We now interrupt this movie blog to bring you...

...quite possibly the best song ever written.

Captain America: Can His Shield Deflect Predictability?

Captain America: The First Avenger is a completely decent film. People who are loving this recent wave of good superhero movies (and no, I'm not talking about you, Green Lantern) will embrace this film because it has all the necessary parts required. Likable main character? Yes. Sizable goal for our likable main character to conquer? Yes. Hot girl, scary villain, plucky best friend(s), special effects, etc. etc. etc.? Yes. But at times--and maybe because we're all starting to get used to Marvel's formula--Captain America seems to be heartlessly following a checklist.

For clarity's sake, let's look back at two of Marvel's biggest hits--Iron Man and Thor. Both films begin with flawed characters. Tony Stark (gloriously brought to life by Robert Downey Jr.) is an egotistical brat with big toy guns. Thor thrives on both his pride and physical strength. Steve Rogers, our hero in Captain America, may not have a defining character flaw, but physically, he's useless. He's been rejected by the US Army countless times on account of his bad medical history and extreme CGI'd puniness.

All of our heroes overcome their flaws in various ways. Tony, after seeing what harm Stark Industries has caused across the globe, vows to dedicate himself to something better and to stamp out those using his weapons for evil. Thor, after being banished to Earth and stripped of his powers, becomes humbled by his normal-ness (and that really strained romance with Natalie Portman too, I guess). Steve is given multiple injections of this awesome-looking blue serum stuff, and he emerges as a total superhuman beefcake--and with confidence!

Each of our heroes has an alloted babe who, witnessing the positive changes our hero has undergone, falls head over heels. Each of our heroes also has a close friend (or friends) who encourages these changes and helps them in their quest against the alloted villain. Each of our heroes has someone close to them die*, and it is this death that inspires our hero to fight harder. To do better.

*in the case of Thor, this death is only believed to be true because of a lie, but eh, formula still applies

And, of course, our hero saves the day. They blow up their proverbial Mickey Rourke or save a town full of innocent people. Yaaaaay.

Now, is there anything wrong with this formula? Absolutely not. As we can see by both the box office and critical successes of these films, the formula works. But my question isn't whether or not it works, my question is whether or not the formula is getting tired. Perhaps if these films were spaced out further in their release time, it wouldn't seem so noticeable. Perhaps if these films all weren't connected by the Marvel logo, we'd be able to look at them more independently. But three heroes, all existing under the same universe, all going through such similar transformations? It's hard to look past that. It's hard to enjoy Captain America: The First Avenger as much I enjoyed Iron Man because...I know what's going to happen. I've seen the formula at work several times now.

Maybe the only film that will suffer from this predictability is Captain America, because as far as I know, Marvel isn't planning on introducing any more future Avengers heroes. All that's left are sequels and the big, sexy showdown that will be 2012's 'The Avengers'. But even if Captain American is the only one that suffers, he still suffers. This film emerges, at least to me, as the weakest--not necessarily because it's the worst but because it's the latest.

Thoughts?

[3/5 stars]

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2': Nerd Perspectives

When I walked out of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, I was flabbergasted. I mean, it was actually...good. As just a movie-watcher, I was pleased with it, but for the first time in a long time I actually thought they managed to make a Harry Potter film that was both decent and faithful to the book. And I guess I should put an obvious disclaimer right here that I am, first and foremost, a fan of the books. Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone came out when I was seven years old, and since then I've been on board for the whole thing. I was there at midnight on July 21st, 2007 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get a copy of the last book, and I was there at midnight on July 15th, 2011 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get my mind blown by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2. And...well.

Eh.

Part of me feels like I should write two separate reviews, because this film will be two separate experiences for two different groups of people. So, for fans of the films or just Random Movie-Watcher no. 393020188-- this is going to be brief. Basically, it's a good movie. The action is absolutely stellar, the special effects are top-notch, the emotions run high. The ending is satisfactory and ties the whole thing up with a convenient, pretty bow. It's good.

Now for fans of the book, it depends on what these last ten years of films have left you expecting. Personally, I stopped expecting faithful adaptations after Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix , but Part 1 of Deathly Hallows left me thinking that the filmmakers and screenwriters had turned themselves around.

Not entirely.

Like I said, if you've grown accustomed to the films' departures from the books, the differences between the last book and the last film won't bother or surprise you very much. Maybe you've even learned to accept the films for what they are--a separate, hybrid version of Harry Potter that can be judged on its own--and if you have, truly...I envy you. You weren't left with the same question that's plagued me, along with a million other diehard fans, for the past couple of years after these last few film adaptations. And that question is why?

SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, DO NOT PASS THIS LINE IF YE ARE NOT A DIEHARD FAN

Why change things? The Harry Potter series is one of the most beloved book series of all time. The reason the films are successful is because they are based off of these books. So...why does the Killing Curse now make its victims explode into a million pieces? Since when can memories be collected by saving one's tears in a beaker? These are just two examples of many, many possible examples of pointless changes in the film adaptation. I know that a lot of the changes were made for purpose of having a more 'movie friendly' vibe, and these changes I'm alright with. I'm at peace with the fact that the main battle at Hogwarts would've been less epic if the filmmakers stayed true to the book and didn't suddenly give Voldemort an army of 500,000+ followers. I'm at peace with the fact that the final duel between Harry and Voldy would've sucked if they kept it what it was in the book-- a conversation and one spell. Those changes I can accept. But needless ones...changes to plot points or details that not only combat what's in the books but also what they've explained in previous films....I just don't get it.

Also, I'm sorry, Lord Voldemort would not listen to a speech about love and friendship from Neville Longbottom for more than 10 seconds before saying, "Enough of this," and sending a jet of green light into that kid's face.

But, all in all, it could've been worse. That's what I left the theater at three o' clock in the morning thinking. It could've been worse...it could've been Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. As an adaptation, the last Harry Potter film may have its flaws, but as a movie it's solid. Although some changes left me with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth, I'm happy that they followed the MAIN plot points faithfully and that our heroes all received their proper ending.

Thank you, Harry, for 10 years of amazing books and 10 years of decent films. On behalf of all the unashamed nerds in the world, we'll miss you!

(but as Sirius Black says, as long as you're in our hearts, you'll never be gone. Awwwwww.)