Jul
23
“Birds of Prey” DVD Review
Filed Under Comics, TV | Leave a Comment
I touched on this show last week, mainly drooling over the star, button-cute Ashley Scott. I’ve since powered through all twelve episodes, and what follows is my take on the show, including the other exorbitantly hot female lead, Dina Meyer.
“Birds of Prey” started out as a DC Comics series that began in the ’90s and ran for over 100 issues. It was set in contemporary Gotham City and focused on Barbara Gordon — the paraplegic former Batgirl, now known as the computer whiz Oracle — as well as her two female vigilante sidekicks, the Huntress and the Black Canary. After watching the series, I’m compelled to pick up the first “Birds of Prey” TPB to see if the comic has what the show lacked — capes and cowls, recognizable super-villains, the occasional cameo by a certain crimefighting gentleman who also lives in Gotham, etc.
When adapting the comic book for television, series creator Laeta Kalogridis (a woman whose name I’m astonished I spelled correctly on the first try) retained some of the key elements, but made several significant changes to the mythology. The Huntress on the show is the daughter of Batman and Catwoman, like the original pre-”Crisis on Infinite Earths” incarnation of the character, not the Huntress from the BoP comic book series. Also known as Helena Kyle — and played by future Mrs. Lohan, Ashley Scott — she has some meta-human cat-like abilities and does the bulk of her crime-fighting alone. Barbara Gordon/Oracle (Dina Meyer) is not unlike her comic book counterpart and confined to a wheelchair, but able to lend tech support to Huntress via their clock tower HQ; Oracle’s the most faithfully adapted of the three Birds. The third heroine, Dinah Lance (Rachel Skarsten), is actually the daughter of the Black Canary and possesses some low-level psychic abilities the series jettisons about midway through, replacing them with telekinesis. Nevertheless, Dinah’s not given much to do.
The show is set in the near-future, unlike the comic. Batman’s splitsville — having never actually met Helena — and Gotham City has been renamed New Gotham. I had a problem with accepting that certain characters on the series, particularly Shemar Moore’s Det. Reese, being unfamiliar with Batman. Batty hasn’t been gone all that long; I believe he left town after his final confrontation with the Joker seven years before the show is set. It’s like New Yorkers not knowing who Rudy Giuliani is. Now granted, Batman didn’t run for president, and if he had, he probably would’ve made it through the primaries. But, still… How can you be in the law enforcement community in Gotham and not know who Batman is/was?
However, I’m willing to forgive Reese’s naivete. It’s not the show’s primary weakness. No, I think the show suffered in the ratings because there weren’t many identifiable Bat-villains from his rogues gallery. The Birds of Prey fight some incredible lame-asses over the course of the series. I’d almost have rather they’d taken on organized crime figures or someone other than these goofballs. You get a few brief glimpses of the Joker in the pilot; he’s the one who shoots Barbara Gordon and leaves her paralyzed. But almost all the baddies on the show are just weird meta-humans straight from Central Casting.
That being said, Mia Sara plays Dr. Harleen Quinzel (aka Harley Quinn, the Joker’s squeeze), Helena Kyle’s therapist, and a character that was so popular on “Batman: The Animated Series,” she was introduced into comics continuity in the late-’90s. I would like to add that I simply love the concept of a super-villain whose day job is a headshrinker. Dr. Quinzel’s also the only recurring villain on the show, but she doesn’t get to do a whole hell of a lot until the series finale.
I still wanted to see some of the B- and C-listers from the Batman comics — the ones who’ll never be in a movie — make appearances on the show. Clayface pops up in the second-to-last episode, played by the guy who gets his ear hacked off in “Reservoir Dogs.” But his presence is too little, too late. Where’s the Mad Hatter, Killer Croc and Ventriloquist? Where’s Vandal Savage and Firefly? Hell, where’s King Tut? This is a freak-of-the-week show. Let’s see some freaks worthy of our attention.
That said, the disinteresting villains don’t detract from the significantly more interesting heroines. Ashley Scott’s performance as the Huntress becomes much stronger as the series progresses. Dina Meyer’s solid as Oracle, and despite her paralysis, she suits up as Batgirl one last time with the help of some doohickey strapped to her back that allows her to walk. I felt that Rachel Skarsten was sort of ballast in the first couple of episodes, but by series’ end, I was hoping they’d give her more to do rather than less.
Knowing ahead of time that the show was going to be canceled, the producers rejiggered the final episode to adequately tie up the dangling plot threads. It’s a fairly satisfying sendoff, being perhaps the strongest of ep of the series. Of course, it happens to be the one with Harley Quinn front and center as the villain, suggesting that if they’d raided Arkham Asylum for more Batman rogues, the show may have been picked up for season two.
As it is, I like the series well enough. Ashley Scott and Dina Meyer are always pleasing to the eye. There are plenty of comic book moments and esoteric fanboy references to keep me interested while I’m not leering at one or both of the leads. It’s a show that had a lot of potential that it probably could’ve lived up to had it been given another couple seasons to find its voice. But, I guess, I can start reading the trades.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
20
“The Dark Knight” Spoiler-Heavy Review
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Spoilers, Summer Blockbusters | 2 Comments
This review is lousy with spoilers. You might want to watch the movie before reading on.
“The Dark Knight” doesn’t give everything away in the trailer. These days, it seems like you go to the movies just to fill in the blanks between the money shots you’ve seen over and over again in the various trailers and TV spots. But “The Dark Knight” isn’t without its surprises. I thought I’d spoiled every last bit of business in the film before I went to see it — I’m too impatient — but this movie still blindsided me a time or two.
What I want to talk about here are those surprises; you can read my spoiler-free review here. “The Dark Knight” does a lot of things you don’t expect it to. Since this is a Christopher Nolan film, and his favorite movie of mine is “Memento,” let’s start where “The Dark Knight” ends.
Batman decides to shoulder the blame for all of Harvey Dent’s crimes, so Harv can — ahem — save face in the eyes of the public. Maybe he believed in Harvey Dent a little too much. But what’s important to consider is the possibility that Gordon won’t be able to “make it stick,” as they say on cop shows. Remember that at the top of the film, Batman chided the gun-toting copycat Batmen for trying to take on Scarecrow and some assorted thugs at a drug buy gone sour. Batman’s fairly protective of his brand and outspoken about his “one rule:” no killing. Now many fans were infuriated by Batman leaving Ra’s Al Ghul for dead in the first film, claiming Batty acted out-of-character and violated his own code. I maintain that Al Ghul didn’t die at the end of “Batman Begins;” did anyone see a body? Any any rate, by having Gordon pin a handful of homicides on Batman, he’s going on a lot of faith that Gothamites will accept that Batman’s started gunning down random criminals and dirty cops alike.
What’s more, if Batman’s supposedly killing folks, it’s inexplicable as to why he’d allow the Joker to live. I was just surprised as you that Batman saved the Clown Prince of Crime from certain death. He could’ve at least opted for Spider-Man’s tactic of allowing the villain to accidentally kill himself. I’m not sure how exactly I feel about the Joker living. There’s something unsatisfying about walking out of a theater knowing that the badguy’s not worm food. With Heath Ledger’s passing, it’s impossible — or at least, in extremely poor taste — to consider that the role will be recast for a third film. We’ve doubtless seen the last of the character, but knowing that he’s locked up for the rest of his days just doesn’t sit right with me.
Now Rachel Dawes’ death came as a major surprise to me. With critics and fans united against Katie Holmes’ performance in movie one, it seemed entirely possible that the character would just be written out of the second film; Batman’s never been in an LTR that’s carried over into a sequel before anyway. But the role was recast with Maggie Gyllenhaal, a move that I thought suggested the filmmakers were trying to break convention, not to mention Batman’s heart. For the bulk of her lifespan in “The Dark Knight,” she’s involved with Harvey Dent. She does have one icky kissing scene with Bruce Wayne but is soon vaporized in a bomb blast moments after accepting Dent’s proposal.
That isn’t to say I’m disappointed she was killed. I like Gyllenhaal as an actress, but the Rachel Dawes character isn’t terribly interesting. She’s functionary, like too many love interests in these types of films, someone who either needs to be saved, or when not in imminent danger, compelling the hero to quit saving other people; it’s an odd dichotomy, but one that gets old quickly. Once I’d like to see a love interest in a superhero movie who’s kind of thrilled with the idea of dating a superhero. But I digress. With Dawes in the grave, the movie Batman can potentially be more like his comic book counterpart — as celibate as his myriad fans.
Who’s to say where the franchise will go next? Nolan’s obviously trying to avoid convention, and bully for him. The formula for comic book movies needs to be torn apart and reassembled as something else, something more. Fans of superhero movies, but not the comics they’re based upon, have seen enough at this point to expect more than just another product off the assembly line. They’re ready for films like “The Dark Knight” and the upcoming “Watchmen,” films that try to escape from the trappings of the genre and surprise even the most jaded fans like me.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
18
“The Dark Knight” Review
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 1 Comment
The following review is spoiler-free.
Before the movie even started last night, I was already thinking about my review. How would I make it different from all the other reactions to this, clearly the most talked-about movie of the year? Unless I wound up hating it, I began to fear that I’d just sound like every other overly effusive web-critic. I absolutely wanted my experience seeing the film to be different in some way.
Then, about 30 minutes into the movie, some joker at the ArcLight Hollywood pulled the fire alarm. The screen went dark. Lights began flashing. A klaxon whooped. I cupped my hands over my mouth in horror, like those women in 1950s science-fiction movies about giant insects or aliens with exposed brains. Yeah, I thought, my review’s going to be different — different in that I’ll be talking about just the first act.
Pissed-off Bat-fans began filing out of the auditorium, not to escape a firey death, but to scream at some poor usher who makes $7.50/hour. We were going to watch the remaining two hours of this movie even if the theater burned down around us. Word quickly filtered back into the auditorium that it had been a false alarm, and the movie would start back up again where we’d left off; I believe Morgan Freeman had been in the middle of saying something.
I wasn’t infuriated by what had happened. Some movie-goers take opportunities such as these to play the part of the unhappy customer. But I’ve been an usher during a crisis (once the audio was out-of-synch with the picture during a showing of “Entrapment” at my theater way back when), so I can empathize with all those schmucks in nametags and crappy uniforms, facing down an angry mob with torches, pitchforks and JuJu Bees.
It took about 15 minutes, but the movie started back up again. I guess I should quit hemming and hawing now and review the monster already. So, as the Joker says in the flick, “Here…we…go!”
The movie is set a year after the events of “Batman Begins.” The arrest of mobster Carmine Falcone in movie one has left a power vacuum in Gotham City. Crime bosses are at their wit’s end. A masked vigilante called The Batman (Bruce Wayne) is inspiring honest cops like Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the new D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) to put the squeeze on organized criminals, hitting them where it hurts — in their wallets. But there’s this other character on the streets of Gotham — a purple-suited lunatic with crumbling ghost-white facepaint, dark rings around his eyes and a permanent grin carved into his face. He calls himself The Joker. And wait until you see his pencil trick.
Heath Ledger’s Joker warrants a paragraph of his own, I think. Constantly smacking his lips as though he can taste the menace he exudes, and rattling off a different origin story to each of his victims, Ledger reinvents the role completely. His bizarre speech cadence seems specifically designed to keep you off-kilter. The genius of his crimes, particularly the bank heist at the top of the film, suggests a method to his madness and that’s to drive others even madder. What I like most about this take on the Joker is that he’s not about to use some doomsday weapon, like that goofy microwave emitter in “Batman Begins,” on the city. No, the Joker’s carefully constructed plan to bring the city to its knees involves kidnappings, bombings and presenting the film’s heroes — Batman, Gordon and Dent — with some good, old-fashioned comic book moral dilemmas.
If I had one criticism of the film, it’s that “The Dark Knight” is a bit overwhelming. There’s just so much going on. You can’t process it all with a single viewing. It goes so many places superhero movies have avoided. This being the first sequel, of course the titular hero wants to quit, but that’s about the one and only genre convention the script hadn’t massaged out.
Director and co-writer Chrispher Nolan is more confident this time around. His “Batman Begins” feels like a smallish character study when stacked against this film. Here, he brings a larger degree of IMAX-friendly scope, but an even stronger attention to character than the first movie. This film is less about Batman than its predecessor, something I imagine will be a concern among some fans, but the attention is shifted to Harvey Dent. His thread in the film is the most shattering. When he’s ultimately disfigured and transformed into Two-Face, the horror of his predicament externalizes the destruction of the man within. Eckhart’s performance in the film has been undeservedly overlooked as everyone’s busy trying to will a posthumous Oscar nod into existence for Ledger. But Eckhart does some of the best work of his career in this film as well.
All that being said, is “The Dark Knight” worthy of the Oscar buzz? Well, I’m not the world’s biggest fan of awards shows, and a pile of Oscars won’t bring back Heath Ledger. We’re so much the poorer for his passing. This film is a testament to his talents as an actor. It honors him just as any golden statuette would.
“The Dark Knight” sets a new standard for the superhero genre, coming at the tail end of a summer loaded with game-changing movies about masked men. It’s satisfying, it’s unsettling, it’s a movie you’ll be talking about long after you leave the theater. To paraphrase the Joker (he’s got all the best lines), it’ll put a smile on that face.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
17
Who Watches the “Watchmen” Trailer? (Updated With 100% More Trailer)
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Political Films | 1 Comment
If you haven’t read Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ doubleplusgood graphic novel, the trailer for the film version of “Watchmen” might seem a little esoteric. The book in and of itself is just so loaded with ideas and imagination, squeezing selected images from it into a two-minute trailer simply doesn’t do the story justice. That isn’t to say the trailer comes across as a hollow exercise in style-over-substance, like director Zach Snyder’s previous film, “300.” I get a real sense of reverence for the source material in watching this trailer play out, in seeing the characters from the mini-series living and breathing against the backdrop of an alternate 1985.
The trailer’s front-loaded before prints of “The Dark Knight.” Expect a collective love-explosion among hardcore geeks at the midnight screenings tonight. The “Watchmen” trailer couldn’t be a better appetizer for Nolan’s potential Bat-masterpiece. With the pre-release hype at critical mass, I almost expect the experience of seeing “TDK” to be like attending a mega-church.
I’ve definitely warmed up to Snyder’s “Watchmen,” and the trailer has compounded my interest. I’m even thinking of cracking open the graphic novel again this weekend. It’s been a few years. In the meantime, I can’t wait to watch the Watchmen, however briefly, on the big screen.
“The world will look up and shout, ‘Save us!’ and I’ll whisper, ‘No.’” Bad. Ass.
UPDATE: Empire had it up for a blink the other day. It’s back again.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
12
“Hellboy II: The Golden Army” Review
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 1 Comment
It’s difficult for me to write a review of a movie I really, really liked. I find it much easier to tear down a piece of flotsam than to write some valentine. I dunno. When I get overly praiseworthy, I feel that I sound too hyperbolic and even somewhat insincere. If you’ve been reading my blog, you’ll note my overall tone’s more than a little sarcastic. It’s hard to switch gears. At any rate, “Hellboy II: The Golden Army” is going to be a challenge for me to critique because it’s just a great time at the movies. What’s there to criticize?
I watched the first film again the other day. It’s something I’ve seen quite a few times. I like it, but it feels a bit restrained — as restrained as director Guillermo del Toro can get. The man can wring a lot of production value out of a limited budget. Still, Revolution Studios was not completely sold on the concept (”Does he have to be called ‘Hellboy?’”), nor character actor Ron Perlman in the titular role. So the movie’s a bit of a compromise, one that did break-even business at the domestic box office.
The film found a second life on DVD, and after del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” picked up some Academy Awards in ‘07, there was finally some talk about a Hellboy sequel; the first one had opened in the Spring of ‘04. Revolution ultimately put the property into turnaround, allowing Universal — a more monster movie-friendly studio — to pick up the rights. Del Toro was given a meatier budget and some creative freedom this time around. The end product is the best summer movie since last May’s “Iron Man.”
For all the movies that try to suck every ounce of fantasy out of the proceedings (Hello, Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman!), “Hellboy II” is unabashedly fantastic. People always talk about how they go to the movies to escape from the mundane, but their pickings are slim these days. Everything is so stripped down, so gritty, so “realistic,” it’s hardly worth the bother. Movies seem to have given up on trying to transport you to another world. I’m not sure if it’s because the filmmakers lack imagination or if it’s the audience; I guess it could be both.
“Hellboy II” is most certainly not lacking in imagination. This time, the red-skinned demon-from-hell/government spook is pitted against Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), an elf who’s had it up to here with the human race and wants to wage a bit of preemptive war against us with the invincible Golden Army. We humans, it seems, have been infringing upon the elven fantasy world for some time now — ever since a shaky truce was formed between our race and theirs long ago.
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want to see the fantasy world win. Del Toro’s created such a brilliantly realized universe — so textured and alive is the Troll Market sequence — that it’s easy to be cynical about the boring old human race. Watching characters like Hellboy as well as his fellow BPRD agents Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) and Johann Krauss (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) betray their very nature to save our skins means they must see some potential in us that I don’t…or they’re the biggest chumps in this or any plane of reality.
Speaking of the supporting cast, fish-man Abe Sapien and Johann Krauss — a cloud of ectoplasm housed in a diving suit — aren’t simply visual gags, but full-bodied characters, like Hellboy. One criticism I have of the first film is that Sapien sits out the final act. This time around, he’s given much more to do and even a love interest in Princess Nuala. Setting aside my dislike for “Family Guy,” I found Seth MacFarlane’s vocal work on Krauss to be a revelation. Del Toro’s design of Krauss’ helmet also allows for the character to emote, by twittering his little mandibles and exhaling clouds of ectoplasmic breath when he’s frustrated.
I knew that the characters in this movie were brilliantly realized when a major action sequence — Hellboy vs. the Elemental — takes place immediately after Hellboy’s punch-up with the iron-fisted Mr. Wink. I’d hoped for a bit of a break, a few minutes of interplay among these weirdos before the next big setpiece. But del Toro still packs in several excellent character moments throughout the film. He loves living in this universe, too.
At the screening I attended last night, del Toro introduced the movie and then gave a brief Q&A afterwards. He’s every bit as humble and gleefully profane in person as he is on DVD commentaries. The vibe that geeks like me get off him is that he’s one of us, albeit infinitely more talented. He simply wants to play in Hellboy creator Mike Mignola’s sandbox and brings so much of his own magic to the material as well. He’s turned down a crack at the Harry Potter franchise, “I Am Legend” and other big studio projects to make both Hellboy movies. Good on him. In a summer jammed with one cynical franchise installment after another, it’s refreshing to see one hell of an entertaing movie by one hell of a filmmaker.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
10
“Batman: Gotham Knight” DVD Review
Filed Under Comics, Movies | Leave a Comment
Shortly before “The Matrix: Reloaded” opened in ‘03 and bored the ever-loving hell out of audiences, Warner Bros. released “The Animatrix,” a collection of animated short films set in the Matrix-verse. Japanese Anime was clearly a major influence on the first film — from the meticulously framed action sequences to the dystopic theme of man married to machine. That said, “The Animatrix” was an opportunity for some of today’s leading animators to bring their own sensibilities to the world the Wachowskis Bros. (um, I dunno if they’re still technically brothers because one recently had gender reassignment surgery or something) had created.
I vaguely remember watching “The Animatrix.” Yeesh, that must’ve been some 5 years ago now. I know I must have seen it at some point. The DVD’s on my shelf with all three, dust-gathering “Matrix” films. But I’m not what you would consider the world’s biggest fan of Anime. I like it to some degree, I guess. “Akira,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Vampire Hunter D” — those were all gateway drugs for geeks like me into the world of Anime. I just never really graduated to the harder stuff, the ones with titles that make no sense whatsoever, like “Bubblegum Crisis.” What the eff is a bubblegum crisis? Is the war in Iraq affecting our supply of Hubba-Bubba?
Maybe this disconnect I seem to have with Anime is why I found “Batman: Gotham Knight” to be one great big yawn. In anticipation of next Friday’s “The Dark Knight,” Warner Bros. has just released a new DVD with a half-dozen animated short films about a certain Caped Crusader. As such, I got duped into another blind buy.
“Gotham Knight” bridges the year-long gap — in movie continuity, anyway — between “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.” It doesn’t explain how Assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes went from looking like Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal; my guess is she’s really Clayface! At any rate, what “Gotham Knight” does do is remove about an hour from the viewer’s lifespan.
The shorts are fairly interchangable as far as their flimsy stories go. Stylistically, they take a hard left turn from the universe Chris Nolan established in movie one; the Batmobile from the friggin’ Tim Burton films appears in an episode. Lessons in human anatomy appear to have been skipped by the animators. Yet the greatest crime of all is that Batman is given precious little to do. Too much time is devoted to people talking about him. It’s odd that they brought back Kevin Conroy — the voice of Batman in the infinitely richer animated series from the ’90s — when he’s not given very much to say.
“The Dark Knight” needs to hurry up and open already. I’m tired of living on breadcrumbs. And you really can’t get much crummier than “Batman: Gotham Knight.”
-Brad Lohan
Jul
10
The Incredible Superman?
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | Leave a Comment
Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns” was not the movie that fans had been waiting 19 years for. After Cannon Films — the studio that brought you the bulk of Chuck Norris’ oeuvre — released “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” in 1987 and encheapened the franchise, the Man of Steel was banished to the Hollywood equivalent of the Phantom Zone, a little place I call Development Hell.
In 1993, Supes got a bit of a shot in the arm in other media when he was killed off in the comics, and that same year, played by a miscast Dean Cain on the television series “Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.” Around this time, mega-producer Jon Peters, coming off the success of the first two “Batman” films, decided it was time to cash in on another popular comic book character he didn’t — or refused to — understand. So he spent the better part of the ’90s, and a lot of Warner Bros.’s money, trying to bring a darker, flightless Superman to the screen. Writer-director Kevin Smith has spoken at length on the college circuit about his experiences working with troublesome Peters. Jake Rossen also recently wrote a book, “Superman vs. Hollywood,” with a robust section devoted to Peters and his odd choices for director and lead actor, those being Tim Burton and Nicolas Cage, respectively.
The long-in-development film remained grounded for the remainder of the decade. Tim Burton finally departed from the project to derail another dormant franchise (”Planet of the Apes”), and Nicolas Cage ultimately brought his bag of quirks to a different comic book character, the jelly bean-popping Ghost Rider. Meanwhile, Warner Bros. continued throwing good money after bad, courting craptacular directors like Brett Ratner and McG, until “X-Men” director and “Usual Suspects” wunderkind Bryan Singer offered up his pitch to the studio. It sounded like such a good idea at the time. Of course, at the time, the current script being developed was J.J. Abrams’ draft — the one that pitted a kung-fu fighting Superman against Kryptonian CIA agent Lex Luthor.
Singer, however, wanted the franchise to go back to basics and pick up where “Superman II” had left off; movies three and four would be apocryphal. This sort of made sense at the time. The first two Superman films are almost universally adored by fans. Even the silliness at the climax of the second film, when Supes shows off an ass-load of new powers we’ve never seen before (my favorite is his ability to create an “S”-shield cellophane net), doesn’t remain anywhere near as controversial as the final reels of “Batman Begins.” And who wouldn’t want to hear John Williams’ fantabulous score again as the opening credits hurl themselves at viewers against the backdrop of outer space?
Still, “Superman Returns” didn’t do it for me when it was released in ‘06, nor was it the hit Warner Bros. had been anticipating. It broke even at the box office, making back its official production budget, but it’s a fairly open secret in Hollywood that the movie cost significantly more. As a sequel, it’s wildly inconsistent with the continuity of the first two films; Superman didn’t sleep with Lois until after he’d lost his powers in part 2, but he nevertheless managed to sire a moppet with superhuman strength. And as a standalone film, it’s too complicated to kick off a new franchise. Singer tried to split the difference between making a sequel and a reboot but he was working at cross-purposes. The end result is a watchable movie. But I wouldn’t want to watch another one made just like it.
Two years have passed since “Superman Returns” dropped, and there’s been little to no movement on a sequel, at least in Singer’s camp. He’s talked about doing a second film but is currently weathering the bad buzz surrounding the very, very doomed Tom Cruise-as-a-Nazi-good-guy movie, “Valkyrie.” His relationship with Warner Bros. has obviously cooled, and they’ve decided to start seeing other people, people like “Incredible Hulk” director, Louis Leterrier. Ain’t It Cool is reporting that a cagey Leterrier may have been approached by the studio to direct a Superman follow-up.
What’s interesting about Leterrier as a potential director is that he’s just come off a sequel that more or less retcons the previous installment. Is that the approach Warner Bros. is looking for? I definitely wouldn’t mind if they jettisoned Superman’s illegitimate son, recast Lois Lane with an actress who isn’t a shrinking violet and threw in a villain or two that could knock Supes for a loop. Trouble is, Leterrier’s take on the Hulk doesn’t have much going for it beyond not being as heady and dull as Ang Lee’s version. Simply removing the pain points from Bryan Singer’s overly complicated take on Superman won’t automatically make the finished product better. They’re going to have to try a little harder to make Superman smash.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
9
Comic Book Movies vs. Superhero Movies
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | Leave a Comment
What’s the difference between a comic book movie and a superhero movie? Well, last week’s “Hancock” is a superhero movie that wasn’t adapted from a comic book. “Art School Confidential,” “A History of Violence,” “American Splendor,” “Road to Perdition” and “Ghost World” all started out as comic books before they became films, but there’s nary a superhero to be found in any of them. So what does that make this Friday’s Hellboy sequel and next week’s Batman magnum opus? They’re both about superheroes who appear in monthly comics. They straddle the line, right? “Hellboy II” and “The Dark Knight” can be described as “comic book movies” and/or “superhero movies,” no?
Well, sort of. Think of “comic book movie” as a catch-all term. Most people believe that comic books are a purely superhero-driven medium, “Sin City,” “300″ and “30 Days of Night” notwithstanding. Those folks are either too young or too uninitiated to know that superhero books nearly went into extinction after WWII when cowboy, war and horror comics ruled the racks. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman managed to survive the lean years of the ’50s and the machinations of the hateful Dr. Frederic Wertham. Then the introduction of the Comics Code Authority, a means of self-regulation within the industry, killed the horror comics. Meanwhile, the dawn of the Golden Age of television brought the Old West and the WWII battlefield to black-and-white picture tubes across America, demolishing young collectors’ interest in western and war comics. So who was left standing? Superheroes. And they’ve dominated the medium ever since. As such, it’s easy for some to conflate the term “comic book movie” with “superhero movie.”
But don’t let some sanctimonious fanboy hear you call “The Dark Knight” a comic book movie. Holy cats! He’ll just go off on you, and you’ll never get rid of the smell he’ll leave on your clothes. Yes, “TDK” is technically a comic book movie, but it falls squarely into a sub-genre, the superhero movie, not unlike this summer’s “The Incredible Hulk” and “Iron Man.” Now “Wanted” on the other hand does not fall into that same sub-genre, despite being based on a comic book. It goes into another category, “the non-superhero comic book movie.” Confusingly, the comic book is about supervillains, but the movie isn’t.
I’m not of the opinion that everything needs to be labeled as one thing or another. All this categorization and sub-categorization simply takes away from the fact that the comic book and superhero genres have come into their own in the past decade. Funnybooks are a viable well that Hollywood keeps going back to, and fortunately, there’s enough variety beyond just the capes and cowls to get non-readers excited about the next adaptation, whether or not they know precisely what to call it.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
7
Not Coming in 2011: “The Boy Wonder”
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | Leave a Comment
In the mid-’90s, then-unknown actor Christian Bale auditioned for the role of Robin in “Batman Forever.” He lost out to Chris O’Donnell, a casting decision that’s clearly left him embittered to this very day. Bale’s since gone on to play Batman twice now — once ten years after the release of “Forever” and again in this month’s “The Dark Knight.” With two Bat-films under his utility belt, Bale has stated in recent interviews that he’ll be damned before playing opposite some 12-year-old kid in a green sequined codpiece and wing-tipped boots. Bale’s logged as much time in the Bat-suit as Michael Keaton, another actor who departed from the role before the introduction of Robin in earlier film franchise. It begs the question, What’s so wrong with Robin?
Robin’s been part of the Batman mythos since 1940 with the publication of “Batman” #1, the same issue that introduced the Joker and Catwoman (nee “The Cat); Batty himself had made his debut the previous year in issue #27 of “Detective Comics.” In the late-’60s, Burt Ward played the character opposite Adam West’s Batman on the wrongly vilified TV series. Robin was also on the animated series in the ’90s, the two aforementioned Joel Schumacher Bat-films and currently stars in his own self-titled comic book that’s been running for 15 years now.
Robin’s so prolific a character, more than one precocious kid has donned the Errol Flynn-inspired costume. Three young men (Dick Grayson, Jason Todd and Tim Drake) and even two young women (Carrie Kelley in “The Dark Knight Returns” and Stephanie Brown) have been the Boy/Girl Wonder at one point or another in comics’ continuity. Dick Grayson remains the character who’s most identified as Batman’s sidekick. Though he’s gone on to adopt the mantle of Nightwing in the comics, it’s always Dick Grayson behind the domino mask in the various television shows and films. The ill-fated Jason Todd adopted the Robin persona in the comics for a brief stint in the ’80s before his overwhelming unpopularity led to his death — literally — at the hands of the fanbase; readers were given the choice of determining Robin’s fate by calling a 900-number to vote whether the Boy Wonder lived or died. It wasn’t long before Tim Drake became the third Robin, outfitted in a more ’90s-style Neil Adams-designed suit, for a more sophisticated readership.
I’m sort of over the “darker is better” mentality that’s run funnybooks into the ground for the past 20-odd years. That goes for comic book films, too. Grim and gritty does not guarantee quality. Many people point to “Spider-Man 3″ as the worst film in the series to date. I think it’s a great, subversive send-up of the comic book genre during the post-”Watchmen” era, when everyone was trying to be all black-clad and moody. Peter Parker obviously couldn’t pull that off, but that’s the whole point.
Batman’s obviously an easier character to darken up than Spidey. But hasn’t that been done to death? Absolutely I’m looking forward to “The Dark Knight.” But I’m also convinced that Bats should be none more black. He needs to lighten up a bit. I think the inclusion of Robin in an upcoming Bat-film isn’t just obligatory, but essential. Batman’s going to lose his sanity going it alone for another sequel or two. He needs that bizarre father-son dynamic he shares with the Boy Wonder to ground him. Robin hasn’t endured all these years because he’s just a sales gimmick. He’s an important part of the Batman mythology, whether Christian Bale wants to admit it or not. I mean, he must’ve thought so when he read for the role in ‘94.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
27
“We are Tonight’s Entertainment!”
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 2 Comments
I’ve fallen a little behind on my blogging this week, mostly because there’s not a whole hell of a lot going on the world of entertainment worth talking about.
There’s the pre-release confusion fanboys seem to be having about this weekend’s “Wall-E,” a film with a pro-environmental message that’s completely unintentional — at least, according to the film’s oblivious director, Andrew Stanton; it’s hard to get behind a movie that the filmmaker doesn’t seem to understand himself. But I’m not going to see “Wall-E,” so I couldn’t care less about uncertain fanboys who give Pixar too much credit anyway.
“Wanted” is also dropping today. The reviews seem to be generally more kind than I’d anticipated. But this film’s jettisoned its core in favor of something more commercial. And frankly, I’m sort of over Angelina Jolie. I’d rather she take a long break from acting and instead pursue her endless campaign of adopting children from third world countries while continuously hatching a couple of her own every year or so. Seeing her play another stone-faced and excessively tattooed action goddess is not on my priorities list. She’s simply horrible in these kinds of roles, like a female Dwayne Johnson. Invincible movie action heroes haven’t been popular since parachute pants.
The only movie I got a ticket for this weekend is a movie that won’t be out for another three weeks — “The Dark Knight.” You may be somewhat familiar with this movie already. I’m not going to suggest that if you are unaware of the film, you’ve been living in a cave because that’s one of my all time least favorite cliches bandied about by sanctimonious entertainment writers. What’s more, with our current foreclosure crisis, living in caves might actually become more commonplace, and as a result, people are going to miss out on some industry buzz. But I digress.
For over a month, I’ve been on the ArcLight Cinemas website like ugly on an ape. I knew that advance tickets for “The Dark Knight” would become available sooner or later. It was just a question of when. Advance tickets became available last week at the Century Theaters, the best place to go in Los Angeles if you like annoying audiences. The midnight screening in IMAX at CityWalk is already sold out. So what took the ArcLight so long to start selling tickets? That I don’t know. But this morning, they were, they finally were.
The Dome was almost completely sold out for the 12:01 a.m. show. I like the Dome. It has a concave screen, so when you sit in the front row, it fills your peripheral vision. But the ArcLight, like at a ball game or rock concert, has reserved seating, and all the good seats were already taken. Reserved seating is the number one reason why I go to the ArcLight for mega-movie openings. I’m sick of waiting in line for an hour outside a theater to get a mediocre seat in the auditorium before being asked to move over to a slightly more mediocre seat so a couple can sit together — aww. I like knowing exactly where I’m going to sit when I get my ticket. And I know I’m going to have a reserved seat — front row, center — for the 12:15 a.m. screening in one of the ArcLight’s “black box” auditoriums; I imagine that if a plane crashes into the ArcLight and you’re in one of their black box auditoriums, you will survive.
So while most people are buying tickets for the two crummy movies opening this weekend, I’m looking ahead — three interminable weeks ahead — to watch the most anticipated movie of the summer…about a guy who lives in a cave.
-Brad Lohan