A lot is riding on the success of Red Tails. Most obvious is how this will be used as a measuring stick to gauge future box office performance of other action-adventure films with a predominantly minority cast. Sure, there have been plenty of big-budget films with a black or Asian or Hispanic (or whatever) actor in the lead role, but aside from the Tyler Perry-produced movies, there haven’t been many with an entire main cast that’s non-white. And if Hollywood wants to shake off its supposed “white-washing” of the cinemas, Red Tails needs to succeed.

And in a lot of ways it doesn’t.

The best way I could think of to describe this movie is to compare it to the aforementioned Glory. That film, made in the late 1980s, tells the story of the 54th Massachusetts Colored Infantry, an all-volunteer and all-black (except for the commissioned officers) infantry regiment that fought for the Union in the American Civil War. It’s a well-made and at times moving film about people fighting for a government that is willing to suppress them.

Now, take the same premise (an all-black fighting unit going to war for the United States at a time of segregation), and move it up to World War II. Still with me? OK, now strip everything away that was great about Glory and you have Red Tails. Here’s a run-down of all the times I rolled my eyes in Red Tails:

• The bad guys are stereotypically bad – If there was an actual ‘villain’ in Red Tails, it’s this hotshot German pilot whom our heroes dub “Prettyboy.” He sneers, looks down his nose at the “African pilots” (as he calls them) and of course, has a scar. All that was missing was a Snidely Whiplash moustache and it would’ve been the ultimate WWII bad guy stereotype.

• The pilots are stereotypes – No, not in the racist way. Many of the main characters follow typical soldier-in-a-war-movie plot lines. There’s the guy that drinks too much, there’s the new kid eager to fight, there’s the one that falls in love, there’s the wise-cracking one, there’s the stern commanding officer with a heart of gold, there’s the tough-talking executive officer who has to put up with all the pilots’ BS, etc. etc. etc. I understand that the screenwriters and filmmakers wanted to have some depth with these characters, but COME ONE. They fall into the most obvious war film stereotypes. In fact, you could probably guess correctly as to which one of them is going to die right after their introductions.

• The rousing speeches are given at the stereotypically right times – There were two moments that stand out in the picture when a character is delivering a speech that was written to stir up the audience and make them stand up and cheer for the good guys. The first is when the Red Tails’ CO, Col. Bullard (Terrence Howard), is giving a report to his superiors in Washington. He tells them that they need combat assignments and that they “won’t go away” like his superiors thought they would (part of the speech is in the trailer). He gets through to them and is given what he asked for: combat missions. The second was right before the last mission of the movie, when the squadron is assigned to protect bombers flying over Berlin. I’ve nothing against rousing speeches, but their timing and delivery in the movie are more important than what’s being said. Both times in Red Tails it fell flat. In the first instance it happened too soon. The picture was barely getting started and Howard’s delivering a line that sounded like Oscar bait. The second time it fell flat because of the music. Yes, the music. Simply put, the score for this movie isn’t very good and didn’t serve to either highlight the air combat or the rousing speeches.

I understand the filmmakers were trying to add some depth to this war film, but if the filmmakers wanted depth, they should’ve looked toward, again, Glory. Example: in Glory, the character of Tripp (Denzel Washington) is the young ‘angry black man’ of the group. He probably joined up because there was literally nothing else left for him and the opportunity to kill would give him a way to vent his rage at the white man. He could’ve been a stereotype, someone to contrast with Morgan Freeman’s character, Rawlins, who is older, wiser, and understands how the world really works. But there’s one scene in Glory that erases any first impressions you may have had about Tripp, and it’s the flogging scene.

As anyone who’s studied American history can tell you, slaves in the U.S. were not treated kindly. But this is a film, and we need to see and not assume what had happened to some of these people. When Tripp is about to be flogged for going AWOL one night (to look for proper shoes), he has his shirt ripped off in front of his peers. And then we see it. The dozens of scars that criss-cross his back, evidence of the harsh life he left behind. He’s been flogged, no whipped before, but as a slave. Now he’s going to be whipped by his superior officers in an army that is supposedly fighting for his freedom. So what’s Tripp going to do? Take it like a man because that’s what he is. A man. Not an ex-slave. Not a black soldier in a white man’s army. A man. He never “broke” when being whipped by his white slave owners, and he’s determined not to break this time.

But is there a comparable scene in Red Tails? Nope. Probably the closest thing would be when the Red Tails’ CO, Col. Bullard (Terrence Howard) delivers a report to his Washington superiors about his squadron’s recent victories. He uses the moment to “stick it to the man” when talking to the overtly racist white officer who didn’t think the Tuskegee program had any chance in Hell of succeeding.It’s not a horribly bad movie (I’ve seen worse), but it suffers from so many war cliches that the only way I could recommend someone to spend money and see it in the theatre is to bring up the fact that big-budget movies representing minorities don’t get made often, and they should.

Essentially, I’d have to play the race card.

Don’t get me wrong – I didn’t dislike the movie. The air combat is exciting to watch and the special effects are what you’d expect from a George Lucas-produced movie (really really good). In fact, I’d say I had a reasonably good time watching it, but it was only after I realized this is no Glory. It also helped that the audience I saw it with laughed and cheered at all the right times, which reminded me that there are some people who are willing to buy in to war cliches. Still, sub-par acting, a messy script (there’s a whole subplot about a captured pilot that could’ve worked much better either as its own movie or left out entirely), and a questionable score just drag this movie down from what it should’ve been.

If you really want to watch something about the 332nd Fighter Group, watch the HBO-produced The Tuskegee Airmen or the decent History Channel-produced documentary narrated by Cuba Gooding, Jr.

6/10

And just to be fair, Edward Zwick, the director of Glory, isn’t a perfect filmmaker, either. He fell into similar war stereotypes with The Last Samurai and Defiance. And another note, there’s a review I read somewhere online that said this movie felt like an old serial from the 40s. It kinda does, and maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to turn the story of the Tuskegee Airmen into a mini-series…

To start, as I write this I’m unemployed, and have been for about six months. The job market where I live (the San Francisco Bay Area) sucks and new opportunities to do anything beyond serving food or ringing up a purchase are hard to come by. Not that there isn’t work, there’s just not a whole lot and, more importantly, finding full-time work is even more rare. But this isn’t some sob story of how my life sucks or anything. My being unemployed was mostly my choice, having left a really cool job where I basically played videogames all day. I did it to continue pursuing my passion: film. I moved across to country and earned a Master’s Degree so I could explore cinema, and maybe do it for a living. My year working in the videogame industry was amazing, but there were more than a few times where I questioned what I was doing and where I was headed.

A year ago, the company I worked for was moving offices and had also downsized in staff. That meant more responsibility for everyone, and that was OK by me. I was itching to do more than what I originally signed up for, and they let me expand my horizons a little. I had my core responsibilities and I also got to do some video stuff on the side. This was fine for a few months, but that itch to do even more started again in the back of my head. By the summer, I was contemplating a break from my day-to-day. I had talked it over with some friends and we were all considering a trip to New York to shoot a short film. We didn’t really have a plan (or even a script), but it didn’t matter. I had been away from my passion for too long and “winging it” was all the plan I needed.

Then my work life got a little more complicated. Long story short, the option was on the table for me to try for a new position with different responsibilities, or not do it at all. I wasn’t being fired, and this wasn’t some sort of ultimatum, but that’s just how it was. I decided to not pursue this “new position” and take my chances back out in the world. I was nervous (being unemployed in an expensive city like San Francisco will make anyone nervous), but I was also excited. I didn’t want to get stuck in a job, no matter how good it sounded on paper, only to dislike it down the road and realize I’m too old to pursue my dream.

I wanted to direct again. I wanted to be slaving away over pages of scripts with my trusty red and green pens in hand, making notes and crossing things out. I wanted to be on the set, discussing lens choices with a DP, or at rehearsal arguing with actors over choices and stakes and all that pretentious-sounding film stuff. All that stuff I spent the previous three years doing, I wanted it back. That’s why I came out here. That’s why I left my old life behind and started a new one.

As 2012 begins I’m only a little more closer to getting back to all that. My first priority has to be survival – SF is an expensive place and making a living somehow is what I’ve been focusing on. I think about what I’ve done since I moved, what I’ve accomplished. I haven’t won any awards or become famous or anything, but I feel like I’ve done a lot. I’ve met new people, tried new things. 2011 felt like a transition year, a test year. A year that tested me to see if I had in my heart to really do what it is I wanted to do. Fate dangled something nice in front of me, but I struggle to look beyond that, to see what lies ahead. To quote J.R.R. Tolkien,

“All that is gold does not glitter. Not all those who wander are lost…”

I feel like I’ve been wandering the desert these past few months, and at times it seemed as if I lost my way. But I was just finding myself. I’m hoping 2012 is going to be a fantastic year. I’ve already got some things (hopefully) lined up that will not only take care of my need for survival (i.e. paying rent) and my passion. So here’s my raising my proverbial glass to the end of the old year and the beginning of the new.

“The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.”

But the results are less than spectacular.

The video is jerky as a result of the camera being shifted incorrectly between shots. My focus was on my 3DS, so I had my 7D positioned next to it at an angle. Because of the way the shutter button is positioned, and the amount of force needed to press down on it, this caused my camera to shift slightly at an angle on quite a few of the frames. Also, because the 7D was kind of at an OTS (over the shoulder) angle, and not in a wide shot like the 3DS was, panning with the camera was a little more difficult.

I’d like to try again sometime, maybe using the 7D exclusively. And maybe shooting JPEG instead of RAW because I’m not really concerned about editing the images in post and it will take considerably less time processing hundreds of JPEGs than it wold RAW images.

Anyway, you can see the video below.

The framing is kind of tight because I was on a 50mm f1.8 lens. Because the 3DS version (when viewed on a 3DS) is in 3D, I needed to do something with the 7D to help make the figures pop a little more. This particular lens has a very shallow depth-of-field; it’s not the same as 3D, but I wanted more separation between foreground and background.

If I ever shoot another one of these, I’ll make sure to choose a better angle, or at least plan out exactly how the camera is going to move. With the 3DS, it wasn’t too much of a concern because the system was parallel to the “actors.” And the lo-fi quality of the 3DS kind of lets it get away with some mistakes.

The dual-lens 3D camera on the system actually sucks, with quality being equivalent to a cell phone from six years ago, but whatever. It actually looks good in 3D, though no one will be able to see it that way unless you viewed it on a 3DS screen.

I also shot this simultaneously with my Canon 7D, so I’ll cut together an HD version at some point. There were over 200 RAW files taken with my 7D, so going through all those is going to be a pain.

Most filmmakers work on a project that’s personal to them, something that they put a little bit of themselves into, beyond, say, collaborating on a script or directing the movie. My prime example of this would be Steven Spielberg’s E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, a film that’s as much about Spielberg’s childhood (or his romanticization of it) as it is about an alien stranded on Earth. Spielberg’s colleague, Martin Scorsese, has also made personal films. Mean Streets, his breakout feature film, was inspired partly by Scorsese’s experiences growing up in New York City. With his latest film, Hugo, Scorsese yet again puts a little of himself into a project that many critics are calling his “love letter to cinema.” I’d say that Hugo is Martin Scorsese’s E.T.

Based on the children’s book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, the story of Hugo is about a young orphan, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) living and working behind the scenes of a train station in Paris, sometime in the 1930′s. He fixes and upkeeps all the station’s clocks, and in his spare time, he assembles parts for a mysterious automaton left by his father. Hugo meets a young, intelligent, and free-spirited young girl, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), and her grandfather-figure-of-sorts, Georges (Ben Kingsley). Georges has a secret that connects him to Hugo’s deceased father and the broken automaton Hugo’s been hiding.

Without spoiling too much, Ben Kingsley’s character is Georges Méliès — yes that Georges Méliès, the pioneer of cinema who employed some of the world’s first special effects in cinema. And he did it all before the advent of sound in motion pictures. Méliès is a popular subject among film historians, filmmakers, and film critics because, simply put, without him, the art of cinema would not have progressed the way it has over the last century. He was an inspiration to many, including Martin Scorsese.

What makes this film feel personal is that Scorsese obviously has a fascination and deep respect for early films, especially ones made during the Silent Era, where nearly all special effects were done in-camera, any color was painted in by hand and frame-by-frame, and the films were required to tell the story visually without the aid of sound. In Hugo, we see an older Georges Méliès past his prime, and living in a world that’s practically forgotten him. He sees how far movies have come in the decades since he was active and has become bitter that he can no longer practice the art he loves so much.

This is the real meat of the story.

There’s a scene in the film which touched me personally. It’s a flashback scene of sorts where Méliès is recounting his days making films. You could hear the wonder and sincere yearning in Ben Kingsley’s voice as he tells of how he started making motion pictures. It’s obvious that, for Méliès, and by extension Scorsese himself, making the film is more important than the final product. It’s the collaborative process that draws artists like him into doing what he does. The act of creating versus looking at what you’ve created. As a student of film myself, I can agree with this. No matter how bad my own movies were, I have never regretted actually making them.

So if all this attention is placed on George Méliès, why is this film called ”Hugo”? Well, that’s kind of one of the problems with this film. Clocking in at a little over two hours, the movie didn’t really get interesting until about halfway through when we learn who Georges really is. Everything else before that just didn’t seem as important, so the first hour moved a little too slow for me.

Visually, the film is amazing. While the 3D effects were impressive, they didn’t always work for me. It was probably due to where I was seated in the theatre, but there were times when a character would get really close to the camera and all of a sudden my eyes just didn’t know where to focus on and it became blurry. Aside from those few moments, the 1930′s-era Parisian train station really comes to life in the lens of cinematographer Roger Richardson. With the exception of a not-so-convincing CG fly-through of the station at the start of the film, the entire production just looked gorgeous.

I also have a bit of an issue of this being a “children’s movie.” While it may feature kids as main characters and have a very whimsical nature about it, many of the themes will fly right over kids’ heads. And I can’t imagine a 10-year-old knowing who George Méliès was to begin with, or even caring about the history of cinema. That doesn’t mean this can’t be enjoyed by children, however. I guess it’s like how Pixar’s films can be childish in appearance, but deep down, they’re really for adults and the young at heart. The film’s most important lesson can easily be understood by people of all ages: no matter how lost you feel, there is a place for you in the world and you should never lose sight of that.

Hugo is a film I would recommend to anyone interested in cinema as an art and not just a form of entertainment. Budding filmmakers would also benefit from seeing this because it shows why we do what it is we do, instead of pursuing “normal” careers. It’s everything that the camera doesn’t show that makes us want to make films. The process, from writing to editing, is the art. What you get afterwards is merely icing on the cake. Hugo serves as a reminder of all that.

8.5/10

Director Tarsem Singh isn’t someone you’ve probably heard of. You may have heard of his films, or maybe even seen one of them (most likely the one with J-Lo), but his name isn’t as ubiquitous as someone like Steven Spielberg. The last film he directed was 2006′s The Fall, a beautiful period drama that, like all his other films, focus on style over substance. But he’s no Michael Bay — Singh’s films aren’t exactly filled with explosions. They’ve got vivid colors, wonderfully composed shots, and beautiful cinematography. It was a little surprising to me when I learned he was going to direct a sand-and-sandals epic focused around Greek mythology.

But then I thought to myself, “What would Wolfgang Peterson’s Troy look like if directed by Tarsem Singh?” At the very least, it would be a gorgeous film with buckets of blood.

I’m in.

Immortals takes a little bit of Greek mythology, namely the stories centering around Theseus and the Minotaur and the Titanomachy (the war between the Titans and the Olympians), and changes them around a bit to create a new tale. King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) declares war on the gods of Olympus and sets out with his army in search of the legendary Epirus Bow, a weapon that could help him win a war against the gods.

Zeus (Luke Evans) foresees the coming war and chooses a mortal, Theseus (Henry Cavill), to lead the  rest of the mortals against Hyperion’s army. Holding fast to the old laws that govern their universe, Zeus forbids any Olympian god to directly affect the events on earth (though he himself is obviously bending the rules quite a bit). Instead, Theseus joins a motley crew of adventurers to get to the Epirus Bow before Hyperion does.

For better or for worse, Immortals plays like your typical adventure movie like Clash of the Titans (the original), any of the Sinbad movies, or even more recent stuff like The Lord of the Rings. I guess that’s why Immortals has been getting a bad rep from critics — there’s really nothing new here. Sure, it looks great. Scratch that, this movie can look gorgeous at times. I did see the movie in 3D, and Tarsem Singh and cinematographer Brendan Galvin know how to take full advantage of that extra dimension of depth. There’s also a few cool transitions that the editors employ.

But that’s kind of it.

Immortals isn’t a bad movie to me. In fact, I quite enjoyed it. There’s action, lots of violence, hot women (I don’t think Freida Pinto has ever looked hotter than she did here), and even some crazy ninja fight scenes when the Olympians have to step in and kick some ass. All these things are enough to entertain me at the theatre. But why would I not consider Immortals a new adventure classic?

I’d like to compare this to another stylized Greek action-adventure movie: 300. Visually, Immortals and Zack Snyder’s movie are very similar. But that’s where the similarities end. I’d say 300 is the superior movie for one reason: it’s trying to say something. Maybe I’m reading too much into Snyder’s film adaptation of the graphic novel, but the reason why I love 300 so much is because it’s making a statement on masculinity, on what it means to be a man.

In 300, real men fought for the things they cared about. It also wasn’t just about violence, though. Men had to be passionate lovers who cared so much for their family and their country that they’re willing to die for them. There’s something awe-inspiring about the notion of three hundred warriors standing toe-to-toe against a vastly superior force (a million-man Persian army, according to the movie). They weren’t tricked into going to battle; the soldiers new exactly what they were doing. They did it because they had to. If there was even the slightest chance of victory, they were going to take it, even if it that meant failure brought death.

Now, back to Immortals. Yes, there’s a moment in the film when Theseus makes a rousing speech to rally the troops because they’re outnumbered and about to get their asses handed to them. But I didn’t feel it earned that moment. The whole movie felt slightly empty to me. Again, I want to make it clear that I enjoyed the movie. But I wasn’t “wowed” by it. I’m sure Immortals would look fantastic on Blu-ray, I just don’t think it deserves a spot on my shelf next to the classic films it’s clearly inspired by.

6.5/10

I haven’t always been a Clint Eastwood fan. I’d seen a few of his Westerns, some of his cop movies, and even part of the one where he hangs out with a orangutan. It wasn’t until I saw him in Gran Torino when I really started to respect him as a filmmaker. Sure, everybody praises Unforgiven (great film, btw), but I connected with Gran Torino more and really respected the choices he made from behind the camera (except for hiring non-professional actors to play the supporting roles). So it goes without saying that I went into J. Edgar with some high hopes.

The biopic about the founder and director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is at times slow-moving, and even a bit confusing about its message, but it kept me engaged. Leonardo DiCaprio single-handedly keeps this movie afloat. He’s the kind of actor that keeps getting better with each movie. DiCaprio brings to the screen a flawed, but driven individual. His Hoover is intelligent and determined, but becomes increasingly paranoid and his hiding of his homosexuality forces Hoover to  constantly betray himself.

The story of the film spans several decades through which we see the rise of the FBI and criminal science. J. Edgar Hoover has a hand in all of it, turning the small subsidiary of the Justice Department to an effective national police force. Unfortunately, by the end of the movie, it left me feeling a bit empty. I couldn’t see where Clint Eastwood was going with this movie. I learned a lot about Hoover and a little bit about the post-World War II America that the movie is set in, but that was kind of about it. Maybe I was thinking about it too much, and maybe there isn’t some kind of morality tale buried underneath all the layers of make-up. Maybe Eastwood just wanted to make an effective biopic about J. Edgar Hoover.

Speaking of make-up, some of the aging effects on the actors looked phenomenal. Naomi Watts looked great as Hoover’s secretary, Helen Gandy, and at times so did DiCaprio. Armie Hammer, who plays Hoover’s right-hand-man (and possible lover) Clyde Tolson, however, didn’t look so convincing as an old man. His face looked stiff and, well, fake.

History buffs will no doubt find this movie interesting and could spend days discussing Hoover, his policies, and what the movie got right or wrong. I’m no expert on Hoover, so I can’t attest to this movie’s historical accuracy, but I’m assuming that screenwriter Dustin Lance Black did his research and the story only takes a few liberties for dramatic purposes. With that said, I can say that I found this movie entertaining overall. No doubt we’ll here more about this movie as awards season comes around — this movie has Oscar bait written all over it.

7/10

I’m crazy stoked for Marvel Studios’ The Avengers, hitting theatres next May. Usually, with big franchise movie events like this, I like to re-watch the previous movies in the series before the release of the new one. However, The Avengers is a special case, because the films weren’t released in the chronological order in which they happen. With something like Star Wars, you could start with A New Hope and finish with Revenge of the Sith (though some would argue that, chronologically, you’d want to start with The Phantom Menace then finish with Return of the Jedi, but it really doesn’t matter…shut up, nerds).

A better example would be the Harry Potter movies. They were released in the same order in which they happen. So, I guess ignore the Star Wars example above.

Anyway, the movies that Marvel Studios has produced don’t exactly fit well chronologically with their release dates. Yes, you can watch them in order of release, and they’re very easy to follow, but if you want to do it comic book-style, then I’ve put together the following list, along with a summary of how they all fit together in the lead-up to The Avengers.

1. Captain America: The First Avenger

Although this was released last (this past July, to be exact), it takes place before Marvel Studios’ first movie, Iron Man. Steve Rogers’ battle with the Red Skull is only the backdrop in which we are introduced to the Cosmic Cube, a powerful object that will later be at the center of the conflict between the Avengers and the Norse god, Loki. Bucky Barnes, Captain America’s sidekick, is also featured, and he’ll no doubt play a big part in the eventual Cap sequel.

The movie also sets up a potential foe to S.H.I.E.L.D., in the form of HYDRA. Possibility for the sequel, maybe?

2. Iron Man

Marvel Studios’ first film is still considered to be its best. It features a billionaire playboy who makes a suit and fight bad guys. But Batman this is not. Tony Stark eventually shares his alternate identity with the world, and his powerful Iron Man suit becomes the envy of militaries the world over. His genius at designing weapons and the resources at his disposal place him squarely in the sights of Nick Fury, director of S.H.I.E.L.D., who approaches him about a special government project, known as the Avenger Initiative. S.H.I.E.L.D., for those that don’t know, stands for Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division. Toward the end of Iron Man, we’re also introduced to S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson. Agent Coulson will play a key role in a few more Marvel Studios movies and acts as Nick Fury’s point-man on the field.

Here’s where the timeline gets a little messy. Events in The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man 2 all seem to overlap, but I’ve done my best to figure out what movie happened when.

3. Iron Man 2

In the sequel to Iron Man, Tony Stark goes up against a crazed Russian with engineering chops comparable to his own. We’re also introduced to another S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, Natalia Romanova – a.k.a. Black Widow. Nick Fury plays a larger role here compared to his cameos in Iron Man and Captain America. While IM2 doesn’t add too much to the Avengers mythology, it does setup a few characters that will play a role in the upcoming superhero team-up, as well as potential sequels in the future.

Tony’s business rival in this movie, Justin Hammer, could potentially be a villain in a future Avengers sequel, or possibly even in a Captain America sequel (imagine this: Hammer arming and supporting Winter Soldier who’s out to get Steve Rodgers, but that’s just my own little theory).

Agent Coulson, who is assigned by Fury to babysit Tony Stark, receives another assignment about halfway through this flick. In the post-credits scene, he travels to New Mexico where Thor’s hammer had mysteriously landed.

4. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor’s Hammer (Marvel One Shot short film)

This short film is a bonus extra included in the Captain America home video release.

As of this writing, this short has yet to be released, but from what I’ve heard it features Agent Coulson traveling to New Mexico before the events of Thor.

5. Thor

This is the first Marvel Studios superhero flick to feature beings with actual super powers. Up until now, all the other Avengers-related stories had artificially-created heroes. This one features the Norse god of thunder, Thor, being banished from Asgard by his father, Odin. Sent to live among mortals on Earth (New Mexico, to be exact), Thor runs into Agent Coulson, newly arrived from Tony Stark’s estate in California. S.H.I.E.L.D. has tracked Thor’s fallen hammer, Mjolnir, and has setup shop around the crash site. Showing up for a cameo is Clint Barton, who will eventually join the Avengers as Hawkeye.

In the post-credits scene of Thor, Dr. Erik Selvig is approached by Nick Fury to study the Cosmic Cube, which has found its way into S.H.I.E.L.D. hands. Also shown in the scene is Loki, Thor’s villainous half-brother, who now intends to use the Cosmic Cube for his own purposes.

6. The Incredible Hulk

A reboot – and in some ways, a sequel to Ang Lee’s Hulk - that has Dr. Bruce Banner already in hiding after gaining his monstrous powers. After a run-in with super-soldier Emil Blonksy, a.k.a. the Abomination, Banner is now being sought after by S.H.I.E.L.D. It’s not too much of a stretch to connect the super-soldier program that created Captain America to the same tech that birthed the Hulk and the Abomination. In the post-credits scene, Tony Stark approaches Banner’s adversary, General “Thunderbolt” Ross, about a ‘special team’ being assembled.

Of potential interest to owners of The Incredible Hulk on DVD or Blu-ray is the alternate opening scene. In it, Banner is in self-banishment somewhere in the Arctic when a wave of anger comes over him. He starts Hulk-smashing everything around him, causing an avalanche. Pause the scene at the right time and you’ll see a man frozen in a block of ice (hint: it’s supposed to be Captain America). Whether this is canonical to the Avengers film universe is still in question.

7. The Consultant (Marvel One Shot short film)

This is the first released short in the One Shot film series. It was released as part of the Thor Blu-ray package.

Taking place concurrently with The Incredible Hulk, Agent Coulson meets with fellow agent Jasper Sitwell to discuss the event in New York (i.e. Hulk and the Abomination tearing things up). S.H.I.E.L.D. learns that General Ross and the World Security Council intends to release Blonksy from prison. This, obviously, does not sit well with Fury, so the two agents come up with a plan to keep Blonksy in jail, under the watchful eye of S.H.I.E.L.D.

It is revealed that the ‘consultant’ they send is Tony Stark. Stark’s conversation with Ross is the post-credits scene of The Incredible Hulk.

So, anyway, that’s my little theory to the ‘what-happened-when’ of the Avengers film universe. I think it’s awesome that Marvel Studios is approaching their film titles like a comic book. Each movie can be enjoyed on its own, like an individual title could in a comic. But, they all intertwine with one another in the same universe, again, just like the comics.

Who knows, maybe Warner Bros. and D.C. Comics can do the same for the Justice League.

Kevin Smith’s Red State is a passion project. In fact, it is in many ways the definition of an artist’s passion project. Fifty years from now, if one were to look back on the entirety of Kevin Smith’s filmography (which is set to wrap up once he completes his two-part Hit Somebody), one cannot help but look at Red State as either poorly conceived torture porn or his darkest, grittiest work. Either way, it stands out from his other films solely because it is so different. This probably isn’t the movie you’d think would come from the guy that wrote and directed Chasing Amy. But if you’ve followed Kevin Smith on Twitter or through his podcasts, you know that this is his most personal film to-date.

The film is about three teenagers who get abducted by a religious cult not unlike the real-life Fred Phelps and his family at the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. They’ve been lured there through the promise of sex with Sara (Melissa Leo), a middle-aged woman who happens to be the daughter of the church pastor, Abin Cooper (Michael Parks). Once they’re kidnapped, the teens are witness to the church’s extreme form of evangelization: killing those they believe to be sinners. Basically, in their eyes, sinners are gays, non-believers, and anyone else who do not share their extreme right-wing ideology. So extreme are they that, in the movie’s world, neo-Nazi groups make an effort to distance themselves from the Coopers.

The teens attempt an escape, but are only caught in a crossfire between the Coopers and local ATF agents, lead by Joseph Keenan (John Goodman), who has been investigating this radical church for some time. This isn’t a shoot-out between a couple of sheriff’s deputies and backwoods rednecks armed with hunting rifles. There’s a reason why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have their eye on the Coopers —  they’re armed to the teeth. Inside the compound is an armory with enough firepower to take over a small town. To counter that, Keenan’s men are also heavily armed. This puts the children living in the compound at extreme risk.

And that’s the gist of Red State. It’s short, clocking in at just under an hour and a half, and has a very straight-forward plot. Fans of the horror genre will be disappointed, as this film is neither scary nor horrifying. There’s plenty of action, but it’s on such a small scale that action fans would likely be let down, as well. Even for Kevin Smith fans there may not be a whole lot here. Yes, there’s plenty of dialogue, as per usual with any Smith film, but it doesn’t seem to flow the same way it does in scripts like Clerks 2 or Chasing Amy.

So who’s this film for, anyway?

It’s for Kevin Smith. That’s who.

This is a project that’s been on Smith’s mind for years, even before he publicly threw the idea out to the masses on his popular SModcast show. Smith doesn’t play with any subtlety in this film — it’s a satire of the WBC, and it makes no effort to mask it behind any other meaning. Clerks 2, Chasing Amy, even Jersey Girl are all films about maturity and growing up, masked behind (somewhat vulgar) comedies. Yes, Red State has a chuckle or two in it, but it plays itself fairly seriously up until the end.

I’m glad Kevin Smith made Red State. Despite what you may think of it, or how some may dismiss it because it’s so unlike Smith’s other films, it still has “Kevin Smith” written all over it. It’s a different change of pace for him, expressing himself in a way he couldn’t do five or ten years ago. On a technical level, it’s his best work. Smith has a handle on practical special effects, where the camera should go and how it should move (aided by his long-time DP, David Klein), and his sound design has never been better. Even as an editor he’s paced the film tightly.

Few other directors would take such a risk. Steven Soderberg is one of the few big Hollywood-types to occasionally branch out to try something different (he’s made arthouse favorites The Girlfriend Experience and Che, while also doing movies like Contagion and the Ocean’s Eleven flicks). It is unfortunate that it took Smith two decades to reach this point, and that he’s set to self-retire from directing after Hit Somebody. I feel that, after viewing this, the world may be ready for the Second Coming of Kevin Smith. Once he’s gotten Red State off his chest, Kevin Smith may be able to take on any other film project.

Or maybe it’s best that he go out on top.

Kevin Smith even said himself that he has very little talent in directing. He considers himself a good writer and a great storyteller, but not a good director. For his sake, maybe hanging up the towel after completing his next passion project might be the best thing for him.

Either way, Red State is a film produced through sheer force of will. As Ghandi once said, “Full effort is full victory.” Smith wanted to tell this story. It got told. And he did it all his way. I respect the hell out of anyone that can pull that off, regardless of what the end result is.

Battle: Los Angeles can best be summed up by it’s title: it’s a battle in Los Angeles. To be a little more detailed, it’s the best videogame movie not based on a videogame. It’s what I expected going in, and it’s exactly what I got. And I was not disappointed.

This flick is being touted as an alien invasion story shot like Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down, only with far less plot and more shooting. The script is as if an 8-year-old wrote it while playing with his G.I. Joe’s. There are stereotypes, clichés, and war movie conventions all over the place. On many levels, this movie is average at best. At worst, it’s mindless drivel that could be looked at like a Marine recruiting video for the Call of Duty generation. They yell a lot of military jargon and shoot at aliens that look like they were designed by an intern at ILM (no offense to interns at ILM).

Now that the negative is out of the way, I’ll try my best to explain why I had such an awesome time with Battle: Los Angeles. If you’ve seen any of the trailers, and this movie doesn’t interest you, you’re obviously not the target audience. However, if you love videogames (specifically shooters like Call of Duty), and the thought of watching what is essentially a 2-hour videogame cutscene excites you on some base level, then by all means, watch this movie. In the theatre. With as full of an auditorium as you can.

As mentioned before, the plot is almost non-existent. I say “almost” because what narrative there may be is held together by so many clichés it’s almost a parody. Aaron Eckhart plays Marine Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz, a 20-year-veteran who recently had some rough time in Iraq. “Rough” would be an understatement, because some of his men died because of a decision he had to make. Now, right before his retirement from the Corps (because movies like this need the grizzled, decorated veteran who’s about to retire as the shit hits the fan), he’s assigned to a platoon full of rookies, led by a lieutenant fresh from OCS. The unit is made up of even more war film stereotypes like the guy who’s about to get married (played by R&B singer Ne-yo), the 17-yeard-old kid right out of high school, and a bunch of others who are only important as cannon fodder for the aliens.

Oh, and they also run into an Air Force Technical Sergeant (Michelle Rodriguez) who has some vital intel regarding the aliens, and a group of civilians hiding out in the middle of the warzone. The Marines’ job is to go into the populated areas of Los Angeles and get as many civilians as they can to the safe zone near the Santa Monica airport before the Air Force levels parts of the city that are already overrun.

When the action starts (roughtly 10-15 minutes into the movie) it doesn’t stop. Let me reiterate: IT. DOES. NOT. STOP. When I said this was like a videogame, I meant exactly that. You’ve got corridor shooting parts, on-rails segments, mini-boss fights, and a final boss fight where I was surprised . . . no, shocked that the weak point the Marines had to hit wasn’t glowing orange or something. And all of the action scenes are strung together like levels in a game. When the action hits, it hits hard. There are lots of close-ups, shaky Steadicam shots, and quick cutting. It’s like director Jonathan Liebesman and cinematographer Lukas Ettlin had never heard of a tripod or a wide shot before.

The icing on the cake for this flick is all the hoo-rah moments, those brief scenes where the music becomes very somber and our heroes are on the verge of death, only to snatch victory from the jaws of almost-certain defeat at the last possible second. I’m not trying to make this movie more important than it really is, but I think that we need more moments like this nowadays. With all this political infighting and Americans pointing fingers at other Americans over who caused what to happen, it’s nice to see people uniting behind something, cheering someone on, even if it is all made up. That’s what I saw in the audience when watching this movie: people applauding at the appropriate moments, cheering when the enemy ‘boss’ was defeated.

Battle: Los Angeles is the kind of movie that you take away exactly what you bring into it with. This is not an ‘intellectual, thought-provoking’ film. I’ve read it described as ‘District 9 without the brains.’ I’d say it’s more like ‘District 9 without the commentary and more muscle.’

8/10