Showing posts with label comic book. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comic book. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Batman V Superman V Captain America

For those of us who still haven't tired of watching superpowered (and not so superpowered, though Hawkeye has his uses) individuals boil down complex moral, social, and philosophical issues into basically a  case of who can punch harder, then the past decade or so has been a godsend. The future looks to be equally as fruitful, as heralded by the arrival of two trailers, one apiece for the upcoming Captain America: Civil War and Batman V Superman.

Ever since Iron Man blasted his way onto the silver screen all the way back in 2008, Marvel has slowly but surely been establishing its onscreen brand with a series of calculated moves like a well-played game of three-dimensional chess. Their path to cinematic superhero dominance is a carefully concocted sort of alchemy brewed by Marvel and Disney that involved slowly cultivating a cast of characters from over 75 years of source material, carefully and strategically translating it to the strange, new medium of motion pictures while developing a shared movie universe unlike anything that's come before. DC hired Christopher Nolan to make some Batman movies.

Thursday, February 05, 2015

We're the Guardians of the Galaxy, Bitch: Hearts and Legs Stolen, Ancient Ruins Plundered

It turns out that the largest obstacle that GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY had to overcome also turned out to be its saving grace.  What GUARDIANS had going both for and against it was a thick veil of obscurity (outside of a very tight, very virginal cabal of hardcore comic book adherents).  On the one hand, obscurity--anonymity's step-brother--is a barrier to achieving glory.  It's a pit you have to kind of claw your way out of, inch by inch, until you reach the top and start shouting your name at the top of your lungs until people begin to recognize or you get locked up in an insane asylum with an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord of electric shock therapy and the drooling faces of doomed souls.  On the other hand, obscurity can act as a shield against preconceived notions, giving you the freedom to create yourself in whatever or whoever's image you are so inclined, even if it's a cybernetic, anthropomorphic raccoon.

If you had told me a year ago that I would be trying to reconcile the fact that not only might GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY be my favourite Marvel movie so far but also one of my favourite movies from 2014, I probably would have punched you in the face, gouged out your eyes and used them as dice, and fucked your sister without so much as a phone call the next morning.  Luckily for those in proximity to me, GUARDIANS turned out to be great.  Which worked out well, because I already have boxes full of eye-dice in my basement I'm still trying to figure out how to store effectively.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Amazing Spider-Balls 2: The Quest For More Cash

a·maz·ing
adjective
  • causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing.
  • e.g., "an amazing number of people attended the community orgy"
informal
  • startlingly impressive.
  • e.g., "she takes the most amazing dumps"
synonyms: astonishing, astounding, surprising, stunning, staggering, shocking, startling, stupefying, breathtaking

Putting the word "amazing" in the title of, well, anything will inevitably invite a certain level of criticism based on the incredibly high bar of quality that you set for yourself.  Indeed, it is a descriptor that should be used sparingly lest it lose its impact.  And you had better make goddamn sure that any product bearing that moniker can--if not live up to--then at least aspire to such a lofty ideal, a paradigm of excellence.  
The seemingly premature rebooting of the Spider-Man franchise back in 2012 was met by many through a wearily skeptical lens, and it could effectively be argued that this was rightfully so.  By now, the licensing issues surrounding major comic book properties have come so much to the forefront of public consciousness that they have become practically taken for granted.  It's become part of our core understanding of the movie industry that Sony has to make a Spider-Man film every couple of years in order to maintain the movie rights.  Come hell or high water and sometimes in total disregard to standards of quality or basic human dignity.

The first movie in the culturally unnecessary yet legally required rebooted series was solid, but THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN retread a lot of the same ground from Sam Raimi's wall-crawling trilogy and didn't do too much in the way of innovation or trailblazing.  Were it not for the charisma of the leads, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, much of the otherwise middle-of-the-road script might have fallen flat.  It was also super frustrating watching them tiptoe around and have Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) say, "With great power comes great responsibility," without actually literally saying, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Fall of the Mighty... A Long Way to the Bottom with Iron Man. Third Time's a What Now?

What did you say about my mother?
There was a viral video phenomenon back in 2007 - 2008 known as Two Girls One Cup.  From what I've been told, it depicted two girls each repeatedly taking turns consuming the other's shit and vomit, which, depending on your particular proclivities, was either a window into the depths of human sexual depravity or "just another Saturday night."  I, myself, never bore witness to this cultural phenomenon.  When it was described to me by others with the inevitable epilogue, "Dude, you've got to watch it for yourself," I never felt the urge to follow up on that imperative. Based on the descriptions I heard and my conscious evaluation of what might fall into my normative range of pleasurable stimuli, I decided that I wanted absolutely no part of that.  I've seen a lot of crazy shit in a variety of media, but the Two Girls One Cup video definitely seemed to fall outside the boundaries of anything I wanted to willingly subject myself to.  It was a mature decision that I was proud of, and one of the few that I look back on with absolutely no regret.

Until now.

A little while ago, I was subjected to IRON MAN 3, the cap on Marvel's Iron Man movie trilogy and its cinematic follow-up to THE AVENGERS.  There was a lot of hype built up surrounding the film, with IRON MAN 3 shattering box office records and many fans of the genre favorably comparing the movie to Joss Whedon's massively successful AVENGERS ensemble.  I wasn't holding out much hope of greatness considering Marvel's typical appeals to mediocrity, but considering the positive energy from fans surrounding the film, I thought that perhaps we'd get a decent action film that, if not on par with the first IRON MAN, would at least provide the same level of mindless entertainment as THE AVENGERS.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Superman Unbound: A Tale of Two Fathers (And a Bonus Messiah Complex)

Suck it, Brandon Routh
There are some things that work great on paper but seem to have some internal mechanism that prevents them from bridging the gap with implementation.  For most of us, this might manifest as everyday, mundane activities like orchestrating a simple kidnapping or arson, or a three-way with your girlfriend's hot cousin, or the impregnation of your impotent friend's wife at the couple's behest.  Then, of course, there's Superman.

I have a Superman shirt.  And it is fucking awesome.  And when I wear it, my awesome quotient invariably increases.  I always loved the idea of Superman, but I hated the character of Superman.  As a cultural icon, Superman is pretty powerful (even more so than a locomotive or a massive load shot out at Mach 3 from Ron Jeremy's massive cock).  He represents strength: not only physical, but also moral.  Invoking the tropes specific to the mythology of Superman is to draw inspiration to be our best selves.  We can look towards him as an archetype of incredible physical feats and endurance or the epitome of "good guy" morality in situations that have (comparatively) more clear ethical boundaries and we might be tempted to falter.  Superman as a symbol works great.  He's an ideal; something to strive towards but never to be attained.  Superman tracks down the owner of the lost wallet full of cash and returns it personally.  Wolverine drops the wallet off at the cop shop with all of the ID and credit cards in tact but keeps the cash as a finder's fee.  Lobo keeps the wallet, then tracks down its owner and beats the shit out of him for being a dumbass. 

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Rising Prospects Amidst Pleas for the Apocalypse... Spoilers for Life. Deep Thoughts, Wounded Souls, and Freaks Like Me

**NOTE: EXTREME SPOILERZ APLENTY**

After waiting four long years for Christopher Nolan's third installment in his seminal Batman feature film franchise, I could hardly believe it when I finally found myself sitting in the theatre waiting for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES to start.  Not content to simply create the best superhero film of its time with BATMAN BEGINS, Nolan sought to redefine not only an entire genre of films but also to remind us that the term "summer blockbuster" did not have to be used solely in the derogatory.  With THE DARK KNIGHT, Nolan  created some kind of strange, new hybrid that had the action, excitement, and scale of a blockbuster film but that was tempered with depth, substance, and integrity.  THE DARK KNIGHT was grand in the scope not only of its cinematic vision but also in terms of theme and philosophy.  It dealt with sweeping themes of morality, the nature of right and wrong, good versus evil, and self-sacrifice.  Amidst all the action and explosions (of which there were many), Nolan gave us a culturally significant piece of art that cut to the core of universal themes that humanity has been wrestling with since (*insert chronological hyperbole here*) with the insight and resonance usually reserved for ancient Greek dramas, Shakespearean tragedies, and certain HBO shows.  THE DARK KNIGHT was an independent art house flick with all the trappings of a Hollywood blockbuster without succumbing to the pretension of the former or the hubris of the latter.  It was simultaneously entertaining, emotionally poignant, and intellectually stimulating.  Nolan showed the world that it was possible to maintain artistic integrity (however you choose to define it) in as bloated and self-serving a medium as there ever was and to engage audiences both viscerally and cognitively.

In short, THE DARK KNIGHT was a game changer.

Of course the problem with THE DARK KNIGHT having been such an excellent film (if you consider excellence to be a problem) was that Nolan had set the bar so high that it was as inevitable as Icarus falling from the sky or getting laid at the prom that he could not hope to soar to those heights again.  He could get close, but how often does one achieve virtual perfection?  How could any movie, even another made by Nolan in the same universe, ever hope to match or even exceed the remarkably high standards he himself had set?  And as part of the audience going to witness this final chapter, how could I not help but compare THE DARK KNIGHT RISES with its predecessor THE DARK KNIGHT?  THE DARK KNIGHT RISES -as with any text- must be considered in the context in which it was produced, and a large part of that context is derived from THE DARK KNIGHT (and, of course, BATMAN BEGINS).  There are some who would shy away from comparisons between the two cinematic titans, because they're "too different," like comparing apples and a completely different kind of apples.  Some would say it isn't "fair" to compare TDKR to TDK because TDK was so special and so unique that TDKR couldn't possibly measure up, but I say that it is not only fair but necessary.  How is it unfair to compare a Nolan-helmed, Bale-starring Batman film to another Nolan-helmed, Bale-starring Batman film?  What the fuck is unfair about upholding a standard of excellence?

Of course, most of this trepidation was the result of the fanboy (sorry, fanperson) urge to preemptively defend a piece of art that some feared might not live up to their incredibly high expectations.  It was rationalization at it's worst ("If THE DARK KNIGHT RISES isn't as good THE DARK KNIGHT it's because almost nothing can be that good, so each movie has to be considered on its own merits.") which smacked of the self-righteous and a defeatist attitude as fans simultaneously hoped for an opus of epic proportions yet braced for some kind of vague sense of failure.  Success does funny things to people's brains, even brains that had nothing to do with it in the first place.  Unlike failure, it seems there are always people willing to help others bear the terrible burden of success.  Nobody ever wants to give Atlas a break.

I must admit to experiencing just a touch of that same trepidation mixed in with my excitement.  The concept of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES as a film had become an exercise in What If's.  What if it wasn't as good as THE DARK KNIGHT?  What if it wasn't good at all?  What if Nolan succumbed to the (supposed) third movie curse?  What if Heath Ledger hadn't died before this trilogy was complete?  What if.  Going to see Nolan's third Batman film for the third time had become a mental exercise of trying to juggle all of my uncertainties and the doubts of lesser men that had begun to grow in my mind like so many tumours. (Yes, I know Arnold, it's not a tumour.  It's a simile.)  The real mental exercise then became letting go of all of that bullshit and just experiencing the movie.

And what an experience it was.

It's difficult for me to describe how I feel about THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, even now, just over a week since I've seen it.  There's so much that's still uncertain.  The only clear emotion I can remember is the one on the drive home, which was an overwhelming sense of depression.  Not because the movie was terrible or because my expectations were not met, but because after witnessing something like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, everything else seems so dull and small and insubstantial by comparison.  It wasn't until after the credits rolled that I got the sense of what had really happened.  I had been washed away in some strange tide and dragged out into an ocean, a world almost too vast, too grand to comprehend or take in.  The depression washed over me as the tide receded and I was deposited back on the shore of this world.  I felt as though for those two hours and forty-four minutes my mind had been expanded in order to take in Nolan's grand vision, and then afterwards had retracted again, though not to its original scope so that I still felt like there was something missing, some empty part of me that had not even existed before, yearning to be filled again.

There was one thought I had on the hour or so ride home (the nearest IMAX theatre was over an hour away from where I lived, though I felt (quite rightly, it turned out) that this particular mission necessitated the extra travel time, baffling my wife who couldn't understand what was wrong with the theatre that was literally a two minute walk from our front door) that stuck with me.  The thought came to me unbidden (or perhaps bidden by forces beyond my perception) that beauty was the conscious or unconscious willingness in a specific instance to believe in the illusion of perfection.  It was the active decision to either overlook or accept a specific subset of imperfections in the face of otherwise overwhelming grandeur.  Beauty was the abandonment of what is to the possibility of what could be: ignoring what you know to be true in favour of what you hope to be true until, eventually, what you hope becomes what you know, or crumbles under the weight of disillusionment.  I shit you not.  These are the exact thoughts, verbatim, that ricocheted around the inside of my skull after watching THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.  I knew at that moment that I had experienced art.  It was something substantial.  It was more than "just a summer blockbuster."  I can remember very few pieces of art that have actually inspired me into profound philosophical musings about the nature of beauty and art and my perception of the world as a whole.  This may sound like exaggeration or hyperbole, and to a certain extent it may be, but it is nonetheless still true.  Of course, it might also be argued that this thought was my own twisted form of rationalization for enjoying THE DARK KNIGHT RISES despite the "flaws" in the film that some people have pointed out and a desperate attempt to maintain the pedestal on which I have placed Nolan and all of his artistic endeavours.  I would argue to the contrary, however, I am not privy to the inner workings of my own psyche, so I could not argue the point with complete certainty.

One thing I am certain of, however, is that Nolan's Batman movies have, in my mind, become the seminal motion picture trilogy of our generation.  These films are game changers in the way that the original STAR WARS trilogy was a game changer, in terms of thematic significance, technological innovation, and narrative scope.  In fact, I would have to say that THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy supplants the STAR WARS trilogy's number one spot.  Nolan's DARK KNIGHT trilogy is like the STAR WARS trilogy if A NEW HOPE was more emotionally engaging, and instead of RETURN OF THE JEDI there was THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Part II which incorporated all the emotional catharsis and all the best parts of JEDI such as Luke's badassery and Leia in her slave girl outfit.  And then imagine that A NEW HOPE, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK I and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK II (THE EMPIRE RISES?  THE RISE OF THE JEDI?) were more coherently unified in terms of theme and narrative and you will only begin to understand the truly impressive nature of Nolan's monumental achievement.
And 1,2,3, and 1,2,3...See?  You'll be ready for the
big dance competition in no time

In fact, there were certain times where I felt the influence or the intertextuality between STAR WARS and THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy.  The way THE DARK KNIGHT and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK both ended on kind of a downer for our heroes.  In fact, in both of these second entries the bad guy seems to have the good guys on the ropes the whole time.  Both sequels also contain the only real love story in their respective trilogies.  In THE DARK KNIGHT RISES there is an early fight scene with Bane that is reminiscent of Luke's battles with Darth Vader in both EMPIRE and RETURN OF THE JEDI.  Bane and Batman battle along a catwalk overlooking a precipice as did Luke and Vader in EMPIRE, and like that movie, here the bad guy definitely had the upper hand.  Then in the same fight Batman hides in the shadows much as Luke does in JEDI, as their respective antagonists taunt them with bad guy shit.  Both protagonists feel the pain as Vader and Bane both wreak physical pain upon their enemies, though Batman/Bruce Wayne's punishment is definitely more severe.  A friend drew an interesting comparison between the way the rebels used cables to bring down the AT-ATs at the battle of Hoth and the way Batman used cables to bring down the Joker's transport in THE DARK KNIGHT.  The point here isn't to say that THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy owes a debt to STAR WARS and contradict my earlier assertions about the superiority of the former films over the latter, but rather as an example of how richly woven Nolan's narratives are with the cultural fabric of our time.

I have to mention here how fitting a character Bane was for the final installment.  Out of respect to the late Heath Ledger, and his performance of a lifetime as the Joker, Nolan's film doesn't even mention the Joker.  Some people get stuck on this point and are baffled that the Joker is not around.  In keeping with Nolan's themes of realism, I offer this solution:  Guantanamo Fucking Bay.  You really think the U.S. government is going to let a known terrorist hang out in a low security mental institution?  And as for no mention of him; how often do you hear about Osama Bin Laden on a daily basis now that he's out of the picture?  Suck on it.

Where THE DARK KNIGHT RISES would have gone were it not for Ledger's untimely demise is a source of endless and tantalizing speculation, however where it did go with Tom Hardy stepping in as Bane is as great a destination as any we could have speculated about.  Any worries the media stirred up about his voice were completely unfounded, and Hardy was both menacing and creepy in the role.  Some reviewers have talked about how hard it was for Hardy to "emote" as Bane, as if wearing a mask somehow detracted from the character.  That would be like saying Darth Vader was somehow less of a badass because his face was covered.  He looks menacing, he sounds menacing, and he... tastes menacing, I assume.

Not only that, but just like previous villains in Nolan's Batman universe, Bane was the embodiment of the theme of this film.  In BATMAN BEGINS Nolan's theme was fear, represented perfectly by both the Scarecrow (also with a nice cameo in TDKR, by the way) and Ra's Al Ghul.  The Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT actually verbally evokes Nolan's theme of chaos, claiming to be its agent.  And in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES where the theme is pain, Bane both dishes out a great deal, but also suffers from chronic, crippling pain which is why he wears the mask that dispenses some kind of pain killer in aerosol form.

More than that, Bane was the perfect villain to round out the series because he really was the yin to Batman's yang.  Bane is basically what Bruce Wayne would have become had he decided to kill that peasant dude in the first movie that Ra's Al Ghul wanted him to execute.  Like Bruce Wayne, Bane was trained by the League of Shadows, though unlike Bruce, Bane was excommunicated for being too extreme.  Both Bane and Batman represent two extremes, two sides of the same coin if you will, and it cannot be coincidence that the design of Bane's mask is almost exactly the opposite of Batman's cowl, revealing his eyes and the upper part of his face while Batman covers the top of face and reveals his mouth.  This contrast really brings to mind classic battle of good versus evil.

And while THE DARK KNIGHT RISES does deal with timeless themes of good versus evil, it is also, like its predecessors, a very timely film.  Part of Nolan's genius is the same genius that permeates the art of The Beatles.  Even their seemingly frivolous pop songs about holding hands or a hypothetical eighth day of the week which now seem heavily (out)dated and so much a product of their time, have a certain timeless quality about them.  In THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Nolan explores several culturally relevant themes that pervade the current Western zeitgeist.  One of the big themes Nolan explores is class conflict, where the exploited Marxist masses are put squarely at odds with the decadent, out of touch bourgeois, with clear battle lines being drawn.  This is clearly tapping into a sense of unrest in Western cultures that stems from societies evolving from an economic mosaic into a bipartisan scale with the two extremes -filthy rich and disgustingly poor- increasingly looking like the only viable options.  The erosion of the middle class at the hands of the self-indulgent, indignant, out of touch, economic elite, has lead to massive protests, the most famous of which so far has been the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, while accomplishing nothing, at least brought to light the growing sense of disparity many people are sensing.
That is one fine looking pussy... cat

Another response to current cyber culture is the Blank Slate computer program that Selina Kyle (AKA not Catwoman) is desperately searching for.  Basically the program is a digital holy grail that somehow manages to erase all digital traces of a person, essentially wiping out all record of their existence and, depending on the point of view of the target, is either an extreme inconvenience or, as the name suggests, a chance to escape one's past and start over fresh.  This, of course, taps in to contemporary concerns that have perhaps become most personified in social networking sites like Facebook, where every comment you write, and every picture posted of you no matter how compromising or scandalous is basically there for all of eternity for all the world to see.  More so for teenagers who grew up with Facebook and didn't consider the long term implications of posting pictures of themselves playing Rock Band naked with crude images of dicks drunkenly stenciled all over their exposed flesh with a felt tipped marker.  This generation of kids view social media in a totally different light than the generation of adults who will be running the workforce they will be stepping into.  The youth of today see social networking as a form of free expression and a means to engage with friends completely segmented from "the real world."  The current sense of things is that what happens on Facebook stays on Facebook.  Not so for those mourning the loss of their youth and who live in a parallel world where terms like "responsibility" and "accountability" become not only creed and contract, but also (sometimes) necessary burdens born by a grim coalition of the unwilling.  Neither side is incorrect, but there is still the fear that an errant Tweet can kill a budding career just as surely as a .44 Magnum will blow your head clean off.


But unlike other narratives, Nolan's universe holds no easy answers.  The overthrowing of the 1% at the hands of the 99%, which seems like a Marxist wet dream finally come to glorious fruition under the careful manipulation of Bane, and seems like it should be immensely satisfying to watch, is instead unsettling and deeply disturbing.  While storming the castles of the wealthy and plundering their spoils would be extremely satisfying, and in many senses just, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES shows that mindless looting and anarchy are not as appealing as they might seem.  You unseat the wealthy and punish them, and what then?  The same is true of the Blank Slate program which erases one's past.  The question posed by this movie is not only what one might do to start over, but what one might do if one could start over.  There's no program to erase one's own memories.  What we do with our future is at least as important as what we have done in our past.  At what point do you have to put aside worries about your past and move on?

There are no easy answers.  I've read a lot of reviews, and one of the things that the detractors seem to not like about THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is that it seemingly contradicts the themes of THE DARK KNIGHT.  I couldn't help but think that perhaps we had watched two different movies (has somebody already copyrighted THE DICK KNIGHT RISES?  Totally called it.  Pay up, porn peddlers.).  What I saw in TDKR was a continuation and evolution of the themes set out in TDK.  For instance there's Wayne/Batman's speech at the end of TDK where he says something along the lines of "Because sometimes the truth isn't good enough.  Sometimes people deserve more.  Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."  And then he takes the blame for Harvey Dent AKA Two Face's crimes so the criminals put away by Dent as Gotham's DA will stay in jail and not have their lawyers spring them on a technicality like the guy who put them there was actually a murdering psychopath.  Then in TDKR we are shown the extreme  to which the pendulum has swung as hardened criminals are being put away by the barrelful in Blackgate Prison and held indefinitely.  I believe one or more characters mention the violation of the inmates' civil liberties.  Again, tying in to the timeliness of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, this speaks to anxieties surrounding institutions such as Guantanamo Bay and the huge breech of civil liberties that was (and is) the Patriot Act.  Is a violation of civil liberties a necessary sacrifice to maintain law and order?  These are the types of questions THE DARK KNIGHT RISES evokes.

This is not a contradiction of the themes of THE DARK KNIGHT.  Sometimes people deserve more than the truth.  The corollary which Batman and Police Commissioner Jim Gordon never considered at the end of THE DARK KNIGHT is that sometimes people also deserve the truth.  For both Gordon and Batman/Bruce Wayne that delicate balance becomes ever more into question in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES even before Bane arrives in Gotham and the shit hits the fan.  Both Wayne and Gordon have had to bear the full weight of the lie that helped clean up the city.  For Gordon that meant losing his family who has moved away, and for Wayne his raison d'etre, and for both an extremely troubled conscience.  Bale and Oldman do a fantastic job of showing how this burden has eaten away at both of them, and both of their characters really feel like hollowed out shells of men.  Gordon seems especially troubled as he has to continue to heap praise on the man who was moments away from murdering his son.  This evolution from rewarding faith by lying for the greater good and the ends justifying the means to trusting that people are strong enough to endure the truth and bear the burden without breaking reflects an evolution in the characters and marks a shift from a more youthful idealism to the weary pragmatism of experience.  As people evolve, their needs sometimes evolve as well.  At the time of Dent's death it was important to reward people's faith, to give people hope, but as time and circumstances progressed it may also have become necessary to reveal the deception and (more importantly) the reasons for it, and trust that the majority of people would have seen the need for it at the time and allow them to move on.

And it is precisely this lack of trust that in part leads to Gotham's downfall.  Another so-called contradiction that critics point out has to do with one of the final scenes of THE DARK KNIGHT where two boats loaded with people -one with your average Joe Citizen and one with convicted felons- are rigged with a literal boat load of explosives and each boat has the detonator for the other boat's bomb.  The Joker informs them that whoever blows up the other boat first will live and if neither boat makes a choice then both will go boom.  Batman doesn't seem too concerned because he has faith in the people of Gotham, and that despite the Joker's assertion that given the opportunity there is no limit to how far so-called civilized people will sink:

"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."

In THE DARK KNIGHT the Joker tries his damnedest, but in the end his hypothesis seemed to be disproved by the folks on the boats who resist his sociological mindfuck.  Like Batman, who endured the Joker's demands to reveal his identity despite his promise to kill people until he did so, the people on the boats endured the fear and chaos that the Joker attempted to spread.  For critics the contradiction to the courage of Gotham's conviction is how seemingly easy it is for Bane to break the collective spirit of the citizens of Gotham City where the Joker previously failed. 

Well, it wasn't that fucking easy.  It took eight years of apathy and complacency to erode the hearts and minds of Gotham's citizenry.  With the Joker gone and the Dent Act in place allowing the cops to tackle crime unfettered from the shackles of due process, Gotham became an extremely safe, comfortable place to live.  Eight years later, with crime rates at an all time low and growing socioeconomic disparity (which had been addressed in the previous two films) the city, much like Wayne and Gordon, was eroding from the inside out. The point made in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is that the people had not remained vigilant. It's the old cliche that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. So when Bane comes in and starts off with his Marxist rhetoric about liberation from the oppression of the socioeconomic elite after appropriating a nuclear weapon and trapping the bulk of the GCPD underground, it's no stretch of the imagination that mass panic and group mentality would lead to uncharacteristically criminal behaviour on a large scale. There is ample historical evidence of looting and rioting on a mass scale in the wake of a disaster. The Joker was right to a certain degree. When the chips were down low enough, civilized people were capable of falling, of committing the very crimes they themselves had endured. Indeed, the people of Gotham were "only as good as the world allows them to be." Whereas Joker's full on assault came up against the people's resolve to resist falling prey to the same temptations as their enemies, Bane brought on an assault, but also preyed upon weaknesses already present in the fortification. The Joker tried to manipulate through sheer chaos, where Bane used chaos and calculated manipulation.

(Since we're on the subject (sort of), allow me to respond to another criticism of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES which revolves around Bane's (and apparnently Talia's) plan to destroy Gotham City.  Some critics cry foul and ask why Bane just didn't blow up the city with the IND (Improvised Nuclear Device) instead of letting anarchy rule for five months or so.  Thankfully, this is an easy one.  It's the same reason Ra's Al Ghul planned to release the airborn toxin in Gotham in BATMAN BEGINS and have the city "tear itself apart through fear."  He wanted to make an example of Gotham (the "world's most powerful city" and an obvious metaphor for New York) for the rest of the world, to weed out evil on the ground floor, but also to reign in the hubris of the rest of civilization.  Just like they had supposedly done in Rome and Constantinople and London, the League of Shadows wanted to make an example of Gotham for the rest of the world.  So, in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, the point of Bane's plan isn't just to break the spirits of Gotham's citizens (though it's a nice perk to help torture Bruce Wayne), but to demonstrate to the world how the spirits of any population can be broken.  It was a warning to the world to take heed of the corruption brewing beneath the surface and for other communities to take heed of their own arrogance when it came to letting evil fester.  So, yeah, it made total sense for Bane, who was trying to fulfill the legacy of the League of Shadows, to not only destroy the city, but also to first break its spirit, and break it for all the world to see to try and maintain "balance" in society.)

This is not to say that Bane was necessarily more badass or more intelligent than the Joker, merely that Bane was able to help fulfill Joker's prophesy.  After assaults by Ra's Al Ghul, the Joker, and finally Bane, there's only so much one city can take.  The themes in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES don't contradict the ones in THE DARK KNIGHT; they merely expand upon them, showing how even the steeliest of resolves can erode over time without the proper care.  The people of Gotham had lost their way.  Despite the public debate over the morality of vigilante justice that Batman's actions sparked and mixed public reaction, he had still become a symbol of hope and strength.  What Batman represented was the ability of an "ordinary" citizen being able to stand strong in the face of injustice and evil and even fight back and punch evil in the face a couple of times, or maybe give him a good kidney shot or break a few ribs.  In THE DARK KNIGHT RISES when Bruce Wayne is talking to Detective John Blake about wearing the mask, one of the reasons he gives is that "Batman could be anybody."  Assuming the identity of Batman wasn't just about Bruce Wayne concealing his identity for pragmatic reasons; the anonymity it created allowed people to see themselves in the role of Batman and feel empowered.  Another reason that the people of Gotham fell victim to Bane's manipulation was that they had lost that inspiration.  Batman was the immovable object to Joker's unstoppable force, but in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES the hope and inspiration that Batman as symbol represented was absent.  And the revelation of Harvey Dent's true actions (ie. murder death killing) is brought to light, the last remnant of hope is taken from the people of Gotham.

Thematically, this fits in with one of the overall themes of THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy, the idea of rising after a fall.  In BATMAN BEGINS when a young Bruce Wayne falls down an old well, breaks his arm, and gets attacked by a bunch of bats, his father passes on this bit of wisdom: "Why do we fall, Bruce?  So we can learn to pick ourselves up again."  The idea of hope and perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds.  When looking at Nolan's movies, and especially his Batman trilogy, at first glance they appear to be very dark, narratively speaking.  But if you really look closely and dig deeper, I think that overall his movies have a very positive if sometimes very grim message.  Yes, bad things are going to happen to you.  Yes, life might break you.  But in the midst of all that despair, it is possible to persevere, and to rise.  THE DARK KNIGHT RISES offers a more complete answer to Thomas Wayne's rhetorical question.

Why do we fall?

So we can learn to pick ourselves up again.

And so we, in turn, can help others pick themselves back up.

One of the most striking images in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is the view from the prison where Bane exiles Bruce Wayne/Batman after breaking (or at least severely injuring) his back.  In a brilliant callback to the well Bruce Wayne toppled down as a youngster, the defining feature of the subterranean facility where Wayne is imprisoned by Bane is a large circular shaft (It's so huge!  Can I touch it?) leading directly to the surface and, potentially, freedom.  As Bane tells Bruce Wayne why this is the worst prison in the world he explains that it is because of the hope that is dangled just out of reach of the prisoners, and "Without hope there cannot be true despair."  Once again, Bruce finds himself in a subterranean hell, only this time his father isn't there to help pull him out.  He has to climb along the uneven walls of the shaft himself to rise to the surface, a feat which only one other before him has laid claim to.  There is one more image as Bruce Wayne finally manages to scale the prison walls (oh, fuck off, you knew he would) that is subtle yet powerful.  Before he wanders out back towards Gotham, he tosses a rope back down the shaft so that Bane's other prisoners will be able to escape as well, a subtle representation of this ability to inspire others and lift them up with you.

Bruce Wayne must rise both figuratively and literally if he hopes to save Gotham from its most recent plight.  But, before one can rise one must first fall, and fall Batman does.  Bane breaking his back and torturing him with a live feed of the chaos and pain Gotham is being made to endure is only the last step on the way to the bottom.  Bruce Wayne/Batman has fallen both emotionally and figuratively since his last outing eight years previous.  Batman has disappeared entirely, and Bruce Wayne has become a Howard Hughs-style recluse who has nearly driven his family's company into the ground.  Again, an interesting parallel as in BATMAN BEGINS his father, Thomas Wayne, nearly bankrupted the company to fight the economic depression, and n THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Bruce has nearly bankrupted the company trying to develop a cheap, clean energy source (another modern, timely reflection on a current cultural anxiety).

(Just as an aside, I read a review of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES by one Harry Knowles of Ain't it Cool News fame, who was "profoundly disappointed" with the film.  One of his many ludicrous assertions was that Batman wouldn't go into hiding because his girlfriend died.  Again, I wondered if we were watching the same movie.  If he had paid attention to any of Nolan's masterpieces in between chowing down on fluorescent coloured snack foods and making love to his own, hairy palms he would have recognized that Bruce Wayne didn't just hang up his cape due to the death of Rachel Dawes (although, she was kind of the love of his life, so it would be understandable even if this was the sole reason, as he kind of felt guilty about not being able to save her).  He gave up the vigilante game in the -correct- hope that becoming the scapegoat for all of Harvey's crimes, Dent's untarnished memory would live on and have lasting positive repercussions in Gotham. 

He sacrificed his identity as Batman, and as a result lost a part of himself, for as Rachel astutely pointed out she wasn't going to wait around for Bruce because she knew that Batman had become such a large part of Bruce Wayne's identity, that he needed so much to be that person, that she wasn't sure he would ever be able to exercise the demon.  Bruce Wayne gave up being Batman, sacrificing a part of his life he perceived as so central to his perception of himself, because he believed that Gotham no longer needed Batman, and that his presence at that point would be more hindrance than help.  And that sacrifice clearly ate him up inside.  In THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, it is made clear that at the first sign of real menace in eight years Bruce Wayne jumps right back in the saddle, despite the physical and psychological consequences and the emotional pleas from his butler Alfred (a surrogate father figure) when it looked as though Batman was coming up against a force more powerful than anything he had faced before.  So no, Harry, it wasn't "just because" the love of his life died horribly as he was attempting to save her that Bruce Wayne hung up the cape and cowl.  Bruce Wayne gave up something he loved, and the unrequited love between both he and Rachel and he and Batman nearly destroyed him.  Being the Batman gave Bruce Wayne true purpose in his life, and he willingly sacrificed that for what he considered to be the greater good.) 

Not only that, but Bruce's days as the caped crusader have exacted a harsh physical toll.  All the physical exertion and abuse he endured as Batman have lead to erosion of the cartilage in his knees, damage to his kidneys, and even the old noggin.  What did you expect with all the jumping, fighting and explosions?  In a nice reference to Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, the cinematic version of Batman has to wear a leg brace so he can function at full physical capacity.  All of this coupled with the fact the Bane was able to beat the shit out of Batman and break his back, in an even nicer reference to the Knightfall comic series, gave Batman a vulnerability that is severely lacking in other super hero films.  I've been wanting to pop in some other super hero flicks lately, but I'm really hesitant to do so, because after watching THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I can't help but shake the feeling that they won't be nearly as engaging for me as they were before.  This was the first cinematic super hero narrative where I actually felt that the hero was in any real danger, or was capable of engaging in any real sacrifice. 

The most recent example I can think of is THE AVENGERS, where to save New York, and ostensibly the world, Tony Stark AKA Iron Man grabs a nuclear warhead and flies off into some kind energy portal into the darkest depths of space in this supposed act of self-sacrifice, and his suit starts failing and he passes out.  I think the conceited Tony Stark is supposed to learn some lesson about the sacrifice it takes to be a hero, and thus provide a character arc, and it works to a degree, but there was something that was missing here that THE DARK KNIGHT RISES captures perfectly.  And that is the presence of any true danger to the character.  I understand that there's an entire Iron Man movie franchise so they can't really kill him off, but in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Batman is ultimately not killed off, and yet there was still this undertone of personal danger like he could be killed at any second.  There was a humanity to Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman that is sorely lacking in any of Marvel's films that mostly has to do with that most human of experiences, death.  Nolan's Batman is imbued with a sense of mortality severely lacking in other super hero flicks.  And that shared understanding and fear of death helps the audience engage more deeply with the character and become more emotionally invested in the narrative.  In THE AVENGERS, we, as the audience, know that Iron Man, as the hero, probably won't die.  Watching THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, we, as the audience, know that Batman, as the hero, probably won't die.  But we also get the feeling that he could.  And that makes him a more relatable character, because he's just like us.

For all the haterz (I think the "z" makes it look a lot more hip) I feel I must address the sense of realism that Nolan brought to his Batman universe.  Of course, as soon as you say you want to ground your super hero movie with a sense of realism, automatically a certain segment of the population is going to automatically start nitpicking all the things that were "unrealistic."  And while I feel that Nolan did a tremendous job of grounding a fantastical narrative with so much explanation and quotidian detail, as an audience member one must keep in mind that though the films are (key phrase) grounded in realism, they are also still movies which, as an art form, are representative and metaphorical.  Case in point, the scene where the released cops clash with the mercenaries and criminals on the streets of Gotham, two opposing forces running headlong into each other is probably not as great a strategy in modern urban warfare as it was, say, in the time of William Wallace, but it was visually powerful and representative of the clash between order and chaos.  Some may say that we can't have it both ways, but I say; why the fuck not?  I see no inherent artistic contradiction between a grounding in realism and metaphorical visual representation, and I don't feel that these forces are at odds with each other or that their coexistence does anything to destabilize the coherence of the narrative.

Finally, this brings me to the ending of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, which some might see as a cop out of sorts, but which really brings great emotional closure to the series.  You see, what some people don't understand is that Batman/Bruce Wayne did die in that explosion.  Yes, he physically survived, escaping, no doubt, in the proverbial nick of time.  But with his final act of heroism in Gotham City, the conflicted Bruce Wayne who had lived so long with the anger and guilt over his parents' death, who had lived so long with the rage and obsession of bringing criminals to justice and inspiring people, who had so desperately needed the persona of Batman to complete his identity, who had also so desperately craved some kind of normalcy and a life with the late Rachel Dawes, who seemed so hell bent in facing Bane that it seemed he was almost asking for death as a way to escape his demons, did die that day.  The man Alfred sees at the cafe is not the same Bruce Wayne.  This is a reborn Bruce Wayne, somebody who was able to exercise all those demons and who was finally able to get on with his life.

Ha, the joke's on you!  I've got ten thousand more where that came from.
And that's why THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy kicked so much ass.  It was able to entertain and engage on a variety of levels, from the crazy action sequences to the philosophical ponderings of the personal and societal costs of justice.  The themes of the three movies -fear, chaos, and pain- can be summed up in a single word, however they also invite all manner of discussion and discourse on their deeper implications.  And as for the question of whether or not THE DARK KNIGHT RISES measures up to the standard of excellence set by THE DARK KNIGHT, the answer for me is that both movies are easily on par in terms of narrative value, cultural relevance, technological achievement, and entertainment value.  After all that, you can probably guess that I'm giving THE DARK KNIGHT RISES a resounding 10/10 = One Bat-Masked Head Rising Above the Rest.  

One does not simply talk about THE DARK KNIGHT RISES: one bears witness.  (I really liked this line, but didn't know where to stick it (yeah, yeah) so I awkwardly tacked it on the end.  Enjoy)

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Avenge This, You Bastards... Snakes In The Grass and Wings On Heads. A Very Colourful Coalition of the Willing


Eons ago in the primordial goop from whence all life on this planet eventually sprang forth, among all the wonderful possibilities of human potential, the seeds of all human triumph and tragedy, the spark of what would ultimately become the totality of human culture and innovation there existed the raw genetic components that guided us unwaveringly down a predestined path, woven together, it seemed, by the Fates themselves, that would inevitably lead to the creation of a little movie called THE AVENGERS.  It wasn't by random chance.  It was genetically predetermined, written in the very essence of our being, from the time when our ancestors huddled around campfires trying to fight off boredom by not getting mauled to death by saber-toothed tigers and inventing time-honoured traditions like the keg stand and the blowjob.  Through all of this, it always remained our destiny to cultivate a society that would allow the making of THE AVENGERS.  It is truly a monument to the soaring heights of the human spirit that this blockbuster among blockbusters has helped nudge us slightly higher on our progression towards our rightful place in the heavens.

The executives over at Marvel and Disney must be shitting their collective pants in collective jubilation right now over the fat stacks of cash that THE AVENGERS has been printing for the past couple of months.  I believe with worldwide intake it now stands as the number three all time cash factory after AVATAR and TITANIC, though it's possible before this whole crazy ride is over THE AVENGERS might just barrel right past them in a blaze of special effects, witty banter, and Robert Downey Jr.'s superbly styled facial hair.  In a way, this type of financial savagery offers a certain kind of legitimacy that (somewhat ironically) money can't buy.  For fanboys and girls the world over, this is a grand political statement on par with that guy in Tiananmen Square standing in front of the tank, if the guy was wearing a mechanical suit of power armour with energy blasters and holding a giant bag of cash and surrounded by a gaggle of fawning Dutch prostitutes.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Flame On, Captain America

Way back in the year 2000 a movie based on popular comic book characters from either the two titans Marvel or DC seemed like the fevered dream of a madman.  Or at least, an occurence few and far between.  This was fortunate for viewing audiences the world over and the safety of the space time continuum itself after our World endured a terrible, unrighteous onslaught that ranged from the palpable (the 1989 BATMAN, BLADE) to the terrible (take your pick of any SUPERMAN film starring Christopher Reeves) to the insultingly awful (the 1990 CAPTAIN AMERICA, the 1989 PUNISHER starring Dolph Lundgren) to the Crime Against Humanity (BATMAN & ROBIN).  The extent of what most of these films accomplished was a lot of neck injuries brought on by excessive head shaking, the emmergence of the Psychiatric Revolution as thousands of adults who had been severely traumatized as children by this shit sought out professional help, and a general lack of faith in the essential goodness of humanity.

Part of the problem -at least- was the fact that movies based on comic books were not treated seriously, or at least not handled with the care given to "legitimate cinema."  Over the years comic books came to be seen as somehow less valid (often thought of as juvenile, and hence somehow less substantial) than other forms of literature and art.  This bias overflowed into the movie industry who seemed not to take their source material seriously when it came to comic book properties.  This was not only grossly and blatantly disrespectful to the men and women who took the time to creat these detailed worlds and characters but also to the legions of fans who appreciated these works on both a visceral and intellectual level.  Even superhero flicks that garnered a fair amount of commmercial success like SUPERMAN or BATMAN took gross liberties with the characters that made little to no sense in hindsight other than giving a big, old fashioned Fuck You to audiences, fans (of the comics), and free-thinking people the world over.

Finally in 2000 Marvel struck a blow in cinema that would change the course of the sub-genre forver (or at least the next ten to twenty years).  X-MEN was unleashed upon an unsuspecting world and immediately caused an entire generation to collectively jizz in its pants.  Here, finally, was an intelligently-written, finely-crafted film based on comic book characters that took itself seriously, paid homage to the source material and the fans thereof, and treated its audience with some modicom of respect and didn't make me want to put a hole in my head with my Black and Decker drill in an attempt to erase the terrible memory of the thing from my brain immediately after watching it.  With Marvel at a stage in the game to retain a lot more control over her characters as they ventured into other forms of media (ie. they had a shit-ton of money) things went exceedingly well, despite a partnership with Fox.  X-MEN starred an A-List cast and was directed by Bryan Singer the maverick who brought us THE USUAL SUSPECTS.

I know there's probably a lot of hardcore geeks out there who insist on liking shit just for the sake o starting arguments, but X-MEN really marked a turning point in the development of comic book movies.  All of the sudden they became a force to be reconned with and grabbed the attention of studio execs who started drooling all over whatever transvestite hookers they were doing cocaine off the scrotums of at the thought of all the money they could make from this shit.  The success of X-MEN really paved the way for the best super hero films ever made including SPIDER-MAN, X2, IRON MAN, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, WATCHMEN, and of course climaxing with BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT (although any movie starring Christian Bale and written and directed by Christopher Nolan are completely doomed to extreme, dirty success and are really an entire genre of films in their own right).  Of course the flip side of that coin is that in their rush to make as much fucking money as possible studios began pumping out comic book movies at a blistering pace and in their haste to make a fast buck we've been subjected to a wide array of post-X-MEN goat shit from GHOST RIDER, to two more horrible PUNISHER MOVIES, to CATWOMAN, and two FANTATIC FOUR movies that made the unreleased 1994 version look like fucking SCHINDLER'S LIST by comparison.

Lately Marvel has really stepped up its game.  Not necessarily in terms of quality, but in terms of concept.  Their pantheon of characters is reminiscent -in terms of functionality and theory- of ancient Greek and Roman mythology.  The Ancients had thousands of stories about their gods and goddesses and even while a story about Demeter would have herown stories they would inexorably be linked to the rest of the pantheon.  That is to say a story about Ares would invariably involve Zeus or Aphrodite or one of the others.  They would have crossover characters.  It's like a story about Wolverine starting off at the mansion with Professor X and Cylcops and Rogue (fuck, Rogue is hot in the comics) and then he goes off and fights The Juggernaught for a while.  The folks over at Marvel and DC have invested a lot of time and money into developing their respective universes of characters with all their threads of interconnectivity so it makes a lot of sense that they finally started doing this with their movie franchises (with the exception of Nolan's Bat-universe, which is a universe uno itself and so not bound by our mortal concepts of right and wrong).

I'm talking about THE AVENGERS is what I'm talking about.  While I'm still not completely sold on the idea despite millions of fanboys getting a boner after hearing its being helmed by Joss Whedon, who I'm still not sure why is the the darling of thousands of geeks the world over.  I just don't get the Whedon.  I have no idea why people love his shit.  So far he's done nothing that really stands out or has motivated me emotionally.  Seven years of BUFFY and four more of ANGEL were so excrutiatingly mundane and unextraordinary that... oh, I don't know where I intended to go with this when I started.  The point is Joss Whedon seems to be another entity who seems comprised entirely of hype, unfulfilled expectations, and pure delusion and the only emotion I can associate with Whedon is disappointment at not getting to see Sarah Michelle Gellar nude in a single goddamn episode.

Where was I?... Oh yes, THE AVENGERS, narrative continuity, and cinematic wet dreams.  While the AVENGERS movie might turn out to suck hardcore (right now I'd feel comfortable betting with about 50:50 odds) the concept -I feel, anyway- has actually strengthened the rest of the Marvel properties by forcing them to be more coherent.  They're all building up towards something, the same place, and so they have to maintain an ideological consistency.  The other side of the coin is that it may tend to take focus away from the individul characters in their standalone movies: a delicate line to be walked to be sure, and arguably crossed over many times in IRON MAN 2.  It's a fine line that can only be mastered by the best in the business, and unfortunately Marvel has not been dealing with that particular breed through the whole process.

What this concept has done has given movies like THE INCREDIBLE HULK, IRON MAN, THOR, and now CAPTAIN AMERICA a spine around which filmmakers might construct their creatures.  Similar threads tying them all together.  On a visceral level this resulted in pure fanboy fodder: shout-outs to other characters and such from other Marvel properties.  On a conceptual level it both shackled and focused the filmmakers of each property.  The individual writers and directors couldn't take the characters in too different a direction (thank the gods) as they all had to eventually tie together, which is somewhat limiting creatively.  However, it also forced the filmmakers to diferentiate their characters so that when they were all forced on screen together in 2012 it wasn't a bunch of Super Heroes on screen but different characters with different motivations.

While Marvel's movies have been passable, they're still just good and not great.  I hate to keep bringing up THE DARK KNIGHT (Actually I don't.  I fucking love that movie)  but it really set the bar not only for what a good superhero movie should be, but what a good movie in general should be.  Why other movies have settled for mediocrity instead of trying to reach as close as they can to that bar (but not pass it; that's impossible for anybody but Nolan himself) is beyond me.  I really dug IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK, but I was kind of left wanting by IRON MAN 2 and THOR.  The last two were OK movies, but they could have been better, and really should have been better considering the talent involved.

CAPTAIN AMERICA lies somewhere in between on the spectrum: better than IRON MAN 2, not quite as good as IRON MAN.  While CAPTAIN AMERICA had its darker moments to be sure (it was set mostly during WWII after all) it didn't quite have the emotional core to make me care about its characters enough to stop me from laughing when Bucky died abruptly two thirds of the way into the film.

In fact I found myself laughing a lot during CAPTAIN AMERICA. I'm not sure why.  It wasn't terrible and it wasn't a intended (I don't think) to be a comedy.  But there were just so many times when I found myself laughing out loud in the movie theatre.  Like the aforemetioned death of Bucky.  Pretty much any time the Hydra soldiers did their salute.  I don't know why, but it just seemed ridiculous in some way I can't explain.  The introduction of the vibranium shield.  Other random times throughout the movie.  I remember liking the movie overall, though perhaps only a second viewing will tell the tale.  I suppose laughter is a good thing.  At least I was enjoying myself.  Right?

It was a miracle that this film wasn't just a complete pile of doshit, what with it being helmed by Joe Johnston whose career highpoints seem to be HONEY, I SHRUK THE KIDS and JUMANJI and who brought us both JURASSIC PARK III and the absolutely terrible WOLFMAN.  I don' know if it was luck or an intervetion by Odin himself but CAPTAIN AMERICA turned out all right.  It had a good mix of action and character development.  Or about as much character devlopment as you'd expect.

Actually it wasn't that bad (although, I'm not sure who I'm trying to convince).  Captain America (portrayed here by Chris Evans) turned out to be suprisingly badass.  It's set during wartime, so Captain America ends up killing more people than the Punisher did in his last two times out on film: but they're all Nazi's so it's cool.  Between Indianna Jones and Captain America it's surprising that the Nazi's got as far as they did.  There was actually a surprising amount of death in a summer blockbuster super hero PG-13 movie, although the depiction of most of the deaths (through means of a death ray that most of the Hydra troops carried) was obviously designed so as not to show the battleground littered with dead, bloody corpses.  (Also surprisingly absent were the whores...)  This was a rather unique and effective way to balance the need to depict a WWII battle (ie. lots o' death) and the (apparent) need to maintain a PG-13 rating in order to rack in the maximum amount o' cash.  Although I must say that total disintegration has always troubled me on some deep, emotional level.  There's something somehow unsettling about the idea of somebody shooting you with a laser beam that completely disintegrates your body on the subatomic level.  I don't know if it's the fact that your margain of survial narrows a great deal should you be facing an opponent with such a weapon (get shot in the arm with a bullet,you might survive: get shot anywhere with a death ray, it's automatic game over) or whether it's the fact I wouldn't be able to leave a good looking corpse or something else entirely.  It just creeps me out.

Another kind of creepy thing was seeing Chris Evans' face superimposed or digitally grafted to another smaller, punier body.  Special effects have come so far and this effect was seemless.  Even creepier was seeing Hugo Weaving as Red Skull pulling off his own face in one scene.  As far as I know this was not special effects and Weaving pulled his own face off.  He's just that dedicated an actor.  Like when he learned how to asexually reproduce for the MATRIX movies.  The whole cast actually did a decent job.  This is Chris Evans' second forray into the superheroing job market having portrayed The Human Torch (AKA Johnny Storm) in the two shitty FANTASTIC FOUR movies, and thankfully his agent was actually right about this one.  I don't follow Evans' career a lot, but he did a good job here.  He bought a lot of street cred in my eyes for his appearance in SCOTT PILGRIM where he basically satirized the exact kind of action hero role that he earns his keep with and portrays here.  Tommy Lee Jones shows up as a gruff army commander for some reason.  I like Tommy Lee Jones.  Not like that.  That's all I have to say on that matter.  Another notable performance was Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark, Tony Stark/Iron Man's father who has a fairly sizable role in the film.  Dude did a great job, and I don't know if it was the power of suggestion but Cooper seemed eerily perfect as the Elder Stark, and he seemed to look a lot like Robert Downey Jr. 

There were really two big things that really held this movie back (Well, technically three, but I can't blame the movie theatre for not providing me with a giant bag of weed and a bong shaped like Princess Leia's metal bra-clad tits.  Or can I...?): really choppy editing, and a pretty anti-climatic final battle.  There were some really strange, really abrupt cuts with really no seguey or build-up.  And they were always to these crazy action montages that had little to do with the main plot other than to show the general badassery of Captain America and his band of rag-tags.  And the final battle with Red Skull kind of just ended, again rather abruptly.  I felt kind of cheated.  It wasn't that the climax wasn't action-packed or enjoyable, but the climax has to stand out from the rest of the film and in an action film you really have to kick it up a notch (another blast from the spice weasel - BHAM!).

I can't believe it... your tits are bigger than mine!
The makes of this film tried to emulate the SPIDER-MAN franchise by attempting to incorporate some kind of central theme.  This is not a bad thing.  It really worked out well for Spidey, and for some reason "With great power comes great responsibility" stuck in the public consciousness so well that to this day people will still quote that shit.  Usually for comedic effect now, but still that's a pretty resilient little meme.  It also helped give substance to the movie.  CAPTAIN AMERICA kind of does the same thing with its "Why someone weak?  Because a weak man knows the value of strength, the value of power..." concept that crazy German defecter scientist guy (Stanley Tucci) gives Steve Rogers as to why he was picked for the project.  This is all well and good I suppose if the rest of the movie hadn't been trying to show how he was strong in other ways like with courage and intellect and stuff.  But I suppose you're not really manly until you can bench press a Buick.  Or crush walnuts with your pectorals.  I guess it kind of worked, though.

As you might have gathered I was not entirely blown away by this film nor was I completely disappointed by it.  If you're a fan of the Captain America comics you're probably still cleaning the jizz from your favourite pair of slacks if you've seen the movie and if you're not an avid reader of the source material then you'll probably get a kick out of a solid action flick.  I suppose I should comment on the costume which, for some unknown reason, sparked of som very hot debates on the interwebs.  The costume was a good translation into the "real world" with it basically being a modified military uniform with some spiffy colours added.  The movie also gives you a logical reason he chooses to wear that particular costume and why he uses the shield, because we needed that for some reason.  I guess I shouldn't complain.  This "grounding" of ridiculous ideas from comics in the "real world" or at least the "realm of relative plausability" is where I see Chrisopher Nolan's influence on the comic book movie genre for which we should all be thankful.

For some reason when I was watching this movie I kept thinking about Don Draper and what he'd think about this Captain America fellow, even though according to the timeline he would have only been a little kid at this point in history (though maybe Sterling Cooper handled the Captain's PR when he went on tour with his dancing Cap-ettes).  That had nothing to do with anything, really.  Just thought I'd throw that in there.  Alrght, enough of this crap.  Bottom line: go see this flick.  I give CAPTAIN AMERICA a 7/10 = One Horribly Scarred Red Head That Is Really Just Crying Out For Someone To Love It


                

Monday, June 28, 2010

Kick-Ass Gently Nudges Ass

Apparently in this day and age everybody and his grandmother has a line of comics or a graphic novel, and every single goddamn one of them has also apparently been optioned for movie rights.  Because for some reason Hollywood is now categorically and methodically making every single last one of them into movies.  This is not necessarily a bad thing if: A) The source material is solid and B) The director has a clear and effective way to translate the source material from the page to the screen or C) I am too drunk or tired when watching the movie to notice any problems.  I'm kind of at a disadvantage because I never read any of the Kick-Ass comics so I'm not in the best position to judge the effectiveness of the translation to the big screen like I was say with WATCHMEN. 

Hey, look at me, I remembered the SPOILER ALERT this time!  The basic plot of KICK-ASS revolves around a high school kid named Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who reads a lot of comic books and decides to pursue superheroing as an after-school hobby.  He promptly gets his ass kicked and then hit by a car.  Not one to be easily dissuaded, once Dave is released from the hospital months later after extensive surgery and several metal plates holding his bones together, he gives it another go.  This time Dave AKA Kick-Ass actually saves some dude from getting the smackdown laid on him.  Of course some douchebag with a cellphone decides that instead of helping or -say- calling the police he would tape the whole thing which of course gets posted to YouTube.  Kick-Ass becomes an overnight sensation sets up his own MySpace page to deal with the fans and any requests for his help.  On one of his "missions" he encounters another crime-fighting duo: Big Daddy AKA Damon Macready (Nicholas Cage) and Hit-Girl AKA Mindy Macready (Chloe Moretz) who save his life.  So Kick-Ass somehow gets mixed up with their vendetta against local mob boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) and eventually the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan.  Many thugs are killed in horrible ways, Big Daddy meets a terrible end, Kick-Ass gets his ass kicked before eventually saving the day, blah, blah, blah. 

So just to be clear, I had never heard of Kick-Ass before news of the movie hit the interwebs.  Upon first hearing about it I couldn't give one let alone two shits, but all the fanboys out there really got me stoked for the movie and I found myself actually hopeful when I went to the theatre.  It was clear from the very beginning that this was not your average comic book movie and from the very start it was clear there would be this sort of darkly comedic element to the film, which was cool.  It started off really witty, and I found myself getting into the whole premise of the "real-life" superhero and what would or might "really" happen.  Then in the second two-thirds of the movie Matthew Vaughn seemed intent on systematically dismantling what could have been a solid story and alienating the audience. 

One of the big problems with the movie is consistency.  The story itself seemed kind of disjointed almost as if there were several story lines that were sort of being jammed together, you know kind of like garbage in the back of a dump truck.  There were several points in the movie where it seemed that a chapter or something was over and a new one was beginning but the transitions weren't handled well at all so it seemed choppy and disjointed.  Then there was the character of Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass, who was well established because a great deal of the movie was about him.  Then at the very end of the movie the character suddenly does a complete 180 completely negating everything that had been established about him for an hour and a half. 

What I'm talking about is the fact that although Kick-Ass is out there trying to help people, it's established early on that he doesn't want to kill anybody, and is in fact horrified when he first sees Hit-Girl brutally murder a bunch of thugs.  Then later in the movie he keeps trying to convince Hit-Girl not to kill anybody else.  It all makes sense, he's consistent.  But then at the end of the movie he is not only complicit in the deaths of several more hired goons, but he also suddenly starts killing them himself.  To me that just completely destroyed the integrity of the character.  It's not because I shy away from violence.  I fucking love me some violence in movies.  And by some I mean a lot.  The problem was there was no textual clue as to what would spark this sudden change of character.  The character arc got completely bent out of shape and mangled.  It really detracted from the movie for me because based on contextual evidence, there was absolutely no fucking motivation for this sudden shift.

Another big thing that really puzzled me also came at the end of the movie.  I mean the whole rest of the movie was supposed to have been grounded in "reality" insofar as that all the events and even the existence of "superheroes" (and I use that term lightly) were all highly more plausible than in other comic book movies.  I mean there were no radioactive spiders biting people or scantily clad women flying in invisible jets and tying people up with a magic lasso of truth.  Basically, it was just dudes with guns and swords and sticks shooting and slicing and beating each other and some of them happened to be wearing costumes.  But then after a whole movie's worth of the "realism" we get hit at the end with -wait for it- a jet pack.  A fucking jet pack.  Bam.  And not just a fully functional jet pack (that they fucking bought online from some yahoo on e-Bay), but a fully functional jet pack with two mini-guns mounted on it, which was then piloted with pinpoint accuracy by a high school kid with absolutely no aviation experience and not even a practice run beforehand.  For me it completely ruined the whole tone of the movie and just stretched my suspension of disbelief past the breaking point. 

Speaking of unrealistic the other thing that I just couldn't swallow was all the physical stuff that Hit-Girl could supposedly do.  I don't care if she was trained by Bruce Lee, drank the blood of Chuck Norris and had a training montage with Rocky Balboa, there is simply no way an eleven year old girl could match one -let alone a roomful- of adult men.  I mean I'm no Tony Jaa, but I'm pretty sure that if some little grade-five girl came up to me and wanted to start some shit I could -and would- totally stomp her into the ground.  I mean she's so short that even a pre-Subway Jared would be able to kick high enough to nail her in the face.  Drop her like a sack of bricks tied to that dead body I dropped into the river last week.  When she had a gun and was shooting motherfuckers like an adorable little Charles Bronsen, I could buy that.  It (unfortunately) doesn't take much to pull a trigger and shoot somebody in the head.  But a physical match-up?  No fucking way man.  It's a matter of skeletal-muscular strength and also physics where F=MA. (Look it up biatch.  It's a little thing I like to call motherfucking science.  Whatup Newton?!?!)  It's not that eleven year girls can't be tough, but they simply lack the physical strength or body mass to A) deal out the requisite damage to defeat the average adult male or B) withstand any serious amount of punishment that said adult male could dish out. A single straight shot to the head from D'Amico not only would have resulted in Hit-Girl being rendered completely incapacitated -if not totally unconscious- but it probably would have caved in the side of her head.

Since we're on the topic another thing that really bugged me was the character of Hit-Girl.  Now to be clear I am in no way shape or form squeamish about onscreen violence, and I have no qualms about little kids swearing and Cloe Moretz is a fantastic little actress.  I remember as I was watching the movie something just didn't quite sit well with me during Hit-Girl's scenes.  Then when I was discussing it with a buddy afterwards he hit the nail on the head and I realized why I was so disturbed.  Big Daddy had trained and indoctrinated his daughter Hit-Girl to not only kill, but also to show no remorse for the killing.  This is what would be considered sociopathic behaviour in the psychiatric world, and the most disturbing part is that her own father fostered those tendencies.  It is truly fucked up and left a weird taste in my mouth.  I suppose it was good that the film evoked some kind of emotional response.  But still.

I know after that little rampage it may sound like I totally hated the flick, but I actually found it quite entertaining.  It was just all the hype on the Internet and I found myself daring to believe, like when I heard that voice in my cornfield that made me build a baseball diamond except the voice turned out to be a tumour in the frontal lobe of my brain and then I was disappointed and hungry.  I really, really enjoyed Aaron Johnson in KICK-ASS's title role.  That kid gave a terrific performance and I would definitely like to see him in more stuff.  Judging from his performance I don't think Johnson is the same one-trick pony that say Michael Cera is.  As I said already the young Cloe Moretz did a bang-up job as well.  Nic Cage I could take or leave as usual.  The only really entertaining thing about that guy these days is the myriad of hairstyles he sports in any given week.  Mark Strong is apparently the go to bad guy in Hollywood these days, and I must say that he was definitely on his A-game this time around and I thought his performance here was a little better than his turns in SHERLOCK HOLMES and ROBIN HOOD.  There was an uninspired performance by McLovin (yeah, I know his real name, but if I wrote it down here admit it, you would have no fucking clue) as D'Amico's son and another superhero/villain called Red Mist.  Another honourable mention goes to Lyndsy Fonseca for being totally smokin' hot.  (And yes I double-checked her age on IMDB so it's all cool.) So close to seeing those tits and yet so far.

Daaaaaaamn!

The plot wasn't a total bust either.  There was some good shit in there.  I loved the whole opening where Dave is talking about his place in the complex social heirarchy that is high school and how he wasn't a jock or a nerd or anything he was just there, which is something I (and probably a lot of you out there) can relate to.  The little masturbation thing was pretty clever too.  The interaction between Dave and his friends was pretty funny stuff and the subplot with Dave being recruited as Katie Deauxma's (Lyndsy Fonseca) "token gay friend" and him going along with it just to be with her.  There were some pretty emotional moments too like when Big Daddy gets burned alive right in front of his daughter.  Crazy shit.  Kick-Ass's costume was surprisingly cool, but the whole Big Daddy=Batman thing I wasn't a fan of.  Really, that's the best he could do?

Look bottom line: cool concept, poor execution.  I wondered about a few things in the plot so I did a quick wiki-search on the original source material and was surprised by what I found.  There were some drastic changes made in the movie adaptation and I have to wonder: why?  These changes -in my mind- were the main reason this movie was kept from being great.  One thing that stood out for me was the whole Big Daddy/Hit-Girl story line.  Something just never seemed quite right to me and I kept waiting for some kind of big twist or reveal because the whole cop-who-lost-his-wife-and-bent-on-revenge thing just seemed too shallow and hackneyed and straightforward. Then I found out why.  Apparently in the comic books the whole cop-who-lost-his-wife bullshit is just a line Big Daddy feeds his daughter to get her to go along with his revenge plan against Frank D'Amico (Johnny G in the comics).  Turns out the Daddy was just a fucking accountant with a midlife crisis who wanted his daughter to be special so he trains her to be a... psychopathic murderer.  They just picked this particular mobster on a whim because they needed some scum to kill.  See, to me that fits in more with the real-life pathetic vibe that was established with Kick-Ass himself.  Then there's the whole bullshit love story between Dave and Katie that doesn't have the same happy ending as the movie and it's really too bad the filmmakers took the cop-out Hollywood bullshit route instead of staying true to the integrity of the story.  From what I've seen Mark Millar's original comic series sounds a lot better than the movie and I'm going to check it out for sure.

Alright, I've gone on way too long as usual.  My recommendation is go and see it for yourself.  I enjoyed it on a visceral level, but it lacked too much in depth and coherence to make it anything more.  As a final note I also would not consider this a "superhero" movie because I don't know about you but when I think about superheroes, arbitrarily murdering people does not immediately pop to mind and in this movie all the "heroes" -Big Daddy, Hit-Girl and (in the end) Kick-Ass- are all decidedly unheroic.  I know it wasn't supposed to come off that way, but at times these costumed vigilantes seemed much worse than the villains they were fighting.

So in conclusion my rating for Kick-Ass is 5/10 = One Nerdy Teenager's Head in a Green Mask Getting Beaten With Baseball Bats.