Trailers of the Week 4

Hi. I decided to take a short interlude before continuing my essay/rant about Garth Ennis. Here are some videos for your viewing pleasure.

It was either this or the new "Fast and the Furious" trailer.


And here's another video of the week. Though it's not a trailer, I think a few of you will appreciate it.

How is it I was able to guess what he was going to say verbatim before he said it?

Joss Whedon Vs. Garth Ennis, Part 2

Okay, here's the second part of my essay on Ennis and Whedon. We'll get to more of my points about Ennis in the third and final part, to be written soon (hopefully) and posted (possibly).

Whedon, who has spent his time writing comics, is not the first person to shed light upon the faults of a genre which is dominated by the fisticuffs and adventures of spandex-clad adventurers. But he may be the most cerebral, especially when compared with notorious hero-hater Garth Ennis.

For those not familiar with Ennis, he is a renowned writer of comics, notably "Hellblazer," "Preacher" and "The Punisher." He is famous for depicting intensely graphic scenes in his stories, and does not shy away from extreme violence, sex and profanity. Rather, they are staples of his work. And while he has claimed he does not in fact "hate" super heroes, he admits to resenting their domination of the genre he makes his living in.

This resentment comes across in comics like "The Punisher," the tales of an armed vigilante in the Marvel Universe. His encounters with heroes like Spider-Man and Wolverine often involve the complete humiliation of these characters. Indeed, in 1995 Ennis wrote a one-shot story aptly titled "The Punisher Kills the Marvel Universe," in which one guy with a gun kills every hero and villain in the world.

In case that doesn't paint a good enough picture of Ennis for you, one of his current projects, entitled "The Boys," is about a group of shady characters in an alternate universe who take it upon themselves to keep the super hero population under control, often through violent (or otherwise disgusting) means. Their logic is this: the super heroes are corrupt and careless in the destruction they wreak, so they need to be put in their place.

"The Boys" is super hero parody as much as "Dr. Horrible, but it fails on a number of levels where Whedon's musical does not.

Parody is obvious throughout "Dr. Horrible." Captain Hammer makes references to a "Hammer Cycle" and "Hamm-Jet," obvious allusions to Batman's many self-titled gadgets and vehicles. Dr. Horrible tries to give himself a new catchphrase (to little effect). And Whedon also does a fantastic job of making up hero/villain names, which come only in passing but are great fun to imagine: Bait and Switch, apparently a female duo; Conflict Diamond, which really only hit me on the second or third viewing; Johnny Snow, the analog for every lame ice-themed character.

But it is the reversal of the roles of the two main characters that creates the real fun - the titular mad scientist is decidedly the protagonist, yet he is the supposed evil-doer. And while his nemesis Captain Hammer is supposed to be an archetypical hero, he is obviously little more than a bully and allegedly a corporate tool. Whedon makes the Doc interesting by emphasizing his motivation: social change. But what he does with the Cap is even deeper: he makes us hate the hero. Why? Because he solves everything with his fists and a cocksure arrogance, leaving the brainy opponent in his dust.

In other words, we hate Captain Hammer for all the same reasons Lex Luthor hates Superman.

In an issue of Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely's brilliant comic "All-Star Superman," Luthor boasts to Clark Kent about the muscles he has developed while lifting weights in prison. He claims his strength is an extension of his own resolve, whereas Superman's are a matter of sheer chance: "Anyone can be strong if they come from Krypton." This sentiment is reflected so strongly in "Dr. Horrible" that I have to wonder if Whedon had that specific line in mind when he was writing his musical. At one point Captain Hammer asks Billy, the Doc's alter-ego, if he has seen him at the gym, before smirking to himself, "Wait, I don't go to the gym. I'm just naturally like this."

My roommate Devin said it best upon viewing: "What a douchebag."

One of Hammer's last lines, "I'm in pain! This must be what pain feels like!" is another jab at invincible heroes like the Man of Steel. I would give more credit to Whedon if the idea of a hero feeling pain for the first time hadn't been done many times before, most notably (for me) and emotionally in "Superman II," when a de-powered Clark is hit in the face and looks down at his fingers, stammering, "That's my blood."

But beyond this critique of super-powers lies a condemnation of the idea of super hero battles entirely. You might find it strange that in a medium which is increasingly aimed towards an older audience, the characters still resolve their problems through fist fights. They settle their differences through violence, and Captain Hammer embodies that idea. Though he is supposed to be a "hero," setting an example for people, we are reminded again and again of his extremely violent tendencies. Before he is even introduced, Dr. Horrible tells us the Cap dislocated the Doc's shoulder, "again," the week before. We are told he throws cars at people, and we see the joy he seems to get out of beating on a nerd like Dr. Horrible.

Beyond that, even, we see his incapability to settle situations without punching something. When he first appears, he exclaims the line "The day needs my saving expertise!" Expertise? This is hilarious - all he can think to do is punch and break a gadget he doesn't understand, and his tampering nearly kills an innocent bystander. This is a nice bit of foreshadowing, considering he later in fact does kill that same bystander by messing with a gadget he again doesn't understand.

We'll get to Garth Ennis in the final part of this essay. Now that we've seen how parody can be done well, I have some critiques of Ennis' style and execution, and hopefully some comparison.

Joss Whedon Vs. Garth Ennis, Part 1

So the summer is over, and with it the seasonal storm of super hero flicks which blew into theaters. Judging by the debris left in their wake, it's fair to say the most damage was done by "The Dark Knight," and deservingly so.

But in the minds of me and a few of my friends, one super hero project from this summer will last even longer. I'm speaking, of course, of "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog."

This 45-minute Internet-exclusive video, a musical in three parts starring Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion and Felicia Day, was the brainchild of Joss Whedon. I know Whedon from his previous projects: the TV series "Firefly," the film "Serenity," and his run on "Astonishing X-Men." He also did a show about vampires or something.

For those of you who have not seen "Dr. Horrible," here is the link. Stop reading and go watch it now. Don't forget to see all three acts.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/28327/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog-act-one

Are you back? Okay.

On the surface level, "Dr. Horrible" is obviously a parody: a love story about a low-rent, lovable loser super villain. Like if Peter Parker wanted to take over the world.

But the sour ending, which puts off everyone I've seen it with, sheds a ray of light on the possibility that there is something more to it. Instead of a cutesy love story, it becomes a villain's origin story when viewed as a whole - Doc beats the small-time hero and moves up in the world, abandoning all ties to his humanity and living with the pain of what he has wrought. Though he gets all he ever wanted, he "won't feel a thing."

The parody is more biting and wider in scope when viewed this way, and certain other plot points begin to appear as zingers Whedon and his brother Jed have injected into the piece.

And in the end, it becomes something else entirely - more than a parody, a rebuke of the super hero genre that exists today.


I'll be posting more soon. Stay tuned.

Trailers of the Week 3

My pick this time around is the web-leaked preview of Oliver Stone's upcoming biopic "W." What is there to say? It's probably going to be really fun. I laughed out loud when I saw Karl Rove and Tony Blair.



And even though I know it's not technically a trailer, I also want to post this little doozy, which has changed my life. Enjoy:

Bleep It: The Problem With the R-Rated Comedy

In 2005, moviegoers like me were surprised to see a film, simplistically titled "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," surpass all expectations for what comedies had been up to that point. A new genre was born (or at least re-born), launched from the womb of Judd Apatow, who has become the patron saint of the R-Rated Comedies which are now moving into theaters like noisy, raunchy, but nonetheless endearing roommates nationwide.
The same summer as "Virgin," another film defied expectations - "Wedding Crashers," which could have been an easy PG-13 vehicle for Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, instead included plenty of breasts and cursing. And though it has no connection to Apatow, it is just as important to me in the founding of the current movement of vulgarity-filled comedic cinema.
For too long, it has been common knowledge that a PG-13 rating can act as a drain on creativity - in an attempt to appeal to a much larger audience, films lose their edge and a lot of what makes them special. But somehow Apatow and his peers have burst into popular culture with what some might describe as an assload of hits, most of them unabashed in their own crudeness.
"Knocked Up," "Superbad," "Walk Hard," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," and currently "Step Brothers" and "Pineapple Express"; that's a lot of films in just two years, all emblazoned with an R-rating and Apatow's brand.
But it's hard not to notice a trend in these films which has started making me uneasy. It had been in the back of my mind since the gratuitous male nudity in "Walk Hard" and (from what I've heard) "Sarah Marshall," but it didn't strike me until viewing "Step Brothers" this weekend. The problem is this: the presence of an R rating for no reason... other than to have an R rating.
In "Virgin" and "Knocked Up" it made sense not to censor anything (even the latter's notorious "crowing" shot) - these were films which, despite their humorous plots, attempted to be no-holds-barred examinations of relationships, which are not PG-13.
The same holds true for "Superbad," I believe, because once again the film attempts to be unabashed in its presentation of realistic teenage interaction and a very real topic (underage drinking).
This logic does not apply as cleanly to "Walk Hard," however - the film apes biopics like "Ray" and "Walk the Line," but both of these films were PG-13. Why does the parody need to surpass that rating? For comedy effect, I suppose, but I would argue whether there was much true comedic value to mined from "Walk Hard."
I won't criticize "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" because I didn't see it. From what I've heard it is a truly average film, gaining notoriety only because of several penis shots and three syllables: Ap-a-tow.
This brings us up to "Pineapple Express" and "Step Brothers," the latest in the line of vulgar Apatow-fueled comedies. I'm using this term loosely because some inordinate violence in "Pineapple Express" pushes it a lot closer to an action film and "Step Brothers" just wasn't that funny.
Both films have their moments, but walking away from them I could distinctly feel that the public's honeymoon with Apatow-type films is reaching an end. Both films feel familiar, like re-hashing of plots we could have made up at home.
First, "Pineapple Express." Another buddy movie in the vein of "Superbad," it is surely enjoyable. I'll watch just about anything with Seth Rogen in it, and James Franco delivers a stoner role I have to admit I would never have expected him to pull off. "Express" has shocked audiences with its extreme depictions of violence, which dominate the third act of the film. The R-rating which I have been discussing sees proper and forgivable use here - it is a decidedly adult film.
Not so for "Step Brothers," which is altogether childish. Maybe that's why the R has never felt so forced as it does here. Characters, even those who are supposed to be mature, throw around "fuck" like it's going out of style. I knew a guy in high school who, whenever he cursed, sounded to me like he was trying to impress someone. That's the sense I got from "Step Brothers," which could delete every bit of vulgarity without losing many of its scant laughs. The cute idea which served as its impetus got lost amid all the bizarre and unnecessary obscenity - like a children's book trying to mate with an issue of Penthouse.
"Step Brothers" is, in a way, a combination of every bad aspect of both Ferrell and Apatow films.
There is no trace of the sympathetic protagonist that cemented "40-Year-Old-Virgin" and "Knocked Up" together. Instead, we get more thrashing and yelling from Will Ferrell, who I'm finally beginning to understand is just not that funny.
Cameos abound, but that does nothing to help the film achieve greatness (or even okayness) - they only act as reminders of other, superior films.
And as more and more films are these days, it just drags on and on. I don't need ninety-five more minutes of Will Ferrell acting like a mentally handicapped man-child. I've seen "Elf" (and, you know, just about every other film he's ever done). Ferrell is alright in small doses, but "Step Brothers" was like a keg stand of stupidity.
So please, Judd Apatow and Co., stick to what got you to where you are - smart, witty comedies targeted at adults.
Or, in words you might understand: Fucking stop making stupid goddamn motherfucking dumbass movies.

So I've Been Thinking...

...And I finally figured out what this blog is supposed to be. I started it for the simple reason of explaining the movie "Hancock" without the restraints imposed by the major plot twist midway through. From there, I realized that restriction is placed on nearly every review you're likely to read - because reviewers aren't supposed to give away the ending, at the very least, if they can help it.

I did away with whatever conventions I felt restricted my unabridged analysis of a current film. But here I was presented with another problem - namely, that there was almost no room for ANALYSIS because I spent so much time with SYNOPSIS.

This is pointless, irritating and counter-productive for a number of reasons. Firstly, devoting much time to narrative is tedious for me, especially for lengthy or complicated films like "The Dark Knight." Secondly, I've been told this is the part of the review readers are least likely to, well, READ, because if they've already seen the movie, it's just not that interesting. In short, synopsizing is equally uninteresting to both me and you, the loyal reader. I may stick in a few gems of insight during the plot run-down, but the appraisal at the end is where it's at. So why not make that the whole review?

I need to start thinking about these reviews differently again - I've been aiming for a mark I couldn't quite see, but I think I'm getting closer. What I'll be going for in the future won't be so much review writing as essay writing or free-form discussion - I will be free to take aspects of the films I choose and examine them. This will free me in a few new ways, and it will hopefully make the reviews (if that's what you still want to call them) more enjoyable and helpful to you. And, if my current brain children see birth, you're going to see a lot more essays with more than one movie involved.

So thanks for reading. I'll leave you with this:

Click Me

Trailers of the Week, Part Deux

Because I know you all depend on this blog for your up-to-the-minute movie news, when I saw the new "Harry Potter" trailer was going online I figured I'd post it. I'm not personally very excited about this next movie, but for some reason I know people who are. So, here.


I'm also including a trailer for the next James Bond film, "Quantum of Solace," because I actually AM excited about it. Imagine that.


And one more thing. I know it's not really a trailer, but...

http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/collections/gallery/898/2008-comiccon-photo-reveals

...I promise I'll write reviews again someday soon.

Trailers of the Week

In a post-"Dark Knight" world, we're all going to need other, new movies to look forward to. So, in response to comments left on my last post by Mr. Clayton Lomneth and Ms. Abigail Mullen, here are two trailers for upcoming films which I am equally apprehensive and excited about: "Watchmen" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still."



Discuss.

Every part of "The Dark Knight" is perfect.
Every part.
Transcending the "comic book movie" genre with ease, the sequel to "Batman Begins" soars on leathery wings into the realm of the best films ever made. There is no one word to describe it. It is indeed dark, as it is complicated, disturbing, and exhilarating. It not only faithfully adapts source material which has endured for nearly 70 years - it in some cases improves upon the material.
Before we start, let's review that material, the classic, mythic players involved:

Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) - After seeing his parents killed before him, billionaire Bruce Wayne decided to dedicate his life to eradicating the criminal element which thrives in his home city of Gotham as a masked crusader of the night. Christian Bale is probably the best actor you could pick, alive or dead, to fill both the kevlar suit of Batman and the three-piece suit of his playboy alter-ego.

The Joker (Heath Ledger) - A psychotic, mad-dog killer with a permanent smile cut into his face who wears "war paint" to frighten his enemies. Another perfect choice, it seems, as Ledger demonstrates how truly horrifying the Joker is as a force of what might be called pure evil. Ledger drips creepy in every Goddamn scene - his performance has to be seen to be believed.

Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) - Gotham's new District Attorney, a knight in shining armor whose passion for justice begins to lean towards a murderous obsession.

Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) - The love of Bruce Wayne's life, who can never be his as long as he dons the cape and cowl. She fights crime as a prosecutor alongside her new beau Dent in the courtroom.

James Gordon (Gary Oldman) - A lieutenant within the terminally corrupt Gotham City Police Department, Gordon has struck up a clandestine partnership with the officially illegal vigilante, Batman.

With this cast of complex, very real characters, Writer/Director Christopher Nolan weaves a tragic tale about crime, about truth, about heroes, about the existence of basic good in people and what it takes to erase it.
Now, as the Joker would say: Here... we... go.

"The Dark Knight" opens where its predecessor left off: Batman and the GCPD under Gordon are doing their best to rid Gotham of its obstinate mob presence. Meanwhile, two new forces are confronting crime in the city head-on: dimple-chinned DA Harvey Dent and the lethal Joker, who inspires nervous laughter throughout by perpetrating shocking acts of abominable violence.
The Joker recognizes the grip of terror Batman has on organized crime; after all, vigilantes have no jurisdiction. But as I'm sure you're aware from seeing the trailers, he has a solution: Kill the Batman.
And so he begins a reign of terror, explaining to the public that he will begin killing people every day until the Batman takes off his mask. He begins by torturing and killing one of many Bat-imitators which have popped up in the city on video.
Next he offs the judge in a landmark trial Dent was spearheading, and on the same night kills the chief of police. Bruce Wayne can only watch as the Joker next attempts to assassinate the mayor of Gotham. Gordon takes the bullet for the mayor and is killed.
Public reaction is now overwhelmingly anti-Batman, and Wayne prepares to turn himself in. Instead, Dent holds a press conference to admit he is Batman, turning himself in. His plan is to lure the Joker into a trap wherein Batman can take him out once and for all.
The plan works, more or less, and it is revealed that Gordon faked his death in order to protect his family. He arrests the Joker and the mayor announces Gordon will be promoted to Commissioner.
The movie could end right there. But like a three-hour session of tantric sex, it doesn't. Because if you're even vaguely familiar with "Batman" comics, you'll know one thing: the Joker always escapes.
Gordon is alerted that both Harvey and Rachel never made it home that night, so he lets Batman... ask the Joker a few questions. After an especially brutal scene (which is saying a lot for this movie), Batman gets the locations of the two attorneys, who have been tied up and rigged to bombs. Batman sets out to rescue Rachel, but instead he finds Dent as the Joker triggers the bombs with his one phone call from jail.
Rachel is killed, and half of Dent's face is burned beyond recognition.
The Joker gets away.
The Green Goblin once said "Only fools are heroes... Because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice." Well the Joker would eat the Goblin's intestines for breakfast.
By this point in the movie I was beginning to finally realize just how epic a film "The Dark Knight" is. WIth every passing moment, I was more amazed. I lost count of the times I said "Oh my God" out loud.
First the Joker calls in to a talking heads show where a prying Wayne employee is about to reveal Batman's identity. The mass murderer announces that unless some citizen of Gotham kills the Wayne employee within an hour, a hospital will be blown up.
The employee survives the hour (barely) and the Joker makes good on his word, demolishing an evacuated Gotham General Hospital. In a truly bizarre scene, he releases Dent and tells the newly christened Two-Face to enact revenge on those Dent feels were "responsible" for Rachel's death.
The Joker then declares his dominion over a Gotham petrified with fear, and announces that those who don't leave it by nightfall will be his subjects. In the course of a mass evacuation, he plants bombs on two ferries leaving the island, one full of convicts and the other of innocents, leaving triggers for the ship captains to destroy the other vessel and save their own lives. Batman arrives and fights his way up a skyscraper, through clown henchmen and SWAT alike, to do battle with the Joker one final time. His nemesis gloats that the veneer of civilization means nothing to people when their lives are at stake.
In the end neither ship is willing to kill the other. But the defeated Joker admits his real victory will be the destruction of Gotham's spirit through his corruption of Harvey Dent.
Batman speeds to the place where Rachel died and finds Dent holding Gordon and his family hostage, preparing to execute Gordon's son. Batman stops him in time, throwing himself and Dent out of the building, apparently killing his former ally.
Batman and Gordon agree they cannot let the people of Gotham know what happened to their heroic DA, their White Knight. Batman proposes to take the blame for the murders Dent committed, in order to let the people of his city keep a hero they can believe in. Gordon reluctantly agrees and calls in a manhunt on the vigilante, who flees into the shadows.
When Gordon's son asks his father why Batman should have to run when he has done nothing wrong, Gordon responds, "Because he's the real hero... A Dark Knight."

Okay, so take a breath.
"The Dark Knight" met and surpassed any expectations I had for the film, even though I had built up those expectations pretty high. Hell, even the music grew on me - the Joker's theme is another perfect facet, by the way.
The question I can't quite answer is whether or not it's the best comic book movie ever. I believe an overwhelming consensus would be "yes," and I have trouble disagreeing. You can certainly comment on this review (if you ever finish reading it) and tell me what you think. But the truth is, Christopher Nolan set out with to make "realistic" comic book films, and I can say with some certainty that he succeeded with this one, because it convincingly presents the true tragedy of Batman's compulsory war on crime, a war he can never win all the way, especially after the casualties it has sustained. The film is filled with heartbreaking moments, a few of which I'm not even going to list here.
It will leave you drained - it is a long movie, there's no doubt. But in a way, I think comic fans have been waiting for this movie their entire lives. This may be the last chance we have to peer in to Nolan and Bale's Gotham City. So take a good look. "The Dark Knight" will never be topped.

Grade: A+ (duh)

Hellboy Sense... Tingling!

Face it, moviegoers of Summer '08: You've had a comic book nut of epic proportions busted on your face.
I'm sorry if that's not the most eloquent or kid-friendly of ways to start up my review of "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army," but man... "Iron Man", "Hulk", "Hancock", "Wanted" all in about two months, and now "Hellboy"? Am I even gonna be in the mood for "Dark Knight"? (The answer is yes.)
I have yet to review a movie on this blog not either superhero-related or based on a comic. I'm not complaining, per se, but it wasn't my intention. I'm going to have to pop out a "Wall-E" review like Jamie Lynn Spears pops out babies if I want to keep my self-esteem high.
But let's not talk about the future now. Let's talk about Hellboy, our favorite demonic hero, and his latest excursion into film made possible by Guillermo del Toro (best read aloud in a thick Hispanic accent).
Del Toro, who has apparently paid the media to have the word "visionary" attached to his title of Director, is probably best known nowadays for the astoundingly creepy and beautiful "Pan's Labyrinth," which came out in 2006, two years after the first "Hellboy" installment slipped by under mainstream radar.
Based on Mike Mignola's series of comics, the film introduced us to the eponymous red-hued hero (played to virtual perfection by Ron Perlman), who was discovered by U.S. forces in WWII and has become a paranormal investigator working for the government. Alongside his fish-man friend Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) and fiery hot (tee-hee) girlfriend Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), he travels the world, finding the weird.
"The Golden Army" tells the story of the exiled Elf Prince Nuada, who is obsessed with reclaiming the world for his kind by breaking a truce long forgotten by men and taking control of the 4900 unbeatable mechanical soldiers which uphold it. To do this, Nuada has to get the three separated pieces of a crown which grant its wearer command of the army.
Luckily for the world of men, he's got Hellboy and the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD) hot on his tail. When Hellboy is exposed to a not-so-adoring public, however, he begins to have doubts about whether or not he belongs in the world of men.
With the help of Nuada's twin sister Nuala, who wants to avert the war, Hellboy and his crew do their best to foil the bloodthirsty elf (those words just don't go together). But under the command of new agent Johann Krauss, a very German ectoplasmic spirit in a containment suit who does things by the book, tensions begin to arise, giving our half-horned hero even more doubts. But when it comes down to it, he does the right thing.
We know there wouldn't be a movie if Nuada didn't eventually get his hands on that crown, but luckily Hellboy can solve most problems with a big fist and a bigger gun, and in the end go home happy.
That's not to say there isn't more drama packed into the two-hour film. There's a love subplot between Abe and the elf princess, Hellboy dies and is revived at one point, there's even a pregnacy and relationship woes in the mix... and there's enough action and humor to pack a dump truck.
But here comes the hard part...
It just isn't all that thrilling. Sure, it has action, and humor, and action, and some character development, and some more action, but there isn't anything very inventive in the plot that warrants much mention. Worse, it feels like we've seen it all before. For such an unorthodox hero, I'd hoped I wouldn't be as bored as I was.
The same can't be said for the special effects, though. If you've seen "Pan's Labyrinth," you know the creature effects made that film what it was. So del Toro and the creative minds behind "The Golden Army" were guaranteed not to disappoint in that department.
But they went above and beyond anything I expected, delivering crazy new visual and creative treats in practically every shot. Just to list a few, there's a swarm of terrifying "Tooth Fairies," evil little insect-like things that eat your teeth...first; there's a troll market hidden under the Brooklyn Bridge that looks like the cantina in Star Wars kicked up about seven notches; there's the God-awful creepy Angel of Death with rows of yellow eyes on its wings; there's a towering stone body which rises from the ground; there's a fight with a forest God that bleeds vegetation; and of course there's the titular army itself... the list goes on.
"The Golden Army" is a visual treat above all else, and I appreciate it even more because it appears many of the effects were done without the abundant CGI which plagues modern movies. It's worth seeing for that reason alone, and the movies few touching and humorous moments help. It has its weak points, but when there's a "Hellboy 3," I'll be in line.

Grade: A-

Just Shoot Me

The best way to express my reaction to the film "Wanted" is to heave one long, very hopeless sigh. But since that form of expression doesn't come across as well over the Internets, I'm forced to actually write a review that can verbalize what a massive fustercluck of ridculousness this movie was.
First, a quick reiteration of the fact that I am a comic book nerd. As such, I felt I should read the graphic novel "Wanted," by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones, in the week before the film adaptation came to theaters. Doing this meant I was suspending some level of enjoyment of the film, since I would know some of what was coming.
Luckily, the film is a complete bastardization of the graphic novel and in fact removes most of what made it such an intriguing read.
The novel tells the story of a meek, pathetic, cubicle-dwelling hypochondriac named Wesley Gibson who one day is told he is the son of the recently deceased Killer, an aptly titled master assassin and one of the thousands of supervillains who have secretly been running the world since the 1980s. Taking place outside of Marvel or DC continuity, the story is filled with analogs for famous villains and heroes. It takes place in our world, basically, imagining that after all the superheroes were eliminated or neutralized, reality was re-written by the villains so that the only way they are remembered are in the movies or, well, comic books. Wesley is told he has inherited his father's talent, and is to become the newest and most bad-ass villain in the world.
The film, on the other hand, does away with that eerie and original premise in favor of a much more boring, average and downright stupid plot.
We still have Wesley Gibson, played by James McAvoy, who spends the first half of the movie doing his best Edward Norton in "Fight Club" imitation until he is contacted by Angelina Jolie's lips, who tell him he is the son of a member of The Fraternity, a thousand-year-old club of uber-assassins led by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). Members of The Fraternity hang out in a warehouse and every once in a while kill a target for the greater good based upon the coded orders of an enormous "Loom of Fate."
Hoo boy.
The film is being called "Fight Club" meets "The Matrix" by some reviewers, and I can't tell if that's supposed to be a good thing or not. Either way, the story does draw greatly from both films, and without the superhero context, it seems like we've heard it all before. After all, the "Matrix" sequels did enough yammering about "fate" and "oracles" to last me for the rest of my life. "Wanted," the graphic novel, came across as a witty and disturbing parody of the whole superhero genre. "Wanted," the movie, comes across like a rip-off of completely different ideas.
Anyway, after Wesley is trained, he can't wait to get his hands on Cross, the man who Wesley has been told killed his father. Instead, Sloan insists Wesley learn to "curve a bullet," which no doubt you've heard said a hundred thousand times in the previews.
Just like my heaving sigh, there's no way to properly express just how much unnecessary and ridiculous (have I used that word before) CGI shots of bullets flying through the air there are in this film. Apparently slo-mo of a shiny piece of lead sailing fancily through the air was the only vision the moviemakers had in mind.
Once he can curve like a pro, Wesley finally gets to go after Cross, but when they meet and shoot each other's bullets out of the air for a while, Cross reveals a surprise the likes of which have never been seen before in movie history: "No, Luke - I mean Wesley - I am your father." Then he dies. Whoops.
Turns out Sloan has secretly been counterfeiting kill orders from the Loom of Fate (which I hate having to type) ever since his own name came up years ago, and Cross is trying to rectify this by taking out the corrupt assassins. Wesley escapes before Angelina Jolie's lips can kill him. He then captures a bunch of rats, rigs them to explode, and unleashes them upon the Fraternity's warehouse.
Yeah, you read that right. Did I mention this film is ridiculous? But at this point, it turned into a good kind of ridiculous, like the last half-hour of Nicolas Cage's "The WIcker Man" or the last "Rambo" film. Overly violent, explosion-packed, bullet-curvin' fun, all leading up to a dramatic final speech by Morgan Freeman, ending with the lines he was destined to read: "Kill this mother fucker." L-O-friggin' L.
Again, Wesley escapes, though, and then finishes the movie with one more assassination, which climaxes with another marvelous Morgan Freeman line which is so good, I won't even reveal it here.
So-bad-it's-good territory doesn't come along every day. When it does, it's to be appreciated. But understand - it usually can't salvage a train wreck as bad as "Wanted," and it doesn't in this case, either.
The message of this film, which is about as subtle as a headshot, is that if you're as spineless as Wesley used to be, you're wasting your life and should get out and do something. Whether or not you pick up a rifle and start shooting people is up to you. But I'll tell you one thing - I sure would've liked to have a gun when I walked out of the theater.

Grade: D

I'm No Superman

In a superhero-crammed Hollywood summer, I'm going to say straightaway that I found the original idea behind "Hancock" refreshing and intriguing. Its premise asks a question: What would a superhero be like if he was not only realistically human, but also tragically flawed? What if a being with godlike abilities also had anger issues, an alcohol problem, and had to deal with a resentful public? Going further to create a flawed anti-hero than perhaps any film before it, "Hancock" answers that question by documenting the exploits of its titular protagonist.
Just that setup is plenty, frankly, and it starts promisingly enough. And though most of the action in "Hancock" has already been shown in the trailers, it's made up for with some funny dialogue and Smith's amusing, slurred, curse-studded performance.
Picking up in the middle of a high-speed pursuit, the film introduces John Hancock (Will Smith), a hangover-ridden powerhouse who is as reckless as he is ambivalent towards the crimes he grudgingly stops. So he plunders through Los Angeles and his life, trying to find a helpful use for the powers he woke up in a hospital with 80 years prior. But after saving the life of a good-hearted PR agent, Ray (Jason Bateman), however, his life begins to take a turn.
Ray attempts to repay his whiskey-swilling savior by improving Hancock's public image. FIrst up? A prison term to answer the public outcry Hancock's vigilantism has spawned. This provides some comedy (the old "your head up his ass" gag Hancock likes to pull on criminals) and some serious emotion and tension (as Hancock gazes past the fences that couldn't ever stop his escape and refuses to participate in anger management meetings). But when the police need him (as Ray and everyone in the audience predicted), Hancock dutifully answers the call, proving his capacity for heroism.
The problem is... he proves it a little early. The issues raised in the first half of "Hancock" could easily have filled the entire film. Instead of resolving a simple story about redemption, however, the filmmakers throw in an early twist. Ray's wife Mary (Charlize Theron), it turns out, is not only possessed of heavy mascara - she and Hancock are two of a kind, mates, immortal beings who have been on Earth for thousands of years. They are destined to be together, but unfortunately they lose their abilities when they are near each other.
All life-force-draining woman jokes aside, the amnesia which has plagued Hancock for eight decades is due to a brain injury he sustained after temporarily losing his invulnerability because of his desire to be close to the only other person in the world who can identify with him. And if he's not careful, it'll happen again.
As this new plot is hastily and somewhat confusingly introduced, some of the originality is drained from the film just as quickly as Hancock's powers. And dang, wouldn't you know it, just as our hero becomes a mortal, his first great super-villain is introduced (really just a bank robber with a claw hand... an EVIL claw hand!). In the end, after Ray has removed the villain's other hand in a not-quite-comical moment, Hancock saves the life of both himself and his star-crossed love by running (or flying) away, putting distance between them and escaping to New York to become a true boring superhero once and for all. And Ray is apparently fine with the idea of being married to a Charlize Theron who will never age. Who wouldn't be?
"Hancock" suffers from a complete loss of momentum midway through that ultimately left me disappointed and asking where it had all gone wrong.There are aspects which could be called redeeming, and thankfully it's nowhere near "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" territory, one of my fears walking in. Instead, the mythological take on superpowers leaves an aftertaste reminiscent of one of my favorite superhero movies, "Unbreakable." But the round peg of a WIll Smith comedy doesn't fit into the square hole of a thought-provoking examination of heroism that "Unbreakable" was.
Bateman plays his supporting role with classic Bateman charm - he nails the do-gooder role he has perfected. Theron (who has played Bateman's love interest before, but that was retar-- uh, nevermind) is unable, however, to garner much sympathy for her character, so much of the emoting is left to Smith.
But to criticize the film too much is to forget that it is a superhero movie, which up to this point have not been the best of cinematic endeavors to begin with. And to point up its flaws is to ignore some truly enjoyable moments throughout, particularly in the first half. If only the first half could have been the whole.

Grade: B-

Coming Soon: Hancock

Don't look so sad. I'll be updating soon.