Review: THE MARVELS

 

   Last week, Variety published an article about all of the recent problems at Marvel Studios. Ant Man: Quantumania was a box office failure even though it made $467 million worldwide. Jonathan Majors, who played Kang in that Ant Man movie and also in the Disney+ show, Loki, allegedly beat up his girlfriend and will probably be fired eventually by Marvel. The problem is that his character, Kang, was supposed to be the big villain in the next two Avengers movies. So do they just re-cast him? Or do they re-write the movies with a new villain? Marvel couldn't write him out of the current 2nd season of Loki because they weren't allowed to do re-shoots this summer because of the actors and writers strike. The other problem is that The Marvels, the latest movie, had terrible audience screenings and had to do re-shoots, apparently without the director, Nia DaCosta, because she already left to make something else. 

    With this article, and the tepid excitement surrounding The Marvels, everyone online has been touting Marvel to be dead or dying, that they're not cool or popular anymore, that everything dies, that it's all over, this is the end.

    Is it...really? It probably doesn't help that The Marvels isn't particularly a good movie or anything. Have any of the Marvel movies been any good, though? They've all been fairly entertaining, just big budget popcorn flicks to spend a Friday night watching and then forgetting about. They've never even hinted at being great cinema, nor did they really ever try to be. It also doesn't help that we're getting all this noise over a movie with the superheroes that nobody knows, Ms. Marvel and Captain Marvel. If we were getting a Spider-Man movie or an Avengers movie with, say, Robert Downey, Jr. and other prominent Hollywood actors, maybe nobody would be complaining...and those would probably be big hits and counter any sort of negative publicity. So I don't think it's too surprising if a movie featuring Captain Marvel and Ms. Marvel is shockingly not going to be a blockbuster nor a 4 star, Oscar contender.

    The Marvels is sort of a sequel to Captain Marvel, a movie that I barely remember. Brie Larson, who won an Oscar but will still never be better than she was in The United States of Tara, is Captain Marvel. That first film featured her origin. It also featured a special f/x, de-aged Samuel L. Jackson. It also featured the Skrulls, a shape shifting alien menace. Considering I don't remember the plot of that film, it probably wasn't very interesting. And considering I've been reading comic books since the late 80's and have never read a Captain Marvel book nor even vaguely remember seeing her before in print, I don't think she's exactly a well known or liked character, is she? I think Captain Marvel also used to be a man. And he also used to be Shazam, but I think DC couldn't use the 'Marvel' name going forward for obvious reasons. 

    So Captain Marvel is back and so is Samuel L. Jackson. Joining them is Ms. Marvel, fresh from her Disney+ show that came out last year. The one positive thing in The Marvels is Iman Vellani, who plays Ms. Marvel. She's just a hell of a lot of fun to watch. And her parents and brother, which are almost just as amusing, really are the standouts in this murky, stitched-together, slap dash mess of a film. 

    The plot, as usual in these Marvel movies, is basically just an evil Big Bad trying to gain power and rule but is, of course, thwarted by the good guys. I suppose there's a way to make this been-there-done-that plot interesting, but it's definitely not done here. The villain is a Skree, which are the alien race that have been battling the Skrulls for generations. Dar-Benn, the villain, is played by Zawe Ashton, and she's about as forgettable as a passing road sign. Her plot line involves her getting her hands on an ancient, mystical wrist bangle, which holds ultimate power. Ms. Marvel also has a wrist bangle. I mean...this is the best these 3 screenwriters could come up with? They've also added a third Marvel woman, who doesn't have a super hero name yet, played by Teyonah Paris. She has powers, though, and for no good reason, the movie starts with the three of the Marvel women trading places with each other inadvertently when they use their powers. This does produce a fairly inventive action set piece early on when the three of them are being zapped from a house in Jersey City to a galactic space ship in some far off galaxy to a space station orbiting Earth, all while fighting bad guys. 

    While the action isn't particularly awesome or anything, the one good thing the movie has is the chemistry between the 3 leads. They attempt to make this somewhat of a buddy comedy in spots, and it works so much better than any of the big, superhero action and Big Bad villain destruction that I would probably rather watch these 3 be in some sort of Bridesmaids type of romp. The movie is also, for whatever reason, kind of bonkers. I suppose the writers and director realized that superhero movies and Marvel movies have not only done it all before and gotten stale, but they kind of need to be shaken up a bit. In this sense, they've added some extremely far-out scenes like a world where the language is song, so everyone sings and dances to greet them. And there's also the cats that eat people.

    When the 3 Marvels arrive on the singing planet, the citizens, all dressed in colorful, playful garb, start dancing and singing...Iman Vellani joins in and starts moving to the beat, a big smile plastered across her face, seemingly having the time of her life, seemingly enjoying being in a big budget movie for the first time in her life. It's too bad the audience watching this isn't feeling as good as her. It's almost like she's pushing to make this a better movie, willing it to be something it isn't.

    And it isn't...because the point, which we realize at the end, is simply to come up with a reason to get The X-Men, whose movie rights are owned by Fox, not Disney, into the Marvel movie realm. This isn't a movie, really, it's a gimmick to create a reason for The X-Men to show up. A time/space reality rip shows up thanks to the Big Bad, and so we get another universe...which is...Fox's movie studio? And that's after Hawkeye, played by Hailee Steinfeld, shows up. 

    I guess the idea is to get the audience excited about these cameos leading to future movies and TV shows. How exciting is Kelsey Grammar voicing a special f/x Beast, though? 

    In The New York Times Book Review last week, there was a review of a new book about Marvel Studios. The reviewer mentioned something about how when these Marvel movies started, with the first Iron Man, the kids that were teenagers and went to see it and were excited about Marvel movies back then are all grown up now with kids...it's been that long. And really, the reviewer was right. Kids don't want to watch what their parents watched and what their parents thought was cool. Things change. Everything ends. While these movies might still be entertaining, light, forgettable fluff, the sheen is definitely off, the coolness is definitely gone, and any sort of excitement about the future of the Marvel Studios brand is definitely diminishing until one day maybe it'll be gone, forgotten, a ghost. **

Review: SCREAM VI

    

     You knew the Friday the 13th franchise was out of ideas when Jason went to Manhattan. Why did he travel from Crystal Lake to New York City, anyway? To see the sites? Or was it...to kill? I did watch that movie, Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (what a mouthful), years ago, but only remember two scenes from it. One character was a boxer and he, shockingly, decided to take on Jason on a roof top with his boxing skills. Jason punched him and his head flew off. The other scene I remember was when Jason took off his mask and showed what his face looked like to two strangers on the street. The strangers were shocked! Sadly, the camera didn't show what was under the mask. I'm guessing that the film was supposed to be a comedy. Well Scream VI has Ghost Face going to NYC and it's not a comedy. Maybe it would've been better if it was? Who knows? Considering I still remember two scenes from a movie I probably saw 30 years ago, and probably won't remember a single scene from Scream VI in 30 years, it tells you something about how great this new Scream is.

    If you somehow forget, or live in a closet, or hate movies, or are pop culture illiterate, Scream from 1997 was a great film. It definitely rose above the typical horror/slasher fare, thanks to a plethora of things; the script, originally titled Scary Movie, by Kevin Williamson, was one of the best scripts ever written. And the actors they got were all fantastic to create quite the memorable flick. It was the pinnacle of stardom for every single actor in that movie. None of them did anything better before or after. But of course the sequels neutered the greatness of the first film. They did three quick, forgettable sequels and then Scream 4 showed up with a fresh cast of popular young actors. MTV made a Scream TV show that I enjoyed even though I was probably the only one on Earth that watched it. And then last year came Scream, the 5th entry, and now a year later a direct sequel. 

    In last year's Scream, we not only got a fresh tale of Ghost Face mayhem in Woodbury, but the old cast came back. Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette all reprised their roles to no good effect. In Scream VI, they're scraping from the bottom of the barrel. Cox returns, but Neve Campbell wanted too much money. Hayden "Save the Cheerleader" Panetierre returns, although I totally forget anything she did in Scream 4. It tells you how awful the script for this new film is when you figure that Hayden Panetierre was a high school character in Scream 4 and they had to figure out a way to get her in this new movie so they decided to make her...an F.B.I. agent. Huh? 

    The story has two sisters in NYC because one of them is going to a fictional college there. They, along with their friends, survived Ghost Face in the previous film, and are now all conveniently living in the Big Apple. Fresh murders occur, a new Ghost Face killer is on the loose, and the big question is: who is it? Is it the hot, mysterious strange neighbor? One of the college roommates? The dad cop? A legend from the past? Does anyone really care anymore? 

    The big problem with these last two Scream films, co-directed and co-written by the same team, is that they decide to tie everything back to the original film. They both have a main character, Sam, played by Melissa Barrera, who's the daughter of Billy Loomis, one of the original killers played by Skeet Ulrich in the original. I get that this is a franchise, and acknowledging the classic original makes sense, but being stuck in the past can be part of the problem. They should have kept the original framework: a suburban town, a Ghost Face killer, murders, a whodunnit, but made everything new. Trying to recreate something great never works. One of the reasons Scream 2 was so dumb was because one of the killers turned out to be Billy Loomis' mother, played by Laurie Metcalf. Yes, the actress from Roseanne was a cold blooded murderer running around in a black cloak and a ghost mask. And yes, it was as idiotic as it sounds. 

    There are a few entertaining and well done sequences in Scream VI. The opener, done in every film, with a character getting a phone call from a stranger asking them about horror films then butchering them, is neigh impossible to mess up. This time we get a woman at a bar getting a phone call from her unknown Tindr date that leads to a pretty exciting opening. The other scene that works for a bit is the subway sequence: it's Halloween, so the stuffed subway is filled with a few costumed revelers in Ghost Face regalia. Is one of them the killer? Well...duh. 

    The major problem in this film, besides the borderline atrocious script, is that none of the characters are interesting. The one semi-big star (besides Courtney Cox...who was famous a century ago) is Jenna Ortega. She was in Netflix's popular Wednesday show last year, and also hosted SNL. She doesn't get much to do here, and no one gets any good lines to deliver. Melissa Barrera, the star, mopes around throughout the entire film. There isn't even a great, funny, zany, wise talking sidekick to deliver memorable laughs. And the ending with the big reveal and the big killing room finale, is the worst thing in the entire film. 

    Honestly, I kind of wished I'd have watched Jason Takes Manhattan again instead. *1/2

THE TOP 10 MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS OF 2023

1- INDIA JONES & THE DIAL OF DESTINY: I think we all know that this movie won't be as good as "Temple of Doom," yet here we are. I'm probably the only one on Earth that actually enjoyed the last "Indiana Jones" film. Sure, it wasn't as good as the first 3, but it was entertaining. This new one has a different director, though. Even Spielberg couldn't handle the backlash at doing another one of these. James Mangold, who directed the last two Wolverine films, is at the helm. The script was co-written by Jez Butterworth, who's written some good plays (like "The Ferryman," which I saw in NYC in 2018). It has Antonio Banderas, Mads Mikkelsen, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge in it. The one problem I have with this film is that in the trailer, all the backgrounds are special f/x. Would it fucking kill these cheap Hollywood idiots to actually go film the thing on a real location? That's what ruined the jungle truck chase in the last film. 

2- DUNE: PART TWO: The first part was my favorite film of 2021. The big problem is that everything good in the book happened in part one. There will be the big, final fight scene at the end against who ever they got to play Sting's part (it's Elvis! Aka Austin Butler). As long it's as gorgeous and as epic as the first one, this'll probably be 2023's best film.

3- OPPENHEIMER: A new Christopher Nolan film is always a welcome event. Since the trailer already came out, it looks fantastic. Cillian Murphy plays Oppenheimer, the dude that helped create the atom bomb. Will this finally be the year Nolan wins his deserved Oscar?

4- BARBIE: I am so curious about this film. First off, it's not some dumb, kid's, Hollywood romp. Greta Gerwig directed it and Gerwig and Noah Baumbach wrote it. Margot Robbie is Barbie and Ryan Gosling is Ken. The story has the fictional characters entering our world. I can't even fathom the indie darlings, Gerwig & Baumbach, making a film about Barbie. Although I couldn't fathom the two making "White Noise" either and that turned out to be one of the best films of 2022 (that nobody liked).

5- WONKA: Timothee Chalamet stars as a young Willy Wonka when he first encounters the Oompa Loompas. Paul King directed this, and even though I never saw his two "Paddington" movies, they were universally loved. I did love "The Mighty Boosh," which he worked on. This sounds amazing.

6- THE HUNGER GAMES: THE BALLAD OF SONGBIRDS & SNAKES: This book was great, though I never heard too much about it since it was released. Did people not like it? Not care? It seemed like a money grab at the time. That, or the author was out of ideas and pushed into it by her publisher. Either way, the story is great and does include another Hunger Games. The cast is epic: Hunter Schafer, Peter Dinklage, and Jason Schwartzman? Give the casting director an Oscar! Rachel Zegler ("West Side Story") and Tom Blyth are the main stars. The director did the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th "Hunger Games" films. This movie is going to be awesome and everyone doesn't realize it. 

7- THE KILLER: Nobody liked "Mank," David Fincher's last film. I don't know why, because it was excellent. This is his newest, based on a French comic book about a hitman that I've never heard of. It stars Michael Fassbender and Tilda Swinton. It sounds like it'll be akin to a great Michael Mann film, which don't exist anymore, sadly.

8- REBEL MOON: This is another Zack Snyder mega budget, balls to the wall action picture, this time set on a colony on a far away planet. It stars Charlie Hunman and Cary Elwes, who I don't think has been in a movie since "The Princess Bride." Apparently, Snyder filmed the sequel at the same time so we'll be getting two of these. Snyder's last movie, "Army of the Dead," was so much fun. I really don't understand why everyone hates this guy because his movies are always entertaining.

9- BEAU IS AFRAID: Ari Aster made two critically acclaimed, weird horror movies. Now he's making...a comedy? Huh? What? From the trailer, it looks like one of the weirdest movies ever made. It  might also be terrible. Joaquin Phoenix stars as a man who is losing his mind. I loved "Midsommar," so I'm eagerly anticipating to see what the fuck this is. 

10- GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 3: James Gunn is back writing/directing the latest installment of this Marvel franchise. His "Guardians of the Galaxy: Holiday Special" was a blast, so hopefully this'll be just as much fun. It might be Gunn's last forway with Marvel, too, since he's now the cheif architect or whatever it's called of the DC film universe now. If this is even half as entertaining as his "Peacemaker" TV show, it'll be great. 

THE TOP 10 MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS OF 2022 REVISITED

 1- THE BATMAN: Reviewed. **1/2

2- AVATAR 2: I haven't seen this yet. It got mostly positive reviews, though everyone pretty much said the same thing: it looks great, but that's all there is.

3- JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION: This was entertaining though not nearly as good as the last two "Jurassic World" films. **1/2

4- FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE: I enjoyed this film though nobody else did. It's better than the 2nd film but not as good as the 1st. ***

5- THOR: LOVE & THUNDER: This was disappointingly bad. I was kind of shocked because I usually love every Taika Waititi film. *1/2

6- KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: This never came out. It's scheduled for 2023.

7- ASTEROID CITY: This never came out. I'm guessing sometime in 2023.

8- CANTERBURY GLASS: The final title was "Amsterdam," and as much as I hated the "Canterbury Glass" title, it's better. This was one of the worst films I've ever seen. I stopped watching it after 45 minutes. It's truly an unwatchable mess. Robert Deniro is in it and I never even got to his part. I did see Taylor Swift get run over by a car. -No Stars-

9- BABYLON: I didn't see this yet. It's over 3 hours long and got horrible reviews and was a total box office bomb. It still looks good, though.

10- SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE (PART ONE): This was postponed to 2023.

THE BEST FILMS OF 2022

        

                                   1- THE NORTHMAN
                                                

                                       

                              

                                            2- NOPE
                        

                               

                               

                  3- EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
                                        

                         

                                           

                                          4- BABYLON
                           

                                           

                                             

                       

                                 5- DECISION TO LEAVE
                        

                          

                           6- CATHERINE CALLED BIRDY
                    

       

                          

                             7- CHA CHA REAL SMOOTH
                                   

 

                      

                              

                                             8- PREY
                               

 

                       

                                       9- VENGEANCE

                        

10- DON'T WORRY DARLING

Review: THE BATMAN

 

    I enjoyed Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice better than The Batman, a brand new entry to the pantheon of Batman that stars Robert Pattinson as Batman and is directed by and co-written by Matt Reeves, of Cloverfield and two Planet of the Apes reboots fame. Admitting that Batman vs. Superman, the globally loathed Ben Affleck as Batman picture, is better is probably saying something about the new picture. It also says a lot about DC versus Marvel movies. Whereas the Marvel movies exist in a thriving, sustainable, cohesive universe that continues on a somewhat set, continuous path, the DC movies seem to stutter start and stop and re-emerge every few years like a phoenix. Ben Affleck was the new Batman in Batman vs. Superman and also had a bit part in Justice League, but for whatever reason, Affleck's solo Batman movie never got made. It was supposedly more of a James Bond, Batman as a spy type of a picture, which Reeves, when being named director, wanted no part of. Hence Affleck leaving, Pattinson showing up, and this new film with a new Batman arriving. And now that Pattinson said he's not playing Batman again, DC will have to start anew, again. Why is DC failing where Marvel has soared?

    Batman of course is comic book's best character. His comic book has the best villains and best location. You would think it wouldn't be very hard to make a fantastic movie out of it. But what are you looking for? A great film or just a dumb, fun, popcorn flick? Marvel decided to go the popcorn route and thus ended up making billions. None of the Marvel films are great movies, but at least they entertain in a fun way. The new Batman movie is kind of the opposite of, say, Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor: Ragnorak, which were colorful and smile inducing. The Batman is dark, sour, sullen, rain swept, and gritty. And at 3 hours long, it's often a slog. The main villain is a take on the Zodiac killer. Robert Pattinson broods like a mascara wearing lead singer of a 90's emo band. The plot involves death, fatherless children, funerals, drug addicts, corruption, murder, and the mob. Enjoy going to the theater on a Friday night and having a great time out with that slab of melancholy.

    The basic plot in The Batman is that this is year two of Bruce Wayne being Batman. Everything kicks off with The Riddler killing a man running for mayor in Gotham City. One of the first shots in the film, featuring the first shot of The Riddler, is a fantastic, well shot piece of filmmaking. The politician, talking on the phone, walks to his right and we suddenly see a dark figure standing in the shadows behind him. Menacing, creepy, and very cool, this is only one of the great looking shots in the film. Dune cinematographer Greig Fraser was the DP on The Batman, and he's a master. I'm still baffled at how he didn't win the Oscar for his work filming Foxcatcher, although he did pick up an Oscar for Dune. Fraser also seems to love shooting closely from behind; behind someone's head as they walk, behind a person on a motorcylce as it races, behind a car as it barrels down a dark highway. At 3 hours, there better be some fantastic shots in the movie, and there are, and it's one of the ways the movie does stand out from a typical, been-there-done-that flick. The other engrossing aspect of the film is the score. While everyone is harking on the fact that there's a Nirvana song in the film, the score is actually the thing everyone should be talking about. It's no Danny Elfman Batman score, but it's still fantastic and really gives the film a beating heart when it needs it. 

    The Riddler is killing famous, corrupt people in Gotham, which is the basic premise, and, unfortunately, it never really amounts to much of interest in the end. The Penguin also shows up, in a fairly superfluous part, although Collin Farrel has a good time hamming it up in a fat suit. Catwoman is in this, too, and Zoe Kravitz basically steals the whole movie. She's fantastic as always. Pattinson, though, is totally forgettable, which is a surprise, because he's been knocking it out of the park left and right on the art house scene in films like The Lighthouse and Good Time. 

    While there are some great shots, and some action sequences that are engaging, like the car chase scene, the big problem is that the script isn't all that great. The Riddler as a Zodiac-esque killer is an interesting idea, but ultimately by the end that fails when we never get a great climax with him versus Batman. The big finale, which, disappointingly, involves a mass shooting incident, is kind of something you would see in a Batman comic book (a villain attempting to flood the city), but in this movie, which seems to be attempting to do what Nolan did (make Batman more realistic and less like a comic book), doesn't mesh with the rest of the picture. 

    The Batman is certainly really good in parts, but mostly hit-or-miss and ultimately not exactly a classic or memorable entry in the canon. With such a great character, a great menagerie of villains, and a movie setting to die for, we really deserve something much better than this. **1/2

THE TOP 10 MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS OF 2022

1- THE BATMAN: It's kind of strange that the last Batman film came out in 2010. I suppose you could argue that it was Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, but even that came out 6 years ago. What the fuck, dude? Batman movies are cash cows. They should be cranking them out every year if they were smart. Well this is an all new one with a new cast and director. The vampire from Twilight is Batman and the director of the last two Planet of the Apes films is on board. The trailers make this look more like a dark Christopher Nolan Batman film, which is a good thing. The one problem is that this is apparently going to feature The Penguin, Catwoman, and The Riddler. Jesus. What, is this four hours long?

2- AVATAR 2: Yes, Avatar 2 is coming out this year, a quick 13 years after the original. The first one came out so long ago I don't even remember if I liked it. I do remember that it made a lot of money mostly because it was in 3-D and everyone had to go to the movies to see the new, cool 3-D technology that everyone was talking about. I'd rather go see True Lies 2 but oh, well. One half of The Flight of the Chonchords is in this so that'll be interesting. This time the film takes place underwater. After so long, I'm just curious why it took 13 years to make this.

3- JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION: I suppose they can't just keep remaking the original film, although they probably should, as Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are the two best of the series and literally have the same plot. This time the dinosaurs are loose in the real world. I'm not entirely sure how this is a movie, though. Like...do people just live their day to day lives but dinosaurs are around? Or are people all cowering in basements full time? Either way, you can't go wrong with a Jurassic Park flick. 

4- FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE: Yes, we'd all rather be seeing more Harry Potter films, but unfortunately this is all we've got. I adored the first Fantastic Beasts films and didn't enjoy the second so who the fuck knows if this one'll be any good? The trailer makes it look...fantastic. They also replaced wife beater Johnny Depp with Mads Mikelson, which is a win win, although I wonder if they're going to explain why he suddenly looks different. 

5- THOR: LOVE & THUNDER: Taiki Waititi is back co-writing and directing this, which is basically the Thor film where a woman, Natalie Portman, becomes Thor. If it's half as entertaining as Waititi's last Thor, this'll be a blast. 

6- KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: This probably won't come out this year, but who knows? It's Martin Scorsese directing and Leonardo DiCaprio starring and it's going straight to Apple+. It's based on a book that was based on a true story of a series of Native American murders in the early 20th century. 

7- ASTEROID CITY: This is Wes Anderson's latest, supposedly shot in Spain and starring the usuals along with Tom Hanks and Margot Robbie. While Wes Anderson was at one point my favorite director, his last film, The French Dispatch, was lousy. Hopefully he'll redeem himself.

8- CANTERBURY GLASS: Three Kings will always be David O. Russell's best film, but one can still hope that he has another great one in him. It's strange, but with Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle back to back in 2012-2013, Russell was like the biggest stud in Hollywood. He hasn't made a movie since 2015's Joy. What the hell has he been doing in 7 years? Seriously...what? Either way, he's back with a film that takes place in the early 20th century and it stars Anya-Taylor Joy, Margot Robbie, and Christian Bale. Unfortunately, plot details are under wraps. Let's also hope this is just a working title.

9- BABYLON: I really enjoyed Whiplash and First Man but I didn't like La La Land. That's kind of odd because I love musicals. Damian Chazelle's latest also takes place in the early 20th century. It stars Brad Pitt. Fuck. Give it all the Oscars, already. It's supposedly about Hollywood changing from the silent era to sound. Sounds thrilling! 

10- SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE (PART ONE): I loved the first one of these, the computer animated adventures of Miles Morales. You can tell that superhero movies are king these days as there are like a thousand coming out this year. Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, Black Panther 2, Aquaman 2, Black Adam (starring The Rock), The Flash, also Thor 4, which I mentioned earlier. It says a lot, though, about the quality of these superhero movies when I'm more exciting to see a computer animated one about the B-Spider-Man than most of the others.