Doctor Who: Under The Lake & Before The Flood

The first two episodes of this season left me with very mixed reactions, so what about the second story? 'Under The Lake/Before The Flood' isn't quite the step up from the previous story I was hoping for as I ultimately didn't feel anything towards either episode: this two parter was simply a decent base under siege story that didn't throw anything new or particularly interesting into the mix. I find myself unable to muster anything up other than: 'Yeah, these two were alright I guess'. That is why it has taken me three weeks to write this, because for all the flaws in the opening two parter at least there was a lot I could say about it.

So what's the story here? An underwater base set in the year 2119 is being plagued by actual ghosts (for realz this time!) and they've got something to do with mysterious writing inside an abandoned spacecraft that's been recovered by the base's crew. The Doctor and Clara arrive thirsty for another adventure just in time to witness the ghost's immediately turn aggressive and start killing off crew members, adding to their ranks. With half of the clues missing the Doctor travels back in time to 1980 in the second episode to figure out just what is going on. Having a large chunk of the second episode focused on the Doctor uncovering past events is interesting, it's somehow a fresh idea for a show all about time travel and gives veteran Who writer Toby Whithouse a lot of stuff to play with: you can have a great mystery (what happened in 1980?), get all timey wimey in a non linear fashion (the Doctor is going to die, BECAUSE LORD KNOWS WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT ANYWHERE BEFORE HAVE WE HMMM????!) and the possibility for separate threats that increases the drama for both parties. This screams an engaging ghost story for two weeks, right? RIGHT?!

The Fisher King has an awesome profile side-on, I mean just look at that!

Well no, part two was once again a bit of a disappointment. Unfortunately I'm a bit miffed at how simple this story turned out to be. The first episode 'Under The Lake' was full of solid mysteries: Where did the missing power cell go? Who wrote that writing on the wall? How did the ship get there? What is causing the ghosts to exist? Why is the spaceship so...bland looking? Who or what is inside the life support capsule? What's up with ghost Abraham Lincoln? Who is behind all of this? Even the Doctor's ghost had me wanting to see how this would all tie up, with the conceit that these unseen but revelatory events were going to be revealed in the concluding part. While this did happen, the actual answers and resolution given in the end weren't very imaginative or clever, I get the feeling this story needed something a bit more shocking and climactic in the second installment other than the Doctor ranting about Beethoven to the camera, which was another (great) excuse for him to bring out the guitar and play it over the opening theme. If the idea behind two parters is more of a 'bigger, better, deeper' approach then why does this 90 minute story feel so small, budget friendly and unimportant?

The big bad of this story, the ominous sounding Fisher King, doesn't really get to do anything of note. He barely shows up until the last 20 minutes and just talks standard villain talk before he's easily defeated by the Doctor, who simply had to blow up the nearby dam with the missing power cell from Ep 1 and drown him. Sure that works well enough, but couldn't they think of something a bit less bland other than The Fisher King being fooled by a white lie? Even if the actual design of the Fisher King was incredible, literally one of the best looking monsters on the show (albeit one that should really be kept in the shadows and not plodding about clumsily in the sunlight), I expected more from a baddie starring in a two parter that was being held as a 'surprise' for the second part. They also could have given him more of a backstory or motive other than the standard invasion plot, which feels really tired now. In terms of threat the ghosts do a much better job of playing the villains, the first episode was oozing with atmosphere and enough claustrophobia to make you think that these apparitions can do some damage if left unchecked. It's a bit weird seeing DW villains brandishing proper weapons and trying to kill people with them, but I like that added sense of danger. Plus don't forget those creepy hollowed out eyes staring into your soul...goreless visuals that remain scary is another one of Doctor Who's rarely used talents.

WHAT'S THIS? A deaf character in DW? Interesting...

The guest cast for these two episodes ended up being a bit unremarkable as there's not a ton of characterization given by the script. Most of my empathy towards the base crew were due to the actors performances, who all do a commendable job. They still come off as a bit bland though, most telling is the fact that I can't remember any of their names (I had to Wiki them) with the exception of Cass, a surprisingly refreshing character played by deaf actress Sophie Stone who does a stellar job at making you feel for her. I don't think I've seen a deaf character portrayed in film or TV before so for that fact alone I congratulate the DW team at being so inclusive and smartly not making too much of a fuss about her disability, apart from one very tense scene in the second episode where she's not able to hear the ghost creeping up behind her. Unsurprisingly this was one of the few times I genuinely felt tense about a character's fate in this story, which is more than I can say for everyone else. 

Speaking of character deaths, am I the only one that found O'Donnell's death in the second episode really contrived? Whaty on earth did she abandon the Doctor and Bennett all of a sudden only to hide in a bathroom and IMMEDIATELY step out of her hiding spot the second the Fisher King walked past? It's a bit like Clara accidentally losing Cass later on, it all seemed a bit to easy and could have easily been explained. Plus it would have much more interesting to have Bennett die instead, causing the Doctor's number 1 fan O' Donnell(besides Osgood at least) to start questioning her hero's priorities.

I kept thinking this was going to be a thing, but nope, it was definitely not a thing.

   
Thankfully my fears about Capaldi being neutered this series were unfounded, because not only did he return to form this time around he arguably gave one of his best performances as the Doctor! He's so much more interesting when his intentions are bordering on selfish: in 'Before The Flood' the Doctor basically knows O' Donnell is going to die but tells nobody just so he can test out a theory (determining the order of who dies). That's extremely juicy, especially since he goaded the crew into staying earlier, preying on their thirst for knowledge and truth that equally seems to drive him and Clara. While Clara's arc has been treading water for four episodes now (PLEASE GIVE HER SOMETHING INTERESTING TO DO) she manipulates Lunn into grabbing the phone, simply arguing 'It's what has to be done', while refusing to let the Doctor sacrifice himself for supposedly dying 'without her'. I got a constant impression watching this story that the both of them didn't seem to care too much about the crew and were devoted to solving the mystery instead. Even the Doctor is taken aback by Clara's willingness to walk into danger when stepping out of the TARDIS, she has begun aping him in a lot of ways now. If both of them are constantly on the hunt for more death defying adventures to satisfy their addiction with time and space, this can't end well. Doctor Who has already made a case several times that a companion is necessary to ground the Doctor in reality, so when the companion becomes more and more like him this balance is thrown out of the window and they are both susceptible to being put in more harm's way. Why do I feel a guillotine is being placed over Clara's head right now?

So that's everything I have to say about 'Under The Lake/Before The Flood'. I find nothing particularly wrong with it really, but it's inoffensiveness has eaten up two episodes of the season instead of one. Longer stories should mean deeper and better themes but that hasn't been the case with the two stories so far. This is essentially a slightly above average base under siege story where nothing memorable stands out apart from Cass and Capaldi. Oh well, maybe next time we'll finally get to the good stuff? 

Positives: 

+ Fresh idea for a time travel story
+ Intriguing mystery
+ Capaldi was on fine form
+ Cool atmosphere, freaky ghosts
+ Including a deaf character was surprisingly refreshing 
+ The Fisher King has a cool design

Negatives:

- Answers were underwhelming
- Fisher King was wasted as a villain
- Clara wasn't given a lot to do
- Supporting characters weren't memorable
- O' Donnell's stupid actions

The Marvel Cinematic Universe Films

Do you remember watching movies before 2008? It was a time where superhero movies didn't dominate popular culture and nobody could tell their Infinity stones from their Mjolnir's, not to mention obscure D-list heroes like Ant-Man were not somehow the star of the latest Hollywood blockbuster. So what changed? Two films, Iron Man and The Dark Knight came out during that summer and changed our perspective about superheros being portrayed on the big screen. While they both had wildly different tones they proved one thing: if done right, superhero's could be the next best thing. Iron Man was eminently re-watchable and entertaining while The Dark Knight was considered a true cinematic masterpiece. As a long-time geek (albeit not a comic book one) I am continuously in awe of the impact Marvel has had on pop culture since then to the point where ideas and concepts previously thought to be 'too nerdy' are present in billion dollar summer blockbusters. They've cleverly managed to form the first 'cinematic universe', a behemoth akin to a mega-franchise where every film is treated like a nesting doll for other films. That says a lot about the outrageous success they've had, but if the films themselves weren't any good then their masterplan falls apart. While none of the Marvel films have come close to The Dark Knight (most films in general don't) they have a knack for crafting incredibly fun times in the cinema that are far superior to most other blockbusters. Seen as they have accrued a sizable catalog of films since the first Iron Man seven years ago I thought it would be fun to do my ranking of all of the Marvel Studios films to date. From worst to best, here are my thoughts on the MCU so far film by film:

Look the Avengers are coming WE GET IT!

Iron Man 2:

First up on the mediocre scale is Iron Man 2, a rushed sequel that Marvel quickly assembled in 2010 after the success of the first Iron Man. The resulting film has more than a few problems, ultimately it falls prey to a classic case of sequelitis. Like most Hollywood sequels they wanted to go bigger (because bigger = better right?) and the result is a film stuffed with so many threads that it's hard to discern what we should be putting our focus on i.e the same problem that plagued Age Of Ultron. Rewatching Iron Man 2 recently I realized that  the first half actually holds up pretty well because it concentrated on showing us the implication of Stark owning the most advanced weapons tech in the world, delivering on the promise set by Iron Man's brilliant ending by opening with a gut bustingly funny court room scene. Even the plot involving Tony dying from the metal in his chest is intriguing: it feels like it's leading us to a redemptive arc where Tony makes up for his family's past mistakes and finally fixes his relationship with Pepper. But nope, it all falls apart in the second half because of some dumb resolutions that come out of nowhere. The movie stops dead for twenty minutes while Marvel is setting up The Avengers and the solution to Tony's fatal disease is mind numbingly stupid. He 'invented' a new element hidden in an expo designed by his Dad? REALLY? Then the film completely goes into Hollywood blockbuster mode by having a protracted and boring climax full of senseless explosions as Tony and Rhodey duke it out with a bunch of bland robot clones. Speaking of the villains, they're really undercooked. Marvel just can't make three dimensional villains that aren't Loki, it seems oddly impossible for them. Instead we have to make do with a macho 'I VANT MY BURD!' Mickey Rourke who is somehow a genius hacker and Sam Rockwell playing an idiot business man who couldn't be hamming it up more. Finally it has occurred to me that the female characters are a written a tad sexist this time around. Pepper Potts nags her way through the film like a housewife and Scarlett Johansson's debut as Black Widow is desperately needing the character boost she got in the Avengers, she's mostly here for pure eye candy. This is the Marvel Universe we could have had, one that rested on it's laurels and simply churned out rushed mediocre popcorn affairs every year. Thankfully Iron Man 2 (until recently) is the closest thing to a bad apple on Marvel's resumé and even then it's not a bad film by any standard. I think the rushed production may have had something to do with it as the second half just doesn't seem like it was by the same people who wrote the first half. Consider it squandered potential then. 

How could a sequel to Honey I Shrunk The Kids be this generic?

Ant Man:

This is the most recent Marvel film (it only came out a few months ago as of typing this) and I sadly consider it to be one of their lesser films. It's main saving grace, and really the only thing that stands out, is the showcase of Ant-Man's powers. To be blunt, this feels like someone attempting to make a Marvel movie, most notably a retread of Iron Man 1, and failing considerably. All of the main beats are there but it feels soulless and a bit generic when compared to it's modern day counterparts, like somebody went onto standby when writing the script. The quality bar has been set high for superhero movies nowadays and I think Ant-Man suffers the same fate as 2011's Green Lantern by just being competently mediocre. There's nothing bad here, just nothing particularly good that stands out (my biggest complaint of the movie is with the comedy sidekicks). Paul Rudd, like Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern, is a naturally charming and likable lead but is drawn too simply as a generic rogue who makes funny quips in every other scene he's in. The movie tries to solve this lack of characterization by TELLING us that Scott wants to see his daughter more often but we only see him interact with her in one scene before the climax, so any sort of dramatic weight is lost rather quickly. Michael Douglas is also trying with Hank Pym, and again is perfectly fine as the 'mentor' archetype but I found myself feeling nothing for his character. The villain of the film is equally thin but becomes adequate simply because of actor Corey Stoll's incredibly entertaining performance as he enthusiastically chews up scenery like it's nobody's business. As for the action scenes, it's important to note that Ant-Man doesn't just make himself small, he can also make small things bigger. This leads to some great gags in the film's cumulative action sequence set inside a child's bedroom. Think 'Honey I Shrunk The Kids' but on a much grander (smaller?) scale and you will instantly see why Ant-Man's action is so fun. A superhero fighting atop a giant Thomas The Tank Engine? Now that's what I'm talking about! The climax is the only inventive part of the movie, it's as if everybody woke up towards the end. Which is something I guess, at least it ended on a good note unlike Iron Man 2 which devolved the longer it went on. The third act is why I want to see Ant-Man again despite his lackluster debut, his powers are kind of unique and thrilling to watch. Let's hope Marvel's latest superhero gets some proper love during next years Civil War.

Sorry Hulk 2009, you're just not as good as Avengers Hulk.

The Incredible Hulk:

Looking back at the other Marvel films it's a shame to see this one being overlooked. I think a large part of that comes down to the film feeling separate from the universe building in the other films, minus the Tony Stark cameo of course. Hulk looks different here and it doesn't help that the leading actor was recast for The Avengers, where Mark Ruffalo's timid nerd took a different approach to Edward Norton's Bruce Banner. They're still both playing a tortured soul but the changes in The Avengers result in a film that feels apart from the rest of the pack, like an underdog who is secretly not an underdog at all. This is a good albeit slightly forgettable Hulk film that more than adequately portrays why being the Hulk sucks balls in two hours. All things considered it's probably the best film you can make about the Hulk but the underwhelming box office performance coupled with a lack of continuity with the other films leads to people forgetting that this film existed in the first place. It's a real shame but ultimately Bruce Banner/The Hulk is better served as part of a larger ensemble than the sole focus, personally I think there's just not a lot more you can say about the pathos of his character that isn't portrayed in this movie. Plus the film lacks any of the inventiveness or humor that really launched Marvel into the stratosphere soon afterwards (it's very serious), showcasing another side to Marvel's early days as they were still trying to find their feet tonally. A good effort then, but forgotten amongst it's piers. 

The costumes don't look this cheesy when watching the film...honest!

 

Thor:

2011's Thor was probably Marvel's hardest sell until last year's Guardians Of The Galaxy. It's titular superhero is a tricky character to adapt because he's a literal norse god (looking at photos you'd think he's just stepped out of a Masters Of The Universe movie!) and there are a lot of weird fantastical elements in his origin that you simply cannot ignore when presenting him to a less-geek savy audience back in the heydays before The Avengers. We have to buy Thor as a character living in the same universe as Tony Stark mainly because Thor is also a crucial part of the Avengers line-up so you simply can't f*ck him up if you want The Avengers to be a success. Thankfully director Kenneth Branagh introduced us to the world of Asgard in a modest blockbuster about Thor losing his powers and being sent to a small town in the middle of nowhere Texas to bang Natalie Portman. It's a simple but effective 'brought down to normal' trope that gives the Norse god a decent arc and gently stops our virginal brains from exploding at the sheer absurdity of concepts like trans-dimensional beings, the rainbow bridge, The Warriors Three and Ice Giants somehow co-existing with the real world on Earth. A lot of this is deftly handled by Marvel's signature humor, they got really good at poking fun at the fantastical in this without it seeming overdone. Instead of laughing at the film, you are laughing with it at some of the goofy stuff on screen. Thor also completely embraces the cosmic scale, with beautiful tracking shots of the golden hued Asgard compelling us to know more about this magical realm beyond the glimpse we got to see here. And it's all sold and anchored down by good actors that play it straight the whole way through. Chris Hemsworth is great at portraying the young and brash Thor as is Tom Hiddleston's turn as his scheming Loki. Along with Anthony Hopkins' playing the wisest god of them all, Odin, the film creates this almost Shakespearean-y tragic tale around the fantastical that's compelling enough to suck you in beyond the pretty visuals. Branagh is a seasoned veteran at doing Shakespeare so it's easy to see why Marvel hired him for this film as the weight of the two sons squabbling for father's approval serves the film well. The only downside is that the real world scenes not set in Asgard seem a bit boring in comparison to the fantastical elements at play, with Natalie Portman's character Jane coming off as a love interest that was shoe horned into the script to please certain demographics (she basically falls in love with Thor's abs!). Having the earth scenes set in a quiet desert town also reeks of a hollywood set and a tight budget. Overall Thor was Marvel's first real challenge when it came to presenting more geeky concepts on the big screen and they did a pretty good job.  

A WWII movie with a superhero twist.

Captain America: The First Avenger:

This film feels incredibly refreshing when compared to it's Marvel brethren with a more modern setting as Captain America's origin story gives Marvel a lot of room to make this a very different feeling film. The First Avenger is a solid tale with the first half doing a lot of groundwork on why we should invest in Captain America as a character: 'This is why you were chosen. Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength, and knows... compassion. Whatever happens tomorrow, you must promise me one thing. That you will stay who you are, not a perfect soldier, but a good man'. It's a refreshingly simple yet 'pure' movie, showcasing Captain America as Marvel's equivalent of Superman. The tone is very different as well, it feels like a pulpy James bond style action flick set during WWII masquerading as a superhero movie, which allows a very striking visual palette that's unique and refreshing. I am in love with the stylistic approach really, this is definitely not the Second World War we were taught in history class! The villains, gloriously named 'Hydra' are essentially uber Nazi's with a tool set straight out of a James Bond flick. Flame throwers, massive tanks, submarine's, laser cannons ect... it's so retro, not to mention cool looking. They're being led by the Red Skull, whose name is very self explanatory when it comes to his appearance and acts a lot like your typical bond villain, complete with a dastardly scheme to bring the world to it's knees. Again if you look at director Joe Johnston's previous work you'll immediately see why Marvel chose him: he directed the Rocketeer, another refreshingly pulpy period superhero movie. The only complaint I can give this movie is that it's simply content to be 'good' the whole way through rather than something more. It also suffers from first act syndrome, as the first half of the film showcasing Steve Rogers transformation into Captain America is a lot more compelling than taking on Red Skull in the second half, partly because the secondary characters are given a lot more time to shine. After another successful debut of an Avenger Marvel now had all of the pieces correctly positioned for the big crossover event...

You f*cked up big time Stark....so why did you try and do it again?!

Avengers: Age Of Ultron:

I was slightly disappointed by the second outing of The Avengers. Age Of Ultron is still a fun movie but it's just trying way too hard to top the first one by following the standard sequel format of stuffing everything and the kitchen sink into one giant, colossal summer movie. It fails exactly how you think it's going to: a lack of focus, accompanied by that nagging feeling in the back of your head that what you are watching is only about 80% as good as their last outing. Seeing the team fight together was spine tingingly amazing in the first Avengers but we're a bit harder to impress now. Upping the ante on everything (MORE CHARACTERS, MORE EXPLODEY THINGS, MORE CONFLICT, MORE INFIGHTING!!!!!) doesn't work because it crowds the movie with way too much noise and the plot starts to feel like an excuse to link together a bunch of disconnected action scenes, which it kind of is. With seven action scenes crammed into the film, the last one taking over the last half hour, you start to feel some serious battle fatigue near the end and it's just a damn shame because there is a lot of good stuff here. Ultron is one of Marvel's best villains due to a mesmerizing performance by James Spader. Equal parts threatening, witty and intelligent Ultron could have gone in a completely different direction by being another generic robot taking over the world but Spader's personality makes him much more memorable. His opposite, Vision, is easily the highlight of the film despite only showing up in the last act. Plus all of the major players are back and are just as dependable as they were before with several of the supporting characters (Hawkeye, Black Widow and Bruce Banner) being given a lot to do. I'm amazed its coherent as it is really, with the exception of Captain America every character managed to get their own sub-plot. And the metric ton of gags are almost all hits, even if Joss Whedon's style of giving every character funny quips starts to make every character feel like they're a walking joke book. It still manages to let me down though, like Iron Man 2 you are all too aware that this film is simply another cog in a massive wheel so having the movie be hijacked by Thor's hastily rushed subplot to set up future films doesn't feel natural to the plot. Tony Stark is also painted really negatively here and none of the characters ever call him out on it, which is odd considering it would be great set up for the next big crossover event in Cap 3. Overall as the big finale to Phase Two it's an appropriate epic but any sense of coherence just fails completely as it's juggling a lot of balls at once. Rather than be about several different things it should have just stuck to something a lot simpler. It ends up reminding me a bit of Iron Man 2, and that is not a good thing, but still be prepared for a lot fantastic moments nonetheless.

Loki: 'Face it brother, I'm the star here. They might as well call this movie Loki 3.'

Thor: The Dark World:

I know this is considered to be one of the MCU's weakest films, and I can definitely see why, but I liked this one a lot. The Dark World's issues mostly stem from a boring villain: Christopher Eccleston is a great actor wasted as Malekith, a dark elf who wants to plunge the world into darkness using a poorly defined macguffin called the 'Aether' that when all seven realms align in some sort of convergence event it will destroy all life in the universe....or something. Wait, what the f*ck is going on again? Either way to call Malekith the only villain of the film would be a disservice to Tom Hiddleston who is knocking it out of the park in every single scene he's in. Marvel villains seem to only fall into two categories: the hard done to business guy and the pissed off alien dude but they continue to apply depth to Loki with every installment to the point where he is, undoubtedly, the best thing about the film and the MCU as a whole. What's great is that the film knows it too so there's more of that delicious Shakespearian tragedy centered around Thor's family and their treatment of Loki in this film. The Dark World also deploys another one of Marvel's best asset, their humour. This is an incredibly funny film with a gag ratio that's pretty high for a blockbuster about the end of the universe. It also has moments of genuine emotional poignancy mixed in, making it one of the few Marvel films to portray death in a really impactful way. Like the rest of the Phase 2 films the climax is also one of the better ones, similar to Iron Man 3 it relies on one really fresh gimmick to elevate it beyond your standard fare by having Thor and Malekith teleporting through different portals to different locations in hilarious ways. It's simple but inventive. Sure the movie falls apart when you mention the bad guy and his evil scheme (admittedly a huge problem), but I had a great time in the theater watching this and it caught me off guard several times by taking things in unexpected directions. 

You liked the first Helicarrier? How about THREE.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

From a pulpy WWII origin tale straight into a modern espionage thriller the standalone Captain America films are a weird bunch when viewed side by side. Replacing the stylistic visuals of the 40's with a more 'boring' modern aesthetic is a shame but Captain America's second outing turned out to be a great action thriller. Pretty much all of the action sequences in this film are masterfully executed and surprisingly brutal, from Nick Fury's exhilarating car chase to the elevator scene there is some really good stuff hidden in here that never fails to get your heart pounding. The Winter Soldier himself is rather terrifying in his ruthlessness, the serious tone of the movie coupled with villains who aren't afraid to kill regularly imbues this installment with a more mature feel. It isn't a movie for kids at any rate, it has some very complex themes going on midst it's tale about surveillance (a neat way to tie the Marvel universe into current events) and the grey morality proposed by several characters in the film are the perfect foil to Cap's old fashioned WWII values, showcasing once again why he kicks ass as a superhero. The climax to this film isn't afraid to shake the status quo of the Marvel universe up either, so despite being a standalone entry you can see the stage being set for Age of Ultron and Civil War, which makes this installment feel important. I would say that The Winter Soldier is a great action film and an almost perfect Captain America movie so let's hope next year's Civil War continues the trend by once again showing us why Cap's particular brand of black and white heroism is needed in today's more complicated world.

The 1% get all the cool stuff *SIGH*

Iron Man:

The only phase 1 film to make it this high, Iron Man deserves it's place in movie history just for the massive, almost gargantuan impact it has had on blockbuster cinema. It's also a really great film boasting a first act that is about as perfect as you get. Supposedly Iron Man went into filming without a finished script so they literally made up dialogue on the fly, which would be a recipe for disaster if you didn't cast Robert Downey Jr as the lead, which they totally did. Downey Jr is quite simply amazing as Tony Stark, arguably as iconic to cinema now as Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones or Han Solo, he just IS Tony Stark, the genius billionaire playboy philanthropist incarnate. His undeniable charisma is the main reason Iron Man ranks higher than Marvel's other origin films, but not the only one. Simply put this is one of the best superhero origin tales ever told, Tony's experience being trapped in a cave and being forced to come to terms with his family legacy as a weapon maker has shaped his character across every film and his subsequent escape scene in a prototype Iron Man suit is immensely satisfying. Everything following this continues with that momentum and just pops with energy in a completely unexpected way. Despite not having much to his name Jon Favreau managed to craft an incredibly confident and impressive film...with the exception of the action scenes. Tony busting out of the cave? Great, but everything else feels a bit lacklustre on re-watch. The movie doesn't have a satisfying climactic action sequence and can't compare to the action beats or thrills presented in the films higher up on this list and the action in Iron Man 2 feels similarly underwhelming. Iron Man is by any definition a great and retroactively iconic film due to the unprecedented success story it spawned but on that merit alone I don't think it's Marvel's best movie. I don't consider it to be the best Iron Man film either, I'd give that to No 3...

'OH NO! A grey generic looking CGI army is coming our way!'

The Avengers:

If I'm ranking these movies based on how much fun I had in the cinema then the first Avengers is definitely a noteworthy inclusion. This was Marvel's playing hand when it came out, the movie that would truly make or break them based on it's success and somewhat making history by uniting characters from separate franchises into one film and creating a 'mega franchise'. This is a lucrative but risky way to make films, giving these characters solid introduction points before the main event is a toughie but cramming them all into one movie and somehow not having it not collapse under the weight of several different tones and plot arcs is really tough to avoid. Enter Joss Whedon, a comics fan and an all around great writer who has a proven track record of ensemble movies. Marvel really couldn't have picked anyone better for the job, Whedon's knack for witty banter and tackling multiple character threads paid off because the Avengers is just an incredibly rewatchable movie. There are far to many great individual moments to list, so I won't, but the highlights are definitely Loki, Hulk, the leads bouncing off each over in delightfully fan servicey ways (science bros anyone?) and more puns, quips and gags than most comedies ('Is that man playing Galaga?'). There is definitely a love for the source material on display here and Whedon did a great job handling these diverse set of characters. It was hard to pick the top 3 for this list because all three of these films are incredibly funny with so many laugh out loud moments, but Avengers ended up with the short end of the straw as the third act of this film just isn't as memorable as the third acts in Guardians or Iron Man 3, even with the added effect of Tom Hiddleston: Loki's goons the 'Chitauri' come off as generic aliens who serve no other purpose other than to be cannon fodder for the various Avengers. Their design is also uninspired, they could have come out of any bland and grey tinted CGI blockbuster from that year. While Loki was the perfect choice for a villain, the setting and army of the last battle (make that both last battles in the Avengers films) are bland and go on for way too long before the predictable LETS BLOW EVERYTHING UP CLIMAX! kicks in. That need to be bigger and better than before rears it's head at the end of Avengers 1 and becomes more prevalent in Avengers 2. This is ultimately a minor criticism though in an otherwise spectacularly well crafted film that ticked all of the boxes when it comes to what we wanted to see in an Avengers movie.

Like the Avengers....BUT IN SPACE!

Guardians Of The Galaxy:

It's funny to think that a few years ago nobody knew who the 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' were. Even for comic fans they seemed to be rather obscure, not that it matters. What does matter is that a big budget sci-fi movie helmed by a relatively unknown director which features a talking Raccoon and more blue/green/purple coloured people than you can count wasn't a complete box office failure. It doesn't seem like it now but it was another risky move by Marvel, without Guardians success I doubt we would be getting more obscure C list superhero's like Black Panther and the Inhumans hitting theaters soon. Once again they managed to not mess things up and deliver another blockbuster that is a ton of fun. Guardians is basically Marvel's Star Wars, everything from the alien designs, quirky/adventurous tone and Chris Pratt Han Soloing it up as Peter Quill indicates what it is trying to be. It might feel overused in a few years as Star Wars ramps up again but in a world that's currently bereft of new outer space adventures Guardians is exactly what I wanted and feels like a breath of fresh air as a result. Like most of the movies at the top of this list it managed to sustain the fun all the way through with great gags resulting from the pairing of these lovable rogues. Director James Gunn has a great grip on these characters, he's the reason why we're all chanting 'I AM GROOT' one year on and proudly wearing Rocket Raccoon t-shirts. It's also impossible to ignore the sense of style offered up by it's fantastic use of 80's music (the biggest ace up the film's sleeve), to the point where I'm willing to bet that a lot of people saw the movie just because of it's catchy retro tunes in all of the trailers. It gives Guardians an edge over the other blockbusters, even if Marvel once again fails at delivering a good villain in Ronan the Accuser. He's just another pissed off dude who wants to destroy the world, you could have have replaced him with Malekith and I wouldn't have noticed. It's not quite enough to detract from the movie, you're having way too much fun at this point to notice, but it's still a major complaint I have with most of Marvel's films. Barring that, this is an incredibly entertaining and crowd pleasing film that shows what can happen if film studios decide to turn weird obscure comic books into giant Hollywood blockbusters, a win for everyone then.

That crotch plate looks pretty snug.

Iron Man 3:

Why is Iron Man 3 my favorite Marvel movie? It's simply the most fun of the lot, arguably one of the best action comedies I've seen and the one that I could rewatch endlessly. I also think it's Robert Downey Jr firing on all cylinders with Shane Black's smart script being perfectly suited for his role. My main criticisms of the Marvel movies so far have been: simple plot, overstuffed plot, lackluster final action sequences and weak villains. Iron Man 3 has none of these pitfalls and cranks Marvels inventiveness and comedy up to 11. It's the caviar of blockbuster entertainment and anybody that says otherwise wouldn't know fun if it slapped them in the face. A lot of the internet seems to hate on this film for having the balls to completely reduce the villain to a joke halfway through the movie but I completely disagree, it's extremely clever. The Mandarin is supposed to be one of Tony Stark's biggest enemies, with a lot of the pre-release hype and marketing fooling us into think he'd be the next Joker or something (completely wreck the hero's sh*t up). When it's revealed that The Mandarin is simply an actor playing a role and that the true villain has cleverly set him up as a distraction the movie performs a complete 180 in the second half, taking on a more heavy comedic tone. It's glorious commentary/misdirection heavily poking fun at the Nolan Batman films, the equivalent of Marvel laughing at you for thinking this would be a serious movie. It's a twist that they can only do once, and I think they executed it perfectly here. The rest of the film is similarly clever in how it freshens things up: the decision to separate Tony from his suit for most of the runtime and have him rely on his wits alone is genius, the action scenes all have really cool gimmicks (Pepper in the iron man suit! Terminator-esque showdown with no suit at all! Fight with bits of his suit missing! Jumping from suit to suit!), Don Cheadle's Rhodey makes a great buddy cop sidekick, they gave Pepper superpowers (!), the indestructible terminator bad guys were really cool, that cute kid had an amazing rapport with Downey, Tony's anxiety attacks show actual and realistic ramifications felt by the previous film...It all just adds up into an excellent film and I think it's criminally underrated.

How many superhero films can they make? (EDIT: THEY KEEP ANNOUNCING MORE)

My Overall Thoughts:

So we are two 'phases' into Marvel's crazy scheme to take over cinema and so far it's been mostly great. Marvel's influence on cinema has been a very positive one overall: they have proven that niche stuff can sell provided it's adapted right and done well, to the point where geek culture IS popular culture now. Because of Marvel we might have a film industry that's far more prone to taking risks on some really out there idea's and be less afraid of choosing a different route than the standard macho 'EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE!' blockbuster. Plus with the exception of Iron Man 2 and Ant Man I could genuinely watch any of these movies and be entertained all over again. The constant quips, meme spawning scenes (Marvel know how to use the internet to it's advantage), laugh out load moments and the general joie de vivre of all the superhero characters make for an incredibly fun time. They embrace imagination, the craziness and the fantastical with open arms by showing us things we rarely see in cinema anymore, hooking us on the overarching plots and wowing us with the next big inventive set piece. It's pure escapism, comfort food at it's finest.

There is still room for improvement though, as I've highlighted in my review of each film. The female characters leave a lot to be desired, the villains are thinly drawn, the increasingly action heavy third acts and (this was noticeable in Avengers 2) the sense that their formula for making crowd pleasing blockbusters is starting to get stale. The more films Marvel make, the less excusable these omissions become. Thankfully looking at their upcoming slate of films they appear to fixing some of these issues in Phase Three: 2018's Captain Marvel is set to be the first of their films with a female superhero as the lead (god knows why it's taking them 18 F*CKING FILMS to get there), and along with a diverse set of newcomers like Dr Strange, Black Panther (the first leading black superhero), The Inhumans and Ant Man/The Wasp this indicates they'll be slowly moving away from the established trio of Thor, Captain America and Iron Man and focusing on characters with more interesting power sets and backstories. All of this sounds great, and maybe they'll introduce a few new villains that won't suck? 

Now this is just getting ridiculous! This list is outdated as well, the Spiderman reboot and Ant Man 2 are ALSO supposed to be coming out in 2017!

Or maybe Marvel are too busy drinking the coolade off of their own success to notice these issues? At this moment in time they can seemingly do no wrong, but what happens when another competitor steps in and tries to take a piece of that superhero pie? DC are stepping their game up big time next year with the colossal pairing of Batman and Superman. Along with Suicide Squad, the Justice League and the dozen or so films they've seemingly got lined up they might just take that shiny crown of Marvel's smug head...at any rate having looked at the number of superhero movies coming out over the following years it seems impossible that both of them will succeed. The superhero genre seems fresh and interesting now but with EIGHT films debuting in 2016 (and that's not counting the numerous TV shows) we could be on the verge of some serious superhero overkill. So could Marvel end up being a victim of it's own success? Possibly, but as long as they keep doing the right things (hiring appropriate directors, banking on risky concepts, diversifying the genre of each movie) and keep their current quality standard up the future of Marvel until at least 2020 should be assured.