The Dark Knight (2008)

I remember that "The Dark Knight" was one of the first movies where I really stuck my head in the sand as far as The Hype Machine went. It had always been the case beforehand where I would do a lot of research about a movie I was excited about before it came out, simply out of a clinical, almost physical need to know more. But with "The Dark Knight" it was different.

"Batman Begins" had been so good, and I was so excited about its followup that the thought of having anything ruined for me, or developing any kind of preconceptions prior to seeing it seemed like a colossal mistake. All I knew is that Christopher Nolan hadn't let me down yet, so there was something to be said for that. There also seemed to be a dread seriousness surrounding "The Dark Knight," a mystique that promised to blow your mind, and any kind of spoiler would ruin its impact. This movie, from the first teaser trailer, just seemed like it knew how good it was going to be.

If there was one thing I was...shall we say...less than sold on about "The Dark Knight," it was Heath Ledger. When he had been cast as The Joker, I remember the initial reaction. Now, some of you may not remember this, especially in hindsight, but the reaction at first was not one of joy. Most people I talked to were at best a tad skeptical. I know I was. My first thought was "That pretty boy from "A Knight's Tale?" He's The Joker? That's weird."

There were three things that swayed me, however. The first was the fact I trusted Christopher Nolan. If he cast Heath, I surmised, there had to have been a good reason. The second reason was, oddly, from a movie that I didn't even like. When I saw "The Brothers Grimm" I had thoroughly not enjoyed myself. Well, perhaps that was because I was watching it in the theater literally 5 minutes after basically getting my heart broken, and I was bumming really bad. I'm not sure how much I would have liked it in any case, but that certainly didn't help.

However, the one thing I did note about "The Brothers Grimm" was that Heath Ledger had really transformed himself into a totally different character then I had seen him play before. I realized for the first time that this guy had tremendous versatility. I figured it was just as likely that he really would transform himself again for "The Dark Knight."

The final thing was a publicity shot of Heath in Joker makeup. The shear amount of menace and creepiness that Heath was able to portray just by standing there made it abundantly clear that this was not going to be like any Joker we'd ever seen before. As much as I loved Nicholson's version of The Joker, he was more funny than anything else. Caesar Romero goes without saying. Even Mark Hamill is funny in the role. But for the first time that I'd ever seen, Joker looked like they weren't going for laughs at all. This guy looked scary. I didn't care what else I saw, after that, I was convinced that this movie was going to be something else.

"See you in your nightmares, kids..."

So I kept my eyes and ears closed, my expectations hopeful and waited impatiently for summer and "The Dark Knight" to hit, and just took it on faith that Christopher Nolan knew what he was doing. Little did I know that "The Dark Knight" was going to end up being one of my favorite movies of all time.

When speaking of the cast, much of what was said previously concerning the other two films still stands. Everyone remained a rock star, which is unsurprising considering the unfathomable talent involved. Of special note of the returning cast is Michael Caine, who delivers an even better performance than he did in "Batman Begins." Again, this is unsurprising, given the fact that it's Michael Caine, but here Alfred is given some truly incredible dialogue, and his speeches became some of the most memorable moments in the film. And you just think about that for a minute. The butler's lines are more quotable than Batman's.

And speaking of Batman's quotes, am I the only person who never took issue with "The Bat Voice?" I mean, it made sense to me. Yeah, maybe Christian Bale took it a little over the top on occasion but remember, the dude is trying to mask his identity. Anyways, I never had a problem with it.

There were three additions to the cast, all of which were very welcome. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent was stoic and heartbreakingly tragic as Gotham's best hope, and eventually great shame. What is fascinating about Harvey is that he is essentially what Batman would be if he didn't have to wear a mask. In some ways it makes Harvey more brave than Bruce, since he doesn't hide who he is. On the other hand, it makes him more foolish, since as we see at the end of the film, when you make powerful enemies, sometimes the people who suffer the most are your loved ones. That brings up an interesting question: Who is more heroic? Harvey or Bruce?

Oh yeah, Harvey. Looks like everything worked out great for everyone involved.

I was very happy about the recasting of Rachael Dawes. Although it sucks whenever an actor is replaced in a series, which really tends to remove me from a film, let us be honest. When it comes to acting, Maggie Gyllenhaal is Mike Tyson. Katie Holmes is more like Don Flamenco. While it would have been nice for Maggie to have been in it from the beginning, at least the character isn't a weak link in at least one of the movies, and I really liked her in this movie a lot. Although to be honest, I was a bit upset over their decision to put Maggie's hair up far too often in the film. As pretty as Maggie is, there are hairstyles that do not flatter certain face types, and Maggie can not do hair up. Not trying to sound like a pig, but it brings her from an 8 to a 5. But that's just me.

Of course there is one more to talk about, but it is even worth bringing up Heath Ledger at this point? It's pretty much an established fact that not only was it completely, wildly, impossibly off-base for anyone to have the slightest doubt about him playing The Joker, it may be that his version will become the definitive one whenever anyone talks about the character from now on. Personally, I've loved every version of The Joker I've seen, even Caesar Romero's campy, moustachioed one. They're all equally valid, because he's such an amazing character, and every actor who has played him has been fantastic in the role. And the great thing about Joker is that the fact that he has changed a great deal in various incarnations is almost in keeping with the character himself, being the avatar of chaos that he is.

There were so many things about Ledger's Joker that worked that it's almost difficult to put your finger on it. The role is just written so tightly, so intelligently, and so darkly hysterical while being played with such gusto and complete terrifying believability that he just becomes a living, breathing entity that oozes off the screen in all his greasy, dangerous, probably foul-smelling glory. It's one of those very special characters that really became bigger than the movie itself. It brings to mind other roles like Tyler Durden from "Fight Club," Jack Torrence from "The Shining," Alex DeLarge from "A Clockwork Orange," or Captain Jack Sparrow from the "Pirates of The Caribbean" series.

"When the chips are down, these uh, these "civilized people", they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve." #amazing dialogue

But of course, things happened the way they happened, which brings up the question that everyone was asking: Did Heath Ledger deserve the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor? Well, it's a very simple answer. Yes, he did. The problem isn't whether or not he deserved it, the problem is: would he have gotten it had he not died? I hate to say it, but I think the answer is "No." I'm sure he would have gotten nominated at least, but let's not kid ourselves. Comic book movies don't win Oscars. That's why they have pretentious schlock - so that they have movies to give awards to. I think it was just a special case that year where the academy was caught in a catch-22.

So yes, it was a mercy Oscar, especially since he was going up against sacred cows Josh Brolin and Philip Seymour Hoffman. But that doesn't mean he didn't deserve it.

The only cast member who bugged me was that SWAT member in the armored car carrying Harvey during the semi-truck scene. You know, the guy sitting in the passenger seat spewing nothing but really bad one-liners the entire time? I HATED that guy. He did absolutely bupkis except essentially narrate the scene for us as if we couldn't see what was happening on screen for ourselves. Words can't describe how angry that dude made me, since that scene was one of the highlights of the film, but every 25 seconds it cut back to him saying some stuff crap like "Now that's what I'm talking about!" SHUT. UP.

Anyways. Moving on. What surprises me, looking back on the Christopher Nolan Batman series, is how fast paced they are, especially with how long the run time is. No scene is given a chance to breathe, it's just *bam* next scene *bam* next scene *bam* without ever really slowing down at all. It really makes the films as an overall experience somewhat exhausting to watch, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means that this trilogy, particularly "The Dark Knight" aren't movies to be watched casually. If you were to ask me to do a marathon of them, I wouldn't be sure if I wanted to do it in one sitting. That sounds like an emotionally wearisome experience.

Speaking of emotional turmoil, I think what stands out for me the most in "The Dark Knight," and probably the thing most people will remember, is how utterly dark it is. There are a whole lot of people being butchered in this movie by The Joker, often in shockingly brutal ways. But at the same time, as weird as it is to say, it's funny. And the emotional turmoil comes into play when you catch yourself laughing at the carnage.

I know that at more than a couple occasions I found myself slightly disturbed with the fact that Joker's violence put a smile on my face. I don't know if it was because the performance was so good, if it was legitimately funny, or if I'm just sick, but there it is. I don't think I'm alone though, because whenever I saw it in the theater, people were laughing hard. But it was always strangely intermingled with an odd kind of unease, like they felt guilty for laughing. It was a very unsettling experience.

Never, ever book The Joker to do magic tricks at your kid's party...

Of course dark is par for the course with this film, since it is the middle of a trilogy. Typically in a three movie structure the second part is the darkest. I believe it was George Lucas who said "In the first movie you introduce all the characters, in the second movie you put them in the absolute darkest pit you can find, somewhere they can never get out of, and in the last movie they get out." And while George isn't one to typically take advice from as far as movies go, that's a pretty accurate statement.

"You die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." That's the key phrase of "The Dark Knight," and it certainly leaves Bruce at his lowest point. Everything he's fought for, suffered for, and seen people die for is at sake in the aftermath of this madman who has taken Gotham and completely turned it on its head. And in an act of selflessness, he is forced to become the bad guy. And he's OK with that, as long as the city is safe.

That's why I've always loved Batman. More than any other superhero, he is the most human, and because of that is so much tougher and frankly more heroic than the rest, since he has no powers to fall back on. I can't remember seeing another comic book hero go through so much in a series of films as Batman has in the Christopher Nolan series, and I can't remember a hero making so many sacrifices. Most of the time heroes just end up saving the day. But with this Batman series, there aren't any easy answers, and sometimes the villains end up winning in the end. And dealing with the fallout of those real-life consequences like a true hero would have to do is what makes Batman a far more interesting character, and in my opinion, a better hero.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Dark Knight" is one of my favorite movies, and it's for sure one of the best comic movies I've ever seen. It's thrilling, intense, shocking, DARK as hell, and contains one of the most memorable movie villains of the past 20 years. It's hard to argue that it's the high point of the trilogy, much the same way "The Empire Strikes Back" was. Sometimes darker really is better. "The Dark Knight" gets my first "ESSENTIAL VIEWING" recommendation.

The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

I really don't care too much about Spiderman. It's not that I don't like him, I just don't really care that much. He's got sweet powers and he's funny and he swings around like whoa, and that's cool and all, but I guess I'm just a Batman guy at heart. Maybe I just like a superhero who's just as crazy as the villains he's fighting. Or maybe I'm a sucker for Michael Keaton. At least I'll take The Keaton over Toby McGuire any damn day of the year. All that considered, Spiderman has never really done much for me.

On the plus side, he's not Superman. Nuts to that boring Boy Scout.

It's a weird thing, however, to have a reboot of a series that is still so relatively new, like they did with "Spiderman." The Sam Raimi trilogy isn't even old enough to ride all the coasters at Ceder Point yet, so it's quite off-putting, and some would say insulting, to start from scratch again so quickly. Of course, some might also say that after "Spiderman 3" the only possible option was to throw everything out and start again.

Personally, I was unsurprisingly neutral on the issue. I liked the first "Spiderman," and still consider it a darn fun movie. I never understood the big deal about "Spiderman 2." What I got out of that movie was basically the feeling that I had just watched the first movie again with Willem Dafoe's parts and the origin story all cut out of it. It wasn't bad, I was just bored with it. And while I didn't have the searing fanboy fueled hatred of "Spiderman 3" that everyone else had, I didn't think it was necessarily good, just OK. Oddly enough I think I actually got more enjoyment out of the third film than the most likely objectively better second one. Go figure.

Betrayal!!! Everyone knows Venom had 275 teeth! NOT 319 like the movie had! This movie sucked!

So clearly my taste in the whole Spiderman issue is suspect from the very beginning. For that reason, feel free to take whatever I say next with a grain of non-fanboy flavored salt. That isn't to say that "The Amazing Spiderman" is about to get a scathing pounding from me, because it's not. It wasn't bad. It just wasn't that great.

First off, I'll start with what the movie does best, because what it does well it does very well, and most of what it does well is the cast. Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker is leagues, miles, continents, planets, parsecs, GALAXIES ahead of what Toby McGuire did for the role in the previous films. There really isn't a moment in the entire film that he isn't completely convincing. And he has a voice that fits the character as well, which is important when he's Spiderman because obviously, we're not seeing his face. Garfield also has a great sense of comedic timing which helps turn in some really funny lines that we would come to expect from Spiderman.

He also looks like a high schooler, something that Toby McGuire never convincingly pulled off. I don't know, to me Toby McGuire always looked like someone had artificially aged a toddler to be 26 by the time he was 2, but the equation wasn't quite right so his body never caught up to his giant head.

In fact, I'll just go down the list and say the rest of the cast was also great. There really was no weak link at in the entire film, even though I got the feeling that Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was...how should I put this...not necessarily wasted, but given a kind of boring character. It's not her fault, and she does fine, but there really wasn't much to her besides "love interest." At least they didn't pull the damsel in distress thing.

God, I miss her with red hair...

Denis Leary was great as Gwen's dad, although the years have not been kind to him. Dude's aging fast. Rhys Ifans as the villain, Dr. Conners aka The Lizard plays your standard well-meaning-but-still-making-dumb-mistakes-by-making-himself-the-test-subject-because-they'll-shut-him-down-otherwise scientist, but he does it well. He does have moments of some pretty intimidating menace make him a fun villain, although at times you do start to wonder why he's continuing doing what he's doing considering that each time he does it he turns into a giant destructive lizard. Really, dude? Does it really look like it's working as you originally planned?

"It's science, you wouldn't understand..."

For me though, the guy who stole the show apart from Garfield was good old Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. Good god was he awesome. He is so real in that way that only a true pro like Sheen can pull off. You wonder at times if he's even acting at all, considering that I'm sure he's had many a conversation raising kids that were probably identical to the talks in this movie. It was also nice to see Sally Field again as Aunt May. I can't even remember the last time I saw her in anything.

Apart from the cast, the action in "The Amazing Spiderman" is really good. Spiderman moves in a very organic, almost animalistic way that makes sense when you consider his powers, and he integrates that into combat in a very cool fashion. It was also nice to see his "spider sense" kick in more often, and in a (generally) more subtle way than the slow-motion, over the top way the previous films flaunted it. All this made the action really good...

...when the movie decided to have it.

My biggest problem with "The Amazing Spiderman" was that honestly, it's kind of a boring talk-fest. It's not that there isn't good stuff being said, it's just that Peter Parker gets way, WAY more screen time than Spiderman. And even though that's normal for the first part of a superhero origin movie, by the halfway point it starts to get a little annoying, especially since the action that is in it is so good. The could have spent a little less time on Peter dating, and a little more time on Spiderman kicking some Lizard butt.

This also leads into another problem I had, which was that I never felt a strong connection with what exactly Peter Parker's goals were. It's no spoiler that Uncle Ben gets killed by a robber that Peter lets go moments before that disaster strikes. That's a very well done scene, and Peter's resolve afterwards in finding the man who did it was honestly the most gripping part of the film for me, because he's using is powers, but not knowing what he purpose is with them yet. He's just a very angry kid, and it's pretty dark for a while there.

Then he gets a suit somehow (we never really find out where or how) and not too long after that, the whole "Uncle Ben's Killer" plot is just dropped from the story like he just up and forgot about it. For some reason, that whole "entire driving purpose behind his character" is forgotten, and he's like "Welp, guess I'm Spiderman now. Let's do this."

Excuse me? Didn't you have some unresolved issues? Couldn't you resolve them before just changing your goals? There is a scene on a bridge where he saves some people, and I suppose that's supposed to be his big realization moment that he needs to use his powers to help people, but the fact that the robber is never even brought up again really irked me a lot. I mean, it was kind of an important thing!

"Hey Uncle Ben. Hypothetical here, but if you got killed and I swore vengeance but kind of just forgot about it, how upset would you be?"

And also, I can't finish without bringing up something that really, REALLY bothered me: the last line of the film. Now, spoilers below, because to fully understand, I have to spoil.

At the climax of the film, Denis Leary's character is mortally wounded by The Lizard. After the fight is over, he tells Peter with his dying breath that he needs to stay away from his daughter, for her own sake. Peter promises him that he will, and later, breaks up with her.

This is a great scene. It's reflective of Peter's journey into a selfless, noble superhero who realizes that he must put the good of others before his own, because his late Uncle Ben taught him that he has a responsibility to use his talents to better serve the world. After all, even though the movie never actually says the immortal line that is the tagline and philosophical lynchpin of the entire Spiderman mythos (why they don't say it I have NO idea): "With great power comes great responsibility."

And then...we come to the last scene. Cue the class room. Peter comes in late. He says "Sorry I'm late. It won't happen again." The teacher looks at him, scoffs, and says "Don't make promises you can't keep, Mr. Parker."

Peter then takes a seat behind Gwen and whispers to her, "But those are the best kinds of promises." Gwen smirks, we cut to Spiderman swinging around New York, roll credits.

BULL. SHIT.

Way to make that whole emotional scene not three minutes beforehand mean absolutely dick. I mean, yeah, that's totally cool that you took a character who finally discovers that not everything revolves around him, who is on a journey to be a great hero, who just made a huge sacrifice to protect the person he loves, and did a complete backwards 180 to turn him into a selfish, lying douchebag.

If he truly loved Gwen, he would leave her alone. He has seen the effects of what his actions can have on other people. Stuff like, I don't know, her freaking dad DYING. I just can't believe that a noble sacrifice in a superhero movie was so promptly negated by a selfish action. Way to make me intensely dislike Peter Parker in the last 30 seconds of the film. What the hell.

Doooooooooooouche.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Amazing Spiderman" has some really good stuff in it. This has been compared a lot to "Batman Begins," and while it's nowhere close to as good as that, I can see where people are coming from with that analogy. It's dark, it takes itself seriously, and the acting is all top notch. However, it's just one of those weird "can't put my finger on it" situations where I walked away not overly impressed. Maybe I just really don't care about Spiderman. But if you at all liked the others, this one is the best since the first one, and at least in the acting department, better. Recommended for at least a rental.

Chronicle (2012)

I love being surprised by movies. I had not heard fantastic things about "Chronicle." I believe the term "teenage wangst" was used more than once when I overheard discussion about it. And if there's one thing I hate, it's wangst. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, allow me to clarify.

Wangst - n - a portmanteau of "whiny" and "angst." Symptoms include complaining constantly about maintaining your 4.0 GPA, your hot girlfriend not leaving you alone, and how nobody "understands you" despite having a large group of friends. Often seen among popular, good looking rich kids in film and television.

This...this crap needs to stop. If there's one thing I can't stand it's this. And it wouldn't be so bad if real life was anything like it. I mean, I was a kid. I went to high school. I don't remember anything that exciting or epic. In fact it pretty much sucked, along with college. Where were my $500,000 house parties and friends with convertibles and really tough decisions to make about which of the 10,000 super-model ladies attending the school I wanted to take to the most important event of your life, THE PROM?

Hah! Trick question! It's always the nerdy one who cleans up real nice who you go with!

 Seriously, Daphine would have just played with your heart and stomped on it...

Getting back to "Chronicle," while it does possess a handful of those issues (mostly the INSANELY elaborate and expensive house party WTF), the amount of wangst is kept at a moderately acceptable level. Not only that, but by about halfway through the film, for the most part the film has deserted it completely in favor of a riveting and engaging film that I was, admittedly, enthralled by.

The first half of the film consists of mostly high school douchbagery, sure enough, with characters talking in that very obnoxious way that screenwriters think that young people talk. Once the 3 leads get their powers, it becomes even more irritating because it basically turns into "Jackass" with super powers as the main characters, Andrew, Matt and Steve go around and basically terrorize Seattle with their new found telekinesis. And at first I was really get annoyed with the movie, although I did acknowledge that if a bunch of high school kids got super powers, this is probably exactly what they would be doing.

But then, something unexpected and wonderful happened: consequences. Andrew and the others screw up. A lot. And, although they do get off clean because nobody can prove anything, bad things happen as a result of them screwing around, and they realize that they should be more careful with their new found powers.

This effectively put an abrupt halt to the douchbagery from before, which was a relief, but it also begins the character development of the second half of the film, where Andrew and the others begin having very different ideas about what their powers mean, and how they should be used. Matt and Steve, who have always been popular, are of the opinion that their powers should be used for good. Andrew, on the other hand, who has always been an outcast and has had a much more difficult time than the others, feels that these powers make him better than human. Looking at nature, he decides he is an "apex predator," and should rightfully crush anyone who causes him trouble, which would be most everybody. Dane DeHaan, who plays Andrew, does a great job portraying a character who you both sympathize with, and despise by the end.

 "A lion does not feel guilty when it kills a gazelle."

And that's what a good superhero story needs: a good villain. And oftentimes the most interesting villains are ones that, had things happened a bit differently, could have been allies with the heroes. True evil, although it has its place in fiction, is kind of boring because it really never started anywhere. It just IS. But Andrew is not "evil," although he's doing bad things. From what you see of his life beforehand, his progression from Matt and Steve's friend to nemesis feels totally natural, and had things gone down in a different fashion than they did, I think "Chronicle" could have made a very good origin story for a new, unique series with an interesting and tragic superhero/supervillain dynamic.

From a technical standpoint, there were a few annoyances, particularly having to do with the camera. While the movie is not shot entirely in a documentary style, there are significant sections of the movie that are. A good portion are from Andrew's camera that he got to document his life, and that he carries around everywhere. It's a tad more believable than other movies like "Quarantine" or "Cloverfield" in that there are fewer instances where any sane person would have dropped the camera ages ago, but those moments still happen occasionally.

The way they get around that is that they inter-cut the handheld footage with other things like security cameras, but there is also a good amount of traditional style footage as well. This is reserved for the moments when it would either be impossible to catch all of the scene with one non-omniscient camera, or those moments when there are no cameras around.

In fact, some of the most impressive moments of the film come from those moments of security camera footage, because depending on the camera, there is (fittingly) no sound. There are a couple moments, particularly one in a hospital room, when the mute video works almost like a "reverse stinger," meaning those really loud orchestra hits that play in horror movies when something scary happens. Yeah, those annoying things. Only in this movie, it's silence instead of a loud bang. It's fascinating to me the greater impact that silence can have over that when something big happens. It lends a gravity and almost dignity to the moment that shrieking violins can't match.

So overall I was not bothered at all by the changes in perspective. Some may find that irritating that it switches, but consider the alternative where the entire climax of the scene would have been a big, scrambled mess. And that would have been a shame, because the climax of "Chronicle" is fantastic. It plays out much like a video game not unlike "inFamous" or perhaps a good "Matrix" sequel. I'm not joking when I say that I was wide-eyed and slack jawed for the entire ending fight.

If there was one thing that bugged me from a technical standpoint far more than the camera did, it would have to be the flying scenes. The rig that they had for making the actors float worked well when they were moving and flipping around and whatnot, but whenever they had to just kind of float there, it looked terrible. The actor's center of gravity seemed to be located somewhere around the back of their necks with how slouched over they looked while just "standing" there.

Looking like a cat picked up by the scruff of your neck diminishes the majesty of flight.

Lastly, the issue of "where did their powers come from?" may be really off-putting to some. To sum it up briefly, you don't know. That's about it. They find the source of the power, and when they go to see it again, it has been buried again, beyond their reach. There are no answers given to us beyond "it was this that did it to them." And of course, you never even know what "it" is.

Did this bother me? Meh. Not really. I took it as something that was mysterious, and that's all you needed to know. "Chronicle" stayed consistent enough with the powers the characters had so as not to raise any significant questions about "why this and not that," so I really didn't need to know. I think being given an answer would have raised far more questions than answers in this case, anyways.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Chronicle" surprised me with how much I enjoyed it, particularly since I had heard fairly negative things about it. While I can't call it a superhero movie, it fits nicely in that genre. One is reminded of "Unbreakable," and it seems to me that "Chronicle" is a much more entertaining and fulfilling version of not necessarily that story, but of the notion of "realistic superhero." Recommended.

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.