The Road to the Avengers: Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Of the comic that make up the basis for which the Avengers and it's prequels are based on, Captain America is the one that I loved as a kid After a few years of reading it, I was introduced to the Avengers and then the West Coast Avengers, which i doubt we will see a movie about. While following Steve Rogers as the Captain as he lived the nomadic life around the U.S. I was also collecting old comics from the early 70s when Captain America teamed up with Falcon. Somewhere in here, others portrayed Captain America as Steve Rogers lost his way. And so did I. I was a fan of Marvel's Paladin, our lawful good hero who did what was needed because it was for his country and every question he had he kept to himself because a good soldier doesn't question his orders. This was interesting to me, fighting for the system even though you are becoming disillusioned by the system. And then when you can take it no more, the hero removes himself from the system. I would have continued to read the series had it continued to follow Rogers as teh main character and shown me how a true patriot deals with a government that is less than it is supposed to be. Sure, they could have had someone else playing at Captain America, but that should have been in the background, as Rogers was the key. But, they didn't do that. You could go issues at a time without even a whisper of Rogers and then it would be a couple of panels about how he was out finding himself. Instead we got comics about fighting without any of the turmoil. I was genuinely sad the day I cancelled my subscription, especially so because I also ended my Batman subscription at the same time (Batman had just wrapped up the Year One storyline which I thought was brilliant, and went back to that 80s whack-a-doodle of the month format - they guy who ran the comic shop tried to get me to hold on a little longer because Year Two was about to start, but I couldn't do it) I had moved to the X-Men as my main Marvel title by this point, though I still kept getting the Amazing Spiderman. I actually stopped collecting those within another year as I had discovered Vertigo and Image comics and was reading a lot of one-offs and mini series by small presses. Pretty soon, I even stopped buying those and was putting all of my money into AD&D even when our group broke up to go to college because I was reading the pulp fantasy novels set in the Forgotten Realms and buying the books and maps to set my own games there which never properly materialized.
This movie had little to do with any of my memories of Captain America. This Captain is based on the updated story, with the updated costume. This Captain America is a soldier first and a super hero only incidentally because someone needed to step up and he could and did. I have read some of the modern Captain America related series - trying to get through that whole Dark Avengers thing and ultimately taking a break which has lasted about a year and a half now, because it was too many series pulling in too many directions. Captain America in these comics was okay. I completely missed the whole Ultimates thing in the Marvel Universe and have always intended to read it, but haven't yet, so don't what influence that had on this film, but I suspect little.
Watching Captain America rushing into a battle while firing away with his pistol is hard to get used to but ultimately I can accept this interpretation because He's a soldier first. The harder thing to accept is Chris Evans face/head attached to the skinny actor that played the pre-serum Steve Rogers body. That is just freaky looking and more than a little unsettling.
Ultimately, I liked this movie. The character of Captain America stays true to himself and like this whole solider-out-of-time angle that they bring us at the end. The comic book aside for a moment, this is also the most accessible film of the four in the series I've watched so far. They really should have had more of Rogers in the modern times at the end. He's certainly got to be upset that everyone he knew is dead or in their late 80s or beyond. It's also a little sad that the second most interesting female lead of the four films (after Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts) won't be making a return unless it's in flashbacks - I though Hayley Atwell as Agent Peggy Carter was one of the better characters I've seen so far in any of these films.

Captain America: The First Avenger on IMDb

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Not that I've talked to a lot of people about this movie, but all of those that I have mentioned needing to watch it more than once so that they could understand just exactly what was going on. It's kind of like before I saw Fight Club and everyone was saying things like, "I didn't figure it out until the end" or "I knew during the breast exam" (trust me that makes sense in the context of Fight Club). So, I went into it knowing that there was a puzzle to be aware of, and since I knew this, it revealed itself nearly immediately - it has to for the flashback, "ah-ha!" scenes toward the end of the film. The same thing had happened with my viewing of The Sixth Sense. No one actually spoiled it for me in the sense that they told me the twist was, but they (you know, 'them') kept telling me it was going to be such a surprise and that I never would guess what the twist was, and then I watched it and thought it was obvious from the very beginning - but because I was hyper-aware of some twist. I went into this screening the same way, mind like a steel trap, ready to tuck away any clue. But, um, it's just a movie with it's story being told through glimpses of stories that reflect each other.
I didn't find the film confusing in the least. There. I said it. All of the six stories are structured the same way so that all six climax at the same time. Try some Magic Realism if you want to get confused, or follow any popular comic book hero, as their story gets told across multiple titles each by a different author, usually more than one, and then they get rebooted at times. Or hell, just try reading a George R. R. Martin book or perhaps some Robert Jordan. Perhaps my previous media choices have prepared me for a story told like this better than theirs had?
While I enjoyed all of the stories, I particularly like the Ordeal of Cavendish storyline and the Neo Seoul storyline. The Ordeal of Cavendish starts of hilariously with Tom Hanks playing an in your face author, Dermot Hoggins who while being a total animal lives' out many a writer's fantasy by throwing his main critic over the balcony of an apartment that is a couple of dozen stories up. Hugo Weaving in drag as Nurse Noakes later in this one is priceless and looks like he must have had a fun time playing her. The Neo Seoul story is the most straight sf of the lot and is the most noble of the six. IN all of them, people do things for the people they love, but in this one, the main character Son Me sacrifices herself so that others might love, which is a pretty romantic ideal.
My only complaint about this movie is that not all of the prosthetics were created equally. I don't mind seeing this actor or that looking nothing like themselves, I just should see the seams between the real them and the rubberized them. It's not all of the many heavily made-up characters, just a couple of really obvious ones. I won't tell you which actor or which character, I've just set you up to be a super sleuth like I was. It's a vicious cycle apparently.

Cloud Atlas at IMDb

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Now, it's been a might long time since I read The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkein, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 years, but I don't remember it being quite so, um, yeah, what's the word I'm looking for? Prequelly. You read The Hobbit and it's all cool because it's this small adventure where spiders and trolls are the nastiest things you meet before coming to Smaug. And they were plenty nasty. In my mind's eye, I can see the dwarves and poor Bilbo spending the first half of the book being held prisoner by one baddie or another. They were just a bunch of blokes with more misplaced bravery than common sense. The movie has a bunch of freakin' action heroes banded together against insurmountable odds which they somehow manage to, er, surmount.
Look, I decided to love Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies from the moment I first laid eyes on them. I drank the kool aid and I ain't afraid to admit it. There are the books, which are great, really the standard still by which all fantasy novels are measured. But the movies aren't the books. They leave things out, they add things in. Was I unhappy that some things were left out? You bet I was. But, I also understand that to put in everything from the books would have made the already incredibly long movies incrediblier longer. And they still would have missed some things and changed others. Look at the Game of Thrones adaptation - 10 hours long and still missed what I think are some important things from the book. As an aside, when I started reading Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin kept making references to the "small folk". I thought since he was using 'maester' instead of 'master' and 'ser' instead of 'sir' that he must just be calling his hobbits, 'small folk'. I was terribly disappointed when I found out that it was a term the gentry used for commoners and peasants. Where was I? Oh that's right, the movies are not the same as the books, yet they are brilliant in their own way. I love them as equals to the books, just the story told by a different master storyteller. And in case you're wondering, dear reader, I feel the same about the Harry Potter books and movies. There is no way that any movie could do complete justice to Jo Rowling's books, which in my opinion are some of the best books I have ever read, so they spun the tale their own way. A way which made sense to be told as a movie.
The Hobbit part 1, is almost the opposite of most adaptations. Jackson et al have all of these dropped or neglected things from the Lord of the Rings movies that they want to stick in somewhere. With the addition of the extra stuff, I think they might have forgotten how humble The Hobbit actually was. On the other hand, there are these cool (to me) back stories and foreshadowing that they're filling in for me, some of which may be based on the other books by Tolkien, but some which Jackson has added to make a movie more on par with the Lord of the Rings films, which is my nice way of saying that Jackson is trying to get a big scope movie from a small scope book.
Oh and where are the spiders? I know that they trolls come before the spiders in the book, but I don't know exactly where we are in the book so I can't tell if the spiders are yet to come or if Jackson left them out, deciding to only mention them instead of showing them. I guess I'll have to wait and see. Oh internets...I have a job for you...
The actors are just spectacular. I will watch Sir Ian, anywhere, anytime in any roll. Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett, reprising their roles as Elrond and Galladriel, respectively, are two of my favorite actors in two of my favorite roles for them. And Martin Freeman! I've been a fan of his since the Office, and loved him in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Sherlock. Everyone is just fantastic. The only comment I have is that Christopher Lee is giving off the same vibe as Saruman in this film as he did as Count Dooku in Attack of the Clones, that being that he is a frail old man. This doesn't mean that I don't like him or his job here, quite the opposite. It makes me a little melancholy to think about him getting older is all.
Do I need to even mention the special effects and the scenery? I would watch a three hour film of just the scenery for this movie or the Lord of the Rings movies. It's that good.
Bottom line on this film is that I get to have it both ways as a fanboy. I get my Peter Jackson directed Hobbit movie (part 1), but I also get the only good Dungeons and Dragons movie ever made with the Lord of the Rings movies not far behind on representing AD&D. During the battle scenes, I wondered a couple of times if Gary Gygax was going to get mentioned in the credits. I also thought about AD&D when the elves keep referring to Bilbo as a halfling, which is the AD&D term (as opposed ot hobbits which is the Tolkien term.

The Hobbit on IMDb