X-Men Apocalypse Trailer

Damn this looks great.

31 Days of Halloween: Halloween

Yesterday I said there were a couple of movies that actually scared me when I was a kid. John Carpenter's Halloween was one of them.

This is another movie that doesn't try to include any social commentary; there are no hidden messages or agendas here. The plot is simpicity itself. Fifteen years ago in a small midwestern town, a young boy, for reasons that are not explained in the film (more about that below) kills his sister with a large knife on Halloween night, seemingly without any sort of emotion. Fifteen years later, having been incarcerated in a maximum security psychiatric hospital, he escapes, and his psychiatrist (Dr. Loomis, played by Donald Pleasance) goes on the trail, trying to catch Michael while at the same time trying to convince the authorities just how dangerous he is. Michael, clad in anonymous blue coveralls and wearing a creepy blank mask, stalks the local teenagers and then goes on a killing spree while they are babysitting in various houses on Halloween night. As he tries to kill the last girl (Laurie, played by Jamie Lee Curtis in her first real acting role), Dr. Loomis finally catches up to him, puts a large number of bullets in him, and Laurie is ambulanced off to safety. The camera then turns back to where Michael's body fell... and it is no longer there.

There are a lot of things that make this one of the "perfect" horror films. The music, composed by John Carpenter as a money-saving feature because of the film's miniscule budget, is instantly memorable, sets the tension in the film to maximum, and yet doesn't seem to get in the way of the film itself. The low budget led to decisions that were originally made in the interests of cost-cutting, but in the end turned out to be just right for the artistic feel of the film. Notably, the lack of extras on the streets. While the three babysitters are walking to and from school, the streets are empty, adding subliminally to the feeling that they are already cut off from the rest of the world, and thus vulnerable. Most of the film is entirely mundane. We see them walking down the street, talking like any teens would talk, and yet we know that there's a killer stalking them. The music is always there in the background, ratcheting up the tension, and we are just waiting, waiting for the Bad Things to start happening.

Almost all of the actors are unknowns (even Jamie Lee Curtis, who comes from a famous Hollywood family, had only been in a handful of television shows before the film), adding to the small town, girl next door feel. Donald Pleasance was the only "big name" actor, and he gives a wonderfully creepy performance. When your doctor is doing everything he can to shoot you, know know something's wrong...

But what really makes this film is Michael Myers himself. He's a cipher, clad in coveralls and with a mask (the creepy blank face mask was, famously, a William Shatner mask from a local hardware store). He has no motive. He is just pure evil, killing for the sake of it. He has infininte patience, seemingly fooling all of the other doctors by pretending to be completely unresponsive for a decade and a half, just awaiting his opportunity to escape and go on a rampage. He drives himself forward through sheer force of will; he's not some musclebound superman, but just an ordinary mortal who is simply so driven in his mission to kill that he overcomes being stabbed, shot, tossed off roofs, and more. This is a vital aspect of the films that I think is lost in the later sequels (where some sort of supernatural demonic-possession story is glossed onto the backstory) and in the recent remake (where Michael is presented as a very muscular and imposing physical figure).

And one of the most extraordinary things about this film is that is accomplishes its goals with almost no gore. No copious amounts of blood are needed. This film presents a perfectly reasonable mundane portrait of middle America and then puts in a mundane, non-supernatural peril. And the resulting suspense makes this a perfect horror film.

31 Days of Halloween: A Nightmare on Elm Street

One, two, Freddy's coming for you.
Three, four, better lock your door.
Five, six, grab your crucifix.
Seven, eight, gonna stay up late.
Nine, ten, never sleep again.
One, two Freddy's coming for you

three, four better lock your door

five, six grab your crucifix
seven, eight gonna stay up late
nine, ten he's back again.

There are only a couple of films that actually scared the bejezus out of me growing up. 1984's A Nightmare on Elm Street was one of them. The 1980's were the era of "dead teenager films", where anyone over the age of 14 who dared to get intimate with anyone else was just daring some deranged killer with a machete to off them. But Wes Craven came up with something truly original in the genre, and together he and Robert Englund created a character that was iconic from the instant he hit the screen.

The plot is pretty simple. Students at the local high school are being killed in their sleep. The M.O. is that of Freddy Krueger, who molested and killed kids in the town years before. But it couldn't possibly be him, because he's dead...

Several gruesome killings later, we learn that it was the outraged parents of the town who took matters into their own hands and, after Krueger had been let off on a technicality, burned him to death. Now, he has returned from the grave to wreak his vengeance. He is finally thwarted by the heroine simply turning her back on him, ignoring him and thus depriving him of energy. Everyone is then brought back to normal (or, more, a sort of idealized normal). The film ends with the heroine and her friends, seemingly now awake from the nightmare, driving off. But suddenly the top begins to close on the car, and the colors are those of Freddy's characteristic sweater...

This is such a wonderful film in so many ways. The dream sequences are alternately surreal and realistic, just like real dreams. One of the things that really got me was when the heroine was trying to run up the stairs, and her feet sink into the staircase, slowing her to a crawl. I'd actually had that dream, and it really added to the immersion value of the film. They masterfully confuse you as to what is dream and what is reality, and the film ends ambiguously; was the whole thing a dream? Was it a dream within a dream?

The film also explores some pretty weighty issues, if only as subtext. How horrible does someone need to be before vigilantism is justifiable? It's implied, but never outright stated, that Freddy molested the kids he killed. Remember, this was at the height of the "Satanic Panic" of the mid-1980's, when daycare centers were being investigated for allegations of systematic child molestation. At one point, the heroine's parents put bars on the windows to prevent her from sneaking out (which, of course, end up preventing her from escaping Freddy's clutches).

The cast has some unexpected surprises; Johnny Depp was here as a pretty forgettable boyfriend who ends up getting his guts strewn across a bedroom, and John Saxon plays the police chief. And of course under that burn-victim makeup is John Englund, who had just played Willie in the television mini-series V and V: The Final Battle.

All in all, an instant classic addition to the horror genre, driven by wonderful characters and smart writing that blurs the line between dream and reality. There were innumerable sequels, including a television series, and of course the original was recently remade, but the 1984 film is just one of those must-see horror flicks.

Review: The Martian (Spoiler Free)

Director Ridley Scott's The Martian opened this weekend (currently sporting a 94% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes), and I got to see a morning matinee. I saw it without 3D. Even before lunch, the theater was nearly full, which is saying something. I can easily say this was the best movie I've seen all year, handily beating out Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Ant Man, both of which I really liked. In fact, I would put this as one of my top ten films I've ever seen.

To give the briefest possible synopsis: Matt Damon is astronaut Mark Watney, a member of the Ares III expedition to Mars. When the mission is aborted because of a powerful sandstorm, Watney is left behind, presumed killed by the storm. But he's very much alive, and stranded on Mars, with only his wits and the leftover equipment from the base camp to survive.

From such a simple premise, which has been used in movies before this (1969's Marooned and 1995's Apollo 13), comes an absolutely wonderful movie. Much of the film revolves around Watney's attempts to stay alive long enough for the next scheduled Mars mission to arrive in four years. But every time he (and the audience) feel a little confident that he'll make it, a new problem (or catastrophe) arises that has to be overcome.

The parallel story on Earth, where NASA (once they realize Watley's still alive) need to find a way to communicate with him, and then to rescue him, is beautifully handled, with the conflicting needs of the government bureaucracy to maintain a good public face, to the technical problems they face, to the issue of dealing with Watley's crewmates, who are on their way home and still think he's dead all played out realistically.

The characters are all well-written and well-acted, and there's a surprising amount of humor thrown in throughout the film, much of it coming from Damon (he keeps a video log which serves as a sort of self-commentary narration, but it's not constant enough to be intrusive), but a lot of it just being the sort of normal banter that you'd expect a bunch of engineers and people dealing with engineers to toss back and forth.

The tension is maintained throughout the whole film, which doesn't waste any time in putting the situation into play. There's a little back-and-forth between the crew to establish the sort of relationships that any six people would have after 400 days together in space, and five minutes later they're running for their lives to get off the planet. The commander's sense of loss at having to leave a crewman behind is well played, and the film (wisely, in my opinion) doesn't play the "I have to get back to my wife and kids" angle; as far as we can tell, Watley's a bachelor. That keeps everything focused on survival.

This is definitely a pro-science, pro-space movie. It makes me grieve for the state of our current space program, and the fact that what seems like pretty sensible, feasible technology (even the Hermes, the base ship that shuttles between Mars and Earth, seems plausible, if expensive) makes what we can, or can't, do all the more poignant. Hell, it makes me regret my own life choices, that I didn't angle for a career at NASA somehow, coming out of college.

The film is about the triumph of human ingenuity, the sense of scientific cooperation crossing international rivalries, and the sense that if you just keep solving one little problem at a time, methodically, you'll eventually wind up with no more problems to face. Until Mars tries to kill you again, that is.

Five stars out of five. Go see this film. It's a masterpiece.

Review: Ant-Man (spoiler free)

I saw the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Ant-Man today. As a rule, I don't do 3D, so I caught a showing that was plain old 2D. I promise no puns about things being small.

I have to say, after the BIG BOOM BOOM show that was Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ant-Man was something of a palette-cleanser, which is suitable for the final film in Phase II of the Marvel Master Plan (mua-ha-ha). It's a much more personal movie, with only two big fights, and it's probably the second funniest Marvel movie after Guardians of the Galaxy.

The basic plot, shown in the trailers, is that ex-con Scott Lang takes on the mantle and suit of Ant-Man, and needs to stop the villain from developing a similar technology for military purposes.

You have probably heard that this is a "heist film" and it is structured that way, but first and foremost this is a comedy. Michael Peña steals every scene he's in, as Scott's idiotic and over-eager ex-cellmate, and most of the characters in the film know that "ant-man" is a ridiculous idea. And that very self-deprecation is one of the things that makes it work. I liked the character arcs that we saw Hank Pym, his daughter, and Paxton go through, although it did seem like Scott himself was pretty much the same guy he was at the beginning of the film. Which is okay, but in a movie like this a little character growth from the titular character was sort of expected.

The film is firmly tied to the rest of the Marvel universe, moreso than many other films we've seen. There are all sorts of call-outs, both subtle and hit-you-over-the-head unsubtle, to things and characters we've seen in other films and television shows. And look for a blink-and-you-miss-it appearance by Saturday Night Live alum Garrett Morris driving a car. I don't know why, but that really made my day.

As might be expected, the effects are so seamlessly well done it's almost not worth mentioning at this point. But a special call-out to the de-aging effects used on Michael Douglas at the very beginning of the film. It's like they actually filmed it 25 years ago and just kept it in the can until they were ready to make the rest of the movie. Amazing. And the ants... the ants are filled with personality, if that can be believed. Beautiful to watch on the screen. The shrinking effects are similarly well-done, and you get a real sense of the vertigo-inducing weirdness it must induce to actually be in the ant-man suit.

On the whole, this is quite a worthy entry. It's no Avengers, but it's not meant to be. It's a very funny, very well-put-together film. Definitely better than some of the more strained sequels we've been seeing in the MCU lately, and it is well-served by the relative toned-down pyrotechnics.

Also, there are two helpings of schawarma at the end. Make sure you stay through to the very end of the credits.

Film Review: Terminator Genisys

It doesn't count as a spoiler if
they put it on the effing POSTER

I'm actually a little conflicted about whether to include spoilers in this review, since the trailers have done a pretty thorough job of revealing some of the bigger plot twists. I'll try to keep them to only what's been revealed in the official trailers.

First off, I should say that I'm a huge fan of the Terminator franchise in general, and was sorely disappointed by the third and fourth films. Although it's not a perfect film by any stretch, this latest film in the series does redeem it in many ways. I saw it without 3D or IMAX.

The basic plot is that Kyle Reese (from the first film) is sent back to 1984 to stop the original T-800 from killing Sarah Connor, but discovers almost immediately that the 1984 he's expecting no longer exists, because the timeline has already been changed by another time traveler.

To my mind, the first 45 minutes of this film, where they recreate and then completely mess with scenes from the first two films, are the best part. They do a credible job of recreating the scenes, and the CGI young Arnold Schwarzenegger is simply stunningly well done; MUCH better than the halfhearted attempt in Terminator: Salvation. (They couldn't actually reuse scenes from the earlier films because of legalities.) There don't seem to be any shouts to the wonderful Sarah Connor Chronicles television show, which is really a shame. A cameo by Summer Glau as a terminator would've been amazing. (For that matter, so would have a cameo by Bill Paxton as an older punk, now all grown up once he wasn't killed like he was in the original film.)

The later hour-plus of the film is somewhat self-contained and still quite enjoyable (I'll not reveal the specifics of what it's about, since that seems to have escaped the spoiler-happy marketing folks, other than the fact that they did the one thing left to do in the series villain-wise, and took the one man who's been the legendary hero all along, and turned that expectation on itself), but doesn't quite have the resonance of the first portion. There is some mumbo-jumbo about being able to remember things from alternate timelines, but once you just give up and say "it's just how the tech works" then you'll be a lot happier. It's time travel, which forgives many sins, and opens up all sorts of things that don't make sense until you really think about them, then they do, then you think about them some more and they're back to not making sense. Just keep telling yourself, "it's just how the tech works."

The film is long on action sequences, and they're very well done, but short on the long character-filled pauses that made the first and second films so memorable. They try to cram all of the chemistry of Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn into a single scene, and it just doesn't work. And the father-daughter thing they're going for between Schwarzenegger and Emilia Clarke (the new Sarah Connor) seems forced. Rather than have her keep talking about it, it would've worked much better if they had taken half the time to just show it.

Schwarzenegger is a treat to watch here, playing on a lot of old expectations, doing the stoic machine/father that Sarah wanted for John in the second movie to perfection, recalling lots of old lines and scenes and obviously having a ball with it. Emilia Clarke seems to have been cast mostly because of her resemblance to Linda Hamilton (there are a few scenes where the resemblance is uncanny). J.K. Simmons is great as a cop whose life is completely overwhelmed by a chance encounter with the whole notion of time-traveling killer robots, and Jai Courtney (the new Kyle Reese) seems to have been cast because... well, I'm not really sure why. He sucked. Comparisons with Michael Biehn are going to be inevitable, and he can't hold a candle to the original.

On the whole this is a worthy entry in the Terminator franchise. It's certainly not as good as the first two films, but it's easily better than the last two. I'll give it three stars out of five, right in the middle.

There is a helping of schawarma in the middle of the credits. Some people seem to think it was difficult to understand, but it made perfect sense to me, in context. Make sure to stay for it.

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron (spoilers below the fold)

On Friday I took my daughter to see the newest Marvel film, Avengers: Age of Ultron. Even in the middle of the day on a weekday, the theater was quite full, but not sold out. We saw it in normal 2D, and I couldn't see any scenes where seeing it in 3D would have added anything, but someone who saw it in 3D or Imax 3D might have better insight.

(As an aside, if your local theater is an AMC, and you see more than a couple of movies each year and get popcorn when you do, it is so worth paying the money for the AMC Stubs card. It really does pay for itself many times over.)

I am an unabashed MCU fanboy, and I went into the movie with high expectations. And I have to say those expectations were not disappointed. This really is a worthy successor to the various predecessor films, especially the first Avengers. I put it in the top five of all MCU movies, behind The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Iron Man.

Some spoiler-free thoughts:

I found the plot to be serviceable. It does tie up some loose ends from previous films, and goes off in a fairly reasonable direction. Some people think it was over-complicated, but since when it comes down to it this is a comic-book movie, I do not go into it expecting Casablanca. It worked, and was reasonably well-explained.

What really sold me on the film was the interactions between the Avengers themselves. In the first Avengers movie, we saw Thor fight Iron Man, Hulk fight Black Widow, Iron Man bicker with Captain America, Hawkeye fight all of them... it got old. But in this movie, we see genuine character development. We find out new things about the characters, and the relationships between the characters really moved forward. They're not the same people at the end of the movie that they were at the beginning, and it was great to see. Those moments are used to break up the incredible action sequences, rather than gobs of tedious exposition. There was one Avenger vs. Avenger fight, which has been heavily teased in the trailers, but in the context of the film it didn't seem nearly as tacked on.

The action sequences are, of course, awesome. Although I did find the fight sequence at the very beginning to be a little off. The CGI in places was obvious, and there was some shaky-cam that I found distracting. There didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the bad guys; they were simply there any time an Avenger needed something to blow up or someone to kill. But the rest of the action sequences were terrific, and the shaky-cam seems to have really been used sparingly after the first twenty minutes.

James Spader's Ultron, as the central villain of the piece, was beautiful to behold. Seeing that very human dialog come out of that robotic face made his quips and sarcasm all the creepier. He was a much better villain than the Chitauri ever were in the first Avengers movie. The other characters are well-established so we don't need to go through the awkward "getting to know you" scenes, and the actors by this time are so comfortable in their roles that it seems effortless for them.

If anything, I take points away from the movie because it is so big. We see lots of different places in the world getting destroyed, and in a way that detracts from the interpersonal interactions that make this film so wonderful.

All in all, this was a worthy addition to the MCU, and most definitely worth seeing. There is one helping of schawarma halfway through the credits, but nothing at the very end. Unless the key grip is your cousin, no need to stay until the lights come up.

Spoilery thoughts below the fold:




This movie is quite obviously setting up a bunch of stuff for future films.

First, we get our first look at Wakanda, which is the source of the vibranium used to create Captain America's shield, and which in the comics is the homeland of Black Panther, who just happens to have a movie coming out in 2018. And Black Panther's chief nemesis, Klaw, who was portrayed by Andy Serkis in this film (he's the South African guy who sells the vibranium to Ultron and gets his left hand chopped off for his trouble, which is actually perfect, as Klaw in the comics has a sort of sonic weapon for a left hand).

Obviously, we're seeing the new Avengers roster getting set up. Gone are Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye, and Iron Man, in are Falcon, Scarlet Witch, War Machine, and Vision. My internal jury is still out on the new character of the Vision, but I'm happy to wait to see how he's used in other films before rendering judgement.

Speaking of the Vision, I'm pretty sure in the comics he doesn't have an Infinity Stone in his forehead. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in the two Infinity Wars movies.

And speaking of Falcon, it would have been nice to see him involved in the final battle, evacuating civilians from the floating chunk of city. After all... isn't that exactly his wheelhouse? Flying around? To see him at the very beginning, and then only at the very end, was... odd.

On the whole, I can totally see how this film tees up Captain America: Civil War next year. Tony Stark, disillusioned by his experiences at trying to keep the peace outside of the auspices of the government, is in favor of the Registration Act, while Steve Rodgers, disillusioned himself by the failure of SHIELD in Winter Soldier, and seeing the value of individual actors (as in the Avengers as an independent force, seen at the very end of this film), is against it. It works out neatly.

I personally found the mid-credits seem to be completely lame. Sure, it sets up Thanos for the Infinity War films, but we already knew that. It really felt like Whedon felt he had to include something, so he threw that together in ten minutes. It would have been infinitely cooler to see a tie-in to the Inhumans, given everything that's building up over at Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, but perhaps Whedon's well-known aversion to returning Coulson to life rendered anything to do with the TV show as a non-starter.

Review: Daredevil (spoiler-free)

A few weeks ago, Netflix released all thirteen episodes of their Daredevil series on their service, based on the Marvel comic (and having nothing to do with the 2003 film starring our new Batman, Ben Affleck). The series has already been picked up for a second season, even though its companion series -- Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and The Defenders -- haven't even aired yet.

Based on the long-running Marvel comic featuring blind attorney Matt Murdock, whose super-powered senses allow him to fight crime at night in New York's toughest neighborhoods, the Netflix series captures the setting perfectly. The west side of Manhattan was one of my haunts in my youth, and the series has it perfectly, and is especially effective at capturing the tension between those who love the neighborhood of Hell's Kitchen as it is, even though it is flawed and crime-ridden, and those who want to see it lifted up and gentrified, also out of love for the place.

The series doesn't go overboard in showcasing Murdock/ Daredevil's super-senses. They are obviously present, but there's no flashy "sonar effect" on the screen or anything like that; it's subtle, like playing a heartbeat in the background that is at first barely noticeable, and then bringing up the volume so you understand it's Murdock hearing it.

Charlie Cox absolutely nails attorney Matt Murdock. He's smart, charming, and even at times goofy, but always with a serious edge. He captures the character's blindness, and it's difficult to remember the actor isn't blind himself. The action sequences are long, and bloody, and that's deliberate, fitting in with one of the overall themes of the show that hearkens back to Murdock's father.

The other big star is Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk, the "Kingpin" from the comic books, a powerful crime lord. Frankly, I didn't think he'd have the physicality for the role, but he pulls it off nicely. His performance was totally unexpected to me, but it worked very well for this character; he's not the supremely confident master of crime, but he's vulnerable, and downright shy and uncertain. That, too plays into one of the themes of the show, and is used to drive the plot forward in a very clever way.

The supporting cast is wonderful, both Murdock's friends (Foggy Nelson and Karen Page) and enemies (many and varied). There's a real chemistry between long-time friends and newly-minted law partners Murdock and Nelson, and when at times things become strained between them you really feel it.

The show definitely has a darker edge to it than anything we've seen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Most of the action takes place at night, and there's plenty of blood, broken bones, and brutality. Not what you'd expect on ABC during prime-time. But I like the fact that Marvel is taking the MCU into yet another direction; the dark crime drama. But, true to their form, it's not a relentlessly grinding grimdark show; there are moments of humor throughout that keep the episodes lively.

The show is firmly in the MCU; there are little easter eggs throughout (mentions of Killer Kreel from Agents of SHIELD, for instance, and the Roxxon Energy Corporation, from Iron Man 3), and of course mentions of the attack on New York that occurred in the show's recent past and in a way set the stage for the plot arc. It will be very interesting to see how and if some of the characters from this show make it into other corners of the MCU, and vice versa.

All in all, I highly recommend this show for anyone who's a fan of Marvel movies or the superhero genre in general, as well as those who like a good crime drama. I had a really good time watching this show, and powered through it in less than a week (for me, that's really damn fast).

Review: Guardians of the Galaxy (spoiler-free)

I saw Marvel's latest entry in their shared MCU, Guardians of the Galaxy, today, with my wife and daughter. We saw it in 3D (not IMAX) mostly because of scheduling; I generally eschew 3D if I can. Short version: this is another solid entry in the MCU, and should make a whole pile of money for Marvel. We enjoyed it thoroughly. Was it the best ever Marvel movie? Not quite. Spoilers are kept to an absolute minimum; if you saw the trailers, there's nothing new here for you (although they are somewhat misleading; there are pieces of dialogue in the trailers that definitely aren't in the movie).

Obligatory sfx note: the effects were flawless. Groot and Rocket especially, being CGI characters, were a wonder to behold. Not only were they technically flawless, but they were impressively physically emotive. There's a scene with Rocket in particular that really took my breath away with the pathos that they were able to put into a CGI character. It's a quantum leap beyond Gollum (and forget about CGI Yoda from Phantom Menace).

The rest of the cast is very well done, although Zoe Saldana as Nebula seemed a little flat to me. Chris Pratt as Henry Quill/Starlord steals the show, although Dave Bautista's Drax the Destroyer was a close second, with a lot of unexpectedly great lines and a real arc that let him change from the person we see at the beginning of the film to his final character. His was the character who most grew from their experiences.

Good villains make great movies, and Ronan the Accuser was a good villain. He actually had a real motive, which was wonderful to see.

There are some tie-ins with the rest of the MCU, specifically stuff we've already seen in Avengers and Thor 2 (which again shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone), and it should surprise no one that a GotG 2 is already in the planning stages. But what interests me more, as a fan of the whole ginormous enterprise that Marvel is attempting to create, is where Guardians fits into the grand scheme. There are at least three different sub-universes within the MCU; the Avengers, the Cosmic, and the Mystic. This film is of course the first real foray into the Cosmic (Thor and Thor 2 were only peripherally so, as the Asgardian worlds seem rather self-contained compared to the rest of the galaxy), and it most definitely links the Cosmic to the Avengers universes.

A lot of people early on said what a big risk this film was, and that may be true, given that it was based on a fairly obscure team of heroes in a new setting. But I see it more as testing the waters for other similar efforts, namely, the Cosmic universe. I think the inevitably positive response (and huge box office) of Guardians means that Doctor Strange will be seen as less of a risk in itself. It all weaves together.

Getting back to this film specifically, there is a lot of humor in it, but it's not nearly the goofy space-comedy that I was expecting. There's a lot of wisecracking from nearly everyone, but it's nothing more than one might expect from a particularly energized episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There are one or two truly bizarre moments, which will absolutely baffle those who aren't familiar with the comics (not just GotG, either; there's a bit of fan-service in there that is just out of left field, but all the more wonderful for it).

The action sequences were well done, but perhaps a bit pat. I found myself enjoying the repartee between the characters during the action than the action itself, which might not be entirely accidental. That sort of banter is where the relationships between the characters lives, and that is most definitely the heart of the film, just like it was in Avengers.

This is a terrific Marvel film. It's not my favorite Marvel film, though; Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the first Iron Man definitely top it in my personal list of favorites, but it is a completely solid contender against stiff competition. Absolutely worth seeing in the theater, and it should have a lot of rewatch value on television, too. Don't bother with the 3D if you can avoid it, though; it didn't add much, and was as annoying as it always is when there was a lot of contrast between bright white and dark areas. Lots of double-images in those cases.

X-Men: Days of Future Past review (spoiler-lite)

I saw the new X-Men: Days of Future Past film on Friday with my 13 year old daughter. We saw the regular (non-3D, non-Imax) version. Bottom line: it's a terrific movie, but not the best in the X-Men series. Definitely worth seeing in the theater.

It's very difficult to discuss this film without spoilers. The trailers give away some things: there's time travel, there are giant mutant-hunting robots, there's President Nixon. What follows shouldn't reveal any major plot-points, but might discuss a few details here and there. Hence, "spoiler-lite."

The film is based on a classic 1980 comic book story line that is followed in spirit more than in the details. In the dark and dismal future, mutants are hunted almost to extinction by giant robots called Sentinels. Through a bit of mutant legerdemain, Wolverine is sent back to 1973 to change the course of history. And then...

Well, after that it becomes a lot harder to discuss the plot without spoilers.

This is a successful movie on its face (it's currently at 91% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which is nigh-unto unheard-of; it even beats Captain America: The Winter Soldier at 89%). It's set to have the best opening weekend of any X-Men movie, and it's gotten terrific word-of-mouth.

It's much more a sequel to X-Men First Class than it is a prequel to the other X-Men movies (more on the latter later). While the framing pieces take place in the future of Patrick Stewart's Charles Xavier and Ian McKellan's Magneto (among others), the meat of the film takes place in 1973 with James McAvoy's Charles Xavier and Michael Fassbender's Magneto (among others). The plot is basically, "make sure our future doesn't happen because it sucks."

First, the obvious stuff. I'm probably going to stop saying that special effects in films look great, because the film industry pretty much seems to have that down at this point. And they look great here. When we see people sliding along ice bridges, or lifting immense things through mutant powers into the sky, it looks like it was filmed for the news. (Although there is still a special quality that practical effects still have that seems to only be apparent when you see them and compare them to CGI in your mind's eye.)

The period pieces in 1973 are flawless. The clothes, the music, the "look" of 1973, are all spot-on. I swear it looked to me like they made the 1970's "fuzzy" intentionally to mimic the way it looks in documentaries, but I know I'm wrong. It just felt so right, and felt so in line with my own memories of the period (yeah, I'm old enough to actually remember 1973, barely).

The acting was terrific. We've already seen most of these actors in these roles, and they're comfortable in them, but the standout character is without doubt Evan Peters' Quicksilver. They not only nailed a completely entertaining set piece featuring his character, but the actor captured the manic OCD-insect-on-a-hotplate personality perfectly. My only complaint is that they didn't feature more of his character. It will be very interesting to see how this compares to the version of the character in Avengers 2: The Rise of Ultron, that was teased at the end of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Because the Quicksilver in this film is the way to do it. The linchpin of the film is Mystique, played by Jennifer Lawrence, and she does a great job of projecting the pain she's gone through into the character. Peter Dinklage as the villainous Bolivar Trask does a very good job of desperately trying to convince everyone around him that he's not a villain and that his Sentinel program is needed, at the end of the war more than ever. He seems to be having a lot of fun in the role. But seriously, Hugh Jackman needs to add some body fat. His torso looks like he has coaxial cable under his skin. Ugh.

Aside from the period pieces of music, however, I found the score somewhat... prosaic. We didn't have the stand-out Magneto theme from First Class, even when Magneto was being all "kneel before Zod" Magneto, which would have been a perfect call-back. And I found the mopey, self-pitying Xavier to wear a little thin, especially since the cause of his breakdown was almost non-existent. There's something in there relating to his telepathic powers, but they imply that that wasn't the reason that the school is in the state it's in, and that real reason is never adequately explained. The Vietnam war? Really? That's all we get? It hardly seems to rise to that level.

That said, the devices used to link the future and past segments were very well done. The theme of impending disaster in both timelines is well played, and there's some great foreshadowing from the beginning that gets played out at the end. Well done all around.

It being a time-travel movie, you can expect that some things in the future timeline are going to be changed, and I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that they are. I think they might have gone a bit too far in redoing the timeline, however. It does set up the franchise for a whole bunch of new films that take place in the new and improved X-verse, but for anyone who liked X-Men, X-Men 2, X-Men 3 (I'm told there are a few soulless husks who do), X-Men Origins: Wolverine (ditto), and The Wolverine, you might find yourself in the same position as fans of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan did after the Star Trek time travel reboot.

On the whole, I'd place this film high up in the X-verse. Probably second behind X-Men First Class, which I adored as a period piece more than anything else, which this film also captures. Whether it's better than the first X-Men is iffy; it's a larger film, and plays with the mythology in a very respectful and enjoyable way, but the first film did establish the mythology in the first place. Call it a tie. If the next film, X-Men: Apocalypse, is set in the 1980's and does a similarly wonderful job in-period, I'll be a happy camper.

There is shawarma after the credits; stay through them to see.

Film Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (spoiler-free)

Short version: this is the best Marvel film to date. See it. Yes, it's better than The Avengers. I saw it without IMAX or 3D, in a theater about 90% full.

One thing I am loving about the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is that they're not afraid to do films that stretch the boundaries of what you think a "comic book film" should be. As other reviewers have stated, this is a movie straight out of the 1970's political thriller genre, and you can see Three Days of the Condor, Black Sunday, and others in here. With the scifi-comedy that Guardians of the Galaxy seems to be setting itself as, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a "modern supernatural" film (such as Doctor Strange, who does get name-checked in this film) or even a straight contemporary romance film in the MCU at some point. They want to prove that the MCU is versatile, and they're successful.

To break down the obvious: the action scenes are extremely well done, although I am very tired of the "shaky cam". It's not nearly as bad here as it is in some films, but it's still there and it's annoying. I want to be able to make out details in the action scenes, and the shaky cam makes that more difficult.

The special effects are impeccable. CGI has truly come into its own, and this film demonstrates it. There's no visual indication that you're not seeing aircraft carriers rise into the air, or Sam Wilson (the Falcon) fly on metal wings.

This is very much a plot-driven film, although there are great moments of character development, such as Captain America still coming to grips with the fact that he's 70 years out of time, the playful banter between him and Black Widow, and his friendship with the Falcon that make this so much more than a shoot'em-up-and-explosions film. Speaking of Black Widow, she features enormously in this film, and people who have been saying she should have been given her own film might look on this and be sated. It could easily have been called "Captain America and Black Widow".

One thing I particularly liked was that the trailers seem to have been deliberately edited to put viewers off the scent of what was actually going on. If, like me, you thought you had sussed out the broad outlines of the plot from the trailers and released footage, you are dead wrong, and it was a delight to realize it as the film unfolded. I like to think that was deliberate, and if it was, they're operating on a meta-level that just increases my respect for the entire Marvel films team.

There are a ton of genuinely "what the HELL did he just say?" moments. There are plot twists that surprised the hell out of me, and apparently the entire audience, as there were audible gasps when certain characters said certain things. There is plenty of fan-service, and it's great, being loyal to the spirit of the comics as well as consistent with the MCU mythology they've laid out thusfar. If you're a fan of the MCU, and especially if you're a fan of the television show Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., you will know that it is no exaggeration that this film "changes everything you know about the Marvel Universe". It does, and in so doing it opens it up to much greater possibilities that will make die-hard comics fans very, very happy.

As an aside, regarding Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., this film plugs in perfectly with the show. There's a line in last Tuesday's episode, End of the Beginning, that directly ties into the film (as well as a shared character), and with the changes that this film wreaks in the MCU, I am beside myself wondering how it will impact the show. If you gave up on the show because the first half of the season was slow (and no denying it - it definitely was), the last couple of episodes really stepped up the pace, and the last six episodes promise to really explore the implications of everything that Winter Soldier set up. It's worth sitting through ten or eleven slow-burn episodes to get to the final eleven or twelve OMG THAT'S GREAT episodes. The first half of the season was a sort of bridge between Iron Man 3 and Winter Soldier. If that's to be the function of the show going forward (filling in the gaps between the various films), I think it's a dandy one.

One more thing - this film manages to avoid the stereotypical "fish out of water" gags. Yes, Cap keeps a list of things that people tell him he should look into, but he's adjusting. There's no staring dumbly into a phone with buttons instead of a rotary dial, no gap-jawed wonderment at the Internet. He's out of time, but he's picking it up, quickly. Just like you'd expect most people to do. He's much more dismayed by the moral changes in the world since 1944, rather than the technological ones.

They made *this* guy into a
credible villain

On the whole, in the context of the MCU, this is the best film that Marvel has come out with. It is better plotted, with better and genuinely I-didn't-see-that-coming plot twists, than The Avengers. It has better character moments, especially the interactions between Cap and Falcon and Black Widow. You actually get to see Nick Fury in action, more the bad-ass top agent that's been implied, than the bureaucrat that's been shown, in previous films. There are smart nods to the classic comic book canon, and inventive uses of C-list characters (Baltroc the Leaper is actually a pretty impressive and even realistic foe, rather than a joke) that demonstrate a real love of the source material, but a willingness to go beyond a slavish reiteration.

There are two helpings of shawarma in the credits. Make sure you stay until the house lights come up. One features a character that comic fans will recognize, and a prop that film fans will recognize, and both of them in the 20 seconds they're on screen could be the basis of a movie in and of themselves. And there's another that neatly ties into one of the recurring themes of one of the major characters.

This is a perfect Marvel movie. Go see it.

PS: Bonus points for the first person who can point out the Butch Cassidy/The Sting Easter egg in the film.

Review: Thor: The Dark World (Spoiler-free)

Just got back from the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Thor: The Dark World. Shortest possible review: really good, definitely worth seeing.

The film not only picks up after the first Thor film, but also ties up some of the loose ends from The Avengers, wherein Thor was a major character. I like that they're maintaining the continuity across so many different franchises (or is it perhaps sub-franchises?), and that they're doing it so well.

Thor's look is a little bit different in this film, specifically in terms of his hair, which now sports some subtle braids. That's one of the things that marks the film as a whole; there are a lot more nods to Norse culture throughout, from the ubiquitous knotwork to the runes we see on Loki's collar. Even the ships, which can fly, can definitely trace their visual lineage back to the longships of the 10th century. We also see a lot more of Asgard itself, and it's much less a "sparkling pipe organ" that we saw in the first film. Much more texture and a feel that it's a real city, albeit one created by a culture technologically superior to our own, and with its own aesthetic sensibilities.

The pacing of the film is spot-on. It is very much an action film, with almost no slow parts in it at all. If anything, I might have appreciated just a tad more exposition, specifically as to why the bad guys are doing what they're doing, but fortunately the central story - the relationships between Thor and Loki and Thor and Jane Foster - is served quite well by the script.

Chris Helmsworth is perfectly at home in his character, and his character is perfectly at home with himself (as opposed to his constant adolescent antics in the first film). But it's Tom Hiddleston's Loki who once again steals the show with his clever quips and schemes. Kat Dennings is a surprisingly non-annoying source of humor, reprising her role as Jane's intern Darcy, while Natalie Portman manages to muddle through as she does with most of her films. Fortunately she's not given too much to do here, and the film is all the better for not having to rely on her as a central star of the action (Attack of the Clones, I'm looking at you here).

The film's tone is light, even though the stakes are higher than they've been in any Marvel movie to date. This isn't to say that the film is goofy, but it's nice to know that one can take a superhero film in a direction very different from Christian Bale's Dark Knight films and not end up with Batman and Robin. The dialog I thought was very snappy and sounded perfect coming out of the character's mouths.

All in all, definitely an improvement on the first Thor film, and a worthy successor to The Avengers. I'd probably put it a notch above Iron Man 3, which also came out not too long ago. Oh, and be sure to stay all the way to the very end of the credits. There's a double helping of shawarma.

Review: Iron Man 3 (Spoiler Free)

I saw the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series, Iron Man 3. I saw the standard version; no 3D or IMAX. I'm going to make an effort not to put in any spoilers here, so pardon my vagueness.

Bottom line, it was terrific.

Robert Downey Jr. was, as always, absolutely pitch-perfect as Iron Man. If every actor has a single role for which they were destined, this is his, as Robert Preston was Professor Harold Hill and Leonard Nimoy was Spock. His performance encapsulates Stark's mixture of cockiness and angst effortlessly. Ben Kingsley is terrific on screen as the Mandarin, who is one of Iron Man's chief foes in the comic books. This is a character for whom hatred of America is an end unto itself, and he really brings it on several levels. Many of the supporting players you're used to are back, and a few faces from the comic books that have been conspicuous in their absence finally have roles to play.

The big question for this film has to be, "What do you do after The Avengers?" Tony Stark has rubbed elbows with Norse Gods, aliens, flown through wormholes, and buddied up with the Hulk's alter ego. Where do you go from there?

Simple, you make it a smaller, more personal movie. You don't try to top it; that won't happen until The Avengers 2 hits screens in 2015 (in a duel to the death with Star Wars Episode VII), and would feel forced. You bring it back to Stark, and explore how he's been able to cope (or not to cope) with the experiences he had in New York. That was a deliberate choice on the part of the studio, and it worked expertly.

That's not to say there isn't peril aplenty, and lots of action, and blowing things up, and of course Tony Stark in the flying suit. The plot is well-conceived and full of excellent twists and turns that will keep you guessing. Suffice to say that one of the themes of this film is that appearances can be deceiving, and there are a number of excellent reversals and twists that you just won't see coming, even if you're looking for them.

As usual with a film like this, there's violence but not a lot of gore. There are sexy girls in bikinis, but no nudity or gratuitous vulgarity. I felt completely comfortable bringing my 12 year old daughter to this film, and she had a blast, as did my wife, who isn't what you'd call a comic book film fan (although she did like The Avengers, she continually ribs me for my love of the X-Men films).

Five stars out of five.

__________

Also, please don't forget the Adventures Dark and Deep Bestiary Kickstarter going on right now! 900 monsters, suitable for most OSR-type games, all under one cover. Can you help get us to having an illustration for each and every one?

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I got to see the newest release in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth franchise; The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I saw it with some folks from my Adventures Dark and Deep campaign, and we saw the plain-Jane version. No 3D, no 48 fps. Just a regular movie.

I have to say I went into this having read a number of bad reviews and was expecting to be disappointed. I came out having really enjoyed it. It's not a perfect movie, but few are, and I thought it compared very favorably with the Lord of the Rings films, all of which I love. I'm also a fan of Tolkien's written works, and have read both The Hobbit and LotR many, many times, so I'm aware of the variances between the books and the films. (For what it's worth, I'm a fan of the Rankin-Bass animated films, but not the Ralph Bakshi film; I'm not a fan of rotoscope.)

I didn't see the pacing problems that many reviewers complained of, especially in the first half to two-thirds of the movie. I thought it moved along well, didn't find the dwarves' feast at Bag End to be overly long, and it didn't feel at all bloated to me. The music was good, recalling many of the themes from LotR as appropriate, but it never seemed to get in the way. And there were several songs sung in-character which really helped establish a more "fun" tone. I did not find the addition of the Necromancer of Dol Guldur to be overly intrusive (but see below) and actually fits in well with the rest of the film, especially if it's seen in the context of setting up the LotR films.

The trolls were great (nice to see them finally not portrayed as utterly mindless), and I thoroughly enjoyed Goblintown, and thought the visual juxtaposition between it and both Moria and Eriador (the lost kingdom of the dwarves which Thorin and company are attempting to reclaim from the dragon Smaug) was excellent. Where the dwarvish cities feature stone arches, staircases, and flying buttresses that seem that they have and will last for ages, Goblintown has rickety wooden scaffolding.

The scenes with the Great Goblin were very good, too, I thought. Humorous, but not overly so. The Gollum scenes were a highlight; if anything Peter Jackson's team has gotten better at their motion-capture CGI technology, and the scene was written perfectly and quite suspensefully. I noted that Gollum's eyes in certain light reflected as large pale orbs without any pupils, and that was both really creepy and effective. I half expected to hear Brother Theodore's voice when he first spoke.

As I say, it's not a perfect movie, and purists are sure to howl at some of the changes. There's a new sub-plot where an orc chieftain, Azog the Defiler, has a grudge against Thorin and his family (Azog was a very minor character in the larger Tolkien corpus, but never appears in the book version of The Hobbit), and we see a string of fight scenes between Azog's forces and the dwarves. After a while, they became somewhat predictable. And maybe I'm just not getting the chronology, but looping in the attempt to reconquer Moria just didn't make sense to me. Plus it doesn't seem to have any real purpose other than to give an excuse to include a couple more fight scenes. The sweepy-flying camera angles were a bit distracting and annoying, as were the very-fast-choppy cuts in the fight scenes.

And Radigast the Brown, with bird crap trailing in his hair and down his face, I could have done without completely. I am naturally predisposed towards Sylvester McCoy as a Dr. Who fan, but honestly he was goofy for the sake of being goofy and the character didn't really add anything to the story. Any stray woodsman could have conveyed the story of the Necromancer (or, hell, for that matter Bjorn, whom we will presumably see in the next film).

The biggest problem I had was that a good third of the dwarves didn't look very dwarf-like. One expects dwarves to have exaggerated features and prominent beards. Most did, but others just looked like short humans, Thorin unfortunately included. It was distracting.

On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and don't think it dragged at all. I didn't find most of the additions annoying (with the exception of Radigast), but some were obviously for the sake of adding more action (Azog). I would definitely see it again, and am looking forward to taking my daughter (age 11). I reserve judgement as to how it ranks compared to the LotR films until I see the other two in the series, as context is vital. But this is a great fun film. See it and judge it on its own merits, and you'll probably be pleased.

----------

What would Dungeons & Dragons have looked like if Gary Gygax had been allowed to keep developing it? Please, if you haven't done so already, consider supporting my Kickstarter for the Adventures Dark and Deep Players Manual, going on now through December 19th. I need your help to make it a reality!

13 Days of Halloween: Day Nine

Today, I'd like to bring your attention to some lighter fair; a pair of spooky-yet-lighthearted films that were staples of my youth. Both, not coincidentally, are currently available on Netflix for instant viewing, both featuring Boris Karloff, too.

The first is Mad Monster Party? (the question mark really is part of the title). Remember those stop-motion animated specials that Rankin-Bass did for Christmas and Easter? Rudolph, The Year Without a Santa Claus, Santa Claus is Coming to Town, etc.? Well, many people don't know that they also did a horror-themed one called Mad Monster Party? Basically, take all of the old classic horror monsters; Frankenstein's Monster (as well as his bride-- played by Phyllis Diller!), the Mummy, the Wolfman, Dracula, etc. and throw 'em in together with a schlub pharmacy assistant who doesn't really realize what's going on around him and have a ball.

The second is The Comedy of Terrors, a quirky but very funny comedy/horror film starring Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, and Basil Rathbone. Price plays a murderous mortician who drums up his own business when times are slow, and the whole thing turns into wonderful farce when one of his victims turns out not to be as dead as Price might want him to be. Mix in a neglected wife with a singing voice that can (literally) shatter glass and there's a lot of good fun here. It's wonderful to see the range that these classic actors have, stretching from horror to slapstick comedy and back again. Well worth watching right after Tales of Terror, which featured much of the same cast just the year before.

13 Days of Halloween: Day Two

Today I'd like to discuss some of my favorite horror films from the 1970's and 1980's. These were my formative years, and these are the movies that made a huge impression on my young mind. I don't much care for modern horror, which is all too often just torture porn or soggy creepy kids. Here's my top thirteen list from that golden (to me, anyway) era (which is different from last year's list, which was my top ten horror films of all time)...

• The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) / Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972). I'm counting these two films as one, and this is definitely a gruesome twosome. Vincent Price is the titular Doctor Phibes, who is first murdering the surgical team that allowed his wife to die on the operating table, and then murdering members of an archaeological expedition in Egypt in order to bring his wife back to life. While he, himself, has no face and is able to concoct murderously ingenious deathtraps for his victims. 
• Theater of Blood (1973). Vincent Price is a maniacal actor who is taking revenge on the critics who snubbed him for a prestigious award by killing them in imaginative ways relating to Shakespeare's plays. 
• Black Christmas (1974). Psychopath is killing a bunch of sorority girls alone over Christmas break. Creates a terrific atmosphere of suspense throughout.
• The Omen (1976). You don't need to believe in the Bible to find Damien creepy, especially when the people around him who get to nosy start to die in various... accidents. I actually really like the next two films in the series, too; Omen 4 loses me, though.
• Halloween (1978). This film is all about building tension. Even the most innocuous of scenes is made scary by that terrific music that John Carpenter wrote for the film. It's only in the last half hour or so that the killing really starts, and even then there's not a lot of gore (unlike the later films in the series).
• Alien (1979). This is one of the best horror films ever made, that just happens to be set on a spaceship in the future. The claustrophobic atmosphere is perfect, the alien menacing and shadowy, and the acting is terrific. Yaffet Koto is probably my favorite member of the crew.
• When a Stranger Calls (1979). Yeah, once you know the punchline, it sort of ruins the effect, but you can say the same thing about Psycho. Terrific atmosphere, and Carol Kane (whom I best know as Simka-- Latka's girlfriend from Taxi) was absolutely wonderful as the isolated, vulnerable babysitter. 
• Terror Train (1980). This really was little more than a way to glom onto the slasher-movie boom that Halloween unleashed, and even had Jamie Lee Curtis in pretty much the same role/different name as she had had. But I still find it holds up well; the isolation of the train, the messing with identies enabled by the costumes, and a very unexpected twist at the end all combine to make a very effective slasher movie.
• Motel Hell (1980). Farmer Vincent and his sister are creepy enough, but it turns out they intentionally wreck motorists and bury them up to their necks in the garden, sever their vocal cords so they can't speak, and then break their necks with a tractor before turning them into sausages. Yup, great stuff for a 14 year old.
• An American Werewolf in London (1981). I love this movie because it's so much more than just a werewolf movie. There's ghosts, and zombies, and all sorts of other stuff thrown in there. The special effects are great, and it's one of those generational movies that everybody grew up seeing. 
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). Perfect, just perfect. In the first film in the series especially, they really nail the dreamscape; I've actually had that dream where I try to run up the stairs, and my feet sink into them, so I can't move. Wise-cracking Freddy is sinister as one would expect. 
• The Howling (1981). This is my perfect werewolf movie. It starts off as a serial killer film, but then we find out not only that the killer is a werewolf, but he comes from a whole colony of lycanthropes. Patrick Macnee is terrific as the leader/doctor, as you might expect. Very urbane, but with a hint of menace just under the surface.

What? No Friday the 13th? Nope. Didn't do much for me, I'm afraid.

Review: The Dark Knight Rises (Caution: Spoilers)

Preface: No discussion of The Dark Knight Rises is possible without addressing the horrific mass murder that took place in Aurora, CO on opening night. It should go without saying that my thoughts and sympathies are with the victims and their families, and that while the shooter is obviously mentally ill, there can be no possible justification for such an act. We don't yet know why he did what he did, or why he picked this particular film. That said, life must go on, and we cannot allow ourselves as individuals or as a society to be paralyzed into inaction by the actions of a single sick individual. Don't let the horror of what happened in Colorado keep you from seeing this or any other film. Don't let him win.

----------

CAUTION: Spoiler-heavy review below. Bear in mind that I saw this film directly after watching the first two films in the series, so my impressions were filtered through a more direct comparison with the others than some film goers might have.

Shortest possible version: The Dark Knight Rises was a good film, and a very good Batman film, but it was hardly the best.

This is a very large film, one might even go so far as to say ponderous. Eight years after Harvey Dent's death in The Dark Knight, he has been lionized by the citizens of Gotham and the Batman has been made a scapegoat for Dent's crimes. Bruce Wayne is a recluse, shutting himself off from the world as he wallows in self-pity due to the death of the woman he loved at the hands of the Joker.

Right off the bat, I didn't like that tone. Bruce Wayne has dealt with pain and loss before-- it's the entire motivation behind his assumption of the Batman persona. It seemed very incongruous. Most of the other characters were right on-target.

The plot revolves around Bane, a terrorist mercenary, attempting to complete the work that Ra's Al Ghul failed to do in the first film; destroy Gotham to restore balance. In a very complex plot, Bruce Wayne's fortune is destroyed after the Gotham Stock Exchange is attacked, Roland Daggett's construction company is used to (literally) undermine Gotham city, and an experimental fusion reactor built by Wayne Enterprises gets turned into a nuclear weapon.

In and amongst all this, Selina Kyle/Catwoman (although never called by that name, as far as I remember) alternately hurts and helps Bruce Wayne and Batman, eventually betraying him to Bane, who breaks his back in a one-on-one fight and consigns him to a prison in Uzbekistan where the only escape is to climb out.

Eventually, Bane seizes the city of Gotham not to hold it for ransom but to turn it into an anarchist paradise. Almost all of Gotham's police are trapped underground, and Bane has control of a nuclear weapon that will vaporize the city if anyone tries to flee or if the outside world tries to interfere. Eventually, of course, Bruce Wayne escapes from the prison, and Batman returns to Gotham and stops Bane.

While this film was visually stunning, and the acting was excellent, I found it to be oddly disjointed. While the director seemed to be going for "big", he ends up with "sprawling" instead, and there were a number of plot holes that ultimately distract from the whole:

• Why did Bane take the time to fly Wayne to Uzbekistan from Gotham, right when his plot was coming to fruition?
• How did 3,000 police officers stay trapped underground for five months without a single one escaping? (And how, after all that time, when they finally emerge, are they all clean shaven, their uniforms clean and in fine shape?)
• How did Gotham become completely (and conveniently) isolated on an island? What happened to the "eastern overland routes" that were explicitly mentioned in The Dark Knight when the Joker was setting up his trap on the ferries?
• How did it take five months for the Army to think to send in soldiers with the relief supplies that were being trucked into Gotham? And then when they do arrive, they are pretty well hapless?

And, while it's not a plot hole, I found the fight scenes between Bane and Batman to be... meh. Just back-and-forth roundhouse punches with no real feeling.

Don't take this to mean that I thought the film was terrible-- I don't. Bane was a good villain (although I found the mask an unnecessary contrivance that ultimately added nothing to the plot or character; in the comic books it's part of the delivery system of the Venom that gives him his strength) who effectively coveys a sense of menace, and the scenes where Alfred is trying to convince Wayne to come back to the world were top-notch. They did an admirable job of attempting to tie together the first and third films both thematically and through the story and characters, and there were some excellent plot twists and surprises (although some of them were just groaners-- Robin? Really?).

Some of the foreshadowing-- such as the final scene in the bistro in Italy-- were a bit heavy-handed and could be seen a mile away, but others were done very well.

On the whole, I would place this film between Batman Forever and Batman Begins on my rankings of all the Batman films. I think it's the weakest of the three most recent Batman films, but that still puts it in the top half of all Batman films.

EDIT: Added some pics of costumed fans from the midnight showing at the AMC Rockaway theater, where I saw Dark Knight Rises. 

Ranking the Batman Films

With the impending release of The Dark Knight Rises tomorrow (I've already got my ticket to see the whole Dark Knight trilogy, starting at 6 PM today, culminating with DKR at midnight tonight), I thought it would be appropriate to throw up my own ranking of the various big screen incarnations of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego.

I will go on record as saying that one does not cast for Batman. One casts for Bruce Wayne. You could put almost anyone into the costume, especially since half the time it's a stunt double anyway. But the scenes where he doesn't have his mask, where it's the pained and vulnerable Bruce Wayne on the screen, is where an actor in the role really gets a chance to prove his mettle (or lack thereof).

So here, from least favorite to most favorite, are my rankings of the films. How do you rank them? Let me know in the comments.

Batman and Robin. I like George Clooney and I like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but this movie was terrible. The campy tone, the crappy dialogue, the costumes, the absolutely terrible batmobile, and the overabundance of villains (and heroes) made this mish-mash just painful to watch. Mr. Freeze singing the Cold Miser song? Poison Ivy imitating Mae West? A totally mindless Bane? Spare me. Joel Schumacher said he didn't want to make a film about guys in tights with capes, and it shows in every frame.

Batman (1966). Although this was the Batman I grew up with as a kid (thanks to the television show that accompanied the movie), once my eyes were opened up to other takes on the character, this one swiftly slid into the bottom tier. Sure, Caesar Romero is a terrific Joker, and Frank Gorshin a terrific Riddler, and Burgis Meredith a terrific Penguin. And all of the Catwomen are... terrific. But that can't make up for the comparison with the later films.

Batman Returns. While I think Michael Keaton is one of the best Bruce Waynes ever cast (see below), I didn't much care for either Danny Devito's Penguin or Michelle Pfeifer's Catwoman (heresy, I know). The fact that the Penguin in the first few seasons of Batman the Animated Series was based on the physical design of this Penguin is something that I wish hadn't been done, but there it is. I suppose it beats a Penguin with a British accent. I was somewhat disappointed that the production design was so obviously the same as that seen in the previous film, with little or no memorable additions, that it felt more like a sequel than most sequels do.

Batman Forever. While I hated Jim Carrey's Riddler, I loved Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face. I thought Val Kilmer was a decent enough Bruce Wayne, and he had a sort of snobbery that was refreshing to see in the character (especially evident in the scene where Carrey's Edward Nygma tries to pressure him to agree to back his project). I'm not too much of  a fan of the bright colors that this film made up of, though. And while the addition of Robin was predictable, it was also unnecessary, making the film feel more crowded than it needed to be.

Batman Begins. The first of the newest Batman series was ground-breaking. It took a much more serious, practical approach to the character and his world. Gone were the fantastic science-fictiony elements, replaced with military hardware and rigorous training that we actually got to see. Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne was genuinely haunted, seeking to lash out at a world that had hurt him so terribly, and he played that character excellently. Michael Caine's Alfred was equally terrific; a sympathetic and solid surrogate father for Bruce Wayne.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I'm so glad this was released (ever so briefly) in theaters, because it gives me a chance to talk about Kevin Conroy's take on the character. Here, because of the special circumstances surrounding animation, one actually does cast for Batman, because all of the actual acting is done solely through the talents of the actor's voice. and boy, does Conroy nail it. He can switch in an instant from the dark, gravelly, brooding Batman to the cheerful, almost dopey Bruce Wayne. Mark Hamill's Joker is rightly praised both for this film and the various television series that featured him, but Conroy is a superb bit of casting that kept the whole thing together. He is the voice of Batman.

Batman (1989). While it's easy to compare Michael Keaton's Batman to the others that have come since, it must be remembered that when this film came out, the only Batman audiences had ever seen was Adam West (or the various cartoon incarnations, such as Superfriends from the 1970's or the Batman/Superman Hour from the 1960's). At the time, knowing that Tim Burton was going for a darker, more serious tone than anyone had ever really seen from the character in film or television, people thought the casting of Michael Keaton (who at the time was mostly known for his comedic roles such as Night Shift) was a huge mistake. But as soon as the audience saw him hold the mugger off the edge of a rooftop and utter the line "I'm Batman", all doubts were erased. He played Bruce Wayne with a tinge of humor, but there was always a huge pathos in the background, which I found perfectly spot-on. And of course Jack Nicholson's Joker was over the top and absolutely terrific. Even the Prince soundtrack was wonderful (not to mention the Danny Elfman score). In my own mind, it's only a hair's breadth that separates this film from #1, which is...

The Dark Knight. Having established the character so very well with Batman Begins, Christian Bale stayed the course and delivered another outstanding performance as Gotham's millionaire playboy. The film is bigger, broader, and in almost all respects better than its predecessor. Of course it is one again the Joker that steals the show-- in this case by the late Heath Ledger, who won an Oscar posthumously for his performance. But even his Joker is grounded in reality; no esoteric chemicals to cause the famous grin here; his is literally carved into his face, and his trademark white face and green hair are affectations done simply to creep out his victims (and possibly to cause them to under-estimate him). If this film has a weak spot, it's the introduction of Harvey Dent/Two Face. The very end, where Batman takes the rap for Harvey's crimes, seemed a bit contrived, but not enough to knock the film out of its perch as #1. (My original review when it came out is here.)

Tomorrow I should have a review of The Dark Knight Rises up (if I wake up, that is-- I'm going to be in the theater 'til 3 AM tonight!).