Review of Skyfall; Everything old is new again.

Anyone still out there?...Good.

Now, I know that I haven't done this in over a month, despite the likes of Argo or Silent Hill 2 or whatever that I could have been reviewing, buuuut life gets in the way sometimes and hey, that Community isn't going to rewatch itself. To be quite honest, my demotivation occurred when I realized that half way through the draft of my Looper review, the damn film wasn't even in theatres anymore...and it was only three weeks after its wide release. Same goes with Seven Psychopaths. Long story short, these were good-to-great movies with an unjustifiably short shelf life whilst Pitch Perfect is still going after two months. Life sucks.

But winter is coming, friends. And with that comes the holiday sprint with a healthy mix of Oscar bait and holiday blockbusters. With that in mind, I thought I'd make my triumphant return to what my lovely Mandi calls the bloggity-blog with what is probably the biggest deal of a movie this season that has nothing to do with vampires and/or werewolves. Skyfall is the latest in the now 50 year tradition in film known as the 007 franchise, and the third film to star Daniel Craig as James Bond. As a prologue, I'll say that the film was pretty good, but I wouldn't be writing about it if I didn't have some problems with it.

I'll start off by saying that Casino Royale, the first Bond film with Craig taking point, was awesome to the point of being my favourite Bond movie (haters gonna hate). It did away with a lot of the cliches that the previous 25ish films had created and then beat to death, such as the transforming car, the laser in a watch, ability to dodge sexual harrassment laws, etc. It was established that Royale would be the origin story of (this version of) Bond, and thus a clean slate to have a grittier, more realistic feel to a tired franchise. Basically, they pulled a "Batman Begins" on Bond, and it worked.

Then Quantum of Solace happened, and it was less good. You know how they split up the last Harry Potter movie into two because a single movie would either be laughably long or make no sense (see also: money)? That's what I feel happened with Royale and Quantum. One was just an extended ending to the previous film that didn't really improve or change anything at all, resulting in one of the worst forms of sequel to exist for me: the unnecessary continuation of a concluded story. Casino Royale had an ending, and the only reason it wasn't better is because Quantum had to happen. If they just tacked on the ending to the Vesper Lynd storyarch from Quantum onto Royale and did something different for the second Craig film, I probably would have liked all three much better. But alas, here we stand. The point of going back to the first two Craig films is that there is a consistency between the two, a connection of characters and story across two films that establishes a context and, if I may suggest, an expectation for more of the same. Apparently when creating Skyfall, the powers-that-be looked at this existing context, went 'meh', and tossed it by the wayside, along with damn near everything else good that this fresh new series had accomplished.

OK, so if Casino Royale is Bond's 'Batman Begins', Skyfall would be like 'The Dark Knight Rises', if directed by Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher but nowhere near as badly executed. Royale made a successful effort to get away from all of the typical Bond tropes and create something new, and what did Skyfall do? IT BROUGHT EVERY DAMN THING BACK! We have the tricked out Aston Martin, the dangerous animal-filled pit trap scene, the inconsequential female roles, and the appearance of recognizable side characters that hadn't even been referenced in the past two films. Basically, it's as if they forgot that Royale and Quantum ever happened, and Skyfall is just the follow up to Die Another Day. Now, I would actually be all right with this happening, because there is the argument that Royale and Quantum were a lead up to Craig becoming the Bond we know and love. However, there are some inconsistencies there as well, such as how much time passed between Quantum and Skyfall? TDKR had the common courtesy to state that the events of TDK happened 8 years prior and no one has seen Batman since. Skyfall didn't mention it at all. For all I know, Bond woke up the day after the events of Quantum and went 'Welp, that was fun, but now it's time to go Connery' and started trying out new accents in the mirror. It's not hard, just throw in a subtle remark about how a couple years ago Bond lost his shit over a girl and now he's better, or go the less subtle 'FOUR YEARS LATER' text at the start of the movie. There, I fixed Skyfall! (No...No, I didn't.)

Here's the thing that drives me up-the-wall crazy about this film: it's not that it became a throwback to the olden days of Bond. I can make peace and even appreciate that. I would have laughed my ass off if Adam West appeared in TDKR to offer up some Bat-Shark Repellant to Lucius Fox or whoever. The problem lies in the fact that they didn't take the references seriously. It was like the pretentious hipster snicker of homages. Case in point: we have Q, the actual literal tech supplier to Bond who spent the last 50 years of movies actually making all the ridiculous crap, being all hipster-like and 'we don't do exploding pens any more LOL'. Go fuck yourself, dick! Don't pretend you're too good for the gimmicky shit that your department came up with for-fucking-ever. And if you are going to make tongue-in-cheek references to the old guard like that, go full out and DON'T HAVE THAT SHIT IN THE MOVIE! When Q made that exploding pen jab I was like, 'OK, I get why they put that in. It got a chuckle, but the point was made in the last two Bond movies.' Give people some more credit. We know the silly gadgets aren't part of this series, or else we would have fucking seen them already. No need to be all 'HAHA Bond was silly and now it's cool' like we can't understand the subtlety of just leaving things out because Q don't play that way anymore. I guess the time for subtlety was before Scary Movie (thanks, Community. You teach me so much.)

So yeah, we brought back a lot of the tropes with this movie whilst poking fun at those exact tropes and cliche-ing up what had the potential to be a badass follow up to a badass movie and its lackluster sequel, making it one of the most hypocritical sequels of all time. That sucks, and I may never really enjoy this movie as much as I should, or other people do. But all is not lost, as there were some pretty awesome aspects of the film that even make it superior to its predecessors. In fact, if you can forget that Royale and Quantum happened, this is one of the best Bond movies ever. The plot alone is pretty spectacular. Without giving too much away, Bond goes after a guy who has taken something from MI6 (naturally), but gets caught by friendly fire and is presumed dead. MI6 suffers several attacks and upon hearing about this, Bond leaps back into action. In many ways, this is the TDKR for Bond in that he's a broken man out of shape and practice and a good portion of the film is him preparing to get back on the horse in order to face a villain he knows nothing about and is not prepared for. The difference being, Bond is Bond the whole movie and we're not left with the 'Batman was barely in that movie' feeling we had after TDKR. We can also thank American Beauty director Sam Mendes for making this film the most artsy Bond movie ever. It was very pretty, maybe too pretty for its own good, going back to the whole pretentious hipster vibe I got from the whole thing.

What really sold this for me were the people in it. Craig as Bond is the biggest D&D Fighter version of Bond ever. Not particularly intelligent, as subtle as a jackhammer and can't bed a woman without forcing them into a corner, but he's tough as nails and will 100% beat the everloving shit out of you. Previous Bonds had much more charm than Craig, weren't as brash or attention-grabbing, but would absolutely get their asses handed to them by Craig, no questions asked. Considering how he's been portrayed in the three films he's been Bond, Craig's awesome. Javier Bardem as the film's villain, Silva, is the 'Heath Ledger as the Joker' of Bond movies. He was perfect, as unsettling and creepifying to Bond as he was to the audience. In comparison to the meh villains in Royale and Quantum, Bardem stands out as maybe one of the best Bond villains ever.

As for the females, well, their importance was lessened in this film in comparison to the previous two Craig films. We have Naomie Harris as Eve, whose major contributions to the film were: shooting and almost killing Bond, shaving Bond, and a throwback reference to the Bond series at the end of the movie. Thanks for coming out. Judi Dench and Voldemort as authority figures within MI6 were awesome side characters. Ben Whishaw as Q did the computer guy bit pretty well, but as I said earlier contributed a lot to the hipster element, so it's a wash.

Like I said, if you can forget Royale and Quantum happened, or have been waiting for Bond to return to "Business As Usual", Skyfall is for you. This is by no means the worst Bond film I've ever seen, and in almost every way is an improvement on Quantum and is on par, if not better, than Royale. But I've made my opinions very clear on the impression this film left with me. It's the hipster kid who's ashamed of its goofy parents. Maybe it's a phase and by 2014 or whatever, it will either go back to being cool and awesome like Royale, or fully embrace its quirks and grow up to be just like the Bonds of old. I don't really care which one it is, as long as it isn't another Die Another Day or worse, a Batman and Robin, in which case we will have to hit all of the Abort Buttons, which are probably hidden in the gear stick of an Aston Martin.

Knight Owl

Review of Resident Evil: Retribution; A thing about Video Game Movies

At this point, I feel like the Zombie Apocalypse needs to happen in order for Hollywood to get any original ideas for films. That, or the harder drugs need to become socially acceptable again. Think about it: the 70's and 80's were when the drug scene was in its heyday, and that's pretty much when we got the best out of genre films. Truly classic stories. Nowadays we have comic book movies, Pocahontas-with-blue-people, and The Hobbit split into three movies. I think the moment I heard that Lord of the Rings was 'The Trilogy' is when I realized that the classic storytelling of movies was dead and gone. The standard for a classic film has lowered. For example, in no way is The Departed Scorsese's best work, but it's what got him the Oscar.

In case you aren't yet aware, this is a rant. The last review I did was about a film, which was a reboot of another film, which was an adaptation of a comic book, who had the exact same plot as a completely separate foreign action film. Even after typing that, I don't think I have enough bread crumbs to get home. My point of the 'originality is dead' intro is that films are, in general, assumed to be based on something else, with maybe the worst example being the Video Game, and the Resident Evil franchise is no exception.

I'll get to the movie in a minute, but first I need to express my feelings about the Video Game film genre in general, to get you all in the same mindset as I am. I really don't like the aspect of a movie based on a video game for several reasons:

1. Video games are way too long to be adapted into a movie. I'm not saying they shouldn't be long, cuz if you're paying 60 bucks or whatever you should be getting your money's worth; but in no way should a game with 90-hours of running time be made into a two-hour movie. Novels, sure. Comics, even better. Their length is based on the descriptions and details given to the reader. Moving pictures lessen that length by a way lot. With games as long as they are, you're bound to leave important bits out, leading me to my next point...
2. You're either doing a reproduction of the game or you're straying from it, and either way people won't be happy with it. The only reason to see a two-hour adaptation of a game is because you're too lazy to play though it's 90-hour long counterpart (that's totally me). Otherwise, what's the point? You know how it ends. And getting back to the length issue: you know they're just going to leave something out and you're left bitching. Or you're left with a Bourne Legacy issue, where it's the recognizable world of the game but has no business using the name as a title because it has nothing to do with the original work. Bourne Legacy drove me nuts because of that. It would be like having a Legend of Zelda game with the main character being that stupid fish princess from Ocarina of Time. That's bound to piss people off.
3. When did the last truly good Video Game movie come out? Furthermore, how many of these films are pure shit? There are some good-ish movies based on games, and I believe that Resident Evil  is one of them. But let's look at some of the others: Street Figher starring Jean Claude Van Fucking Damme as an American soldier (?) was pretty bad, and Legend of Chun Li was straight up the worst movie ever. Mortal Kombat was alright, but Annhilation was fucking terrible. Super Mario Bros. Dead Or Alive. Double Dragon. The entirety of Uwe Boll's directing career. Really the only other medium that might have a worse record of film adaptations is Anime (for examples, see: Dragonball Z Evolution; The Last Airbender).

So my distaste for video game movies aside, I went to see the new Resident Evil movie. I did this because I do think the series is a fun time at the movies. But here we are, at the FIFTH entry in a series based on an adaptation of something else. Do I think this series should have almost as many entries as Star Wars? Nope, but I digress.

The plot of the film is (unsurprisingly) simple: one small group of good guys must meet up with another group of good guys in a bad guy base, and then get out of said base. Also, base is overrun with zombies. It's fun. Like Dredd, I wasn't expecting much out of the story so I was fine with the premise. Also, it led to a decent spread of action scenes. However, the action scenes throughout this series are typically so pants-on-head retarded that every once in a while I have to sigh and say 'Really?' through clenched teeth. One woman can only flip through the air whilst firing dual submachine guns on full auto so many times before gravity takes hold. 

It's nice that the franchise has given up all hope of being horror films, and did so early on. The first film made it seem like they wanted that feel, and botched it up somewhat. So from the second movie on, it was just ridiculous action with zombies. Other than a nice homage to Dawn of the Dead, this film follows suit, and with some pretty cool looking baddies too. We got some giant pyramid-head looking bastards, Nazi zombies, and the ever present staple of the Resident Evil series, the Licker amongst others. For the most part it looked great, but every once in a while zombies would have this facehugger tentacle crap come out of their mouths that really didn't look right (in every sense). It looked silly, like the vampires in Blade 2 with the faces that open up but worse and obviously CGI. Kinda took away from any high-tension situation they were in. 

Milla Jovovich did her thing once again as this generation's poor man's Ripley, with the shooting of the guns and the flipping and the wire fighting. I just wish (and I know this is really shallow) that she was more attractive. I had no problem watching Kate Beckinsale do her thing in the Underworld movies, but it bugs me in the RE films. The problem with these movies is that the characters are highly disposable, in that they tend to not make it to the next film, so other than Milla's Alice character you don't want to get too attached. Again, this film follows suit. The only other notable appearance is made by Michelle Rodriguez who (spoilers!..no, just kidding) plays the same character she plays in every other movie she's in: semi-hot chick with a 'tude that can kick some ass. Nice to know she's well rounded.

If you've seen the other films in the franchise, see this one, it follows the patterns pretty nicely and sets up for another entry, again looking like more of the same. I'm sure I'll see that one too. It seems as though the RE series fits into that 'Bourne Legacy' category I talked about earlier, where the setting of the game is used, with some characters from the game thrown in for players to remember where they are, but the similarities seem to end there. From what I understand, as I have never played a Resident Evil game, it's all puzzles, jump scares, and running out of ammo. Sounds like The Walking Dead  a boring time to me. I'll stick with the girls who kick high and the guns that NEVER run out of ammo.

Knight Owl

Review of Dredd; Great Expectations

So, yeah, it's been another while since I last posted my wisdom, mostly because I just haven't had a whole lot to say about the films that have come out recently. We reached the end of the Summer Blockbuster season, and with that comes the presumed end to the big release movies that the average person gives a rat's crap about. That doesn't mean I stopped watching, mind you...just had less to say about movies that most people wouldn't pay the $10 or more to see. So, for the sake of either taking or sparking interest, here's a quick summary of what I've seen over the last few weeks:

The Bourne Legacy: An unnecessary and COMPLETELY UNRELATED sequel to an irrelevant series. Jeremy Renner did his thing, and that was cool, but only as cool as two action scenes in a two-hour long movie can be. If you were happy with the original series, stay happy. Don't see this.

The Expendables 2: Of course this movie was a good-to-great time. Fixed all the problems of the first one, and also: Arnold with a large firearm. I was sold.

Lawless: Shia The Beef's involvement in this threw me at first, but considering the role he was playing, it fit SO WELL. This was a well put together gangster flick reminiscent of Boardwalk Empire, only featuring Tom Hardy as a tremendous badass. Is there any other version of Tom Hardy?

Paranorman: An effective combination of Shaun of the Dead and Coraline, making for an entertaining, if not extraordinarily dark kid's movie. Went to see it on Mandi's birthday and she enjoyed it. That's all that counts.

So now we are well into the Fall season, where the scrubs of the film world live. This is where either the would-be blockbusters were shuffled off to avoid coming up against The Dark Knight Rises or The Avengers, or the start of the Oscar Bait that will be released from now until Christmas. There won't be a successful movie box-office wise until The Hobbit comes out, which is cool for me. That means less busy theatres and more bad movies to berate/praise. We begin this season with Dredd.

Dredd is based on the main character of a British comic book series entitled 2000 A.D. In the comics, Judge Dredd is a top 'Judge', basically a cop, in a futuristic post-apocalyptic setting where the majority of the land on Earth is dead and the population resides in extremely large Mega-Cities. This synopsis carries into the film very well but misses the entire point of the comic. 2000 A.D. originated as a political satire and critique on the powers of government, with Dredd existing not just as a character, but as a personification of the militant arm of government control. The character was obedient, strict, and above all, ultraviolent in his means of carrying out 'sentencing'. His demeanor, the violence that ensues, even his attire all allude to Dredd being a very British tongue-in-cheek criticism of the stereotypical American action hero that western pop culture has embraced with open arms for decades prior to the comic's release. In general, the book speaks on the dangers of totalitarian control of a state by its government, and the lengths they are willing to go to maintain order as well as that control.

Needless to say, this was not in any way conveyed in Dredd the film. This film is as basic a sci-fi action flick as you can get, with not a lot of message thrown in other than 'drugs are bad' and 'getting shot a bunch is also bad'. There are lots of mediums in pop culture that can deliver messages such as the ones that 2000 A.D. was founded on, and I believe that it is an invaluable service done by the creators to put forth these principles, but sometimes you just want a straight-up action flick, no twists, no lessons. George Orwell can't write every book, and not every superhero flick can be Watchmen.

That being said, there's not following through with the original work's message, and THEN there's spitting in the face of it entirely. Enter the first film based on the comics, 1995's Judge Dredd. Remember that thing two seconds ago about Dredd representing the American action hero in a satirical light? Well, what better way to completely dismiss that notion than to have the character played by AN ACTUAL AMERICAN ACTION HERO. And not just any, but Sly Stallone, one of the most recognizable action stars in the last forever. And that's not all, folks. As trivial as it sounds, the fact that the film went against the comic further by having Dredd without his helmet through the majority of the movie was a big fuck-off deal. Dredd's face has never been seen in the comics. Ever. This lends to the idea that Dredd was less of a human character, and more of a personification of an idea or concept. But instead, we got Stallone, and we can't have Stallone without showing off his oh-so-pretty face. Ever see the Punisher movie with Dolph Lundgren with the complete lack of a skull shirt? It's like that but worse. From there, it pretty much turns from a comic book movie to a Stallone movie in the future. Cheezy one-liners, hapless sidekick in the form of punchable Rob Schneider, and just a clusterfuck of a plot. It's a gem, and you should watch it. Don't worry, I'll wait.

So Dredd came out last month, as one of the first genre movies to jump all over the 'nothing good's coming out this month' release schedule. As a whole, the film was, eh, alright. The plot wasn't exactly hard to follow. Let's go further than that, and say it was a complete ripoff of another action flick. I'm pretty sure the procedure used by the screenwriters of Dredd were as follows:

1. Copy script and storyboards from The Raid: Redemption.
2. Cut number of protaganists down to two; put goofy helmet on one.
3. ???
4. Profit.

The pretentious asshole in me really wants to despise this movie for this one reason, and if it were any other genre I probably would. But let's face it: action movie plots have been reduced, reused, and recycled to the point that I'm pretty sure screenwriters have a special blue box for action scripts that they just bring to the side of the road every week for Michael Bay or whoever to pick up and start pre-production, but with ROBOTS. I can't hate on Dredd for applying a simple plot that works to a futuristic action movie, mainly because if you try too hard to stuff too much in, you might as well re-release 1995's Judge Dredd in 3D. 

The film looked great, as most sci-fi romps do nowadays. The setting expressed the world as a downtrodden place where technology didn't advance too much, but in many ways is superior to modern day. The grittiness of the environment suggested an almost film-noir feel a la Blade Runner or Total Recall. The big problem here is that it was barely used. While I don't want to spoil a whole lot, I'll say that the entirety of the film's story takes place in one building. One building in a city that is said to spread across the literal entirety of the United States. There is a great deal of potential wasted in the setting of the film, and that is a disappointment. There are also references made to the presence of a mutant sub-class of citizen throughout the film, but there is minimal exposure to that aspect as well. Really the only thing keeping this film from being set in present day are the existence of the Judges. Their organizational structure, powers, and equipment do not and could not exist in today's world, as they do reflect that degree of totalitarian control the comics reference and criticize. And that's great, but spend some time talking about that control. A post-viewing discussion amongst friends suggested that the best way for this setting and the characters in it to be presented is through a television show, given the time to develop all of the things that make this world special. And how awesome would CSI: Mega-City One be? With Dredd putting on his helmet as The Who starts up? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!

The acting in Dredd wasn't terrible, but there was a weakness present throughout the film that I couldn't get past. Simply put, I didn't care about anyone in this movie. At no point did I think, 'hey, I really hope he makes it to the end of this' or 'God, I hope that bitch dies hard'. I feel some sort of emotional response like that is necessary in a movie with a simplistic plot. You may not have that emotional reaction in Inception, but that's because you're trying to figure out what the hell is going on. You're too busy to give a fuck about Leo or kid-from-3rd-Rock. But if you're all 'I wonder what happens next' in your most sarcastic tone, at the very least you need to be invested in the trials the characters you're watching are being put through. Karl Urban as Dredd was a vast improvement on Stallone, mostly because he looked the part, scowling and monotone throughout the endeavour, and didn't take his helmet off once. Yay for small victories. I initially was driven to compare Dredd's character to Robocop or the Terminator in his appearance and relatability, getting back to the whole not giving a shit about the character but I was very wrong about that. Either one of those characters is WAY more relateable and likeable than Dredd. I thought about it again and realized that, like the character in the comics, Dredd reflected more the essence of this generation's action hero. The best example I can give is The Expendables. At no time throughout either movie did I really invest in anyone's well being. Not a tear would be shed if Statham or whoever took a bullet during those movies, I would just be surprised that he didn't make it to the end. Same goes for Dredd. It's his damn movie, he's probably going to see the whole thing through. I guess the most relatable character was Anderson, Dredd's newbie parter. I was VERY thankful at the lack of comic relief this character had assigned to her, again as opposed to the 1995 film. The downside here is that she is the only character with ANY depth to her, which feels like the audience has no option but to connect with her, which I didn't. The biggest disappointment for me was Lena Headey as Ma-Ma, the big bad of the film, just because I know she can do better. This is Cersei Lannister we're talking about (shame on you if you don't know who that is). The best bitchface in the world and here she is, doing her best Gus Frain impression (Breaking Bad reference!), deadpanning the entire role when she should be all-out crazy. She should be the best bad guy in everything, but she's mediocre in this.

Speaking of mediocre, that's all in all what this film was. But really, it depends on one's expectations on the film you're walking into, and that goes for every film. It's what almost ruined Dark Knight Rises for me, and that's a damn shame. You really can't go into this movie expecting a true retelling of the original content, or a groundbreakingly innovative genre-redefining film. I went into this movie expecting an ultraviolent shoot-em-up with a 'barely there' plot that was better than a film that came out 17 years prior. I got what I was looking for, for the most part. Just pay attention to when the movie comes out. If it comes out in the fall, and it's not a horror flick, odds are it's not gonna be on par with the awesomesauce that the summer prior had served up. Really, right now the best you can do is go pick up The Avengers on DVD and relive the magic.

Knight Owl

1990 vs 2012: The Battle of the Totals Recall

Remakes are a part of life nowadays.

You can truly see how bereft Hollywood is of original ideas. Barely a week has gone by in the last couple of years without a sequel, adaptation, or remake gracing the screen that Friday. It's getting to the point that the Best Original Screenplay award at the Academy Awards is almost null and void. They might as well just give it to Tarantino, regardless of whether or not he even releases a film that year.

I'm not saying that remakes are all in all a bad thing. We've got great films out of the Remake genre (can't believe it's a goddam genre now...). Scorsese's The Departed was a remake of a foreign film; Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead remains one of my favorite zombie flicks; and The Amazing Spider-Man is, in my opinion, better in almost every way to its predecessor. Hell, Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name Trilogy was based on the films of Akira Kurosawa. But that doesn't mean that remakes are going to be a success by default, and neither does the love of the original work. There are some films that just should not be fucked with. The Evil Dead remake, in my opinion, should be damned to developmental hell for eternity.

Many remakes are doomed to fail. Die-hard fans believe that remakes of original films which still hold up today (but are being remade or altered because science!) are for no good reason, and may actually harm the film's original integrity. Go ahead and tell a die-hard Star Wars fanboy that the remastered, CGI-infested, holy-shit-the-sarlacc-has-a-fucking-beak trilogy is better than the original cut. I dare you.

And now, we have Total Recall.

This particular entry isn't a review of sorts, but more a comparison between the shiny new remake released this year and the 1990 original. I'll be forthcoming with any bias I may have towards either, to make it fair. I'll go over the major differing points of both films, and designate which one I feel is the superior of the two. In the end, you can decide for yourself if the new film is worth your time.

1. THE LEADING MAN

1990: Remember what I said about bias? This is what I was talking about, pretty much. Arnold is the fucking MAN in this movie. The late 80's/early 90's were Arnie's prime in film, and this is (or should be) regarded as one of his greatest performances, plastic faces et al. He passes as the 'normal working man' despite being Arnold-fucking-Schwarzenegger, and goes all-out Arnie in the action sequences. Considering he's not exactly considered the Marlon Brando of his time, he did pretty well for having to play several distinct roles in one film. But what make this movie great for me are the one-liners that only Arnold can deliver. If you haven't seen this movie, watch it for the comedic gold alone. 

2012: I've always been a fan of Colin Farrell. He made Daredevil watchable. He was a comedic genius in In Bruges and Horrible Bosses. He was a convincing enough action guy in SWAT. There were times in this film that I appreciated him there over an Arnold-type due to believing that he really could be just a normal guy, and that fit a lot of the film due to how the story plays out differently from the original. There are just two problems I have with this casting: 1) His 'normal guy' look plays the exact opposite to Arnold's, in that it's very hard to believe that he is who he thinks he is, which leads to a certain suspension of disbelief in the film (I know it's a sci-fi flick and suspension of disbelief is pretty mandatory, but bear with me); and 2) As much as I like him, Farrell isn't a very likeable guy. He is cast in a lot of roles as a goddam prick, and he does it well. Minority Report, Daredevil, Phone Booth, Horrible Bosses, Fright Night, and you know...real life, he's unlikeable, and that makes it hard for the audience to get invested. I could see a lot of people watching this movie without getting in the main character's ordeal whatsoever, and that leads to a boring-as-hell moviegoing experience. It's pretty much how I feel when I watch Mad Men most of the time.

Winner: 1990

2. THE LADIES

1990: Speaking of unlikeable, both major female roles in this film, protagonist and antagonist, come off as MAJOR bitches throughout the whole movie. Sharon Stone started off the film hateable, and that was before she started trying to kill Arnold (although maybe that's just my baggage from watching Catwoman. "I've put on so much make-up that I'm nigh-invulnerable!" ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!). Then we go to Rachel Ticotin, Hauser's old partner/hooker. Also unlikeable, also antagonistic towards Arnold while supposedly helping him. The only thing about her that I appreciated was that she held her own in the fights she participated in, but other than that she served little purpose. 

2012: It's hard to argue with Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel in the same movie in terms of attractiveness. Both women did decent enough jobs at what they were there to do. Kate in particular stood out as not only being hotter, but being WAY better than Stone at the same role. In the beginning, it really seemed as though she cared for Quaid and was his wife, leading to true speculation later on in events of the film. And when she was bad, holy shit was she good at it. She was badass all over the place in this. Biel played the supportive partner of Hauser better than the original as well, in that I didn't want to punch her every time she was on screen. She maintained the character's usefulness but seems more critical. Poor Colin would have spent the movie walking around with a confuzzled look about him, going 'Uh, what?' if not for her being there. Also, again, way hotter.

Winner: 2012

3. THE ANTAGONISTS

1990: Ronny Cox must be a bastard in real life because he's so good paying one on the big screen. His performance here as Cohaagen was reminiscent, if not the same damn thing, as his performance as OCP big-bad in Robocop. He's probably a standard-bearer for the 'evil corporate douchebag' role and he shines here, making no bones about his business being of the Chaotic Evil variety. It also helps that his second-in-command is a badass bad-guy extrordinaire Michael Ironside. The second you hear this guy's voice, you know he is not a man with whom to fuck. His voice could probably kick my ass. Watch the Justice League cartoon and listen to Darkseid talk: you know business is serious. He was the bad guy in Free Willy, for fuck's sake. That says something.

2012: This is a tough call for one reason: Walter fucking White. Bryan Cranston is awesome no matter what he's doing, and he follows suit here as Cohaagen 2.0. The main difference here is that he's not so much an outright 'evil corporate douchebag' as he is a political figurehead with some problems to solve, which he plans to do in a not-so-moral kind of way. I find him more realistic and even sympathetic here, and that doesn't necessarily fit the bill for the film. However, the robot cops that work for him are awesome onscreen. I was afraid that this was going to turn into a CGI-fest, but these guys looked great and gave the film an old-school action movie feel.

Winner: 1990


4. THE DIRECTOR

1990: Paul Verhoeven has made some of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time; namely Robocop, Starship Troopers, and the film in question, Total Recall. This guy was way ahead of his time. Robocop in particular looked way better than it had any right to. He also throws in a lot of satire through media presentations in his films, clearly stating he has a bit of a problem with Big Corporate. In my opinion, he did just as good a job with Recall as Ridley Scott did with another Phillip K. Dick adaptation, Blade Runner. Recall wasn't just an sci-fi action flick: it was a pychological thriller that I believe films like Memento and Fight Club have taken notes from. 

2012: I'm not sure why Len Wiseman was chosen to helm the Recall remake given his lack of experience in the sci-fi realm, but he didn't do a half bad job. I'm a fan of his Underworld movies, Kate Beckinsale in tight leather notwithstanding. His direction of Live Free or Die Hard was very meh, but fun in the extremely ridiculous 'John-McClane-fights-a-plane' kind of way. However, this movie really steers from the thriller aspects of Verhoeven's work and goes straight to a shoot-em-up with robots, making it a fun but much more mindless derpy movie. 

Winner: 1990


5. THE LOOK

1990: This movie probably could have looked better. The cyberpunk, rundown, dirty streets of the future were well established, but not as well as the similarly set Blade Runner (which had come out 8 years prior). The vehicles in particular stood out as being clearly unstable and rickety, and not in the rundown, gritty way that Blade Runner made vehicles appear. The mutants are another good example of how aged the film is. The mutated humans of Mars were obviously weighed down in prosthetics and almost took away from the concept. And OH GOD those rubber faces...I laughed so hard...

2012: This was probably the driving force behind remaking this movie at all. It looked fucking great. The vehicles, buildings, and overall atmosphere really did impress upon the audience that, while it was obviously a technologically advanced future world, it was a rundown, damaged, and struggling world. It reminded me of a great mix of The Fifth Element and Minority Report (yet another Phillip K Dick adaptation). And again, the robot police force looked amazing in action as the big threat to the main characters. They moved and interacted with the people onscreen as if they were real, adding to the tension and struggle the characters were going through. 

Winner: 2012


6. THE STORY

1990: Total Recall is one of the great sci-fi mindfuck movies with, not one, but several twists to the plot that were well executed one after the other. This is helped with Arnie looking and behaving both confused and pissed the fuck off throughout the entire film. The emphasis of Phillip K Dick's work regarding the impact and influence of fucking up your mind is all over the place, making it more of the thriller than just the action flick we like to associate Arnie with. I feel that this film is a very well executed thriller as well as a quintessential science fiction story.

2012: It's tough to remake a mindfuck movie. Most of your target audience are going to be fans of the original and therefore know how it ends, which takes away much of the impact. If they ever remake Citizen Kane (I'm sure it's coming...) most of the audience isn't exactly going to be going, "I wonder what the fuck he means by 'Rosebud'". So remaking a film of this sort is tricky business. Thankfully, Recall 2.0 tells the intrigue and mindfuckery of the original to go fuck itself. This movie is, as stated before, a straight up action flick, plain and simple. However, this simplicity makes the film much more predictable and because of that, less enjoyable. Going into this movie, I was hoping for something more; maybe not the exact same things as the original, but something to surprise me. This movie was easy to follow, told a decent story in a sci-fi setting, and was totally not what I was looking for in a Total Recall remake. Most importantly, it misses the point of the original: the effects of playing tricks on the mind. This movie plays out more like The Bourne Identity than Total Recall. If I wanted to see that, I'd stay home and watch Matt Damon beat people unconscious with phone books.

Winner: 1990

7. THE RATING

1990: I know the rating of a film seems a little trivial to nitpick over, but trust me, it's a big deal nowadays. Action, sci-fi and horror films in particular have suffered greatly due to the impact of the MPAA meddling in the filmmakers' affairs. More than a 'fuck' or two guarantees millions in profits lost due to a hard R-rating, much less the gore and nudity that made these genres great. But I digress. The 1990 film was made in a different time, and got away with more bang for your buck in terms of content, mainly coarse language. It was glorious. Listening to Arnold curse is like music to me. I loved it. The film also contained more brutal violence, imposing a darker atmosphere on an already dark tone. I miss movies like that.

2012: The PG-13 rating on the remake led to pretty much the circle jerk of violence being present but not as brutal or prominent as it could have been. The language was toned down significantly, of course, which does the film an injustice considering the main character's dialogue should consist of 'what the fuck?' and 'bullshit.' throughout the film. I was a little disappointed in Wiseman in regards to the rating, considering the Underworld films were R-rated and did much more for me in these aspects. 

Winner: 1990

8. THE THREE-BOOBED HOOKER

1990: Featured in several scenes, but obviously prosthetic. Also the woman herself was a bit of a butterface.

2012: MUCH better looking in every way, but blink and you'll miss her.

Winner: Everyone

FINAL SCORE: 1990 - 5  /  2012 - 2

There you go, folks. Of course, the original was better. It typically is. I'm not saying don't go see the remake of Total Recall. It's a decent sci-fi flick with some great action that looks awesome and features attractive women in leading roles. It's also, however, a shining example of Hollywood's desire to cash in on popular work without having to come up with anything new, and things like ratings castrating the newer films aren't doing people any favors. 

Then again, you try and go original and you get Battleship. No wonder remakes happen. 

Knight Owl

Review of The Dark Knight Rises: Let's Not Stand On Ceremony, Here.

And here...we...go.

It's been over two weeks since my last post coinciding with the release of The Dark Knight Rises. There are several reasons behind the lateness of this overdue post that I have been looking forward to writing. First and foremost, I didn't want to launch into an overemotional and uncontrolled diatribe regarding the tragedy in Colorado. On the other hand, it would be wrong of me to say I wasn't affected by it, or to not acknowledge it, so here goes the summary of my feelings towards this event:

• My deepest sympathies go out to the victims and their families, whose only wrongdoing was to go to a midnight showing of a film they could have only been extremely excited for, a sentiment I can easily sympathise with. 
• I can't even imagine how Nolan and company reacted to the horrible news that yet another work of art is shrouded in tragedy. Four years ago, the world lost Heath Ledger during the post-production of The Dark Knight, which is widely recognised as 'the film that killed Heath Ledger'. Understandably, Nolan had second thoughts about doing the third film at all based upon how Ledger's death affected him. Now we'll have TDKR as 'the film when the Aurora shootings happened'. That sucks, and I can only hope that the artists responsible for this film do not in any way consider themselves responsible.
• Fuck this fit-for-a-straitjacket, thinks-the-Joker-has-red-hair douchebag sideways and send him to the special hell. The End.

OK, out of my system. Now on to the good bits.

Four years ago, The Dark Knight revolutionised the 'Comic Book Movie' and the 'Summer Blockbuster' in two and a half glorious hours of screen time. It showed that, while straying from the source material, a comic adaptation can truly be a legitimate work of film. It shed new light on and innovated classic characters, specifically the iconic Joker, brought to us by Ledger in an Oscar winning performance in a way never seen before by an audience. The film was made even more notorious, again, by the death of Ledger, catapulting TDK into instant cult status. This film is one of my all-time favourites and should be considered one of the best films ever made. 

Now, how can a sequel live up to that? Quick answer is that it doesn't.

Seriously, there was no way TDKR wasn't going to be overhyped. The follow up to a film like TDK is dangerous work and is likely to disappoint the most loyal of fanboys the first time through, present company included. I had no idea what I was walking into that Friday afternoon (Hey, Galaxy Cinemas: suck a dick for not having midnight showings) and after having seen it, had no idea how I felt about it. Of course people in my life started throwing out their problems with the film, some of which I agreed with, but I wouldn't let them influence my feelings towards the film. I just hadn't figured out what those feelings were.

And so I went again...and again...and again...and again.

Five showings of one film later, I have my answer for you, my dear readers. But first let's go through the little things.

The movie looked perfect. I even found the scenes, especially at night, clearer than it's predecessors. The score was also on par with the previous films, with the ominous chanting making its appearance poignantly throughout. It made every scene in which it appeared seem more...important, I guess you could say.

The mainstays do their work well here. Bale continues on as my favourite non-animated Batman; and Caine, Freeman, and Oldman deliver with all the poise you'd expect, all giving established characters a humbled realism that refreshingly stray from their roots as comic book characters. The dilemmas these normal people face are reacted to very understandably and realistically, especially in regards to Alfred's relationship with Bruce. The comic fanboy might watch some of the things that happen in this film and scream 'THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN', but sit down and think for a goddamn second. In the realest of worlds where Batman exists, things would totally go down this way.

The new people are what make this movie different from Begins and TDK, in both good and bad ways. I've heard criticisms regarding Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Catwoman as being too much of a 'good guy', to which I say pick up any comic book with Catwoman in it for the last, oh I don't know, 20 years. Catwoman is the quintessential True Neutral character for the DC universe. Yes, her origins began as a villain, and she can still be one at times, but she typically does what's in her best interests, and that usually means not fucking around with the Goddamn Batman. Joseph Gordon Levitt was also great in this as the jaded cop looking to help, and was probably the most relatable character on the list. Did the movie focus too much on him? I'll get to that later. 

Bane. I could talk for days about how much I loved this guy. When I first heard that Bane was headlining the last of Nolan's Batfilms, two things came to mind:

1. Whaaaaaaaaaa?
2. The back breaking scene best be in this movie.

The voice threw me off for the first viewing of the film, but upon revisiting, it grew on me. I can certainly understand why people didn't appreciate it, but like Bane himself, it was a necessary evil. The appearance of Bane in his mask and quasi-mechanical voice just screams intimidation. You see this guy on the streets and you'd go, 'Haha, OK, time to go.' But for the purpose of this film, he couldn't just be that guy. He had to be able to convey emotion, garner trust, and be empathetic in the eyes of the people he was taking rule of in order to influence them. The inflections in his voice remind me of good ol' Patrick Stewart (fitting considering Tom Hardy played Stewart's clone in Star Trek Nemesis), and really, who would you rather have in control of your city than Capt. Picard or Professor X?

Do I shake my finger at Bane for not being fuelled by super-steroids? Absolutely not. That would be the same as getting pissed that Joker wasn't the result of throwing a gangster into a vat of chemicals. It's comic book ridiculous in a film embracing realism, and venom had no place in it. I think that if people were disappointed by Bane, it's because he wasn't Joker. But like I said before, there's no living up to those standards. He was a fitting villain for the story told in TDKR, and an awesome one at that.

Now I'll get to the story itself. The problems I originally had with this plot were closely tied to the hype the film had following TDK. It was long, unnecessarily convoluted, and let's face it: there didn't seem to be a lot of Batman. I do still think that Bane's plan to manipulate and lull the citizens of Gotham into a false sense of hope was unnecessary considering he was just going to blow them up regardless, but since that's the way the story went, it was well put together. I also don't feel comfortable with the '8 years later' aspect of the beginning of the film as I feel it was used as a crutch to pull a Chris Benoit on Ledger's Joker, striking him from the records and pretending it didn't happen rather than honour his memory in some fashion. They go on and on about Harvey Dent, but no mention of the man that drove him to what he became. It's a little thing that really wasn't needed in this film, but it drove me nuts nonetheless. Now, I mentioned the thing with the John Blake character being featured a little too much, considering he's brand new and unestablished in the Batman lore. The first viewing, this pissed me off. Again, with every viewing, I got more OK with it simply because the character played an important role in proving some of the crucial points overarching the trilogy. Also, it was nice to have a relatable character in all this mess, and Gordon-Levitt did a great job being that guy, with a fresh perspective similar to that of the audience.

The biggest complaint I've heard is regarding the lack of Batman throughout the film. In a near three-hour long film, you have maybe 30 minutes of Bats. On paper, that sucks, but here's the thing. This is not an individual movie, like other threequels can be. It is a conclusion to a single story that began with Batman Begins, was continued in TDK, and this is how it ends. Also, you need to recognise that this is not even how it was supposed to end. The final film was to again follow Joker and the rise of the super villain, in one form or another, but it was not to be. As far as back-up endings go, this one's pretty damn good. This film takes important elements of the previous movies and brings them around full circle. It's one long story split up, not three different stories, and therein lies why it's OK for Batman to not be in as much of this film. Look at Lord of the Rings, for example. Those are three excruciatingly long films all surrounding a ring, but neither that ring or it's bearer are on screen for more than half of the series' running time. Everyone was talking about it, motivated by it, and there was no question the story was about this ring. In this scenario, Batman is the fucking ring. 

The film won me over with the portrayal of certain scenes that I found epic beyond words and consider to be some of the greatest scenes in a movie that I've ever witnessed. The Gotham bombing comes to mind, with the collapsing of the football field and destruction of the bridges. The moment during the National Anthem where Bane says 'That's a lovely, lovely voice' I find humanises a character that didn't have much humanity in him, and I appreciated it. The conclusion of the film had an emotional impact on me, as anyone who knows me could assume. It spoke to me in many ways as a fan of the character and lore. But the hero of the day here was the first encounter between Bane and Batman. The scene as portrayed in the comics is built up as this great confrontation between Bats and a villain he barely knows who can match him mentally as well as physically, a match that he has never seen up to that point. The face-off was extremely well built up and tension filled, up to the finish with Bane breaking Batman's back. It is one of the most iconic scenes in the character's lore and one of my favourite Bat-moments. I was almost worried that this was not to be included in this film once learning of Bane being cast, but I was pleasantly surprised. The meeting between Batman and Bane, from the dark sewer environment, to the silence of the background, the sounds of the fight itself, everything created this severely intense moving picture. The entire time I was amazed by how this scene came together, and kept thinking 'Jesus Christ, he's getting his ass kicked...', not something a fan is used to thinking about in regards to the Dark Knight. It fucking delivers, and made me so very happy.

In conclusion, I feel that TDKR suffers from 'Star Wars Syndrome', which is a thing I just invented (you're welcome). Return of the Jedi was great, and a terrific ending to the story, but The Empire Strikes Back was the better movie. The same is true here. For the story that was told from start to finish, TDKR was a great conclusion. Every important point that has been stressed throughout the films was established here. The ideals of the Batman carry on, regardless of Bruce Wayne's actual involvement. Balance and Justice can be attained without going to extremes. It was as real an ending as it could be considering the source material, and I'm glad to see it end because it should, and not because it just couldn't make money any more. So many franchises, TV shows especially, drag on after their prime just because there is still some money in it. Nolan ended this series the way he wanted it and saw that it was done.

Now, as I predicted, they are already talking about a reboot of the series, but straying from this and going back to a more sci-fi/fantasy way of going about things. I'll look forward to that, but am more than happy to see my favourite character of all time portrayed in this fashion.

Thank you, Christopher Nolan. Keep doing things.

Knight Owl

Prepping for DKR Part 2: Future Endeavoured

I'm starting to think there's something wrong with me.

How bad is it that I'm so morally desensitized that when I hear that comedian Daniel Tosh claims to legitimately find the concept of rape 'funny', I have no reaction. Nothing like the Internet's reaction to it, anyway. My awesome and beautiful bride-to-be informs me of this days after it occurs (because I live under a rock and the only news I read pertain to pro wrestling, comics and movies) in a disgusted manner, and I don't offer up so much as a 'how dare he!' against him. I just say 'meh. sounds like him.' The point to this is that I don't give a shit about this either way, but the thought of Nolan's Batman trilogy coming to an end saddens me to a state of near depression.

Much like The Avengers, I'm in a bit of a crisis over DKR, but a much deeper one due to the fact that, while Marvel will continue to pump out new franchises (Guardians of the Galaxy? Really?) and sequels until the zombies come, this is the True Death for this series of movies. Bale is done. Nolan, done. While a large part of me wants these movies to come out every couple of years for the rest of my life, there's a small and shy but logical part of my brain parts that tells me that can't happen. And right beside him is the loud and obnoxious 'Captain Obvious' part of my brain that's screaming 'THEY ARE GOING TO REBOOT THE SHIT OUT OF THIS EL-OH-EL'. And so they will.

There are already talks about a Batman reboot, and that scares the everloving shit out of me. People are giving The Amazing Spider-Man shit for being a reboot too soon after the original, even though it is FAR superior to that original. Same goes for The Incredible Hulk, made even sooner after the original than Spidey was, and was arguably the better movie (not great, but better). The problem here, according to Captain Obvious, is that there is no way in the Seven Hells that this reboot is going to be better than any of the three Nolan Batfilms. The reboots will be different, sure, and I will watch and probably like them by default because duh, it's Batman...but they won't be the Dark Knight Trilogy. I figure that since this is the case, I might as well throw my hat into the ring.

Before I wish Nolan and Bale all the best in their future endeavours, I would like to put forth some ideas for the next go-round Hollywood has with the Dark Knight that would both stay true to the lore and characters that mean so much to me, and at the same time straying away from reapplying the Dark Knight Trilogy formula (likely incorrectly). This is really more of a wish list of things that I think could really work, if done right, and I even throw in some casting suggestions while I'm at it.

#6: Batman Beyond


This would be a WAY new direction for Batman (yeah, I know the Beyond show is like 10 years old, but...shut up).

For those of you unfamiliar with the synopsis, knowledge is incoming. Basically, we find Bruce has become a crotchety old man that doesn't get to do Bat-stuff any more, so he finds a newly orphaned and angry youth in Terry McGinnis to be the new Batman (kinda sounds like the origin of Robin, doesn't it?...What did I tell you about shutting up?).

This is a fresh take on Batman that hasn't been pushed to anyone who isn't a fanatic like myself or was a 10-year old boy 10 years ago. We have the same concept, the familiar main character in a new role, and a new character that we can accept because he's close-but-not-the-same to the Batman we know. I was a denier of Beyond since its release due to my resistance to change, but we can't stop the change from happening now, so if we're doing something new, why not get as far away from the DKT as possible. The tone would be different, the setting would be more futuristic and Fifth-Element-like, and the young but not quite as grim hero might be more relatable to the younger audiences.

Casting: For Bruce Wayne: Clint Eastwood (if he's still alive); Terry McGinnis: Aaron Johnson.

Clint is pure dream casting for me. Bruce on the show had to have been designed off of Clint. As for Johnson being our new Bat, he has proven that he can be both serious business in Savages, and a funny superhero in Kick-Ass. That balance is what made Terry different from Bruce, and it would be what is needed for this.

#5: A Direct Novel Adaptation

This doesn't happen a lot with ongoing comic adaptations. You take an open-and-shut story arc from the source material and convert it into a film, or a series of films if need be. This not only does the writing for you, it ensures that what you're making has been accepted and appreciated by your target audience and really would be the easiest way to go. Just ask Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen).

Batman especially has a wealth of storylines that could become excellent works if done carefully. And therein lies the rub. If you take a pre-existing story and transfer it to film, it needs to be exactly that. There's no room for altering the story or you're going to piss a whole Comic Con's worth of fanboys who will turn the Internet War Machine against you and you'll never make another dime. Again, look at Snyder and Watchmen. The alterations that were made in his film (that I actually liked more than the original) almost prevented the movie from being made. So if you're doing this, do it right.

As I said, there are lots to choose from with Bats in terms of stories that would work. Hush comes to mind, and you could get a good two or three movies out of that. The Long Halloween is another, but Batman Begins already took some a little influence from it so that could be risky. I really enjoyed Kevin Smith's Cacaphony and Widening Gyre books, and would also love to see The Killing Joke onscreen, if we can find someone brave enough to play the Joker again.

Casting: Batman/Bruce Wayne: Jon Hamm

Mandi and I watch Mad Men religiously, and every once in a while I say to myself, 'Self, I think that Don Draper could be Batman.' It works here because it's not the origin story, so Batman can be a little older then Bale was at the beginning. And just watch that video. He's just never happy. That's Batman all over the place.

#4: The Dark Knight Returns


Yeah, technically this should fall under #5, but bear with me.

Returns has been established as one of the most important graphic novels ever published, as well as being the most responsible for the Batman character that we know and love today. Its dark overtones and political critique make it unique to most other works of its kind, and I would love to see it done. An argument can be made that no film could do this book justice, but the same was said about Watchmen, and while the movie is nowhere near as important as the book is to pop culture, it was still pretty damn good in my opinion.

This is actually a pretty decent mix of #5 and #6 on this list in that it is an individual story arc but is a fresh way of approaching the legend of the Dark Knight. The story is about a retired Batman, who sees his city descend into a new level of Hell and dons the cape and cowl once again to take Gotham back, old school. It is one of my favourite Batman stories, and the best work of Frank Miller ever in my opinion. I figure, if Sin City and 300 can get the film treatment, why shouldn't this? Hell, you could probably get a couple movies out of it, considering the length and content.

The problem, like with Sin City, 300, and Watchmen, is that it's SO extreme and Frank-Miller-y that only a certain demographic will be able to enjoy it. Serious shit happens in this book that I wouldn't subject most children to, and even if I did, they wouldn't get it. So I understand why this hasn't happened yet, and why it may never happen, but I do so ever wish it would.

Besides, Batman beating the shit out of Superman? That NEEDS to be on screen somewhere.

Casting: Batman/Bruce Wayne: Mel Gibson

Yeah, THAT Mel Gibson. I get that he's been having some trouble with not being fit-for-a-straitjacket crazy, but maybe that's what would make this version of Batman special. Anyone who's read DKReturns knows that Bruce kind of walks that line of craziness the whole way through, and an older, gray-haired, pissed off old Mel can be that guy. He's still in shape, he is a great actor, and he's even got a voice for it. Get it done.

#3: Pull a 'Smallville'


The concept of Smallville was great, and it obviously worked (despite the total lack of payoff in the end) with getting a 10-season show out of it. Here's the thing though, it will work even better with Batman for two simple reasons: the rogues gallery, and the main character.

The problem with the first half of Smallville is that you're constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop and for Lex to start fucking shit up. They tease it a lot until they go full on Big Bad circa season 6 and 7. That's at least 6 years waiting for something to happen. That sucks. You wouldn't have that with Batman. No watching Bruce befriend a comedian in season 1, only to watch the next 5 years saying to yourself, 'When the fuck is he going to go into the toxic waste and become the Joker?' There are so many antagonists for Batman, with all of them being interesting, that it'll never get old. Also, since it's a TV show, you don't have to pull a Burton and kill off every second bad guy, just have recurring villains.

And let's face it, Superman is pretty fucking one-dimensional. He needs to be, don't get me wrong, but Batman isn't restricted that way. He can go from 'Bruce Wayne' to 'I'm Batman!' to 'I'M THE GODDAM BATMAN!' and back again, no problem. Since the TV show allows for an extended development of that character, it wouldn't feel random or rushed. Season 10 Clark Kent was the exact same as Season 1 Clark Kent. That shouldn't, and wouldn't happen with Bruce Wayne.

Casting: Batman/Bruce Wayne: Ben Mackenzie

Like #5, he doesn't have to be too young, but still keep him in him upper 20's-early 30's. While tons of actors fit the bill, Ben has always been a favourite of mine for being the broody, serious business type in Southland and The OC (I know, I'm ashamed). The big selling point is that he actually voiced Bats in the Batman Year One animated movie, and sounded great. Speaking of animated...

#2: Bring Back Batman: TAS!

Seriously, nostalgia goggles or not, this shit was awesome.

Batman has undergone some abysmal animated outings since TAS went off the air. We have The Batman, Brave and the Bold, and another just-as-retarded-looking Beware the Batman series on its way. The Batman was basically Marvel's Ultimates version of Batman, and might have had a prayer if it didn't have TAS to compare to. Brave and the Bold went in the direction of 60's Batman, Adam West-style camp humor, and it is fun to watch but again, it's not TAS. 

DC has been releasing one-off animated films which are excellent on average, with Batman: Under the Red Hood being my undisputed favourite. The concepts here are similar to #5 in that they are mostly adaptations of story arcs, and they work. Converting this into an animated series would work, and would be much more on the radar than what they are doing now with the animated films. 

I said it in my last post, Batman: TAS was a perfect adaptation of the source material, and I need it back in my life. 

Casting: Batman/Bruce Wayne: Kevin Conroy. Obviously.

#1: Let It Be

This is the true best case scenario: we leave Batman the fuck alone for a little bit. I know that I'm probably the last person that should be saying it, but back off. Batman has been overexposed like crazy since Begins came out, and this franchise is the only one putting up competition against the Marvel Movie Machine. I say we sit back, read the damn comics, and hope that DC can get another film franchise going. I'm interested to see what Snyder can do with Superman in Man of Steel. The Green Arrow TV show starts in September. There are still animated films and series to look forward to. DC is in pretty good shape as long as they stay the fuck away from Green Lantern and we all go on with our lives pretending it didn't happen.

So yeah, here we are with three films that are way better than they have any right to be. I remember a time when the world had three great films to live with, demanded more, and got Jar Jar Binks. 

Knight Owl

Prepping for DKR Part 1: The Hero That Gotham Deserves

Holy anticipation, Batman!


2012 has been a pretty brilliant year thus far for me in regards to the films that have come out, which has actually affected this blogging business negatively because, as I have stated before, I'm funnier when I'm angry. It's been tough, so my blogging hasn't been as regular or as good as it probably could be, and for the 19 people (yay to you guys!) who read my last post, I'll do better.


But now is a very important time in my life. It's Bat Time. We're at less than a week before The Dark Knight Rises is released upon the world and I have ALL THE FEELINGS! So I've been doing some preparations before the shit goes down. The past couple weeks have been a roller coaster of good and bad, a nice emotional parallel to my relationship with Batman through the course of my life. Good times...and dark, dark times. Our journey through the world of Pop Culture together has led to some life-defining moments that few could relate to, so I'm not going to try explaining. What I AM going to do is express that ol' opinion of mine on various aspects of what the world has seen and has come to understand as the world of Batman. It might not be pretty at times, and I might lose some of those 19 readers along the way, but if there's one thing I know, it's the goddamn Batman.

I'd like to start here with settling a debate I've been having both internally and with anyone willing to talk Batman long enough to learn that there's no point in arguing with me about him. Since the Nolan movies hit it big, the question was asked and answered to death by many authorities of the Pop Culture arena: Who is the best of the Batmen? It is a tough question, don't get me wrong; it took me many moons and multiple viewings of every Bat-movie and reading up on many of the points made by other opinionated souls who took their shots at ranking the versions of Batman from worst to best, and so on. Now, since there are so many incarnations, I've tried to limit it to the most exposed or relevant performances, so that I don't go all 'X-Men franchise' on you all again. Keep in mind that this is not a ranking of the Bat-movies, but the portrayal and performances of the Dark Knight in each incarnation. And no, I didn't include Terry 'Batman Beyond' McGinnis. Don't embarrass yourself.

(Also, I've added pictures! Yay for me being somewhat competent at using basic software that comes with buttons for attaching things!)

Batman #6: Adam West (1966-1968)

This fucking guy.

Do I hate the 60's show/movie? HELLS NO! I grew up on this shit and it's pretty much what kick-started my diehard fanboy geekiness, developing me into the Knight Owl that we have today. Adam West did good with what he had to work with and what the goals of the show were. Saying that...

Look at that picture. That is a guy that would fold like fucking crazy if even one of those glorious sound-effect-accompanying punches actually connected. That Bat symbol on his chest is really in an inconvenient spot. You know what's right behind that symbol? The solar plexus. Ever take a shot to the solar plexus whilst wearing not much other than a spandex shirt? My money says you get FUCKED UP.

I get that it was a campy 60's-era pseudo sitcom directed at kids. But let's face it: kids are dumb, and they can't appreciate Batman for what he is supposed to be. Batman's origin story is one of the darkest in comic history, something most kids can't understand. Guaranteed, there are kids out there who have been told the story and responded with something along the lines of 'awesome,' or 'I wish that would happen to me'. Kids suck.

I still love watching the 60's Batman stuff, and think the original movie is one of the funniest movies ever made, but here's the thing: BATMAN STUFF SHOULD NOT BE FUNNY! Not in this way, anyways. I love Adam West the way I love William Shatner and Arnold Schwarzenegger (didn't even spell check that shit), but most of that love is in spite of themselves. Kindergarten Cop wouldn't be nearly as funny with someone who spoke fucking English, and every time Kirk fought someone I thought it was shot in "bullet time." So for those who want to hate for West being this low on the list, remember: I love this guy just like you, but we love him for the wrong reasons.

Batman #5: George Clooney (Batman & Robin)

Bare witness to the nipples that almost destroyed a franchise! Look at them! LOOOOOOOK!

OK, so that was my step into insanity. But it was fitting considering that's what this movie was: just a crazy-ass leap into this weird world where everything exists so that a toy can be made from it and we can take a step back towards the days of Adam West with the THOK! and the Bat-Shark repellant. This movie was the first time I realized that something featuring the absolute best hero that the world had to offer could be THE FUCKING WORST. It is from this movie that I base my rage on some of the Hollywood bullshit that has been pulled on my beloved comics (see: Green. God. Damn. Lantern.). But like I said before, this was not about the movie: it's about the man. And guess what? He wasn't too bad.

I like to think that Clooney was fully aware of how pants-on-arms retarded 'Batman & Robin' was going to be, so he decided to have some fun with it and declare (proudly, even) that he was the goddam Batman for two hours of horrible screentime. In doing so, he did something with the character that has not been done before or since: he made Batman the most popular kid in school.

Don't get what I mean? It's cool, I got your back.

If you can stomach it, watch this movie again. Batman is a smug, overconfident douche in a not-small amount of the film, and it is fucking hilarious. He walks around with this CM Punk 'Best in the World' smirk like he's fucking Superman or something (Batman is totally better than Superman, but it's not usually written all over his face). You know that trademark 'I'm Batman!' grunt that Keaton and Bale pulled with just anger and hatred? Here, Clooney busts in on one of my favourite Arnold characters and goes, 'Hey Freeze, I'm Batman :)' like they're at a fucking mixer.

So yeah. In retrospect, Clooney wasn't the best Bat, but here's the thing: He was a REALLY good Bruce Wayne. What people tend to forget, along with directors, writers, actors, etc., is that Bruce and Batman are for all intents and purposes two separate entities. Bruce is the guy everyone wants to have lunch with; Batman is the guy eating lunch alone who lashes out at anyone who tries to join him. While most of this list doesn't do this right, they usually get one half pretty good, and this is one of the better Bruces. He's a charming, generous, playboy surrounded by women and wealth and is always wearing the same aforementioned 'Fuck you, I'm the best' face.

The main reason the better Bruce isn't higher up? Simple. This wasn't Bruce Wayne. This was Clooney being Clooney and just calling himself a different name. We get it, George. You're awesome.

Batman #4: Michael Keaton (Batman, Batman Returns)

The nostalgia goggles are off, and so are the gloves.

If I get any negative feedback, I expect most of it would be from this entry. And that's okay, because I know where you're coming from. As I am writing this, my inner child is threatening my life for ranking Keaton so low, but I'm right about this, and there are a lot of significant reasons that may or may not be his fault. But let's get the obvious out of the way: Keaton is WAY too small to be Batman. As much as I love this picture, there's another reason why I put it there. This is a clear comparison showing that the Joker...IS BIGGER THAN BATMAN. Jack Nicholson's performance was absolutely stellar, including him allowing Keaton to look like he could beat Jack up. There is no other medium in which the Joker is physically superior to Batman. Even if Heath came close to Bale, the way he carried himself made Joker look like a pretty feeble individual. Keaton had the face and the voice, but needed one hell of a body double.

Short sidenote: I recall a comparison between Batman '89 and Dark Knight done by Nostalgia Critic, someone I actually tend to agree with. But in this comparison he rated Keaton higher than Bale and one of his points was Keaton's 'smile': a grimace that was present in several scenes in both films. This drove me fucking bananas because the only recollections I have of Batman smiling in the source material are the 60's/70's-era Batman comics and Chaotic-Evil, Frank Miller Batman. Neither of those examples should be considered the most accurate portrayals considering their contexts. Batman doesn't smile. Period.

Speaking of Miller, there is something present in these films that even he didn't pull on Bats in even his darkest of Bat-stories: the tendency that Batman had to outright murder people.  

Fucking what?

An example:

So now that the Bam Bam Bigelow-looking mother fucker gets to go to Hell and tell Thomas and Martha Wayne that their only child is committing homicide in their name. Awesome job being a hero, Keaton.

Another example? Why not.

Here we have the climax of the first Batman film, during which Batman proceeds to open fire with military ordinance upon a CROWDED STREET, clearly killing Joker's thugs with extreme prejudice while missing the intended target of Joker himself. There is so much wrong with that statement, that I just...I don't even. I could go on for years about how wrong this was, how the death of Wayne's parents led to his extreme distaste for guns, how he would never endanger civilians in such a matter, etc. I think the big-picture point can be made with one question: if Batman kills people, then why is the Joker still alive? A mass-murdering homicidal maniac who has crippled or killed loved ones of Batman on several occasions in canon, who is impossibly unpredictable and incredibly intelligent and always manages to escape the maximumest of prisons.The answer is simple and might be one of the most important principles to the Batman mythos.

Batman doesn't kill people. I allowed this when I was little because I didn't know better. I grew up with it because nostalgia happens. But make no mistake, I know now. I accept that this is not all Keaton's fault, as I stated...so as a throwback to the last post I made, fuck you, Burton.

Batman #3: Val Kilmer (Batman Forever)

Looks like the Highway to the Danger Zone had some fast food joints on it, amirite?

While 'Forever' wasn't quite the mess that 'Batman & Robin' was, it is pretty much the origin story of one of the worst movies ever made, and for that I'll always have a love/hate relationship with it. However, Kilmer's performance as Batman was notable, and an interesting polar opposite to Clooney's performance that follows. This will be short because I made the point earlier: Bruce and Bats are two different people. Kilmer kind of dropped the ball in the Bruce side of things, being cold and distant not unlike Keaton before him. However, this guy looked like he could kick some serious ass in the cape and cowl, and proceeded to do so. He was ripped, intimidating, and as alienating as he could be while still being the good guy. His inner turmoil throughout the movie about maybe giving up as Batman kinda annoyed me in a whiny, Spider Man 2 sort of way; but it was a fairly realistic dispute to have and is far more acceptable to me than strapping lit dynamite on obese people.

The important thing to acknowledge (and be constantly reminded of by me ;) ) is that Batman is Bruce Wayne's real persona, and the Bruce Wayne that everyone knows is an act so that he isn't osterosized from the society he needs to manipulate to continue his work. Whether it was intentional or not, this movie featured a Bruce Wayne that just wasn't good at pretending to be that guy, as opposed to the first two films where it was clear that Bruce gave not two fucks about how he was viewed in society, or Batman & Robin, where Clooney's-gonna-Cloon.

Batman #2: Christian Bale (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises)

Yeah, even with the voice, Bale's awesome and people are stupid to argue.

The casting of Batman for the new series of films was crucial to help erase the memory of Batman & Robin, and Christian Bale fit the bill perfectly. After showing his ability to portray a wealthy businessman type in American Psycho, and displaying his action chops in Equilibrium, Bale was an obvious choice to don the cape and cowl, and with Nolan's direction and script made a damn near perfect Batman. He was an actor who had the physical attributes to show up Keaton and Clooney, and acting ability beyond the stiff, cold, Hayden Christensen-esque performance of Kilmer.

So let's get the bad out of the way: that fucking voice. But really, it's only SO bad because everything else was so good, made especially evident in The Dark Knight where the voice was really the only negative criticism that could be made. Also, at least he made a god damn attempt to disguise his voice. Keaton did a good job of it, but the other predecessors could not give a fuck. Kilmer's was at least just as bad as Bale's, and Clooney was, again, just being himself in a mask. Zero fucks given.

Outside of the voice, this was one of the most well-rounded Batman to ever grace a screen. Every element of the Dark Knight's persona has been referenced in one way or another in the Nolan movies thus far. We have the expert hand-to-hand combatant. Batman's ability to fight has always been demonstrated well in film, but this was the first time the films went into HOW he got so good. Same goes for those wonderful toys Nicholson referred to in the first Bat-film. While I have to say Keaton had better stuff, these films again showed how Bats got his shit. What sticks out to me though is that balancing act between Bruce and Batman that I talked about earlier. None of the films prior to these did it better. Bruce and Bats were clearly two different personas in these movies, and it was clear that Bruce was feigning interest in the social aspects and commitments of his life. He played the douchebag billionaire well while making it obvious to the audience that it was an act to save face.

Really, the only reason Bale isn't #1 is the voice, and with my favorite Caped Crusader, it's all about the voice.

Batman #1: Kevin Conroy (Batman The Animated Series, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, Justice League, Arkham Asylum/City)

Absolute perfection. 

Cartoons have always been able to portray comic books better than live film, and there is no better example then Batman TAS. The unique, dark retro style animation combined with Conroy's spot-on voice acting made this one of the best animated series of all time, and my favorite portrayal of the Dark Knight. The costume, mannerisms, and varying sides of Batman's personality and traits were all a perfect translation from the source material. The main reason for that, I think, is because the length of the series allowed to explore every aspect of the character, giving it an advantage over its live-action film counterparts. 

But like I said, it's all about the voice. There's a reason Conroy has been Batman's voice countless times. He's perfect at it. He's dark, gritty and threatening without being Bale's incomprehensible growling. And there's a significant difference between Batman and Bruce in the animated series, more so than Keaton. It's been said that Conroy is done doing Batman's voice after Arkham City's release, and I deeply hope that isn't the case; but if it is then Godspeed, Mr. Conroy. You did good. 

Welp, that's it, like it or not. I'd love to hear counterpoints, and would love even more to hear agreement from my readers so please feel free to have at it. I know that there are several other versions of Batman I didn't include, but holy christ this thing is long enough as is. I'm hoping to get at least one more post out in preparation for the big day, so you'll see that soon. Looking forward to seeing everyone at the theatre on Friday for the matinee...then the late afternoon show...then the evening show...then the late show. 

Knight Owl