Avengers: Infinity War (a movie review post)

 MCU #19

I think it's fair to say that Avengers has been the most ambitious movie franchise of all time. The Avengers, itself, was possibly the most ambitious movie ever made but, then, Infinity War goes way beyond that. The culmination of 18 other movies, with clues about it going back to... what? the first Captain America movie? I don't remember if there was any hint about the infinity stones before that or not. That's a lot of movies to build one story on, and Marvel pulled it off. Magnificently.

And, then, killed half their characters.
That's a bold move.
Seriously bold.
I was reading back through my previous reviews for this movie (yes, reviews; it was so big, I had to do two) and was reminded at the furor it caused and how upset people were. It's amazing to me in retrospect. Actually, it was amazing to me in "spect." I mean, the first time.

Not even to get to how the movie ends, but it opens with Thanos slaughtering refugees. How much more harsh can you get? These people just had their homeland destroyed and in walks Thanos killing them wholesale. Along with Loki! Possibly the most popular of all of the MCU characters, and Thanos mostly casually snaps his neck and tosses his body aside.

The only drawback to Infinity War is that it is really the first of the Marvel movies that you really can't watch unless you've seen a good number of the other MCU movies. Probably not all of them, but I can't see Infinity War as making much sense to anyone who hasn't been following the story at least somewhat. However, it's also unfair to call that "requirement" a "drawback" since that, really, is the point of the film. No one would expect that you should be able to sit down and watch (or read) Return of the King without consuming the first two parts of Lord of the Rings.

Here's the thing: I've been immersed in Marvel since I was... four? three? Since I first discovered Spider-Man. I read Infinity Gauntlet when it first came out. I know how comics work, and I knew, generally, how this pair of movies was going to end. Knowing all of that, when it got to the part where Peter is "dusted," it still brought me to the brink of tears. And that was watching it this time. I don't remember crying when I saw this the first time, but I know I teared up. That scene was heartbreaking.

And that is saying a lot.

I don't know... Thinking about all this... This movie has a lot of characters in it. A lot. And, yet, Marvel manages to pull that off. It did take them 18 movies to form the foundation for it, but they did it. And, then, I think about -- look, it's not that I want to think about DC, but I can't help making the comparison -- DC and how they seem to think that throwing in more and more characters is how you make a great movie. Or, maybe, they're just using their characters like spaghetti and throwing them at the audience to see what sticks. The characters and the actors. How many different Batmans and Supermans have we had? What I'm saying is that the movie could have gotten bogged down with so many characters, but it didn't. It's a long movie, but you don't feel it. It moves along without having to deal with a bunch of exposition to keep people from getting confused. It's... masterful.

Look, as a writer, I'm telling you this is some good storytelling. That's my expert opinion.

Oh, also, Doctor Strange works out the plan by using the the Time Stone totally knowing he's going to get dusted and goes through with it anyway. That takes some real... I don't know... Courage doesn't cover it. Look at Quill. He knew the stakes and, yet, when they have almost gotten the glove from Thanos, Quill gives into his rage and hands Thanos the victory. Strange stared it all down and hands Thanos the Time Stone, anyway. Man...

And, if you want (almost) all of your favorite MCU characters in one movie, this is the place to see it.

The real test? I just watched this but would not protest watching it again right now. It's that good. Which is true of most of the MCU. Not all, but most. There are a few I feel like I don't need to ever see again, one in  particular (you hear that Norton? (yeah, this is my Norton dig for this post)) but, for most of them, even after just watching them, I would happily watch them again.
So let's get this one ranked!

The infinite ranking:

1. Captain America: Civil War

2. The Avengers
3. Captain America: The First Avenger

4. Avengers: Infinity War

5. Spider-Man: Homecoming
6. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
7. Iron Man

8. Black Panther

9. Doctor Strange

10. Ant-Man

11. Thor: Ragnarok
12. Thor: The Dark World
13. Thor

14. Guardians of the Galaxy

15. Avengers: Age of Ultron

16. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
17. Iron Man 3
18. Iron Man 2
19. Incredible Hulk

(I discussed with my family what they thought about the placement of A:IW on the list, and I have gone against popular opinion. Well, their popular opinion, anyway, although it seems that a lot of popular opinion has A:IW in the top two of MCU movies. I have my reasons, though, for the placement, most of which have to do with tightness of story. But, man, it was difficult for me for it to fall between Cap and Spidey after the two of those were tied for a while.)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (a movie review post)

 

MCU #15

Interesting... It appears that I didn't review this movie when it first came out. If I did, I can't find it. I find that kind of weird. Not reviewing it, I mean.

Guardians 2 is... Let's just say it's an interesting movie. As far as being fun, it's nearly as fun as the first one. Not quite, but close. It has some great moments, most of which involve Groot in some way. That's probably not quite true, but the best moments I can think of right now all involve Groot. Or Rocket, I suppose. The quantum asteroid field is a pretty great moment. Why are the asteroids quantum? I don't know, but it's funny because they are.

But the movie does have some flaws. Or, rather, one main flaw which is bothering me as I think about it: the deus ex machina entrance of Ego and saving the Guardians. Actually, the whole Ego thing causes some problems, because, if Peter really is immortal, as Ego tells him, being out in space in the first Guardians shouldn't really have bothered him. I mean, being half Celestial made him nearly impervious to an infinity stone, so a little bit of deep cold should have been... not much.

However, maybe Ego isn't a Celestial? All we know is that's what he told Quill. He's certainly not remotely like any of the other Celestials we've seen so far in the MCU and, for a little bit of knowledge from outside the MCU, he's not a Celestial in the comics. He's just a planet... that's alive.

Maybe we'll get some more info about all of this in the next Guardians movie, though I'm thinking that one is going to go in a more Gamorra direction.

Mostly, here, I'm just rambling thoughts. Ego was destroyed, so no matter what he was, the power source that should have made Quill immortal is gone, so, theoretically, he's "back" to be merely human.

I liked Mantis. I thought she was a good addition.

The relationship between Gamorra and Nova developed. That was good to see, even considering what's coming up.

Gunn took the opening fight with the... the... tentacle thing... and made it into a whole movie for that other universe. A much much lesser movie. The tentacle monster fight in Guardians is better than the whole of that other movie.

Groot is still a hoot.

It's a good movie. Not as good as the first, but a good movie.

So let's rank it!

1. Captain America: Civil War

2. The Avengers
3. Captain America: The First Avenger
4. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
5. Iron Man

6. Doctor Strange

7. Ant-Man
8. Thor: The Dark World
9. Thor

10. Guardians of the Galaxy

11. Avengers: Age of Ultron

12. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
13. Iron Man 3
14. Iron Man 2
15. Incredible Hulk (Ego is what you get when you let Norton's ego loose.)

Guardians of the Galaxy (a movie review post)

 

MCU #10

If you want to look back at my original Guardians review, you can do that here.

It's interesting to watch this movie again, now, post-Eternals. I'd forgotten how much stuff there is in it about the Celestials, including a whole mining colony in the head of a dead one! Marvel knows how to play the long game better than anyone. Or, maybe, they just like leaving Easter Eggs that are a little more real.

The thing I was struck most by on this viewing is how broken all of the Guardians are. A lot of the MCU movies deal with brokenness in some way or another, actually, overcoming your worst tendencies to become a hero. That's certainly true of Iron Man, and it's true of Captain American in a very physical way, and it's true here:
Peter Quill -- Still struggling with his guilt over not taking his mother's hand when she was dying.
Rocket -- The scene where Rocket explains his brokenness is so touching and heart-wrenching, I'm going to say that you should just go watch it.
Gamora -- Thanos raised her; what more needs to be said?

Drax -- Stuck in the moment when Ronan murdered his family.
Groot -- Weeelll... he's the most adjusted one of them all, and all he can say is "I am Groot."

And the movie addresses this, to an extent, with Peter's "we're all losers" speech. They know they've had losses, whether they see themselves as broken or not, but they come together despite those losses, even despite some betrayals caused by those losses, to work together to beat Ronan.

This is what makes the movie so endearing and what is missing from Gunn's work for DC, not that the characters in DC are not obviously broken, but they are wallowing in it rather than trying to overcome it. There's nothing touching about it, no matter how much humor and giant starfish you put into it. Guardians works because it touches your heart. You want to give Rocket a hug and tell him it will be okay. And he's a racoon!

That's the only thing I really have to add to my previous review. The movie is still excellent. And it has what is probably the best post-credit scene ever. Well, except for the one in Ferris Bueller. Nothing will ever beat that one/ Probably.

Here come the new rankings. That Guardians is so far down the list just shows how great the Marvel movies have been overall.

1. The Avengers
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
4. Iron Man
5. Thor: The Dark World
6. Thor

7. Guardians of the Galaxy
8. Iron Man 3
9. Iron Man 2
10. Incredible Hulk (Look! Hulk is the first to hit the double digits. It's too bad the Collector didn't collect Norton before he was Hulk.)

Captain Marvel (a movie review post)

Of all of the things that Marvel has done well -- and they have done a lot of things well! -- perhaps the most impressive has been bringing in their intergalactic stories in a way that seems real and plausible. [Which, all things considered, is much more difficult than making their super heroes real and plausible.] Captain Marvel is no exception to that, and I'm extra impressed with their handling of the Kree/Skrull war, something I've been vaguely worried about since Guardians of the Galaxy came out.

Okay, actually, I've been worried about that since Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, the Kree/Skrull war having at one time been something largely dealt with in the pages of The Fantastic Four. And, well, Fox really fumbled the whole Silver Surfer/Galactus thing [yeah, sure, they fumbled the entire Fantastic Four thing, especially with their most recent attempt], but, then, that was Fox and not Marvel. Is anyone else looking forward to the return to Marvel of the FF and X-Men properties? Man, I sure am!

But I digress...

I guess the thing to know here is that Captain Marvel is another great entry into the MCU. All of their movies are so good, it's difficult to even know how to rank them anymore, so I can't say how great it is, just that it is. It's solid, which is especially important since it's a... hmm... prequel is not the correct term but, chronologically, Captain Marvel happens first of all of the MCU movies. And this really could have gone awry considering that Nick Fury and Agent Coulson are both involved in this story, Fury integrally so.

Technology is amazingly amazing. Seriously. We may not be able to re-age people for real, but the tech they used in Captain Marvel will make you think they can.

Brie Larson was a surprise, at least for me. I was rather ambivalent about her as the choice to play Danvers when they announced it. I didn't see Room (and have no real desire to) so my only real experience of her was from Skull Island, in which she was forgettable. But, then, it was a movie you want to forget, so maybe that's why. I have to say, though, that Larson nailed it as Carol Danvers, at least as she is in the movie (because I have no experience of this Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel from the comics). She was... well, a delight, which is not exactly what I want to say, but it's true. She's quirky and sarcastic and and has the perfect sardonic turn to her smiles when she needs to have a sardonic turn to her smile.

And her chemistry with Jude Law was great. Not any kind of romantic chemistry, it's not that kind of relationship, but their mentor/student whatever-it-was was perfect. Of course, Law is good in this type of role, very reminiscent of his Watson role alongside Tony Stark. Um.... I mean Robert Downey, Jr.

I also really enjoyed Annette Bening. Not only is it good to see her in something again, this movie really allows her to show some of the range she has as an actress.

Actually, all of the cast was great, which has been the standard with the Marvel movies. It's another thing they do well. Really well. Pretty close to perfection. DC, on the other hand... Well, I'd say they're somewhere around the same level as Fox showed themselves to be when they cast Miles Teller as Reed Richards. Seriously, what the fuck, Fox?

All of which is to say, you should see this movie. That is, you should if you like good stories, good acting, and fun. If you're old, stuffy, and snooty, and don't get into that "superhero stuff," you'll hate this, but it's your loss, man; it's your loss. People with good taste will love this movie. And, if you're planning on seeing Endgame in a few weeks, you should make sure you see this movie.

Ant-Man (a movie review post)

Decades ago, Isaac Asimov asserted that science fiction wasn't so much as its own genre as it was a vehicle for other genres. As there was much dissent, he set out to write a sci-fi detective novel which became the first of his robot novels, The Caves of Steel. It seems that Marvel has set out to prove the same thing about the super hero genre. Sure, there's the pure super hero stuff like The Avengers, but we've also seen a war movie, an espionage movie, and, now, a heist movie, among others.

So, yeah, Ant-Man is structured as a heist movie, which is pretty clever. It's not a straight heist, though, there's a little, I don't know, rom-com(?) added in. You know, whatever kind of movie it is where the guy who has messed up and alienated his family has to put it back together again. At any rate, as Scott Lang says in the movie, "It's not just a heist."

Speaking of Scott Lang, Lang was one of my few worries about the movie going into it. As I've noted in previous reviews of Marvel movies (especially Iron Man 3), I do understand that the universe of the Marvel movies is not the same as the one for the comics, but I couldn't understand why they weren't having Hank Pym be Ant-Man when he was going to be in the movie. It was baffling. BUT! I think they did an excellent job of threading the Ant-Man origin story into what they did in the movie. Actually, I really like what they did with that. It adds some extra layers to the movie than just doing an "origin story."

Also speaking of Scott Lang, Paul Rudd was great. Okay, so, I already really like Paul Rudd, but he was great in this role. This is another case of Marvel finding an actor who would really own the part and make it his, because that's what Rudd did. However, it was Michael Pena as Luis who almost stole the show. He was brilliant, and the voice-over stuff they did with him was hilarious.

Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lily were both very good. Douglas probably about what you'd expect since he's always really solid. Lily was better than I expected because my main exposure to her has been in the horrible Hobbit movies, and, though those weren't her fault, her inclusion in those has been a sore point. I was also glad to see Wood Harris in the movie. His performance wasn't extraordinary or anything, but I like him as an actor, so it was good to see him in a high profile movie.

The only weak link was Corey Stoll who came off more as an over enthusiastic used car salesman trying to sell you a bad car than as a real villain. Fortunately, the movie didn't focus so much on him.

Also, the scene with the Falcon was awesome. I love Anthony Mackie in that role, so I was glad they included him. "It's really important to me that Cap never finds out about this."

Basically, this is another really solid Marvel movie and, while I would quite put it as high as Captain America or Iron Man on quality, it's close. Guardians of the Galaxy close. I would have gone right back in to watch it again if I could have.

Jurassic World (a movie review post)

The first thing I want to say about Jurassic World is that it was much better than I expected it to be. Much. I liked Jurassic Park well enough but the sequels were... well, they were less than good. None of it inspired high expectations from a movie that has the appearance of being nothing more than a car on the Chris Pratt star train. Which is nothing against Chris Pratt, because I've been a fan of his since season one of Parks and Recreation.

Since we're already talking about Pratt, let's just continue to do that. Pratt was fine. Good, even. But it wasn't a part that called for Pratt, and he didn't do anything to make it his, not like with Guardians of the Galaxy. Peter Quill is inseparable from Chris Pratt, because Pratt made that part his. The most that the part of Owen Grady called for was for Pratt to be "a badass," or at least to look like one. He pulled that off, but it didn't take any particular acting skill.

Bryce Dallas Howard, on the other hand, does show considerable skill as the aloof Claire. It's not a role I've seen her play before; though, to be fair, I haven't seen her in a lot. Still, I think she did a good job as the woman trying to be in total control. Of everything.

The one I was really impressed with was Vincent D'Onofrio. I kept looking at him and wondering where I'd seen him before and just couldn't put my finger on it. I had to look up that he's the Kingpin in the current Daredevil series from Netflix. The two roles are widely divergent and, while I think he is the weak link in Daredevil, I now think it's because of some combination of the writing and directing rather than him just being a poor actor.

For Jurassic World, the kids prove to be the weakest element. Neither of them are completely convincing, though I think it's due at least in part to weak writing. Like the scene where Gray unexpectedly breaks down comes out of nowhere and is included just to make explicit something the writers had failed to be previously explicit about. Also, Zach's interest in girls. Which isn't odd except that they firmly establish that he has a girlfriend then repeatedly show him checking out other girls but that doesn't go anywhere have any impact on anything. It adds nothing to the story other than to muddle his personality.

Beyond that, the issues are only details, though there were two that bothered me more than the others. The first was the eggs hatching during the opening credits, which was completely wrong. Things that hatch from eggs hatch with their beaks and, if they don't have beaks, they generally have an egg tooth. Sometimes, they have both. The other thing was the kids getting one of the abandoned cars started, a 20 year abandoned car. I don't know much about cars, but I know enough to know that 1. car batteries don't hold a charge for that long and 2. even if they did, gasoline actually goes "bad." The idea that the boys, who had only ever helped work on a car once, could get one of those jeeps working was pretty much ludicrous.

BUT! Overall, it was a pretty decent movie and certainly worth seeing on the big screen. Despite Pratt not really being in a role that called for him, he was good, and his character was certainly the most interesting. Besides, the scene where he rides his motorcycle along with the velociraptors is almost worth the cost of the movie.

I Am Not My Own Demographic

My wife and I went to an Oscars event at a local theater not because we wanted to actually see the Oscars, this year -- both of us were rather underwhelmed with the nominations -- but because we (especially my wife) wanted to see Neil Patrick Harris host the Oscars. In that, we were not disappointed. He made it worth it to me with his opening line, "We are here to honor the best and the whitest..." That followed by his opening number made the expense of going to see the Oscars at a special venue completely worth it even if it was all downhill from there, though I was gratified that Birdman got best picture and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu got best director for it. Oh! The performance of "Glory" from Selma was also amazing.

However, Eddie Redmayne as best actor? Give me a break. All he did was sit in a chair and drool. John Travolta (who is not an actor I enjoy at all), did a better job of presenting than Redmayne did as Hawking. But I digress...

Yes, it was required that my wife and I go out to see the Oscars, because we don't have "TV." We could have followed the results online, but we couldn't actually watch the show without going out... somewhere... to do that. But it was a charity event, so that was kind of cool.

But here's the thing: It was full of people that are of the demographic I should belong to... but really don't. My wife and I were among the youngest people there. Well, maybe there were some people in their late 30s but, mostly, it was white people in the 40s and up. This is the group of people that I should theoretically belong to. And, I suppose, the fact that I was there at all means that I must overlap a some points other than relative age and race, but it certainly didn't feel that way.

For one thing, my wife and I reacted to a lot more of the political talk than pretty much anyone else there in terms of agreeing with it. We laughed at more of the jokes and, I think, appreciated more of what was going on. Especially when it had to with inequities within the Academy itself. [Just to point out, the Academy is more than 90% white and nearly 80% men. Rich, old white guys with OWDS.]

But it was the ongoing disdain from the host and the crowd against super heroes and comic books that really allowed me to see how I just don't fit in with "my" crowd. There were multiple comments about how glad we should all be that no super heroes were nominated for... anything. I just want to point out that super heroes have never been nominated. For anything. However, Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were better than at least half of the nominees. Seriously, Whiplash? What a piece of crap. The Theory of Everything, too. Both worthless movies.

Benedict Cumberbatch, though, shined the brightest light on the issue. The host, a little Susan Sarandon number (seriously, if she had said, "Hey, I'm Susan," I might have actually believed her), had a serious thing for Benedict. During the commercial breaks, she was asking trivia questions (for prizes), and she got to this one:

What Marvel character is Benedict Cumberbatch signed on to play in an upcoming movie?

And there was... silence. Which was quite a contrast to all of the other questions which had had people immediately yelling answers. After enough of a pause that it was obvious that no one was going to say anything (and I think she was about to tell the answer), I shouted, "Dr. Strange!" And, see, she was surprised that I knew that. She had not expected an answer. Then, she said, "I don't even know what comic book that is," (or something like that), and I said, "Dr. Strange!" And she was surprised again. Seriously.

There were a couple of hundred people there, and no one else knew that. That's as basic as water to me. Or air. But it's not that I have a specialized knowledge set that that group of people didn't have; it was the reaction to my specialized knowledge set that was the issue. The host was both disdainful and dismissive of it, and she was fairly representative of the class of people that were there. It made me feel as if I was an anthropomorphized raccoon sitting there in the theater.

Okay, so not really.

Because I really am an anthropomorphized raccoon.

Okay, fine! I'm not.

I am Groot.

>sigh<
Fine!

Anyway, the point is that I don't really fit into this group of people I'm supposed to fit into, and I probably do a lot better job of it here in California than I ever would have done in the South. I'm sure that's why I don't live there anymore. According to my wife, anyway. It might help if I wanted to fit in with the group of "white dudes" or "rich, old white dudes" or whatever. Not that I wouldn't take "rich," I suppose, at least up to a point. But, my gosh, when the only recognition a movie like Selma gets is for the song, then something is wrong. Granted, it's a great song. Again, I'm just going to say, at least Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu got acknowledged for Birdman.

The Amazon Slant

As many have said, we live in a very divisive culture. I'm not sure if it's always been this way, but it's certainly that way right now. Left or Right. Black or White. Liberal or Conservative. Right or Wrong. On side or the other with no room for anyone to be in between. No room for ambiguity. No room for indecision. We're just not comfortable with it.

I'm sure that at least some of this attitude has been adopted from the press, since controversy sells. People getting along is not a story; that doesn't happen till they take up sides and start throwing bricks at each other. If you want to sell things, it's a good tactic.

And Amazon knows this.

I don't know how many of you pay attention to the rating systems on the various sites on which you may be rating things, but they are not all the same. In fact, most of them go something like this:
5 -- I loved it!
4 -- I really liked it.
3 -- I liked it.
2 -- I didn't like it.
1 -- I hated it!
Goodreads has a more positive slant on it:
2 -- It was okay.
1 -- I didn't like it.
There's no room for hate there.
Basically, though, most sites offer "like" as the default giving you much more room to rate things positively than negatively. If you're paying attention. What this means is that most sites have a "top heavy" rating system that's geared toward generating positive ratings and reviews.

Looking at Goodreads more closely, what we have is a system that is designed to get ratings of 3, 4, and 5. 2s should be virtually non-existent, leaving 1s as the only real option for an actual negative review or rating.

Why do I say 2s should be non-existent? Because most people most of the time do not have an actual "it was okay" reaction to things. They like things or they don't like things. There are very few "I could take it or leave it"s.

Which is what makes Amazon's rating system so interesting. It has that "it was okay" right in the middle.
5 -- I love it
4 -- I like it
3 -- It's okay
2 -- I don't like it
1 -- I hate it
So, when you look at Amazon reviews, you get high numbers on both ends and almost non-existent numbers in the middle, because the system is designed that way. It wants to pit the 1s against the 5s, because that's what draws attention to products.

As someone who does a fair amount of reviews on Amazon, I have seen a lot of this confrontation first hand. For instance, there is a strong group of Marvel-haters out there. So, if a post a review for a Marvel movie, it is sure to immediately get "unhelpful" votes (my review for Guardians of the Galaxy didn't receive the normal deluge of negative votes when I posted, although, still, the first vote was negative).

What it boils down to is that Amazon doesn't want ambiguous ratings or reviews. Amazon wants "I loved this!" or "I hated this!" When you can shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, it was okay, I guess," no one is going to want to take a look at the product. Whatever the product. I love or a hate, though, will get some attention.

And what's my point with all of this?
The first thing is this: When you're rating things, make sure you pay attention to the rating system you're using. Just to give you an example, I was rating/reviewing some things recently, and I was on Goodreads leaving my stuff there. The particular story I was dealing with got a 3 on Goodreads because "I liked it." When I switched over to Amazon, I was sort of on autopilot, and I gave the story a 3 there, too, which was not accurate. On Amazon, I needed to leave a 4. It was a couple of days before I noticed what I'd done and went back and fixed it. It's just something to be aware of.

The other thing is... well, I'm not sure. I mean, I am sure, but I'm not sure (I'd give that a 3). If you're looking at selling things (like books), it seems that a way to do that is to generate some love/hate around it. That's what Amazon seems to think at any rate. And I've seen that work in actual practice. I don't know, exactly, how I would say to go about doing this, but there probably are ways. For one thing, though, as authors, it may not be in our best interests to be getting all upset about reviews on the negative end of the spectrum. I mean, it's never in our best interest to act out over negative reviews, but it might be even more than that. I think the real key is to learn how to exploit the reviews on either end of the rating scale and make them work in our favor. I'm just not sure how, yet.

Guardians of the Galaxy (a movie review post)

Guardians of the Galaxy is the first of the Marvel movies that I'm coming into with, basically, no background knowledge of. Which is not to say that I don't know the general layout of what's going on, but the Guardians that I used to read back in the 90s

is not the same Guardians that exists today. And the characters that I am familiar with, like Drax, are not quite the same (since Drax is not functioning as a herald of Galactus in this Marvel Universe (because, you know, Galactus is being held captive over at Fox Studios (which is actually pretty scary when you think about it))).

That said, stemming from what Marvel has done with their previous movies, this one picks up the thread and weaves it in seamlessly. But in a completely different way. [And I just want to point out that this is the kind of movie that DC's Green Lantern should have been but failed utterly to be.]  So, yes, this is a departure from the previous super hero Marvel films, but it's not a departure in quality. Though, to be fair, there will be people that won't be able to accept characters like Rocket and Groot even though they were brilliant. [My kids loved Rocket even more than Groot, which is saying a lot.]

What the movie does:

1. Introduces the idea of the Celestials.

2. Gives us a clear view of the wider Marvel Universe

3. Applies the term "Infinity Stone" to the infinity stones for the first time.

4. Gives us a better idea of who and what Thanos is.

Guardians does a good job of sprinkling in humor without ever going over the top with it. It doesn't over balance the action or the seriousness of the situation. And it's spread evenly across the characters so that it's not just a bunch of one liners from Rocket or anything like that. Drax has some great, humorous moments even though he is nothing but serious throughout the film. It's very well done.

The acting is spectacular. Chris Pratt, whom I've been a fan of for quite a while, was amazing and the right pick for Peter Quill. Bradley Cooper was surprisingly good as the voice of Rocket. Surprising in that I couldn't even tell it was Cooper doing the voice. Neither could my wife, which is saying a lot, because she always knows the voices; it's a talent of hers. Cooper gave authenticity to completely realistic looking CGI raccoon. Karen Gillan also stood out as Nebula. It was a complete departure from her role as Amy in Doctor Who.

The short of it is that, really, I was ready to see it again as soon as we walked out of the theater. My kids would agree with that. It was a lot of fun. Most similar to Iron Man in tone because of the humor but handled in a way that kept it from becoming campy. I think I'd say it's like an awesome roller coaster ride, the kind where, as soon as you get off, you want to go back around and get back in line.

We're Not Worthy (a pop culture post)

Okay, so, probably, we are. Worthy, that is. After all, no one's gonna turn you away from a movie you're paying money to see, right? Well, at least not very often. Unless the theater is full. Anyway...

I don't know how I get off on these things. Okay, that's not true, but... Look, quit interrupting and let me get on with the review, okay?
Good.

As I alluded in my review of Iron Man 3, I've suffered a bit of a paradigm shift in my approach to the Marvel Studio movies. See, they did such a great job of adapting the comics, initially, I expected them to keep doing that. Iron Man And Captain America are excellent adaptations of the source material, almost perfectly capturing the tone and feel of the comic characters. Thor is also very good at that, although not quite as good as Cap and Iron Man. So, for a while, I expected the Marvel movies to continue to "adapt" the comics, staying true to the source material across the board.

But it's more like that was just the opening they used to create the Marvel Movie Universe, which is not quite the same as the Marvel Universe of the comics. So, in Iron Man 3, we get a Mandarin who is the front man for a terrorist group rather than a super villain, and, in Thor: The Dark World, we get Malekith after the Aether rather than the Casket of Ancient Winters. And, after some amount of consideration, that's okay. More than okay, actually.

It's more than okay, because Marvel is re-creating what they did to create The Avengers, right now, with their Infinity Stones sub-plot. It's just introducing a piece at a time as they build up to something bigger. In The Avengers, we got our first view of Thanos and his attempt to take control of the Tesseract, which, in The Dark World, is revealed to be one of the six Infinity Stones, artifacts predating the origins of the universe. And, also on The Dark World, Malekith is after the Aether which is another of these "stones" although it actually takes on a fluid form.

This all sounds like it's leading up to an Infinity Gauntlet kind of scenario,

which would be pretty darn cool and pretty darn cosmic. The fact that Guardians of the Galaxy is coming out next year only strengthens the case for all of this. I would expect another of the Infinity Stones to show up in that one.

Of course, none of that actually relates to whether Thor: The Dark World is any good in and of itself.

Actually, Thor 2 is better than Thor. This one just seemed more "Thor" than the first one, although I don't have a good reason for feeling that way because there was an awful lot of Thor-ness about the first one, too. Maybe, it was just that this one flowed more smoothly whereas the first one definitely seemed to have its "Earth" parts and its "Asgard" parts as separate things. If you're doing Thor as Thor (not Thor trapped in the body of a mortal), he definitely needs to have the full range of being Thor.

And there were a lot of cool moves with Mjolnir in this one, things like Thor leaping off of balconies as the hammer came whizzing over the building and into his hand. They definitely did their best to show the connection between Thor and the hammer.

The acting was great, even Christopher Eccleston, whom I'm not particularly fond of as an actor (Doctor or not). His range seems to be quite small, but his role as Malekith was a good fit as it didn't require a lot of emotion and even less facial expression. Zachary Levi also did a pretty good job as Fandral, although, as partial as I am to Chuck, I think he didn't quite fill out Josh Dallas' shoes. There was just some ineffable quality about Dallas that made him more Fandral. Portman, also, seemed to wear the role of Jane Foster much more easily in this one, so that was nice.

The thing that really made the movie work, though, was the chemistry between Hemsworth and Hiddleston. Even when not onscreen together, they pulled off the roles of warring brothers perfectly. The sibling rivalry was perfect. There's this one moment where Thor is about to hit Loki (hey, it's not really a spoiler, okay (well, kind of, but, well, deal with it)) and Thor pulls away saying, "Mother wouldn't want us to fight," and Loki smiles and says, "But she wouldn't be shocked." The relationship is perfect.

The movie also has a bit more humor in it than the last Thor, and it's not all at the expense of Darcy this time, though she does have her moments. The only real negative I'd say the movie has is that the humor breaks the tension a little too much every so often. But those are only minor bumps on the road and barely memorable once past them. It does pull you right back in.

Overall, the movie has an epic feel to it that seems appropriate to a story about gods, and it does it while keeping the movie personal. That all by itself is quite an accomplishment. So, yeah, I think Thor 2 is a step above the first one, something that's not all  that common with a sequel. It doesn't make it up to the level of the first Iron Man or Captain America movies, but it does surpass both of the Iron Man sequels. If you've been following the Marvel movies at all, you certainly don't want to miss this one.