Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Darkman

      Director Sam Raimi had a pretty good 1980's. From his smash hit Evil Dead in 1981, and its sequel in 1987, he would become something of a rising star, along with his good friends Joel and Ethan Coen (themselves rising on the opposite end of the indie circuit with films like Blood Simple and Raising Arizona). A longtime comic book fan, he sought out the rights to Batman and, later, the Shadow, but failed to get them. So, in the grand comic tradition, he decided to make his own character to tell essentially their story. He also took inspiration from the Universal Monsters, especially the idea of a tragic, freak hero and a doomed love story. He would turn in a 40 page treatment called "The Darkman", which he submitted to Universal. Universal accepted the script, and Raimi, his brother Ivan and some other writers hashed out the script. Originally, Raimi wanted his friend, Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell to star as the titular character, but Universal wasn't keen on it. Eventually, the role went to Northern Irish actor Liam Neeson, at the time a minor actor notable for his role in John Boorman's Excalibur. Francis McDormand, the wife of Joel Coen, was cast as the romantic lead. Danny Elfman, who had just come off Tim Burton's Batman, also did the score for this film. The film went through a difficult production, with Raimi finding some friction with cast and crew. The film would be a relative success critically and financially, spawning three sequels, two comics, and several novels. Of course, both Neeson and McDormand would be Oscar winners in later films, and Raimi would go on to direct some actual comic book films in the Spider-Man trilogy and, just recently, the Dr. Strange sequel.

     Dr. Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is a scientist working on a new synthetic skin to help burn victims. His girlfriend Julie Hastings (Francis McDormand) is an attorney investigating a real estate developer Strack Industries, led by Louis Strack (Colin Friels). She confronts him with evidence that they're bribing the local zoning commission. In vengeance (and to get rid of incriminating evidence), Strack's ally Robert Durant (Larry Drake) breaks into Westlake's lab, killed Westlake's assisstant Yakitito (Nelson Mashita), and torture Westlake. After burning his hands and putting his face in acid, Westlake is left to die, but manages to barely escape, leaving Hastings to think he's dead. He ends up a John Doe, given a radical new treatment that makes him impervious to pain. He breaks out, and as with any good superhero story, decides to take vengeance on those who wronged him. 

     I'll admit, I never really cared for Tim Burton's Batman. It was well-shot, and the production design looks good, but the story is really haphazard and it gets kind of silly, especially towards the end. I honestly think this was a better execution of the general idea behind that film. Raimi manages to evoke the panels and settings of a comic (especially a Marvel comic book with the idea of a freak as a hero) onto film, including psychedelic features and really creative action scenes. It's always entertaining to watch. Of course, Liam Neeson and Francis McDormand are great actors, and they bring a lot of pathos to these characters and their interaction. I like that Raimi makes this a full-on tragedy, taking the best part of the Universal Monsters (the idea of the monsters as tragic heroes) and applying it to a superhero story, making this a very dark, dramatic film about injury and loss. With, you know, comic book villains and fight scenes. 

     Two main problems I can think of. Parts of this film are very slow, and they tend to stretch longer than they need to. This is a problem with the climax of the film. I also felt the film had too much information. Maybe it was just more anxiety focus, but I had trouble following parts of the film because the events tended to get to complicated with the zoning conspiracy and the details about the mask. 

    This is definitely worth a watch, if only to see two Oscar winners in a very early role, and an acclaimed director doing a prototype of his more successful work. Plus, it's just a really fun, really entertaining film that works as a drama. I highly recommend it to superhero fans, and for those who, like me, didn't really care for Tim Burton's Batman.

    Alright, November 1st, and I've finally caught up to my own schedule. This year.... Well, we close out on an excellent film that came out last year, Bit. Thanks for reading, and happy Halloween. 

Current Film Review/Coming to a Video Screen Near You- Scoob!

       Yep, the pandemic is still going on. We're all still stuck at home, and most movie theaters are still closed. So, it's mostly direct-to-VOD for a lot of movies. So, for this month, it was either this or Josh Trank's Capone. I didn't really want to spend time talking a movie where nothing happens except Tom Hardy growling at people and shitting his pants, and this actually seemed to have potential from the trailer. I greatly enjoyed the comic series Future Quest, and this seemed to capture similar energy, creating a universe of Hanna-Barbera characters. And hey, it's a crossover between my Current Film and VOD reviews, appropriate for this film.

        Based on Joe Ruby and Ken Spears' venerated series (and featuring characters from other Hanna-Barbara produced series), the film, of course, centers on Mystery Inc.: Fred (Zac Efron, which is too perfect casting to have not been considered before), Daphne (Amanda Seyfried), Velma (Gina Rodriguez), and the ever loveable Shaggy (Will Forte, doing a decent Casey Kasem impression) and Scooby Doo (Frank Welker). After Simon Cowell (Simon Cowell) questions the latter two's contribution to the group, they sulk a bit in a bowling alley (In a cute nod, named for veteran Hanna-Barbara animator Iwao Takamoto), before they are attacked by scorpion robots and beamed into the Falcon Fury, the sanctum of the superhero Blue Falcon (Mark Wahlberg) and his assistants Dee Dee Sykes (Kiersy Clemmons) (from Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels) and Dynomutt (Ken Jeong). Apparently, the robots were sent by nefarious villain Dick Dastardly (Jason Isaacs) (from The Wacky Races) to capture Scooby. What results is a globe-trotting adventure as the gang with their new allies try to stop Dastardly and his mysterious scheme. 

      First, a lot of really good jokes and gags littered throughout. Very subtle jokes alongside very good references. The jokes appeal to all ages too, so you don't have to be very young to appreciate them. I liked all the references they made both to the old cartoon (including a CGI recreation of the original theme) and the other Hanna-Barbara creations, especially in terms of the designs. Jason Isaacs hams it up as Dick Dastardly. The animation is pretty good, with very fluid motion and colorful design. I really liked that they included all the little cartoon sound effects from the original series all over, which gives it a lot more oomph. 

     I'd honestly try not to think too hard about the plot, because it gets into a lot of confusing territory real quickly. There are basic character arcs that mostly work, but the plot goes into some weird directions to try to connect all these characters together. Even as an adult, I had trouble really following some of this story, so the target audience might also have trouble figuring out the mechanics of the plot. And unlike those direct-to-video Scooby movies from when I was a kid (like Zombie Island and Cyber Chase) , it really doesn't follow the Scooby formula very much. It's just a standard adventure story that Shaggy and Scooby just happen to be in. There are nods to the original format, and even a short bit where they homage parts of the formula, but the story doesn't have that Scooby Doo feel to it. 

     This movie delivers what was promised:  a nice, decently Hanna-Barbara crossover with tons of little nods, potentially setting up an animated cinematic universe of those characters (especially in the end credits). If you're familiar with these characters, like I am, you'll probably get a kick out of all the little references. Even if you aren't and you watch it with little children, it's good enough on its own, with tons of funny gags and nice animation to keep you satisfied, even if the plot has some trouble. 

     Anyway, thanks for reading, and if you like this review, please consider donating a bit to my Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc. I'll sign off with this interesting compilation of Scooby Doo openings through the decades:

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Ranked!

      Okay, a little history lesson: In 1996, after about a decade of corporate wrangling and increasingly desperate attempts to bulk up sales in the wake of a generally declining industry, Marvel Entertainment formally declared bankruptcy. To save it, they merged with their subsidiary Toy Biz, and was able to reemerge from bankruptcy. To help do so, they sold the film rights to their stable of characters to multiple studios and co-produced the films under "Marvel Studios". This worked out well enough starting with 1998's Blade, and continuing with the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and a certain unmentionable director's X-Men trilogy. However, with these successes, many others were stillborn, and the rights reverted back to Marvel. With Iron Man's rights reverting back from New Line Cinemas, they teamed up with Paramount to make Iron Man in 2007, with plans to make a film based on the premier Marvel comics superhero team The Avengers. Flash-forward today, Marvel Entertainment is now an arm of the all-powerful Disney corporation, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the biggest thing in movies right now, for good and for bad. With Endgame on the horizon, and as a lifelong Marvel fan, I figure I might as well rank these before going into Endgame. I rewatched a lot of the MCU over the past few weeks in order to prepare for this list. Mostly Phase 1 and Phase 2. Not really in order and I did skip some because I had seen them recently enough to remember what I thought of them. I'll do these like the year-end list, where I'll rank it worst to best, and have every film in there, with a short explanation as to why. This quiz here (https://sorta.app/q/1016/frosemqiantjlcugpdbkh) was very useful in helping formulate this list. So, without further ado:

Thor: The Dark World

The only one of these that was legitimately bad in its own right. Confusing, dimly light, way too serious, with some glimmers to a better film here and there (most notably Thor and Loki making their escape). It was the only time watching that I didn't at least have some good time watching. Worse, a few days out from seeing it, I barely remember what happens in it.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

You may recall I put this at the very bottom of one of my first year-end lists. It is easily the weakest film that isn't necessarily bad. A few things save it: James Spader as Ultron, Andy Serkis as Klaw, the opening fight scene, the second half of the climax. However, its main problem is the action scenes, which aren't well-shot, and feel too long to have any actual impact.

The Incredible Hulk

There appear to be three films being made here. One is "Jerry Bruckheimer does The Fugitive". The second is a Michael Crichton SF thriller. The other is a monster movie with the Hulk. The one-third that has the Hulk is pretty good, but it is bogged down by the other two-thirds. I heard Ed Norton rewrote the script heavily, so that might account for this problem.

Thor

For a while, I knew I didn't care for this film in comparison to the others, but I couldn't quite put my finger as to why. After rewatching, I think that I feel disappointed that the film is not more over-the-top. It feels too reverent and constrained, and Marvel's Thor was always larger-than-life. I suppose it comes down to: it took itself too seriously.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Decent. Decent action, decent character moments, decent story. It is basically a good film, and I enjoy it. That said, with better Spider-Man movies (Spider-Man 2, Into the Spiderverse)  it pales in comparison to those. I think I was kind at the time because it was a good palette cleanser for the obscenely bad Amazing Spider-Man 2,  and it eschewed being another origin story. Again, I like this film, but it was weaker on the rewatch

Iron Man 3

It was an interesting turn they took with Iron Man's signature villain (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it), and just as a Shane Black movie, it's pretty good. It has his signatures: a sprawling conspiracy involving a well-known industry, a little kid who helps the hero, Christmas. It's not one of his best, but if you like his films, it'll satisfy even non-Marvel fans.

Captain Marvel

It was a good decision to actually lean into some feminist themes (however surface level it may have been), as opposed to merely having a female protagonist and just leaving it there. It helps elevate to more than another origin story. It also had decent enough action to back it up, and the reinvention of the Skrulls was a superb twist that worked very well for comic fans.

Iron Man 2

I was a big defender of this one for many years, but it was a while since I had seen it, and yeah, it hasn't really stood the test of time. It's still fun, and it does do a different story than the first, but a lot of the story feels half-baked and underutilized, and the climax was just too bombastic without any sort of motivation or understanding.

Ant-Man

This is generally a lot of fun. A good sort of superhero heist film, with tons of witty dialogue, character banter and pop culture references to really engage an audience, along with some excellent visuals taking advantage of its size changing hero. Makes sense, given Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, and Adam McKay all wrote the film. Yeah, apparently it's considered one of the weaker films, but it is a lot of fun for me (even if its villain was a bit boring.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Also a lot of fun, but director James Gunn manages to imbue it with a very personal touch. Focusing on the characters and how these misfits and outcasts slowly grow to become a family, with some dark moments and some great action. It is sort of amazing how well the balance of emotion, action, and comedy really work out to make this entertaining. And of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the soundtrack, which I still listen to frequently.

Ant-Man and the Wasp

Even more fun, even more visuals, even more comedy. A good sequel always takes what works about the first, and ups the ante, and with this films extensive exploration of the Quatum Realm, and Ant-Man becoming Giant Man, it really ups that ante. It also fixed the biggest problem of the first one, by having an interesting villain (but a bland secondary one)

Doctor Strange 

You might recall I put this in the "okay" category the year it came out. I think I was just affected by the negative buzz of it being yet another origin story. Now with some distance, it is an origin story, but it is very well done, with the character actually growing into the role and having to actually let go of his own ego. Also, I don't think I gave the truly impressive visuals or the inventive use of magic in the plot the due it deserved. So, call this a repentance for my previous evaluation.

Iron Man

This was actually a favorite of mine for many years, and I've seen it a dozen times. It holds up well after 12 years. There are flaws and indications of its age (most notably the Bush era focus on terrorism and the glamor of Tony's life, and the start of Marvel's obsession with making a villain a dark reflection of the hero), but its well-crafted plot and ingenous scheme of incorporating comic storytelling to the silver screen deserves a lot of credit.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Taking more influence from 70's political thrillers and Steve Englehart's run of the character during that same period, this manages to take the character of Cap and deal with his commitment to freedom in a world that increasingly and slowly chips away at that freedom, as well as him having to fight a very personal threat. With more intense, up close action and a bzyantine conspiracy that completely derails the MCU as previously known, this was the first that really helped mature the franchise beyond the standard superhero film.

Thor: Ragnarok

Much has been said about the political subtext of the film being about the legacy of colonialism, much of which can be attributed to the half-Maori director Taika Waititi. However, I want to give props to the film for capturing the look of the Marvel Cosmic, and with that, finally getting Thor right as a bombastic hero, and adding some humor into the film. Combined with an excellent supporting cast, and it makes for a good film viewing experience.

Captain America: Civil War

Really more of an Avengers centerpiece, this features a strong, dense story that never collapses or feels too complicated or confusing. The slowly rift between Cap and Iron Man just grows and festers with each scene before it climaxes in a dark, brutal finale that is very hard to get out of mind. It was a good gut punch of a film and had enough seriousness without going over-the-top with (*cough* Batman v. Superman *cough*)

Captain America: The First Avenger

This was the highlight of the Phase 1, hands down. Joe Johnston's affection for the media and culture 1930's and 40's (used to great effect in his other Disney produced superhero film The Rocketeer) give the film a sense of both nostalgic, and modern sensibilities.  The gloss and charm of the style help give the story and the character of Cap more reverence and urgency, especially in dealing with a threat that even surpasses the Nazis. This was the kind of film that really does justice to the character. (Given the 40's serials actually produced during the war got his identity completely wrong, that's really saying something)


Avengers Infinity War

This is how a big crossover event should be done. Enough time is given to each character, there is a lot interplay between them, and there is enough action and character to move the plot along. It manages to balance out the more fantastic and the more mundane elements from each film, and has comic book fun without becoming pure camp or pure edge. What really makes this good is Thanos, who manages to be both a cruel, but fundementally human villain who is given life by Josh Brolin's performance.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. II

I'll just reiterate the points I made in this film's entry in my 2017 list. It is both a fun film with tons of well-done action, comedy, and visual that all work very well in their own right in making it feel like a Bronze Age Marvel story, but what really makes this extraordinary is how it manages to also be about the often complicated, contradictory nature of family and the nature of the relationships that tend to arise from that. It is sometimes a bit hard to watch because of that. And it easily has the best ending of any of these. I always tear up when I see it.

Black Panther

I think the theme of these last few entries is balance. Black Panther has a couple of minor flaws, sure, but what makes it the sort of film that can be nominated for an Academy Award is how it manages to be both a great superhero movie with great action and effects and have a strong sociopolitical streak, with themes of racism, colonialism, and isolationism being explored and utilized in the plot with powerful moments that stick with you for a long time. Neither side ever overwhelms the other; in fact, they compliment each other. It is the kind of superhero movie for people who don't like the genre.

The Avengers

Whilst not having any sort of political message or theme, this is easily the best of this cycle for just doing what sets out to do in the best possible manner. It manages to bring together these characters, develop them, have them interact, and have some really excellent character, before going into the action moments, where they could have some impact. It is sort of a perfect blockbuster in that sense. A pure action-adventure story that never forgets what it is, but tries to be what it is to the best of its ability. It really is sort of a modern classic.

-----------------------------

So, that's my rankings. You may think this is building up to an Endgame review. Well, maybe, but that will be hard to do, given that spoilers are a big thing going around and that there will be more than enough reviews going around that I won't have anything to say that someone else hasn't already.

So, join me in a few days, as I look at a much hyped auteur indie feature from indie darling corporation (often to the point of outright worship) A24, that was dumped onto VOD this week, Under the Silver Lake. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy II: The Golden Army

     (Okay, a bit of explanation. I couldn't find Spirit of the Beehive online anywhere. I assumed it was on Hulu, but for some reason, it wasn't there. Since getting a DVD of it would take a couple days, I decided to make a last minute pass, and choose something that was more easily available. To compound manners, I twisted my foot over the weekend, and had to spent time recovering from that. With that out of the way).

      Not much history, as to be expected from a sequel. Guillermo del Toro had intended a trilogy with the character, and with the success of the first one, the sequel was to be released in 2006. However, Revolution Studios, which had produced the original, went bankrupt, and Columbia stepped in to distribute. After bouncing around a few ideas (including reinterpretations of classic monsters and elemental titans) and some stories from the comics to adapt, del Toro and Hellboy creator Mike Mignola wrote an original story. The film finally entered production after Pan's Labyrinth won many accolades. Released in 2008, the film was both financially and critically successful, and a third film was in development, before it faltered, and a reboot (currently slated for 2019 with Stranger Things' David Harbour in the lead role) was deemed necessary.

     On Christmas Day, 1955, Trevor Bruttenholm (the late John Hurt) tells his adoptive son Hellboy (Montse Ribe) about the legend of the Golden Army. How humans and elves went to war many years ago, and how the Golden Army was created by Goblin engineers for the elves to destroy humanity. However, the elf King Balor ( Roy Dotrice) sees the destruction wrought about by his new army, and how he created a pact with mankind. However, Prince Nuada (Luke Gross), who had tempted his father to creating the Golden Army, is dissatisfied with this, and leaves to be called back at some indeterminate time, while the Golden Army is sealed away with the elf crown being the key to opening it. Sure enough, in the present day, Nuada decides his time has come to destroy the humans, and retrieves their portion of the crown from an auction at a museum. He then kills Balor, and takes his portion, while his sister Nuala (Anne Walton) flees with the final portion. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and fellow Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD) agents Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones, now doing both voice and body) investigate the initial attack, and find themselves the victims of tooth fairies (which are not as innocuous as they sounds). They defeat them, but Hellboy is exposed for the first time to the public, prompting fallout with the higher ups, particularly BPRD head Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor). They take one tooth fairy, and have their new team leader, Johann Krauss (John Alexander and James Dodd for body, Seth MacFarlane (!) for the voice) a German whose body is now a strange ectoplamsa material contained in a suit, examine it. This leads them on a course that will intersect them with Nuala and then, having to stop Nuada from reviving the Golden Army.

      I don't know where to start with how good this film is. It has great effects, an engaging story, great performances, great action, a larger sense of world building and mythology, some nice homages here and there (including references to the films of John Landis and Ray Harryhausen). Unlike the more mysterious original, this one has a more of an action-packed, urban fantasy feel to the proceedings, which actually works in that it still feels like it's in the universe of the original. It also has the character grow from the original, and grow throughout the film. The Golden Army itself was built up well, especially with their ability to regenerate, making their threat very clear, and forcing a unique solution beyond a direct confrontation.

     This is one of those films where every flaw I could think of actually works upon revisitation. I suppose the length.... nah, I'm kidding, it's 2 hours long. I think a little bit more backstory was needed for somethings. Like, if the elves were solely restricted to the British Isles and Ireland or were more worldwide, and a bit more on Johann Krauss and what happened to him (since he turns to the heroes side due to a tragedy in his life). It might've helped flesh out the story a bit more.

    I was harsh on the original Hellboy. I think I didn't really appreciate it for what it was, a fun romp with many different references and complex worldbuilding. I think this is better than the original, and a whole hearted recommendation to anyone who loves horror, urban fantasy, action, or del Toro films. Just, maybe watch the original first, however.

   We're at the home stretch, so Friday will see the modern classic American Psycho. 

Current Film Review: Justice League

    You know, I had higher expectations for this film. Wonder Woman was good, and Joss Whedon was brought in help with the reshoots, following an incredibly tragic death in director Zac Synder's family. Whilst the trailers weren't impressive, it didn't seem like the disasters that Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman, and Suicide Squad turned out to be. Maybe they were starting to get the idea. Maybe this would continue the streak Wonder Woman started. Maybe they could create a viable cinematic universe. After seeing the film.... Let's get this over with.

       Based on the DC team created by Gardner Fox, we start immediately after the events of BvS. While the world is in shock following Superman's (Henry Cavill) death, Batman (Ben Affleck) is seeing strange creature appear across the world, and trying to assemble a league of heroes with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to try to protect the Earth from impending threats. This includes Arthur Curry, alias Aquaman (Jason Mamoa); Barry Allen, alias Flash (Ezra Miller); and Vic Stone, alias Cyborg (Ray Fisher).  Sure enough, Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds), a member of the New Gods (Jack Kirby's group of powerful beings in the DC universe) and commander from Apokolips (in the comics, the realm dominated by Darkseid), comes to Earth to gain the three Motherboxes, which he had previously fought a war on Earth with the power, only for an allaince of humans, Amazons, Atlantians, Green Lanterns, what have you, and which have reactivated with Superman's death. Now, Batman and Wonder Woman must assemble the League and stop Steppenwolf from gaining the three Motherboxes. They may even get some help from beyond the gra.... Okay why do I have to treat that like it's a spoiler. It was obvious this was going to happen, but...

        Good things: Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot (as they were in the last film), Ray Fisher as Cyborg, Ezra Miller (in parts) as the Flash, decent McGuffin, creative creature design, some decent fight scenes, some good jokes (likely the product of Whedon), a decent enough homage to a classic comic in one of the, oh yeah, there are two after-credit scenes for this. Some nice nods to the DCU.

       The main problems with this film are the same problems with Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad. Like BvS, it is boring, a slog that drags on too long with its portentous alleged grandiosity. Despite the use of iconic characters and settings from a shared universe with large history, it just doesn't click on screen, with its action scenes simply not illiciting excitement and its character moments either clearly cut down, or pretentious. The overuse of CGI doesn't help in the former's case. It resembles a DC video game at times. Not even a modern one. One that might have been on the Playstation 2. Which brings me to the Suicide Squad comparison, which involves very heavy studio interference. It is abundantly clear this was hacked up by the studio after Whedon finished the reshoots and editing. Like Suicide Squad, this makes the film very haphazard, going from a sequel very much fitting in the universe of the previous films, to an Avengers-style character romp. It's jarring, and the retouched shots, like the bad CGI, create a very ugly looking film. It looks low budget, which is not a criticism that should not be for a film that cost $300 million to make.

       This was not as bad as Batman v. Superman or Suicide Squad. That's not an endorsement, given that this was merely bad, as opposed to inconceivably awful. If you, for whatever reason, liked the other DCEU films, you might like this. If you didn't, but Wonder Woman got your hopes up, well, it turned out how you expected. I really don't have much else to say. This was like cold, stale oatmeal. It was bad in a generic, forgettable fashion.

     I am going to do a double feature, because I want to share with you something that I had found. A film that has technically has been released for several weeks on the internet, but is only now getting reviews ahead of it's theatrical release. The November Criminals. Never heard of it? Well, let us take a look into it.

Current Film Review- Spider-Man: Homecoming

      Let me start with this: I don't care about Venom, unless Spider-Man is involved. I don't care about any of Spidey's villains, unless Spider-Man is there. The point I'm trying to convey is that I have no interest in movies that have Spider-Man's rogues gallery in them, but not Spider-Man.  Kraven the Hunter is not interesting unless he has Spider-Man around as a good counterpoint. (Plus, they could reenact "Kraven's Last Hunt", which is a classic story in and of itself.) Chameleon and Mysterio are not inherently interesting unless Spider-Man is fighting them. So, Sony, stop trying to recoup the resources that you wasted back when you thought The Amazing Spider-Man franchise was going somewhere. And if they do make these movies, I'm not going to watch them. Once again, what is interesting about these characters when Spider-Man is taken out of the equation? Anyway, let's talk about a film that has Spider-Man in it.


       Set shortly after the events of Civil War, Our Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, aka Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is eagerly anticipating his next assignment from Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), and constantly annoys his bodyguard Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) with his eagerness. At the same time, Peter (as always) lives with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei, playing a radically different version of the character), and attends high school (though, in this incarnation, it appears to be a polytechnic institute), and has his shares of non-superpowered problems, from his arch-rival Flash Thompson (Tony Revolori) to his crush on Liz (Laura Herrier) to his interactions with his friend Ned (Jacob Batalon), He manages to get some heroing in here or there. However, there is a new threat that has emerged. Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), a former construction worker cleaning up after the events of the Avengers, is laid off with his staff by more advanced workers. They decide to take the leftover alien tech, and form a criminal enterprise. Toomes now dons a pair of advanced wings to help him with his crimes. When Spidey expresses concerns to Tony, Tony tells him to lay low. However, undainted, he soon takes on Toomes and his armed and dangerous criminals.

       First, Tom Holland does a good job as Spider-Man. He manages to take the best parts of his predecessors, and make it his own. He plays the inexperienced hero particularly well, constantly trying to prove himself, only to fail (the standard default for Peter Parker's life).His performance definitely helps display his personality and mindset, and also shows how Peter's continual disappointments in life continue to frustrate him. The rest of the cast does great as well. Michael Keaton in particular seems to be having fun, playing a menacing, but somewhat charming version of the Vulture.Robert Downey, Jr. does great as Iron Man (as usual), but doesn't intrude in the movie unless he needs to.  I said before in my Civil War review, but I love Spidey's new outfit. I always had affection for the Ditko design, and it is brought into realistic fashion here. The effects are pretty good. There was one very suspenceful scene on a famous building I won't spoil, but made me nervous in the theater. There are some great comedic scenes, and there is a good number of references and homages to the Spider-Man comics. The story is pretty good, with a well-executed twist, which comics fan will definitely not see coming.

     Ned Leeds was a fine character, but his presence was completely pointless. Yes, he helps Peter at points in the story, but he really didn't serve any purpose other than to give Peter essentially a sidekick to talk to. While the action was good most of the time, I feel that some scenes should've had better, more exciting action. The final fight scene, while having a good ending, was a bit lacking in particular. Not to say it was all bad, the big boat scene (not a spoiler, since you could see it in the trailer) was a highlight.


    As a longtime Spider-Man fan who was very disappointed with The Amazing Spider-Man 2  (The worst film I saw that year),  this helped bring the character back to his roots, while not being an origin story (another breath of fresh air). This film is definitely better than the Amazing duology, but is not as good as the first two Raimi films. (It's better than 3). So, if you enjoy the MCU and/or Spider-Man, I highly recommend this film.

Current Film Reviews- The Lego Batman Movie

     Remember in last year's list, where I said that I was probably not going to see another Batman movie, except this one. Well, actually seeing this movie reminded me of why Batman is such an iconic character. It is a celebration of the character, along with being a parody, and it has a number of gags relating to the rich Batman mythos. Also, given that grimdark Batman is dead horse mangled and distorted at this point, lighter, campier Batman (clearly inspired by and constantly referencing ("Bat Shark-Repellent) the TV series starring Adam West) is more than welcome. Really, the critical reevaluation of the 1966 television series, long derided by Batman fans since the comics run of Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adam in the 70's, and the Dark Knight Returns in the mid-80's, as a different interpretation of the character is more than welcome. Frankly, I will go as far as saying that this is the best Batman movie since the Dark Knight. I've grown to see the Dark Knight Rises as flawed, and Batman v. Superman was one of the worst films I saw last year. Given that Batman has reached "Peak Batman", this was refreshing. A satirical look into Batman, which also really does do it's homework, and shows aspects of the character that are rarely explored.

      Based on the comic character created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane, done using Legos, the popular Danish toy blocks, Batman (Will Arnett) is the defender of Gotham City, fighting a number of colorful villains in order to rid Gotham's streets of crime. He is also a pompous, self-aggrandizing loner, who refuses any sort of self-reflection or company, even when his butler Alfred (Ralph Fiennes) tries to confront Batman over his behavior. He begins the film by singlehandedly defeating what seems to be his entire rogue gallery from a wide range of mediums ( like Kite Man, Calendar Man, and Condiment King. Believe or not, those are all actual Batman villains, along with the all other ones they reference in the movie). He accidentally offends the Joker (Zach Galifianakis) by saying that the Joker is not in fact his greatest enemy. The Joker, seeking Batman's complete and utter contempt, sees that Superman (Channing Tatum) throws many of his enemies into the Phantom Zone, giving him an idea for the ultimate crime. During Commissioner James Gordon's (Hector Elizondo) retirement party, Batman, in his guise as Bruce Wayne, inadvertently adopts orphan Dick Grayson, Age 12 (Michael Cera), and sees the presentation by new Commission and Gordon's daughter Barbara (Rosario Dawson), who wants Batman to cooperate more with the Gotham police, which Batman scoffs at. Joker and the Anti-Batman Army arrive to seemingly crash the party, but surprises everyone when the Joker surrenders on all their behalf. Batman is suspicious, and decides to banish the Joker to the Phantom Zone, using Superman's Phantom Zone gun-thing. After rebuking the eternally enthusiastic Grayson, he decides to bring him on, since he is small enough to get through the vents at the Fortress of Solitude. Grayson dons one of Batman's alternate costume "Reggae Man", (without the pants), and calls himself "Robin". Batman begins to grow closer to Robin after the latter successfully gains the gun. Batman uses it on the Joker. However, the Joker had anticipated this, and got Harley Quinn (Jenny Slate) to get him out. In the Phantom Zone, he gets the other villains (including Voldemort, Sauron, and the Wicked Witch of the East) to join him in exchange for their freedom (though oddly, Zod was not among them). Now, with larger than life villains attacking Gotham, Batman, Robin, Barbara and Alfred must stop the villains. And Batman must confront his socialization and emotional issues relating to having a family.

      First, it was very refreshing, after years of Batmen who are all brooding, emotionless matyr, to see a Batman who is completely full of himself. It's a good change of pace. It also has a lot of nods to the entire history of Batman, from the original Kane-Finger incarnation to '66 series to The Animated Series and the DCAU. The film uses the rich history of Batman create many visual references and gags, which will be a delight to anyone who can spot them. I also liked that it emphasized why Batman needs a Robin, and really, the entire "Batman family." It emphasizes that he needs them as support, both as literal support and emotional support. Robin especially. Many people dislike Robin, because they feel a little kid trivializes the dark, brooding "I'm sad, because I lost my parents" detective (even though Robin was introduced in April, 1940, a mere 7 months after Batman debuted, so he was as old as the franchise.) When I saw this movie, I thought about Bill Finger's reason for creating Robin in the first place. Batman was like Sherlock Holmes, and Holmes needed Watson, because Watson was someone he could get support from, someone to bounce off of, someone the audience could look through and watch the character from a neutral standpoint. Robin was essentially Batman's Watson. This movie, I think, best summarizes why Robin is needed. He is Batman's family, and Batman feels an obligation to take of him, because (and this is not in the movie, but from the comics), Dick Grayson's parents also died very tragically from an accident while performing in the circus. Getting away from that for my last point, it was fun. It was fun, and I enjoyed every minute of it. That is more than I can say of Dawn of Boredom. 
     I wish more was done with the actual Legos. In The Lego Movie, they used Legos in very interesting and creative ways, and the whole theme of that film involved creativity. Here, yeah, they use the Lego setting a few times, (like a very creative climax), but I feel more could've been done with the fact that it was all Legos, and put that to creative use. I also feel that there were a little too many characters during the climax. It was somewhat amusing to see Sauron and King Kong, but there was Voldemort, apparently, and I didn't recognize him.That's severe nitpicking, but that did bother me.

     Like I said, best Batman since The Dark Knight. I think with this, and The Lego Movie, despite not being big into Legos, I might be on board with the Lego movies. They're a lot more interesting and fun than most of the blockbusters coming out today. I would recommend it as a good kids film, or a good film for a comics fan. All I have left to just say to go and watch it.


     

Movie review: Captain America: Civil War

       I would be lying if I said that I didn't understand the fatigue with superhero films. There are a lot of them, and the massive corporations that create them do market them excessively. There are a lot more planned in the future too. Then again, trends like westerns or slasher film had similar runs in the 50's and 80's respectively. But, you know what irritates me more? People complaining about superhero movies. Seriously, it seems every day I see a comment or a think piece about superhero movies are too much, and how they are distracting from  films that are"true art" or some cockamamie like that.  It is just so... hipster, for lack of a better term. Pretending to be some sort of intellectual insight by disparaging popular forms of media. You ever hear the phrase "Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good?" Well, these people apparently take that to mean that "It's popular, ergo it's bad, and it's popularity indicates the fall of cultural tastes," and I wrote a whole piece on that a month or so ago, so go read that. Again, I understand if people are tired of superhero movies. I was admittedly starting to grow tired of them as well after Age of Ultron. Even the surprisingly good Ant-Man wasn't spectacular, and didn't help me appreciate the genre. Batman v. Superman was so dull, I thought perhaps the experience watching that may dull my experience watching Captain America: Civil War, because it indicated my fatigue with superhero films. Actually, watching Batman v. Superman actually enhanced the experience of this film, because I realized what that film did wrong, and what this film did right. It also reminded me of why Marvel movies are so well-regarded. They do put more effort into the scripts and acting, and they actually know what the fans of these films want. So, with that introduction out of the way,...

    Based around the Marvel comics character created by Joe Simon and "Jolly" Jack Kirby, Captain America: Civil War once again follows the adventures of Steve Rogers, Captain America ( Chris Evans). The new Avengers assembled at the end of Age of Ultron (Scarlet Wtich (Elizabeth Olson, who I learned is the younger sister of the Olsen twins), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Falcon (Anthony Mackie)) are on a mission in Lagos, where they try to stop the assassin Crossbones (Frank Grillo) from attaining a biological weapon. When Crossbones detonates a bomb on his person, while Cap is interrogating him, the Scarlet Witch contains the explosion, but releases it at a nearby building, killing several workers from the small East African nation of Wakanda. International condemnation ensues, and Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) tells the Avengers that due to the number of incidents where they were involved, and people were killed, the UN wants to institute the "Slokovia Accords", which would place them under a UN mandate. Tony Stark, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) supports this measure, along with Black Widow and War Machine (Don Cheadle), but Cap is skeptical. Cap learns of the death of his former girlfriend Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), and attends the funeral. There, he meets her niece Sharon (Emily VanCamp), a CIA operative in Germany. At the signing of the Accords in Vienna, a bomb goes off, killing the Wakandan King T'Chaka (John Kani). The blame is quickly placed on the Winter Soldier, aka "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Cap's best friends turned HYDRA assassin. T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), the prince of Wakanda, swears vengeance, and adopts the "Black Panther" moniker, one which has gone down generations of Wakandan warriors.Cap knows that Barnes has been framed, and Barnes professes as much when Cap confronts him. When Cap and Falcon try to protect Barnes from government agents, they find themselves enemies of the government, and Stark. Can they prove Bucky innocent, and get into a conspiracy to split the Avengers?

      This is much more serious than any of the previous Marvel movies, going off the darker tone of  The Winter Soldier. There are less jokes or very funny moments. Unlike  Batman v. Superman,  however, it works to the film's advantage, underscoring how intense and serious some of the moments in the film are. There are several scene, which are legitimately shocking to see. The events also have more weight and consequence to them, unlike Batman v. Superman. I feel more invested in the events happening. The action is very good, as usual, and I feel more excited watching it. As always, the cast is absolutely great. A particular stand out is Tom Holland as Spider Man (who appears later in the film, so I didn't mention him in the synopsis), who manages to do a good job trying to separate himself from Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield. I also liked Spider-Man's costume, which resembles the iconic Steve Ditko look of the 60's. Chadwick Boseman does a very good job as the Black Panther, and I'm very excited for his solo film (I'm a fan of that particular character).  While not using the comic's "Superhuman Registration Act", it does provide some interesting questions on whether the Avengers should intervene with supervision, and the conflict within the Avengers feels real, and builds on the characterization of team since their inception back in the original film. A recurring theme is the idea of revenge and hatred, which causes some characters to overreact and make some poor decisions.

     Like I said, I liked Spider-Man, but honestly, he could be cut out of this film. I wish he played a larger role, just so that his presence is justified a little more than "We would like to introduce the MCU Spider-Man, before we put him in a movie". Also, the motivation of the villain is less than satisfying. Given the wide scope of the conspiracy, I thought that there would be more, but no, the reason the villain (not spoiling who it is) is doing this is very simple. Given the scope of the events, it is very disappointing. The inclusion of the other Avengers, while necessary, sometimes distracts from Cap and the Winter Soldiers, who are supposed to be the main focus. Finally, while the title is appropriate, they should have incorporated more elements from the comic version. It could've justified the title.

    This was far better than Age of Ultron, and it restored my faith in Marvel. If you want a good superhero film after Batman v. Superman, or you enjoyed most of the previous Marvel films, this is the film for you. If you don't like Superhero movies, I don't think this will change your mind, but I'd say give it a chance, because there are elements of spy films in this. Overall, very exciting and very fun. A rare quality in today's blockbusters.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy

    Hellboy was a comic series written and drawn by Mike Magnola, and published by Dark Horse Comics, first starting in 1993, and continuing into the present. It revolved around the titular Hellboy, a demon who was summoned to Earth in 1944, as an infant, and raised by humans. He fights on behalf of a secret organization called  Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD)(Despite its name, it apparently is an international organization, not exclusively a US agency) against a slew of supernatural threats, while dealing with his own "demons" (har har). The series was quite successful, and garnered a number of fans. One of those fans was none other than Guillermo del Toro, who began to petition for a film adaptation. He directed and wrote the film version. When Magnola and del Toro met, they both said that the best choice for Hellboy was Ron Perlman, and he was signed on. The film was released in 2004 to good reviews and good box office, though it opened against Passion of the Christ, and some theaters refused to run a movie about a demon against that film. Anyway, let's dive right in.
 
      In 1944, a small American troop, accompanied by Professor Trevor Bruttenholm (John Hurt) head to a small Scottish island, where a Nazi occult ritual is being held to summon  Ogdru Jahad, a Lovecraftian Outer God, essentially. The ritual is being held by Gregori Rasputin (Karel Roden) (why the Nazis trust a Slav (who are considered racially impure by them) to do this is never explained), as well as his assistants, assassin Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beran) and Ilsa (because all Nazi women are named that, apparently) Haupstein (Bridget Hodson). The team foil the attempt, though not before an infant demon with a large glove appears. Bruttenholm takes the demon, and actually raises him. Flash forward 60 years, and the demon child, now named Hellboy (Ron Perlman) has become something of an urban legend. However, he is actually now a superpowered government agent for the BPRD, sent to investigate various paranormal activity, under the mentorship of the now aged Bruttenholm  . FBI agent John Myers (Rupert Evans) is recruited by Bruttenholm to become Hellboy's new partner. Hellboy isn't exactly enthusiastic about having a new partner. Also working with the BPRD is ultra-intelligent fish humanoid Abe Sapien (played by Doug Jones and voiced by David Hyde Pierce, and yes, every time I heard him, I heard Niles Crane as a fishman. If you don't think about it, it gets less distracting). Meanwhile, Kroenen and Haupstein are able to resurrect Rasputin, and he summons a demon. They are sent on a mission to a museum, where said demon appears. After a prolonged fight, Hellboy defeats the creature, but two mysteriously appear near Rasputin. Hellboy than goes to a local asylum, where he meets Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), a pyrokineticist, who was a former partner and love interest for Hellboy. She has poor control over her abilities. Hellboy tries to convince her to return to the BPRD, but she refuses. After one visit by Hellboy, she ends up burning down the hospital. Myers manages to convince Liz to come back to the BPRD. During a second battle with the demons, Abe Sapien is injured retrieving some eggs, and Kroenen plays dead in order for the BPRD to deliberately capture them. They learn from the eggs, that the demons (called Sammaers, apparently) hatch twice every time one dies. Hellboy gets jealous when Liz goes out for coffee with Myers, and escapes. (There is a genuinely funny scene involving Hellboy and cookies). While they are gone, Kroenen wakes up and manages to get Rasputin to the BPRD headquarters, where they kill Bruttenholm FBI director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), who disliked Hellboy's rebelliousness, assumes control of the organization, and plans a final assault on Rasputin's base in Russia, where he and his cohorts plan to once again summon Ogdru Jahad. A team consisting of Hellboy, Manning, Myers,  and Sherman is sent to a Moscow cemetery to stop this. Hellboy and Manning dispatch Kroenen, while Myers and Sherman go to the lair of the Sammaers. Hellboy arrives, but is subdued. Liz uses her abilities to destroy the creatures and their eggs. Hellboy awakes to find himself and Liz captured by Rasputin and Ilsa. Rasputin takes Liz's soul to force Hellboy to manifest his demon abilities, which summons Ogdru Jahad. However, Myers is able to remind Hellboy of his father's wish for him, and he shakes the influence off, using a giant horn to close the portal. However, enough influence got out, that Rasputin transforms into a giant tentacled monster, who kills Ilsa. Hellboys kills the monster by intentionally getting swallowed, with a large amount of grenades stuck to his body (he is fireproof). The film ends with Hellboy and Liz sharing a well-deserved Romantic moment.

          The action in this film was very well done. It was intense, colorful, but it was very easy to comprehend, and you can tell who is fighting who. There is also a number of inventive kills and inventive scenes, which creates a lot of tension. The plot is a typical pulp style fantasy action adventure, and that's not a bad thing at all. The plot isn't complex or deep, but it is fun. It is fun to see a demon beat up other, more grotesque looking demons.. Particularly because the characters were well-defined, and I liked seeing them do these fun action scenes. Especially Hellboy. Ron Perlman is very charismatic in the role, playing up the childish rebelliousness, while still keeping him a badass action hero. The effects are very well done. I was very surprised to see practical effects used at times, which is always a bonus in my book. Even the CGI is very good, surprising for 2004. It also had a number of very funny moments, particularly involving Hellboy and cats. (That actually didn't sound as weird as I thought it did)

     Rasputin was not particularly enjoyable or memorable as the villain. I hardly remember anything he did. I wanted to see more of Odgru Jahad. He seemed infinitely more fascinating then the designated villain. (Maybe it's my preference towards Lovecraftian beings). I also got distracted, once again, by the fact that Nazi agents teamed with a Slavic mystic. I also feel they didn't focus as much as they should have on Hellboy being a demon raised in a human world. There is that scene where he is about to bring about the destruction of the world through his demon heritage, and the scene right before Bruttenholm's death, where he sees Hellboy as the bringer of doom, but it isn't brought up as much as the film wants me to think.

       This is my least favorite film from del Toro. However, that should speak more for del Toro as a film, because it is still a fantastic film. Once again, made with vision and passion for the material. I just didn't like it as much as his other films. Maybe his more atmospheric style didn't mesh with the more comic action style the film require. I greatly enjoyed this, and I encourage you, if you think you might enjoy this film, to seek it out and watch it.
    We close out with Halloween weekend, and the film The Hills Have Eyes by Wes Craven, and The Babadook.

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron

(To anyone who gets the joke, Congratulations! You win the No-Prize! (That joke actually makes sense in context. Look it up))
Hey, Wayward Followers,
      This is your radical writer, Rambunctious  RC! And today, we discuss the exhilarating exploits of Earth's Mightiest Heroes! Of course, the good folks at Marvel are doing very fine for themselves. 2012's The Avengers, directed by Jaunty Joss Whedon, was a mega-success, on a scale only Galactus would appreciate! Whilst the Distinguished Competition languishes in a continual spiral of low-quality, "dark" movies, Marvel continues to put out only the highest quality movies that any True Believer would appreciate! Of course, this is thanks to a "Marvel formula" of good characterization, daring plots, and a little sense of humor! However, with a such a high standard to uphold, can the sequel "Age of Ultron," compare to the other Modern Marvels, especially with Jaunty Joss at the helm once again? Well, strap in, Wayward followers, and let's take a look!
     Based of the exciting Marvel comic book team created by Stan "The Man" Lee and Jack "King" Kirby, Age of Ultron follows our intrepid heroes, as they infilitrate the castle of the dreaded Baron Strucker ( Tepid Thomas Kretschmann). However, the Baron has an ace up his nefarious sleeve! Two superpowered twins, Quicksilver (Amazing Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Enigmatic Elizabeth Olsen), who attack our heroes! (Are they mutants, the seed sprung from Magneto? Well,... It's possible. They don't mention it). Eventually, the Invincible Iron Man (Reputable Robert Downey, Jr, ) is able to penetrate the fortress, and after the Scarlet Witch induces a mysterious dream into Iron Man's mind, finds the specter previously wielded by Loki, God of Evil! Back at the Avenger's mansion, after Iron Man examines the mysterious contents of the spector, He and the Incredible Hulk's meek alter ego, Bruce Banner (Miraculous Mark Ruffalo) decide to build Ultron, a robotic peace keeping force. However, little do our Marvelous heroes realize that Ultron (Jumping James Spader), once activated, decides that the plague of mankind should be eradicated. He attacks our heroes, and escapes into the wide range of the World Wide Web. Now, the Avengers, including the Mighty Thor (Captivating Chris Hemsworth), the Gorgeous Black Widow (Snazzy Scarlett Johansson), Captain America (Charming Chris Evans) and The Sensational Hawkeye (Jazzy Jeremy Renner), must stop Ulton's evil scheme, and save the human race! But can the Mighty Avengers stop him in time?
     Well, Wayward Followers... You know, I'll stop that now. Still it was fun to write. So, good things. There are a lot of goods things about this film. The acting, the cinematography, and the writing are all superb, as usual. The action is fantastic, often comprehensible, but still fun to watch. I forgot how funny these films are. There is a running joke revolving around Captain America chastising Iron Man for language, which other character use against Cap. The burgeoning romance between Hulk and Black Widow is also an interesting touch. Two characters that normally aren't romantically attached are shown having a romance.  There are many nods to the comics, which don't feel like fanservice, but actually legitimately serve the plot. Whilst I'm sure people might be upset at the changes, (for instance, Hank Pym is not mentioned at all, despite being Ultron's creator in the comics,) the other references will likely placate them.  The plot isn't particularly complex, with the heroes simply trying to fight Ultron, as he tries to destroy the human race. However, there is also the unstable team dynamic, which Ultron exploits to try to further his plans. The design of Ultron is great, harkening back to the original, but adding a new modern twist. Also, Spader's performance brings more a malicious personality to Ultron, OTHER THAN THE ROBOT SPEAK THE COMICS DO. Also, an Avengers character hitherto unseen (who is sprung from a vision)? Awesome, completely awesome. Watch the film, and you'll see.
   There are a few gripes. The film starts immediately, and moves very fast from there, rather than slowly allow the events to build up, and increase the stakes. I suppose that this is because most are already familiar with the franchise and its characters, but still, had they set it up more, and slowed it down, it would feel more intense. Similarly, the climax feels a little long, with various events impeding our heroes. It isn't a bad climax It just it feels too long. Also, I was slightly bothered by the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Thinking how the X-Men reboot could possibly tie into the MCU kept bothering me through the film.
       So, as good as the first? Nope. However, the first is a hard act to follow. As a Marvel film on its own, it is still a fantastic picture. To anyone who loves superheroes, you'll probably see it anyway, so yeah, see it. If you don't like Superheroes, don't see it. If you just want to see a film, watch this. It makes me very excited for the next batch of Marvel movies. (Wakanda's mention alone makes me excited for Black Panther) Thanks for reading, Wayward Follower, and I'll see you in three weeks!.
       Extraordinary!

Movie Reviews: Man of Steel.

(Note: this will contain moderate spoilers)
         Superheroes have become sort of a modern mythology. Beings with powers beyond that of ordinary man has been a staple of mythology since the beginning of civilizations. Now, instead of god with awesome and reality changing powers, or heroes out on quests to vanquish monsters or the like, we instead get the costumed hero, battling to save the pedestrian populace from various evils, ranging from petty criminals, corrupt businesses and business people, and murderers, to alien conquerers, evil sorcerers, cosmic beings, and mad scientists. These adventures of superhumans and their adventures are essentially no different from the fantastic mythologies of Greece or Norway or India. And, like the myths of old, which were depicted in various pieces of art ranging from the medieval times to the Victorian period, and later in books, movies, and video games in the modern age, various heroes are open to new interpretations, and new stories are born as a result. This is particularly true for superhero movies. From the 1940's onward, film adaptations showing various interpretation of superheroes have been made. Some of the traits created in these film can enter into the heroes regular continuity. However, recently, superhero movies have become not only more culturally  predominant, but also very profitable. This is shown in two franchises, the Dark Knight Trilogy and Marvel's Avengers films. These two franchises have made billions of dollars in box office revenue, putting them amongst the highest grossing films of all time, catapulted the characters into national attention, and created parodies and pop culture references the world over. The result: a resurgence in the popularity of comic book movies and heroes. Heroes like Spider-man are given new life on film, and more obscure properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man also have film adaptations in the works. Who better to ride this wave of popularity amongst comic heroes, than the original comic book superhero (I'm going to be a pedantic nerd here, but the first being considered a fictional superhero was a somewhat obscure French character, whose super powers essentially amounted to being able to see in the dark, but I'm not talking about that.) I'm talking about Superman. Superman has become the archetype of a superhero. A being wearing tights, spandex and a cape, possessing amazing powers normal humans do not, fighting crime as a moral duty to society. Superman has been, and is the quintessential american superhero, as well as an American icon. He has been depicted and re-depicted ever since his first appearance in 1938. From radio to Television to books to his native comic books, he has always fought crime and corruption "in a never ending struggle for truth, justice, and the American way." What better superhero to star in a film at height of the superhero craze. So, to achieve such, Warner Brothers and DC comics brought in Zack Synder (300, Watchmen) as director, and visionary Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight trilogy) to create Man of Steel, another version of the Superman story. Does it manage to achieve the high quality of the Avenger films and the Dark Knight trilogy, whilst also maintaining the essentially good-natured spirit of Superman. Well..., let's just take look at it.
     Based on the character published by DC comics, and created by Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster, Man of Steel follows the story of Kal-El, an infant on the planet Krypton. His father, scientist Jor-El (Russel Crowe), has deduced the planet will eventually self-destruct, killing all who live on it. As such, he tries to convince the high council to try to evacuate the citizens. However, the Council is briefly overthrown by General Zod (Michael Shannon), who proceeds to try to capture Jor-El for a device called the Codex, which contains the genetic code for all of the citizens of Krypton. To save both the race and his son, he infuses the code into his son's body, and sends him on a rocket into space. Zod, in a fit of rage, kills Jor-El. However, the Council defeats Zod's forces, and they subsequently punish Zod and his loyal followers by exiling them to the mysterious Phantom Zone. Meanwhile, Kal lands on the planet Earth in Kansas, where he is found and cared for by farmers Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner.) They decide to name him Clark. Young Clark has enhanced capabilities such as X-ray vision, super strength, Heat ray vision and flight. At first, these abilities cause him trouble, as he struggles to both control his abilities, and conceal them. However, he slowly begins to control and use his powers for the greater good. This brings the ire of his father, who feels he shouldn't do so at such a young age. At one point, Jonathan decides to show Clark the spaceship he landed in, and also a mysterious object with symbol resembling an S. One day, whilst getting into argument with his father over his use of his powers, a tornado arrives. Whilst the family flees, the family dog is left in the car. Clark's father goes to rescue the dog, but as a result, is unable to escape the tornado. Just as Clark goes to save him, Jonathan refuses help, and is killed as a result. Flash forward 20 or so years, and we see the now adult Clark Kent ( Henry Cavill) as a bearded vagabond, travelling around doing good deeds. His travels bring him to a defunct Kryptonian ship in the Artic, where he learns his origin as well as the origin of his people from the "consciousness" of Jor-El, and acquires a suit with the S symbol (revealed to be the symbol of his house, which means hope.) In the ship, he also meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She is there to write on the military installations surrounding the Kryptonian ship, and stumbled upon it. Lois, intrigued by her mysterious savior, decides to investigate his origin. Meanwhile, Clark returns to his widowed mother, now confident about his origin. However, soon a threat arrives that threatens the Earth. General Zod and his minions have escaped the Phantom Zone, and is now trying to reestablish the lost Kryptonian species. He is brought to Earth by the distress signal brought by the Artic ship when Clark activated it. Zod intents to terraform Earth to make it more like Krypton, and use the genetic code infused in Clark body to repopulate it with Genetically engineered Kryptonians, all the while eradicating the human population. Can Superman stop Zod from enacting his plans, killing his adopted people in the process?
    What I will say in this movie's defense, is that many of the concepts it introduced are quite fascinating. The design of Krypton at the beginning is very interesting, and creative. The society it introduces is also somewhat interesting. The idea that Superman's powers caused him trouble when he was young, and he had to master them has potential. Finally, Zod's plan to turn the earth into Krypton is a legitimately good idea in and of itself. Overall, it has some nice concepts behind it...
    But it has a number of problems. First, and definately foremost is WHY DOES THE "S" ON SUPERMAN'S HAVE TO BE A SYMBOL? I'm serious, the whole "the S-shaped symbol around Superman is actually a Kryptonian symbol of hope" really bothered me throughout the feature. Why is this needed? This is not Batman. Batman's symbol, the bat, makes sense, it's meant to strike fear into the heart of the criminal element. Superman's S is a purely aesthetic choice, just meant to indicate it's Superman (or Bizarro).  Is it really necessary to make the S a symbol of hope? I mean, why not just make it an S, you know, for Superman. And as for the whole, "well, it's meant to show that Superman's suit comes from Krypton," Well, why couldn't he just sew the S on to the costume? The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Alright, let's move away from that for the moment.  Let's go to the other pieces. First, the acting is soulless. It's almost like a Shaymalam film, where most of the acting has no emotion to it. Every actor doesn't emote very well, and what we get is a cast full of bland actors. And I know many of them can act (I know that Amy Adams has more charisma in her acting then what is displayed here.) The plot is okay, though I did have a problem with them basically redoing Batman Begins with Superman. Except that Superman and Batman are fundamentally differing personalities. Superman is driven by his morals, the ideals his adopted parents installed into him when he was growing up. He uses his powers to do good, because his adopted parents taught him to do that with his powers, and he wants to help people as a result. Batman is driven by his anger. He wants revenge on the system that allowed his parents to be murdered in front of him. So, he takes it upon himself to wage a personal war against crime in his parents honor, and prevent what happened to his parents happen again. Turning Superman into Batman in a Superman costume does not work, because the two heroes are fundamentally different. Also, just a pet peeve, but why does it not go into chronological order regarding the flashback. Why not go the "Batman Begins" route (Yeah, yeah, I know I just said that this film was very similar to that one, but not in this sense.), and just put the flashbacks in order. You know, so that we could see the character grow, see him  slowly develop his skills, and eventually become Superman. It has worked before. It worked in the 90's animated series, where the chronology followed that exact pattern. Moving away from the plot, the dark tone does not work well with Superman. Now, don't get me wrong, it is possible to juxtapose a dark tone with Superman.  However, this seems too dark a tone to go with in a Superman movie. The tone almost reminds me of... hey, wait! Look, the dark tone may have worked for the Dark Knight trilogy, but that doesn't mean it could work for a Superman film. Especially since Superman is such as optimistic and light-hearted series. Whilst that explanation doesn't mean that Superman can't have drama or complex characterization, that sort of style is integral to Superman, and is the reason for his continued success. Another thing that is wrong with this is the very fact that it is a tone from the Dark Knight. It doesn't change. You could try a different approach with this film, but instead, they decided to recycle the tone of the Dark Knight, and expects it to work here, even though this is not a Batman movie.
    Alright, so Man of Steel isn't necessarily a great film. Is it the worst? No. I have seen far, far worst films than this, just browsing the episode guide of Mystery Science Theater 3000. However, it suffers from a number of flaws and faults that prevent it from attaining greatness. It has some good ideas that could have worked. However, the combination of bad acting and an attempt to replicate the Dark Knight with Superman bogs it down severely. My score is a 40%, has some good ideas, but isn't overall good. Who would I recommend it to? Well, I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you like the Dark Knight Trilogy, and feel you could tolerate it's repetition, than I suppose you would enjoy this film. Otherwise, for Zack Synder fans, it doesn't have any of his trademarks, for action fans, the action is more loud and bombastic than enjoyable (at least in my opinion.), and overall, it doesn't really have much of the spirit or charm of Superman to recommend it to fans of the character. However, this is only my opinion. If you enjoyed the film, fine, I respect that, you have your tastes. However, if you disagree with me, and want to express it in the comments, just try to be respectful of my opinion. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day.