Comic book extravaganza: #8: Batman Returns

1992
Staring: Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, Vincent Schiavelli
Director: Tim Burton

Until not too long ago this was the second best Batman film until Batman Begins supplanted all the older films in the ratings. Still, this film is third of the series, but only marginally. Where as Batman Forever was “too cooky” – taking too many pages from the 60s camp version, this batman is almost too “dark.” No, stop right there, this is not one of those “Tim Burton makes dark films” conversations. They aren’t – they’re generally unique – with many of them mediocre or just plain bad. This “dark” thing came around because of the corporate whoring that placed like Hot Topic did to sell merchandise to weird emo and goth middle and high school kids. That whole “dark” thing won’t work.

What I mean by “dark” is that it seems to purposefully be grim for grimness sake – which could have been something wrong with the directing, editing or writing because the similar Batman Begins was just as grim but it had something Returns didn’t – actual hope.

Again, like the trend of the older Batman films – this was barely about Batman – most of the story was actually centered on the villains of the film. A huge misstep that only got worse by the end of the original film’s run. With the “Shumakery” of Batman complete. Villains of the film are Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Shreck (Okay we get it Christopher Walken looks like Graf Orlok in Nosferatu).

The best thing that the series did was get a reboot; still this was a pretty solid Batman, and comic book film. The music from Danny Elfman is what really saves the entire picture.

Verdict: *** ½ / *****

Freaks

1932
Director: Tod Browning

The very cultish film, Freaks, is extremely disturbing, but not for the reasons you’d think so.

The film uses real “freaks” – the people in the film are NOT dressed up in prosthetics or costumes. This is exactly what they look like.

The plot concerns a circus and it’s “attractions”. Cleopatra - the quite un-deformed trapeze artist - is conning the German midget Hans, mostly because he’s in love with her. She’s only after his money – and continues to lead him on to get whatever she wants.

Another midget, Frieda, loves Hans and sees right through Cleopatra. She pleads to stop their impending marriage – but she refuses. What follows is nothing short of bizarre – the wedding feast – where the “Freaks” chant “One of us, one of us, Gooble, Gobble…”

I just have to say that the ending isn’t half as exciting as the buildup to the climax.

Verdict: *** ½ /*****

Comic book extravaganza: #9: Fantastic Four

2005
Staring: Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Michael Chiklis, Chris Evans, Julian McMahon
Director: Tim Story

Okay, many people don’t think this is a very good comic book film. The film takes itself as seriously as the comic book did, which is to say that it wasn’t that serious of a film. I suspect after the very serious X-men films that people just couldn’t handle it, which makes me sometimes wonder how many can stomach the heavy “camp” humor that the Spider-Man films dabble in.

The biggest problem with this film, as with many other comic book films, is that it is an origin film. For once it would be nice to have a comic book film that doesn’t start “at the start.” I’d love to have a film more like Batman – while it still is near the start of the “mythology” it would save a lot of buildup. This was the major problem with the film – it was too boring for the first hour or so of the film and never really picks up till the climax.

Personally the casting was near perfect. Sure Jessica Alba wasn’t the best actress out there that could have been cast (few young actresses can actually play a believable scientist – Just watch the dire “World is Not Enough” or “Alone in the Dark” for two of the “best” examples of terrible “scientists”).

Funny fact: This was not the first Fantastic Four film. Roger Corman produced an unreleased 1994 film. I remember all the way back whenever I was up at 7:00am on Saturdays watching the 1994 cartoon version in the morning.

Frankly, I have more high hopes that the sequel, Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer will be vastly superior and surpass it on every level.

Verdict: *** ½ /*****

Mark of the Vampire

1935
Staring: Lionel Barrymore, Elizabeth Allan, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Jean Hersholt, Henry Wadsworth

I caught this film late night after Freaks (a wonderfully horrifying film – not for the reasons you’d think) on Turner Classic Movies, and it wasn’t half bad.

The film had great atmosphere, but was completely incomprehensible at times. This was the major downfall to the film, as one scene was easy to follow and then the next… what? And no, this was not a case of alcohol getting to me, it generally was pretty convoluted by the end of the film – the final scene really screwing up a lot of the stuff that had been established ON SCREEN. I smiled, but felt completely betrayed. Oh well, it was haunting while it lasted.

The film was apparently a remake of “London After Midnight”, a 1927 Lon Chaney film. Oh BOO!!! HISS!!! Yes, Hollywood was remaking films probably all the way back to 1902, heck I’m sure Thomas Edison did some devious things back in the 1890s - he ripped off “Le Voyage Dans la Lune/A Trip to the Moon” which came out in 1902 by making unauthorized copies and got all the money) - so it’s not hard to imagine.

Obviously the casting of Lugosi wasn’t an accident as Dracula had just come out not long ago – and this obviously would have been a huge draw for them. Lionel Barrymore (you know Potter, the old guy who ripped off George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life) is wonderful as Prof. Zelin. Outside that it has all the signs (some good – many bad) of it being a typical B-film. Extremely short runtime (60 minutes).

Verdict: ** ½ /*****

Lost Season 3 Review

Staring: Matthew Fox, Josh Holloway, Evangeline Lilly, Henry Ian Cusick, Terry O'Quinn, Michael Emerson, Elizabeth Mitchell, Dominic Monaghan, Emilie de Ravin, and many many more.

The season’s finally over. The make or break season. What started as pretty dull and lifeless, ended up a fantastic ride that almost gave season one a run for its money. Ride and run… wait where was I?

But before I take a look at this season, I’d like to cover everything (or at least at very truncated version) of everything that led up to this season.

The first season was brilliant. It was almost completely flawless – something that very few series are capable of. We’re talking about a show that I – along with some of my very good college friends – watched in 19 hours straight, only taking a short break to get some pizza for dinner. Yes, that good. The story lines were perfectly interwoven and the story actually made sense. The cliffhanger ending of season one was one of the most painful gaps of time before the resolution that I have ever had to endure in a television show.

Season two started off relatively strong, with a number of interesting twists very soon into the season. The Other 48 Days was one the best stories the series aired. Unfortunately the show suffered somewhat in its sophomore season, which becomes more and more obvious towards the end of the season. The “Henry Gale” arc suffered greatly due to poor pacing and wishy-washy direction. In retrospect it was good setup for season 3 and all, but they had a lot of missed opportunity there.

Season three started off VERY poorly. It was not until the Desmond themed episode “Flashes Before Your Eyes” that I actually had any confidence in the series. Thankfully that was episode 8. From just about that point on the show was fantastic and this finale really hearkened back to its season one days. Unfortunately both some of the bad and good episodes had what I would consider the least developed main characters EVER introduced into a series. Niki and Paulo are the bane of many people's existence (or at least the people who wanted to enjoy Lost). Poorly developed and their arc was only marginally resolved (though it's a fantastically dark episode)

I can only hope that the next seasons continue to push out quality episodes, especially after the shocking finale we got.

Heroes Season 1 Review

Staring: Hayden Panettiere, Milo Ventimiglia, Masi Oka, Adrian Pasdar, Sendhil Ramamurthy, Zachary Quinto, Jack Coleman, Greg Grunberg, James Kyson Lee

I'll get back to the comic book ones - don't worry...

Oh the Heroes phenomenon. How it swept the country. Unfortunate for me it was up against 24 this Winter and Spring. Thankfully I’m good at multitasking.

Overall the plot was well constructed. The main story was very layered and had many many levels of plotting that actually melded together like few other shows could possibly do.

The main storylines have to do with Claire and Peter Petrelli. Their two stories make up the central storyline for the entire season. Other major storylines center on Dr. Suresh and his search for what makes these people the way they are. Minor storylines involve Matt Parkman, a police officer who can read minds.

What really sold the show for me, and I think a lot of people, was the character of Hiro. He might be the archetype “nerd” who strives for and ends up being a hero. Masi Oka’s portrayal of Hiro is really what kept me watching those first few episodes. Without his enthusiasm I don’t think I could have made it through the muddling, slightly boring and long winded exposition in the first two episodes or so.

However, there were many spots that I felt were pretty poorly plotted (how’s that for alliteration?). The Niki/Jessica-DL-Micca storyline could have been condensed into the second half of the season. I stated time and time again from the start of the show that their storyline was nothing but filler. That was almost completely true until the last 5 or so episodes. Aside from topical, minor instances where the other characters crossed paths with them all they did was take up about 15 minutes of the show’s time. Their plight never was very interesting or disheartening – perhaps either due to the acting or writing (I haven’t decided yet).

Next season is seriously the make or break point of the series - anyone who saw the last scene would know what I'm talking about. I'm hoping for the best.

Verdict: ****/*****

24: Day 6 Review

Folks, I'm a few days behind on this (work and other crazy stuff kept me from posting) but here it is:

Staring: Kiefer Sutherland, Mary Lynn Rajskub, D.B. Woodside, James Morrison, Powers Boothe, Rena Sofer, Alexander Siddig

What a rush. Sure this current season wasn’t half as good as previous seasons, but it’s 24 and even a bad season is better than most shows out there.

Kiefer Sutherland was again at the top of his game as Jack Bauer. Mary Lynn Rajskub (yes Matt I remember she was on Mr. Show) was wonderful yet again as quirky, social-skill-lacking Chloe O'Brien (though the schtick is getting just a bit worn), also returning is her estranged husband played by Carlo Rota. D.B. Woodside returns and does a competent job as Wayne (though his position as President is a bit of a stretch). James Morrison and Jayne Atkinson return again (thankfully) as Bill Buchanan and Karen Hayes respectively. One of the more shocking returning characters is Eric Balfour as Milo Pressman - a character we haven't seen since season one.

Personally Peter MacNicol steals the show as Tom Lennox, a man you initially hate, then love to hate, then finally there's only love left. Perhaps it was the good slime that did it, I dunno. Powers Boothe co-stars as as Vice President Noah Daniels ("guest stars" actually - though that is a bit of a misnomer, as he's in almost all the episodes). Looks like the power isn't just from the 'stache.

The problem with this current season was that just about everything that occurred happened in each preceding season. Just about every major plot device and plot twist occurred before. It was pretty predictable and the writing of sub-plots has almost never been worse than this.

The season started off with a great, strong batch of episodes – but quickly turned into a poorly done cat and mouse game, finally resolving mid-way through the season before another major plot development began to grow. The best part of this season is that hopefully it has given some closure and that next season can actually start completely fresh.

Season 6:
Verdict *** ½ /*****

Lost

Season 3 just wrapped up. Will write a review of not only this season but of the show up to this point a la my Battlestar Galactica and Rome reviews.

Quick raitings:

Season 1: *****/*****

Season 2: ***1/2 /*****

First block of season 2: ****/*****
"Henry Gale" block of season 2: ***/*****

Season 3: ****/*****

First 7 episodes of season 3: ***/*****
Last 17 episodes of season 3: *****/*****

Comic book extravaganza: #10: Blade

1998

Staring: Wesley Snipes, Stephen Dorff, Kris Kristofferson, Donal Logue, Udo Kier, Traci Lords
Director: Stephen Norrington

Coming in at #10 in my top comic book adaptation list is Blade. Blade seems to get the short end of the stick and a lot of flack. It’s nothing great – but then again honestly not a lot really are. Blade was what really kick started Marvel’s film franchises into high gear. Many forget this important fact.

It’s a mishmash of a lot of different themes, and overall it melds together is a pretty decent way. It’s not as corny as the latter Batman films (Schumacher’s films, not the fantastic Nolan film). The special effects are wonderful and surprisingly serious for a film that has Vampires exploding in a poof of fire and smoke. I’m no fan of techno, but frankly the score and music used in the film is prefect. Like the film score to Moral Kombat kind of techno.

Snipes does a great job as the films hero and namesake. And yes, that is Traci Lords, the actress with a very questionable past in particuar kinds of films. Kris Kristofferson is wonderful as the Obi-Wan/Alfred the Butler type character, and I can actually stand Donal Logue for once.

It’s almost completely serious (as I stated earlier with its special effects) in its execution. Unfortunately the films get less serious, and more outrageous as the series continued on.

Verdict *** ½ /*****

Top 10 Comic Book films

Disclaimer: Call me cheap, but I'm going to immediately discount the "serious" graphic novels. There's just too many of them - Road to Perdition is a wonderful film, but I don't think it should be compared to films that star characters like Spiderman, Superman, or Batman. I'm also going to discount other forms that generally aren't thought of today as "comic" (of any form) - like the Addams Family - which started printing in the New Yorker sometime in the 1930s. People remember the show - more than anything else - which is a far cry from even Batman - where people actively knew and know the

List like these bring a lot of contention with them from people who read them. No one will agree 100% on what place a film should be in, or why film X wasn't on the list and why film Y was on it instead.

So without further ado from "worst" (#12) to best (#1):

Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3
Blade
Fantastic Four
Batman Returns
Superman 2
Daredevil: Director's Cut
X-Men
Sin City
Batman
Batman Begins
X2



In the coming days I will be busy writing reviews for these exact films (excluding the films I've already mentioned - in which I'll just link to the already written review).

Spider-Man 3

So I finally saw the film. Yes, it took me long enough and it was made on a flip of a coin (the other film being 28 Weeks Later...), but I finally got to see it.

Now I'm not sure exactly what to think. It's not terrible, but it's not particularly great either. I really don’t like making decisions literally minutes after coming in from seeing a film, but I got to admit that I thought the film overall was the strongest of the three.

It didn’t muddle along like the much of the first film, and it wasn’t as poorly paced as the second. Sure the film was full of characters with little motivation, haphazard development (one minute a character is one way, the next minute a completely different way). To cut to the chase, it is completely manic.

Harry is all over the place. He’s too many things wrapped up in one film, and much of his story felt like an aborted subplot from 24 (actually they did use elements of it in one of the seasons, but I digress…). By far the best, most interesting, and most sympathetic character in the entire film is the Sandman (Thomas Hayden Church).

Verdict: ***/*****

Spider-Man 2

2004

As I said in my previous post, Spider-Man was a decent, albeit flawed, film. It showed the underdog rising up and becoming the city's savior. Simple, but good story filled with some great and some poor acting. The big problem comes with Spider-Man 2, which when you really do look at it, is the EXACT same film as the first film, with a lot of topical changes and a few minor plotting changes. This is the single reason why I did not like this film. You don’t spend 2 years in between films to just come out with the same exact thing, at least not if you want to be taken seriously.

What’s worse is you don’t come out with a direct sequel that completely undercuts the first film. You can watch the second film as if it was the first of the series and you’ll only miss a few character moments – of which mostly deal only with Harry. Harry continuously complains about how Spider-Man killed his father, Peter loves MJ, but can't have her (again and again), and when he's trying to get back his powers there are just too many "I'm almost Spider-Man but I lose my ‘focus’ too often" scenes.

The first film was two hours long, which included a lot of time establishing the characters and basic plot. As I mentioned earlier, the second film did the exact same thing, so the film was about 2 hours long which included about an hour even before Spider-Man gets any sort of motivation to do anything.

The middle of the film was dull and repetitive. The audience understood that he was down on his luck and nothing was going his way that looked the least bit promising. He had a crappy life as Spider-Man. Just about the only thing that Raimi could have done to make that more obvious is if he came to the theaters and beat us with a baseball bat over our heads yelling "his life sucks". Over an hour of "down on his luck Peter-as-Spider-Man" and "look how much my is better now that I'm not Spider-Man-Peter" got so dreadfully boring that if I even owned the film I'd end up *gasp* hitting the skip button on the DVD player.

The film is filled with the same flaws as the first film, from corny acting, poor syndicated-television show style edits, and choppy plot. I hope if the third film is the same exact plot people will be smart enough to realize they are watching the same thing for a third time. We already know that the whole “Harry hates Spider-Man/Peter” plot will be back, and hopefully will be resolved quickly. Maybe there will be another burning building! That’ll be original. At least Sandman and Venom aren’t scientists who let their inventions eventually dominate them. I guess I’ll find out soon enough.

Verdict: ** ½ /*****

Spider-Man

2002

In response to the upcoming release of Spider-Man 3 this weekend, it seems fitting to review the previous two films. Will people disagree with me? Compared to previous outings I know that this one will get a lot of people annoyed more than others. Why might you ask? Because I’ve had verbal arguments with my friends over these two films.

Simply put Spider-Man one is a solid film. The changes made from the comic book don’t bother me because I never was a huge comic book person. Most of what I’ve gathered about Spider-Man comes directly from the daily comic strip in the newspaper, and the great mid-nineties cartoon. Outside of that I only knew a handful of other things about it.

Tobey McGuire is pretty good as Peter, aside from the numerous blank stares that were caught on screen – was he meant to look bored? I mean, okay he must have been thinking about whether or not people would buy a 27 year old as a just recently graduated high school student. That would explain it. Kirsten Dunst is pretty good as Mary Jane. And Willem Dafoe does a fantastic job as Norman Osborn. Without Dafoe, the film would have probably been a disaster as he keeps the rest of the film afloat with his acting ability.

The serious problem with this film (and even worse in the sequel) is the pacing of the story. Like most origin stories, they delve too far back into the mythos – and retread a lot of the same territory. Most people seeing a popular comic book character/group’s film already are at least somewhat familiar with the plot, or at the very least it isn’t important enough to show us as the people sitting in the seats are really only looking for one thing – to finally see the “character” they know and love on the screen.

The biggest problem with the film is the camp. I realize that it’s directed and produced by Sam Raimi – one of the biggest schlock-meisters out there. I mean, he produced Xena. The film is presented in such a way that the film tries too hard to both be “fun and easy” one minute and then “serious” the next. The end result is a near-mediocre experience that is only raised to the level of an average film by the wonderful performances (albeit still cheesy).

Verdict: ***/*****