In Which I Heap Untold Praise on The Walking Dead: The Game

Telltale Games has done something truly remarkable with The Walking Dead: The Game. They took a choose-your-own adventure in a recognizable, post-apocalyptic society - an ingenious enough idea on its own - yet managed to turn it into something more. It furthers the idea of games as a storytelling medium and over the course of all five chapters of season 1 they manage to redefine the very genre of adventure gaming.

I've held off reviewing each individual episode as they came out because I felt the game was better-served to be judged on the whole rather than as the sum of its varying parts. This is something I stand by as the game has high points (episodes 2 and 5 are brilliant) and parts where the story bogs down a little bit (parts of episodes 3 and 4), but taken a single, overarching story you can really appreciate it that much more.

Episode 1 starts out simply enough - as Lee Everett, you find yourself in the back of a cop car, headed towards prison just outside of Atlanta as the world is very slowly going to Hell in a handbasket. For the first time in Walking Dead canon, this shows what the apocalypse was like in the early days (as previous instances had Rick waking up from his coma several weeks after the fall of society) so it's interesting to see things from a slightly different perspective this time around. Inevitably, of course, the car hits a walker, crashes and Lee escapes - thus starting his journey.

I'm not going to touch on any plot points because this is really something you should experience for yourself, but, as you would expect in a zombie game, you meet people who will form the basis of a survival group. You'll get along with some, you'll want to kill some, some you'll just wish would get eaten alive so you won't have to listen to them anymore (*cough* Ben *cough*). Episode 1 has a couple of cameos from existing Walking Dead characters (Hershel of 'Hershel's Farm' fame and everyone's favourite college-educated pizza-delivery guy, Glenn) but thankfully they are off-screen quick enough that they don't act as a distraction. I liken it to the developers saying, "Hey, look - our story is taking place in the same universe!" but they smartly allow it to become Lee's story. And that's important because, as Lee, you will mould the way your group of survivors react. Will they be forthright and honest? Will you backstab them? When the going gets tough, will you run or will you refuse to leave anyone behind? All of these choices - some of which appear to be rather inconsequential at the time you make them - serve to round out your playthrough. Couple this with several quick-time events that can dramatically change how scenes play out and the time-limit you're given to choose your dialoague options (gone are the days where you can just mindlessly ask every single question that comes up on your dialogue wheel until you find out what you need to know - The Walking Dead demands you pay stay on your toes and you can only say one thing. And the character you're speaking to *will remember*. So think long and hard before you call Lily a bitch.) and it's not surprising to find that this is a game that encourages multiple playthroughs. How many other adventure games can say that, right?

A game that's as heavily character driven as this one needs good voice acting to really enhance the story that the writers are trying to tell and thankfully The Walking Dead has some of the best voice acting I've heard in a while. Featuring several of the company's stable of voice actors (If you've played Back To The Future or Sam & Max chances are you'll recognize some of the voices), the work is uniformly excellent. What might be most shocking is 8-year old Clementine - a character who you will quickly learn serves as the emotional heart of the story - who is actually played by a 40-year old woman.

If a game can be judged on artistic merit by its ability to illicit emotional responses, the finale of The Walking Dead may well be Telltale's Mona Lisa. The finale is frantic yet emotional and heartfelt and as beautiful as something knee-deep in zombie gore could possibly be. The fact that it can manage to be that satisfying, however, is only because the previous acts grew and developed characters and a story that we were interested and invested in. It is truly a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Geek Score: 10 out of 10 bacon strips (Golden Bacon award!)

What I'm Playing: The Old Republic (free to play!) on PC, Dishonored on XBox 360

What I'm Reading: Sweet Tooth vol. 5 by Jeff Lemire (only one more trade after this one. *sniff*)

Denzel Helps Flight Navigate Turbulent Air

Flight soars in its opening act, levels off and then loses altitude in its final third. In spite of this, it's still a great film, owing mainly to a fantastic, tour-de-force performance by Denzel Washington.

In the opening sequence we meet Captain 'Whip' Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a fellow whom we quickly discover is not your atypical film hero. We open to find Whip in a hotel room with a nude woman and several half-empty liquor bottles strewn about. His phone rings, he answers, has a relatively uncomfortable conversation with his ex-wife and then, bleary-eyed and half-drunk, proceeds to the airport where the movie really takes off (both literally *and* figuratively).

Part of what makes Whitaker such a compelling character is the fact that, at times, he is downright despicable. He's impossible to root for, yet Denzel plays him with enough longing and depth that you can't help but feel for him on some level. Part of you hates him, but you can't look away. And while the opening sequence demonstrates that even though he's a damaged human being, he is an *incredible* pilot. He's simultaneously a hero and a cad. Throughout the film, a classic rock soundtrack (featuring several Rolling Stones songs) harkens back to the 60s and 70s - a time when pilots were rock stars. This is fitting with the way that Whitaker sees himself. He's brash and egotistical (he'll tell anyone who listens, "No one but me could have landed that plane!") and downright abrasive - a true anti-hero.

In addition to Denzel, director Robert Zemeckis has assembled a great cast featuring Don Cheadle (as Whitaker's lawyer) and John Goodman (who is continuing his recent renaissance as a supporting role-player, following his brilliant turn in Argo - as Whitaker's coke dealer). Though much will be made of the fact that Zemeckis hasn't dealt with 'live' actors in over a decade, he still gets quite a bit out of his cast - dramatic when they need to be, wrenching when they can be and even darkly comedic when the opportunities arise.

And speaking of Zemeckis, his first live action film since Cast Away suffers from some mild pacing issues (the middle third of the film runs on a little too long - yes, we get it. Whitaker is a drunk.) but the high points definitely outweigh the lows. Specifically, the scene featuring the crash is quite simply the most terrifying on-screen representation of a plane crashing that I've ever seen. Forget about the pilot of Lost - this will make you never want to board a 747 again. Throughout the film, the use of classic rock (specifically the Rolling Stones) harkens back to the 70s - an era when

A review of this film would be incomplete if it didn't touch on the somewhat-hamfisted (in my opinion, anyway) denouement. I'll remain as spoiler-free as I can, but let's just say that the end of the film doesn't quite fit with how I perceived Whitaker's character. I understand *why* it ended the way it did, I totally get the motivation, I just don't know if I 'felt' it. It just struck me as rather abrupt, mainly - the entire film had been running one way and then they make a sharp turn. It felt like the ending was forced.

Despite the turbulence in its final act, Flight is a daring, dramatic character-study that still manages to soar at times, and will likely earn Denzel Washington another Best Actor nomination.

Geek Score:

7 out of 10 Bacon Strips

What I'm Playing: Borderlands 2 for PC, Dishonored for XBox

What I'm Reading: Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes by Neil Gaiman

Rising Action: The Dark Knight's Superb Denouement

The Dark Knight Rises concludes one of the greatest film trilogies of all-time in superb fashion. While there are some minor pacing issues and logical leaps, Christopher Nolan brings his Batman series to an artistically-logical conclusion on his own, spectacular terms.

The inevitable comparisons between Rises and The Dark Knight are sure to make the rounds, but in truth, that’s not a fair argument to make. The Dark Knight is the Mona Lisa. Everything from the direction to the pacing to the acting itself combined in a once-in-a-lifetime, perfect storm of cinematic awesomeness. You likely won’t be surprised to hear that TDK is one of my favourite movies of all-time. And even though Da Vinci did some incredible things, none of them were ever quite as great as the Mona Lisa. The same could be said here – Nolan’s crafted a subtly-brilliant, timely, intelligent action film with a good story and great acting … but it still disappoints when you compare it to the unabashed brilliance of the second film. Judged on its own merits, however, the light can shine much more brightly.

The film opens with a breathtaking piece involving two airplanes and succeeds in introducing us to the film’s central villain, Bane (who is played by an Englishman, even though he should be from the Caribbean and has this weird metal mask that should be a Lucha-libre style mask… /pushes up glasses – but I digress). The scene itself is awe-inspiring in its own right, but when you take into consideration the fact that Nolan and his team were shooting *in the air* - not in front of a green screen – it really is enough to make your jaw drop. This opening sequence succeeds in establishing Bane as a suitable villain – and as the film goes on, Nolan continues to work to convince you that he’s more than a match for the Batman. In many ways, Bane comes across less a villain than someone who legitimately believes he’s doing bad things for all the right reasons – you half expect the film’s subtitle to be ‘Occupy Gotham’. If there’s another #occupy protest later this year, expect many protestors to be wearing Bane masks.

The film calls numerous Batman storylines / graphic novels – including (but not limited to), Knightfall and The Dark Knight Returns – and brings them together into one three-hour oeuvre that at once manages to feel final, yet immensely satisfying all the same. It succeeds where many 3rd-films in trilogies (*cough cough* Godfather 3 *cough cough*) fail in that it can stand well enough on its own, but it still manages to bring the over-arching story into a full, cohesive plot. In other words, it’s not the 5th season of Lost where they just decided to go back in time for some reason (and I *loved* Lost – so this isn’t something I say lightly).

The performances across the board border on spectacular. Christian Bale, as always, provides the most humanized Batman – even frailer now, as a Batman whose body has broken down owing to the years of physical abuse. Michael Caine is outstanding in pretty much every film he’s in and his presence is always felt in any scene he appears in. Tom Hardy’s Bane is suitably menacing – a hulking physical specimen that you honestly believe could do serious damage to the Batman – but his accent seems a little out-of-place at times - never quite to the point of distraction, however. The real revelation might just be Anne Hathaway’s Catwom.. err ‘Selina Kyle’. I had wondered how she would fit in to Nolan’s Bat-trilogy, as she always struck me as too ‘comic-book’ (from the hundreds of cats in her loft, to the constant feline puns). To Hathaway’s credit, though, she sculpts a sultry foil to Bale’s Bat that manages to stay grounded, yet sympathetic. She really holds her own here against some real heavyweights and I wouldn’t be shocked to hear her name announced as a Best Supporting Actress contender later in the year. As for the direction – well, it’s a Christopher Nolan film, so you know it’s bound to be superb (seriously – has the guy made a single bad movie? I challenge you to name one. Anyone!) and this film certainly doesn’t disappoint. Indeed, it’s a film that rewards repeat viewings. Personally, there were several things I picked up the second time that I either completely missed or was completely oblivious to the first time around. Nolan takes the theme of ‘rising’ from the ashes to heart – his shots are always framed so that things seem to move upwards from the bottom of the screen. It’s subtle nuances like this that serve to ‘raise’ (see what I did there?) this film above a simple action-heavy, popcorn-flick. The film moves along briskly, despite its 2:45 run-time (though one point prior to the climax, you’ll find yourself wishing for a little more exposition as there’s a serious logical leap for your mind to hurdle) and it never feels overlong in spite of its epic scope.

Now don’t get me wrong – this film is not perfect. There is that odd pacing hiccup to get over and both JGL’s Officer Blake and Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox seem somewhat under-utilized (a golden rule I use to grade most films – more JGL & Morgan Freeman = good. Less = bad). In addition, Batman’s new toy, ‘The Bat’ (“Yes, Mr. Wayne, it *does* come in black…” – awesome. See? More Morgan Freeman = good) doesn’t quite have that same ‘wow’ factor that you got the first time the new Batmobile or the Bat-cycle were deployed. These are minor quibbles, though, in what is otherwise a superb effort.

With The Dark Knight Rises, Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy comes full circle. He constantly reminds us about the series’ beginnings, while at the same time staking out a daring, dark – by far the darkest of the three films - vision for the World’s Greatest Detective. It all comes together in a positively thrilling climax and immensely satisfying conclusion. Taken as a snapshot, The Dark Knight Rises is a great film – but viewed with a wider-angle lens, the trilogy together represents nothing short of a modern cinematic achievement. Comic book films will never be seen the same way again.

Geek Score:

9 out of 10 Bacon Strips



What I'm Reading: Night of the Living Trekkies by Kevin David Anderson

What I'm Playing: Bioshock 2, Diablo III

Rocko's (Mini) Review Roundup

Dark Shadows

Dark Shadows is a film that doesn't quite seem to know what it wants to be. At times an absurdist, fish-out-of-water comedy and at times straight-up gothic horror, the film's reluctance to go all-in on either side of the ledger ultimately leads to disappointment.

Johnny Depp stars as Barnabas Collins, a man who was turned to a vampire by a witch (played by former Bond-girl Eva Green) and imprisoned for more than a century only to be awakened in the '70s (cue several sight-gags as Barnabas encounters the '70s for the first time - automobiles, hippies and shag carpeting)... and that's about as in-depth as we can get here as the Tim Burton-directed film is actually remarkably shallow.

That being said, though, the film actually made me laugh out loud on a few occasions (one scene involving supernatural intercourse had me howling, as did Barnabas' encounter with the aforementioned hippies) but these moments are often undercut by needless cruelty (either by the witch or by Barnabas himself) as the film tries too hard to straddle the line. Since the film is based on a (delightfully cheesy) '70s soap opera, I feel the film would've been better served playing to the inherent humour (Depp, for his part, seems to revel in the lighter moments by playing Barnabas straight as a board, despite how ridiculous the film may be).

The ending of the film is something I have a real problem with - it's either simply a twist for the sake of a twist, or it's something that screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith (of Pride And Prejudice And Zombies fame) was trying to allude to throughout the film (arguments could be made for both cases) yet failed to do so in a convincing fashion. Unfortunately, this is just another example of the film sitting firmly on the fence when it should really choose one side or the other. In my opinion, it seemed like a cheap cop-out that was, as it were, the 'final nail in the coffin'. This will ultimately go down as one of the biggest disappointments of the Depp/Burton collaborations.

Geek Score:

5 out of 10 bacon strips

Cabin in the Woods

From the disappointing to the outstanding, Cabin in the Woods is a Joss Whedon-penned horror film that defies conventional genre-wisdom and gleefully circumvents and deconstructs trope after trope as it builds towards an incredible twist-ending. It's the best new horror film in years.

Starring Thor himself, Chris Hemsworth, and four other generic, disposable 20-somethings who make their way to the titular cabin for a spring break weekend (gee, where have we heard this before?) only to find that everything is not quite as it seems.

To even talk about the plot is to give too much away, honestly, as there is so much here that's fresh and new that you're better-served to experience it for yourself. Suffice it to say that if you have seen the commercials and think the ad teams have already given it all away, I'll simply say that you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Director Drew Goddard (Cloverfield) gets competent performances from his cast while keeping the action moving quickly when it calls for it, but he's not afraid to slow things down a bit (as can be often necessary in horror films). The real star of the film, though, is the Whedon-penned screenplay. Fresh, intelligent, scary and funny, it's a truly top-shelf genre picture.

Geek Score:

9 out of 10 bacon strips

The Dictator

No one can ever accuse Sacha Baron Cohen of going for easy laughs. With The Dictator, he takes his certain brand of shock comedy farther than it's been before and while it may not always work, it hits more than it misses and is a huge step-up from his last film, Bruno.

The plot, such as it is, involves Cohen playing the titular character, Admiral-General Aladeen, ruler of the small Middle Eastern nation of Wadiya. He comes to the United States to meet with the United Nations, is subsequently replaced by his body-double and finds himself stranded in the east village of New York where he promptly (and inevitably) falls in love with a short-haired feminist (played with good spirit by Anna Faris). Let`s be honest, though - with Cohen, the plot is just a loose string designed to move us from one gag to another, and the gags mostly hit the mark. In fact, I found myself laughing at a few things that I never thought I would (one scene involving a helicopter tour over Manhattan, in particular, had me literally crying and another bright spot was a faux-documentary on Wadiya talking about how the word Àladeen`is used as an adjective).

Really it would seem that with Cohen, you either `get` him, or you don`t. I get him, so I enjoyed the film. It`s not perfect - the middle act drags a bit, for instance - but as far as R-rated comedies go, you could certainly do much worse.

Geek Score:

7 out of 10 bacon strips

Men In Black 3

I was somewhat surprised when I heard this was Will Smith's first role in over three years. Whether you like him or hate him, he is a definitive 'movie star' - he's got enough cachet to drive a film like The Pursuit of Happyness (sic) to $150 million, so reuniting him with arguably his most well-known franchise would seem like a no-brainer, until you remember just how bad Men In Black 2 was. It was a film that I managed to put out of my head almost the minute after leaving the studio, but the closer we got to the release of this film, the more I remembered just how poorly that film was made. As such, it shouldn't be a surprise that we waited a decade before seeing the third film in the series.

Regardless of whether people asked for it or not, though, here we are - and while this third film may not be particularly necessary in the grand scheme of things, it's an enjoyable sci-fi comedy that - at the very least - helps wash away some of the sour taste that may be left over from the second one.

Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) are both back, 'defending the Earth from the scum of the universe', but this time they've worked time-travelling into the mix as well as Agent J has to go back in time to save Agent K - and, of course, stop an evil alien who wants to destroy the Earth. In a brilliant piece of stunt-casting, Josh Brolin plays a pitch-perfect 30-year old Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K in 1969. Also new to the cast this time is Emma Thompson as Agent O, who replaces the erstwhile Agent Z (Rip Torn, who apparently had no interest in returning for this one).

The special effects, as has always been the case with this franchise, are relatively top-shelf as the alien creatures look suitably menacing and/or weird.

On the whole, I didn't mind the film, but I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching something totally unnecessary. The film doesn't particularly add anything to the series and Will Smith himself seemed rather dated (He actually used 'shiznit' on multiple occasions), much like a byproduct from another era. In addition, the 3D (of *course* it was in 3D) seemed tacked-on and failed to add anything to the film. If you have the chance to see it in 2D, I'd say go for that. Still, as throwaway, summer popcorn fun, you could do a lot worse than spending 90 minutes with the Men in Black. Just don't expect anything ... *puts on sunglasses* Earth-shattering. (YEAAAAAAAAAH!)

Geek Score:

6 out of 10 bacon strips

What I'm Playing: Diablo 3, Max Payne 3, Walking Dead: The Game

What I'm Reading: Preacher vol. 6, Saga

Tony Stark Is A Very Rich Man

I went to see the new Johnny Depp / Tim Burton collaboration, Dark Shadows, last weekend - so here I was all ready to review that (which would break my string of consecutive 'Golden Bacon' awards at two) until I saw the box office numbers come out.

Allow me to out myself here - in addition to being a bit of a movie geek, I'm also a box office numbers nerd. I track how much films make. I like to estimate opening weekend takes. I take some delight when great, little-known films do well and get positively giddy when paint-by-numbers, big-budget crap takes a financial bath. Now I'm sure you've all heard by now about The Avengers big opening weekend. $207 million. Absolutely astounding, if you stop to think about it. But frankly what I found even more incredible than the opening weekend take was the fact that the *second* weekend take was $103.1 million. Allow me to explain to you (if you at all care) why that is so insane - with movies that open so huge, they inevitably have huge fanboy-rush fervor, leading to everybody who *needs* to see it doing so on their opening weekend. As such, the week-to-week percentage drop (or the reverse, as box office nerds call it, the 'hold') is positively massive. Think of it this way - the more people who see a film in its opening weekend, the fewer people who feel the need to see it in the second (and third, fourth, etc) weekends.

To help illusrate what I'm talking about, let's use the film that Avengers bitch-slapped dethroned as the opening weekend champ - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 2. That film opened to $169.2 million. Its second weekend, however, was $47.4 million. That, my friends, represents a massive 72% drop from week-to-week (though you should really take 'midnight showings' out of the equation, but that's getting too technical for now - don't get me started). Let's not forget that Potter was a legitimately *good* film. Another point of reference are the fangirl-friendly Twilight sequels. New Moon opened to $143 million ... and slid off a cliff to $42.8 million in its second weekend. Breaking Dawn was almost identical - $139 opening, $42 second weekend. In general terms, the bigger the opening, the harder the fall. Films simply cannot maintain that sort of fan interest week-to-week anymore. We are a society that demands instant gratification before moving on to the next shiny.

So, that being said, The Avengers' second weekend becomes even more remarkable. Obviously, it was the highest opener of all-time, so even if it duplicated Potter's 72% drop, we'd be looking at around $60 million (or just below Thor's opening weekend). I didn't expect that to happen (for various reasons, including but not limited to - rapturous critical praise and an equally-positive fan reaction, the difference in numbers between the two film's midnight sneak numbers and more), but I was still thinking about a 60-65% drop was in the cards. A hold of 35% to 40% of the audience would put them in striking distance of another record (for those who care, Avatar held the record for the biggest second weekend at $75 million) and in good shape to cross half-a-billion by the time it was all said and done. A few people (including the brilliant folks at Box-Office Prophets) predicted it would top 90-million, but I didn't see it. So when the numbers came in on Sunday morning that they were estimating it over $100 for the weekend, I was positively floored. To think that a film could open that big and then hold almost 50% of its audience week-to-week is positively mind-boggling to me. Right now, Avengers has summarily chewed-up and spit-out almost every box-office record known to man.

So where does the film go from here? Well, here's where it gets fun (and also where I start using arithmetic and extrapolation, so feel free to hit 'snooze' if you need to). For the moment, let's take Avengers first seven days completely out of the equation and pretend, instead, that we are looking at this shiny new film that opened to (a still *very* impressive) $103.1 million. So, as of now, there are 21 films that have crossed the $100 million plateau in their opening weekends since Spider-Man did it a decade ago. Of those 21, their overall box-office range from $234 million (the positively dreadful X-Men: The Last Stand - screw you, Brett Ratner! etc.) to $533 million (the positively superlative The Dark Knight) with the average being $356 million. Now let's take say, for argument's sake, that Avengers makes that average amount from its second weekend on (which, frankly, seems like a sure thing, given the film's critical reception and rapturous word-of-mouth). Now we take the $270 million (!!!) the film made in its opening week and tack that on and we get ... ta-da! $626 million. A number within spitting distance of Titanic for second-place all-time (and would have been *ahead* of said film were it not for the 3D re-release earlier this year).

This gets me to the crux of my argument here - Avengers has an even-money-or-better chance to topple Titanic to become the second highest-grossing film of all-time and an outside shot of taking down the big dog, Avatar (as an aside - how absolutely ludicrous is it that James Cameron has the top *two* highest-grossing films of all-time? You may not like the guy, but his directing style clearly appeals to a number of people). Frankly, I'd love to see that happen. As you read, I positively loved the film and am eagerly promoting it to anyone who'll listen. Plus, for the longest time, pre-Titanic, nerds held the box office crown (a little ditty called Star Wars - perhaps you may have heard of it?) and gorramnit, it's time we took it back. So if you haven't seen it yet - what the hell are you waiting for? And if you *have* seen it and find yourself with 2.5 hours to kill - honestly, with May sweeps over now, there's not a lot of TV on, right? - why not go see it again?

This weekend will be fun. As I mentioned way back at the beginning of this tale (If there's anyone still reading by this point, anyway), the bigger the opening, the harder the drop - but after that big drop, things tend to level out substantially, so the film's multiplier (opening weekend divided by total gross ... /nerd) stretches its legs a bit. Basically, if Avengers can hold 60% or more of its audience in week 3, it'll have a real shot at the record. If it drops to 'only' 50-million (I can't see it dropping lower than that), then it'll probably have to set course for the iceberg and aim for number two all-time.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead.

What I'm Playing: - Diablo III, Mass Effect 3, Max Payne 3 (I'm sensing a theme here...)

What I'm Reading: - Green Lantern (new 52).

"You can be damned sure we'll Avenge it."

From the opening credits to the (immensely satisfying) finale, The Avengers is the most fun I've had in a movie theatre in a long time. It combines memorable characters, a funny script and some of the coolest action sequences ever put to film. It is, quite simply, a triumph - and it's more than worthy of my (sort of) prestigious Golden Bacon Award.

Few films have been as ambitious or intriguing as the concept for The Avengers. The idea for the film was kicked around Hollywood for years, but it wasn't until Marvel Studios started taking control of their own brand and characters that it seemed legitimately possible to pull off. The seeds were planted in the post-credits scene of 'Iron Man', where Tony Stark meets Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury. Then over the course of four more films (Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America), water, sun and a little fertilizer was added. Basically, Marvel Studios has created this one, unified world and managed to populate it with all of these characters. The fact that these individuals keep appearing in each other's films keeps awareness high and ties it all together extremely well. And now, the payoff - when we finally get to see all of these characters together in the same film, at the same time, is immensely satisfying. Plus, the fact that Joss Whedon wrote and directed it doesn't hurt either.

In all, Avengers is one of the most satisfying movie experiences I've ever had the pleasure of attending. It positively glows in just about every aspect. The dialogue is smart when it has to be, cornball when it calls for it, and there're more than a few positively brilliant one-liners (usually - but not entirely - from the mouth of Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark). Even speaking as someone who's not particularly fond of 3D, I didn't find it to be forced or distracting. There were no blatant 'money shots' - if you could ever accuse the 3D gimmick of being 'understated', this film would be the one to do it. It's there, and you notice it, but it's not distracting. It does what it's supposed to - it adds to the film without making a 2D version of the film unwatchable (which, when you're kicking in an extra three bucks for the 'option' of seeing a film in 3D, is really all you can ask for).

The plot involves Loki (Thor's half-brother/nemesis, introduced in Thor's movie just last year - which is great because there's no need to spend half an hour setting up the villain) trying to steal the Tesseract - a cube of extraterrestrial origin that was introduced (you guessed it) in Captain America's film. For what it's worth, the film is full of little things like this that do a great job of creating a sense of unity between these disparate characters. Anyway, Loki steals the Tesseract from SHIELD and Nick Fury calls on the Avengers (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye and Bruce Banner/Hulk) to save the day. I won't delve much further into the plot because I don't want to spoil anything, but let it be said that while the plot moves forward in a relatively linear fashion, it doesn't always do what you expect it will. Joss Whedon does a great job of handling all of these characters and keeping the action moving forward, but the direction never feels muddied or bogged down. He's essentially got six lead characters, but the pacing is so even that you never really feel like one's getting shafted at the expense of the others. He keeps the film moving quickly and efficiently.

As something of a comic book nerd in addition to film geek, there were at least three occasions where I geeked out so hard that I almost left my seat and shot into orbit. Joss, being something of a comic book geek himself - he's done several turns as lead writer in Marvel books in the past - clearly knows and has a certain amount of affection for these characters and the world they inhabit. Again, I won't go into detail because I want everyone to experience these moments for the first time, but I will say that I had a big, dumb, goofy grin on my face the entire time.

For me (and most others, I would imagine), the gold standard when it comes to comic book films is The Dark Knight. That being said, however, I find The Dark Knight to be simply a great 'film' - that just happens to be based on a comic book. Avengers is now, unquestionably the best *comic book* film I've seen. Does that make sense? It revels in its source material and, above all, is simply a joy to watch. I could sit here and heap more superlatives upon it, but really, it's 2.5 hours of glowing nerdgasm in 3D (or not) and I am absolutely going to see it again.

Your move, Dark Knight.

Geek Score: 10 Bacon Strips out of 10 - Golden Bacon Award

What I'm Playing: NHL 12 (playing as the goalie is hard), Mass Effect 3 for XBox 360

What I'm Reading: Preacher, vol. 6

- EP