Movies I Can't Wait to See: DC Comics Announces Superman/Batman Movie!

Image from source, MoviePilot

ERMAHGERD!!! Talk about a nerdgasm! What comics fan (particularly a DC Comics fan) wouldn't go nuts for a "World's Finest" team-up or battle between Superman and Batman? Ecstatic, even! There are however a few problems, namely, a) having to re-boot the Batman character, since Christian Bale is done with it, b) dealing with recaps or retellings of either character's origin stories, c) clarifying the timeline, as to if Supes and Bats have both been around for a while, or if this is a brand new relationship, and d) bridging the worlds of Gotham, Metropolis, and the larger DC Comics universe (Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Justice League).

With a) and b) I wish they would just dispense with retellings and rebootings. I think with three actors in a row having played Batman in the Tim Burton-started series, same thing with the Hulk, changing actors for the love interest in The Dark Knight, and the continuing changes in the James Bond universe, audiences can handle a loose continuity with these characters, without having to go back to square one. Fanboys might squawk a bit, but we don't have to see Batman's origin story again, we get it! If there's a significant change to the backstory, highlight that in a flashback, and then move on.

With c) and d) there is a more delicate problem. So far, DC Comics-based productions have been all over the place, and their behind-the-scenes pre-productions have been insane. It almost seems like a good movie comes out with a DC character. I mean, they were going to have Nicholas Cage be Superman? REALLY? Anyway, they scored a three-fer with The Dark Knight series, and I think continued it with Man of Steel. Count me as one opinion that just because Bale doesn't want to be Batman, that they could easily keep the continuity of the series with a new actor, whether it's Joseph Gordon Leavitt or a replacement for Bale. I've never understood why those three movies have to "stand alone." Even the naming conventions between TDK and MOS are the same. Why start from scratch.
mistake when a

What not to do. Image from NYDailyNews

Their most difficult task is going to be building this shared universe without going overboard, or screwing up one of the puzzle pieces. How will they introduce the other characters, without diverting from the story, or just throwing too much up on the screen? The Marvel template is there to follow, but you know they're going to want to do something different. Can Warner Brothers sustain the franchise with popular movies based on unproven characters, and keep the hype up until Justice League is born? Marvel managed it. In fact Marvel has managed in across studios, with the X-Men and Spider-Man series running in separate worlds from The Avengers. DC is developing their movie universe in a huge shadow.

But they couldn't wish for better than a Superman/Batman movie, done well. If that is done well, and ably sets up some spin-off characters, they will be off and rolling. Henry Cavill has shown that he's a great Superman. If they do as well with their new Batman, it's going to be some show! Can't wait.

[Excerpt]

Warner Bros. Announces Superman/Batman Movie For 2015

Big news Justice League shippers: Zack Snyder is returning for the sequel to Man of Steel.
Only this time, the aforementioned icon will be joining forces with the Dark Knight. . .

Read more at: MoviePilot

Star Trek Into Darkness, a Mini Movie Review

Image from Wikipedia

On Friday, we did a rare thing. The Other Half and I not only went to a movie theater, we kept a prearranged "date" with a couple of friends to do so. This almost never happens. Particularly the cinema thing. As much as I love superhero, horror and sci-fi movies, I seem to always procrastinate until the Blu-ray comes out. I mean, even the entire phase one of Marvel Comics' massive movie blitz were all seen on our DLP TV, rather than at the movies. The "always wins" exception to that is any version of Superman, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th (yes, really) and Star Trek.

I've labeled this as a "mini" review for a reason. I've just read the Zaki's Corner review of Star Trek Into Darkness, and his writing simply puts mine to shame. Though I disagree with his C+ grade, I can't deny that he's the superior blogger. So, as Bart Simpson says, "can't win, don't even try." So, I'll just give you a little more surfacy review, and give you Zaki's link at the end.

I'll start with an observation that the commercials and other miscellany that precedes a film these days are a crashing bore. I still love the movie previews, but I'm astonished that the theater chains actually brand these "pre-shows," and act as if they've done you a favor by making you sit through them. But once the Paramount logo whooshes on the screen, and the surprisingly already familiar Star Trek (2009) theme played, I felt a little sense of glee. Also a sense of why did we have to wait FOUR YEARS for a sequel? But I digress.

Into Darkness stars with a pre-credits sequence that puts you right into the action. It's removed from the main storyline, but sets it up well. Chris Pine really evokes William Shatner to me (though maybe not as much as Zachary Quinto's Spock captures Leonard Nimoy), and his ice blue eyes really pop on that big screen. We didn't go to the 3D version, partly due to cost, and partly due to the fact that I have great difficulty seeing 3D movies. But this movie is stunning, even in 2D. We saw it on a digital DLP screen, which maybe helps.

They certainly look the part. Image from USAToday.

I can't get into the storyline much without spoilers. Suffice it to say that there is more than one villain, and their motives are a matter of perspective. If you're a longtime Star Trek fan, you'll pick up on some clues early on, and you may deduce who the main villain "really" is. There are several allusions to past Treks, one in particular. Whether these nods tickle you--or irritate you--will depend upon how meta you like your pop culture. I appreciated it to a point, and then I actually said to my self, "No. Don't say it." And then the character did. Ugh.

But I found that to be one of the only moments I didn't like. The movie is relentless in its pacing, actually making me feel a bit exhausted. In a good way. I remember years ago, the first time I saw Rutger Hauer's The Hitcher. That movie wore me the hell out, and Into Darkness did that, but with a whole lot more whiz-bang. One thing I liked about this movie was its scale. Everything is big. The starship bays. The engineering section of the ship. The cityscape of San Francisco in the 23rd century, which features in a smashing ending. Where Star Trek: The Original Series could feel claustrophobic, and even its planet-scapes felt small, this movie just feels big.

There are several plot complications, and our heroes are in lethal situations many, many times. There are perhaps a few too many familiar tropes they could have left out (especially the trite "dangling by one hand" near-death experience). And though our heroes ultimately prevail--as you knew they would--this Trek has an unusually high body count. Then again, in the previous film, the entire planet of Vulcan was wiped out, so maybe not.

The ending of this film is interesting. I don't think I'm spoiling much to say that at the end, it feels like the crew of the Enterprise is about to actually start their careers, as though it ends at the beginning of a hypothetical new Star Trek series. But, at two movies in to the new adventures, it actually feels kind of weird. Particularly since that's kind of where the previous film left us. So, if you're like Zaki, and found this to be a middling installment, you can actually ignore it, and go into Star Trek III (actually XIII) as though it followed the 2009 film!

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a spoiler alert or not. . .

Some people lament the J.J. Abrams era of Star Trek, decrying its action and flash (and lens flares!) at the expense of character development, and Roddenberry-esque themes. I don't. I still have my hundreds of hours of classic Trek. They didn't go anywhere. I find these new films to be a great addition to what came before, and they've surely breathed new life into a moribund franchise. Now, can they bring us another one before Quinto and Pine are in their forties?

My review: Highly Recommended (B+)

And here is Zaki's Corner's Review

Come On! Arrested Development News

Image from source, HuffPo

I watched Arrested Development back when it was on FOX originally. But I think I kind of lost track of it before it was prematurely cancelled. I was thankful when Netflix added all three seasons, so that I could marathon them. It turned out I'd seen a lot of them. . .maybe most of them. But full immersion was far better than my standard half-hearted divided TV attention. AD is nothing short of brilliant. Its cancellation was thus a crime, and inevitable. But fortunately for fans, it wasn't the end.


[Excerpt]

Mitch Hurwitz Talks Arrested Development 2.0


Doubters to the left: The Arrested Development reunion took another step toward reality on Tuesday when creator Mitch Hurwitz and several members of the cast appeared onstage together at a Netflix-sponsored event in Las Vegas. Speaking on the floor of the National Association of Broadcasters convention, Netflix chief Ted Sarandos confirmed that all ten episodes of Arrested's long-awaited fourth season will premiere together on a single day sometime next year. Hurwitz also confirmed that production is set to begin this summer, but he also dropped a new nugget of information about what form the Arrested revival will take. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Movies I Can't Wait to See: Tron Legacy

As a kid, I loved the first one, and I still love Jeff Bridges (as does the Motion Picture Academy). Mostly--let's be honest--I remember the cool-in-its-day video game. I haven't seen the original movie in a decade or two, and I imagine it won't hold up as well these days. Computers in the early 80s were so low-tech by today's standards, it is difficult to believe such a wonderland existed inside of them. These days? I'd totally buy it!

TRON LEGACY Official Trailer #2
by LadyBlossom

Frivolity Break: Weird Deleted Scenes from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

Image from Superman Homepage

This is a total geek post for fans of the Superman movies. Everyone knows that Superman: The Movie and Superman II were the best of the series (though I am in the minority of those who dug Superman Returns). Superman III went silly with Richard Pryor, but things really went wrong with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

For a variety of reasons, the fourth movie was outsourced to a cheapie studio, and the result was an unmitigated disaster. Once, we believed a man could fly. In this edition, due to budget cuts, not so much. The plot had something to do with Superman ridding the world of nuclear weapons. And trying to romance both Lois Lane and Mariel Hemmingway. In the mix were Gene Hackman, playing Lex Luthor like he'd been overcome with stupid, and Jon Cryer as an even stupider nephew of Lex. Luthor's plan was to clone Superman, and make his own version who would answer only to him.

The result was "The Nuclear Man" who inexplicably had a completely different appearance, and different powers. Worse, the movie was made incoherent by some drastic edits made just before it was distributed. As a comic collector at the time, I had the official adaptation, which included many scenes that did not appear in the movie. I always thought the movie stunk, but maybe it wouldn't have if those drastic cuts hadn't been made. I was wrong.

Below are the long-missing scenes. And as you will see, they wouldn't have made the movie any better. It was unsalvageable. Still, as a long time fan of even bad superhero movies, I was delighted to see the scenes at last. Hat-tip to Uncoached, where I found the first clip.

Blast from the Past: Shock Treatment: "Bitchin' in the Kitchen"

I'm on a Rocky Horror Picture Show/Shock Treatment kick this morning, so, what the hell? Here is my favorite song from the sequel.

DVD Movie Review: Friday the 13th, Part 2 (1982)

Photo of Amy Steel from Dinner With

Max Jenke

I know what you're thinking, Friday the 13th again? Well, back when I was in my 20s, and too shy to date, I spent a lot of my time watching--and rewatching--horror movies on video. Video stores were the new thing, and cheesy horror movies were plentiful. The FT13th series had a lot to do with that, picking up on the success of Halloween, and creating the multi-sequel slasher series.

These days, when The Other Half is away on a trip, I sometimes revert to that twenty-something self, even if he's now double that age. And today, I made my way to Best Buy to buy the newly remastered first sequel to Friday. I'd hoped to find it on Blu-Ray, but have been unsuccessful in that quest. No matter, this version looks almost--but not quite--as clear as the remastered original, and has quite a few added features too.

Part 2 is as nearly a remake of Part 1, with a very similar vibe, just a different killer. For the first time, it is Jason Voorhees doing the slashing, and he learned a lot from his mother. The explanation for Jason's existence--when he supposedly drowned as a child--is fairly weak. But his survival is explained only by the speculation of characters five years removed from the original story. They could be wrong, they could be right. We'll never know. Because no further sequel--not even this year's remake--ever really says why Jason didn't drown. And yet, every Friday movie from this point hinges upon that fact!

Many Friday fans will tell you that Jason was a real man until Part VI, where he is resurrected as an all-powerful zombie. This isn't quite true, unless you can explain how he survived a machete-chop through his trapezius muscle, his collar bone, a couple of ribs, major blood vessels and probably his left lung and his heart. And then managed to not fall into two pieces, while retaining the ability to use his arm for several sequels!

Continuity was never very strong in these movies, though it didn't have time to unravel yet in this second movie. Jason looks like the logical grown up version of the (probably) hallucinated junior-sized Jason from the twist ending of Part 1. And while we're talking hallucinations, the ending of Part 2 may be a hallucination as well, if the opening of Part 3 is to be believed.

Good parts of the film: Amy Steel is terrific as the heroine, Ginny. Her VW Beetle convertible plays nearly as big a part, and is featured in an iconic scene. John Furey manages to stay alive (almost) to the end, and his survival has been speculated about by fans for 27 years. He must have made an impression, for anyone to care, right? Ginny's "child psychology" on Jason, with his imagining of his mother (Betsy Palmer) is a highlight of the film.

Not so good: Most of the rest of the cast is forgettable, not for their performances, but for the fact that the movie is so short. The intro rehashes Part 1, and follows the survivor of that film (Adrienne King) through her house for one of the longest pre-credit sequences in film history. This crams the rest of the film into seventy-something minutes, hardly time for us to care about the characters. Wheelchair guy (Tom McBride) was a promising character, but gets whacked (in an an impossibly staged death, unless Jason can become invisible) early. Half the cast departs to a bar, never to be seen again. But at least they survived!

The usual sex, nudity and pot smoking are here, though the skin is curiously given short shrift. A "fun times at the swimming hole" daylight scene is shot from afar, with almost no camera time for the fairly sexy cast. There is a fully naked girl--skinny dipping at night, like any normal person would do--but more attention is paid to the nearly naked, lanky nerd guy (Stuart Charno). Not sure what that's about.

All in all, this is not a classic film. It's nearly 100% nostalgia, though Amy Steel's acting nearly redeems it. But it is a must for the Friday fan, and I've never seen it looking (and sounding) this good. And it's fun to see Jason before he found his hockey mask (or about 100 extra pounds). Look for the actor who plays the maskless Jason (Warrington Gillette) as the tow truck driver earlier in the film.

Recommendation: For fans only

I wrote a Halloween recaplet of the entire series here:
Halloween Horrors: Guide to Friday the 13th

Movies I CAN Wait to See: Halloween

I'm a horror movie fan from way back. And indisputably, one of the best horror movies ever made was 1978's Halloween. It may not seem so to younger viewers, but it influenced nearly every horror movie that came after it, and inspired countless imitations and of course, sequels.

The first movie was about a boy, Michael Myers, who became a mindless killer at 10 years old, was sent to a mental institution, and then escaped years later to go on a killing spree. It practically invented the "slasher" film, but was several notches above later movies in the genre. Atmospheric music, scream-queen Jamie Lee Curtis, and solid character actor Donald Pleasence came together to form a truly scary movie.

After many of the wannabes (think Friday the 13th) started earning big bucks, they made a sequel, Halloween II, which picked up right after part I, and included the main actors. It was fun, but was pretty much in the mold of the other imitators. Still, the music and elements were there, and most fans were pleased.

The creators decided to drop the storyline, and try a different sort of Halloween movie with Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which was pretty good, but disappointed most fans. It had nothing to do with the previous films, other than the producers, and similar eerie music.

So they went back to the original story (and dropped the roman numerals) with Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, which continued the storyline, and ignored the ending of the second movie, where Michael Myers clearly died. The great thing about Halloween 4 was that the characters reacted like normal people--trying to get the heck out of dodge--and died anyway.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers followed, and was OK, but weaker than the previous films. The sixth movie, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers dropped the number, and tried to add new elements that weren't in the previous films (Michael was a Druid?). The series was running out of steam. The 7th film, Halloween: H20, 20 years into the franchise, tried to reinvigorate the storyline. Donald Pleasence had died, but Jamie Lee Curtis was back, and much of parts 4, 5 and 6 were ignored. They even brought in Janet Leigh (Jamie Lee Curtis' real mother, and star of Psycho). H20 was an improvement, but the concept was really running on fumes. The less said about part 8, Halloween: Resurrection, the better.

So now, out of ideas, they're remaking the original film. I can't imagine what they could do with the character of Michael Myers, or the storyline that they haven't already tried. This isn't a story like A Nightmare on Elm Street, with endless nightmare/dream scenarios to plumb. Even with Rob Zombie behind it, I just can't imagine this movie topping the original film.

Honestly though, it can't be worse than some of the sequels. Movie site: Halloween-TheMovie.com

At the Movies: A Whole Lot of Stupid

Image from Wikipedia.com

Before going into to the theater to see The Simpsons Movie, my companions and I noticed the "wall of lame" coming attractions: Alvin and the Chipmunks (in rapper poses), Daddy Day Camp (apparently with Cuba Gooding, Jr. replacing Eddie Murphy) and Rush Hour 3 (because so much was left unsaid in the first two). Ugh. None of us thought we'd even want to see them on video later.

Once we went in, we were treated to an extended commercial for NBC, the typical "lets all go to the lobby"-type theater shorts, and then. . .the trailers. Yes, previews for those same movies, and a few others, almost uniformly lame. Even the movie that looked the best, The Nanny Diaries, had a lame-o trailer.

I wonder if we were the only ones who noticed the sameness of these trailers. They start with an announcer, and no soundtrack, then a classic song starts to play: "Whoa! I feel good. . ." or "What you want, baby I got it. . ." or "She drives me crazy. . ." While the song plays, we get a montage of "funny" scenes, then the music stops (with a screech of tires, or a phonograph needle scratch), and somebody gets hit in the nuts. Or Cuba Gooding, Jr. says something "funny" that is wayyy below his talent level. Then, cue another classic song, run another montage, let the announcer finish. And then someone else gets hit in the nuts.

I suppose it's an effective way to sell crap, but man. Hollywood needs an injection of fresh ideas. Oh, and what does it say about a sequel when even Eddie Murphy won't appear in it?