Movies 2014, Bad Super Heroes

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

            I really do not think that I have the same nostalgia for this property that other people seem to have.  I had lots and lots of toys of the turtles, I watched different cartoons, and I watched the older movies growing up.  I never read the comics.  Regardless, while they are a fixture of my childhood I do not consider them sacred or high art, they are a bit of goofy fun that you watch, laugh a little, and then move on.  But this movie takes a lot of missteps and no real excuse for it, because the Turtles have been portrayed so many times so consistently that the failures are all the more obnoxious.

            First off I find that all of the Turtles themselves are well acted and well animated.  They look suitably monstrous with enough visual distinction to tell them apart.  Splinter is well acted, his voice oozes wisdom and concern.  Both of those things are good.

            I have real problems with the scope of the movie, the hack plot, and the bad guys.  Picture for a moment a tree, the tree branches out in numerous directions, with a big central trunk, then several large branches, then little branches, each with their own leaves.  When building a universe, whether it is a fantasy world like Westros or Middle Earth, a space voyage like Star Wars or Star Trek, or a world of superheroes like the Avengers or the Turtles you have to grow the universe the same way.  A central storyline: Fight Shredder and the Foot Clan; then secondary stories: Fight street crime with Casey Jones and April O'Neil, Fight monsters from Dimension X, Time Travel, Aliens, etc.  This movie doesn't branch.

            April saved them from the lab they were experimented on, the same lab that is working with the Shredder.  See, you took what could have been 3 branches: Shredder, April, and the Lab, and turned them into more trunk.  Rather than the story being able to go in a lot of different directions instead it goes in one direction.  Lack of scope.

            The plot is incredibly hack, a product of two of the biggest hacks in Hollywood, the same guys who did the Transformers series, modern Star Trek, and the Amazing Spiderman.... and holy shit is the climax of this movie look like the climax to Spiderman, with a strange mutagenic gas about to be released over New York, the tower to launch it falling off the building, and a fight taking place in a lab between the female protagonist (April here, Gwen there) to secure a chemical.  There is also magic blood (Star Trek Into Darkness and Amazing Spiderman 2), an action scene based around falling (Star Trek and Star Trek into Darkness, though I guess this is down a mountain rather than thru a debris field in space), and saving a mentor figure who is badly injured (Master Splinter here, Captain Pike in Star Trek).  So many elements that have been used before.

            Lastly, the villains are just flat and boring.  Their plan is to create a plague to sell the cure.... Which was the plot in a million other movies and Shredder is a mecha samurai.... just like the Silver Samurai was in "The Wolverine".  It is a boring plot, with boring motivation, and it once again echoes the sentiment of "9/11 Truther" movements which one of the writers is an outspoken member of.  None of the bad guys have any personality and only Shredder ever posses any physical threat to the Turtles.  Boring and unthreatening.  Very weak.

            I really wish some other creative teams could get their feet in the door of these types of movies.  I would not mind the Turtles fighting Krang or the Triceratops aliens, or just some big street gang.  Something other than this.

3/10

 

It's not like this was ever high art.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2                            

            This movie has serious issues, but first the positives.   I still think that Andrew Garfield is great in the role, clearly having a love of playing the character, and his real life chemistry with Emma Stone translates to the screen as a very sincere romance that in many ways makes the movie worth watching, and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is a competent active character that makes all other love interests in superhero fiction look weak by comparison.  A simple movie about them getting back together after breaking up in the first one, maybe while taking classes at NYU and Peter reconnecting with his friend Harry Osborn and battling a small gang of super villains (the Enforcers or Syndicate) would have worked wonders as a fun movie.  That is not what this was.

            This thing is two or maybe even three scripts shuffled together and they suffer for it greatly.  Clearly the Electro story was separate, starting off with Gwen and Peter broken up, Peter meets Electro initially as he works with Gwen as he is trying to get her back, Electro's obsession with Peter mirroring the unhealthy attraction Peter now has toward Gwen following her and taking pictures without talking to her.  Ultimately she helps to defeat Electro and Peter and her get together, her making a conscious choice to accept the dangers of his life as part of hers.  Maybe the introduction of Mary Jane to add a new love interest and give Peter temptation to leave Gwen be.

            The other script had to do with Osborn dying, and the army of super bad guy equipment that had been produced as a side effect of that research, that script had Harry kill Gwen as revenge for Peter failing to help him find a cure for the goblin condition, This running alongside the real story of Gwen deciding whether or not to go to the UK and Peter having to decide if he will follow, her death robbing him of direction in life and the movie ultimately ends with him recommitting to being Spiderman when the Rhino attacks.

            Each of those stories would have worked on its own, but they got mixed up and staggered so they just fail.  There are two showdowns within seconds of each other, the first with Electro, the second with Harry, you are so tired from the fight with Electro.... It is like eating a big meal and then having someone jam a funnel down your throat and pouring in a milkshake.  TOO MUCH.

            These two stories are shuffled together and their themes run counter to each other, one is about reconciliation between Peter and Gwen, the other is about them being broken apart.  A house divided cannot stand.  This is a whole that is less than the sum of its parts.

            This thing is cluttered and incoherent and a huge waste of talent as the special effects and action are on great and the actors are well cast, all of the stars are for Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone which this franchise utterly fails to live up to.

Overall: 4/10

This is a fan made poster.  All of the actual posters are inaccurate, in that they show it as a show down between Spiderman and Electro... That is not the core of the movie.  Gwen and Peter are the core.  I feel like I will have more to say about this movie in time.  Much like I did with "Man of Steel".

Movies of 2013, Superhero, pt4

The Wolverine, or "Really?  Have we not had enough of Wolverine yet?"

Overall: 6/10

Hugh, buddy.  Can you stop looking amazing?  Kind of setting the bar for guys like me a little high.

            I enjoyed this movie a hell of a lot more than I thought I would.  They give Wolverine a sidekick to play off of, though the actress' hair is weird (I like the color, but her bangs are sideways or something, and her eyes are super wide, I don't know why, she just looks odd).  They give him an enemy with a clear motivation and resources to pose an actual threat, they have tertiary villains with interesting and distinct looks, action sequences that are varied in execution (if not color scheme, metal and black are the colors of this movie to the point of being kind of annoying).  Now to the real complaints.

            Problem 1: The love interest.

            Wolverine does not need a love interest, he is a knight errant, he does extreme violence to serve his personal code of honor but never feels tied down (that is his character).  Yeah, sure he beds women when the opportunity presents itself, but the love affair in this movie does not work.  There is no chemistry and the speed of the situation does not behoove the development of feelings.  He is a violent, headstrong, culturally insensitive thug who kills people by the bus load in this film... There is no reason for the woman who he bangs to be attached to him.  Also, he is old, like 100+, he should not be banging a 20 something unless she shows real emotional depth and maturity (this one does not).  It is the Edward and Bella problem of modern romantic subplots.

            Problem 2: This movie has terrible gameplay.

            The movie is ordered like a video game, Wolverine fights hillbillies, then mobsters, then mobster hit men on a train (boss fight), then ninjas, then a master sword fighter (boss fight), more ninjas on their home turf, a snake lady, and then a giant mecha (that can cut thru his bones and drain his powers, bigger boss fight).  He even gets a lot of his powers toned down to add tension (as if the protection of the various vulnerable squishy humans was not enough to add tension... It doesn't because they are paper thin characters, but it could have).  I am not even sure this can be considered a complaint, because I thought the variety of fights worked to a benefit, but it is oddly structured for a movie narrative.

            Problem 3: Dulling of claws.

            There are plenty of scenes in which Wolverine kills people who are actively harming other people.  LOTS OF MOBSTERS DIE POINTY DEATHS.  But there is a scene which I felt was really bad and kind of dulled the movie.  Wolverine captures a police official who is helping the mafia, then interrogates him in a cool funny scene, he then throws the asshole off a hotel balcony.  That is awesome.  But (and I am sure this is what happened), since you can't have the hero of a PG-13 movie kill a helpless guy in an awesome fashion (unlike, say, "DREDD"), we instead see that the guy fell into a pool that Wolverine claims to have not known about.

            Here is the thing.  If you are going to not kill the bad guy, having the hero say, "What pool?" makes him seem dumb in addition to ruthless.  Either have him kill the guy to show he means business, or have him throw the guy into a pool just to scare him.  Trying to have your cake and eat it too doesn't work.
           Problem 4: Wolverine is played out.

This follows what I consider to be the best scene in the movie in which he cuts out his own heart.
Similar to that only good scene in "Prometheus".

            I like Wolverine a good bit, he has a distinctive power set of indestructible man with knifes for hands, he has a cool back story of mysterious soldier of fortune, and he is part of a disaffected minority (Canadians).  But he has been the star of 5/6 X-Men films, and we have seen nearly every aspect of his life and all the interactions he has had between numerous characters, be they romantic rivals (Cyclopes), kid side kicks (Rogue), professional rivals (Sabretooth), authority figures (Prof X, Stryker), and comrades in arms (Storm, Wraith).  Can we get a movie that focuses on the actual main conflict of X-Men... in addition to "First Class"?

            The end of this movie is actually a microcosm of the issues, the movie ends with Wolverine getting on a plane with his new sidekick with no direction.  Then the after the credits sequence skips ahead a couple years (his sidekick now gone, we never learn of her fate.  Dead?  Back in Japan?  Who knows?)  And there is Magneto (with his powers returned) and Prof X (now no longer a pile of dust).  Wolverine has no reason to be a part of their story, and his story is so unimportant that it is dropped so he can be pulled into X-Men drama.  Why?  Let him go.  If you want to make Wolverine movies, then make them and let the X-Men do their thing, they have enough interesting characters that are thirsty for screen time that you don't need Logan to be there.

Kick-Ass 2, or "Rape isn't funny.  How about attempted rape?  Wait, why are we trying to make that scene funny?"

Overall: 5/10

Ironically if Hit Girl were real and watched this movie she would probably call it pussy footing bullshit.

            This movie skull fucks my sense of reason because it is really hard to evaluate on its own.  I have to look at it as both a sequel to the first movie, as an adaptation of the book, and how it stands on its own, but I don't know how to reconcile all of those parts in a meaningful way.  There are lots of things about it I would like if it were in a different movie, and there are lots of things I hate because they are in this movie, or because they short change the books.  I don't know.

            The first "Kick Ass" was alright and had a lot of problems, mostly with the subject matter itself.  And this continues that grand tradition.

            In regards to being a sequel to the first movie, there are issues with continuity, like how they ditch Kick-Ass' girlfriend (who knows he is Kick-Ass in the movies, and should trust that he is not fucking the now 14 year old Hit Girl, but for the sake of the story calls him a pervert and ditches him).  And the movie has lots of little things like that, especially in the glorification of Big Daddy who should be seen less as a hero and more of a complex figure, if not an outright monster like he was in the comics.

            This movie does something the books did not do, attempts to show the villain's journey in addition to the heroes'.  I don't think that works.  Trying to rape a female superhero and failing because he is so impotent isn't funny.  Either have the guts to have rape, or don't.  Being too flaccid to actually follow thru just serves as metaphor for the movie as a whole.  Constantly backing away from the violence of the comic in favor of soft and goofy action that doesn't work.  It Feels weird to call it soft when you consider the amount of murder and blood in this.  I would compare it to "the Walking Dead" TV show, which is so loosely based on the comics that I find it to be odd to watch, the violence in it is just not hard enough, it lacks the shock and terror it could have.  It is 'meh'.

            On its own, as if I had not read the books or seen the first one, I still have issues again with Hit Girl being too grown up on certain subjects.  She is a psychopath.  Just because she has the ability to kill the bad guy does not make her "mature" or capable of healthily expressing emotion, but if anything they make her far too dutiful and reasonable.  She should be a broken person, but instead they play her up as a hero or role model.  That does not work.  They almost show her as she should be, but again they dial it back.  It fails.

            I can't believe I am saying this, but "The Wolverine" fits better into his crazy and poorly thought out mythos than this movie fits into its own.  Which considering it is the second movie and is based on a comic series that only consists of "Kick Ass" and "Kick Ass 2" how is that possible?  How can you eschew things so completely?  How is it this jumbled?

            There is also the controversy of Jim Carrey, who plays an interesting character rethinking his stance on violence in the media because of the recent mass shootings.  Jim believed that he should not promote the film because of its violence (even though his character in the movie is a staunch opponent of gun violence being a former hitman turned born again Christian).  If I had to guess Jim made this known to do two things: one, settle his conscience for participating in a movie that both glorifies violence while portraying it as not terribly dangerous; and two, stir some controversy because he did not want to torpedo the work of his costars.  Cause things are complicated.

Movies 2013, Superhero, pt3, Thor

Yesterday I went into the other weird alien in a red cape.  Today I walk about the Space Viking.

Thor the Dark World, or "What if 'Man of Steel' hadn't taken itself so damn seriously."

Overall: 8/10

He's adopted.

            In some ways this was the best movie I saw last year.  It has grand stakes (the fate of the universe), it has numerous environments (alien worlds, cities of the gods), cool costuming, and it is funny.

            Thor as a hero has grown in the movies he has been in, from headstrong naive warrior to a much more deliberate and capable leader.  Stand this in contrast to Tony Stark in "Iron Man 3" which failed to confront his underlying insecurities almost entirely until the last few minutes of the third movie, symbolically removing the broken shards of metal in his heart that were killing him and discarding the thick metal skin that he used to protect himself from the world.  Thor completed that character arc by the end of his first movie, softening and becoming more about self sacrifice rather than personal glory, and by the end of "The Avengers" Thor was on a crusade to bring order to his kingdom.  By the end of this film he has become such a knight errant romantic that he decides not to take the throne of his homeland, Asgard, instead going to Earth for love (people claim that this love plot happens too fast and won't last.... To which I answer, all gods in all mythologies have the exact same attitudes toward love: fast and fleeting).

            Thor's numerous Space Viking sidekicks also each get their moments, though really they could have gotten more, doing all their heavy lifting in acts one and two then disappearing... In many ways the third act is both the most exciting because of the action, and the most boring because the character interactions are all about fighting the bad guys and not about any sort of interpersonal dynamic (though two of Jane Foster's sidekicks kind of get together in a comedic romantic development).

            That brings me to my next point, Malekith the Accursed is a boring villain, he is a very standard evil doer wanting to take the magical item from the non-warrior protagonist, and use it to cloak the world in darkness for his people and way of life.  He is a step down from the Mandarin, which is a parody of Malekith's type, and is an elevator trip away from Loki, who is a far more interesting character.  I actually think you could have given even less time to the elves and more time to Loki and the movie would still not have suffered.

            THE DOUBLE BEAT.  Much like "Man of Steel" this movie has a real problem with a scene in the second act and the opener.  The opening is a full blown war between Space Vikings and Space Elves for control of the universe (HOLY CRAP "LORD OF THE RINGS") with narration by Odin, explanations of the threats posed by the bad guys and clear explanations of their motivations.  Then in the second act Odin tells the protagonist Thor and Jane what was already shown to the audience in the opening scene.  Again, much like "Man of Steel" the presentation is very pretty with magical books with moving stylized illustrations.  Gorgeous really, and a total waste of time.  They could have fixed this too, don't have the battle opening, the heroes confronting weird aliens, and then having giant black ships that can turn invisible mysteriously appear and attack, then have hulking monsters, and magical swirling blood all without an upfront explanation... it would add a lot of mystery.  Then in the second act after the initial attack have the magic books open with all of their cool illustrations on display and then transition to show the battle in narrated historical reenactment.  That way for the first half of the movie the heroes are under threat from an unknown and powerful force that they don't understand, and the audience is on that journey with them.  But whatever.

            Another problem is with yet another case of hack job writing just like in "Man of Steel", maybe even more so.  "Star Trek" 2009 had a pointy eared villain in a big black powerful spaceship, with a red weapon capable of causing the apocalypse for an multi-world empire, this culminates with the blonde head strong hero (whose father was killed by the villain) and his dark haired emotionally damaged second in command (because the bad guy killed his Mom) using black holes to kill the bad guy.  "Thor the Dark World" has a pointy eared bad guy in a big black sometimes invisible spaceship, with a red weapon capable of causing the apocalypse for a multi-world empire (and the universe), this culminates with the blonde head strong hero (whose mother was killed by the bad guy) and his dark haired emotionally erratic reluctant ally (whose mother was killed by the bad guy) to use portals to other worlds to try and stop the villain.  Soon all action movies will have this or a similar dynamic, because if it can make the boring old Star Trek franchise into profitable action schlock it can work for any damn thing.

Their ear mutilation is even the same.

Who needs emotional stability to be in charge?

            Regardless, this movie has a very light tone to it, mostly good pacing, lots of distinct characters with a variety of design and flourish, a complex brother and father dynamic at the core, with a romantic science vs magic theme surrounding it.  It is fun and does not diminish its characters, it tries (and for the most part is successful) in elevating the various characters, adding to the script rather than detracting.  And as a small final compliment, I like how in the climax Jane foster does not just get saved, she uses her scientific knowledge to make weapons and contribute to the action, ultimately providing Thor the means to beat the bad guy (SPOILERS: the bad guy loses), she has her own side kicks, it is cool to see her as a sort of hero in her own right.

Movies of 2013, Superhero, pt2, Superman

Man of Steel, or "Holy shit?  Did Superman just...?"

Overall: 6/10

Why don't they just put a halo over his head?  The Christ imagery is thick as any movie I have seen in years.

            I have written about this movie before and what I was really stunned by is how it compares to "Thor the Dark World" which came out later that same year and I will discuss tomorrow (because this review ran really long).  "Man of Steel" is just fine.  It is probably the most expensive film I have ever seen that I have reacted this 'meh' to, though I liked it a lot more when I initially saw it because I thought (and still do think) that it has the single best action sequence of the year involving the devastation of Smallville.  There are numerous issues, most of which have been hit on a lot by different people but I have at least one that I haven't seen anybody else write/talk about which I will get into too.

Problem 1: Lois Lane and everyone at the Daily Planet is completely useless.

            These guys should not have been in the movie at all.  While Amy Adams is a great actress, and Laurence Fishburne is a great guy to play Perry White, my point is that they have no point.  Literally everything they do could have been done by someone else to greater effect, or left out of this movie entirely and put into the sequel.

            For instance, Lois shows up at an archeological dig in the frozen north for a 20,000 year old alien craft, Clark is there because he thinks (and is right) that it is connected to his mysterious origins on a world unknown.  Lois goes out at night and finds Clark digging his way through the ice to the ship, she is attacked by the ship's security, Clark rescues her and then takes the ship and leaves her behind.  The real issue here: why did that have to be Lois?

            There is another character named Dr. Hamilton, played by an Emmy Winner, Richard Schiff who would have filled this story role much better.  A scientist that follows the mysterious alien to an ancient ship.  Follow that up later in the movie when General Zod takes Superman prisoner, and inexplicably takes Lois too.  Why?  She has no value, instead have Hamilton ask to be taken along, that he wants to see this alien society with alien technology and be an ambassador from Earth.  Zod would allow such an envoy because he wants Hamilton to relay what is coming to Earth authorities when he does attack (cause Zod is a dick).  Instead you have Lois along for adventures that she contributes nothing to, relaying information she can't understand between characters who could just talk to each other..

            By beefing up Hamilton's role it would also complete the themes of Father figures offering Superman choices in the movie, Jor-El the scientist telling him to be a messiah, Jonathan Kent the human telling him to live his own life, and then Dr. Hamilton the human scientist offering a compromise of being both a man, Clark, and a hero, Superman.

More time with these guys would have been better than the completely useless time spent at the Planet.

            The scenes in which Lois investigates and finds Superman in Smallville could have been the opener to the next movie, having a crafty reporter recap the events of the first movie while seeking out the hero and then offering to help him become a part of the world rather than some mysterious savior would do a lot to help the hypothetical second film shift into gear.

Problem 2: Metropolis was totally pointless.

            Zod is supposed to be a tactical genius with a technological advantage over those he is at war with (Earth) so why is he situating his key piece of technology (the key to his whole plan) in a major metropolitan area in which it could be exposed to attack by the most powerful military on the planet?  Why not park the things at the north and south poles?  It would take hours for American or Russian military weapons to be brought to bear against him, by which time the gravity weapon would have such a huge wake that no plane could fly in it, and no missile could be modified to target it (missile targeting depends on gravity working a consistent and certain way).

            Heck have it in Smallville, the idea of Superman's Earth life being literally smashed to nothing by the gravity of finding who he is would be a really good METAPHOR with a lot of emotional resonance and have just as many tactical issues as attacking Metropolis.  And the destruction of Smallville in this movie would prompt Clark to move to the big city in the second movie.

Problem 3: Lara Lor-Van of Krypton is completely useless.

            Aside from giving birth to Clark the role of Superman's Mom in the story is... Couldn't tell you.  To look stoic while her home planet explodes with her on it.  Compare this with Freya's role in "Thor the Dark World" (SPOILERS for Thor 2; go watch Thor 2, it is a lot of fun and has a lot working for it).

Well, I was a well developed character.

            To skip spoilers continue to my next problem.  In "Thor the Dark World" Frigga, Thor's Mom takes it upon herself to protect Jane Foster, Thor's girlfriend who is the designated MacGuffin carrier.  Freya fights against and nearly kills the main villain of the film and is only undone by the biggest physical threat seen in the movies aside from the Hulk.  Frigga is crafty, smart, has good (albeit limited) character interaction with the main characters, she has traits and a role in the story to die heroically trying to protect the universe from ruin and darkness.  Freya is cool.  Lara is not.

            How would you fix Lara?  Make her a warrior.  On Krypton people are not born, they are created and grown for purposes.  You could be designed to be a scientist, laborer, leader, soldier, or whatever.  Superman's Dad, Jor-El is a scientist, and somehow he manages to kick several soldiers' asses at a time and go on daring adventures... Let's not have him do that.  Let's have Lara do that.  Have her be a member of the warrior class, same as General Zod, and another symbol of duality in Superman, he is the child of two forbidden lovers, one a scientist, the other a warrior, it would also so Krypton to be more divergent from Earth toward gender roles, that being a man or woman does not mean one thing or the other, a concept only hinted at with the villain Faora.

            This could also add an element to Zod disliking Jor-El, that Lara was a good soldier till she met Jor-El and then left Zod's army.  It might also explain why Lara does not appear as a hologram later in the movie, that she (not Jor-El) was busy fighting Zod and buying time for Jor-El to get baby Superman on his rocket ship, so Jor-El did not get a chance to scan her into the program, currently it just looks like Jor-El left her out for no reason.  Lara is the most underused character in the movie.

Problem 4: Krypton's gloomy look.

            Krypton is the most well known planet in popular fiction aside from Planet X, which is actually just a generic catch all term for a hypothetical 10th planet in our solar system.  Having existed for 70 years Krypton has been drawn hundreds of times by a multitude of artists who have seen it as a world of crystal, a world of brightly colored tights, or in this case a world of very cold metal.

Seriously, when everything about the culture screams evil, you feel less bad that they are all dead.

            This is really the least of my problems with the movie.  My personal favorite look for Krypton is from the Animated Series in the 90's, or the goofy but shameless look in the "All Star Superman" comic from which some of Jor-El's dialogue is directly lifted.

            This is not the only movie out there going for Alien = Dark, and so it does not set itself apart from the pack.  "Star Trek" in 2009 turned heads by having everything incredibly white and shiny (hard to keep clean, looks like Apple took over) but it was eye catching and you felt like it was a bright shiny future worth saving.  In fact that is another good comparison, in "Star Trek" the main bad guy comes from a doomed plant in a dark ship that has a squid or spider like design and uses a gravity weapon to destroy of world full of people; "Man of Steel" has a villain from a doomed planet in a dark ship that has a spider or squid like appearance and he uses a gravity weapon to try and commit planetary genocide... Hell, the climax of each movie involves hitting the big unstoppable ship with a tiny ship causing the big ship to be sucked out of reality by a black hole... Fuck, that is some lazy hack writing when you get down to it.

Okay, Zod has far fewer tentacles/legs on his ship.

And come on, this space beam is orange... Not Blue!  Come on, totally not the same.

            Maybe having the main bad guys, General Zod and company show up dressed like they are going to fight "Flash Gordon" might have seemed silly, but isn't that kind of interesting?  Invasion of the goofy aliens sounds cool to me in an age of cynical and grim dark.

Problem 5: The double beat.

            The first 20 minutes of this movie is Krypton getting obliterated and having a civil war at the same time.  It is a weird alien planet with elements borrowed from "Avatar" mixed with "Alien", that is fine (even if it did not appeal to me it is a fine way for there to be an authorial stamp of those making the movie, "our Krypton is different").

            At the midpoint of the movie Clark discovers a spaceship that has a hologram Jor-El tell him about Krypton's obliteration and civil war... This is called a double beat, explaining something to the audience something they saw or have already had explained to them.  The effects and art direction of the scene are beautiful, using no color but clever moving relief sculpture to illustrate the war... Hell, this could have been the only thing we see of the destruction of Krypton, cutting out the whole opening, which is ultimately filler.  The fact is, pick one or the other, having both does only one thing: it kills the movie's momentum.

            To fix this scene you have to have Jor-El say, "I must explain to you about the end of Krypton and why you are here on Earth."  Then cut to something else.  The ship warming up to fly away, Zod's ship appearing at the edge of our solar system, Dr. Hamilton analyzing something.  But you do not explain to the audience a second time something they already know.  It is a waste of time.

Problem 6: Most of the fights.

            The fight in Smallville is the highlight of the movie and steals the thunder from all other encounters.  It is fast, destructive, showcases Superman's strength and speed, and displays the threat Zod's forces present to the Earth.  Zod's forces are fast, strong, and have training as soldiers, allowing them to use martial arts and group tactics to effect; but contrast, Superman is faster, stronger, can fly, has super senses and heat vision, but is limited by lack of training (who needs to learn wrist locks or effective punching when you can bend metal by flexing your toes)?  The Smallville throw down is amazing and showcases better than any other movie superheroic action with modern special effects.

This was the turning point of the movie, When a pilot gets vaporized into bloody mist by a Kryptonian soldier.

            The fight immediately after word is between Superman and robot tentacles in the middle of the Indian Ocean.  Here is the thing, they probably did this to shake up how and what Superman was fighting, much like how "Iron Man 3" has him fighting in a small town bar, catching people as they fall out of a plane, or an oil rig.  Visual variety is important in keeping the audience engaged, and is a big part of why the Smallville fight is so cool: Gas Station, Main Street, Department Store, Diner, Train Station, Bank, Corn Field, Farm (also allows for criminal amounts of product placement, even though Sears and IHOP do exist, so it is product placement that doesn't feel all that out of place).

            Smallville has so much to look at, so much to throw, to hit, to break, and things to be broken over, it offers a lot of destruction in an area that looks lived in and people can see themselves living in.  The middle of the ocean has no visual variety, and the tentacles just swirl around and try to ensnare.  The Tentacles are boring.

            Honestly the Smallville fight should have been the end of the movie.  Metropolis, while offering untold carnage is visually boring, dozens of buildings are falling over (cool, yes) but they all might as well be identical, none of them has visual personality or a sense of reality, they are just really big grey, and seemingly empty buildings.  Compare this to "The Avengers" which has Captain America killing aliens in an attempt to stop a massacre of civilians in a random lobby, and how (in spite of being filmed in Cleveland) the movie showcases real buildings that have a variety of visuals to them.  Hell, the part where the Hulk races through a populated office building knocking through cubicles and around people, jumping through a window and tackling a space dragon to keep it from slamming into the building and killing everyone is great, it shows signs of life and stakes.

            The final end of the movie (the most controversial thing about it) only works because Superman and Zod's fight terminates in a structure that has people in it that are in peril because of Zod, the gravity of the situation is shown on the micro level instead of just a giant smoking crater.  Where as the Smallville fight has people everywhere, feet away from soldiers getting obliterated by Faora, an awesome foe who is not named Ursa for some reason.

            And I don't know why so many action sequences seem so empty, Zack Snyder was smart to show the home front in "300", Nolan showed in the "The Dark Knight" that there were people everywhere for Batman to rescue, and David Goyer had Blade rescuing people in "Blade" several times.  All of the creative team have managed to capture the human element in their past movies, so why is it hit or miss here?

Movies of 2013, Superheroes, pt1, Iron Man

Science Fiction (Superhero)

            Considering how much Science fiction stuff there was this year I tried to spread it out with Apocalypses, Superheroes, and Other Science Fiction...  And one of them wasn't science fiction at all and is really a parody of superheroes and should have really been in the crime section but whatever, shut up.  I see a lot of Genre movies and even some other stuff could be considered Sci-Fi and is kind of arbitrarily slotted.

Iron Man 3, or "Thank god they did something else with the bad guy."

Overall: 8/10

I'm Falling to Pieces...

            This is actually a very well structured movie thematically, though I don't know if people will believe me when I say that because it does have a big plot hole and I disagree with the ending a good bit.

            These movies, by which I mean Marvel films make money from Action figures.  Much like Star Wars created the quintessential ensemble adventure film where in everyone has their own look and weapon, the Marvel movies have very distinct characters with variant weapons, costumes, attitudes, and tone.  This is why Thor has 75 Space-Viking side kicks, it is why Captain America lead the multi-ethnic Commandos (and why none of the bad guys wear swastikas, because you can't sell an action figure in Europe of a Nazi, even as the bad guy), and it is why this movie has 40 Iron Man armors, a repaint of the War Machine Armor, numerous bad guys.... What I am trying to say is, this movie is a toy commercial.

            All that aside, and back to my original point, this is a well structured movie.  Tony Stark nearly died fighting space aliens in "The Avengers", combine this with all the other stuff in his life and he has collectively become the Superhero poster boy for PTSD.  How does he cope with this?  He builds a stockpile of weaponry, like you do.  What is more his main suit in the movie is literally falling apart (like Stark) and trying to pull itself together to fight the bad guys throughout.  That is called a METAPHOR.  A lot of this can be attributed to writer/director Shane Black who made one of my favorite films of all time, "Kiss Kiss,Bang Bang" and is a master of fitting a lot of things together on the screen.

            Beyond that the movie continues to demonize the defense industry.  The first movie's villain was a defense contractor trying to sell weapons to the US to make a lot of money.  The second film's villain was sponsored by a defense contractor who wanted to put Stark out of business and make a lot of money.  This movie is about a Defense contractor using disaffect veterans and a lot of showmanship and lies to try and create terrorism and make a lot of money.  I love what they did with the Mandarin.

            In the comics the Mandarin is a boring character by today's standards, he made sense when he was made, he was a displaced noble from China who wanted to use his magic/alien technology to reestablish the dynastic system he had come from... But nowadays that doesn't make sense.  I don't think there is a person alive today that could claim conscious memory of China before the Communist party.... So to change him to a Modern Terrorist makes some sense, but he couldn't pose a real threat to Iron Man.  In the first movie Iron Man kills goons who wield conventional weapons with ease.  Giving Mandarin alien technology would be feasible... but that was already done with Red Skull.  So instead lets just make it a lie.  The terrorist boogey man is just a construct used to scare up more business for defense contractors.  Holy shit: ANOTHER METAPHOR, this time for the war on terror.  It is almost like this movie has resonant themes.

This is a reference to "1984" a book that I don't think of as all that good prose-wise, but has a lot of good ideas.

            A good companion to this movie is (sort of) "Star Trek Into Darkness" which has a supposed terrorist being used as justification for a military build up.  But while that movie has a labyrinthine plot that makes less sense the more you think about it, "Iron Man 3" keeps things clear, and its twists are clever.  No one was surprised that Khan was the bad guy in Star Trek, everyone was surprised by the Mandarin, and that surprise made things a lot more interesting, it made it a lot more resonant.

            Another good contrast is with Malekith the Accursed in "Thor the Dark World" (lot of Darkness this year).  Malekith had a plan to cloak the universe in darkness and end life as we knew it, had an army of super powerful and creepy space elves, and required Space-Vikings to be defeated... Malekith is barely part of that movie, nearly excised completely for more time spent with Loki around whom most of the character of Thor is greatly bolstered by contrast.  Malekith is what the Mandarin would have been played completely straight, a very typical bad guy with chaos and destruction as his goals.  Mandarin would have been boring without the twist in "Iron Man 3", he would have been Malekith.

            Also, the ending is the part that I mentioned disagreeing with.  At the end Tony blows up all the suits, signifying that he no longer needs his stockpile of super weapons to feel safe from the threats of the world, the he (not the suit) is the hero of the story (METAPHOR)... I wanted a post credit sequence of Nick Fury screaming at someone that Tony just blew up Earth's best defense against alien invasion.  Hell, they could have added that to "Thor the Dark World" which has an alien invasion that if not for Thor and his plucky science pals would have ended the universe... Having a legion of Iron Man armors would have been hella' helpful in that situation.  In universe, Tony destroys the Earth's best defense against super villains, true there are not a lot but the fact that no one calls him out for this is kind of insane.

HE DID WHAT!?

            There is also the fact that the Legion of Iron Men (automated Drones fighting terrorists... METAPHOR... Wait, no, that is just sort of literal)... would have fit better as an end to "Avengers 2" because their main bad guy is going to be a killer robot, and the first instance I know of in a comic book that Tony controls dozens of suits at once happens in an Avengers comic book.  (The reason this is in here is the aforementioned toy commercial, and they were unsure if they could get Downey back as Iron Man in anymore movies and needed to tie up the franchise with one big hurrah... And I must say that considering how Iron Man has been a character for 50 years I actually kind of think Downey is really over paid and that much like Christian Bale as Batman, Downey was made a star from the role more than they contributed to the success of the role.

            Aside from all this the movie has any number of things to like as a dumb action movie, is has action scenes that are dynamic in environment, capabilities, and are well paced throughout.  I still am on the edge of my seat when watching the Air Force 1 rescue.  It is so exciting.  The film is also funny and fun, with cute moments with sidekicks and friends that make things a lot more fun and light hearted breaking up the dark message of the film (that war is a business and we are disposable assets).

Superman vs Zod (SPOILERS for "Man of Steel")

            You know, in real life occasionally good people have to choose between killing someone and letting that person hurt an innocent third party.  This happens when a person has to sniper someone to save a hostage.

            In the ending of the movie "Man of Steel" Superman is forced to kill in hand to hand a madman bent on the annihilation of all life on Earth (that goal is stated by the villain in no uncertain terms, his desire to destroy is clear).  This is just the superhero version of the sniper and the hostage, the sniper being Superman, the hostage being the world.

            The biggest issue people seem to have is this, "Superman does not kill."  Which I do not know where they get that from.  I suppose it is their own preconceived notion toward the character, that they think of Superman is boring and can do no wrong (those are in fact the complaints I most hear about the character).  And I would say that the biggest complaint people have against Superman is that he manages to effortlessly solve problems, making it hard to identify with him.  By having the final conflict of the film be Superman vs Audience Expectations turns out is a far more interesting fight than Superman vs Zod.

            For whatever reason people expected Superman to somehow get out of the situation, I knew what was going to happen pretty much the moment I saw Zod no longer on the Kryptonian ship, his only end was going to be death.  By putting Superman in a situation that he has to compromise what people feel his values to be should make him more "human" or identifiable in the eyes of the audience.  I actually cannot figure out why it didn't.  This is something done far better than it has been presented in the past and sets up an interesting starting point for the new series.

And speaking of interesting starting points, go read JMS' "Superman Earth 1" which has two hardcover trade paperbacks out that have a rather cool take on the character.

            The reason superheroes don't kill to start with is because they need recurring villains. If Batman killed the Joker, then there would be no more Joker stories, and no more Joker action figure money. Superman's bad guys lack the option of being caged in an ineffective asylum so the idea of Zod being in prison is a hard idea to accept. If they wanted to they could have had the story end with Zod being thrown into the Phantom Zone, but they made a choice to have Superman kill Zod, which by the way: HE DID THAT IN THE REEVES MOVIES TOO.  Zod is a monster bent on genocide, why would you want Superman to leave him alive?

If you care for more of this, here is some more of me writing about "Man of Steel" and "Star Trek Into Darkness" for good measure.

The NeXt "X-Men" Movie

            Apparently the sequel to "X-Men: First Class" will be based on the X-Men comic "Days of Future Past", generally considered on of the best stories in X-Men.  In the story, the far off distant year of 2013 is a complete dystopia (It was written in 1981).  Giant Robots called Sentinels have wrecked the world, a holocaust of billions ensues.  Turns out the Sentinels were created by humans to fight back against Magneto and mutants in general, but since Mutation is pretty much the destiny of all human lineage, the Sentinels took to scorching the world to stop the proliferation of mutants.  The last of the X-Men send an envoy back in time to stop the rise of the Sentinels.

They have also been Mecha in the past, but that would not serve the narrative very well I think.

            The story has been adapted a few times, giving important roles to different characters, sometimes it is Wolverine (Ultimate Universe) that goes back, other times Bishop (90's Animated Universe), and in the Original story it was Kitty Pryde, a character that was portrayed by Ellen Page in "X-Men: The Last Stand" (a well casted shitty movie).  The story is often mixed with other time travel stories, mostly involving the character Apocalypse, who has yet to appear in the movies and is a very cool and interesting character.  To that end the story has a lot to offer in the way of characters, bad guys, and more over story opportunities that would help to explain why the "X-Men: First Class" film was not entirely in continuity with the other X-Men Franchise... The same reason "Star Trek" (2009) was not in strong continuity with the old series: TIME TRAVEL SHENANIGANS.

            However being a fan of the comics, cartoons, movies, and other X-Crap, I would like to offer suggestions on what should, or could be in this movie.  It's a Top 5 List.

            5) Cast Members from the first three movies.  You could get Ellen Page back playing a more grown up Kitty Pryde, come from the future to warn of time traveling Sentinels coming back in time to kill Prof. X and Magneto, sort of like "Terminator" but with the X-Men.  You could also have Hugh Jackman do another cameo of him fighting killer robots in the Future.  You could also get Taylor Kitsch, the guy who played Gambit, as I think his career is effectively over and he would be an inexpensive character to add.

My lack of necessity is only matched by my complete inability to be recalled.

            4) Master Mold.  The Sentinels are some of the most stylized robots ever conceived.  No where is this more evident than the sky scrapper sized factory, which is also shaped to look like, and is fully functional as: a giant robotic holocaust on poorly drawn feet.  Master Mold is a walking factory bent on the Annihilation of mutants and humans alike.  It is Sky-Net crossed with Mecha Godzilla.  It would serve as a huge set piece for the movie that could out do "The Avengers" in over the top awesome factor.

Seen here in all his 90's animated glory.  By which I mean the tortured attempt to bring to life the over drawn designs of Jim Lee, who never meet a cross hatching or wild inking he did not like.

            3) New characters based around the idea of time travel.  Bishop and Cable are both front runners in this category.  And both have been the time traveling hero in previous adaptations of the story (although when it was Cable, it was really a future version of Wolverine, who was traveling back to stop Apocalypse... but you could cut most of that crap).  Really, I think that Cable would be the easier character to cast, as Stephen Lang (the military leader from "Avatar") looks the part and is comfortable working in genre fiction, but I think Bishop would be the better character to go with, as the X-Men (who are supposed to be a metaphor for diversity) don't really need another white guy on the team.  Jason Mamoa, IdrisElba, Djimon Housou, or Chiwetel Ejiofor would all be good picks to play the character.

Bishop and Cable also share an unlisted super power.  The ability to hold gigantic guns and not look silly.

            2) Time Traveling Villains.  Nimrod, Trevor Fitzroy, or Legion would all be top candidates, and they all serve very different functions.  Nimrod is a nigh unstoppable Robot that even if reduced to component parts can pull itself back together, and would work if the "Terminator" with X-Men idea went forward.  Trevor Fitzroy, is the archenemy of Bishop, and the son of Shaw (Kevin Bacon's character in "X-Men: First Class")  having him come back through time to seek revenge on the X-Men for the Death of his father would be a good starting point for the movie, just have Bishop follow afterword, from a future in which Xavier wasn't around to call for peace.  Legion is the child of Charles Xavier, he traveled back in time to kill Magneto so that Xavier would be able to pursue peace without having to apologize for Magneto's terrorism, thing is Legion is a fuck up and accidently killed Xavier, leading to a world in which Magneto had a full on war with humanity unchecked by Charles.  Each has strengths, each could work.

If Nimrod were the character it has another advantage: You could have the X-Men fighting thousands of Nimrods not unlike the alien invasion in "The Avengers", or the army of Terminators from "Salvation".

            1) Apocalypse.  Aside from Magneto, Apocalypse is the number one bad guy for the X-Men.  He was the first mutant, and with the help of alien technology he has lived forever slowly through war and destruction fostering the growth of Mutant kind.  He made the world into a eugenics crucible to produce the X-Men.  Having him be the ultimate mastermind behind it all, having created the Sentinels as a way to kill of the weakest of the world by the millions and the experiment getting out of hand would be a great story.  You could go so far as to have Apocalypse from 2013 send Bishop or Cable back in time to stop Apocalypse in the 60's (the presumed setting of the next movie).  Hell, you could have it that the Hellfire Club (the villains from the first movie) were trying to start a nuclear war because they were working for Apocalypse, possibly knowingly.  It is major villain, with a major plan, and a lot of power, and a lot of grandeur that would explain the stylized appearance of the Sentinels.  He is a perfect villain for the movie.

"I am the rocks of the eternal shore.... crash against me AND BE BROKEN" 

"Avengers" Review, No Spoilers

            I saw "The Avengers" a few days ago, and I loved it, what is more I still love it, I am looking back on it remembering scenes that were awesome, funny, exhilarating, or pathos inducing and wishing I were watching it again.  I have watched a good 8 episodes of the cartoon series (which is spectacular, go watch it on Netflix, I would say it is in many ways better than the "Justice League" cartoon from 10 years ago if for no other reason than the Avengers don't form for 7 episodes and an over arching plot is established in the first episode, basically it just has a more epic structure).  What I'm saying here is, I find myself saying over and over again, "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" and picturing myself in the action alongside these characters helping to save the world.

This has so much fun in it.

             I am a huge comic book, and more specifically superhero fan.  My uncle John introduced them to me when I was a kid and grew up with the 90's X-Men and Spiderman cartoons alongside Batman and Superman, but the first comic book I ever bought was an issue of Thor, and I had a subscription to Captain America (comics I read so many times that they literally fell apart, something I really regret because I had the first appearance of the super villain, Superia who has become really important in the Avengers recently and the comic probably would have been valuable).  There is an underlying nostalgia in this movie that, to a degree colors my ability to evaluate it, but even when I turn that part of my brain off, I still love the movie.

            It might seem insane to say this, but the greatest strength of "The Avengers" is the structure.  It should go without saying that movies should have foreshadowing, effective pacing, character interactions, action beats, and awareness of plot elements, but many movies don't have those basic elements, and few movies can claim to do it as well as "The Avengers" do it here.  There is punctuation to scenes, small jokes, visuals, little elements that makes everything transition on a high note.  Like a comedian telling an effective joke, each seen has set up, the meat of why the scene exists, and then a mini pay off which makes an impression on you so that when they reference the scene later you can easily remember it.  This ties things together better.

            There is even good camera work.  There is a shot in which two characters, Bruce Banner (the Hulk) and Tony Stark (Iron Man) are talking as Bruce and Tony, and they are each explaining how neither of them asked to be a hero.  Bruce getting his powers through a lab accident while trying to recreate the Captain America program, and Tony having to build a mechanical heart for himself because terrorists used his conventional weapons against him.  Bruce and Tony's development mirror each other as Tony stops manufacturing weapons for use by anyone other than himself as Iron Man, and Bruce literally has to run from the military to keep them from using the Hulk as a weapon.  This conversation happens on either side of a clear glass screen, so that Tony's reflection on the glass overlays Bruce, and in the reverse shot Bruce's reflection overlay's Tony, the glass screen serves as a literal frame around each of them.

Seriously, these two have great chemistry on screen and do a lot to sell the movie.

            And what is the screen between Tony and Bruce?  It is a stylish computer monitor that is busy processing two different functions.  They are looking for the bad guy, Loki and they are hacking into SHIELD computers because they don't entirely trust who they are working for.  In others words, they are both weapon makers, hunting down a guy who would use weapons to inflict evil on the world, and while doing that they are making sure they are not going to just turn this weapon in to a group who would use it for evil, and they are doing this because both characters have been burned in the past.  This is a flawless visual metaphor.  It is a perfect scene in a movie, and in addition to all it tells you about the characters through their great dialogue, it also tells you huge amounts with just the visuals about how these two see each other.  And the movie is loaded with that type of scene.  Beautiful.

            For the sake of criticism here is my biggest complaint: Captain America's mask was not quite as cool as it was in his own movie "Captain America: The First Avenger".  That is it, and that is me at my most nit-picky.

Then again, he doesn't really wear it that much, and he doesn't need to.

            If you have not seen "The Avengers", go watch it.  The previous films are not required viewing to enjoy it, but it will add to your appreciation.  And if you have already seen it and liked it, I hope my analysis of that one particular scene between Tony and Bruce helped you to appreciate the movie on another level.

            I think I will end up seeing it again at a matinee.