Tagged with Favorite Superhero Films …

Oct 06 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #3: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

#3: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)


This is pretty universally considered the greatest animated superhero film of all time. When it comes to its place in my personal estimation, I’m actually willing to heap on a few additional superlatives. It is one of my favorite superhero films of all time (obviously), my favorite superhero film made before 2000, possibly my favorite incarnation of Batman of all time, and last but not least quite probably my favorite animated film of any genre. (Remember, kids! No matter what Uncle IMDb tells you, “animated” is a medium, not a genre!)

One of the major reasons Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is as good as it is is that it starts with a pretty solid foundation: Batman: The Animated Series. With due respect to those who consider Christopher Nolan’s the best interpretation of Batman, The Animated Series completely blows him out of the water and then keeps firing just because it can. During a period of time when Batman had become a commercial empire and Warner Bros. was spitting out mostly-mediocre films by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, The Animated Series was bringing an unabashedly mature take on the character onto the smaller screen.

Well, mostly on the smaller screen. The series also made it to the big screen in the form of Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. It’s really pretty amazing how many things this film got right. It’s the only feature-length Batman film that had a reasonably good mystery plot, which is interesting when you consider the character is known as the World’s Greatest Detective. And it managed to have both a depiction of Batman’s origin story and an emotionally intense romantic subplot that both leaned heavily on flashbacks without either feeling like it had been “crammed in” to the film.

What was truly impressive about the film was how it managed to have such cinematic scope while still making sure everything was tied together. The film featured two major antagonists, the Joker and the titular Phantasm. The identity of the Phantasm was the center of the film’s mystery plot and connected to absolutely every single aspect of the film.

Everything leads to an setpiece three-way battle between Batman, the Joker, and the Phantasm. Every single element that his shined throughout the film–the script, the acting, the animation, the incredible score by Shirley Walker–reaches soaring heights in this epic finale.

I cannot stress enough how vital it is that you see this film if you have not already done so. If you consider yourself even a casual fan of Batman or superheroes in general, this is an absolute must-see, and it might help you understand why so many of us are frustrated by the direction Warner Bros. is electing to take the DC franchises they’ve been entrusted with.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Aug 31 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #4: Spider-Man 2 (2004)

#4: Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Despite being a fine example of a superhero sequel, X2 (2003) was significantly lower on my list because in my opinion it didn’t surpass the first film in any meaningful way. The things I liked about X2 were extremely familiar, because they were the same things I liked about X-Men. It was a fairly “perfect” film in the sense that it didn’t have any serious flaws, but it also didn’t really go “above and beyond” in any meaningful way. I honestly don’t get why people see it as such a clear improvement over the first film. And you know what? That’s really okay, because it didn’t need to be an improvement. Maybe the issue is less that I’m underrated X2 and more that a lot of people are underrated X-Men. (Or, if you like, perhaps I’m overrating X-Men.)

I have no such reservations about Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man (2002) set the tone for the series, introducing the characters and relationships that would be the heart of the films, but Spider-Man 2 was really the big payoff. At its heart, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man was about people and relationships more than it was merely about superheroics. If we only had the first film to examine, we might easily have missed this, but in the second film it becomes glaringly obvious (in a good way.) Raimi often seems much more interested in Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) than he is with Spider-Man, showing his very real-life, down-to-earth problems. A large portion of this film actually has Peter “quit” being Spider-Man. The film explores Peter’s motivation on a very personal level, which makes his heroics in the final act that much more satisfying.

The relationships in Peter’s life that were introduced in the first film all reach (or at least approach) their culmination in the sequel. The film finally sees Peter confess his role in Uncle Ben’s death to Aunt May (Rosemary Harris.) When Peter is torn between his duty as Spider-Man and wanting to be happy as Peter Parker, Aunt May delivers the words of wisdom he severely needs.

Harry Osborn (James Franco), once Peter’s best friend, has become obsessed with Spider-Man to an unhealthy degree in the wake of his father’s death. Franco does an exceptional job of portraying the increasingly unhinged Osborn, and the gradually building tension boils over when Harry discovers Spider-Man’s true identity. The conflict here is left unresolved, but it is left truly at its most dramatic moment.

Peter’s relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), pretty easily the most central relationship in the series, moves forward in the most dramatic way possible. It develops over the course of the entire film, with several reversals and twists and terms, until ultimately reaching its culmination, which serves as the true emotional climax in a film full of mini-emotional climaxes.

The funny thing about saying Raimi often seemed more interested in Peter Parker than Spider-Man is, of course, that Raimi’s rendition of Spider-Man is the most unapologetic, straightforward depiction of a comic book hero we saw until The Avengers. I really discussed this aspect in considerable detail in my review of the first film, but I thought it bore at least mentioning again here because it really is one of the most essential features of the film, and series.

An improvement I really didn’t expect was the villain. Green Goblin was an excellent villain in the first film, and I didn’t see any reason to think he would be easily surpassed in the sequel. And then Dr. Otto Octavius/”Doc Ock” (Alfred Molina) took one of the most well-written villains I’ve ever seen in a superhero film and made it even better with his incredible performance.

Despite being strictly a side character, Dr. Curt Connors (Dylan Baker) is refreshingly well-written and played, which makes how the character was squandered in /The Amazing Spider-Man all the more frustrating. Comedic relief is supplied by the inestimable J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) and, of course, the obligatory cameo by Bruce Campbell.

Although I don’t consider Spider-Man 3 the Worst Thing Ever like many fans, I honestly think the reason it suffers such harsh criticism is that there may not have been anywhere Raimi really could’ve gone from Spider-Man 2. Maybe this series should’ve only been two films long, because it’s difficult imagining him topping Spider-Man 2.

(Then again, quick aside: comic books–and the animated adaptations that have often been more faithful than their live-action counterparts–have always been pretty episodic in nature. So I wouldn’t really have had a problem with nothing “topping” Spider-Man 2. But that’s a completely theoretical discussion so I’ll leave it be for now.)

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Aug 25 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #5: X-Men (2000)

Sorry for the random drought there! I actually have the next review already written, so as long as I can get a reasonable chunk of the one after that done, I’ll post it tomorrow night!

~-~-~

#5: X-Men (2000)

For those who don’t remember the pre-2000 superhero film landscape, and how much of a seismic shift occurred after X-Men, it might actually be difficult to contextualize just how seminal this film actually was to the genre. Anyone who’s been raised on post-2000 superhero films would probably watch this film and think, “Well, yeah. It’s pretty great, but it’s what I’m used to seeing from a really good superhero film: a well-made film for any genre with a heavy emphasis on character interaction and development. It’s really good, but what’s the big deal?”

Here’s the big deal: this is the film that introduced that formula to the genre. Prior to X-Men, the only two widely successful superhero film franchises were Superman and Batman. The former had descended into silliness and showed no sign of dramatically changing the film landscape, the latter had gone from being a vehicle for Tim Burton’s sensibilities, then later a corporate marketing machine whose primary purpose was to serve as an excuse to sell action figures. What X-Men did (this is going to sound like a no-brainer, but it was really actually not) was give superhero films license not only to be good, but to be the ends unto themselves.

X-Men had all of the elements you needed for an exceptionally entertaining film even if it hadn’t been a superhero film. The script by David Hayter based on the story by Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto was a major strength. Rather than seeing being the introduction to a series as a handicap, X-Men decided to take the novel approach of making that aspect of the film genuinely interesting. The pacing was excellent, with well-spaced dramatic beats and necessary exposition weaved together seamlessly. The overall tone was fairly light-hearted and optimistic, but it definitely had its fair share of dramatic moments.

The strong script was brought to life by the exceptional director Bryan Singer, and an unbelievably strong ensemble cast headlined by the likes of Sirs Patrick Stewart (as Professor Charles Xavier) and Ian McKellen (as Eric Lensherr/Magneto), and Hugh Jackman (as Logan/Wolverine.) One of the things that would later make The Avengers so terrifically successful was its emphasis on group dynamics, and Joss Whedon’s existing expertise notwithstanding, it very well may have found its prototype in this film. The team is introduced to the audience through the eyes of newcomers Logan and Rogue (Anna Paquin.)

Unlike many later Marvel films that will make the heroes the most interesting thing about he film by simply not having an overpowering villain, X-Men uses the franchise’s most iconic villain, who could easily be the most interesting thing about his entire series in his own right. The thing is, what makes Magneto such an effective villain for this series is he doesn’t detract from the heroes’ ability to shine at all because of how intimately involved he is with the X-Men. The film depicts a sympathetic Magneto with deep, personal reasons for what he’s doing. We also see the complicated relationship between him and Charles Xavier, with strong hints at an extensive backstory between the two that really forms one of the emotional cores of this entire series. (Strikingly, this will actually later turn out to be one of the only things Brett Ratner’s monstrosity of a third film “gets” about the earlier films, though it’s more or less a throwaway token reference.)

One likely reason I–unlike many fans–actually prefer the first film to the second is that it’s actually the only film in the entire series that doesn’t badly underuse Cyclops (aka Scott Summers, played by James Marsden.) Actually, his role in the film’s final action sequence is one of the biggest “wow” moments of the series for me. Of course, the film does have to introduce the love triangle between Scott, Logan, and Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), but since Bryan Singer isn’t a hack who doesn’t understand these characters at all (we’ll get to you in a later review, Brett Ratner), this really actually serves to give Logan another source of character conflict and added emotional depth. What little relationship drama there was served essentially the same role it did in the comics and animated series, and you never got the impression that Singer was going to take it farther than that.

One of the biggest reasons I can’t buy the argument that X-Men: First Class (2011) is actually an improvement over Singer’s first two films is the secondary villains in X-Men. Much like Azazel (Jason Flemyng) and… What’s-His-Name (yeah, it’s Riptide, played by Alex Gonzalez, but you had to look that up) from First Class, X-Men‘s villains are essentially walking plot devices. The thing is? You remember them. You remember Sabretooth (Tyler Mane), Toad (Ray Park), and especially Mystique (Rebecca Romijn.) Were there any unmemorable characters in this film? I don’t remember. (Har har.) When even a film’s plot device characters are memorable, it’s doing something very right. (Really, First Class actually had a pretty big problem with many of its heroes being unmemorable, but let’s move on.)

If this film had one weakness, it is that it felt like there was just a bit of vestigial guilt about being a superhero film. There’s even an in-joke when Cyclops asks a discontent Wolverine regarding the uniforms, “What would you prefer, yellow spandex?” Most comic book fans probably couldn’t help but roll their eyes and wonder how exactly black leather was any less impractical and silly-looking. But we’re still not talking about Chris Nolan levels of “I can’t believe I’m making a superhero film,” and remember: this was the film that hit Hollywood over the head with the fact that superhero films could be mostly faithful to their source material and well-crafted films in their own right.

To date, The Avengers may be the ultimate expression of what a superhero film can be, but X-Men was the first film to show us that such a thing was possible at all. It showed us how to make a superhero film that people will take seriously without Christopher Nolan’s aesthetic of “things are meaningful because they are dark and gritty.” Keep making them like this, Hollywood. Trust me.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Aug 16 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #6: Iron Man (2008)

Sorry if it seems like I was gone for a week. There’s actually a perfectly good explanation for that, though: I was gone for a week!

~-~-~

#6: Iron Man (2008)

I have seen two perfect superhero origin films: Batman Begins, and this one. Batman Begins was a bit more serious and featured a much more impressive villain. Iron Man brought quite a bit more fun. Traditional superhero movie logic dictates the narrative necessity of a dominant villain, but I think it’s very okay for most of the focus to be on the hero, especially in an origin story, and especially when the hero is played by Robert Downey Jr. (I’m actually completely serious about that last part.)

Iron Man doubles as arguably my favorite origin story of all time and easily the most watchable superhero film of all time. The blend of action and humor make the sheer entertainment value of this film pretty unmatched in the genre. I just can’t imagine someone saying, “Hey, let’s watch Iron Man” and me “not being in the mood.” There might be something I’d rather watch, but it’s always cool to watch Iron Man. Always.

The most impressive part of Tony Stark’s character arc is that he manages to almost completely reinvent himself without ever stopping being an arrogant asshole. (Well, it’s either that or the fact that he manages to be an arrogant asshole that the audience absolutely loves.) Stark’s reinvention of himself has more to do with practical changes, with taking responsibility for what he and his company are doing and changing it for the better. Tony becomes driven, and thanks to Downey Jr.’s skill you can see that determination in his eyes throughout the film’s second and third acts.

Stark’s actions draw the attention of the “Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.” Though the name isn’t diminutized (“S.H.I.E.L.D.”) until the end of the film, most comic book fans were probably able to connect the dots the first time they heard the name Stark describes as a “mouthful,” and most of them probably immediately wet their pants with excitement. (Which they probably should’ve saved for the post-credits scene when Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) visits Tony Stark to talk about the “Avengers Initiative.”)

S.H.I.E.L.D. is represented during the bulk of the film by the first appearance of Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg), who probably surprised even the filmmakers by becoming a huge fan favorite. I recognized Clark Gregg from a supporting role in The West Wing as FBI Special Agent Mike Casper. Coulson’s characterization actually has quite a few similarities to his role on The West Wing, having an “everyman” vibe despite his position as an intelligence agent, as well as an earnest good-naturedness.

I thoroughly enjoyed Pepper Potts’ (Gwyneth Paltrow) role in the film and her chemistry with Tony. And, in a rarity for superhero films, the stirrings of a romantic subplot with Tony didn’t feel “overdone” here. Rather, it was a collection of “little” moments, perhaps the most poignant of which was her exclamation of, “Are those bullet holes?” upon seeing damage to Tony’s suit.

Terrence Howard was also excellent as Tony’s best friend, Arthur Rhodes. The chemistry between the two characters was a lot of fun, and frankly my biggest disappointment about the sequel was that Howard wasn’t back. The dynamic between Downey Jr. and Howard’s replacement Don Cheadle was dramatically different and much more serious.

The choice to have Jarvis (voiced by Paul Bettany) as an artificial intelligence computer program rather than a human butler was, I think, a wise one. It allows Tony to have someone to talk to when he’s in the armor, and it also seems to fit in much better with both the tone of the film and Tony’s lifestyle.

Having so little emphasis on the film’s villain could’ve easily been a fatal weakness for the film, which is why Jeff Bridges’ performance as Obadiah Stane was so important. He made the character imposing with his body language, such that he always seemed to be “in control” of whatever situation he was in. Although his villain turn was hardly a huge surprise, he was able to play the role of Tony’s father-figure-turned-enemy quite convincingly.

There is so much to love about this film. If The Avengers is the template for ensemble superhero films, this might well be the template for solo superhero films. It “feels” light and entertaining, but it’s actually surprisingly smart and definitely well-constructed. Really, when it gets right down to it, it’s just one of the most enjoyable films I’ve ever seen.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 07 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #7: X2 (2003)

#7: X2 (2003)

Who at 20th Century Fox thought it was a good idea to ditch Bryan Singer aftr the first two incredible films he made? I know the company line is that Bryan Singer “abandoned” the project in favor of Superman Returns, but Singer was extremely interested in returning for a third X-Men film after Superman, and it really seems like he had earned that right at this point. The other biggest “what if?” of this story is that Matthew Vaughn, who ended up later helming X-Men: First Class, was almost in the director’s chair for the third X-Men. Instead, we got Brett Ratner’s X-Men: The Last Stand. And we all know how that turned out. (And if you don’t… well… stay tuned!)

Singer’s work on X-Men (2000) and X2 (2003) produced two of the highest quality and most successful superhero films of all time. He was part of that “elite” group of superhero filmmakers who possessed a clear vision of what they wanted to accomplish and the filmmaking talent to make it happen. The Nolans and the Raimis. He wasn’t quite as faithful to his source material as Raimi (or, alter, Whedon), but he preserved the core of the story and characters much more faithfully than Nolan did.

X2′s defining memory for me will always be that it was the perfect superhero film sequel, the one that truly set the bar for all future sequels (and many managed to match it, thankfully.) Singer understood what worked about the first film, ahe understood that the audience wanted “more of the same” but not just the same story over again. The core elements were preserved. The team’s personalities, diversity, and relationships that formed the emotional core of the first film, and were the most faithful thing about Singer’s adaptation, were carried on, as was the emphasis on Magneto (Ian McKellen) and Charles’ (Patrick Stewart) relationship and contrasting philosophies. The driving elements of the plot, though different than the driving elements of X-Men‘s plot, didn’t feel like they “came out of nowhere.” Everything felt familiar without necessarily being the same.

The “new” elements that were introduced really did broaden the world, but were based in elements X-Men had already established. The new character of William Stryker (Brian Cox) actually connects two of the biggest subplots from the first film: Wolverine’s amnesia and the beginnings of a war between humans and mutants. The latter, which was introduced in the political subplot with Senator Kelly’s (Bruce Davison) Mutant Registration Act in the first film, actually becomes the main plot of X2. Striker gains permission to seize Xavier’s mansion and all the students there. This also ties Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) back in nicely, as she has taken the place of Senator Kelly, and she is able to use her abilities to gather information about the plot against the mutants and free Magneto in one of the many truly impressive (and clever) scenes in the film.

If I have one complaint, it’s that this film (like many other incarnations of the series) is extremely Wolverine-heavy, but that’s actually easier to take in this incarnation thanks to Hugh Jackman. And his early action scene in the Xavier mansion is one of the best action scenes in the entire series. Still, it’s worth noting that in a franchise whose primary strength is diversity.

And, speaking of diversity, Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) is an awesome addition here. Although the choice was made to give him blue skin rather than fur, the character is otherwise lifted pretty directly out of the comic. He is gentle and peaceful, and has some of the msot poignant lines of the film. And his introduction (the attack on the White House) has to be one of the most badass things I’ve seen in these films.

One minor frustration is that Singer had to keep finding ways of knocking Xavier out of commission during the action of both films, this time at least making it relevant to the plot. I also thought Cyclops (James Marsden) didn’t have quite enough to do with the film’s main plot (getting captured along with Xavier), but that wasn’t the case in the first film and I doubt Singer would’ve made it two films in a row like Ratner ended up doing. And Marsden’s acting really shined in the limited screen time he was given, especially toward the very end of the film which featured exceptional emotion on his part and a great character moment between him and Jackman’s Wolverine.

Perhaps providing an insight into Singer’s own sense of humor, X2 is even more explicitly about gay issues, especially notable in Iceman’s (Shawn Ashmore) “coming out” scene. The bit where he introduces “Professor Logan” is pretty priceless, and Logan’s answer that he is a professor of art is amusing both because of the incongruity with his character’s brutality, and how it fits in with the meta-narrative about coming out (homosexuality was often more accepted in the arts than in the general population.) And as Iceman explains that he’s a mutant to his increasingly upset family (his mother asks him if he’s ever tried “not being a mutant”), I can’t escape the impression that Singer is turning to the audience and saying, “Okay. You’re a little slow, so this is what these movies are actually about.” What’s weird is that it actually works for me. Majorly.

Magneto remains as sympathetic a villain as ever, even rescuing and teaming up with the X-Men for a tie. After all, the true villain of this film is William Striker, and the hatred he represents. The strength of Magneto as a villain has always been his moral ambiguity.

Finally, the film also teases one of the most fan-favorite storylines in X-Men lore: the Phoenix Saga. Singer gave every indication that his interpretation was going to be much more faithful than what we eventually got from Ratner, with Jean’s eyes glowing with flames and flames appearing on her body when she started wielding her incredible power. (You know: Phoenix… fire…)

Although I, unlike many fans, didn’t consider this an improvement over Singer’s first X-Men film, I also don’t think it needed to be. And despite my preference for the first film, X2 was to a certain extent really when the series hit its stride and showed that it had staying power. And that’s probably what makes the third installment all the more frustrating. Although some of the blame must fall on Singer for leaving to make a mediocre Superman film, most of it must fall on the studio for their arrogance in not waiting for Singer when he was very interested in coming back. It was his story to tell, and we’ll never know how awesome it could’ve been. But perhaps what made me more angry was that it worked. Although X-Men: The Last Stand offended the sensibilities of both fans of the series and professional film critics, it had no trouble making money. But we’ll get more into that later.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Aug 05 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #8: Spider-Man (2002)

#8: Spider-Man (2000)

I think we sometimes forget that the Star Wars prequels were so bad that we actually overreacted to them. We would come to make sense of their awfulness through the gradually-revealed narrative that George Lucas should never ever have complete creative control over anything. Yet the anticipation for these films had been so rabid, and the actual product on the screen so profoundly bad, that they became the vocal point of a much broader critical narrative: special effects, and computer-generated special effects in particular, were killing movies.

This is going to sound unforgivably silly to modern audiences, but we needed proof that groundbreaking special effects and brilliant acting and storytelling could coexist. The Matrix was a nice start, but its effects were too distinctive to serve as a general referendum on this issue, and no one has ever accused Keanu Reeves of being a brilliant actor. Besides, what made The Matrix such a hit was that it was interesting conceptually. We needed a traditional blockbuster with big special effects and great acting.

We needed Spider-Man.

Spider-Man fans were spared the monstrosity that James Cameron almost put on the big screen in the early 90s. Instead, we were given the now-familiar Sam Raimi feature. After an opening credits sequence rather heavy on that computer-generated imagery we had grown so dubious of, the film opened with a voice-over by Peter Parker (Tobey Macguire) telling the audience, “Let me assure you: this, like any story worth telling, is all about a girl.”

This opening wasn’t merely a calculated stylistic choice (though it was probably also that), it set the tone for the entire series. Far from disappearing into a film dominated by special effects, the emotional story of Peter Parker and Marry Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) gave the series an emotional core that kept it grounded and about these characters. It was as much (if not more) about Peter’s life as Peter, not just Peter’s life as Spider-Man. Spider-Man stories have always been at their best when they’ve been about how being a superhero affects Peter’s life as much as they’ve been about the superheroics themselves. And it’s this key element that Raimi’s films were so spectacular at portraying.

I ended my review of The Dark Knight by talking about the “Holy Trinity” of Singer, Raimi, and Nolan. How these filmmakers had a strong vision of what they wanted to do with their films, and were excellent at bringing that vision to life. In Raimi’s case, he seemed to care most deeply about character development and relationships, which obviously works quite well for a Spider-Man film. Where Raimi differs from Nolan (and even, to a certain extent, from Singer) is that he seemed largely committed to bringing the mythology of Spider-Man to the screen unfiltered, unembarrassed by his source material. It is clear that Raimi believed he could bring these believable characters and relationships to life without fundamentally altering their comic book world, and I would argue that he succeeded brilliantly. In this way, he actually came very close to the same formula Marvel Studios would employ in their Avengers films, most notably in Joss Whedon’s The Avengers.

Raimi also made the unusual, but effective, decision to utilize the adversary most see as Spider-Man’s “arch nemesis” in the first film, rather than “saving” him for the sequel. This was largely responsive to the demands of the story, tying in to Peter’s relationship with his best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco.) And Willem Dafoe was simply brilliant as Norman Osborn (aka Green Goblin.) He was quite a bit more “over the top” than many villains in recent superhero films, but it worked quite well with the tone of the film. And presenting this character unironically as a villain didn’t prevent him from being a serious character with serious development and conflict.

It’s all about relationships in this series. Norman’s relationship with Peter, which starts off with Norman as a proud mentor but ends tragically, deeply affects Peter, and will come to affect his relationship with Harry. Although Peter has been pining for Mary Jane for years, it’s Harry who will initially end up dating her, which strains their friendship. Fortunately, Raimi doesn’t fall into the trap of making this the defining factor of Peter and Harry’s relationship, but we’ll go into that further when we get to Spider-Man 2.

And, speaking of relationships, if Mary Jane is the most important relationship in Peter’s life, an extremely close second is Peter’s relationship with his aunt and uncle. Raimi decided to essentially lift Peter’s relationships with his guardians right out of the comic book pages, while merely fleshing them out a bit more. (Unlike that… other film that felt the need to completely reinvent them. But we’ll get to that in a few days.) Peter’s relationship with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and the circumstances of his death were nearly identical to Amazing Fantasy #15, the comic that introduced Spider-Man. Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is also nearly directly drawn from the comics, often serving as Peter’s moral compass and offering profound wisdom.

Speaking of fidelity to the source material (and one of the many “comic booky” elements that that other film ignored), J. K. Simmons does an exceptionally hilarious rendition of J. Jonah Jameson, the newspaper editor Peter works for as a photographer who considers Spider-Man a menace.

In this film, Raimi laid the foundation for a future of unironic superhero films that were not in any way ashamed of themselves, and had no reason to be. The real shame is how few films have followed this example, and how much of Raimi’s blood is all over Sony after stabbing Raimi in the back so thoroughly. But don’t worry: we’ll get to that later.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 03 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #9: The Dark Knight (2008)

I think it’s a stirring testament to how rabid Christopher Nolan’s fans are that if I had more readers, I guarantee you people would be outraged that I’ve “disrespected” this film… by having it among my top ten favorite superhero films of all time. Just think about that for a moment.

~-~-~

#9: The Dark Knight (2008)

First and foremost, The Dark Knight is an unbelievably well-made film. Despite clocking in at 152 minutes, this film doesn’t really feel that long thanks to its brilliant pacing. There’s just always something “happening” in this film. It never lets up, but it also somehow avoids the trap of becoming fatiguing as a result. The characters and situations are complex and gradually developed, the tone is much more three-dimensional than its given credit for (still a bit dark for my taste, but not as monotone as some claim), and the acting is just absolutely brilliant. In short: this is a really, really well-made film.

One thing I will forever respect Christopher Nolan for is what he does with stunts and visual effects. 99% of the things you see in his films that make you say, “Okay, that had to be computer generated”? Nope. Nolan is notorious for avoiding computer-generated effects whenever it is practically possible to do so. Although I’m not on the “computer effects = bad” bandwagon (we’ll get more into why on one of the forthcoming films on this list), The Dark Knight is really a brilliant example of traditional filmmaking at its best, and that’s something I really can’t overlook.

This is not to say that Christopher Nolan is flawless. My biggest frustration with The Dark Knight and (moreso) Batman Begins was that you really couldn’t tell what was going on in a lot of the fight scenes. I know his legions of fans will defend this as an intentional, “stylistic” choice, but it’s really quite distracting and not at all appropriate for a superhero film. It’s worth noting that Nolan’s approach to this gradually improved throughout the series, reaching its high point in The Dark Knight Rises, which left very little to the imagination in this arena.

I hope it won’t come as news to anyone that far and away the most outstanding thing about this film was Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker. I have to admit, I’ve never particularly cared for the character before. I wasn’t as impressed with Jack Nicholson’s performance in Batman (1989) as everyone else seems to be. I tended to enjoy his character in Batman: The Animated Series (voiced by Mark Hamill), but didn’t really see that character translating well into live-action. Indeed, Nolan went back to the comics to find a darker interpretation of the Joker, drawing heavily from The Killing Joke. And Heath Ledger just absolutely nailed the part. Although Christian Bale is probably the best Batman we’ve seen in a live-action film, Ledger completely stole the show in The Dark Knight. He had at least three iconic moments that I can think of, and that’s being conservative with the label.

One of the most enduring refrains of this film is the Joker’s query, “Why so serious?” This could actually double as a succinct description of some fans’ reservations about Nolan’s Dark Knight: it is quite intentionally dark. I actually think these films are much more tonally diverse than they’re given credit for. The major beats these films strike seem to be traditionally “badass” moments (both for Batman and each film’s villains), wry humor, and fairly serious drama. I don’t find these films especially depressing or “hopeless” as some do. My problems lie elsewhere.

The flaws I find in Nolan’s vision of Batman are in his interpretation of Batman’s character. I find his three-film-long contention that Bruce Wayne cannot be psychologically healthy and Batman at the same time a serious reinterpretation of the character, and one which writes off the vast majority of the character’s history. In the comics (and animated series, and even Batman Forever), Bruce Wayne is able to move on from his parents’ death to a certain extent (it’s still a huge motivating factor for him), and experience new sources of tension and conflict. In Nolan’s world, Bruce Wayne can either be happy or Batman. (Or, in the first bit of The Dark Knight Rises, neither.) This isn’t necessarily a flaw, because Christopher Nolan’s world is separate from other continuities.

But therein lies my fear. Because these films were exceptional, it’s natural for a lot of people to consider them the “definitive” interpretation of Batman. I think this is a grave mistake, as the franchise has a rich and complex history, much of which directly contradicts Nolan’s reading of the character. And the last thing I want is a bunch of Nolan wannabes making every Batman film from now on, when Joss Whedon just showed us how well an unironic take on these stories works. (Shockingly, comic book films can be good and unabashedly based on comic books at the same time.)

That’s hardly my only problem with Christopher Nolan’s vision, but it is my biggest one. It still infuriates me that Rachel Dawes (here played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, previously played by Katie Holmes) exists. That Nolan felt he had to invent a character, and a pretty pointless one at that, to serve as the love interest in the first two films when Batman’s history is full of so many strong women with complex relationships with the Caped Crusader will never cease to confuse me. Worse, he actually compounds the problem in The Dark Knight by making Rachel the subject of a love triangle involving Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent. Moreover, she is basically the entire reason Harvey turns into Two-Face. I really hate to harp on this point, but characters who previously didn’t exist should not be this large a part of two main characters’ lives!

I already discussed this in greater detail in my review of The Dark Knight Rises, but it is again worth noting that the politics of this film are awkward at best. During the height of the U.S.’s debate over the privacy and due process issues associated with wiretapping, Nolan has Batman able to spy on every single cellular telephone in Gotham. Not only did the politics of this leave me feeling perturbed at best, it demonstrated an element of Batman’s character that Nolan completely failed to incorporate: his renown as the “world’s greatest detective.” In these films, Batman comes off more as a moodier version of James Bond, relying mostly on his gadgets and right hook than his investigative talents.

Again, this is a great film. Ledger’s performance as the Joker alone would’ve carried this thing to huge success, but it didn’t happen in a vacuum. The other major source of this film was The Long Halloween, the source of the triangular relationship between Batman, James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart.) Their performances were terrific, as were two of the most overqualified supporting actors you’ll ever see in a superhero film, Michael Caine (as Alfred Pennyworth) and Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox.) And everything is held together by another excellent score by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard.

From a pure filmmaking standpoint, this should pretty clearly be much higher on the list than I have it, if not at the top of the list. (I would probably reserve that spot for Zack Snyder’s Watchmen (2009), but it’s very open to debate.) As a series, Nolan’s Batman films have an essential element which separates truly great superhero films from the rest. These films, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, and Bryan Singer’s X-Men films, to me are still the Holy Trinity representing what we get when good filmmakers are given control of superhero films. What makes them so spectacular is that they’re helmed by filmmakers who have a very clear idea of what they want to do, and are exceptionally good at bringing that vision onto the screen. In Raimi and Singer’s cases, I happened to love (for the most part) what they wanted to do. In Nolan’s case, I happen to have quite a few reservations. But that doesn’t stop me from recognizing that this is an exceptionally well-made film.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 01 2012
Leave a comment
Uncategorized

My Favorite Superhero Films. #10: Batman Begins (2005)

#10: Batman Begins (2005)

I nearly put this film ahead of The Dark Knight, which I imagine would’ve raised a few eyebrows. This film is, frankly, one of the two perfect superhero origin films I’ve seen. What I mean by this is it did everything an origin film needs to do perfectly, not that it was a perfect film.

Certainly there are things about Batman Begins I like much better than The Dark Knight. Out of Nolan’s three Batman films, this one was by far the most lighthearted. Although I think Nolan’s sense of humor in the series as a whole is largely underappreciated, it is a much bigger part of Batman Begins to be sure. I also appreciated that this film was, unlike the other two, without overt political references.

In contrast to previous Batman adaptations, this film spends a bit more time on Thomas (Linus Roache) and Martha Wayne (Sara Stewart) as real people, rather than merely horrified-looking faces in the process of being gunned down in an alley. Well, Thomas anyway. Martha was notably silent, which while hardly unusual for mother figures in superhero films is nevertheless a legitimate source of frustration. Still, the scene on the train where Thomas is talking to a young Bruce (Gus Lewis) about Gotham works quite well thematically throughout the film and series as a whole. It gives the older Bruce (Christian Bale) a reason to be emotionally invested in the city and makes the “knight” in “the Dark Knight” much more explicit. This gives much greater weight to Bruce’s quest to defend Gotham, especially in his later philosophical struggle with Ra’s al Ghul (Liam Neeson.)

Gotham is almost a living, breathing character in this film, and is much more explicitly given a history than in many other incarnations. We see Thomas and Martha using their wealth and influence to try to make Gotham a better place. We learn that after their deaths, Gotham slid into a depression that their acts of charity had been merely delaying. Still, not every citizen has given up on the city.

This leads rather nicely into my biggest complaint by far about the film, and the series as a whole: the character of Rachel Dawes (here portrayed by Katie Holmes, Maggie Gyllenhaal in the sequel.) It is unconscionable to me that Nolan felt the need to create a Mary Sue character to lecture Bruce on several occasions before ultimately becoming his romantic interest. This character, who has never existed in any other incarnation of Batman, is suddenly the most important person in Bruce Wayne’s life.

The really frustrating thing is existing Batman characters easily could’ve fit into Rachel’s shoes. Nolan has admitted that Harvey Dent almost made it into the film to fill a large portion of Dawes’ role, but Nolan felt he couldn’t “do justice” to Dent in the limited screen time he would’ve had. Well, that’s the beautiful part: you don’t have to. Just include him in the first film, and then give him a bigger role in the second film when he’s already become a familiar face.

Of course, not all of Rachel’s roles in the film could’ve been filled by Dent. Her biggest part in the film isn’t her role as a District Attorney, but rather as Bruce’s love interest. Well, your main villain is Ra’s al Ghul, right? How about Talia al Ghul, a strong female character who actually could’ve matched Bruce punch for punch in battle, and brought some strong internal conflict to the film due to her divided loyalties between her father and love interest?

As a longtime Batman fan, these both seem like pretty clear choices to me given the rest of the narrative of the film, but my larger point here is that previously nonexistent characters probably shouldn’t define Bruce and serve as his primary emotional motivations through two-and-a-half films.

That being said, there were a lot of characters this film (and series) got right. Of course a lot of it came down to good writing, but I think the bigger factor was brilliant casting. I never would’ve imagined Gary Oldman as James Gordon, but then Oldman really does seem to “disappear” into his roles, which is one of the best compliments you can give an actor. Michael Caine was a fantastic choice as Bruce’s butler and confidant, Alfred Pennyworth. And in an absolute coup, Morgan Freeman plays Lucius Fox, Bruce’s ally in Wayne Enterprises who eventually becomes its chairman.

Liam Neeson as Ra’s al Ghul was a true strength for this film, giving it an extremely strong villain. His relationship with Bruce was one of the film’s biggest strengths, as he actually starts out as a mentor figure who trains Bruce to be a member of the League of Shadows. If you’ll pardon the uncritical reaction, I really don’t think you can go wrong by having significant portions of your film’s first act feature training montages set to monologues by Liam Neeson.

What I really loved about this film was that it was about Bruce Wayne. Batman films almost always fall into the trap of making the antagonists much more interesting than Batman himself, and having Batman basically spend the entire film reacting to what everyone else is doing. Here, we actually see Bruce training to become Batman, acquring a lot of the skills that make him who he is, and developing his moral code. Having a Batman film be about Batman really doesn’t sound like rocket science, but you’d really think so based on a lot of other takes on the character.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 30 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films: Honorable Mentions

Since we’re about to crack the top ten on my lists of favorite and least favorite superhero films, now seemed like a pretty good time to identify a few films that just didn’t quite make the cut on both lists.

(Hopefully this will also give you a pretty good idea of why my Favorite list was so much shorter than my Least Favorite list.)

(Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the Superman/Batman animated movies, the two Hulk animated films, or Thor: Tales of Asgard.)

~-~-~

Honorable Mentions (Favorite Superhero Films)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze (1991)

Not nearly as good as the first film, but not half bad either.

Kick-Ass (2010)

A lot of this film is very silly (in a good way!), but some of it is surprisingly poignant. Consider the main character’s narration: “In the world I lived in, heroes only existed in comic books. And I guess that’d be okay, if bad guys were make-believe, too. But they’re not.” Not to mention this film actually (realistically) has him get his ass kicked in his first few attempts. And Nicholas Cage was hilarious in this.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

A lot of people would probably have this on the other list, but I enjoyed it. I’ve never been a huge Wolverine fan, but Hugh Jackman makes the character pretty impossible not to like. One pleasant surprise was having Cyclops, Emma Frost, and a bunch of other mutants rescued by Professor Xavier. I wish they had used this hook for X-Men: First Class as it would’ve allowed them to give a lot more screen time to some of my favorite characters (Cyclops and Emma Frost), but oh well.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Many would consider this a serious omission, but I have to admit I’m not quite as impressed with this film as everyone else was. Don’t get me wrong: it was good, and the fact that they managed to craft a version of this character whose patriotism didn’t bother me even a little was impressive, but I didn’t find it nearly as memorable as Thor or Iron Man.

Ultimate Avengers (2006)
Ultimate Avengers 2 (2006)

These Marvel Animated Features were a cut above The Invincible Iron Man for sure. The two films actually hit a lot of the same beats as The Avengers between the two of them (though not entirely as successfully.) Granted, these films suffer greatly in comparison to The Avengers, but at least we know Marvel is capable of making halfway decent animated features.

Batman (1966)

Yeah, the Adam West one. I absolutely loved that series. This was intentionally bad (like the series!), and featured appearances by pretty much every single villain from the show teaming up to try to defeat the caped crusader.

Superman (1978)

Honestly? The only thing holding this movie back was that I found it a little bland, but I’m not sure that’s entirely avoidable for a Superman movie. Then again…

Superman: Doomsday (2007)
All-Star Superman (2011)
Superman vs. The Elite (2012)

This may be largely symptomatic of the DC animated movies being far superior to DC live-action movies, but I’ve yet to see an animated Superman film I didn’t like.

Justice League: The New Frontier (2008)
Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths (2010)
Justice League: Doom (2012)

Justice League: The New Frontier was a pretty solid narrative and very distinct as it made the conscious choice to set the film in the 1950s, allowing them to make use of some Golden Age aesthetics. I was, however, frustrated that some characters (like Green Arrow) just randomly showed up for the final battle and didn’t do or say anything. Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths was pretty easily the best Justice League film I’ve seen, and probably belongs on the main list, if it weren’t for the fact that I didn’t see it until after I started the list. Justice League: Doom had the pretty major problem of trying to cram too much into too short of a film (and consequently being a bit of a mess), but I still enjoyed it.

Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman (2003)

It might not be the most popular opinion, but I actually enjoyed this one quite a bit. Yet again we have to turn to the animated adventures of Batman to see him with an actual mystery plot.

Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000)

I have to admit I was never a huge fan of the Batman Beyond series, but this film really made me wish I had been. It was shockingly good. And the way it tied back into older Batman continuity is the kind of thing that would’ve made me enjoy Batman Beyond if they had done more of it.

Green Lantern: First Flight (2009)
Green Lantern: Emerald Knights (2011)

More on these later. (“Wait, but they’re on your Honorable Mentions list. Doesn’t that mean there won’t be an entry about them?” You’ll see.)

Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero (1998)

Man, in retrospect, this definitely belonged on the main list, I’m pretty upset that I forgot how good it is. It’s a bit below the cinematic quality of Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (but only a very little bit), which it largely makes up for with a great plot, one of my favorite villains (Mr. Freeze), and features Robin and Batgirl. This is a really great film.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 26 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #12: V for Vendetta (2005)

Amazingly, my two lists have caught up with each other, so I can start alternating between the two!

~-~-~

#12: V for Vendetta (2005)

Alright, things are starting to get pretty serious now, because we’re getting into the part of the list where I could easily see any of these being my favorite film of all time. (Yeah: that part of the list starts at number twelve. Have I mentioned that superhero movies have gotten good?) I expect this entry to be fairly controversial. There is justifiable debate as to whether V for Vendetta can properly be considered a superhero film. Furthermore, there are serious questions about its efficacy as an adaptation. I intend to address both.

V for Vendetta is, at its core, about a character, “V” (Hugo Weaving) who puts on a mask in order to fight injustice. We are introduced to this character as he saves a woman, Evey (Natalie Portman) from being raped by two members of the secret police. In the film’s very first scene, it simultaneously introduces the primary conflict of the film (a corrupt, fascist government) and deliberately riffs on the superhero motif by placing V in the traditional role of rescuing an innocent from harm. Furthermore, when his origin story is revealed, we learn that he gained enhanced abilities due to medical experiments carried out upon him by the government.

The easy protest here is that V’s enemy is not the criminal elements of society, but rather the “legitimate” power structure in place. But when that structure is in itself not only corrupt, but actually a clear and present threat to its citizens, wouldn’t a superhero quickly find herself or himself struggling against that very government? Sure, it might be a much shorter struggle if that superhero were someone like Superman. It might not actually be all that different if he were Batman, but we’ll get to that. V’s goals are political, so his tactics often end up being political. He blows up a building, then hijacks a propaganda broadcast intended to cover up the incident as a demolition to expose it for what it really was: a sign that the fascist government of Britain is not invincible. He uses this as a rallying call to the people of Britain to rise up against their government, telling them to meet him next fifth of November outside the Houses of Parliament.

V becomes a symbol. When a huge contingent of citizens does show up outside of the Houses of Parliament a year later, they wear the same Guy Fawkes masks as V. When Evey is asked V’s identity because she had seen beneath his mask, she replies that he is “all of us.” My one real complaint here is that Evey herself did not directly take up the mantle of V, as she did in the graphic novel. Moreover, V’s belief that she will be the primary builder of the new society to take the place of the old one that he tore down is not even hinted at.

This provides a nice segue into my next defense: this film as an adaptation. Although I did have a problem with those omissions in Evey’s character, I didn’t have a problem with the broader changes that have bothered a lot of fans, and Moore himself. Moore’s original story was a response to British Thatcherism, and how easily he could see a state becoming fascist in the aftermath of, say, a nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. The atmosphere in which this film was released was quite different, with very few (if any) people supposing a nuclear war to be imminent. The descent into totalitarianism here as depicted in a montage late in the film is consequently much different, but believable to modern audiences. What made the graphic novel brilliant is also what made the film brilliant. Namely, a terrifyingly believable depiction of a society sliding into fascism and being lulled into complacency about the freedoms being stripped from them and the horrors going on around them, only to be shaken from their complacency by a determined genius and his brilliantly-crafted plan.

There are certainly advantages the graphic novel had over the film. The film must unfortunately sacrifice some of the complexity of the graphic novel. Because of the much greater “screen time” afforded to the graphic novel medium, situations and characters are developed at a much slower pace, making his genius much more shocking when things begin “clicking” into place. One of the most dramatic examples is in the chillingly brilliant scene where we see every thread of V’s plan beginning to fall into place framed by V’s game of dominoes. Much more than the film, the graphic novel astonishes us with V’s brilliance.

But the film gets so much right, it’s difficult to fault it for what’s really an inherent disadvantage the medium must overcome, not a failing of this film in particular. Like the graphic novel, the film has a way of humanizing and personalizing big themes. One of the most horrifying (and believable) elements of the original story is the way in which the fascist government rounded up “undesirable” minorities and imprisoned or executed them. The graphic novel personalized this by having an imprisoned Evey read the story of a lesbian actress (Valerie Page, played in the film by Natasha Wightman) who was dragged off as part of the government’s purges of minorities. The film preserves this section word-for-word, and also depicts Evey’s boss (Gordon Deitrich, played by Stephen Fry) as a closeted homosexual who is deeply afraid of discovery. Both the graphic novel and film managed to vividly confront us with our vulnerability to those in power, should they decide to strip life and liberty from those it finds “undesirable.”

The acting in this film was brilliant. Hugo Weaving gave V the dramatic weight the larger-than-life character needed, and this is one of the strongest performances I’ve ever seen from the talented Natalie Portman. Stephen Fry and Natasha Wightman personalized the horror of being helpless to stop a powerful government from stripping you of everything (including your own life) because of something deeply personal about yourself. And Roger Allam was brilliant as Lewis Prothero, “The Voice of London.” Prothero is a clear nod to propaganda apparatuses like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

This film explores huge themes both on the grand scale they naturally seem to lend themselves to, and (arguably more effectively) on a smaller, much more personal scale. It is a deeply moving film, and easily one of my favorite films of all time. The only thing that stops it from being much higher on this list is that it already exists in a superior film (the graphic novel version), and that when composing a list like this I must confess a bias for films whose identities as superhero stories are less ambiguous.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers