What Will be the Next Billion Dollar Movie?

Earlier today, we did one of our annual start-of-the-year traditions, so now it's time to do a second: predicting the upcoming year's $1 billion movies.  With the quarantine exception year of 2020, every year since 2008 has had at least one movie that, at the global box office, made over $1 billion, an astronomical marker that guarantees a profit, and a stamp of approval from audiences.  In 2025, we had four movies that hit this marker: Zootopia 2, Avatar: Fire and Ash, Lilo & Stitch, and Ne Zha 2, the latter becoming the first film to make $1 billion that is not primarily in English, and it also was the highest-grossing film overall this year (technically Avatar 3 and Zootopia 2 are still shooting up the charts, but I can't see them beating Ne Zha 2).  No other film at the current box office will get close to hitting $1 billion (only one more movie, A Minecraft Movie, cracked $900 million), so I think we officially have four in 2025.

Each year I predict the five films most likely to cross this threshold (more on that in a second), and I did okay.  Zootopia and Avatar were both movies that I predicted, and I did mention Lilo, though I didn't quite catch Millennial nostalgia for the movie after Mufasa struggled at the box office (and the Disney live-action trend continues to wane).  Ne Zha 2 I will totally own I hadn't even heard of when it came out of nowhere, and so I don't really fault myself on that (you'll note I don't predict a Chinese film to be in contention below, but I suspect one will...it's just really hard to find a lot of hints at which franchises even have new movies, much less which might be in the realm, so just know that I'm confident another film will come close or exceed in 2025...I just can't tell which).  Of the three that I predicted, one was Jurassic World: Rebirth, which crossed the $800 million line so a solid bet, though nowhere near as strong as the films starring Chris Pratt in this franchise.  The other two were missteps.  I thought Tom Cruise nostalgia and the proper close to a series with Mission Impossible 8 was enough to get it going (perhaps if the movie had been good it would have helped?), but it didn't even turn a profit, and making even less was The Fantastic Four: The First Steps, which was one of several misfires from the MCU this year.  These were respectable guesses, but it also shows that audiences have become exhausted by these franchises.

Which brings us to our list, and some good news.  I think, for the first time since 2019, the box office has the potential for more than five $1 billion-dollar movies.  In fact, if it doesn't, we're looking at at least one major franchise headed to catastrophe.  Similar to previous years, I'm only going to predict five, but I will say that a year from now I deserve some shame if there's more than 5 billion-dollar movies, and I left one on the chair.  I think that we'll have a lot of headline winners (though I continue to worry about mid-tier movies that aren't horror breaking out...really excited to see stuff like The Housemaid & Anaconda get love, and am sending into the world that I want more of films that can have box office legs hitting the $100M mark again that don't have $100M budgets...films like The Devil Wears Prada 2, Verity, & Focker-in-Law, I know you're there, and would love for you to show up well too).

With that-here's my guesses (listed chronologically):

Honorable Mentions: As ever, I'll name check a few films below that might be options or dark horses, especially if the big $1 billion prediction clicks, but there are three movies that I feel deserve special treatment here because not only are they $1 billion contenders, they are ones I think probably are hitting $1 billion (or darn close).  The first is the most obvious: The Mandalorian and Grogu, the first Star Wars film in seven years, and part of a major TV franchise.  I'm not picking it because it feels like Star Wars light without being connected to the main Skywalker series, but nostalgia for it could be real, and I think waiting so long might have people turning out if it's good (for the record-I'll be there opening weekend, I'm pumped, and making me wait 7 years has actually primed me to see this).  Second, we have Minions 3, which is the seventh film from this franchise, and 5/6 of these movies have made over $900 million.  The reason I'm not listing it is because the last two were JUST shy, and I do wonder how much longer this franchise can milk this for what it's worth (but I could be wrong...I also predicted the last two & got screwed over so I'm trying a different tact).  And third, we have Moana, a movie I'm an idiot for not listing (and initially I did, but changed it last second), as the franchise is beloved, but am I the only person thinking this is "too soon" after a forgettable sequel?  I'm judging this in part by sitting next to a 9-year-old the first time I saw the trailer and she said "that's not Moana" when she came onscreen, and I think it's a bad sign they're hiding Dwayne Johnson from us...is this Lilo where it'll be crap and still make $1 billion, or was Lilo an aberration in a tired format?

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie

Release Date: April 3, 2026

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: I mean, the biggest one?  The last movie did.  Not only did it hit it, it made $1.3 billion and was a gigantic hit that honestly I don't think a lot of people saw coming.  The recent trend toward established video game & toy IP (not just this, but also Barbie and Minecraft) being more reliable at the box office than superheroes has opened up a lot of gates, and this will be the biggest test if it's just a novelty or if it also is creating franchises.  The marketing so far has been smart, hinting at new characters like Rosalina and Bowser Jr, and this is based off of an equally popular game.  I suspect this will be a sugar rush opening weekend, and then it'll be a question of how well it can do internationally (and if it it's any good).

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: Some of the problems with surprise $1 billion movies is that they tend to struggle to duplicate with sequels because people only wanted them once.  Some good recent examples include Joker, Alice in Wonderland, and Captain Marvel, all of which had insane first numbers and then turned into nothing when people were like "I'm good-that was all I needed" on a second shot.  I do worry that's the case for Mario, who started a trend but hasn't had the same staying power that, say, a Barbie sequel might invite.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: There's not a lot of established video game or toy IP this year that you might borrow from (2027's Zelda is a much better test), but you should be looking out for Masters of the Universe, which is reviving the He-Man franchise and is a big bet for the summer, and Resident Evil is getting a showy punch-up after the failure of 2021's Welcome to Raccoon City.  The biggest contender for it might be Jumanji 3, which might get bumped (details on it so far are slim, which makes me wonder how far along they are in production), but the last two films were gigantic, $800+ million movies (the first one was just shy of $1 billion), and is opening at Christmas which could be a good way to cash in (similar to 2025, studios are betting big on the holiday box office in 2026).

Toy Story 5

Release Date: 6/19/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: Well, depending on how you count it, the last two both got $1 billion.  Past performance is one thing, but these movies are beloved.  Go to DisneyWorld and you'll see entire sections of the park dedicated to Woody & Buzz (Donald Duck can't even boast that, and he's been a staple for decades).  Pixar also seems intent on this being a big deal-sequels are a huge part of their game plan (Incredibles 3 and Coco 2 are both greenlit, and you gotta assume Inside Out 3 is just a matter of time away), so they are going to want their crown jewel to look shiny...

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: ...particularly since the last time Buzz was on the big-screen, it was an embarrassing catastrophe.  2022's Lightyear was critically-hazed, a financial flop, and became the first film in the franchise not to get an Oscar nomination of some sort.  Part of why I think they're bringing this movie back (other than greed) is to make up for tarnishing the legacy so much, though I am worried that this is another risk for Disney-Toy Story 4 was able to get past some of the "we don't need this" by holding up and feeling like a really beautiful sendoff to Woody...but how will they retcon that ending AND get the sort of sentimentality that has become a hallmark of this franchise without increasingly jaded audiences turning away from them?  Buzz's Tim Allen is back, but it's worth noting that Slinky Dog, Sarge the Army Man, and both the Potato Heads are all dead in real life...will audiences forgive that Pixar keeps reminding them that this isn't the movie they fell in love with?

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: You're going to note a shocking amount of Disney on this list (seriously-the Mouse House is owning the 2026 box office), but if you can believe it there's two other original films (Hexed and Hoppers) coming out next year from them as well.  It's hard not to wonder if the continued trend of Disney originals getting hung-out-to-dry (save for Elemental) will continue, or if we'll finally have the relief of discovering the next Disney franchise.  I would also mention that The Cat in the Hat is (other than Minions 3 of course) one of the few non-Disney animated films in 2026 to keep an eye on, particularly as 2018's The Grinch outperformed virtually all expectations (it made way more than you remember it did for a film that no one remembers).

The Odyssey

Release Date: 7/17/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: My riskiest bet, particularly given I had the respectable net of Star Wars or Moana to rely upon, but this is for fun so why not get a little gutsy?  Christopher Nolan's last film, a biopic about the man who created the nuclear bomb, nearly made $1 billion, and this is WAY more in-line with what we've come to expect for a $1 billion movie (a starry action-adventure).  Nolan's film is huge-people are literally already buying tickets, and given the stature he has, if it's good it'll have the kind of word-of-mouth you can usually only get if you're James Cameron, enough to make $1 billion.  I'm pumped-I think this is going to be a big deal.

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: I mean, for starters, it's not based on established cinematic or video game IP...it's a thousands year old story about Greece.  But I think the bigger question is more if it will have international appeal.  Oppenheimer had a 66% share of its gross internationally (a respectable anomaly given the subject matter).  Given the potential for this domestically, if The Odyssey can pull that off, I think it will make it to $1 billion...but I could also see this being more of a domestic box office thing given it doesn't come with recognizable characters like most $1 billion movies do.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: There's a lot of movies that are going for less conventional routes (i.e. not comic books & animation) this year.  You've got original SciFi epics like Project Hail Mary and Disclosure Day (both of which looks terrific), as well as the long-awaited Michael Jackson biopic Michael and the close to the Dune franchise (Dune: Part Three), as the last one made almost double its predecessor, and interest in the series continues to grow.  Also, we can't mention Oppenheimer without also mentioning Barbie, and like Christopher Nolan, Barbie director Greta Gerwig also has a follow-up this year in Narnia: The Magician's Nephew, which I'd have a lot more hope for it being a box office juggernaut (and $1 billion contender) IF the film was getting a proper theatrical release rather than just a 28-day trial before it's slapped onto Netflix.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Release Date: 7/31/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: July promises to be a BIG month for Tom Holland given he's leading both of these films (will this be the closest together ever that someone made two $1 billion movies?), and we also have here (in my opinion) the surest $1 billion movie of the list.  Holland's last two endeavors as Spider-Man both made over $1 billion, and even as an insanely saturated character (he has his own accompanying animated franchise as well), there seems to be no stopping him.  Spider-Man is, over even Batman or Superman, the most consistently bankable superhero in movies today, and given that Holland is almost certainly closing out his time behind the mask after this (he'll be in his thirties by the time this is released), people will want to see how this ends.

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: I say this with all love and sincerity, if this movie doesn't hit $1 billion, the entire comic book genre has been torn to shreds in a way that it's basically impossible to imagine.  Even people who don't see comic book movies see the Spider-Man movies.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: Probably nothing.  I will note that (in addition to the next film on this list) there are two superhero movies (here from DC) coming out this year (Supergirl and Clayface), and while neither should come close to $1 billion (if Superman couldn't, why would these?), both are worth keeping an eye on just to understand the health of the superhero genre after 2025 yielded no billion-dollar movies for either DC or Marvel despite quite a bit of trying.

Avengers: Doomsday

Release Date: 12/18/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: Because Avengers is the only franchise in the history of the movies to go 4/4 in terms of hitting $1 billion at the global box office.  Harry Potter, Star Wars, Jurassic World, Toy Story...none of them have the perfect 4/4 batting average that the Avengers movies do.  And Disney knows it-they are trotting out not just the return of Robert Downey, Jr., but also "plucked from the dead" Chris Evans and a potential sendoff for Chris Hemsworth (wouldn't be super stunned if ScarJo has a cameo they're keeping secret too).  Everyone in America will be curious about this.

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: Because, with the very big exception of Spider-Man (which, honestly, is its own thing at this point), the entire post-Endgame plan for the MCU has been a critical and commercial failure of epic proportions.  Look at last year-there were three MCU films, and not only did none of them make more than $600 million, there's a decent argument to be made that none of them so much as made a profit.  Between lazy movies and toss-away TV shows, the 21st Century jewel in Disney's crown is increasingly at risk of being permanently tarnished.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: No other movie makes sense to put next to Avengers: Doomsday.  No other movie has the stakes to perform the way it will need to perform, no other movie has more riding on its success.  It could easily be a $2 billion movie and a close to a gigantic year for Disney...or totally upend a two-decades long money-printing formula that will unceremoniously come to an end.

OVP: Onward (2020)

Film: Onward (2020)
Stars: Tom Holland, Chris Pratt, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Octavia Spencer
Director: Dan Scanlon
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

We're continuing on the week with movies released this year with what was supposed to be the first film I saw that was (calendar-year) released in 2020 in theaters.  I had plans to go to this movie, but right around the time of when I was going to catch it (February is a busy time at my job), Covid broke out, and suddenly I was petrified to go to any movies, and quickly they shut down.  As a result, Onward joins a very select list of Pixar films that I did not see originally in theaters (which is a bummer, though not as much of a bummer as other things...you know, we're allowed to have a gamut of disappointments from the valid to the vapid through all of this).  Either way, this movie is now on Disney+ and so I caught it and can weigh in on the latest from the Mouse House's cool kid brother.

(Spoilers Ahead) We live in a modern-day world where the convenience of technology has made magic, once a centerpiece of this realm, commonplace, even though our main characters are elves and we frequently encounter throughout the film creatures of myth.  The main characters are Ian (Holland) and Barley Lightfoot (Pratt), who are raised by a single mother Laurel (Louis-Dreyfus).  Their father died many years earlier, before Ian was born, and on Ian's sixteenth birthday, he encounters a spell that his father had left him as a present, allowing him the opportunity to see his father again for one day if he can break the spell.  However, while Ian figures out the spell, his overzealous older brother Barley goofs it up, so that only his father's legs return.  The two start out on a quest to bring back their father for the full day, knowing that there's a ticking clock on if Ian will get to have the reunion with his father he always dreamed of having.

Onward isn't a great movie, and it's probably one that would've been a bit of a disappointment in general for Pixar even if it hadn't been for Covid totally tanking the box office (I think, ultimately, it would have won back enough to be a modest hit internationally, but wouldn't remotely approach the recent box office of Incredibles 2 and Toy Story 4, or even an original like Coco.  This is partially because the film does lack a lot of mojo and world-building.  We're given a fairy tale, really Pixar's first foray into territory that Disney had already perfected, and they don't really know how to bring the magic to the movie.  The film's mid-section is repetitive and a bit confusing, not utilizing ace hires Louis-Dreyfus and Octavia Spencer enough for what could have been great side bits (Spencer plays a manticore restauranteur).  It's not bad, and it's fun throughout, but this isn't really what we've come to expect from a Pixar original-even in the age of the sequels being more-and-more disappointing, the originals have by-and-large kept their original sheen.

That is, except for the ending.  Onward finishes in a better place than virtually any movie I've seen compared to the rest of the film than any picture I've seen in a while.  The ending doesn't go for the easy tears of a joyful momentary reunion between Ian and his father, but instead underlines that Barley was the father figure that Ian needed most, but in exchange Barley never really got to say goodbye to the only father figure he had ever known.  As a result, when a situation with a golem-like figure precludes them both from going forward to see their father, Ian sacrifices his big moment with his dad to let Barley go and say goodbye to the man he'd never properly let go of; it's a beautiful, unexpected ending to a film that probably hasn't earned such a big payoff, but you aren't going to care because you'll be crying throughout.  I don't do half stars on this blog, and so this is getting a 3-star since the movie earned it, but it's a high 3-star, bordering on four, just because of how beautiful the finale ends up being to a fair picture.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)

Film: Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stars: Tom Holland, Samuel L. Jackson, Zendaya, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau, Marisa Tomei, Jake Gyllenhaal
Director: Jon Watts
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

It was probably a decent idea of Marvel to follow-up Avengers: Endgame, an exhaustive & emotional picture, with something a bit lighter like Spider-Man.  After all, of all of the late-breaking stars, one could make an argument that Holland's is the most similar to earlier Avengers hits that were focused on charm & fun rather than moving into a semi-serious role again featuring Doctor Strange or Black Panther.  The film, though, has some impossible weight behind it-it has to find a way to continue your attention after the megastar showing of Avengers: Endgame while also whetting our appetites for what's to come.  Based on the box office for the movie (about the only consistency in 2019 cinemas is that people do not appear to be tired of Marvel movies), the next phase of the MCU feels ready to attack our wallets, but I have stated before that I was considering whether or not it was time for me to end this franchise (in the way many have for The Simpsons or South Park after too many stories that felt too similar) or not after Far From Home.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie centers in the weeks after the deaths of Iron Man, Black Widow, & Vision (the public seems to think that Captain America is also dead, even though he was seen as an old man at the end of the last picture).  As a result, we're without a lot of obvious heroes, and Peter Parker (aka Spider-Man aka Tom Holland) is kind of done with the idea of being a superhero as well. He wants to go on a class trip with his friends, including the girl he likes MJ (Zendaya), and is ignoring calls from Nick Fury (Jackson).  Eventually Nick Fury finds him, and introduces him to a potential future leader of the Avengers, Mysterio (Gyllenhaal), and we see the two of them attempting to battle the Elementals who have come from a different dimension (which is also where Mysterio has come from), to take over this earth.  Again, we see the world under threat from an alien breed, with a reluctant hero at the center, and he has to team up with another hero to get the job done.

Except, of course, it's not that simple.  Marvel isn't going to just have their villains be CGI-blobs, two of which are almost completely forgotten in the course of the movie, and it turns out that Mysterio is in fact yet another neglected protege of Tony Stark, here to enact his revenge and megalomaniacally take over the world.  It helps that they cast Gyllenhaal, who always looks like a combination of a nerdy boy scout and a puppy as the villain, as he plays well with a bad guy that's clearly over his head. The scene where he toasts and reveals his plan could have been expository hell, but it's actually the best non-action scene in the whole movie as we see Gyllenhaal get his over-actor on.

The problem is that Spider-Man: Far From Home is all territory we've done dozens of times.  Having Peter Parker go after MJ (again) is a total snooze, and I say that with Tom Holland being my favorite of the live-action Spideys.  Of course he's going to get her, of course she's going to find out he's Spider-Man, and of course he's going to still rise to be the leader he was meant to be.  We've seen this story countless times, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe seems to increasingly be a place with limitless budgets & decidedly narrow creativity.  The battle sequences are awesome (particularly the water creature fight in Venice), but there's a sense of, even with good actors and charming movie stars, that this is never going to rise above being dull anymore.

This is a problem for the MCU, and why I'm probably done with the series after this movie, in that the whole point of at least the Infinity Stones storyline was that it had a beginning, middle, and end.  There were stretches that were better (Winter Soldier, Black Panther), there were stretches we'd be better off forgetting (Dark World, Guardians 2), but it was all leading to the final scenes of Endgame, where we had characters like Iron Man, Black Widow, and Vision have real-world implications (they died, and for now appear to be staying dead).  Having yet another round of these stories with similar plot struggles and the same tones...it feels so lifeless and boring.  I've read the good reviews of this movie, and I get where they're coming from, but frequently the good reviews include phrases like "good enough," "comfortable," "charming cast," and "rises above"...indicating that we're all just sort of complimenting the pile of money rather than critically examining that the movies aren't necessary even if they're fine.  The post-credits sequences contained a genuine shock (kudos to JK Simmons for bridging the MCU divide and bringing back J. Jonah Jameson), and then a nonsensical ode to the Skrulls when we learn that Nick Fury & Maria Hill weren't there the whole time, but instead they were shape-shifters.  Perhaps that will be me for the next installment, as unless there's something truly special coming in the next round (and right now none of the announced films scream out "See me!") it'll be a John lookalike that's sitting next to you in theaters.  Endgame was the proper closer to this series, and Far From Home was a reminder as to why it needs to close.

Ranking the Marvel Movies

Next week, we will see the end of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's current chapter (phase-I don't know what we call this).  For roughly 11 years, we've been getting nearly nonstop movies from the studio, every few months yet another massive hit from Disney.  Individually, the series has had ups-and-downs, with no proper, truly terrible films in the bunch but, honestly, no truly unstoppable masterpieces either (I'm decidedly a Marvel fan for comics, and yes, I bought comics religiously as a child, but I still think The Dark Knight is better than any movie on this list, and I'm not even a Nolan fanboy).  I'm not sure if I'll stick around past this collective list of movies for "Phase 4" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe-I think stories have to be able to end to qualify as stories and not just rambling tales, and in a lot of ways Avengers: Endgame feels like a series finale while the next phase of the MCU (whether that be Spider-Man or Black Panther 2) is a spinoff I'm not sure I'll sign up for.  But in honor of this 22nd film and a closing of the Thanos chapter of the series (and likely the departures of actors like Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, and Robert Downey Jr. from these collective roles), I finally got around to seeing Thor: The Dark World (the only missing piece in this puzzle for me) and instead of writing a traditional review of the picture, I thought I'd buy into the trend over the next two weeks and give my personal rankings of the different films.

21. Iron Man 2 (2010)

By-far the weakest entry in the series, not even Downey's schtick (which even in 2010 was starting to show signs of repetitiveness) could save this boring slog of a movie.  Mickey Rourke was coming off such a high with The Wrestler, it's a pity that his comeback stalled after giving the quintessential "boring villain" performance, something that has plagued most of the series (certainly compared with DC).

20. The Incredible Hulk (2008)

I mean, it feels like a cheat to even include this since the titular role was recast, and let's be real here-this is only included because it technically came after Iron Man, otherwise we'd likely leave it off of the list.  That said, Edward Norton was the least of the three Hulks (I actually didn't mind the strong artistic license Ang Lee took with the 2003 version), and Liv Tyler brings really nothing to the love interest role.

19. Thor: The Dark World (2013)

I'll be honest here-while I'm genuinely a fan of both in real-life as celebrities, and actually think that Hemsworth has done the best work outside of the series, I'm decidedly in the field of Captain America within the confines of the quality of their actual stand-alone films.  This is the least of the Thor outings, with a convoluted villain plot and Natalie Portman basically phoning it in as a love interest she likely had no interest in playing (notice how she has yet to show up again in the series).

18. Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 2 (2017)

Backlash to the first installment always felt a bit extreme to me, with people I think just forgetting that the movies can occasionally be a good time.  That being said, the second film is a bit off-base, with a lot of the same jokes from the first film being repeated, and with no one saying anything new, not even Kurt Russell as a nice-guy villain.

17. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2014)

The actual Avengers movies themselves have always felt a bit of a paint-by-numbers approach.  Perhaps most shocking because of the number of stars that they fit into one film (what is the casting budget on this movie-$100 million, $150?) we also see a lot of ego on display as they attempt to shove every character into enough scenes to warrant 7 or 8-digit pay days.  Combined with James Spader as an eye-rolling villain, and you get a bloated picture.

16. Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

I was so smitten with the first movie, it was always going to be a letdown when they brought back this character, as how could it possibly be as much fun?  Even by bringing Michelle Pfeiffer on board, we struggle to make this one work, with the Ghost villain story feeling totally ancillary to the plot, and perhaps they'd have been better off just letting the unknown be the villain here, rather than having a traditional comic book plotting.

15. Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

This is inarguably the silliest film on this list, somehow even surpassing Guardians of the Galaxy, and is the one I wish I liked more.  The cast is superb, possibly the best of any of the films, but it's too random, sporadic, and ridiculous (the entire Jeff Goldblum subplot seemed only there to create memes).  Us finally getting a proper female villain in the series (and played by Oscar Winner Cate Blanchett, no less) is about the best I can recommend here.

14. The Avengers (2012)

We jump from Thor 3 to Avengers 1 where we now have 3-star movies (ie movies that I'd actually recommend based on the rules of this blog).  This is fun, and cool, but never as fun & cool as it should be.  Loki is a good villain, but there's not the right level of chemistry yet between the six main characters, as Hemsworth & Evans in particular are still finding their bearings as matinee idols against an established star like Downey.

13. Doctor Strange (2016)

I can't really figure out how I feel about Benedict Cumberbatch, who always feels a bit too eager in his cinematic work, and seems intent on mugging in a way that recalls a British Justin Timberlake.  That said, this is a good movie, one that just avoids the cliches of an introduction to a character enough to not feel boring.  Tilda Swinton joins the long pantheon of Oscar-winning actresses who have randomly appeared in MCU movies (Portman, Bening, Blanchett, Tomei...it's a longer list than you'd think).

12. Iron Man 3 (2013)

Much better than the sequel, Iron Man 3 actually challenges Downey a bit as an actor in a way few others in this series have done.  We see him fight a villain that feels worthy of him in a way others in the series haven't (Guy Pearce's creepy Killian), and we get arguably the best work out of Gwyneth Paltrow we've had this decade.

11. Thor (2011)

Chris Hemsworth might be my favorite discovery from the Marvel Cinematic Universe in terms of actors who hadn't already proven to themselves at that point.  He's so debonair, funny, charming, and DAMN sexy, and all of that comes out when he basically brings Thor from the comic book pages to life here.  He's considerably better than the film, but that's true pretty much every time he's onscreen.

10. Captain Marvel (2019)

The first of the movies to be headlined by an Oscar winner, and it shows.  Larson is hamstrung by us spending most of the movie looking for clues to what will happen in Avengers: Endgame, but she actually has a fun popcorn movie here, and though he's hidden behind distracting CGI, Sam Jackson gives his best work in the series here as a young, pre-eyepatch Nick Fury.

9. Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Thor is probably my favorite of the actual superheroes in the films, but Captain America is the best leg of the franchise.  Arguably the weakest of the three mostly because of the messy ending to the film, this is still fun and considerably better than the two Avengers films that preceded it (for all intents and purposes, this was the third Avengers movie-look at who it starred in that photo!).

8. Iron Man (2008)

The film that started it all, Robert Downey Jr. going from basically uninsurable to a matinee idol will eventually be one of the great Hollywood comeback stories.  He's great in this movie, a role he was born to play, and the lack of over-confidence in his work (though thankfully not in his character) is spectacular movie star fun.

7. Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

It is literally impossible to gage this film without seeing the sequel (increasingly, it's hard to gage this entire series without seeing the rest of the series) since they are so interconnected, but most of the film gets it right.  The film is grand in scale, there are some strong performances (particularly Tom Holland), and Thanos is a well-executed villain.  It all depends on what the nexy film does, though, over whether this movie stays on its perch considering the cliffhanger.

6. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

This movie works really well on its own, and arguably doesn't need the rest of the series to elevate it at all.  Fun, with a great motif & scheme for the characters (I loved the pre-war scenes and the ridiculousness of Captain America's new body), Chris Evans nails this part & sets up a complicated character that in the comic books was always underwritten.

5. Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

I didn't want this movie, and I distinctly remember at the time of its announcement saying "I'm not going to see it" after the terrible reboot with Andrew Garfield proved to be such a disappointment.  However, Tom Holland is the best of the three live-action Peter Parkers, playing with a lack of confidence that is endearing and works so well it's impossible to deny him his place in the Top 5.

4. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

I don't care that you don't like it anymore, or that Chris Pratt has become problematic in the years since (I actually do care about that one, but as a classic film historian, I have dealt with problematic film stars for decades so my tolerance level is high).  This is the first of the quartet of films I gave 4-stars to, and it earns it with great humor, unlikely heroes, and a new swagger to the MCU.

3. Ant-Man (2015)

By far the most visually innovative of all of the movies, and perhaps the funniest, everything about this movie works.  Paul Rudd is great as the unlikely hero, Michael Douglas hasn't been this good in 15 years, and what could have been a joke of a movie ends up being one of the best installments in the series without ever being too silly.

2. Black Panther (2018)

Marvel goes prestige with this movie, the first superhero movie to ever compete for the Best Picture Oscar.  Armed with the series best villain (Michael B. Jordan is sexy & dangerous as Killmonger), we see an expanded universe that shows that the MCU might just be able to survive after the first class of superheroes (Evans, Downey, ScarJo) hang up their capes.

1. Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

The best Marvel Cinematic Universe movie, and next to The Dark Knight, the best comic book movie of this century, period.  Johansson was on a creative high at the time, and you can see that in her work here, and Robert Redford's warm, movie star charisma (very similar, in fact, to Chris Evans') is eerie because he's so nasty as an Edward Snowden-style figure, a villain whose point you can kind of see even if it's totally evil.  Add in Toby Jones' Arnim Zola making a freaky cameo (still my favorite scene in literally any Marvel movie), and you have arguably the best picture in the series (to date).

OVP: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Film: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Stars: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Don Cheadle, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elisabeth Olsen, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, Tom Hiddleston, Idris Elba, Peter Dinklage, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Gwyneth Paltrow, Benicio del Toro, Josh Brolin, Chris Pratt (okay, seriously-what was the actor budget like on this film-this cast easily could have cost $200 million by itself)
Director: Anthony and Joe Russo
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars (read the review though, as it's really more a 2-4 star range based on the sequel)

Movies and television have started to collide in being the same mediums, something that I have never been okay with but apparently everyone else is so I've learned to deal.  The reality is that in a world where we simply rely upon "awesome franchises" for so much of our entertainment, and everything old is, well, not necessarily new but more a shattered shell of its former self (but comfortable so "who cares!"), it makes sense that a multi-billion dollar asset like the Avengers series would become essentially a multi-film TV series.  This picture, the 19th in the franchise (I believe I've seen all but two of these movies, though I'd have to double-check) is about as certain of a blockbuster hit as one can get, and because we live in an era where we need to suck up even if we aren't impressed (see also the White House Correspondents' Dinner), it's surely going to be a critical smash.  But I have been hit-or-miss with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and so I was genuinely curious if I was going to leave The Avengers duly-impressed or finding the film lacking.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in the aftermath of our last few installments of Captain America, Thor, and Black Panther, and most-importantly finally puts Thanos (Brolin) front-and-center as our villain, as he's been whom we've been building toward for nearly a decade now as our ultimate baddie who will take over the world.  Played in dull purple by Brolin, Thanos is an all-powerful villain that never quite feels as interesting as he should; one of the cardinal sins of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that they never approach the intrigue or a Joker or Lex Luthor when it comes to their bad guys.  Thanos could be more interesting if we let him breath a bit more on his personal philosophy, as in many ways he resembles Bane in his battle for a better humanity through brutal results (he essentially wants to wipe out half of the population of the universe in order to reduce hunger and resource-deprivation).  It's entirely possible they're saving that for the sequel, but that points to perhaps the greatest problem with this movie: it needs a sequel to function, and it needs to be television to work.

Film functioning as television has always had one major flaw: TV shows end, and film franchises frequently do not, at least not while there's serious money on the table.  The best television series allow you to love characters, but also occasionally give you consequences or events that can never be undone.  Look at, say, Lost or Game of Thrones or Mad Men, and how these shows would occasionally kill off characters or end romances or have betrayals that shape the course of the series, never to be entirely glossed over.  As a result, there was genuine risk in what the series was bringing to the viewers, knowing that season finales could shape your viewpoint entirely of what might come next in the franchise.

Here, though, we watch as Spider-Man, Black Panther, Star-Lord, roughly a dozen major characters in the franchise vanish with a literal snap of the fingers in the film's final moments, as Thanos vision for a universe where half of the citizens die suddenly becomes reality.  It's a staggering sequence, with fine work from Danai Gurira (watching her invincible king evaporate in her hands), and especially a squeaky-voiced Tom Holland pleading with Iron Man to save him, the scared teenager behind the superhero emerging as he realizes the consequences of fighting for good.  In a television series, particularly one where I assumed there is only one film left, I would have thought this was a jaw-dropping moment.  Holland's fine protestations would have brought me to tears, realizing that he would leave us too quickly, and I would have been shocked that it hadn't been the actors whose contracts were about to expire (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor) who left us but the theoretical future of the series.  But I'm smart enough to realize that these characters already have films lined up (Spider-Man, in particular, is going to have to start airing trailers before Avengers is seen next year, so I'm not sure how that will even work).  Theoretically, of course, we could see the roles in these films recast, but that seems preposterous-Holland, Boseman, Pratt, these are major stars now that the public wants to see play these roles.  They aren't going to quickly disappear from the franchises, and Disney has too much money on the line to let them go.

As a result, we get a cheap ending to the film.  It's probable that we'll see them brought back next time, and then watch as the expected characters go into the sunset, with a new series of Avengers ready to take the stage, perhaps with Downey, Hemsworth, or Evans a possibility to return in 5-7 years if their careers are suffering.  But it doesn't make this film particularly interesting, and it proves that perpetual stories are too lazy.  There's a lot to like in The Avengers, even if I feel it fails on the most important element (plotting).  The victor of the movies has always truly been the casting directors, finding relative unknowns who ooze movie star charisma to play larger-than-life characters.  There is so much plot, but it's relatively brisk all-things-considered, and were it not for the inevitable deletion of the ending, it would surely stand apart as a great action film.  The movie's performances are uniformly good, with Holland, Cumberbatch, & Saldana being the standouts, and they take the time to give us fun pairings (Rocket & Thor being an obvious highlight, though I also particularly liked Spidey & Doctor Strange).

Were it not for the film's ending inevitably being deleted for something more conventional and keeping the story going perpetually (until we eventually tire of comic book heroes, which may be never), I'd give this a higher ranking, perhaps even a four-star.  But it doesn't work like that.  I know how this game plays out, and I'm not stupid enough to think that the shocking, arguably quite smart, ending to this picture won't be erased for something less intriguing.  As a result, I'm going to go with three stars, though in my head it's more like 2.5  If they keep most of the characters dead in the next film, I'll vote for a 4 star change at that time, but until then they've removed any element of surprise or sacrifice by giving us this ending, and as a result I can't applaud this picture, even if I see its value.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Film: Spider-Man Homecoming (2017)
Stars: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jon Favreau, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Marisa Tomei, Robert Downey, Jr.
Director: Jon Watts
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

There are few movies I really wanted less than another Spider-Man picture.  I'm well-aware that Disney/Marvel/whatever else they own by now (I'm writing this in mid-October for NaNoWriMo, so if we've renamed the country after them, I wouldn't be that surprised), needed a way to fold Peter Parker into the Avengers saga, but my thoughts going into this were that the movie seemed so unnecessary.  After a very fine first two films with Tobey Maguire, a third movie with him that was wholly unnecessary, and then a pair of completely misguided pictures with Andrew Garfield (who is too cerebral of an actor to ever be a proper matinee idol), I just didn't need to see them attempt it again.  Unlike Fantastic Four, they got it right the first time, and I just didn't require them to try for a third helping after doing it well to start with.  I even vowed to skip the next movie on principle, but then the previews looked good and the reviews were solid and Tom Holland is so cute...and, well, I'm weak, so I slipped into a theater and caught yet another attempt at trying to revive the Spider-Man franchise.

(Spoilers Ahead) The good news is that the movie itself is actually worth the ticket price.  Gone are the over-indulgences of the Andrew Garfield years (the villains-blech), and for the most part we don't have to relive the origin story for Spider-Man this time, which is so great.  I don't need to see poor Uncle Ben die yet again, with Aunt May mourning and Peter vowing revenge.  I don't need to live through the Green Goblin story once more.  It's nice to see a new villain (in this case, Michael Keaton as the Vulture) enter the picture and for them to skip over this aspect of the story because we know it by heart (note-Batman, you can do this too going forward).  By freeing itself from previous iterations and the shackles that come with them, you actually get a fresher movie, one that seems more attuned to actual teenage life, and not just telling the stories of a decades-old comic book.

The film lives and dies on whether or not Tom Holland's Peter Parker is likable, and honestly-he's my favorite Spider-Man, actually by quite a long-shot.  While Spider-Man 2 is arguably the best of the series so far, Holland is a better superhero than Tobey Maguire.  He's far more age appropriate for the role (Maguire was 27 when he first became Peter, Garfield was nearly 30), and actually seems attuned to Peter as a person and not just a means-to-an-end into becoming Spider-Man.  He's also got a movie star charisma that I hadn't seen before from him as an actor, and connects well with the material.  Holland is the sort of actor who should have followed Maguire, someone who could bring a different, lighter energy to one of the comic book characters who is generally the "most fun."  Holland stands as the main reason to see this film, and why a sequel is likely in my viewing future.

That being said, the rest of the film is somewhat middling.  The plot is easy to catch, even the shock of Michael Keaton's daughter being Peter's prom date (Keaton continues his strong streak of downtrodden, menacing men as the Vulture, the other main reason to see this picture), and the jokes are pretty predictable.  Robert Downey, Jr., is actually the best he's been as Iron Man in a long time, but the in-jokes of the Avengers start to lose their spark a bit as they continue, and even the "wow" of celebrity cameos (particularly Gwyneth Paltrow returning to her role as Pepper Potts), can't quite sustain the film on their own merits as it progresses.  I didn't care for the entire "WINK" (all caps on purpose there) that Zendaya was doing to being Peter's future love interest as MJ (also, why couldn't MJ have been a guy this time around-when are we going to get a gay superhero?!?), and I would be fine if they dropped Jon Favreau's character entirely from the remainder of the Avengers films as his gruff, charmless routine went out-of-style years ago.  But with Holland & Keaton at the center, it's difficult not to like this film, and honestly it's probably my favorite installment in the Marvel Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy, if not Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Don't pretend you haven't seen the movie, so get your opinion on in the comments.  Who is your favorite Spider-Man?  Where do you hope this franchise goes with the sequel?  And what should Tom Holland's next non-superhero career move be?  Share below!

The Lost City of Z (2017)

Film: The Lost City of Z (2017)
Stars: Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, Sienna Miller, Tom Holland
Director: James Gray
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I had what may end up being one of my most hilarious moments of the cinematic year this past month with The Lost City of Z, though it had nothing to do with the script of the film.  I was terribly ill when I attempted to see this movie the first time in theaters, eventually having to leave the AMC just during the opening credits as I was getting a massive tension headache (I get those occasionally), and as a result had to rent the picture to finally see the movie.  While I was watching the movie, I was stunned at how intensely dark the picture was (literally, not metaphorically), and was genuinely worried that either there was something wrong with my eyes or the cinematographer was insane to have lensed the picture in such a depressing way, and had planned on it being a centerpiece of my review.  The next day, while stating that I thought the film was dark to family members, I realized that the settings on my TV had been off by a significant margin and as a result for potentially weeks I had had my TV settings way too dark, likely from sitting on the remote.  Anyway, I re-watched the film and realized the movie's cinematography was much, much clearer than I initially had found, and my eyes are seemingly fine.  Anyway, let's get into actually reviewing the picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) The Lost City of Z is the story of Percy Fawcett (Hunnam), a member of the military that while impressive, doesn't come from the "right background" to be able to get promoted and thinks that the only way that he can succeed & regain his family's honor is to fight in battle.  He doesn't get that opportunity, but instead is sent on a mission across the world by the Royal Geographic Society to survey the Bolivian/Brazilian border to prevent war.  While in the Amazon jungle, he discovers broken pottery and statues that indicate that there was an advanced civilization in the middle of the jungle, and comes to believe through conversations with locals that a lost city, an El Dorado of sorts, is within the confines of this jungle.  He is met with scorn and criticism, but is intent on proving himself correct, not being pegged as a failure like his father, and becomes increasingly obsessed by the quest, eventually alienating his wife and sons.  The movie ends like in real life, with Percy and his son Jack (Holland) trekking into the jungle, and never being found again.  A true story, neither Fawcett was ever seen again, though the film ends with the implication that he found the city, with him sending a compass to the Royal Geographic Society (it was his intention to do so to indicate that he'd found the place).

The film is beautiful (once you adjust your television), and a handsome if occasionally stilted production.  It's hard for me to watch the movie and not think of the considerably better and more philosophical Embrace of the Serpent from two years ago, as they have similar looks at white men going mad trying to find a secret within the jungle that alludes all.  The film doesn't seem to know precisely what to do with some of Percy's home life, frequently making Sienna Miller a lifeless form in the picture, always doting but never really doing anything outside of being a dutiful wife; even in the scenes where she pushes back, it's with the implication that she won't deter her husband.  This steals away a third of the picture, and whenever we're not in the jungle the movie drags.

The film, though, is saved from being simply eye candy by a rugged turn from Charlie Hunnam.  Hunnam, who has had a strange career graduating from twink to biker to now handsome leading man,  is easily the best part of the movie, finding a strong central core in his Percy, a man haunted by failure, and willing to put everything he has on the line not to end up like his father.  The script doesn't push that narrative, but it doesn't need to with Hunnam pulling it out at every turn; the way he over-extends and gleefully embraces any sort of success, as if he's been deprived of it for his whole life is excellent.  He never quite takes us into madness, but you can see it in his eyes-you can see the unhinged way he recklessly embraces the world that when he ends up lost, perhaps taking with him the life of his first-born son, you know that anything could have been possible next in his existence.  Considering the laundry list of Percy Fawcett theories, Hunnam does a great job in projecting what might happen into the future, and gives a great piece of acting at the movie's core.

Those are my thoughts on The Lost City of Z, a movie that grew on me upon second viewing and not just because I could finally see the picture.  How about you?  Do you think this film finds any way to improve upon Embrace of the Serpent, or are you as fascinated as I am about what happened next to Percy Fawcett?  And when is Charlie Hunnam going to get an awards magnet role, as he's clearly capable of one?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Captain America: Civl War (2016)

Film: Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Stars: Chris Evans, Robert Downey, Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Emily VanCamp, Tom Holland, William Hurt, Daniel Bruhl, Marisa Tomei, Alfre Woodard (seriously-what was the casting budget on this movie?!?)
Director: Anthony and Joe Russo
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I grew up with comic books in my house, and so I've always had a slightly weird reaction to the world of comic books becoming so common-place on the big screen.  Unlike other guys who will spend hours upon hours rehashing different multiverse theories and the intricacies of universes in the current Marvel world, I can't keep up there, but I do still read the occasional comic book (especially after one of these movies I'll sneak out and buy a few from my local store just to check in like fans of a soap opera), and feel a kinship with my youth when my brother and I would spend our allowance at the local Pamida buying up the latest installments.  We were definitively a Marvel household, and so seeing all of these characters come to life on the big screen, all of these Avengers that we had seen dance across the page, it's truly a wonderful experience and I try not to be one of "those guys" who name-checks facts and dates about every character on the screen to their friends who aren't as familiar and just want to go to the latest awesome superhero movie.

What continues to stun me, though, is how the movies have really reshaped in a lot of ways my thoughts on the comic books at large.  After all, the comic books that I loved growing up aren't remotely the same as the movies that I've gravitated toward.  X-Men, probably the comics I have read the most of through the years, never really felt right as they were too focused on a specific mutant at the cinema (Wolverine, then Professor X, and now Mystique), but what made that series so special was that it was a group of individuals, and you didn't know if the next story-line would center on one of the major headliners or just a sideline character getting their moment in the sun (who else is pumped that Jubilee is finally going to be in a movie?!?).  My favorite comic books as a child were Fantastic Four, and yet their movies have been a complete and utter travesty-I'm still flummoxed how they have managed to botch my beloved family of superheroes so often, and how I'll probably never get a definitive motion picture (though I'll eternally be indebted to Chris Evans for bringing my crush on Johnny Storm so perfectly to life).  Instead, the best movies have been centered around arguably one of my least favorite comic book heroes, Captain America.  I always found him to be a bit blase, not as morally complicated or interesting as a Wolverine or Incredible Hulk, and not as much fun as the Human Torch or Black Widow.  And yet, Chris Evans' incarnation of Captain America is such a joy, and his films are the ones that come the closest to reliving that magic of my youth onscreen, the comic books I fell so deeply in-love with and escaped into when I was feeling blue.

(Spoilers Ahead) This is a preamble to tell you that I once again left Captain America's third outing (from the looks of things his final outing as a solo venture) duly impressed.  The film centers around, once again, Captain America's complicated relationship with Bucky Barnes (aka the Winter Soldier), who is once again wanted for murder, this time for blowing up the United Nations building, and in turn killing the king of an African nation.  This is amidst a growing fear of the Avengers, and a powerful retribution for the destruction that they are bringing about to the world.  The idea of holding superheroes accountable for their actions is hardly new, but it's become the centerfold of almost every single superhero picture in recent years so I was curious how Civil War would handle it (there are people in those "Hulk Smash!" buildings, and they aren't just extras anymore).  There's a terrificly acted scene with Alfre Woodard early on in the picture (sadly, she doesn't become one of the Avengers later on), where she essentially admonishes Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark for destroying her world, even as he thought he was trying to save it.  It was arguably one of the most impressive monologues I've seen in a Marvel picture, and kudos to Woodard for not making it feel like a cliche.

Stark's newfound moral compass (though really-isn't Stark always finding his moral compass again and again in these pictures, only to seemingly lose it again by the start of the next movie?) leads to a break between he and Captain America, as Stark wants to be under the control of the UN while Captain America doesn't feel that he can be held down in that manner, despite the consequences.  Battle lines are brought forth, with alliances like Black Widow and War Machine joining Tony Stark while the likes of the Falcon and the Scarlet Witch go with Captain America.  All-the-while, at the center is the Winter Soldier, who is being framed for a series of crimes by an agent-of-chaos (Bruhl), whose intentions quite frankly never feel properly revealed, except that he wants to destroy the Avengers.

The film's best moments, and what was always so incredible about the comic books but hasn't been realized cinematically until now, is that you don't always needs a villain.  Frequently the infighting of groups like The Avengers (or X-Men or Fantastic Four) were the most compelling moments of the written pages, giving us insight into the desires of the superheroes that didn't just rely on them saving the universe.  That is true of Civil War, where we see Steve Rogers stand by his principles and his best friend of a hundred years or so even while Tony Stark, his new commander whose stance isn't without merit, becomes his enemy and they largely split up by the end of the picture.  The movie is, without question, the best Avengers movie that has been created so far.  Unlike the two actual films that claim the group in their title, Civil War feels like an ensemble, one that gives time to each character without it ever feeling like a checklist.  Perhaps because some of this film's stars aren't as large as the likes of Mark Ruffalo or Chris Hemsworth at this point (though it feels like Chadwick Boseman and Tom Holland will soon be able to demand more respect in this regard) you are able to have a tale without an equal amount of story going to a different character, and since you know the central focus will be on Captain America, you aren't bummed you didn't get to have more time with a Thor or an Ant-Man.

The film is not without its faults, of course.  While the central Avengers vs. Avengers battle was truly wonderful, and I loved the introduction of Spider-Man, there are still problems.  RDJ can land a one-liner with aplomb, but his Tony Stark is constantly rehashing the same memories, and I know it's part of Tony Stark's origin story, but this episode felt a little bit too Batman for me toward the end.  For every character that felt fresh (Ant-Man-I haven't seen his stand-alone yet, but it's now on the To Do list) or interesting (the Black Panther was my favorite new character to the series, and I think Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is still the best element of the original core Avengers), you are left with some characters that feel underwritten (War Machine, Scarlet Witch), and too preachy (Vision).  Also, I am still coming to grips with the television-like aspect of these films, which feels cool in the moment but I can't quite get my hands around the fact that it feels never-ending, and while that mirrors the comic books, most stories even there eventually came to an end.

Before I leave, I do want to say one thing because it's been highlighted a little bit in the press tour.  I think it's incredible that we have a major motion picture that has three black leads in the cast (Cheadle, Mackie, and Boseman), but the Marvel movies still haven't quite gotten to the diversity of the actual comic books quite yet.  I'm stunned, considering she's about to get her own stand-alone film that they didn't go for Captain Marvel in this picture.  Maybe they're saving Carol Danvers for a future picture-perhaps Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2?, but it's a bummer that we don't have a Bechdel Test pass for this particular movie.  My biggest qualm, though, is I wish we'd finally see a gay character in one of these movies.  For all of the talk (and there's a lot of it), about how actors and studios want to feature more gay characters in blockbusters, it never actually happens.  I'm sick and tired of clearly homosexual elements in films (come on, Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes are really close for friends), being the only thing that we get on-film.  My vote would be that they make Spider-Man gay or bisexual, even though Sony and Stan Lee aren't there for it, as it would make so much sense within the confines of his character (loner, outcast, really close with his aunt), but really it's time to have a gay character on the big screen that we can root for and not just see at an art-house or as a side character on an ABC sitcom.  The GLBT community deserves a seat at the table, and if Marvel/Disney want to put their (insanely huge amount of) money where their mouth is, it's time to go there.

Those are my thoughts (more of them than I initially thought I'd have) on the latest installment of the Captain America franchise.  What are your thoughts?  What are you hoping for next in the Marvel saga?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Ranting On...Tom Holland and the Comic Book Yawn

All right, I'm out.  Not of the closet (did that eleven years ago), but out of the comic book movie game.  For those who haven't heard (and trust me, if you haven't heard about it, you will), Tom Holland has officially been cast as the new Spider-Man, taking over the role that has been donned recently (extremely recently) by the likes of Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, and we will get a third reboot of the series a decade after Maguire, which means we've had three Spider-Mans in less than a decade.

I get that this isn't the first time that such a recasting has taken place in such a short window (James Bond in the 1970's, Batman in the 1990's), but those were franchises that still elicited excitement-does anyone really want another Spider-Man movie?  Honestly-the only two that were any good were the first two, and those were a decade ago.  Since then we had the bloated (albeit INSANELY successful Spider-Man 3), and the two installments with Andrew Garfield, who was badly miscast for the role of a young twentysomething and oddly completely botched his career at the time, going from near Oscar nominee to someone who is fired for the kid in The Impossible (he better hope the public likes Martin Scorsese's upcoming Silence).  Let's be honest here, the Spider-Man brand is badly botched, and it might not recover without a serious amount of TLC similar to what Christopher Nolan did to the Batman movies which doesn't seem to be something that Marvel has learned to employ quite yet (and at least then they had the decency to wait seven years).

Overall, though, I'm really tired of the comic book genre right now.  There have been a few strong installments in the past ten years, chiefly The Dark Knight, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Captain America: Winter Soldier, but they've become too over-saturated.  This was evidenced by The Avengers: Age of Ultron this past year, a gigantic miss by the filmmakers with too many characters, too much repetition, and a badly-neutered main villain.  All-in-all, the only ways that comic book films seem of interest now is the way that they launch new stars (Chris Evans and Chris Pratt and Chris Hemsworth...all the Chris's) and occasionally make us laugh (Guardians of the Galaxy was a big hit not because it was a great film but because it skewered itself a bit in hopes of gaining new fans to the genre).  The films need to find some sort of newness, some sort of artistry, some sort of risk.

This is what made Captain America: The Winter Soldier so mesmerizing.  I'm convinced that this is destined to be the best Marvel adaptation, period, as it actually has intense, sometimes new and challenging action scenes and let's the characters do the talking.  The film doesn't rely on "OMG-it's a cameo by such-and-such," but instead simply on heroes that are trying to find some semblance of purpose in their lives and a villain that doesn't seem comically evil, but genuinely like someone we might encounter in real life.  This hasn't been there in any of the recent Spider-Man movies, and quite frankly is lacking from the recent massive hit The Avengers.

I say these things not to be a grandpa or a douche-y guy complaining at a Comic Con panel, but because Hollywood has too much invested in comic book adaptations to not be able to succeed without them at this point.  Destroying tent poles while they aren't creating new ones is a bad way to go about things.  There's only so many franchises that you can sink before you eventually run out and have to create new stories, and only the James Cameron's and JJ Abrams' of the world seem intent on doing that (wouldn't you die if Steven Spielberg made a film like Minority Report or AI again instead of just another prestige historical drama-something with risk and edge on it?).  Marvel and DC both are at the point where they are exhausting their characters (lest we forget, DC may well have done itself in with relaunching the Batman franchise so quickly after Christian Bale with pop culture punching bag Ben Affleck, a move pretty much guaranteed to falter).  Why not go with a different sort of comic book adaptation-one that's less visually impressive but has a more complex story?  Or creating a film from the vantage of the love interest rather than the hero?  Something to keep the films fresh and new, rather than just repetitive.  Because I'm starting to get the same feeling I had when big-budget action movies started to continually be panned, and then eventually started to bomb, at the Box Office in the 1990's-if you give out garbage and ubiquity year-after-year, people will want a new flavor.