Can Arkham Origins Be What Arkham City Was?

Arkham Origins hits the shelves
later this month.

It wasn't too long ago that comic book video games were...well awful. It wasn't until Rocksteady released Arkham Asylum (based off the Batman comic) and struck it rich. The result was a game that emerged players into the world of the Dark Knight and were given a mature themed game that perfectly captured Batman better than the recent Christopher Nolan movies did. Bringing back Mark Hamill and Kevin Conroy to play the Joker and Batman from the successful 90s animated series. The game was also filled with a side mission to solve riddles and pick up trophies hidden by the Riddler. For the sequel, Rocksteady "stepped their game up" by going BIGGER, DEEPER and BETTER. However, it's recent release Arkham Origins goes the prequel route and telling the story of the Dark Knights first days. Can they recapture the fire they put into gamers' hearts with Arkham City?

Arkham City gave you the feel of being Batman

First to Arkham City. This game has appeared on multiple platforms and succeeded in every possible way (best selling AND award winning game). To put it in perspective, Arkham City came out the same year as The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Skyrim: The Elder Scrolls. It's so addicting that many gamers played through it MULTIPLE TIMES and still can't get enough. The Arkham City map was immense and had plenty of nuances that weren't required by the developer. It not only reminded fans about the characters (as Arkham Asylum gave you bios on each character), but also caught you up with their stories. From the tales of Joker's demise and Black Mask's escape, to experiencing the Catwoman/Two-Face feud. The side missions weren't just Riddler trophies. They were Riddler deathtraps and it wasn't just the Riddler this time. From Random Acts of Violence to Deadshot, Bane, Hush and the MadHatter. The number of Easter Eggs in the game that only made the story deeper and better were so pleasing, you had to replay the game immediately. Every aspect of Arkham City brought you under Batman's cowl. It was perfect with very few blemishes. Once again, this beat out Skyward Sword as the Game of the Year by many critics. That's quite a complement.

Can Arkham Origins continue this breathtaking franchise?

Now with Arkham Origins due for release later this month, you really have to wonder if it can match the perfection of Arkham City. It also will not answer any questions left from the Arkham City game- like Hush's plan. That didn't work for Lost on TV- ya know NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS. Instead, Rocksteady is going back to the Batman Begins Era, which is really not that compelling. Most superheroes have interesting origins, but Batman's story is more interesting where he's already established. You got to wonder if they have a segment where you get to figure out a stupid Bale-like Batman voice. Also Rocksteady must introduce these characters instead of simply creating a continuing story for them. It's sound less creative, but now they must shoehorn the stories together.

Reverting Controls Isn't Always a Good Idea

How will the Wii U change the Legend of Zelda?
Hopefully, not at all.

Last year, the Wii U launched with lots of fanfare and only ONE game from Nintendo's Brand Name franchises (Super Mario Bros U). Now Nintendo is about to launch a revamped Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (one of the series most underrated games behind Majora's Mask) in early October, but there's a conundrum that faces Nintendo. How do they revert back to simple controls after the advanced controls of The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword? Before you think it's not a big deal, Nintendo has done this before with a Brand Franchise to mixed results when they revamped Metroid: The Other M.

Despite it's cartoony look, The Wind Waker was one of
Zelda's darkest game.

Before Wii U's launch, the Legend Of Zelda: Skyward Sword impressed many as the final big name game for the Wii. Nintendo combined their Wii Motion Plus into the game and featured a much more "motion anticipating" combat style. IGN rated Skyward Sword as a PERFECT TEN and a Masterpiece. In the review, it said, "This will change the way Zelda games are played." That's pretty high praise for the game franchise that changed adventure games forever time-and-time again. You thought this franchise could struggle moving from console to console, but Nintendo has kept Zelda fresh and consistently upgraded their style and controls. From the jump to 3D with Ocarina of Time to motion controls in Skyward. (Note: Twilight Princess' motion controls were not as thorough as Skyward's refinement.) Nintendo tried to remake the franchise's look in The Wind Waker, but fans were outraged with the cartoony look... that is until they played the game. The Wind Waker was one of Zelda's tougher and darker games in the franchise. Now Wii U is set to release the updated HD version, but one can look at it as a retro game and simply not a new addition. However, what is the future of Zelda on the Wii U with the touchpad controller? They don't have the controls that Skyward or Twilight Princess used. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer either.

Metroid: The Other M was a sharp departure from the
nearly perfect games Nintendo released for the last decade.

If you remember Nintendo switched around Metroid's style and controls TWICE. Metroid Prime switched from a third person adventure to a first person shooter. Some gamers were skeptical since Samus Aran would switch into a ball, but then the skeptics were proven wrong. Metroid Prime put you under Samus' helmet and gave you the control of the universe's most feared bounty hunter. When Metroid Prime graduated to the Wii, Nintendo used their motion controls perfectly to give the gamer Samus' arms as well as her eyes. The right arm (the Wii Remote) was the arm cannon and the left was the free hand. Gamers weren't just sitting on the couch. They were engaged. Then Metroid: The Other M was released. While Other M decided to try and flesh out Samus as a character (whereas most Nintendo characters are mute) reverted back to a third person formula and entered first person mode as a pivot point with nothing more. Scanning objects was nearly jettisoned from the game completely as Samus would enter cinematic cut scenes to give exposition. The game was rated 8.5 as opposed to the 9.5s of it's three predecessors, but if you click on this video, you'd think it's a 0. After playing Metroid Prime 3: Corruption lately, I'd have to agree these games are CLEARLY superior to the franchise's latest installment. However, Nintendo listens to it's consumers and changed Zelda back to it's more realistic look. Will Nintendo switch Metroid back to a first person shooter?

The point is that controls make the game just as much as story does. I understand that you can plug in the Prime series at any time and play them. Same is true for Zelda, where you can download any game or simply play them on the Wii U- which is still backwards compatible. The thoughts expressed here is on the future of these franchises and what to do besides changing things up for the sake of just changing things up. Metroid Prime was a complete reconstruction of a dormant franchise. Zelda is not. Hopefully Wind Waker is a retro game, not a sign of things to come for arguably the most popular console franchise today.

A Divided World Inspired Neil Blomkamp

Elysium opens Aug 9th

For decades in South Africa, Apartheid was the law of the land that separated the races in that nation. To say that it produced many conflicts is an understatement, but the nation overcame it's controversy and even elected Nelson Mandela as it's leader (if you need me to tell you about this great man, get out from under your rock). Though Clint Eastwood made a great film (Invictus) about South Africa uniting to win the Rugby World Cup, South Africa was the center of one of this century's most underrated films, District 9. Director Neil Blomkamp drew inspiration from South Africa's history in telling his story and his follow-up film Elysium opens Friday with the same theme...only different.

Matt Damon stars in the action film.

Elysium is story about the manmade space station that the rich live on in an Utopian setting (free of hunger, disease and pollution) while the rest of the people live on Earth that is rife with all three of those. An ex-con Max DeCosta (Matt Damon) tries to move on with his life when a factory accident leaves him with 5 days to live. He straps on an exoskeleton and tries to sneak his way onto Elysium; past the the vicious forces of Secretary Delacourt (Jodie Foster) led by Agent Kruger (Sharito Copley). Unlike District 9, Blomkamp sets this film in Los Angeles, not Johannesburg.

Shartio Copley starred in Blomkamp's breakout District 9

Back to Blomkamp's first inspiration, as District 9 showed the oppressive government that was forcing aliens (called Prawns) out of their slums to a concentration camp setting called District 10. However, everything changed when clumsy, contemptible MNU company man Wikus Van De Merwe (Copley) stumbles upon a canister that he believed was a weapon. It wasn't, but the liquid was ingested accidentally by Wikus and caused massive physical changes. He began to become a Prawn. As his company (and father-in-law) turned against him, Wikus fled to District 9 for shelter. As Wikus' life begins to unravel, he "befriends" a Prawn named Christopher Johnson and they band together to get back the liquid Wikus confiscated- fuel to pilot a pod that could get the aliens home. At times, the two protagonists we're helpful and spiteful toward each other. Wikus wants desperately to be human again and Johnson sees the experiments MNU was doing to the Prawns. With a theme of "How the Other Half Lives", Blomkamp weaves story, action and character together so well that the pacing of the film seemed shorter than the nearly two hour running time. The perspective of Wikus worked perfectly too. Like American History X, this story was from the point of view of the racist. Wikus joked about an "alien abortion" and slaughter of alien young that it sounded like popcorn. It certainly turns your stomach, but once he is forced to retreat into District 9, Wikus begins to change. He becomes more concerned about his survival and aggressive as his racism softened, but not too much to be corny or unbelievable. The film had a perfect ending and should be on everyone's watch list.

District 9 delivered in every way. Can Elysium do the same?

Obviously, we draw from our experiences in creativity. Blomkamp appears to have done a great job with that. If Elysium can match the work of District 9, Blomkamp will be on his way to stardom.

Hail to The Wolverine

The Wolverine opens July 26th

In 2000, 20th Century Fox released X-Men and it cemented Comic Book Movies into the mainstream; making Marvel into a studio. At the center of Bryan Singer's first comic book film was the franchise's most popular character Wolverine. For the key role, Singer chose an Australian actor to play the Weapon-X subject Logan named Hugh Jackman. Many fans clamored for a bigger name to play X-Men's most colorful character. One such event was at the San Diego Comicon in 2000 where a Wolverine fan referred to Jackman as a "pipsqueak".  That said, Jackman took to the first X-Men like an actor taking on a role, but before long Wolverine acquired another huge fan- Jackman himself. In the 13 years since the claws first popped out of Jackman's hands, he has steadily improved on his performance so much so that fans cheered loudly at his cameo in X-Men: First Class. It's actually amazing how Jackman's career has flourished while perfecting his character and avoiding type-casting. While many other actors have been "perfect" for their comic book characters, Jackman has actually shaped his own performance more and more to fit the character in the books.

Jackman has refined his performance
with each film.

In an interview with TV Guide in 2000, Jackman simply referred to Logan as "the type of guy that wakes up with a cold shower", but in an X2 interview Jackman was already looking forward to a new aspect of his character, "I want to see Wolverine go berserk and really let loose." The result: Jackman nails Wolverine's berserk mindset when the mansion is invaded. By the time Jackman got his own series with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, he had more ideas on how to perfect himself. Two-a-day training regimens to get all of the veins bubbling to the surface. His mannerisms and attitude was pitch perfect (and certainly less whiney than X3). It's a shame it was halfway wasted on the series second worse film, but that didn't stop Jackman from improving his flagship role. "If you don't improve each time, what's the point," Jackman said in a 60 Minutes interview.

It's impressive that Marvel
hasn't hindered Jackman's
career one bit.

What makes Jackman more impressive than Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, is the diversity of his roles since donning the claws. He won 2 Tonys for The Boy from Oz playing a gay choreographer, appeared in a handful of romantic comedies like Kate & Leopold and Someone Like You, more action films like Van Helsing and Swordfish, animated films like Happy Feet and Flushed Away, as well as Christopher Nolan's magician thriller The Prestige. When Hugh Jackman hosted the Oscars, he sang and danced around the stage concluding the opening number with "I AM WOLVERINE". There hasn't been a role Jackman has taken on without worrying about his future as Wolverine thus allowing him to grow as an actor while growing the Wolverine brand. Unlike Robert Downey Jr.'s recent comments about "overstaying his welcome", Jackman doesn't plan on retiring from the Weapon-X experiment anytime soon. Next year he will appear as Wolverine for the SEVENTH time in X-Men: Days of Future's Past.
It is a note that this blog has named Jackman as the best Comic Movie Hero in it's second post.

How Comic Book Movies Changed

Comic Book movies have
become more than hollow
action films

As many of you know, the godfather of all comic book movies was 1978's Superman: The Movie before the next big success was another DC adaptation 1989's Batman. Both were smash hits at the box office and both took vastly different approaches. In 1998, Blade was Marvel's first successful film after a slew of mediocre made-for-TV films (mostly sequels to The Incredible Hulk series) and Dolph Lundgren's Punisher before 2000's X-Men started the momentum that made Marvel Studios. At first comic book movies were cheesy, then slightly cheesy, then dark until taking themselves seriously. They've attracted big name producers, directors and actors to a lot of success. Heath Ledger broke through to win an Oscar for his performance of the Joker in 2008. Comic Book movies are changing "making it less comic-y" but let's take a look at the evolution in Comic Book movies.

"Comic Book Movies should not be origin stories because it's rare when someone picks up issue #1." -Joe Williams, author of the indy comic Kyaku

First, the Superman vs. Batman styles:

Superman: The Movie deal with a being
of unlimited power finding his limits. 

1978's Superman took the approach of the linear origin story. It starts with the demise of Krypton and the proceeding through the importance of Superman's childhood with the Kents. The death of Jonathan Kent is the most important part of his character development. When director Richard Donner told the story in this fashion, it worked and in spades. 1989's Batman ISN'T an origin story. Director Tim Burton does have a variation of the Joker's beginnings and a mere flashback to Bruce Wayne's parents death. Now, BOTH styles were perfect for their genre's. One story NEEDED to go into detail of the main character and the other could rely on simply telling the back story in seconds. (This style will be further explored in a moment.)

Marvel Employs the Same Tactics:

Did we need to see Blade grow up?
Nope. A simple monologue was
Blade'sorigin story.

Marvel had the same ideas employed by the DC movies in THREE of their films. First was Blade, that used his backstory with a perfect monologue by Kris Kristofferson. Second was a full backstory by Sam Rami in Spider-Man as audiences were shown Peter Parker's growth into his powers, trying to cash in and the MURDER of Uncle Ben. The third was used by Bryan Singer in X2 when he took less than 30 seconds to show Wolverine's Weapon X Experiment- still the most bone-chilling origin in comic films. Each film employed the origin the films needed and not more or less.

Sequels:

Spider-Man 2 is the perfect
character study of the hero

DC's Batman Returns and Superman II stand alone as really their only quality sequels (add Superman III if you're a fan), but Marvel's sequels have excelled greatly. Spider-Man 2 and X2 are among this blogs three best comic films and in spite of a weak Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3 and The Avengers were great. The main story line of each other the sequels remain the same: Is Being the Hero Easy? Some heroes go about their business (Batman Returns), some yearn to find answers (Wolverine), peace of mind (Tony Stark) while others question if they should be the hero (Spider-Man and Superman). At the time, villains ran the gauntlet. Start with the big villain and then go to the secondary villain, (Batman's Joker and Batman Returns' Catwoman and Penguin. Spider-Man's Green Goblin followed by Doctor Octopus) and all villains died until Batman Forever and X-Men. 

"There's three excuses to comic book movies: 
1) Because they're ninjas and ninjas are awesome 
2) Because it's comics so accept it 
3) Because it's Christopher Nolan and fanboys think he can't do wrong" - Scarlett

Christopher Nolan Enters:

Untold before, Batman Begins showed how the
Dark Knight came to be.

In, 2005, Memento director Christopher Nolan entered the fray. Armed with screenwriter David S. Goyer, they set out to reboot the comic movie franchise and likely didn't realize that they'd change comic films forever after that; focusing on making the story more character driven like the Marvel series. In Batman Begins, audiences were told about the origin of Batman and how he came to be the Dark Knight. Taken in by Ra's Al Ghul (pronounced differently from his appearance in the animated series and Arkham City video game) to be an assassin to take down Gotham, Bruce refused and left to become a symbol to unify Gotham. Focusing mainly on Batman and spending a little bit of time on secondary villains (Ghul and the Scarecrow), Nolan spent more time developing Bruce Wayne into Batman. In the process, he made the first film of the series without even a mention of the Joker until the film's closing seconds. Nolan also made the first successful "Dual Villain Film", which never worked out well in their history.

Batman's arch-nemesis wasn't even mentioned
until the closing seconds of Batman Begins 

In 2008, Nolan released The Dark Knight (the first of the series to not use the Batman name) and achieved critical success as well as box office records. As mentioned, Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor, but The Dark Knight was nominated for 8 Academy Awards. It prominently featured Batman's biggest villain (The Joker) and developed a second villain in the film (Two-Face). In 2012, Nolan finished his trilogy with the plot hole filled The Dark Knight Rises. Even though Batman is in the middle of nowhere with no money and no contact, he gets back to a quarantined Gotham with stealthful ease. Why? See rule #3. The third part to a comic series still has unperformed with Iron Man 3 (very) arguably being the best one and there's plenty of debate. Still what Nolan did was create a blueprint for the way comic book movies would be made. If you don't believe me...

Marvel Employs the Nolan Method:

Robert Downey Jr was perfect...PERIOD

Marvel released two notable Origin stories after Batman Begins. First was Iron Man, which is possibly the best origin story ever put to film, and recently was The Amazing Spider-Man. Now, the benefit of Iron Man was the lack of a central villain so every villain was secondary and the focus was solely on Tony and his changing role in the world. By the end of the movie, Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of Marvel's playboy was all people could talk about. It also employed a disconnected timeline (a la Nolan's style), but did not have a tone too dark for the very flip hero. 

Did we need to see a full origin story for Spider-Man AGAIN?

With 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man, Marvel returned to tell Spider-Man's origin story that was told ten years earlier with a slight variation for the Ultimate Spider-Man series. The darker tone was good, but not quite a perfect fit for Spider-Man, but director Mark Webb used The Lizard and spoke about the Oscorp CEO Norman Osbourne without showing him. Thus the focus was mainly on Peter and developed him... slightly differently from the original series. In the next film, Chris Cooper will play Osbourne, but it is unknown if the Green Goblin will appear. Director Webb released a picture of "Locker 14" where Peter finds the alien symbiote that eventually becomes Venom- perhaps another foreshadowing of a future villain. It'll be interesting what Amazing Spider-Man 2 reveals next year.

Another staple of the "Nolan Blueprint" is rebranding the franchise. Batman became The Dark Knight, (from Frank Miller's series), but as producer his method and rebranding are now out for Man of Steel- the new Superman film. Again, focus on the hero's origin and a secondary villain as Lex Luthor did not make an appearance. You could say this same style was used in the Sherlock Holmes series that didn't introduce Professor Moriarty until the second film, but mentioned him in the first.

Marvel Creates a Universe:

A second credits scene at the end of The Avengers was
missed by most audiences that left early.

Starting in X3: The Last Stand, Marvel began using scenes after the credits. It was a simple scene that let audiences know that Professor X somehow survived his encounter with the Phoenix. In 2008, Marvel used another scene after the end of Iron Man to introduce Nick Fury and The Avengers initiative. After that, Marvel used it's films and characters to interact in their films even when the films are distributed by different studios (as seen when Paramount's Tony Stark made a cameo in Universal's The Incredible Hulk). Within the next couple years, Marvel firmly planted the idea that ALL of it's film's are connected. Now Marvel has encountered trouble blending Spider-Man into The Avengers, but Wolverine made a cameo in X-Men: First Class, Howard Stark (Tony's Dad) was a key character in Captain America: The First Avenger, Hawkeye was introduced in Thor and Black Widow was a supporting role in Iron Man 2. Even in Marvel's other film like the lucrative Spider-Man series, Eddie Brock was mentioned in the first film and Marvel used a credit-cut scene in The Amazing Spider-Man to hint at another mysterious character (Michael Massee). The point? There's more to a Comic Book Movie than just "here's a character and HIS story"; they exist in a world and occasionally those worlds can intersect with other heros. It is important to remember that the character exist FOR their own films. One complaint about Iron Man 3 is the lack of presence BY the Avengers even though the events of the film are continually referenced. If the Avengers popped up out of nowhere, Iron Man 3 would have suffered.
DC employs the Marvel Methods:

DC used a "Credits Scene" to hint at a
Green Lantern sequel.

DC did not use any cut scenes or references to Metropolis in it's Dark Knight series, but LexCorp and Wayne Enterprise made very QUICK cameos in Man of Steel. With rumors of a Justice League movie in the works, DC could have used a little momentum with a credits scene at the end. They chose not to, but DC did successfully employ the credits scene setting up a sequel... but it was in it's biggest failure- The Green Lantern. In the credits, audiences are shown the Ring of Fear and see it's stolen by Sinestro (perfectly played by Mark Strong). Say what you will about the lackluster Green Lantren, but the idea of Strong's Sinestro in a sequel is appealing. (By the way, you can't tell a guy would turn bad with a name like Sinestro!) There are perils to making a Justice League movie that will be covered soon.
The New Type of Comic Book Film:

Jackman is Wolverine again. That's good news for audiences. 

There is one more HUGE comic film on the horizon this summer- Marvel's The Wolverine. Director James Mangold has films like Girl Interrupted on his resume and Darren Aronofsky was originally slated to direct the film, but took a smaller role in production. The idea of the film is to flush out the Wolverine character. Sure it's going to have it's action, but the film is being billed as a "new type of comic book film". Time will tell in late July.

Comic Book Movies have shown they're more than just fluff when the situations have called for them. They could be tales of the "tragic hero" like a Greek Myth or simply show that there's more to a hero than wearing a stupid costume and covering his face (or not in Superman's case). They've evolved from 1978 to tell better stories that continually improve. Sure, now we're going through the reboots, but varying the adventures of these titans isn't necessarily a bad thing... if they can pull it off. Still, it's not out of the question that one of these days a Superhero film can take home a Best Picture as the quality of these franchises continues to improve.

Pixar Goes the Prequel Route

Monsters University opens Friday June 21

In 1995, Pixar animated studios released the widely popular character driven film Toy Story and began arguably the greatest collection of animated films of all time. All of their films were entertaining and artsy, the public has flocked to them in droves. To call Pixar successful is an understatement. They're the envy of every studio (live action or animated). They have a formula that works- period (creative story, character development and Cliff from Cheers). All of their movies have grossed over $160 million with A Bug's Life being the "bomb" at $162 million. All but one of their films have a Rotten Tomatoes score over 74% (Cars 2 the only exception). Pixar didn't release a sequel until their third film with Toy Story 2 and now with Monsters University due for release Friday, they will unveil their first prequel (the lowest form of story telling). Will it rank with Toy Story 2 or will it be a Cars 2?
For starters, Toy Story 2 could be one of the greatest sequels of All Time. If it doesn't make your top 10, it should be in your top 20. As for the Toy Story Trilogy, it also ranks up with the greats. It told three different stories and completely followed the Pixar formula. However, if Pixar wanted to tell another Monsters Inc sequel, they had to tell it as a prequel. After the events of Monsters Inc, it would have seemed foreign to fans to have Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) just want to go back to scaring kids after growing fond of Boo and discovering that laughter is more powerful than screams. So Pixar goes back to when they were young scarers and show their growth. This story shows how the two met... which often isn't that interesting in other stories. But this is a Pixar film, they gotta get it right... right? After prequels worked for Texas Chainsaw, The Exorcist and... Cruel Intentions.

Usually prequels suck, but Pixar could be the rare group
to get it right.

Again, Pixar has earned our faith and trust. It's not like they released a terrible film or one that doesn't make money. Granted some of the money can be as simple as parents wanting to take their kids somewhere to shut up or play the DVD... so they can shut up, but when the American Film Institute ranked their Top 10 animated features, Pixar owned two of the top spots (Finding Nemo and Toy Story) and that was before Wall-E (perhaps the most underrated feature film of the 21st Century). If Pixar can make a successful prequel (and you can count on one hand the real quality prequels), then they will truly embody Buzz Lightyear's mantra. To Infinity and Beyond.

Better Be Super or DC is SCREWED!

Man of Steel opens
Friday June 14th

Once upon a time, comic book movies didn't come out every week. In fact, you wouldn't even know they existed. Then in 1978, Richard Donner made Superman: The Movie... and it was HUGE. Talk about a who's-who on the production side (Donner directing, Mario Puzzo on the story) and starring Marlon Brando? That's right. despite Marlon Brando's 20 minutes of screen time, he was the top billing over Superman himself Christopher Reeve. That didn't spawn more comic book movies (except a low budget Fantastic Four) until Warner Bros released Batman in 1989. That made more comics come out, but after awful results (like the Flash TV series) comic movies went away. It wasn't until X-Men came out in 2000 that Marvel broke through. Suddenly comic movies were everywhere and DC was second fiddle... as usual. Then DC started the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight series and broke box office records so much so that people forgot Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. This week, DC and Warner Bros releases their third incarnation of the Superman series. This time it's DC's biggest gamble and if it fails...DC will have a lot of problems.

Superman: The Movie was an enormous success in 1978.

Superman: The Movie was the lighthearted film that captured the essence of the hero that believed in Truth, Justice and the American way (still the lamest mantra). It's a film that made Christopher Reeve's career before horses were his kryptonite. Singer's Superman Returns paid an homage to the original series and inserted it as a sequel to Superman II. The results didn't work. The thought was that the story of Superman didn't needed to be covered again and that people would overlook the glaring plot hole of the kryptonite shard in Superman's side at the end. Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane was... okay and Brandon Routh certainly looked the part, but the movie lacked something and never gained momentum to a sequel. It certainly made audiences question if Superman can make a good movie.

Henry Cavill is the new Man of Steel.

The new wrinkle for DC started in 2008 from their rival Marvel Studios. When Marvel released Iron Man, the message became clear that the Marvel characters would interact- creating a Marvel Universe more than individual stories. A month after Iron Man's release, Tony Stark and S.H.I.E.L.D. made cameos in The Incredible Hulk despite different studios having rights to the characters. In 2012, Marvel's The Avengers smashed box office records and made executives at Warner Brothers/DC jealous. Now DC wants to create a Justice League movie, but they want to use the existing films and blend them into one. There's a huge problem with that idea: Green Lantern has a different tone from The Dark Knight. Nevermind that the Green Lantern FLOPPED like an NBA player, but that franchise appears mired in limbo while The Flash and Wonder Woman have been rumored to be production hell. The ridiculous idea of a Justice League movie will be covered in the future, but if Man of Steel fails or underperforms, the Justice League will be right next to Sin City 2 on the perpetual rumored list. Also what else does DC really have to make? Reboot Batman...again?

When you think of Superman villains,
you think General Zod?

Back to Man of Steel, of course it will be a box office smash as fan boys got raging boners once Christopher Nolan's name was associated, but like all recent reboots (Batman Begins & The Amazing Spider-man) Man of Steel introduces a secondary villain (General Zod) while shunning the main villain (Lex Luthor). You'd have to suspect that it will follow the same reboot formula (again will be discussed in a future article) of introducing the main villain but not focusing on him. Batman Begins showed the Joker card and Amazing Spider-man discussed Norman Osbourne at length. One reason to use this tactic: keep the focus on developing the hero and no need to FULLY develop the main villain since the secondary or little known villain will be dispatched quickly. That said, Nolan brought back the League of Shadows for The Dark Knight Rises with poor results.
The good news: Man of Steel is getting rave reviews so far, but just because critics like it doesn't mean audiences will. It's reasonable to think audiences will as they have been starved for a good Superman movie for over 30 years and waits to wash away Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. DC can only hope that this movie is truly as strong as Steel (the metal... not the Shaq movie).

Star Trek Out From The Darkness

Back in 2009, Paramount Pictures rebooted their epic franchise into new films based off their original Star Trek TV series. They did everything the right way. Securing J.J. Abrams to recreate it and carefully selected a talented cast, but it wasn't without risk. The idea of it being a Star Trek origin story was an idea that didn't sit well with fans and in the era of the Superhero Origin story... did everything have to be "When Kirkie met Spockie"? Abrams found a way to carefully balance an new origin as well as pay tribute to the original series. He talked Leonard Nemoy into reprising his role as Spock and recruited writers from his TV series Fringe, who have returned to pen Star Trek Into Darkness.

The first installment of the series, Abrams casting played very well into the finished product. Some actors chose to make their characters their own (Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and John Cho) while others chose to make their characters an homage to their predecessors (Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban and Anton Yelchin). There was always a fresh and familiar feeling about this series. Nevermind that Abrams directed the film's action sequences well, but he also brought characters from the original series like Captain Pike (Jeffrey Hunter's character from the Pilot episode). This sequel reprises other characters like Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. As long as Chris Pine never yells out, "KHAN!" this movie should be successful.

Back to the cast, Pine's James T. Kirk never conjures up imagery of William Shatner- like Quinto's Spock or Urban's McCoy- but that's a positive for both men that play the Enterprise's Captain. No need to make a comparison on who did better. Saldana's Uhura was more than just a background character- even with the switch to Spock as the love interest. Rumors has her role reduce in Darkness, but how much so?

Well, J.J. Abrams' has set a high bar after the well done first film and with Abrams splitting time between Star Trek and Star Wars, one has to wonder if one series will affect the other. Perhaps as audiences enter Darkness, so will the series. In the meantime, there's a sequel to enjoy next weekend.

Can Iron Man 3 Avoid the Dreaded Third Part Comic Film?

Iron Man 3 opens Friday

 Whether or not fans want to see the truth, but Hollywood has set a template for a Comic Book Movies. It's fairly simple. Part 1 is the origin. Part 2 is the obstacle. Part 3 is the catharsis that's larger than life and over-cluttered. Several series took this  method and ALL have put out disappointing films compared to their predecessor. Look at the original Spider-Man series. Spider-Man 2 dealt with the obstacles of being Spider-Man so well that Roger Ebert called it "the best Superhero movie ever made".  Then Spider-Man 3 wedged three villains in and a two dance scenes... check please. The Dark Knight Rises was good, but again saw too many villains and several plot holes just to make a sensational ending. Both films were received well at the box office- each breaking box office records- but if you're honest each film was extremely flawed and betrayed their adaptations. Iron Man 3 will get it's shot to avoid this pattern Friday.

The Iron Patriot is WarMachine
reinvented.

Several fans weren't too happy with Iron Man 2, but it was still a good second piece of a series that extended it's story into The Avengers. In Iron Man 2, the obstacle of being Iron Man were obvious. Fame for being a public hero led to a public attack when he wasn't expecting it and a rival tycoon (Sam Rockwell) that hires his attacker to put Stark out of business. It also dealt with the government involvement in the Iron Man project and the creation of War Machine by his friend Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle). Tony falls into depression as he pushes Pepper away and fears he's dying, but finds a new energy source and staves off an attack of drones. Tony (Robert Downey Jr.) and Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) debate about their relationship and S.H.I.E.L.D. introduced Tony to the Black Widow before saying they didn't want him for the Avengers. Iron Man 2 also introduced Thor's hammer in "credits scene".

Is there anyone who could pull off the Mandarin
like Ben Kingsley will?

Iron Man 3 will continue the story from The Avengers and that's where it may change from the other series. Tony is dealing with new obstacles and new feelings like warping into a parallel world and is really feeling his mortality. It will also introduce the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), a terrorist that baffles intelligence agencies and destroys Tony Stark's home. It will also be the first time we see Aldrich Killian (Guy Pierce) - the founder of the Advanced Idea Mechanics. It's also one of the rare times a director has switched out of directing the franchise, but still appeared in the film. Jon Favreau directed the first two and Shane Black (Predator actor and Lethal Weapon writer) directs this edition. 

Contrary to other Comic
Stars, Downey's career has
skyrocketed since becoming
Iron Man.

Iron Man 3 will expand the Iron Man/Avengers universe, but will it be Downey's swan song as Tony Stark. Arguably, you can say this is the greatest portrayal of a Comic Book Hero. "I don't want to overstay my welcome," Downey maybe correct, but please overstay your welcome. Downey has been able to expand his career since donning the Iron Man costume. He has been nominated for an Oscar (Tropic Thunder) and was even able to star in smaller films like The Soloist. He has also starred in a new franchise (the Sherlock Holmes series). Downey has successfully avoided the type-casting that some superhero actors have gone through during their tenure.

As early reviews come say that Iron Man 3 is better than The Avengers and that's saying something. Then again, critic overlooked little things like how Bruce Wayne got from the middle of nowhere to a quarantined Gotham city with no money or no magic knee brace. Hopefully, this film will fulfill it's promises and get the Superhero genre it's best third part. 

Best Movies of 2012

This year saw a lot of good films, though unfortunately few could really separate themselves to rise to Great. The overall quality of this year was good, but even some of the films on this list could be picked apart heavily. Some fell short of aspirations and some exceeded expectations with fine writing, directing and performances. NOTE: I didn't see Silver Linings Playbook yet. Will update when I do.

Here is a list of my Best Movies of 2012:

Not Quite as good as LOTR,
but still had the charm.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth was a good first installment to a new series based off a 300 page book that could have just been one film. However, Jackson hits his stride right off the bat, even if it's not the same quality as his Oscar Nominated predecessors. Martin Freeman captures Bilbo Baggins as well as Ian Holm did and Richard Armitage made Thorin Oakenshield more human than previous representations. Ian McKellan's Gandolf is once again as spot on as he left it. The movie does lose some steam, but is rejuvenated when Andy Serkis' returns as Gollum and provides great energy for the film again. Still not sure how turning it into a trilogy, but the first installment was a good start. Let's see how next year's The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug turns out.  

Too many plot holes,
but excellent nonetheless.

The Dark Knight Rises - I know what you're thinking, why so low? Well simple, there's a lot of plot holes in this awkwardly paced film, but it was still very good. The Dark Knight series ended with a crescendo that in retrospect DC may regret, but left audiences satisfied in spite the many questions it left. Getting good performances by an all star cast (mostly from Inception), Christopher Nolan told the chapter of Knightfall while trying to tie the villain's plan with today's headlines. As I try to tear this film apart, I'm still going to put it on the year's best list, though fanboys will likely comment that it should have been at #1.

Scott delves back into Alien 
with Prometheus.

Prometheus - Ridley Scott's sorta-prequel to Alien was a thought provoking film on some aspects and frustrating on others. Like the Dark Knight Rises, you can spend all day picking it apart, but unlike the Dark Knight Rises, it's opening the series with a chance to answer them later. Michael Fassbender's performance as an android that takes a liking to Peter O'Toole so much so that he imitates him while collecting information for his creator Peter Weyland, whom commissioned the exploration to seek the key to immortality. Noomi Roopace, Charlize Theron and Idris Elba deliver fine performances, but Scott keeps the audiences on their toes with a couple of scenes that will make you squirm.

Zero Dark Thirty - Jessica Chastain stars in this gritty telling of the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden. Done in the style of Kathrine Bigelow's Oscar Winner The Hurt Locker, but unlike the Hurt Locker, only Chastain's CIA Agent Maya shined while being surrounded by an all star cast in supporting roles. It's a movie that produces a great atmosphere and informs, but fall just short of truly being great.

MacFarlane's charm moved
from little to big screen.

Ted - Seth MacFarlane's first entry into live action scored at the box offices in a big way. Mark Wahlberg and Milas Kunis' relationship is constantly strained by a talking stuffed teddy bear named...Ted, of course. Eventually, Ted gets a job and a girlfriend, but still hasn't grown up. In a movie that walks, crosses and forgets about the line, MacFarlane translates his Family Guy sense of humor to the big screen and likely causes many audience members to seek medical attention from laughing too much. From the heart-warming opening to the Thunder-Buddies song, from the interactions with his boss to the flirting with Tammy Lynn, Ted fired on all cylinders and was the best comedy of the year.

Zemekis returns to direct
an Oscar Worthy film.

Flight - In the grittiest film by famed director Robert Zemeckis, Denzel Washington plays an alcoholic drug addicted pilot that made a miraculous landing that saved the lives of most people on his plane. However, he did it all drunk and high on drugs. As he's getting investigated, he befriends a woman battling her own demons. As she works to recover, he falls deeper into his addiction. Though it appears he'll get out of his criminal trial with no complications, but he faces his problems head on as he reaches his lowest point. It's Washington's finest performance in years and an Oscar worthy one at that with great competition later on this list.

Wreck-It Ralph is a feel
good tearjerker.

Wreck-It Ralph - It's a Video Game answer to Toy Story. John C. Reilly voices the villain in an arcade game, who doesn't particularly like being a villain. Just for once he'd like to be like Fix-It Felix Jr (the hero of his game). After one of his meetings with the bad guy support group, Ralph decides to go game-jumping. After getting a medal in Hero's Duty, he lands in the racing game Sugar Rush where he helps a glitchy young girl named Vanellope enter and win a race that makes her part of the program. All the voice acting was top notch, by Reilly, Jane Lynch, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer and Alan Tudyk, and a heartwarming story Wreck-It Ralph will likely win the Oscar for Best Animated Film and perhaps find it's way to the Best Picture Nominations. 

The Avengers succeeded where all other
comic book movies failed this year.

The Avengers - There weren't as many comic book movies this year, but The Avengers assembled the best one by far. While The Dark Knight Rises tried too hard to be brilliant, Joss Whedon's simple approach to the Marvel franchise worked best. With a thin plot, but strong focus on the characters and their interactions, Marvel produced an exciting well paced film that was the fruit of the last four years. Beginning with 2008's Iron Man and concluding with 2012's Captain America, Marvel blended together three franchises and created a fourth that was the second most lucrative film of the year. Sure, it was more fun than quality, but what a ride. Watch The Avengers again and then...go get shawarma.

Django Unchained - I am not a Quintin Tarantino Fan, but Django was an excellent reprisal of the Spaghetti Western genre. There's plenty to stomach with racism of the day, mixed with a little bit of Tarantino dialogue that flows like water. All the performances were spot on with Christoph Waltz winning Best Supporting Actor, but Leonardo DiCaprio's wicked plantation owner and Samuel L. Jackson's servant all made Jamie Foxx's title character better, but overshadowed him. Tarantino's direction was perfect and one could have seen him directing an old Clint Eastwood Western.

Silver Linings Playbook - An unorthodox romantic comedy played extraordinarily well by Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper. In a story about a man who is a psychotically unbalanced and thrown into an emotional rollercoaster when he catches his wife cheating on him. He meets a woman who's husband dies and she went on an emotional journey as well. Cooper is dead on, but is overshadowed by Lawrence as she took home the Oscar.
  

Find a bad aspect of
this recent Speilbergian
masterpiece.

Lincoln - In one of the era's American history that's rarely mentioned, Daniel Day-Lewis portrays America's most loved President so well that you constantly forget he's English. Steven Speilberg directs his best film in years, one devoid of action except the first couple minutes, but there's plenty of action as Lincoln fights to pass the 13th Amendment and end slavery for good. Day-Lewis was exceptional as Lincoln as his all star cast didn't have a flaw. Sally Field's portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln was a perfect counter to Day-Lewis' well rounded Lincoln. David Strathairn and Tommy Lee Jones give unbelievably strong supporting performances that are all on top of the great work the smaller supporting actors from Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Jackie Earle Haley to James Spader to Jared Harris. Speilberg's direction shows that he's still at the top of his game even when a film isn't some CGI fantasy with flashy action. All said, you'll watch this movie and leave thinking about Lincoln and his life.  

Argo made you laugh
and sweat.

Argo - After the American Embassy was captured in 1979, six people were able to escape to the Canadian Embassy. In a declassified CIA project, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) posed as a Canadian Film Crew on a location scouting mission in an effort to get the almost hostages out of Iran. In the third film directed by Affleck, he creates a light-hearted, heart-pounding, nerve-testing movie that makes you wonder if they got out as you sweat with the escaping Americans. The first half of the film will make you laugh, but the second half of the film will make you grip your arm rests. Top notch acting by the cast that featured John Goodman, Bryan Cranston and Alan Arkin, Argo will grip you in and make you say, "Argo fuck yourself," laughing as you walk out of the theater.

Movie of the Year:

Looper - Who are you now vs. Who will you become. What are you willing to sacrifice vs. What have you earned? Those are some of the dilemmas that face a hitman named Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in Looper. A Looper is a hitman that is given a time and coordinates where he has to shoot a mark from the future. Of course, sooner-or-later the mob will send the older version of yourself back in time to "close the loop". One day, Joe goes to a hit and there's a momentary delay with a change, his target didn't have a hood. As the two men look at each other, Joe sees that it's his older self. Before he can react, the Old Joe (Bruce Willis) escapes. Though they are the same person, it's clear that each version of the same character, it's also clear that they are very different. One focuses on the now and one on the future. At the same time, Joe meets a young mother who lives in fear of her telekinetic son. As the three are set on a collision course, Joe starts to find something to believe in as his older self tries to regain his future. The performance of Joseph Gordon-Levitt is flawless as he creates a character while perfectly mimics the mannerisms of Willis. Willis' performance is his strongest since Unbreakable (even over Lucky Number Slevin and 16 Blocks) while Emily Blunt is cast against type and shows her range. Jeff Daniels and Joel Segan nearly steal the film, but make no mistake, this film is Joseph Gordon-Levitt's film. Writer/director Rian Johnson blends together both stories while embracing the paradoxes of time travel. He uses a Christopher Nolan style that suits the film's tone perfectly. Looper is truly a complete film. It has the action and squeamish moments you'd expect in a film like this while getting direction and acting at the top of their games. Unlike Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus, the more you analyze this film, the better it gets. Go ahead and pop it in and see what you become.

Worst Films of 2012

Omitted from the list since I couldn't have a film that would make me cut my eyes out

2012 has seen a lot of good films, but not a lot of GREAT ones. There has been some bad movies, but there were some BAAAAAAAAAAAD films this year. Sometimes a bad film has a chance and then an overzealous actor, screenwriter, producer or director gets in the way and the film goes further off track and buries itself in cliche's and plot twists that make no sense. You'd think some films that could have easily made this list like Snow White and the Huntsman or Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, but they were somewhat watchable. Twilight Breaking Dawn is excluded as it would have seared my retinas as Taylor Lautner attempts to act. Here's a short list of all of those films that wasted hours of moviegoers time:

Battleship was formulaic and that
didn't translate to box office success.

Battleship - Honestly, this had a spot reserved on this list since it's first trailer and that it was based off Hasbro's board game. Peter Berg tried to keep it away from being a generic story, but it was EXACTLY what you'd expect. Aliens come to take over the world and say nothing. The main protagonist is a headstrong semi-racist perfect athlete that's being kicked out of the Navy for fighting even though he's a high ranking officer and his hot girlfriend is the daughter of the Admiral who doesn't like him. There aren't really bad performances or directing, but let's face it, IT WAS BASED OFF A BOARD GAME and that's how you felt- BORED. Clue pulled it off. This didn't. At one point audiences watched them play Battleship. Fun to play, but every watch someone play it? It's boring. Another egregious error in the film (and several other films and commercials) is that it concludes with CCR's "Fortunate Son". I know people want to think, "Some folk are born made to wave the flag..." is a patriotic song, but the dead give away it's not is the chorus repeats "It's ain't me." It's also showed that Rihanna should stick to singing.

The prophecies didn't warn
us of a bad sequel.

Wraith of the Titans - Quickly churning out a sequel to the awful remake of the 1980's Harry Hamlin film, Wrath of the Titans welcomed back Sam Worthington to a role that was just forgettable the first time around. This time the gods kidnap Zeus and are attempting to wake Kronos, the father of the gods Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. The motives for some of the characters were off and it was just a way to quickly get a sequel out. Perseus meets up with Andromeda they fall in love (one movie later than they were supposed to) and the princess ventures out like none during the actual era, but GIRL POWER has their way and the film continues to just put greek myths together like they were spun from a speak and spell.

Abraham Lincoln Vampire
Hunter was so predictable,
you could have watched it
without sound.

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter - There were two Abraham Lincoln movies this year. One was great, insightful with compelling performances and outstanding direction that brought to life the world of the 1860's. The other was this one. If there was a movie that could be original and yet decided to be COMPLETELY GENERIC, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter was just that. In fact, you could turnoff the volume for this movie and still get the plot points. In a blog post I wrote while somewhat drunk, I feared it would get the "generic revenge story treatment." Well, it did. Young Abraham watches his mother bit by a vampire (who sees him and doesn't kill him) and Abe swears revenge against a certain vampire, but discovers that Vampires as a whole are the problem. So he kills plenty with an ax that is covered in silver (that he forgets about later in the film) and runs for office as a backup plan. He wins the presidency and vampires strike back by killing his son. Of course, this angers his wife as she screams out, "You did this! You brought this upon us!" Then it concludes with a long action sequence that is as pointless and over-the-top twist that would be completely impossible. It never got you immersed into the story the way the book managed to, but at least it got Rufus Sewell work.

What is real? A bad movie

Total Recall - If you remake a movie, it's subject to criticism to be compared to it's predecessor. Total Recall may have had a shot at being a decent film if it wasn't named Total Recall. Some remakes are made to get closer to the source material. Total Recall decided to get FURTHER from the Philip K. Dick story "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale", and never travel to Mars. Instead the world is two cities that remain in England and Australia, which is where Doug Quaid lives, dreaming of another life every night. His emptiness, which the audience is supposed to feel in 5 minutes, leads him to Rekall -the memory implant people. In this remake, Rekall is made to be mysterious and makes you wonder why anyone would go there. Or why Douglas Quaid wants to be a secret agent over anything else? Or why there was a three-boobed prostitute outside when no one else was mutated, but we'll chalk that up to an homage to the original. Anyway, the movie quickly changes to chase mode and the plot gets less coherent. After going through a long chase sequence, director Len Wiseman reprised the scene that makes you question the reality of the story. After having his wife chase him, Quaid now sees her crying as a friend is telling him, "It's all a dream." Where the original pulled you in, this drove you away. It never captures the original's charm or even creates a compelling story of it's own. Sadly, it doesn't even match the quality of Arnold Schwarzenagger's ACTING and it's villain (Kate Beckensale) never really scares you (unless it's trying to figure out why she's attacking the man that she pretended to be his wife). It reeks of laziness and feels like it's made solely to build up to the line, "I know who I am." Furthermore, it's obvious that this film was made to make the trailer look cool, not considering the other 90 minutes needed to make a good movie. But at least there were hovercars! That's enough, right?

WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR:

This movie was one big cliche' and but
at least there was a character that didn't
exist in the source material.

Resident Evil Retribution - Sounding too much like a broken record, but Resident Evil Retribution used more cliches and more pointless story lines than any other movie this year. Taking place in a secret Umbrella Corporation simulation facility where former S.T.A.R.S. agent Jill Valentine leads the Umbrella army against Alice. Also Albert Wesker (Resident Evil Afterlife's villain) is now Alice's ally with no apparent reason for the switch. This time Alice sees her life if she was a regular person who had a daughter during the Zombie Apocalypse. Unlike The Walking Dead, this facility was able to simulate what it would be like if the T-virus was unleashed in different cities of the world...but still couldn't come up with one decent action scene. Once again, a Licker is the scary monster of the movie and characters from the original are brought back to see if anyone gave a shit. Anyway, there is nothing at stake since it's all a simulation, but at least there's a little child for Alice to gravitate to so people are reminded of Aliens... and how that was a much BETTER film. It also brought back protagonists from the previous crappy films to... die? Well, just one of them. Barry- the turncoat from the original RE game- was introduced just to die. The film culminates with another fight scene against another human... not a monster in a factory full of them. The action is just way hack director Paul W.S. Anderson likes to make; plenty of ramping and changing speeds, with close-ups and quick shots that never get you into the action unless your the DJ that he asked to make the music. However, Resident Evil Retribution doesn't finish it's crap story, but leaves it open for one more sequel (I hope) for the fate of the world...which there is nothing left, so what's the harm.

Don't know how much worse these films could have been, but feel free to leave a comment below.