Tag Archives: Superhero Movies

Oct 16 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Least Favorite Superhero Films. #2: Catwoman (2004)

#2: Catwoman (2004)

What did we do to deserve this film? I’m serious. We female superhero fans, who have been told by the boys over and over that we aren’t “real” superhero fans, that this stuff is for boys? We Batman fans, who sat through Tim Burton’s fanfiction and the studio pulling Joel Schumacher’s strings (and ruining his reputation in the process) as they sought only to sell more action figures? Had we not suffered enough?

You know in real life how sometimes when a tragedy happens, it defies previous experience to such a degree that the only possible reaction to it is, “Why?” That’s basically how I (along with many others) felt after Catwoman. We went into this film thinking we were going to see a cool Batman spinoff starring Halle Berry, one of Hollywood’s biggest stars. What we got instead was one of the worst pieces of trash ever put in front of wide audiences.

So, what’s this film about? Selina Kyle, right? That’ll be brilliant! She’s always been a character who lent herself to solo projects, in the comics and Batman The Animated Series and–what? Oh, it’s about someone named Patience Philips? Really, her name is Patience? And she works for a… cosmetics company?

… the cosmetic company is the main antagonist of the film? She’s killed to protect a trade secret?

Okay, okay. That’s fine. Something new, something fresh. It has a few holes in it, but I can totally see how it could work, and as long as the core of the story remains intact and Catwoman is a skilled thief-turned-vigilante–

Oh. She’s brought back to life by the Egyptian goddess Bast?

Fuck this.

You’ll have to forgive the not-entirely-critical reaction here, but this film is an example of the most cynical kinds of exploitation. Let’s just take a beloved character, have a famous actor play them, and put absolutely no effort whatsoever into making the story interesting or remotely good. Tell you what, though: let’s be sure to sexualize absolutely everything about her. She doesn’t need a personality! She’s wearing almost nothing! And we’ll have her fight another chick at the end of the film. Gold!

This is one of those rare instances when I really just don’t have much to say. This film is obviously bad for obvious reasons. There’s no mystery here. There’s nothing to explain. Just a whole lot of bad.

Tagged , , ,
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 , , , , , , ,
Sep 08 2012
Leave a comment
Film

Superhero Films I’m “Supposed” to Hate: A Superman Double Feature

It truly perplexes me that Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) is considered by so many people as bad as, or even worse than, Superman III (1983). I’m not going to sit here and try to argue that it’s a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but neither do I feel like expending any energy hating it. And when you get right down to it, there are actually a lot of things to like about this film.

Superman’s (Christopher Reeves) angst over the probability of nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union was one of my favorite things to happen in any Superman film. The development of nuclear weapons is one of the single most misguided acts in human history, and it was nice to see the reaction of humanity’s superhuman guardian. He retreats to the Fortress of Solitude, feeling despair that earth may now face the same fate of his own destroyed planet Krypton. The Elders suggest that the earth is too primitive and that his best course of action is to make a new home on another world. The entire crisis has Superman shaken to his very core, and brings forth a lot of questions about his place on earth. He answers these questions for himself (and the audience) in a rousing speech to the United Nations, during which he declares that he is no longer a visitor on earth, that it is his home as well, and that he will “I am do what your governments have been unable to do” by “rid[ding] our planet of all nuclear weapons.”

In direct contrast to Superman III, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is not sent on a vacation that serves as a thinly-veiled excuse to keep her out of the way. Instead, she is once again a major part of the film, and Clark’s life. Furthermore, this film also features the return as Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, which might be the biggest “duh” moment of the series. And while Nuclear Man (played by Mark Pillow and voiced by Gene Hackman) has drawn quite a bit of harsh criticism, I actually liked him. I liked that the film’s real world backdrop (the threat of nuclear warfare) was depicted both with Superman’s personal quest to rid the world of nuclear weapons and by the motif of the villain. I also liked that Superman actually had a legitimately interesting fight against an evenly matched opponent.

I will grant that quite a few things about this film haven’t aged well (or weren’t good in the first place), so it’s not even getting an honorable mention on my Favorites list, but I think there are quite a few things to like about it, and I do consider it legitimately entertaining. (In direct contrast to its immediate predecessor, which was entertaining only in the sense of how bafflingly bad it is.)

Superman Returns (2006) is a curious case, because I actually think it’s a legitimately good film that is the victim only of inflated expectations. For me, the biggest strength here was the casting. Brandon Routh was a convincing Clark Kent and Superman, Kate Bosworth was similarly good as Lois Lane, and I actually think I like Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor much more than Gene Hackman. The only truly curious choice (for me) was Jame Marsden as Richard White, the nephew of Perry White (Frank Langella.) It just feels a little too similar to his role in X-Men (2000.) Is there something about James Marsden that makes Bryan Singer say, “Yeah, he seems like a great guy to have in a love triangle where the vast majority of the audience will be rooting for the other guy?” Talk about bizarrely specific typecasting.

What surprised me most about this film was how much heart it had. There’s quite a bit of emotional sensitivity in Superman’s relationship to earth and the relationships that personalize his protection of the planet. The subplot about Lois Lane’s son and his parentage was well-done.

When you get right down to it, I think the things I like about these two films are basically the same: the fact that they explore, I mean really explore, Superman’s relationship with earth in a sensitive way. But both of these films also suffer from what I’m going to call Superman live-action syndrome. Although I give a deferential nod to the original Superman because of what it means to the legacy of superhero movies, I’ve never seen a Superman live-action film that truly entertained me the way a superhero film should. The animated films, on the other hand, have never failed to entertain me. Hey… hey, maybe we could do a live-action film with the same sort of tone, and some of the same elements that work well in those animated films?

Oh, we’re bringing Chris Nolan’s aesthetic to Superman, the superhero who can most get away with being brightly colored and silly, despite the fact that Marvel definitively showed us that the era of being ashamed to make superhero movies is over? Okay, I guess that works too. (That being said, having Zack Snyder (Watchmen) directing at least gives me some hope that it’ll be good.)

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

My Least Favorite Superhero Films. #3: Superman III (1983)

#3: Superman III (1983)

One look at this cover image should probably tell you that something has gone seriously wrong here.

It’s pretty mind-blowing to me that something as bad as this film not only exists, but stars Christopher Reeve. It’s like watching a famously-bad parody, only the lead in the parody is the actual star of the film being parodied. It would be like if Tobey Maguire played Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man. (Too soon?)

This is the only film in the Superman film series to be classified as an action comedy film, which right away seems like a pretty bad idea. Switching genres in the middle of a series can be done (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, anyone?), but it isn’t to be undertaken lightly. Trouble is, “lightly” is exactly how everything in this film was taken.

I usually try to avoid simply summarizing the plot of a film in these reviews, but in this case I actually think it might be the best way to convince you of how terrible this film is. So I’m going to try to describe the plot of this film without it sounding to anyone who hasn’t seen this film like I’ve made this up. (I will fail.)

Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is on a vacation during which the entire events of this film are said to have taken place. (Hold on to that one. It’s going to be hilarious.) Clark Kent attends his high school renunion, not because he is a normal person who can take a few days off to go to his high school reunion like any sane person would do, but because he somehow convinces Editor Perry White (Jackie Cooper) that he will get a feature story out of it. No, I’m serious: that’s actually what happens.

So Clark journeys to Smallville, where he is reunited with his childhood friend Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole.) Lana is divorced and the mother of three. The two proceed to attempt to bore the audience to death so they won’t be around to see how bad the rest of the film is. (At least, I’m assuming that was what was going on here. Otherwise I honestly have no idea.)

Meanwhile, Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) shows up to completely ruin any possibility this film might’ve had of being good. Gus “takes a computer class” (this lasts a few minutes) and is immediately thereafter a computer genius. Just as immediately, he gets a job and begins embezzling from their payroll by typing a few commands into what appears to be an unsecured computer that will transfer money into your account as long as you misspell most of the commands you give it. (“Hey, he typed ‘overide all security!’ What else was I supposed to do? This is clearly legit.”)

Impressed by his obvious genius, CEO Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) decides to recruit Gus into his scheme to rule the world with (What else?) computers! His plan to implement this is to use a weather satellite to create a storm that will destroy Colombia’s coffee crop. If you’re thinking, “Wait, don’t weather satellites observe weather, not control it?” congratulations: you have put far more thought into the plot of this film than the writers did. Anyway, Superman obviously shows up and destroys the satellite and saves the country’s coffee crops.

Undeterred, Webster decides to use the magic of computers to kill Superman by creating Kryptonite. (“How,” you ask? Don’t be silly. Computers are magic.) They present this artificial Kryptonite to Superman as a gift, but instead of killing Superman it turns him evil.

No, wait, I’m sorry: that’s what would’ve happened if this movie had some small trace of good in it. This movie’s version of an “evil” Superman has him committing petty acts of vandalism. Our “evil” Superman straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa and blows out the Olympic Torch. Hey, you know what would be pretty interesting? If he tried to take over the world. Or, you know, did anything remotely “evil” in a way that made any sense.

Superman next goes on a drinking binge, until a little boy urgues him to stop being evil. He then splits into two people (literally), the evil Superman and the good Clark Kent. The excruciating fight ends with Clark strangling his evil self to death and ripping open his shirt to reveal his Superman costume.

Because this film still has its original villains to defeat, Superman engages in a fight with a computer that Gus has built in the Grand Canyon that defends itself with missiles and Kryptonite beams. (Yeah, don’t ask.) I really don’t want to bore you with the details, so suffice it to say Superman wins, with some help from a remorseful Gus. To thank him for helping him, Superman flies Gus away so he won’t be arrested with Webster and his other henchmen, and drops him off with a job reference at a West Virginia coal mine, presumably to learn a valuable lesson about honest work while he slowly dies of black lung. Shockingly, Gorman opts instead to take his chances elsewhere and walks to a bus stop.

The triumphant Superman returns to Metropolis where he finds that Lana Lang is now Perry White’s secretary. Wait… was that the entire point of this film? Making a Superman/Lois/Lana love triangle possible in future films? Because if so, A) they didn’t do that, and B) it wasn’t worth it. It really wasn’t worth it. Also, remember that thought you were holding onto earlier? Lois is freshly back from her vacation. A vacation to get her out of the way, which seems pretty unnecessary in the first place as Superman was in Smallville… you know what, whatever. The point is, in the space of a couple weeks, Gus Gorman became a computer genius, got a job, embezzled money, got discovered, turned Superman evil, and built a giant supercomputer protected by missile launchers in the Grand Canyon (without anybody noticing.) Yeah.

In the traditional narrative about this film, aside from Christopher Reeves’ acting, Good Superman vs. Evil Superman is seen as its only redeeming quality. I really actually can’t agree with that at all, because that storyline was poorly-written, poorly-executed, and its only redeeming quality was (hey, look at that!) Christopher Reeves’ acting. The traditional narrative also holds that this film’s direct sequel Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, as well as Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns, are just as bad. Well… we’ll get into that next time.

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 26 2012
Leave a comment
Film

My Least Favorite Superhero Films. #4: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

As previously noted, I am well aware of the fact that including the Transformers franchise in a discussion of superhero films is not uncontroversial.

~-~-~

#4. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)


(Pictured: what should’ve been happening for THE ENTIRE FRIGGING MOVIE.)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t just disappointing because I liked the first film, it was disappointing because I have, on occasion, enjoyed the medium of film.

In my review of Transformers (2007), I alluded to the fact that almost everything good about Transformers was bad in Revenge of the Fallen. Well, okay, that’s not entirely true. It would be more accurate to say that every bad part of Transformers was magnified, and the good parts nearly disappear.

I’m going to talk about the good things this film does first, because that’ll take about thirty seconds. Steve Jablonsky is back, and actually collaborated with Linkin Park on the score which was pretty cool, although I didn’t really notice any tracks as stunningly awesome as “Arrival on Earth” from the first film. Starscream’s servile but antagonistic relationship with Megatron is wonderful and should’ve been given more screentime. The film has two outstanding scenes: Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen)’s death (in which he is able to temporarily singlehandedly fend off several Decepticons in a brutal fight) and Optimus’s resurrection (featuring the film’s only touching character moment, between him and Sam.)

You could actually make a good film out of this film’s few good scenes, the problem is it would only be about half an hour long. Major Lennox (Josh Duhamel) and Sam would be the only human characters in it, Optimus Prime would be the only Autobot with any real dialogue, Mikaela (Megan Fox) wouldn’t paint a motorcycle while bending upside down at an awkward angle so she can show her ass off to the camera, the combined forces of the U.S. military and Autobots wouldn’t blow up half of Shanghai to capture a Decepticon that seemed to be doing absolutely nothing of any consequence, and a whole lot of non-white characters wouldn’t have been introduced as ethnic stereotypes. Certainly, one of the first film’s stronger characters (Agent Simmons, played by John Turturro) wouldn’t have been turned into an ethnic stereotype.

Yeah, let’s just dive right into this. Toward the beginning of Transformers, we actually had a very positive portrayal of a Qatari man helping Lennox and his soldiers find safety and the use of a telephone. Apparently that didn’t test well with audiences or something, because every single non-white character in Revenge of the Fallen, including Sam’s roommate Leo (Ramon Rodriguez) is a shockingly transparent ethnic stereotype. We don’t even limit the fun to human characters, as there are two Autobots (given the most dialogue of any Autobot other than Optimus) that many fans refer to only as “the Racist Twins.” Because, you know: not being white is hilarious.

No, you know what? That’s not enough. Let’s throw in some sexism, too! Like the fact that every single woman at Michael Bay’s idea of what college looks like is throwing themselves at every male with a pulse. Or that a college “party” apparently resembles an upscale strip club. (Women don’t party! They dance around so men can enjoy looking at them while they party!) We’re even willing to throw logic right out the window, because Sam is attacked by what at first appears to be a sexually aggressive girl but turns out to be a Decepticon in disguise. Yep! Decepticons can take human form! Good thing this is the only time they use that ability. (Seriously.)

Yeah, this film is a giant mess of racism and sexism. But it isn’t just that it’s racist and sexist (there are some examples of both in much better films), it’s that the racism and sexism were so clearly part of a calculated decision to appeal to the kind of lowest-common-denominator humor that exploits these kinds of things. And even when the film isn’t being racist or sexist (which does happen… occasionally), much of the dialogue and many of the situations are so forced that enjoying this film would require actual effort on the part of the viewer.

Finally, the bizarre decision to give the human characters an expanded role in the sequel is one I will never quite understand. Having the first film be a sort of “human-eye” view of the Transformers made a lot of sense, because it introduced us to them in a way we could relate to, and gave us an idea of the incredible scale of these titans. The logical next step there was to ditch Sam, Mikaela, and friends (or at least dramatically scale down their role) and make the giant robots the movie is named after do the heavy lifting.

It really feels like Michael Bay took a look at his main characters from the first film and thought, “Okay, I have all these characters, so I guess I need to figure out something to have them do in the second film.” This is most glaringly obvious in Mikaela’s part in the film. There’s actually no reason for her to be in the film at all, so Bay concocts a subplot for her that actually breaks the logic of the film entirely. As a result of her solo adventures, when she meets back up with Sam she has a piece of the AllSpark in her purse. You know. The AllSpark. The thing that the Decepticons use a similar shard from to resurrect Megatron? Clearly it could’ve been used to resurrect Optimus, but the film seems to completely forget that Mikaela has it. It’s never mentioned again.

I imagine the film’s action scenes are supposed to make up for this, but for all the slow-motion footage of Megan Fox’s boobs, the action scenes all seemed to be in blurry fast-motion. You can never really tell what’s going on. I was willing to forgive this in the first film to some extent, but it really got old in a hurry here.

The cliché with film series is to say after the first film, “Okay, we got the introductions out of the way, now we can get into what we really want to do.” In Bay’s case, the audience would’ve been much better off never seeing Bay with that kind of freedom, because one of two things happened. Either he had no idea what he wanted to do, or what he wanted to do was just plain bad.

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 17 2012
Leave a comment
Uncategorized

My Least Favorite Superhero Films. #5: Green Lantern (2011)

#5: Green Lantern (2011)

Rather than spending this entire entry talking about what makes Green Lantern such a transparently horrible film, I thought I’d go in a somewhat different direction with this by showing how good it should have been by contrasting it with the animated films Green Lantern: First Flight (2009) and Green Lantern: Emerald Knights (2011.) I selected these films not only because of the quality of the DC Universe Animated Original Movies, but because First Flight has basically the same plot as the live-action film (only better), and Emerald Knights demonstrates many of the qualities that make the Green Lantern Corps so awesome but were completely missing in the live-action adaptation.

The live-action film tells Hal Jordan’s (Ryan Reynolds) origin story. When Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison) crash lands on the earth after a fight with Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown), his Green Lantern ring selects Hal Jordan as a replacement for reasons passing understanding. Seriously: Hal Jordan as characterized in this film does not belong anywhere near superpowers ever, especially ones that carefully select someone based on their worthiness. And Ryan Reynolds was probably close to the worst imaginable person for the role, as the character pretty much had to be characterized as a cocky alpha-male clown for him to at least seem like a “fit.”

Demonstrating his “worthiness,” Jordan uses his powers to defend himself from an attack (by workers who were laid off largely due to Jordan’s irresponsible actions earlier in the film) and showing off for his friend in a manner that seems disturbingly similar to how a frat boy would act if he suddenly got super powers. I’m not saying most people wouldn’t show off to their friends if they got super powers, or that doing so is wrong. What I’m saying is that the tone of how Jordan did so in this film was pretty grating to my sensibilities, and probably not very representative of the best humanity has to offer. I would just like to see someone more reminiscent of, say, Captain Kirk, who can have a lot of similar flaws and do a lot of similar things and get away with it better because he’s a better, more intellectual man with higher ideals.

Naturally, Hal is whisked away to planet Oa to meet other Lanterns such as their leader Sinestro (Mark Strong), who is displeased with Jordan’s selection as a Lantern (which I can’t help but agree with him about in the case of this Hal Jordan…), Tomar-Re (voiced by Geoffrey Rush) who teaches Hal how to use his powers, and drill instructor Kilowog (voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan.) Actually, these three seem to be the only members of the Green Lantern Corps, but whatever. Sinestro is concerned about the threat of Parallax, a threat which the Guardians inexplicably refuse to give Sinestro (or anyone else) any information about until much later in the film for no apparent reason. Things aren’t going so great on earth, either. Dr. Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), a highly intelligent scientist who gains mental powers due to being exposed to yellow energy from Parallax, makes two attempts to kill his father, U.S. Senator Robert Hammond (Tim Robbins.) The first attempt is to make his helicopter crash at a party, which Jordan is able to stop by using his powers. The second attempt comes at the lab, which Jordan is unable to prevent.

The Guardians finally spill the beans that Parallax was himself a Guardian who tried to wield yellow energy, but became an embodiment of fear itself. Sinestro inexplicably concludes that a yellow ring must be forged to combat him. No one gives any indication of why this makes any sense, especially given that this is essentially how a much more powerful being (a Guardian) became the evil they’re now facing, but everyone just sort of goes with it. Except for Hal, who isn’t especially wild about the idea of the earth being destroyed. He requests (and is denied) the Corps’ assistance defending his world, which would never happen in the other versions I’m talking about later ever and is a pretty jarring lack of heroism on the Corps’ part that seems to violate their core principles.

Back to earth. Hal has his showdown with Hammond, which really brings a fine point to this film’s awkwardness. Hammond really feels like a completely unnecessary character in this entire thing, which makes his inclusion as a secondary villain perplexing at best. Furthermore, we are told about halfway through the film that he and Hal were old friends. Wait, what? Where did that come from? You can’t just materialize a relationship out of thin air halfway through a film and then never do anything else with it.

But the true apex of this film’s awfulness comes in their final showdown. We see Jordan’s alpha-male macho bravado come face-to-face with Hammond’s twisted intellectualism. Jordan gives up his ring to Hammond, who finds himself unable to use it, to which Jordan offers the stirring rebuke, “You have to be chosen.” This is, to me, the most damningly awful thing about the film. It would’ve worked if Hammond’s story hadn’t largely depicted him as a sympathetic victim of circumstance, someone no one really understood who didn’t want to do any harm to anyone until he was corrupted by yellow energy. No one respected him. He was intellectual. He wasn’t conventionally ambitious. He was… the target audience of a lot of superhero films.

Yeah. The payoff of that entire subplot is an alpha-male jock type beating up a nerd. Makes perfect sense in a superhero movie, right? Then Hammond predictably gets eaten by Parallax and then it’s up to Hal to save the world. I won’t bore you with the details, but (spoiler alert) he succeeds, and the Corps realizes how wrong they were about him. And then, in a post-credits scene, Sinestro steals the yellow ring and puts it on for no apparent reason.

So, wow. Pretty much the only thing this film did “right” was have people who have known a hero intimately recognize him despite his face being partially-not-really-covered by a flimsy mask, and that has nothing to do with the Green Lantern, it just pokes fun of a convention that has always irked me.

Although it’s not really a secret that I think DC’s animated films are dramatically superior to their live-action films, I think the Green Lantern films provide the most striking example of this. Everything the live-action film did poorly or failed to do, First Flight and Emerald Knights did exceptionally well.

First Flight is an exceptionally striking example, as it tells the exact some story (Hal’s origin and introduction to the Corps, anyway; the villain is completely different), only better. A lion’s share of the improvement comes from the characterization of Hal Jordan (voiced by Christopher Meloni.) Whereas the live-action film could only portray him in his “fish out of water” state by having him be an exceptionally cocky bastard who got knocked around, was found unworthy, and quit on the Corps due to his frustration, First Flight shows him being similarly “in over his head” and reacting much more sensibly.

Emerald Knights uses an imminent crisis that interrupts Hal Jordan’s (voiced by Nathan Fillion) training of a new recruit (Arisia Rrab, voiced by Elisabeth Moss) as a frame for several stories about various members (past and present) of the Green Lantern Corps, and gives us an idea of both the Corps’ history and what it stands for. We see a Corps of individuals who are fully prepared to lay down their lives to protect others (which is a dramatic contrast to the live-action film.) Given the structure the big payoff message is pretty unsurprising, as one of the Guardians orates, “Once again the diversity of the Corps has proven to be its greatest asset.” It’s really hard to imagine the live-action version with all of its individualism and alpha-male B.S. even implying that kind of message.

And it isn’t just the message of that film, it’s represented in the reality of the Corps we see in those two films. In the live-action film, we get three other Corps members, all male. Admittedly, this is a bit weaker in First Flight where there are only two female Corps members depicted (and one of them turns out to be evil), but last time I checked two is still better than zero. Emerald Knights, though, has several female characters (including Arisia.) Furthermore, one of the featured stories Hal relates to Arisia focuses on Laira, and she is depicted as one of the most powerful and reliable members of the Corps.

Furthermore, the first story Hal conveys to Arisia serves as a pretty satisfying direct repudiation of all that alpha-male nonsense in the live-action film. In “The First Lantern,” Hal tells of Avra (Mitchell Whitfield), a scribe to the Guardians who was chosen to receive one of the first four power rings despite having absolutely no skill as a warrior. While the other first Lanterns are prepared to flee when battle overwhelms them, Avra alone demonstrates the willpower to continue the battle, and serves as an example for his fellow Lanterns.

These two films give two completely different characterization of Sinestro, and two completely different depictions of his relationship with Hal Jordan… both of which are superior to the live-action film’s approach to both. In First Flight, Sinestro takes Hal under his wing, but is doing so because he thinks the human might go along with his scheme to take over the Corps. This Sinestro is cunning, underhanded, and clearly evil. Jordan is disgusted by his methods, and in order to get him out of his way, Sinestro frames Jordan for murder. In Emerald Knights, though there are allusions to his later betrayal, Sinestro is much more fleshed out as Jordan’s mentor figure and the leader of the Green Lanterns.

Finally, the essential elements of both films were dramatically better than the live-action films. Nathan Fillion was a brilliant choice to voice Hal Jordan in Emerald Knights (and also fulfilled that role in Justice League: Doom), and I think would be a rather obvious choice to play him in a live-action feature. (Really, anyone would be better than Ryan Reynolds.) And the big payoff with live-action films is supposed to be that they’re more visually stunning, but I actually preferred the animated films. The more traditional-looking costumes were much more visually appealing than that ridiculous CGI suits in the live-action version, the Guardians were hideous-looking in the live-action version, and the space scenes in general just looked pretty “weird” in the live-action version.


(Try not to imagine what could have been. I DARE YOU.)

Both animated films succeed in giving us a sense of a “larger universe” while also focusing on the heroics of a man named Hal Jordan. Both also seem much more true to the themes of the comics, and especially to the principles of the Green Lantern Corps. Whether in brightest day or darkest night, I’d watch either of these animated films in a heartbeat. The live-action film…? Not so much.

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 08 2012
1 Comment
Film

Superhero Films I’m “Supposed” to Hate: Spider-Man 3 (2007)

And with this, I am offline until next Tuesday! Since I screen comments, any comments posted between now and then won’t appear until my return, so sorry in advance for any delays.

~-~-~

Alright, let’s be real here: I’m not on an island with this one. I’m on an island surrounded by another island with a thirty-foot-tall electrified barbed-wire fence, surrounded by an ocean of lava that is on fire. Also, I am bound and gagged. (Don’t worry: I’m kind of into that part.) And all of this is in a dome. An impenetrable dome. What I’m saying is, you don’t have to tell me that I’m an idiot and you hate this movie. I know you hate this movie. Everyone hates this movie.

It has to have entered into the minds of most superhero film series producers, at some point, to simply not make a third film. I didn’t like The Dark Knight Rises nearly as much as The Avengers, and it’s not going to make nearly as much money, but you could actually make an argument for it being the most successful superhero film of all time. Why? Because it wasn’t universally loathed. A perfectly reasonable individual could be forgiven for thinking that superhero “threequels” are cursed. X-Men: The Last Stand is easy to explain, as we traded Bryan Singer for Brett Ratner, which might be the single most lopsided trade since the Boston Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees. Superman III is not as easy to explain, as the original creative team actually produced that monstrosity. Then again, I think the first two films are at least a little overrated. I found Superman II in particular to be pretty boring and somewhat monotone. (Wow, I’m really not doing myself any favors here, am I?) There’s even Batman Forever. Many would see Batman/Batman Returns and Batman/Batman & Robin as two separate entities, but the unproduced Batman Triumphant actually had Jack Nicholson reprising his role as the Joker in a Scarecrow-induced hallucination, and Harley Quinn seeking revenge for his death.

And then we have Spider-Man 3. The film that was so bad, it ruined Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy. At least, that’s how the story goes. I see things quite a bit differently, especially compared to that other film we talked about a few hours ago. Unlike The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3 has this interesting thing called “heart.” It achieves this by continuing to focus on the relationships in Peter Parker’s (Tobey Maguire) life, much like the other two films. You have his relationship with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), which starts off on a high note with Peter ready to ask her to marry him, but quickly hits a rough patch that continues throughout the film. Then you have his relationship with his best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco), who blames Peter for his father’s death.

When this film is really humming along nicely, it’s these relationships that are really driving the narrative. And though he’s not a mad scientist who once served as Peter’s mentor, Flint Marko (aka the Sandman, played by Thomas Haden Church) is typical of Sam Raimi’s desire to get back to the roots of the comics, and to tie into bigger emotional themes.

Then there’s that… other thing. The source of the fans’ universal outrage. One of the most popular Spider-Man villains of all time. Eddie Brock Jr. (aka Venom, played by Topher Grace.) Admittedly this plot was completely botched, and we’ll get into why. But it’s actually somewhat salvaged (in my book) by a huge setpiece action scene toward the end of the film, which is one of the most “comic booky” things I’ve ever seen in a comic book film, complete with a news anchor actually asking, “Will this be the end for Spider-Man?”

Most importantly, that action scene puts Peter’s two most important relationships front and center. Mary Jane is in peril, and his motivation throughout the fight. And Peter’s issues with Harry are finally resolved definitively. And the battle ends with a surprising theme, one not addressed by many superhero films: forgiveness.

This is a deeply flawed film and one which doesn’t do justice to one of the most beloved villains in the franchise. The reason for that is simple: it is public knowledge that Raimi never wanted to include Venom in the first place, and the studio strong-armed him into it. (I can almost see the argument now. “Venom.” “But, I have this great story with these big themes like forgiveness and…” “Venom.” “Sigh…”)

The thing is (and I know I’m the only one who thinks this, and that’s fine) this film does enough right to make up for it. The things Sam Raimi actually wanted to do in this film shine through, though I can’t help but wonder what could’ve been if they had just left him alone and let him do his thing. It was easy to see which parts of these film Sam Raimi put his heart into, and which he didn’t. (Hint: the second one was Venom.) That’s a pretty big problem, but it’s not nearly as bad as The Amazing Spider-Man, which was completely without heart.

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

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers