Official Trailer for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I've kept my disclaimers of my big move on the page to explain why my blogging has been sporadic, because I've still not settled into a habitual blogging pattern since leaving Las Vegas. And the more I look at them, they more they look like excuses and whining! So, whether or not I've got my feet under me again, there is simply no excuse for not having posted something about the new Batman/Superman movie, with the trailer having leaked. So, here it is!
 

I've complained a lot in this space about Warner Brothers' seeming cluelessness as it regards their DC Comics properties. While Marvel manages to rock the entire world with their sprawling cinematic universe, which has managed to have an interconnected continuity over a dozen or so films and now three or four TV shows, Warner has struggled. To give credit where it's due, DC has for years done very well with animated fare. But animated fare is seen as "for kids" moreso than live action, and certainly doesn't have the impact of epic movies.

The Dark Night series was of course hugely successful, and there have been other DC properties that have been successful. There are some that I feel were unfairly maligned (I still don't understand the hate for Superman Returns or Green Lantern, which you'd think would have gotten some credit for at least trying amid a DC-character drought). And then, there were big successes like Man of Steel which still managed to critically disappoint. Finally, with Man of Steel though, we got the first hints that DC was finally going to start their own interconnected universe. Woo-hoo! We found out Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman would all be in the same stories, and that it would be in a sequel that would set up the Justice League of America! Awesome!

However, my feeling that Warner Brothers would screw it all up remains. There are several reasons for this (besides, you know, past precedent). Amid this fledgling universe, a few different things happened. It was decided to reboot Batman again, and then hire Ben Affleck to play him (I'm cool with this, many others had reservations, to say the least). A new version of Green Arrow was brought to TV, also rebooted, and different from the one in the long-running Smallville. Arrow was a hit, so far as they exist on the CW network, big enough to warrant spinning out its own universe. Arrow begat The Flash--an even bigger success--and the two shows are on their way to creating combined universe Justice League, as well as other spin-offs. We've also got Gotham, a show about Batman as a boy, that is unmoored by continuity to any of the other properties. And a new Supergirl show that may or may not be connected to other established continuities.

The DC TV universe is flourishing, probably by surprise.

On the horizon are a movie version of The Flash that is separate and apart from the TV version, the coming JLA movie (also separate from TV), and if all of that works well, presumably all of the other big DC characters. So, why complain? After decades of rare gems from DC properties, amid scads of crappy product (when we got any product at all), we have a wealth of options!

Well, because we comics fans are nerds. We complain endlessly about things we like as much as things we don't. But we feel justified because it just looks like they're making a mess of things.  We've got two simultaneously blooming main DC Comics universes, big screen and little screen. We've managed to live with this before, with separate continuities for Superman with each new TV show (Adventures of Superboy, Lois & Clark, Smallville), that sometimes overlapped with Superman movies on the calendar. But, will the public be able to sort out two completely different versions of The Flash at the same time? Two Supermen (assuming Supergirl on TV still is his cousin)? And yet another rebooted Green Lantern? Maybe two? We're supposed to also get Shazam! on the big screen, but will they also want him on TV? Will either of them be properly called "Captain Marvel," even though Marvel is introducing their own character with the same name?

Comic geeks can rationalize and "fan wank" anything away, if they like it. They'll complain about it all even if they like it. But you need a broader audience, and if you start out by confusing them? It just seems like a bad idea. And why exhaust ideas or risk repeating yourself with competing versions of the same characters? I just really don't get it. I'd like to see someone at Warner Brothers take the reins like Marvel has done, and make a cohesive whole out of all of it, even if it's a "multiple universes" connection. That would be the most "DC" thing they could even do!

 

Ben Affleck to Play the Next Batman

So, Warner Brothers announced on Thursday night that Ben Affleck has been signed to play the next version of Batman in the sequel to Man of Steel. He'll be playing opposite Henry Cavill's Superman, in what will probably amount to a VS. that segues into a team-up. It's an important piece of DC Comics' puzzle on the way to a Justice League of America movie, to rival the movie universe of Marvel Comics.

Warner Brothers may be having a bit of a panic at the moment, because the announcement has been instantly and overwhelmingly negative, at least in the internet quarters I've been visiting. It's a big "Noooooooo!" even from my sister. I have no idea how ironclad the contract is, but I wonder if either WB or Affleck is feeling a bit bruised already. My advice to the fandom: calm down, and let it settle in. Daredevil was a long time ago. Not only has Affleck's craft improved, so has the entire genre of superhero movies. And while I've dissed the handling of DC's properties in the past, they got the Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel mostly right. So who knows?

The way I see it, Affleck is the right height, has the right hair color, has the lantern jaw, the ability to beef up when necessary, and is a fairly decent actor. I'm keeping an open mind. And hey, it's not like it's "Nicholas Cage as Superman," right? When you think about it, who was thinking, "Yeah! Michael Keaton as Batman!" until they saw him in it?

[Excerpt]
 
Ben Affleck to play Batman in 'Man of Steel' sequel

Actor Ben Affleck will play Batman in an upcoming Superman sequel that will see the two caped crusaders face off against each other, film studio Warner Bros Pictures said on Thursday. . .

Read more at: Reuters

Movies I Can't Wait to See: Man of Steel

Henry Cavill looks good, no doubt. But I'm hoping
the costume is an early prototype. Image from
JustJared.

DC Comics has just released The Dark Knight Rises, apparently the last Batman movie we're likely to get for a long time. The movie--despite the tragic opening night fiasco in Aurora,Colorado--is likely to do very, very well. Maybe not The Avengers well, but close. And that's a darn sight better than most of DC Comics' movie adaptations compared to Marvel's.

And for life-long DC fans like me, who actually dug Green Lantern and yes, Superman Returns, it's about time. But, if you think it's weird that I liked those movies, I've also been underwhelmed by Christopher Nolan's modern day Batman series. The second one with the late Heath Ledger as the Joker? Meh. I know everyone liked it, but to me, it was just oversold or something. But then, I wasn't much of a fan of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman series either. Well, I liked the Val Kilmer one.

So, while I don't think it was necessary to reboot Superman only six years after the last one, I am nonetheless excited about Man of Steel. Supes has always been one of my favorites, and it would be sweet if DC finally hit on a non-Batman hero, one that everyone likes, not just me. The overdone "S" shield in this promo is a little troublesome. I am a graphic artist as an adult, and that thing is just too much. But I'll be there. Maybe not on opening night though. . .

Mass Shooting at Dark Knight Rises

For all of the importance and focus we put on terrorism from without, there seems to be little we can do about it from within. And when it comes to domestic terrorism, there is little more effective than a mass shooting. They seem to happen with disturbing regularity in this country. And without a seismic shift in public opinion, they're going to keep happening.

I'm usually ambivalent when it comes to guns, neither fetishising them as many on the right, nor being energized against them like. . .well, I'm not sure these days who is rabidly against guns. When it comes to tragic events like this, the gun nuts well get over-the-top defensive, and insist that if only more people were armed*, this wouldn't have happened. And for the most part, anyone who wants to be critical of guns or gun rights will soft-peddle what they want to say for fear of being branded anti-gun.   [Story continues below]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I'm not sure how we got here, with this issue being so radioactive. Yes, we have a second amendment, but it doesn't say, "An unregulated gun collection, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear unlimited Arms without restriction or oversight, shall not be infringed." It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is often left out, of course. And the word "infringe" is rather fuzzy and imprecise. It's surprising that it has become so ironclad. Also, you'd think the word "arms" could be defined to exclude weapons of mass destruction. It already is, in that you can't have a nuclear weapon, or a tank, or a dirty bomb.

This story is new, and we may learn some uncomfortable details--and in the meantime may hear some inaccurate ones--after the facts come in. The shooter could be right-wing, left-wing or completely politically unaffiliated. There may have been laws or regulations that could've helped prevent this, or it may be that no one could have seen it coming. I have to wonder though, why it is impossible to limit--or at least impede--just anyone from acquiring weapons capable of mowing down a crowd.

[Excerpt]


12 shot dead at 'Dark Knight Rises' screening in Aurora, Colorado

Twelve people were killed and at least 50 others wounded early Friday when a gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest opened fire during a midnight screening of the latest Batman movie near Denver, authorities and witnesses said. . .

Read more at: NBCNews.com


* The "more guns" argument bugs me a lot. It belies a rather unrealistic mindset, where life is like a movie, and every "good" gun owner is John McClane from Die Hard. I'm not sure the reality would play out like an action movie.  

Frivolity Break: The Dark Knight Meets 60s Robin!

This may go on a trifle too long, but it's well done, funny and Robin is well cast.

Movies I Can't Wait to See: Green Lantern

OhboyOhboyOhboy. . .I'd seriously watch Ryan Reynolds in just about anything, but Green Lantern? A DC Comics superhero movie that looks like it has the potential to actually be good? I. Can't. Wait.

Superman Recast with Henry Cavill

Image from source, Filmonic

There's a Superman named Henry? Isn't that even dorkier than "Clark?" Oh well, he looks like a handsome, strapping dude, and British or not, I think he can pull it off. I feel bad for Brandon Routh though. I'm in the distinct minority of comic book fans who actually enjoyed Superman Returns. I think much of the negative press that film took had more to do with the countless false starts, and many counted lost millions on Superman films that never got made between 1987 and 2006. Oh well. I'm just glad they're actually going to do another one. No matter how good it is, though, there will be disappointed fan boys out there. Relax, at least it isn't Nicholas Cage!

[Excerpt]

Henry Cavill is the new Superman!



After much speculation, relative unknown Henry Cavill has landed one of the most coveted roles in Hollywood. The British actor will play Superman (aka Clark Kent, as if you didn’t know) in Zack Synder’s still-untitled Superman film, set to be produced by Christopher Nolan. . .
 
Read more at: Filmonic

Mini DVD Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I finally got around to watching Wolverine, and I've got to say, I'm not sure why it was regarded as something of a failure. I guess like Fantastic Four and its sequel, X-Men III: The Last Stand, Watchmen, Superman Returns and so many other superhero films, the outcry is coming from die-hard comic book fans. The producers "didn't get it right," and so, the movie gets a big FAIL from them.

I'm a super-hero fan from way, way back. But I'm relatively easy to please. All of the above movies mentioned, and many others have pleased me just fine. I understand that the transition from comic books to the silver screen involves changing them to some degree. Having grown up on DC Comics, with their multi-verse concept, "Elseworlds" and "imaginary stories," I understand that each incarnation of any particular character will involve many variations and differences.

That's not to say that all of the changes are good, or that every super-hero movie is great. The Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney Batman series is vastly overrated in my opinion (as is the current Christian Bale one, but for different reasons). Superman III and Supergirl were disappointing (but not without their fun parts), and the less said about Superman IV: The Quest for Peace the better.

But I thought that Wolverine was plenty enjoyable for me. It didn't hurt that we got to see Hugh Jackman in the altogether, and any appearance by a wisecracking Ryan Reynolds is always welcome. I was never a Marvel Comics fan, so I only had a vague familiarity with the many characters introduced in the film. This probably helped, since I had no fan "bible" to go by. The movie manages to give Wolverine a full back-story--only hinted at in X-Men--while neatly tying it into the parent series' storyline.

The movie didn't feel as big or bombastic as Iron Man (one of the best super-hero movies ever made) or Spider-Man, but it didn't feel like it needed to be.  I guess this one needs to be entered into with lowered expectations. Accept it for what it is: the movie version of some of your favorite comic book characters. Leave your fanboy nit pickery at the door, and enjoy.

Recommended.

The Problem With Superhero Movies

All images from
SuperHeroMovies.net

I've spent a good portion of my evening reading about upcoming superhero movies. As I often do, I sort of got lost in the topic, having no idea how much time I was spending. But through all of that reading, I was also doing a lot of thinking. There are tons of great characters out there (and I'm just talking about the DC and Marvel characters I'm most familiar with). They've had in some cases over seventy years of story ideas. Yet somehow, many characters languish for years in development hell, and others come to the screen as major disappointments.

Part of the problem is that comic book fans are notoriously fickle. You couldn't find a group of people--outside of Star Trek or Star Wars fans--who are harder to please. They don't like the director, they don't like the script, they don't like the actors chosen to play their favorite heroes, villains and the lot. Mostly, they'll complain that the final product is too different--or paradoxically too much like--the source material.

Another part of the problem is that if they're too faithful, they might just look silly. As good as the first two Superman movies were, Christopher Reeve's tights did look goofy. The Spider-Man movies of the last ten years and Superman Returns (highly underrated, in my lonely opinion) proved that they can make a fairly faithful costume that doesn't look ridiculous. And in the upcoming Green Lantern movie--which looks like it could either be great or crappy--they wisely ditched the elbow-length white gloves.

One of the biggest problems with bringing our heroes to the big screen seems to be Hollywood meddling. You would think with so much source material, coming up with a gem would be an easy proposition. But a look at some of the stuff that didn't make it shows that Hollywood doesn't know what it's doing a lot of the time. If you've ever seen pictures of the Tim Burton take on Superman (staring Nicholas Cage as Supes!), you know what I'm talking about.  Even when they get it right, the sequels always spin out of control. 

The original Superman series got progressively more silly, and lower-budget, to the point of embarrassment. The 80s-90s Batman franchise added too many characters, and changed actors too often. X-Men just. . .lost something.  Spider-Man fell to the same "too many characters" trope, and The Punisher could never figure out how to replicate the comic, amongst many other problems.  Only Iron Man and The Fantastic Four seemed to be consistent with tone and style, though I'm again in the minority of opinion on that one, and FF is rumored to be on a reboot schedule as well.

And when they don't fall apart, they reboot. This makes sense, as with Batman Begins, starting up a dormant property in a new era. But only a few years passed between The Hulk and the reboot, The Incredible Hulk. Spider-Man is being rebooted with only a couple of years since the last installment. Superman: Man of Steel is on its way, as a reboot only six years after the last one.

All of this is taking place in a market already saturated with bombastic, CGI-laden "blockbuster" films (now in 3D!). How many times can we watch the "first" installment of a new or rebooted series, with half the picture taken up by an origin story? How many times can an audience be expect to "reboot" their brains to keep a now changed storyline straight? Especially when they're trying to tie the Marvel stories and the DC stories into respective "universes" so that they can make "group" movies like The Avengers and The Justice League of America?

Honestly, as much as I want to see my favorite heroes (Wonder Woman, The Metal Men, Plastic Man, Firestorm, The Flash, Shazam!, JLA, etc.) come to life at the movies, I have a funny feeling that all of this is going to collapse under its own weight. Maybe if Joss Whedon's The Avengers, along with Captain America, Thor and Green Lantern all manage to be both good movies, and successful, that feeling will go away. But given the recent history of failed or stillborn attempts, I don't have a good feeling about the genre in general.

Now, if you are interested in finding a place where all of the future superhero movies can be read about in one place, I've got a link for you. A lot of them are subject to change or cancellation of course, and several of them sound like they can't possibly happen with the given details (could The Flash, JLA and Wonder Woman really all come out on the same day?), and some will make you groan. I mean, they're really going to call a Captain Marvel movie Billy Batson and the Legend of Shazam!? Why not, Shazam! The World's Mightiest Mortal, or With One Magic Word. . .SHAZAM!?  Anyway, the site is called Superhero Movie News. Don't get lost there, like I did.

Entertainment Weekly Reveals Green Lantern Costume

I haven't gotten excited enough to see much at the movie theaters this year.  I think the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street was the last one I went to. But as a long-time (we're talking 35-years plus) fan of DC Comics, I'm excited about Ryan Reynolds' The Green Lantern.  As a superhero, GL would be almost impossible to depict in live action, were it not for today's CGI technology.  So, it's good that they didn't try to do this character much sooner than they did.

While it is not unheard of to have the same actors turn up in different superhero adaptations (Chris Evans in Fantastic Four and Captain America), this is Ryan Reynolds' fourth, unless I've lost count.  Before GL, he was Deadpool in Wolverine (and will play the character in a spinoff), Captain Excellent in Paper Man and Hannibal King in Blade: Trinity.  There was even a lot of chatter about him playing The Flash. I'd watch Reynolds in just about anything (and Evans is no slouch either!), but that might be one superhero too far.

And what of the costume?  The silver age Green Lantern always had a costume problem. At first, it looked like a green tank-top with a turtleneck collar, long shoulder-length white gloves, and a shiny emerald ring.  It was bad superhero drag.  The mask didn't do much to hide Hal Jordan's identity either.  Over the years, they changed the design a bit, pulling some green shoulder caps out of the tank-top look, and that pretty much fixed it. Except for the long white gloves.  It never made sense to me that they'd be white, considering how easily they'd get dirty, and who wears gloves under a ring?

The movie version couldn't depart too radically, or they've lost their target audience. There have been enough changes over the years though, to give them some flexibility.  But I'm not sure they went the right way with it. It looks like someone skinned Ryan's torso, and then painted his muscle fibers green.  Maybe it will look better in motion.

Source: Entertainment Weekly

Does Spider-Man Really Need a Reboot?

Image from source, Bam! Kapow!

What the heck is so difficult about making superhero movies? There are countless stories told over spans of forty to seventy years in some cases, and still the movie studios seem clueless. For every good superhero movie, there are several bad ones. For every strong first movie, there are strings of bad sequels. For every one that gets to the screen, there are countless discarded treatments, and more cancelled concepts.

Marvel Comics--much to this DC Comics fan's chagrin--seemed to be on a roll. They had critical and/or popular success with X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four and Iron Man. Some were middling or failures, like The Hulk, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Electra, Wolverine, and the many versions of The Punisher. But when it comes to bringing product to the screen, Marvel has been riding high.

DC hasn't fared as well. They've struck popular and critical gold with Batman lately (particularly with The Dark Knight), but not much else. They utterly failed with Catwoman. Didn't do so well with Constantine. I guess Watchmen did all right, but I didn't much care for it. But this isn't exactly their top-shelf stuff, excepting Batman. Where are the long promised Shazam!, The Metal Men, Wonder Woman, Superman vs. Batman, Justice League of America, Plastic Man and The Flash?

Superman Returns came out in 2006, continuing the basic storyline of Superman: The Movie and Superman II. I loved it, but am in the minority. The lukewarm response has parked the franchise in purgatory, with rumors of a "reboot." A reboot takes the same or similar characters, and starts over, with a different cast, different continuity and usually different people behind the scenes. It can re-energize a franchise (see Batman) or can make little difference (The Incredible Hulk). And it runs the risk of alienating fans of the previous franchise. The time to reboot Superman would have been before the last movie, if they were going to do it.

Now comes word of a Spider-Man reboot. Why? This franchise has all come out in the last 10 years. The cast is still in an age range that works. The third movie underwhelmed, but for reasons that had nothing to do with the creative team (other than the writer). The problem with Spider-Man 3 is the same one that plagued the Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney Batman series: just too damned much. Too many characters, particularly, villains thrown into one big movie blender. Rather than a reboot, a simple paring back would have sufficed.

The strange thing about rebooting Spider-Man is that there has been a recent attempt to tie together these Marvel movies into the same universe with little cameos at the end. Doesn't making a whole new version kind of screw that up? For some interesting reading, Google around (or Wikipedia around) for some behind the scenes stuff about the making of some of these movies. Here's one to get you started, for the Superman series. It's stunning how many talented people can have so many stupid ideas. How hard can it really be to make a good superhero movie?

[Excerpt]

Spider-Man Movies Get The Reboot

Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012. Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises. . .

Read more at: Bam! Kapow!

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.

Great Caesar's Ghost! No New Superman Movie?

Image from source, Bam! Kapow!

Well, I am bummed. I'm a big DC Comics fan, particularly of Superman. I eagerly anticipated Superman Returns, and was happy that the movie came out as well as it did. The film had its flaws, but I thought Brandon Routh made a great Superman, and Kevin Spacey a terrific Lex Luthor. In hindsight, continuing the story told in Superman: The Movie and Superman II may not have been the best decision. But overall, I really liked it.

I'm in the distinct minority. Though almost every comic book fan saw the film, the prevailing attitude seems to be that the film sucked. It's kind of like Star Trek fans' dismissal of Voyager, Enterprise and sometimes Deep Space Nine. They're hardcore fans, they watched every episode, but they have nothing nice to say about them. Fans can be cold, and they were cold to Superman Returns.

The film also had an unfair disadvantage in having to recoup tons of money from the many false starts that DC and Warner Brothers spent decades coming up with, then trashing. So, a respectable box office tally barely recouped the costs. And now, due to a lawsuit with the heirs of Superman's creators, DC will soon be restricted from using some of the elements of Superman lore without paying out extra money. So, you'd think that doing a Superman movie before that kicks in would be prudent. But, you'd be wrong.

Why? I dunno. How in the world could it be so difficult to come up with something good for the best-known superhero of all time? They've been talking reboot, which I think sucks, especially this soon. And given the track record of DC with both Superman and Wonder Woman (as well as with other properties), it is likely that the next Superman film will have the same challenge of overcoming costs from aborted projects. I guess my hopes from the formation of DC Entertainment were for naught.

[Excerpt]

Superman Not Heading Into Theatres Anytime Soon

. . .When asked if the shake-up (and the recent court decision) meant a Superman movie would be more likely to happen now, Nelson replied that "We actually don’t have any current plans for Superman. . ."

Read more at: Bam! Kapow!

DVD Movie Review: The Dark Knight

The sick day rolls on, and I'm feeling (slightly) better. The Other Half came home, and we ordered a pizza, something that is off of my regular diet. And, I watched--as part of a superhero double feature with The Incredible Hulk--The Dark Knight, the second of the rebooted Batman franchise.

The blurb on the box (actually Blu-Ray, not DVD) says "prepare to be wowed." And I was prepared. Everybody has raved about this picture. It's up for Oscars, and is widely regarded as the best superhero movie of all time. And me? I'm a comic book fan from years (decades) past, I'm easy to please. So, why was I underwhelmed by The Dark Knight?



The first thirty to forty minutes were a snooze-fest for me. Things picked up a couple of times. There were some nifty effects with the Bat-Cycle, I thought Heath Ledger did a good job, and I really like Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman. Harvey Dent's Two-Face makeup was great. But otherwise? Not impressed. I can't see myself reaching into the old movie library to watch this again in a month, a year, even five. On the other hand, I've seen Superman Returns, Spider-Man 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, Iron Man and both Fantastic 4 flicks at least a couple of times each.

There is something overwrought and bombastic about Batman movies (the original four, and the two new ones). They tend to be too long. There is generally too much going on, with an inordinately convoluted plot weighing everything down. The newest films have done better with the villains, though. Two-Face and Joker did not feel like they were shoe-horned into the same movie. The 80s/90s Batman movies shoved way too many villains and heroes onto the screen at once, much like Spider-Man 3 did.

I guess my problem is in the character of Batman himself. You never really buy that a non-superpowered human would do the things Batman does, or that it is even possible for him to do so. It was nice that he asked for a mask that would allow him to turn his head, because that always bugged me. Why does he have a big rubber cowl anyway? Wouldn't fabric work better?And Christian Bale has a very recognizeable lower face (as does Aaron Eckhart), so how hard would it really be to figure out Batman's secret identity?

As a comic book fan, you might wonder why I'm picking it all apart like this. I don't know. I wanted to like the movie. . .and I sorta did. But it's like all the hype about Forrest Gump when it came out. When I finally saw it ("You've just gotta see this film!!!"), I spent most of my time mentally picking it apart. I think part of my subconscious takes it as a challenge to prove the rest of the world wrong sometimes. As it was with The Dark Knight.

Despite all I've written, it really isn't bad. In fact, if it were tightened up a bit, I would have liked it just fine. If you're sick at home like I've been today, you could do a heck of a lot worse (see The Happening, or better yet, don't). It's just that it isn't the best superhero film ever as everyone says (that honor belongs to Iron Man, in my opinion), and I wasn't wowed. Sorry.

My review: Everyone else loved it a lot, so I recommend it. I just advise lowering your expectations a little. You'll like it better that way.

DVD Movie Review: The Incredible Hulk

I'm home sick today (not homesick, ill at home!), with a fever that's bounced between 99.4 and 100.1 degrees, back and forth. So, I decided I'd entertain myself by diving into our Christmas DVD stack again. Today, I pulled out The Incredible Hulk from 2008. And it wasn't a bad pick!



I never saw what was wrong with the original Hulk movie (2003). It wasn't at the top of my list of superhero films, but it was far from the worst. And the newer film--while better--doesn't quite rate as a "re-boot" in my mind. Sure, it has different actors, but this is still the basic Bruce Banner/Hulk story. Nice touches included the obligatory Stan Lee cameo (though his fate wasn't clear), and a quick clip of The Courtship of Eddie's Father, which starred TV's David Banner, Bill Bixby. Also making a cameo was Lou Ferrigno, TV's Hulk, and a character named after Hulk's TV nemesis, reporter Jack McGee. Also--and this may be a spoiler, but not really--there is a cameo by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark (Iron Man). If you remember the TV show, the theme music makes a subltle appearance as well. There may have been other "in-jokes," but I'm a DC Comics fan, and this is a Marvel character.

I'd still put this version of The Incredible Hulk somewhere in the middle of the pack of my list of superhero flicks. Somewhere between The Fantastic Four and its sequel, I guess. Some might think that's faint praise, but I'm easy to please with these things.

That said, it should be pointed out that in the implausible world of comics, The Hulk is literally head and shoulders above the rest for not being credible. Maybe that's where "incredible" comes from? First, how does gamma radiation make him instantly much heavier? What exactly supplies the mass? How do Hulk's teeth get bigger, and then shrink down to fit in Banner's mouth? How does Hulk's hair change color and length and then back to whatever style Bruce is wearing? And most of all, people, the pants!

The Abomination, this movie's villain, was wisely conceived without pants. But Hulk wears whatever Bruce Banner had on. There were a few (cute) references to "stretchy" pants, but mostly he wore jeans. Jeans! I don't care how big and baggy they are, this is a beast whose leg is the size of Ed Norton's whole body! Yes, I know that they have to cover Hulk's ass and naughty bits, but they really should have come up with an explanation for this in the comics by now. Have they?

I kept thinking of Terri Garr's line from Young Frankenstein: "He must have an enormous schwanstuker! Woof!" Yeah, I'm immature that way.

My review: Recommended for fans, ok for a sick day if you're not a fan.

Movies I Can't Wait to See: The Incredible Hulk

One good superhero post deserves another, right? The Incredible Hulk debuts June 13, and I for one will be there. As I said before, I'm more of a DC Comics fan, but I'll take a good Marvel Comics film any day. Even a less-than-great one like Spider-Man 3, The Fantastic Four or the original The Hulk were still fun.

I'm not sure if the new Hulk movie is considered a sequel or a re-boot, but it really doesn't matter. I mean I watched every episode of the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno series, so I'm easy to please!

Mini Review: Iron Man

One of the things I squeezed in to my recent trip home to Ohio was to see Iron Man. As regular readers already know, I'm a sucker for super hero movies. I'm a DC Comics fan, mostly, but still get excited about almost any super hero movie that comes along.

Iron Man, a Marvel Comics character, was one of the most unlikely super heroes to exist in the real world. He's big and clunky, doesn't look very flexible or flight-worthy, and would seem to lend no personality to the screen because of his total encasement in a metal endoskeleton.

But this movie fixed all that. It's exciting, it's fun, it's even funny. And 50% or more of its success is attributable to one thing: Robert Downey Jr. For all of his troubles over the last decade or so, he was the perfect choice for Iron Man's alter-ego, Tony Stark. His 40+ years (virtually the same age as this blogger) melds perfectly with the character. Perfect, just perfect.

It didn't throw too many villains, too many heroes, or anything extraneous at the screen like so many other super hero movies tend to do (hello, Batman & Robin and Spider-Man 3).

And the movie is everything that Superman Returns should have been. Don't get me wrong, I dearly loved SR, and am a DC purist at heart. But Iron Man, while it does include a little romance, easily surpasses that movie, all of the Spider-Man movies, all other super hero movies, in this comic book fan/blogger's opinion.

Go see it on the big screen, you will not be disappointed. Highly recommended.

Movies I Can't Wait to See: The Incredible Hulk

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! As you may have noticed, I'm a sucker for superhero movies. I pretty much like them all, even the bad ones. Hey, I'm even in the minority of people who dug the original Hulk movie.

Well, Marvel Comics seems to want to reboot the series after only one outing (not counting the TV Show), and are doing the Superman Returns bit of "loose continuity" to the original film. OK by me. I've stopped worrying about continuity in these sorts of films. There are after all, dozens of different versions of most superheroes in many different formats (comics, books, movies, TV, games, etc.), so why worry about it? Just enjoy.

NOTE: MTV is sorta stingy with their embedding links. Just double-click in the middle of this video picture, and it will open the right window for viewing.

• MTV
• Music Videos
• MTV Shows
• Entertainment News

Movies I Can't Wait to See: The Green Lantern

Image from source, Towleroad

I thought I knew about all of the planned DC Comics movie adaptations, but I was wrong! This could do very well, that is if it is done very well.

The Green Lantern is one of the strongest heroes in the DC Universe, though one of the more unfortunately named. He bares a power ring that can create anything from his imagination, and is only rendered defenseless by the color yellow. OK, that's a weak element too, but that comes from childhood imagination, doesn't it? Didn't you ever try not to touch anything yellow, or wood, or whatever? OK, maybe it's just me. In any event, I'll be there, ticket in hand on opening day. . .

[Excerpt]

Greg Berlanti to Helm Green Lantern Movie

Gay writer/director Greg Berlanti (Everwood, Broken Hearts Club) has signed on to co-write and direct a live-action feature film adaptation of DC Comics' superhero comic Green Lantern.
Read more at: Towleroad

Movies I Can't Wait to See: Justice League of America

Image from Wikipedia.org

I'm a DC Comics fan from way back, actually almost as far back as I can remember. I never cottoned to Marvel Comics, and only dabbled in other publishers' offerings (Charlton's being one, but they were sort of absorbed by DC, so same thing).

DC's biggest team superhero offering has been (for about 45 years) The Justice League of America. The lineups have changed over the years, sure, but any movie version will have to include Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, The Flash and Aquaman. So news of a movie version would be a letdown if those heroes were missing. Thankfully, the new Batman franchise is going well, the Superman franchise (while less successful) did fairly well, and superheroes in general are doing big business in cinema. The Flash is set for a movie treatment, and Aquaman has been featured in Entourage, and Smallville.

So I'm hoping that this movie, set for 2010 (2010? That sounds like the Jetsons' time period, doesn't it?), will be an extravaganza that will be the superhero movie that sets the standard.

I'm hoping that by 2010, the Wonder Woman movie will have been a success too, to give the movie a little more viability. A movie featuring all of these heroes would send fans (even old ones like me) into the stratosphere, if done correctly. X-Men, for all of its success, featured a lot of also-ran heroes, those with names unknown to most Americans.

But a movie featuring Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Superman? If it failed, the producers would have no one but themselves to blame.