I admit, I only saw the Avengers-related films so far. By the time I got around to possibly seeing the new X-men film it was only showing twice a day, and neither time was convenient for us. We ended up seeing "Super 8" instead, which actually didn't do all that much for me.

But back to the hero flicks... I think the two Marvel Studios efforts were in something of a dead heat for me. I think both could have used a bit of story strengthening to really bring the last act home with more impact. That said, I absolutely loved all the pulp thrown into Captain America, such as the Red Skulls escape rocket. That film hit so many note-perfect bits that I truly loved it despite any other faults it might have had... so that's probably my pick.

That said, there was a great deal to love about seeing an Australian Thunder God on screen. I wonder why nobody thought of that before...

I enjoyed the angle they took with Cap - they could have just ignored his early history but they didn't - they set the whole (most of) darn film in it. Yay. Plus I love movies/stories from that era.

I enjoyed Thor at the time, I never saw the X one.

Come to think of it I still haven't gotten around to seeing the Watchmen movie (your pony version just reminded me).

Al b.

I'd say Thor.

I do planning on seeing Cap & 1st Class. Heard good things about them.

(The other super hero film I saw was Green Lantern).

1. I saw Thor. I liked it fine, but I think I gave it a lot of leeway due to being a Thor fan. It was okay.

2. Saw Green Lantern. Reviewed it here. It was mediocre, and fascinatingly so.

3. Saw Captain America. It beat the pants off the other two, easy. No real complaints; just a damn good movie that hit all the right beats in the right way.

Instead I saw Tangled in 3D, the new Pirates of the Caribbean in 3D, and Super 8.

Wait... You saw Tangled this summer? It came out last year. That is one long run in theaters.

Sadly, I think that's an enthusiastic enough quote to make the DVD box cover, from what I've heard.

Actually, my brother's father-in-law loved it, from what he was telling me... so it seems like it connected with some audiences. I'm curious to see it myself, but I'm not likely to buy it since I don't have much connection to DC's heroes.

I've heard that there are a lot of good deleted scenes on the Thor DVD, enough that people wish that they had been added back in to make a special release.

A lot of the critical hits the film took over here were based on the fact that they took him out of that end period "just to set up the Avengers". As a comic fan, I wanted to point out to them that he was only in WWII for a few years of comics publishing, whereas he was a man "out of time" for nearly 5 decades now. I was happy to get what WWII stuff we did (and I think there's still room to do "Highlander" style flashbacks to events in WWII in any sequels.)









It's okay... Impressive in places, and likely the best we could have hoped for in an adaptation. However, it makes some bizarre choices and can be hard to connect to or really get invested in.

I wonder if Alan Moore might not prefer the pony version...

No, those were *all* the recent movies I saw in the theater. I don't go and see movies that much.

Daily Mail has some pics.

I mean, I suppose Iron Man wears one to, sort of... but making Hawkeye maskless kind of makes Cap look wimpy... like he's the only little kid riding bikes whose mother made him wear a helmet.

And then there's the fact that (so far) it just doesn't look that good. I've always been curious why they don't do more with prosthetics when making super-hero masks. Between old-age make-up, monster make-up, aliens, etc, you'd think sculpting a form-fitting mask that didn't look like a big clunky piece of rubber wouldn't be that difficult. Yes, it would mean hours in the make-up chair for the actors, but if they're willing to do that for those other genres I don't see why they can't do it for super-hero flicks.

Thor and Captain America were both awesome. I loved Thor, but when I came out of Captain America I said "I have to admit, that was better than Thor", to which my Iron Man-loving buddy had to chime in Iron Man was better (I disagreed, but mostly just to bug him).

I saw Green Lantern last week in the cheap seats (I reviewed it at my blog, http://doeswhateveracomicsblogcan.blogspot.com), but I'll save you a click; my review was "I should've gone to see X-Men: First Class). I had heard X-Men was far superior, but since I'd heard GL wasn't that great I thought I should see it in theaters so at least maybe the special effects could help carry it...I was extremely bored throughout the whole film, checking my watch a couple of times to see if it was over.

X-Men will be a DVD viewing for me, only because with the drive to the theatre and a 4 month old it's pretty hard to get out to a movie, let alone 4.

~Hat~

Yeah, I'd agree with him, but Thor and Cap were both great fun anyway.




I went to check your review and ended up watching that X-Men cartoon instead. I had vague recollections of it from when it originally aired, but I hadn't realized until I saw it again that it was the basis of the X-men arcade game.

And you are right, for it's time it was damn impressive. Still, I'm not surprised that it wasn't picked up... It was such a bizarre mismatch of heady ideas and childish plotting and childish dialog. Oh, and Stan Lee has never been good at VoiceOver narration. Ever.




I think it comes out this weekend on DVD here in the states. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

I could be convinced that the first one was better, but Cap and Thor were both definitely better than Iron Man 2, in my opinion.







Yeah, and apparently you can get that game for your iPhone now. Ah, if only work had provided me an iPhone instead of a Blackberry...




Well, in it's defense it was a pilot episode. Things could have been changed and tightened up. For a pilot I thought the plot was fine, it showcased all of the main characters and what they can do. It lacked substance but you knew who the X-Men were and what they were capable of by the end of it.

And I have to disagree a little on Stan. What he lacks in technique he makes up for in enthusiasm. I think he does fine in the role of narrator here, and he sounds genuinely excited about the X-Men's adventures. His voice acting, on the other hand, is a little weak (eg. the Super Hero Squad television show, but honestly I wouldn't take his character out; who better to be major of Super Hero City?).

I recently picked up the HBO Spawn animated series on DVD (saw it for $10 for all 3 seasons) and Todd MacFarlane does an intro to each episode. Todd could learn a few things from Stan.







It's out on DVD here this week too I think. I'll probably try to grab a second-hand copy if possible; I'm past the stage of needing to buy movies the day they come out at the highest possible price.

~Hat~

Well, Cap fights hand-to-hand whereas Clint is obviously going to spend more time taking out opponents from a distance...okay, then I remembered the Black Widow is on the team, so I got nothing.




Needs the wings! And not the painted on ones, the ones that stick out.

Ryan Reynolds mask was CG in Green Lantern and it looked pretty bad too, hate to say.

~Hat~

Yeah, the pictures of the three of them together is what made me think of it. The other two look fairly casual by comparison, and then there Cap is all decked out. He looks very safety conscious.




I agree. They add so much to the shape of the head. In general, people don't look good with tight-fitting, unadorned headgear. There's a reason that almost all hats throughout history have added brims, feathers, pom-poms, spikes, anything really, regardless of functionality. I'm kind of shocked that Hollywood (and Marvel) can't make that connection.

But then, considering who I'm talking to, I hardly need to lecture you on the subject.





It certainly was distracting in all of the clips I saw of him. Again, though, I'm talking prosthetics... If Hollywood make-up artists can make the governor of California look like his' missing half his face and has robot parts underneath, surely they can replicate the thin, form-fitting look of a comic book mask and actually augment the shape of the actor's head for the best effect as well. Honestly, if you ever see any life-sized Superhero Bust made by one of those high-end collectable companies, there's just no reason that they couldn't reproduce that exactly on an actor's head.

I agree completely. Iron Man 2 suffered from not having a strong backbone to the story. It was a bunch of losely fitted plotlines that never built well towards anything. I didn't outright dislike it, but it's definitely the weakest effort of Marvel Studios.





Really? I'll have to look for it... it would be fun to play on my iPad.





Oh no, as I said it's quite good for its time. When I said I understood why it wasn't picked up, it wasn't the childish dialog that killed it... every cartoon had that. It was the heady ideas. It already felt like it had received a bunch of story notes to dumb it down some, and I just still picture some exec smoking a cigar and saying "Dammit, I thought I told them to lose all the social commentary stuff! Nobody wants to know why the good guys are fighting the bad guys!"




I love me some Stan Lee purple prose, but it would take a great actor to say it all out loud... and that's one thing Stan will never be. I can appreciate it from a fan factor, but I can't call it good.

I've not seen the Super Hero Squad show enough, although I heard he had that role. Somebody should let me know when the Vision shows up in that.