Knight Owl's Review of Fast & Furious 6; One hit point left.

Wow, this movie.

The success of the Fast & Furious films has always vexed me a little bit. I mean, the first three installments at least were basically like the Step Up or Bring It On films for cars. They're all about the same thing, with a new dynamic each film. The evolution of the series has led to better films in context, but all follow a similar pattern. For instance:

• The Fast and the Furious: We drive fast cars and are criminals!
• 2 Fast 2 Furious: We drive fast cars and are in such a horrible movie that I haven't even finished it yet!
• Fast and the Furious - Tokyo Drift: We drive fast cars whilst being Asian!
• Fast and Furious: Vengeance whilst driving fast cars!
• Fast Five: Stealing shit by driving fast cars!

You can see how this series might be considered redundant. At this point, the F&F films are becoming a lot like the Saw series, in that it embraces the same tropes but pushes the envelope slightly further. Thankfully, Fast Five stands out as getting away from that redundancy to become a more straight-up action heist flick. The addition of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson didn't hurt as a contrast to Vin 'I Used To Be A Big Deal' Diesel. So now we have an established series of films that have made bank on ridiculous stunt driving, flashy cars, and equally ridiculous action scenes to go with them. Basically it's a winning formula for a summer movie, so I guess I can't blame anyone for putting out another one.

The unfortunate thing about FF6 is that it had to follow Fast Five, which was inarguably the best film of the series. It brought in some new faces, new elements and changed the entire tone of the series from gimmick films about street racing to a legit action film series that happened to feature street racing. Now, while FF6 does keep up with this new direction, it does not live up to the expectations of Fast Five in terms of quality, story, or characters. If you're looking for a completely silly movie that you don't have to spend a second thinking about, this is your jam. I enjoyed the hell out of it, but it wasn't the best it could be.

The story is 90's action at its best. The crew of outlaws is recruited by a law enforcement officer to help catch another outlaw considered to be a far worse evil, and in return they are offered pardons for their crimes. It's fun, but it's been done. It also raises a lot of questions about how action film writers view law enforcement. This guy is stealing stuff and I can't catch him, so naturally I go get help from GUYS WHO STEAL STUFF? It would be different if the recruiting party was a private one and not civil-fucking-servants, but the fact that Vin and company are wanted for several high class crimes, in several countries, and doing one thing will exonerate them all from everything states that Hollywood has little-to-no respect or knowledge regarding police procedure, or common sense for that matter. There are a lot of other things that could have been offered without letting the crew who has stolen hundreds of millions of dollars off the hook. If I was Rock in this scenario and the crew was like 'we want full pardons', I would have laughed, kicked Vin in the balls, and offered not to tell the entire world where they were holed up. Then I would Rock Bottom Paul Walker through a table. Because I would be The Rock.

Speaking of the cast, is it just me or are the careers of every person in this movie who are not The Rock on life support? Seriously, there was a time when Vin Diesel and Paul Walker were seen as big time future Hollywood. Walker was in that 'I'm an actor because I'm handsome' category of talent that damn near guaranteed leading man status. Vin Diesel was the next bona fide action star a la Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Between 2000 and 2002 he had three action franchises up and running: XXX, Fast & Furious, and the Riddick films. XXX fizzled out because it was retarded. The Chronicles of Riddick was a CGI-fest that fell flat, and was uninspired in comparison to Pitch Black, one of my favourite Sci-Fi films of all time. The only thing that either Vinny or Paul have going for them right now is this franchise, running 12 years strong. The same goes for most of the rest of the cast. I don't follow the rap scene very closely, but is Ludacris still a thing? The only music of his that I've heard recently has been on Fast & Furious soundtracks. Tyrese Gibson has literally done nothing but these films and the Transformers movies. Michelle Rodriguez's completely ridiculous return to the series is the first time I've seen her since FF4, and before that it was either FF1 or SWAT. And those are the big names of the franchise.

The Rock's character, Hobbs, was maybe the biggest disappointment for me in this film. In Fast Five he was a fucking boss. Not a true antagonist, but the standard 'cop who's out for the good guys because they're criminals' stereotype. It worked because he was: a) good at his job; and 2) intimidating as fuck. And not just because he's fucking huge, but because of how he carries himself: as the guy who is in charge and the last guy with whom to fuck. In this film, he loses all of those qualities except for the being huge part. Not only is he buddy-buddy with the guy he was taking a wrench to in the previous installment, but he's a pushover and a fucking HORRIBLE cop. It was weird because this series is surprisingly good with continuity for the most part, but somewhere between Fast Five and Furious 6 (or whatever) he turned into the privileged kid who wants to be part of the cool kids group. He'll do anything for them as long as he gets to hang out. You're better than that, Rock. You're the most electrifying man in whatever whatever, not the fat kid in school that has a pool.

Mentioning the careers of the cast being on life support is interesting, because it's the only weakpoint for anyone in this movie. Everyone takes damage like a fucking champ, and it's one of the most entertaining and maddening things about this movie. This has been a thing in other installments, but there was still some concern for the well being of anyone caught in a life threatening situation. That goes out the goddamn window here, or in this case, through the windshield. There were many, many, many awesome action scenes in this movie, and there's no way that any main character should have survived any of them. Not by a long shot. Vin Diesel in particular has got to be a real life superhero for the punishment he just shrugs off. The only thing I can think of is that the Fast and Furious films now see people like Dungeons & Dragons does. For those of you who aren't fantastically huge nerds, D&D characters have a set amount of hit points or HP and when they run out, you're dead. There's no really injury or grey area, you're either dead or you're not. I'm assuming the same principle is applied here. As long as Diesel has one HP left, he can survive being thrown from a speeding vehicle and have his fall broken by another speeding vehicle and walk away unscathed. Yep, makes perfect sense.

Just so we're clear, I know I'm reading WAY too much into this. The retardedness of action movies and their applications of things like physics is about as far off as their understanding of computer use. It's been this way for approximately forever, and I honestly hope it never changes. I had a really good time with this movie, and I need to stress that because I have just spent several paragraphs contradicting that sentiment. I laughed my way through FF6, regardless of whether that was the desired reaction from the film makers. It's just an over-the-top, flashy popcorn movie that is just on the wrong side of ridiculous. The film also provides a solid lead up to a seventh installment, and I would honestly buy a ticket for it right the hell now. I do hope the series keeps doing well, because there's no way Vin Diesel has any other marketable skills and while I have high hopes for the new Riddick movie coming out in the fall, it will not be the money maker that these movies tend to be. Any fans of the series will enjoy this film quite a bit, I think, along with any film buff with a taste for the ridiculous.

But for the love of God, do not try these stunts at home.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of The Great Gatsby; The first rule about Gatsby is you do not talk about Gatsby.

Let's change it up a bit, shall we?

'Tis the season of the blockbuster, mindless action movies that the Michael Bay fans of the world get off on. I enjoy the hell out of many such films, but I like to think of myself as more eclectic than that. It's been pointed out, though, that my range of taste of films that I actually post about is somewhat limited. Looking back, it's hard to argue that point, so I'll give it a shot reviewing a different type of film. And yeah, The Great Gatsby definitely qualifies as different.

Full disclaimer: I have not read the book. I know it was big in high school English for some, but even if I had read it then I wouldn't have retained anything. I know at some point I read Lord Of The Flies and all I remember is the laughable film version we watched with the hilariously fake rock bouncing off the head of the fat kid. Good times. Anyways, I had no prior knowledge of what the hell I was walking into. Walking out, two things had occurred to me. One, that I was super grateful to have my Mandi there with me to walk and talk me through the damn thing, and two, if I hadn't had her there, there was no chance of me enjoying this film. There is a definite need to have some knowledge of the book or some previous performance thereof in order to appreciate TGG, but even with that knowledge you might not enjoy the film completely (more on that later).

The big sell for getting me to see this film was post-Crisis Leonardo Dicaprio. Had you told me 10 years ago that Leo would be one of my favorite actors working, I'm not sure if I would either laugh hysterically or punch you in the face (probably both). But here we are, and with work like The Departed, Inception, and Django Unchained under his belt, Leo deserves his recognition and continues his great work here. And that's good, because as much as I like Leo, I fucking despise Tobey Maguire. Even if he was the only wrong thing about the Spider Man trilogy (He's not. So much wrong there.), I'd still find them near insufferable. Despite that hatred, he was a good choice for the role he plays as Nick Carraway, a normal shmoe enveloped by Gatsby's world. The performances of Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton were both also noteworthy, if for one specific reason that had to be pointed out to me: these people were not supposed to be liked.

The characters in TGG are, for the most part, horrible people. The film is just jam packed with examples of each person showing various forms of douchebaggery and would have thrown me off had the fact that these displays were meant to do just that not been pointed out. I can see why English classes have a hard-on for this book: anyone could sit back and analyze the behaviour of these assholes all damn day. If I had to throw out a general analysis from what I've seen, it would be that these characters display the true neutrality of a person. How they will change their behaviour in any way necessary to obtain what they want most. Any value, mannerism, knowledge, wealth, whatever is expendable in the face of your deepest desire. A 'fuck these people, I'll do what I want' mentality that really is a huge criticism on the human condition. The problem with TGG is that there is no break from it. It's fucking everywhere, and while it makes the characters more relateable, that relation is in a negative way. Who wants to be reminded that people suck? The only upside is that the focus of the film is on the way upper class, so it turns out that rich people suck just as much as anyone else. Fucking duh.

Is it just me, or does TGG play out a bit like Fight Club? A spoiler-free synopsis might sound like this: A normal, uninteresting guy meets up with a larger-than-life character, who opens up a whole new world to him and changes his life. Hijinks ensue. Throughout the film, I was begging for someone to turn to Tobey and be like 'sir, the first rule about Project Fancy Party is we do not ask questions' or whatever. It would have turned the whole thing around for me because, to be quite honest, not a lot happens in this movie. I imagine that a lot of what makes the book so interesting and such a classic does not translate into film well, and anything that is expressed has probably already been done, and done better. All of the insight on the human condition, all of the allegory and metaphor (holy fuck, is there a lot of it), much better done and more appreciated in literature than a 2 1/2 hour long movie about the killer parties over at Casa de Leo.

Speaking of the allegory in the film, man oh man was it shoved down the audience's collective throat. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that those who have read the book might not appreciate the film much. You could not go 10 minutes watching the film without hearing being shown something that was an obvious reference to something else, and it began to make my eyes involuntarily roll. I do appreciate methods like this thrown into film of all kinds because it can make you think a little bit. This film doesn't really even give you the chance. It will give you a little allegory, and then go on to beat you over the head with it until you feel like you're looking at the answer page of a crossword book. Hell, they even have one of the characters full out explain what a specific thing represents. Thanks for making it easy, I guess.

The movie was not all bad, though. As I said the performances were very effective. More than that, this film was VERY pretty. I'm only familiar with Bax Luhrmann's work on Romeo+Juliet featuring pre-Crisis Leo, which I enjoyed in a 'guilty pleasure' sort of way, but TGG was very stylized and made the film a lot more interesting and easy to watch. That said, I wouldn't necessarily call it a period piece either, as it would be hard to justify a film set in the 1920's using a soundtrack exclusively featuring Jay-Z, Kanye and their ilk. Again, it made the film interesting, but was definitely out of place at times. I could be wrong though. If AC/DC starts playing in the background of Boardwalk Empire, I guess I'm the asshole.

I'm not saying don't give this movie a shot. There were things I enjoyed, but mostly it's just not my thing. At the very least, it's the turned-up-to-11 version of what my thing would be. There's a lot going on and absolute fuck all going on at the same time. This isn't the cerebral movie I was kind of expecting, and sometimes that's what you're looking for: an easy to follow film with some people who are good at what they just being assholes. Hey, it's what I sit through every time I put on Monday Night Raw.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Star Trek Into Darkness; A Dish Best Served Cold

In the words of Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison: Shall we begin?

Last week I expressed my indecision regarding Iron Man 3 and its quality as the opener to the summer blockbuster season. Although my thought process took the scenic route (as it often does), I arrived at the conclusion that it was indeed a good film and a second viewing has upgraded it to 'good-to-great'. My bones to pick with those responsible are few and a bit arbitrary, but haters will indeed hate. Star Trek Into Darkness, however, has not caused such indecision.

Before jumping into this, there are some things I should point out. First off, I am not a Trekkie by definition. My interest in Star Trek has always been like my interest in hockey or UFC: I pay attention from a distance until something major is happening, and will sit down to it with enough background knowledge to not make an idiot out of myself. Playoffs, a big PPV, or a film for example. I've seen every Trek film several times, have seen many of the highest rated episodes of the original Star Trek, am almost finished watching through TNG, had waning interest in DS9 as it was on, and have never given Voyager or Enterprise a fair chance. I don't even have that much of an aversion to it, and I'm no longer the Star Wars fan that I once was. There's just so much bad mingled in with the good, even with the films. For every Wrath of Khan there's a Final Frontier, and for every First Contact there's an Insurrection. It's hard to justify jumping head-long into canon that's existed for, what, 50 years? It's why I've never gotten into the X-men comics, and why I'm thankful that Doctor Who has shorter seasons.

The other thing is that bias exists for this particular film because of how much I loved the first film, flaws and all. The lens flare thing that J.J. loves to do is something I can overlook, because every director has their quirks and even Abrams has fessed up to it. Do I love that a Star Trek film went to the time travel well once again? No, but it's happened every second or third film released anyways, so I prefer to think of it as a throwback. The biggest selling point for me was the perfect if not inspired casting of the crew, a subject that was touchy to begin with because gods forbid you piss off the internet Trekkie community. Lucas and Spielberg are still feeling backlash from that. Every crew member was cast and performed wonderfully in a mix of homage to the original crew while still making it a new character. There are some holes in the first film, yeah, but at least one that has always bugged me is addressed in STID, which was a big selling point for me. So I was walking into STID knowing there would be at least some things I'd love as long as little was changed. So fair warning to all who didn't love Star Trek 2009: this might not be your thing.

With that, let's boldly go into this review! (shut up, I'm hilarious.)

The plot of STID is something that its predecessor was not: simple. A criminal breaks loose from captivity, drops some knowledge (also some bombs), and takes off; and it's up to Kirk and company to track John Harrison down. It's only complicated by the typical Star Trek stuff like the prime directive of never interfering with any indigenous life (a rule that is more often broken than followed) and possible war breaking out with other galactic superpowers were the mission handled improperly. Y'know, the little stuff. What's nice about this film and how it plays out is, despite what my synopsis would have you believe, it does not in fact play out like a standard episode of Star Trek. A couple of the films had fallen into this trap (see: Insurrection), and it's easy to do. It didn't happen here though, and it was brilliant. The reason it felt more like a complete and separate film is the presence of subplots with several of the characters involved and how they all mingled together. One such subplot addressed the hole in the first film very well. I had a problem with the fact that a very young officer such as Kirk, who had a notorious reputation for slacking, rash decision making, and was technically still on probation for cheating on tests, was just given command of the most advanced ship in the fleet. It would be like giving Frank 'The Punisher' Castle command of The Avengers. It's awesome, and you'll get results...but it's a horrible decision. Such results play out in STID and becomes a thing that everyone needs to deal with throughout the film. When improperly done, subplots are nothing but filler, especially in blockbusters like this. Here, it was an asset to the film and made the characters, the story, everything stronger.

As I said before, the crew was fantastic in Star Trek '09 and continues to be strong. I always liked Kirk in command because I've always found him the most relateable of the captains of Star Trek lore. Let's look at the contrast: Picard didn't seem to get an emotion chip until after the Locutus incident (ironically enough). Sisko always came off to me as the 'angry black police captain' stereotype of Star Trek. I haven't watched much Voyager but Janeway always looked like the coldest bitch this side of Cersei Lannister. And Quantum Leap guy is just himself, in the same way that Richard Dean Anderson was always Macgyver no matter how many seasons of Stargate SG-1 there are. Kirk is arrogant, hot tempered, and a ridiculous lech. What human wouldn't be in his position? He's a young, charismatic and good looking captain of a state-of-the-art starship with a chip on his shoulder. He's a fucking pimp with a heart of gold, and is portrayed that way. Shatner will always have a special place in my heart, but Chris Pine is a great leader to this amazing cast.

There's a lot of more of the same for the rest of the characters, with new elements mixing with nostalgic qualities essential to each character. Spock is still a cold prick at times, Bones is still a crazy bastard that has always reminded me of Rowdy Roddy Piper, and Chekov still can't pronounce the word 'vessel'...but Scotty has a familiar! Uhura's job description goes beyond 'answer the fucking phone!' It's awesome. Alice Eve's addition as the arbitrary love interest for Kirk was an appreciated one (because she's hot). But the real story here in terms of new cast is the Cumberbatch's turn as John Harrison. There has always been an absence of sympathetic villains in Star Trek, most of which are either alien, cyborg, or psychotic. Harrison was the first antagonist who has had an actual motivation behind his actions that had nothing to do with taking over or destroying the federation. He had a legitimate gripe and just went about it the wrong way. The presentation of Harrison reminded me very much of Tom Hiddleston's Loki in Thor and Avengers. He doesn't start out evil, just...misunderstood. His speaking was slightly annoying, in that he just had to over enunciate every single word he could, but other than that, he was a worthy villain portrayed expertly with lots of nice throwbacks to the original canon.

Speaking of which, I've been hearing a lot of complaints that there are too many references/homages/whatevers to the original show and films from which this reboot is based. I could see how the references could annoy some in the midst of all the changes that have been made to the crew and progression of the story of the Enterprise. Hell, it was exactly this argument that caused my dislike of Skyfall. But the difference here is that a lot of this was not only well done, but it made sense. I've stated in previous posts about my hard-on for continuity in a series of films, and this one really took a lot from its predecessor in explaining some of the plot holes and motivation behind the actions of the characters. You have to remember that the events of the first film drastically changed the course that this group of characters was on, but it was still going the same direction. So yeah, similar things happened here that have happened with the Shatner-led crew, but with some changes thrown in, some subtle, some drastic. It made sense, but is in a nutshell why I HAAAAAAAATE time travel as a story's lynch pin. It will literally explain everything away regardless of how contradictory or plothole-y it is. So Eric Bana, Doc Brown, Marty McFly, John Connor, and their ilk can gooooooooooo fuck themselves.

That leads me to my final point: there are things that happen in this movie that are just pants-on-head ridiculous. No amount of movie science jibberjabber is going to explain some of the elements of this plot, even despite the time travel precedence. There will be moments where you will find yourself just chuckling and muttering 'bullshit' under your breath. The thing is that this is not a compliant. Anyone who's ever watched a single Star Trek episode, much less a Trekkie, can not only excuse shit like this happening, they should fucking expect it. Pretty much every episode ends in Scotty or Wesley-fucking-Crusher or the god damn BLIND GUY spouting off nonsense about a made up many-syllable word like 'superultracapacitor' or what the fuck ever and poof, problem solved.  I mean, Christ, the computer consoles aren't even in braille, how in the blue hell does Geordi get anything done? The shit pulled in STID is standard fare for an outing on the Enterprise. Far worse films have attempted to pull off far more ridiculous stunts. Basically, if anything silly done in this movie turns you off of it, you were never going to enjoy it anyway so rest easy.

STID was a great in-your-face follow up to Iron Man 3 in terms of summer blockbusters, and will probably make my top 10 this year. J.J. Abrams delivered on a successful sequel to a uniquely great reboot of a treasured franchise. It's been announced that he will not be taking the direction on the next Star Trek entry, and that makes me sad, but the near perfect combination of fanservice and homage with Abrams' own style and fresh feel make me feel really good about his taking on Star Wars Episode VII. I think the Star Wars universe is in safe hands after watching this film, and most Star Wars fanboys should feel the same.

But seriously, J.J. If you manage to fuck Star Wars up any further than it has been, then from Hell's heart I will stab at thee.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Iron Man 3; Inner Turmoil

I've been having a really hard time with this one.

This is one of those movies that I so desperately want to like, that had many good-to-great moments, but I just can't. There are  too many problems, too many voices in my head screaming at me that there is something wrong with Iron Man 3. Hopefully, when I'm done here, I'll be able to give a straight answer.

IM3 had a lot riding on it, which couldn't have helped. Not only is it a follow-up to a very weak Iron Man 2, but it also had to contend with the surprisingly great Thor and Captain America films, not to mention The Avengers. Now, to say IM3 is a sequel to The Avengers would be VERY WRONG in the same way that Thor was not a sequel to IM2. Same universe, common characters, but not the same movie series. And thank the gods for that, because holy shit, would IM3 fall short by comparison to Avengers. It's not IM3's fault there, and it would be laughable to even attempt to compare to Avengers in terms of greatness in scope, or even just general importance. I've said several times that Avengers was a huge accomplishment across the board, WAY too much to be compared to a second sequel of one of the several main characters. That being said, it doesn't excuse IM3 from having the kind of  problems it has.

I'll start with inarguably the strongest element of this string of movies, and maybe of all the Marvel films thus far: Robert Downey Jr. Yeah, he's freaking awesome as Tony Stark, no argument here. He's been damn-near-flawless since donning the armour in 2008, and was one of the more endearing parts of Avengers (which is saying something). He's just as good here, creating a constant source of levity in what has the potential to be a very dark film. His wit is sharp and quips are lightning-fast, and barely a minute of Stark on-screen goes by without a chuckle being had.

Here's the problem: there's just too much of him.

Iron Man was great because it was an introduction to the character, and RDJ's performance instantly made the audience fall in love with him. IM2 had its problems, but RDJ wasn't one of them. Here, it's as though director Shane Black expected the film to succeed or fail solely on RDJ's back, so he had the character turned up to 11 the entire film. In many ways Stark was the same guy we saw in Avengers, but with one staggering difference: there was no Thor, no Cap, no Banner, and at the end of the day, no Joss Whedon. Anyone familiar with Whedon's work can testify that while the stories may be centric to one character, his work is very much focused on ensemble casts. Buffy, Angel, Firefly; they're not great just because of Sarah Michelle Gellar or whoever, they're great because of the chemistry that Whedon seems to constantly magic together out of a group. He did that with Avengers, and RDJ came out looking like a star. He rode that momentum into and through IM3, but with no one to play off of. No other protagonist was on screen with him long enough to benefit from any interaction. All we got was Tony Stark throwing out one-liners at ludicrous speed at anything that moved, sometimes even when he was all by himself. I'm reminded of the Pirates of the Caribbean films in that the more they focused on Captain Jack Sparrow, the less effective he was as a character and the worse the films became. The difference is I don't give a fuck-and-a-half about Captain Jack or POTC, but R'hllor be merciful if the Marvel films get fucked up because Disney thinks the world needs to be force-fed more Stark.

In accordance with the 'too much Stark' complaint, there isn't enough Iron Man. The scenes of the actual hero in costume are few and far between, with only one of those scenes sticking out in my mind as truly memorable. And to me, the worst of it is there wasn't much point to him not being in the suit when he wasn't. Now, there was a film last year that came out with the same kind of pacing, and it was also the third/final instalment of a superhero trilogy. It would be ignorant of me not to say that bias exists when it comes to the Dark Knight Trilogy, but there are reasons why this pacing worked in DKR and doesn't in IM3. First and foremost, Bruce Wayne is Batman regardless of whether or not the suit is on, which is something you can't say about Stark and Iron Man. Second, the lack of Batman in DKR was much more organic and reasonable, as well as necessary to the story. It's not so much in IM3. Stark has some personal shit going on throughout the film, sure, but in no way does he face the same turmoil that Wayne faces. I would very much hate to come out and say that IM3 straight-up stole ideas from DKR so I'll just infer it, but the similarities in my mind take away from IM3 on several levels, not the least of which is being remarkably similar in any way to a far superior franchise.

Also, throughout the bulk of the film where we don't get Iron Man, Stark gets to show off what makes him, well, him: his intelligence and ingenuity. He just starts Macgyver-ing shit all over the place in lieu of having his armour (which, it turns out, he could have easily gotten to anyway). It was a neat revelation of Stark's abilities...except that it wasn't anything new. Lest we forget how he made the armour in the first place: by making a goddamned electromagnetic heart out of a scrap yard of bullshit while being held captive IN A FUCKING CAVE, and then building himself a giant suit of armour, again, IN A FUCKING CAVE. I think it's safe to say that Stark is a bona fide genius and no more screen time should be devoted to proving it.

RDJ's dominance of screen time leaves little to go around for the supporting cast. Characters we are led to believe are essential to the story, such as Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts or Don Cheadle's Jim Rhodes, don't stay on screen for long and don't do much when they are, at least not until the climax of the film. The only other character that has nearly as much time on-screen is Guy 'Where the hell have I been since Memento?' Pearce, who was incredible as antagonist Aldrich Killian. The slow burn downplaying of the Mandarin character was a neat approach to a mysterious man-behind-the-curtain type big bad for the first two thirds or so of the film (sigh, but more on that in a bit). For me, the most notable characters to address are the ones that weren't even fucking there. Where in sweet blue hell was SHIELD when this mess was happening? I understand that maybe vanilla human terrorists are a bit whatever for a SHIELD-calibre organization, but when said terrorists are singling out one of your golden boys that damn near killed himself to save Earth? Yeah, maybe the helicarrier could swing around for a drive-by, make sure things are cool. I get having the bad eye, but Samuel L. Fury had to have had some idea what was going on. I get no Avengers interference, but seriously? If I were Stark, next time the world was in danger, I'd tell Fury and Agent Robin Sparkles to go fuck themselves.

Before I get too shitty with IM3, I'll talk about something I actually liked. After a series of events as fantastic and otherworldly as what happened in Avengers it was nice to see one of the characters be brought back to real life. The story of this film was as realistic and relateable as Marvel gets without getting dark (see: alcoholism, racism, infidelity, goddamn domestic abuse). What makes it better is that the film cites the events of Avengers several times as being the cause of real fuck-off problems for Stark, the most normal human of the bunch. The apparent changes made to the Mandarin character (again, during the first two thirdsof the film) were effective in making him a more realistic villain, as opposed to the magical being he is in the comics. While maintaining this realism, the film stays true to its predecessors' use of ridiculous super-science to remind the audience that, yes, this is a movie about a man in a huge, heavy suit of armour that flies, fires weapons out of literally everywhere, and now is about as well trained as a golden retriever to the point that it comes when you call it. Iron Man is one of the more broken superheroes out there, to the point where it risks making any encounter trivial, and therefore boring and predictable. This film did a decent job of levelling the playing field between good and evil. I just wish there was more Iron and less Man.

 An obvious best goes to the actual look of the film. If the Marvel films have done one thing right across the board it's been the look. The atmosphere of the films have been captured by the tone, setting, and effects used to create these larger than life heroes. I don't think Marvel would have gotten this far without the first Iron Man looking the way it did. Yeah, the armour is fantastic and completely unrealistic in and of itself, but the look of it and of the film in general was real enough to have us believe in it. Thor was more fantasy, but the setting of Asgard and its contrast with Earth made it work. Captain America was more of a WWII period piece, but I never felt like it was out of place at any point in time, considering it was also a Comic Book Movie. Marvel does their shit well, and IM3 is no exception. IM3 was pretty dark at times, in tone and atmosphere, so much so that there were times where I felt sympathetic towards a character that normally I would have no sympathy for whatsoever. The honest truth is that I've never really liked the Tony Stark character, but these films, along with RDJ's performances, have made him one of the best comic book characters to make the jump onto the big screen.

Now that I've got some good in with the bad, I'll jump into what bothered me most about IM3: change for change's sake. This bullshit bothers me to my very core wherever I see it, any kind of adaptation or remake of a source material of any sort, where significant points are altered for no fucking reason. It doesn't happen a lot here, but it happens. This is where I may lose some people because I do get nitpicky as the stereotypical nerd that I can be, and that's fine. Opinions are subjective and that's why I started this blog business in the first place. I just feel the need to point out the inconsistencies here to make people aware of why this film bothers me SO much considering it was a pretty good film.

Let's start with the Iron Patriot. There was literally no reason for the pimp-my-ride version of the Iron Man suit to be present other than to make the fanboys swoon. That shit drives me nuts, and it gets pulled all the time. The X-Men movies are the worst offenders: they basically tried to stuff as many random mutant references as they could into each film but didn't do so properly, leading to a goddamn clusterfuck. X-Men 3 glossed over some pretty big deal mutants (Angel, Juggernaut, the Morlocks) and had a sentinel as a fucking cameo. The Wolverine movie was just a hot mess of random muties that I can't even begin to understand. Now IM3 has gone and done the same with Iron Patriot. In the comics, Iron Patriot was a big deal and representative as a big bad not just to Iron Man, but the Marvel Universe as a whole. The presence of the suit as used in the film would have been just as effective if it were, say, fucking Iron Man! 

The biggest change made in IM3, and consequentially the biggest problem I had with it, came in the presentation of one of Iron Man's traditionally big player antagonists. There has been an uproar between critics, fanboys, and personal friends of mine in regards to what happened in the beginning of the third act of this film. For the sake of spoilers, I'll try and keep this as vague as possible, but I make no promises. Basically, the first two thirds of the film do a tremendous job of establishing a global threat and menacing terrorist in The Mandarin. In the comics, The Mandarin is the be all, end all for Iron Man baddies, a rogues gallery that's not necessarily all-star talent. For bad guys, there's pretty much just Mandarin, MODOK, and a whole bunch of motherfuckers in armor not unlike Iron Man. Mandarin is a master scientist, martial artist, and wielder of alien tech in the form of ten rings. The film presents Mandarin with a more realistic approach of a terrorist, along the lines of Osama Bin Laden. I felt this was a good move especially to link the third IM film to the first a la Dark Knight Trilogy. Hell, there was already a Mandarin reference in the first Iron Man (The terrorist cell holding Tony in IM1 is part of an organization called 'The Ten Rings'. Continuity is boss, and I'm thrilled when it's acknowledged in films). However, with the third act comes a drastic shift in the tone of the film that more or less takes a lot away from that build-up. It wasn't awesome, it wasn't even terrible...it was just so out of fucking nowhere that I had no immediate reaction to it. I was a deer in the headlights. Some films are able to pull this off and have it work, sometimes it makes the fucking movie. This was not one of those times. As I said earlier, I had no idea how to feel about this film and this is the biggest reason why. First off, it's an even bigger change to a major player in the Iron Man mythos, the equivalent to Ra's Al Ghul for Batman, Magneto for X-Men, or Norman Osborn for Spider Man. Secondly, it wasn't necessary at all. I almost feel as though it was done just for the reaction of it, just for the laugh or surprise or confusion it would inevitably receive from the audience. If so, then congratulations Shane Black, and also, gooooooooooo fuck yourself.

Alright, I've done it. I've made my decision.

Wait for it....

Yeah, I liked this movie. In the grand scheme of things, it was still quite inferior to IM1 and Avengers, but it fit the story arc of Tony Stark fairly well. The story told in it is really good, actually, and grounds the Marvel films in a way that Thor: The Dark World and Guardians of the Galaxy or whatever aren't going to be able to do. It capitalizes on the fact that Stark is the only hero in the Avengers that the audience can even come close to relating to. RDJ continued to do his thing, even though I thought he was doing it too much here. if the rumours of him being done with Iron Man after Avengers 2 are true, I will definitely miss him. As for the changes made along the way, a second viewing tends to make everything clearer and better, in a hindsight 20/20 kind of way, so I'll give it another shot. Sometimes the change works in retrospect, and not so much as it's happening. It's how I felt about Dark Knight Rises, and I didn't love that movie after the first viewing either. Yeah, it's another comparison between Iron Man and Batman, but a good one. Both films were fitting and real endings to their respective stories. Like Tony himself, the film had flaws. What do you expect? Not everything can be perfect.

Well, The Avengers came close.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Pain & Gain; Stranger Than Fiction

Michael Bay, you magnificent and terrible bastard.

Bay has been getting a lot of hate in recent years, a lot of it deserved. His movies of late have become the worst kind of summer popcorn movie: bad acting, horrible editing, with either a barely-there story or plot holes galore. Just lots of loud noises and shiny things on screen. Michael Bay films are the jangling keys of cinema. That's sad for me because I actually like his earlier work. If I had to rank my favourite Bay films before seeing Pain & Gain, it would look a little something like this:

1. Armageddon
2. The Rock
3. Bad Boys II
4. Bad Boys
5. Every fucking thing else
6. Pearl Harbour

 Considering this, it confused me when I heard that Bay had gone on record to apologize for Armageddon as it's probably the last movie that he should feel bad about. But then he recanted his apology saying he misspoke and would never apologize for anything, following that up with, and I quote: "I don’t change my style for anybody. Pussies do that." So never mind, Bay goes back to being an misogynistic, racist, arrogant douchebag and all is right with the world.

When I first heard about Pain & Gain, I was excited mainly due to two of my favourite Hollywood people being in it: Marky Mark and The Rock. Having that followed up by 'A Film by Michael Bay' made me cringe a little bit. And then it was stated to be based on a true story. Now, based on Bay's penchant for having things explode frequently, there are only a few types of real world events that Bay should be making into movies, and he REALLY shouldn't be allowed to (see: Pearl Harbour); but the more I saw of Pain & Gain, the more I was reminded of Bay's work on the Bad Boys movies. Yeah, they were flashy and unrealistic and such, but they were fun buddy cop movies, not to mention decent R-rated action. It was enough for me, with Marky Mark and The Rock in tow, to give P&G a chance. And I'm glad I did.

The story of P&G follows the true story of Daniel Lugo (Mark), a Miami body builder and personal trainer who, alongside fellow trainers Paul Doyle (Rock) and Adrian Dorball (Anthony Mackie), aim to make that money by kidnapping a wealthy client and, because they are tragically stupid, things go awry. Without spoiling anything, some of the events of the film that take place are truly over the top and have that taste of ridiculous that Bay is so famous for, so I did some looking into the true crime story that the film is based upon, and it seems that truth really is stranger than fiction sometimes. Yes, there are scenes thrown in to quicken the pace of the movie, some scenes are over-sensationalized, and in reality the group of criminals this is based upon was slightly larger (in number, not in physical size. Because damn Rocky's huge), but all-in-all this movie stuck pretty close to the stories published in the 1990's regarding the incident. If/when you go see this movie, there are some straight-up silly scenes in it. That shit actually happened.

If there is a single reason to see this movie, it's the people in it. Just fantastic performances all around, all of which are basically real people with their personalities turned up to eleven. Marky Mark Wahlberg is turning into a real Hollywood heavy, and I love it. His performance in The Departed stuck out the most for me, and that was amongst DiCaprio, Damon, and Jack Fucking Nicholson. His 'dumb but handsome' routine is one of the better things going for him in comedic roles like Ted and The Other Guys (also known as Channing Tatum Syndrome), and he's a good-to-great action guy. He got to be both funny and serious business in P&G and it suited him well. The film has been criticized for making the criminals too sympathetic and that might be true in Marky Mark's case. There were several times throughout the film where I didn't necessarily dislike the character, but just went 'Aww Marky Mark, no. Just no.'

I have a love/hate relationship with Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. Love him in movies, hate hate hate him in wrestling. Thanks to John 'Wrestling's Marky Mark' Cena, Rocky shouldn't be back in the ring any time soon and I can go back to liking him. This movie took a huge leap in that direction for me. Now, Marky Mark is a pretty built guy and probably put on some more pounds for this, but he looked like a fucking Baggins compared to Rocky, so that didn't hurt his presence in the film. Add to that his performance as a naive, herp-derp drug addict who found Jesus was fucking hilarious and endearing. There were times during Rocky's film career that I questioned his choices of funny kid-friendly films over action, but in reality he's just too funny to be squandered on Walking Tall 2: Running Tall or whatever.

Anthony Mackie's role as the third member of the gang was much more subtle than Mark's or Rocky's, but was just as over the top and was probably the most relateable character in the film. Tony 'That was a hell of a thing' Shaloub as the victim here was priceless, in that it would normally take a lot to straight-up hate someone who suffered through this madness, but here it seems natural. Ed Harris did his thing as the only real protagonist of the film, the PI hired to find the gang; he did it well, and without his calm and somber presence the film would have gone out of fucking control. Bay hasn't done characters this well since Armageddon, but it's nice to know he can still pull it off without Shia LeBeouf screaming in the background.

Visually, the film looks exactly like Bad Boys did. Also set in Miami, the setting was just as bright and warm as the city itself, but with a type of grit that fit the tone of the film. The R rating is earned here with language alone, but some strip club-centric nudity and a decent amount of the real-world kind of violence (as opposed to Will Smith in a Ferrari with a fucking MP5 violence) really hits it home. The only real inconsistency of the film lies in the pacing and tone of the film. The first 2/3 of the movie is a real good time, a comedic crime film along the lines of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. Just three idiots trying to make it big and not knowing what the fuck they're doing. The fun stops nearly dead in the third act and we're brought headlong into a true crime film rehashing the events of the story in a very different light. It was well executed, and really emphasized the true story element of the thing, but the change is both sudden and drastic. The fun dies hard here.

If you're uninterested in this film purely based on Bay's involvement, stop being so fucking pretentious. This was an overall good time, and one of the funnier movies I've seen in a while. This doesn't change my mind about Michael Bay as a person, but I'm a firm believer of liking someone's work does not mean you have to like them (see: Tom Cruise, Michael Vick, Chris Benoit). The summer season is upon us, and this film is not long for that season so go and see it when you can. It's a good comedy while also actually having a point, as opposed to a good comedy about three guys who are hung over AGAIN!!! Rocky and Marky Mark are worth the price of admission alone.

Also: Rocky has the most bitching, 90's-est skateboard ever. It's awesome.

And if you need me, I'll be in the gym forever.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's 10 Most Anticipated Movies of the Summer Season

Business is about to pick up.

So yeah, I again have not posted in a while. Not because there hasn't been anything to talk about, I just haven't had anything interesting to say about any of the films that have come out recently. Seen a few things, but nothing worth writing about. Not a good sign for the films released over the past few months, but it's typical for this time of the year. It's the lull between the Oscar season/Christmas Break movies and the Summer Blockbuster Season, happens every year. But those blockbusters are on the way, and with only a few days left in April and the movie season starting off strong in May, I'm getting excited. 

Last summer, I got spoiled. It would have been enough for either The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises being released to make my summer, and I got both. It was a good year. So good in fact, that I'm hard pressed to believe that this year will be any kind of comparison to it, but I remain optimistic. The summer movies are not the Oscar bait or critically acclaimed type of films so much as the all-entertainment, silly, fun movies that I believe should be the priority of the medium. Movies are meant to be fun, and the summer reminds us of it. If you ask me, the season's right on time too, because the world's gone through some serious shit the past few weeks. 

It's important to have something to look forward to, or at the very least know that there is something to look forward to in the first place. With that in mind, I thought I'd put the word out on some of the films coming out in the next few months that I can't wait to sit down for. The last Top 10 I did turned out pretty well in my opinion, and since I seem to have lost my 'voice', this might get me back in the swing of things. Now, keep in mind that these are not ranked by any means and are listed in order of the date on which they will be released, so you all know what's coming out sooner rather than later. It also saves me on making predictions and decisions on films I haven't seen. I'd hate to post something akin to 'LOL SUPERMAN'S GONNA RULE' and have to come back with 'JK K THX BYE' or some shit. I tried to be as varied as possible in my selections, try to get something in there for everyone, but yeah the list is pretty predictable. My loving mother, who is also a fan of the blog (of course she is, everyone should be) (because I'm awesome), suggests I should broaden my movie tastes. Maybe. After the summer. Probably not.

Anyway, fun starts now.

MAY 3 - IRON MAN 3

Obvious choice is obvious, right? I'm actually a bit skeptical on this being as great as it should be for a couple reasons. For one, Iron Man 2 was not as great as it should have been. The success of the first Iron Man was second only to The Dark Knight in regard to comic adaptations and maybe the best Marvel movie pre-Avengers. The follow-up had some slow, if not straight-up weak moments. Not to mention the fact that this will be the first follow-up to The Avengers which, if you haven't read my several lengthy posts about it, was a huge deal and a bigger success. This film will show if Marvel/Disney (Marney? Disvel?) can properly continue on with the momentum. I know that Thor, Captain America, and a whole bunch more have films coming out in the years to come, but this one's the opener. It's the Baltimore Ravens' first game of the season after winning the Superbowl. If The Avengers was the top of the mountain, let's hope Iron Man 3 can at least hover around it.

MAY 17 - STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

The first Star Trek was amazing, lens flares notwithstanding. It actually took me back realizing how well this new 'crew' of actors worked with each other to so quickly establish a rapport similar to that of the original, while also being their own thing. J.J. Abrams is quickly becoming a huge name in Sci-Fi, if he wasn't already. The trailers and promotions for Into Darkness look like a good time without actually giving anything away, which I love. And the addition of Benedict 'Sherlock' Cumberbatch, officially the funnest celebrity name to say, as the apparent villain is inspired casting. I feel that this movie needs to be good for Abrams for another reason though, namely his moving on to Star Wars: Episode VII for Disney. While I think it's a GREAT choice of director, confidence may falter in Abrams if this is not well received. Anyway, I can't wait to see everyone back on the Enterprise (Chekov FTW) and I know Mandi is looking forward to seeing a certain pointy-eared, green-blooded hobgoblin Sylar Spock. If Shatner makes an appearance, I'll lose my fucking mind in excitement.

JUNE 12 - THIS IS THE END

I don't like going to see comedies at the show. I find it can be a waste of time and money to see something that would be just as good, maybe better, at home on a smaller screen. Every year though, there's a small few comedies that grab my attention. Last year, it was 21 Jump Street, and it ended up being one of my favourite comedies ever. The year before, Bridesmaids, and it was also worth the trip. This year, This Is The End is my comedy pick over films like The Hangover Part Whatever I Get It They Have Substance Abuse Problems. For those unfamiliar, This Is The End features many of the funniest people in acting today (and James Franco) playing themselves during the apocalypse. That sounds awesome. I love me some end of the world movies, the trailer was hilarious, and as I said it has pretty much every guy I find funny in it (and James Franco). If Channing Tatum was in it playing a dumbed down version of himself, I'd already have my ticket.

JUNE 14 - SUPERMAN MAN OF STEEL

You know it'll be good when a die-hard Batman fan is looking forward to a Superman movie. Kind of like a Yankees fan looking forward to a Red Sox game. But really, we're due for a good Superman film, since we really haven't seen one since 1978. Yeah, I know Superman II was classic, but only mainly due to General 'Kneel Before' Zod. Any scene that he wasn't in seemed flat, and the fact that it had a director change half way through shooting didn't help. Then we had Superman Returns, which wasn't just bad but just depressing, more so because Kevin Spacey was fucking PERFECT as Lex Luthor. Anyway, back to this movie being good. I don't have blind faith in many directors, but Zack Snyder is one of those people I have faith in. I have loved everything he's done, including the widely and unjustifiably hated Sucker Punch. When I heard he was doing this, I was immediately excited and that excitement has only grown. The casting is perfect, if not inspired. Christopher Nolan's participation in producing is a huge plus. I think, I hope, and I want this to be good. Superman deserves another good film. Hell, DC Comics deserves another good film. Don't leave everything up to Batman, Clark. Get your shit together.

JUNE 21 - MONSTERS UNIVERSITY

Ah, Pixar, you magnificent bastards. I feel as though the yearly Pixar release has taken a step down in quality over the past few years. Toy Story 3 came in 2010 and was awesome while also resulting in some manly tears from yours truly, but that was followed up by Cars 2 which I haven't even seen but can imagine it's not exactly the kind of Pixar fare that appeals to the young and old alike. Last year, we have Brave, which I just didn't connect with. It seemed too much like the typical Disney Princess movie, but had its moments. I'm hoping Monsters U is another step in the right direction. Monsters Inc has never been my favourite Pixar film, but it's enjoyable enough and has moments of that widespread appeal I mentioned while also having some emotional moments a la Toy Story 3. While I'm not entirely sure what to expect from this, I'm sure the Pixar standard won't let me down for a third year in a row. But also, WHERE THE HELL IS MY INCREDIBLES SEQUEL? That is all.

JULY 12 - PACIFIC RIM

Giant robots. Fighting giant monsters. Directed by Guillermo Del Toro. YUP.

JULY 26 - THE WOLVERINE

I feel as though there are a lot of movies on this list that are follow ups (in one way or another) to horrible movies. If that's the case, then X-Men Origins: Wolverine takes the cake as the worst movie to be a sequel for. It was a collection of action movie cliches, mixed in with bad acting, rediculous plot holes, and the retardation of some of Marvel's most unique and interesting characters (see: Gambit, Sabretooth, fucking Deadpool). Here, we have Logan in Japan in what I hear is a film following one of the better Wolverine storyarcs from the comics. The biggest reason I have for looking forward to this is Hugh Jackman. Despite the first Wolverine, or really any of the X-movies that he's been a major part of, I think that Jackman is perfect as Logan and I'll watch him in anything. We have an established director in James Mangold, a huge budget backing the film, and a scene where Wolverine fights ninjas...many ninjas. It's not like it can be worse than the first. *knocks on wood

AUG 9 - ELYSIUM

In 2009, we were treated to one of my favourite Sci-Fi films in recent years in District 9. It was gritty, dark, amazing looking, and most of all, original. Director Neill Blomkamp's follow up effort to District 9 is Elysium, another dark Sci-Fi flick, but with more money and star power. Elysium as I understand it, is about a conflict between an upper and lower class of humans, the former residing in a space station named Elysium and the latter remaining on a ruined Earth. The film has returning District 9 alum Sharlto Copley as well as Jodie Foster and Matt freaking Damon as the lead. I really hope Blomkamp isn't a one-hit wonder, and from what I've seen of Elysium, he won't be.

AUG 16 - KICK-ASS 2

The success of The Dark Knight led to some darker, more violent Comic Book films and even some R-rated fare like Watchmen and Kick-Ass. I have very much enjoyed it and keep hoping for more. I get it here with Kick-Ass 2. I don't even give a fuck what its about, as long as it's as over the top and ultraviolent as its predecessor. We have Kick-Ass, Hitgirl, and Red Mist back from the original, with Jim Carrey joining up as another amateur hero. He might not be as popular as he used to be, but when Carrey is good, he's amazing. I've read the graphic novel already, and it's a decent story on par with the original. Despite losing Matthew Vaughn as director, I think this will live up to the original and by that, I mean kick ass. Pun intended.

AUG 23 - THE WORLD'S END

Another end of the world movie? Sold. Doesn't hurt that it's from the crew who did Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz. Shaun Of The Dead took the world by storm in 2004 and while not as popular, Hot Fuzz was still an incredibly funny movie. These movies helped garner interest in British comedy and showed that a spoof didn't have to be a stupid-as-shit 2-hour long gag reel and/or directed by the Wayans brothers. The synopsis of The World's End seems to follow the same line of satire towards the apocalyptic films that I so enjoy, with a group of adorably British friends going out for a pub crawl unaware that the world was ending around them. Simon Pegg is a huge star now after the success of Shaun Of The Dead, and I've enjoyed him in everything I've seen. Even better that he's paired up with Nick Frost again under the direction of Edgar Wright, who also made Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, one of the most tragically underrated comic book adaptations ever. If you've seen and liked Shaun Of The Dead (if you haven't, then what the hell is the matter with you?) and/or Hot Fuzz, I imagine you're going to enjoy this.

Well, as I write this we are little more than a week away from this season starting with Iron Man 3. I hope that this, along with this post and the ever enduring support of my readers (likes, comments, whatevers are appreciated) will give me that swift kick in the ass I regularly need to post in a timely fashion. From here on out for the next few months, if you need me, I'll be at the show on all of the fridays.

Knight Owl

Retro Review of Green Lantern: Anger Management

This fucking movie.

I really don't even need to express my opinions for this film as my hatred of it is pretty well documented and canonized. This is more about explaining these very complicated and deep-rooted feelings of disdain  Many can call Green Lantern a good or a bad film on the face of it or not give a shit either way, but my feelings go far deeper than being able to make a wanking motion and move on to the next perceived failure of film making.

First, I can easily admit that there have been films that are in many ways worse than GL, pent up balls of ridiculousness like The Room or Manos: The Hands of Fate. But all of the Plans 9 that exist in the history of film make no bones about being as bad as they are, and they have thrived on cult status because of it. GL is a different type of all around bad film that disguises itself as part of a successful genre movement in the Comic Book Film fad that's been going strong since around 2008. Had this film been made pre-The Dark Knight I may have had less hatred for it, accepting it as the status quo that films like Fantasic Four or Superman Returns have demonstrated. But no, the bar was raised by films the quality of The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, and Watchmen, to make not only decent genre films but good quality films in general. While there are other Comic Book films that do not meet this level of awesome, GL sticks out as the worst offender, and this review will explain why.

First off, it's important to note that I don't hate the concept of the Green Lantern canon. In fact, it's my second favourite comic canon around now and I know a great deal about it, and it has a lot to do with why I hate the movie so much. There are reasons to dislike the film without knowing a damn thing about the comics, but SO MUCH more to hate if you're a fan. The interesting thing is that the tendencies Comic Book movies have to differ from the source material don't bug me so much. But only if they make sense. The Joker didn't fall into a vat of chemicals in The Dark Knight because in the realist world that Batman could exist in, that would probably just kill you. There was no giant squid alien in Watchmen because that was kind of ridiculous to begin with. Kingpin was black in Daredevil because there is no white equivalent to Michael Clarke fucking Duncan (RIP). The changes made in GL that bug me don't make sense, and they're forced in for the convenience of the film makers. They cater  to a younger audience, or at least that's how they come off to me. And yeah, had I seen this movie when I was 10 I might have loved it. But then again, I loved the Tim Burton Batman films as a kid, and when I rewatched them as an adult educated nerd I kind of wanted to set Burton on fire.

Before I start throwing all of the hate on this I need to get out what I liked about the film. Having watched the film recently and more objectively, there really are some things worth mentioning. I think the strongest part of the film is what so many Comic Book movies end up mishandling: the female lead. Blake Lively as Carol Ferris was one of the strongest women in a film of this kind without being another hero a la Black Widow or villain. She was a convincing love interest while also being a useful character with some common-fucking-sense. This was something that the other DC properties were missing in their films. Both incarnations of Rachel Dawes were, while courageous and with conviction, completely naive considering their role in the film. Lois Lane in Superman Returns was just pants-on-head retarded and uber-dependant to the point of Bella-from-Twilight proportions. Carol Ferris didn't seem to have that incompetency. It doesn't hurt that Blake Lively is all the way gorgeous, despite what my darling Mandi says about her (the term 'butterface' gets thrown around a lot).

Peter Sarsgaard should also win an award for being the most self-aware actor of the cast. He was the only one who seemed to know how ridiculous this script was, and he just had fun with it anyway. His turn as Hector Hammond was the perfect mix of campiness and insanity for this film. It reminded me a lot of Arnold as Mr. Freeze in Batman and Robin in that he was there because, well, why not, and he didn't give a solitary fuck about what was going on. Everyone else in GL is so serious business throughout the whole endeavour, but Hector was all smiles and LOL MY HEAD IS HUGE! This movie is a very dark two hours for me, but he makes me smile.

So for those keeping count, there are exactly two things that I like about this film that are unaltered by other elements of the film. Both are characters. One because she is hot, and the other because he could not give less of a fuck. That's it. All downhill from here. Put on your hardhats, cuz I'm gonna drop some heavy knowledge.

Let's talk about Ryan Reynolds, shall we? I really do appreciate his work often enough but he was clearly the way wrong choice for Hal Jordan, and was depicted as such. I loved his dramatic work in stuff like Smokin' Aces, Waiting is one of my all-time favourite comedies, and he's the only watchable thing about Blade Trinity. Reynolds is a good pick for a superhero, just not Jordan. Reynolds is at his best as an overconfident, arrogant jackass while also being charismatic and charming in a smart-alecky way. Pre-Lantern Jordan does have some of those qualities, but he isn't much of a charming rogue or smartass. Jordan is notoriously arrogant, a symptom of being the bravest man ever while also being, well, dumb. His big talking point supporting the theory that he's the best of the Green Lanterns is his courage, and thank God because he's dumb-as-a-post and just as creative because his constructs reflect that. At least the film reflects this well enough. I need to hit these guys? I'll make a big fist! I need to move a crashing helicopter? I'll recreate the Hot Wheels track I was playing with yesterday! This comes out a lot when GL interacts with Batman, who is legit one of the smartest people on Earth. Batman begins crafting a plan. GL runs in and punches people with his giant fist. Batman facepalms. That's the gist of it.

Back to the problem with Reynolds:  if he was going to be GL, I would have preferred it if he was full-on Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern, not Ryan Reynolds pretending to be someone else as Green Lantern. He seemed half-committed, and it ended up not even half as entertaining as I know he can be. He made me laugh with every line of script from Waiting and Blade Trinity. If that was the guy we saw in GL, I would have loved it because I couldn't not. He half-assed the shit out of this role like he was afraid of being scolded for being himself. He was trying to be the light-hearted smart-alec and serious business at the same time, and it just confused me. If this movie was about Guy Gardner, Reynolds would have won a damn Oscar for the performance because the personalities are identical. This was just poor casting and I knew it from the get go. My choice: David 'Angel' Boreanaz. If you're looking for the best portrayal of Hal Jordan's personality type, just watch Angel (season 5 is probably the best example of it). He's arrogant, and a bit of an ass at times, but doesn't throw it in everyone's face. He says he gets shit done because he knows he can, and he does. Also, Angel is the best.

I was flabbergasted by how bad this film looked at times. Seriously, it was awful. There is no reason why the faces of Ryan Reynolds and Mark Strong (Sinestro) should look superimposed onto CGI suits, even if they actually were. Every time Jordan is on Oa, I'm reminded of the first Terminator and the scene where Arnold cuts out his eye when it's clearly a mannequin head. This looks similar in that, while it looks like Ryan Reynolds, it's clearly a CGI version of his face. That is RIDICULOUS. You mean to tell me that several years after three Star Wars movies were made with every single goddamn scene laden with CG scenery, props and characters, and the real people in those scenes still look like they're human fucking beings, you can't have Van-fucking-Wilder stand in front of a green screen and talk to air for a little bit? There is twenty solid minutes where Hal is kicking it around Oa with Tomar-Re, learning about all this shit (that apparently the ring has already told him because SCIENCE), where his face does not entirely match the dialogue and looks more like a kid from that Polar Express movie than Ryan Reynolds. What's even worse is that it happens again...on Earth! Where real people congregate! When he shows off his suit to his affirmative action friend in his apartment, the textures of his face become that of a Pixar character. I don't fucking even. It's a special kind of lazy where, instead of having a real life person wear a suit on screen, you just implement a cartoon in his place for the sake of a visual effect. Hollywood, you are doing it all the way wrong. Another twist of the knife comes from the fact that this was an improvement. The film was finished at an earlier date, set to be released months before it actually was released but was delayed in order to improve the visual effects that weren't screening well. Part of me wants to see that original cut just to laugh my ass off.

And what was with the suit anyway? I'll take the sacrificing of Spandex for functional leather like in X-Men or Daredevil because like I said earlier, deviating from the source material makes sense sometimes...but this? It's explained that the suit is a manifestation of will constructed by the ring, which isn't far from the truth in the comics; but why does the suit have to look like a reject from the Masters of the Universe toy line from the 80's? His chest glows! His mask appears and disappears randomly! His eyes change colour for some fucking reason! Batteries not fucking included! I'm not sure who thought that GL was better than Batman, Superman and the like to the point that they get to re-innovate how they do superhero outfits but they were wrong, and ended up overcomplicating some fairly simple elements of the Comic Book movie.

In terms of inaccuracies in regards to the comics, my frustration inherent rage can be summed up in one word: Parallax. Every time I begin to talk about this I start out fine, but then soon descend into angry grunts and arm flailing, so maybe typing this out will be easier. In the comics, Parallax is the sentient personification of fear, the attribute most in conflict with will, which is where the Green Lanterns draw their power from. While it does have a form or aspect that it is seen as, it isn't an actual physical being. It mainly affects the physical world by possessing living things, as it did in its introduction by possessing Hal Jordan and forcing him to go on an intergalactic-killing-spree throughout the universe. It cannot be killed or hurt. No shooting missiles at it. No punching it into the sun. Oh, and it looks like this:

Now, compare this quick summary with what the movie tells us what Parallax is: the translucent-headed guardians tell the audience that one such guardian thought it was a wild idea to start drawing power from fear as opposed to will; he did that, and went mad with power and became a ginormous cloud monster named Parallax. It got buried in a planet but broke out because it sucked in the fear of some hapless astronauts. So, in a way, this big bad is like Santa Claus, only instead of feeding on people believing in him, he feeds on fear. Might not be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a villain, but nowhere near close what he's based on. Parallax is, for all intents and purposes, a god of fear. It doesn't matter if you fear him or not; the fact that fear exists in the universe is a by-product of him existing, and doesn't make him more or less powerful. He just is. You could destroy the vessel he's using, sure, but that might only slow him down. And hey, maybe that's what happened in the movie and something just got lost in the translation, but if so, then TAKE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THAT. They took time enough to give this bullshit backstory on the rogue guardian, but can't say 'yeah, Parallax is a thing that possessed a guardian, and is now a cloud.' Then maybe some of the Lanterns could have deduced that if one were to punch the guardian-cloud vessel of Parallax into the fucking sun, its momentum would be lost and we can all breathe easier. That would have been five minutes of dialogue and I would have been happy as a pig in shit if it happened. It didn't. Parallax is a cloud that got punched into the 'Chekov's gun' of a sun by an arrogant douchebag. If Green Lantern 2 happens, and ret-cons the Parallax origin into being what it should be, I might go all the way out of my entire damn mind. 

So now we go from the 'historically inaccurate' bit of the review to the 'mind-blowing lack of common sense' portion. There are huge plot points in the film that go beyond being plot holes and in to just plain stupid. Accurate to the comics or not, there's shit that happens in this movie that does not make sense. Not only that, it also goes against other shit that has already happened in the movie. Need examples? I got you covered...

So the first one is more of an inaccurate-to-the-book thing, but also applies to being contextually stupid scriptwriting. So Jordan gets the ring, he's brought to Oa for training and after about 15 minutes of screen time, he quits the Corps. He tells his trainers to go fuck themselves in so many words, takes the power ring and goes home. Um...nope? Hal Jordan is an idiot, sure, but he is stupid brave and just as arrogant. Arrogant enough to know, in his heart of hearts, that he can get anything done. He'd go through the training no problem and walk out ready to drop bombs. But Ryan-fucking-Reynolds says 'nope' and splits. Kind of a bitch move, methinks. Also, it doesn't even come off as fear. He doesn't seem afraid to go through the training, he's just being lazy! He's overwhelmed by the circumstances because who wouldn't be? That's fine. That is what the training is for, you fucking scrub! He's just like 'ugh, this is all a lot of work,' and takes off. So now the Green Lantern Corps are one ring short, one man down, and about to go up against its biggest threat. This is not something that Hal Jordan would do. In fact, it is precisely the opposite of what Hal Jordan would do. The troubling part is that he had done the right thing earlier in the same fucking movie! He goes into a flight demonstration against some test planes, figures he can beat them, and does. He might have gone about it in a fucked up way, but he took care of business that he had no right to be able to take care of. But a little bit of personal training is too much for him? Go fuck yourself, Jordan. 

Next up, we have Sinestro, who is one of the top Lanterns, go to the guardians and say 'hey, Parallax is fucking our shit up. Maybe if we used fear instead of will, fought fire with fire, we'd be able to take him down a peg or two.' The guardians thought this plan was jolly good and gave the go-ahead. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME! To explain my frustration, see my summary of movie Parallax's origins. A guardian wanted to use fear instead of will and got fucked up because of it. They knew this, and had already explained it in the movie. So why in the blue hell would they allow a yellow ring to be made? Did they not give a shit, since it was just one of their foot soldiers doing it instead of another guardian? Absolutely pants-on-head retarded. Also, what was the idea? Will is in direct conflict with fear. The bad guy is feeding on fear. Wouldn't using fear as a weapon against him only make him more powerful? But what the fuck do I know, right? 

Anyways, fast forward to the end of the film. Jordan punches Parallax into the sun (*sigh) and all is well. If I were the guardians, I'd put a stop to the manufacturing of the yellow ring as it's no longer needed, right? Maybe stop another Parallax incident from happening? Not so much, as a scene part way through the credits shows Sinestro putting on the yellow ring and having his outfit change. Hopefully, that was the last scene of this franchise but if not, it was the worst introduction to one of the best antagonists that the DC universe has to offer. Well done, good job. 

A third and final example for you, dear readers: we have Hal Jordan return to Oa having realized that Parallax is going to swing by Earth to stock up on power before bringing the thunder to Oa (because he's a cloud, get it?). He goes up to the Guardians with Sinestro in tow, explains the situation and asks for help. Well, I guess the Corps get to return the favour to Jordan's quitting earlier because the guardians could not give a fuck, much less another Green Lantern to help out. They send Jordan on his merry way to solo this shit. I get not wanting to help Jordan. I understand not wanting to devote resources to help out a scrub that gladly left you in a bind not days before. But keep in mind that protecting people IS THEIR FUCKING JOB. This is why the Green Lantern Corps exists, to protect planets from interstellar harm. Also, this is the big bad we're talking about. They had been several steps behind Parallax throughout the movie and only ever caught up with him while he was finishing up decimating an entire planet worth of life for power. AND Earth was his last stop for power before taking a pot shot at Oa. They were not going to get a better shot at ending that cloud bastard than this. And they were at full strength with Jordan back, or at least stronger than they were without him. They had no real reason to turn Jordan down except for being bitter. It's a good thing Jordan knew stuff about big things being around the sun or else things would have ended rather differently for the little blue guys. In the end, I think that the guardians felt about Jordan the same way I feel about this movie: that it can goooooo fuck itself. 

February was a rough month. Rough enough that my darling Mandi and I have redubbed it 'Fuckuary'. Now that the smoke is cleared and we're back on track, I'm going to start trying to regulate this blog so that I'm posting more regularly. This is the beginning of that, which is neat because this particular post has focused a lot of the frustrations I've had over the past few weeks and directed it at a film that I've been frustrated with for the past few years. As a movie lover and comic fanboy, I truly believe this is one of the worst Comic Book movies ever made. It's rumoured that a Justice League film is a thing that's happening in lieu of the success of The Avengers, and that Ryan Reynolds may have the part as Hal Jordan again. I'm not happy about it, but whatever. Thankfully, films like this are less common than the awesome movies that this genre puts out. If this trend can continue, then I can sleep well knowing that this film can be forgotten or even better, redeemed. 

Go fuck yourself, Green Lantern.

*drops mic on stage.*

Knight Owl