Today's Column: Crossovers and childhood dreams

September's column has arrived:

Column: Crossovers en kinderdromen

Oh boy, did I devour Batman versus Predator as a kid... Even though the subject matter was far more gory and gruesome than your typical Batman story and may not have been wholly suitable for a youngster my age. I think I turned out alright (I don't abide blood sports, for example). Of course, this wasn't your typical Batman story, since it was also a Predator story and those are usually the stuff of R-ratings. If they're not, they fall short of being a Predator story like the fans expect or desire them, which is one of the reasons no doubt the PG-13 rated movie Alien VS Predator was so lamented by the fanbase. But it does present another challenge when adapting crossovers: incompatibility. Batman is one of those characters which can suffer multiple age ratings, though the grittier, harder Dark Knight stories are usually received more fondly by the majority. But Predator, if done right, simply isn't suited for people under 16, or shouldn't be from a social viewpoint (like teenagers under 16 are not going to check out stuff the law says they can't, in the privacy of their own homes). Likewise, King Kong versus the Smurfs seems equally incompatible, though that's more because of the vastly different subject material rather than the age category. I put that in for a joke, but needless to say you can find some fan's home video depicting such a meeting on YouTube easily enough.

Fact is, crossovers are popular, and have always been so. Ancient Greek mythology already got that ball rolling by throwing several notable heroic characters together in the story of the Argonauts, like some Avengers of Classical Antiquity (and again in the Trojan War). Thanks to our contemporary Avengers, crossovers are a hot topic again, which even leads to rival studios teaming up (in itself a bit of a crossover) to bring the fans just the crossovers they want to see (I'm talking about you, new Marvel Spider-Man!). But crossovers are hardly a novel notion in the annals of film. Universal joining its iconic horror creatures together sounds more like they're remaking the likes of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man rather than them mindlessly copying Marvel, though it's likely a bit of both. But this wave of crossover movies will die down soon enough, since crossover stories usually are far from world class material.

Most of them actually are total gimmicks, cashing in on people's own perceptions of chance encounters between notable characters from different walks of popular culture. Not much story is needed really, the idea of two (or more) characters meeting, often fighting, suffices to draw attention. Batman versus Predator got it right at least, but Batman/Aliens proved less stellar material. The original King Kong versus Godzilla was a total dud, a typical Japanese Kaiju movie in which Kong looked nothing like the giant gorilla previously smashing New York. Crossovers are always fascinating, but not many of them are truly good. They're not designed to be, nor do they need to be. The characters meet, the characters part ways again, usually never to meet again. In the meantime, money exchanges hands between audience and producers. That's all there is to it really. Or is Marvel going to change this? After all, the notion of a shared universe that can endure for a few decades is a new thing, at least. And the number of crossovers between that universe's characters keeps growing, but there needs to be more story meat to it to keep the audience from losing interest. Same thing for the upcoming DC Cinematic Universe. But it remains to be seen whether the same will hold true for the Universal Monsters, the iconic Kaiju creatures or other popular franchises thrown in the mix together. You'd kinda need a separate universe for those, to keep these crossovers outside of continuity if needs be. That's how they always did it in the comics, to explain away why superheroes of different companies didn't join forces/clash more often if they inhabited the same realm: they didn't actually, these crossovers took place in other universes, outside of established continuity. A handy loophole, one that Marvel and DC can't seriously utilize anymore at the movies because that might make them lose face. But it works well enough for the likes of Freddy VS Jason (an actual movie), Tarzan VS King Kong (an actual book), or Godzilla VS the Smurfs (pure fiction).

It needs to, to stop fans from contemplating the possibilities to severely. Because if the Fantastic Four once fought Godzilla, Godzilla squabbeled with King Kong, King Kong battled Tarzan, Tarzan fought Predator, Predator warred with Aliens, Aliens plagued Batman and Batman co-operated with Spider-Man, that would mean Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four share the same universe! Now if only I could fit the Smurfs in there somewhere...

Today's News: Hateful Terminator captains

The end of the week witnessed news of a lesser magnitude:

Nieuwe foto's Tarantino's Hateful Eight

A colourful bunch of characters. A lot of guns. A batch of terrific actors. The prime ingredients of any Tarantino movie, and Hateful Eight proves no different, judging from these pictures. Though another Western, directly following Django Unchained (which may not wholly fit that moniker, it must be noted), this movie seems a whole different animal. It's got more principal characters, but less characters as a whole. It also seems limited in terms of setting, taking place for the most part in and around a stagecoach stopover during a heavy blizzard. Eight characters with divergent pasts, many haunted by their experiences in the recent American Civil War, get holed up together and soon tensions erupt with explosive results. And there you basically have the Western version of 12 Angry Men. As is usual for Tarantino, it's not a novel concept, but it's the way it's handled that makes it enjoyable and successful. And with such talent among the cast (and apparently Channing Tatum, too), it seems like little can go wrong in terms of quality. Same can't be said for these characters, most of them likely won't leave that cabin alive. Tarantino will put those guns to great use in making sure of that.

Meer Avengers in cast Captain America 3

Speaking of the Civil War, here's another conflict with the same name for you. Different time, different sides though. Should a masked man with a secret identity and an essentially dangerous set of superpowers take responsibility for his actions, or let the government do it for him? Iron Man says yay, Cap says nay. And thus the Marvel heroes are at each other's throats. Which heroes, you may ask? Well, from the looks of it, virtually all of them and then some. Basically all the Avengers from the previous film (that made it out alive at least) are returning, and a bunch of new names - like Ant-Man, Spider-Man and Black Panther - are thrown into the mix. You gotta have an ample batch of superheroes for a superhero war, after all. But why then, isn't this movie basically your Avengers 3? Isn't Cap A gonna get lost in his own film? There's two sides to the conflict and he's only representing one of them. I'm sure the powers-that-be take this into consideration and make the ideological questions at hand and the characters through which they are addressed the most, Cap and Iron Man, take centre stage. Which still means Iron Man is likely to assume a role at least as important as Cap's. Hey, that's what you get for not making an Iron Man 4. However, there's still a true bad guy to take out amidst all the superhero fisticuffs, and it's former Nazi Baron Zemo, one of the classic Cap villains. Surely that will tip the plot in Cap's favour, though not so much the stakes, if he has to fight both him and the government lackey Avengers. There's a reason Cap died at the end of the original Civil War storyline, you know...

Nieuwe posters Terminator Genisys

My first thought upon seeing these posters is they enlarged Emilia Clarke's breast size. That's gotta show how excited I am about seeing Ahnuld as the Terminator again. Sure, he made it into an iconic character back in the days, but in my mind Terminator Salvation showed you can have a decent Terminator flick without the Austrian Oak. Audience attendance for that movie disagreed with me. And now that Arnold's political career is over, he's back (yes, that line is impossible not to use in this context these days). The plot kinda helped him out in returning, crafting an alternate timeline to twist the old (and there's lots of that both in terms of characters and rehashed dialogue) into something new. Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese, T-800, T-1000, been there, done that. So now we get a T-3000 to provide the new action. I recognize an abandoned concept from Salvation in this character. A fiendishly sinister original ending shaped in a character, to be exact. Originally, Sam Worthington's character in the predecessor was gonna save the day and then unexpectedly kill off the good guys and take John Connor's place as resistance leader (basically with the intent to lead it to its doom). Too daring and dark, so they let it go for a more cheerful, positive resolution. Now the new model Terminator on the block assumes Connor's appearance, and possibly more than just that, as it's unclear from the trailers where its loyalties lie. Interesting to see this notion return in a different form. But thanks to the alternate timeline, basically every Terminator notion returns in a different form here. The oneliners stay the same though. We loved them then, why wouldn't we now, the studio likely assumes. Same thing as with Schwarzenegger.

Today's Column: anybody want a Dark Claw movie?

This month's column went up early. Superheroes again. They keep me talking it appears.

Disney, koop DC alsjeblieft!

Of course the tone of this piece is meant somewhat sarcastically. Sure, I'd love to see a Dark Claw movie or any other feature related to the wonderful Amalgam universe, but it's definitely not gonna happen. Ever. And I don't think all movie studios owning superhero copyrights joining together, either out of their own volition or because they're bought up by a larger corporation, would be a preferable solution. One studio owning all the superhero franchises isn't a monopoly we would want. Say what you will about various studios owning various pieces of the various superhero universe puzzles, it guarantees some diversity. If Marvel hadn't sold the rights to Spider-Man and similar large, popular and well known properties, we likely wouldn't have gotten Iron Man, Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy, and seeing as how well that turned out, that clearly would have been a great loss. Now that Spider-Man has returned to Marvel's fold, we have yet to see whether he's not gonna reap too much of other characters' glory, even though the fact Marvel is still working on titles like Captain Marvel, Inhumans and Black Panther is reassuring to some extent, as they seemingly mean to keep the diversity flowing.

But what about the fanboys' dreams of 'interpublisher' crossovers between characters belonging not only to rival studios, but also to rival publishers? They'll stay dreams. I doubt that would change even if a major player like Disney managed to buy the rights to the DC characters after all. Which certainly isn't inconceivable, considering the various properties they bought up in recent years. It often feels with all these companies buying companies, you'll one day end up with one humongously big fat supercompany on top, controlling every franchise. Maybe that'll be Disney in the not too distant future (they don't own the business genius of Scrooge McDuck for nothing, you know). But seeing as how they have yet to do crossovers between Indiana Jones and Marvel, or between more similar brands like the Muppets and Disney's own iconic characters, I doubt they'd go so far as to do a DC/Marvel crossover, let alone Amalgam. (Then again, there already is a comic book which serves as a crossover between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, courtesy of Harrison Ford's presence in both of them.) But if it ever happened, would it be good? An Amalgam adaptation, maybe. It's hard to mess up a fabulous hybrid notion like Dark Claw. A giant crossover between the Avengers and the Justice League? No way, far too many characters and their assorted baggage to make for a sensible plot line. Only the hungriest fanboys would understand it completely, but general audiences couldn't make heads or tails of it all. Let's see whether DC knows how to join its own characters together with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice first. Not to mention it has yet to be determined whether Marvel can pull a similar trick with having more than one group share the screen, as will be the case when the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy join forces in Avengers: Infinity War Parts I & II.

And otherwise, let's just keep dreaming about these little fanboy fantasies of ours. I'm still dreaming of the release of more than only two Dark Claw comics...

Today's Column: will Spider-Man be our new Iron Man?

Told you I'd write that column? Well, here it is:

Wordt Spider-Man de nieuwe Iron Man?

What, another column in only two weeks, you may ask? Well, I had the time available to pen one and there was an opening because the guy who was supposed to deliver one this week didn't do so (for shame!). Plus, my editor recognized this as a current topic that needed to be posted before the news felt too far in the past. So, good for me.

As you might be able to discern from this overly long piece, I don't believe Spider-Man joining the ranks of Marvel Studios is a bad thing at all. I just know there's a lot of factors to take into account to make it work properly, without getting the feeling the webhead is hogging all the glory from his fellow superheroes (something Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man felt to be doing at times). And I have faith that Marvel will consider all possible angles, while my gut tells me they had it all worked out already, as they're champions in planning their universe thoroughly ahead. That said, I do believe re-introducing the audience to the beloved webslinger in the next Captain America movie is not the smartest move. It feels too much like 'oh, Spider-Man played a pivotal role in the Civil War comics, so let's use him in that screen adaptation to stick closer to the source material and earn points with the fan base' or a similar thought along that line. But this is not necessarily the Spider-Man we've come to know. It won't be Andrew Garfield. It's a new guy, which - unfortunately - does require a bit of an origin story to make it flow seamlessly. And such a story is better suited in his own film, rather than in somebody else's. Even though I recognize audiences have grown tired of Spidey's origin story, which has been retold a little too often in recent years. But you still gotta have it if you're talking about a new Spider-Man. A younger Spider-Man. Might they even consider going a vastly different route and eliminating Peter Parker for the new webhead on the block Miles Morales altogether? Now that's an interesting thought. Though definitely one that would polarize the fan community and make for quite some heavy flame wars all over the web. Whose side are you on? That's inspiration for another column right there.

Today's News: suicide Avengers code

This week's news, first batch:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158219/cast_dcs_suicide_squad_bekendgemaakt

Quite a stellar and diverse cast, but I see some possible problems here. The first addresses the casting itself. To my mind, casting Will Smith in an ensemble movie isn't your best bet. The man is a Hollywood superstar, they tend to demand attention too strongly to cope well with sharing the screen. Especially with actors that aren't in their salary class, as these other cast members simply aren't. Will Smith kinda has a bad reputation in this department since Wild Wild West (if set rumours are to be trusted, that is). Whether he'll readily accept having his face covered continuously in the role of Deadshot also remains to be seen. Of course, you can argue that The Avengers does a pretty good job joining various superstars together for a big epic project, but let's not forget most of them were made that famous because of the work they did previously for Marvel, well aware that they needed to reign in their temperaments in a joint venture soon enough. Their own movies more or less prepared them for that mission, as most of them followed the same strategy of becoming superstars and thus shared the necessary common ground. This is not the case for Suicide Squad, as most of these characters are totally new to the big screen and so they haven't been prepped in their own titles for the audience and neither have the people playing them. They get thrown in the mix together from the get-go instead, and it just very much remains the question on whether they have any affinity with the role at all, whether the audience accepts them in these parts and whether joining these characters and actors together is a good idea. Which brings me to the second issue: the Joker. Like Will Smith is a huge A-lister thrown in with a bunch of actors of a lesser profile (no offense, gang, but that's just the situation), the Joker is a villain much more iconic than the rest of them, especially after the well remembered terrific performance by Heath Ledger not so long ago. Is it really a smart move to introduce a new take on this character, one that is supposed to be around for at least a decade, in an ensemble movie like this, rather than setting him up in the more traditional way, as Batman's most recognizable antagonist in the Caped Crusader's own film? (An argument that can be made for the new incarnation of the Dark Knight himself just as easily, it must be noted.) Probably so. But then, the Joker doesn't adhere to logic like that, he's much too erratic to care. We'll just have to wait and see how this works out. At least the majority of the casting seems pretty nifty. It'll be very interesting to see what Jared Leto brings to the role of the Joker. And he even has his girlfriend Harley Quinn by his side this time. The more madness, the merrier.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158196/extra_opnamen_avengers_2_in_januari

Speaking of the Avengers, they just got some leeway to improve their sequel's scope just that much more. From the looks of it, it's not just the action scenes that get a bit more jibe, but also the characters, including a few we might not have expected to partake in this giant superhero flick. Both Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston have been revealed to be present in Age of Ultron. That is surprising, considering the story line mostly seemed to center around Tony Stark and his invention, the rogue robot Ultron, running rampant. A little HYDRA espionage plot spilling over from the Cap movies was also already known to be injected through the addition of Baron Von Strucker to the cast. So is there room for some Norse gods? Apparently Marvel is making room. Since more Loki is never a bad thing when Hiddleston plays the part, I'm certainly not complaining. I'm not counting on major scenes of divine exposition though. Probably just some hints at the bigger Thor picture to indicate that while the Avengers get into the usual mischief on Earth, trouble is still brewing in the background on Asgard to plague Thor in his next solo feature (aptly subtitled Ragnarok). Seems that universe building Marvel so excelled at in Phase 1 is now seemlessly flowing into Phase 3.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158220/source_code_krijgt_vervolg

More of Source Code I'm less positive about. Its whole take on time travel and temporal loops was already nothing new to me thanks to the likes of Star Trek, The X-Files and The Twilight Zone. Though it was still a fresh take on the notion and resulted in an enjoyable and intelligent movie, more of the same would spark a similar feeling of repetition I don't exactly welcome. Of course they can introduce a new main character and director - as they'll have to, since it strongly appears both Jake Gyllenhaal and Duncan Jones are not inclined to be involved, and I can't blame them - but even when tweaking the concept, there's only so much you can do with it. This announced sequel just has 'blatant cash grab' written all over it. Of course, that is hardly a novel thing in Hollywood. It's endless cycle of rehasing and reimaging concepts and franchises that once proved lucrative is quite similarly stuck into an ever revolving loop that knows no end. It's just that in this case, the audience is the poor subject that develops a gnawing, relentless sense of déja vu, the feeling of having experienced it all before. As they have.

Today's News: It's a Marvelous world

It's a tumultuous week in terms of Marvel movie news.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157762/marvel_maakt_black_panther

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157763/marvel_kondigt_infinity_war_aan

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157764/titels_captain_america_3_en_thor_3_bekendgemaakt

Quite the stirring live-event that was, when Marvel announced its new five-year plan. It looks like the Marvel Cinematic Universe will undergo a lot of upheaval soon. Old characters get tossed around and in some cases, likely killed. Fortunately, fascinating new characters will step in to even the score a bit. Question of course, is whether these new kids will prove to have an equal amount of staying power. Marvel sure has listened to the fanbase's loudest requests, while at the same time opting for diversification of characters. A black superhero film, a female heroine carrying her own movie; the sky is the limit as it is in the comics. Time to kill of all the chauvinist blond male characters while we're at it, they must have thought. And so Cap is marching towards Civil War. It killed him in the comics and, just as in the case of the source material, his successor is already in place to take over the shield. At the same time, Thor is facing Ragnarok and the end of all things, which also doesn't bode well for him, not to mention the universe. The universe is in deep trouble already as Thanos is finally stepping up out of the shadows of cosmic villainy to assume his place as ultimate bad guy, as he at last acquires that Infinity Gauntlet with which Marvel has been teasing us for a few years now. A single movie wasn't enough to tell that epic tale of heroism and sacrifice, so it's split into two parts. It may even be enough to throw the Guardians of the Galaxy into the mix - as they have plenty of ties to Thanos too - though both movies are explicitly labelled as Avengers flicks. Shit is swiftly hitting the fan.

What will remain for Marvel's Phase 4, one cannot help but wonder. The Infinity War seems a very tough act to follow. Though it appears unlikely the very popular founding Avengers like Cap, Thor and Iron Man will be retired for good, it seems the Marvel Cinematic Universe will have to make do without them sometime soon. New heroes will rise, but a team consisting of Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Captain Marvel will find itself with the task to fill some very big boots. Diversity is key, possibly enticing a broader audience, while also adding more room for relatable conflicts and engaging character dynamics, the type of things Joss Whedon excels at (I doubt the Avengers movies will lose him as showrunner anytime soon). Of course, such a group will only be as good as its separate components. Captain Marvel remains to be cast, but it's now very likely Benedict Cumberbatch will assume the mantle of Doctor Strange. Though he was not my first choice, casting such a fine actor definitely won't hurt. I'm less sure about the casting of Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther, simply because I'm not familiar with the man's work. He's rather unknown, which is probably for the best, as to the general audience the same can be said for Black Panther himself. It wasn't like Chris Hemsworth was such a wellknown guy before he became the God of Thunder, yet that turned out pretty well. Seasoned actors and eager young dogs, a potent combination as ever. Fortunately the Marvel veterans will still be around for a movie or two to guide these newbies, nevermind their acting experience, into the Marvel fold. I bet we can expect a situation along the lines of that old saying, 'the more things change, the more they stay the same'. And though I'm a strong proponent of change in movies, I would like to stay the Marvel Cinematic Universe equally exciting at is it, if not more so. Seems that's exactly what's gonna happen.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157724/eerste_poster_fast__furious_7

This franchise, too, has hardly changed since its inception. New faces come and go (and usually come again), but the core ensemble remains the same, as does the recipe of fast cars, tough guys, sexy dames and plenty of action. Paul Walker's untimely death has not changed that, though whether the studio feels the need to make another movie without him after Furious 7 remains to be seen (though I know the answer, if the boxoffice will be any indication). It's safe to say Furious 7 is the most ambitious entry in the franchise so far, even though the ingredients have not been altered. Virtually the entire main cast is back, while several popular actors have been added to the mix to spice things up even more. A director hardly familiar with the genre but quite proven in another has so far steered this project succesfully around its many pitfalls, including the loss of Walker. This conservative teaser poster is a clear indication little has changed to the franchise's success formula despite everything thrown at it. The audience will get what it wants, and a lot more. It's just those shorter titles people will have to get used to, since nobody has time anymore for long titles these days.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157735/nieuwe_posters_exodus_gods_and_kings

Which didn't stop the producers of Exodus: Gods and Kings to add a redundant subtitle to the name of the film. Exodus itself would definitely have sufficed. The addition is just there to hit the character struggle at the core of the movie's narrative home that much harder. It seems to be a classic story of brohter versus brother, one of them being the Pharaoh/King, the other his closest friend who ends up defying him because God tells him to do so (ah, the destructive power of faith running rampant!). I think these posters oversell that point and focus a little too much on these characters, even though I know full well it's all about them. I guess the supporting cast wasn't interesting or vital enough to warrant posters of their own. No one-sheets with grand actors like Ben Kingsley or Sigourney Weaver, or younger, more popular ones like Aaron Paul. Too bad, but at least we get a good chance to admire the detailed work that went into making Bale and Edgerton's fabulous period armour.

Today's Triple News: Comic-Con comes but once a year

With Comic-Con currently in progression, there's bits of news to post online almost every minute. Of course, not everything is breaking news, and I can't post it all by myself. But I post whatever I can whenever I can, like these few bits of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156653/eerste_fotos_en_poster_derde_hobbit

Now that's a damn spectacular teaser poster! While many teaser posters tend to take a rather minimalist (though often inventive) approach to get audiences aware of the impending arrival of the movie in question, this one goes straight for one of the highlights in the movie. It can afford too, since the scene in question, though of major importance and containing some hefty spoilers for those who haven't read the books, takes place early in the movie, with most of the story, including the titular battle, following in its wake. It doesn't give away the outcome of this particular fight - Bard the Bowman versus the humongous dragon Smaug - but makes the inquisitive viewer, especially those who have seen both previous installments, want to see how it ends. Of course, it would seem unlikely Bard stands a chance, but there's been enough small bits of information feeded to audiences in The Desolation of Smaug to let us know even this giant dragon is not wholly invincible. In the meantime, Lake Town burns, just as Smaug promised. That will have consequences, naturally. And that's when the story of this third Hobbit movie really kicks into gear. So expect another three-hour epic fantasy flick in typical Peter Jackson style, laced with neat-o effects and some lovely acting interspersed throughout. As for the first two stills also released here, they aren't nearly as eye catching, but examination of the characters suggests shifting alliances, which might cause them to contain more story information than this poster. It's just not brought in as exciting a manner.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156651/anthony_hopkins_in_hbos_westworld

Another major A-list actor has been added to HBO's repertoire. I'm not talking about Evan Rachel Wood, though I don't mean to negatively critique her fine abilities to act. But hey, she already was an HBO alum thanks to her role in True Blood as a spoiled and childish vampire queen. But Hopkins, one of the greatest and most distinguished British actors ever, a 'Sir' nonetheless... you can't get much better than that for any role, be it on TV or on the big screen. Ten years ago, nobody would have believed someone of such stature would ever bother doing TV. It signifies just how much television has changed in respect as a medium. TV is where the best writing and the best acting is found nowadays, few people will disagree. Hopkins sure wouldn't, considering the praise he put into a letter to Bryan Cranston, telling him how thoroughly impressed he was by his performance on Breaking Bad and admiring the series high quality overall. It seems Hopkins himself caught the television bug as well afterwards. Good for us, as grand actors are never a bad thing in any medium, plus it might balance J.J. Abrams' input on HBO's Westworld. Hopkins is playing a bad guy, something he does even better than anything else he plays (cannibal or otherwise). Wood however gets to play a sympathetic character, and an abused artificial one at that. I am hesitant about the love plot written in for her, but at least it adds a dynamic not seen in the original Westworld, a good but dated Sci-Fi movie in itself. The stakes just got raised for HBO. Fortunately there's money to spare soon, now that both True Blood and Boardwalk Empire are coming to an end. All good things must be replaced by other good things after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156689/comic-con_meer_concept_art_voor_avengers_2

No Comic-Con without a comic book movie, preferably one from Marvel. They call this 'concept art', but from the looks of it, all the concepts found in this poster had already been accepted into the movie as a whole. As we have seen in the various behind-the-scenes stills and official photos for Avengers: Age of Ultron, all the Avengers seen on this eight panel picture look almost exactly as they will in the film. With the possible exception of the Vision, as this is the first glimpse of that character we're offered. They stuck close to his looks in the comics, it would appear, though at this angle it's hard to say for sure. The overall shape and colour scheme sure seem to fit. By comparison, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch don't look nearly as trite-but-true to their comic book counterparts, though that's done to make them feel a little more realistic. This Quicksilver looks a heck of a lot different from the one seen in X-Men: Days of Future Past so as to minimize confusion between both incarnations. It's gonna be a hard act to outrun the previous take on Quicksilver, though the presence of his sister (and her eventual husband, artificial and all) will surely be helpful in that regard. As is the suggestion this poster gives this Quicksilver will be much more involved into the superhero action, fighting nasty robots and such. The X-Men Quicksilver just bailed out on that one and let his fellow mutants handle those Sentinels all by themselves...

Today's Column: are we tired yet of the Avengers-approach?

After yesterday's sad events, spirits may be lifted a little bit with an extra lengthy column I wrote for MS this week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154600/column_zijn_we_al_moe_van_de_avengers-aanpak

My point that Marvel might be endangering its own construct by relying on its star actors too much was fortuitously underscored this week, when word leaked that Chris Evans means to quit the acting business altogether in favor of turning towards directing, as I posted in this bit of news last week:

 http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154691/chris_evans_wil_stoppen_met_acteren

Fortunately he's under contract at Marvel and he still has two movies to go (Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America 3 it seems), so there's still time for Marvel to avert a crisis. For now. Phase 2 seems secure, but it seems a sure thing Evans will not return for Avengers 3. So what's Marvel to do without the iconic Star Spangled Avenger? Recasting is an option, as is killing off his character. But it's just one actor among many who may jump ship earlier than Marvel would like, and you can't recast or replace them all without potentially annoying or needlessly confusing the audience. But let's find out how the viewers will respond to two different takes on the same character (Quicksilver) first. Maybe it will go unnoticed by all but the avid comic book fans, maybe people will understand not all Marvel superheroes belong to Marvel Studios proper in terms of copyright (fat chance!), or maybe they will simply not care about the whole matter (the wisest choice no doubt). But it seems a given that even Marvel's ambitious 'Avengers-approach' to building a coherent cinematic universe will be in need of a reboot somewhere down the line, and maybe earlier than anticipated.

Today's Double News: Hercules ain't part of the Avengers yet here

Must post more news, must post more news!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154668/eerste_trailer_dwayne_johnsons_hercules

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154639/nieuwe_setbeelden_avengers_age_of_ultron

This Hercules is more like it. All kinds of monsters and supernatural elements present, just as the original Greek myth offered aplenty. It's amazing there hasn't yet been a Hercules/Herakles movie to do those elements of the story justice. You wish Ray Harryhausen had made a movie about the demi-god in his time. It seems this is the closest we will ever get, even though the central part of the story isn't about the Twelve Labours (so I wouldn't hope for too much solid monster action just yet). Instead, it's about Herc playing a merc and fighting a tyrant to save a kingdom. That sounds a little bit too much like The Scorpion King (The Rock's breakthrough in the film business), which in itself was doing a derivative job of the Eighties' Conan the Barbarian franchise. In fact, apart from the monsters and the instantly recognizable "brand name" Hercules, there's very little here that seems to set this story apart from Scorp. Oh well, at least it looks to be a fun action flick, with a good cast. And sorry Dwayne, I'm not referring to you. I'm talking about established GBAs (Grand British Actors) like John Hurt and Ian McShane. Plus less grand but still very British actors like Peter Mullan, Joseph Fiennes and Rufus Sewell. Why is it that action flicks like these always have to rely on Britain's top talent to carry the acting, while the Americans only show off their muscles? Acting your way out of a CGI heavy film like this, now that's a real Labour!

And we got our first glimpses of several new highly anticipated Marvel characters as photos from the Italian set of Avengers: Age of Ultron leaked. First off, there's Magneto's kids siblings Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. It seems this Quickie retained his familiar thunder bolt patterned costume while the one from X-Men: Days of Future Past keeps his ties to the Mutant Master of Magnetism. Scarlet however looks little like her top model outfit sporting equivalent from the comics (too bad really!), or even her Ultimate Universe counterpart (unlike Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, also present on these pics). It seems they made up a girlie costume appropriate for her intended age for this movie. However, her hexing moves are straight out of the comics, so there's at least some tribute to those at least. I wonder how they're gonna explain these kids' powers if they're not allowed to call them mutants. Was Quicksilver bitten by a radioactive/genetically engineered roadrunner perhaps? As for Scarlet Witch, how do you probably explain altering the laws of probability by using spells in a scientifically sound manner? Last but not least, we may have our first glimpse of the titular nemesis, the maniacal robot Ultron. Or at least, we see a guy wearing some sort of armour which kinda resembles Ultron. Otherwise, there's little robot-ey to the suit. I reckon this is a stand-in giving the kids something to work with on set. Or some Italian fan who ran onto set after avoiding the heavy set security. This has yet to be confirmed by Marvel.

Today's Double News: Baron Von Strucker's walk of shame

Two recent newsflashes on MS, courtesy of myself:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153128/eerste_trailer_walk_of_shame

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153094/nieuwe_schurk_avengers_age_of_ultron_gecast

*Sigh* Here I go again, getting al emotionally invested in what appears to be a fairly average American comedy starring all the usual suspects. That means, I admit I laughed at this trailer. Not the 'ROFLMAO' type of laughter, but definitely a mild case of smirky giggling in the private confines of my own home where I could not be judged by others for this short loss of self-control. Walk of Shame has some potential, but then, a lot of similar comedies did these past few years and very few of them did not succumb to poor, predictable endings plagued by re-establishing overly conservative ideological social patterns, despite making us suspect they opted for a different route at the start of the film by suggesting a rebellious attitude (We're The Millers, anyone?). Iwould wager coin on the assumption that after her ordeal is over, Banks gets hitched with James Marsden and chooses a generic romantic entanglement over embarking on the busy, prestigious life of a successful career girl (it's usually one or the other, never both). Surprises don't seem in store for us on this one, but there's no great shame (see what I did there?) in saying the trailer looks to deliver two hours of mindless enjoyment regardless.

What was surprising this week was the revelation that the Avengers will face a second villain in their next joined venture, Age of Ultron. As if the likes of a homicidal robot hellbent on the annihilation of the human race wasn't enough of a threat, Earth's Mightiest Heroes must now also face an all too human (more or less) nemesis with ties to Captain America's past as a WW II hero. Former Nazi officer and current Hydra overlord Baron Wolfgang von Strucker has the dubious honor of playing second fiddle to James Spader's maniacal mechanical man, though how the two relate to one another in the context of the plot - if at all - remains to be seen. Considering their goals and personal drives, an alliance between the pair seems unlikely. Kretschmann's ability to make for a worthy adversary is a given though. The noted German actor with his surprisingly durable and flexible Hollywood career has been one of my favorite actors on the European continent since playing the badass Captain Englehorn in Peter Jackson's King Kong. Maybe he'll succeed in making the good Baron an interesting baddie for a change, since I found him to be a rather dull character in the comics. Who needs another ex-Nazi leading Hydra if you already have the formidable Red Skull for that job? Though I would still pick Hugo Weaving (who played that particular character on Captain America: The First Avenger) over Kretschmann every (other) day, I'm positive the latter actor will cause the Avengers quite some grief for our viewing pleasure.

Today's Double News: Cap 2 coming soon

Posted two bits of news relating to the same movie on MovieScene yesterday and today:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151112/eerste_poster_captain_america_the_winter_soldier

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151154/eerste_trailer_captain_america_the_winter_soldier_online

Looks pretty good, both poster and trailer. It clearly shows the writers understand the contemporary concept of 'defending freedom' isn't so simplistically black and white as most people (both now and in the Fourties) often consider it to be, especially in America where protecting liberty comes at the expense of liberty. Poor Cap is finally coming to terms with this revelation, something he didn't exactly have time for in The Avengers as he was too busy saving the planet from an alien invasion with his super buddies. But now he gets that much needed and anticipated reality check, which also forces him to find a new place for himself in American politics as the paragon of American virtue he has been shaped in. It's this aspect of Captain America, the analysis by American writers of what America stands for today relayed through this comic book character, that has always made him more interesting that most people would at first expect from a superhero who's dressed in a single nation's colours but is often shown to save the entire world, as if other nations couldn't do likewise. And hey, if you still don't like the Star-Spangled Avenger, there's still Black Widow (Scar-Jo!) to enjoy, as well as newcomer the Falcon (Anthony Mackie), who can still fly as in the comics, but apparently no longer communicates with birds (indeed, his real falcon sidekick seems to have been ixnayed, thus also saving some money on visual FX so more can be spend on crashing helicarriers). It seems he has upgraded to telepathic connections with humans instead (though this has not been overtly confirmed by the trailer). And last but not least, there's Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury again, but apparently he's not as cheerful as before, and is turning a darker page of the character's history, keeping in line with his Ultimate Universe counterpart on whose likeness Mr. L. Jackson was based. Or was it the other way around? The villainous Crossbones also seems like a worthwhile addition to Marvel's current cinematic rogue gallery, but just what the deal is with that 'Winter Soldier' remains to be seen. Unless you're aware of his history from the comics, as I happen to be.

Cap 2 seems an intriguing step away from the more lightheartedly toned predecessor in favour of adding some much needed depth, both emotional and political, to the character. At the same time there appears to be a plethora of action scenes and ample room for a good joke here and there. If the film is as good as the trailer, 'winter soldier is coming' doesn't seem like that sinister a mantra. But hey, if Iron Man 3 is any indication, it may still turn out that the Winter Soldier isn't actually a scary bad guy at all, but just a silly actor hired by a much less appealing and narratively convoluted evil character we couldn't care less about who messes up our respect of the heroic protagonist, after which his girl friend needs to save the day in her underwear. Let's hope IM3 was just a one-shot screw-up for now.

Today's News: another Avenger down?

Another short MS scoop:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150570/elizabeth_olsen_in_avengers_age_of_ultron

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Elizabeth Olsen's other work (according to her resumé on IMDb, there hasn't actually been that much of it anyway). She seems a bit too young for the role of Scarlet Witch, but I reckon the hex casting female Avenger is supposed to be of a lesser age than we´re used to in this film. After all, she's a year older than Aaron Taylor-Johnson who's playing her twin brother Quicksilver, so at least that´s consistent. I'm just glad they kept the pair together as they ought to be, instead of splitting them up, as is allegedly the case in X-Men: Days of Future Past, where Quicks is present but Scarlet is not (shenanigans!). From what I've heard of Olsen, she's a capable young actress, and so I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (not that she needs mine or anybody else's of course). It'll be fascinating to see how Whedon and the writers are gonna incorporate brother and sister into Age of Ultron without referring to their mutant nature. I trust Whedon to honour the source material while being resourceful enough to work his way around such copyright issues. And I hope he'll write some kick-ass sibling dialogue (see what I did there?) between the two of them, since providing characters with credible and catchy phrases is what he does best. Nevermind the superspeed running and probability curses being thrown around, that's all secondary really.

Today's News: Hot off Comic-Con 2013

A double portion of news today from MS, but Comic-Con tends to have that effect everywhere on the Internet:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148730/avengers_2_gaat_avengers_age_of_ultron_heten

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148731/nieuwe_trailer_the_hunger_games_catching_fire

So we have a new trailer for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Avengers 2 got itself a name and hence, a lot more speculation for the fans to endure for the next few years. The former news is the least intriguing, since this trailer would have been released around this time of big summer blockbuster movies anyway, to get people excited about the upcoming big winter movies. It's a good new trailer, with more emphasis on character and emotion than on story and action like the teaser featured. It's agreeable to see Catching Fire won't ignore such pivotal aspects, even if they lead towards a major Twilight-y love triangle - you know, the type with one girl and two boys, and nobody seems to opt for a simple threesome - we can't care less about. The notion of another Hunger Games with Katniss as the star seems redundant, but is a vital strategy for the regime to kill off the champions of the resistance against its regime, and of course this time it won't be just teenagers killing each other, as they have rebellious plans of their own. Blatant recycling of plot elements seems absent for now. And with a stellar cast like this (Philip Seymour Hoffman!) this is still a sequel to look forward to, despite all the teeny aspects.

Naturally it's the second installment of The Avengers, fortunately still directed and written by Joss Whedon, that we can look forward to even more. We'll have to wait a while longer for it, but we still have ample Marvel movies leading up to it (though it seems Ant-Man will now follow this finale of Phase 2 instead of precede it, thus paving the way for Marvel's Phase 3). But with 50 years of Marvel Universe history there is plenty to think on as details slowly dripple in. One such detail, a major one in fact, is the official title, which now has been revealed to be Avengers: Age of Ultron. It leaves no mistake who the villain of the piece will be: the genocidal, haywire android Ultron, originally built by Henry "Hank" Pym (Ant-Man/Yellowjacket/Giant Man/wife beater). In this post for MovieScene I suggested Pym will most likely be established in Avengers 2 via his connection to Ultron, and afterwards fully fleshed out in his own Ant-Man flick, but time has already caught up with that, as it has now been confirmed Pym will not be present in Avengers: Age of Ultron at all. Whedon has stated the origin of Ultron will be explored via other means, the most obvious idea being Tony Stark will create the misantropic machine instead while assembling new Iron Man suits (after his last single adventure he needs some after all). This remains to be seen no doubt. Maybe Whedon will surprise us, as he has done before in the past (he's a fairly talented writer after all). The other big question now is whether Ultron will be portrayed by a guy in a suit - he is rather anthropomorphic so it's not inconceivable - or whether he will be a fully computer generated character with the voice work done by some incredible actor. My best bet? Get Andy Serkis to perform his usual mo-cap magic. You can't go wrong with that route.

But where's Thanos in all this? Great idea, Whedon, getting us all worked up on a villain-to-end-all-villains and then seemingly ignoring him! Or could he be in Guardians of the Galaxy after all...?

Today's News: Studios engage in Marvel Civil War

Here's a hot item of mine that just got posted on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147404/marvel_en_fox_vechten_om_quicksilver

It had to happen sooner rather than later, considering how much money studios make over superhero movies, especially the Marvel kind. Since the rights to various franchises and characters lie with various studios, a few characters would surely cause difficulty in terms of copyright, and now they have. The characters in point are none other than my favorite sibling superhumans, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. Starting off as mutant terrorists and enemies of the X-Men, they soon quit a life of wreaking havoc among humankind and turned towards protecting it as full members of the illustrious Avengers (which still made them enemies of the X-Men at times). So now the question is, where do they best fit in?

Of course, if they are to be done justice and stay true to their comic book origin, they are the children of Magneto first and mutants foremost. So that would mean they would best begin with appearing in the X-Men franchise, but so far, they've been completely ignored despite their father having appeared four times before, as has his Brotherhood of (Evil) Mutants. Apparently Fox saw little appeal to their presence, until Joss Whedon announced his plans to incorporate them in The Avengers 2 last month, at which point Fox catapulted them (or at least the male half of the pair) without advance notice in their latest X-travaganza, Days of Future Past. It really feels that was done solely to create further friction between Fox and Marvel/Disney, since there were no signs at all of their appearance in the movie before Whedon's announcement, nor were they featured in the original comic book story line (and neither was Magneto, but his Brotherhood at least was, run by femme fatale Mystique, who is in the film as I reported here last week). Whedon however has no plans of dropping his two beloved mutant Avenger members, nor should he, since they fit better in there, judging from their long run as Avengers in that line of comic books, which far exceeded the number of issues they served as nemeses to their fellow mutant do-gooders.

Of course, it seemed unlikely from the inception of their appearance in Whedon's next film that they would be featured as Magneto's kids, or mutants at all. That's really X-Men territory. So far there has been no word on mutants at all in the true Marvel Cinematic Universe, and maybe it's better if it stays that way, since it might become hopelessly convoluted for the general audience and so far the established MCU is extensive enough to last us a decade of movies and TV-series. Whedon will have to prove creative with these characters, which in his case I don't mind at all. I heard rumours he intends to render them Inhumans; a good solution considering they are the next best thing to mutants and they haven't been used yet, plus Quicksilver has had plenty of dealings with them considering he married one and sired a daughter with her. Plus, it would give Whedon a chance to return the favour to Fox and give them the finger, since the Inhumans have usually been used as antagonists to the Fantastic Four, a franchise still under Fox's control. If mutants are denied to the true MCU, Marvel might as well steal the Inhumans from Fox. You get some, you lose some.

My favorite solution to this whole mess? A super crossover between both studios' superheroes springs to mind, but I realize full well that's much harder to pull off on film than it is on comic book paper. So many characters played by so many stars, yet still retaining a lot of action and preferably a decent story too? Fat chance. So why not do what the comic books did: create separate universes that are so alike but leave ample room for explaining away all the inconsistencies. Fox started this whole comic book movie rage back in 2000 with X-Men, let they be the genuine Marvel-616 Universe. And let Marvel's Cinematic Universe be what in terms of feel and style it has always seemed to aspire to be, the Ultimate Marvel Universe. Comic book fans would surely appreciate such a crafty solution, though I know it would still cause confusion among regular audiences who simply are not aware of the intricacies of the Marvel Universe or the copyright issues surrounding the various Marvel movies. These are basically the same audiences who wonder when Batman will appear in The Avengers, the type of people I still have to explain why Spider-Man wasn't in the X-Men films, the folks who'll never know the difference between Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel. They don't get it anyway, all they have to do is sit back and hope for a good entertaining superhero flick. That's not so much to ask and not so hard to deliver, Cinematic Universes and superhero legal battles aside. Let the fans worry and wonder about all that nerd stuff, and just enjoy whatever the studios throw at you without pondering about crossovers and such. Marvel/Disney and Fox, all I ask is that you Make Mine Marvel. You did a pretty good job at that so far.

Assembly complete!

The Avengers: Rating ****/*****, or 8/10

When it comes to superhero movies (or just movies in general), Hollywood is rarely thinking more than a few years forward these days. When a superhero movie fails in some regard, the general decision is to either ignore it for a few years or reboot it, so as to give the franchise a fresh start (which almost always neccessitates to tell the character's origin story all over again). Recent examples to the latter include the Spider-Man and X-Men series, which after a successful initial run went in the opposite direction when failure – either to make sufficient money or to please the audience – was somehow involved. 20^th Century-Fox studio executives therefore issued a semi-prequel for X-Men last year (the surprisingly fun X-Men: First Class) which both retold and contradicted its predecessors, while Spider-Man will return in a wholly new form next month after the disappointment that was Spider-Man 3. The former case showed that sometimes a new direction can spawn good results, while the latter has still to prove whether Sony Pictures' decision to simply abandon the former trilogy completely in favour of a new team of cast and crew retelling an already often told story was a good choice, when The Amazing Spider-Man hits theatres in June.

However, Marvel Studios, formerly in cooperation with Paramount, but now under control of the Walt Disney Pictures, does things differently, and shows some impressive long-term thinking for the various superhero characters they still own the movie rights to. Their strategy was simple, but effective: introduce various single characters in their own movies, then put them all together in one giant über-blockbuster the likes the audience has naught seen before. Of course, this planning proved cost-effective, since the public's interest in every character could be tested first with each film, before throwing them all in the same mix, which also gave the studio the opportunity to weed out any characters that proved disappointing at the box-office, as well as keeping open the option for sequels only to the films of certain superheroes that did prove popular, without pinning the hopes solely to the results of their group effort. And so in the last few years, we were treated to various very different superhero flicks: Iron Man (immediately proving to be the most enduring character of the bunch), The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Every one of these films contained various scenes and hints at the others and to the final Avengers product, so the studio could slowly but surely build up momentum, making the audience ever more interested and hyped for just what was in store for them. And now, after having waited and been teased for over four years, the Marvel Universe is fleshed out far more than would ever have been possible without this careful planning, due to the success of all these movies, resulting finally in the superhero-spectacle-to-end-all-superhero-spectacles, The Avengers.

And story wise, the best bit is we don't have to sit through all the characters' origin stories again, since that has all been done for us already, so we can just see the heroes we're already familiar with teaming up against a common foe. Warning: spoilers ahead! This foe, logically chosen, is of course Thor's semi-brother Loki (a wonderfully creepy and vile Tom Hiddleston), the only one of the characters' enemies to pack enough of a punch on a large scale to be a true menace to all mankind. After having fallen from the realm of Asgard, this bad guy disappeared out of the picture for a while, returning with a vengeance by teaming up with a mysterious alien race, hellbent on conquering Earth via the use of the Tesseract (a source of great energy first introduced in Captain America's private cinematic venture). This device has been in the hands of the S.H.I.E.L.D. secret service since the Thor movie, but Loki manages to infiltrate the research base and steal it, along with the minds of various base personnel, including their super archery agent Hawkeye (an agitated Jeremy Renner, so far only briefly spotted in Thor), much to the chagrin of Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, charismatic and ready for combat as always) and his other top agent Black Widow (beautiful bad girl Scarlett Johansson, who was previously seen watching Iron Man's ass in Iron Man 2), who had a personal relationship with Hawkeye. Realizing a nemesis has appeared that threatens the whole world, Fury re-recruits the various superhuman characters we've seen before. And thus Dr. Bruce Banner (newcomer Mark Ruffalo, taking over from Edward Norton and doing a good job at it, portraying the troubled doctor with both sympathy and irony) is tracked down in India, both for his knowledge as a brilliant scientist and his anger managemant problems that occassionally transform him into a huge green monster on a rampage called Hulk (never angrier); Steve Rogers is pulled out of his quiet life in Brooklyn to fight in yet another world war as Captain America, despite having been trapped in ice since 1945 and still adjusting to the strange new world of the early 21^st century; rich playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr., once again with his energetic flair and nonchalance that made him so popular in his previous two films, but no drinking problems this time) is tempted into joining the team so his Iron Man armour can be made responsible use of for a change; and even Thor returns from the realm of the Nordic gods in search for his brother, who he still cares about, just to find the guy has gotten bad enough to warrant the wrath of his hammer. With the players now all on the board, they set out to defeat Loki and save the planet (and Hawkeye) from enslavement/destruction by the evil aliens, resulting in many an epic battle scene, each more grandiose and large scaled than the ones that came before.

Of course, action alone is not enough these days (eh, Battleship? Wrath of the Titans?), we need to care for these characters. It really helps having gotten to know most of them and their various traits and motivations already in their own entries into cinema, so little additional exposition is required. But the big question remained: how well do these characters play together? Do they have the necessary chemistry? The answer, thankfully, is positive. Despite the abundance of star power here assembled (how many Academy Award winners and nominees again?), all the actors are fully into this large group effort and none of them get in each other's way or display so much as hints of appropriating the movie for their own ego. The same can be said for their characters, though the plot does call for Hawkeye to be underexposed so we still don't know much about him (but at least we know enough), while the first Hulk transformation takes place well into the second hour of the film, and until that time Dr. Banner seems more aound for the techno babble, something which plays off very well against inventor Tony Stark as a fellow scientist, as well as to the simple grunt Captain America, who has no idea what both great minds are talking about.

As this scene illustrates, the strength of the characters is the way they complement each other: Tony Stark is the inventor, the loud mouth with the great ego, Banner the scientist who needs to restrain his ego, Steve Rogers is the soldier who follows Fury's orders but does a grand job himself leading the team into battle, Black Widow is the spy who offers both incredible martial arts prowess and infiltration techniques plus the obligatory feminine empowerment, while Thor offers knowledge of a mystical realm beyond comprehension of any of his team mates but necessary to defeat the villain, plus he adds the personal drama to the group since this villain happens to be his (adopted) brother. Iron Man represents technology (and a lot of money, which can also come in handy), Thor stands for supernatural power, Black Widow (and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye) offers intelligence and bodily flexibility, Captain America brings the leadership and combat experience, while the Hulk supplies the necessary raw power. And so we watch the team perform in action together, including great moments like the Captain and Iron Man fighting back to back, playing off each other's strengths like using Cap's shield to deflect Iron Man's rays to take out rows of bad guys, while Thor and the Hulk try to outdo each other in brute strength, the latter winning, when all enemies have been vanquished, by still knocking out his friend to show him just who has the bigger set of muscles.

It's safe to say it's not the action but the characters that make the movie work. Which is not surpring considering Joss Whedon has been placed into the director's chair: if anyone knows about characters, it's him, which he has proven on the small screen with his excellent ensemble casts in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and was once again shown to be the case in the recent fabulous horror pastiche The Cabin in the Woods, which he co-wrote. And Whedon being Whedon, we get his trademark humour thrown in for free. None of this huge display of comic book power in audiovisual form would do as well without some much needed levity, telling us we shouldn't take all of this too seriously, which only increases the film's overall sense of fun. Moments of great suspense are interwoven seemlessly with superbly timed jokes, submitted by all characters, even the antagonists. By mixing humour, action and drama alike, while all the way making us root for every heroic character, Whedon proves he's well up to the task of tackling such a monumental undertaking, despite his limit experience as a motion picture director (the fantastic Serenity so far was his only foray into cinematic directorial duty, but already proved just what the guy was capable of).

Which is not to say The Avengers is without flaws, but fortunately they are but few. The role of Loki's alien henchmen and their specific identity and origins remain underexplained, making them little more than cannon fodder. Visually they look fine (as does the whole film) but they lack a soul and clearly exposed motivations other than being just mere minions. Hawkeye's lack of a character set-up was already mentioned above, while the same can be said for Nick Fury, the man who assembles this team of heroes: we've seen him in almost all of the previous separate films, pulling strings and initiating the formation of the Avengers ever since the end credits of Iron Man first ended, but we still know little about the man himself. Sure, he's in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D. but just who does this organisation really answer to? This film shows him communicating with “the council” (whatever that is), a group of poorly lit, shady, nameless characters on monitors, but just who these people are and why Fury adheres to their commands remains secretive, so the audience too isn't sure what to make of Fury himself. This does add some mystery to this already mysterious man, but also feels like the writers either didn't really know or didn't care enough to explain it better. However, we may still get our answers, a Nick Fury film has already been acknowledged to be produced soon.

Fortunately for the general public, the good stuff in The Avengers far outweighs the not so good, and we are treated to 142 minutes of utter fun as we see great characters (possibly soo to be iconic) teaming up for equally great action, great comedy and great visuals, the latter ranging from enormous flying aircraft carriers to a devastated New York swarming with serpentine alien attack ships being taken down by Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Marvel Studios can sit back and relax: their four year gamble has payed off, made them billions of dollars (this movie alone is gonna break records for sure), garnered much acclaim from critics and fans alike, and paved the way for many more entries into this cinematic Marvel Universe, so we can enjoy Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and of course The Avengers 2 in the next couple of years, with other related Marvel projects also to have been confirmed to tie in to this quickly expanding canon. After the steadily rising levels of success witnessed so far, culminating in the world wide nerdgasm that is The Avengers, we can do nothing but look forward to more Marvels, hopefully for decades to come. Preferably with Whedon involved, but we'll take them without if needs be.

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/

And the Avengers' troubles have only just begun... be sure to stick around for the mid-credits scene to find out why! Or simply watch the picture below for the identity of their new archenemy.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

The last of the single Avengers films, though ironically the 'Living Legend' is the oldest Marvel comic book character of the bunch. Applying a delicious comic-y retro visual style to the Second World War and the introduction of the super soldier, the adventures of the 'First Avenger' resemble their drawn counterparts the most, making for a very fun action film. Eager to sign up with the armed forces during WW II, brave but physically feeble Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, who previously played another Marvel character, the Human Torch, in Fox's Fantastic Four) continues to be rejected for service. However, his strength of will and general boldness eventually make him a good candidate for a secret super soldier project, which turns him into an almost superhuman character, physical and sensory abilities all functioning at peak efficiency. Dubbed Captain America, Steve is initially used only for propaganda performances, but after pulling off a heroic rescue mission deemed near suicide, allied command realizes he's of most use at the front lines, where he soon gets on the radar of the Red Skull (another great villain on Hugo Weaving's resumé), the leader of a covert Nazi organization called Hydra, which dabbles both in the scientific and the supernatural. Meanwhile, Steve also has a hard time finding time for romance with feisty army dame Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell). If you overlook the blatantly patriotic American overtones and you don't mind the fact Captain America's battles look nothing like the actual WW II due to their use of near steam punk levels of science (partially courtesy of the Thor influence, continuing to successfully set up a larger, shared Marvel cinematic universe) and the presence of the somewhat silly, overly politically correct, ethnically diverse Howling Commandos (Wah-Hooo!), you're in for one awesome rollercoaster of a semi-superhero action flick. Plus impressive visual effects, including making a tall, muscular man look short and skinny (yes, those were actually Chris Evans' real muscles, but he never looked like that whimpy little guy).

Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell

Directed by Joe Johnston

USA: Paramount Pictures, 2011