Green Lantern's Plight

I finally did it. I finally sat myself in front of “Green Lantern” and watched it. From beginning to end, I watched it, and for the first time in my life, felt nothing. I had to have a cold shower after, just to reassure myself that I could still feel. Upon emerging from my shower and rejoining the rest of society, I decided that it was necessary to ask questions. Was I missing out on a huge part of that film? Or was that film actually as shallow as Blake lively’s acting range? Let’s dive in!

So the film begins with a few aliens wandering around an abandoned planet, wherein they find the Parallax, who seems to have been encased in some Green Lantern resin. With EASE, the Parallax sucks out their fear… which kills(?) them. Immediately, we are shown how utterly useless The Green Lanterns and Willpower are. If the guardians have been around since the beginning of time and have access to all power and technology in the universe, couldn’t they devise a better way of detaining the greatest threat they’ve ever faced? Couldn’t they hold him in the center of the sun? Or incase him in a ball of that Green willpower-cement, hundreds of miles thick? Maybe put a handful of guards outside, to make sure strangers don’t just wander in? I mean, at the very LEAST, put a muzzle on it! Instead, they leave it on an unsupervised planet with only its hands and feet secured, buried in a shallow cave. Yeah, that’s probably fine. When’s lunch?

So upon Parallax’s escape, it decides to pursue a personal beef and spends 6 months tracking down a guy that can always be found hanging out in the same sector. They’re always where you LEAST suspect them.

Meanwhile… In a scene inspired by every beer commercial ever created, we meet Hal “Highball” “Maverick” “Highfive” “Ice Dog” Jordan, and he’s soooo cooool. He’s got hot chicks in his bed, a supped up mustang, and exposed brick in his nook. RADICAL!

So Hal arrives to work, and we meet the 50% of the market that has no interest in movies about boys and aliens (Blake Lively) and see her attempt to have screen presence. *Taps shoulder*... that’ll do, Blake. Thanks. We also meet Tim Robbins playing no one of interest, and Carol’s father - Carl Ferris, who also gets in a few meaningless lines of dialogue. They’re discussing the future of air combat, and their new shiny robot jets. This sets us up for a scene where we get to see Hal fly around and shoot things, without the tragedy of other pilots dying horribly for the sake of a test flight.

So, in typical movie-military style, we see some guys scowl and talk about how robots will soon replace people in war. However, we NEVER see or hear from these men again, nor do the robot jets ever get utilized again. At one point, later in the film, I feel like the writers remembered that they sort of introduced that as part of the main storyline, and quickly threw in a quick “oh, and we ended up getting that contract after all” scene at the party.

It’s at this part of the film, where I start to notice that there is no motivation- for anything. No characters in this film have any reason for the things they do, and if they do, the rationale is vague at best. Hal is basically kidnapped by the Lantern Corps and thrust into a position of responsibility. He then quits because he doesn’t like getting yelled at, and rejoins later because his girlfriend guilted him. Blake Lively has no reason to continuously hang around Hal, other than that he works out and shaves. Tim Robbins and Carl Ferris seem like they were rented for the day to come in and deliver some lines. Hal’s geeky friend is there to basically give him a lift at one point. Even the Parallax’s plan is shaky. So its going to swing by earth and eat Hector Hammond because he “failed” (in whatever task he was supposed to have been performing) and then head over to OA and wreck up the place. Then what?

Motivation aside, what was most unfortunate for this film and its potential, was the complete ball-drop that was Dr. Waller. She had a few lines, and was introduced as sort of an aid/observer to Hammond’s autopsy. Later, we see her get thrown around before fleeing and never coming back. That’s almost the roll of an extra… and is quite non-deserving of IGN’s 60^th greatest villain of all time. That’s right, she’s a super villain. Not only is she a super villain, but a bureaucratic assassin/master of puppets. She has a long history battling Batman and Superman, founded the Suicide Squad and the Shadow Fighters, and pretty much ran the Free World as right-hand to Lex Luthor. But, I guess they’re saving that for later?

Ok, I’ll keep moving along, as this is getting lengthy and my tea is beyond cold. I won’t get too deep into this point, but do you remember that scene when Hal goes to his nephew’s house? It’s all emotionally tense and the family doesn’t seem to approve of his exposed-brick living ways. What’s the DEAL with that? Who are these people, and why is this scene in there? He has a touching (I guess) talk with his nephew and then gives him a new toy plane. We then NEVER see or hear from him or about him again. The family is never mentioned and nothing from that scene is ever alluded to. I GUESS there’s a connection between the toy car he flicks right before the scene cuts, and the fight sequence where he uses his ring to create a car on a track. But THAT was the payoff from that whole scene? BAH! I’m wrapping this up. I know I’m only halfway through this film, but It's hurting my brain to think about how frustratingly pointless most of this film was.

I would declare it a stretch, to say that this film’s plot and characters were simple. They were beyond simple, to the point where they were non-existent. Cool handsome guy in gunglasses  loves(?) hot chick. She yells at him for showing off, and he apologizes with jewelry and six-pack flashes. His nerdy friend wears glasses and uses a computer once. The military makes a few harumpfs and tells the cool guy to stop being such a cool rogue. The world is threatened, and he must use the powers he just got to fight against a thing that the best of the best couldn’t vanquish. He wins, and then there are some more sunsets.

The, almost purposeful, lack of creativity in the telling of this story can be summed up perfectly in the post-credits scene with Sinestro. They take a scene where the leader and most respected of ALL Green Lanterns finally succumbs to his dark desires and turns to the force he's spent his life defending against. In the film, no reference is ever made to him wishing to defect from the corps and create his own “Sinestro Corps”. Nor is there any attempt to show a thirst for power or any obsessions with fear. He simply picks up a yellow ring and puts it on. His suit then turns yellow. Now he’s bad. And now I’m mad.  --Slater

Monkey Shines!

So here we are. If you would have told me a month ago, that I would see "Rise of The Planet of The Apes" and truly enjoy it, I would have rolled my eyes so hard that I'd probably go blind. But god damn you if you weren't right. This is a fantastic addition to the "Planet of The Apes" series and a wonderful adaptation of the original concept. It sits in second only to the official musical.

In any case, no one's more shocked than I am that I enjoyed this film (because I'm self-involved). But it's true! I truly DID enjoy it. For a story that I initially believed wasn't necessary to tell, "Rise of The Planet of The Apes" ultimately added nicely to the mythos of the original cult films.

There are plenty of reasons why this film is entertaining from a movie-goer perspective, but a large part of why I personally enjoyed it, was that it lovingly respected the source material and the established ideology, while adding to what needed explaining and leaving the parts we already knew. Let me just take a step back for a moment here, and explain why this excites me and should excite you.

So we can all agree that remakes, sequels, prequels, and adaptations are really starting to wear out their welcome (a decade or so ago), yeah? Great. Moving right along. It's more evident now, but there's always been a pretty strong knee-jerk reaction, from fans, to immediately reject any and every new sequel or prequel to a beloved classic before it is given any legs to stand (raises guilty hand). But why do we flinch in pain before the strike? Because we KNOW it's going to hurt. You don't need ALZ-112 to know that a slap hurts. Tim Burton's ape remake was a hard slap. Why should we approach that same hand with affection again? The answer... because in the end, we're just dumb chimps. (come at me, bro!) But lucky for us, this time we were rewarded.

With most similar cult revisits, a studio generally picks a director out of a hat, gets a 14 year old to write a script, and forms the cast using customers from their local Ardene. And although James Franco (2008 High Times Stoner of the Year) was hilariously miscast as a leading bio-chemist/foster-father, the film doesn't seem to carry with it the same obnoxious predictability we're used to. The choices of a fairly unknown director, along with an Indian female lead, African/Englishman(?) villain, and the world's most pleasant man- John Lithgow; were a nice change of pace. The only sour taste was left by the "Let's get teenage girls to go see a a movie about smart-apes" quota, filled by James Franco and Draco Malfoy. Yup, that should do the trick *dusts off hands*.

To be fair, Draco "that's not my real name" Malfoy was fine. He played his role as a loathsome git, and played it well. There were moments where I questioned why he hated chimps so much, for seemingly no reason at all, but that same disgusted/confused reaction was actually shared in the film by a few of the opposing characters. When a character seems a little over the top, it's nice to have someone in the film give the "Who DOES that?" look, to keep everything grounded. We got a good one from the girl he brought to see the chimps. I guess electrocuting caged animals doesn't pick up the dames like it used to.

Regardless, This film set out to tell a full story and did exactly that. It started from capture, to death, to birth, to discovery, to growth, to turning point, to action, to emotion; and did it all at a fine pace. The film rolled along nicely, with no really unnecessary long/meaningless surfing montages or anything.

FIRST I was like.. But THEN I was like..

As one would expect, the Motion-capture ape "Cesaer" was the lace in this monkey-shoe. The entire film focuses on explaining the reason WHY the apes of the future dislike men and ride horses. The delicious homages and obvious respect for the original film came through in this, and hit me right in my nerd-hole. Some directors go over the top with their reference, and it is often a comedic poke at the predecessor. But "Apes" did it so subtly that it left me constantly wanting to jab the person next to me all "OH MAN, did you get that?!" The horses, rifles, nets, New York connection, human extinction, Gorilla/Chip/Orangutan hierarchy; were all shown and explained. Moments like Cesaer building a Statue of Liberty puzzle or the TV showing a Charlton Heston film, make my insides smile.

But of all the moments that impressed me, it was the "Get your stinking hands off me, you damn dirty ape" quote. Not because of it's obvious reference to the original Heston line, but because that is the moment that we first hear Cesaer the ape speak. In the original 1968 film, this same line is delivered and it is the first time the apes hear a human speak. Maybe that was obvious to most, or maybe it wasn't.. but it got me right where it counts.

With that, it appears it's 3am. I feel I should leave you with what little I feel I've delivered in this post. I could talk SO much more about particular scenes that really worked for me, and shots that impressed me to all of the seven hells. Oh, remember when all the leaves were falling on that quiet neighborhood? Then everyone looked up, and saw ape silhouettes leaping from the trees? Neat! There were plenty of emotionally engaging and triumphant parts to this story, and in my opinion, they came together to make one hell of a science fiction film. In the words of the late/great Troy Maclure, "I love you, Dr. Zeus!" --Slater

X-Mend

Many a moon has passed since my denouncement of any real enthusiasm towards a new X-Men film in the current franchise, coupled with my searing criticism of the X-Men film trilogy as a whole, and Bryan Singer's... Bryan Singer. I made a concerted effort (this time) not to scandalize the early trailers or footage of the film, or the awwwfuuuul marketing design. I also attempted to rationalize why Kevin Bacon was still in things. Regardless, so much time has passed since we LAST spoke of this film- let's see where we STAND... See what I did there?

I'll get to the film itself in a moment or two, but I'd first like you to join me as we attempt to get inside the minds of the people making this film.. "There's a good chap".

As a first step, they needed a new everything. They needed someone to fix what was broken. A reboot seemed the necessary "cure", but someone somewhere wanted to keep this part here, and that part there. OH, and that part when that guy.. yeah, that part! Well someone wanted those things, but also wanted some new things to replace the parts that didn't work. Pretend the X-Men franchise is a brick of cheese. PRETEND. Well one day, hollywood notices that there was a "Murder She Wrote" marathon on, and goes to the fridge to fetch a large brick of cheese for the occasion. To hollywood's horror, green mold has begun to grow all over his beloved franchise.. err, CHEESE. Any person of dignity or basic logic would throw that cheese in the garbage and go get some new cheese. Better cheese! However, it looks to hollywood, that there are still a couple parts on that cheese that aren't covered in mold. I mean, if you just trim off some of the mold here and there, and sculpt it back into a cube, then we don't need to do as much work, and we don't have to miss any of Angela Lansbury's luscious jowls. Right?

Wrong. Well.. kind of. It's easy for you or I to sit back and say "just reboot it". I mean, it's really easy.. and it's fun. It's really easy and reeeally fun. But it's also more complicated than that. Admitting defeat after such a long haul is bold. TOO bold for most. The Spider-Man franchise managed it, when the director and stars "mutually" (presses gun harder into back) decided no longer to be involved in the franchise. Perfect! New everything! However, X-men was different. Bryan Singer must help a lot of executives move or something, because they rely on him and trust his schemes like a college drinking partner. "No man, it'll totally work! I got'chya, Bro!" yeah well.. just like that.

Alright, alright. I'm not going to sit here and hypothesize which exec's idea it was to cut this from that. I wasn't in those meetings (Zod willing, one day I will be). And to be quite frank, it's not really important in terms of the finished product. Which reminds me, let's look at the product!

So the movie picks up right where the first film began.. Wait, I'm hungry. I'm going to the fridge to get some cheese. Okay, I'm back. Sorry, where was I? Oh yeah! So, the film begins with Erik Lensherr being torn from his parents at a Polish concentration camp. I recall praising this same opening in the original film as a very powerful scene. It shows us everything we need to know about Magneto's ambitions/motivations, while gaining our sympathy for his character. We also get to see Kevin Bacon speaking German, which he actually pulls off quite well (says I, who is unable to speak german).

The opening of this film also does a successful job of contrasting the two character's ideals. Right from the beginning we see two completely different upbringings, and what motivations will inevitably form their personas. In fact, I will go out on a limb, and declare that this film did quite a good job of explaining character's motivations... whether they made sense or not.

Just sayin...

It's safe to say that the stars of this picture were Charles and Erik, and boy did they shine. Both actors were stellar, and did a terrific job with light and heavy dialogue. The supporting characters, however, were hit and miss. As useless a character as Banshee seems to be on paper, his role as a sarcastic- yet akward teenager in training went smoothly. We see him attempt to pick up a girl (fail). We see him attempt to tell jokes (fail). And we see him attempt to look cool flying (fail), but his character does have a progression, and eventually his special power is utilized.. probably for the last time considering it's relevance (win..). Havok, on the other hand, was such a missed opportunity in this film. He is introduced by the guard from Hellboy (who now guards kids) as being a troubled loner. In the comics, Alex Summers (brother to Scott Summers/ Cyclops/ Captain Doucheypants) is arguably much more powerful than Scott. He is an angry orphan who lives quite a fantastic life, before eventually falling in with the X-Men, wherein he discovers his brother.. Douchey McDouchington. However, I understand his place in this film, and it is NOT the lead. I simply feel that adding any amount more badassery would have created much more depth. He just sort of.. takes Xavier's shit and maybe rolls his eyes. Get him smoking or SOMETHING! You let wolverine drop the F*Bomb!

Anyway, So Angel is a stripper with a heart of gold.. until some guy offers her nothing.. and then she turns on her friends and breaks all their costumes. Whatever, she's boring. Moving on.

Beast and Mystique! The Blue-Swoon and the Blue-Haired Goon! (patent pending). So, Mystique has always been a... mysterious (hold your applause) character. It's her nature, and she clearly has a thing for dangerous guys/metal heads (hold applause again). But her character in this film is actually baffling. It turns out that she was adopted(?) by Charles.. whose parents didn't mind I guess, and became his best friend. He sticks with her through it all- even after she cock-blocks him huuuuuge- and later becomes somewhat of a partner. This is where the cheese/mold thing comes in. So did Charles erase her memory when she defected, or is she still close with him? He never betrays her or does anything to garner resentment, so does she hate him or like him? Remember when she tries to poison him in the first film..? This is also where that CIA woman was a completely unnecessary character. She added nothing new and it would have made more sense to have her tasks in the film played out by Mystique. I guess she was there to give the X-Men information that the CIA was discussing secretly, but it would have made MORE sense to have Mystique just pass some no-name lady in the office and mimic her in those meetings, or tie her up before mimicking her. This would help develop her as the mischievous spy that we know her as in the other films.

Beast is also an extraordinary anomaly as a character in this. I will believe him to be a handsome genius at 21, fine. The obvious commentary on homosexuality and staying "mutant and proud" never really bothered me, fine. The fact that he is devising complex inventions such as "Cerebro" and Havoks chest amplifier in no time whatsoever and with no previous experience with that mutant ability, fine. But now he's Beast in the 60's? remember when he was on television as the human Dr. Hank McCoy in "X2" I'm craving cheese. Anyone else craving cheese?

Aaaaalright. Fine. I've been at this for too long anyway. I haven't even taken my shoes off since coming in from the theatre. I suppose i'll close on a positive note. This movie WAS entertaining. Despite my nitpicking, I enjoyed this film and will watch it again when it comes out on video. I may leave the room briefly during January Jones' bitchy scenes (all her scenes) but I did enjoy it. the casting was pretty good, the settings were nice, the costumes were bang-on. All in all, it's worth seeing, and is better viewed as a stand-alone film. I  enjoyed James McAvoy as Professor X and Michael Fassbender as Magneto IMMENSELY. The sequence with Erik Lensherr stabbing nazis in Argentina was particularly well done by Fassbender. Just as the training montage gave us a great look at Xavier's humor and personable nature. I'm still giggling over some of those jokes. Remember the Magneto suit reveal? Haaaaa Nice one, fellas! But seriously... Fellas? --Slater

"I prefer... MAG-NEATO"

His Stories Repeating

So this whole "shakespeare was a hack" thing is pretty amusing, regardless of which camp you subscribe to. But can it really be made into a period film? I feel as though we are falling into an era wherein history books are no longer directly relevant, and the new wave of bright-eyed young kids are getting the bulk of their historical perceptions from popular films and television. I love films as much as the next slob, but I know better than to believe that there was actually giant iron spider technology in the wild (wild) west... but then again... why would they put that in there if it wasn't true? Everything else was real.. No, wait!

You see, I'm a guy who enjoys a good nerd-debate. And there's nothing more frustrating than arguing a point, and hearing, "yeah, but if vampires weren't extinct..". That's the kind of thing I worry about.

Where the hell was I going with this? I can't remember.. (I just watched A Gore Verbinski film and didn't really notice the last 4 hours go by).. Regardless, I remember reading Mark Twain's writings on Shakespeare not actually being the author of his now-famous works, but instead, being crowned with recognition by a naive public for the secret work of others. It's REALLY interesting stuff, and done with the sarcastic/cranky wit that Twain is known for. All together, the general argument produced seems pretty air-tight.

Having said that, this new "Anonymous" film (clever.. no actually.. the title's a pun.. seriously) looks okay (+10 to Mana for using early Radiohead in the trailer), but what's MORE interesting to me, is that it's seemingly presented as a historical piece.. like "Elizabeth" or "Braveheart". I wonder how this conspiracy film will affect naive kids and paranoid stoners.

Well anyway.. I suppose I could talk for hours about "What's wrong with the youth of today". I mean, I once heard a high school girl announce that she had "never heard of Chris Farley". The very idea makes my brain want to banish itself into space-time, like the house in "Poltergeist".

Oh, and here's a one-man show featuring an actor reciting Mark Twain's "Is Shakespeare Dead", to which I reffered to earlier in this rant, and seems to be a heavy influence on the opening monologue in the "Anonymous" trailer. The TVO style cheesiness of the production is sort of quaint, but the actor's resemblance to Richard Hatch is more astounding than "Tommy Boy".. and how great a movie that was. --Slater

"One Word Title" By Acclaimed Director.. Tarsem

So the trailer for the new Tarsem-directed histrorical/fantasy/epic/bromance film is out. Your thoughts? A little cheesy? Perhaps. I mean.. we're all still gun-shy from the promising visuals/awful film that was "The Last Airbender" (which this is reminiscent of, visually.. and also stars someone from "Slumdog Millionaire".. weird.).. But I have more trust in Tarsem than I do M. Night Shyamalan. Tarsem Singh is bringing romantic art back into film visuals. The inner-consciousness scenes that he created in "The Cell", still haunt me- despite the real-world parts of that film falling flat.. (cough, J-Lo..cough)... in my humble opinion.

This flick (yes, other people besides Eddie Winslow say "flick".. got a problem?) looks like it's going to be good. Suuuure, you can compare this to "300" until the slow motion CGI cows come home, but to be honest.. I'm okay with that. It seems to be taking the extreme fantasy element, which "300" only scratched the surface of, and really running with it. It also has Mickey Rourke delivering lines in a helmet that appears to be designed by Georgia O'Keefe. What else can us slobs want?

The point I'm trying to make here, is that this film has huge potential to skyrocket Tarsem into being a household name. Move over Zach Snyder! And if that's the case, then NOW is the time to tell everyone that you liked "The Fall" when it was still only really known to hipsters and nerds.

SO, put down that Taco with the shell made out of Dorito (Yes, Taco Bell invented that) and go watch "The Fall". Or bring the taco with you.. I'm not you're mother. Also, I included the Trailer for "The Fall" under this. Don't let me catch you trading it for cigarettes at recess. --Slater

Avenged Ensemble!

So with this tsunami of comic-adapted films attacking theaters in the coming months, I figure it's as good a time as any to hold a fantasy draft! The following are my personal picks for which actors I WISH were chosen to complete "The Avengers" ensemble. This isn't to say that the actors that were ACTUALLY chosen for the roles are awful... but these fine young gentlemen could surely do as good (probably better) job. Bon Appetit!  --Slater

Armie Hammer as "1940s Captain America" (aka Steve Rogers)

Mark Valley as "Present Captain America" (aka Steve Rogers)

Michael Fassbender as "Hawkeye" (aka Clint Barton)

Toby Kebbell as "Hulk" (aka Bruce Banner)

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as "Thor"

Nerf Herding: Vol I - Where Have All The Fett-Guys Gone?

At last! After years of pestering friends, family, coworkers, acquaintances, well-wishers, and the sexually disadvantaged with my trivial gripes about the Star Wars prequels- I'm finally sitting down to empty some of these sacks of frustration out in writing. Let's make one thing sparkling clear- When I'm not mentally undressing... everything in the room, I'm usually thinking about Star Wars. Now, when I say "Thinking about Star Wars", I don't mean, "Lordy, that Han chap sure was corking!" (I think in a cockney accent for some reason). I mean reeeeally thinking about and hypothesizing the logistics of the Star Wars universe. Like, how does Jabba The Hutt go to the bathroom? Despite the petty solutions that may or may not have been expanded upon by random authors in the Star Wars: Expanded Universe paperback novel trade. I'm really talking about the GLARING inconsistencies or gaping plot holes that George Lucas created, and probably didn't even notice, as he clumsily dictated the script to a baffled intern through the muffled partition of a sliding bathroom door (I may have made that imagery up). REGARDLESS. I'm here to throw my two republic credits in!

In this exciting episode - Where Have All The Fett-Guys Gone? (See what I did there?)

So let's get down to it. I've never really been comfortable with this new idea that the Stormtroopers are all clones. It really ruins the romantic idea of an influential leader climbing up into a seat of power with loud speeches and innovative ideas. A leader that, veiled with mystery, manages to rally system after system into supporting his new idealistic empire with military resistance and powerful demonstrations. Upon conquering his own soil, he would ultimately march his way into weaker systems, conscripting those militaries to join his grand imperial army... or else! Is this ringing any Hitler bells?. INSTEAD, the emperor just walked into power by kissing foreheads, and then ordered an army from the army supplier. I...see.

The imagined idea that these men are fathers and husbands of their own, who are defending and fighting for the empire that they love, makes the Stormtroopers from the original films suddenly more dimensional. But when you just make them mindless, soulless military accessories... I can't really care, even if I wanted to.

Aren't you a little short to be a clone?

Now this brings me to another side topic, that the clones are all clones of Jango Fett? What? Why? I mean... He's just a guy. He's not a brilliant warrior or anything. Why not clone a bunch of Sith apprentices? You could raise the argument that The Emperor may have feared a group of Sith rebelling against him. Sure. But look at Darth Maul. That guy was a puppy dog. All he EVER said was "as you wish, my master". Mash up his fighting skills and loyalty- combined with the fact that the clones would have been programmed at BIRTH to obey his every command? Cripes!

Fine, fine. So maybe that would have been toooo outrageous. I mean, I'd probably be MORE upset with an army of Darth Mauls, than I am about an army of mercenary kiwis. OH, that reminds me... If you're going to make a decision to cast one guy as every single soldier in the empire, which DIRECTLY translates over to the original trilogies... WWWWHHHHHYYYY would you cast a guy with an ACCENT?! Now, look. It's not that he's from New Zealand, and we only take kindly to "Am'rcans" over here. I support all creeds and callings. Infact, I often love foreign films, actors and directors MORE than the Hollywood types here. But when you cast a man to act as the voice and face of every Stormtrooper in the Star Wars galaxy, you should PROBABLY get a guy that sounds like the Stormtroopers in the previous films. Hey, George- It'll save you having to go back and change tons of voices including Boba Fett's voice in the original films. Remember when he was really popular? Let's change his voice now.

Scene from "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" *Note: Everyone's white*

Scene From "Episode III: Revenge of The Sith" *Note: Everyone's white..?*

Siiiigh. I feel like I've been at this for too long.. and perhaps I'm beating a dead Tauntaun. But it's simple casting/writing decisions like those, that seem harmless, but have a butterfly effect on the precedents which have already been set in place decades ago and loved by all.

Oh, here's one last thing. The final problem I have with the idea of Stormtroopers being clones, is that you don't see any in the original films. I mean, all the officers are just white guys (often british), and fairly young. I mean, if this is only 19 years or so after the creation of the Empire, assuming at that point that they just stopped making clones from then on (which wouldn't make sense, and is never mentioned... but for argument's sake I'll give them that grounds) there should still be HUGE numbers of these guys just walking around- probably as veteran officers now. In Episode III we see "Commander Cody", who proves that the clones can be promoted and actually have a career in the military. Yet, at the end of that same film, we're provided with a shot of Darth Vader and The Emperor watching from the bridge of their ship, as the Death Star is being built. But take a close look at all of the random officers walking around. They're all just young white guys (probably british), like the ones we're used to seeing from the originals. There's also a young General Tarkin there (who is never introduced as a character). How did he become 3rd in command already? Where did all of these high ranking white guys come from? Ooooh wait. Maybe the emperor just ordered them from the officer depot?  --Slater

Super-meh

So it appears the comic-film scene is gathering momentum faster than I can call it. There have been HUGE moves made in the world of comic-films and I plan to throw an early word or two in- for posterity. Up first: Superman!

First we have the (I'll say interesting) news that Zack Snyder has been hand-picked to direct the new Christopher Nolan-supervised "Superman: The Man of Steel", which caught me with one foot off the merry-go-round to say the least. When I heard this announcement, my first thought was "UGH" followed by a heavy eye-rolling in defiance of everything. I guess I assumed everyone had already learned from "Watchmen" not to let Zack Snyder near comic-films anymore... However, I have since upgraded my view of him/his style from "hopeless" to "okay with it". At first, my mind went to the box office abortion that they refer to as "Watchmen", but I soon realized that the disastrous failings of that film may have been a result of Zack Snyder biting off more than he could chew by attempting the multi-layered/cerebral story lines and themes found in the book and dressing them up with flashy lights to package for a 13 year old UFC-fueled audience. LUCKILY, Superman has an extremely linear story and basic themes that everyone can understand (if you don't already know Superman's story... and if you don't... UGH*).  PLUS, it won't be hard to top "Superman III"  curiously starring the late Richard Pryor or "Superman Returns" directed by... bleh... Bryan Singer (spits on ground*). Zack Snyder's films are definitely NOT perfect, but the man DOES create some dazzling looking films. His "Dawn of The Dead" remake looked great, "300" set a new bar for historical-fantasy films, This 3D owl-nonsense has yielded alright reviews, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited for "Sucker Punch". There's hope for you yet, Zack... if that IS your real name.  --Slater

Chick Habit

Good evening, dear readers! I'll start off by doing what every blogger does about 16 times a year, and I will apologize for not writing a post in a few weeks. I have been away from civilization on an adventure to unlock the mysteries of Africa (not even a joke) and moving across the country to sunny Vancouver. My computer has finally arrived and I am ready to release some stored up nerdery.

I have been on a real Batman kick lately... which isn't rare, but I find that when I don't have access to a computer, something ELSE needs to be lavished with obsessive attention. In this case, a realization of how many Batman trade paperbacks there actually are out there to read has lured me away to a small room where I read or re-read these gems. "A Death In The Family", "The Killing Joke", "The Dark Knight Returns", "The Dark Knight Strikes Again", "Batman Year One", "Batman: Year 100", "The Long Halloween" the "Final Crisis" series from a couple of years ago, "Batman R.I.P" and the lead-up "The Black Glove" to name only a few.

This is not to mention the obvious Batman CRAZE created by the Christopher Nolan films, that is only NOW calming down enough to discuss sequels. As we have all probably heard, Nolan will only direct one more Batman film to close out his trilogy. The Riddler seems to be at least one of the villains, which I guarantee will be exciting! I am really hoping that they go the way of a "Zodiac-Killer" kind of character portrayal, but I know Christopher Nolan has something amazing up his sleeve (as per usual) so I won't backseat direct this one.

I WILL however, in the spirit of all of the Batman comics I've been lapping up, drop some casting ideas off at the door of consideration. I am sure I'm not alone in this- but when I read these books, I can hear the voice of the character saying the dialogue. I often imagine who I would put in that costume to see them fully realized, (and with the power of the internet) I present to you, my choices for the female villains of the Batman universe. We haven't seen any badass chicks in these films since Michelle Pfeiffer played catwoman in "Batman Returns" (I have purposely left out Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy... You're welcome). Without further Ado...

Rachel Weisz as "Catwoman" (aka Selina Kyle)

Christina Hendricks as "Poison Ivy" (aka Pamela Isley)

Amanda Seyfried as "Harley Quinn" (aka Harleen Quinzel)

I pray my decisions appease the comic gods. There are quite a few other names that landed on the cutting room floor, but in the end... well, you know. I have put quite a lot of thought into these picks, so I hope they work out... GET ME the president of movies!  --Slater

The Bar: Hans Zimmer

As we stand up out of our seats following the end of a great film and walk back into our normal lives, we don't often recognize the effects that the film just had on us- at least, not right away. We often know when we have just seen something amazing on the screen, and will spend the next hour or so walking around with our head in the clouds; seeing the immediate world through some sort of a surreal veil that makes everything seem a little more grand. This dazed feeling can be rare with some people, but every once in a while a film will have an unexplained effect on us. To most, it may seem like a toss up between great story and amazing visuals as to why we so enjoyed the last 3 hours of our lives. However, our immediate thoughts rarely wander over to the "sound" of the film. Enter- composer, Hans Zimmer, with his disturbingly effective approach of warping the music of a film in a way that totally immerses us in the mood of the scene and keeps us poised on our seats, in a state of cat-like readiness.

It is almost haunting at times, how much of an emotional effect Zimmer's music has during the film and on the audience. There are many great film score composers out there today, but few that can completely immerse themselves in the characters and the story to deliver to the listener an indepth feeling of tension, sorrow, triumph or whimsy. He doesn't simply compose the music, he often involves himself in every aspect of the sound department, to interlace the music with the overall tone of the individual scene.

Having just stayed up to watch the live streaming Hollywood red carpet premiere of "Inception", featuring many interviews and much merrymaking, I was treated to a delicious surprise from our boy, Hans. To open the film premiere, Hans Zimmer himself, was performing the music of the film alongside Johnny Marr (guitarist for "The Smiths") and a full orchestra featuring everything from synthesizers to opera singers. It was absolutely mind-blowing to see Zimmer in action, and it gave me so much more of an appreciation for the kind of genius it takes to coordinate a powerful film score.

As we all know, Hans Zimmer is the go-to composer for Christopher Nolan's films ("Batman Begins", "The Prestige", "Dark Knight", "Inception", and is signed on for the third Batman film), which seems to be working well for everyone. However, Zimmer has been making legendary scores for over three decades, and blowing my mind in the process. The idea of listing all of the amazing films that he's composed music for is like asking me to list off the stars in the sky. For your consideration, however, some of his most memorable works are: "Rain Man", Thelma & Louise", "Backdraft", "True Romance", "The Lion King", "The Rock", "The Thin Red Line", "The Prince of Egypt", "Gladiator", "Black Hawk Down", "The Last Samurai", the "Pirates of The Caribbean" films, and SO many more. Its impossible to ignore the resume of such an accomplished composer, so just sit back and enjoy spending the next several hours listening to the genius of his scores on Youtube.  --Slater

The Bar: Spider-Man

With all the grandeur of the huge blockbuster comic book films being unleashed upon the world in the coming year; I feel that this is a perfect opportunity to discuss some of the films that have achieved greatness in the eyes of myself and fans, and now pave the way for what can be done with such imaginative material. We are truly in a golden age of comic book-adapted films, which comes with its own ups and downs. Being chosen to adapt legendary characters from page to screen is a path fraught with peril and a risk of defeat, but also a chance for greatness. Only a select few (so far) have recognized how a character touches the hearts and minds of the audience, inspiring change in themselves and others and earning their way into immortal legend. Like the characters within these films, it is the successes that will be remembered.

When we were kids (I'm talking late 80's and early 90's here), we knew what characters we loved. We didn't know why we loved them- We just did. As we grew older, our tastes matured and we began to say things like "I can't believe I liked this as a kid" (I think I noticed it first when I started re-watching "Alf"), but some things have stood the test of time. A character like Spider-Man seems easy enough to understand; he was a nerd and now he can climb walls. It wasn't until his film debut that people started to get to know Peter Parker.

I've clumped the first two films (and the only two that I'm discussing) together because their message is singular. We start the first film off with a clumsy, awkward, shy teenager in high school. He doesn't really know how to handle himself in social situations and would rather just ogle a girl from afar than actually talk to her (if you're reading this blog, you can probably relate). Parker has a harmless crush on the hot girl in school (Maryjane Watson) and we find out that he has developed this crush for years as her next door neighbor, yet in those years, has said nothing to her because... well, he's awkward. He lives with his aunt and uncle, and we see the dynamic that they share at home. We're only 20 minutes into this film and we are already relating to Peter on a personal level, rooting for him to succeed in school, hoping Maryjane will notice him, and we have developed a love for how ruthlessly adorable Uncle Ben and Aunt May are.

Inevitably, Parker is bitten by the radioactive spider and becomes Spider-Man. However, aside from the powers, we already KNOW the character of Peter Parker because Sam Raimi (Director) has done such a great job of showing us a day in Parker's shoes. From that audience connection, we can follow along with him as he struggles with his new powers, as he inevitably begins to abuse them for profit (as we know we all would) and then is forever changed by the accidental assist in the killing of his Uncle Ben.

With the character of a hero presented on such a platter for us, it is endlessly entertaining to watch Spider-Man/Peter Parker wrestle with his inner demons like guilt, anger, regret, and eventually come out better for the experience. The second installment in the Spider-Man saga is arguably even better than the first, and its completely due to the further and deeper development of the Peter Parker character. It would have been so easy for Sam Raimi and the writers to say, "welp, we spent the last movie talking about him, let's spend this one having him fight stuff for 2 hours", but they didn't. THAT is why this film has EARNED its way onto everyone's list of top comic book films. They bring back characters like Harry Osborn, that we met in the first film and develop the mourning for the murder of his father and the nurturing of anger and revenge that fuels Harry. They go back into Maryjane's character as we see her trying to rise from a rough beginning and struggling with her acting/singing career. Finally, we meet the new (and I think strongest) character in the second film, Dr. Otto Octavius (Dr. Octopus). We see him start with good intentions and evolve into the reluctant villain that eventually redeems himself by the end of the film and leaves the audience rooting for him to survive.

Comic-Cinema greatness is not some rare mixture of A-list celebrities and blind luck. It is achieved the way most great hero stories are; an in-depth/relatable hero character, a villain with clear motives and ambitions, and a unique and concise story to tie these characters into the world that you are creating for us. There are so many great comic/sci-fi films out there, and I trust there are so many more yet to be made. It is our duty as fans to voice or outrage, raise our arguments and champion for reform. Anyone with millions of dollars can buy a film studio and hire whoever he/she wants to direct a new superhero blockbuster to sell products to kids. It takes a certain kind of writer/director to take the characters we grew up with and make us fall in love with them again. In the words of the, now immortalized Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility".  --Slater

I'm Sorry, But Circle Gets The Square

From the day it was announced, I've felt strangely apathetic and borderline disinterested towards the idea of the new "X-Men: First Class" film, and I could NOT figure out why. However, I quickly began to figure out the reason why my brain was telling the rest of me to "relax and forget about it" anytime I would get an urge to feel any kind of excitement for the new film. To fully understand how I can be so aloof towards a film franchise about my TOP comic/animated team of all time, one must only go back ten years.

The year is 2000, and it's an okay time to be alive. "The Smashing Pumpkins" are still a band, Kevin Sorbo is flooding our television sets, and that lovable scamp Bill Clinton is entertaining us all with his various monkeyshines. How much better can this year get? Bryan Singer (known at that time for directing "The Usual Suspects") is directing a live-action X-Men film, starring Captain Picard as Professor Xavier, and some badass Australian guy as Wolverine, how can we lose?! The answer can be found in the shaky story and ridiculous costumes that followed.

I understand that changes need to be made when adapting a comic book or cartoon to a live action screen. I really do! That being said, it doesn't mean that you have to change things just for the sake of change (at this point I feel like a broken record). What made the X-Men so memorable were their PERSONALIZED costumes that followed a specific color-theme carried out within the team. Wolverine, specifically, has one of the most badass costumes of any comic character. Therefore, when making the film, you should probably ATTEMPT to bring to the table the very things that made the X-Men legendary.

Now, the first X-Men film had things that I wish they hadn't done (like the matching black-leather costumes and centering the story around "Rogue"... Anna Paquin- no thanks), but the film DID have enough things in it to get me excited about sequels. I thought that the scene at the beginning of the film with Eric Lensherr (Magneto) as a boy in a Nazi concentration camp was very powerful. As well, The scenes of Logan (Wolverine) bare-knuckle fighting and drinking in northern Canada were also extremely well done, and gave us a good sense of how raw and gritty his character is. It wasn't to last though, as the successes of the first film were to be watered down to the point of slapstick buffoonery.

The second X-Men film set the new pace for the type of acting and story we were going to see, which may or may not have been unfortunate, depending on whether or not you enjoy drawn out teen drama usually reserved for "Degrassi High", and grown men whining (Cyclops). However (yet again), there were enough things done well in the film to have us asking for more. The opening scene at the White House, with Nightcrawler attempting to kill the president, is SO impressive. The movie is almost worth watching simply for that scene, as well as the night sequence at the academy with Wolverine fustigating Stryker's troops (that scene is great). We could only sit and hope that they would tackle an even better story in the next film, as there are so many terrific villains yet to be unleashed.

 Unfortunately, "X-Men: The Last Stand" was not a very good film, due to some ridiculously bad acting and a shaky story. I DID however, love Kelsey Grammer as "Beast", but even HE couldn't pull that movie up to a mediocre status. Oh, while we're talking about this film; did they think they could just NOT bring Nightcrawler back, and have us not notice? Seriously. So you say he doesn't fit into the story? One line of dialogue somewhere in the movie, "Kurt left to go live at a monastery in Bavaria", and it's taken care of. But instead, they just assumed that we would just FORGET that he was part of the team by the end of the second film. That's the worst.

I'd rather not even talk about "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" if I can avoid it. But I WOULD like to point out that Wolverine's origin has come a long way from his gritty, feral, character-driven origin telling in the woods of northern Canada (seen in "X-Men"), to the origin re-telling of him being a boyscout with sun-swept hair living atop a mountain in some sort of harlequin romance novel (seen in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"). Really makes him relatable... (sarcasm).

The point that I'm trying to make with this walk down oppressed-memory lane, is that the X-Men films have been systematically getting worse and worse, and perhaps need a revamp- otherwise you're left with Will.i.am as a super solider and a Gambit that wears a silk purple blouse. Maybe, instead of RE-HIRING the director that created the first two films, they should hire someone new. Someone who can breathe new-life into the franchise, rather than simply trying to recapture some of the "magic" that they feel they had with the first two. They're attempting to start over with "X-Men: First Class", but it may be too little too late as they're also in the works to create "X-Men Origins: Magneto", as well as a SEQUEL to "X-Men: Origins: Wolverine". I'd like to have faith in this new "First Class" film, but when I hear things like Taylor Lautner being asked to play Hank McCoy (Beast) and turning it down because he's too busy, I grow concerned for the integrity of the film. I get the feeling that the people turning out these X-Men films aren't really noticing what's happening around them. They just continue to make these films worse and worse, and can't see that the public demands a little more. It's not a total defeat to simply renew a franchise. Batman did it, Spider-Man's doing it- you can too; but this time try to avoid lines like "I'm the Juggernaut, Bitch".  --Slater

Just Not That Easy Being Green

And the big day has FINALLY arrived! The day they finally release images of Ryan Reynold's costume in the new "Green Lantern" film. The day that I have been looking forward to, even more than Christmas, for the last year! It arrives, I run down the stairs, and instead of that shiny new drum kit I've always wanted... I get socks. Not even NICE ones.

I will start this off by declaring myself an ENORMOUS "Green Lantern" fan. Next to Batman, the Green Lantern is probably next in line. When news broke of a Green Lantern movie (immediately after the success of "Dark Knight"), I couldn't even come close to controlling my girlish glee. I was going up to strangers and old people and trying to ask them who they thought would make a good Green Lantern. Upon the casting of Ryan Reynolds as Hal "Highball" Jordon (which I approved of), I next began to focus on who may play the secondary characters. And like some sort of rare spree of great casting decisions, they ended up with the ruthlessly talented/spot on ringer of Mark Strong, to play Sinestro. They followed that with a good enough move to cast "Common" as Earth's other Green Lantern, John Stewart; and the icing on the cake was (one of my favorite actors) Peter Sarsgaard, as the cerebral Hector Hammond. This Lantern film looked like it was shaping up to be pretty good...

My cautious optimism wouldn't last long, however. This morning, I checked my local nerdy news pages, only to be greeted with some sort of bad fan art. But it wasn't fan art. I... I just don't understand! After the casting of Hal Jordon, I figured we were on easy street. I mean, Green Lantern's costume is really awesome, and feasible in live-action situations. DC thought different. I heard in early production that Ryan Reynolds was not wearing a costume, but instead, a "green screen suit". This raised eyebrows, but I knew it had to fall into the idea that the Green Lantern costume is created by the ring. Ok, so perhaps they would digitally add a suit ONTO Reynolds, making it... I dunno... really shiny, I guess?

The opposing concept, it appears, is some sort of organic muscle suit, with green light coursing through the veins of the costume. They took out ALL of the white and the black. He no longer has gloves or boots, but instead is wearing a solid green unitard. I was wrong to have placed so much faith in the studio's hands to impress us. If you sit really still and listen, you can hear the studio execs justifying that "people aren't going to BELIEVE a guy in a bodysuit". I suppose it never really crossed their minds that the "Green Lantern" takes place in space, with millions of other alien lanterns as big as planets and as small as single cells. Some have thousands of eyes, and others have gelatinous bodies instead of skeletons. Spend your time convincing us to believe THAT.

What these studios need to understand is that if you convince the audience right away, you have their support. Lando has tight pants and a little cape, yet people think he's the coolest guy ever. I just want these studios to TRUST the audience. Give us credit, instead of trying to warp and disfigure our beloved characters to the point that they're not even recognizable anymore. I have NOT counted this movie out yet, and I know you might think that I'm saying a lot of harsh things about DC and this new "Green Lantern" movie before having seen it yet, which is fair. It's just disappointing to me, as the Green Lantern is so near and dear to my heart of hearts. I was so excited to see a badass rendition of the iconic costume, but instead they just grabbed the suits from "The Cell", spray painted them green, and slaped a logo on the chest.  --Slater

Where The Ruffalo Roam

Marvel decided that they still have some heads left to turn with their odd casting choices, but perhaps they're getting warmer. Deadline.com indicates that Mark Ruffalo is in late-stage discussions with Marvel Studios to Play The Incredible Hulk in the new "Avengers" franchise. Now, I can be stubborn at times, but it appears Marvel won't even BUDGE with their concept for a broad-shouldered/square-jawed Bruce Banner. They seem to be very driven in their goal for an already large guy to fill Hulk's purple cutoffs.

I still do not approve of the physical look that Marvel seems to be reaching for, in their desperate attempt to fill Edward Norton's spot, but I am beginning to see why they may choose a man like Ruffalo to play Banner. With acting heavy-weight Robert Downey Jr. reprising his roll as "Iron Man", Marvel is going to need an actor to be able to go toe to toe with Downey Jr's "Tony Stark". Enter- Mark Ruffalo, who is considered an "actor's actor", and stars in films such as "Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind" over the large blockbusters. I applaud Marvel's decision to go for an "actor" over a "celebrity", and can only sit and pray that next they focus on story rather than explosions (not to say explosions aren't awesome).

This move has me noticeably more excited about the onscreen Dynamic between Ruffalo and Downey Jr. as Bruce Banner and Tony Stark. Some will remember how "The Hulk" and "Iron Man" characters never really get along in "The Avengers", so the idea of Ruffalo and Downey Jr. getting into a heated exchange fills me with all kinds of warm feelings. Despite Marvel's shaky casting calls of late, I can breathe a little lighter knowing that they have SOME other plans for our beloved characters, and aren't just out to sell toys.  --Slater

Celebrity Avengers with Dr. Drew

As it stands, Marvel is looking at former folk-singer and current Hollywood tailspin, Joaquin Phoenix to play the Hulk in the new "Avengers" film franchise. Now, I love Joaquin Phoenix, I ready do... but I'm confused by Marvel's recent casting decisions... Long gone are the days of actors being cast for their character aspects. Remember Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier = BRILLIANT! Robert Downey Jr. as "Iron Man" (a narcissistic/alcoholic billionaire) = SPOT ON! Kelsey Grammer as "Beast" (a large but gentle intellectual) = Well, you see my point.

Since then, They've made decisions to cast a 90lb awkward nerd as the behemoth "Venom", a dark-haired/dark-eyed teenager as the brilliant blonde-haired/blue-eyed scientist "Invisible Woman", and (most recently) a "Captain America" to be played by an actor ALREADY CAST as another marvel hero (Human Torch) that has an almost opposite personality to the Cap, and is also noticeably younger than the other members of the Avengers (such as Robert Downey Jr). Despite any reasoning that Steve Rogers (Captain America) ages slower than most because of the "Super Soldier Serum" he was given when he fought in WWII, he is STILL about 70 years old, and should show his experience in his face.

What bothers me the most is that none of these recent casting decisions can be justified for any reason other than "they put asses in seats". Now I don't want to get on one of my "let's all learn from George Lucas' mistakes" rant, as there are not enough hours in the day, but I KNOW there were more suitable options to play these characters. Next in the world of Inappropriate casting, is Joaquin Phoenix as Bruce Banner in the "Avengers" franchise.

Let's do this together, shall we? The role to be filled is Bruce Banner. Things we know about Bruce Banner: He is a fragile yet brainy scientist who accidentally gets exposed to dangerous radiation from the explosion of a gamma bomb that he is working to perfect. He's an inventor and scientist, so I'm immediately thinking of a less goofy Rick Moranis from "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" mixed with some of the Time Traveler from H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine". You need to get the sense that he's helpless in his weak scientist frame, and has varying degrees of success in his controversial scientific undertakings. He needs to exude stored anxiety issues and rage impulses, so that when he inevitably becomes the Hulk, his world is turned on its ear and he now has access to seemingly limitless power which is altogether new to him. The obvious Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde connection is finally made, and we can sit back and watch Hulk punch holes in things.

With this understanding of the Bruce Banner character, we know that we need someone small and weak. Someone who would definitely lose in a fist fight and therefore turns to academics to further himself. I KNOW, what about that guy who fought Russell Crowe in "Gladiator", is about 6'3"/210lbs with long hair, a beard, and quit acting to pursue a rap career? PERFECT.  --Slater