I got to see “Marvel’s The Avengers” at the theater on Saturday, and have been very slow in getting up my review. Which is a shame, because everything I would have said has already been said multiple times, but I wanted a good excuse to talk to my fellow geeks about it. So here goes!

The Wasp Version (i.e. short but hot): It was great! Not the best super-hero movie ever, but right up there. Awesome ending extended action sequence that was everything any fan could have ever hoped for, plenty of laughs, enough quality character moments to make followers of each individual Avenger happy, and an extremely impressive overall presentation. A+!

The Wonder Man Version (poorly dressed but mighty): I say this isn’t the greatest super-hero movie of all time only because, in my personal opinion, several other smaller films were more moving or affecting, like “Iron Man” and “Dark Knight”. But it’s still crazy good.

Look, I won’t waste your time dissecting the entire movie because you should just go to see it already. If you’re on this site, it’s probably because you love super hero stuff. And if you love super hero stuff, you’ll love the film. When we were kids reading comics and imaging how awesome it would be to see in live action, this is the movie we were hoping for. Only better.

Explosions galore, characters kicking ass, fantastic in-jokes, all the stuff that makes us love comic books is there. I used to think there was simply no way to make a team super hero movie work, at least for a team like the Avengers or the Justice League, made up of disparate characters from various parts of the company brought together in an “All Star” format. Too many characters in too many competing costumes, and trying to deal with all of that while also having a plot? No way. Unmakeable. Impossible, I always thought. Yes, you can do “X-Men” or “The Incredibles”, groups that were made from scratch to be together. But the Avengers? Nunh-unh.

Folks, Joss Whedon done kicked the ever-lovin’ crap out of THAT notion. If this doesn’t finally elevate him to the top tier of directors then there’s no justice in the world. And major kudos to the Marvel Studio, which has managed to keep the thread alive through five previous movies, all with this ultimate goal in mind.

Clocking in at a hefty 2:22, I never really got bored or anxious. It moves at a nice clip, and while I can see how people who don’t know anything about the characters might be a bit lost, I don’t care about them. It’s a comics-lover’s wet dream.

The standouts for me were the Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. Yes, Robert Downey Jr. was fantastic as always, but we’ve come to expect that from him. I was most nervous about Ruffalo’s Banner going into the movie, since I thought Ed Norton Jr. was so outstanding in the last installation. But Ruffalo knocked it out of the park. His physical mannerisms, from the wringing of his hands to the slightly hunched posture, all brought a new dimension to the character that I just loved. And his signature line as he dashed into combat was an instant classic.

The back story of the Black Widow and Hawkeye provided the movie’s heart, in my opinion, giving us some people to care about beyond “how hard can they hit the bad guy”. I was especially impressed with how they fleshed out Hawkeye’s role, because let’s face it, in a world with Iron Man’s repulsor beams and Thor’s magic lightning, what the hell good is a bow and arrow? But I was a believer by the end.

Random bits I liked:
• Hulk and Loki in the Stark Tower penthouse. Laugh out loud funny and awesome.
• Hulk rampaging through the helicarrier after Black Widow. Genuinely tense.
• Everything Agent Coulson.
• Thor & Hulk going at it on the helicarrier.
• Black Widow’s interrogation techniques.
• Seeing Stark and Potts together again.
• Cut-off blue jean shorts. Yummers.
• “Hang on, Legolas.”

The Mockingbird Version (stuff I didn’t like):
I thought that out of all the characters, Thor got the shortest shrift. Not a lot of great moments, not much humor, not much visceral impact besides the aforementioned tete-a-tete with Hulk on the helicarrier. And trust me, anything with Hulk in it automatically gets a +20 Awesomeness Bonus to its roll. Thor wasn’t bad, don’t get me wrong, but out of the entire cast that role had the least meat on its bones. Which, given Chris Hemsworth’s impressive physique, is NOT easy to do.

In terms of plot, let’s be real, the ending was fairly hackish. Not that I mind, because coming off the nonstop super-powered fisticuffs and massive property damage immediately preceding it, they could’ve ended this thing with an attack of the Laser Cats and I’d still be happy.

However — and I don’t want to spoil anything here — I was a little let down that apparently the bad guys bought their ship from Vader’s Discount Megaships. ‘Nuff said.

I thought Samuel L. Jackson mostly phoned it in. He’s still great, but we didn’t get a lot of “Hell yeah!” moments out of him.

I never really understood Loki’s whole plan with the helicarrier. I mean (SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER!), Hawkeye almost brought the entire ship down with one arrow. Let the guy shoot one more and it’s all over, why the need for this elaborate ruse that had us spending so much time on that ship? It all smacked of MacGuffin chasing in a way, sort of a pointless exercise. But it was fun, so I can overlook it.

The Hulk Version (where we SMASH this review to a satisfyingly crunchy conclusion):
Nitpicks aside, the movie is a ton of fun; I can’t think of a better way to spend two hours inside as the temperatures climb. At least, ways that don’t involve writhing green extraterrestrials and a healthy dose of me as James T. Kirk.

Go see it. Stay till the last of the credits roll. And bring your big kid diapers because you’re not going to want to miss a moment.

Also, seeing the Avengers trailer in IMAX 3D was so awesome it made me weep.

Several new photos have been sneaked out of the new Superman “Man of Steel” set, this time featuring full frontal Superman:

I say it every time, but it’s hard to judge a motion picture super hero costume from stills, or even fan videos. You have to see it in motion, with full effects treatment, in the context of a story to know if it “works” or not. Having said that, I am very dubious about the choices made here, specifically about removing the red trunks.

I know the arguments against them, made most prominently by Dan DiDio, Co-Publisher of DC Comics, that modern audiences simply cannot accept the sight of an actual man running around in his underwear. If that’s your position, that’s fine — I don’t necessarily agree, but I can understand it.

However, just removing the trunks without paying attention to the impact that has on the overall design is, in my opinion, a serious mistake. And lazy. That visual band of red with the yellow belt serves to separate the uniform into a shirt and pants. Simply removing them, as it appears has been done in the movie costume, means you end up with a grown man running around in a onesie instead of his underwear. I’m not sure that’s necessarily an upgrade.

You need either some kind of a visual break there like a belt (that’s not the same color as the top and pants!), or you need to design the tunic and pants in such a way that they’re clearly separate elements. You can do it with piping, or seams (the modern equivalent of the Nineties pouches), or you can make them subtly different colors (i.e. different blue tones), but you need something to make it clear that we’re not looking at a one-piece leotard. Because outside of the Bolshoi or an NHL game, men in one-piece leotards look ridiculous.

Friend of HeroMachine John Hartwell had another excellent point as well arising (if you will) from these shots:

It’s like a naked blue buff man in a cape. Are the Village People in town?

And I’m sorry – but the tight “onesie” look (well said) only draws attention to his groinal area when the light catches it the wrong way, as you can see in the shot where he’s facing the camera. There’s this expanse of blue, then, hell-oooo! It’s a super-crotch! It’s just…disturbing.

Now, I don’t necessarily have anything against seeing the outline of a guy’s junk. Goodness knows, I have junk myself and I’m happy for it. But in terms of costume design, if you don’t have anything else going on in that region then the junkage becomes the focus, rather than the costume.

Fundamentally, that’s my problem with this. It’s not that the trunks are gone, it’s that the trunks were removed and seemingly no thought was given to how that impacts the overall design.

I poked around online and found some suggested “no trunks” alternatives that I thought solved the problem in a much better way, and which in my opinion would look better “live” than what I see in the stills above. Thoughts?

(Movie photos from SuperHeroHype.com.)

Over the last few days, several sites (NewsRama and SuperHeroHype among other) have released sneak peeks at the new Captain America uniform from the upcoming Avengers movie. If you’re not wanting to spoil the joy of seeing it for the first time on the big screen, do not read further!

So I’m just going to post a bunch of the images, after which I’ll give you my impressions. I look forward to hearing whether you think this should qualify as a “Bad Super Hero Costume” or not.

First, the good.

• Overall I think this looks pretty darn good. It’s close to the original Kirby design, while getting rid of some of the more … implausible bits like the floppy wings and pirate boots. It’s definitely modernized in some good ways, especially in the boots and shoulder/chest pieces. I like the detailing you can see in some of the shots with the pant zippers and boot straps. Particularly in the action scenes, he looks mobile, quick, and cool.
• The first images I posted yesterday on the HeroMachine Facebook page showed a few things that bugged me, especially in the area where the neck joins the chest. It looked like he had a cloth cowl that was pulled down over a raised collar, which looked … weird. A few others, though, look like maybe the cowl will be tucked under the collar, which I think looks a lot better.
• I like the detailing in the shoulder pads that you see when he’s crouching on top of the police car (while ordering two double lattes, apparently).
• The design of the tunic, which pulls over from left to right to fasten that you see in the image where he’s just standing around without his helmet, is awesome. It reminds me of Picard’s off-duty “smoking jacket” from “Star Trek: The Next Generation”. And anything that brings to mind the baddest-ass bald guy since Kojak is OK in my book.

And now, the bad.

• If the silver stripes on the shoulders are supposed to be cut-outs that show a white tunic underneath, I like them. If they’re supposed to be actual silver stripes, though, I hate them with a white-hot intensity that will burn you. BURN you!
• I feel stupid even bringing it up, but like the “Superman Returns” European-style bikini briefs, I think Cap’s chest symbol is too small. I’d like it to be maybe 20% bigger.
• The helmet wings … I’m glad they’re present, because it’s a pretty iconic part of the design. But the helmet needs more detailing along the lines of the shoulder pads for it to work, in my opinion. Something like the Hitch design, with seams and some separation. Now, in some shots it looks like there’s maybe a silver helmet-like part beneath the blue mask, which is pretty neat. But the wings still look like someone spray-painted them on with a template. Buddy John Hartwell had a good idea when I was discussing it with him, that maybe making the wings more rectangular in shape and putting them on a slight bulge in the helmet, at the depth of maybe half a pack of cigarettes, would look good. It would give the helmet some dimensionality, and could plausibly serve as the housing for some sort of communication gear.
• Personally, I like his ears sticking out of the helmet rather than sealed in.
• I really don’t like the belt pouches being blue. You need some kind of separation there between the tunic and the pants. Making them a canvas beige would have been a better choice.

Facebook commenter Lydia Weatherbie had some good points about the ears being too vulnerable to shrapnel if not enclosed, and that the boots look too much like regular sneakers on the bottom parts. So I wanted to put that out there too even if I don’t necessarily agree because I think they’re valid points.

So there you have it. Overall I give it a thumbs-up, with the usual caveat that it’s very difficult to judge a live-action super-hero movie costume just from stills, or even from surreptitious fan videos from the set. You have to see it in context, in motion, with all the effects going, to know if it works or not.

We are, however, geeks and cannot — will not! — let reason get in the way of a good trashing. So have at it in comments and let me know what you think!

I took the day off yesterday to see the “Green Lantern” movie. With the massive power of my will, I have generated the following (SPOILER ALERT!) review.

Summary: Ryan Reynolds and an all-star cast of computer generated characters meander through a disjointed script on the way to overcoming fear and some other stuff and when does
“Captain America” come out?

Full review: The central anxiety for a comic book geek upon hearing that one of his or her favorite characters is going to make the jump from the printed page to the silver screen is “Will this suck”. Because the worst thing possible is to take a cherished, iconic character and seeing it destroyed right before your ever-loving eyes.

I had this exact anxiety upon hearing they were making a “Green Lantern” movie, as Hal Jordan was one of my favorite characters growing up. The whole concept of the power ring is vaguely silly, after all — a ring that makes giant catcher’s mitts and boomerangs that’s powered by will and can’t affect anything yellow? Seriously?

But the idea of an interstellar police organization patrolling space and protecting alien races was right up my combination super-hero / science-fiction alley. And it worked, partly because Hal Jordan was such a good “straight arrow”, no-nonsense, “Right Stuff” kind of guy. Remember, the series was (re)launched in the Sixties, when astronauts were the cream of the crop of American manhood, and stood for everything noble and pure about honor, integrity, and professionalism. Guys like Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong were the honest Boy Scouts who were leading our nation into the next century.

Hal Jordan, test pilot, was absolutely in that same mold. Boring and straight-laced, maybe, but also iron-willed and pure of purpose.

Ryan Reynolds, actor playing Hal Jordan in the “Green Lantern” movie, is none of those things. He has a sarcastic demeanor, much more suited to irony and mocking humor than a “Right Stuff” kind of guy. And the character as drawn in the movie follows suit. Not quite sure of himself, a little off balance, not terribly responsible or serious-minded enough, cocksure and irreverent. As written and acted, he’s much more “Top Gun”. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and I can see how such a template would work for a more modern and jaded audience, but D.C. characters don’t tend to work when combined with that kind of modernism. At core, DC characters are supposed to be pure distillations of the heroic spirit. Even their “gritty” characters, like Batman, are boiled down to their absolute essence.

This Hal Jordan, though, is a more complex mix of doubt and assurance, cockiness and humility. And it doesn’t really work, because the script we’re given is so disjointed and unsupported we’re left not with a believable human being doing his best to rise to the (literally) astronomical level of heroism required of him, but rather a confusing and unbelievable hodgepodge of unrelated moments that we’re expected to make something out of on our own. As a result we have not a conflicted or complex character, but rather someone who just seems confused and weak. And that does not a hero make.

Furthermore, seeing a ring making giant nets to control what looks like the worst dreadlocks in the universe or making a big anti-aircraft gun or generating a chainsaw for a sword fight ended up, when seen “live”, as just … silly. The flying was cheesy, the costumes were vaguely cheesy, the whole concept of this kind of ring was cheesy. It made me kind of embarrassed that I think it’s so cool. This is the fundamental challenge when taking the more ultra powerful, almost fantasy-like characters of the DC Universe into the real world. I mean, the entire Marvel stable is built on the fundamental conceit of “These are real people living in the real world”, but which makes them inherently more believable when you see actual actors playing them on-screen. Not so with DC (Batman aside). It’s a four-color universe that is difficult to translate into real life, because it’s built on such a different foundation.

Ultimately, though, the failing of “Green Lantern” as a movie is an editorial one. I’ve read comments on other blogs that what we have is not the movie as it was filmed, written, or conceived, that key character and plot development scenes were left on the cutting room floor, and I can believe it. For instance, it’s apparent (if you read between the scenes) that Hal Jordan, Carol Ferris, and Hector Hammond were childhood friends. That relationship has repercussions for a major chunk of the movie. And yet, we never see it and we’re never outright told or shown that such a prior relationship existed. You have to infer it, from somewhat vague clues. That nullifies a major driver of the emotional action.

When Hammond first appears, it seems completely random. Even when you discover why he was chosen for the task over what the character himself admits would have been better-qualified scientists, you’re still left with the puzzle as to why it matters that we’re watching this guy. Had we known that he and the other two protagonists were friends, it would have made much more sense and we’d have been invested in his success or failure.

Similar problems occur throughout the plot. Why does Jordan have to fly back to OA just to get permission to fight what he was going to fight anyway? If he quit, why does he retain the ring? In some scenes we jump from day to night without any explanation of why.

Other problems, probably only noticed by obsessive-compulsive geeks like me, are things like “How can an alien ship crash-land on a beach right next to some big buildings, and no one notices for hours and hours? If one of the greatest Green Lanterns in history dies, why would the rest of the Corps not send someone to fetch his remains home for burial in state, instead of leaving them to be autopsied by the primitives who live there? Why does the Corps have no “First Contact” style rules in place? And why do they wear the ring on the second finger instead of the ring finger?

The special effects are, as you’d expect, pretty good. The aliens looked neat, the energy ring “constructs” were relatively convincing, and the world of OA was cool. There were, unfortunately, two exceptions. The first is the Jordan’s GL costume. Every time you were in a close up shot of his face, you could see the seam where the CGI suit met the real neck. And it was completely distracting. I kept thinking, “Surely they could have had a REAL suit they put on him for these kinds of shots?” Despite millions of dollars of research, there remains a bit of fuzziness at the border where computer effects overlay real shots. You could see it sometimes when Carol’s fingers were over Hal’s suit, or when Hal was up against a real sky background.

The other really bad special effects moment came during the almost painful “Let’s fly” training scene on OA, when Jordan swoops up beside the very cool-looking (and even better-voiced) Tomar Re and they’re laughing and chatting. It literally looks like a “Jib-Jab” movie, where photos of heads are cut and pasted on top of dancing animated figures. It was horrible.

Nitpicking aside, we have the bones of a good movie here, but they were never knitted together into a compelling narrative. I’d love to see a “Director’s Cut” some day, as my impression is that a lot of the elements necessary for making sense out of this were filmed but not shown.

Actor Reviews: Ryan Reynolds was surprisingly inoffensive in the lead. He fits the role as written, but as I said in the beginning, the role as written was, in my opinion, a mistake. In other words, they cast the right guy for a bad part. He does as much as you can expect with the role, I suppose. At least, I didn’t want to punch him in the face at any point, which was fairly surprising to me.

Blake Lively has caught a lot of crap in other reviews, but I thought she was fine. She didn’t come off as wooden or unbelievable in any way, at least to me. I thought she, again, did about as much as you could expect given the role as written.

Peter Sarsgaard as Hector Hammond was great. He had a perfect mix of nerdy self-loathing and big-brained bad-assery. You vaguely sympathized with him even as you wanted to see him get his teeth kicked in. At certain points he reminded me of Vincent D’Onofrio’s “Edgar” in “Men in Black”, which is one of my all-time favorite villain acting jobs. Definitely the best performance of the movie, although that happens a lot with the lead villain role.

Mark Strong nailed the Sinestro part. Someone else described him as “Spock with a gangster movie mustache” but I didn’t get that at all. I thought he was a good blend of arrogance and strength.

Tim Robbins as the Senator was bad. Pretty much any other middle-aged actor would have been better there. His hair looked fake, he hammed it up in every scene, and I just wished he’d have taken longer to die, in an even more painful fashion.

Grade: C- for a lackluster, even boring movie that did not hang together from a narrative standpoint. The elements of a good movie were wasted in the editing room. I don’t know if the suits got too involved or what, but what we were left with was a fairly disjointed mess that didn’t make any sense.

I actually went to see “Thor” on opening night, which I hardly ever do as I am not really a crowd guy. Which was lucky, as it turns out Durango is not a Thor town and thus the “crowd” was only twenty people or so. It was also my first major Hollywood film to watch in 3D, so it was a big day for the Bald Avenger.

I’ll put my review after the jump for those of you who haven’t seen it yet and don’t want any of the impact ruined. In other words:

BEWARE! Here there be SPOILERS!

Jeff’s Patented One-Word Review: Meh.

Jeff’s not patented grade: C+.

The Good: Visually a very appealing translation of the Thor comics. Chris Hemsworth looks and acts great as the God of Thunder, the fight scenes are awesome (flying hammer FTW!), and the Destroyer is one of the coolest enemy targets in a long time. Tom Hiddleston made a fantastic Loki. Most of my favorite bits of the sprawling Thor mythos were present.

The Bad: Those pieces didn’t really coalesce into a single satisfying narrative. The whole film felt like two hours of set-up for something that never happened — the “Avengers” movie, or some other “Thor” movie, something.

The Ugly: Volstaag should be much, much fatter. This was just a guy in a bad beard and fake pot belly coat!

Long-Form Review: “Thor” isn’t a bad movie, but it wasn’t great, either. All of the major comic book character plot points are there (and then some!) — you get the power struggle in Asgard between Thor and his brother Loki, the threat of the Frost Giants, the importance of the Rainbow Bridge, the humbling of the Thunder God, the love between a mortal and immortal, the Warriors Three, Mjolnir getting flung into the faces of mighty foes, the Destroyer blowing the crap out of everything, hints of the Avengers looming in the future, thunder and lightning, and more.

Visually, director Kenneth Branagh has done a fantastic job translating the distinctive Jack Kirby universe onto the big screen. Asgard looks amazing, the costumes work both in the other world and in this one, the special effects are spectacular, and even the most bizarre Kirbyisms come off well (I’m looking at you, incredibly long Loki horns!). You very much get the science-fantasy feel from the visual design.

The actors do a good job with the material as well, especially Tom Hiddleston as Loki. He nails the perfect combination of silver-tongued liar and sympathetic outcast. Just as in the best Thor comics, you can simultaneously despise Loki while understanding why he does what he does. It’s a neat trick, and Branagh manages it partially thanks to an excellent performance by Hiddleston.

In terms of plot, as I said there’s a lot going on here. In fact, I would say there was too much. The temptation in any of these comic book adaptations is to throw in too much of the vast, decades-spanning history, and I think the writers fell into that trap.

Fundamentally they’re telling two stories. The first deals with political and military machinations in Asgard itself involving whether Loki or Thor will be the one to succeed Odin as King, as well as a simmering conflict with the Frost Giants.

The second deals with Thor’s humbling on Earth and subsequent involvement with the mortal woman Jane Foster.

Either one would have made a great movie, but giving both equal time here shorted both of them, I felt. Perhaps because it’s Natalie Portman in both roles, but I felt here just as I did in “Star Wars”, that I was being told two people were in love while never being shown it, or at least not in any kind of convincing way. One fireside chat and suddenly it’s love? No. I felt no chemistry at all between the two of them, mostly because they never really shared anything important. Love is more than rescuing equipment, kisses on the hand, and shared explanations of an Einstein-Rosen bridge. Since half of the movie depends on that relationship, I needed more attention given to it.

I loved all the plot stuff involving Loki, and was definitely more satisfied with what we were given of it. I get the relationship between the two brothers, and I believed Loki’s motivation.

The problem is, there was so enough stuff going on in each plot for a full and satisfying movie, but instead of choosing one and going with it, we had both, which ended up just being a bit confusing and muddy. I wish frankly they’d stuck with the Earthbound Thor, giving us enough of Asgard via flashback to make sense of it all, without robbing the transformation of arrogant God to humble mortal of its steam.

Like the love affair, I didn’t see enough of Thor’s humbling to believe it. You’re told your dad is dead and you fail to pick up a hammer and suddenly you know what it means to be mortal? And to cook an omelette? Again, this is the heart and soul of the movie, the whole point of the exercise, but it’s treated almost as a throw-away.

I loved how in “The Ultimates” you were never really sure whether Thor was a mutant with delusions of grandeur or really the God of Thunder. While the mortal characters got this, we the audience were never in doubt, and I thought that was a real missed opportunity.

In summary, the movie looked great but lacked heart. I didn’t believe the love story nor the transformation of Thor’s essential nature, and without those we’re left with a series of admittedly cool fight scenes without a lot of soul to make them matter. I’d have been happier losing the Warriors Three and whole chunks of the Frost Giant stuff while focusing more on Thor’s character transformation.

You won’t be sorry you saw it, but you’re not going to be jumping for joy either. And you can skip the 3D version — it didn’t enhance the experience at all for me.

If you’ve seen it, I’d love to hear your thoughts as well.

Besides being a good read about the role of scientists as advisors for the upcoming “Thor” Movie, this “Cosmic Variance” article drops a couple of cool tidbits. Namely (emphasis mine):

Kevin Feige, president of production at Marvel Studios, is a huge proponent of having the world of these films ultimately “make sense.” It’s not our world, obviously, but there needs to be a set of “natural laws” that keeps things in order — not just for Iron Man and Thor, but all the way up to Doctor Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme who will get his own movie before too long.

There’s going to be a Doctor Strange movie! I always thought he was pretty cool. Also (again, emphasis mine):

One was constructing a coherent framework for the Marvel universe — ultimately, this story about Thor the thunder god is going to have to be compatible with Tony Stark’s Iron Man world, since the two characters are both part of the Avengers. (I also got to read the script for that, and yes — it is as great as the rumors suggest.)

Has there ever been a better time to be a geek? I mean, a geek who didn’t found Microsoft, that is.

I am officially in “I can’t hear you!” fingers-in-my-ears period regarding Thor. I don’t want to see any more previews; I’m going to see it, I’m excited about it, and I don’t want to know any more. I want to be as surprised as possible and just let the movie happen to me.

But this kind of background stuff is cool, yo!

Continuing our “Best Of” series of questions, this week I’m going to take a chance and open up the list to allow you to add your own entries to the ones I nominated. Please be responsible with your newfound power! The question is simple:

Brief discussion after the jump, or jump right to comments to tell me what you think! Also, note that I am not a film critic, I’m just a guy who likes super heroes. So take my observations for what they are — uninformed, yet published anyway. Thank goodness for the Internet!

1. 

   Batman (1966): This was the campy movie based on the just as campy TV series starring Adam West as Batman. You might question its inclusion on this list, but it was for all practical purposes the first big super-hero movie that showed the genre could, in fact, make money on the big screen, stupid as it was. Plus it featured Lee Meriwether as Catwoman, which alone makes it worthy of adoration.

2. 

   Superman (1978):For my money, the best summation of what the super hero genre is all about comes from this movie’s tagline, “You will believe a man can fly.” And holy cow, did it deliver! Were it not for Margo Kidder, who frankly made me want, even at the tender age of 11 years old, to punch her in the face for her terrible Lois Lane, I’d be tempted to go with this one. Gene Hackman made a great Luthor (attention Kevin Spacey!), Ned Beatty was a great henchman, and the film managed to make a guy in a red cape and underwear with blue tights believable flying around in the real world. The first great “serious” super hero movie that set a lot of the standards for what would come after.

3. 

   Superman II (1980): On the plus side, this movie had a LOT more super-heroic action than the first one. Guys flinging each other around into buildings, destroying Army tanks, heat vision, and cellophane logos. OK, so it wasn’t an unmixed bag. On the other hand, there were some really disheartening moments, particularly the unfortunately trend-setting idea of having the hero reveal his secret identity and/or give up his powers for a woman. However, this movie gave fans fast-paced, interesting, and fun big-time super-hero fights with full Hollywood magic, and for that we must thank it. Also, KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

4. 

   Batman (1989): Looking at Wikipedia’s list, I find it astonishing that it took eleven years between the first Superman movie and this one, with only other “Superman” properties being released in the meantime. Well, except for Condorman, but come on, let’s be real here. Especially considering the massive box office “Superman” did, it’s startling that it took so long to follow up with another character. Granted, Superman at the time was head and shoulders above anyone else in terms of name ID, and further granted, Batman as the next name on the list had in the past decades been used more for ridicule than for quality. OK, maybe the long interval isn’t that surprising after all … Anyway, I remember this movie for two things. First, how outraged everyone was over the casting of Michael Keaton in the lead role. Too wimpy, too small, too pouty, too silly, too wrong! And then he nailed it. Flat out nailed it. Second, I remember how over the top awesome Jack Nicholson was as The Joker. Finally a character besides the universally recognized and beloved Superman had hit the big-time, proving that the genre was more than a one-trick pony. Plus, it’s just a fun, crazed, well-done ride.

5. 

   The Rocketeer (1991): I know this isn’t the mega-hit of the mainline movies on the list, but I just love it. The whole aesthetic of the movie rocks, from the incredibly set and costume designs to the poster to the casting to the cinematography, it’s amazingly well put together and fun. 1940s era pulp action at its best.

6. 

   Mystery Men (1999): One of two outright comedies on the list (along with the original Batman), there is so much win in this movie. From Invisible Boy who’s only invisible if you don’t look at him to Hank Azaria’s fork-throwing Blue Rajah (who doesn’t wear blue), they managed to make a comedy featuring super-heroes that doesn’t feel like they’re making fun of super-heroes so much as celebrating their zaniness. Plus, I love Ben Stiller.

7. 

   X-Men (2000): Marvel’s first quality movie offering after the execrable “Punisher”, “Captain America” and “Fantastic Four”. What, you don’t remember those? That’s because they sucked so bad they pulled themselves into a singularity, never to be seen again. However, Marvel managed to finally get its act together with this one in a big way. For my money, Magneto was at the time the most compelling and complex super adversary we’d yet seen. And they managed to pull off an “ensemble” movie featuring lots of characters with powers in a way that wasn’t confusing or silly. Granted, Joel Schumacher had crammed an astounding number of costumed characters into his later Batman movies, but they ended up mudding the plot, the action, and the bounds of fetishism, ruining the films. Well, helping to ruin the films, because there was a lot wrong with them otherwise, too.

   Part of what made “X-Men” work as an ensemble movie was that they were a team to begin with, from the ground up. The Batman cast had mostly been added on as the comic evolved, and as a result they didn’t look like they all went together. Add in the hodgepodge of villains in equally garish (and clashing) outfits, and it was just a mess. But the costumes of the X-Men were consistent and looked good together, and with their muted colors and fabrics were meant to be seen on real life actors all in one shot without looking stupid.

   All of that aside, this is a fun, entertaining, and well done movie.

8. 

   Spider-Man (2002): Marvel might have fumbled the ball early on, but once they figured out how to make (or how to get SONY to make) a good super-hero live action film, they ran with it. Like the first Batman, the casting of the lead caused a lot of controversy at the time, with many of the same criticisms. And again, the lead hit it out of the park. Tobey Maguire’s understated, slightly bemused performance was perfect for the perennially troubled Peter Parker, and Kirsten Dunst was a great MJ. The costume rocked, the special effects were outstanding, and the plot thoroughly enjoyable. The only negative for me in this movie was the Green Goblin, who I thought was so overacted and shoddily-garbed it almost dragged down the whole film. Word was that Dafoe’s performance was so over the top that ham production was destroyed in a tri-state area.

   Plus, “The Kiss” finally made super-heroes sexy. We came a long way from Superman flying around Metropolis with a tablecloth-wearing Lois Lane.

9. 

   X2: X-Men United (2003): Like “Superman II”, this sequel features some high-powered, very cool super-hero battles. Unlike “Superman II”, very few of the characters are wearing vinyl. The scene with Nightcrawler teleporting around the White House alone is worth the price of admission, but there’s a lot more where that came from. Great sets, costumes, writing, and directing made for an eXtremely entertaining movie.

10. 

    Spider-Man 2 (2004): A strong performance by Alfred Molina as Doc Ock and outstanding CGI effects both with Spidey swinging around NYC and Doc’s arms, made for an action-packed ride that still provided great character development and romance. The absence of Willem Dafoe in a featured role also helped.

11. 

    The Incredibles (2004): I can hear it now — “This is an animated movie, it doesn’t count!” Hogwash, I say! They’re super-heroes, in a movie, therefore this is a super-hero movie. Period. Not only that, it’s a great super-hero movie. Tons of action, an incredibly cool design style, interesting characters, gripping plot, fantastic action scenes, and a stellar supporting cast combine to make a fun, involving, top-notch film. One of my criteria for judging a genre movie is whether or not there are any what I call “Godzilla Moments”. Let me explain. No, that will take too long. Let me sum up.

    In the 1998 version of Godzilla, you have this enormous fire-breathing lizard rampaging through downtown New York. And right in the middle of the movie, we take a half-hour break to deal with the emotional trauma of the relationship between the two human leads.

    So I checked my watch because I was bored out of my gourd, and that is what I call a “Godzilla Moment” — serious gaps in the flow of a movie that make you check your watch, wondering why in the name of all that’s good you’re having to sit through this dreck when there’s a fifty foot fire-breathing lizard rampaging through downtown effing New York!! Show me some Godzilla already, dammit! Note that the Ang Lee “Hulk” was mostly Godzilla Moments with the occasional cool scene thrown in to keep you in the theater.

    My point (and I do have one) is that “The Incredibles” has no Godzilla Moments. It’s pure, unadulterated, awesome super-hero stuff from the opening credits till the end.

12. 

    Batman Begins (2005): Look, you don’t need me to tell you how awesome this movie is. Because it is. A truly “adult”, mature film about a guy in a cape that manages to give us cool gadgets and comic book action without feeling in any way like a “kids” film. My only criticism is that for me, it dragged a little at times. When I think of going back and re-watching it, I feel like it’s going to take an effort. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because great films should make you work a little for them, but for me and super-hero movies, not so much.

13. 

    Iron Man (2008): Three words — Robert. Downey. Junior. Best lead actor in any super-hero movie ever. This may be the perfect super-hero film, from the special effects to the casting to the acting and directing to the set design to the story, it gives you everything you’d ever want in a super-hero movie and more. I think there are better climactic fight scenes than you find here, but other than that I’d put this one up against anything else on the list with confidence.

14. 

    The Dark Knight (2008): A better movie than “Batman Begins” in my opinion, partly due to the unbelievable performance of Heath Ledger as The Joker. If Robert Downey Jr. is the best-cast leading man of any super-hero movie, surely Ledger is the best villain. This movie seriously disturbed me, and for any form of art to move a person like that is a real achievement.

15. 

    Iron Man 2 (2010): I’ll have to confess, I’m not actually that big a fan of this movie. It was good, but the character development arc of Stark just didn’t do it for me like the first one. Seeing him go from unprincipled corporate tech whore to a crusader was gripping. Seeing him go from crusader to self-absorbed drunk and back, not so much. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still an enjoyable film, just not nearly as much so as the first one.

Man, those are some good movies! I suspect that what answer you give as to which is the greatest will depend on several factors unrelated to the actual quality of the film. Like, how old you were when you first saw it, where your life was at the time, whether you generally prefer comedies or darker fare, etc. Those certainly play a part for me — I saw the first Superman at 11 years of age, a deeply impressionable time and it was the first time I’d ever seen one of my heroes handled so incredibly well.

Which is all totally legitimate! I’m just saying, I don’t think there is any way to really decide which is “the” greatest for everyone, because it’s so inherently subjective an exercise.

By which I mean I am right and you are wrong, of course, in the finest Internet tradition. Ahem.

I’d probably narrow my list down to “The Incredibles”, “Iron Man”, and “The Dark Knight”. And which answer I ultimately give will depend on how I feel that day (witness). Still, last time I said “Iron Man” was my favorite, and I’ll probably stick by that this time, with “The Incredibles” coming in a close second.

Now get out there and tell me why I’m wrong!

Short but sweet this week:

You can view the trailer here. Go watch it, I’ll wait.

Back? Good. Did you bring me popcorn? Get out.

I would say the trailer makes me somewhat more interested in seeing the movie. It helped sell me on the idea of Reynolds in the lead role, and I am buying the “Hal Jordan, cocky test pilot” angle.

Where I’m still struggling a bit is with the fundamental difficulty of melding an intergalactic space opera with an Earth-bound spandex-wearing super-hero. Those are two tough genres to pull off, and mashing them together is exponentially more difficult.

Anyway, what do you think, having now seen the trailer?

Updated to add: Man I hate the costume in this shot. It just looks … muddy. And why have glowing, cool CGI effects in the threads but make the insignia look so pasted-on? I’d have liked to see them go whole-hog and make the insignia a floating hologram or something to match the rest of the costume.

I hope it’s just the way the image is lit, but I miss the sharply defined color areas, the deep black of space and the crisp white of the gloves in the original design.