So Awkward: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

Jester and Don watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2:

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

I give this movie an A for effort, but a B- for execution.

I liked it a lot and thought it nailed both Spider-Man and Peter Parker as characters, but the film around them really fell flat and was just kind of bland. This is a big contrast to the previous trilogy by Sam Raimi, which were astoundingly entertaining films that completely ruined the characters from the comics. At some point somebody will finally tell a great, entertaining story that perfectly captures on-model depictions of Peter Parker, Spider-Man, and the rest of the supporting cast. Oh wait... somebody already did that: Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in the comic books. But as adaptations go, this was a lot of fun and mostly respectful of the source material.

This movie is about, well, Spider-Man, so I don't think I need to recount the plot since the character's origin story has been told and retold so many times that by now it must be as well known as Superman's flight to Earth as a baby or the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents. Geeky high school outcast gets bitten by a radioactive spider, gets super powers, fights crime. Considering how this is a reboot of one of film's most popular and successful film trilogies, it was a bit odd how it was almost an hour before we actually saw the character become Spider-Man, but it's ok because this was really more of a film about Peter Parker anyway. But still, did we really need to spend that long retelling the same origin story once more? 

But once Parker finally did put on the Spider-Man costume, the action got pretty great and mostly non-stop. There was a bit too much CG (or, at least, a bit too much CG-looking CG, if that makes any sense), so I was never sure if there was ever a guy in a suit at all of if it was all digital, but the fights were still great and the scenes where he swung on his webs through New York City were astounding. I honestly regret not having seen this in 3-D in the theater because I bet it would've looked phenomenal.

Our star was Andrew Garfield, who was as perfect a casting choice as I could've hoped for. One of the reasons I never enjoyed the previous films was that I thought Tobey Maguire -- a fine actor -- was all wrong for the character. He was bland, flat, and lacking in any real charisma, but not so with Garfield, who just nailed it. I've never seen or even heard of this actor before, but now he's one of my favorites if only because he just captured the character I grew up reading. He was awkward when he had to be, but still charming and quirky, creating a perfectly believable high school pariah whose character arc has him becoming a hero. Oh, and he was funny too. Spider-Man should be funny.

The supporting cast was pretty great too. Emma Stone played the love interest Gwen Stacy, and she was very lovely and very charming. Dennis Leary showed up as her father, and he did his usual performance as Dennis Leary. He's ok. Peter's Aunt May and Uncle Ben were played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen, both of whom were great, but only Sheen was given much to do. Field was mostly wasted, but maybe she'll be given more to do in the sequel, I dunno.

Then there was our villain, Curt "The Lizard" Connors played by Rhys Ifans. I don't know what to say about this character or this performance since it just felt so disjointed and weird. Ifans is a wonderful actor who did a great job, but the Lizard was all CG so it almost felt like two different characters, and we never really got a sense of his motivations nor did I really understand his plan or what threat he posed. And, frankly, the CG was pretty weak and just looked fake. I hate to say it, but this wasn't a great villain, which is a shame because a villain is really only as good as the threat he's facing, so this kind of made the film fall apart slightly, at least on a emotional level during the climax.

But I still liked it. In fact, I liked it a lot. Director Marc Webb did a great job with the human characters, but maybe the action and the monsters kind of fell flat and eluded his talents as a director. The action scenes were neat and fun, but they often felt a little out of place, as though they were awkwardly inserted into a quieter, character-driven film. I still recommend it and I look forward to the sequel.

In Memoriam: Joe Kubert (1926 - 2012)

I Love Paul Ryan!

No, not that Paul Ryan, the imposter who was currently chosen to be Mitt Romney's running mate in the 2012 presidential election... I love the real Paul Ryan, who was one of the best comic book artists during the late 80s and early 90s. I loved Paul Ryan's art, especially his epic run on Avengers with writer John Byrne, but also Quasar, DP7, and even Fantastic Four, although the storylines were never up to the par of his artwork.

Anyway, whenever I hear about this other Paul Ryan in the news, I think back fondly on the real Paul Ryan, the one who drew thousands of comic book pages that I grew up reading and loving. So here's some Paul Ryan art, just for fun:

The Manhattan Projects

The Manhattan Projects is the most brilliant comic book to debut in the 21st century. Honestly, I haven't enjoyed or been as engrossed by a series since the first League of Extraordinary Gentlemen series debuted in 1999, or Mike Mignola unleashed his Hellboyverse in 1993. Now, I'm not saying that this comic is the second coming of Lee and Kirby or anything, and I don't want to hype it up to much, but since I first discovered it on a whim a couple months ago, I searched around every local comic shop to find and devour all five or so issues that have been released so far.

And I recommend everybody else do the same. It's just a damn good comic.

Published by Image Comics, written by Jonathan Hickman, with art by Nick Pitarra, the series presupposes an alternate history where the top secret government project to develop an atomic bomb was just a cover up for another, even deeper secret: This group of scientists were actually conducting investigations into the supernatural. That's an incredibly simplistic, dumbed down synopsis for a series that is anything but simplistic or dumb, but even on a dumbed down level, anybody would have to admit that's a ridiculously fun concept. I don't want to give anything away since part of the fun of this series has been the big reveals and surprises Hickman's mythology has sprung on the reader, but along the way we've seen cannibalism, aliens, interdenominational doorways, super-powered death monk squads, and the consciousness of FDR placed into an artificially intelligent super computer. And most of that was just from the first issue.

Basically, this series does for the folks at Los Alamos what League of Extraordinary Gentlemen did for Victorian literature, although that's kind of an unfair analogy since TMP owns nothing to LOEG and creates its own mythology and worldview that is just as epic and well told. The main characters are all historic figures from the real Manhattan Project, but viewed through the skewed, twisted perspective of Hickman's alternate reality. If you know much about the actual historical characters involved, you'll get a lot more out of this, especially when somebody like Harry Daghlian shows up as an irradiated skull kept alive in a radioactive containment suit. You know what... just read it.

The story is so out there and outlandish it is a testament to the talents of artist Nick Pitarra that he was able to make it all work. His work is highly stylized and akin to the manic energy of somebody like Geoff Darrow, but he also somebody manages to add a sense of realism that grounds the story and makes it feel like history and not fantasy. And he just draws really cool monsters and epic inter-dimensional landscapes. He's one of those artists who's work might look rough or off-putting at first glance, until you finish the issue and realize you love it. Does that make any sense?

So that's The Manhattan Projects. Just... go read it, but track down the first issue first because it is one long narrative full of twists and turns that begs to be read in the proper order. I can't recommend it enough, and I hope it continues on for years to come.

Before Watchmen: Issue #1

Yesterday saw the release of DC's first Watchmen prequel "Before Watchmen: Minutemen." Well, since we are still here today, it's safe to say that the world didn't explode, the rapture never took place, and life as we know it didn't cease to exist. Despite all the doom and gloom that was predicted by the people who swore that this comic was the worst idea ever and it would no doubt lead to the collapse of the comic book industry itself, only one really notable think happened yesterday: DC put out a pretty god damned great comic book.

Turns out "Before Watchmen," or at least this premiere issue, is brilliant.

And I like to think that "brilliant" isn't a word I throw around casually, but in this case, I think it fits. It was just a damn good comic with exceptional art and an entertaining story, but what elevated it to the level of brilliance was how it fit so perfectly into the Watchmen universe and added something worthwhile and thoughtful. I know people put Watchmen on a pedestal and think it's the most sacred, holy thing ever writ by the hand of man, and even if it is, every great story ultimately ends up as a jumping off point for even more stories to come. Those stories shouldn't always come, of course, since I read the novel Casablanca 2 and it was terrible, but a truly brilliant, unique story or mythology stays with you after you finish reading the last page, keeping the characters and concepts and ideas in your brain for years to come.

All that is my long-winded way of saying that I never opposed the idea of the Watchmen prequels. In theory I opposed it at first, I guess, but after DC publicized its plan and the list of creators, I got excited because they put together a group of people whose work I love to work on some characters whose previous story I enjoyed. Original Watchmen writer Alan Moore wasn't happy, of course, but I'm not sure if he ever is. He talks endlessly about how DC and other companies crap on his ideas and characters even while he writes his own stories where he turns the Charlton Comics characters into rapists, The Inivisble Man into a pedophile, and Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz into a sex-crazed slut. I love all of those stories, of course, I'm just pointing out that his ideas on creators' rights is a bit suspect.

But, anyway, at the end of the day all that matters is this: Darwyne Cooke's first issue is fantastic. Cooke is a comic creator who has always been great at faithful adaptations of characters from days of yore. He wrote the only great Spirit comics since the passing of Will Eisner, and his New Frontier series reinvigorated the Justice League. And now he's writing about the Minutemen, the original vigilante team from Watchmen. This wasn't so much a story as an attempt to set the scene for the rest of the series. We were reintroduced into the world of the Watchmen and given a fresh look at some of the characters, as told from the point of view of the original Night Owl. Then entire issue was written as an excerpt from his autobiography, which saves it from having to match the voice and style of Alan Moore. Frankly, Cooke writes a better Night Owl than Moore did anyway.

Does it feel like Watchmen? Sure, but not completely... but that's not a bad thing. This comic was a story about building up various characters, while the original Watchmen was an attempt to deconstruct various character archetypes. I'm not going to say which was better (we'll give the win to Watchmen, of course), but I certainly enjoyed both for similar and yet different reasons. Anyway, long story short: Go buy this comic. But it and read it if you liked the original Watchmen or even if you hated it. This was just a darn good story with some great comic book art. Check it out.

The Avengers

I'll go ahead and make this easy: This was probably the best comic book movie ever made.

Of course, it was almost five years in making and built up over six films, so the comparison between this and every other comic book movie might be unfair. This was less of a film and more of an event. But still, best is best, and I can't think of any other comic book film that can compare with this epic. This was absolutely, 100 percent, bad ass.

If you go in expecting an adaptation of The Ultimates, that is. As an adaptation of The Avengers, it leaves a little to be desired, although even then it's a lot of fun, very cool, and contains some of the best comic book action ever put on screen. But most people who read comics these days are probably more familiar with The Ultimates than The Avengers anyway, and those people who don't read comics at all won't understand or care about the distinction between the two, so why should I care? Marvel made a movie that will be loved by fans of the current comics and those that just love great action movies, so if the eight year old me sheds a tear over the changes to the beloved characters he grew up reading, his beef is with the comic book company, not with the people who made this movie. And, anyway, the 35 year old me got to finally see a live-action fight between Thor and the Hulk*, so he's not going to complain either.

In case you're curious, the Avengers comic debuted in 1963 and had been published consecutively since then. In the early 2000s, the entire series was redone in a more "realistic," contemporary style, and renamed The Ultimates. If you saw the previous films based on Iron Man, Thor, and Captain American, you pretty much saw The Ulimates version of the characters. The Ultimates was a well written series that was certainly successful in bringing a lot of attention back to the characters, but that wasn't the team I grew up reading, and a lot of the changes they made to the characters were unsettling and rubbed me the wrong way, so when I see them put on screen instead of the characters I know, well, it makes me sad. But I'll be damned if these aren't great films, all culminating in The Avengers, which, as I said, was the best comic book movie ever made.

That isn't to say it's perfect, since the story is actually pretty weak and makes very little sense. The script by Joss Wheadon was also typical Joss Wheadon, in that it was overwritten and filled with too many witty jokes by every character, regardless of the tone of the scene. No matter what was going on, it was a safe bet one of the characters was going to crack a joke. This style or writing got tired around season three of Buffy, but at least his jokes are occasionally funny. Also, Wheadon's dialogue is definitely better when it's performed by an actor like Sam Jackson or Robert Downey Jr., as opposed to, say, Alyson Hannigan or Summer Glau.

 Speaking of the cast, let's look at our principal players:
Iron Man: Robert Downey Jr.
Everybody has seen at least the first Iron Man movie, which was great, and some people have seen the sequel, which was terrible. Not my favorite character in the movie since he seems to me to be the least faithful to the comics, but Downey Jr. is a brilliant actor who is great at reading Joss Wheadon's dialogue. This isn't the Tony Stark from the comics, but this is the one we got for the films, and at least he's always fun to watch. And when he puts on the Iron Man suit, well, he's bad ass. There is more and better Iron Man action in this film than there was in both of the solo Iron Man films put together. No joke.

Captain America: Chris Evans
My favorite Avenger, and probably my favorite actor in the cast. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance in the Captain America film, even though the film itself was somewhat lacking. He's given a pretty great role here, and Evans manages to rise to the occasion as the team's defacto leader. Evans has amazing comic timing, is as handsome a leading man as I've ever seen, and he has the conviction and sincerity needed to pull of this kind of serious yet fantastic character. I can't say enough good things about this guy. He was Captain America. And his costume is way better here than it was in his previous film, but it's still not great.

Thor: Chris Hemsworth
If you had asked me yesterday to name my all time favorite comic book movie, maybe I would've said Thor.  That movie was a masterpiece, in my opinion, with much of the credit going to Hemsworth's perfect portrayal of the Thor, the God of thunder. Part of the fun of Thor's solo film was watching his journey from God to man back to God again, but in this film he's just a God... and that's fine, since watching him punch stuff is fun too. Hemsworth was great and had some of the best fights in the movie, but I still wish he was given a little more to do since he's a wonderful actor. But still... great character, great actor.

The Hulk: Mark Ruffalo
They keep recasting this character, but luckily for us they keep recasting him with some of the best actors working today. First we had Eric Bana, then Ed Norton, and now Mark Ruffalo. I'm not sure whose performance was the best, but Ruffalo's portrayal was probably my favorite, if only because he was the closest to the character in the comics. At least, he was allowed to be a scientist who was smarter than everybody else in the film. Oh, and the CG on the Hulk was freaking amazing and his fight scenes were the absolute best things about the movie. Here's something I've learned over the course of three films featuring the Hulk: Nothing is more fun to watch than the Hulk smashing stuff. Seriously. The Hulk is without a doubt the best character in this whole movie... or, at least, he's the most fun to watch smash stuff.


Hawkeye: Jeremy Renner
Off casting, but not all together bad casting either. Renner is a fine actor, but not one I've ever found myself overly fond of. He's just... a little boring, which is a shame because Hawkeye is anything but. Renner is an actor who seems to specialize in being grim and brooding, while Hawkeye should be fun and exuberant. But even still, Renner did a good job even though I thought he was miscast and the character poorly represented. But he was good at shooting arrows and had a few stand out moments.

The Black Widow: Scarlett Johansson
Maybe the sexiest woman on the planet, and maybe a good actress. She was certainly fun to watch, and not just because she spent the entire film in a leather cat suit. Anyway, I liked this character more than I thought I would, even though she's not somebody I'd consider to be an essential member of the Avengers. I'd rather have seen The Wasp, Tigra, or She Hulk, but Johansson did a good job with the character.

Nick Fury: Samuel L. Jackson
Awesome. This wasn't the Nick Fury I grew up on, but this was perfect casting for the Nick Fury featured in the Ultimates. The Nick Fury I grew up on was cooler, of course, since he was a grizzled, battle hardened vet from WWII, but this Nick Fury was played by Sam Jackson. What's cooler than that? I'm also not a huge fan of the S.H.I.E.L.D. portrayed in these films, since they seemed to drop the cool, epic team from the comics in favor of a clone of the Men in Black, but at least they have Sam Jackson.

Loki: Tom Hiddleston
Our villain... and he's a good one. He was also the villain of the Thor film, but while he was a bit weak there, he's way cooler and scarier here. He is the only real villain of the whole film who isn't a CG monster, and he managed to carry much of the picture based on his charm and evil grin. This guy was a good villain, and I hope he makes a reappearance in the sequel. Oh... and stay after the credits for a very cool look at who the sequel's next villain might be.

But the real star of this film are the action sequences, which are amazing. This film was definitely the best I've ever seen at capturing the real over the top thrill of a true Marvel comic. The last twenty or minutes or so in particular was probably the greatest extended action sequence I've ever seen, and I don't say that lightly.

So... just go see it. I'll probably see it again, maybe in 3D or IMAX, since it's a visual spectacle that will probably be worth the money. And then I'll probably see it again, even if it isn't The Avengers I grew up on, it's still the Avengers. At the end of the day, this film works because it's the first film I've ever seen that really captures the feel of reading a Marvel comic. From now on when people ask me why I read comics, I can say, "You know that action scene at the end of The Avengers? Well, that's what comics are like all the time."

*Yes, I remember that TV movie where Thor fought the Hulk. Doesn't count because it was awful.

Before Watchmen

It's been churning through the rumor mill for the past couple years, but DC finally confirmed the launch of their new line of prequel books to Watchmen, perhaps the most praised and beloved comic of all time. I won't comment or speculate either way as to whether or not this is a good idea or if Watchmen needed any kind of prequel or sequel, but I will admit that the line up sounds pretty amazing. I'll certainly check out some of these books.

Check it out:

• RORSCHACH (4 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: Lee Bermejo

• MINUTEMEN (6 issues) – Writer/Artist: Darwyn Cooke

• COMEDIAN (6 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: J.G. Jones

• DR. MANHATTAN (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artist: Adam Hughes

• NITE OWL (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artists: Andy and Joe Kubert

• OZYMANDIAS (6 issues) – Writer: Len Wein. Artist: Jae Lee

• SILK SPECTRE (4 issues) – Writer: Darwyn Cooke. Artist: Amanda Conner

Sounds like it's going to be some really good comic creators (hopefully) telling some really good stories about some really good characters. Anyway, I'm interested.

Read more here.

Infinite

I used to go to the comic store every Wednesday, since that is when new issues are delivered. I can't say how much I used to spend on comics per month, but as the prices on the cover went up and the quality in the interiors went down, I started to buy less and less until I all but stopped going. I still make the occasional visit to the comic shop, but usually now only when there is a specific book I want to buy, usually some B.P.R.D. title, since those are really the only things I read any more, but I'll sometimes pick up some other books that look interesting, fun, or exciting.

So when I was at my local shop yesterday and noticed that Rob Liefeld has a new comic out, I picked it up. I'm not bragging... I just couldn't resist. I didn't necessarilly buy it because I thought it would be good, but maybe because I hoped it might be cool. Or maybe I just wondered how bad could it be? The answer is... It's as bad as any Rob Liefeld comic has ever been.

If you've didn't grow up reading comics in the mid 90s, you might not get the whole concept of Rob Liefeld, or even of Image Comics as a whole, the company he founded in order to spread his unholy influence across the entire industry. Liefed was basically the comic book artist equivalent of a Britney Spears: That is to say, it's all flash with no substance, giving you something superficially nice to look at at first glance, but completely falls apart when you really delve in and start to look at things closely. Spears had a few god hooks and a nice body, so you could overlook the fact that her voice was insipid and grating. Liefeld drew big guns and big muscles, so you could overlook the fact that all of his characters stood in the same poses and had no hands or feet. The guy had talent, of course, just as Spears did, but most of it was potential that was never realized to any true degree. He boasted often about how he was self-taught and needed no further education or editorial guidance, so when he became too famous too quickly for his own good, his star eclipsed and his celebrity faded until he became mostly remembered as a joke.

But I always liked the guy's art, even though I always knew it was pretty terrible. Let me put it in this way: Roadhouse is no Citizen Kane, but I enjoy both and I'll watch either one whenever they come on TV. Entertainment is entertainment, and I'll freely admit I get a marginal amount of things that probably don't deserve my attention. Welcome to society. 

So I bought Infinite #1 because I kind of like Liefeld's art and out of a sense of nostalgia because his work always brings me back to my childhood (or, at least, my teenhood) when things were simpler and comics were still larger than life and exciting. I also pick up the occasional Liefeld book every few years to see if he has finally become the great artist that he is capable of becoming (with some hard work, a critical look at his flaws, and dedication to improving). So far... no deal. But he still draws characters with big guns and big muscles, so the teen version of myself is mostly happy.

Infinite is your typical Image comic book, since the art is mostly based on pin ups, with any expository scenes being awkward and seeming rushed, as though they are just stick figured in front of a minimal (or often nonexistent) background. I mean, seriously, look at this panel and try to tell me it isn't the worst thing you've ever seen:

So, no, he hasn't gotten any better, but shame on me for thinking he ever would. He's not helped much by the story, which was written by Robert Kirkman and was every bit as appalling as the art. Robert Kirkman, of course, is the celebrated writer of The Walking Dead fame, who's inexplicable success is due to being the first person to rip-off George Romero in the world of comics instead of just in the world of film. He's also written a bunch of other comics that have sold well, but I couldn't tell you why because they're terrible. He has an editorial at the end of this comic where he talks about how his lifelong dream has been to work with Rob Liefeld, which may be hype, but judging from the quality of his writing and immaturity of his plots, it's probably true. Then again, if Liefeld called me up and asked me to write for him, I'd say... sure! Then again, I'm not as rich and successful as Robert Kirkman.

The story is about... I dunno. Some badguy in the future used time travel to take over the world, so some resistance fighter goes back in time and teams up with his past self in order to take down this villain before he takes over the world. Does that sound awesome or incredibly dumb? The 15 year old me might've thought it was awesome, but the 34 year old me thinks it's incredibly dumb. Incredibly dumb can still be fun, of course, if it's pulled off well or shows some spark of originality, creativity, or wit. Infinite has none of that. It's just a dumb concept that is poorly written and terribly drawn.

So it's a great Image Comic! Check it out if any of that sounds the least bit appealing. I have no regrets about picking it up since it was absolutely what I expected, and now I don't have to buy another Liefeld comic for at least another five years.

UPDATE: In the grand tradition of Image Comics, Infinite has already been cancelled. Read all about it here.

Spielberg Double Feature

Steven Spielberg is my favorite film director, and I was lucky enough see two of his films over the weekend. It's a testament to Spielberg's power as a film icon that he was able to release two films in the same week (the week of Christmas, no less!), and a testament to his talent that both films are so different from one another.

Anyway, let's get to it:

War Horse

I probably wouldn't have seen this film had Spielberg's name not been mentioned in the trailer. It looked like a nice movie and all, but I don't really like horses and I rarely see family films. However, this wasn't really a family film or a film about horses, so much as Spielberg's first attempt at a World War I epic. And boy do I like those.

Actually, this film kind of defies description. It's not really about horses, since the story focuses on war and the effects it has on people. It's not really a family film since there is so much death and destruction. And it's not really a WWI film since very little about the war is actually explained, and if you don't already know what's happening -- or even which war is being fought at all -- you're not going to learn anything. If I had to describe it in a single sentence, I might say it's a picaresque story about one horse's journey though a world torn about by war.

And I'll be the first to admit that that doesn't sound like it would be a very good movie. But boy would I be wrong, since this was just about as brilliant a film as Spielberg has ever directed. It's not his best or even close to being his most entertaining, but it was definitely brilliant: brilliantly conceived, executed, and realized, and pretty close to being as perfect a film as he's ever done. Visually, it was amazing and as stylish and interesting to look at as anything he has ever made. The acting, by a group of mostly unknowns, was as great as you'd expect from any Spielberg film.

All things considered, a war film told from the point of view of a horse turned out to be one of the most honest way to convey the horror of battle. The horse doesn't know what is happening or why anybody is fighting, so when he is pulled from side to side, the sides themselves stop mattering and all we see are humans fighting against each other. Anyway... I liked it. Go see it.

The Adventures of Tin Tin

Remember when Spielberg followed up Jurassic Park with Schindler's List? Well, same deal here. While War Horse was a thoughtful, melancholy, look at war and man's inhumanity to his fellow man, Tin Tin was just a mad capped, over the top, rousing adventure story.

Oh, and it's also the best film Spielberg has made in almost ten years.

I'm the perfect audience member for a film based on Tin Tin. I love comic books and I used to live in Europe, so I know of the comics and have read several, but never to such an extent that I can get annoyed or mad by any changes Spielberg made or infidelity his film showed to the comics. I like Tin Tin, but I'm not a fanatic, so I was able to enjoy how well the character was brought to the screen, even if I was only able to pick up on very few of the in-jokes and references. This seemed to be the same Tin Tin character I've seen in the comics, and that's a good thing, since Tin Tin is one of the best and most beloved comics in the entire world. Outside of America, of course, since nobody here knows who he is.

I'm still not entirely convinced that motion-captured CG was the best way to adapt the character, however, since the Tin Tin from the comics was a cartoony character running around a hyper realistic enviornment. If original aritst Herge had wanted Tin Tin to look like an actual human, he would've drawn him that way. The character still looked like Tin Tin, of course, but like a strange, oddly human version, sort of like if somebody made a version of Bart Simpson that looked too realistic. But I can't complain too much since even though I think the film should've been in hand drawn 2D, this was without a doubt the best looking and animated film I've seen. Oh, and the 3D was pretty superb as well.

But even forgetting the original comics and the visual design of the film, this was just a great story that was as entertaining as anything I've ever seen in the theater. It was a great, globe-trotter adventure full of thrills, excitement, and some of the best chase sequences ever put on film. It was also moving, funny, uplifting, scary, and awe-inspiring. The only thing it didn't have was any pretty girls, but then again, maybe the original comic didn't either. Just because it was European doesn't mean it had lots of naked chicks.

I'll admit that I had my reservations going in, since the film didn't really look like Tin Tin, and I wasn't sure how Spielberg would fair as a director of an animated film. It turns out Spielberg's wild imagination and visual style is perfectly suited to the world of animation, since he was literally able to bring anything to life and place his camera wherever he wanted. There is one stand out set piece involving a battle between two clipper ships that was just about the coolest sequence I've ever seen, and I'm not exaggerating at all.

Anyway, Tin Tin. It was one of the best films I've ever seen by my all time favorite director. Not a bad way to start the new year. Go see it.

The Greatest Captain American Hero

For fun I mashed up some scenes from the recent Captain America movie to the theme song to The Greatest American Hero, composed by Mike Post and Stephen Geyer and performed by Joey Scarbury.

Why? Because somebody had to:

Green Lantern

I don't have a whole lot to say about this one, other than that it didn't suck, but it wasn't very good either. It was kind of the cinematic equivalent of the bread basket you get at a nice restaurant. There's nothing really to complain about, but it's really just there to tide you over until some real food is served. But as a film taken on its own -- not to mention as an adaptation of one of the best comic book characters ever -- it fell flat and left me feeling pretty hungry for the main course that never actually came. Did I stretch that analogy too thin?

Green Lantern has always been one of my favorite super heroes, even though the name has been used by many characters with different personalities over the decades. This film centers around Hal Jordan, who wasn't the first Green Lantern, but he has always been the best, the most popular, and the most enduring. However, Ryan Reynolds played him as just another irreverent generic Hollywood superhero who cracks jokes more than he fights evil or rights wrongs, so the character's name really doesn't matter. This is going to sound geeky so I apologize to anybody who isn't a fan of the comics, but this film was like an adaptation of Guy Gardner's Green Lantern than they just named Hal Jordan. Translation: He was too funny and irreverent when he should've been heroic and stoic.

But I guess funny and irreverent made the Iron Man series a bundle of money, so that's what every comic book adaptation is going to be like. Well, it wasn't faithful to the original comics when they turned Iron Man into a comedian, and it was even less so when they did the same to Green Lantern. But at least Ryan Reynolds is a very charming, gifted actor who has excellent comic timing. I didn't appreciate how they made the character so funny, but at least he was funny.

Much better was the supporting cast. I'm not sure why Tim Robbins was in this movie, but he's always good and he was fun to watch here, even though his character served no actual purpose or added anything to the overall story. Blake Lively was good as Carol Ferris, who goes on to become Star Sapphire, at least in the comics, not here. She is mainly here to set up the character as the obligatory love interest, and has little do to beyond looking beautiful, but she sure pulled that off better than almost any woman I've ever seen before. Who is this actress and how come I've never seen her before? Peter Sarsgaard has a lot of fun as the villain Hector Hammond, but it was an odd interpretation of the character, and an odd choice to have as one of the main adversaries in the film.

Best of all was Mark Strong, who was brilliant and perfectly cast as Sinestro. He looked like he flew right out of the comics, and gave the best and most engaging performance in the film. He stole every scene he was in, which were far too infrequent. Unfortunately he didn't have enough to do, since it was clear they were just setting him up to be the main villain in the sequel. Yeah, good luck with that.

As a straight up space opera, it had a lot of potential, since the film really shined during all the scenes where the characters were not on Earth. Visually it looked amazing, with exceptional special effects and really good representations of the planet Oa and the various alien Green Lantern Corps members like Abin Sur, Kilowog, and Tomar-Re. Heck, the fact that they even had these characters in the film at all is cool, but having them be done well was awesome. I even liked the look of the costume, even if the design was weird and it looked like skin.

Parallax was a let down, however. The character was given no depth, no real motivation, and looked like a muppet. As villains go, this was one of the worst and most unengaging I've seen in a long time, and the final battle between him (it?) and Green Lantern was pathetic.

But then, it was hard to have a satisfying finale since the entire film felt so flaccid and stale. It had no real character development beyond starting with a guy who makes jokes and says he's irresponsible, to ending with a guy who makes jokes and says he's now responsible. And where was the action? I think Green Lantern used his ring maybe three times, and almost never too good effect. I want to see Green Lantern punching lots of stuff, not flying into space and fighting a CG muppet.

Anyway, Green Lantern. It's worth checking out for some of the visuals, the performance by Mark Strong, and to look at Blake Lively. But if you want a great comic book adaptation, go rent Thor instead.

X-Men: First Class

X-Men: First Class is an exceptionally well made film that has almost nothing to do with the X-Men.

I suppose that's not entirely accurate. It has nothing to do with the X-Men comic books (which have been around for almost 50 years and spanned literally thousands of issues), and is mostly just based on the X-Men series of of films (which have been around for about ten years and spanned three films), so that explains why the mythology and history presented is mostly a jumbled mess that will have people who have only seen the films feeling confused and people who have grown up on the comics feeling annoyed. However, as an origin story taken on its own, it's a cracking good film.

I'd be surprised if the writers of this film even read any of the original comics books before crafting their screenplay, since every detail and character idea is taken from the earlier films, which is fine since those films were already pretty far removed from the comics. So what we have here is a film intended to be a prequel to a series of films that were very loosely based on a series of comics. That's why we have a Charles Xavier who is British even though he's American in the comics, and a Moira MacTaggert who's American even though she's Scottish in the comics. At least Xavier's personality, powers, and back story come through mostly unchanged, while most of the other characters are just given a name and appearance from the comics and turned into something... else, almost as though they are mutated forms from their original comic book counterparts. So Moria MacTaggert, a Scottish geneticist who meets and falls in love with Xavier because they are both studying human mutations while at Oxford is now an American CIA agent. And the rest of the characters are similarly changed, as is the entire makeup of the "First Class" itself, since the actual lineup from the original comics have all been used already in the earlier films, so it wouldn't make sense to have Cyclops, Jean Grey, et all living back in the 60s.

So as an X-Men film, it falls flat and borders on being something insulting, considering how much is changed, dismissed, and flat out rewritten for these films. But as an action movie, it's absolutely stunning. Matthew Vaughn is an excellent director and some of the set pieces in this movie are brilliantly filmed, even if none of them really add up to a cohesive whole that makes much sense or is all that satisfying on any real emotionally or intellectual level. The scene where a young Magneto kills a bunch of aged Nazis in a bar in Argentina, for example, was one of the most well done and entertaining scenes I've watched in a long time.

The cast is also pretty exceptional, with James McAvoy out-Xaviering Patrick Stewart, who is a brilliant actor who completely phoned in his performances in the earlier films. Michael Fassbender was awesome as Magneto, giving just as much gravitas as Ian McKellen, but actually seeming like more of a real threat since he didn't look like an arthritic senior citizen. Kevin Bacon stole the entire film, however, as one of the best villains I've ever seen in any comic book movie. No, this was not the Sebastian Shaw from the comics, but Bacon was so good I didn't care. The rest of the cast was played by a bunch of gorgeous, sexy women who mostly walked around in their underwear, so they were also very good and very memorable. This did seem like a bit of a step down for Jennifer Lawrence after her Oscar-nominated performance in Winter's Bone, but boy is she talented and very, very beautiful.

So... X-Men: First Class. Check it out, but don't go in expecting anything all that amazing or showing any real fidelity to the comics or even the previous films. When the plot gets confusing and has you feeling lost, don't make the mistake of thinking it's all explained in the comics, since none of this is from the comics and it's just because the script isn't that great or well thought out. But boy is it a lot of fun.

50 Years of Marvel Comics

 
Fifty years ago today, the first issue of the Fantastic Four hit news stands. There's a lot of history in that sentence. First of all, fifty years is a long time for any item of popular culture to endure, but the Fantastic Four is still chugging along, not only as a comic book but in film, TV, toys, videogames, any whatever else Marvel is putting out. Second of all, the publication of Fantastic Four #1 effectively ushered in the Marvel Age of comics. FF #1 wasn't the first official Marvel Comic, of course, since that honor would probably go to Journey Into Mystery or Patsy Walker, but Fantastic Four was what defined the era.

Lastly, there is the mention above of news stands, which, for the most part, no longer exist, at least now in terms that a comic book fan could understand. I'm sure there are still places where you can buy news publications, but they are no longer anywhere near a comic book.

But fifty years ago today, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby put out one of the best comic books of all time (if not the best), and it cost a dime.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Boy do I hate that costume, but man did I love this movie.

The summer of 2011 might go down in film history as the summer of the comic book movie, with Captain America maybe being the best of a pretty stellar lot. Out of the plethora of comic book movies that hit theaters this summer (with maybe more to come? I can't remember), I think I was most excited to see this one, because I'm a huge fan of the character and the comics. However, this was also the film I was most dreading, because I'm such a huge fan of the character and the comics. I'm happy to say director Joe Johnston and pulled it off and did the character justice.

More than any other comic book film in recent memory, this almost completely captured the spirit of the character I grew up reading. Captain America is a hero like no other, and he should always be portrayed as kinder, better, more admirable, and just plain heroic than any other super hero, and this film made great pains to ensure they got all of that right. In the comics and in this film, Captain America isn't a hero because of his costume or his great strength or his outstanding agility, but because his alter ego Steve Rogers is such an honorable man. People who see this movie are going to see one of the best portrayals of a true hero in maybe any comic book based film since the original Superman film way back when.

A lot of that has to do with the script, but credit is also due to the wonderful performance by Chris Evans. Frankly, Evans isn't a great actor, but he's not a bad one either, but he managed to really knock this one out of the park, creating a fantastic and fascinating character that is larger than life not only because of his physical stature, but because of his charm and good nature as well. When I saw Thor, I came out of the theater wishing I had arms like actor Chris Hemsworth. When I saw Captain America, I came out of the theater wishing I was friends with Steve Rogers. That's an important distinction about Captain America, since he is one of the few heroes nobody really wants to be, we just want to be around him.

Astoundingly, Evans played the character both before and after his transformation from the 90lb weakling to the strapping behemoth with the body of Greek god. I honestly don't know how the special effects people pulled this off, but it was seamless and completely believable. I've read a few reviews where people said the puny version of the character looked like a bobblehead, but I didn't see it. I thought it was amazing and stood out as one of the best and most incredible special effects I've seen in years. Too bad some of the other CG in the film hadn't been as well done, like the scenes where Captain America is jumping through the sky or tossing bad guys around.

One of the reasons Chris Evans gave such a good performance was because he had such an amazing cast to act against. Tommy Lee Jones was as great as you'd expect as the gruff Army Colonel who gives Captain America his orders, and Stanley Tucci was fantastic as the genius scientist Dr Abraham Erskine who developed the serum that turned our main character into a super soldier. Hayley Atwell was very good and very charming as the love interest, and it was great that she was given more to do than just stand around and look pretty. And we even got fairly substantial roles for the Howling Commandos, although they are never referred to by name in the film, the best of which was Neal McDonough as Dum Dum Dugan. I nearly jumped out of my seat when that character came on screen.

And then there was Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull. I'd be interested to hear what non-fans of the comics think of his look and manner, but, personally, I thought he was incredible. Hugo Weaving's performance was perfectly menacing with the right mixture of subtly and over the top histrionics, and the visual design of his face looked just like a Jack Kirby drawing. I really enjoyed Chris Evans and the rest of the actors who portrayed the allies, but Weaving's Red Skull nearly stole the entire film. I'm going to go ahead and say that this was the best comic book villain ever put on film.

There was also the prerequisite cameo by Marvel Comics icon Stan Lee, who is given maybe his funniest line yet. I'm pretty sure his joke got the biggest line in the theater when I saw it, either because it was funny or because it was Stan Lee. This raises an interesting point: Was this the first time Stan Lee had a cameo in a film about a comic book character he didn't create? Stan Lee's contribution to Marvel in general and to Captain America in particular can't be overstated enough, since he wrote some of the best Captain America stories ever and should be credited (or, at least, co-credited) with bringing him back to the public eye in the sixties by reintroducing him in The Avengers, but I do think it's important to note that the character was actually created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. I just wanted to mention that.

It wasn't all great, however, and there were just a few weird odds and ends that kept it from being a truly perfect comic book movie in my opinion:

I already mentioned the costume, but boy was it terrible. To begin with, it's unfaithful to the comic with needless "updates" intended to make it look more realistic or fit to actually wear into battle. Why doesn't Hollywood understand that any attempt to make a comic book outfit more "realistic" only serves to make it look more silly and strange? But even forgetting the fact that it isn't exactly like what we've seen in the comics, it's just downright ugly. I also didn't understand why the felt the need to shoehorn the character into that USO act, as though they needed to explain why he was wearing a costume at all. He's a super hero from a comic book. Just have him wear a costume.

Another odd thing was how this was maybe the first WWII period piece in which we never actually see any swastikas or Nazis. The enemies are actually a group called HYDRA who are presented as an off shoot of the Nazi party, but who have their own insignia and plans for world domination. They look and dress like Nazis, however, and speak in German accents, they just don't have swastikas or talk about genocide. This isn't a criticism, however, just an odd detail than I found strange, since Captain America was supposed to have fought in WWII against the German army. I'm guessing they changed this so they didn't have to sell toys to kids that were covered in swastikas, which is good thinking all things considered.

And, finally, structurally speaking, this film was oddly put together, with maybe more than half of the film detailing the character's origin. In fact, I don't even think he put on his costume until well over an hour into the movie. Again, this isn't a bad thing, but the problem was that the origin story was so brilliantly put together, that by the time the main plot rolled around and the real film started, it felt more like a by the numbers action film. I'm not saying that the second half of the film was bad, just that the first half was so much better, more original, and emotionally stirring. And I can imagine that anybody unfamiliar with what happens to the character in the comics will be confused by the way this film ends. As a comic fan, however, I thought the ending twist was pulled off as well as I could've hoped, and should lead right into next year's (?) Avengers film.

So... Captain America: The First Avenger. I really, really liked this movie, and thought it was as good as any comic book film I've ever seen. Steve Rogers was perfectly captured and many of his character beats actually made me misty with emotion. However... that costume really sucked and took me out of the film whenever it was on screen. Luckily, the costume isn't seen all that often, almost as though the director was embarrassed to show it, either because he knew it was ugly or just doesn't like comic book costumes at all. Joe Johnston is a wonderful director of action set pieces who made a great, heroic war movie, but here's to hoping that geek Wunderkind Joss Whedon embraces the tropes and look of the comics more when he directs the upcoming Avengers film.

Anyway, go see it.

The Amazing Spider-Man Trailer

Here's the trailer for the upcoming film that will reboot the Spider-Man film franchise, or attempt to, anyway. This looks... ok. This trailer doesn't offer much on which to judge it, other than a few shots of the characters standing around looking gloomy, finishing off with an extended CG sequence that hopefully will be cleaned up and worked on before the film is actually released, but it could be good. Anyway, as a fan of the comics and a hater of the film, I have only a passing interest in this film, but I'll probably check it out of only because it can't be worse than the Tobey Maguire version:

In Memoriam: Gene Colan (1926-2011)

 
Gene Colan, one of the greatest artists in the history of comic books, has passed away at the age of 84. The man, and his work, will be missed.

Witchfinder: Lost and Gone Forever

The fifth and final issue of the Witchfinder miniseries "Lost and Gone Forever" hit stores yesterday, finishing off one of the best comic book stories I've read in a long time. Because it was written by Mike Mignola and John Arcudi, and takes place in the prehistory of their Hellboy/B.P.R.D. universe, it was very esoteric, strange, and hard to follow in places, and I'm still not quite sure what actually really happened over the course of the story, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, since I also came away very satisfied and glad I read it.

This miniseries (the second, I think, to star the character, although he has made a few appearances in the Hellboy comics) has Sir Edward Grey travel from Europe to Utah sometime during the late 1800s or early 1900s to stop a witch who has taken captive the soul of a Shaman and resurrected a bunch of cowboys into zombies. Or something like that. Like I said, it's a weird story that was never really explained, keeping things vague and confusing, but intentionally so. Anyway, it was a neat story that allowed for lots of scenes where Grey fought cowboy zombies.

The artwork is by comic book legend John Severin, who should be well known to any fans of western, war, or horror comics, or maybe even just comic books in general.  At 89, the guy is still creating some of the best looking comics I've ever seen. The story is great fun, but the entire series is worth checking out of only for some great work by a true legend. Just check out some of these pages:

Thor

This movie was beyond good. It was totally and completely awesome. It was imaginative, exciting, awe-inspiring, uplifting, laugh-out-loud funny, and absolutely, 100% bad ass. Needless to say, I liked it, and thought it was probably the best comic book movie ever made.

Thor is a film based on the character from Marvel Comics based on the character from Norse Mythology. The stories featuring the character are rich with history from both the comics and the mythology, and this film is as wonderful an adaptation as I could've hoped, of both the character I grew up with in the comics and the mythology I was introduced to by the stories of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Sure, in this film Thor's enchanted land of Asgard is another planet (or "realm") and it is hinted that they are not really gods but otherworldly beings, but I'm fine with that because, really, what are gods but otherworldly beings anyway? It served no real purpose to ground the gods from the comics and Norse mythology into a more solid science-fictional setting, but it didn't hurt the story any either. Nor do I care -- as some vocal critics on the internet clearly do -- that one of the Asgardians was Asian while another was an African American, especially not since that African American actor was my boy Idris Elba, who was totally awesome as the stoic gate keeper Heimdal.

The film's depiction of Asgard was mesmerizing. The mythical characters, sprawling castles, and otherworldly backdrop all looked as though they were ripped straight out of a Jack Kirby drawing. After the opening scene in the desert of New Mexico, the film's first twenty minutes or so take place on Asgard, introducing the Odin, Thor, and the rest of the mythical characters, and showcase the ongoing war between them and their enemies the Frost Giants. This opening sequence is so extraordinary, especially the battle pitting Thor, Siff, and the Warriors Three against the Frost Giants, that the later sequences on the planet Earth almost don't live up, and I found myself wanting more Asgard and less New Mexico. Luckily, there was still a lot of Asgard throughout, and the sequences on Earth got better and better as the story went along.

The story concerns a war between the Asgardians and the Frost Giants, as well as the war between Odin's sons Thor and Loki. Loki, the god of mischief (at least, in the comics. Here he was kind of just Loki the Undefined), hatches a Machiavellian scheme to have Odin step down as ruler, have himself placed upon the throne, and Thor banished and exiled to Earth, powerless, mortal, and stripped of his enchanted Uru hammer Mjolnir. If all of that sounds too much, don't worry, since it's actually just a coming of age story about a young man who learns to become an adult, set against the backdrop of a sensational setting full of action and spectacle. You know... just like a Marvel comic.

The cast was great, featuring Antony Hopkins as the main god Odin, who finds the perfect tone in his performance and, again, looks like he walked out of a drawing by Walter Simonson or Jack Kirby. Tom Hiddleston is very good as the main villain Loki, even though his role was underwritten, keeping his motivations and intentions somewhat muddled and hard to follow. Natalie Portman was also fine in the role of the romantic lead, being both very charming and beautiful enough to capture the heart of a God. However, other than wanting to look at her, does anybody really consider themselves a fan of Natalie Portman? Do people go to the movies just because she has a starring role? And does anybody really find her believable as an astrophysicist who lives in a tiny trailer in the middle of the desert in New Mexico? Rounding out the cast was the aforementioned Idris Elba and the always good Stellan Skarsgard. Oh, and I have nothing bad to say about Kat Dennings, other than that she wasn't in this film nearly enough, even though her character served no purpose at all.

And then there is Chris Hemsworth in the title role, about whom I can only say I don't think he was acting. I think they actually found a Norse God and put him in this film, since he was that imposing, that handsome, that charming, and that good. This guy was incredible, from the moment of his introduction until the very end of the film, he carried the entire movie and made us believe that he was a god who walked among men. This was the best performance of a comic book hero since Christopher Reeve first appeared in the original Superman film. I can't imagine anybody could walk away from this film being unimpressed with Hemsworth, if not for his acting, then at least with his abs.

Holding the film together was director Kenneth Branagh, who may seem like an odd choice considering he is best known for his Shakespearean adaptations, but the only other writer who compares to Shakespeare is Stan Lee... and I'm only kind of being facetious when I say that. Branagh is a director who has never shied away from histrionics or over the top theatrics, often at the expense of his non genre films, which is why he is so well suited to Shakespeare and, as it turns out, comic book adaptations. This film's story is Shakespearean in nature, and Branagh's experience and sure-handed direction ground the entire production in reality, giving the otherworldly setting a tone we could understand and the actors a sense of bravura that was both dramatic and authentic. This movie worked not only because it had a great story and a good cast, but because director Kenneth Branagh knows how to tell a story like this as well as anybody.

Thor was a nearly perfect film that proved that all you need to adapt a comic book into a great movie is to write a good script, hire a wonderful cast, put a talented, proven director behind the camera, and stay faithful to the source material. All of those things came together, causing lightning to strike, which is fitting because this film is about the Norse god of thunder. I'm just excited that I'm able to geek out about a Thor movie where I can mention things like his hammer Mjolnir, Heimdal, Odin, Siff, and other items and characters from Marvel lore in order to praise how they got it all right, instead of to complain about how they messed it all up. Thor was the real deal, and succeeds as one of the best comic book films of all time. Go see it because I want to watch a sequel.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

I never had much interest in this movie to be perfectly honest. I thought that Superman II was a perfectly fine film as is, even though it was admittedly flawed and very, very silly. Most Superman fans knew about how the film was taken away from the original director Richard Donner mid-production and given to Richard Lester to reshoot and reedit, although to this day nobody really knows why. So the question always lingered like a riddle wrapped up in an enigma: what could have been?

Like I said, I never really bought into that riddle because I like Superman II way better than I did Donner's original Superman film, so I didn't have a whole lot of faith that his version of the sequel would be that much better. After all, Donner was the guy who made Lex Luthor into a joke, conceived Clark Kent as a bumbling fool, came up with an over all story that made zero sense, and ended the film with the most ridiculous deus ex machina in movie history. So I never really understood why people thought it was such a travesty of justice (not to mention truth and the American way, or whatever) that Donner was fired from finishing the second film.

Fast forward thirty years later, and the original cut as envisioned by Richard Donner was restored and released on DVD and Blu Ray. Well, it's as close to his original vision as possible, since much of his footage was lost forever and some remained unfilmed, but for all intents and purposes this is the film that would have been released had Donner not been fired and replaced with Lester. Got all that? Good. Like I said, I had little interest in seeing this, until a few days ago when I heard some people whose opinions I respect extolling its virtues and encouraging everybody to check it out. So I checked it out.

The Richard Donner cut is a very interesting, thoughtful, painstakingly reedited and restored version of a very flawed, admittedly stupid movie that turned it into a very different but equally flawed movie that is still very stupid. Some of the flaws from the original cut have been fixed to make way for new flaws, while some of the stupid stuff has been replaced by stuff that's just as stupid. At the end of the day, I prefer the original, and seeing this film only reinforced by original assumption that the stupid replaced Richard Donner because his ideas were just plain bad.

I'm not going to go into detail here about all of the changes from version to version, since there were so many, some major and some so subtle that I probably didn't even notice. I'm just going to briefly discuss my initial impressions and what I thought worked and what I thought didn't. The film's opening was completely different, eschewing the big set piece at the Eiffel Tower with a ten minute montage recapping the previous film in order to set up the release of Zod and his gang from the Phantom Zone prison. In Donner's cut, they were now freed from Superman deflecting one of Luthor's missiles and not from the bomb placed by terrorists on the Eiffel Tower (or whatever). This was a fine change, although I found the montage of the first film to be a ponderous, unengaging way to open a film. The Eiffel Tower scene was pretty dumb, but at least it was exciting and fun. This new opening was just boring.

Most of the changes throughout the rest of the film were more of tone than of anything else, although some footage was stuck in and some other stuff was taken out. Richard Lester directed a campy, overly silly romp while Donner's cut is a more thoughtful, talky dramatic piece. Personally, I found Donner's vision to be pretentious and boring, while Lester's at least was funny and seemed to contain a lot more action. One cool change was how they put Marlon Brando back into the film as Jor-El, replacing footage of him for all of the footage with Superman's mother. That was all flawlessly done.

But it was really the ending that sold me on the original version, since Donner's Cut has the worst ending sequence I've ever seen in any movie since... well... since the original Superman. Both films basically have the same ending, and while it was dumb the first time around, it was completely moronic and almost offensive the second time. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean. (SPOILER!!!!!!) Sure, Lester's version were Superman clouds Lois's memory with a super-kiss was dumb, but having Superman turn back time again was so much worse, and completely invalidated the entire movie. Dumb dumb dumb.

So... the Richard Donner Cut. All they managed to do was take a dumb movie and made it even dumber. If you loved Superman II already, you'll probably like this as well since it is fundamentally the same movie, albeit with a few changes here and there that range from the marginally superior to the infinitely inferior. If you hated Superman II, this cut won't change your mind, and, in fact, might just annoy you even more. I will give credit to the people who reedited and restored this version, however, since the new footage was seamlessly integrated with the old. There were some wacky moments here and there were the footage didn't always click because hairstyles changed from shot to shot and some of the effects were obviously cleaned up with CG, but it was an astounding work of restoration all the same.

But still... Skip it.