Question: How was the story?

I enjoyed this movie but it definitely doesn't live up to my expectations.  Since buying Pixar, Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money.  Good for them.  In particular, Tangled is one of Disney's best movies in almost every respect.  Wonderful dialog, music, etc.  I was hoping (and people led me to believe) that this would follow in the same tradition.Unfortunately Frozen is dominated in every respect by Tangled.  But it's still an ok movie.  Instead of being a musical movie (plot that makes sense and several very memorable songs) it's much more like a broadway musical (plot that is garbage and lots of music woven in, none of which is really all that catchy).  The plot in this one is pretty thin and it would be easy to poke holes in it.  That's not the worst flaw in the world since it's pretty common in movies, especially those that intend to have children as a major part of the audience.My biggest beef with this movie is the characterization.  There isn't much.  You don't really empathize much with any of the characters and there isn't a ton of growth and development.  There's the handsome guy that turns out to be a bad guy, but he really isn't much of an antagonist and is only present in a few scenes.  Also he had no reason to be as bad as he was.  Really the only reason for his character to exist is that they needed some conflict so the one girl can show an unselfish loving act.  But there were other characters and situations that could have filled that role.  Instead I think Disney was just trying to teach the message that you shouldn't get married on a whim.  I guess it's not the worst message.  The "main" character who has the ice powers isn't that great a character.  She doesn't have that many redeeming qualities and besides learning to control her power she doesn't  grow much in the film.  The sled guy, this reindeer, and the snowman are all ok for comic relief, but they weren't developed very well either, I thought.  Pretty flat.People have made a big deal about the pro-homosexual undercurrent of the movie.  I think that mainly has to do with our political environment today, not the movie.  It's really subtle.  Mostly there's a strong sense in the movie that going off and doing your own thing regardless of whether it makes other people happy is the way to personal progress.  Not the best moral in the world, but it's passable (better than, say, Pocahontas, where the moral is that white men are evil but if they could just learn to be indians we would all be better off).  People have talked about this being a good sisterly love movie but it's actually pretty weak that way.  The sisters hardly know each other.  The one sister is always trying to be loyal but the ice sister is pretty much a jerk or a drama queen all the way through and never changes.  I wouldn't recommend it on those grounds.The music in this movie is what I would call passable.  If you liked the music in wicked, you will like this.  What you get is a few moments within songs that are great, but not whole songs that you will remember or find yourself singing later.  That was a big disappointment.  Simply put, the Andersen-Lopez team is no Alan Menken.  Not by a very long shot.  Nevertheless if you don't try and compare the music to the greater Disney works of the past, you will find that it is painless and even enjoyable.One major bone for me: the voice acting and singing of the ice princess.  Idina Menzel is famous for her role in Wicked and other things and the movie really wanted to capitalize on that, but her voice is clearly too old for the character she plays.  I find it difficult to watch movies where the character's voice clearly doesn't match her look and age.  I'm not the biggest Idina Menzel fan anyway, but if she had played a character that was 20 years older and more mature I wouldn't have had an issue with it.  On the other hand, Kristen Bell, who played the other sister, was brilliant at acting and singing.Overall I felt like the movie meandered.  It kind of seemed like it was heading to a coherent plot but then the big climax, which was a disappointing but also expected deux ex machina, comes and I sort of walked away feeling like it was an ok ride.I don't regret owning this.  If you haven't seen it already, go in with low expectations and you will end up happy.

Answer: Since buying Pixar

I enjoyed this movie but it definitely doesn't live up to my expectations. <hl> Since buying Pixar , Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money. <hl> Good for them. In particular, Tangled is one of Disney's best movies in almost every respect. Wonderful dialog, music, etc. I was hoping (and people led me to believe) that this would follow in the same tradition. Unfortunately Frozen is dominated in every respect by Tangled. But it's still an ok movie. Instead of being a musical movie (plot that makes sense and several very memorable songs) it's much more like a broadway musical (plot that is garbage and lots of music woven in, none of which is really all that catchy). The plot in this one is pretty thin and it would be easy to poke holes in it. That's not the worst flaw in the world since it's pretty common in movies, especially those that intend to have children as a major part of the audience. My biggest beef with this movie is the characterization. There isn't much. You don't really empathize much with any of the characters and there isn't a ton of growth and development. There's the handsome guy that turns out to be a bad guy, but he really isn't much of an antagonist and is only present in a few scenes. Also he had no reason to be as bad as he was. Really the only reason for his character to exist is that they needed some conflict so the one girl can show an unselfish loving act. But there were other characters and situations that could have filled that role. Instead I think Disney was just trying to teach the message that you shouldn't get married on a whim. I guess it's not the worst message. The "main" character who has the ice powers isn't that great a character. She doesn't have that many redeeming qualities and besides learning to control her power she doesn't grow much in the film. The sled guy, this reindeer, and the snowman are all ok for comic relief, but they weren't developed very well either, I thought. Pretty flat. People have made a big deal about the pro-homosexual undercurrent of the movie. I think that mainly has to do with our political environment today, not the movie. It's really subtle. Mostly there's a strong sense in the movie that going off and doing your own thing regardless of whether it makes other people happy is the way to personal progress. Not the best moral in the world, but it's passable (better than, say, Pocahontas, where the moral is that white men are evil but if they could just learn to be indians we would all be better off). People have talked about this being a good sisterly love movie but it's actually pretty weak that way. The sisters hardly know each other. The one sister is always trying to be loyal but the ice sister is pretty much a jerk or a drama queen all the way through and never changes. I wouldn't recommend it on those grounds. The music in this movie is what I would call passable. If you liked the music in wicked, you will like this. What you get is a few moments within songs that are great, but not whole songs that you will remember or find yourself singing later. That was a big disappointment. Simply put, the Andersen-Lopez team is no Alan Menken. Not by a very long shot. Nevertheless if you don't try and compare the music to the greater Disney works of the past, you will find that it is painless and even enjoyable. One major bone for me: the voice acting and singing of the ice princess. Idina Menzel is famous for her role in Wicked and other things and the movie really wanted to capitalize on that, but her voice is clearly too old for the character she plays. I find it difficult to watch movies where the character's voice clearly doesn't match her look and age. I'm not the biggest Idina Menzel fan anyway, but if she had played a character that was 20 years older and more mature I wouldn't have had an issue with it. On the other hand, Kristen Bell, who played the other sister, was brilliant at acting and singing. Overall I felt like the movie meandered. It kind of seemed like it was heading to a coherent plot but then the big climax, which was a disappointing but also expected deux ex machina, comes and I sort of walked away feeling like it was an ok ride. I don't regret owning this. If you haven't seen it already, go in with low expectations and you will end up happy.

I enjoyed this movie but it definitely doesn't live up to my expectations. <hl> Since buying Pixar <hl>, Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money. Good for them. In particular, Tangled is one of Disney's best movies in almost every respect. Wonderful dialog, music, etc. I was hoping (and people led me to believe) that this would follow in the same tradition.Unfortunately Frozen is dominated in every respect by Tangled. But it's still an ok movie. Instead of being a musical movie (plot that makes sense and several very memorable songs) it's much more like a broadway musical (plot that is garbage and lots of music woven in, none of which is really all that catchy). The plot in this one is pretty thin and it would be easy to poke holes in it. That's not the worst flaw in the world since it's pretty common in movies, especially those that intend to have children as a major part of the audience.My biggest beef with this movie is the characterization. There isn't much. You don't really empathize much with any of the characters and there isn't a ton of growth and development. There's the handsome guy that turns out to be a bad guy, but he really isn't much of an antagonist and is only present in a few scenes. Also he had no reason to be as bad as he was. Really the only reason for his character to exist is that they needed some conflict so the one girl can show an unselfish loving act. But there were other characters and situations that could have filled that role. Instead I think Disney was just trying to teach the message that you shouldn't get married on a whim. I guess it's not the worst message. The "main" character who has the ice powers isn't that great a character. She doesn't have that many redeeming qualities and besides learning to control her power she doesn't grow much in the film. The sled guy, this reindeer, and the snowman are all ok for comic relief, but they weren't developed very well either, I thought. Pretty flat.People have made a big deal about the pro-homosexual undercurrent of the movie. I think that mainly has to do with our political environment today, not the movie. It's really subtle. Mostly there's a strong sense in the movie that going off and doing your own thing regardless of whether it makes other people happy is the way to personal progress. Not the best moral in the world, but it's passable (better than, say, Pocahontas, where the moral is that white men are evil but if they could just learn to be indians we would all be better off). People have talked about this being a good sisterly love movie but it's actually pretty weak that way. The sisters hardly know each other. The one sister is always trying to be loyal but the ice sister is pretty much a jerk or a drama queen all the way through and never changes. I wouldn't recommend it on those grounds.The music in this movie is what I would call passable. If you liked the music in wicked, you will like this. What you get is a few moments within songs that are great, but not whole songs that you will remember or find yourself singing later. That was a big disappointment. Simply put, the Andersen-Lopez team is no Alan Menken. Not by a very long shot. Nevertheless if you don't try and compare the music to the greater Disney works of the past, you will find that it is painless and even enjoyable.One major bone for me: the voice acting and singing of the ice princess. Idina Menzel is famous for her role in Wicked and other things and the movie really wanted to capitalize on that, but her voice is clearly too old for the character she plays. I find it difficult to watch movies where the character's voice clearly doesn't match her look and age. I'm not the biggest Idina Menzel fan anyway, but if she had played a character that was 20 years older and more mature I wouldn't have had an issue with it. On the other hand, Kristen Bell, who played the other sister, was brilliant at acting and singing.Overall I felt like the movie meandered. It kind of seemed like it was heading to a coherent plot but then the big climax, which was a disappointing but also expected deux ex machina, comes and I sort of walked away feeling like it was an ok ride.I don't regret owning this. If you haven't seen it already, go in with low expectations and you will end up happy.

<hl> Since buying Pixar <hl> , Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money.


Question: How real is the movie?

I wrote a brief review over a month ago and people have hated it because I said the movie was going to big. Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot.First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad. I have read the Odyessey and I enjoyed it a lot. From what I've been told of people the movie is not very acurate at all. However, I did enjoy it despite it's flaws in the story.I think by now everybody has heard the plot to the movie. Paris(Bloom) runs off with Helen(Kruger) because they are in love and she no longer wants to stay with her husband Menelaus the King of Sparta. Agnaemenon the head King of Greece looks at this as a chance to strike against the one kingdom that can face up to him in Troy.War is set and the Greeks must get the greatest warrior to fight for them. They get Achilles(Pitt)to fight for them. Agnaemenon is weary of this because Achilles doesn't worship him like the rest do, but he knows he needs him to win. They then sail off to Troy to get Helen and to conquer them.The city of Troy is not scared. King Priam(O'Toole) is not worried at all because of the high walls around his city, the sun god Apollo, and most of all because of his son Hector(Bana). The stage for the epic war is set and the battle is on.First of all let me say that I loved Brad Pitt in the movie. A lot of the critics have hammered him saying he didn't display the vainess and godlike qualities that Achillies displayed in the book. They must not have watched the same movie as I did. This was the most cocky and arrogant character Pitt has played to date. His vanity is incredible in the film. He also bulked up real big. He put on over 20lbs and he's cut to the bone.Eric Bana was great at Hector. Like Pitt he really bulked up as well. He does the best acting job in the film. He displays Hectors emotions perfectly. When he's going to fight Achillies he really does look like he knows he's the lamb going to the slaughter. His acting is superb and his performance is just awesome. He won't win an acadamey award, but you will enjoy it.Hector and Achillies are the two main characters in the film. The whole movie really does focus on the battle between the two of them and how much there respective people await on them.The sets in the movie are fantastic. They did a great job building the city of Troy. Everything looks authentic to the time period. It's about the only thing that is accurate to it's time.Like I said the movie is not accurate to Homers poem at all. It is however a great action film. If you look past those flaws and don't spend your time ripping the movie for it's flaws you really wil enjoy a well made action film. So sit back and enjoy the film for what it is and not what it should have been.

Answer: Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot

I wrote a brief review over a month ago and people have hated it because I said the movie was going to big. <hl> Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot .First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad. <hl> I have read the Odyessey and I enjoyed it a lot. From what I've been told of people the movie is not very acurate at all. However, I did enjoy it despite it's flaws in the story. I think by now everybody has heard the plot to the movie. Paris(Bloom) runs off with Helen(Kruger) because they are in love and she no longer wants to stay with her husband Menelaus the King of Sparta. Agnaemenon the head King of Greece looks at this as a chance to strike against the one kingdom that can face up to him in Troy. War is set and the Greeks must get the greatest warrior to fight for them. They get Achilles(Pitt)to fight for them. Agnaemenon is weary of this because Achilles doesn't worship him like the rest do, but he knows he needs him to win. They then sail off to Troy to get Helen and to conquer them. The city of Troy is not scared. King Priam(O'Toole) is not worried at all because of the high walls around his city, the sun god Apollo, and most of all because of his son Hector(Bana). The stage for the epic war is set and the battle is on. First of all let me say that I loved Brad Pitt in the movie. A lot of the critics have hammered him saying he didn't display the vainess and godlike qualities that Achillies displayed in the book. They must not have watched the same movie as I did. This was the most cocky and arrogant character Pitt has played to date. His vanity is incredible in the film. He also bulked up real big. He put on over 20lbs and he's cut to the bone. Eric Bana was great at Hector. Like Pitt he really bulked up as well. He does the best acting job in the film. He displays Hectors emotions perfectly. When he's going to fight Achillies he really does look like he knows he's the lamb going to the slaughter. His acting is superb and his performance is just awesome. He won't win an acadamey award, but you will enjoy it. Hector and Achillies are the two main characters in the film. The whole movie really does focus on the battle between the two of them and how much there respective people await on them. The sets in the movie are fantastic. They did a great job building the city of Troy. Everything looks authentic to the time period. It's about the only thing that is accurate to it's time. Like I said the movie is not accurate to Homers poem at all. It is however a great action film. If you look past those flaws and don't spend your time ripping the movie for it's flaws you really wil enjoy a well made action film. So sit back and enjoy the film for what it is and not what it should have been.

I wrote a brief review over a month ago and people have hated it because I said the movie was going to big. <hl> Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot <hl>.First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad. I have read the Odyessey and I enjoyed it a lot. From what I've been told of people the movie is not very acurate at all. However, I did enjoy it despite it's flaws in the story.I think by now everybody has heard the plot to the movie. Paris(Bloom) runs off with Helen(Kruger) because they are in love and she no longer wants to stay with her husband Menelaus the King of Sparta. Agnaemenon the head King of Greece looks at this as a chance to strike against the one kingdom that can face up to him in Troy.War is set and the Greeks must get the greatest warrior to fight for them. They get Achilles(Pitt)to fight for them. Agnaemenon is weary of this because Achilles doesn't worship him like the rest do, but he knows he needs him to win. They then sail off to Troy to get Helen and to conquer them.The city of Troy is not scared. King Priam(O'Toole) is not worried at all because of the high walls around his city, the sun god Apollo, and most of all because of his son Hector(Bana). The stage for the epic war is set and the battle is on.First of all let me say that I loved Brad Pitt in the movie. A lot of the critics have hammered him saying he didn't display the vainess and godlike qualities that Achillies displayed in the book. They must not have watched the same movie as I did. This was the most cocky and arrogant character Pitt has played to date. His vanity is incredible in the film. He also bulked up real big. He put on over 20lbs and he's cut to the bone.Eric Bana was great at Hector. Like Pitt he really bulked up as well. He does the best acting job in the film. He displays Hectors emotions perfectly. When he's going to fight Achillies he really does look like he knows he's the lamb going to the slaughter. His acting is superb and his performance is just awesome. He won't win an acadamey award, but you will enjoy it.Hector and Achillies are the two main characters in the film. The whole movie really does focus on the battle between the two of them and how much there respective people await on them.The sets in the movie are fantastic. They did a great job building the city of Troy. Everything looks authentic to the time period. It's about the only thing that is accurate to it's time.Like I said the movie is not accurate to Homers poem at all. It is however a great action film. If you look past those flaws and don't spend your time ripping the movie for it's flaws you really wil enjoy a well made action film. So sit back and enjoy the film for what it is and not what it should have been.

<hl> Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot <hl> .First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad.


Question: How is the story?

Sad to say, this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with. The trailer looked so promising that one logically assumed that the rest of the film would be just as good. Not the case here. This movie should have been titled "Tom Cruise's relationship with his 2 children, with a minor subplot involving some alien spaceships trying to destroy mankind." But that wouldn't bring in the big bucks, now would it?This movie feels like a rough draft of a better, more cohesive movie. The best words I can think of to describe it are flat, uninspiring and oftentimes, downright dull. So much time is spent on Tom and Dakota hiding in basements that one actually forgets that this movie is about aliens attacking. And when the action finally gets going, we simply don't care. In fact one scene shows the alien tripods firing their weapons from a large distance away. How are we, the audience, supposed to get involved in it? And towards the end it shows the city of Boston demolished, and yet we never get to see it. We're only shown the aftermath. Another rip-off. The only worthwhile action sequence was the first one, when the aliens appear out of the ground and begin vaporizing people and cleaning house. This scene is worth the price of admission. If only the other action scenes were as good. Not that I'm one of those moviegoers who can only like a movie if it has non-stop action. I appreciate a good plot to go along with it. But "War of the Worlds" only offers a paper-thin plot.In terms of acting, no standout performances here. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise...adequate, but nothing extraordinary. Dakota Fanning, whom I've liked in other movies, is simply annoying here. Most of her "acting" consists of screaming, crying, and staring bug-eyed into the camera. Tim Robbins steals the show although he is wasted. It makes me wonder what this movie would have been like if he had taken on the lead role.Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the cliches. Case in point, when Cruise is constantly able to walk away from disasters completely unharmed while almost everyone else is killed. The worst cliche for me came when the snake-like alien device was searching for humans in the basement. I was thinking to myself, "any second now Dakota Fanning is going to knock over a tin can or make another mistake and cause the alien to turn back and look for them again." Sure enough, that's exactly what happened.I could go on but I won't. This movie was simply a let-down. It's the equivalent of seeing a nice tall cold glass of soda on a hot summer day, gulping it, only to discover that it's been sitting for days and is flat. But you can't spit it out since you've already swallowed it.If you must see a movie with a Cruise/Spielberg collaboration, watch "Minority Report" instead. While it has its flaws, it offers a much more compelling story.

Answer: this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with

<hl> Sad to say, this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with . <hl> The trailer looked so promising that one logically assumed that the rest of the film would be just as good. Not the case here. This movie should have been titled "Tom Cruise's relationship with his 2 children, with a minor subplot involving some alien spaceships trying to destroy mankind." But that wouldn't bring in the big bucks, now would it?This movie feels like a rough draft of a better, more cohesive movie. The best words I can think of to describe it are flat, uninspiring and oftentimes, downright dull. So much time is spent on Tom and Dakota hiding in basements that one actually forgets that this movie is about aliens attacking. And when the action finally gets going, we simply don't care. In fact one scene shows the alien tripods firing their weapons from a large distance away. How are we, the audience, supposed to get involved in it? And towards the end it shows the city of Boston demolished, and yet we never get to see it. We're only shown the aftermath. Another rip-off. The only worthwhile action sequence was the first one, when the aliens appear out of the ground and begin vaporizing people and cleaning house. This scene is worth the price of admission. If only the other action scenes were as good. Not that I'm one of those moviegoers who can only like a movie if it has non-stop action. I appreciate a good plot to go along with it. But "War of the Worlds" only offers a paper-thin plot. In terms of acting, no standout performances here. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise...adequate, but nothing extraordinary. Dakota Fanning, whom I've liked in other movies, is simply annoying here. Most of her "acting" consists of screaming, crying, and staring bug-eyed into the camera. Tim Robbins steals the show although he is wasted. It makes me wonder what this movie would have been like if he had taken on the lead role. Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the cliches. Case in point, when Cruise is constantly able to walk away from disasters completely unharmed while almost everyone else is killed. The worst cliche for me came when the snake-like alien device was searching for humans in the basement. I was thinking to myself, "any second now Dakota Fanning is going to knock over a tin can or make another mistake and cause the alien to turn back and look for them again." Sure enough, that's exactly what happened. I could go on but I won't. This movie was simply a let-down. It's the equivalent of seeing a nice tall cold glass of soda on a hot summer day, gulping it, only to discover that it's been sitting for days and is flat. But you can't spit it out since you've already swallowed it. If you must see a movie with a Cruise/Spielberg collaboration, watch "Minority Report" instead. While it has its flaws, it offers a much more compelling story.

Sad to say, <hl> this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with <hl>. The trailer looked so promising that one logically assumed that the rest of the film would be just as good. Not the case here. This movie should have been titled "Tom Cruise's relationship with his 2 children, with a minor subplot involving some alien spaceships trying to destroy mankind." But that wouldn't bring in the big bucks, now would it?This movie feels like a rough draft of a better, more cohesive movie. The best words I can think of to describe it are flat, uninspiring and oftentimes, downright dull. So much time is spent on Tom and Dakota hiding in basements that one actually forgets that this movie is about aliens attacking. And when the action finally gets going, we simply don't care. In fact one scene shows the alien tripods firing their weapons from a large distance away. How are we, the audience, supposed to get involved in it? And towards the end it shows the city of Boston demolished, and yet we never get to see it. We're only shown the aftermath. Another rip-off. The only worthwhile action sequence was the first one, when the aliens appear out of the ground and begin vaporizing people and cleaning house. This scene is worth the price of admission. If only the other action scenes were as good. Not that I'm one of those moviegoers who can only like a movie if it has non-stop action. I appreciate a good plot to go along with it. But "War of the Worlds" only offers a paper-thin plot.In terms of acting, no standout performances here. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise...adequate, but nothing extraordinary. Dakota Fanning, whom I've liked in other movies, is simply annoying here. Most of her "acting" consists of screaming, crying, and staring bug-eyed into the camera. Tim Robbins steals the show although he is wasted. It makes me wonder what this movie would have been like if he had taken on the lead role.Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the cliches. Case in point, when Cruise is constantly able to walk away from disasters completely unharmed while almost everyone else is killed. The worst cliche for me came when the snake-like alien device was searching for humans in the basement. I was thinking to myself, "any second now Dakota Fanning is going to knock over a tin can or make another mistake and cause the alien to turn back and look for them again." Sure enough, that's exactly what happened.I could go on but I won't. This movie was simply a let-down. It's the equivalent of seeing a nice tall cold glass of soda on a hot summer day, gulping it, only to discover that it's been sitting for days and is flat. But you can't spit it out since you've already swallowed it.If you must see a movie with a Cruise/Spielberg collaboration, watch "Minority Report" instead. While it has its flaws, it offers a much more compelling story.

Sad to say, <hl> this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with <hl> .


Question: What is the problem of the movie?

Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make " Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make edits of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.'  So, here goes.This old world falls apart long before 'episode 4' by means of the growth of some dark force jedis. We have little to understand about the differences between the good and dark side of the force other than 'fear.' Well, I have a few things to say about 'fear'.Fear is the tactic used by the irrationalist.  The rationalist tries to establish observational/experimental facts and deduce new facts from there no matter how disheartening to our mental/emotional crutches(like the earth centered universe before the copernican revolution and the belief that god made us perfectly so evolution must be wrong).Let me elaborate about how the rationalist figures out the universe. We can't take in the whole universe all at one go; so, we idealize.  These are our definitions.  We make sure that our definitions only things that make sense with respect to each of the elements of a definition.  The elements of the definition are the same as a declarative sentence - noun, verb, noun.  What needs to be realized here is that a declarative sentence/definition is the language version of 'structure.'  Everything in the universe has structure; and everything in the universe is about changes of that structure.  There's things that have the same structure.  Two apples and two oranges can make(through idealization) two concrete examples of the same abstract structure - the number 2. The mathematical development(the symbol of rational thinking) really gets going when you relate these 'abstractions' to show how they transform into each other.  For instance by mapping the structures of 1 plus 1, you get the abstract structure of 2.  Basicaly, when you can show that the elements(nouns), or relations(verb) are in common, you can often transform various structures into one another(such as 1/2=.5; or, you could relate disperate fields and do things you could not before such as the abstractly identical structures of a tangent line and average speed formulas, and your on the road to calculus and the ability to calculate instantaeneous velocities and the areas of shapes with curved sides).See, the rationalist tries establish clear structural relations; the irrationalist tries to be evasive, fear monger, and be vague to avoid the 'question'.  For instance, what do most people tell their kids when they ask questions?  Either some b.s. answer, or!  God did it!  God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know."  What did 'God, or Elohim' say to Moses when Moses asked who's talking to him? He says shut up, "I am that I am." And Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." Getting back to God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know." . . . no matter what happens, good or bad, god did it; god believers will sweep the unethical problem of god making bad things happen(since he's the infinit all knowing and did everything god) by saying "god works in mysterious ways."  They are also full of little mental(the dark side of the force) tricks like "believe and you will believe."See, all the rationalist efforts came to a head around 1931 when Kurt Godel published his incompleteness theorems; basicaly, he said that a finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinity of truths; but, an inconsistent(the dark side of the force) can prove anything(god works in mysterious ways).See, god is used to make excuses for everything even dictatorships and claiming divine right to the thrown.  Those who did so(or do so) make all kinds of vague tricks to suggest they have divine right to the thrown.  Kings throughout the dark ages did exactly this.  Even the bible has god shutting up King Soloman from suggesting democracy and prefering dictatorship . . . at 1Samuel chapter 8:10-22.  George Lucas has come out and said, he thinks a holy one should rule the whole of planet earth.  See, the great human ability is to be able to combine ideas; the rational spirit does so mathematicaly; the irrationalist does so sometimes purely in terms of avoiding answering questions and growing, or a weird mixture of the two.  How rational is George Lucas?  Here's all the vagueness and fear gaming I found in the original star wars trilogy.In "A New Hope", C3PO and R2D2 are shut up by Han Solo when he tells them 'because Wookies are known to tear people's arms out of their sockets" justifying Chewbacka getting away with a corruption of a game by pownting . . . Luke and OB 1 Kenobi are in a bar and some guy fear mongers Luke about how he has the death sentence on twelve systems; this is a good usage of anti-fear mongering; but, as you will see George Lucas(and most people in this world) clearly don't understand the true difference between the good and dark side of the force.That seems to be the only case in "A New Hope" which gives that movie a good overall rating; but then comes Empire Strikes back; here, Yoda shuts up Luke by saying "this home it is" even though Luke made an innocent remark about the surroundings.  Then, while inside Yoda's home, Yoda tells Luke, jedi are not interested in adventure; humans are about their ability to think and explore the universe.Return of the Jedi . . . Bib Fortuna the front door man of Jabba the hut is weak minded( he scoffs at the thought of Luke being a Jedi) . . . Luke goes to see Yoda and Yoda tries to demeen Luke by saying Luke looked at him wrong . . . when Han Sola, Luke and some others are captured by the ewoks, C3PO tells Luke and Han Solo he will not tell the ewoks to let them go because it would be improper to impersonate a deity.  Leia can't answer Han Solo about why she's talking to Luke(this is understandable considering she just heard some interesting news; she eventually comes out of it).  Darth Vader can't confess he's been bad when confronted by his son(this is actually a noble usage of personal problem mongering and its consequences).  Calrissian at first can't believe his copilot that the shields may still be up; he goes through the logic and eventually shows the character to confess that maybe his copilot has a point; this shows the central role of whether a person is being scientific or not; a person is either looking behind the veiled curtain of nature or he isn't; it takes character to do so.  Han Solo acts up and say's "when he gets back, i wont' get in the way"; Liea tells him he's her brother; well, at least  Han Solo kept cool enough to let her explain.Clearly, George Lucas is a mixture; he seems to understand there's this kind of weird fear gaming; other times, he seems to loose site, or he's a bit more conditioned than he can possibly imagine.  Yoda is clearly not the great thinking he portrays himself in his tone of speech.  I find this everywhere in the world.I thought I'd give some idea of how the prequils should have gone. Yoda was never at Coruscant.  Or, if ever visited the place, he long time ago went to his home world as a precaution from some dark side of the force long ago conquered at one time but never really understood. Young Jedis are sent to his world for training; but, they are kept in the dark as to where this world is; Yoda communicates through the force only.  This was stared hundreds of years before a growing dark side of the force springs up again.  The Jedi can sense it; but, they don't understand it; they are kind of naive just like George Lucas and most people today about fear and vagueness gaming. Like people today, they pride themselves in being socially sophisticated. People are going to drugs and irrationality religion all the time because even the Jedi can't answer all their questions(seen the recent commercials about; hey scientists, where's warp drive?  can't you answer me?  Can't you solve all my problems for me right now?). People are trying to move up the social power ladder all the time because they figure, "who cares, nobody knows everything anyways; and, who cares, these people are willing to take to irrationalities anyways; there's a passage in Eusebius's "Principia Evangelica" to the affect of "XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment(that is Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 31." I'd have the soon to be Emperor thinking along these lines.  But, of course, he can't make his move because he detects that the Jedi have a hidden Jedi.  So, he waits.  Then the Jedi find Anakin Skywalker; they send him to Yoda who finds to much of the dark side of the force in him; sends him back; Anakin gets into all kinds of further troubles which attracts the eye of the Emperor; trains him in the dark side force; Anakin accepts because the Jedi have been instructed to not teach him how to be a jedi, and, it goes from there.  There's more stuff.  There's suppose to be a clone war.  Perhaps the Emperor and Anakin find that there's too many Jedi; so, they clone themselves; they start a war keeping the Emperor and soon to be Darth Vaders new allegiance a secret.  Jedi are getting killed. Finaly, OB-1 and maybe a few are left; they finaly find out that Anakin has turned to the dark side of the force, they search him out; almost kill him; or, they think they killed him.  The emperor finds out, turns Anakin into Darth Vader; Darth vader goes and kills the rest of the Jedi except OB-1 because he knows Anakin's tricks.  The rebel alliance is quickly formed and goes into hiding.  This more or less sets the stage for the original star wars trilogy; of course, they never did understand how things went wrong in the first place even after they stopped the Emperor and Darth Vader . . . ;

Answer: it

<hl> Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make " Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make ed it s of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.' <hl> So, here goes. This old world falls apart long before 'episode 4' by means of the growth of some dark force jedis. We have little to understand about the differences between the good and dark side of the force other than 'fear.' Well, I have a few things to say about 'fear'. Fear is the tactic used by the irrationalist. The rationalist tries to establish observational/experimental facts and deduce new facts from there no matter how disheartening to our mental/emotional crutches(like the earth centered universe before the copernican revolution and the belief that god made us perfectly so evolution must be wrong).Let me elaborate about how the rationalist figures out the universe. We can't take in the whole universe all at one go; so, we idealize. These are our definitions. We make sure that our definitions only things that make sense with respect to each of the elements of a definition. The elements of the definition are the same as a declarative sentence - noun, verb, noun. What needs to be realized here is that a declarative sentence/definition is the language version of 'structure.' Everything in the universe has structure; and everything in the universe is about changes of that structure. There's things that have the same structure. Two apples and two oranges can make(through idealization) two concrete examples of the same abstract structure - the number 2. The mathematical development(the symbol of rational thinking) really gets going when you relate these 'abstractions' to show how they transform into each other. For instance by mapping the structures of 1 plus 1, you get the abstract structure of 2. Basicaly, when you can show that the elements(nouns), or relations(verb) are in common, you can often transform various structures into one another(such as 1/2=.5; or, you could relate disperate fields and do things you could not before such as the abstractly identical structures of a tangent line and average speed formulas, and your on the road to calculus and the ability to calculate instantaeneous velocities and the areas of shapes with curved sides).See, the rationalist tries establish clear structural relations; the irrationalist tries to be evasive, fear monger, and be vague to avoid the 'question'. For instance, what do most people tell their kids when they ask questions? Either some b.s. answer, or! God did it! God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know." What did 'God, or Elohim' say to Moses when Moses asked who's talking to him? He says shut up, "I am that I am." And Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." Getting back to God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know." . . . no matter what happens, good or bad, god did it; god believers will sweep the unethical problem of god making bad things happen(since he's the infinit all knowing and did everything god) by saying "god works in mysterious ways." They are also full of little mental(the dark side of the force) tricks like "believe and you will believe. "See, all the rationalist efforts came to a head around 1931 when Kurt Godel published his incompleteness theorems; basicaly, he said that a finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinity of truths; but, an inconsistent(the dark side of the force) can prove anything(god works in mysterious ways).See, god is used to make excuses for everything even dictatorships and claiming divine right to the thrown. Those who did so(or do so) make all kinds of vague tricks to suggest they have divine right to the thrown. Kings throughout the dark ages did exactly this. Even the bible has god shutting up King Soloman from suggesting democracy and prefering dictatorship . . . at 1Samuel chapter 8:10-22. George Lucas has come out and said, he thinks a holy one should rule the whole of planet earth. See, the great human ability is to be able to combine ideas; the rational spirit does so mathematicaly; the irrationalist does so sometimes purely in terms of avoiding answering questions and growing, or a weird mixture of the two. How rational is George Lucas? Here's all the vagueness and fear gaming I found in the original star wars trilogy. In "A New Hope", C3PO and R2D2 are shut up by Han Solo when he tells them 'because Wookies are known to tear people's arms out of their sockets" justifying Chewbacka getting away with a corruption of a game by pownting . . . Luke and OB 1 Kenobi are in a bar and some guy fear mongers Luke about how he has the death sentence on twelve systems; this is a good usage of anti-fear mongering; but, as you will see George Lucas(and most people in this world) clearly don't understand the true difference between the good and dark side of the force. That seems to be the only case in "A New Hope" which gives that movie a good overall rating; but then comes Empire Strikes back; here, Yoda shuts up Luke by saying "this home it is" even though Luke made an innocent remark about the surroundings. Then, while inside Yoda's home, Yoda tells Luke, jedi are not interested in adventure; humans are about their ability to think and explore the universe. Return of the Jedi . . . Bib Fortuna the front door man of Jabba the hut is weak minded( he scoffs at the thought of Luke being a Jedi) . . . Luke goes to see Yoda and Yoda tries to demeen Luke by saying Luke looked at him wrong . . . when Han Sola, Luke and some others are captured by the ewoks, C3PO tells Luke and Han Solo he will not tell the ewoks to let them go because it would be improper to impersonate a deity. Leia can't answer Han Solo about why she's talking to Luke(this is understandable considering she just heard some interesting news; she eventually comes out of it). Darth Vader can't confess he's been bad when confronted by his son(this is actually a noble usage of personal problem mongering and its consequences). Calrissian at first can't believe his copilot that the shields may still be up; he goes through the logic and eventually shows the character to confess that maybe his copilot has a point; this shows the central role of whether a person is being scientific or not; a person is either looking behind the veiled curtain of nature or he isn't; it takes character to do so. Han Solo acts up and say's "when he gets back, i wont' get in the way"; Liea tells him he's her brother; well, at least Han Solo kept cool enough to let her explain. Clearly, George Lucas is a mixture; he seems to understand there's this kind of weird fear gaming; other times, he seems to loose site, or he's a bit more conditioned than he can possibly imagine. Yoda is clearly not the great thinking he portrays himself in his tone of speech. I find this everywhere in the world. I thought I'd give some idea of how the prequils should have gone. Yoda was never at Coruscant. Or, if ever visited the place, he long time ago went to his home world as a precaution from some dark side of the force long ago conquered at one time but never really understood. Young Jedis are sent to his world for training; but, they are kept in the dark as to where this world is; Yoda communicates through the force only. This was stared hundreds of years before a growing dark side of the force springs up again. The Jedi can sense it; but, they don't understand it; they are kind of naive just like George Lucas and most people today about fear and vagueness gaming. Like people today, they pride themselves in being socially sophisticated. People are going to drugs and irrationality religion all the time because even the Jedi can't answer all their questions(seen the recent commercials about; hey scientists, where's warp drive? can't you answer me? Can't you solve all my problems for me right now?). People are trying to move up the social power ladder all the time because they figure, "who cares, nobody knows everything anyways; and, who cares, these people are willing to take to irrationalities anyways; there's a passage in Eusebius's "Principia Evangelica" to the affect of "XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment(that is Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 31." I'd have the soon to be Emperor thinking along these lines. But, of course, he can't make his move because he detects that the Jedi have a hidden Jedi. So, he waits. Then the Jedi find Anakin Skywalker; they send him to Yoda who finds to much of the dark side of the force in him; sends him back; Anakin gets into all kinds of further troubles which attracts the eye of the Emperor; trains him in the dark side force; Anakin accepts because the Jedi have been instructed to not teach him how to be a jedi, and, it goes from there. There's more stuff. There's suppose to be a clone war. Perhaps the Emperor and Anakin find that there's too many Jedi; so, they clone themselves; they start a war keeping the Emperor and soon to be Darth Vaders new allegiance a secret. Jedi are getting killed. Finaly, OB-1 and maybe a few are left; they finaly find out that Anakin has turned to the dark side of the force, they search him out; almost kill him; or, they think they killed him. The emperor finds out, turns Anakin into Darth Vader; Darth vader goes and kills the rest of the Jedi except OB-1 because he knows Anakin's tricks. The rebel alliance is quickly formed and goes into hiding. This more or less sets the stage for the original star wars trilogy; of course, they never did understand how things went wrong in the first place even after they stopped the Emperor and Darth Vader . . . ;

Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make " Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make ed<hl> it <hl>s of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.' So, here goes.This old world falls apart long before 'episode 4' by means of the growth of some dark force jedis. We have little to understand about the differences between the good and dark side of the force other than 'fear.' Well, I have a few things to say about 'fear'.Fear is the tactic used by the irrationalist. The rationalist tries to establish observational/experimental facts and deduce new facts from there no matter how disheartening to our mental/emotional crutches(like the earth centered universe before the copernican revolution and the belief that god made us perfectly so evolution must be wrong).Let me elaborate about how the rationalist figures out the universe. We can't take in the whole universe all at one go; so, we idealize. These are our definitions. We make sure that our definitions only things that make sense with respect to each of the elements of a definition. The elements of the definition are the same as a declarative sentence - noun, verb, noun. What needs to be realized here is that a declarative sentence/definition is the language version of 'structure.' Everything in the universe has structure; and everything in the universe is about changes of that structure. There's things that have the same structure. Two apples and two oranges can make(through idealization) two concrete examples of the same abstract structure - the number 2. The mathematical development(the symbol of rational thinking) really gets going when you relate these 'abstractions' to show how they transform into each other. For instance by mapping the structures of 1 plus 1, you get the abstract structure of 2. Basicaly, when you can show that the elements(nouns), or relations(verb) are in common, you can often transform various structures into one another(such as 1/2=.5; or, you could relate disperate fields and do things you could not before such as the abstractly identical structures of a tangent line and average speed formulas, and your on the road to calculus and the ability to calculate instantaeneous velocities and the areas of shapes with curved sides).See, the rationalist tries establish clear structural relations; the irrationalist tries to be evasive, fear monger, and be vague to avoid the 'question'. For instance, what do most people tell their kids when they ask questions? Either some b.s. answer, or! God did it! God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know." What did 'God, or Elohim' say to Moses when Moses asked who's talking to him? He says shut up, "I am that I am." And Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." Getting back to God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know." . . . no matter what happens, good or bad, god did it; god believers will sweep the unethical problem of god making bad things happen(since he's the infinit all knowing and did everything god) by saying "god works in mysterious ways." They are also full of little mental(the dark side of the force) tricks like "believe and you will believe."See, all the rationalist efforts came to a head around 1931 when Kurt Godel published his incompleteness theorems; basicaly, he said that a finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinity of truths; but, an inconsistent(the dark side of the force) can prove anything(god works in mysterious ways).See, god is used to make excuses for everything even dictatorships and claiming divine right to the thrown. Those who did so(or do so) make all kinds of vague tricks to suggest they have divine right to the thrown. Kings throughout the dark ages did exactly this. Even the bible has god shutting up King Soloman from suggesting democracy and prefering dictatorship . . . at 1Samuel chapter 8:10-22. George Lucas has come out and said, he thinks a holy one should rule the whole of planet earth. See, the great human ability is to be able to combine ideas; the rational spirit does so mathematicaly; the irrationalist does so sometimes purely in terms of avoiding answering questions and growing, or a weird mixture of the two. How rational is George Lucas? Here's all the vagueness and fear gaming I found in the original star wars trilogy.In "A New Hope", C3PO and R2D2 are shut up by Han Solo when he tells them 'because Wookies are known to tear people's arms out of their sockets" justifying Chewbacka getting away with a corruption of a game by pownting . . . Luke and OB 1 Kenobi are in a bar and some guy fear mongers Luke about how he has the death sentence on twelve systems; this is a good usage of anti-fear mongering; but, as you will see George Lucas(and most people in this world) clearly don't understand the true difference between the good and dark side of the force.That seems to be the only case in "A New Hope" which gives that movie a good overall rating; but then comes Empire Strikes back; here, Yoda shuts up Luke by saying "this home it is" even though Luke made an innocent remark about the surroundings. Then, while inside Yoda's home, Yoda tells Luke, jedi are not interested in adventure; humans are about their ability to think and explore the universe.Return of the Jedi . . . Bib Fortuna the front door man of Jabba the hut is weak minded( he scoffs at the thought of Luke being a Jedi) . . . Luke goes to see Yoda and Yoda tries to demeen Luke by saying Luke looked at him wrong . . . when Han Sola, Luke and some others are captured by the ewoks, C3PO tells Luke and Han Solo he will not tell the ewoks to let them go because it would be improper to impersonate a deity. Leia can't answer Han Solo about why she's talking to Luke(this is understandable considering she just heard some interesting news; she eventually comes out of it). Darth Vader can't confess he's been bad when confronted by his son(this is actually a noble usage of personal problem mongering and its consequences). Calrissian at first can't believe his copilot that the shields may still be up; he goes through the logic and eventually shows the character to confess that maybe his copilot has a point; this shows the central role of whether a person is being scientific or not; a person is either looking behind the veiled curtain of nature or he isn't; it takes character to do so. Han Solo acts up and say's "when he gets back, i wont' get in the way"; Liea tells him he's her brother; well, at least Han Solo kept cool enough to let her explain.Clearly, George Lucas is a mixture; he seems to understand there's this kind of weird fear gaming; other times, he seems to loose site, or he's a bit more conditioned than he can possibly imagine. Yoda is clearly not the great thinking he portrays himself in his tone of speech. I find this everywhere in the world.I thought I'd give some idea of how the prequils should have gone. Yoda was never at Coruscant. Or, if ever visited the place, he long time ago went to his home world as a precaution from some dark side of the force long ago conquered at one time but never really understood. Young Jedis are sent to his world for training; but, they are kept in the dark as to where this world is; Yoda communicates through the force only. This was stared hundreds of years before a growing dark side of the force springs up again. The Jedi can sense it; but, they don't understand it; they are kind of naive just like George Lucas and most people today about fear and vagueness gaming. Like people today, they pride themselves in being socially sophisticated. People are going to drugs and irrationality religion all the time because even the Jedi can't answer all their questions(seen the recent commercials about; hey scientists, where's warp drive? can't you answer me? Can't you solve all my problems for me right now?). People are trying to move up the social power ladder all the time because they figure, "who cares, nobody knows everything anyways; and, who cares, these people are willing to take to irrationalities anyways; there's a passage in Eusebius's "Principia Evangelica" to the affect of "XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment(that is Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 31." I'd have the soon to be Emperor thinking along these lines. But, of course, he can't make his move because he detects that the Jedi have a hidden Jedi. So, he waits. Then the Jedi find Anakin Skywalker; they send him to Yoda who finds to much of the dark side of the force in him; sends him back; Anakin gets into all kinds of further troubles which attracts the eye of the Emperor; trains him in the dark side force; Anakin accepts because the Jedi have been instructed to not teach him how to be a jedi, and, it goes from there. There's more stuff. There's suppose to be a clone war. Perhaps the Emperor and Anakin find that there's too many Jedi; so, they clone themselves; they start a war keeping the Emperor and soon to be Darth Vaders new allegiance a secret. Jedi are getting killed. Finaly, OB-1 and maybe a few are left; they finaly find out that Anakin has turned to the dark side of the force, they search him out; almost kill him; or, they think they killed him. The emperor finds out, turns Anakin into Darth Vader; Darth vader goes and kills the rest of the Jedi except OB-1 because he knows Anakin's tricks. The rebel alliance is quickly formed and goes into hiding. This more or less sets the stage for the original star wars trilogy; of course, they never did understand how things went wrong in the first place even after they stopped the Emperor and Darth Vader . . . ;

Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make " Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make ed <hl> it <hl> s of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.'


Question: How is it the scenery?

This is well-written, well-cast, and the actors are much better than the version I say in the 80's.  That being said, will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is.  This one was plain in my opinion.  At any rate, this is the best version to date, and Mr. Darcy is certainly easy on the eyes.

Answer: That being said

This is well-written, well-cast, and the actors are much better than the version I say in the 80's. <hl> That being said , will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is. <hl> This one was plain in my opinion. At any rate, this is the best version to date, and Mr. Darcy is certainly easy on the eyes.

This is well-written, well-cast, and the actors are much better than the version I say in the 80's. <hl> That being said <hl>, will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is. This one was plain in my opinion. At any rate, this is the best version to date, and Mr. Darcy is certainly easy on the eyes.

<hl> That being said <hl> , will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is.


Question: How is your standard?

Well, it's finally here.  Many of us have been waiting for this moment for years, some for even decades.  But despite the bumps along the ways, and fears that we may never see its realization, us fans finally have what we have wanted for so long.  I'm talking, of course, about Joss Whedon's first time helming an existing property in a major motion picture.  As much as Whedon fans have enjoyed his original work over the years, many of us have wondered what he could do not only with preexisting characters but also with the backing of a major budget and the epic panoramic screen of the multiplex.  Oh, and of course the film itself happens to be The Avengers, the most anticipated movie of the last ten years or so.  And I'm happy to report that no one other than Whedon would have been able to pull off a film with this scope and this huge cast of characters.As you might guess, this review will be Whedon centric.  Plenty of people have dissected The Avengers from the point of view of comic book fans or critics of summer blockbusters.  But I would like to approach it from the perspective of one entry within Whedon's larger oeuvre.  I have a long history with Whedon's work, starting in high school when I first started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a lark.  The concept of transforming a poorly received film into an ongoing series appeared to be such an idiotic idea that I decided to tune in order to witness some schadenfreude.  But eventually I found myself sucked into the story of a group of teenagers struggling simultaneously with adolescents and the supernatural, both elements of the show serving as metaphor for the other.  Not only did Buffy provide a surprisingly accurate view of growing up, but it also dipped into narrative experimentation.  Like many TV shows from the 90s, Buffy was acutely aware of genre conventions and subverted them whenever it could.  From then on I was a devoted fan of Whedon's work, from his spin off series Angel to the cult classic Firefly to his work in comic books.And of all the elements Whedon is most known for, the one that makes him most suited for an Avengers film is his ability to handle a large cast of characters without letting anyone slide into the background.  Whedon once said that he had to add more characters to Angel because he had such a difficult time writing for just the three principle actors.  It's also not uncommon for ancillary characters to become series regulars in his shows.  So if anyone is capable of balancing out four superheroes who had previously anchored their own films along with a good helping of backup characters, it is Joss Whedon.  The Avengers combines elements from many of the previous films.  The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of "The Avengers Initiative," first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie.  The MacGuffin, here known as the tesseract, was first introduced in Captain America and has a connection to the Norse Gods that filled out the mythology of Thor.  And the main villain, Loki, is of course the adopted brother of Thor himself.  Of all the previous Marvel movies, The Incredible Hulk is the least essential.  But with a new casting (Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton) audiences have an opportunity to become reacquainted with the green guy.The basic plot of the film is relatively straight forward with only a few curves thrown in for good measure.  Loki wants to steal the tesseract so that he can lead an invading alien force that will take over the Earth.  Without too much plot to get in the way, Whedon is capable of focusing his energy on the story's core pith: the friction between the heroes.  A lot of the film's drama comes from the fact that these characters don't belong together.  Their personalities and ideologies just don't fit.  In most comic books this means that the heroes have to fight before they team up, and in true comic book form when Thor tries to extract Loki from SHIELD custody and take him back to Asgardian jurisdiction Captain America and Iron Man team up to stop him.  Likewise, Captain America, who is a man out of time, continually brushes up against Tony Stark.  This makes sense, since Steve Rogers is a veteran of World War II when it was necessary for the individuals to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but, as Iron Man, Tony Stark doesn't do anything without first considering his own ego.  And in the midst of all this tension lies Bruce Banner who is liable to Hulk out at any provocation.Whedon is able to steer the film towards the interpersonal thanks to a few tricks he learned back in his Buffy days.  In the episode, "The Yoko Factor," the gang captures the punk rock vampire Spike only for him to psychologically manipulate each of Buffy's friends in order to get them to turn on one another.  The point of the episode is that these tensions have existed for some time, and it only took a little spark for all of the resentment between friends to ignite into hatred.  Similarly, in The Avengers, Shield manages to capture Loki who then proceeds to sew seeds of distrust among the newly formed super group.  By making the tensions between the Avengers a weakness the villain can exploit, Whedon is able to clearly illustrate these characters for the audience while keeping the plot moving along.  The story doesn't need to stop in order for us to get to know these characters.If Whedon is known for one authorial tick, then it is probably his use of witticisms and word play.  The team dynamic allows him plenty of space to incorporate some of his well known dialogue.  The film trades in lots of quips between heroes and has a sprinkling of snark without going overboard.  Critics of Whedon's writing find his dialogue to be treacly rather than charming, and while I mostly disagree with these critics, it's certainly true that not all of Whedon's verbal jabs land properly.  This is especially true when Whedon isn't present to carefully direct his dialogue's delivery (see Halle Berry in The X-Men).  But like an athlete who does his best work in front of millions, here, when the world is watching, Whedon's humor absolutely shines.  And he has found a great ally in Robert Downey Jr. who is known to insist on making his own improvements on his scripts (the "Shwarma" joke was apparently all his idea).  In fact, Whedon is confident enough in his humor to momentarily take a break from the action to show us a Shield agent playing Galaga on a multimillion dollar computer when his boss isn't watching.  A joke that wouldn't work if he didn't trust that his audience shared his own bizarre sense of humor.In addition to his use of repartee, Whedon's also well known as a pop culture feminist, which in practice means he likes to watch an attractive lady beat up guys much bigger than herself.  Here Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) serves this particular purpose.  Several times throughout the film, Black Widow uses others' perception of her as an emotionally fragile creature in order to, jujitsu-like, convince her enemies to spill important information.  What might be first seen as a weakness becomes a weapon.  Whedon is clearly within the ideological confines of third-wave feminism, which seems to maintain that women can both serve as sexual objects while simultaneously kicking ass.  And there's some legitimate criticism to this approach to feminism, but Whedon generally gets away with it because he's able to write strong, interesting female characters.  We learn that Black Widow has a history with another SHIELD agent, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and, unfortunately, not given much of a role).  And when he is taken by Loki, Black Widow, in a role reversal, is allowed to become his savior.  Third wave feminism suits Johansson, an actress who most directors seem unable to do anything interesting with.  Arguably, this is her best role since Lost in Translation.But if there is a single major theme of The Avengers, then it is the question of the place of the individual within a larger community.  While making a pit stop in Germany, Loki takes the time to make a crowd of people bow before him while he pontificates on the useless notion of freedom.  And if the parallels between Loki's philosophy and fascism aren't clear enough, an older gentleman in the crowd decides to stand up and all but call Loki Hitler (obviously this fellow has never heard of Godwin's Law).  But the Avengers have their own problems formulating a cohesive group.  Each character is in some manner or other cut off from the larger society, whether it is Bruce Banner's rage or Tony Stark's ego.  These are individuals who are marked as outsiders, a favorite theme of Whedon's work.  But their very survival, and the survival of the world, is dependant on the ability of these individual parts to interlock.  Whedon represents the eventual coming together of these heroes in the final battle with a single shot that moves around the city in order to let the audience see how these characters work together as a cohesive unit.  For Whedon the answer to forced unity is not pure individuality, but rather a volatile mixture of the singular within the communal.But Whedon hasn't lost his healthy distrust of governing bodies.  Without giving too much away, in addition to dealing with an alien invasions, the film's heroes must also contend with the unclear motives of SHIELD, the quasi-military/quasi-intelligence agency that first assembled the Avengers.  Not only do members of the Avengers accuse SHIELD of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction, but the organization also purposefully attacks a civilian target for the "greater good."  In fact, Whedon's portrayal of SHIELD may have been too subversive for the U.S. military who cited its portrayals as a reason why they refused to cooperate with the movie by lending military equipment, an offer they regularly extend to films that represent the armed forces in a much more "patriotic" light.For the most part the movies produced by Marvel have been, by necessity, studio films in the classic Hollywood tradition.  Superhero movies have become so popular that most studios have banished any ultra stylistic auteurs who, early on in the superhero craze, put out some of the more distinctive films in the genre.  The likes of Ang Lee and Sam Raimi were deemed too idiosyncratic to helm multi-million dollar films.  That doesn't mean that there haven't been some interesting superhero films in the last few years, but it does mean that singular visions have been replaced by the work of handy craftsmen.  When you watch Tim Burton's Batman, you immediately recognize that this can be nothing but the work of Tim Burton The same could be said about Nolan's Batman series, thanks to the fact that they were first made when superhero auteurs were still in vogue.  (It's unlikely in today's environment that the studio would give Nolan as much free reign as he wielded).  Joss Whedon's The Avengers (a title that would make more sense than Marvel's The Avengers) attempts to derail this trend.  While Whedon is still constrained by the visual and narrative template established previously in earlier Marvel movies, he still manages to create a film that speaks with his own artistic voice.  This is especially impressive when you consider the fact that he was entrusted with an astronomical budget.  Maybe from within the deafening confines of the studio system, a singular voice can make itself heard after all.

Answer: the Avengers

Well, it's finally here. Many of us have been waiting for this moment for years, some for even decades. But despite the bumps along the ways, and fears that we may never see its realization, us fans finally have what we have wanted for so long. I'm talking, of course, about Joss Whedon's first time helming an existing property in a major motion picture. As much as Whedon fans have enjoyed his original work over the years, many of us have wondered what he could do not only with preexisting characters but also with the backing of a major budget and the epic panoramic screen of the multiplex. Oh, and of course the film itself happens to be The Avengers, the most anticipated movie of the last ten years or so. And I'm happy to report that no one other than Whedon would have been able to pull off a film with this scope and this huge cast of characters. As you might guess, this review will be Whedon centric. Plenty of people have dissected The Avengers from the point of view of comic book fans or critics of summer blockbusters. But I would like to approach it from the perspective of one entry within Whedon's larger oeuvre. I have a long history with Whedon's work, starting in high school when I first started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a lark. The concept of transforming a poorly received film into an ongoing series appeared to be such an idiotic idea that I decided to tune in order to witness some schadenfreude. But eventually I found myself sucked into the story of a group of teenagers struggling simultaneously with adolescents and the supernatural, both elements of the show serving as metaphor for the other. Not only did Buffy provide a surprisingly accurate view of growing up, but it also dipped into narrative experimentation. Like many TV shows from the 90s, Buffy was acutely aware of genre conventions and subverted them whenever it could. From then on I was a devoted fan of Whedon's work, from his spin off series Angel to the cult classic Firefly to his work in comic books. And of all the elements Whedon is most known for, the one that makes him most suited for an Avengers film is his ability to handle a large cast of characters without letting anyone slide into the background. Whedon once said that he had to add more characters to Angel because he had such a difficult time writing for just the three principle actors. It's also not uncommon for ancillary characters to become series regulars in his shows. So if anyone is capable of balancing out four superheroes who had previously anchored their own films along with a good helping of backup characters, it is Joss Whedon. The Avengers combines elements from many of the previous films. <hl> The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of "The Avengers Initiative," first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie. <hl> The MacGuffin, here known as the tesseract, was first introduced in Captain America and has a connection to the Norse Gods that filled out the mythology of Thor. And the main villain, Loki, is of course the adopted brother of Thor himself. Of all the previous Marvel movies, The Incredible Hulk is the least essential. But with a new casting (Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton) audiences have an opportunity to become reacquainted with the green guy. The basic plot of the film is relatively straight forward with only a few curves thrown in for good measure. Loki wants to steal the tesseract so that he can lead an invading alien force that will take over the Earth. Without too much plot to get in the way, Whedon is capable of focusing his energy on the story's core pith: the friction between the heroes. A lot of the film's drama comes from the fact that these characters don't belong together. Their personalities and ideologies just don't fit. In most comic books this means that the heroes have to fight before they team up, and in true comic book form when Thor tries to extract Loki from SHIELD custody and take him back to Asgardian jurisdiction Captain America and Iron Man team up to stop him. Likewise, Captain America, who is a man out of time, continually brushes up against Tony Stark. This makes sense, since Steve Rogers is a veteran of World War II when it was necessary for the individuals to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but, as Iron Man, Tony Stark doesn't do anything without first considering his own ego. And in the midst of all this tension lies Bruce Banner who is liable to Hulk out at any provocation. Whedon is able to steer the film towards the interpersonal thanks to a few tricks he learned back in his Buffy days. In the episode, "The Yoko Factor," the gang captures the punk rock vampire Spike only for him to psychologically manipulate each of Buffy's friends in order to get them to turn on one another. The point of the episode is that these tensions have existed for some time, and it only took a little spark for all of the resentment between friends to ignite into hatred. Similarly, in The Avengers, Shield manages to capture Loki who then proceeds to sew seeds of distrust among the newly formed super group. By making the tensions between the Avengers a weakness the villain can exploit, Whedon is able to clearly illustrate these characters for the audience while keeping the plot moving along. The story doesn't need to stop in order for us to get to know these characters. If Whedon is known for one authorial tick, then it is probably his use of witticisms and word play. The team dynamic allows him plenty of space to incorporate some of his well known dialogue. The film trades in lots of quips between heroes and has a sprinkling of snark without going overboard. Critics of Whedon's writing find his dialogue to be treacly rather than charming, and while I mostly disagree with these critics, it's certainly true that not all of Whedon's verbal jabs land properly. This is especially true when Whedon isn't present to carefully direct his dialogue's delivery (see Halle Berry in The X-Men). But like an athlete who does his best work in front of millions, here, when the world is watching, Whedon's humor absolutely shines. And he has found a great ally in Robert Downey Jr. who is known to insist on making his own improvements on his scripts (the "Shwarma" joke was apparently all his idea). In fact, Whedon is confident enough in his humor to momentarily take a break from the action to show us a Shield agent playing Galaga on a multimillion dollar computer when his boss isn't watching. A joke that wouldn't work if he didn't trust that his audience shared his own bizarre sense of humor. In addition to his use of repartee, Whedon's also well known as a pop culture feminist, which in practice means he likes to watch an attractive lady beat up guys much bigger than herself. Here Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) serves this particular purpose. Several times throughout the film, Black Widow uses others' perception of her as an emotionally fragile creature in order to, jujitsu-like, convince her enemies to spill important information. What might be first seen as a weakness becomes a weapon. Whedon is clearly within the ideological confines of third-wave feminism, which seems to maintain that women can both serve as sexual objects while simultaneously kicking ass. And there's some legitimate criticism to this approach to feminism, but Whedon generally gets away with it because he's able to write strong, interesting female characters. We learn that Black Widow has a history with another SHIELD agent, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and, unfortunately, not given much of a role). And when he is taken by Loki, Black Widow, in a role reversal, is allowed to become his savior. Third wave feminism suits Johansson, an actress who most directors seem unable to do anything interesting with. Arguably, this is her best role since Lost in Translation. But if there is a single major theme of The Avengers, then it is the question of the place of the individual within a larger community. While making a pit stop in Germany, Loki takes the time to make a crowd of people bow before him while he pontificates on the useless notion of freedom. And if the parallels between Loki's philosophy and fascism aren't clear enough, an older gentleman in the crowd decides to stand up and all but call Loki Hitler (obviously this fellow has never heard of Godwin's Law). But the Avengers have their own problems formulating a cohesive group. Each character is in some manner or other cut off from the larger society, whether it is Bruce Banner's rage or Tony Stark's ego. These are individuals who are marked as outsiders, a favorite theme of Whedon's work. But their very survival, and the survival of the world, is dependant on the ability of these individual parts to interlock. Whedon represents the eventual coming together of these heroes in the final battle with a single shot that moves around the city in order to let the audience see how these characters work together as a cohesive unit. For Whedon the answer to forced unity is not pure individuality, but rather a volatile mixture of the singular within the communal. But Whedon hasn't lost his healthy distrust of governing bodies. Without giving too much away, in addition to dealing with an alien invasions, the film's heroes must also contend with the unclear motives of SHIELD, the quasi-military/quasi-intelligence agency that first assembled the Avengers. Not only do members of the Avengers accuse SHIELD of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction, but the organization also purposefully attacks a civilian target for the "greater good." In fact, Whedon's portrayal of SHIELD may have been too subversive for the U.S. military who cited its portrayals as a reason why they refused to cooperate with the movie by lending military equipment, an offer they regularly extend to films that represent the armed forces in a much more "patriotic" light. For the most part the movies produced by Marvel have been, by necessity, studio films in the classic Hollywood tradition. Superhero movies have become so popular that most studios have banished any ultra stylistic auteurs who, early on in the superhero craze, put out some of the more distinctive films in the genre. The likes of Ang Lee and Sam Raimi were deemed too idiosyncratic to helm multi-million dollar films. That doesn't mean that there haven't been some interesting superhero films in the last few years, but it does mean that singular visions have been replaced by the work of handy craftsmen. When you watch Tim Burton's Batman, you immediately recognize that this can be nothing but the work of Tim Burton The same could be said about Nolan's Batman series, thanks to the fact that they were first made when superhero auteurs were still in vogue. (It's unlikely in today's environment that the studio would give Nolan as much free reign as he wielded). Joss Whedon's The Avengers (a title that would make more sense than Marvel's The Avengers) attempts to derail this trend. While Whedon is still constrained by the visual and narrative template established previously in earlier Marvel movies, he still manages to create a film that speaks with his own artistic voice. This is especially impressive when you consider the fact that he was entrusted with an astronomical budget. Maybe from within the deafening confines of the studio system, a singular voice can make itself heard after all.

Well, it's finally here. Many of us have been waiting for this moment for years, some for even decades. But despite the bumps along the ways, and fears that we may never see its realization, us fans finally have what we have wanted for so long. I'm talking, of course, about Joss Whedon's first time helming an existing property in a major motion picture. As much as Whedon fans have enjoyed his original work over the years, many of us have wondered what he could do not only with preexisting characters but also with the backing of a major budget and the epic panoramic screen of the multiplex. Oh, and of course the film itself happens to be The Avengers, the most anticipated movie of the last ten years or so. And I'm happy to report that no one other than Whedon would have been able to pull off a film with this scope and this huge cast of characters.As you might guess, this review will be Whedon centric. Plenty of people have dissected The Avengers from the point of view of comic book fans or critics of summer blockbusters. But I would like to approach it from the perspective of one entry within Whedon's larger oeuvre. I have a long history with Whedon's work, starting in high school when I first started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a lark. The concept of transforming a poorly received film into an ongoing series appeared to be such an idiotic idea that I decided to tune in order to witness some schadenfreude. But eventually I found myself sucked into the story of a group of teenagers struggling simultaneously with adolescents and the supernatural, both elements of the show serving as metaphor for the other. Not only did Buffy provide a surprisingly accurate view of growing up, but it also dipped into narrative experimentation. Like many TV shows from the 90s, Buffy was acutely aware of genre conventions and subverted them whenever it could. From then on I was a devoted fan of Whedon's work, from his spin off series Angel to the cult classic Firefly to his work in comic books.And of all the elements Whedon is most known for, the one that makes him most suited for an Avengers film is his ability to handle a large cast of characters without letting anyone slide into the background. Whedon once said that he had to add more characters to Angel because he had such a difficult time writing for just the three principle actors. It's also not uncommon for ancillary characters to become series regulars in his shows. So if anyone is capable of balancing out four superheroes who had previously anchored their own films along with a good helping of backup characters, it is Joss Whedon. The Avengers combines elements from many of the previous films. The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of "The Avengers Initiative," first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and <hl> the Avengers <hl> served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie. The MacGuffin, here known as the tesseract, was first introduced in Captain America and has a connection to the Norse Gods that filled out the mythology of Thor. And the main villain, Loki, is of course the adopted brother of Thor himself. Of all the previous Marvel movies, The Incredible Hulk is the least essential. But with a new casting (Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton) audiences have an opportunity to become reacquainted with the green guy.The basic plot of the film is relatively straight forward with only a few curves thrown in for good measure. Loki wants to steal the tesseract so that he can lead an invading alien force that will take over the Earth. Without too much plot to get in the way, Whedon is capable of focusing his energy on the story's core pith: the friction between the heroes. A lot of the film's drama comes from the fact that these characters don't belong together. Their personalities and ideologies just don't fit. In most comic books this means that the heroes have to fight before they team up, and in true comic book form when Thor tries to extract Loki from SHIELD custody and take him back to Asgardian jurisdiction Captain America and Iron Man team up to stop him. Likewise, Captain America, who is a man out of time, continually brushes up against Tony Stark. This makes sense, since Steve Rogers is a veteran of World War II when it was necessary for the individuals to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but, as Iron Man, Tony Stark doesn't do anything without first considering his own ego. And in the midst of all this tension lies Bruce Banner who is liable to Hulk out at any provocation.Whedon is able to steer the film towards the interpersonal thanks to a few tricks he learned back in his Buffy days. In the episode, "The Yoko Factor," the gang captures the punk rock vampire Spike only for him to psychologically manipulate each of Buffy's friends in order to get them to turn on one another. The point of the episode is that these tensions have existed for some time, and it only took a little spark for all of the resentment between friends to ignite into hatred. Similarly, in The Avengers, Shield manages to capture Loki who then proceeds to sew seeds of distrust among the newly formed super group. By making the tensions between the Avengers a weakness the villain can exploit, Whedon is able to clearly illustrate these characters for the audience while keeping the plot moving along. The story doesn't need to stop in order for us to get to know these characters.If Whedon is known for one authorial tick, then it is probably his use of witticisms and word play. The team dynamic allows him plenty of space to incorporate some of his well known dialogue. The film trades in lots of quips between heroes and has a sprinkling of snark without going overboard. Critics of Whedon's writing find his dialogue to be treacly rather than charming, and while I mostly disagree with these critics, it's certainly true that not all of Whedon's verbal jabs land properly. This is especially true when Whedon isn't present to carefully direct his dialogue's delivery (see Halle Berry in The X-Men). But like an athlete who does his best work in front of millions, here, when the world is watching, Whedon's humor absolutely shines. And he has found a great ally in Robert Downey Jr. who is known to insist on making his own improvements on his scripts (the "Shwarma" joke was apparently all his idea). In fact, Whedon is confident enough in his humor to momentarily take a break from the action to show us a Shield agent playing Galaga on a multimillion dollar computer when his boss isn't watching. A joke that wouldn't work if he didn't trust that his audience shared his own bizarre sense of humor.In addition to his use of repartee, Whedon's also well known as a pop culture feminist, which in practice means he likes to watch an attractive lady beat up guys much bigger than herself. Here Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) serves this particular purpose. Several times throughout the film, Black Widow uses others' perception of her as an emotionally fragile creature in order to, jujitsu-like, convince her enemies to spill important information. What might be first seen as a weakness becomes a weapon. Whedon is clearly within the ideological confines of third-wave feminism, which seems to maintain that women can both serve as sexual objects while simultaneously kicking ass. And there's some legitimate criticism to this approach to feminism, but Whedon generally gets away with it because he's able to write strong, interesting female characters. We learn that Black Widow has a history with another SHIELD agent, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and, unfortunately, not given much of a role). And when he is taken by Loki, Black Widow, in a role reversal, is allowed to become his savior. Third wave feminism suits Johansson, an actress who most directors seem unable to do anything interesting with. Arguably, this is her best role since Lost in Translation.But if there is a single major theme of The Avengers, then it is the question of the place of the individual within a larger community. While making a pit stop in Germany, Loki takes the time to make a crowd of people bow before him while he pontificates on the useless notion of freedom. And if the parallels between Loki's philosophy and fascism aren't clear enough, an older gentleman in the crowd decides to stand up and all but call Loki Hitler (obviously this fellow has never heard of Godwin's Law). But the Avengers have their own problems formulating a cohesive group. Each character is in some manner or other cut off from the larger society, whether it is Bruce Banner's rage or Tony Stark's ego. These are individuals who are marked as outsiders, a favorite theme of Whedon's work. But their very survival, and the survival of the world, is dependant on the ability of these individual parts to interlock. Whedon represents the eventual coming together of these heroes in the final battle with a single shot that moves around the city in order to let the audience see how these characters work together as a cohesive unit. For Whedon the answer to forced unity is not pure individuality, but rather a volatile mixture of the singular within the communal.But Whedon hasn't lost his healthy distrust of governing bodies. Without giving too much away, in addition to dealing with an alien invasions, the film's heroes must also contend with the unclear motives of SHIELD, the quasi-military/quasi-intelligence agency that first assembled the Avengers. Not only do members of the Avengers accuse SHIELD of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction, but the organization also purposefully attacks a civilian target for the "greater good." In fact, Whedon's portrayal of SHIELD may have been too subversive for the U.S. military who cited its portrayals as a reason why they refused to cooperate with the movie by lending military equipment, an offer they regularly extend to films that represent the armed forces in a much more "patriotic" light.For the most part the movies produced by Marvel have been, by necessity, studio films in the classic Hollywood tradition. Superhero movies have become so popular that most studios have banished any ultra stylistic auteurs who, early on in the superhero craze, put out some of the more distinctive films in the genre. The likes of Ang Lee and Sam Raimi were deemed too idiosyncratic to helm multi-million dollar films. That doesn't mean that there haven't been some interesting superhero films in the last few years, but it does mean that singular visions have been replaced by the work of handy craftsmen. When you watch Tim Burton's Batman, you immediately recognize that this can be nothing but the work of Tim Burton The same could be said about Nolan's Batman series, thanks to the fact that they were first made when superhero auteurs were still in vogue. (It's unlikely in today's environment that the studio would give Nolan as much free reign as he wielded). Joss Whedon's The Avengers (a title that would make more sense than Marvel's The Avengers) attempts to derail this trend. While Whedon is still constrained by the visual and narrative template established previously in earlier Marvel movies, he still manages to create a film that speaks with his own artistic voice. This is especially impressive when you consider the fact that he was entrusted with an astronomical budget. Maybe from within the deafening confines of the studio system, a singular voice can make itself heard after all.