Marvel Cinematic Universe Ranked

[caption id="attachment_88" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Marvel[/caption]

With Phase 2 of the MCU drawing to a close with the releases of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and “Ant-Man” this summer, it’s time for some re-watching and ranking of these films. Also, be on the lookout for the ranking of more film franchises on my blog in the future. That being said, here’s how I rank them from favorite to least favorite (SPOILERS AHEAD TOO FYI!):

The Avengers (2012)

One of the greatest superhero films made — hands down! Everything about this is brilliant. We got five solo films over the course of the four years that were all connected and led up to this and the end result was spectacular. Marvel made damn sure not to disappoint us. It’s well paced, funny, devotes enough screen time to each member of the Avengers, and features a tense, action packed climax. There’s also great conflict, especially between Rogers and Stark, which will no doubt be expanded upon more in Age of Ultron before finally peaking come “Captain America: Civil War” being released next year. Stark’s sacrifice to save the day at the end really cements his status as a superhero, which was before questionable considering his arrogant and seemingly selfish attitude. Loki is also a stand out as the film’s primary antagonist, who is comically cut down to size by an angry Hulk at the end. Overall, this the superhero film that gave the world at least a billion geekgasms thanks to amazing writing and direction from Joss Whedon.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

This is Marvel’s biggest risk to date, and also happens to be one of its best films to date as well. For a series that was practically unknown, James Gunn adapted it to the medium perfectly. The characters are all likeable and the actors portray them well. Chris Pratt especially kills it as the film’s protagonist, Peter Quill (aka “Starlord’). His goofy and comedic ability make the character likeable – it’s basically Andy Dwyer from “Parks & Rec”, but as a superhero. It also has its share of touching moments throughout, especially when Groot (a giant effing tree!) sacrifices himself to save the group towards the end. It’s a phenomenal film overall and is our first real “sci-fi” film in the MCU.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Just thinking about this film gives me a geekgasm! It’s a superhero film disguised as a 70’s esque conspiracy thriller. It’s awesome in every sense of the word – awesome direction, awesome action sequences, awesome fight choreography, etc. There’s great chemistry between Rogers and Romanoff, who discover that things are not what they appear after Nick Fury is “assassinated”. Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson (aka “The Falcon”) is a great new addition as an ex-soldier who like Rogers experienced the horrors of war, just in a different war and time. Sebastian Stan is phenomenal as “The Winter Soldier”, who struggles to realize that before he was Roger’s best and dearest friend, Bucky Barnes. The reveal that Hydra had been growing inside of SHIELD ever since the end of WWII was a nice twist and really shook up things so to speak in the MCU. Robert Redford’s casting as the evil Hydra/SHIELD leader was smart and goes to show how much the makers of the film were really influenced by the 70’s conspiracy films. Frank Grillo is also great in his supporting role as Brock Rumlow (aka “Crossbones”) and the injuries he suffers and the end of the film will no doubt give him a new, even more threatening appearance in the sequel.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Oh, how much hate this one gets – I personally loved it and think it’s the best solo “Iron Man” film. Sure the whole portrayal of the Mandarin as a joke was baffling, but at least Marvel has righted that wrong with the One-Shot film, “All Hail the King”, so fanboys need not apply and bitch! That aside, everything else about the film works. The best thing about it is how it deals with Stark’s PTSD after the events of “The Avengers”. It’s rare to see a superhero film devote time and attention to it like this one did. Another great thing going for it is Guy Pearce’s portrayal of the film’s antagonist, Aldrich Killian. He’s phenomenal as always and you can’t help but feel bad for him early on in the film because of geeky characteristics and Stark being a dick to him because of it. Potts is also a lot more likable in this installment and really breaks away from the typical damsel in distress/love interest archetype she was previously stuck in. Overall, I think this the most fun “Iron Man” flick in which we see further progression with Stark’s character arc.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

The Star Spangled Man’s first solo outing is quite awesome. It’s well paced, fun, and captures the essence of WWII era America perfectly. The performances are phenomenal across the board, especially Chris Evans as the film’s protagonist, Steve Rogers. What makes him different from the rest of the Avengers is that he’s the most relatable. He’s an underdog who despite his physical limitations is dedicated to serving his country and when given the super soldier serum, he goes onto becoming a superhero. It’s an uplifting story, and his subsequent sacrifice that sees him miss 70 years makes it hard not to sympathize with him. Hugo Weaving kills it as Red Skull and isn’t hammy or over the top like pre MCU villains have been. While I think the sequel is better, I still love this film and enjoy it a little more every time I re-watch it.

Iron Man (2008)

Considering this was the first film in the MCU, a lot was bet on it and boy did it pay off. Robert Downey Jr. kills it as Tony Stark and we’re given a fabulous film to introduce the character. He’s arrogant, he’s a jerk, but those flaws aside, he comes to realize over to the course of the film that with his wealth, resources and intellect, he can do good in world. Jeff Bridges is also stellar as the film’s antagonist, Obadiah Stane, who wants Tony’s suit technology and him out of the way. Overall, it’s a fun, well-paced superhero film that laid the groundwork nicely for the MCU and I consider it to be great superhero film in general.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Like “Iron Man 3”, this wasn’t very warmly received either. Sure it has its shortcomings, but I enjoyed it more than the first “Thor” film. Asgard is further explored, there’s better chemistry between Thor and Jane this time, and the humor works better. Loki is the real bright spot in this film as he is charming, funny and most importantly, a sly devil! What has he done with Odin? We have to wait to find out..so bring on “Thor: Ragnarok” I say.

Thor (2011)

A lot aren’t fond of it (at least people I know of), but I like it. It’s a good blend of fantasy and superhero elements with Norse mythology thrown in. Thor’s an arrogant jerk for a good portion of the film, but he grows to become more likable as it moves along and Chris Hemsworth is great in the role. The chemistry between him and Jane Forster, played well by Natalie Portman isn’t quite there, but it feels more organic in the sequel. Tom Hiddleston kills it as Loki and his portrayal of the character only gets better with each new MCU film he appears in. As a whole, it’s a fun first solo outing for the character and it’s only main weakness is that some of the humor doesn’t work.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

It’s become the neglected stepchild of the MCU sadly and it is weird to look back upon it, considering Edward Norton has since replaced by Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner due to creative differences between him and Marvel. I personally like it, however. Edward Norton is fine as Bruce Banner and there’s definite chemistry between him and Liv Tyler, who plays his love interest, Betsy Ross. Tim Roth is also great as the film’s antagonist, Emil Blonsky, who eventually becomes “The Abomination”. Even though it’s nowhere near being the best film in the MCU, it’s still a good film that’s much better than Ang Lee’s “Hulk”. It’s basically a fun superhero fugitive type flick. There aren’t any plans for another solo Hulk film, sadly. I’d be open for another one considering Ruffalo really stepped up and took over the role of Banner.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

My least favorite MCU film by far. It’s not awful ­— it’s just meh, which is disappointing when you compare it to its predecessor. It continues to build upon the expanding MCU by featuring Nick Fury in an expanded role and introducing Black Widow and that’s great, but as a solo “Iron Man” film, it’s lacking. Mickey Rourke’s talent is wasted as he plays Ivan Vanko, the film’s underdeveloped and ultimately disappointing antagonist. Sam Rockwell is great as the slime ball Justin Hammer, a weapons developer who resents Stark. He enlists Vanko’s help to build him suit technology similar to Stark’s…guess how that turns out? The climax of the film is its weakest point because it essentially rehashes the climax of the first with Stark fighting Vanko, who’s developed his own weaponized suit. It’s also rushed – as soon as Vanko enters, he’s defeated. What a jip, they should’ve let him put up more of a fight! The best thing about it actually happens to be Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard as Colonel Rhodes (aka War Machine). Cheadle is much better in the role and it’ll be great to see him once again in “Avengers: Age of Ultron”. Stark’s assistant/future girlfriend Pepper Potts is irritating and kind of bitchy this time around and Stark himself can be a bit too much of a douche at times, especially when he throws that house party. Sure he’s slowly being poisoned to death by the material in his chest arc reactor (irony!), but still ­— that scene becomes more cringe worthy every time I re-watch it. Overall, it’s a letdown that lacks the charm of its predecessor.

Not as Funny the Second Time Around?

When it comes to sequels, comedy sequels are always the hardest to pull off successfully. They risk being a rehash of the original like “The Hangover Part II”, or completely unnecessary like “Blues Brothers 2000”. That’s not to say that there aren’t good comedy sequels, some from recent years have been good or awesome such as “Anchorman 2” and “22 Jump Street”. Most recently, Hollywood has given us these three comedy sequels: “Dumb and Dumber To”, “Horrible Bosses 2”, and “Hot Tub Time Machine 2”. These films were received poorly by critics and a by certain percentage of moviegoers. Are they really that bad and unnecessary? Well, allow me to weigh in with my thoughts (potential spoilers ahead too!):

To begin, I’ll talk about “Hot Tub Time Machine 2” because it was released just this February. It’s the follow up to 2010’s “Hot Tub Time Machine” and you pretty much have the premise of the film just from the title. Is it ridiculous? Yes, but the film is so much fun. There is great chemistry between the main characters played by Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, Rob Corddry, and John Cusack. It was a modest critical and commercial success, but the sequel was heavily panned by critics and only received a 15% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It wasn’t anything great, but it’s not that bad. Its main flaws are that some of the humor falls flat and is a little too gross out at times. It was also disappointing that Cusack was absent (he was never even asked to supposedly), but his character is replaced by Adam Scott, who is impeccable as always. You can certainly argue that it was an unnecessary sequel, but I argue that it’s not as terrible as it’s been made out to be. While the first was essentially an 80’s nostalgia film, this was like a comedic murder mystery. I give them credit for doing something different even if it didn’t completely work. The end credit sequence alone with the main characters quantum leaping via the hot tub makes it worthwhile I say.

Next up is “Horrible Bosses 2”. I really enjoyed the first and thought the entire cast was excellent. I was excited for this sequel despite the negative reviews and ended up liking it as much as the first. It’s not spectacular, but it’s a lot of fun and most of the humor works. Chris Pine and Christoph Waltz are great new additions to the cast as businessmen who are father and son. They pose a problem to our main characters played again by Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis and Jason Bateman. Their “Shower Buddy” invention is stolen by the two, so they whip up a plan to kidnap the son and blackmail the father and when the son catches wind of their plan, he plays along with it. Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Spacey return as the horrible bosses from the first film and are a delight as is Jamie Foxx as “Motherfucker” Jones. It’s also nice to see Jonathan Banks in this. Overall, it’s a fun comedy sequel that works mostly because of the chemistry between the leads and the other characters.

Finally, there’s “Dumb and Dumber To”…the honest trailer from Screenjunkies sums it up well. “Dumb and Dumber” is a great comedy with high replay value. Like the previous two films I’ve discussed, it wasn’t asking for a sequel or in need of one, but Hollywood decided to make one after we stopped caring and boy was it bad. Seeing Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey do the same shtick 20 years later is more depressing than funny.  The Farley Brothers were at their prime when they directed the first and way past it when they directed this. It’s also lazy in the sense that the writers basically just copied a lot of the jokes and the gags from the first film. The humor was either repeated or just fell completely flat, which is the main problem with the film. Overall, it just didn’t work and any excitement I had for it was stripped away when I saw that first trailer. It’s the prime example of a comedy sequel that doesn’t work and its main purpose for existing is to cash in on people’s love/nostalgia for the first.

To sum it up, comedy sequels can be either hit or miss. I enjoyed “Hot Tub Time Machine 2” and “Horrible Bosses 2” despite the negative critical reception because they were fun and didn’t try to imitate their predecessors too much. “Dumb and Dumber To” I did not enjoy because it was  lazy and way too little, way too late. It’s all a matter doing something creative and different while still keeping in tone and essence with the first.

The Oscars and Superhero Films Aren't Worthy?

[caption id="attachment_73" align="aligncenter" width="300"]                                                                          Moviefone[/caption]

It’s been a while since my last post, I know. I originally started this blog to voice my thoughts and opinions on various subjects, but seeing how a majority of my posts have been film related so far, I’ve decided to make film the primary focus of this blog. I’ll make posts pertaining to other subjects and matters in the future if I can express my thoughts on them thoughtfully and coherently.

On the subject of film, the 87^th Academy Awards (aka the Oscars) were held back in February and it was a mediocre ceremony from what I’ve heard. I only saw a few clips from the ceremony online afterwards – just like every year. I usually work when the Oscars are on TV, so I never get to catch them live, but it’s not like I’m that invested in them in the first place. It’s nice to see worthy films and people involved in the making of them win awards, but there’s way too much focus on vanity and superficiality anymore. Does there really need to be all these “best & worst dressed” lists after the ceremony? Do we need programming before the already long ceremony that’s only purpose is to address what people are wearing? I know she’s wearing a dress, I can clearly see that. Who cares if you think it’s not as great as the dress of another actress attending the ceremony? This brings me to the point I’d like to make against the Oscars as a whole: It’s all subjective!

In general, awards are always going to have some degree of subjectivity. The Oscars are no exception to this because the voting panel consists of a bunch of old white dudes, some who haven’t seen the films nominated. They don’t exactly speak for the entire movie going public, do they? With that being said, I was glad to see a hardworking actor like J.K. Simmons win best supporting actor for “Whiplash” and “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” win in several categories including best picture. Michael Keaton didn’t win best actor for his performance as the film’s protagonist, Riggan Thompson to the surprise and disappointment of almost everybody, but at the end of the day, all it is a gold statue of a naked man. I admit to be kind of disappointed that he didn’t win because I’m a huge fan of Keaton, but his performance was phenomenal and will still be remembered years from now; there doesn’t need to be an Oscar as a sole reminder of that. Eddie Redmayne’s performance as Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything” would’ve been remembered too had he lost best actor to Keaton. My point is that what needs to be recognized and respected is the hard work and dedication that actors and crew alike put into making a film. Just because “Birdman” won best picture over “Boyhood” doesn’t objectively make it a better film, both films are phenomenal and the result of hard work and passion of those involved in making them. The Oscars are essentially just extra recognition and Hollywood patting itself on the back; it’s not worth it to get all bent out of shape about who wins and who doesn’t and what wins and what doesn’t – just enjoy and appreciate the art of film.

Speaking of the art of the film, a sizeable chunk of the filmmaking community is not fond of superhero films and would argue that they’re not art. Dan Gilroy, the director of “Nightcrawler” for example is stuck up and dismissive towards the “tsunami of superhero films”. He has a point in regards to Hollywood being dominated by superhero films, but it’s not like superhero films should be looked down upon. Yes, there have been bad superhero films, but there have been a lot of awesome superhero films. Hell, I argue that there have been more awesome superhero films than bad ones. Just look at 2014, we got the following: “Guardians of the Galaxy”, “X-Men: Days of Future Past” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”, three awesome superhero films (commercially AND critical hits too) that made up for one bad superhero film, “The Disappointing Spider”…I mean, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”. Do the math: 75% of superhero films being awesome every year still give them reason to be respected and not scorned. James Gunn, director of “Guardians of the Galaxy” responded to the criticism of superhero films in a recent Facebook post, and pointed out that people like him who work on superhero films do so with just as much heart and passion as those who make non-superhero films. I agree entirely, the characters in superhero films have character arcs and obstacles to overcome, allowing us to relate to them and sympathize with them. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is proof of just how successful superhero films can be both commercially and creatively speaking. If Gunn can make a film where we can sympathize with a talking squirrel and tree, there are more great things to come out of the superhero genre. Maybe there’ll be more award recognition besides in the technological categories for these films in the future, but as I’ve said before, just appreciate these films for artistic reasons.

To wrap it up, I’d just like to point out that “Birdman” is a quasi-superhero film, and by going off of that you can kind of argue that a superhero film won best picture this year! That’s a nice bird, man!

[embed]https://youtu.be/uJfLoE6hanc[/embed]