The fault lies not in our stars, but on our planet

The Rock goes spelunking in "San Andreas."

I should have kept count of the number of cackles emitted from the audience at the ridiculous stupidity that is “San Andreas.” The dialogue is perfectly trite and littered with clichés (tops among them an obligatory “get the hell out of there!” screech courtesy Academy Award nominee Paul Giamatti); the characters are forgettable; the CGI is unconvincing and very much overused; the 3D conversion is a waste of resources; and the less said about the quality of the performances the better.

And yet, in a weird way, all of those problems blend together to create a pretty enjoyable viewing experience with the right audience. “San Andreas” is undoubtedly a bad film, but it's terribleness comes full circle to make it kind of a good-adjacent movie for one major reason; nobody is taking the on-screen destruction too seriously.

In “San Andreas,” action hero template Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson plays a Los Angeles-based rescue helicopter pilot in the midst of a divorce from his wife (Carla Gugino). Gugino and the couple's daughter, Blake (Alexandra Daddario), have unexpectedly moved in with new beau Daniel Riddick (Ioan Gruffudd), a wealthy architect with a private plane, fancy suits and a chauffeur to boot. Gruffudd, who at least seems somewhat interested in not sucking as a possible step parent, brings Daddario to his firm in San Francisco, where she meets aspiring architect/Hugh Grant impersonator Ben (Hugo Johnstone-Burt) and his moppet-ish little brother Ollie (Art Parkinson).

This kid's got the moppet market cornered for at least two more years.

Amid the relationship drama is research from professional sciencetician Lawrence (Giamatti), who predicts a massive earthquake along the titular fault line that would decimate just about everything along the 810-mile fault line (kudos to sanandreasfault.org for that tidbit), including Los Angeles and San Francisco. As Giamatti and reporter Serena (Archie Punjabi) try to warn California about the impending disaster, it's up to The Rock to save his ex-wife in Los Angeles and his daughter in San Francisco amid earthquake-related shenanigans and some acts of nozzlery involving certain and obvious characters of note.

The plot is exactly as dumb as it sounds and becomes immediately ludicrous once you put any thought into its machinations and repeated criminal acts by the heroic characters. And there's nothing overly clever about “San Andreas” that separates it from other disaster fodder like “The Day After Tomorrow,” “2012,” “Dante's Peak” and “Volcano” released in the last two decades or so either. Like the aforementioned forefathers, the film follows a pretty simple formula in which the disaster is set up with disregarded warnings, thousands of civilians are smooshed, smashed, drowned, impaled and otherwise maimed, and villains are established quickly to be dispatched in a rather satisfying fashion. If you've seen one film featuring a building, ship, city or civilization falling apart due to uncontrollable forces, you've pretty much seen them all.

Everything appears the same, but “San Andreas” isn’t without its little charms, certainly enough to stand out in a genre bloated by mediocrity and Roland Emmerichs. This film has an underlying current of playfulness reinforcing how much fun a disaster flick can be, as director Brad Peyton and screenwriter Carlton Cruse mess around with the audience from the get-go via a somewhat intense prelude to a character-establishing calamity, teasing the audience with a couple of pump fakes to set up the open shot. It's a neat little trick and sets the tone for a movie that just embraces the genre's utter silliness and forces audience members to embrace the ongoing guilty pleasure. “San Andreas” also lacks the self-importance of other disaster films; it never tries to be as didactic as “The Day After Tomorrow,” it avoids the cruelty of the abhorrent “2012,” and it definitely drops the self-seriousness that made “Volcano” unwatchable.  

This is from 'Volcano.' Here's a link to a compendium of awful, awful moments from that film.

Even though the performances don’t ascend to anything resembling quality, they do buttress “San Andreas” inherent goofiness, with Gruffudd seemingly reveling in his role as the jerk who receives his inevitable comeuppance and Giamatti consuming the scenery as if he were a stoned elephant. The wee Brit Parkinson also gets a few moments to drop some witty-adjacent lines that keep the tone light and breezy.

If anyone carries “San Andreas,” it's Johnson, whose preternatural charm and bulk pretty much fleshes out a cardboard cutout of a character. It’s become a bit of a habit for the former wrestling star turned action star; give just enough to work from and he’ll turn in the proverbial winning performance guaranteed. 

                                     He also wins at "Saturday Night Live" hosting.

“San Andreas” suffers a bit from bad timing, having come out within months of more interesting action flicks — it doesn’t have the balls-out insanity captured by “Furious 7” and certainly isn’t capable of achieving the thorough brilliance of “Mad Max: Fury Road.” But “San Andreas” still succeeds as a popcorn flick and it's far more enjoyable than it ought to be; you won't be blown away, but you'll walk out of the theater with a slight, perplexed smile.

Review: Three and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 114 minutes

Genre: Action 

Ask Away

Target audience: Disaster-film connoisseurs and Rock-philes.

Take the whole family?: There are enough body crushings to scare the heck out of a 6-year-old, but it's cartoonish enough to remain OK for anyone older than that.

Theater or Netflix?: I'd go with the home screening, but a matinee sans 3D is perfectly acceptable.

Is it a feminist triumph?:  “San Andreas” doesn't carry the wonderful gender politics of “Fury Road,” nor does it even pass the Bechdel test like “Furious 7,” but it does have Alexandra Daddario's character does take control of a small group amid the chaos. Sure, she does it so her father can rescue her, but the film does get half credit for letting her use her smarts to get saved later.

Watch this as well?: Go old school with flicks like “The Poseidon Adventure” (circa 1972) and “Earthquake” to see how disaster films used to be done, and maybe “Dante's Peak” for the camp factor. For people who want to see the Rock in action, please revisit entries five, six and seven in the “Furious” series.

A future illuminated by hope amid chaos

Britt Robertson in a scene from "Tomorrowland." © Disney Enterprises, Inc.

One of my favorite movies of all time is “Fitzcarraldo,” Werner Herzog’s 1982 film about a man who dreams to bring opera to the Amazon. It’s a brilliant film with an insane backstory (captured in the documentary “Burden of Dreams”), but what I love about it is how Klaus Kinski’s Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald never abandons his passion. Fitzgerald’s fervor was deep enough that even a misanthrope like Herzog couldn’t deny the man a happy ending.

I was hoping for the same result for the filmmakers behind “Tomorrowland,” which has all the heart and hope in the world but is burdened by an overwhelming number of flaws. The question I had to pose was whether the film’s issues are too egregious to overlook, or if, like in Fitzgerald’s case, the passion is too vibrant to keep down. In the end, I was won over “Tomorrowland's” gumption and boundless optimism for humanity's potential, although I just wish I didn't have to make the choice in the first place.

“Tomorrowland” is not based on the Disney theme park attraction (although the Small World ride is given a justification for its existence), but it is a futuristic utopia where brilliant minds conjured ways of making the future more prosperous. It’s essentially the view of Epcot Walt Disney outlined in a short video from the 1960s, but with even more future added to it.

And definitely way more than this.

Most people have no idea of Tomorrowland’s existence, but a preview of the place via a small pin tantalize precocious teenager Casey Newton (played by 20-something Britt Robertson), who seeks out a way to gain full entry into the place. It’s a dangerous journey, one that includes, a cantankerous George Clooney, a mysterious girl played by Raffey Cassidy, a lucky red baseball cap, and numerous androids who possess blaster guns and are very comfortable using them. Also along for the ride are Hugh Laurie, Tim McGraw, Keegan-Michael Key and Kathryn Hahn, who all help prop up the on-screen shenanigans in methods heroic, villainous, and comedic.

Most of that recap is available by watching the film’s previews, which definitely avoid going too much into the plot machinations. There's also a clear reason why the advertising team that put together “Tomorrowland's” trailer and accompanying material didn't provide a detailed outline of what to expect, and it's not about creating a mysterious ambiance. To put it simply, the film doesn’t have a cohesive narrative; rather, it exchanges a direct narrative for a scattered, loose storyline written as if it were a Wassily Kandinsky painting. 

Your medium-brow reference for today.

A tricky plot filled with twist and turns can work great when employed correctly, but “Tomorrowland’s” machinations are clever by half, and the story focuses so much on the introduction that the conclusion of the two-plus hour film is rushed. And all of the storytelling gadgets are undercut by a really, really, really heavy-handed message (capped off by a final shot fattened with treacle) and lazy writing highlighted by the use of the proverbial “special.” It feels as if the script is at war with itself, with Damon Lindelof's patented perplexity battling co-writer and director Brad Bird's eagerness and hope. Bird seems to win a few times (highlighted by the funniest scene in the film clearly inspired by one of his early employers) but Lindelof wins the contest, much to the film's detriment.

“Tomorrowland's” problems extend beyond the script and incorporate a disappointingly bland directorial effort by Bird, but the more critical I am about this film the more I feel like I'm missing the point. Viewing it solely on its cinematic merits ignores the vital philosophical discussion it presents to a rather young target audience, as“Tomorrowland,” serves as a pretty solid introduction to the debate between fatalism and free will. Essentially, are humans controlled by forces and efforts beyond their control or do they have the ability to change their station?

Bird and Lindelof favor the second option and use that assertion to assuage fears about a future that contains few bright spots for the two youngest generations and whatever progeny they may have. The world may be collapsing upon itself due to our own sins and stupidity, but there's always room for hope as long as humanity still exists. Really, the only thing that's worth fearing is the end of innovation, invention and ingenuity; one of the saddest moments of the film comes when Robertson mourns the destruction of a NASA launchpad by saying, “there's nothing to launch.” Few things are more frightening than realizing there are no more worlds to explore.

I really do appreciate “Tomorrowland” for possessing such hope and faith in humanity, and I admire it for its spirit and willingness to dream big like Fitzgerald. I just wish it was a better movie.

Review: Three out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 130 minutes

Genre: Adventure

Ask Away

Target audience: Fantasy/adventure junkies and families in need of a little positivity in their lives.

Take the whole family?: A surprisingly large number of human deaths make “Tomorrowland” too tough for kids younger than 6. It won't be a problem for anyone older than that though.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix is OK, but save the money and go matinee if you do hit up the theater. Definitely avoid shelling out more bucks for a possible 3D option as well.

An issue with the advertising? Most of the film's posters depict George Clooney and the actor who plays Clooney as a child. There are thematic purposes for doing so, but it does remove two female characters who are at least equally important to the plot, if not more so. I’m not sure why the decision was made to kybosh the women in favor of Clooney and Clooney prime.

Watch this as well?: This would work as a nifty double feature with another live-action Disney flick with a gee-whiz attitude and an idealistic view of humanity's future, “The Rocketeer.” Also worth a peek is Brad Bird's feature directorial debut, “The Iron Giant.”

                       I'm also adding this trailer for "Fitzcarraldo" to hopefully pique your interest.

Sweet but just a bit tart

The Bellas return for "Pitch Perfect 2."

“Pitch Perfect 2,” the sequel to the surprise hit from 2012, is a slight flick akin to a moderately stale Fig Newton: Ooey, gooey, chewy on the inside and with just a bit of a crunch to the outside. It doesn’t sound like the most flattering description, but it's exactly what a “Pitch Perfect” sequel ought to be: an enjoyable perfectly satisfying, albeit problematic, film that leaves a pleasant taste in the mouth.

The film picks up with the Barden University Bellas three years after the events of the first film, it’s been a pretty good stretch for the Bellas; they’ve won three consecutive national acapella titles and kickoff the film performing for President Obama at the Kennedy Center. The performance, however, turns into a nightmare when Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson) accidentally reveals her front door to the president amid a rendition of Miley Cyrus' “Wrecking Ball.” The act leads the acapella league to ban the Bellas from competing at the national level and from recruiting new members to replace the group, whose members are set to graduate in the spring.

Bellas' leader Beca (Anna Kendrick) strikes an agreement to have the Bellas reinstated if they win the world competition, a contest dominated by the ruthlessly efficient and entertaining German collective Das Sound Machine. It's the Bellas' last shot at glory and preservation, and it comes with an abundance of drama entailing Kendrick's internship for a music producer (Keegan-Michael Key), seventh-year senior Chloe's (Brittany Snow) fear of losing the Bellas, the inclusion of a legacy member/aspiring songwriter Emily (Hailee Steinfeld), and the antics of Wilson and super senior Bumper (Adam DeVine). Oh, and Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins are back as bickering announcers cum acapella overlords Gail and John.

This should refresh your memory.

The plot isn't all that complex or difficult to resolve, and the overarching push toward a global championship is suspiciously similar to the one used in “D2: The Mighty Ducks.” Then again, viewers aren't focused as much on “Pitch Perfect 2's” story as they are on the humor and acapella performances, and the film succeeds on both ends. Wilson gets her moments to shine as the apparent fan favorite, with Kendrick, Snow, fellow Bellas Hana Mae Lee (Lilly) and Ester Dean (Rose), Key and DeVine chipping in when needed. Even Snoop Dogg drops a couple of solid lines by recording a Christmas album I would totally purchase if it existed. The comedic highlight once again belongs to Banks and Higgins, who just kill it as the announcers who take the Don Rickles route and offend as many people as possible.

The performances too are enjoyable, featuring a slew of recent and old-school pop songs performed in scales both small (acapella throwdowns that are essentially singing version of a street-dance fight in “Breakin'”) and large (the world performance). Credit for the staging of said performances goes in part to Banks, who does a strong job behind the camera and shoots the big sequences with flair and precision in her feature-length directorial debut.

There are a few “and yets” that do put a damper on “Pitch Perfect 2.” The film's a bit lazy when it comes to expositional dialogue, with Higgins even saying, “it's as if the Bellas forgot who they are” at one point. The simplicity of the plot is forgivable; having characters state the obvious is a bigger issue.

So too is the various levels of offensiveness carried within the script. Screenwriter Kay Cannon toes the proverbial line with the offensive jokes and just keeps from crossing the threshold into problematic by redirecting the barbs back at Higgins' and Banks' characters. At greater issue though is the treatment of Lee's Lilly, who spent most of the first film squeaking and making beat boxing sounds. Her oddness becomes her defining character trait in round two, and while some of it works, much of it falls into stereotypical territory that makes her come off as a female Long Duk Dong.

Remember him?

Those problem areas with the script are balanced a bit by the female-centered comedy and some little moments Cannon inserts to deepen the relationships between in a realistic manner. And “Pitch Perfect 2” does have a sense of humor about itself and mocks a few tropes it indulges in, along with a few cracks centered on acapella's perplexing popularity.

To go back to the cookie analogy put forth in the opening paragraph, “Pitch Perfect 2” doesn't have the flavor complexities of a gourmet treat, nor does it comfort viewers like a homemade chocolate chip cookie. It's a Fig Newton of a movie, and who doesn't like a good Fig Newton?

I'm kind of Jonesing for one right now.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 115 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: Acapella-philes and people into the original.

Take the whole family?: The film is a bit crass and not interesting enough for kids younger than 9, but otherwise there's nothing overly problematic.

Theater or Netflix?: Good enough for a night out with friends followed by a couple of bright mixed drinks.

Rebel Wilson, breakout star?:  She was in “Pitch Perfect,” which gave the filmmakers greater motivation to feature her in the sequel. Wilson is a fine comedic talent, but her character becomes a little grating at times and doesn't have a story interesting enough to carry so much screen time in an ensemble. She's a great supporting character stretched too far into a quasi-leading role.

Watch this as well?: “Pitch Perfect” is the obvious one. Aside from that, “Moulin Rouge!” is a pretty good companion piece given how both reappropriate pop songs, and maybe “Glee” depending on how you're feeling. One more to add is “Enchanted,” which is just delightful.

What a way for the world to end

Charlize Theron fights Tom Hardy in "Mad Max: Fury Road."

“Mad Max: Fury Road” is a freaking brilliant film. It's impossibly large, undeniably epic, impressively progressive, and a rather strange duck of an action film that depicting a land of nightmares wrought by a world controlled by avarice and short-sightedness.

Most importantly, it's just so much fun to watch the chaos unfurl.

This is the fourth film in director George Miller's “Mad Max” series, and it begins with old friend and eponymous rover “Mad” Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy, inheriting Mel Gibson's role) haunted by memories amid the sands of time. He's caught by a collection of bandits ruled by brutal, deformed tyrant Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and becomes an unwilling blood donor to one of Keays-Byrne's so-called War Boys, Nux (Nicholas Hoult).

The action really kicks off when five members of the overlord's harem (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Zoë Kravitz, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton) escape with the help of truck driver Furiosa (Charlize Theron), who drives eastward toward the proverbial Promised Land. An epic chase ensues in which Keays-Byrne unleashes his warriors and allies, forcing Hardy and the women to forge an uneasy alliance to escape the devil's wraith.

“Fury Road” is astounding spectacle, a film that turns up the action to 11, then somehow finds even more levels beyond that. Bodies are launched all over creation amid radically souped-up cars and trucks torn apart by spears filled with explosives and crash in the desert. Amid the carnage is a band of drummers that creates an atavistic aura emphasizing how the on-screen insanity reflects humanity diving into its most ugliest, most primal survival tactics. Also, there's a guys standing on top of a truck playing a guitar that shoots out flames, which is just as awesome as it sounds.

Awesome, encapsulated.

I'd like “Fury Road” if that's all it was; it's pretty much the same reason why I have a perpetual soft spot for the “Furious” films. But the mayhem orchestrated magnificently by Miller on screen is buttressed by a wonderful script (partially credited to Miller) highlighted by both its storytelling simplicity and its thematic complexity.

“Fury Road” is a pretty straightforward film; the plot is a two-hour car chase and the divide between the heroes and villains is demarcated clearly. It also contains a dearth of dialogue, which makes every word uttered significant while adding depth to what isn't verbally stated. The truce between Hardy, Theron, the five harem members, for example, isn't agreed upon via discussion; rather, the agreement is reached by the fulfillment of mutual needs and the actions the parties involved engage in to reinforce it.

What makes the decision easier is the shared sense of hope the heroic characters share. The meaning of hope differs from one character to the next, yet the base idea for it separates them from the relentless pursuers intent on maintaining a hell on earth in which such ideas are effectively heresy. In other words, the Warrior Boys and their leader are satisfied with survival, while Theron and her crew want a more fecund, prosperous world.

Women are the heart of and the most important characters in “Fury Road,” a point emphasized by Theron’s role as the film’s protagonist. She’s the one charged with protecting the world’s future, and it’s Theron’s Furiosa who takes down the prominent enemies on screen. Hardy does cause his fair share of destruction, but his most prominent moment occurs off screen, hidden amid a miasma of dust and uncertainty in his survival. Miller makes it clear that Theron is the more capable driver and the better shot, as shown by a scene in which she takes away Hardy's gun to shoot a pursuer, a powerful symbolic gesture.

Siggy would approve.

 Hardy’s Max, then, is Theron’s sidekick, a secondary character in his own film. It’s an unorthodox strategy, but a necessary one that continues Max’s role as a folk hero, a legend among the survivors of the end of the world. The “Mad Max” films are an anthology, a collection of legends told akin to Greek mythology that use Max as the common denominator.

Definitely heady stuff to conjure, and there's way more to unpack in “Fury Road” than gender politics and how a man becomes a legend; fortunately, that gives me an excuse to watch it a few more times. That, and the guitar flamethrower.

Review: Five out of Five Stars (Note: I added a half star after a second viewing)

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 120 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Series enthusiast and anyone into excellent action films.

Take the whole family?: Only if you want to traumatize your kiddos.

Theater or Netflix?: Really, really worth the big-screen experience. It's such an enormous film that watching it small doesn't do it justice.

What does one make of George Miller's career?:  You're not going to find many filmmakers with a background quite as eclectic as his. He earned a spot in the action-film pantheon thanks to the “Mad Max” series, but he drifted away from the genre for 30 years and filled that stretch with family films (two “Happy Feet” flicks and “Babe: Pig in the City,”) the dramatic and underappreciated “Lorenzo's Oil,” and the bizarre comedy “The Witches of Eastwick.” A little strange for sure, yet he's done quite well across all platforms and has established a habit of showcasing interesting, well-developed female characters that stretches to “Fury Road.”

Watch this as well?: Definitely “Mad Max” and “The Road Warrior” to become a little more familiar with the eponymous character (I haven't seen “Beyond Thunderdome,” so no opinion either way). I'm going to add in a viewing of “Bronson” to the mix, which features both a terrific Tom Hardy performance and some disturbing acts of wanton violence.

Like this.

Sinking under the weight of expectations

Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo and either Toby Maguire or Andrew Garfield in a scene from Marvel's "Avengers: Age of Ultron."

A sizable rush of excitement fell over me the moment after “Iron Man’s” end credits in which Samuel L. Jackson dropped that line about the Avengers project. It came from the ambition of the upcoming project, the potential that comes from building such a magnificent universe akin to the one first conjured in print. All signs pointed to awesome times ahead.

Jump ahead seven years and the Disney/Marvel conglomerate have released 11 films of OK to very good quality (No. 12, “Ant-Man” is on the way this summer), two live-action TV series, a few animated series and special episodes, and a whole bunch of merchandise devoted to the renowned superhero group. Tying everything together was an ambitious plan to link elements of each individual franchise into one overarching entity, which, in effect, has spawned a massively complicated mythology rarely seen outside of comics.

Ambition is wonderful, but it can become a millstone too. “Avengers: Age of Ultron” — an entertaining albeit disappointing entry into the series — suffers from that burden and portends a rather disturbing future for the film franchise outside of the universe shown on screen.

In “Ultron,” the superhero team consisting of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) begin by raiding a fortress in an eastern European country to retrieve Loki’s staff from Hydra operatives. They are able to nab the staff despite some resistance from mutant twins Pietro and Wanda Maximoff (Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen), but the power of what the staff can do is too much for Downey Jr. and Ruffalo, who use it to build a powerful robot that can prevent alien attacks like the one depicted in the first film.

Messing with robots in fiction is more often than not a terrible idea, which proves to be the case this time around when the titular entity Ultron (voiced by James Spader) gains sentience and tries to eradicate the team with the twins’ help. It's up to the Avengers to stop the misbehaving robot's plans without falling apart as a group.

What a viewer gets out of “Ultron” depends really on what he or she wants going into it. If the person is down for some serviceable action sequences, moments of witty banter and to see Hulk smash a few things, he or she will be more than satisfied with the fiduciary investment. “Ultron” is the prototypical blockbuster, an action-packed thrill ride that takes audiences on an international adventure and serves as a perfectly fine aesthetic experience. 

Sort of like this, but without the hand raising.

But there's not much beyond the action loveliness aside from listening to Spader's Ultron bounce between terrifying and droll and the bits of humor courtesy writer/director Joss Whedon. Everything else just feels a little flat and empty.

Whedon, the person behind much of television's most beloved failed series over the last 15 years, pulled off a minor feat of brilliance with the first “Avengers” film when he smoothed out Marvel's lumpy universe and even added layers to a few characters (Captain America and Hawkeye) amid the entertaining exploits. He couldn’t repeat couldn't repeat the magic in “Ultron,” as the film is plagued by fatigue from watching these characters every year for almost a decade and a sloppy script that provides little balance for the characters. If anyone does well in this it’s Downey Jr.’s Stark, who is the center of the action and gets the lion’s share of dialogue, screentime and even character development. Poor Thor is sent off on his own for a spell to do something, while Hawkeye has a scene to reiterate that, yes, he is a valuable teammate. 

He's the Avengers' MVP, according to Joss Whedon.

Also missing from this movie is at least one of Whedon's patented cold-blooded moments in which a character of some renown gets axed without mercy, which revels the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s underlying problem; the franchise won't put any major player into honest danger. It's an issue exacerbated by Marvel's decision to announce every single movie it will release through 2019; anyone who follows the Marvel Cinematic Universe knows who will or will not remain until at least the next film.

Instead of removing characters, the people behind the MCU just keep adding more and more Avengers to the team to mimic the monstrous being shown in the comic books. It makes sense on the page, but on celluloid the result is a rather fat film with too many people to keep track of, thus too many superheroes to really care about. They've backdoored it a bit with the individual entries, but adding more to the main films means less and less incentive to care for the heroes.

I'm afraid these final run of films (phase three is the official title for every film post “Ant-Man”) that will theoretically wrap up the Avengers. There was so much promise when things first started and even last year with the second Captain America film and the “Guardians of the Galaxy”; if “Ultron” is the harbinger for what shall be, audiences will get a bloated mess of a franchise that will entertain less and less as the years go by.

Review: Three and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 141 minutes (Two hours and 21 minutes)

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: The millions of people who have already doled out millions of dollars to watch the Marvel universe come to life. Also, children.

Take the whole family?: It's a bit violent and a little bloody for kiddos under 7, but anyone older won't have an issue with it.

Theater or Netflix?: Might as well hit up the theater if you're going to watch it. The film is big enough action wise to justify it.

Why doesn't Black Widow have her own film yet?:  Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige cited two reasons in interviews about the topic: The studio wants to promote new characters like Dr. Strange and Black Panther and the Black Widow character works best bouncing off the other Avengers. Neither is a very good reason, especially the second; Black Widow's background alone makes for a great film as long as the mistreated Scarlett Johansson is on board.

Watch this as well?: At this point, it's almost required to watch everything with the Marvel stamp on it, meaning all Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Guardians of the Galaxy. S.H.I.E.L.D., and (especially) Hawkeye properties available. Check out “Howard the Duck” as well to see how far Marvel movies have come in the last three decades. (Howard was the first Marvel character to get his own feature film and you’ll wonder why anyone wanted to try again after that.)

                                                                 Here's a taste for you.