Reviews

You've seen its premise before, and it doesn't quite reach the strong emotional depth as other Pixar outings, but regardless Monsters University is a fun, beautifully animated, frequently hilarious, and overall charming family film that will be sure to leave a smile on your face. Definitely see it.

The story: This collage-based prequel takes place before the 2001 original hit Monsters Inc., about two monsters living in an alternate creature-filled world where they work in a scare factory aimed at transporting through kid's closet doors over the world and making them scream time and time again. Not as violent as it sounds. In the original they accidentally bring back a kid through one of the closets and begin to befriend her. This leads to some consequences though, and after being banished, they had to find their way back to the monster world, and reluctantly return the kid to her world as well. Monsters U takes place before that adventure and shows the history of how our one eyed and furry harried protagonists became buds. Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) a small but smart, green, one-eyed, and short legged creature who always has wanted to be the best "scarer" in the world. Only problem is that he isn't scary. At all. He finally is accepted to Monsters University to test his abilities and determine his true destiny. During his school year he runs into and begins a rivalry with a gigantic and fluffy monster named James Sullivan (John Goodman) who's got the scary build, but not the brains. After both have to deal with forms of rejection, they decide to band together, work with new friends, face the odds, and finally prove themselves to the rest of the college. It's probably the tamest college comedy you've seen, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its laughs.

The good: To start, Monsters University looks fantastic. The visuals and animation is bright, vividly detailed, and is simply a joy to ogle over. The characters are fantastically original and unique, and its great to see Mike and Sully back on the big screen together, especially and interestingly in their earlier forms. The scripts premise may not be new, but the screenplay is very clever, funny, and adds a nice concluding section to the film which I wasn't expecting. Back to the humor, there were many chuckle-worthy moments throughout the movie, be it zany sight gags from its multiple appended characters or witty line of dialogue, but there also were some big laughs, including one gag which has me laughing out loud for a while. The humor wasn't as edgy as some other children's fair, but many jokes were unexpectedly and "nudged" the envelope just the right amount. There also were many funny references and in-jokes to the first which will make any previous viewer smirk. The voice acting is great and really fit the characters body movements and idiosyncrasies to a tee. The pacing of the story is fantastic, be it montages, or exciting set pieces, it really fit together well. The score was also nice, and did the perfect job to fit the films tone and sequences. Again, if it didn't reach fully satisfying emotional highs, it still reached, and partially worked, instead being warm and touching. It also had a solid message that wasn't pounded in, but still was mentioned just enough. Really, thanks to the originality of the goofy and root-able characters plus a crafty screenplay and fluid storytelling, I found myself smiling quite a bit. I also want to commend the conclusion again for not taking the easy way out and trying something different instead.

The bad: The only real flaw of the film is that the story has been done before a few times, and that I wish it dug a little deeper with the emotional elements, but still I am happy with the way it is.

My take: After the two recent disappointments from the prolific and incredible Pixar team, it was time for a comeback, and I can safely say that Monsters University is a significant step in the right direction and prefect family entertainment. I was very glad that I saw it and felt satisfied walking out of the theater in an otherwise disappointing year for films.

See it if you want to view Superman kicking some Kryptonian butt for the first time in a while, but you can also rent it.

The story: After the generally perceived disappointment that was 2006's Superman Returns, the red-caped franchise needed some juice. DC Comics claim to fame film franchise, The Dark Knight Trilogy, was coming to its end, and they needed to make a move. So the team understandably decided to boot up the Superman story again, hire visionary director Zack Snyder, producer Chris Nolan, new lead Henry Cavill, and aim to please. The plot, if you haven't seen any of the films or read the comics, is about a baby that is sent by his parents from the dying alien planet of Krypton to Earth to survive. But this is no normal baby; he soon will discover that he can bend cars, laser fry buildings with his eyes, and of course, fly. The now grown up boy, Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman (Cavill) wanders around our planet in the shadows from job to job trying to conceal his powers. We see flashbacks of the two loving farm hands who raised him as a "normal" boy, and the many experiences that shaped him to the man he is today. After making many discoveries about his true identity, our protagonist also learns that a vengeful survivor from Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon), and friends are on their way to Earth to put our planet in jeopardy and ultimately destroy him. Can the Man of Steel save his newfound love, life, and world?

The good: The film does have a great opening that is both creative and exciting. It also, in my opinion, contains probably the best action sequence in the movie altogether. The first half as well tells the familiar story in an interesting fashion, as the chronological order of events is mixed. The pacing is fluid, and there are some nice unraveling of answers that invest us into the story even more. The cast is solid, and Cavill, while not highly captivating, portrays a more conserved hero that we can understand in his moments of quiet restraint, but also root for in moments of body slamming. The best actors actually in the film are the two father figures; Russel Crowe is awesome as Kal-El's noble father, and is the most intriguing character in the film. Kevin Costner, while unfairly not given enough time and material, also subtly shines as our protagonists caring and wise Earth-father. He also is the star of, for me, one of the film's more powerful, yet annoyingly abrupt moments. Shannon isn't as memorable as he should be, but uniquely has a moral and understandable reason for his anarchy that does drop an unexpected question on the viewers. Amy Adams and Diane Lane also aren't given full justice to bring out their full charm/skills but still are serviceable. The action for a while is very cool and surprisingly gains a gigantic scale as they escalate into mass, building crumbling destruction. The special effects are strong, and add a large level of realism to the film. Also the score, while overbearing and loud, is catchy and has an epic aspect to it that fits in well with the movie's tone.

The bad: I understand that Snyder wants to deliver the super-smashing thrills that fans have been wishing for, but to quote another reviewer, less could have been more. He spends WAY to much time over bloating each battle, and soon after a while it becomes repetitive and almost an assault on the senses. It doesn't help that the cinematography is annoyingly off-grounded and almost entirely hand-held. Thats what the film needed more of; it needed to be earthed and take a few steps back. Due to the zippy action, shots, zooms, and effects, the movie feels more like an alien or other worldly film that doesn't have a firm balance. Also the large scale carnage takes too much time away from the character development and actual story that it should have focused more on. We get a general sense of the characters, but there are many pivotal moments in the film that are supposed to have traction, but ultimately aren't emotionally resonante enough due to their incomplete setups. Also the levity of the horrific destruction towards the end of the film never seems to be taken in, and one brief sequence is so overdone and arbitrary that it ends up looking like a video game. I also hate to say it, but some 9/11 imagery pops up, and it is slightly unsettling. For the script, I again wanted more time to be used to set up our connections with the characters, so that their choices and consequences that happen to them would be more significant to the audience. There also was some quick but very odd lines of dialogue that were completely out of place. You'll know what I'm talking about once you see it. I also wish that it's tone wasn't so somber. There are barley any moments of comedic relief, and I feel like if it lightened up, also visually with it's color palette, it could have benefited the picture significantly. The 3D effects don't add anything to the movie and in fact might make you wish that you could view it in 2D again.

My take: Man of Steel isn't as bad as it could have been, but it also isn't as good as it could have been either. It aims at being serious and epic in scale, but could have used more moments of charm or character growth. It is a step in the right direction though, and makes me intrigued for new adventures to come.

I don't want to give anything away, but be sure to look out for a few blink-and-you'll-miss-it visual easter eggs in the movie that may make the fanboy in you chuckle.

Like many anthologies, V/H/S 2 is uneven. It has many inventive concepts and gimmicks that are creative for it's popular genre, and does have a few unsettling spooks. On the contrary, it is darkly uncompromising and relies too much on discomfortingly grotesque shock value. I would just rent it or only watch the better two of its four short films. If you aren't into horror or gore, this is DEFINITELY not the movie for you.

The story: The plot line for this found-footage anthology horror flick is mostly the same as its predecessor. Two private investigators go looking for a missing college student and wind up in his seemingly empty house. That is except for a bright room filled with multiple fuzzy TV's and V/H/S tapes. Filming their search, one of the crew decides to scale the house while the other watches the mysterious tapes. Let's just say that that these ain't any Disney tales. After each tape, strange things begin to increase around and to the investigators...will they uncover the truth, or more importantly, live till the end of their film?

The good: V/H/S 2 has some awesome concepts and ideas for its "hand-held" segments, and some really clever details that did surprise me. In a world of endless Paranormal Activity sequels, the crew here have successfully found their own niche with the style, and pull off many of their unique ideas quite well. It's hard talking about the film broadly due to its basically five separate stories, but I'll still try. Without saying much the shorts about the bionic eye and Go-Pro wearing mountain biker had the neatest moments. The second one also had some funny moments of black humor and I really the path it choose to take and the twist it added as well. The "Safe Haven" segment while horrifically violent and over exaggerated, has a great exposition and tension filled set up that gets as close to a traditionally shot film as possible. The fourth and final segment had a funny beginning and a cool POV for most of it. I can't say much about the actors, they are all fine and do serviceable work. There are a few frightening moments in the film, mostly jump scares, but it has more spooky and unsettling images and thats a credit to the often wise execution of the shorts. Some of the gory effects are campily enjoyable, but they do become overwhelming as the film progresses.

The bad: A problem I had with the film is that while it has some great ideas, it doesn't have any satisfying payoffs to fasten the bow on them and usually ends on a hopeless and ambiguous note. This also goes along with the films immensely morbid tone and content that really did leave me unhinged. I understand why they have the bloody effects, but after a while when they try to up the ante, especially in the third segment, it just becomes repetitive and actually overwhelmingly gory. Story-wise, the first has a promising setup, makes some interestingly creepy choices, but ends abruptly and seems too rushed as well as the second and last segments. The third segment has another great start and has ominous foreshadowing that made me uneasy, but it bit off more than it could chew. It tried to shock the audience by using an overload of abhorrent imagery and and bloody carnage. It got too carried away with itself and also had a bizarre and again weakly conceived conclusion. The fourth film was a bit choppy, escalated very quickly, and was to confusingly shot to fully follow. It had a nice reliance on sound and lighting, but still was too frantic to comprehend towards its ending.

My take: V/H/S 2 has its highlights and moments that will make you smirk, but it is overall a too brutal and coldly unresolved to be completely enjoyable. It actually made me slightly unnerved afterwards, but not as much from being scared as being disgusted. There is a larger fanbase for the film's macabre and shocking nature, but I guess it didn't all appeal to me.

The Last Stand may serve up as a passable, harmless, and mildly entertaining throwback to 80's action flicks, it tries to add some humor, has a right spirit, and its nice to see Schwarzenegger back on screen again, but it still doesn't entirely excuse the films cliché-ridden script, generic story, and sometimes lack of fluidly kinetic action. Rent it if you want to see Arnold spitting one- liners and totting guns once more, but you won't miss much otherwise.

The story: After The Govenator left office, it seems that he has decided to make return to the silver screen, and you can't really blame him. He doesn't have much to lose, and has got a nostalgia filled fan base of action junkies, a category which I could partially fall under, giddily ready for more excitement. He first returned with the Regan-era star-studded Expendables and it's sequel, is in production for a 3rd, an escape flick with Sly Stallone, others on the way, and decided to fit this one as well on his plate of rusty retribution. The plot is nothing new; a Mexican drug dealer escapes the clutches of the FBI, grabs a lightning-speed car, and races to cross the border into his fatherland. He's taken one of the FBI hostage, and has successfully evaded them. But there is one last thing in his way before he can drift into sweet freedom, a little town with a big sheriff. You might be able to guess who dons the badge...The question is, does The Running Man still have his legs? Soft of...

The good: The Last Stand doesn't try to be anything it's not; it isn't entirely self-aware about its script, but does have an understanding. The action sequences don't really dazzle, but they are fine, and still fun to watch. Schwarzenegger has never been the best at delivering all of his lines with the greatest of acting chops, but that has never mattered; the man has always had charm, and it hasn't died very much. He seems to be having a nice time, and puts forth a respectable effort. He also gets the chance to spout some great one-liners that did make me chuckle. The film admirably tries to add humor, and while the jokes hit and miss, at least they tried. It also should be mentioned that the film in general has the right spirit and decently aims just to bring back some popcorn chomping, old-time thrills.

The bad: The film does catch a slight break for its acknowledged, fun 80's shoot-em-up nature, but still the clichés keep on coming thanks to its highly generic screenplay. You've seen and heard all the dialogue before, and many of the jokes fall flat. Also for some reason its action sequences sometimes and their score editing are a bit sloppily paced, but its nothing terrible. Some of the acting is vanilla, but it could be said that the script doesn't help out them out either. The villains aren't anything special, and also fit into a trend I've been seeing a lot of in recent blockbusters; why are all of these antagonists mediocrely acted, oddly accented baddies who deliver some weirdly written lines in an almost understandable fashion? I don't know...but I've noticed it quite a bit.

My take: It knows what it is, but what it is still isn't anything too notable. If you are an action- junkie or have an itch for some old-fashioned gun battling, it won't hurt to give it a look, but still it is a very indifferent and forgettable film that wont effect you much if you skip it.

World War Z has an abrupt ending, and it isn't much of a cohesive film, but rather a string of extremely intense, pulse pounding, and wonderfully visceral set pieces. Definitely see it for some summer bait to chomp on and one hell of a thrill ride.

The story: The plot, generally, is supposed to be set on Max Brook's (interestingly son of comic genius Mel Brooks) bestselling mock-non fiction book World War Z. The novel essentially is a retelling of the history of the world after a global outbreak of the zombie infection. It aims at portraying a satirical while realistic display of the brain chomping carnage, and provides all of the juicy political and social commentary any zombie fan could ask for. Now for the movie, they use the term "based on" fairly loosely. Cut most of the statistics and commentary, this movie is about action and white knuckle suspense. Newly retired UN worker Gerry (Brad Pitt) has chosen to settle down with his family, who reside in Philly, but his plans of relaxation are far from fruition as his life and world are hit stuck with a disaster. Zombie infections begin to breakout all over the world and here's the worst part; not only do these zombies run, they topple and climb over/up each other like ants. Also, without giving to much away, they can multiply faster than you can tie your shoe. Soon, cities crumble, and millions of the population have been "lost" as Gerry and his family are escorted to battleships in the Atlantic for protection. But Gerry is far from safe as he is called upon to help aid research and fight against the plague across the world, and let's just say that things get tasty.

The good: The film's action set pieces are genuinely spectacular and create some of the most nail-biting and intense moments of celluloid that I have experienced since Zero Dark Thirty. They are big, bad-ass, and also very in range. While some have big-scale moments of terrifying moments of awe, think back to the ant-like antagonists, others are quieter and build up to an explosive boil of terror and excitement. The great pacing also truly helps create the fluid nerve- racking energy that is so present during these scenes. Pitt is also good as the lead and is subtlety charismatic and like-able as our reluctant survivor. The rest of the cast is strong and do a perfectly serviceable job. The special effects are solid and create many frightening and spooky visuals of carnage throughout the film.

The bad: The film has been notable for being a partial disaster in it's production and writing and it does slightly show. The film reminded me more of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), or a Mission Impossible; it skipped around from enjoyable scene to scene, but you don't always have a clear reason why. The ending also cuts the film of a little to easily and leaves more of an implied resolution instead of a more finite and tactile one. Also the action is far to often shot in some scenes with shaky-cam, and it becomes at times distracting and or confusing. I also wish we had some more close ups of our blood thirsty protagonists. There is one entertaining use of social commentary in the movie, but I wish that it would take the time to make a few more clever insights into the potential-filled lore.

My take: World War Z isn't as much of a scary movie, but rather one that is immensely thrilling and suspenseful. It isn't prefect, but it sure is a nice slice of summer entertainment that will get your heart going, even if you leave the theater wishing for a little more food for thought.

Though it has bountiful visual flair and is stylishly ambitious, The Great Gatsby's story gets lost amidst it's dazzling, yet overproduced spectacle and ultimately ends up being a prime example of style over substance.

The story, if you haven't been through 11th grade English, is based upon the iconic novel, The Great Gatsby, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1925, and over-analyzed and dissected to smithereens by confused teens ever since. It tells the tragic tale of a writer, his complex influence, his pouty lover, her snarky husband, and of course, a green light. No but we follow the story from the eyes of Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) in the Roaring Twenties as he moves to Long Island and begins the follow and befriend a rich and mysterious man named Jay Gatsby (Leo DiCaprio), who 1. Throws parties and 2. falls in the middle of a deadly love triangle which may or may not have tragic results. The novel offers up a plethora of social commentary on the American Dream and young pride, but do the story and allegories translate to the big screen? That's a loaded question old sport.

The Great Gatsby rockets off with as a visually spectacular, sometimes overwhelmingly energetic, and stylishly entertaining piece of eye-candy. We start off with a bang, and the pacing is quick and exciting. The visual design is glossily crafted and everything, most notably the parties, are just a pleasure to watch. The cinematography is always lively, and seems to allow the viewer to enter the film's exuberant setting by gliding and sometimes whimsically traveling around the set pieces. The costumes are fantastic; each's color is saturated to their greatest, and the flashy intricacies of each look fantastic and add an important element of art deco style to the film. The sets range from marvelously detailed to the almost cartoony looking, obviously green screened, but for some reason it does fit with the style of the rest of the film. The 3D effects don't add as much depth as they should and become dizzying in some tightly edited, ecstatically shot scenes, but it still is passable. And now for the soundtrack; many are conflicted about the soundtrack due to its juxtaposition between, let's say, Gershwin and...um...Jay Z. I personally didn't mind it and thought that they oddly fit well with Luhrmann's style even if many were underused throughout. The acting is a bit of a mixed bag, but no one is terrible. Leo isn't captivating, but he still manages to add a level of like-ability to Gatsby, even if he doesn't seem completely invested in the role. Maguire is just fine as Carraway but just kind of blandly follows and narrates. The best is Edgerton who nicely creates both a slimy and intriguing character to counter Gatsby. Honorable mention goes to Elizabeth DeBicki who doesn't have much to do, but puts forth her best effort. And now for Daisy, Carey Mulligan isn't served the best justice due to the supposedly purposefully annoying nature of her character, but still she ends up just helplessly pouting and moping around the sets like a hormonally 16 year old. Also to be fair, this isn't an actors movie, but rather a directors movie, so it makes sense that some of the actors may seem only decent. Speaking of directors, Luhrmann altogether creates an interesting experiment. It's admirably ambitious and daring, and I partially admire him for his choices, however per usual, he does overproduce A lot of the film and almost seems to become too distracted with himself and the film's giddy style. By doing this he adds more color, but also takes away the vibrancy of the story. He tries to adapt much of the symbolism and themes form the book, but after a while they become too repetitive, and don't have anything to say about themselves. The films second half does have a deflated sense of energy, and also becomes tonally and narratively inconsistent. Some scenes and character interactions don't mix very well with others and there are slower sequences that feed sharply into fast-paced ones and the result isn't always entirely cohesive. Even while I haven't read the book, I still understand the importance and significance of the story, but feel like the film was aiming for recreating more of a mood that the book and characters evoke rather then focusing more of the narrative. I also disliked the ending, and thought that it was too uncompromising because in the book, it may have had a much more literary significant representation, but many of those words become lost in translation to the silver screen and the result is mixed. Also the overproduced sequences and pizazz of the film do become a tad bit annoying and hard to fully absorb.

So, no matter what you think, it is safe to say that this film will be and is very polarizing. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either. The style didn't completely win me over, but it did keep my attention through it's long running time, and I was slightly invested in some of the characters, especially in one earlier sequence in the film between Gatsby and Daisy which I did adore.

DISCLAIMER: I have not read The Great Gatsby, but will soon old sport.

Fast and Furious 6 for better or for worse is unapologetically dumb, overly masculine, and juvenilely cartoonish piece of summer popcorn fluff that mostly makes up for its flaws with some immensely well crafted action sequences.

The story: If you haven't been doing your homework for the previous, I can't believe it, five installments in the seemingly immortal Fast and Furious franchise, you have no need to feel guilty. These films are about fast cars, half naked, sun brazed models, exotic locals, fast paced racing. and at their core, the value of "family". Giggle. No but Fast 5 flipped the franchise around and turned it into more of a heist-action series, and thats where Fast 6 picks up. After cashing in the big bucks in Rio, tough guy street racer Dom (Vin Disel), his cop turned teammate Brian (Paul Walker), and the rest of their diverse gang of engine junky pals have settled down. That is until federal agent and mutual friend Hobbes (Dwane Johnson) needs them to stop another gang of vehicle revving baddies who want to...uh...I'll try and remember... acquire a computer chip? Something involving cyber terrorism, I think. It doesn't matter. What's important in this movie is that things blow up and rubber gets burned.

The good: Justin Lin's direction and execution of the action by FAR is the highlight of this picture. The action sequences are fluidly shot, fairly intense, well paced, and pretty freaking fantastic. Actually, the final one is so great, that it ranks up as one of the best action set pieces I've seen in a while. Though some have ridiculous moments or endings, the "bridge-tank showdown" in particular, that bend the laws of physics into levels of absurdity, it does partially establish that the characters are almost like superheros, so many of the instances of car hopping and plane jumping can be excused. The special effects are very solid, except some very brief moments of CGI vehicle jumping. It has a nice glossy, summer movie look to it, and has a fairly decent mixture of shaky and refreshingly wide shots. Some of the cast are fine, and have some chuckle worthy moments of comic relief, even if some of the jokes fall flat. It also is nice to see the range of diversity in the cast if not all of the participants are skilled line readers.

The bad: The plot and stupidity. Now the story in this movie is so flat that I forgot about what the team and baddies were fighting for all along, and I have a feeling that the actors and director might have in a sense as well. I know that you aren't supposed to walk into these types of movies looking for a complex narrative, but still it couldn't hurt to add an ounce more of intelligence and cleverness. The dialogue does have some moments of humor, but still the mixture of stilted and clichéd lines and flat acting can leave a laughable, almost cringe-worthy effect at times on the viewer. This especially occurs in the monotonous and shallow conversations about "family" that keep showing up in these movies, and oddly try to hammer the message in, but after a while it's like beating a dead horse. The pacing, which is great in the first half, does become choppy by the second, and annoyingly slows down to become more serious. The fine actors are passable, but the others need work. I'm glad that some of these new faces and different ethnic types of actors have their spotlight moments in the film, but still seem more skilled at kicking ass then delivering quips. I don't want to sound to harsh, and it wasn't horribly distracting either. I also understand that you must have your suspension of disbelief on full blast throughout, but there are some moments of impossible physics that are just unbelievable. Some of the jokes miss more than they hit, but I respect them for trying. Also, I wish that the films tone didn't become try to become so serious, because when it does that, the film almost unintentionally becomes campy and laughable. A little does of more self aware and breezy humor could have done it better.

My take: Fast 6 is nothing more than dumb while slickly made entertainment but I can say that it is another step in the right direction for the once sinking series. See it alone for the final action sequence, which is really spectacular, and I say you will have a decent if unintelligent time.

Be sure to stick around for it's post credit scene, hilarious and bad-ass at the same time!

Heres the story; playboy billionaire industrialist engineer Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, is recovering from his battle in New York against aliens with the help of the Avengers, Marvels cannon of action-prone and muscle bound heroes. He's previously rebuilt his body after being held captive by Middle eastern extremists, in the process created a metal, enemy pulverizing suit, equipped with flying jets and energy blasters of course, defeated his crazy competitor, a vengeful, bird loving Russian, and now an alien race. Bottom line: the man's had his fair share of ass-kicking. This understandably, is beginning to effect him. He's having anxiety attacks and the fact that a supposed terrorist labeled the Mandarin is targeting civilians, and maybe even some friends of Mr. Stark, isn't helping. Sure enough as the story progresses, his pals, president, prodigy, love, and life are on the line. With out giving away many of the films twists and turns, Tony ends up somewhat back where he started and must find the tools to save his fate before time runs out and you know the story. Or do you...?

The good: Iron Man 3's action sequences dazzle with "Marvel-ous" (sorry couldn't help myself) visual effects, but the real show stealer is the films extremely clever, frequently hilarious, and awesomely self aware humor. Shane Black peppers the script with so much chewable wit and varying, unexpected twists that you can't help yourself from having a great time amidst the violent chaos, even though some may find the jokes distracting. I beg to differ. RDJ owns the role and steals the show as Iron Man once more. Per usual, he adds in his perfect mixture of narcissistic snakiness with evolving dramatic struggles, but never takes it all to seriously. Not only does he do well, but the entire cast all are fairly strong and add their fair share of laughs, deliciously evil or humorously likable moments, and seem to be having a good time as well.

The story is thick but presented in a well paced and orchestrated fashion and it strings together the explosions in a clean juxtaposition (oxymoron?) with it's reveals and character developments. The special effects are top notch and immerse the audience into the fast paced action sequences, and they also carry the torch on from The Amazing Spiderman in which the SFX are a slight notch more realistic and crisper than previous Marvel outings of the past 3 years. And now for the direction, while Shane Black doesn't completely steal the show visually, he sure as hell puts his personal stamp on the film, and I welcome it. He has taken the previous material and blended it with his different style and humor and created what I believe to be a more unique and quirkier superhero flick that delivers much of what it promises, but surprises as well in areas you wouldn't expect. Many die hard comic fans will be angered or even infuriated by the liberties Black takes with the source material, but again as a non-comic book reader, you won't hear any complaining from me. I love his ambition and some of the daring choices he makes along the journey. In conclusion I think that he has tied an equal parts goofy but still satisfying bow on the explosive trilogy, and has made me excited for more Marvel outings to come.

As a side note, go into it with an open mind, stay after the credits, you won't be disappointed!