Catalyst Comix - Comic Review

The Deconstruction of Deconstruction = Reconstruction

As a comic book reader looking for properties that think outside of the box or just flat out weird, this comic immediately caught my attention. When it was announced that Dark Horse Comics (mostly known for the publishing house of Hellboy) was going to revisit their superhero pantheon through the writing of one, Joe Casey, I was immediately intrigued. Casey's mission for the reinvention of these forgotten heroes who couldn't compete with the big two (DC and Marvel) was pretty straight forward: Don't compete, but be different. Casey even states it himself that while he has worked for the big two, he feels the companies place limits on just how far their characters can be taken.

Casey knows that deconstructing superheroes has gone mainstream and that going back to classic super heroics has also resurfaced in recent writing. However, he does feel that superheroes are locked in a constant state of predictability. Or if it isn't predictability, it is a forgotten idea that resurfaces as new only to be later discovered by some fans as a repurposing. Thus bringing the cycle back to predictability. Now, Casey does not believe that he can escape the cycle. However he believes that superheroes shouldn't be stuck in the same never ending battle of good versus evil. He believes in doing things differently, and exploring it through different eyes. The eyes of three artists specifically. And those three artists possess art styles that will never be used for the Big Two. But because Dark Horse was taking a risk with forgotten heroes, no one would decry this change. After all, Catalyst is about change.

The Structure of Things

Casey applies a rotating anthology structure for this 9-issue limited series. Each issue contains three stories: one main story and two supporting stories. Every three issues, the main story rotates to a supporting story with whatever supporting story was next in line steps forward as the new main one. These three stories are all written by Casey, but drawn by three different artists. The same method of rotating artists applies to the cover art as well. 

The First Story in Cycle - The Ballad of Frank Wells

In the first story, Casey delves into the idea of the Superman with Dark Horse's own rendition of the character called Titan. However in this story, he's only referred to as Frank "Titan" Wells. The story opens with a bang, by having the apocalyptic blockbuster final battle front and center as our introduction to this Superman character. The main theme of this story deals with what does a Superman in the real world really have to deal with and just how many problems can he solve that are not super villain related. Sure, an exploration of that has been seen before in various Superman comics, but with Frank Wells as the lead, Casey is able to take it a bit further by showing the real world politics of being a Superman. That doesn't mean it isn't superhero-y. It still read very much like a classic superhero comic but in modern syntax.  Artist Dan McDaid was responsible for the art in this comic. Although his art style is not used for modern superhero comics, it is the art style out of the three artists that is more closely related to the standard superhero art style. And it makes sense given this story is the most superhero of the two.

The Second Story in Cycle - Amazing Grace

In the second story, Casey examines the Wonder Woman archetype with Dark Horse's resident power woman called Grace. While she does have Wonder Woman level powers, she appears to be more science fiction oriented yet possesses control over star crystals that can teleport her through unspecified yet limited distances. Like Wonder Woman, Grace has her own form of paradise. That paradise being Golden City, a place that she apparently had a hand in building. While the story isn't an extreme character examination of the role of a Wonder Woman type character, it is an examination on what the character means to people. Grace is pretty much looked upon as the ultimate role model who surpasses all the other superheroes in this universe. It really delves into the relationship between Grace and Golden City with an unusual crisis (a suave alien who makes women uncontrollably horny except for Grace) and how not only herself but how the city deals with the crisis. It shows the power of a positive female role model, who I should add although dressed in skin tight clothes is not showing off any skin, and how that can influence an entire city to be better. It is probably the most complex of the three stories as the crisis starts out simple which then evolves into something else completely. Paul Mayberry is the mastermind behind the art for this story, and it can almost be considered the middle ground between McDaid's style and Ulises Farinas'. It is definitely a nice balance transitioning between the two, and he does a really good job at drawing a diverse range of women. By diverse, I'm not just talking about race, I mean age and size.

The Third Story in Cycle - Agents of Change

In the third story, Casey takes a semi-intersting look at the superhero team dynamic. The cast of characters for this story consist of Elvis Warmaker, Wolfhunter, Ruby, and the Rebel Twins. While the first two stories are direct examinations of iconic heroes, this story doesn't seem to be directly reflecting any specific team. This story is a little bit harder to get into because of that. It shows us the more original superhero characters of the Dark Horse pantheon, but given how the previous two stories have been examinations of heroic archetypes we recognize, this one doesn't really hit home that much. It appears to be more of a commentary on mainstream media and itself rather than the idea of the superhero team. The closest thing I can think of as a good comparison is that its a "getting the band back together" story. A shady business man hunts down all these former superhero comrades and offers them a deal to rejoin to change the world... for real this time. That pretty much sounds like how a band reunion sounds like. Hell, the characters all sound like the names of rockstars with Elvis Warmaker being the most obvious. And yes, he does have a pompadour. But I believe Casey saw that the team looks like members from a band and just ran with it. Was it a smart choice? Yes. Does it work out perfectly? At first no, but when you think about it, it is a brilliant idea. So really it is more like a band reunion movie starring superheroes dealing with a threat that doesn't really seem like a threat. It is the weakest of the three in terms of story, but it is the strongest in terms of actual commentary. For this story, it is no wonder the art is handled by Ulises Farinas. His style is definitely not superhero, and it reflects in this story that doesn't really feel like a true superhero story. But that is exactly why it fits.

Overall Impressions

Casey has pretty much accomplished his goal of creating a weird superhero comic book with three very non superhero art styles. Does it accomplish saying what it needs to say? I'd say it is more successful with Grace's story in that it sells the point it is trying to make through greatly executed storytelling. Frank's story comes off a bit heavy handed as a commentary about Superman, but is still entertaining. And the Agents of Change story is brilliant, but it will take the reader a few moments to think about in order to fully engage how brilliant it is. Otherwise, it would be written off as the least interesting, when it is in fact a hidden gem. I will say that while the superhero story telling is definitely there, it will not play out exactly the way one would want it to. There is a sense that it is being different for the sake of being different. While to some that is considered a bad thing, for this I wouldn't necessarily think so.

It offers a really interesting story and look at familiar characters by using forgotten characters to get Casey's views on superheroes out there. And it really is out there. Casey even acknowledges that although he wishes this comic would be the domino that causes the ripple to change the way we all look at superhero storytelling, he also knows well that it won't be the one that topples. No, he thinks of it as the domino that is waiting to be knocked over. And in order for it to be knocked over is not just for the strange storytelling in this story to carry over to the rest of Dark Horse, but to the big two as well. I hope it does, because as much as I like reading Fantastic Four and Superman Unchained, even I think superhero storytelling and visuals need to change.

SCORE: 7.5/10 - An overall average for this 9-Issue Limited Series
A thoughtful examination of superheroes that isn't a complete deconstruction.

This series is now collected into a single trade paperback. Here is the cover:

SAGA Deluxe Hardcover Vol 1 Coming this November!

One of the greatest original comic book series out right now

For comic book fans, the name Brian K. Vaughan means something. It means Y: The Last Man, Ex Machina, Mystique, and Runaways. For a TV audience he was a writer for a lot of episodes in Season 4 of Lost and is connected with the current CBS show, Under the Dome. But bringing us back to comic book fans, he's usually listed up there as one of the great ones such as Alan Moore, Warren Ellis, Neil Gaiman, and Frank Miller. And his ongoing comic book series Saga, which is co-created and drawn by artist Fiona Staples, has permanently cemented himself as one of the greatest visionaries in comics.

What is Saga?

Brian K. Vaughan described the series as "Star Wars for perverts." That was in a joking manner, as many people have referred to it more as, "Star Wars meets Game of Thrones." This could give you a clear vision of what people mean by that. The title suggest a large sweeping epic canvas that goes across the universe with multiple characters to follow in this large ensemble tale. But really in the end the story revolves around three people: Alana, Marko, and their infant daughter Hazel.

The drive of the story is really about a married couple, who should not be together, and how they deal with raising a child in a universe torn apart by war. Alana is from a race of fairy and angelic aliens who embrace technology. Marko is from a race of horned aliens who embrace magic. Science and magic don't mix well so they're at war. And so that is where the Romeo and Juliet story plays in the backstory of these two characters who fell in love despite being on opposite sides of the war. And in their union they created Hazel, a horned winged alien.

Now, one might think the drive of this story will be that because of this union she is the chosen one. However as Hazel points out in the narration, this story is narrated by her, she is not the chosen one of some prophecy. She's just a child, and her parents just want to raise her in a world that seems like it is falling apart.

There are definitely other characters I'd like to touch upon like Prince Robot IV or The Will and his partner Lying Cat. But really, you have to read this collection in order to understand how strange and how powerful this series is.

What is this Deluxe Hardcover about?

This deluxe hardcover collects the first three trade paperbacks of the series (issues 1-18). So if you already own those three paperbacks, then there really isn't a point in getting this volume other than having a nice book in your shelf. But for those who haven't, this is definitely a volume that must be bought immediately. It is a weird and powerful story that you won't find in any superhero comics these days. The last time something weird like this that was Superhero related was Joe Casey's Godland which was a direct reference to Jack Kirby's work at DC Comics. 

This price is $50 but it is well worth it. This is the definitive edition of Saga, and how it was intended to be read. If you're an Image Comic addict, like me, then one should've know that they would've collected this series into a hardcover eventually. Patience pays off, unlike DC and Marvel who don't seem to know when is the right time to release a hardcover edition of their best collections.

GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER DC AND MARVEL!

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.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Analysis and Review

And this is where it all went wrong

The pressure is admittedly on. Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe is ever-expanding that with Guardians of the Galaxy it will literally become a universe instead of a Earth and a small portion of the galaxy. Sony went through great efforts to ensure that the rights to their most profitable superhero property remains with them. But with Marvel expanding and Fox deciding to finally broaden their X-Men universe, what is Sony to do? Everything it takes. For better or for worse.

Plot

Peter Parker/Spider-Man finds himself at a crossroads in life. He wants to be with his the one girl he love, Gwen Stacy, but is haunted by the promise he made to her father: Stay away. But when the return of an old friend triggers events that would make Spider-Man's biggest fan into his greatest enemy, things begin to spiral out of control.

Analysis

The need to compete with the big boys is obvious. It shows from what Sony studios plans to do with their Spider-Man franchise. And while it may please comic book fans that they are finally expanding their horizons and thinking bigger, that is not exactly a good thing. Or it can be if thought out with a clear head. And would be great if it had been stretched out and explored in other films. But for one film to accomplish so much, it is not possible.

This film suffers the same syndrome of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3: putting too many things into a plot that clearly wasn't designed to hold all of them. It was clear from the start that this was intended to be a one on one battle between Spider-Man and Electro. That's the way it was promoted at first and that was the way director Marc Webb had talked about wanting to do. Whether or not that storyline would've been amazing is questionable though. So questionable to a point where it is where they started then immediately started adding on a storyline that arguably seems to be more interesting than the one originally intended. But it almost seems like Webb and his team didn't want to let go of what they said they would set out to do. So they tried to find a way to make those plots work. But then of course there's a certain event from the comics that happens in this movie that really starts bring up a lot of questions. Did they think any of this through? They obviously did because the filmmakers seemed to have come up with something that could've worked. Could've. But let me just get to the review.

Review

I am probably one of the few people out there who really enjoyed Marc Webb's first Amazing Spider-Man film. It had a serious tone with a sarcastically playful Spider-Man going up against a dull villain. It had its problems but it definitely worked. I always felt like something was missing that would've made the film special. Something that the Sam Raimi films had. I wasn't sure what it was but I knew it was missing something. With this film I hoped that whatever it was missing would be there. Well... I guess what I was missing was entertainment, because I was entertained by this film. But at the same time I was cringing.

The film has so many good things about it, but at the same time so many horrible things about it. A good thing thing that I have to put out there right now is that Andrew Garfield IS Spider-Man! In this film he completely disappears into the role becoming the iconic superhero from the comics. He literally does everything a comic book fan would hope he would, making him a far superior Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is phenomenal. She is the whole package in terms of what guys hope to fall in love with. She's everything a guy would want in a girl and she does it well. Usually in a superhero film, the love interest storyline can feel so forced but in this film the relationship between Peter and Gwen is one of the standout highlights of the film. The whole time I believed these two really love each other and it was the most real thing about this movie. Sally Field does a very well performance as Aunt May who goes through an emotional arc in this story. Dane DeHaan does a good job as Peter's long lost friend, Harry Osborn. And then there's...

Now let me just say this. Jaime Foxx and Paul Giamatti are fantastic actors. Incredible actors. And they act the hell out of the roles they are given. The problem? The roles they are given. In a film that established as being the more real and grittier take on Spider-Man, Foxx's Electro and Giamatti's Rhino are cartoon characters. Not the awesome cartoon characters from the gone too soon Spectacular Spider-Man TV show. I mean cartoon characters from a Looney Toons skit. Well, Foxx's Electro was cool. But before becoming the electric Dr. Manhattan, Foxx had to play Max Dillon. A caricature of the pathetic loser that people want to feel sorry for if he wasn't so creepy. It was a cartoon character but after becoming Electro he become a one dimensional stereotypical evil character. Giamatti's role for Rhino was such a big Russian stereotype that it was annoying. He's not even a player in the film, more like a glorified overused cameo. And with these characters lie the problem.

The tonal shift of the movie is sporadic. The prologue dealing with what happened to Peter's parents matches the serious tone established in the first film then suddenly shifts to an entertaining tone during the first act. This isn't a bad thing for a Spider-Man film to be entertaining, but the tone shift between serious to entertaining to cartoony to serious to romantic are all over the place. There are some tones that go hand in hand but the cartoony take on the villains combined with the entertaining tone makes it seem out of place from the serious tone rather than a relief. It makes every amazing scene that promises an incredible film get immediately followed by a terrible scene that shows that this could've been a horrible film. Believe me, it shows you this could be amazing then immediately shows you it could also be horrible.

I blame the tone shift and the incoherent multiple story plots on Sony's need to compete against Disney Marvel, Fox Marvel, and now even Warner Bros. DC. The problem is that trying to accomplish that all in one go can prove to have devastating effects on the quality of the film.

Final Thoughts

Believe it or not I still enjoy this film. Will I go out and buy it? No. Will I go out and buy the complete Blu-Ray box set that is bound to be released once all their run on Spider-Man is done? Yes I will. It is a fun film that doesn't know what it wants to be. There is enjoyment from the film but there is also cringe inducing moments. Surprisingly the romance story is not one of those cringe inducing moments. Valiant Effort to establish a universe all in one movie. Let's see how DC does with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

SCORE: 6.9/10 - It's fun, but not electrifyingly amazing

NOAH - Movie vs Graphic Novel

There's always something different

**THIS ANALYSIS CONTAINS SPOILERS**

This is an analysis on the differences between the film and the graphic novel, NOT the actual Biblical account. For my thoughts on Biblical Film Adaptations see:

Film Adaptations - Going Biblical

AGAIN, this is an analysis and semi-review of the NOAH film and graphic novel.

If you are reading this, then I'm assuming you have seen the film or read the graphic novel or done both. However if you are reading this without having seeing the film or reading the graphic novel but still wish to do so then I advise seeking this article at a later time. If you do not care about seeing the film or reading the graphic novel...then go right on ahead.

My thoughts on the Film

I believed Noah is a great film that is also significantly flawed in a few places. Not so much the execution of wanting to show the madness of a family dealing with the pressures of being the sole survivors of an apocalypse, but rather character interactions. The motivations for the primary antagonist of the movie Tubal-Cain played by Ray Winstone are fairly one dimensional. He is very straightforward in his beliefs: we are the masters of the universe and God (The Creator) has abandoned us. He is the poison that infects the mind of Noah's son, Ham played by Logan Lerman, into plotting to betray Noah. His purpose really is just to be this antagonistic force for the story. He shows himself to be resilient to the point where when his army is killed by the flood he manages to break into the Ark before being drowned. No matter how one looks at it, he is a very straight forward character.

Then of course there is the case of Ham seeking out a wife among the savage army of survivors. He does so by finding a woman named Na'el played by Madison Davenport. She's given enough character to make the audience feel sorry for her when she ultimately gets caught in a bear trap. When Noah has the chance to save her, he does not, and instead leaves her to get trampled to death by an oncoming army.

The reason why I bring that up is because those parts of the film that I viewed as kind of weak are actually made stronger in the Graphic Novel.

My thoughts on the Graphic Novel

As an avid comic book reader, this is one of the most beautifully made graphic novels I got my hands on in a while. The real reason why I picked it up was mainly because the images that were shown to promote the production of the film were directly from the graphic novel. So I was expecting the film to live up to the visuals that I saw in those few images. From those few images and what I saw from the film, I thought Darren Aronofsky did a great job translating his vision from comic book to film. Was I too quick to judge? Apparently yes after reading the Graphic Novel.

As I stated, this is one of the most beautiful graphic novels I've seen. The story, is pretty much beat by beat exactly the same as the one in the film. So comparing which story is better is pretty much pointless. However in terms of which character motivation and development works out better, then that's where the clear distinction lies.

How the comic is better than the movie

Noah in the graphic novel may not be a vegetarian like his film counterpart. In the beginning of the film he stops some hunters from killing a mythical creature. In the graphic novel he stops a group of hunters from killing wooly rhinos for sport. He states that he doesn't mind them killing animals, but he does mind them wasting animals just to take a useless part of them. So he does wish that mankind can go about things differently as opposed to his film counterpart who seems rather indifferent about what humanity does.

When Noah starts to receive visions of a flood, his film counterpart seeks out his grandfather for advice. The graphic novel counterpart still seeks out his grandfather, but before doing so he does something I now realized I wished the film counterpart did: WARN THE SURVIVING HUMANS. Noah takes his eldest son Shem to the kingdom of the last surviving humans of the planet. There he asks permission of their king, Tubal-Cain, to speak before his people about the oncoming storm. He grants them permission. However as one would predict, no one believes Noah's preaching which leads the king to banish him from the Kingdom.

Of course this leads to the chase into the land of the Watchers and that's where the graphic novel realigns with the plot of the film. But that one scene of Noah preaching to humanity and that exchange with Tubal added more character and depth to both of these characters that was missing in the film. In the graphic novel it is clear that Noah is a good but conflicted man and that Tubal is a vile but just king who has some respect for Noah.

This carries over to the portion where they confront each other when the Ark is being built. In the film it was the first time these two meet, but in the graphic novel it is a plea for forgiveness. Tubal pleads with Noah to forgive him and his people for not listening to him. Noah tells Tubal to order his people to start building their own boats, but Tubal knows that they'll never have enough boats in time for the flood. So Tubal makes a deal with Noah that him and 25 other people of his choosing will be allowed entry onto the flood while the rest of his people die. Noah agrees to this only to buy more time to finish the Ark. This exchange is handled much better than in the film, but then again their interaction is far great in the graphic novel. But this interaction will help with another key plot point.

When Ham meets Na'el in the graphic novel, it is the same as the film. However what sets it apart is that the survivors find them and plot to hold them ransom so that Noah will allow them on the Ark. That is when Tubal-Cain comes to Ham and Na'el's rescue! With his royal guard, he saves Ham and Na'el from his own people believing that Noah would still hold up his end of the deal. However upon arrival it became clear that this was not the case. And so feeling betrayed by Noah, he channels the rage of his people directly at Noah instead of him for abandoning them. This small act is what makes the interaction of Ham saving and aiding Tubal in the attempted murder of Noah on board the Ark much more plausible. In the film their interaction prior to working together on the Ark was a small exchange that doesn't plausibly explain why the two would respect each other. But if Na'el was allowed passage on the Ark, then why would Ham help him still? 

Although she was allowed passage on the Ark when Tubal brings them, during the battle Noah deems that she needs to be removed. And so he coldly orders an angel to take her off the boat, with Noah's entire family watching in horror as he does this. It is unknown what happens to her, but it can only be referenced that she gets casted into the oncoming army. This displays the first signs of Noah's madness and exposes it to his family. That alone triggers a lot of distrust and would drive Ham to help Tubal in plotting the murder of his father.

In conclusion

It just makes more sense why Tubal-Cain is the villain that he is and why Ham would try to go about killing his father. And for those who believed that the Noah of the film was heartless, in the graphic novel he does indeed have a heart but his progression to madness is more gradual.

It is amazing that the director of the film could not even adapt faithfully his own graphic novel. And while I'm usually not a champion of the term "the book was better," in this instance I'd have to say that it clearly was.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Analysis and Review

The First Marvel Movie that is actually a Movie that's not by Marvel

From that title one should already know my opinion of Disney Marvel film versus Fox Marvel/Sony Marvel films. However while Sony seems unsure about how to handle their one remaining Marvel character (Spider-Man) Fox on the other hand knows full well how to use their properties.

Make a good movie first! Not try to compete with the Parent Company by trying to shove in an entire universe to expand on later into one movie. Make a good movie! That is what Bryan Singer does with X-Men Days of Future Past. He makes a great movie. Not an entertaining movie. A GOOD MOVIE!

The Plot

If you are an X-Men fan then the plot of this film should be no surprise to anyone. But for those who are not aware that this is one of the most famous story lines in comic book history then here's the plot:

In a dark grim future where humanity has control of these monstrous gigantic robots called Sentinels that hunt mutants as well as humans who will later produce mutants, one can expect the X-Men are not doing so good. Enter the surviving members of the X-Men team: Prof. X (Patrick Stewart), Storm (Halle Berry), and Magneto (Ian McKellan) who join forces with refugee mutants led by Bishop (Omar Sy). Among the refugee mutants are former X-Men Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) who has developed the ability to send a person's mind back in time to their younger bodies. The plan: send Prof. X's mind to his younger self (James McAvoy) in order to stop Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) from assassinating the creator of the Sentinels, Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), and becoming the seductive villainess known as Mystique. However the strain of sending an elderly Prof. X's mind several years into the past would prove too dangerous, so Wolverine volunteers to go through with the mission. This mission will not only require the help of a young Prof. X but the "help" of a young Magneto (Michael Fassbender) as well.

Analysis

The film combines the casts of two different time periods of the same franchise. For the future scenes: the original X-Men franchise actors, and for the past: the new younger actors from the semi-reboot X-Men First Class. The story utilizes the time travel plot in order to bring these two massive casts together into one really really large ensemble. Now, I'm going to immediately compare it to three films. Those films are Spider-Man 3, The Avengers, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Why those three specifically? The Avengers is often lauded as being the greatest superhero movie to bring together all theses individual characters into one film. An ensemble. Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are often criticized for having TOO MANY villains in their movies which becomes the widely accepted notion as to why they failed.

The Avengers comparison? This is pretty much "The Avengers Event" for the Fox created X-Men universe in that it brings together the old cast and the new cast. It is a large ensemble that spans through time connected by a singular character, Wolverine. One can argue that the strength of The Avengers is the ability to juggle six characters (Iron Man, Thor, Capt. America, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye) in leading roles. While Hawkeye was merely shafted to silent villain for most of the film, it does a pretty good job in balancing out the character screen time. This is where Days of Future Past has a slight weakness. There are SO MANY characters crammed into this one film. The thing that might upset comic book fans is that most of the new characters and even some of the old ones are merely just small cameos. They don't have much depth other than they're present. Essentially the focus of Days of Future Past is mostly on Young Prof. X, Young Beast, and "Young" Wolverine with supporting roles from Magneto and Mystique. That is a total of... FIVE characters to focus on as opposed to the SIX in Avengers. 

Also while there are the Six Avengers there are the four supporting roles including the villain. In Days of Future Past there are.... 12 supporting roles. And that is also including the two primary villains: Trask and Stryker. Though the total should really be THREE villains as Young Magneto is clearly still an antagonist unlike his redeemed Older self in the future.

That is where the Spider-Man comparison comes in. TOO MANY VILLAINS. That is the argument for many people as to why those films failed. Spider-Man 3 had Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and Venom. Amazing Spider-Man 2 had Rhino, Electro, and Green Goblin. As I stated before, Days of Future Past has three villains. The same number as the other Spider-Man films. Yet what sets them apart, is that they are utilized perfectly. In Days of Future Past the villains are given the amount of time they need to clearly become a threat as well as get their motivations clear. In both Spider-Man sequels the villains are merely put there for the sake of being put there either to appease fans (Venom) or for plot device (Green Goblin). The fact that writer Simon Kinberg (with some help from First Class writers Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman) was capable of handling these three villains in such a natural way shows that the excuse of "TOO MANY VILLAINS" is not a genuine excuse anymore.

In fact, the same argument can't be said about how the HUGE ensemble was handled. While I pointed out there are five main characters and 12 supporting, it could be easy to say The Avengers have the upper hand of which one used ALL of their characters for the best. But the fact that Days of Future Past has 27 characters given enough to make them important to the story while funneling down the focus to the primary five shows just how incredible this is. 

The Avengers may have screen time for all eight of its characters, but Days outnumbers it with enough for all of them. In fact, the Sentinels in Days of Future Past are far more threatening than the easily killable Chitauri in The Avengers.

Review

This is the best storytelling seen in any superhero movie. This is the first film that I believe rivals The Dark Knight in terms of being a genuine film. Marvel has made ENTERTAINING movies but never an actual MOVIE. Iron Man and Captain America: The Winter Soldier could fall into that category, but they are nothing at the level of The Dark Knight or Days of Future Past.

First and foremost, this is a Science Fiction film that just happens to have comic book characters in it. And good sci-fi is hard to come by these days. Especially good time travel movies. And this one excels at being both. What makes the X-Men film franchise so great is that they are first and foremost sci-fi dramas first with the spectacle coming second. Having been created in a time before the Marvel Film domination and the death of the Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise, it was touted as being real and serious. What gives this film an edge over the Marvel films of the current age is that it doesn't lose sight of its realistic yet fantastical roots. And by real I mean the drama.

The cast is perfect. James McAvoy delivers a powerful performance as a broken young Prof. X who has to learn to accept that he will become the great leader Patrick Stewart portrays. Michael Fassbender shows us a Magneto in his prime that compliments Ian McKellan's more redeemed older self. Hugh Jackman is brilliant as ever as Wolverine. Jennifer Lawrence was not my favorite part of X-Men First Class mainly because Rebecca Romijn as Mystique was just so vicious, but in this film Lawrence shows the turning point in which she is starting to turn into the vicious and sexy Mystique from before. While I could go on and name the rest of the cast as great in their performances, the real stealer of the show is Evan Peters as Peter Maximoff aka Quicksilver. His scenes will have one hoping and begging that he comes back in the sequel.

While the continuity of the film series may not exactly make sense, this film's mission of not only being a good movie but to fix all those problems was accomplished beautifully. This is truly a great film that showcases the return of Bryan Singer as well as a proper send off to the original cast members. Because as sources have stated, from this point onwards it is up to the First Class cast to carry the franchise now...and maybe Wolverine.

Final Thoughts

A well layered and complex movie that does not lose sight of itself in the complications of Time Travel. However I'm not sure how an audience member would feel about the ending of this film if one has not seen the previous installments. Regardless, they should walk away believing that it was a good film. But for those of us who love X-Men movies, this is an E-X-CELLENT film!

SCORE: 9.5/10 - The Best Marvel Film is made by a Non-Marvel Studio

Why Luke Evans would've made a great Batman and Perseus

I remember it very clearly. It was April 2, 2010, I was out with some old high school friends and some new college friends watching the Clash of the Titans remake. Having seen the original Clash of the Titans when I was much younger, within the first few minutes of the remake I was already making judgements about the movie. Then came the scene on Olympus where we see Liam Neeson as Zeus in all his shiny armor glory along with Ralph Fiennes introduction as the scheming Hades. The rest of the Olympian Pantheon was present in their shiny armor, but other than Zeus and Hades there were only two other gods that had lines: Poseidon played by Danny Huston and Apollo played by... who is that?

Funny how Apollo only had two lines yet I remembered him after I saw the movie. I didn't completely understand why, but something about the actor who played Apollo stood out to me. Perhaps because it was such as small role and that he was one of the few gods to actually have lines? That's what I told myself after leaving the theater. It wouldn't be until I bought the DVD (out of pure Greek Mythology fan bias than for being an actual good movie) and watched that deleted scenes that consisted MOSTLY of this actor having Apollo originally playing a larger part in the movie that I realized something. This guy who goes by the name of Luke Evans should've, in my opinion, been the guy who played Perseus.

It really had to do with a deleted scene dealing with Apollo stating to his half brother Perseus (the hero of the movie played by Sam Worthington) that "(they) are brothers." It really was that moment where I thought what if their roles were switched. I have nothing against Sam Worthington. He's a decent actor, though he has yet to wow me. However there was something about this Luke Evans guy who seemed to have more of a draw and a presence. He definitely fit will playing the god Apollo, had his role not been reduced to just two lines instead of an entire sub plot that was deleted. However seeing him just reminded me immediately of the original Clash of the Titans star, Harry Hamlin. They both had presence and a voice that says leading man and legendary hero. I kept thinking about it a little bit more and thought casting Luke Evans as Perseus would've been perfect. Hypothetically had he been cast as Perseus instead of Sam Worthington, would that have made the movie better? Probably not. However it would've made this version of Perseus more compelling. Sam is capable of playing a compelling character if the character is written to be compelling. The Perseus in the remake was not written as a compelling character but rather as a cookie cut out cliche hero character. It takes a compelling actor to make a cliche something watchable, and that was something that Luke Evans had.

Luke would've made a very interesting Perseus. He has looks, the voice, and if he had been casted hopefully the hair would still be in tact because he has that too. Had I been involved with the film as a casting director or as the director of the film in general he would've been my first and only choice. However there are factors I have to put into consideration. The first being no one in America knows who he is. I didn't know who he is. So, the casting of Sam Worthington was definitely meant to draw in the Avatar audience because everyone in the world has seen him in that. However, he did get put into the film so he had to have auditioned for more than one part. If I was the director or casting director of the project I would've taken a gamble with him as Perseus because he just fits the bill perfectly. Although if I was the director of the Clash of the Titans remake, the story would've been completely different but that's not really what this post is about. It's simply stating this idea that's been going around in my mind for three years now. I would've liked the 2010 Clash of the Titans more had Luke Evans been given the role instead of Sam.

Since then I've been following this guy's career to see if anything big is going to happen to this guy. There are cases where you see an actor do a small part in a film who is more compelling than anyone else in the film that you just know that person is going to become someone. And good thing he did. Immortals, Fast & Furious 6, and now The Hobbit trilogy. I'm really glad that right now he has some name recognition because I believe he is one of the most compelling actors in the business. Not the greatest, I'm not saying he's Oscar worthy, but he is definitely someone who you won't have a problem watching or even criticize his acting. That's why this next thought came to my mind recently.

The casting of Ben Affleck as Batman is said and done. I have no problem with it other than the fact that it means I won't see a film directed by the Affleck for a while. But when there was still speculation about who should be the next Batman, I had two choices in mind: Josh Brolin and yep you guessed it Luke Evans. The thought of him playing Batman would've done wonders for propelling his career even further. If The Hobbit movies don't, then him getting casted as Batman surely would.

It would've been a nice nod to Immortals by having Luke (who played Zeus) and Henry Cavill (the new Superman and the lead of Immortals) to be seen side by side one another. Luke definitely has the charm and the voice to pull off an older Batman. He is older than Cavill by about five years so it does fit the bill of an Older Batman as a nemesis and potential mentor figure for Batman. However as the fates may have it, Ben Affleck has the role which means I'll never see Luke Evans as Batman. Then again I'll never see him as the lead in a Clash of the Titans remake. He's got a nice career ahead of him after The Hobbit, and I look forward to seeing what else he does in the future.