Fantastic Four (2015) - Review

"Say that again?" .... "Fantastic!"

Oh God, why? Why? WHYYYYYY??????????

The Plot

After nearly perfecting a teleportation device that he and his friend, Ben Grimm (Jaime Bell) have been working on as a child, Reed Richards (Miles Teller) is recruited by Dr. Storm (Reg E. Cathey) to join Baxter, a facility for the gifted to build a better future. To aide Reed on his quest to be the first to crack inter dimensional travel, Dr. Storm brings in his children, Sue (Kate Mara) and Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), along with a former gifted student, Victor (Toby Kebbell), to complete the machine. But once completed, their facility's advisor and government liaison, Dr. Allen (Tim Blake Nelson), decides to send a team of selected astronauts to be the first to use their invention. Not wanting to be sidelined for their success, Reed, Johnny, Ben, Victor and Sue highjack the first mission and successfully travel to a place they dub Planet Zero. But what they discover there, will not only change their lives, but their physical bodies as well.

Review

Let me just go right off the bat and say this... I love Chronicle. Love it. It is one of the best found footage movies I've ever seen. And I was highly impressed that director Josh Trank broke the record of being the youngest director to generate a blockbuster film at the age of 27. The last person who held that record? Steven Spielberg for directing JAWS at the age of 28. But JAWS was Spielberg's third film, whereas Chronicle was Trank's first film. Which makes it even more impressive. Though a lot of credit definitely should go to screenwriter Max Landis for crafting Trank's vision into realistic dialogue between young boys, it is still Trank's original vision. Which is why I was so heavily interested in his take on the Fantastic Four. From his interesting casting choices, to the fact that he was basing it heavily on Ultimate Fantastic Four, even all the way down to him stating it was going to be more like David Cronenberg's body horror films. I was hooked, and defended this movie against anyone who would say that it is nothing like the comic books.... then I saw it.

I wouldn't go down and say this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That title for me belongs to Transformers: Age of Extinction. But the feeling I had while walking out of this film was more than just disappointment. It was pity. I felt sorry for everyone who is involved with this movie. I felt sorry for the cast, I felt sorry for the studio and I even felt sorry for the director. It was like watching a car crash happen in slow motion with people you like in the vehicle managing to survive to live another day. That's how it felt, and I could probably use the car crash metaphor with how this movie goes.

Think of it as a road trip. At the beginning of the journey, you're all getting ready and feeling excited. That's what it was like at at the beginning of the movie involving the child versions of Reed Richards and Ben Grimm. It was filled with hope and optimism about how youth can accomplish great things if their minds are in the right place. Or in the case of the cliche parents, the wrong place. But cliche parents aside, it was a nice intro to a friendship. A friendship that should've carried over to when Teller and Bell took over as the present day incarnations of the characters. And while it does for a while at the beginning, it abruptly disappears later. More on that in a bit. But again, with the beginning of the road trip, that's when you're meeting up with all your friends who are coming along for the ride. That's where Mara, Jordan and Kebbell come into play as Sue, Johnny and Victor. It is cool seeing all of these young geniuses work together in order to accomplish creating something that could possibly change the world. But once the drive begins and the car pops a tire with a nail, that's when things start to go downhill.

The first act of the movie is brilliant, but the second half of the movie is when it becomes really clear that whoever was driving the car at the beginning is no longer in full control. Once the main four gain their powers, it is clear that there was suppose to be an entire body horror sequence that should've lasted the entire second act. But unfortunately, choppy editing makes it clear that whatever the second act was suppose to be has been trimmed down for the sake of getting faster to the superhero action. Which happens after abruptly time skipping midway through the movie to one year. That one year time skip completely destroys any sense of team building amongst the characters, which has been the central thrust of their comic stories. In here there is no sense of relationships being solidified by any of the team members. They are first horrified by what happens to them, one of them escapes government captivity, then skip one year later to see everyone seems to efficiently know how to use their powers now and suddenly are friends with everyone again. It is so jarring and not executed well that it is obvious several scenes are missing. And if you've seen the trailers, then you'll know most of the scenes in the trailer are missing from the movie.

But while the second act feels like there are scenes that could've been extended or added to make it flow better, the third act completely derails any hope you will have of things getting better. The best way to put it? Remember my road trip metaphor and how I left off with the tires blowing out? Well what if someone on the road tries to help you by trying to drive your car to the nearest town at full speed? With the tires still busted. And not even bothering to use the spare tire you have in the trunk. Because you are only a few miles away to your destination. And against all your gut instincts that tell you this is a bad idea, you still allow it to happen. That's what happened to the third act of this movie, and that's where the car crash happens. 

Kebbell's Victor, who was barely developed at the beginning of the movie, yet there are clear hints as to who he is as well as his philosophy, is rescued after being left on Planet Zero for a year. And what happens when he comes back? He is now Doom and blah blah blah blah blah, wants to destroy the world all of a sudden. We don't get any incite as to why he suddenly believes he wants to do this. And also it was painfully obvious that everything involving Doom before and after the hallway Akira sequence was re-shot entirely. Because I have a strong feeling that his was not how Josh Trank wanted the movie to end. It is clear that his vision for this was definitely more like a Cronenberg face-off ala The Fly or Scanners, but that doesn't happen. It just turns into a cliche superhero battle that lacks any punch, despite having a lot of punches, and strange cheesy interactions between all the "heroes" who suddenly know how to work together. It's just so... so.... You know. A car crash. That thankfully everyone lived, but still have to be hospitalized in order to recover.

Final Thoughts

I want to say this is the worst superhero movie ever made, but the first act genuinely made me believe that I was watching something different than the standard superhero mold. It made me feel like I was watching a science fiction movie that abruptly shifts into a horror film then abruptly crashes and burns into a superhero film. I know there have been reports about Trank being unruly on set, but I can tell what kind of movie he wanted to make. He wanted to make a sci-fi horror movie that just happened to have superheroes in it. And unfortunately for him, the studio wanted a standard superhero movie. These two ways of thinking clash so severely that the end result is a muddled mess that starts off with so much promise, especially from the cast and crew, that then dive bombs into oblivion, especially when the cast appear to stop caring about what movie they're in by the end. I wish I could've seen the sci-fi horror epic I know this movie was suppose to be, but I guess we never will. And that's sad.

SCORE: 4/10 - 1 for Potential 2 for the Cast 3 for the Tone and 4 for a Pity Point

The Death of "Superman Lives": What Happened? - Review

My Personal Road to "Superman Lives"

I remember sitting in the University Library, looking up any details I can about the then yet to be filmed Man of Steel. That is when I stumbled upon a small blip in my nerdy research that led me to the infamous Kevin Smith video detailing his experience on a film called Superman Lives. And soon after, my obsession with this mythic project that never was grew exponentially. I scoured the internet looking for anything I possibly could relating to this film. From the Kevin Smith Draft, to the Wesley Strick draft,  to the concept art, and that now infamous unflattering photo of Nic Cage with a mullet rocking a very shiny rubber Superman suit. But at some point I realized I should be focusing on my studies and not on a motion picture that was never made. However, luckily for me, and thousands of others, one of us was willing to delve much deeper. Enter Jon Schnepp, famed animation director of Metalocalypse and The Venture Bros. as well as famed internet personality, who took to Kick Starter with the proposal of discovering what truly happened to this now infamous film in the form of a Documentary. And after many years since that announcement, Schnepp and producer Holly Payne have crafted a highly informative film that gives eager "sweaty nerds" and general audiences a glimpse into what could've been.

The Truth Behind the Legend

I was lucky to attend the Houston/Cypress screening of the film which had Schnepp and Payne present to let everyone know up front, this is their first time making a documentary. While it definitely shows, that does not hinder the experience they created.

After a very simple intro made by Schnepp, we then enter the world of Hollywood politics and water cooler talks that go way too far. For those who have seen the Kevin Smith video about the genesis of Superman Lives and how he became a part of it, the first 20 minutes after the intro may be a bit boring, with a few interjected interviews here and there to add a little bit more flavor. But to someone who has never seen that video, then the WHOLE package from beginning to end will be one hell of a revelation!

I was indeed one of those people who wished I could skip Smith's launch of the project and get to the parts that I don't know. And it is GLOURIOUS!

From the number of concept and visual effects artists, to the beautiful concept art, to the tidbits of how Smith's story would morph into Wesley Strick's story then eventually to its possible final form with Dan Gilory. The insight, the splendor of Krypton, the painful bad memories that director Tim Burton had to release as he talked to Schnepp. Every single aspect of this film was meant to inform the viewer with one thing: THIS WAS A WORK IN PROGRESS!

The reason for such an angle, and I'm glad Schnepp took it by that angle, is that many people were quick to judge that everything that has been leaked on the internet was the final product. VFX Artist Steve Johnson's light up neon crystal rainbow Superman suit was blasted for being terrible, when people didn't even know the context of why Superman was wearing that suit. The really horrible Nic Cage picture of him wearing the Superman outfit? That wasn't even the final outfit! It was just a costume test to see how he feels about the costume and what they can change. I heavily commend this film, and other documentaries about movies that never were, always address that filmmaking is a process of controlled evolution. And we see that evolution from the story, to the costumes, to the design of the film.

But I honestly have to say. While it is nice to have Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, Wesley Strick, Steve Johnson, Colleen Atwood, and Dan Gilroy talk about the film; there was one voice who I was pleasantly surprised to see pop in this movie. The infamous producer that Kevin Smith has turned into a legend, Jon Peters! The man himself brings his extreme charisma, as well as his wild out of the box ideas that shaped this movie into what it could've been. It is highly commendable for talents such as Burton, Smith, Strick and Gilory to find a way through the madness of Peters to create something that may have possibly worked. But is is clear that this is a movie that Peters was definitely passionate about, even though he is not a hardcore Superman fan and wanted to change everything. But someone who was a hardcore fan and was sorely lacking from this film was an interview from the What If Superman himself, Nicolas Cage.

Schnepp was unfortunately unable to secure an interview with the former Oscar winner, who has now become a meme and long running joke in Hollywood. But Schnepp makes up for this loss with some behind the scenes home video footage provided by the production's costume designer, Colleen Atwood. In there we see the origin of that unflattering picture, but it is a completely different story when seeing Cage in motion in the suit. But what is more impressive about the footage, is hearing Nic Cage dissect and analyze the character of Superman with director Tim Burton observing him. He has a clear grasp on who the character is, as well as how to treat his alter ego Clark Kent. It was a fascinating and intimate video about one man's willingness to put his own spin on the character, but acknowledge everything he loves about him.

Final Thoughts

I've held back on a lot more details such as the plot of Superman Lives and how the documentary explores its evolution. But I feel that those moments and that information should be experienced by watching this documentary when it becomes available on Blu Ray. There is so much more than what I pointed out here, and I leave all that for the viewer to enjoy. By all means though, if you do find yourself curious by this, please go out and buy the film. I wasn't able to pledge money to Schnepp and Payne when they were Kick Starting the project, but I'll gladly pay to own the Blu Ray. This truly is an incredible film that feels bittersweet by the end. It will leave you wondering with one simple question: What if? And that's okay.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - If you didn't see the Kevin Smith video, then this is a 9/10!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) - Analysis and Review

Shellshocked

That's what a lot of TMNT fans were feeling when they learned that this film was being produced by Michael Bay. And the long road to getting filmed was one filled with drama. Does it put all the naysayers to rest? Let's look at the Plot first.

The Plot

When special interests reporter April O'Neil (Megan Fox) sees an opportunity to move up the broadcast food chain, she finds herself caught in a secret war waged between the Foot Clan and... TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES.

Analysis

There's a lot to be put into consideration about the creation of this film. First, Michael Bay was responsible for bringing this franchise back into the minds of movie executives. And why not? It is one of the most beloved franchises of the 90s and definitely has a huge following. From its origins as a dark and gritty comic that was a satire on superheroes to the big screen with rubber suits to the animated shows that are still around today, the Turtles have been in the lives of a generation. A generation that has now grown and still remember the pizza loving, skateboarding, mischievous yet heroic foursome that the Turtles are. I am from that generation. And yet. I'm not a fan.

That doesn't mean I don't like them. I still watched them and know enough about them to have nice conversations with friends of mine who are fans. But I was never one of those hardcore die-hard fans.  I was a huge fan of Transformers and other things, but never a big fan of the Turtles.

So when it was announced that Michael Bay was producing the latest big screen iteration... I could care less. I didn't think anything of it. Even when it was announced that the title was just going to be called Ninja Turtles and they were going to be aliens instead of mutants, I didn't mind it. I did feel some sympathy for the fans who were outraged about hearing this. For me, I was at that point in my life when being faithful to the source material didn't mattered to me. What mattered was making a good movie. And given Michael Bay's track record, although his movies aren't good he knows how to make entertainment. Except for Age of Extinction, that was like watching someone live smear shit on the big screen. 

However people seem to be forgetting that Michael Bay is producing not directing. Those are two very different things. But from what can be seen about the final product, it can easily be mistaken for a Michael Bay film. So how was it?

Review

It needs to be made clear that this film was directed by Jonathan Liebesman. NOT Michael Bay. Jonathan Liebesman. NOT MICHAEL BAY! Having said that, this looks like a current Michael Bay movie. Everything from the high color saturation, to the lens flares, to even some of the camera movements. Liebesman has a specific handheld camera style that was shown in Battle: Los Angeles and Wrath of the Titans, that really starts to appear like a weak Michael Bay rip off here. His style in the film seems to have morphed into how Michael Bay would shoot the film, but luckily it didn't include the Michael Bay-ism of having overly sexualized women and toilet humor that goes too far. This is a more kid friendly Michael Bay, if it was directed by Michael Bay. But it isn't. Which helps this movie more so than one might think.

The story does play out a little bit similar to Michael Bay's first Transformers film in that the focus of the story is on the human characters before shifting to the non-human ones. Megan Fox rejoins the Michael Bay train as April O'Neil, the iconic reporter from TMNT lore. The story revolves around her struggles of working her way up the news food chain to discovering that she may be connected to the creation of the turtles. Given that so much of it is focused on her, this is where we really see Fox's acting chops get put to the test. And she does... well? It is a passable performance, but is very obvious that a much talented actress could've handled this character better. And given that most of the movie focuses on her, it really doesn't help that we have a barely okay performance as the lead to a very predictable story.

Then there is Will Arnett as April's cameraman, Vernon Fenwick. His character seems to have been written as a potential love interest for April. However the fact that Arnett looks a lot older than Fox, and it makes him look more like a creep than a love sick puppy, it probably would've been better if they casted a younger actor for the part. Arnett does fine with what he's given, but it is obvious that this role was definitely not meant for him.

But what about the ones the audience pays to see? The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles! How are they? Well, to be quite honest. They were...almost perfect. I say almost mainly because of Johnny Knoxville as the voice of Leonardo, the leader of the turtles. Pete Ploszek did the motion capture for Leonardo while filming, but it is Knoxville's voice that we hear in the final cut. And it really isn't suitable for someone who is suppose to be the leader. I wonder what the reason for this change is, seeing as how the other mo-cap actors get to keep their voices in the finished film.

Alan Ritchson, Noel Fisher and Jeremy Howard are the ones who have that privelage, and I'm glad they did because they are actually perfect in their roles. They play Raphael, Michelangelo and Donatello respectively and perfectly. Each of them brings out the personalities fans will know and love so well that it is a shame we don't get to see them as the primary focus of the film. Ritchson's Raphael gets more screen time than the others, probably because he's the badass of the group, but it is indeed fan favorite Michelangelo who steals the show. Fisher does an excellent job playing the lovable Ninja Turtle and has the character down to a tee. Howard's performance as Donatello is admirable as the geeky one of the group, yet given his lack of screen time we can't exactly get a grasp of him. But from what little is shown, he does it perfect.

Of course there is Master Splinter, the overgrown rat that teaches his "sons" ninjutsu...from a discarded book. Yeah, suspension of disbelief. He is voiced by Tony Shaloub, who does an okay job at it, but lacks the kind of gravitas one would expect from Splinter. It is still a nice interpretation, it just lacks gravitas.

And as for the villains, it was misleadingly promoted that Will Fichtner was going to be the iconic samurai villain, Shredder. Well, he's not. Instead we have a Japanese actor who has his face concealed the whole time in the shadows playing the Shredder. This gives Turtle fans a sigh of relief knowing that Shredder is played by a Japanese actor. However, most of the time Shredder is a CGI robot samurai that resembles a smaller version of Megatron from Transformers. Given that this is a Michael Bay produced film, it should be obvious. Even though Fichtner is the primary antagonist of the film, Shredder still comes off as the main threat. He is definitely everything I'd want from a villain. Mysterious and almost unstoppable. In all the action scenes involving him facing off against the heroes, he dominates the fight. Almost too much, but since he's too powerful, it makes defeating him feel like an even greater victory. And its that over powered nature that makes him feel like a genuine threat. Something that Marvel Films seem to lack with their bad guys.

The story is pretty straight forward and predictable, with an ending that copies The Amazing Spider-Man's finale. However given its length of being only 90 minutes, the plot doesn't drag and is a little bit more compact. Would it have benefited with more? Yes. But I'm actually happy with the length that it is. It says what it needs to say, even though it is predictable, yet it is highly entertaining. And fans of the source may feel outrage for the slight tweak that is made to their origins. No, they are not aliens. They kept part of the original origin story, but have it tie in with April O'Neil. It still doesn't detract from the overall film, just hardcore fans will find it detracting.

Final Thoughts

Seeing the 20% rating on Rotten Tomatoes makes no sense to me. Yes, this movie is not that great, but it is on the same level as other movies such as Lucy and Hercules yet it gets torn apart viciously. I don't believe it deserves all the extreme negativity that it does, because this is a genuinely entertaining film that is more appropriate for kids than the Transformers films. I think it is mainly because of the name Michael Bay, that keeps people from seeing the genuinely fun and competent storytelling being shown here. It is not a bad movie and it is not a good movie. But it is a genuinely entertaining one.

SCORE: 6.5/10 - Kids are going to love it, and maybe if you look past the Michael Bay name, you might enjoy it too

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Analysis and Review

Too little too late

I've been waiting for this movie for 9 years. I can't believe that the first Sin City came out in 2005 while I'm writing the review of the second one in 2014. That is insane.

The Plot

A hot shot on a winning streak (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) plays a deadly game with the wrong man (Powers Boothe). Elsewhere, a broken man (Josh Brolin) rekindles an old flame (Eva Green) whose intentions may not be what he expects them to be. While all of this is going on, a stripper (Jessica Alba) is losing her mind after the loss of someone she loves (Bruce Willis) as a hulking brute (Mickey Rourke) watches all three paths go down the way they do.

Analysis

The first Sin City was an eye opener for me. It was the first movie to actually faithfully adapt a comic book with extreme detail. From shot composition to the dialogue spoken, it wasn't a movie. We were literally watching a comic book come to life. Not like superhero movies of the early 2000s that only take a few things from the comics then add a lot of things to make it something watchable for the general audience. The first Sin City wasn't thinking about the general audience. Directors Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino and original creator Frank Miller were thinking of how do we make this come to life. Not how do we adapt this comic to the screen. How do we make it move on the big screen. Not work. Move.

Its success became a rallying cry among comic book fans who pointed out that being faithful to the comic books does work. It lead to two other comics that are 85-90% faithful to their source material in the form of 300 (another Frank Miller creation) and Watchmen, both directed by current DC Comics film overseer Zack Snyder. It would also bring about the Marvel Cinematic Universe which has been considered to be mostly faithful to their properties in a way that other studios have not been. Bryan Singer's X-Men may have been the first film to prove that comic books can be the source of great dramatic material, but it is Frank Miller's Sin City that showed faithfulness to the comic can indeed transcend the pages of the comic to the big screen.

However, given that it has been 9 years since that rallying cry of creating better comic book adaptations, the luxury of having something like Sin City is no longer wanted.

Review

This film came out too late. Would it have been better received if it was released a couple of years after the first one? Just a little bit better. But the wait and the loss of interest in this project can be felt. The Box Office Numbers show it. And as a huge fan of the original Sin City, I have to agree. The wait is not worth it. It's not just the long wait that made this movie so so, it is the handling of the narratives within the story.

In the first story we got Johnny, played by a charismatic Joseph Gordon Levitt, who is literally the embodiment of victory when it comes to games. His feeling of having endless good luck on the slots and card games puts him up against Senator Roark played very evilly by Powers Boothe. His story was cut in half, acting like book ends sandwiching the titular "Dame to Kill For" story in between. Because of this the emotional impact of what happens to him is not really felt. It could be because his story doesn't have any large impact on anyone, even in the first half of the story. Had this story been really strong, then when the second half came back, the emotional impact would have made the conclusion a lot more satisfying. But it just wasn't. It probably would've been better to just play his story all the way through, but in the end it just didn't feel necessary. No matter how much you like Joseph Gordon Levitt, you will definitely like his character but you will not care about his story.

Then there is the second main story that takes up a majority of the film known as the "A Dame to Kill For" story. As I stated before, it cuts through the turning point of Johnny's story and takes up a large portion of the film. This story marks the return of Dwight McCarthy played by Clive Owen in the previous Sin City but in here he is now played by Josh Brolin. In it he finds himself entangled in a web of lies created by his former mostly naked lover Ava played by Eva Green. Through her manipulation of Dwight and every other man she comes into contact with, it all spirals out of control into a savage retribution story that we know will not end well for Ava. It is the longest story out of the many that are shown in this film, yet at a certain point you want it to end. As nice as it is to see Eva Green naked 90% of the time she's on screen, it almost becomes boring to look at her. And while Brolin does a nice job as Dwight, I do have to wonder why Clive Owen didn't come back when his rendition was suppose to appear. As comic book fans know, the Dwight in this story would later transform into the Dwight seen in the previous movie, but trying to transform Josh Brolin into Clive Owen just doesn't work.

Then there is the final major story that takes place after Johnny's and Dwight's which is referred to as Nancy's Last Dance. In this story, Jessica Alba reprises her role as the stripper with heart of gold named Nancy, who is suffering from the loss of her one true love, Hartigan played by Bruce Willis. Hartigan appears as a ghost in the story, but is unable to comfort the girl who loves him as he watches her go crazy. So crazy to the point where she decides to kill Senator Roark, the man responsible for Hartigan's death. This is definitely the best acting that Alba has done, but given the length of the story and how most of her screen presence throughout the movie consists of her doing sexy dancing, she didn't have enough time to grow. Which is a shame, because as the big finisher of this movie, you'd think it would be longer and more exciting.

I shouldn't really compare this movie to the first one. but it has to be done. In the previous movie, the stories were all given enough time to breathe and were able to complete their runs from start to finish before the next one takes over. Even the opening short story of the first one was more compelling than the cartoon violence opening of this film. In here, the stories have uneven lengths and it is never really sure when their stories end. I'm sure the cast is having fun doing this film, but for some reason this film looks like a complete step back from the previous one. It feels fake. Unlike the previous one that feels like a comic book, this one just looks cheap and poorly made. The action scenes in this one look even more unrealistic compared to the stylized action in the first one. It just becomes jarring and could easily remove an audience member from the experience.

The only good thing about this movie was Mickey Rourke as Marv, but even then his compelling character from the first movie devolves into being observer and muscle in this movie.

Final Thoughts

This was a huge let down. The 9 year gap didn't help this movie. And in a world where comic book movies  evolved, this movie didn't seem to evolve with it. It is stuck where it was back then, and while that is more attributed to them being trapped in the boundaries of the comic book, it really shows how far we've come from wanting faithful adaptations of comic books. We seem to have grown past the literal faithfulness and just want faithfulness. This film is more of a cheap imitation to what the first one is. Still made with the same mindset in mind, but that is probably why it failed. And given it has to remain trapped in that mindset, then this film should've came out earlier than later.

SCORE: 4/10 - A big disappointment yet still looks cool but will get boring

Guardians of the Galaxy - Analysis and Review

Hooked on a feeling. I'm high on believing!

Marvel Studios has reached the point where they can do whatever the hell they want. And by getting James Gunn to be the guy for their "whatever the hell we want" project... I'm so glad they did.

The Plot

After being abducted by aliens at a young age, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) has now become a notorious rogue feared across the galaxy... according to him. But when his latest job to steal a mysterious object brings his weird world colliding into even weirder territory, he finds himself joining forces with an assassin (Zoe Saldana) sent to kill him; a pair of bounty hunters (Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel) who want to collect him; and a psychopath (Dave Bautista) who...is along for the ride for his own reasons. They will collide against a religious racist fanatic (Lee Pace) and a cyborg with daddy issues (Karen Gillan) featuring an appearance by Djimon Hounsou in order to save the galaxy.

Analysis

The fact that this is the ninth movie made by Marvel Studios and their biggest risk shows that they are fully confident with their properties. But the greatest showcase of that confidence was getting a talent like James Gunn on board. Rarely have I ever wanted to see a director succeed in the business more than Gunn. I was a huge fan of Slither and Super, so I knew right away that he'd be the ONLY guy who could pull off something this insane. Especially since this is not a big name property.

It's true. I may have a lot of knowledge about Marvel and be one of the few people to know who the Guardians of the Galaxy are, but I never read their comics. I know that there was a recent reboot a couple of years ago in order to gain interest in the property, which is how I learned about it. But from what I've been reading about it, it's not that interesting. Which is a shame because these are interesting characters. Yet apparently you have to be a really big supporter of Marvel in order to get into these characters. However, by interesting I mean there is something unique about them that makes them stand out from the cliche characters they are. But that doesn't mean none of them aren't unique. Namely Rocket Raccoon, the only reason people would take an interest in picking up the comics. Just to see a Raccoon wielding a gigantic gun. But other than him and maybe Groot, there really isn't much to do with them. 

The fact that they're not well known or well liked (aside from Rocket and Groot) becomes a major advantage for Gunn. The chance to do something crazy, while at the same time show that these characters can be interesting. Does he succeed?

Review

The characters in this movie are the reasons to watch this movie. Literally. With the dialogue of James Gunn's writing flowing through these characters, they become some of the most interesting Marvel characters to inhabit this Cinematic Universe in a long time. The fact that I stated they're not interesting in my Analysis section says a lot about how much they are definitely the soul of this movie.

You have Star Lord aka Peter Quill played by Chris Pratt. The once chubby guy on Parks and Rec is now on the road to becoming a huge movie star. His devil may care charm will remind many of Harrison Ford's two legendary roles as well as a remembrance of the magic that Robert Downey Jr. brought to the role of Tony Stark. He played the role brilliantly with a lot of wit and flair. Then there is the now official modern queen of sci-fi Zoe Saldana who takes on the role of Gamora, daughter of the Mad Titan. While her character may be the weakest of the bunch as she's more subdued as being a violent person who wants to be a better person, it does not take away from the fact that Saldana can convince you that she is a monster (a sexy one) who wants to change her ways. Then there's a surprisingly great and funny performance by wrestler Dave Bautista as the crazy literal Drax the Destroyer. He may not be as great of an actor as his fellow wrestler Dwayne Johnson, but in the role of Drax he delivers as a psychopath with a singular goal. But all out honesty, the real stand out performances of the film are its two CGI characters: Rocket and Groot.

Rocket and Groot were not motion capture like the way Andy Serkis has been rolling, but that doesn't exempt their respective actors Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel from delivering great vocal performances. Cooper does an amazing job as the angry sarcastic raccoon who doesn't know he's a raccoon. He was definitely the scene stealer of the movie, along with his house plant Groot. While I'll never understand why Vin Diesel was chosen to play a role that only required him to say three words, he still did a lot with his voice to make sure the innocent creature in a bad crowd comes to life. Though it does seem like a waste to have Vin Diesel and not exploit what he's good at, he still does a good job. Which brings me to another point: This movie is a waste of talent.

By talent I mean the actors and actresses playing the villains and background characters feel like wasted opportunities. First off you have Lee Pace, an incredibly underrated actor who auditioned to play Star Lord but instead plays the film's primary villain. Did not care about him. Did not buy his political views. Did not buy his racism. Did not even buy his radical religious views. All I saw was a really talented guy that Marvel felt sorry for not giving him the lead role but instead put him in the movie as a rather dumb evil villain for the sake of being evil. Wasted. Then there's Karen Gillan from Doctor Who fame playing Nebula, Gamora's sister. Again. Do not buy her motivations against Gamora. Do not buy her need to betray her father. I do buy her as evil and easy on the eyes despite being half robot. Wasted. Djimon Hounsou plays Korath. Shows up for the opening scene. Shows up for the middle important scene. Shows up for the end battle. Does nothing impressive. Wasted. Then you have background (I'd call them supporting but eh) characters. Glen Close as Nova Prime. Could've gotten any woman to play that role. Wouldn't have made a single difference. John C. Reily playing a Nova Corps. officer. Anyone could've played that role. He does something important, but then again an extra could've played that role. Benicio Del Toro as The Collector. The most interesting thing he did was not in this movie but in the post credits scene at the end of Thor: The Dark World. Was he good in here? No. Was he important? Yes. Was he still wasted? Definitely. It seemed really pointless having all these talented people in this movie only to have them do small stuff that wouldn't have made a difference to the movie if not cast. The Winter Soldier had Robert f***ing Redford in the movie and he's not a waste of talent. This just feels like a bunch of famous or talented people wanting to be in the movie just because its part of Marvel. While it makes sense career wise, this just seems dumb.

The only supporting character (see that I said supporting) played by a talented actor who is not wasted is Michael Rooker as Yondu. He was definitely one of the many surprises of the movie and he's in the movie a lot more than one might think. Which is why he doesn't feel wasted, because he's given a lot more to do.

And the story is nothing new. It is a standard Marvel story. If you watch it then you'll notice a huge pattern in Marvel movies now. However that doesn't prevent it from being fun. Because believe me, the movie is really fun.

Final Thoughts

Despite my qualms with the waste of a talented supporting cast, I have to once again bring the praise back to the main cast. Pratt, Saldana, Cooper, Diesel, and Bautista are the main reasons you should watch this movie. Even though Saldana and Cooper are proven powerful actors, it is incredible to watch them with a rising star and two genre actors who are giving it their all. Sure, the story is not great. Sure, the villains are not impressive. But watching a movie about the interactions of these characters is way more entertaining than watching the interactions of The Avengers. Yeah, they're that good. So watch for these incredible characters brought to life by these great actors.

SCORE: 8/10 - The best cast of characters ever assembled, versus dull wasted talent

PS: The after credits scene is of Howard The Duck. Just saying that because if you're expecting something awesome, there isn't anything awesome. It is just Howard the Duck. Funny, but only to people who know who Howard The Duck is. If you don't know who that is, don't stay for the post credits.

Batman V Superman - The Suits of the World's Finest

Be honest...you want to see the above happen

As many know there is this little movie coming out in 2015 2016 called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. A film that is a sequel or rather follow up to the financially successful and critically divisive Man of Steel that is also to be helmed by the same director: Zack Snyder. Now, my opinion of Man of Steel is one of overwhelming love yet still have to acknowledge that there are a lot of problems with the movie. Problems that can be easily fixed. 

One could argue that the film could've started during Lois's introduction with just a simple two hour running time. I can see the film working without the first 30 minutes, but then that means I won't have my awesome John Carter/StarWars/Heavy Metal opening prologue with Russell Crowe reminding the world he's a badass. I'll even be the first to say that the dialogue is atrocious. Not even magnificent performances from magnificent actors could save it. That's why most of the blame gets directed at writer David Goyer. He's an amazing storyteller, but when it comes to dialogue he is very weak. That's why his best scripts become phenomenal when he is partnered with another writer. That's where Argo's Oscar Winning screenwriter, Chris Terrio, comes in to save the script from suffering another atrocity of language. But the story, well, I can guarantee you it will be amazing...I hope.

When this film was announced as the sequel to Man of Steel, I thought this was the smartest decision DC/Warner Bros. has ever made to compete with Marvel/Disney. I have no problems with Batman being in the movie. I do have a problem with Wonder Woman being in the movie because she could've been saved for another film. But seeing as how they want to subtly build the Justice League in this movie so that the next movie is Justice League, it does show a sign of concern.

It is perfectly fine for people to think this movie will be a cluster f#@% because what seems to have started as a simple battle between The Dark Knight and the Man of Steel now seems to be including The Amazing Amazon and a couple of others. If Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2 have taught us anything, too many characters is a bad thing. Especially Amazing Spider-Man 2 because it sacrificed the story for the sake of world building to catch up with their parent competitors. Which seems to be what is happening with this movie. But then again there was this other movie called: X-Men: Days of Future Past. A movie that has roughly 25 well known comic book character in it yet still turned into a phenomenal film. Why? Because it knew what to focus on and not try to give everyone valid screen time but instead necessary screen time to serve a purpose for the greater story. That is what I feel like this Batman v Superman movie is doing. That's not to say that it could go either way. Time will tell. But till then. We have our contenders.

The Dark Knight

The casting of Ben Affleck has been controversial but his costume wasn't. I love costumer designer Michael Wilkinson. He was Snyder's costume designer on 300 and Watchmen, and he really gets comic book design. His showcase in Watchmen was an obvious homage to DC Comics movie history with the different costumes which were designed better than his predecessors. Then of course there is his work on Man of Steel with designing the iconic Superman Suit and Krypton. Pure genius. And that genius shows in the above image.

This is the first Batman costume since the 1960s Adam West show that actually looks like the costume from the comics. If one were to look at the details, it is obvious that this costume is suppose to be made out of cloth instead of the armor from Nolan's Dark Knight films. The cowl and the gloves do seem like the same material of the Burton Batman films, but it is a nice merging of what made him iconic in the movies with what is known in the comic. I'm so happy that they went with this direction as opposed to the armor. This version may have padding inside to accentuate Affleck's ever growing muscular physique but it helps with the comic book image of showcasing perfect bodies in tight spandex. This may also be the first film adaptation to actually be black AND GRAY instead of all black! It sure as hell looks like it. It is perfection on so many levels that people who can't see it are obviously not comic book enthusiasts. But it can't be denied that Affleck looks like Batman. Whether or not he can pull it off, that is the real question.

Man of Steel

A powerful contrast with the black and white image of Batman, this is Superman. And I really mean IS Superman. Michael Wilkinson did a fantastic job with his first rendition of the costume for Man of Steel. A lot of people thought it was another rubber suit with texture on it, but in reality it is actually a spandex suit with chain mail textured onto it in order to subdue the bright colors. This upset some fans, especially the removal of the red trunks, but his new rendition of Supes' costume should make fans happy. It keeps the design of the first while tweaking a few bits.

His gauntlets are now blue instead of gray and extend to more of the arm. The alien lines on his sides actually seem to go up this ribs. The belt buckle now seems to be gold and square now instead of an oval. Plus the color looks brighter than the last suit which was toned down for the serious tone. This suit is still toned down but it is still obvious that the colors are bright. Especially coming from the S-Sheild which seems to be brighter than the rest of the costume. Henry Cavill is already monstrous in size and the added padding  is just to remind you that he is. And it works beautifully. Just look at that image. It does remind me of Kingdom Come's Superman who is suppose to be older. Cavill does look a little bit older in this pic. Maybe it's just the lighting on the hair... But that doesn't matter. CAVILL IS SUPERMAN! But if you like Christopher Reeves then I understand. But for me Henry Cavill is Superman.

What about a certain...Amazing Amazon?

Well according to Zack Snyder, he hasn't filmed scenes of actress Gal Gadot in the costume yet because she still has a long time to get buff and ripped. But given from what Wilkinson has done with Superman and Batman, I'm confident that his design of The Amazing Amazon will be breathtaking on the beautiful woman they have playing her. Whether or not she can act though is not my main concern, it is how they're going to portray the character is what got me more worried. But that is a topic for another day.

Final Thoughts

Come on! They both look like their comic book counterparts! Just look! LOOK!

I'm a big DC Comics fan, yet my favorite movie is a Marvel film: X-Men Days of Future Past. Well, the movie rights are technically not owned by Marvel so.... blah! What I'm saying is that the costumes of DC Comics are the most difficult to translate to screen because they were created in a time when spandex was the way to go for Superheroes. Marvel had the chance of establishing themselves in a time period when costumes can gradually cross the line between standard to grounded. So for costume designer Michael Wilkinson to maintain the idea that superhero costumes are pretty much just colored sculpted bodies and make it work is amazing. In fact these two costumes for this big movie are so far my favorite adaptation of a superhero costume. They're faithful yet updated. The way it should be. I anxiously await the reveal of Gadot in the red, white, and blue costume but also the looks he has for the entire Justice League.

Marvel may be more fun, but DC has their production design trumping them all the way. Now... all they need is to make this movie good. Yup. JUST this movie good. They can screw up the Justice League movie because it will always be compared to The Avengers, but THIS movie about the battle between the most iconic superheroes of all time has to be good. It has to. IT HAS TO!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Analysis and Review

One of the best outings by Marvel since Iron Man

I remember seeing this film at the "midnight" (11:00pm) showing at my not so local theater with a group of friends. That night would've been awesome if we didn't hang out at a nearby coffee shop/pub (weird those thing exist) that had nonexistent parking resulting into my car getting towed. Fortunately the film was an hour away and lucky for me and my good friends, the impound lot was just 20 minutes away. So I wound up spending 245 dollars that night (movie ticket included), to which my friends joked after watching the movie, "So, was that movie worth $245?" Well.........

I said it's one of the best since Iron Man, right?

The Plot

Comic book fans will know this famous Captain America story, but for the general public they're in for a treat:

After saving the world with The Avengers, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) joins the international intelligence agency S.H.E.I.L.D. to continue to serve as the legendary Captain America. Under the orders of Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) Rogers discovers that the America that he is fighting to protect is not the America he originally believed in. With the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) showcasing the darker side of their missions he starts questioning the organization that is suppose to be protecting the world but instead tries to submit it into fear. But when a dangerous threat known as The Winter Soldier emerges, enemies from outside and within are revealed causing Cap to put his faith in a new ally, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) to take on the battle head on.

Analysis

The statement I make in the headline is a personal belief of mine. Iron Man to me stood as Marvel's one true movie that was obviously created as not only a testing ground for their properties but as a nice balance with The Dark Knight. The subject matter was serious and the drama felt more real in the film than any other Marvel movie to date. Some still praise The Avengers as Marvel's greatest achievement, which it rightfully is, but I do not believe it is their best film. It is definitely a better movie than the others made post Iron Man but what i always hoped for was that sense of drama and real intensity. It is easy to argue with me that it is there, and I saw it was there the first time I watched it. But repeated viewings made me realize I did not care about the movie until the big battle finale, something that I should never be feeling for a movie other than a Transformers sequel. 

Even after The Avengers with Iron Man 3 they definitely had the right direction of how to bring back that dramatic effect like the first one did. However that film fell apart despite being filled with the right elements. And yes, I will contend that Iron Man 3 was a better third film than The Dark Knight Rises. But at least The Dark Knight Rises doesn't fall apart halfway through. It falls apart at the end. 

I do like Captain America: The First Avenger because I love retro pulp heroes and the film references that genre. But I would also like to point out that I like to call the film "Montage: the movie" because it really was a big montage of cool events. I get that they were trying to cover ground with WWII but it really made it seem like there was so much more happening that's being left out. Which is one thing I always wanted to point out: SET STORY FOCUS. Iron Man, Thor, The Avengers, The Incredible Hulk, Thor The Dark World, and Iron Man 3 had set story focus in that the story was within a short time period and only moved through a few locations. The First Avenger moved around too much despite having a story in place.

So come my surprise when I see a film that not only has the drama that I felt was missing since Iron Man and the set story focus of the other Marvel films (except Iron Man 2). 

Review

This is not a superhero movie. This is a spy thriller. And I'm not talking about the James Bond or Bourne films, this is an actual espionage spy thriller. Well... having superheroes in it does make it kind of like a Bond film but nevertheless it feels like an American conspiracy spy thriller. Which works so well for the next step in Captain America' evolution as a character. Or rather enforcement of his character rather than evolution. The one attribute that I like about this film is that it enforces the boy scout superhero who obviously lives in a dark world yet still believes in it. This is a criticism many people have with Superman but people tend to forget that Captain America was created at a time when Superman existed. So moral wise he is the most "DC moral" hero compared to the flawed Marvel heroes that populate it. He does have some flaws, but that flaw is perhaps his optimism for a better future. This is where I commend Chris Evans for playing a man who believes in the good in people but knows that there is evil in the world yet still hopes for better things. This isn't the story of a hero who finally realizes how messed up the world is but more of a test of how strong his morals are. And they are strong.

The cast of the film do a great job with their performances. The standout being Anthony Mackie who plays Sam Wilson aka The Falcon. He has the same optimism as Cap and also unwavering in his beliefs. In a world surrounded by lies it was perfect to have Cap America find an ally who is not only a veteran but shared his beliefs. Scarlett Johansson does a great job with the evolution of Black Widow from being a person who takes orders to someone who questions them. I'm still bothered by lack of a Russian Accent, but oh well.

The silent villain The Winter Soldier is definitely a terrifying villain. While he is not Loki level of having a lot of depth and memorable lines, the action set pieces between him and Cap America are by far one of the best superhero combat ever filmed in a Marvel film. I'm not joking. The combat is the best superhero combat film ever put in a Marvel Studios film And to think that this was directed by the guys who made episodes of the comedy show Community. Bravo Anthony and Joe Russo! However, the final showdown was lackluster. Like most superhero movies it builds to the world is at stake and has a big finale. It really did nothing for me compared to the other action set pieces in the film which have been excellent. 

Final Thoughts

So no, to me this movie does not surpass or equal the first Iron Man in my eyes. And for those who compare it to The Dark Knight, there is no comparison because The Dark Knight is a legit movie. This film could've been but that final battle as well as the firmly established Marvel color palette really prevents it from being seen that way by me.

Having seen this film twice, I know my answer to the question asked above. This movie is not worth seeing for $245. But it is still awesome.

SCORE: 8.8/10 - The best film Marvel has made since Iron Man post Avengers

X-Men Days of Futures Past vs Watchmen

CLASH OF THE RETRO ALTERNATE TIMELINES!!!

**SPOILERS**

This article spoils a great deal of both films. If you do not wish to be spoiled please look elsewhere. If you have seen one and don't care for the other then I can't really stop you from reading this. So, let's begin!

All out honesty, if I'm going to compare Watchmen to another film it should be The Incredibles. If you have seen both films, just think about that for a moment. Yep. Same story. Different execution. Different ending. And if I'm going to compare Days of Future Past to another movie it should be Terminator 2. Again, if you've seen both, think about it. So why compare Watchmen, the faithful adaptation of the greatest superhero comic of all time, against Days of Future Past, the inaccurate adaptation of one of the greatest and shortest X-Men stories of all time? Well that's because both films are set in alternate time periods. Well, 1/3 of Days of Future Past takes place in the year 2023 but a dominant portion still lives in the retro world. Believe it or not there are things that they have a lot in common.

COMPARISONS BEGIN

The Death of a Hated Figure brings doom

Bolivar Trask and Edward Blake

Both of these films are triggered by the death of someone. In Days of Future Past, that death was Bolivar Trask. In Watchmen, that death was Edward Black aka The Comedian. Both occur at the beginning of the story and propels the narrative. However where they diverge is that Watchmen is about finding out who killed The Comedian and Days of Future Past is about stopping the murder from happening. But the consequences of this figure's death brings about something apocalyptic. In Days of Future Past that would be the unstoppable Sentinels of the future. In Watchmen it is the death of 15 million people around the world. In a sense they are both apocalyptic with massive scale consequences. Though it could be argued that had The Comedian not died in Watchmen the ending would still happen, but this is more about his death sends the characters on their journey the same way preventing Trask's death put the X-Men on theirs.

We're not doing so good

Charles Xavier and Daniel Dreiberg

In Days of Future Past a young Charles Xavier has fallen from grace after feeling like he is no longer needed. In Watchmen a large majority of the former superheroes still find difficulty adjusting to their lives. While the former Nite Owl II aka Daniel Dreiberg may suffer from a psychological case of erectile dysfunction; which is not as serious as Xavier's drug addiction to get rid of his powers and walk; they both do have that sense of losing a part of themselves without realizing it is who they really are that will save them. Daniel realizes he can't live without being Nite Owl and Xavier realizes he can't live without the wheelchair. It is clear that Xavier is in a more darker place than Daniel but both of them still had to confront the facts: they are who they are and they should not change that.

Prison Break? That's illegal you know

This is more of a plot coincidence than an actual thematic similarity. But both movies do feature a scene where the heroes have to break out arguably the badass of their stories in order to progress the plot. Days of Future Past has the gang plus a newly recruited Quicksilver breaking Magneto out of the Pentagon. Watchmen had a sexed up adrenaline rushed couple break out Rorschach from prison. And yes, one looked cooler than the other. I'm not going to deny that. And you already know which one is cooler. Its just funny how they both have a prison break though, right?

The Badass never compromises

Rorschach and Magneto

You know who I'm talking about. No, not Wolverine. Young Magneto and Watchmen's Rorschach are the uncompromising "badass" characters in their respective films. Both of them have almost a black and white world view. Magneto does blur the black and white with shades of gray, but he still maintains the view that mutants are superior to humans. Rorschach on the other hand only and literally sees the world in black and white. His view is that evil must be punished, even if that means going to the extreme. Both of these characters are incapable of seeing anything different. When everyone else has fallen, they kept going with their causes. But that doesn't mean they're incapable of having friends.

Why can't we be friends?

I had to. Both films have a dynamic between a pair of characters with completely opposing views yet have a strange mutual respect towards each other. Daniel and Xavier can be viewed as fallen White Knights that have to pick themselves up again. And as I've stated before Magneto and Rorschach are the badass uncompromising Dark Knights that stay active in their cause no matter what. Yet both pairs need each other. Daniel and Rorschach both want justice but see different ways of going about it. Xavier and Magneto both want to ensure the future of mutant kind but have completely different methods of how to do so. Despite this, both pairs find a way to still remain friends. Though Daniel and Rorschach are not on opposing sides, the two of them are the only ones who can tolerate and understand each other. And even though Xavier and Magneto are on literal opposing sides, they do care about one another. But granted, if Rorshach and Magneto had to kill Daniel and Xavier, I strongly believe they would.

The "Villain" wants World Peace

Bolivar Trask and Adrian Veidt

Trask has similarities to The Comedian's intellectual rival: Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias. Both of these characters want world peace. Trask wants peace for humanity by focusing all their hatred towards mutants rather than each other. Ozymandias wants to achieve world peace by faking an alien invasion framing the all powerful Dr. Manhattan with the deaths of 15 million people. Their methodologies of redirecting everyone's hatred and fear towards another party are very similar yet very logical. They're not evil, but they're not above creating an evil for the world to turn against. In a sense they acknowledge that good and evil are only concepts but concepts that everyone believes in. So if the way to unite people is to turn someone into the source of all evil, then of course people will unite for a cause.

It all works out in the end (?)

Both films have happy endings....ish. Days of Future Past ends with the dark future being averted and everyone who died in the original timeline comes back to life. But the change in the timeline may have awakened Apocalypse. While Watchmen ends with the United States and Soviet Union calling off their Cold War to preach world peace. But Rorschach's journal being found by a newspaper intern may trigger an unraveling of the conspiracy to save the world. In other words, both protagonists seemed to have temporarily averted disaster. But as we all know, peace never lasts forever.

Final Thoughts

If you've been following me you'll notice that this versus is completely different from my Godzilla versus and Prehistoric versus. Here I don't really delve into who did it better (except the prison break sequence) but more about what they have in common. I can easily make an argument how Days of Future Past is better than Watchmen. Just look at Rottentomatoes. But then I could've easily made an argument why Watchmen is a far superior film to Days of Future Past. At least they stayed true to the comics. But unlike the American Godzilla films that have similar goals and similar plots, these two films may have similar elements but completely different plots. One is about hope, the other is about reality. I just found it interesting how they match up in so many places and thought I'd point that out. Apologies if you thought this was going to be a complete bashing of one film over the other.

Because we clearly know who the winner is (> . >) X-Men Days of Future Past

Film Adaptations - Panel to Panel: Good Film/Terrible Adaptation

Part II: Good Film/Terrible Adaptation

**WARNING:Here there be SPOILERS**
For Part I click here

There was a time when making a superhero film was difficult. That time was around the era of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher's Batman Franchise. It went from being dark and serious to a more kid friendly live action cartoon. At the time the dark and serious was considered shocking, so audiences were turned off by it. Then the kid friendly cartoon turned off audiences and reaffirmed everyone's assumptions at the time: Comic Books are for Children not Adults. So now there came a challenge for directors who wanted to tackle these movies having to deal with an audience that has been through both spectrums from one single franchise. While there are numerous films that have accepted the challenge after I'll only point to three films who enter a special category when it comes to comic book adaptations. Two of them are by Bryan Singer and the third is by Guillermo Del Toro.

**Before we begin let me clearly define what I mean by Good Film and Terrible Adaptation. Terrible is a term that I'll use for films that comic book fans have an extreme problem with how their characters are treated whether it be small minor details or broad ones that no matter how good the film is, fans will still point to these problems as reason why they hate the film.

X-Men - 2000 Film - Director: Bryan Singer

The X-Men film was a massive hit among critics and fans. While there were problems with how certain characters were changed in the film adaptation, fans have become more disdainful of the films after experiencing the MARVEL EFFECT. When Marvel became its own studio and started producing their own films, they have stuck very closely with the source material with some changes made to deal with the contemporary times. When this film was made, Marvel had very little luck in making a big screen splash. Though Wesley Snipes' Blade film can be considered a success, no one outside of a fraction of comic book fans would know he's a Marvel character. So now that Fans are spoiled by Marvel Studios let's examine the problems that apparently riddle the Fox X-Men film:

• Wolverine is suppose to be just a little bit over 5 ft tall and not the massive tall Hugh Jackman
• Rogue played by Anna Paquin is not suppose to be a terrified teenager but rather someone who hides her fear by being a complete badass
• The father and daughter relationship of Wolverine and Rogue in the film is suppose to be Wolverine and Jubilee from the comics
• Toad is not a badass martial artist
• Sabertooth is not a henchman of Magneto
• Cyclops played by James Marsden was reduced to a jealous boyfriend character instead of the level headed tactical field commander with great intelligence on how to use his powers to the fullest
• Their costumes are not their iconic suits from the comics but rather one piece black leather costumes

If you notice, most of the complaints of what makes this film a terrible adaptation of the characters really have no effect on the story. The story was not pointed out as a problem due to it being an original story that was not adapted from any of the comics at the time. If one were to look carefully at these complaints, it seems pretty childish. While yes the complaints are in some way valid for the comic book community, a regular audience member will not care. The audience is looking for a good story and good action. And as there hasn't been a massive film about the X-Men created before, this is what general audiences will look at as the standard for future X-Men films. Dark with complex themes and Wolverine in the center of it all. While that really rubs the comic book audience the wrong way, it is hard to deny that this is a very good film.

Superman Returns - 2006 Film - Director: Bryan Singer

This film may cause a little confusion to some people. This movie was critically well received more so than the reboot Man of Steel but just like Man of Steel this film was divisive amongst the general audiences and comic book fans. This was Bryan Singer's take on a pure superhero, someone who is perceived by the general public to be perfect and has no flaws unlike the X-Men that are filled with complexity and depth. However what Singer tried to do with the character is show how difficult it is to be a lonely god in a world filled with problems. He also went with the angle of making this a semi-sequel of Christopher Reeve's Superman II but also a retcon of Superman III and Superman IV. Whether this was the right way to go remains to be seen. Here are some of the problems that comic book fans pointed out.

• The character of Superman is suppose to be a positive boy scout with a smile on his face, while this Superman is 85% of the time really sad or depressed
• Lex Luthor is suppose to be a ruthless tycoon who lords over the city of Metropolis and was instead played by Kevin Spacey as a comical cartoon criminal with ideas that are completely illogical concerning real estate
• Lois Lane is considerably young in the film and is not convincing as the tough as nails woman who is gung-ho about getting the facts as well as the story no matter the cost
• Superman was not given a worthy nemesis to battle despite this being the age of cinema when such titanic battles can be shown on screen
• The plot device of giving Superman a son was mishandled in the comics and was a part of a story that was carried over from the original Richard Donner films but never fully addressed here

This case is different in that it does emphasis the lackluster story and the strange use of the characters in the film. This film had the looming shadow of Richard Donner's direction and Christopher Reeves' performance that the general audience has accepted as the way Superman should be. And as pointed out, comic book fans expected there to be more action in this film instead of a recycled Superman plots from the first two films. The characters were completely off from how they were suppose to be portrayed with only the airplane sequence being the only time it felt like the modern Superman film people wanted to see. But if one were to look past those problems and not view these characters as the characters from pop culture, people might even realize this is a decent dramatic film. It is a very good character study of someone with the powers of a god and how truly lonely that would be. I should note that it is strange that this film and Man of Steel are the two films I'd rather watch than the Christopher Reeve ones even though those are vastly superior. There is a good movie in here, the problem is that because audiences have been exposed to Superman on the big screen before we are incapable of seeing it. 

Hellboy - 2004 Film - Director: Guillermo Del Toro

This film may come as an even bigger surprise to some as it is often viewed as being a faithful adaptation of the source material. It is even considered a great movie by many with very little criticism towards the inaccuracies that plague the film. There were no cases when Hellboy fans were raising their arms or spitting venom at the film for getting their characters wrong. Now why is that? First let's look at some of the things that have drastically changed from the comic to the film.

• Hellboy actually has hooves for feet to resemble an actual devil
• The character of Liz Sherman is a pyrokinetic in the comics but in the film she is shown to have very little control over her abilities as well as mentally damaged
• There was no relationship between Hellboy and Liz in the comic book mainly because Liz is not a main character in the comic to begin with
• The steampunk zombie ninja warrior Kroenen in the film was just a frail Nazi in the comics who need a breathing mask to live
• Abe Sapien is given telepathy which he does not possess in the comic books
• The character of Myers was created to give the audience an entry point
• The relationship between Prof. Bruttenholm and Hellboy was not a father and son relationship

This may come as a shock for some but there are actually other elements that are not accurate to the book such as the demon Samael being the seed of destruction instead of the frog demon from the comic. But again, why is it that this film didn't get as much fan hate? I'll tell you. The Dark Horse comic does not have the large numbers that a Marvel Comic or DC Comic fan base would have to care for changes. Fans of the comic are just happy that their beloved character is put on screen, who is apparently the only one personality wise to be translated perfectly. Is this a terrible adaptation? No it isn't. But compared to what fans have said are terrible adaptations this definitely fits in to that category.

Final Thoughts

So here we have two films that are loved by general audiences and one film that is divisive among general audiences. One of those two film is critical amongst fans while the other is loved by fans. Now why is it that the two films that are not too accurate to their source material get more love than a film that isn't too accurate with its source material either? Because X-Men and Hellboy carry the spirit of their sources. That is the key that makes a terrible inaccurate adaptation a good film. Is the spirt there. Does it still feel like the source even though it was changed. That is the key component comic fans have to understand. The reason why Superman Returns failed is not just for the inaccuracies but because it lacked the triumphant spirit of a Superman film. It is a good movie, but without the spirit it will always be downgraded to just being an okay or lackluster film. So keeping the spirit of the source is one way of doing it. But what about the others?

Next article deals with Good Film/Good Adaptation

Film Adaptations - Panel to Panel: The Age of the Comic Book Film

Part I: The Age of the Comic Book Film

**WARNING:Here there be SPOILERS**

For a child living in a time when there are films about Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and Batman on the big screen within just as short period of time, this must be a golden age for them. However younger audiences couldn't possibly comprehend just how difficult and what a long road it took to get this point. The trail blazers for this movement such as Superman, Batman, X-Men and Spider-Man are trying to regain a new sensibility in a world that is under the dominion of MARVEL MOVIES. Just as a quick note, for those who don't know, Marvel Film Studios does not own the X-Men or Spider-Man properties due to selling them to other studios back in a time when making comic book movies was a risk.

These days comic book movies are sure fire hit...well most of the time. This is the age where bringing super powers to life on the big screen is no longer a thing of the imagination. With technology the way it is and audiences slowly being convinced that there is something worth seeing for the past few decades, it really is the right time to unleash these properties beyond their core audience.

But within that core audience comes a fine line of BIASED loving devotion and BIASED hatred. The Age of the Comic Book Film has spoiled geek culture. For the better or for the worse, it is spoiled. No longer are the days where people would just be happy with a new comic book adaptation. Now it is the pleasing of the fans that (at least to them) takes priority over the general mass audience. There are some properties who do this fairly well such as Marvel. Then there are properties who try to craft films first then comic book fan priority second such as Fox handling the X-Men property. Then there are those who are leaning more towards the real world precautions of having deities fly above us at Warner Bros. with the Justice League property. And while all of these identities are being shaped, other comics whether they be unknown but beloved superhero properties (Watchmen) or non-superhero properties (Sin City and 300) also find life on the big screen.

But this article is not really a long history of where did it all begin and where we are now. This will be the first in a series of articles about the Criticism of the Fans towards their beloved properties and the general lack of understanding that is encased inside a closed minded head. How do I know this? There was a time when I was one of them.

A shifting opinion - My views on Comic Book adaptations

As a child watching my first comic book film, Batman Forever, I did not care about how inaccurate the film was. I was an ignorant admirer of the story and the characters. I had no idea the Riddler was suppose to be a serious, cold hearted, calculating mastermind that was actually responsible for improving Batman's detective skills. I didn't know that Two-Face was a serious character with a very serious mental condition and not some cackling villain that Tommy Lee Jones was directed to portray him as. I didn't even know Nicole Kidman's character Chase Meridian was not from the comics. But I didn't care. Because a child just wants to see something cool. Of course it would lead me to watching the Bruce Timm Batman: The Animated Series along with the Tim Burton films (that frightened me as a child) but that was just scratching the surface.

When Bryan Singer's first X-Men film was released back in 2000, I knew I was in for something different. I had seen some of the X-Men cartoons in the 90s, mainly because I wanted to see that awesome intro, but was never an avid fan of it. That all changed after viewing the live action outing. I thought Hugh Jackman was the coolest man on the planet as Wolverine and Magneto was the greatest supervillain I've seen. My mentality shifted from casual fan to wanting to actually know more about them! The first comic book I picked up was an X-Men comic, and the experience was...was...not interesting. I had no idea what was going on because I thought what I saw in the movie or on the TV show would be exactly the same in the comic. I didn't know what I was reading, I didn't know who some of the characters were, or why some of the characters I knew were not on the same team. I was not willing to find out why. From that point on I decided not to pick up another comic book because I thought to myself, "Why waste my time and non-existent money (I was 12 at the time) on a product that I don't even know where it begins or currently ends." That was the day I decided to just let the movies tell me the story and not bother with all the lore. What it also did for me was gave me this mentality of "comic book costumes would be stupid in real life." I loved that they used stylized black leather outfits because I just thought that was cooler. I even remember drawing Superman in similar outfits because at the time I thought to make a "lame" superhero cool, just change their costume. My perception changed quickly immediately when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movie came out because it had a really cool costume that looked exactly like the one in the comics. But my perception of not wanting to know the comic book lore was still in tact.

Then Robert Rodriguez had to make me change my perception again with a little film called Sin City. I was amazed by the visuals and the beautiful use of hard monochromatic contrasts. The violence, the sex, the noir, everything that I could've possibly wanted for a teenager who was going through puberty. But as a person who was fascinated by how films are made, come my surprise when I see online videos that delve into how the movie was shot "panel to panel" straight from the comic book! I was amazed. My perception changes once again. Can such a thing be possible? I had to see for myself by actually BUYING one of the Sin City graphic novels and read it while watching the movie. I was floored! I went out and bought more stuff by Sin City author Frank Miller hoping to discover what else could be turned into a movie. I felt like I reached an epiphany! Why make inaccurate adaptations of the comics when one can easily just do what Sin City did, copy the exact same thing and put it on the screen! The following years didn't stop this mentality from growing due to Zack Snyder. His faithful adaptations to 300 and Watchmen were my way of championing that it can be done and that is the way it should be done! It was a mentality that was short lived but the idea of "it should be like the comics" stayed with me. It should be noted that during this time was when my apprehension of not wanting to read comic books and understand the lore ended with me buying Sin City, 300, The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, and The Dark Knight Returns.

So by the time I was in college I was pretty much a fully realized comic book head geek within the span of my last two years in High School. I knew anything and everything about DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, and Image. I was the comic book guru among my friends and whenever a film came out they would ask for my opinion on it. I'd rave about what they did right and then bash them for doing things completely wrong. They wouldn't understand my new found hatred for the X-Men films because they were inaccurate. I was asked one time to list off all the problems with it, to which I learned I had many. But then I was asked if by itself is it a good movie? To which I said it was an incredible film if you don't care about comics... Then it dawned on me. Only 5-10% of the people who watch comic book films are the ones who READ and KNOW comics. 

Just 5-10% know what is right and what is wrong with the adaptation. The other 90-95% majority? They could care less. That is when it really hit me on the head. And this is a good thing that it did in college when my goal is to become a filmmaker. The priority of a filmmaker is not to please the fans, but to make a GOOD MOVIE.

In my next PANEL TO PANEL article I'll be discussing movies that are incredible films but horrible adaptations of the source material. You can check that out here.