The Wolverine (2013)

While the original "X-Men" trilogy was not that great and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" was pretty bad, Marvel did get it right with "X-Men: First Class," which I consider the best film they've produced. So in that regard any "X-Men" movie, while capable of greatness, isn't something that's guaranteed to be amazing. Granted I'm not a big fan of Marvel films in general, so my opinion is somewhat suspect, but that's just me. In any case, I wasn't holding my breath when it came to "The Wolverine." It's not that I thought it looked bad, in fact I thought the trailer was pretty promising, but I didn't really feel like paying movie theater prices to see it.

To my pleasant surprise, however, "The Wolverine" ended up being a film that I greatly enjoyed. In fact I had such a good time with it that I'd put it up there with "X-Men: First Class," although the later is the ultimately more satisfying film. It's a very different "X-Men" movie than we're used to, stripped down to the bare essences and free of the clutter of outlandish super-powers and revolving door of half-baked, poorly-defined characters dragging the plot through the mud as we slog through the cameos. That was always one of my biggest issues with those movies: It always seemed like there were about two dozen main characters, barely any of whom had enough screen time to be more than a walking name tag saying "Hi, My Name is Rogue."

Instead of having a massive cast who all seemed haphazardly crammed in strictly for fan-service reasons, "The Wolverine" keeps the story simple and about one (1) guy's journey. After the events of "X-Men: The Last Stand," Logan (Hugh Jackman) is living out in the wilderness, having nightmares every night about having killed his love interest Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), and essentially being a miserable bastard who has had quite enough of living. When Yashida (Haruhiko Yamanouchi), a powerful businessman whom Logan had saved from the A-bomb dropped on Nagasaki, offers him a way out of his misery by taking away his immortality, Logan finds himself tempted by the idea and goes to Japan.

Of course things go kind of sour pretty quickly, Yashida dies, a power grab ensues, his funeral turns into a slaughterhouse, and Logan finds himself on the run, protecting Yashida's daughter, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) from the Yakuza and a dangerous mutant named Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova) as they make their way across Japan, trying to solve the mystery of what exactly is going on here. All this is going on while Logan's healing ability is strangely not working very well, causing him to actually be hurt by such trivial things as being shot and stabbed. Eventually he makes his way to one of Yashida's fortresses out in the middle of nowhere to save Mariko and put an end to the shenanigans afoot. Oh, and there may or may not be a fight with a giant samurai made from ademantium.

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

It's a very simple story that, not surprising given the plot, is not dissimilar to a samurai flick that you may have seen Toshiro Mifune in. Yashida even calls Logan a "Ronin" at one point, and there's plenty of imagery that makes it clear that's exactly what they were going for here. It almost reminded me of a live-action anime given the style and setting, which is very cool and off kilter enough to make "The Wolverine" really stand out among the rest of the Marvel franchise.

In fact this film rarely even feels like a Marvel movie, simply on the basis of it being too good. Yeah, you heard me fanboys, I said it. In terms of it being an uncluttered story with solid character arcs, well laid out motivations, believable and non-irritating characters and consistent and satisfying themes, this is better than any of the rest of the Marvel films with the exception of "X-Men: First Class." But in some ways I like "The Wolverine" better.

One of the main reasons it feels different is because for most of the movie, Logan is hurting pretty bad. His healing powers aren't working, so he's vulnerable. His brash actions that typically involve him eschewing any kind of caution now have dire consequences, to the point where he could actually die. The problem with a lot of the X-Men is that they are utterly defined by their powers, and while that is still somewhat true with Logan, in this film he has to become more than just a man who can't die, because that's not who he is anymore. I think it's the first time any X-Men movie has dealt with characterization to that extent, and it's a refreshing change.

As refreshing as the gentle breeze on top of a train going 300 mph. Aaaah. Soothing.

On a number of occasions it also had me doing one of my favorite things, which is sitting back in awe as I say to myself, "Well, I've never seen that before." Two scenes in particular stand out, one being an absolutely stunning action sequence on top of a bullet train which puts the end of the first "Mission: Impossible" to shame, and the other one being a sequence where Logan performs open-heart surgery on himself. I was invested for the entire film, but those parts were especially fantastic and blew me away.

And of course Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine at this point, having completely become the character and the eternal badass that he is. The fact that he's great in it is a given, but it was nice to see them make his hair look a little less ridiculous while still giving the hint of his classic but absurd haircut. It was also cool seeing Will Yun Lee again, and I also always enjoy seeing Hiroyuki Sanada show up in anything, and he gets to play both a jerk and swing a sword here, both being things he is exceedingly good at, so that was cool. And newcomers Tao Okamoto and Rila Fukushima were a delight, and I hope to see more of them in the future because they're both quite good. The only issue I had was Svetlana Khodchenkova, and that's not because she was bad, but because she's got this mole of preposterous size on her face that is intensely distracting.

"Hey, you've got something on your face. Right there, to the right. You need to take care of that. Seriously, it's like someone glued a Coco-Puff to the side of your mouth. It's freaking me out."

It's not surprising given that the director, James Mangold, is very very good, but "The Wolverine" exceeded pretty much every expectation that I had. I'm not sure if it'll make my Top 10 of 2013, but if it doesn't it'll probably make an honorable mention at the very least. If they keep cranking them out like this, the X-Men films might start showing the other Marvel films up. Not in terms of box-office, I'm sure, but since when do box-office numbers count for quality? Just have Joss Whedon write a bunch of jerks snarking at each other for two hours before actually doing something productive and acting like superheroes. That sounds way better than something with actual characterization and mature themes.

Check out this awesome trailer for "The Wolverine."

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Wolverine" is way better than a sequel to "X-Men: The Last Stand" has any right to be. It's stylish, it's action-packed, Hugh Jackman is fantastic, and the storyline has the most introspective and deep characterization we've ever gotten in a Marvel film, mostly due to the fact that it's about just Logan as opposed to a cast of dozens, so it gets a chance to actually flesh him out as a character. One of the best Marvel films ever, second only to maybe "X-Men: First Class."

Iron Man 3 (2013)

It's at this point that I wonder if I'm the right person to be writing about the Marvel movies. True, it's not like I was assigned this or anything, but you know what I mean. After Phase 1 of Marvel's plan reached its conclusion with "The Avengers," and out of the 6 films in that series, I was blown away by a grand total of 1 of them, it started becoming clear that perhaps I'm just not a Marvel guy. I just don't get the rabid, slavering praise they usually receive.

Maybe I need to read the comics to truly "get it," but I've never been a comic book fan. I just watch the movies and hope that there won't be too much stuff that flies over my head. This usually doesn't work out. I just assume every time the audience I'm seeing it with freaks out and applauds over a character appearing that they're someone important. This may hinder me from getting the same level of enjoyment from the film that they do, but at least I'm not subject to the same insane nerd rage they have whenever they see the next great "ultimate betrayal."

I'm sure I'd feel the same way about Deadpool, friend, but fortunately I don't even know who that is.

With "Iron Man 3" I was excepting to have a really good time. Hopefully. However there was a bit of apprehension on my part, considering that even though I love Robert Downey Jr., the character of Tony Stark has been steadily sliding down the scale towards irreverent, obnoxious comic relief. Yes, I know he's always been a snarky smart-ass but Joss Whedon took him so far in that direction in "The Avengers" that he should have just dressed like Oscar Wilde and had a rimshot after every line.

Actually, "The Importance of Being Ernest" would have been way better with robots.

I was very relived to find that "Iron Man 3" did indeed drop pretty much all of the camera mugging that Tony Stark had been doing in his last few outings, and instead had him act like a human being who doesn't have something witty to say after every single thing that's said. Now it's only about 50%, which means it's still a lot, but coming from 98% in "The Avengers" it seems almost dour.

Unfortunately this is one of those instances where I have to once again be a big buzzkill and go against the common consensus when it comes to the Marvel franchise. Like most of the rest of the films before it, there isn't too much glowing praise I can give "Iron Man 3" because it was just okay. It wasn't bad, by any means. This is a well directed, well acted film that has a great look and style to it. Hell, it's by Shane Black, who is a director I really like. The craftsmanship on display is admirable. I can not take that away.

But at the same time I'm having trouble remembering much about it. Some of that has to do with the fact that I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of these characters, which made the story kind of hard to follow. Some of that has to do with some clumsy storytelling. And some of it has to do with me being kind of bored through a portion of it.

After "The Avengers," Tony Stark is suffering from some PTSD, which is understandable since he almost died. He can't sleep, is getting even weirder than normal, and eventually starts getting full blown panic attacks. Throughout the film he tries to come to terms with all that, which serves as his character arc here. I do have to give the "Iron Man" trilogy credit for having Tony Stark evolve as a character with each film.

The actual plot has to do with The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), a shadowy Osama bin Laden type figure who is doing a pretty good job of blowing up a lot of stuff without getting caught. There is also an epidemic of exploding people going on which seems to be connected to The Mandarin. After his friend and head of security, Happy Hogan (John Favreau) gets severely hurt in one the attacks, Tony foolishly calls The Mandarin out, only to get his house blown up and all his stuff wrecked.

Oh man. This was ill-advised.

A side story that eventually takes center stage is a scientist named Alrich Killian (Guy Pearce). He's working on technology that will allow people to rapidly heal themselves, and also turn themselves into 3000 degree walking infernos if they feel like it. That's a hell of a side effect, but there you go. That's a real scientist in action, folks. There is no thing in science which doesn't lead to horrible, world-ending abominations of mankind.

"Hey man. Do you want science or not?"

So we've got The Mandarin blowing stuff up, Killian doing science that assures that he'll be a villain, and Tony traipsing around Tennessee trying to fix his suit. Eventually everything comes together and we get a showdown with these walking fireballs and a whole lot of Iron Man suits that are all fully capable of fighting without anyone inside. This is all fine, and fulfills the requisite number of explosions, at least in the third act when the action thankfully kicks in after a pretty talky first two acts.

I will praise "Iron Man 3" for Tony getting to show off his ingenuity after he is deprived of his suit, and must construct a bunch of makeshift weapons that come across like if Red Green had to make an machine like that. True, there was no duct tape that you could see, but I'm pretty sure there was probably some in there somewhere. Either way it was fun to see him go DIY after we're used to him pulling the most random bits of super technology out of his ass like the computerized version of Batman's utility belt.

"If they can't find you handsome, they might as well find you capable of improvising lethal weaponry."

I will say that Guy Pearce is doing a very good job of turning me around on my opinion of him. For a very long time I thought he was at best an average actor but lately he's really been busting his ass proving me wrong. In this film he's quietly intimidating to great effect, and he was actually a lot of fun to watch. Even though he character going from the mindset of helping mankind to terrorism just because a rich jerk snubbed you once seems like a rather severe leap. I'm just saying.

Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin was...interesting. When he's being the cold, ruthless terrorist he's perfectly evil, as Kingsley is an old hand at villainy to say the least. Then the character is taken in a slightly bizarre direction, and while it seems out of nowhere and probably a departure from how he is in the comics (I have to assume), I have to admit to getting a lot of entertainment out of him in the second half of the film.

 The Mandarin could be either a terrorist or the singer for an awesome power metal band.

Gwyneth Paltrow was alright I guess. Pepper Potts was always kind of a nothing character for me, personally, as I'm not quite sure why she's there because she doesn't really do anything. But at least here she serves more of a purpose when she gets kidnapped and is the focus of a "shocking moment" that was effective for all of two seconds before I called what was going to happen after. I was a bigger fan of Rebecca Hall, because even though she's kind of pointless too, she is gorgeous while doing so. Not that Gwyneth isn't easy on the eyes as well but Rebecca Hall is so hot you could cook a steak on her.

Medium rare, please. :D

The only person I didn't care for was Harley, a little geeky child played by Ty Simpkins. Ty is a fine young actor who was good in "Insidious" but I was not a fan of Harley. He's obnoxious and can't physically shut up. There's a scene where he ends up giving Tony a panic attack after rattling all these questions about the alien invasion at him, and I almost felt sick to my stomach - not because I had PTSD but because I wanted to punch him so hard that it caused me pain. I will admit that the chemistry between him and Downey Jr. was great, though. You can tell they had a lot of fun.

You know, all of this adds up to a fine film. It's entertaining, it's well acted, and it's seldom dull. So why aren't I aglow with praise? I'm not sure, really. I think it just goes back to me not really caring overly much about the Marvel franchise. And at the end of the day, if I can't recall a good majority of the film a mere day after seeing it, what does that say?

"That you have a moderate to severe head injury?"

I'm not sure. I don't know what my deal is with these movies. But whatever my issue, it probably means I'm going to get a lot more people telling me I'm dead wrong. Fine, whatever. Start the nerd rage. Take a number. I'm going to be over here, watching "The Dark Knight Rises."

Here's the trailer for "Iron Man 3," in case you've been under a rock for 6 months.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Iron Man 3" is a competent movie. It's fine. It's well done. And it's fading from my memory so quickly it's difficult to remember many of the praises or various issues I had with it. I can't see myself watching it again, although I'm not upset that I saw it. I honestly have very few feelings towards it whatsoever. So if my apathy isn't condemnation, by all means consider this a recommendation.

The Avengers (2012)

I intensely dislike Joss Whedon. I would love to punch him in the face. Him and that smug style of writing he has. I can't explain it, but there it is. I've never been able to put my finger on what it is about his writing that just irritates me to no end, but I'd say there are two big factors: smugness and the fans.

The first factor is pretty self-explanatory: Whedon's writing is full of itself. Nearly every line from every character in one of his shows is some quirky, wink-at-the-camera, oh-I'm-so-clever, snarky joke that I just never see the humor in. And the second factor, the fans, love it.

Oh you Joss Whedon fans. I really am not too fond of you, either. Not on a personal level, no you're fine people generally speaking, but you just can't wrap your heads around the fact that I don't like Joss Whedon can you? That fries you to your core, doesn't it? It just gets under your skin and festers like a wound. Your eyes go wide, your jaw drops and you shout "WHAT?!" at me when I responded (after you asked) that I didn't like "Firefly." Then you tell me I have no taste in sci-fi. Every time. You lot are nothing if not consistent, I'll give you that.

 "You DARE defy The Great Forehead?! Destroy him, my minions! FLY!!!"

I've actually been threatened with physical violence over "Firefly" before on two separate occasions, so don't tell me you people can't get a bit intense. "Star Trek" fans don't do that when I say I liked "Voyager." They just roll their eyes and say "Next Gen" was better. That's called "civility," people. I'm sorry your show only lasted a season. Trust me, FOX screwed me out of MY favorite show, "Arrested Development" too. I feel your pain. WE ARE KIN.

So before going into "The Avengers," let me clear the air and address some things right now. Here are the issues which I'm sure I'm going to get called on, and let me answer them here and now.

1) "You're going into it with a bad attitude!"
I wasn't too excited about "The Avengers," no, but I wasn't dreading it. I was more neutral. But I've never liked Joss Whedon's works before, so you can't blame me for being apprehensive.

2) "It's just a movie, dude! Turn off your brain and have fun!"
I like to have fun with my brain ON, thank you very much. I don't consider mindless acceptance a positive quality to have. That trait is why Michael Bay still has a career. It's kind of evil.

3) "Why do you have to nitpick everything and ruin everyone's fun?"
Because unlike most of you, I'm a critic. It's what I do. I've been doing it for years. I was published in a newspaper. It was my job. What do you think my reviews would have been like had I just typed IT WAS AWESOME 100 times? It doesn't mean I'm necessarily out to ruin stuff, I'm analyzing it. And don't ask me what I thought if you don't want the truth.

4) "But in the COMIC they explain-"
Didn't read. Don't care. Irrelevant.

5) "Well I thought it was awesome."
Cool! I thought it was mediocre!

Ok? Now on the part where I make a lot of people mad at me. Beforehand, let me just say, I'm sorry and please don't firebomb my house.

Before I get into the character aspects of the film that I found annoying, I'd first like to bring up some plot related stuff that really irked me. First up is that there seemed to be some real inconsistency in powers. Most of this come from The Hulk. Now, at about the halfway point of the film, Thor has a fight with The Hulk, and while he doesn't exactly beat him up, it was a pretty close fight before it got cut short. However, later in the film, Thor has his little showdown with Loki and can't touch him. And then here comes Hulk, beating the ever-loving cream-filled stuffing out of Loki.

How does that work? We also have to assume Thor was probably going easy on Hulk at least a bit, since he probably didn't want to really hurt him, if that was even possible. But there's no way he was going easy on Loki. So if Thor could hold his own against Hulk while holding back, and Hulk could just sneeze on Loki to pulverize him, Loki verses Thor at full tilt shouldn't even have been close. Instead, Loki pretty much wins that fight. So exactly how powerful is he, then? Make up your mind, movie.

"Hulk level up between scenes!"

And another thing with The Hulk! Why does Hulk all of a sudden not go into an insane rage the second time he Hulks out? He was trying to kill Scarlett Johansson earlier, and now he's fighting alongside them and taking orders? What changed? Did I miss a line? All of a sudden he's totally cool, capable of taking orders, and totally knows who is on his side and who isn't? You just can't do that without explaining it! It seemed that Whedon realized that he wrote himself into a corner with Hulk, but said "screw it" and had him fighting with The Avengers at the end just because.

OH! Another thing!!! How in the hell did the mystical MacGuffin wind up on the roof of Tony Stark's building without him knowing? The dude is hardwired into everything on the freaking planet with his tech, yet his AI butler dropped the ball on his home security?! And you can't tell me they hacked his AI butler, because he's functioning perfectly throughout the entire affair.

Alright, alright I'm done with the plot holes. Besides, apart from the MacGuffin on the roof, none of those were really deal breakers for me. They were more like little annoyances. No, for me the real Listerine in the punchbowl were the characters themselves, and how they acted. Particularly the guy who was once one of the most awesome superheroes around, but has now become one of the most insufferable: Tony Stark.

"Hi, my name is Robert, but you can call me Chuckles the Clown."

Tony Stark is hands down the least interesting character in this film. He's a walking punchline. And no, that doesn't automatically make him awesome. That makes him a punchline. There's a difference. I seem to recall Tony being slightly less obnoxious with the amount of jokes and "Lookit me, I'm not taking this too seriously" lines in the other "Ironman" films. I mean, they were there, sure, but they seemed a bit more spaced out. In "The Avengers" it's like EVERY SINGLE LINE with this guy. If Tony Stark is on the screen, there can't be 12 seconds going by without a witty, snide comment with the appropriate amount of pause afterwords so the audience can laugh. Irritation and distraction are not powerful enough adjectives to describe the effect that had on me. And of course, he's probably the Avenger with the most screen time.

The far more interesting characters for me were Captain America and Thor. I found Captain America interesting because he was the man representing loyalty and faith in the system, something he fought and basically died for, but he gets thrown in a position of having to question that very loyalty and coming to terms with what the "right" thing to do really is, even if it means disobeying orders. It's an interesting bit of character development which lasts for about 5 minutes before an action scene starts, and when it's done he's made his decision. That's fine, but personally I would have liked to have seen it addressed maybe one more time, because it was a good angle for the character.

Now Thor I liked because of the connection he had with the villain. Loki being Thor's brother added a connection that the other characters couldn't hope to match. For that reason, the scenes between Thor and Loki are quite good and have far more impact on a dramatic level than when any of the other Avengers are fighting him. For everyone else it's just the Big Bad of the movie, but for Thor it's personal.

Loki also possess the power to turn into Michael Sheen.

Thor is also the only character that was given the exact proper amount of funny lines. That total ended up being maybe three. He's basically the complete antithesis of Tony Stark in that regard, since Tony had maybe three lines that were serious, and for that reason Thor was the only character that I actually found funny. When he said something humorous, it was unexpected, and to be perfectly honest, Chris Hemsworth had a FAR superior sense of comedic timing. The one joke I laughed at was Thor meekly mentioning that Loki is adopted when it's brought up that his brother killed a lot of people. That was pretty funny.

But YOU need to shut up, dude, before you wear out the love I have for you...

Speaking of shutting up, the absolute biggest problem I had with this flick was the unbelievable amount of talking going on. GOOD. GRAVY. I thought we were over this. Did I miss something? What have we been doing the last half decade? What were all those other movies about? You know, the FIVE Marvel films that were the lead-in to "The Avengers?"

I thought the point of those was so that we didn't need an hour and a half of talking in "The Avengers" movie. I thought in this movie, since we already knew everyone, they would simply form a team because of an evil that threatens the world, and a lot of stuff blows up and awesome superhero action awaits without having to bother with drama and petty bickering.

Boy was I wrong. Almost the entire first two acts of the film are devoted to the Avengers bickering and in-fighting with each other as they can't seem to come to the simple conclusion that they really need to work together otherwise they're all dead. Oh wow. That's fun. That's what I paid $10 to see: superheroes having a penis measuring contest. For that reason I found the first 2/3rd's of the movie to honestly be pretty darn boring, with the exception of an occasional brief action scene snapping me out of drifting off.

But shock of all shocks, once the third act comes along, "The Avengers" out of nowhere gets pretty freaking good. I'm not going to lie, the last act is outstanding. And although the action does have an annoying habit of flipping back and forth between "phenomenal" and "way-too-close-what-the-hell-am-I-looking-at-stop-shaking-the-camera," the ratio of amazing to confusing is severely skewed in the positive direction. The last 40 minutes or so of "The Avengers" is probably some of the best, most consistently exciting action I can recall from...well nearly any movie, really.

And that fact makes it just that much more frustrating for me when I realized that had this movie been about half an hour shorter, started at the third act, and just played out Loki's plan to a more severe outcome, "The Avengers" would have ROCKED. The alien invasion that is the third act should have happened by the half hour mark. Not the hour and forty minute mark. This should have been a movie entirely made up of The Avengers fighting back the alien horde. Not Tony Stark and Steve Rogers puffing their chests out at each other and setting a time and place to fight after school.

Most of the movie is The Avengers fighting each other rather than the bad guys.

I know people are going to come down hard on me for having these views, but I'm sorry. For the most part I found "The Avengers" to be boring, obnoxious and WAY too full of itself. And I blame every single bit of that on Joss Whedon, because that is the exact same reaction I've had to pretty much everything he's ever done.

And for those of you fanboys and fangirls ready to tear my head off over what you would probably call my "blasphemy," ask yourself a question, think about it seriously, and be honest:

"Did you really enjoy "The Avengers" on a objective level, or did you enjoy it simply because it's there?"

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Avengers" is not a bad movie. It's just not that great if you ask me. It's kind of boring, it takes way too long getting started, the plot never really solidifies, and most of the movie is superheroes being snarky jerks to each other. When it finally does pick up at the end, it's fantastic, which is the best redeeming quality for the film. Fanboys will worship it because that's what they do. For someone with their blinders off, I can say it's just "OK" at best. Recommended for a rental, or perhaps theaters after all the annoying diehards are done seeing it 15 times.