Batman Vs. Superman: Special Simplistic Reviews Op-ed Edition (1-5)

Batman Vs. Superman: 

Special Simplistic Reviews Op-ed Edition

Part One: 

Ben Affleck/Batman

I’m going to try something a little different here and write my opinions regarding parts of the 2016 film that is so far titled, Batman Vs. Superman. A title which may or may not change. With Part One I want to focus on Ben Affleck as Batman because to me this is the single most important topic of this film, other then the story (Thats for latter). This could be a bit of bias do to Batman being the single most import thing in my life since the day I can remember. But maybe you might like it.

The follow contains neither official information nor photos. Only fan made photos and my thought on the rumors.

First lets talk about the casting of Ben Affleck. Do I like it? At first it didn’t hit me right. Kind of left an odd taste in my mouth about Affleck taking over the cowl. But then it started to settle in my head that it might be the best outcome for casting. Really couldn’t see the others that had been rumored and you know what? Affleck has the look and more important the height.

Height you say?
Yes this Batman will be 6’ 4”, Bale and Kilmer were 6’, Clooney 5’ 11” and Keaton was 5’ 10”. Oh and yeah Adam West is 6’ 2” Would you like to go further? Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery both under 6’ 2”. Wilson the first actor to play Batman was married to Dana Broccoli, sound familiar? Well that topic is for another time.

What I’m saying is Affleck will be a 6’4” Batman, the tallest and to me an import look since he will go up against a 6’ 1” Superman. Affleck reportedly has been working out to be one bulked up Batman and from the recent photos it looks like he will be. This is something I’ve always wanted to see onscreen, a fit Batman. Even though we still haven’t seen a photo of him in the suit, I’m very curtain he will do it justice. Hopefully the suit design looks good and we have some long ears on that cowl and not the short ones being reported. Longer ears are always better, just my opinion.

Height and build isn’t everything. As acting goes Affleck could bring it. I think he’s a better Director then Actor, but this is Batman we’re talking about. Of course what we really mean is how he handles Batman’s voice. With all the flack Bale brought with his Batvoice lets hope he learns and just creates a low dark but still understanding Batvoice because I’m sick of all the Batman voice jokes. Another part is the way we see Batman fight. Affleck said he originally didn’t want to take the part. But it was when he read the script he thought he could bring something new to Batman that hasn’t been seen before.

Lets hope one of those is Batman's fighting. I like a lot about Nolan’s Dark Knight series but we can both agree the fight scenes are not the greatest. If Affleck thinks he can bring something never seen before with Batman on film, please go to Zack Snyder and nail it to his head. I want to see Batman fight like Batman fights, how does he fight? Just watch Batman the Animated Series, Justice League and so on. I want to see a Batman fight and as he fights Batarangs are flying out of his hand hitting and tying up henchmen. I also want to see the fight unlike the Nolan close ups, which at times just showed feet.

Also longer fights would be nice, not 10-15 seconds ones.

As I think about what Ben Affleck said, about this being an opportunity to do something new. This could be a great thing not just for Batman but also of all DC characters. So please Snyder you have a clean slate.

Don’t screw it up.

All things said Affleck isn’t what I’m worried about, but the story and the background of our new Batman, which I am.
Score: Ben Affleck as Batman - B+

Next Up

Part 2 - The Batman Rumors

Read More

300: Rise Of An Empire

OVERACHIEVING 

It's hard for me to imagine now that the tales of Leonidas and Xerxes and Spartan warriors are old hat.  I remember when Zack Snyder's 2006 film 300 was something that no one knew bubkiss about.  That changed when it slaughtered the box office through strong word of mouth, making it one of the highest grossing R rated films ever made.  Since then, Lena Headey is a household name, Michael Fassbender is an Oscar nominee, and Gerard Butler has gone on to star in every type of failed romantic comedy ever conceived.  (Being catapulted, whether that be into the air or stardom, isn't an exact science.) The brave 300 became a pop culture staple, which I often gauge by a character's appearance in one of those horrid spoof movies.  So, I was skeptical when I heard that a sequel graphic novel was being created by the "not so sane anymore" Frank Miller and being turned into a film.  Why tread on old, and in my opinion, already poetically ended ground?  After some coaxing from, again, strong word of mouth, I put my apprehension aside and gave it a chance.  I am happy and very surprised to say that 300: Rise Of An Empire not only holds its own with the original 300, but supercedes it in some facets.  It is an OVERACHIEVING underdog that acknowledges and builds off of its roots.

What's it about?  Well, here is probably the most interesting and well done thing about this film.  300: Rise Of An Empire fills in the gaps left behind by its predecessor 300.  As much as I love 300, the film skirts past a lot of chances to build up depth in the world it inhabits.  Hell, without Lena Headey's brief storyline as Queen Gorgo, the film is practically a gloriously action packed montage of sex and violence.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  Rise Of An Empire tries to do something done sneakily by Bourne Ultimatum, done brashly by Bourne Legacy, and done incomprehensibly by X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  It weaves its story around the events before, during and after the original.  The creation and rise of Xerxes, the Persian campaign taking place away from the Hot Gates, the steps taken to unite all of Greece.   All of these things done to not only strengthen the original 300 as a film, but elevate Rise Of An Empire as its own sturdy branch of a grand story.  So, this film is not a sequel.  It is a sidequel with an actual purpose.

Now don't think that because I said this story fills in gaps that it is boring.  NOTHING could be further from the truth.  I haven't fully quantified this, but I dare say that Rise Of An Empire has more swords, and blood, and death, and sex and destruction than 300.  The most famous shot in the original 300, my favorite shot in the original 300, is the "Crazyhorse" shot of Leonidas.  The one where he practically rips through the Persian front line single handed like a damn superhero.  Rise Of An Empire has two of these scenes just as epic, and one using AN ACTUAL HORSE!  Director Noam Murro, who had only worked on the indie film Smart People before this, really does a terrific job with these action scenes.  Though, this may be praise that deserves to fall on the head of the visual effects department or cinematographer.  Either way, rest easy if you think that Rise Of An Empire might play it safe.  It surely does not.

When it comes to performances in films like this, 300, Sin City, Dredd and the like, it isn't really about being a great actor.  Though it doesn't hurt.  It's really about an actor or actress trying to be bold, to be memorable, to stand out.  It is very easy to disappear in a film focused mainly on style.  Gerard Butler and Headey and Fassbender and Dominic West, and Rodrigo Santoro knew how to play into the genre.  They used the somewhat campy material to their advantage instead of being overwhelmed by it.  The returning players to Rise Of An Empire have not forgotten to do this.  Headey, Santoro and even David Wenham are just as entertaining in this as they were before.  The new players, unfortunately, don't manage to completely accomplish my theory of standing out.  Sullivan Stapleton handles his action scenes well, but he just never gripped me as someone I should follow.  The speeches and screams of inspiration that felt so genuine and right coming out of Butler's mouth, feel somewhat hollow coming out of his.  A similar father and son storyline is used in Rise Of An Empire that I really began to enjoy.  However, it didn't get enough meat to it as I would have liked.  The one exception to the newcomer performances comes from the always amazing Eva Green.

Now, I'm not gonna pretend that I don't already adore Eva Green.  I'm not gonna pretend that I haven't already declared her my favorite Bond Girl.  But trust me, it is not my biased exaggeration that this film BELONGS TO HER.  Her performance as Artemisia is easily the strongest performance in this film and the one everyone will talk about.  I think Green was born to play strong women.  Watching her, you can easily see her complete and utter fearlessness as an actor in every glare, and smirk, and bare naked fight/sex scene she has. (Yeah.  That happens.)  She completely embodies this character and makes even Xerxes' ambition seem tame in comparison to her's.  Green's work as Morgan on the short-lived Starz series Camelot is comparable here, but Artemisia is Morgan turned up to 11.  Green is gonna absolutely own as Ava Lord in the other Frank Miller adaptation this year, A Dame To Kill For.

300: Rise Of An Empire fulfills its job as an enjoyable companion piece to Zack Snyder's Spartan epic.  Whenever it tries to be different than its predecessor, it surprisingly thrives.  Don't just be a witness...board the boats...paint your face in a remarkably similar Frank Castle Punisher pattern...watch it...then tell me I'm wrong.

Read More

Man of Steel

Man of Steel - Sponsors

SPONSORS

The time is now for Warner Bros. and DC Comics.  The window has already closed to be able to compete with Disney and Marvel Comics so its time to just try and carve out a little bit of a niche for themselves.  Sure, Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy was a huge success, but that's over, and unless you thought "Green Lantern" was a good direction for DC Comics film-wise, well, I'd have to disagree with you on that one.  So with all their chips on the table, Warner/DC has decided to go for the Hail Mary.  That Hail Mary is "Man of Steel," sponsored by Sears, 7-11, IHOP, and of course, LexCorp.

Contrary to what you might hear about "Man" the film isn't that bad, sure its loud, bombastic, brash, and suffers from a severe case of style-over-substance.....hmmm, well, I guess "Man of Steel" isn't that great when I really stop and think about it.  While it has some good ideas, the way Superman is presented almost makes this attempt feel like this is a sequel to another film.  And while "Man" tries it's best to distance itself from the less-than-super "Superman Returns" there are too many scenes where director, Zack Snyder, once again, lets his ego get in the way and decides to make things explode as opposed to detailing the psychology of Clark Kent and how he's torn between being the last son of a dying world and the protector to a new one. Snyder shoehorns scenes of Clark's more impressionable years in Smallville, but the scenes merely feel like a feeble attempt at trying to make us feel like he has a soul and why he feels an obligation to the human race.  I almost feel "Man of Steel" would have been better suited as a trilogy as opposed to fitting everything into one giant action-fest.  Obviously Warners has no interest in another compelling "Dark Knight-like" trilogy, they are so busy trying to catch up to Marvel.  The one thing I will say is that Superman isn't as interesting to be able to fit into an entire trilogy like Bruce Wayne/Batman.

At the end of "Man" I was left both wanting more and wanting less, if that is possible.  The action scenes were both large in scope, but felt empty; the story of Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman was both easy to follow, yet lacked depth; and the story became inconsequential come the start of the 3rd act when everything that can go boom, goes boom.  I'm sure Michael Bay had plenty of tissue handy when he witnessed Metropolis being torn apart by a group of Kryptonians.

What troubles me the most about this new direction for Warner/DC is the world building, or lack thereof. Sure, you get a nod to LexCorp, Wayne Enterprises and other minor DC characters that may exist in this specific universe, but while Warner says they want to complete with Marvel in the superhero-movie-making business, they still seem to want to make self-contained films and somehow make them all gel.  If you go all the way back to when Marvel released "Iron Man" the plan was already in motion for more films within a coherent universe.  Marvel could have slapped "Iron Man" together and flown by the seat of their pants, but they made a conscience effort to create a world where other heroes could exist.  "Man of Steel" provides us with glimpses, or "Easter Eggs" of companies which have meaning to characters such as Lex Luthor, Batman, and Cyborg, but you're left to wonder how many movies it is going to take to finally set in motion a "Justice League" or even a "World's Finest" film.  At this stage in the game it looks like we'll get another "Man of Steel" film in 2015 and maybe a "Batman" reboot in 2016.  You might say "Well, you can't create an entire universe in just one film."  I'd say back "How come Marvel was able to do it, and make us believe they knew what they were doing from the get-go?"

In no way am I shredding this film, even though it might sound like it.  There are things I genuinely like about "Man of Steel."  I thought the acting and casting was spot on, and it looks like we finally have an actor playing Superman that we can believe in with Henry Cavill.  He fits the suit like a glove and his banter with Lois Lane, played wonderfully by Amy Adams, is vintage.  Michael Shannon continues to impress as General Zod and is quickly becoming one of my favorite characters actors in Hollywood.  The supporting cast is solid as well, including Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Lawrence Fishburne as Perry White, Chief Editor of The Daily Planet.

With "Man of Steel," Warner/DC neither loses ground or gains ground on the Disney/Marvel juggernaut.  If anything it washes the taste out of Superman fans mouths for "Superman Returns" and gives people plenty of explosions.  What it didn't do is break new ground.  Sure, Superman does some super things, but he also feels like a shell of what Superman should be; a protector of the Earth and Metropolis, not it's destroyer as seen in the final 30 minutes of "Steel."  This review sponsored by Wayne Enterprises.

Fun Fact:  General Zod's first appearance was in Adventure Comics #283 in 1961.

Read More

31 Nights of Halloween, Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Run

The bane of the horror genre for the past decade has been the remake.  Hollywood has gotten so lazy and they've treated the horror genre like a dumping ground for bad updates on generally good horror fare.  I understand the point; horror is cheap for a studio to produce, they can introduce fresh new actors (namely females that will bring in the male audience) and generally, they will at least break even no matter how bad the film.  Not to say there aren't exceptions to the rule, and 2004's "Dawn of the Dead" remake is an example of a horror remake gone right.

Before I go into the actually movie I'm going to say this:  I do not like Zack Snyder.  I'm not really impressed by his body of work, and I think he bites off too much, thus, his work suffers.  That is the problem with "visionary" directors like Snyder.  Take "Dawn of the Dead" and compare it to something like "Sucker Punch."  "Dawn" is great because the concept is simple, effective, and done very well (while I may not agree with everything in it, but I'll get to that later).  "Punch" was for prepubescent boys, and it included girls in cosplay costumes, a paper-thin plot, and a severe case of style over substance.  I understand this is his style, but when big ideas are only half-realized its hard to take him serious as a director when I'm taking him as a one trick pony.

While I don't really enjoy Snyder's other films (see above), I did enjoy "Dawn of the Dead."  While on the surface it's a remake, there are things that are done well, and other things that tweak me.

The premise is the same as the George A Romero's original; The zombie apocalypse is in full swing and a small group of survivors head to the mall to buy some Dockers and make their stand.  While the mall provides the group with everything they need, from food to recreation, they begin feeling trapped by the zombies outside the mall hungry for their flesh.  As its been told over and over, ad nauseam, the film's setting, a mall, along with the zombie invasion, is an allegory for consumerism and how we, the "zombified" public, feel the need to endlessly consume and spend.  While Snyder's remake does have a mall where survivors are holed up, the meaning behind the film is lost and is essentially a zombie action film.

What Snyder does right is pay homage, in part, to some of the original actors.  Both Ken Foree and Tom Savini have fun cameos as a preacher and a sheriff, respectively.  He also, as opposed to his other films, keeps the slow-motion to a minimum and tries to flesh out his characters with somewhat of a back story.  The actors look like they are having a good time, and while cheesy at times, the acting is solid for a horror film.  As a Troma fan, I also appreciate the fact that James Gunn wrote the original script of "Dead."  An independent dude makes good.  Now, let me explain why run is the word of the day.

What I can't get behind, and the problem I've always had was this......the running zombie.  Oy vey!  I'm a purist first of all, zombies are shamblers, walkers, they might have a little giddy-up, but they are not sprinters.  When you die you develop rigor mortis brain/body decay, which would have a major effect on the way that you move and react. 

I'll also say this; I love "28 Days Later."  There is an explanation why those "zombies" run.  They aren't zombies!  They don't die, re-animate, and come looking to eat your brains, this is because they are infected with a virus (a rage virus to be exact).  If you're going to be the "living dead" you shouldn't be able to run, its physiologically impossible.

For as much of a problem that I have with the running zombies, I enjoy "Dead" very much, it's just the little quirks that stop me from saying this remake is better than the original.  It appeals to the ADD crowd with running zombies, slow-motion, quick cuts, and isolates the purists a bit, but overall, Snyder creates a neo-zombie film that gives the audiences everything they want; hardcore zombie gore, boobs (a little), and intense action.  Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" is worthy of your time.

Fun Fact:  While the original "Dead" took place in the greater Philadelphia/Pittsburgh area, the remake takes place in Milwaukee, WI.

Read More