Ben's off on his own, Matt's growing up, Tom and Anne are about to bring a kid into this broken world, and many members of the resistance have fallen. It's a wonder why I love this show.

Before I delve into various aspects of the plot and character relationships, let me go ahead and share my thoughts regarding the cliffhanger at the end of the last episode.

Is this new alien a friend or foe? Personally, I have no doubt that this newcomer is seeking to align with the humans. Let's look at what takes place right before its arrival. Tom and Captain Weaver assemble a team to launch an assault on the Overlord, and destroy a weapon which the Rebel Skitters informed them of. The mission was successful, and whatever species' the weapon was targeting are now safe. Given that we were unaware of there being alien life forms with intentions of helping the 2nd Mass until this season, I see no reason not to expand on this plotline.

Furthermore, if this alien was an enemy of the resistance, it wouldn't have hesitated to attack the base at Charleston as soon as it encountered the humans. We've seen that the antagonists of this story are ruthless war-mongerers with virtually no diplomatic principles. I'm betting this character is a fugitive of the Overlord's government, whose species was saved because of the 2nd Mass' heroic feat.

That being said, let's look at a few other aspects of this climactic season.

One of the most intriguing elements of the last few episodes has been watching Ben's character develop. His internal struggle is one of the most pivotal conflicts in the series, as it reflects many of the motifs presented. Still traumatized by his imprisonement and being harnessed by the Skitters, he sees himself as a danger to the 2nd Mass altogether. His relationships are strained, particularly his with Hal; and he feels quite lost in the search for his identity. Both the writers and Connor Jessup's performance have really complimented one another in exploring the depths of this troubled adolescent.

While it was a bit predictable, I'm glad Remi Aubuchon decided to have Anne get pregnant at the series finale. The very idea of bringing a kid into this apocalyptic society is a frightening concept in it of itself, especially because Tom has no intentions of staying in Charleston and ceasing to fight. Now that he has a fourth child on the way, I have no doubt every component of his character will be tested in season three. Although raising this child will be met with many challenges, it nevertheless sheds some light into the story. The fact that Tom and Anne have managed to find love among one another is an important factor. Perhaps this event is an opportunity to establish a new life in the midst of so much darkness.

There were many other things about this season which I loved as well. The concept of Charleston was introduced at just the right time, and there was a great build-up to it before the resistance finally reached the colony. I liked how they incorporated a lot of 1984 type themes into the last two episodes, and the tensions among ManChester's government and the 2nd Mass made the conflict all the more intense (especially since Pope refused to listen to anyone).

It was sad to see some great characters go, but there deaths served a significant purpose towards the story nonetheless. Jimmy, Jamal, and Dai were all strong warriors who died honorably. And if you watch any other shows or movies like this, you know they won't be the last.

I could ramble about this series all day long, but these are the highlights of what I wanted to say. Even though we do have to wait until next summer for season three, I think it'll definitely be worth the wait. Until then, keep the resistance strong.

The Big Heat (1953)

*****
Dir. Fritz Lang
Well, I've just started classes at NCSU, so I decided to review the first full-length movie we watched in Intro to Film. The Big Heat is a 1953 film noir directed by Fritz Lang. With a compelling plotline and effective uses of lighting and cinematography, this picture is worthy of comparison to John Huston's classic The Maltese Falcon (1941).

Following the structure of films within this genre, Lang opens with a grotesque suicide scene. Receiving a call that one of his colleagues has shot himself, Detective Sgt. Dave Bannion (Glenn Ford) embarks on an investigation that will challenge him with matters of life and death. As the clean-shaven, heroic figure finds himself on the trail of a vicious band of gangsters whom he suspects to have power over other officers inside the force, he puts both himself and his wife and daughter in grave danger. When his wife is killed by a bomb which was intended for him, the once admirable Detective becomes the very manifestation of vengeance. Driven by his unquenchable thirst, he and the lead gangster's spurned girlfriend Debby Marsh (Gloria Grahame) will use any means necessary in order to discover the truth underlying these mysterious events.

As with other Fritz Lang films, the central conflict in this story is more internal than external. Although there are characters that are clear representations of good and evil, the primary antagonist lies within Bannion. In the exposition, he is depicted as the ideal model of justice and dignity in a world of corruption. Yet upon suffering the death of his beloved wife, he falls down the path of the tragic hero. Lang displays an excellent use of tactics in portraying the different stages of this character's development. Not only does the lighting correlate well with the tone of Sydney Boehm's script, but elements such as these are used to signify key components of human nature.

This psychological approach helps viewers understand Lang's underlying message in this film: we are all corruptible. The more we think of ourselves as naturally good people, the more we neglect examples in history (the Nuremberg Trials) and in scientific theory (the Stanley Milgram Experiment), which contradict this New Age philosophy.

Fritz Lang was one of the best Filmmakers of his time, and his work in this particular genre was a fundamental aspect of his career. Not only is The Big Heat an excellent crime drama, but it is a film noir which will challenge one's perception of society.

The Bourne Legacy

*
Dir. Tony Gilroy
To reiterate the point of my last post, only make a sequel if the story's worth telling. The central problem with this fourth installment in the popular Bourne franchise is that the plot is both undeveloped and utterly pointless.

Writer/director Tony Gilroy (writer of the previous films and the director of Michael Clayton) tells a story in The Bourne Legacy that's very dull for an action movie, has numerous gaps that leave viewers puzzled, and lacks the essence of the Doug Liman/Paul Greengrass pictures. We open in a remote part of Alaska where Special Ops Agent Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) has isolated himself for some time. He is linked to Treadstone (the agency which Jason Bourne is a product of), but the film does such a poor job of explaining his background and intentions, that I honestly can't describe each aspect of the plot. The main Government Agent in charge of investigating Cross and hunting him down is retired Col. Eric Bryer (Edward Norton), a character much less developed than David Straithairn's Noah Vosen in Bourne Ultimatum (this is no reflection on Norton's performance, just based on Gilroy's script). There are so many flaws within the construction of the plot that I really can't describe it in a clear and precise manner.

Beyond a disorganized and uninteresting script, this film lacks many of the elements which make the previous ones so compelling. There's virtually no emotional intrigue and the characters are very undeveloped. Although Renner and Norton are pretty effective, their performances are overshadowed by everything that make this movie a mess. Even the action scenes dragged on and displayed little to no originality.

I really do think Gilroy has a lot to offer as a filmmaker, as dictated by his previous works. However, this was definitely the low point of his career, and it's a shame they didn't conclude the series with the previous installment.

Rambling About Sequels

Well, since there isn't much out right now other than the films I've already seen (no, I'm not seeing Total Recall), I decided to do a post about something Hollywood just can't do enough of: sequels. While there's nothing wrong with building off one movie and expanding it into a broader story, you can only go so far. There's a time when certain filmmakers need to just put stop signs in front of them, and move on to other characters. Seriously, how much can you possibly say about Jack Sparrow or Indiana Jones (I rarely criticize you Spielberg, but it's pretty dumb to make a fourth film when the title of the third is The Last Crusade).

On that note, the most important thing to remember when formulating any story, is that each aspect must have a designated purpose. If a writer or filmmaker has no reason to tell a certain part of a character's story, why make a movie about it? With that, let's look at three of my favorite filmmakers who really know how to make a good sequel: Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro.

After having seen the spellbinding conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises, many fans are still hoping for Nolan to continue his Batman franchise, even though he's said he's done. Those in favor of another sequel argue that he could tell about John Blake as Robin, and possibly feature some of the villains he wasn't able to include in the previous films. Yet no matter what percentage of moviegoers support this, I am with Nolan on this being the conclusion. He's said what he's needed to say about the character, and there's no reason to continue. Plus, there will always be plenty more Batman comics and films by other writers and directors in the years to come.

Recently, I read a book entitled The Art and Making of the Dark Knight Trilogy, which examines the process by which Nolan and his crew used to develop this epic series. It was interesting to learn that when he and screenwriter David S. Goyer first began working on the project, they weren't even sure if they were going to make one sequel to Batman Begins. As the story progressed, they discovered more ways to explore the depths of the character, and that was where The Dark Knight began. One of the reasons Michael Bay is one of the worst filmmakers in the industry is because there's no depth to his characters, making the sequels to his movies progressively more pathetic. What makes Nolan's Batman such an iconic aspect of pop-culture is that he does a fantastic job of showing how the character develops; and eventually gets to a point where he fulfills the promise he made on the graves of his parents, and is able to move on. So in response to fans itching for yet another installment in this franchise, I say: what more is there to tell?

Let's move on to the legendary director of the LOTR trilogy, and the 2005 King Kong. It was recently announced that Peter Jackson will be making a third Hobbit film, set to release in the summer of 2014. First off, it's more an adaptation of other works within the Tolkien universe. The Hobbit itself is being split into two films: An Unexpected Journey (this December), and There and Back Again (December 2013). From what I know, the third installment will have more to do with the origins of Middle-Earth, filling in some of the gaps from the previous stories. Again, here you have a legitimate reason to make this movie. One, if Peter Jackson deems a story worth telling, it probably is; and two, this will provide fans with a more in-depth analysis of Bilbo's character.

It's important to remember that even Blockbusters have the power to produce thought provoking questions in the viewer's mind regarding his or her perception of the world. All of Jackson's films do this in an extraordinary manner, allowing us to reflect upon the nature of good and evil, and how it impacts us personally.

Last but not least, Mexican writer/director Guillermo del Toro is an excellent filmmaker to look at in regards to this subject. Having done remarkable original pictures such as Pan's Labyrinth, and comic book adaptations like Hellboy, he too uses a very artistic approach to all of his movies. Looking at Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, there are many parallels between this film and Pan's Labyrinth in terms of style and art direction. What's great about this sequel is that it gives the character even more depth than the first installment in the series, and really utilizes many aspects of classic mythology to formulate the story. I look forward to seeing more del Toro films in the future, and I am certainly excited to examine his work on The Hobbit this December.

Film is a medium which has virtually limitless potential, and should not be limited to flashy sequels. A movie should only be made if there's a story worth telling. That said, it's really time for Indiana Jones and John McClane to move into a retirement home.

The Dark Knight Rises

****
Dir. Christopher Nolan
With Batman Begins and The Dark Knight setting such high standards for the nature of superhero films, Christopher Nolan had a great deal to live up to in this third and final installment of his Batman trilogy. With a plot line that will keep viewers fully captivated for all two and a half hours of the movie, The Dark Knight Rises is the epic conclusion fans have been waiting for.

The story takes place exactly eight years after the conclusion of the previous film, in which Gotham City has not seen Batman since the night of Harvey Dent's death. An aging Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has barely stepped outside his manor in all this time, all the while lamenting over his long lost love Rachel Dawes. His state of depression has brought about turmoil for Wayne Enterprises, as the once successful company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Among those concerned for this troubled soul is his good and faithful butler Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine), and his business partner and friend Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman).

Although the mafia has ceased to continue in Gotham, an evil far greater than organized crime spells certain doom for Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman); whom, abandoned by his wife and children, must make his stand against the sadistic mercenary known as Bane (Tom Hardy). When the Police realize how unstoppable this madman truly is, the young Captain John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), whom having discovered the Dark Knight's identity long ago, calls upon the crippled old Bruce Wayne to take up the mantle of Batman once more. The Caped Crusader is also introduced to the sly and intriguing Cat Burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), as well as the mysterious and seductive Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).

Having never faced an enemy as deadly and horrific as this, and being the only one able to save Gotham from this terrorist, Batman must cast all fear aside in order to fulfill the promise he made to his parents all those years ago.

Although the film does have its flaws, nothing terribly significant but present nonetheless, what stands out is the epic components which are so brilliantly executed. Not only does Nolan provide viewers with a series of perfectly implemented twists and turns in the plot, but the manner in which he presents the story produces such a great emotional intrigue. By connecting all the dots and loose ends of the previous films, his work here leaves audiences mesmerized with a deeper understanding of the character's complexities. The only minor spoiler I'll give here is that Ra's al-Ghul (Liam Neeson) does make an appearance, and that the way in which his and Batman's stories are intertwined play a crucial role in the hero's development.

Another great aspect of the film was the performances of Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway. After the late Heath Ledger's iconic Joker performance in 2008, it was quite a challenge to pick a worthy successor to be this film's antagonist. Hardy's Bane both exemplified the sheer terror which the character possesses, while also bringing to light the depths of his internal conflicts. His Vader-like voice sends chills down one's spine, as it reflects the fear which he instills in his victims. Hathaway's Catwoman also resembled the classic essence of the character, while at the same time she gives her own touch which is fresh and compelling. Her mannerisms and expressions make audiences as entranced by her as Batman.

As far as my criticisms, I did feel there were moments here and there in Christopher and Jonathan Nolan's script that contained some unnatural dialogue. Batman Begins is still my favorite of the three (as well as the best superhero film in my opinion), partly because the script flows so well, and it delves into each component of the hero's journey. Although the meat of this one was fantastic, the mood at the beginning felt a little weird. Then again, this is a very different kind of Batman film, and the stakes are higher than ever here.

The primary graphic novels Nolan used as source material for this one included Knightfall and The Dark Knight Returns, and there were many sequences taken straight from them. Beyond making this series so heavily based on the comics, Nolan has been able to capture the essence of the film noir aspect of the character's story in a much more effective manner than his predecessors.

Few other films of this genre can be compared with this one in terms of making such an emotional impact on viewers across the globe. After seven years of developing this trilogy, Christopher Nolan has redefined the Batman legacy in a way that can never be quite duplicated or surpassed. The Dark Knight Rises is a triumphant epic that will change your very perception of the character of Batman.

Blockbuster Films to Look Forward To

With the 2012 San Diego Comic Con having just concluded, and the release of The Dark Knight Rises just days away, moviegoers have many exciting things to look forward to over the next year. We're now six months away from The Hobbit, a year from the Superman reboot, and Iron Man 3 is currently in production. I thought I'd share my thoughts on these projects and more, and comment on their significance.

From the visionary director of The Lord of the Rings and King Kong, Peter Jackson returns to make The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which will arrive in theatres on December 14. This is a film which countless fans have been waiting years for, based on the beloved novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. Starring Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins), Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Billy Connolly (Dain Ironfoot), Richard Armitage (Thorin Oakenshield), and Andy Serkis (Gollum), this prequel to LOTR tells Bilbo's exciting adventure with Gandalf and a band of dwarves, and of how he comes to find the Ring.

With Jackson's previous works being virtually flawless, his innate artistic ability for storytelling makes this picture a guaranteed success. Furthermore, the equally gifted filmmaker Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy) has collaborated with Jackson on the film's screenplay. At the Comic Con, over twelve minutes of footage were released for viewing pleasure, and fans were quite pleased. I know of at least one character in the film not found in the Tolkien universe, but aside from this there don't seem to be any major liberties from the source material. Either way, the trailer and online footage reveal how visually spectacular this film will be; and I feel that Martin Freeman will really compliment Ian Holm's performance in LOTR, while bringing something fresh and compelling to Bilbo's character.

Another exciting upcoming fantasy film is Oz: The Great and Powerful, set to release next Spring. Director Sam Raimi (The Spider-Man Trilogy) tells the story of the origins of the Wizard himself, portrayed by James Franco, and how he came to the land of Oz. The legendary Oz creator L. Frank Baum wrote over 14 Oz novels and short stories, many which influenced the classic 1939 film and Wicked, both the book and musical.

A trailer for this movie was released just a few days ago, and it reveals the cinematic brilliance and imaginative spirit presented in Raimi's previous films. Producer Joe Roth (Alice in Wonderland, Snow White and the Huntsman) is also a very good choice, as I think his vision will really compliment Raimi's very effectively. Having seen Wicked on Broadway, Oz fans have seen hints of the Wizard's origin, but this film will explore his story in much greater depth. Other cast members include Mila Kunis (Theodora), Rachel Weisz (Evanora), and Michelle Williams (Glinda). So as long as Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire's script proves to be effective, I think this film will be an excellent addition to the Oz legacy.

Now for the Superman reboot, Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen). Now that it's been over 30 years since Richard Donner's classic 1978 film, and Nolan's Batman trilogy is at an end, it's time for DC to return to Krypton, and hopefully open up enough doors for a Justice League movie.

I have a few concerns regarding the cast, but I definitely approve of the production team (even though I wish Nolan was directing). Producers include Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, and Emma Thomas; and the screenplay is by Nolan and David S. Goyer. This trilogy will be based heavily upon Red Son and The Death of Superman, along with other more modern Superman graphic novels. Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's Superman For All Seasons is a particular favorite of mine. Snyder says he approached this project as if this was the first Superman film ever made, setting high goals and really seeking to capture the essence of the character's story in a way like never before. Hans Zimmer is also certainly a worthy composer to live up to John Williams' iconic score in the original.

The film will star Henry Cavill (Clark Kent/Superman), Russell Crowe (Jor-El), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Jadin Gould (Lana Lang), and Michael Shannon (General Zod). While Crowe and Fishburne are great actors, I don't really see them as the characters they're portraying here. Crowe is best in his action hero roles. I'm having trouble envisioning him as the elderly father/mentor figure from another world. And as far as Fishburne playing White, I'm not racist or anything, but I don't see the need in changing a well known character's race. I'd say the same thing if they made John Stewart white in a Green Lantern film. To me, someone like Ed Asner would be a great choice to play White, which he actually did in an animated film. Aside from that, I don't know much about Cavill, but he seems to look the part okay. I kinda wish Brandon Routh hadn't wasted his time with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, and been available now. Overall, I think this series has a lot of potential so long as Snyder's vision is consistent with that of both fans and everyone at DC.

As far as the sequel to J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, little information is available at this time. Abrams is definitely returning to direct, with screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Damon Lindelof; and it is rumored that Khan will be the villain. I've read some of the new comics, which are primarily based on episodes from the original series. With the 2009 film having such an appeal to hard core fans as well as those new to the characters, I have no doubt this film will be just as fantastic.

That's it for now. I look forward to reviewing each of these films, and I will keep my readers updated on all the latest movie news. Until then, Live Long and Prosper my friends.

Reflections

Well, I've had quite a lot going on in my life the last few months, so I'd thought I'd reflect on some of the major events, and discuss how they've helped me grow as a writer. In March I went to New York City with my parents to celebrate my high school graduation, and saw "Phantom of the Opera" and "Wicked" on Broadway. I graduated in June, and am now getting ready to study at NC State in the fall.

New York was easily one of the best trips I've ever taken, and I have done a good bit of travelling around the country. We left early Friday morning to see Phantom that night. It was about a nine hour drive, so we arrived at our hotel in Times Square at about 3:00 in the afternoon. The first place we ate at was John's Pizza, a gourmet restaurant that trampled any slice I'd ever had before. Bubba Gump Shrimp was the next best meal, which we had the next day for lunch. I especially liked the Forrest Gump merchandise and trivia they had.

Both shows were indescribable, but I would have to say Phantom was my favorite. Andrew Lloyd Webber's vision is what makes this the longest running show on Broadway. My Dad and I sat in the fifth row, which made it feel like we were a part of the story as we were surrounded by dazzling visual effects. Hugh Panaro portrayed the Phantom, and he was perhaps the best tenor I've ever heard sing. The entire ensemble was fantastic, especially for theatre goers like myself, and I was absolutely mesmerized by the story.

We then saw Wicked the next night. Having at last seen the hit musical, I will now never watch Wizard of Oz the same again. This stirring prequel to the timeless classic has swept audiences everywhere with it's mind-boggling technical aspects and incredible songs. I now find myself listening to the soundtrack almost weekly. From the elaborate costuming and set designs, to the stirring performances, this show has come to set new standards within the world of musical theatre.

We also visited the Wax Museum in Times Square, the M&M store, the Empire State Building, and went to Times Square Church on Palm Sunday. All in all, I couldn't of asked for a better way to celebrate graduation, and the atmosphere was perfect. I remember imagining myself making a movie there as I was looking out the window of a cafe.

Graduation snuck up on all of us, and it was quite difficult saying goodbye to close friends as we thought about all our times together. Nevertheless, I am very excited about NC State, and just had orientation earlier this week. I plan to study English with a concentration in Creative Writing and Film Studies. My ultimate goal is to write and produce movies, but I'd also like to teach and critique. I actually bought a Roger Ebert book while I was in New York which has been very beneficial in terms of my writing. At orientation, I really enjoyed meeting several other Freshmen in my department, as we each shared similar interests. On the second day we registered for 1st semester classes, and I was able to get into both Intro to Film and Studies in Fiction. I am certainly looking forward to my time at the University, and this blog has been a great way for me to practice my skills which will be vital for my career.

I also went to some really cool events at my local Barnes & Noble a few weeks ago. One was a screenwriting group which meets there monthly on Monday nights. There were about eight other people in attendance, and we had a great time exchanging scripts with one another and giving feedback. There was one guy who teaches at Appalachian, who brought a 60 page teleplay for a superhero show he had been working on. This was a really compelling plot line, and I certainly learned a lot in that short amount of time.

The next night I went back for a discussion panel with a group of Science Fiction and Fantasy authors. These included David Drake (Lord of the Isles) and James Maxey (Dragonseed). I had the pleasure of asking them questions and learning about how they approach the craft. Other audience members were equally intrigued, and I am very glad to have made it.

The rest of the summer should be pretty good as well. I'm leaving for Surfside beach next Saturday with my family, and will be doing some work over at Raleigh Little Theatre after that. I'll have just enough time before I leave to do a write-up of Dark Knight Rises as I'm going to the midnight showing.

I have a bit of a health issue to quarrel with over the next few months, as my doctor informed me that I have some mucus within my chest. This means I have to go from one PT session a day to four (each twenty minutes). It's not as serious as it sounds, but when you're physically disabled you can't be too careful. That being said, I spend a lot of time at home reading and writing.

I apologize for this being such a lengthy post, but I thought it appropriate to provide some updates on what's going on in my life since I've now had this blog for a year. I'm excited to see what the Lord has in store for my future.

The Amazing Spider-Man

****
Dir. Marc Webb

Let me start by saying that I've known about this project for about two years, and was adamantly opposed to it for quite some time. Even though Spider-Man 3 was an abomination, why reboot the franchise when it's barely been a decade since the original? However, having now seen the film I was rather impressed.

Director Marc Webb sheds a different light on the web-slinging superhero than the Sam Raimi version; and I might add one that is more accurate to the original comics. This story opens with the young Peter Parker being abandoned by his parents, and left with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). As a teenager, Peter (Andrew Garfield) suffers from the emotionally unresolved conflicts he carries with him. Seeking to discover the truth about his parents, he gathers every last item in his house he can find; which leads him to his father's former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who now works for Oscorp. As Connors works on a biogenetic formula designed to enhance human potential, Parker's curiosity leads him to a lab within Oscorp where he is bitten by the radioactive spider which changes his life.

When he first discovers his powers, he uses them for mischief and such, all the while his mind is occupied by the attractive and intelligent Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone), a student of Connors. Yet when Ben Parker is murdered (the sequence is reminiscent of that in the Sam Raimi film, but still different), Peter transforms into the Amazing Spider-Man. As he begins his crime-fighting career, he instantly makes enemies with Gwen's father Police Captain Stacey (Denis Leary), who will stop at nothing to bring the vigilante to justice. Not long after, Connors becomes The Lizard, wreaking havoc upon the streets of New York. Being the only one who can stop this monster, Spider-Man must use every bit of strength within him to prove that his city needs him.

With a very well composed script, and terrific visual effects, this film certainly exceeded my expectations. Webb made excellent use of the lighting and cinematography to produce this dark atmosphere, which reflected the internal conflicts of Peter's character. The pacing was just right, and it was formatted so as to follow the structure of a good epic. Watching the hero progress from a lost and conflicted adolescent to a fearless and noble man was very intriguing. I especially liked how the second to last scene takes place in an English class, where the teacher is lecturing on structuring fiction. Webb used many elements and motifs which broke away from the standard structure for a summer blockbuster. Hence, this was a fresh and compelling plot line with great characterization, and effects which are worthy of comparison to visionaries such as James Cameron and Christopher Nolan.

Brave

****
Dir. Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell
I think it's safe to say that it's pretty much impossible for Pixar to make a bad film. This is just a group of people who have a genuine passion for the art, and who devote themselves to producing great movies. Their latest picture is Brave, a comedic fantasy that features an adventure seeking Princess who desires nothing more than to abandon the life her pompous mother has made for her. With three directors: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, and Steve Purcell; and four screenwriters: Brenda Chapman, Irene Micchi, Mark Andrews, and Steve Purcell; this film indeed does justice to Pixar's previous works.

This is an original and compelling story (not the best but fair) that appeals to a wide range of audiences. Merida (Kelly MacDonald) wishes to change her fate when her mother Elinor (Emma Thompson) arranges for the lords of the neighboring clans to compete for her hand in marriage. Her father Fergus (Billy Connolly) is the ruler of an ancient kingdom, seeking to unite the surrounding territories. When Merida attempts to escape from this, she ventures into a nearby forest and encounters a mysterious witch (Julie Walters), who promises the Princess she can change her fate. Yet when Merida uses the potion given to her by the witch, it causes her mother to experience a bizzarre transformation which they have but forty-eight hours to revoke. Their journey enables them to discover things about one another, and challenges them to use the deepest layers of their courage in order to overcome the various obstacles they face.

Like any Pixar film, the animation is absolutely spectacular. Executive Producers John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, and Andrew Stanton spent years working on developing the details of Merida's hair alone, along with the many other characters and settings. There are scenes overlooking the country that sent chills down my spine because they're so beautifully constructed. The artistic value of each shot is worthy of comparison to visionaries such as Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott. Yeah, it's that good. Composer Patrick Doyle also does a great job of making each score correlate with the mood of the story.

Although the story doesn't have the same emotional intrigue as Toy Story or Finding Nemo, what makes it so captivating is that it's a visual spectacle. There's a good amount of laughs, unique characters, and magnificent cinematography. Although it will have to compete with Paranorman and Frankenweenie, this one will definitely be in the running for best animated film of the year.

Season Premiere of TNT's Falling Skies

It's very rare that a show on T.V. will really capture my attention. I'll turn on TBS or whatever if I'm looking for a good laugh, but it's been quite a long time since an original and compelling series got me hooked. However, last year on TNT, Falling Skies did exactly that.

Created by Robert Rodat, this sci-fi series starring Noah Wyle, takes place in a post apocalyptic society in which extraterrestrials have launched a full scale invasion of Earth. Leading a human resistance, a history teacher named Tom Mason (Wyle) seeks to liberate the planet from this otherworldly threat. With the help of his three sons and his good friend Captain Weaver (Will Patton), this band of freedom-fighters poses a significant challenge to their alien opponents.

In this new season, the stakes are continually increasing as Tom's middle son Ben (Connor Jessup) remains traumatized from being enslaved by their enemies. There is also tensions among various members of the resistance. Although a loose alliance remains between them and the hot headed vigilante type figure John Pope (Colin Cunningham), Captain Weaver remains unable to trust the gunslinger. Then, in a climactic sequence in part two, a parasite infects Tom and causes him to behave in an uncontrolled manner. Although his allies are able to remove it, the strange substance escapes their clutches, and it is uncertain as to where it will strike next.

What I really liked about this episode, and about the series in general, is the psychological factors it examines regarding human nature. We see how the aliens' greatest weapons are fear and hatred. Beyond the explosive battle sequences and special effects, the show is an accurate depiction of how we ourselves would react in the midst of a hostile environment. Tom's character is the ideal model of leadership, as his courage and strength enable him to invoke a spirit of hope among the resistance members. Now, as the battle is heating up, the fate of humanity will depend on the faith of these survivors. The artistic manner in which this show is presented puts it right up there with Star Trek and Firefly. Hence, with a great script, an all star cast, and brilliantly executed visual effects, Falling Skies is definitely one I'll be watching throughout the summer.

Prometheus

*****
Dir. Ridley Scott
Ever since the classic 1979 film Alien, Ridley Scott has revolutionized the science fiction genre in cinema. Prometheus combines the essence of the Alien saga with stirring 21st century special effects. Set in 2093, the crew of Prometheus ventures into the far reaches of space to explore the origins of mankind. The members of this expedition include Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), an advanced robotic organism named David (Michael Fassbender), the ship's Captain Janek (Idris Elba), Shaw's boyfriend Dr. Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), and the stern and secretive Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron).

Before I get into what I liked, I feel obligated to inform readers about the controversial messages expressed through the film. As with many sci-fi stories, it puts heavy emphasis on evolutionary themes. As a Christian, I despise evolution altogether. Furthermore, I don't like that it's being presented in schools and through the media as fact and not theory. The film depicts the origins of humanity as being spawned from an alien civilization, and questions creation at many points. Hence, I would advise you to be cautious of this going in.

Nevertheless, Scott and screenwriters Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof provide viewers with a unique and compelling story line that intrigues sci-fi fans in particular. The foundations of the plot are connected to Alien, but I wouldn't call the film a prequel. It's centered mainly around the species which the crew encounters, and what they come to discover about the human race. With graphic images and brutally violent encounters between the humans and extraterrestrials, the picture is horrific to say the least, making the original look like a walk in the park. Scott does a great job of pacing the story, despite the ending being a bit rushed; and cinematographer Dariusz Wolski is remarkable in creating this dark, otherworldly atmosphere. I had the pleasure of seeing it in IMAX 3-D, which I would say enhances the viewing experience effectively. It being shot with 3-D cameras, you can actually feel the floor vibrating when the ship takes off. Hence, despite my disagreements with some of the themes presented, I thought the film was very intriguing and certainly a visual spectacle.

Snow White and the Huntsman

***
Dir. Rupert Sanders
It's been a while since we've seen a really solid and original fantasy film. The last I can think of off the top of my head is Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth. However, Rupert Sanders' Snow White and the Huntsman is a fresh and compelling take on the classic fairy tale character.

In this story, we see the origins of Snow White (Kristen Stewart) and of the kingdom she is destined to inherit, which falls under the rule of the wicked Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) and her phantom army. After years of imprisonement, the Princess manages to escape the clutches of her arch-nemesis, only to be pursued by a hired Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Yet when he, a widower promised by the Queen that she would resurrect his wife if he did her bidding, discovers he too had been deceived by her wickedness, he then allies himself with Snow White (unaware of her identity). The two then venture through the dangers and perils of the Dark Forest; with the Princess intending to make contact with the former Duke of the Kingdom and all the rest who had served her father during his reign. It is here that they encounter the seven dwarves, a band of gold miners who are in no way reminiscent of Disney's version (an aspect I was completely fine with as this is intended to be a much darker adaptation). The plot also features the poison apple, as well as the kiss from Snow White's true love which reawakens her. Upon her resurrection, the Princess leads the Huntsman and all those loyal to her to defeat Ravenna and restore her father's Kingdom to its former glory.

What really stood out about this film to me was the script. Screenwriters Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock, and Hossein Amini did a really nice job of incorporating a multitude of characters and events into one clear and precise story. The very essence of it brought together a wide range of elements from classic fantasy and mythology, while appealing to a modern audience. Furthermore, the pacing of the script complimented Sanders's vision very effectively. Producers such as Joe Roth (Alice in Wonderland) and Sam Mercer (The Sixth Sense) did a fantastic job of constructing this fantasy world, and correlating with the lighting and cinematography. This dark atmosphere opened up a lot of room for various motifs to be expressed through the different creatures and settings. Then, the action scenes were really well executed and there was a great amount of detail devoted to each shot. All in all, the film contained a great cast, a solid storyline, and an artistic vision from Sanders that has the ability to engage a wide range of viewers.

History Channel's Hatfields and McCoys

With an emotionally gripping storyline, tremendous acting and character development, and brilliant cinematography, Hatfields and McCoys is the best mini series I've seen since Band of Brothers.

This 3 night epic event, directed by Kevin Reynolds, demonstrates such quality filmmaking that viewers are left with a deeper understanding of the complexity of human nature. Set in post Civil War Kentucky and West Virginia, the film documents the blood feud between the families of Devil Anse Hatfield (Kevin Costner) and Randall McCoy (Bill Paxton), and how this conflict became one of the greatest rivalries in American History. What started with Hatfield's Uncle Jim Vance (Tom Berenger) murdering McCoy's brother after the man had publicly insulted him, developed into a pure and chaotic massacre of vengeance and despair. Screenwriters Ted Mann and Bill Kerby did an excellent job of documenting the sequence of events in a clear and precise manner. Other sparks that ignited the tensions between the two families included disputes over their land and timber, as well as a love affair between Hatfield's son Johnse (Matt Barr) and McCoy's daughter Roseanna (Lindsay Pulsipher). As soon as she gets pregnant, all hell breaks loose. The film's climax depicts the Battle of Grapevine in 1888 where both sides clash.

What really stood out to me about this picture was the themes it explored and how effectively they are presented. Audiences are able to witness an examination of humanity's spirit of vengeance, lust, love, betrayal, loyalty, and ultimately an example of redemption in it's purest form. Watching it, I was not only compelled by the story and cinematic techniques used, but I also thought to myself that this really wasn't all that long ago. What's more frightening is that there's nothing stopping it from happening again. This is a film many new age philosophers need to watch so they can see how misguided they are. I think humanistic psychology is a bunch of bogus. How are we good by nature when history reveals the pure evils that we are capable of? The great thing about this film is that it brings to light disturbing truths about us as humans. Furthermore, it provides a great depiction of reconciliation at its conclusion. As a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe in redemption with God, but it requires faith and for us to admit that we are sinful by nature. The Biblical themes explored in this film and the way they're presented through the characters make the story all the more compelling. Hence, I recommend this to any history buff, as well as to those simply wanting to learn more about this story. On that note, the film is set to release on DVD and Blu-Ray on July 31st.

Men in Black 3

**
Dir. Barry Sonnenfeld
When you make a sequel fifteen years after the original, my expectations for the film aren't all that high going in. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones return for the third installment in the sci-fi/comedy series, Men in Black. While the story itself had potential, director Barry Sonnenfeld failed in presenting it properly.

We open on a prison escape with very poorly executed visual effects that make this one unworthy of being called a film. The last survivor of his species, a Boglodite assassin by the name of Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), seeks revenge on his long time rival Agent K (Jones) for blowing his arm off 40 years earlier. Meanwhile, the MIB agency has just lost their leader Zed, who is replaced by Agent O (Emma Thompson). After the funeral, we see some tension between agents K and J (Smith), resulting from K's hiding information about his past from his partner. The next day, there is a disruption in the time-space continuum. J finds himself in a world where K has been dead for over forty years, and a Boglodite army under Boris' leadership invades Earth. In order to save the human race and his long time partner, J travels back in time to 1969. Hoping to kill Boris and prevent the entire chain of events from happening, his plan fails when he encounters a younger K (Josh Brolin). Fortunately, he is able to convince him of the truth. The two then embark on their mission to stop Boris and save humanity. During their journey, both men discover things about one another, and a key component regarding J's past is revealed to him.

Although the story wasn't bad, this one lacked the essence of the classic 1997 film which made it so compelling. The humor was very dry, the action sequences were poorly done and unexciting, and the cinematography was rather weak. However, I did think Brolin was a very good pick to portray the younger version of K, and he and Smith had very solid chemistry. What stands out about the original was that it provided a fresh and compelling story, had plenty of laughs, and appealed to a wide range of viewers. Sci-fi geeks like me and casual moviegoers were equally captivated. This film however was lacking in nearly each of those elements. It was dull, fairly predictable, and not half as entertaining as the previous two. If you are an MIB fan and itching to see it, I'd recommend you save the money and wait for it to come on Netflix.

Television: A Dying Medium

As a writer, I like looking at almost any form of storytelling. I love reading and watching movies, as both mediums provide me with the opportunity to exercise my imagination, and be compelled by quality plot lines and characters. When I was growing up (I'm 18 so my childhood was during the late 90s and early 2000s), the majority of T.V. shows I watched also served the same purposes. From Justice League to Batman to Spider-Man, the comic book animated series' at this time were great examples of good television. With spectacular animation, solid writing, and great voice talents, these shows captivated viewers as much as a good movie. And it wasn't at all limited to this genre. Sitcoms from the 80s and 90s provided wholesome family entertainment, and the wide range of characters allowed audiences to connect with them in one way or another. Both cartoons and live action shows at this time demonstrated originality and creativity.

Today, it seems as though all you can find is a long list of bogus reality shows and low quality fictional series'. Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Cartoon Network used to contain great shows that invoked the imaginative spirit of children. I know from what my eleven year old cousin watches whenever he hangs out, that all three channels have gone down the drain. It points to the underlying problem with television and film today: people are running out of ideas.

Our culture spends way too much time watching T.V. Beyond this, there's so much pure garbage within this medium that younger generations just aren't being exposed to quality storytelling. Hence, kids today are being deprived of the opportunity to really use their imaginations. Reality T.V. continues to turn me off more and more because it just goes to show you producers can't come up with anything better. I can think of four singing shows right off the bat-"American Idol", "America's Got Talent", "Britain's Got Talent", and "The Voice". Wow, real original. Then, there are those stupid fashion shows-"Say Yes to the Dress" and "What Not to Wear". Can you get any more pathetic? A show about picking out wedding dresses and all the bogus drama from Bridezillas that accompanies it. And don't even get me started on that "Toddlers and Tiaras" garbage.

The sad thing is, it's only getting worse. If T.V. producers and screenwriters had the same mentalities as those of let's say, the guys at Pixar, we might see some more quality and family oriented shows come about. When you do things like adapt comic book characters into T.V. shows and films, you open up a lot of doors for solid, compelling plot lines. If networks would just utilize the resources they have available to them, I think this medium could move in a more artistic direction.

"Combatting Stereotypes: Why Movies About 'The Disabled' Stink" by Michael P. Murphy

Found this article a few weeks ago. Being physically disabled, I really liked how the author provided a lot of insight into how poorly the handicapped community is portrayed in film. Read this and share it in an effort to combat stereotypes about us.

The Avengers

****
Dir. Joss Whedon

The Avengers is what it sets out to be, a treat for fanboys and a good action flick for casual moviegoers. I went in knowing it wouldn't be nearly as thoughtful and provocative as a superhero film done by Christopher Nolan or Sam Raimi, but seeing if Joss Whedon could do justice to these characters by making a fun and entertaining comic book movie. Having anticipated this one for quite some time, I can say that I am pleased by the final product.

Starring Chris Evans-Steve Rogers/Captain America, Robert Downey Jr.-Tony Stark/Iron Man, Chris Hemsworth-Thor, Mark Ruffalo-Bruce Banner/Hulk, Jeremy Renner-Clint Barton/Hawkeye, Scarlett Johansson-Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, Tom Hiddleston-Loki, and Samuel L. Jackson-Col. Nick Fury, the film will engage viewers with a solid story line and well executed action sequences.

When Loki returns to Earth after activating a portal through the Tesseract, his lust for revenge spells certain doom for S.H.I.E.L.D. The brother of Thor manages to enslave several of Fury's best agents, including Hawkeye, with mind control techniques. With no where else to turn, Fury decides to at last launch the Avengers Initiative, despite facing opposition from the United Nations and various government agencies. Yet the process of forming a team of independent Superheroes, each with different motives and intentions, is no easy one. Nevertheless, in order to save the human race from the greatest extraterrestrial threat it's ever faced, this band of vigilantes must set aside their differences.

This being the first live action, big budget Hollywood portrayal of any Superhero team (sadly, DC could've made a Justice League live action movie by now), fans had high expectations. Being a comic book lover, I was very impressed. Not only did it fit the qualifications for a good summer Blockbuster, but it really did the characters justice. With Marvel having had its ups and downs throughout this series, the task of culminating each of these stories together was no easy one. However, Whedon and Zak Penn constructed a plot which was great for die-hard fans as well as those unfamiliar with a lot of the characters. And from a cinematic perspective, it is dynamic. My first glance at the Helicarrier brought me back to when I first witnessed the Enterprise in the J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Whedon directs with a definitive style that makes for a nice Hollywood blockbuster. Unlike idiots like Michael Bay and Jonathan Liebseman, he knows how to effectively use CGI and make it relevant to the storytelling process.

With Executive Producers such as Avi Arad, Jon Favreau, Stan Lee, and Kevin Feige, you can't go wrong. And to top it all off, one of my favorite composers, Alan Silvestri, does a tremendous job with the film's music. All in all, I'm happy to say this was worth the years I've waited, and I would venture to say many of my fellow nerds would agree. Avengers assemble!