BATMAN AND SUPERMAN: BATTLE OF THE SUPER SONS (2022)

 Wow--what a wild couple of weeks it's been for DC fans! What a wild thrill ride! (I know I said "wild" twice, but it's deserved!)

New brass, new (albeit tentative) projects, and a new blockbuster in the form of BLACK ADAM! Again, all I can say is "Wow!" 

To be clear, I'm not a DC fan and really never have been except when I was a toddler and BATMAN reruns prompted me to speak some of my first words. But hey, that doesn't stop me from enjoying, or at least trying to enjoy, all the content that the brand produces.

Speaking of which, lost in all the excitement of the past fortnight has been the release of BATMAN AND SUPERMAN: BATTLE OF THE SUPER SONS. And that's too bad because, like so many of the DC animated titles, it tends to outshine its live-action counterparts.

First off, let's get one thing out of the way: the misleading title. If you think Jonathan Kent and Damian Wayne are actually going to do battle with each other, and that this forms the dramatic core of this action-fest, think again. It's more like they go the familiar buddy-movie route of smoldering antagonism that predictably grows into a unique bond as they face off against a common enemy.

Do their more famous Dads feature in the story? You betcha! In fact, in a kind of zombified mode, they take on menacing roles that provide some of the more memorable scenes. Overall, there is a surprising but welcome horror element to the entire film (surprising to me at least, as I'm not familiar with the comic upon which it is based). Is that why SUPER SONS got an October release? I don't know, but let's not complain, my fellow horror hounds!!

To be sure, the first twenty minutes or so are rough going. We get a replay of Superman's origin, which ties into the theme of father-son relationships but doesn't present the familiar story in any new or fresh ways. Also, much of the Lois Lane-centered humor, as well as her earnest monologuing about the importance of the Fourth Estate, are similarly flat.

However, once the grating and unpredictable Damien Wayne enters the plot, things come together nicely. Although the DC Fandom Wiki lists him at 84 pounds and standing all of 4' 6", don't underestimate his attitude--or his skills!

Yes, it's been quite a thrill ride for DC super-fans recently, but if they don't see this nifty little 79-minute feature, they're missing out on a big part of the fun!

Justice League (2017)

Justice League is a surprisingly good film. While I liked Suicide Squad and Batman vs Superman I was kind of iffy on the prospects of Justice League. I mean BVS and Suicide were enjoyable messes they still were messes. I was afraid that the JL was going to go horribly wrong since it was setting up three heroes as well as continuing with three others. I shouldn’t have worried since they pulled it all together.

Picking up where Batman vs Superman left off the world finds it’s on the verge of being invaded by aliens. Not only are they buzzing about various locations they are appearing in mass in order to find three magical mother boxes which can reshape matter. With Superman dead Batman and Wonder Woman know they are out gunned so they look for other potential heroes in order to help. To that end they recruit Aquaman, The Flash and Cyborg.

Playing like one of the better first issues of a superhero comic, Justice League just moves like the wind. Running under 2 hours its full of sound and fury signifying a new franchise. Characters a built (Cyborg is finally a great character), rebuilt (Superman is not a dick and is finally a cool guy), fights happen and pithy lines are spoken. It’s pure motion on both physical and character levels that drive everything forward. It’s a popcorn film for the head and the heart.

While the film isn’t perfect, the film feels like it should have been longer and there is some evidence that the film changed directorial hands, the film still manages to be wholly satisfying as it moves the characters away from the maudlin darkness of the last two team up films. It’s a film that makes me want to see what comes next because the potential for something special is there.

I really like the film a great deal (and I thought the 3D was well done).

I do want to add that I’d like to see what the original cut was supposed to be. Scenes in the trailer and talk of partially completed sequences (allegedly a post credit sequence was filmed but not finished with two Green Lanterns) make me think that the film was headed toward being interestingly different.

Definitely worth a look.

Random Thoughts on Wonder Woman (2017)

I have seen and I liked Wonder Woman. I went to a pre-release screenings last night. It was an audience made up of about an equal number of men and women. Many of the little girls were dressed as Wonder Woman. Most of the women had on Wonder Woman shirts. When the film ended the audience cheered (the loudest coming from the back two rows of all young men).

While I’m not going to do an actual review I did want to make a couple of comments.

-I think the reason the film is clicking with critics is that it is an atypical comic book superhero film. The film is novel like in its construction. Things take time to happen (a friend thought it was little long but loved how much detail was in it). We have honest to goodness characters. Anyone beyond a walk on part actually has some depth to them. Most shocking is that the action in the film comes naturally. There is a reason why things happen. Only the final battle between Diana and Ares falls into the realm of typical superhero smash up.

-Depending on what the box office is the film may have unexpected ripples in the film and comics industry.

First it may finally prove that female centered stories can be big box office. Finally those in Holly wood will realize that if you give us good films it won’t matter who is at the center. Finally we can get some of really great films about some great female characters.

Second it may help to kick down the barriers for women directing big budget action films. PAtty Jenkins does a hell of a job and I’d have said that regardless of who directed it. Why anyone would think that women can’t handle the circus of filmmaking when the only difference between something like Monster and Wonder Woman is budget is beyond me.

Third it may at last shut up the knuckle dragging basement dwellers who are upset by the idea of women having films and screenings of their own. Perhaps they will see that female centered films can be good. (Okay I’m dead wrong here but I still like to think that people ca change for the better)

I think that the film will send people into comic shops and book stores and will boost sales of  similar comics- who knows even the guys who might not have purchased a female centric comic might decide to branch out.

-I am curious how reaction to the film change over time. What will the masses of humanity think? Can it be seen by most people on its own terms? So many other films compare it to the other DCU films, but would people be in love with it if they hadn’t compared it?

That last question I think should be rephrased to how will the film be seen five years from now? While there is no question that DC got the character dead nuts right will it still be viewed that way a few years on. Will it be a brief shining moment or will it be the first step in something more?

-On a personal note I am still trying to sort out what I think of the film. I’m still not sure if I’m full taking the film on its own terms or if the other DC films are playing into it. I mention that simply because there is no discussion of the film that doesn’t mention the earlier films. I’d like to think I’m seeing it for what it is.

-I will say I don’t like some of the effects. They are too unreal.

- Did anyone other than one guy who pontificated after the film very loudly think the film was really a Zack Snyder film in disguise? Other than the final battle it looks alien to the films he's been turning out.

-I strongly recommend the film for anyone interested. I'm also hoping, and based on the little girls I saw last night guessing that it will happen, that the film will become a cultural touchstone for women and make them realize that they can do anything they want.

Suicide Squad (2016)

I thought Suicide Squad was great.

I won’t say that the film isn’t flawed, the film shows signs of studio tampering (this is the third version after David Ayer’s version and a pure studio cut), however it does have good characters, great action and some witty lines. I was entertained for two plus hours.

The problems with the film come from couple of places.

The villains and their plan are beyond bland. They are the weakest characters in the film and the lack of a real baddie does hurt the film. However the film ultimately isn’t about beating the villain so much as getting to know the characters of the Squad. Hell, there is a point where the plot flips and we’re told what the Squad is really supposed to do which makes you realize how unnecessary the villains are. (and I can’t talk about the villains at this point because as I write this the film has only just opened and I don’t want to give that away)

The also suffers from being a set up story. Say a half an hour or more of the film is just setting the table, explaining the squad and who the characters are. Remember these are largely lesser characters so they have to be explained to the audience since they are not as well-known as Superman or Batman. Additionally since this is the first of a planned series they have to give us something to latch on to for the net film, they can't just give us fodder for the undertaker. I like that they do kill some, but as DC found out with the comic series you need characters for people to follow to the next film.

And as I said there are signs of the studio farting around with the film. I say that because there are bits of the plot that seem to be missing, some details are not explained well (the villains plan). Some of the back stories of the squad seem to be missing (Katana, Boomerang and Killer Croc get the short end of the stick) and you get the sense some scenes should be longer, a feeling fed by scenes in the trailers and commercials not in the finished films. (The only complaint anyone had at the screening I attended was the fact some jokes in the trailers were missing from the finished film)

For the most part I really liked the film. I thought the cast, with the exception of the villains, are excellent. I like how the character are, for the most part, given added dimensions by the cast’s performance rather than the script. Diablo breaks your heart because of Jay Hernandez performance and the underwritten Killer Croc is something special because of Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's force of personality. I especially like Viola Davis as Amanda Waller. To me it’s a demonic Oscar best bet. I’m told it will never happen, but she is a fantastic and deserves some awards. Frankly the film survives and thrives because of the characters. While it is difficult to get a bead on many at first, the film probably does have too many characters, everyone begins to fall into relief once things get going.

I know some people have complained about some of the cameos. Batman is here, as is the Flash and there are references to other characters. I don’t have a problem with them and I like that they add to the building of DC’s universe.

And then there is the Joker. The Joker is only in the film for 15 or 20 minutes throughout the film. Jared Leto is a wonderfully unhinged. He is the sort of off the rails person that makes the character so dangerous in the comic. I like his performance more than Heath Ledger's because there is no logic and reason only the moment. Ledger has a plan to prove something to Batman-there isn't madness but reasoning, Leto simply is acting on his whim, who the hell know what is going on his brain? Anything can happen at any moment. The result is its chilling because he can turn at any moment.

For Leto's Joker there is no logic and reason except for Harley. Harley is the love of his life and as we see he will do anything to get her. I had a discussion about the relationship in the film which in which we pondered if it wasn’t as dysfunctional and abusive as in the comic or animated show, and it may not be, but do understand the focus of the relationship in this film is different than in the comic/animated series. We only see so much so we can’t know everything-the film only shows us glimpses and we have jut hats here not multiple episodes or issues to flesh it out. Additionally because it’s “real” people the characters have to behave differently than if animated. Real people can't follow animated or cartoon characterizations 100% down the line or it comes of as cartoony or just wrong. Here they break with the formula enough for me so the relationship works. We’ll see where it goes in later films.

I really like the action in the film. The set pieces for the most part work. I like how the film goes from pure action and motion for the sake of the motion and action to a series of set pieces hinged on the interaction of characters. The end battle works not so much because of the action but because we are invested in the characters. We feel the losses and are carried along because we like them. What happens and who lives and dies move us because we care. There is danger and there is a cost to the action, unlike say in a James Bond or Jason Bourne film, we don’t know who is going to walk away.

I’m trying to work out why the critical reaction seemed to be so negative- though I’m sure if I actually read the reviews it would be less negative than the media portrayed it-I mean Rotten Tomatoes is either yea or nay and they can’t handle mixed reviews and if anyone has ever taken the time to read reviews of any film that the media deems to be a critical bomb the actual reaction is rarely as clear cut as portrayed (BATMAN V SUPERMAN anyone). Could the reaction be the result of the darkness of the DC universe? Yes there are jokes but it isn’t a fun place- I mean lots of people die horrible deaths both here and in Batman v Superman. There is very little hope in this Crime Alley.

I like Suicide Squad and recommend it, especially if you realize it a dark film on every level. I can’t wait for the sequel

Now if we could only a look at Ayer’s original cut.

Neil Gaiman: Dream Dangerously is one of the best films of 2016

Earlier tonight I saw Patrick Meaney's film NEIL GAIMAN DREAM DANGEROUSLY, there is nothing special in that but a half an hour into seeing the film I emailed Mr Meaney and I said:

(This is) your best film
It may very well be one of the best films of 2016

When the film was done I emailed him again to say essentially the exact same thing adding that it one of the finest films on creation that I'd ever seen.

I then tweeted that sentiment to the world.

Now I know some of you are going to be saying, "Hey, it's just Steve going overboard on a film" or you're wondering if I'm just trying to to get in good with Mr Meaney. But I assure you that is not the case. It has nothing to do with anything, not even the fact that Unseen contributor Randi Mason is in the film influenced my feelings.

I said that DREAM DANGEROUSLY is great film because it is.

DREAM DANGEROUSLY is nominally the story of Neil Gaiman going on his final large scale book tour. No longer will he be traveling from city to city signing for everyone and on everything put before him. At the end of the months long tour he would be retreating to his home to do the one thing he's always loved to and and always wanted to do, which is "make shit up"

Over the course of the film Neil talks about his life, his work and most interestingly writing. It is not a be all and end all documentary on his life and work (many events are left out, numerous collaborators are not in the film), rather its a peak inside the head and the heart of the man who had delighted and moved millions of people across the globe. Its also a glorious look at how and why we create including the wonderful explanation of the reason "because I have to" that you'll ever see.

Okay, time to come clean. I am not what you would call a fan of Neil Gaiman. I am not one of the "Thingies" as some the first fans called themselves. With Neil I was on the outside looking in, but always aware of what was going on with him and his fandom because of my relationship with Randi. While I have been with Randi when she's seen Neil , I have not ever actually met the man, though I did get his autograph once when I pushed a New York Film Festival Program in front of him at the premiere of PRINCESS MONONOKE. I do not live and die with Neil which is why when I tell you that this film is incredible you should believe me, I have no stake in liking it.

And I really do like it, and then some.

There are a couple of things that I love about the film.

First the film seems to get the real Neil Gaiman, or at least the one I've seen over the years and the one that I've heard about in stories from the people I've talked to who have hung out with him. This is the guy who loves his fans, it witty and funny, and does what he has to do. I love that we get a sense of the man outside of the limelight, not so much directly, rather in the things that are mentioned in passing or stories that are related. No we don't delve into his whole life, we don't meet his kids for example, but we see enough to get a sense of the man away from the cameras.

The other thing I love is that we get a sense of the artist dying to create. Neil explains how and why he writes. We get glimpses into why and how stories came about and why he has always trekked toward the mountain of being a writer instead of taking a safe job. His frequent recounting of writing "because he has to" isn't just words, there is something more, and you feel it in his words. In conversations with people around him, at the signing table, or even with the film crew Neil talks about writing as if it were (and if you write you know it is) a sensual thing. He talks about writing by hand, of using different pens and ink colors so he knows how much he does each day. People talk about him being at parties talking up storms only to disappear for a bit to some corner to get some stray thought down.  If you write because you have to you know that's how the best stuff comes- out of nowhere and at the odd moment.  You must write it down or get it lost. Neil's conversations really let us feel that.

I can't praise director Patrick Meaney enough as to how over the course of the film and its conversations and it's small moments that we see are allowed to see into Neil Gaiman's heart of heart and the place where all the words and magic comes from. Meaney managed somehow to get all the right bits and stitch them together, not into a monster but something beautiful.

Ultimately this is a film about creation. It about how one writes, how stories are created and how Neil Gaiman became Neil Gaiman. It is a film that feels like a Neil Gaiman story.

For me the way the film goes about showing Neil goes about being himself and creating his stories resonated in me. Its a film that I want to how to my friends and yes this is a good portrait of Neil Gaiman, but at the same time if you ever want to know why I do what I do- why I write or why anyone does anything- this will explain it.

As with films I love I am in awe of this film. Here is a film that explained to me why Neil Gaiman has the fans he does while at the same time transcending its subject of a well known author to become something beautifully which explains why we create, This is a film for anyone anywhere who has ever been driven to make good art for whatever reason.

Hands down one of the best films on the act of writing/creating you will ever see.  This is one of the best cinematic biographies you'll ever see and one of the very best films of 2016.

Look for the film to premiere in the next couple of months (I will post details here at Unseen). Also look for an interview with director Patrick Meaney as soon as I finish typing up the questions not to mention another less personal pass by the film.

Batman v Superman (2016)

I'm puzzled by the reviews I read before hand about BATMAN V SUPERMAN. What film did they see? Where was the confusion and random threads? Where was the story that made no sense? Where was this over riding set up for JUSTICE LEAGUE?

I was never lost, never confused. I think it's all on the screen. It all made sense to me. And the JUSTICE LEAGUE stuff was fleeting and if the two minutes were chopped it we'd never know.

Sue me I love BATMAN V SUPERMAN. I thought it was great. I thought it was the Batman movie I always wanted. Ben Affleck now is Batman for me, He nailed it. He's a younger version of Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT

Okay I think I get what some of the reason that people hate the film- its a film that exists in the comic book world. Yes the film is a direct sequel to MAN OF STEEL but the film really exists in the world of comics. Whole plot lines are referenced in found objects- look no further than Jason Todd's Robin suit with the spray paint of the joker on it. Knowing what that is says volumes about Affleck's Batman. If you don't know then all of that story of pain and anguish is gone.

I know saying that the fact that the film spews out 75 years of comic history is asking the audience too much get. I complete understand that not knowing the references are going to make many people feel adrift. I read a review written by a friend who hated the film and I now know why she called it a noisy mess, simply because she doesn't read comics and she didn't know the references.

Say what you may this is not the Batman that has gone before- neither in the serials, the radio show, the TV shows, not either the Nolan series nor the one's started by Tim Burton. This is a story that springs from the comics.

Yes I know one of my pet peeves is a film must be all inclusive and explain everything. You get leeway if the film is part of a series. This film gets some leeway because of the series, and a bit more because Batman and Supeman are nigh 80 years old so they are part our culture. I freely admit if you hate the film because you don't get it all feel free, but I'm sure if I went back into my Batman archive and gave you a stack of stories you'd click with what is on the screen here.

I also get the sense that this film is going to play better in a couple of years.Once we get more stories with these characters I think this film will play wonderfully in retrospect since details will be filled in- like Wonder Woman's back story.

Yes Wonder Woman isn't given a great deal to do (hell we never know what exactly she is doing)- but god damn and sweet jesus she kicks ass. I adore the look of glee when after she gets her ass handed to her by Doomsday she stands up and dives right back in. And yes the audience really did cheer when she showed up in Wonder Woman regalia.

You want a female role model- this woman is it. Smart, charming and kick ass. She can play with the big boys and even out do them.

Yes the plot is warmed over- but what did you expect, we knew that Lex was behind it and we knew he let loose Doomsday-everything else was a foregone conclusion. Well not everything, there is a twist or two I didn't expect them to do- but it fits.

As much as I despise Jesse Eisenberg as an actor, I think he makes a very good Lex Luthor. To be certain he is not perfect, there is an occasional softness but the intelligence is there as is the sadism, He takes delight in being an evil god.

I thought the fights were excellent and easy to follow.  And some of the images if the final battle were truly iconic.

Actually there are many shots that were cribbed from the comics. I loved the desert Batman look. I also loved him standing on the crane. Even the shots of Superman just hovering had me mumbling WOW.

And again, yes, I am fully aware that what I like in the film are the comic steals.

I know some people are upset that Batman is trying to outright kill Superman and Batman never kills. I am aware of it, but if you read the comic  there were times when he considered it, though he never crossed the line (at east the Bruce Wayne version). Then again he doesn't do it here.

I know I'm going to be arguing about this film for weeks to come- Hubert is already penciling in our upcoming meetings as follow ups to the film. I don't mind. As long as you can argue your point I'm game to argue the film.

Ultimately though I know I will not be shaken in my love for the film because what I love about it isn't anything intellectual, its visceral. Watching the film I felt part of me was on the screen. This was some great lost comic story that was long a part of me and was now being brought to the surface. The subconscious was made conscious.

Yes my love for the film is emotional, Its some primal part of me that loves Batman being tickled to death. Its the part that made the two year old me press his nose against the TV screen and go "MATMAN MATMAN" when the Adam West show was in its first run.

What can I say I'm a hopeless Batman fan

The Death of "Superman Lives": What Happened? (2015)

Jon Schnepp's THE DEATH OF "SUPERMAN LIVES" : WHAT HAPPENED is a true wonder of film on film documentary filmmaking. Its the sort of film that has few equals and few brothers or sisters cinematically.  It's perhaps comparable to JODOROWSKY's DUNE but if you take in the entirety of the information put out on the Bluray that's not quite right either. I maybe right to call the film a truly singular achievement.

I have not gone through all of the material on the Bluray. I haven't really even looked at it- it's another 8 or so hours of material including two commentary tracks, extended interviews (HOURS of them). When I bought the DVD from Schnepp he said he wanted to push Bluray as far as possible and it appears he has. I say this by way of telling you that what I have to say only really relates to the film itself- I'll be back round to look at it all down the road.

THE DEATH OF "SUPERMAN LIVES"arose out of Schnepp's fascination with the legendary Tim Burton project. As with most people the one tangible bit of evidence available to the world were the weird shots of the regeneration suit which made it onto the internet and had everyone buzzing about how wrong they looked. If that was what the film was going to be no one wanted to see it. The trouble was that the shots and video were not the real story and what was really going on was a hell of a lot more interesting.

Charting the course of the film from the general disenchantment of the previous two Superman films on to Jon Peters getting involved with a plan to restart the franchise on to the death of the project Schnepp has made a film that puts us in the trenches over the long painful period of the attempt to bring the film to life. We watch as Kevin Smith is brought in and fired. How Nick Cage is attached, how Tim Burton begins to spin out his ideas and how the film eventually fizzles when Warner's other big budget films tank - repeatedly (something currently replaying with PAN and it's other features). We watch as the comic fans battle the studio over what they perceive the film to be and we watch as sets and suits are built and dismantled.

The obsessive fascination with the various suits is one of the two small flaws in an otherwise perfect film. There is too much talk of the regeneration suit and towards the end of the segment I kind of zoned out. I understand it was Schnepp's way in to the story  but seeing so much of it when there is so much else to the story is distracting. The other minor flaw is I would have liked a clearer explanation of what the film's story was at various stages. We kind of have an idea at the start but get no real sense of later plot changes.

Nitpicks aside his is a wonderful achievement and I can't say enough good. If you love film and especially superhero films this is a look inside the weird Hollywood mind set that gives us what we are getting.  A must see.

Available on VOD and home video

Superman with a Go-Pro

Three minute, utterly cool film of what happens when Superman decides to return a lost Go-Pro camera.

Awesome, just awesome.

Thanks to Ken for sending this my way

Constantine (2005)

For the record I have read Hellblazer, the source of this film, and I do like the comic.

Also for the record I do like this movie a great deal as well.

Is it the comic? Thats open to debate. I think in many ways it it is. I think the problem is that they've made a film about a very complex character who's been developed over hundreds of issues and distilled him down to what a mass audience could take in.(remember this is a character that runs in DC's alternative, non "mainstream" Vertigo comic line) No, he's not English, its not set in London, and its not always night and raining, but other than that I think they have the feel. Keanu for my money is pretty good. I think the problem for most people who read the comic is he's not a snarky Brit and therefore its not Constantine. I think he's fine and his performance takes other bits of his personality and brings them to the forefront. Its no different than the way different writers have handled the character over the years.

As a movie its a very good. Its not high art and its not Silence of the Lambs scary, but its a really good thriller with neat visuals and a creepy attitude. Any movie that can keep me up and awake until almost two in the morning when going in I could barely keep my eyes open, has to be a very good film.

I must single several of the supporting cast, Tilda Swinton as Gabriel and Peter Stormare as Satan. Both give great performances, though Storemare's devil who desperately wants Constantine's soul is flesh crawling evil at its finest. Talk about evil incarnate.

The plot has to do with the "re-discovery" of the Spear of Destiny, the attempt of the son of Satan to take over the world, and the investigation of the supposed suicide of an LA detectives twin sister. Its not giving anything away to say they are all related nor that there intertwining forms a pretty dark path.

This is a really good movie thats worth seeing if you're into ghoulies and ghosties and things that bump in the night.

Batman: Gotham Knight (2008)

Visually arresting slowly building tale constructed from six inter-related stories-tales which could stand alone, but work better together.

The stories are written by David Goyer, Greg Rucka, Brian Azzerello and some other names you may know. The some of the voices are from the animated TV series. The directors are mostly first timers with two exceptions Jongisk Nam worked on The Masters of the Universe while Hiroshi Morioka directed the Tsubasa Chronicles and assisted directed on Two of the .hack series and Madlax.(All of the directors have worked on some of the best anime around so they maybe directing for the first time but they all know what they are doing). What the mix produces is a killer group of stories that result in a thought provoking tale and character study of both Batman and Bruce Wayne.

The first story is Have I Got a Story for you and it concerns some skateboarders trying to determine what Batman is. Yes its like the Dark Knight Episode of the TV show-but its in a style that looks like Tekkonkinkreet. It has its moments.

Crossfire has two cops, one of which doesn't trust Batman, getting caught in the cross fire of a mob war. The images will blow you away.

Field Test is about Bruce testing a device which will deflect bullets. Possibly the weakest of the stories as a stand alone.

In Darkness Dwells- It appears that Killer Croc and the scarecrow have kidnapped a cardinal and taken him into the underground. It looks like Mike Mignola meets anime. With some of the best visual and emotional moments in any Batman movie. The image of the Scarecrow is truly scary.

Working Through the Pain- As a severely wounded Batman staggers through the sewers he remembers back to his days being trained- particularly to the woman who taught him to work through the pain.

Deadshot-The assassin Deadshot is hired to take out Gordon. Okay story alone is a nice cap on the six tales.

At first I thought the film was going to be all visuals and little story, however once things got going the film actually began to turn into something much more. I'm finding its bouncing around in my head the way good movies do. Its actually good enough that I'd really like to see another one down the road since the stories are nice additions to the Batman canon of tales.

Highly recommended.

Man of Steel (2013)

Rethink and restart of Superman gets a great deal right, and even more wrong. For my money it's a major misfire.

The plot of the film has Jor-el sending his only son to earth to escape the ultimate destruction of Krypton which is dying due to over use of the planets resources. Meanwhile General Zod and his men stage a coup, are stopped and are sent off to prion. However they escape and come to earth when Kal-el, aka Clark Kent, sets off a beacon in a Kryptonian scout ship. Clark has been wandering the earth as a migrant worker helping people where he can and disappearing after he is discovered. What follows are endless battles as Superman/Clark fights for us and Zod tries to take over the earth.

While I like the idea of Clark the wanderer I find that the idea of a tortured Clark too contrived. The shift from the Clark Kent/Superman we all know to a brooding moody hero feels much too calculated. I think it was assumed that audiences wouldn't buy the classic superman so they changed him.

The real problem with the film is the shift away from character to big budget action set pieces. Over half this film has to be things blowing up or being destroyed. Not even the Transformer films, which I largely despise, are this bad.I tuned out and turned off. None of it makes a lick of sense with huge gaps in logic filling the places between explosions. Worse many of the sequences seem to have been cribbed from else where- Avatar and numerous video games.

As for the much heralded climatic battle between Zod and Superman- its a bust and intellectually and emotionally wrong. While I would be fine with Superman killing under the right circumstances- I mean how many people die as a result of his destruction?- the situation here is all wrong and there were ways around it. What I don't like is that the broken brains behind this film seem to have constructed this whole mess of a film for that one moment and then failed to get it to work-not the least of which is if Zod is super powered like Clark how could his neck be snapped? (I could go into about six other reasons but I won't bore you with comic geek stuff)

While there is much to love  about this restart (primarily the sequences with Clark and his fathers) and the possibility of more films- the vast majority of this film is best forgotten.

On Further Review: Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films: Am I the only one who has problems with them?

I’m one of the few people who don’t like Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight films. When I say Dark Knight films I refer to The Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises. To me Nolan's Batman Begins is one of the best superhero films ever made. On the other hand his Dark Knight films are a lesson in diminishing returns. Yes they have made a mint and then some. Yes they are well loved, but they are a mess. They are a corruption of the characters to the point that I kind of wish that they didn’t take the characters from the comics since they really don’t carry over. They are huge epics that just lose the narrative thrust in favor of Nolan’s desire to make a point.

At this point I need to make three statements.

First I am a huge Batman fan. I have been since I was a baby when I used to stand in front of the TV and watch the Adam West show. I get into moods when all I do is live and breathe Batman and his world.

Secondly I have to state up front that this piece started life as two monstrously long stand-alone posts. They were long and rambling pieces, however in the interest of clarity and so you wouldn’t have to go through this nonsense more than once I’ve cut them down and combined them.

Lastly what follows is really more some random comments about things that bother the piss out of me concerning the films than detailed deconstructions. Its been ages since I've seen Dark Knight so my memory is weak on many of the problems. As for Rises, I've only seen it once and there simply was too many problems to write them all down. I want to keep this under 900 pages.

Dark Knight

Suffering from a huge sense of bigger is better Dark Knight as a film suffers from being all action and little in the way of plotting. When you think of the film it’s not so much that you remember the plot, which has The Joker running all over Gotham causing havoc on a level never seen before. I have no idea what the Joker was doing or why. What was the point? I don't know.

I do know that  with Dark Knight I remember the tumbler chase, the ferry sequence, and Joker blowing up the hospital, but I remember little else. There was something about Harvey Dent becoming Two Face, and Joker making it impossible for Batman to save the one woman he loved… but in the end I don’t really understand what the point was other than to make him more of a hunted “criminal”. 

If you ask me there is no real characters only place holders that get moved around.

Regarding the Joker, he’s not that scary…certainly not in the way that the character in the comic book is. There is nothing wrong with Heath Ledger’s Oscar winning performance, rather the trouble comes in with what he does. The Joker as written by Nolan is way too logical. Certainly he’s homicidal, but at the same time he is clearly after something. Take for example the opening bank robbery, he robs the bank and kills his compatriots, which makes perfect sense if you want to keep all of the money and want no one to roll over on you.

His efforts to steer the injured Harvey Dent are for his own ends. The Joker is playing toward some apocalyptic end game that is much too well thought out in a logical and reasonable manner. Yes he blows up the hospital to cause fear and panic but is clearly after more than just showing the baseness of humanity that he seems claims in the speech to Batman. Whatever the ultimate goal of the Joker, what it is we are never told, there is a genuine rhyme and reason to it. To my eye at least Joker is playing everyone with a notion of mental illness rather than the real thing. (I think that’s the reason why the story of his face changes, it is what is going to scare the natives at that moment.)

In the comic’s best stories the Joker really is bat shit nuts. There is some sort of logic going on and while it will mimic rational thought, it frequently will go left for no reason. I just feel like shooting you. And when he does something evil, it will be so horrible that it will upset even the people he’s working for, for example the story line where Joker is sent to the UN as ambassador. Ledger’s Joker is never ever demonic enough...and therefore the film is a disappointment.


Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Despite my protests and tantrums that I would never do so, I did manage to see the Dark Knight Rises.

While I have all sorts of issues about what they did to the characters, I find that the least of my problems is the comic bastardization. Rather I have issues with the film being a complete mess dramatically. Granted it’s a “comic book” film, but at the same time comic books aren’t this careless with their story and plotting. Its mess and it ruins the film because a film that is so desperately trying to be realistic-Bruce sees a doctor who tells him how badly he’s broken up- and yet it has some of the most fantastical turns.

How is that people are raving about how great this film is? It boggles the mind.

Lets face it DKR is a mess.

Is it the comic? No.

While I said the least of the films worries are the comic characters I would like to use the differences in the characters to explain what’s wrong with the film.

Talia. Ras al Ghul’s daughter. In the comic, She has a hot and heavy romance with Bruce/Batman that produces a son who she hides away from everyone to protect him. When the two meet in the comics sparks fly. In the film Bruce is completely unaware of her existence until near the end of the film until she puts a knife in his back. Her plot to destroy Gotham makes no sense on any level. (and keep the plot in mind, I’ll get back to it). Why would someone trying to carry on Ghul's plan aim for vengeance- especially when you get no sense of Ghul's relationship with her other than he threw her in a pit?

Bane. Why did you uset him? Why? You could have had a gorilla. In the comic Bane is a super genius the equal to Bruce. He uses the mask- which originally connected him to a drug called Venom to pump up him physically. Yes Bane broke Bat man in the comic. However in the comic Bane knew he couldn’t beat Bruce on his own and so only confronts him after setting all of the super villains out after Batman first. Bruce/Batman had to beat everyone first. Bane only could take out a physically exhausted and broken Batman. In the comic Bane was rational and reasonable. He amped up everything toward his goal- breaking Batman, because that was the only way to stop the only one who could beat him, not get revenge for his master. Here he’s a big imposing guy in a mask with a silly voice living in a sewer (?) who does some incredibly stupid things.

Batman. When did he get so stupid and impulsive? The character is way too inconsistent doing smart things one minute, stupid the next. Actually the vast majority of what he does makes no sense, the simple act of becoming a recluse after the previous film makes no sense especially in the light of the DK ending with the implication that Batman would be come a true outlaw. In this film he disappeared after Harvey died. Really? In the previous he said he would fight on truly outside the law.

As for his dying, no. no no. Its based solely on a single shot of Batman in whats supposed to be the Bat. It seems to be a random shot. I would accept that Alfred seeing Bruce and Selina in Paris was a dream if it didn’t come at the instant he sat down. To me any notion of seeing Bruce would have come if he had been reflecting a moment or two not sitting down. For my money Bruce survived-he always does.

The plot of the film makes no sense. A weird carry over from the the first film, here its this weird plot to wreck Gotham and get revenge on Bruce. The plot, which never made sense in the first film, is carried over in this one. I still don't understand what the purpose of it is. A better world by taking out one city?

Worse are the twisted plot holes in the story beginning with those involving take over Gotham plot, such as why the hell the military doesn't step in once Bane's men take the city....

...which then spirals out all sorts of illogical plot lines like how long did they hold the city- weeks since Bruce is away that long, and the river freezes, This  raises questions that the film has no answers for like how did all the cops survive in the tunnels for so long? None of this bothered anyone? Even the length of time it takes for Bruce to heal would have been really long.

On the other hand logic and reason isn't something Nolan was going for since there is the infamous chase that goes from day to night in one cut. Nolan was going for effect, though I have yet to deduce what that might be...

There's more, a great deal more. I started watching the film and had to put my notebook away since I was essentially annotating the entire film with questions. You can only ask WHY? so many times before you have to throw up your hands.

Do me a favor. Now that DKR is out on DVD watch it again and don't look at the spectacle, watch the plot progression...no wait watch it after seeing DK and think about how the plot is progressing.... this makes zero sense even on its own terms.

Wonder Woman: The Unaired Pilot (2011)

This week at Unseen Films we do are doing a week of films were leaked to the general public. These are odd versions of films that somehow escaped from where they were hidden and ended up in circulation in one way or another. These are versions of well known films that you were never supposed to see- but can if you look hard enough.

First up is the pilot for a Wonder Woman TV series that was aiming for TV screens this past fall.

I saw the pilot at a dealers table at New York Comicon and was kind of surprised that the series wasn’t picked up for the fall 2011 season. No it’s not bad and no it is far from perfect, but there was something there that made me think that perhaps had the concept been tweaked a little bit it might have actually been able to run for a while.

The pilot, written by Allie McBeal creator David E Kelly has Diana Prince running a multinational corporation that promotes her as crime fighter Wonder Woman. Using the money she makes from toys and tie ins to fund her crime fighting she strives to help the downtrodden. In the pilot she battles a rival CEO played by Elizabeth Hurley who is putting new steroids on the street which is causing young athletes to have their hearts explode. It’s the by product of a super soldier formula gone wrong. The clash is what drives what is now a 40 minute stand alone film.

Yes, the clothing is revealing and how it’s portrayed by the Wonder Woman action figures is the source of a funny rant about Diana being more than T&A.

The problem with the pilot is that its got way too much going on to give any sense of where you could or would go with the series.

You have Diana crime fighter, who has some form of super power (she runs and fights like a super soldier) but we don’t know the source.

She wants to keep her home life and work life separate - she’s constantly talking about going home, but as Carey Elwes as her right hand man points out that’s just trying to create an unnatural schizophrenia. However its clear everyone knows who she is so the split is a bit odd.

What is she really doing or trying to do? Yes beyond helping the down trodden but outside of that things are unclear.

Actually much is unclear during the 40 minutes of story we have. It’s clear that Kelly kind of knows what he’s doing, the characters are obviously wandering around with a real sense of the world they are living in, but with out the back story he has the film kind of falls flat at times (I mean why are the cops allowing her to do what she does?)

Is it the classic comic character? Not completely. It’s some intriguing rethink that could have been something had we been given more to go on.

I liked it. I know had it gone to series I would have at least given it a second episode just to see how things played out. Its not the best thing ever but it wasn’t a complete disaster.

It is an interesting Elseworlds take on what might have been…

(For those who like to see things unfinished the version the dealer was screening at New York Comicon had the effects unfinished so you could see all of the wires used to do the super leaps and falls in the fight sequences, which was rather neat if you asked me.)

Green Lantern (2011)

We're going to continue our look at comic films by taking a look at the much maligned big screen version of Green Lantern

For those of you who don’t know Green Lantern was based on the DC comic about a Hal Jordan who is picked by the “magic” ring of a dying alien to take his place in the Green Lantern Corps. Using the ring Jordan can create anything he sees in his minds eye out of the green energy in order to help him fight bad guys.

The film is the basic origin story showing how Jordan goes from being a test pilot to being summoned by the ring, to being trained as a Green Lantern onward to making a solo stand against the evil creature Parallax.

When the film came out it received mixed reviews and lukewarm box office. By most accounts the film was a complete mess.

Being a huge fan of the comic book character and desperately needing to see something other than another Asian film (I originlly saw this in the middle of the New York Asian Film Festival and Japan Cuts) I headed over to one of the local multiplexes and decided to see for myself.

To me the film is a mixed affair. I think much of the Earth bound non super hero stuff is okay but nothing great. The problem is that there seems to be gaps in the story with not enough explanation as to who some people are. Events are glanced over. It’s not terrible, but the film seems to be lacking. (I’m also not too sure about the reinvention of Jordan as a semi-slacker with a father complex)

On the other hand the superhero stuff is great. All of the scenes on Oa (The Green Lantern home planet), or with Jordan as Green Lantern either in training or in action is spot on target. I loved it. For me seeing all of the comic characters in the flesh was amazing. I loved how they got Jordan’s heroic personality perfect. Here’s the heroic character that I fell in love with as a kid: A guy who will fight to the end and beyond because that’s the right thing to do and because some one has to. It’s the Lantern scenes that are the reason you really should see this film.

My one reservation is that the creature Parallax- a large blob- isn’t really much of a scary threat. Its just this evil blob that eats worlds and not much more. Sure the heroics it inspires in Jordan are great but the choice to use this nondescript blob as the bad guy was a major misstep.

The sad thing is that I don’t think the film will inspire the sequel it sets up or deserves. We won’t get to see the Green Lantern Corps in another adventure, not Kilowg nor Tomar-Re helping Jordan. More we won’t get to see Sinestro’s fall from grace. One of the things that I loved about this film was that we really got to see Sinestro as the good guy he was at the start. The man destined to become Hal Jordan’s greatest nemesis was once the best of the best, until the power of the yellow ring turned him. Knowing this makes the final sequences in Jordan’s battle with Parralax and on Oa even more touching.

I loved the heroic stuff in this film. To me the hero bits are some of the best stuff I saw all year.

If only the rest of the film was up to this level.

Definitely worth your time to try.

All-Star Superman (2010)

A beautifully animated adaptation of a terrific comic book, All-Star Superman is first and foremost a story about the power of love. Superman's unconditional love for the people of his adopted home planet of Earth is the central theme of the film. Due to the actions of arch-nemesis Lex Luthor, Superman is dying, and he has certain tasks he wants to perform before his time is up. The dynamic of his relationship with Lois Lane shifts, as she learns many things about him, including what it's like to BE him for a while.

Although certain sub-plots from the brilliant comic book by writer Grant Morrison and artist Frank Quitely are dropped for time considerations, the remaining ones perform in the same manner as in the book. Many seemingly innocuous moments are actually set-ups for future events, and nearly everything ties together cleverly as the story progresses. With only a couple of exceptions, while it may not seem as such at the moment, everything is there for a reason.

The look of the animation is styled on Quitely's unique look, and is done so wonderfully. The motion is very fluid, and the settings have real depth and life to them. The voice actors are also particularly good, filling each scene with the right amount of emotion. Nothing seems overdone or underplayed. There is the right amount of humor thrown in as well, making the whole thing not too heavy handed.

The Blu-Ray edition comes packed with lots of extras, including a feature length commentary by Morrison and producer Bruce Timm, who has been directly responsible for many of the successful animation transfers from DC Comics in recent years. There is also a digital copy to throw onto your iPod, which in this case was used to show some of it to Quitely at the Emerald City Comicon in Seattle in March 2011, as he had yet to see it.

Overall a very positive film, with plenty of action in it as well, but definitely about the good one can accomplish if you just put your efforts towards that goal.