Disney acquires LucasFilm, new Star Wars Films Starting in 2015.

I may not write as often as I used to, but considering my interests and areas of expertise, now and again a story comes up that absolutely cannot be allowed to pass without comment. This is one such story. The media giant The Walt Disney Company has been snapping up or producing geek-friendly properties for a while, with a recent buyout of Marvel Comics, their publishing of the Percy Jackson teen olympian series through Hyperion and a general increase in science fiction and fantasy on network programming (They own half of A&E and all of ABC Television.) Today, they dropped a bomb on geekdom. They bought out LucasFilm and ILM for just over $4 Billion USD and are getting straight to work on cranking out new Star Wars movies.

"I've got a bad feeling about this" jokes will be EVERYWHERE in a day or two.

Reactions have been immediate and scattered. We're not prepared for this. The automatic knee-jerk reaction to a huge media conglomerate buying a beloved property and making something new out of it is supposed to be fear and disgust, but this is Star Wars. More importantly, this is Star Wars without George Lucas at the helm, which is something geeks have been praying for in the "never gonna happen but wouldn't it be nice if..." category.  Every geek is going to have to face something that we may secretly dread. We're going to have to judge new Star Wars films based on their own merits, and confront the possibility that we might not just be able to blame George Lucas if the franchise moves on past being something we can enjoy, and we just plain... hate the new stuff, trapped in our dreamy memories of the originals. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Lucas will be kept on as creative consultant, but the new films will have LucasFilms' Kathleen Kennedy (I'm calling it now, this is a name that in a few years will be thoroughly idolized or vilified, spat like a curse in geek circles) at the helm. They are in active development for a new trilogy, with Episode VII to release in 2015, and beyond that, Disney plans to continue making a new Star Wars movie every 2-3 years until people stop paying to see them.  They know there is money to be made whether the hardcore Star Wars fans approve or not, and so long as that is true, there will always be a new Star Wars. Maybe, just maybe... that's a GOOD thing.

Hey, even if it turns out bad... an Evil Empire ruining the franchise is TOTALLY Star Wars,
so... there's that.

Hear me out. I am tentatively excited about this announcement.  Maybe the new films will be great, maybe they'll be crap. We know that without George Lucas running the show, even if they are crap, they'll be crap for different reasons, not because one guy decided that his creation wasn't bigger than him after all, and it'd be his way or not at all. Even if the new films are bad, there's an opportunity there for new Expanded Universe fiction, new video games, all sorts of properties that traditionally make the most money by being satisfying to US. Those properties are way more likely to be developed and put in the hands of someone capable of doing them right if there's a new film coming up to tie them into. No matter what they say today, geeks are going to go see every one of these films, and more science fiction is pop culture means one thing for sure...

There is gonna be sexy cosplay in 5 years of characters that don't even exist yet. Nice.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

Review of: The Amazing Spider-Man (In 3-D)

When I heard they were rebooting the Spider-Man film franchise, within 5 years of Sam Raimi's trilogy of films, I rolled my eyes.  Sure, Spider-Man 3 was moderately awful, with subpar interpretations of Venom and a shoehorned in Gwen Stacy, with the most interesting villain (Sandman) sidelined into a subplot that barely went anywhere. And "Emo Peter Parker" and his big dance number... the less said about that, the better. I originally had no intention of going to see the newest incarnation of Marvel's flagship hero franchise.  A few things along the way changed my mind, and I went to go see it yesterday, and I'm prepared to review it.  First, Andrew Garfield's introduction to the panel at Comic-Con, his gasping, stuttering speech about what the character meant to him as a fan made me interested to see what that actor could do with the character of Peter Parker.  Then, the announcement of the casting of Emma Stone came out.  Like most people, I'm most familiar with her as a redhead in film, so I thought "Oh. Mary Jane Watson."  When I heard that she was going to her natural hair color of blonde to portray Gwen Stacy in a fashion true to the comics, I was sold. I'd give The Amazing Spider-Man a shot.

Apparently, the reboot happened because Sam Raimi refused to
continue the franchise, not being allowed the time he'd need to not make Spider-Man 4 not suck.

I decided to see the film in 3-D, since the showtimes for that were most convenient for me, and my wife (who can't see 3-D) had no interest in the reboot. I'd privately hated the whole 3-D trend in blockbuster movies, but, to be fair, I'd never really given it an honest chance.  Now that I have, I can say from my own personal experience, that I despise the current 3-D filmmaking fad.  I hate the gimmicky shots that are included in otherwise decent filmmaking, I  hate the blurry, half-assed effect of some of the scenes meant to showcase the technology... I don't mind it so much when it is subtle depth-of-field stuff, but it rarely is.  If you already hate 3-D, this film won't change your mind.  On to the review of the film itself.

 The first film in any (re)launch of a superhero franchise basically is split into the origin story and the first fight with a supervillain. For anyone who just wants the quick 'n dirty summary of my thoughts on the movie, The Amazing Spider-Man knocks the origin portion of its story out of the park, and falls a bit flat on the supervillain battle portion.  The beginning two-thirds of the story are good enough that I recommend the movie overall, but this falls into the category of "couldn't stick the landing."  Andrew Garfield is flat-out awesome as Peter Parker. He captures the awkwardness and quiet geekiness of the teenager who feels out of place wherever he is.  He's the "outcast" sort of geeky kid who manages to get in trouble with authority without any sense of edgy rebellion, and still gets ignored by girls and beaten up by bullies.  Making him a skater would normally make me groan as an attempt to "modernize" a classic character, but it works for this Parker, and translates well into his specific style of acrobatic tricks once he gets his powers.

The best thing about the new Spider-Man is the great casting of the two leads.

The best parts of the film are when Peter gets his powers, but before any conflict with the Lizard. From his accidental use of spider-sense to protect himself instinctively to fighting street thugs while cracking jokes, he is the best representation of Spider-Man on screen in these moments.  The confidence he finds behind the mask, and the drive he has to do the right thing driven by responsibility and guilt are spot-on. There is an awesome article I read a few months back that makes the case for Spider-Man being an even better hero than Batman, with a point-by-point comparison between the two icons. I still prefer the Dark Knight, but the points made in that article (found here) regarding Spidey are proven through the excellent portrayal in the entire beginning/middle of the movie. You can get the rest of the film wrong, and get that right and have a very good Spider-Man film.

It is unfortunate, then, that the rest of the film just isn't very good.  Rhys Ifans is great as Dr. Curt Connors, but after he becomes The Lizard, special effects and style trounce substance, and much of the tragic quality of this villain is lost in the flash.  Denis Leary is wasted, basically playing himself as police Captain George Stacy, in contrast to Emma Stone who is great as his daughter Gwen.  The biggest shame is that the over-the-top, effects-heavy and video-gamey action sequences that dominate the last act of the story are predictable and without any charm or personality.  We're no longer shocked when Peter is beaten up, his costume ripped and bloody since we've seen it before. No longer inspired when normal folks come to his aid even though the city inexplicably seems to consider him a greater threat than criminals and supervillains, we've seen that, too.  I wanted more of the Spider-Man who I saw fighting crime at the beginning, being a total smart-ass. It is clear in the comics that Parker cracks jokes partially as a defense mechanism to hide the fact that physical confrontation with dangerous criminals is scary, even if you have super-powers.





I want to see more of this incarnation of Spider-Man, who has the web-shooters he built himself filled with cartridges of web-fluid, and whose origin is, in many ways, a truer vision than Sam Raimi's take on it ten years ago. I want to see more of Gwen Stacy, and I hope the franchise has the balls to lead her to her eventual tragic fate. I want to see less of action sequences meant to showcase 3-D technology or to preview how awesome the video game is going to be.  The Lizard was almost there in moments when the movie wasn't just showcasing his physical strength and agility, but the mark was missed, and I hope the same won't happen with the Green Goblin. Norman Osborn is mentioned, but not seen, in this film and the mystery of what, exactly happened to Peter Parker's parents bookends the film in setting up both Peter's childhood and the eventual sequel.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

My Personal Top Ten Horror Films

I like horror a lot. It is frequently lumped in with fantasy and science fiction, so this is entirely natural, but I don't blog much about scary movies for two reasons. One, unless I am specifically enjoying them for how awful they are at a Bad Movie Night, I'm pretty picky. The second reason is that there are a lot of horror bloggers out there, and many of them do it better than I could ever hope to. (In particular, I recommend Wreckhouse Magazine, many awesome articles there.) I have my own taste in what I find scary, like anyone else, and these films are ones that got to me when I first saw them. I'm leaving out a few films that I personally love, but which didn't scare me (specifically, The Shining and Nightbreed) and a TON that others might call horror, but I'd classify under another genre (the Aliens series is science fiction, as far as I'm concerned.)

Counting down from 10 to 1 without further ado...

10. Suspiria (1977, Italian)

Okay, I'll admit, some people find this one dull, and most find the plot ridiculous at best, nonsensical at worst. For me, this is classic italian gore-splattered horror, with quality kill scenes. The filming of the individual scenes, the effects and use of color, light and music make the incoherent mess of a plot concerning witches at a dance academy entirely irrelevant. The mood created is disturbing and deeply unsettling, and even where the effects are subpar, the kills stuck with me.

9. Friday the Thirteenth, Part Two (1981)

The first of two sequels to get love on my list where I snub the original film, the sequel to Friday the Thirteenth is the first to have Jason Voorhees as the actual villain, as his mother is the killer in the first picture. He's missing his signature hockey mask in this one, preferring instead to hide his features under a sack with holes cut, and the disfigured being under that mask will forever be my preferred vision of the man behind the mask.

8. The Thing (1982)

Paranoia, extreme cold, an environment where something has gone horribly wrong, no one is coming to help you, and the creature could be any one of the people around you. John Carpenter touches a few of the triggers that get to me in this one, and the effects are spectacular, even if they almost killed several of the actors and burned down the set at least once in the filming. I actually think The Thing is at its scariest when we aren't looking at the monster, and don't know what (or who) it is at any given moment.

7. Hellraiser (1987)

Clive Barker has a problem. He writes great horror that, in general, doesn't translate well onto the screen. My love of Nightbreed doesn't excuse how far it falls short of the short story, and the less said about Lord of Illusions, the better (how you perfectly cast such a great story and screw up the script that bad is beyond me.) Hellraiser is the exception. This is Clive Barker's first movie as director, and he knocks it out of the park with demons, blood, a cursed puzzle box, and a twisted torturous sadomasochistic take on a tale of horror and revenge.

6. The Devil's Backbone (2001, Spanish)

A spanish ghost story from Guillermo del Toro, the story of an orphanage in the middle of the Spanish Civil War and a young boy who is plagued by an apparition of one of the boys who died there, saying many of the other children will die soon. Between the horrors of war, the menacing adults and their secrets and an unexploded bomb in the center of the school, this film drips with tension, and I actually like it as much or more than later del Toro films like Pan's Labyrinth.

5. Freaks (1932)

I'll just say this, Freaks is flat out great. A simple tale of revenge is made incredible by the supporting cast comprised entirely of actual circus freaks. The climax, with the Freaks closing in on the beautiful but treacherous trapeze artist who only marries the minute sideshow leader for his money, as they chant "One of us, one of us..." is still chilling today. Tod Browning cast the Barnum and Bailey troop members when actors of the day balked at sharing billing with "sideshow attractions" and the resulting film was considered so shocking it was banned by law in much of the United States and all of Australia.

4. Dawn of the Dead (1978)

As far as I'm concerned, this is the zombie movie. It is the first to address the perils of what to do once you are safe, as boredom and complancency set in once the survivors are holed up in a shopping mall. It most effectively also shows how dangerous other survivors can be, and is the least preachy of all of George Romero's zombie films. Though it has a bit to say about commercialism and the monstrous nature of man, it doesn't jam those things down your throat while you are trying to watch a horror movie.

3. A Nightmare on Elm Street, Part 3: The Dream Warriors (1987)

A controversial choice, I know, but I've always liked the third Freddy Kreuger movie better than the first, mainly because each of the kids who he kills are the best developed in this one. In the first attempt to solidify a coherent mythology for the series, each of the Dream Warriors realizes that Freddy can only kill them in their sleep, and that they can fight him with aspects of their own personality. Most of them lose, but it is one hell of a story along the way to the final showdown.

2. Halloween (1978)

Slasher films may be overdone, but Michael Myer's first appearance holds a high place on my list. From the creepy piano theme to the spray-painted mask of William Shatner's face, the escaped lunatic stalks his prey on the night he can move about when no one would find his costume odd. What makes this film is how subtle it is, and how it builds tension by showing the killer in the background, lurking... and he doesn't strike. Every time we think he'll make a move, he disappears, and the audience is left wondering when and how he'll kill.

1. The Exorcist (1973)

This movie has been parodied, analyzed and studied for years, and with good reason. This is the archetype for all other stories of demonic possession. Quick cuts to build unease, great performances from all the principal actors, creepy music and a story so scary that the Rev. Billy Graham claimed that the film's reels contained an actual demon, this is a classic without parallel. I highly recommend the DVD re-release with restored footage that corrects a few technical glitches and adds the cut "spider walk" sequence. If adjusted for inflation, this movie would be the highest grossing R-Rated film of all time.

Barely missing the cut is the only horror movie I own on DVD, The Ring, and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the first Saw film and the Amityville Horror. I'm not a huge fan of all the remakes going around, and I despise the campy, self-aware horror films of the 1990s and 2000s, and this list shows it. Happy Halloween!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

Life *is* Pain, Princess... The Princess Bride, Almost 25 years Later.

I'll just come right out and say it. Like so many others, The Princess Bride is one of my all-time favorite films. In fact, on my personal top 10, it beats out The Empire Strikes Back, any of the Lord of the Rings films and Ghostbusters. I put it at a solid third place, only behind Raiders of the Lost Ark and Casablanca. I've never been much for purchasing DVDs, and in the last few years I've just about completely forsaken them in favor of streaming, yet I find that it bothers me that I don't know where my copy of this movie is.  I've done stage fighting choreography directly ripped off from the non-acrobatic portions of the duel between Westley and Inigo, and like so many others I've quoted this film enough over the years to be thoroughly annoying. As a huge fan, I was excited to see many of the surviving cast reunited this week for interviews and a photo shoot with Entertainment Weekly for their annual reunions issue. After all these years, Billy Crystal and Carol Kane almost don't need makeup to play Miracle Max and Valerie anymore, and in contrast, I firmly believe that Cary Elwes has a painting in his attic somewhere (dude seriously hasn't aged since the 1980s.)  

Some of the surviving members of the cast, gathered to talk to
Good Morning America. Billy Crystal is wearing the original Miracle Max hat.

The movie, released in 1987, is a loose adaptation of the William Goldman (who also wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) novel of the same name, published in 1978. I've read the book, and this is one of those amazing instances where there are really very significant differences between a source novel and its screen adaptation, but both are very, very good. The book contains elements that could only have really worked on the page, as the framing story of Goldman's Grandfather is there, but the book presents itself as a writer trying to re-tell a story the way his grandfather told it to him. As an adult, he realizes that the actual book his grandfather read to him from wasn't very good, it was a dry political satire disguised as a fairy tale, and he explains at points where the "original" deviates from the story the way he knows it. By the end of the retelling of the fictional original work that Goldman is "translating," we have a story that is hilarious and bittersweet, with nostalgia, love and the sadness that comes with life not turning out the way you wanted it to by the ending.

The film is an expert blend of comedy, adventure and romance, with the story of a Grandfather reading to a young boy remaining as the framing device. The classic story of Westley the stableboy and his love, Buttercup has pirates and conspirators, duels, monsters, a miracle maker, a six-fingered man and a giant from Greenland. I've found that there is no single other film with quite as many lines I routinely quote without even thinking about it anymore. It was marginally profitable upon release, but not a mega-hit at $30.8 million on a $16 million budget. The studios had no idea how to promote it as it didn't fit neatly into a single category that could be distilled into a short trailer. Director Rob Reiner said at the time that he didn't want to make a "Wizard of Oz," a film that, while venerated as a classic, was underappreciated commercially in its own time. Despite this, The Princess Bride really came into its own as a cult classic in the years following its release and is now recognized as one of the great films of the 1980s.

Please, quote responsibly. I love this film, but even I roll my eyes when
someone says "Anybody got a peanut?" whenever two words happen to rhyme.

In interviews given with the reunited cast, interesting and obscure facts concerning the production came to light. Robin Wright, who played Buttercup, spoke fondly of Andre the Giant, who passed away in 1993. She mentions that when filming outdoors in cold locations that the exceptionally large man helped keep her warm by literally palming her head in his gigantic hand. Wallace Shawn had his career defined by his role as the Sicilian criminal mastermind Vizzini, but he filmed the movie in fear that he'd be fired because Danny DeVito, who was Reiner's first choice for the part, would become suddenly available. Among the actor injuries on the set were Mandy Patinkin who literally hurt himself trying not to laugh at Billy Crystal, whose mostly improvised performance as Miracle Max had to be continually reshot because the other actors would break character, unable to control their laughter. Cary Elwes also had to be hospitalized when he told Christopher Guest to hit him for real in a scene where Count Rugen knocks Westley out, and he suffered a very real head injury.

The story was being developed for a possible stage adapation as a musical by Tony Award-winning composer Adam Guettel in 2006, but unfortunately the project was abandoned by 2007. William Goldman and Guettel had a falling out which broke the deal apart, though some of the completed music has survived. People close to William Goldman say that he was dissatisfied with the pace of completed work and the lack of progress after a year's time on the project. Other sources close to Adam Guettel say that the real reason the musical didn't happen was simpler, it was all about the money. Despite Guettel writing all the music and lyrics, and Goldman's contributions being slight aside from his writing for the book and film, the deal finally broke down when William Goldman demanded a 75% share of the revenues for writing. This was bad news for fans who were awaiting a show in the same vein as "The Producers" or "Spamelot," both stage musicals adapted from classic comedy films. At the end of the day, the story concerning the production of any new Princess Bride material matches the bittersweet notes in the book's ending, and we're reminded of something the film told us explicitly. "Life is pain... anyone who tells you differently is probably selling something."

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

My Review of Franklyn – A Mixed Bag of British Sci-Fi/Drama

Okay, I saw the trailer for Franklyn, and I'll admit it, they suckered me. The promo spots for this film, or at least the one I saw, focus on the most unusual elements of a film that is about two-thirds fairly mundane. You have Ryan Phillipe in a badass looking mask as some sort of dark vigilante in a fantastic dystopia that looks like it could have sprung from the mind of Guillermo del Toro, and a lot of unusual imagery from a dark haired woman in too much makeup, with occasional quick cuts of contemporary London. This trailer is, to risk understatement, misleading. All of the images presenting Franklyn as an unusual and risky dark superhero fantasy are advertising a different film, not the one that was made. Was the film presented in the trailer better or worse than the reality of what Franklyn delivers? That's a more difficult question.

This was the least disingenuous poster I could find for the film.

This is a difficult movie to summarize without giving the whole game away, as the first third of the film is complex, disconnected and the audience spends much of the time asking "What the hell is going on?" The characters we are shown have stories that on their own are not difficult to follow, but the plot and tone of each of the four stories being told suggest that they don't belong in the same film. One of the stories (the one that the trailer chooses to focus on, naturally) doesn't appear to belong in the same world as the others. There are bits of each tale that are well told, and a few characters that the audience can identify with, but for much of the film, I found myself wishing that they'd just get on with it. We have a dangerous masked figure reminiscent of batman dressed like Decker from Nightbreed, a stock troubled young female artist, a man who is dealing with having been left by his fiancee very near the wedding day, and an old man looking for his son.

First, let's start with Jonathan Preest, as his visual style sells the movie. I have to admit, the mask itself pretty much guaranteed that I'd check the film out. Ryan Phillipe gives us his best Rorschach impersonation in Meanwhile City, a place where everyone has a religion, as required by law. Everyone, that is, except for Jonathan Preest. He does his private detective work while evading the top hat and goggle-wearing Ministry Clerics, and the visuals surrounding everything he does are pretty awesome. The problem is, Meanwhile City is a one-trick pony, we get it... everyone has a different weird faith and we are constantly given examples without any deeper exploration of what such a society would be like. Preest himself is a collection of cliches, his gravelly narration and sparse characterizations have been seen dozens if not hundreds of times before. I'll grant that the overbearing fantasy without substance is likely as a result of filmmaker choice rather than lack of skill or imagination, but I'm not sure that gives it a pass.

Emilia, in the middle of her "art." Any time I saw this character's life
in danger, I found myself rooting for natural selection.

This brings us to Emilia, whose tale is, if anything more vapid, pretentious and cliche than anything in the fantastic Meanwhile City. I hated this character for the combination of not a single shred of anything unique or new and the overwhelmingly terrible art-house crap that is her work as an artist that the audience must suffer through. She is played straight down the numbers of any one of hundreds of gothy artistic women in films and comics. Wealthy mother, missing father, smokes and wears black and too much makeup while painting and shooting videos about sex, death and beauty while being depressed about her life and work. I found myself agreeing with her college art professor/advisor with regards to his assessment of how devoid of substance her performance art schlock routine was. Once again, given the presentation of the character and her role in the story, all of this could have been done purposefully, but that doesn't mean it belongs in something other people have to watch.

Milo is a little bit more sympathetic as a young earnest man who has just been jilted by the woman he was about to marry and leans on his friends and family while he tries to put his life back together. What little whining this character does is totally justified by what we see him going through, and a great performance from his supporting characters (his best man, his mother and the best man's better half) keeps the scenes from dragging. He begins seeing a mysterious woman around town as he tries to figure out how to cope with his destroyed love life, and pursues her into some unusual places, giving us just a tiny hint of the bizarre in his plot. Overall, played with more subtlety than the previously discussed characters, as we start filling in answers to the questions posed to his story, it carries a bit more emotional weight.

The fourth character, Peter Esser, is a highly religious man who is looking for his missing son. For me, his tale was the most interesting, and it has the least to do with any supernatural, fantastic or weird bits, at least to start. From the promotions for this film, you'd think that this part of the story didn't exist, as everything that doesn't focus solely on the Meanwhile City plot at best only shows the attractive young people as leads in the movie. This is a shame, as Esser's journey is a better detective story than anything in Preest's part of the film, and told from a unique perspective, to boot. I'd have liked to see the old man's search through hospitals and homeless shelters expanded on, as this bit had many of the best scenes in the film, and how his story ties into the other three very nearly redeems them by the end.

The film, by the end, does pay off in terms of a justification for why these characters are all in the same movie, and I was satisfied with the explanation. Franklyn isn't a bad film, but there is one character whose entire role in the movie annoyed me and diminished the experience as a whole, and the film that was advertised could have been a great one. Meanwhile City and Preest had potential, if there had been more substance to all of the great visuals, but in the end, what we got there was a really cool looking mask with absolutely nothing behind it. It is worth mentioning that this film had a fairly low budget and was the director's first film, and given those facts I'll give it credit for what it managed to do well. The final sequences could have been presented in a way that had more emotional impact and a better resolution, but I don't think "low-budget British sci-fi" when looking at the film as a whole. For those who have Netflix streaming, Franklyn is available as of the publication of this article, and it is worth a look. Just know what you are getting into, in spite of what the trailer promises.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

Revenge of the Son of the Sequel 2: Terrible Sequels to Geek Classics.

I've written at length about good movies, games and TV with bad endings, but that isn't the only way to ruin something good. Often, you can have a single film that is amazing, an instant classic and one met with nearly universal fan, if not critical acclaim. The box office and secondary numbers come in, and the studios immediately get to thinking... "How can we make more money off of this?" Now, they can't be blamed for that, on its own... making money from producing more movies is sort of the point of their business, it is what their jobs are about. I won't be so reluctant to withhold criticism on the specific films created in these cash-grabs, and how they tarnish the memory of their original source, however. This won't be an exhaustive list, as I'm as unprepared to write a ten page article as most people are to read one, and a full third of that could likely be devoted to superhero sequels.

The Matrix

We've established our lead character is in no real danger, so how do we make these fights
exciting and meaningful? Have him fight more CGI!

Oh, god. Though the original has not aged well in my memory, for the first half-dozen or so viewings, I was amazed by the effects and intrigued by the world created for the sci-fi action movie. This film was one of the first must-own DVDs, with very well thought-out bonus content, a genuinely interesting commentary and a solid premise. Now, we've seen similar stories done better, and a last minute change to the machines' motivations so as not to confuse the audience aside, this is still a classic. The sequels are a blight, from half-baked plots where the climax is actually handled in a separate video game, to loose ends that are never satisfactorily explained, I didn't bother seeing the third film for years after being let down by the second one. Inconsistent, incoherent and poorly planned out, it is best to just pretend these films never happened.

Pitch Black/The Chronicles of Riddick

This was, I think, a case of a cool little low-budget film being turned into a vehicle for its star once it was clear that he was the sort of actor that Hollwood blockbusters are built around. In Pitch Black, the key to the tension is that the Riddick character is, for most of the film, considered at least as dangerous as the creatures that the survivors of the crash are being wiped out by. He is menacing, cruel, and at best an antihero, the extreme nature of the situation pushing him barely out of the villain category. However, when a sequel was needed to be a Vin Diesel blockbuster, a handwave to the original characterization was made, and he became a sci-fi hero in a world crafted by someone with a vague recollection of having once read Dune and a streak of plagiarism. The tone, visual style and characterization were preserved, however... this time in the tie-in video game (Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay) that was superior to the film in every way.

Highlander

Hi, I'm Mario Van Peebles,  and I ruin things. Professionally.

Highlander is one of those movies that suggested a world that begged for a sequel, at least on paper. The core problem is, the first movie pretty much wraps the concept up. Immortals have been killing each other and taking the power of those they kill for hundreds of years, and in the end, there can be only one. By the end of the movie, there is only one. The rest are dead, the hero won, Queen plays in the background. Great movie, and a geek cult classic. Every subsequent film comes up with more and more ludicrous justifications for continuing to tell stories in a concept that has played out to its logical conclusion. After seeing Highlander 2, I'd thought, "Well, at least there's no way this could get any worse." Boy, was I wrong. Quick way to tell if a movie is going to expand your horizons on how bad a movie can be: if Mario Van Peebles is in it, strap in for a bumpy ride. At least the television series kept the flavor of the original film and handled the paradox in the best (and maybe only) possible way... they ignored it.

The Mummy

I really liked the original Mummy, as we dont' get nearly enough pulp action outside of Indiana Jones (and no, we're not gonna talk about Crystal Skull. Maybe someday, but I'm not ready yet.) As a straight pulp adventure movie with light horror, the Mummy hit all the required notes. We got a villain with a backstory, a properly grizzled hero, the by-the-numbers romance subplot and a supporting cast with a badass mysterious foreigner and comic relief that walked right down that line between funny and annoying. When I saw the second film, I was amazed by how much they got wrong... the action set-pieces were annoying and random, the plot and pacing were uneven, and we hear all the while about the Scorpion King, played by the Rock, and he ends up barely in the movie at all. What we do see is a vaguely Rock-shaped bit of terrible CGI that at the time had me giggling, calling it the "Rock Lobster." And somehow, the third was just as bad. Poor Jet Li. I've seen him in so many good films, but virtually none of those are in English.

Pirates of the Caribbean

Geoffrey Rush's expression here is about what mine was at the rapid and  silly twists to Elizabeth Swan's
character in the sequels. "Weren't you a kind of sheltered Governor's daughter like, a year ago?"

I didn't expect much out of this when I first heard about it. Yeah, they cast Johnny Depp, but this was a movie adapted from one of the rides at Disney theme parks. After some positive marks from friends and reviewers, I ran out to see a matinee and was blown away. Jack Sparrow would go on to feature in plenty of terrible Halloween costumes and mediocre video games, but when it came out, it was hard to not like him. Skeletal pirates, ship-to-ship combat and great sword duels, we even get to see a port attacked, sacked and pillaged by buccaneers. Predictably, the characters I loved in the first ones were dismantled in the sequels, the cliffhanger ending of Dead Man's Chest felt like a ripoff, and At World's End was, well... just kind of stupid. Too many half-cooked plots and characters went into the garbled mess of the second and third film, and characters changed not as a result of logical development, but to fit the nonsense that passed for a plot. Even cutting the dead weight of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley's characters adrift couldn't save the fourth film from feeling dull and tired as compared to the original.

I've steered clear of bad spinoffs and sequels in two genres in particular, as horror is kind of characterized by the campy, gleefully terrible sequel, and I'm not sure where to start with comic book films (Superman IV, maybe?) Also, I've written quite enough recently about George Lucas, so the Star Wars prequels and my feelings on them is pretty much a given. That said, I'll likely revisit this topic at some point in the future, as there's a score of other films that fit the bill here, with these that are best left forgotten.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

“Superheroes” on HBO and the Real Life Superhero Movement.

I've written a lot about comics, thought a lot about what it would be like to be a superhero like Batman, no superhuman powers, just a costume and a desire to help out. The comics and films Kick-Ass and Watchmen are all about the idea of regular people who do just that, but they are also fiction. This month on HBO, a documentary aired about individuals who take to the streets of their communities in homemade costumes and try to help their communities in any way they can. The people who engage in this calling, hobby, whatever you want to call it refer to themselves as Real Life Superheroes. The film comes at the phenomenon from many different angles, alternately showing these heroes as inspiring, pathetic, courageous and partially unhinged at different points.

And yes, there are Real Life Supervillains, but they exist almost entirely on YouTube as parodies,
not committing real crimes. They simply mock and lampoon people in the RLSH scene.

The balanced take on the topic starting with the awkwardness of the movement, people in ridiculous suits who seem socially inept, most people who interact with them laughing at them or being patronizing in the way you might treat someone who is mentally handicapped. The police don't seem to know how to handle them, usually telling them to go home, that they don't want to see anyone hurt, a sentiment echoed by Marvel Comics' Stan Lee. Even the “super teams” that seem to have themselves fairly together and who could be taken somewhat seriously at first appear to be comprised of people who have something about them that is somehow a little... off. The people seem to be well meaning, but at first the question of “What would this be like?” can be answered with one word: “Lame.”

The documentary interviews many people and groups, but focuses on a few for most of the film. The New York Initiative, four roommates who train in weapons and martial arts and set up “bait patrols” in Brooklyn attempting to catch muggers trying to molest one of their own. Mr. Xtreme is portrayed as an awkward loner who moves into a van, watches Power Rangers and goes with his mother to a martial arts tournament where, as a white belt hoping to earn a higher rank, he gets his ass kicked. Zetaman, his wife Apocalypse Meow and the Jewish masked hero called Life focus on handing out clothes and food to the homeless in their communities. Dark Guardian's background as a martial arts instructor gives him confidence in his confrontations with DC drug dealers with the help of his sidekick, The Cameraman. Thanatos, the Dark Guardian, dispenses sage wisdom about what it all means, and the former Pro Wrestler (and generically-named) Super Hero shows off his cool gear, including a red sports car with “SUPRHERO” on the license plate. These last two are members of a super-team that also has the most colorful figure in the film.

Even if he is a nut, I'm glad someone like Master Legend is out there,
that he really exists outside the realm of fiction.

Team Justice is an officially recognized Non-Profit Organization based on the activities of an allied group of individuals mostly based in Florida (though Thanatos is active in British Columbia, Canada.) Whether organizing Christmas toy drives, going on patrol for criminals, dispensing food, helping anyone in need by means mundane or adventurous, there is no question that they do a lot of good. They also have as one of their founding members the most interesting individual in the RLSH community, and almost certainly the one who has been active the longest. He may also be certifiably insane. Master Legend believes he was born with a purple veil over his eyes, that he's died multiple times and that God listens to him. He is eccentric, drinking on the job (though he claims never to excess) and has a Swiss WWII army helmet, a modified potato cannon and a home welded “iron fist” that can punch through doors. He claims he started his career at age nine in New Orleans, learning to fight under the cruel influence of his Klansman parents, and beating up a local bully wearing a mask made from an old shirt.

By the end of the film, actual incidents of doing good, if not high-action comic book fare are caught on tape, and even Mr. Xtreme is honored by the Mayor of his city, and begins to recruit others for a super team of his own. Many of the RLSH individuals wear armored bodysuits and carry mace and tasers for personal protection, and seem pragmatic about the possibility that someone may shoot or stab them. Their visibility as symbols often is enough to stop trouble, and drug dealers sometimes give up in frustration when these masked and caped crusaders are about, because no one wants to buy drugs with a bunch of costumed vigilantes standing right there. A refusal to give up, to turn away when they see something wrong makes these people who they are, several of them inspired by the murder and rape of Kitty Genovese who died because people didn't want to get involved. This same story factored into the origin of Watchmen's Rorshach, a fictional hero who would be right at home with Master Legend and Thanatos.

Notably absent from the documentary is any mention of one of the most famous and controversial figures in the RLSH community, Seattle's Phoenix Jones. Jones is the leader of the Rain City Superheroes and has been vocal in his criticism of anyone who calls themselves a superhero but limits their activity to costumed charity work. He's derided them in the media, calling them "Real Life Sandwich Handlers."  This has not made him many friends, nor has the incredible amount of publicity he's garnered through his publicist, leading many to criticize him as someone who is involved primarily for personal fame and attention. Journalists and police have had difficulty in establishing how many of Jones' claims are unverifiable but true, or if some of the things he has said to reporters are fabrications or exaggerations. Frequently, other heroes will not work with a journalist who is doing a story on Jones, so this may have factored into the filmmakers' decision to leave him out.

In more recent news, a British superhero calling himself The Statesman gave aid to police during the recent riots in England, escorting scared travelers through areas with roving gangs of thugs. He also directly assisted police in performing arrests, and performed a citizen's arrest of a looter himself during the chaos. The movement, and the film showing it from as many perspectives as possible while retaining entertainment value are both very interesting. I applaud the intent and courage, if not every specific action performed by these people, and recognize the power of them as symbols. I just hope that as more people take up cape and cowl that we don't hear about one of them turning up dead from a gun or a knife. The real life superhero would, as a general rule, say that is a risk that comes with the job.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

Review – The Wolfman (2010 Remake)

When I first saw trailers for the remake of the classic Lon Chaney Jr./Bela Lugosi monster movie, The Wolfman, I was excited. They changed the setting to Victorian Era England, which as a fan of Rippers I would hardly complain about, the casting had a long list of actors I like, Benecio del Toro, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving, Anthony Hopkins... even a cameo by Max von Sydow (though this got edited out and only appeared in the Director's Cut of the final film.) The more I read about it, the more excited I got. CGI would be used for transformation scenes, but whenever possible, traditional makeup and effects tricks would be used, and visually the original monster would be the inspiration for the new creature's appearance. They even went out of their way to specifically name and place even the bit parts from the original film, a detail only the most obsessive of us film geeks would even notice. This movie couldn't possibly be bad! Only... it was.

Not just bad, atrocious. How so much of the planning and concept of a film can be so right, and the execution be so horribly wrong baffles me. With all of the pieces they had in place, screwing this up so completely takes real talent. I can't fault the actors for what they did with the material they had to work with, aside from a few uneven moments in establishing a character with a consistent personality from del Toro and a little light scenery-chewing from Hopkins (which, let's face it, he'll do if given the chance,) the acting was good. Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving in particular gave great performances that were wasted here. The special effects, too, were well executed and looked good on screen (with an exception I'll get into later) and the environments were pitch-perfect. In many places clever details paying homage to earlier films were added, as extra “easter eggs” for those who caught them (or can surf IMDB.) That's all that was good about the film.

The number one issue is that the script and direction is laughably inconsistent, to the tune of it feeling like different teams worked on different scenes with no communication between each other. Here's where we start with the spoilers, you've been warned. From scene to scene, the locals go without any apparent cause from laughing at the idea of werewolves as utter stupidity to ready to kill del Toro's Lawrence Talbot for being one without any evidence and back to pish-poshing the idea again later. Apparently Emily Blunt's love interest character Gwen Conliffe originally got Talbot to return to the family estate by means of sending a letter to him. Later, they shot a scene where instead of a letter, she turns up in person, but later scenes refer to her letter not once, but twice. The script also can't agree on whether Talbot was in New York or London, telling us both at different intervals. This isn't “Oh, wow, that coffee cup moved 2 feet to the right, better report the goof on the internet” stuff... it is sloppy filmmaking.

Why are so many Victorian Horror films made so badly? Do bad directors just love top hats?

The plot twist that was shoehorned into the basic framework was predictable and hamfisted. Like all the worst scripts, it asks the audience to believe that many characters suddenly stop behaving the way they have for decades based on incredibly flimsy reasoning. When the reveal of the sudden betrayal finally happens, it isn't met with a gasp of surprise, but a sigh and a “but that doesn't make any sense!” Also, the entire role of the gypsies in the film is poorly handled, they speak the wrong language, act inappropriately for their culture at the time, and create the largest nonsensical plot hole in the story. The mysterious old gypsy woman from Central Casting knows that Talbot is a monster, knows he cannot be saved, her people beg her to just kill him and be done with it. She refuses, spouting some vague philosophy and dooms dozens of people to die for no reason, as she tells Gwen later how to kill him. Not that the audience ever understands why Gwen has to kill him instead of just letting a mob with silver bullets do the job, mind you.

Somehow, despite the fact that he is portrayed as honorable, professional and only wanting to stop the werewolf attacks, the audience isn't supposed to like Hugo Weaving's Inspector Abberline. The film tells us again and again that Talbot is cursed, that the horror will only end in his death, but we're shown scene after scene meant for us to root for the monster anyway. Weaving is even given a charming scene with the locals, one that serves to make his character likeable again, but by the end of the film, I couldn't honestly answer what the point of his character was at all. He is portrayed alternately as hero and villain, doesn't really end up doing anything of consequence, and his injuries at the end suggest that he will fall to the curse next, basically because Emily Blunt knocked his weapon away for reasons never explained in a crucial moment. Okay, so someone who “loves him” has to end the curse, even though the relationship established is shallow and unbelievable... but if someone else kills him then... what exactly? Either way, at the end of the film, the creature and Talbot are dead.

The creature looks way cooler in this promotional still than he ever does in action.

As for the creature itself, I applaud the idea of making the wolfman look like an updated version of Lon Chaney Jr.'s original monster. Problem is, in practice, the monster just looked kind of silly. Despite all the screaming, severed body parts, action footage and gallons of stage blood, this Wolfman is a varsity jacket away from looking like Teen Wolf. Not scary. Every time he roared or howled, I winced, because for all the noble intentions of paying homage to the classic, the wolfman looked... stupid. It is a real shame, because when we can barely see the monster, it looks kind of cool, but the entire last bit of the film has the creature posing, snarling and severing limbs in the center of the screen. I was a little embarrassed for the filmmakers by the end of it all, as it took itself too seriously to even get filed under “campy, but stupid fun.”

I can't really recommend this to anyone. The best scenes were shot in a vacuum, the plot makes no sense and the object and focus of the movie looks ridiculous. When it isn't being ludicrous, it is being boring instead, as there is no sense of pacing or flow throughout the film as a whole. Honestly, go back, watch the original with Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains and Bela Lugosi and try to pretend that they never wasted anyone's time or money with this worthless remake. You'll be happier.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

Paul – Pegg and Frost meet E.T., as played by Seth Rogen.

I'll start with a declaration of bias with regard to the movie I want to talk about today. I'm personally a huge fan of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, the projects they've collaborated on before (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) are favorites of mine, and unless this is your first visit to the site, you know how much I love comic books and science fiction. So, Paul is a movie that was made with someone very much like me in mind. The degree to which they'd have had to screw this movie up for me not to like it is profound, as I was on board from the moment I heard the concept. I finally got around to seeing it this past weekend, and I can only say that my expectations were exceeded in every way. In the long run, it may not have the timeless quality of Shaun of the Dead, but for first time viewing, I think I enjoyed myself more seeing this than I did the first time round with the British Zombie comedy that made Pegg and Frost household names.

I heard a lot about this before it came out, but it didn't seem to stay in theaters very long.

The setup is so simple that it is amazing that it took so long for someone to make this film. (For all I know, there could be an obscure indie flick out there that is similar in concept, but if there is, I'm unaware.) Two mega-nerds from England go on holiday to San Diego Comic Con as the payoff of a lifelong dream. Clive Gollings (Frost) is a frustrated science fiction writer who had minor success as a teenager but has remained unpublished since. Graeme Willy (Pegg) is his best friend and partner, a talented illustrator who creates images to go with his friend's words that are good enough that the book covers alone should sell a pile of copies, that it, if Clive ever finishes his magnum opus. The friends have an incredible geeky time at Comic Con, and plan to follow it up with a tour of the UFO hotspots of the American Southwest.

The setup and establishment of the pair as likeable characters is necessary for what comes later to happen to characters who are more than just cardboard cutouts (treatment that the rest of the cast doesn't get,) but I'll grant nit-pickers that this first 30 or so minutes almost feels like it belongs in a separate film, as the pacing and storytelling are different from the rest of the movie. Along the road, the guys run into a geek-friendly diner owner (played by Glee's Jane Lynch) and a pair of stock idiot rednecks who immediately take a dislike to the British Geeks. Right after this, the movie takes off, picking up the main plot as the guys drive to the Black Mailbox in Nevada in their rented Winnebago and a pair of headlights is bearing down on them. Fearing that it is the rednecks come to beat them up, they get on the road and are quickly surprised when the lights belong to a car that suddenly flips off the road.

Slackers in a zombie apocalypse, Cops in a police action/comedy/murder mystery,
and now nerds in a Winnebago. These guys are great.

Clive and Graeme investigate, and the driver of the car steps out of the night, unharmed... he is a genuine alien, escaped from a military base. Clive faints, and the alien, named Paul, convinces Graeme to help him out before the people after him turn up to recapture him. Paul is a brilliant piece of natural-looking CGI, well animated and voiced by Seth Rogen. As for Paul's personality, well, if you are familiar with virtually any of the characters Rogen's played before, you know about what to expect from Paul. In this case, that isn't really a complaint, as the charismatic low-key slacker type is a cool contrast to the Frost and Pegg buddy comedy, and he fits into the dynamic well. If it works in making a film entertaining, I won't hold Seth Rogen's typecasting against him.

Cue the cross country buddy comedy flight from the government agents after Paul, led by the serious Agent Zoil played by Jason Bateman with his usual talent for playing quirky characters. Zoil has two new agents (Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio) with him who are kept in the dark and sort of goofy on their own... one of them is even a comic book geek himself. The trio work through Paul's backstory, bond a little bit, and then meet a nice girl raised in an extreme religious household who immediately catches Graeme's eye. Ruth (Kristen Wiig), a one-eyed Bible thumping Daddy's Girl, is abducted by the guys when Paul reveals himself to her in the midst of an argument about science and religion conducted through the Winnebago's bathroom door. Eventually winning Ruth over, the group continues north with their pursuers, who now include Ruth's gun and Bible-toting father.

Jason Bateman isn't the only Arrested Development alum to appear in this film, but he has the biggest role.

The film frequently makes clever references to various specific scenes from popular science fiction films and programs, and settles down as an action-comedy that feels exactly like a comedy that is somewhere between one of Rogen's films and one by Pegg and Frost should. Paul breaks one of the cardinal rules of the “alien on the run” film constantly, not seeming to care much if people see him, as he plans to be gone soon, and after all, who'd believe the stories anyway? The supporting characters are entertaining in their roles, including Agent Zoil's boss whose voice is heard over the phone throughout the film, and whose identity is supposed to be a big cameo reveal at the end, but clever sci-fi fans will recognize the voice right away. The pacing of the movie is a little awkward and unwieldy in spots, but it is so much fun that I didn't care.

By the time the movie was over, I'd laughed quite a bit, appreciated the development of the various characters, recurring gags and saw the plot through to its fairly predictable end. There were perhaps a few too many supporting characters for all of them to get their due, and I did frown a bit here and there at how heavy-handed the “Religious people are idiots” bit got played, but overall, this is a movie I not only liked quite a bit, but will probably even go out of my way to watch again. Anyone who is a fan of any of the principal actors will probably like this a lot, as it is more clever than a typical Rogen film and less dry than the other Pegg and Frost comedies. Whether that is an improvement or not on those individual styles of comedy or not is a matter of personal taste.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

Cowboys and Aliens – A Geek Review.

They say that Hollywood is out of ideas, and most of the time, I'd agree with them. The vast majority of what comes out in theaters is adaptations of books, comics and TV shows, or sequels, remakes and “reboots' of recycled material. Even something as goofy in concept as Cowboys and Aliens is (extremely loosely) adapted from a graphic novel. That said, following along with the concept of “If I haven't seen it, its new to me,” Cowboys and Aliens would have had to be particularly horrible for me to not like it. I like science fiction, I like westerns, and I have no preconceived notions of how closely it resembles the original comics. It is a flawed movie, but there's more than enough in here that entertained me that while I didn't love it, I did like it. If I see it pop up on cable in a few years while flipping through the channels, I'll probably stop and watch again, but that's about as far as I go.

At least it isn't another film based on a 1970s TV show.

The title makes a promise, that what this movie is about is cowboys fighting aliens. Kind of a silly premise, but I like the fact that instead of being another self-aware self parody, the filmmakers play it completely straight. We're also not subject to the annoying forced comic relief that all to often turns up to shout catchphrases in this sort of dumb summer movie. Yes, there are cowboys. Yes, there are aliens, and of course, there are explosions. The casting is solid, with Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Clancy Brown, Keith Carradine and Sam Rockwell rounding out the most prominent western archetypes. You have the outlaw, the sheriff, arrogant cattleman, frontier preacher, town doctor and woman with a past.

The film starts off in New Mexico, with Jake Lonergan waking up in the middle of no where with no memories and a weird metal bracelet on his arm. Some local bounty hunters give him an opportunity to show off that he doesn't know who he is, but he's some sort of badass. He wanders into the town of Absolution and gets patched up by a local preacher who gives him a few sage words and sends him on his way. He runs afoul of the son of the local wealthy landowner, and in the ensuing fight a deputy is shot. In short order, both men are locked up when the sheriff notes that Jake is a dangerous and wanted criminal, but not before a mysterious woman can show up and utter a few cryptic words. Disarmed, arrested and with no idea what is going on, Jake sits in a prisoner's coach locked up, and then his bracelet starts glowing and beeping.

Really, Daniel Craig as a western badass shooting a laser cannon is the reason to see this.

Immediately, the town is attacked by alien spaceships that shift the film solidly into science fiction. People are abducted in a particularly brutal-looking fashion (no nice soft beams of glowing light here) as lasers start blowing up the town. The only thing that seems to have any effect is the weapon contained in Jake's weird bracelet, that he figures out how to fire after a little trial and error. Most of the rest of the film takes the characters set up in the initial scenes and puts them together to go after the aliens and rescue the abductees, encountering bandit gangs, hostile indians and a few surprises along the way. Of particular note when it comes to the characters in the posse are the preacher and the doctor, both played by actors I like a lot. Clancy Brown is at his least menacing turn outside of Spongebob as the town preacher, and Sam Rockwell's doctor/saloon owner is more likeable than most of the rest of the cast.

The pacing is a little unusual at times, seeming to go in fits and starts, and it doesn't always seem like there's a single arc of momentum across the entire plot. Also suffering from a lack of arc is the development of a few of the characters. Harrison Ford's brutal and corrupt former soldier-turned wealthy cattle rancher shifts wildly between snarling at everyone and being a decent sort of guy, but there's no progression of events that logically takes him from one to the other. Jake himself exhibits inconsistent and baffling behavior when he finds himself in the company of his former gang, kills the new guy who took over and doesn't resume leadership. He runs away, only to come back later to take the gang over again later when it is convenient for the script. Also, a note to those directing Olivia Wilde: there is a difference between “be mysterious” and “just stand there doing nothing, and occasionally say something that won't make sense until later.”

"Good guy? Bad guy? I'll just yell a lot and somehow end up likeable. It worked for Pacino."

When it comes to the aliens themselves and the plot regarding them, I had a bit of a problem with something that always bugs me with big studio movies. Don't give away plot twists in your trailer. Just don't. The set-up for the only real twist that I might have seen coming anyway was completely wasted because I knew about it weeks before the film came out. The aliens at least look cool, and when you get a good look at all their weird biology is capable of, they aren't just stock retreads of aliens found in a dozen other sci-fi movies. The ships are unique looking, and the climactic battle really shows what more than one or two of the creatures themselves are capable of.

Overall, if you aren't expecting much outside of a movie with Cowboys and Aliens fighting each other with the explosions expected of a summer blockbuster, you won't be disappointed. There are a few spots where the film drags and messes with momentum, but not a whole lot of wasted time. That's good, because the movie isn't one that is really improved much by thinking too hard about the motivations of anybody. Cowboy, Indian, Alien... the genre mashup manages to be both without completely abandoning its roots as a western as soon as the lasers start firing, and really, that's all we were promised.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets

Review for Captain America – The First Avenger.

Last night, my wife and I made it out to the Midnight showing of Captain America. Midnight shows have always been something kind of special for me, as you get the fans who are really into whatever the film you are about to see is about. No one in there just trying to kill a few hours or to not have to interact with their shrieking offspring for a few hours, just... fans. It is different going to one of these when unemployed. You don't have to worry about how the late night out will affect you at work the next day, and you've probably gotten into the habit of staying up too late already. At this stage of the game, if I can manage it, I'll try to see all my movies as Midnight showings. More respectful audience and I can go out at my leisure? Yes, please. But what about the film itself?

There were a lot of ways they could have gone with this, and I
respect the choices made to bring this to the big screen.

Marvel faced a unique set of challenges in the making of Captain America: The First Avenger. Set in front of them was the task of doing an origin story for a character set in World War 2, giving that character his due as a major superhero, and getting that same character from the 1940s to being ready to return for the Avengers Movie next year. Given that Cap has a 70 year history and his backstory has taken many crazy twists and turns in all those years, this is a tall order. All the other usual comic-book film challenges are present as well, incorporating a costume that might look great in a comic book (but ridiculous on-screen,) developing the main character without neglecting important secondary characters and villains, etc...

The brains behind this film knocked it out of the park. Not only did they hit the high points I list above, but they also managed to tighten up the connections between Captain America, Thor and Iron Man to set the stage. Let's be frank for a moment. There were changes made, though not many to Steve Rogers, his origin, and the essence of the character. Most of the significant changes were made to explain or justify elements that, had they been 100% true to the comics, would have taken hours of exposition to explain minor points or would have looked like nonsense and disrupted the flow of the story. Most of the significant changes were in Captain America's specific actions in the war, and in the motivations and background of The Red Skull.

Instead of ignoring Cap's origin as a pulp-action bit of WWII propaganda, the film
embraces it, reframes it and makes you care about the character because of it.

In the comics, both Cap himself and the Red Skull had a whole lot more to do with the war and the fight against Nazi Germany than their film counterparts. The Skull from the comics was personally trained by Hitler, and remained one of his top agents throughout the war, and Cap regularly fought on the front lines, with nazis as his stock enemy. In the film, the Red Skull is still, of course, a nazi in terms of origins, but he breaks away from Hitler in favor of allegiance to HYDRA, which he leads in pursuit of using super-science to conquer the world and destroy his enemies. The shift in focus from Cap fighting Nazis to fighting HYDRA troopers keeps the story on-task. (If I need to pick nits at this stage, I could complain that the "Hail HYDRA" salute looks a little silly.) This is a story with a lot of respect for the original material, but one that can't sacrifice telling a comprehensible story to comic-book accuracy.

Those original 1940s comics, with Captain America as propaganda tool punching out Hitler and with the kite shield rather than his now-iconic Vibranium round shield are paid homage to in a clever and unexpected way that also explains the costume in a world that is otherwise gritty 1940s pulp. The transition from “war movie” to “superhero movie” is aided by the Red Skull and Arnim Zola (played by Toby Jones, perfectly cast as the version of the Nazi scientist before he started impanting himself into android bodies with a big face in the chest.) The origins of HYDRA are linked to the Red Skull's obsession with the occult and how it can be bent to evil scientific ways. The source of the Skull's superweaponry is The Tessaract, a piece stolen, according to legend, from Odin's treasure room, which ties in nicely with THOR.

Zola and the Skull years after the war. I was geeking out over how well they handled Zola without
going too far and showing him in his final supervillain form.

The supporting cast manages to work in not only “Bucky” Barnes, who is a necessary component in a story about Captain America, but also some of the top characters from other WWII-era Marvel titles and a link back to Iron Man. The presence of Stark Industries as a military weapons contractor fits with what we know from the Iron Man films. Tony Stark's grandfather is an important character whose presence is only natural in a science-based program in the war effort. I was more impressed with how neatly many of the iconic members of the Howling Commandoes were worked in, in particular Dum Dum Dugan, Jim Morita, Gabriel Jones and Montgomery Falsworth. Though in the comic universe these characters were led by Nick Fury, their placement in the film does the characters justice and they get to be heroes on-screen in a support role to what could have been a one-man show.

All of the characters from this era who, in the Marvel continuity, survive from the 1940s to the present day are handled neatly in a “for this story, their role is complete, but you didn't see a body now, did you?” manner. The film opens telling us that the classic method of getting Steve Rogers from hero of the past into the present is maintained with him, and his shield, encased in ice. By the end of this movie, Cap's own story has been told and all of the pieces are in place to properly launch The Avengers as a single film, and if the story told there is as well done as the work on Iron Man, THOR and Captain America... hopefully a series of movies. I know I'll be lined up to see Joss Whedon's take on bringing all these characters from their own movies into a superteam ensemble... most likely, at Midnight.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Blog Gadgets