iceicebaby

June 17, 2013 2:33 pm While I really really liked this movie, I can see why, at the same time, someone would be repulsed by this abrupt re-conceptualization of a cherished character. And let's not fool ourselves, that's what this movie is: no less than Frank Miller in 1986, Nolan et al have pushed the logic of having a god-like being in our midst to its grisly extremes. At any moment, I felt that the movie would exceed its PG-13 boundaries and go 'medieval'. The violence, more than anything, served to show how precarious our existence is when we are caught between beings who pass through steel and concrete as if they were vapor. Two things that struck me hard and left an indelible mark: 1) Zod's portrayal. There was never any doubt that this man HAD to die when the movie was over. Transcending the facile villainy so common in many comic books, Zod is a purpose-driven fanatic, one who is far more likely to commit genocide because he ultimately believes that his destructive actions emanate from noble motives. These are by far the most formidable enemies to stop since they are willing to die in the furtherance of their objectives. By Zod's reckoning, if Earth's people must die to resurrect Krypton, so be it. Unlike Luther of earlier films, venal considerations are absent. For this reason alone, Superman must overcome his high moral standards and do what must be done to stop this intractable foe. You simply don't get that when your main foe is a hyped-up, real estate speculator. 2) The persistence of the past. When all is said and done, this movie is all about tying up the loose-ends of Krypton's destruction; it's all about blowback and unintended consequences. Earth is the last battleground of the Jorel/Zod feud that will alter or destroy the lives of many of its inhabitants -- beginning with its adoptive son, Clark Kent. Many have bemoaned Superman's lack of agency, that the exploration of his humanity is sacrificed for the sake of narrative-stifling options. I completely disagree. I think that Superman can only find his own self-identity (and therefore agency) when the past has been put to rest. And that only comes, appropriately enough, at the end.

May 17, 2013 11:26 am I quite liked the film. I do, however, have problems with resurrecting Khan's character in its current, unrecognizable form. Cumberbatch's portrayal of the mad ruler (a fact the current film seems intent on suppressing in order to play up his terrorist credentials) as a taciturn, brooding terrorist is completely at odds with Montelban's megalomaniac performances that have permanently defined this iconic character. It's one thing to re-interpret or re-imagine secondary characters like Uhura . In fact, it's almost a duty to do so given the little attention paid to them during the Rodenberry years. But Khan? He's canon. And since Abrams et al have chosen to mine the sources of Star Trek lore, they should have used the same consistency (even reverence) to bring Khan back. Plots may change, but Spock, Kirk, Bones and Khan are archetypal. You simply cannot alter them.

October 13, 2012 1:42 pm @everyone First, the "taken seriously" comment was out of line and I apologize for it. Second, the only point that was trying to convey was that the POTW should be about something more than a personal preference. I emphasize SHOULD because I realize it is up to Josh, Ron and Conner to do determine how the selection is made (hey! as Conner pointed out, their formula has led to undeniable success; I'm certainly not going to gainsay that). Of course, selections of this sort have subjective qualities to them. I simply don't think they should be wholly so. Even if UA is the title you prefer to read over all others, I don't think you can avoid the problem that it clearly isn't the best work out there on a particular week. At some point, standards have to be used to justify why a standard #1 issue is chosen over arguably the best creative team putting out arguably the best issue of the series. At least that's my opinion... But I won't belabor the point any longer. This will be the last comment I make. Sorry again if I've offended anyone...

October 12, 2012 8:00 pm @stasisbal I never said it should be "what I want it to be." But I think some work as objectively better qualities than others. If the POTW is PURELY about what someone likes, fine. But it really isn't that useful an indicator of what is better than what, is it. I'm not trying to offend anyone who thinks differently from me.

October 12, 2012 7:26 pm Sorry, but this wasn't even close. If story-telling is the bench-mark of good work -- and I think it has to be -- then you simply can't make the case that UA was superior to the most recent issue of BAtman. You simply can't. I realize Ron LIKED this issue more; I like a lot of things that I'm conscious aren't that good to begin with. For instance, I like 'Highlander' much more than 'Gandhi'. But up you'll never hear me say the former is better than the latter -- because it isn't. Enjoying a thing and judging it require two different sets of criteria. The pick of the week should be chosen on the basis of what is better and not what you simply prefer. I know the site is called "iFanboy", but you simply aren't going to be taken seriously if you act like one.

May 6, 2012 9:22 am @Gigglesworth. Point taken. I should pay closer attention. As for the rest, I still think Johansson sucked while Smulders rocked. The action was nicely choreographed, but the ending was not that satisfying; it offered no surprises or revelations. Finally, if I had to rank the movie among the other Marvel titles, I would place Avengers well below X2, Spider Man 2, First Class and Iron Man.

May 4, 2012 5:44 pm Overall, a very good movie. Not great, though. First I felt it could have done with more Mark Ruffalo (though he was in enough of it to shine) and less RDJ (though he didn't eat up all the scenery, just hogged a wee bit more camera time than the other deserving actors). I think most would agree that the Banner/Hulk portions of the film were the most heart-felt and exciting. Second, Johansson was just lousy. A better Black Widow would have been Smuders; her physique is far more imposing, her facial expressions more genuine and appealing. Third, the dialogue was a bit too clunky (the overlapping monologues in the SHIELD conference room in the first hour simply felt too contrived and forced). Compare, for example, the lines delivered in first two Spider Man movies. Now that's how you compose a tight screenplay. Forth, characters were a bit too petulant. For instance, I don't believe Steve Rogers would ever be so childish as to challenge Stark to a fight (Thor, who is quite similar to the spoiled billionaire, was more than enough of a foil to high-light the understandable clash of egos). I'd expect him to be single-minded and mission-focused. He seemed anything but, though. Also: the revelation that Banner had tried at some point to off himself seemed to be way out of character with the man I've come to know in print. BB has been always tortured, true. But he's never tried to take the easy way out either. Finally, I thought the second half paled in comparison to the first -- which is to say, while I loved the character interactions, I thought the action scenes were too predictable and by-the-numbers. A great climax usually has a something unexpected and, at the same time, something satisfying. In this regard, X2 and the second Spider man were far better rendered than the Avengers movie. All that aside, though, I liked it a lot. Looking forward to see how the same team (though I would like to see one or two more additions -- maybe Black Panther and Scarlet Witch? -- added) deals with Thanos, a f___ing kick-ass choice if ever there was one.

February 29, 2012 11:51 pm Man! I think I've watched the new trailer seven or eight times today! I don't it's either premature or rash to point out that this movie will at least be very, very good -- somewhere in the neighborhood of X2 or Spider-man 2.

November 10, 2010 10:04 pm

@purplehulk

Very true! The use of Marvel universe characters is amazing! Absorbing Man, the Abomination, and the Leader in one episode!  

 

November 10, 2010 9:32 pm It is very good. Still, a notch below JLA....