Spoiler-Free Diet: X-Men: Days of Future Past

Solid cast, all around.

The most recent entry into the sometimes decent, sometimes awful X-men movie franchise is, fortunately, from the former category. I went with a group and most everyone liked it. The Wife fell asleep, but she ended work late and starts early, so that's understandable. Oh, and the movie doesn't try to engage folks not interested in the series already, which is a bit of a weakness.

Oh, and no spoilers below, so feel free to glut yourself on some nerdy review goodness.

The Good

Acting - The cast for this movie was pretty stellar, an

Future Sunspot, Kitty Pryde, Iceman, and Colossus

d no one dropped the ball. Moreover, everyone was somewhat interesting and had a place/purpose, even the folks set in the future, which we only see for a few scenes. This is in direct contrast to X-Men: Last Stand, which wasted talent, characters, storylines, and was just generally unwieldy. This was a decent sized cast, but it was handled well.

Story - Many movies that try, fail to make sense of time travel, or leave large plot holes. This movie didn't have any issues with it -- technically it was time travel lite, with simple rules and simple, well-defined consequences, but it helped in that it didn't detract from the story. I've read reviews online that say it were confusing -- they either watched a different movie than I did, or simply weren't paying attention.

This is a story about characters. Yes, there's obviously a big-bad event that causes the future to go awry, but the solution doesn't lie in stopping the event, rather in changing the players involved. It's a different take on a super hero movie and not done completely well -- without a major focus, the movie does seem to drift a bit from time to time and, scaled against super hero movies, even runs a bit on the boring side. It's never bad, and it ends well and with interesting results, it just wasn't quite as focused as it could have been.

Action - Early on, there are two amazing action scenes. The rest of the movie moves away from them and there isn't too much fighting until the very end, and it doesn't really compare to the beginning sets. Either way, it was worth it (and still had more fighting than Godzilla... heh).

Correcting wrongs - The X-Men movies have been full of plot holes and errors, especially since X-Men: First Class, which tried to set itself apart from having to correct the wrongs of Last Stand. This movie, using a bit of time travel, does fix some of these issues, which is nice. It also more-or-less gives Last Stand the middle finger, which is very good. There are still some issues, which I could go into but won't, but they're not quite as glaring as they had been. Sort of. Hey, at least they're making an effort. And, really, it's consistent with the X-Men comics in the '90s -- overly convoluted with too many writers and no real cohesion.

The Bad

Mystique - This is definitely a personal issue, but I hate Mystique. I've never liked the comic or movie character, and I think the movie version looks stupid. Jennifer Lawrence was fine, but the fact that the movie focuses on her so much (figuratively and literally, those close-ups, man) annoyed me. I'm very much on the side of "there are so many MORE interesting X-Men characters....", and it does sometimes impact my ability to see past things such as "movie rights" and silly things like that. The plot device she's used for makes some sort of sense (kind of, and was worked in from First Class), but there are several other mutants that would have made more sense and been much more interesting. The focus on Charles' relationship with her always annoys me, though conceptually I understand a need to tie characters together on a deeper emotional level.

But still, Mystique. Ugh.

First Class - The "back in time" portion takes place ten years after the events in First Class, but the intervening ten years are only briefly mentioned and hardly seem to fit. I didn't see a reason for that particular time jump (heh), and it grated for me whenever they mentioned it in passing.

Comics - The "future" portion was a mash-up of the comic arcs "Days of Future Past," the issues that introduced Bishop/Apocalypse's dark future, and the "Age of Apocalypse" (thanks to Blink's presence) arcs. This, to me, was a waste. Bishop's future, in the comics, was so much more interesting than the briefly touched upon "Days of Future Past," timeline. It was nice seeing him in the film, but I'm a bit bummed that, should he appear in the next one, it will lesson the normal impact of his character on the X-Men universe.

Also, the future wasn't used nearly enough. A couple snapshots of an apocalyptic wasteland are really all we see, then it focuses very closely on the Future group, never straying far from their hideout. I wanted to see more of why the future was rubbish -- it's my favorite setting.

Sentinels - The future ones look too similar the The Destroyer from Thor. The past ones don't do much. These are iconic X-Men enemies in the comics, but they were under-utilized in the extreme here.

Future sentinel. It's face opens in a familiar manner...

Focus - The story, lacking a major, stand out villain, loses focus. Is Trask the target? Is Magneto the true enemy? Can the future even be changed? Etc... This wasn't assisted by an unnecessary scene or two in the future, which dragged our attention further away, without adding the intended suspense.

The focus on characters wasn't exactly what I wanted it to be either. The most interesting character in the entire film was introduced and cast aside fairly early. And the comic arc had followed Kitty Pryde back to the past, not Wolverine. True, I think Wolverine worked in this aspect, but super hero movies in general need stronger female leads, and the writers of this missed a great opportunity to use a wonderful actress (Ellen Page) to her fullest extent.

Wasted opportunity, not having this shot somewhere in the film.

... Despite my constant gripes, I liked the movie. I also liked it a TON better than I expected. But I do have my gripes. Arbitrary rating of 7/10. I'm now fairly excited for the next movie (stay after the credits!).


... I hadn't bothered to post about it, but my rating for Godzilla is an 8/10 and am super excited to see what they do next with the series.

A(nother) Negative Review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2

This doesn't look good. And I'm talking quality, not quantity.

I saw TASM2 last Thursday with some friends. Personally, I went in with low expectations. Every commercial for the film made me feel worse and worse. Learning Electro's origin ahead of time really set the bar low. Seeing an early screen cap of the new Green Goblin made me cringe.

So I went in without much hope. The movie wasn't going to look good and it was very clear that there would be little-to-know faithfulness to the comics. That last bit isn't necessarily the most important trait for a comic book movie, but it matters to me. Especially when the series is one I've loved since I could read.

Even with the bar set so low, I was disappointed. The only item that surprised me was that I actually liked the new look of Spidey's costume -- it looked more realistic than ever before, especially while it was in motion. Most of the pre-release images made it look like CGI rubbish -- turns out, it was the best part of the movie for me. I loved the way the costume bunched up and moved with the wind. I'd take two hours of web-swinging over most of the rest of the movie.

I'm going to jump into spoilers in a moment. I don't have any real positives to say without spoiling something, so I'll just leave folks up here with my Arbitrary Rating of 3/10. And at least one of those points is because the title had "Spider-Man" somewhere in it... Even though it barely followed a single comic issue or arc.

SPOILERS BELOW THE SPIDER!

Swing away or be spoiled! Majorly!

If you're still reading, it's your own fault for being spoiled -- I made a half-hearted attempt at warning you! I'm just going to go for an item-to-item basis of what I didn't like. Maybe toss it a bone here and there, maybe. For the most part, this is just nerd-rage. If you want to save yourself some grief, just know that I didn't like it. I won't necessarily suggest that folks skip it, but I suspect I'll never watch it again. And, if I ever buy it, it's just because I'm sick and twisted -- much the same reason I own a copy of Spider-Man 3...

Maxwell is more of a nerd than this Peter ever was, hmmm.

Electro: Love Jamie Fox. Didn't mind that they made his character a stalker/creep, even if that's not normally an Electro trait. They at least tried to give him a reasonable pathos for becoming a super villain -- he wanted attention and was angry at the world. Unfortunately, they used a boring stereotype to get there -- Jamie Fox's character was a meek scientist picked on by his boss who, at one point or another, stole his idea/plan for a major scientific breakthrough. UHG. I'd much rather they stuck with the comic book motivation: "OH CRAP I'VE GOT SUPER POWERS! TIME TO ROB A BANK!" I'd totally do it. I did enjoy the background music they kept playing when we got Electro's point of view. It was a nice underscore to Electro's shifting moods and damaged psyche.

Electro's origin has never been particularly dignified, but the fact that they changed it to include electric eels really irks me. Not every villain in the series has to have the same Oscorp tie-in or be immediately related to an animal. It confines the universe to such a small, meaningless scale. The Amazing Spider-Man movie-verse lacks and depth of character (or characters) because it's always the same old shtick. What a waste.

All-blue Electro looked bad. Would have much preferred a normal-ish Jamie Fox throwing some voltage around. And the final fight between Spidey and Electro was foolish. Electro can, apparently, teleport/move as fast as electricity. Spider-Man should not have been able to dodge almost every blow and run circles around the supposed major villain of the film. But he did, and then the final blow just didn't bother to make much sense.

Le Sigh.

Peter Parker: In this series, he isn't a nerd. He's a skateboarder. He reminds me a lot of my youngest brother -- same clothes, same hats, same instagram photos. That's fine -- I like updated characters (see Tony Stark in Iron Man films vs comics). They also made it so there is no indication that he's intelligent. In the comics, he's a genius-level character. Sure, Marvel has quite a few of those, but this one's my favorite, and taking that away from him is unfortunate. Maybe, just maybe they'll use the events at the end of the film to inspire Peter to excel... But that might be hoping for too much.

Classic outfit with movie spiders.

Spider-Man: I felt a bit better about his quips and antics in this film, though still think Andrew Garfield introduces too much "scathing sarcasm" without being enough of a "jovial jokester." Spider-Man's jokes are supposed to be bad, but I always considered them more along the lines of "Dad Humor," not "Hipster Humor."

Norman Osborn: A complete waste. Wrong wrong wrong and awful. Maybe this was an attempt to keep comic fans guessing, but that didn't make it any better. His foolish claws were unwarranted and were another visual slap to the face. This film was full of 'em.

Harry Osborn: Didn't care for most of this characters scenes. There was one or two that were fairly decent, but otherwise he came off as an uneducated, cruel, and entitled prick. Harry Osborn is never shown to be decent or interesting, beyond that he was a "good friend" to Peter at one point in their past (not shown on screen at all). Then, after being removed from the head of the company, he immediately becomes homicidal, ready to kill or, at the very least, torture folks to get his way.

The Green Goblin: Even the campy Goblin armor from Raimi's Spider-Man was better than the absolutely ridiculous looking farce they offered us in this film. That's not even mentioning that the plot-device armor (literally, armor), had some sort of "healing" ability inherent in it... Yet Norman wasn't mentioned wearing it at any point. And of course, all Osborns must now how to use a Goblin Glider immediately, even if they've never seen one before... I found this character insulting to fans and a huge waste of a villain.

THIS is your goblin, folks. Why!? Who said this was a good idea!? Who!?

Gwen Stacy: Didn't care for her at any point in the film, and I generally really like Emma Stone. They kept dangling the Europe red-herring, but it wasn't particularly useful -- non-comic fans had no idea that Gwen Stacy ever actually left for Europe, and comic fans could smell what was really coming a mile off.

This movie made some serious (and unfortunate) changes to her death. In the comics, the Green Goblin (Norman, a well-known enemy of Spider-Man, at this point), hurls Gwen from the top of a bridge (the images and text from the comic actually confused which bridge it was). Spidey shoots a web to save her from falling to her death. Turns out, the sudden stop from his web breaks her neck and she is dead when he gets to her. Peter debates that the Goblin could have snapped her neck before throwing her, but it is pretty clear that Peter made a major mistake and caused the death of someone he loved, fully assisted by the Goblin -- if Peter had planned it better, he could have prevented the whiplash by using two strategically placed web-strands.

In the movie, the Green Goblin (Harry, newly dosed up with some magic spider venom, who suddenly realizes that Spider-Man is really his friend Peter) hurls Gwen into a clock tower. Spidey saves her from the initial fall and immediately begins fighting the Goblin in the tower while Gwen tries to find cover. The ensuing fight causes the clock tower to fall apart and Gwen to plummet to the ground below. Spidey jumps down and shoots a single strand to try and catch her. We see if barely miss a multitude of debris as it finally connects with Gwen, right before she's about to hit the ground -- and her back arcs backwards. Not clear if her neck or spine is broken, but she is most definitely dead. Except, the Goblin's involvement in the actual death was involuntary (it occurred during the fighting, not in any way he planned), and Peter really couldn't have saved her -- the debris prevented him from using more than one strand even if he thought about it, and any more delay would have had Gwen hitting the ground before he got to her.

... Not so much. Death by general irresponsibility, really.

Sure, they got a decent camera angle to catch the famous comic-book frame. Ish. Sure, Gwen died in the end. But bother Peter and the Goblin's responsibility in this death were dramatically reduced with the way this film portrays it, and that is supposed to be one of the defining moments of Parker's life and his relationship with the Goblin.

The Rhino: Looked absolutely awful, but I was ok with it as an ending.

The Rhino, who now comes equipped with heavy artillery.

After the credits: What. The. Hell. Not only was it not Spider-Man (or Sony...), but it looked rushed, the characters all looked stupid. Maybe this is a lead up to a Sony/Fox team-up down the line... But seriously, make mine Marvel. It makes me sad that the rights to my favorite characters are in the hands of folks who have no idea how to use them.

That's all I feel like complaining about. Please offer any argument you have. I'd like to see some merit, but I really can't. Even the obvious tie in for the Sinister Six has me depressed, considering I've already seen what the Goblin and Rhino look like (and it really, really isn't any good).

Ender's Game Review

First, I should remind folks that Ender's Game is one of my favorite novels of all time (and the series is one of my favorites in general).

For the spoiler-free part of the review, I simply want to say I give the movie an 8/10 as both a stand alone movie AND a book adaptation. The only faults for me were that they rushed through the ending parts and changed the ending slightly, for no apparent reason.

The action in the movie, while not grandiose, was a lot of fun to watch and done very, very well in regards to aesthetics. I'm happy with the acting and some of the light touches of character growth that wasn't overly drawn out (one of the characters, Graff, is clearly sporting a pot belly that wasn't obvious earlier in the film, something that reflects the novel well). The handling of the communique that opened every chapter of the novel was done acceptably via private teacher conversations, and the bulk of the story fell into place nicely. Much too quickly towards the end, but nicely.

If you want to know more about that, go see the damn movie and then read the spoiler section below!

---------------SPOILERS! YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, EVERYTHING SPOILED PAST HERE-----------

I am very happy with the selected cast. I loved Harrison Ford as Graff and I didn't hate the kid that played Ender, though he did come off as a bit whiny in parts. That's mostly the physical manifestation of Ender's thoughts as they're internalized in the books, something they couldn't do very often with useful e-mails and narration without breaking the story. The only character I think they did poorly was Mazer Rackham. Hollywood must have needed more characterization than he got in the book. It wasn't awful, but it wasn't the same character from the novel (I pictured more of a Ben Kenobi look with a military haircut), and that's enough of a detraction for me there. The fact that he's only in the movie for such a brief time didn't help -- the Ender/Mazer relationship never took form, and that's an important relationship to cast aside via a conversation about Maori tattoos.

Mazer and Ender -- Close enough, I suppose.

The character of Bean wasn't touched upon much either, and that's something I personally hoped for. I know that he's got his own book, but I don't believe for a second he'll get his own movie, so it would have been nice to have a little more of his intelligence shown, or at least the prayer he says at the end of the book to show he knows the truth of everything. Oh well.

The worst thing about the movie, as is true with most book adaptations, was that it was too short. If they'd added an additional hour, I think they could have nailed the book. There could have been more time spent on Battle School and working in some of the relationships they missed (Ender's private training sessions from the novel were removed, which would have been a perfect way to show him growing as a leader. The movie does it in a relatively effective way, but only by splashing insecurity on Ender that seems a bit out of character). There also needed to be a lot more time spent with the Command School simulations, but most of the novel then deals with Ender's internalization again, which would have been immensely difficult to pull off. That, and a three hour movie would have bored any non-Ender's Game fans, truly. Some "training montages" might have been nice, though.

Almost a fuzzy feeling here. They ALMOST had it.

There was one active change from the novel that probably bugged me the most though, even more than the speeding through sections and not giving Bean more screen time. Graff actively tells Ender (and, therefore, the audience) that they are going to an advance base where they will lead the assault on the Bugger home world -- the novel NEVER tells Ender (or the reader) that humanity is attacking the home world until AFTER Ender already destroyed it. It was a HUGE revelation that could have been done very simply in the movie and been a HUGE moment of revelation for the audience and Ender. I feel this part was simply dumbed down so no viewer would have to think back to previous scenes in the film and have the impact that Ender sent living humans to their deaths AND killing off an entire species.. Because no one wants to watch Donnie Darko, right? I understand the shift for suspense, but it was enough of a change to put me off.

But... If Donnie goes back, does that mean Patrick Swayze...

The buggers, as they were shown, were done with a lot of detail and managed to still look beautiful. This is surprising to me as a fan of campy sci-fi -- I'm happy with puppets and the like, but the CG Formic Queen was wonderful.

The dragging out and changing of the books epilogue made sense, though it wasn't as refreshing as the novel's. And the ending scene with Valentine left me a little confused -- WHY THE HELL WOULD SOMEONE GIVE THEIR INFANT A MOBILE FEATURING THE MONSTERS THAT ALMOST DESTROYED THE WORLD!? What sick and twisted parent does that!? The closest relative image I could imagine for us would be to give a Jewish child a Nazi mobile today.

Well. I'm exaggerating and I'm sure it was another point in the favor of Ender "loving" his enemy, but still, a bit twisted.

Overall, understanding that it is a movie adaptation that has to please Hollywood, I am content with the movie. I'd have loved more time, or now even a separate movie to show us what the ancillary characters were doing (Bean, Valentine, and Peter, mainly) because they were immensely interesting in the books, but at least I can always go back to said books without feeling they've been sullied by a terrible movie version. Well, except maybe Mazer's face, but I suppose I'll get over it.

What did everyone else think? Anyone as big a fan of the series as I am and have a differing opinion? Did you hate the nods to the sequels, or think it was a nice touch? Do you think we'll get a Speaker for the Dead movie next (I don't, I'd imagine a Shadow movie more likely -- though still NOT likely)?

Maybe we'll get there... But probably not.

Spoiler Free Diet: The Wolverine

Love this poster.

Did you hold off on seeing The Wolverine this weekend? Too afraid of another X-Men: The Last Stand or Wolverine Origins? Read below to find out if you made the right choice or not.

Oh, hi. You got here pretty quick. Hold on, a little bit farther down.

Ha. My thoughts on The Wolverine were surprisingly positive, but let's give a rundown of my thoughts going in and then what I liked and disliked.

---X-Men in films--- (This is a pseudo rant, skip to the next session for Wolverine specifics)

In general, I am disappointed with the X-Men movies. It feels as if they don't have a single person working on the movies who has even picked up an X-Men comic book, they just tried to get the gist of it from Wikipedia.

That doesn't work.

And it doesn't really work that the movies really focused on Wolverine, because that just gets confusing: Origins-->X-Men-->X2-->Last Stand-->The Wolverine is the actual series order for Wolverine's story. First Class... well, he makes a cameo, I guess.

It has led to senseless character changes that really hurt the series as a long-running entity. Maybe they didn't expect it to do so well and wanted to hit the big names that would draw people in. Maybe they were just confused. Maybe they Sony needs to release them back to Marvel...

Aside from going so far off the comic book path, X-Men: The Last Stand wasn't good. And it felt like the writers were trying to write off the series. And then we got Wolverine: Origins. The movie suffered from the same off-comic book script that would have been MUCH better if they tried to stick a bit closer, but only really got bad when the writing got lazy. Really, Striker KNEW that two adamantium bullets to Wolverine's head would give him amnesia and WOULDN'T be fixed by his healing factor? Nonsense. A machine to wipe minds, which was mentioned, would have been acceptable, especially since the comics have so many explanations (and the real one wouldn't fit the movies), but this lazy writing actively killed the movie for me.

Enter First Class, and no one even knows if this is a reboot, a re-telling, or an honest-to-goodness prequel! Well, it looks like a prequel in the end, as long as you don't mind them slapping the timeline of THEIR OWN MOVIES across the face. This could possibly be rectified in Days of Future Past, but it shouldn't have been needed.

---Ok, I'll actually talk about the movie now---

The Wolverine directly follows Last Stand, with references to Origins (though I didn't see any to First Class, not that that's important). So you should see the original trilogy before going to see the Wolverine if you want to know what the deal is with one of the characters in the movie (ooh, spoiler-free makes this sound more interesting than it was).

The Good: The character of Wolverine was done well. They've had four movies to work on it, and this is the first one that I feel they hit the important elements of the character, from his inability to remain a pacifist to his desire to protect younger/smaller female figures (well documented in the comics).

Mariko and Wolverine.

The movie doesn't follow a comic run per se, but it also doesn't step on any toes and does tie in characters in a relatively appropriate fashion. This is easily the least damaging movie to the comic storyline.

There weren't quite as many fight scenes as I had expected and there were a few missed opportunities, but I enjoyed those that were in the film and really enjoyed one sword fight in general.

The supporting cast plays their roles well enough. Again, the character roster is actually pretty small considering the comic book Japanese history Logan has, but this made for an easier to control movie where we know who was important/interesting

Yukio and Hobo-Wolverine.

The 3D for this movie was actually really beautiful. I normally don't care for 3D, especially since it is a gimmick that feels more appropriate in a Michael Bay film, but it wasn't used for overt action sequences in The Wolverine, it actually just gave a nice field of depth to the whole movie. I loved the opening pan done with the 3D technology and this is the first movie I honestly suggest spending the extra cash when you see it. The Wife, who hates 3D, agrees with me on this one.

There is an appropriate after-the-credits scene, which is something Sony usually sucks at.

The Bad: There aren't really any surprising moments. This means the plot is easy to follow, but the attempted plot twist is very weak.

The ending doesn't go in any direction I wanted it to. It has promise for the future, but I sincerely doubt it will get much focus in later movies, which is unfortunate.

Wolverine has a much larger history with Japan in the comics. As far as I can tell from this movie, this is no longer the case. What we have was done well, but it is an example of missed potential.

I really disliked one of the villains they chose. I don't think they are mentioned anywhere so, to remain spoiler free, I'll just say that I felt they looked stupid and had zero interesting points. In fact, they could have easily been removed from the film and it actively would have been better with all of their scenes removed. They have one gimmick that got them in the film, and it could have been replaced VERY simply.

It could have been shorter. Some scenes dragged on and others could have been removed entirely.

The Verdict: This is a strong entry into the Wolverine storyline. One of the strongest, honestly, because the focus is clear and doesn't stay from the title character, who goes through several changes throughout. It was a good comic book movie in the sense that it doesn't outright ruin any comic stories for future films and it still remained in the realm of plausibility. The writing was better than Origins, though there were a few points I'll contend with if I am motivated to do a Spoiler-Full review.

As it stands, any comic book fan should see this movie. Anyone who remotely liked the X-Men films should see this movie. Fans of Hugh Jackman will enjoy this movie. Fans of over-the-top action films... will find it a bit slow.

My arbitrary rating would be a 7/10.

One Week Later: Iron Man 3

Hi all,

Decided to wait a week to write about Iron Man 3. I'm going to give the excuse that I wanted to wait a decent amount of time before posting spoilers, but I've just been really lazy lately. So yeah.

Oh, and spoilers below. If you haven't seen Iron Man 3 and want my reaction: I really enjoyed it. Definitely more than the second one, though it wasn't as life-changing as the original (that'd be pretty hard to accomplish anyway). It played very fast and loose with elements from the comic book, but as long as Marvel keeps the movie-verse and the comic-verse separate, that's acceptable with me.

--------------You shall not pass! Unless you're ok with spoilers, that is-------------------------------

This movie followed the Extremis arc in the Iron Man comics. I haven't read the arc (I'm actually NOT an Iron Man fan, beyond the movies), but I flipped through it quickly in Barnes and Noble after seeing the film and appreciated that some scenes in the graphic novel were directly translated to the film -- one page showed Tony headbutting the villain, which I remember vividly from the final fight scene in the film.

I'm still not sure how closely it follows Extremis, but there were two major changes that I imagine fans weren't particularly pleased with.

The first, which I was less enthusiastic about, was the change from War Machine to Iron Patriot. I think the Iron Patriot armor is fun and all, but I love it's comic origin so much more -- Norman Osborn (the Green Goblin) becomes the Iron Patriot when he becomes the chief security officer for the world (basically, I'm trying to do this in layman's terms as much as possible). He's attempting to portray Iron Man and Captain America in his suit of armor to have better acceptance with the public. Make no mistake -- he's still a villain, just a high profile villain that has won over 'the people.' The movie intro wasn't interesting and it really wasn't used too much, which was a let down.

The comic intro for Iron Patriot (Norman Osborn)

The second change, which I think they nailed, was introducing the Mandarin... and completely changing the character. In the comics, he's a pretty severe villain and one of Iron Man's earliest arch-enemies. In the movie, he's a (hilariously) trashy actor hired by the true villain, Aldrich Killian. This is a huge shift from the comics, but I was overall happy with it and am glad that they weren't worried about switching things up (as long as they don't go the X-Men III or First Class route and ruin everything).

Ok, there's the major comic issues covered. For some more general thoughts:

Pacing: The movie's early pacing was done fairly poorly, in my opinion. It failed to be actively interesting and gave me conflicting feelings for the character. Tony was an especial douche in the flashback, which is acceptable, but I felt really bad for past-Killian. Then present Pepper almost immediately swoons for Killian because he got so much prettier. What's that about? She's having a few issues at home with Tony and falls for the first pretty face? Messed up, and damaging to the character. It does pick up maybe 45 minutes in, and that's about when the movie starts using humor well.

Humor: I laughed a lot during this movie. I especially loved the random kid, Harley. Oh, and Tony's relationship with his suit:

Action: This movie had more action and fight sequences than the first or second, and they were done really, really well. Love the final scene with the multitude of suits -- it was nice seeing the different models and seeing some that tied into comic arcs I knew (such as a brief glimpse of the God-Killer Armor Tony currently wears).

Marvel universe tie-ins: Tony is having panic attacks from the wormhole in The Avengers. The most interesting line is when a voice asks him how he got back, which I'm hoping is used well. I say that, because it was mentioned as an issue with absolutely no resolution. Usually this is an issue with movies, but Marvel is breaking new ground with their connected movies, so I'll simply say it's unfortunate we have to wait to see more. The after the credits scene was a much worse let down, however, and only showed Tony in a therapy session with Bruce, with no noticeable clues to any other Phase II movies. Not only did this lead to sitting through the longest credits ever, it has shaken my faith in post movie credits, which was already a tenuous thing!

Gripes: Actually, for this initial viewing, my only grip is really the pacing. I felt the scope was appropriate, the suspense and action done well, and it was an overall pleasure to watch.

Oh, and have I mentioned that I love Guy Pearce and think it's awesome that he was the villian? Yeah, major bonus for me.

I'd love to hear some other thoughts on the movie -- since seeing it, I've been hearing a lot of negative feedback and people saying they hated it. I don't fall into that category, as I'd give it a solid (arbitrary) rating of 8/10.


Star Trek: Into Darkness comes out this Friday, and I just happen to have the day off! Let's see if we can convince The Wife for a midnight viewing!

Good, Bad, and Ugly: Camp-Fest Edition

Howdy Folks,

I know it's been a bit since my last post and I'm sorry for the delay. I've haven't had too much spare time to spend on comics, movies, or video games -- instead I'm busy with work, grad classes, and finishing up my final project.

Oh, and maybe looking to move a few states away (back to Ye Olde Massachusetts). More on that when there's more on that.

For now, I thought I'd bring you a brief post about things I have been making time for: Campy Movies!

The Good

Evil Dead 2
The Evil Dead 2 builds upon its predecessor. Well, actually, in the first five minutes it retcons its predecessor so it can continue with a different actress playing Ash's girlfriend, but then it is a direct sequel. Confusing at the start, it quickly gets better. Ash is a much more interesting hero than the uni-browed coward from the first film, and the supporting cast is slightly more interesting.

The monsters, while still looking terrible, are MUCH better, and even the trees are less perverted (more on that later). There still doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how the monsters work, per se, but we get over that because of just how awesome goofy manly bad-ass Ash his. I mean, he replaces his hand with a chainsaw! Come on!

I rate this movie, on a scale of campy awesomeness, as a solid 9. It's enjoyable, and you can probably skip the first one without losing TOO much. Well, maybe.

The Bad

All Superheroes Must Die
There is nothing redeemable about this movie. The hero costumes are tacky (which is ok), the characters themselves are mostly 1 dimensional, the back story is given in awkward black and white scenes in such a way that we REALLY don't care about the characters, and the actors themselves are pretty damn bad. The bad guy and the lead hero maybe are in the ok zone for a campy film, but the other three are absolute rubbish.

The worst part, though, is the way they portray the female protagonist. Not only is she 100% useless in the film (she literally sits there and watches her partner/sometimes lover get SLOWLY gutted), her only actionable moment is to die (presumably) with the man she loves instead of accepting his sacrifice. Her character would have single-handedly brought down the film for me if it wasn't all together terrible.

They're all pretty awful.

That being said, the premise wasn't the worst I'd seen, hence why I rented it. Someone, please make a better movie out of it soon. As it stands, I'd rate it at a 2/10, simply for the plot existing and attempting to be used. And the one reveal towards the end of the film was almost interesting.

The Ugly

Evil Dead
This was, I believe, Sam Raimi's first film. It is a pretty rough start. The characters are unlikable and at best completely stupid. The monsters look awful. A bunch of trees actually rape a girl. And, the worst part, the main character is a tepid coward with a uni-brow who does more or less nothing effective in the entire film.

My cat, Durgin, watching Evil Dead with me.

And I'm really confused by why the monsters MUST come in the doors when they've been shown smashing into windows before (... and those windows are still WIDE open). Maybe this was supposed to reflect the characters going insane instead of any external threats actually existing, I'm not sure, but it was pretty bad.

That being said, it is completely acceptable in that it leads us to Evil Dead 2 and eventually Army of Darkness (a movie I particularly enjoy).

I rate it was a 5/10. It is crappy camp, but it obviously has potential.

Ok, next you'll either be seeing my review of the first arc of Thor: God of Thunder or the quick Pull List Review I'm very late on. We'll see!

Friday at the Movies: Looper Review

At the moment, I am working on a new format for my Pull List Review. In the meantime, I figured I'd do a review and analysis of a movie I really enjoyed recently: Looper.

First, I'll talk about why I liked it, that way anyone who wants to avoid the spoiler-filled analysis can  avoid them.

I really like this image. Old and Young Joe.

Why I watched Looper twice, more or less back to back:

I loved the movie's setting and they way they presented the facts about what was going on. It is set in the near(ish) future (2044) which looks a lot like today, the changes ranging from hodge-podge to pretty damn sci-fi: we see cars we'd see on the road today converted into solar powered vehicles by having solar panels strapped to them, but we also see futuristic looking hover bikes. It looks like the world is midway to a dystopian future.

Most of the movie takes place in either the shadier parts of the city or the countryside. The buildings are run down, the people are desperate, crime is rampant and the police are nowhere to be seen.

Enter the Loopers, "professional" hit-men of today servicing tomorrow. And by tomorrow, I mean 30 years from now, when time travel is invented. Because it's such a dangerous technology, it is immediately banned. This means that only the biggest criminal organizations have it, and they use it to get rid of people. In the future, it's impossible to kill someone and NOT get caught. So they send them back in time, handcuffed, a sack over their head, and with money (silver) strapped to their back, to 30 years in the past. Upon arrival, they are killed immediately (via shotgun, called blunderbuss) by a Looper.

Probably doesn't take an actual professional hit-man...

This is facilitated by Abe, a man sent back from the future to organize the Loopers.

It's an interesting premise and, presented just vague enough, works. Initially it sounds strange, which is what put me off from the movie, but in practice it is really all just part of the setting. There are small things that you might not notice but are there to reinforce certain key points. Time travel is a messy business. I won't get into this too much here, I'll save that for the next section, but it isn't laid on as thick as some movies (and books, etc...) that deal with Time Travel. Our narrator, the protagonist Joe, tells us a few story elements here and there and they are to be accepted as fact. There's no debate, no argument, that's just how it is.

Once you've lost yourself in the setting, you can begin to follow (and should have little problem accepting) the story. The past, present, and future collide, sometimes in surprising ways. Little touches are put in the film but not expanded on; you pick up on them or you don't. A world has been created, and it seems to be well thought out, but we're only getting a small slice of this world -- we really only get to see Joe's story, and he acts as an every man (dare I say... an average Joe?).

There's action, a dash of romance, suspense, and more, but my favorite part of the movie is the treatment of the characters. Even minor characters are made to be relatable, understandable, and unique. There are a couple of cliches here and there, but even they are to be appreciated.

For the cast itself, I was actually surprised. I consider myself a Bruce Willis fan, so I wasn't surprised to enjoy his character. I have also liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the past, though I found their attempts at making him look closer to Willis to be a bit humorous. Still, enjoyed the character, especially when interacting with Cid. There should have been more of Jeff Daniels (Abe), but what we got was awesome. And, though I don't think I've ever liked her in anything else, I think Emily Blunt was perfect in her role as Cid's mother.


There are some confusing points and leaps of faith. Also, certain things are tacked on as plot elements ("TK", or telekinesis being the prime suspect), but I think it all works and makes an interesting/engaging film. As long as you understand that it's a (potentially) unique look at time travel, it's not too hard to believe (especially since, you know, time travel doesn't exist).

My arbitrary rating for the film is a 9/10. The more I think about it, the more I really enjoy it, which I don't think has ever happened before.


From here on out, I'm going to get spoiler-ific, so reader beware!

Closed Loops or Open Plot Holes?

Closing the Loop: When a Looper kills his future self and receives their final payday (in gold instead of silver). The crime bosses close loops because of how illegal time travel is. This isn't a surprise to Loopers, they're told this when they sign up. They get a final payday and live the next 30 (or so) years in a sort of early retirement.

Letting the Loop Run: When a Looper fails to kill is future self and instead let's them escape. This is an issue because it screws with the time continuum -- every action someone from the future takes in the past can alter the future dramatically.

This is never stated to be a direct butterfly effect, and it is something that CAN be managed. Abe is from the future, but seems to have no hurt the future (as far as we know). There may be a few reasons for this, the least of which is that we never see him leave the building we meet him in, and to see him requires an appointment/pass pretty intense security. When Joe's friend, Seth, let's his loop run, Abe says that something to the effect that every moment he's unaccounted for makes things more dangerous. This COULD be because the more time here's here, the more chances he'll have to impact the future, or it could reference that any temporal distortions take time.

The way a running loop is fixed is a bit interesting (and potentially a bit problematic). Young Seth is caught and changes are made to his body that appear on Old Seth. It's stated that Young Seth isn't outright killed because that would be to dramatic/traumatic a change in the timeline. So they scar him and remove body parts. This, to me, seems like it would be pretty damn damaging to the timeline, but it's apparently considered "safer" than outright killing him. When we do glimpse Young Seth being operated on, there does seem to be some futuristic devices attached/monitoring him. Possibly this is just life support to keep him going despite what's happening to his body, but maybe the technology has something to do with why this method is considered better/safer. It's not really stated too clearly, and this is the major leap of faith you have to have.

Old Joe: This guy is a bit of an issue, conceptually. Old Joe comes from the timeline where he closed his loop as a younger man. He spent his life pretty poorly and eventually finds love towards the end of it. Her death leads him to try and change the timeline. The second he runs, however, the timeline is different. If this was a direct butterfly effect type of time travel, he would stop existing then, or at the very least come closer and closer to doing so as the chances of him being sent back in time are less and less. But this isn't a butterfly effect time movie, not exactly.

Old Joe and Young Joe (and a cup of Joe).

What does change is that Young Joe creates new memories that slowly begin to overwrite Old Joe's. Permanent physical changes to Young Joe change Old Joe. Old Joe, however, isn't worried about that. He thinks that, by killing Rainmaker as a kid, he'll prevent his wife being killed and him being sent back, meaning he'll either return to her or at least his direct timeline won't come to pass again. But, either way, he's not willing to give her up, which would be another way to solve the dilemma of her dying. He still wants Young Joe to meet her and end up with her.

MAJOR SPOILER. I saw someone confused about when Young Joe kills himself and Old Joe disappears. They thought that the past should be affected directly and most of the movie Looper would be unwritten. That's not the case. Everything Old Joe did in the present remains, but a new timeline is born where he ceases to exist. This is the major trouble that Abe tried to prevent by NOT killing Young Seth. It's not clear if the old timeline exists or not; it doesn't matter in the end. The past can't be changed by something that happens "now", unless someone was sent back in time even earlier.

Rainmaker: We learn that Cid, Sara's son, will grow up to be the Rainmaker, the big, bad crime boss that appears suddenly in the future and turns the world pretty much upside down (most importantly for us, he sets out to close all loops). We know Cid is the Rainmaker because of information Old Joe gets about the hospital/day he's born. The telltale sign is when Old Joe recognizes Cid's powers when he sees them in Young Joe's memories.

This is Cid's "make it rain" face.

A confusing point here -- Old Joe says that nobody's really sure what Rainmaker looks like, though "some say" that he's got a prosthetic jaw and possibly saw his mother get shot and killed. In this film, Old Joe shoots Cid in the jaw (it's a graze, but we're to assume it gets infected if not taken care of) and comes this close to shooting Cid's mother, which would create the origin for Rainmaker.

This is a problem because Rainmaker exists in Old Joe's timeline, even though he closed his loop and couldn't have possibly created Rainmaker in that timeline. We have to assume that Cid becomes Rainmaker some other way, Joe involved or not. This is aided by the fact that there ARE no actual facts about Rainmaker -- the jaw/mother shot story COULD be false or could be something that's be passed on by other running loops (which could potentially change the timeline more).

In the movie's given timeline, Cid's mother lives AND he's had exposure to Young Joe, which wouldn't have happened in Old Joe's timeline. It does seem that, due to Young Joe, Cid is able to finally connect with his mother better, which we have to assume leads to him NOT becoming the (evil, at least) Rainmaker.

Kid Blue: Anyone else think this guy is young Abe? I saw someone mention it and then the idea get shot down, but I like it. I'll have to watch the movie a third time and keep a close eye on all the Kid Blue/Abe scenes, but I think it has merit and is a nice touch.

Same person? I dunno.

----------------



Now, are there any confusing elements or plot holes I missed, or is someone interested in arguing about the logistics of time travel as presented in the film? I'm always willing to see someone else's interpretation.

Friday at the Movies - Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

Welcome to the first weekly Friday at the Movies post. These will happen every Friday (or opening weekend if I'm unable to make it to an opening day) and be impressions, reviews, or information about movies past, present, and future.

You should also notice that I added three new navigation buttons under the banner -- These correspond these and my other weekly posts:

Extra! Extra! is the re-branded "Suggested Reading", and I will be going back to add the Extra Extra tag retroactively.

Hunting Game(s) is my pun-ful title for my posts dealing with video games. Every Wednesday I will write something related to video games, though I will attach this title if I update with any random related info as well (such as the Sleeping Dogs post from Tuesday).


While I had hoped to see Total Recall this weekend, it didn't happen. Instead, I'm going to do a review of The Count of Monte Cristo, one of my favorite films. Also, the wife very much enjoys it as well, and we rarely agree on movies..
-----------------------HOLY SPOILERS BATMAN!----------------------------

The Counte of Monte Cristo is, simply, a movie about revenge.

Edmond Dantes, the protagonist, is betrayed by his best friend, Fernand Mondego, the treacherous first mate, Danglars, and the corrupt Magistrate, Villefort. These characters all have their own, well portrayed motivations, even if they rely a bit on coincidence. Edmond's father and fiance are told he is executed for treason, but in truth he was imprisoned in Château d'If, an escape-proof island prison for those that aren't meant to stand trial or ever see release.

Edmond spends 13 years there.

The early years a spent alone, and we see Edmond slowly lose his faith and, slowly, his mind. Fortunately, the arrival of one of the most interesting characters in the movie, the priest known as Abbe Farria, stops the downward spiral. The old man accidentally tunnels into Edmond's cell, apparently digging in the wrong direction. The remaining years in the prison are spent with Edmond helping the priest dig while the priest teaches Edmond everything he'll need to know when he's finally free -- the subjects range from reading and writing, the sciences and finance, as well as combat and military strategy. These scenes show a lot of growth with Edmond and the time lapse is done very well.

Freedom comes not from digging, however. The priest dies just after giving Edmond the map to the treasure of Monte Cristo, delivering one of the best lines of the movie: "I'm a priest, not a saint." Edmond is then able to escape using his body bag. It's a tense escape scene done very well.

Once free, Edmond washes up on shore and meets, among a band of pirates, another one of my favorite characters in the movie: Jacopo! He becomes Edmond's right hand man and most loyal friend.

Edmond finds the immeasurable wealth of Monte Cristo, and uses the money to buy a house in France and the title of Count of Monte Cristo.

The rest of the movie focuses on Edmond getting revenge on the three who wronged him and his ex-fiance, Mercedes, who married Fernand immediately after Edmond's "execution" and now lives unhappily with the lecherous Fernand and their son, Albert.

All of Edmond's past experiences wage war inside him as he acts out his plot. The dead priest acts as his conscience while the betrayals he suffered fuels his rage against the world. His plots all work flawlessly and come together nicely in the film -- the exception being Mercedes. She recognized him even though the years changed him and they eventually renewed a relationship.

The final confrontation is done well -- unlike most films today, the last showdown doesn't end in a rushed and overdone moment. Instead, Edmond is about to kill Fernand but pauses, allowing Albert to interrupt and almost get killed himself by Edmond. Fortunately, Mercedes comes in time and explains that Albert is actually Edmond's son, hence the rush to wed Fernand. A second fight takes place in a field of tall grass as Edmond and Fernand lock swords, and the killing stroke leaves Fernand with breath to ask one more question: "What happened to your mercy?" Edmond replies, "I'm a count, not a saint."

The epilogue is a few months later, outside the Château d'If. Mercedes, Albert, and Jacopo stand around as Edmond says some last words directed at his priest friend, and the movie ends on a happy note.
-----------------------------------SPOILERS FINISHED-------------

Throughout the film, I found the characters believable and interesting, the pacing superb, and the story all coming together at the end to be very rewarding. I re-watch this film once every few months and never get bored -- I attribute that to the pacing and the acting. I especially love Guy Pearce as Fernand, but I'm coming to find that I might have a man crush on Guy Pearce himself.

For me, this movie is a 9 (which is the highest rating I ever expect to give). If you haven't watched it, I strongly suggest you do.

I haven't read the book yet (I know, shame on me, I'll pick up a copy eventually), so I can't say how it compares. If it is worse, I am very excited to eventually read the novel. I did start to watch Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo, which is an anime retelling. It is... very different, and at this time I can't recommend it. I'll say more when I've seen more.


Next Week: I have no clue! If I don't see something new, I'll update with a review for seasons 2 and 3 of Doctor Who.

Edit: Added spoiler tags after a suggestion from the wife. I'll try my best to make future Friday additions spoiler free or as spoiler free as possible.

Reviewing The Dark Knight Rises

Opening weekend for The Dark Knight Rises has come and gone. It had a record breaking and then very tragic opening day. For now, I'm going to go into my spoiler full review followed by some character comparisons between the movie and the comics.

For my non-spoiler reaction, click here!

-----------------------------------Spoilers Live Here!-----------------------------

For a Batman (Dark Knight, whatever) movie, the Bat has less screen time than in either of the other films. The focus shifts heavily to the other characters (Gordon, Blake, and Gotham itself is almost a character in the film). That being the case, the action/fight scenes are limited, which is especially noticeable when following The Dark Knight. This was definitely not in the same vein of the other Super Hero movies we've been seeing.

That being said, the fight scenes are good for all that. They are definitely more brawls than anything, but this makes them seem more realistic, and goes along with Batman being older, more damaged. The cage match between Batman and Bane was a great fight, even if I thought the ending knee drop was muted. In the comic, they are able to give a perfect freeze frame.

In this film, happens quickly and is given no extra weight. You actually don't ever see the extent of the damage, other than Bruce appears to be in tremendous pain and unable to move once he's been placed in prison. This is obviously to preserve the potential of recovery without using comic book magic.

An issue with the film was the multiple time jumps the film does. At the start, it is set 8 years after The Dark Knight. I'm not really sure what they purpose of that specific gap was, other than to give Bruce time to become rusty and older and to give Bane a window to have made a name in the criminal underground. Through different parts of the film, more time passes. They are unusually poorly done -- it doesn't seem like much happens in the gaps of time. The rest of the world moves relatively slowly while Batman is recovering. Yes, Gotham is being torn apart, but it was reminiscent of a 30 Days of Night (film) time jump: one minute they are running from vampires, the next they've been hiding for a month in the basement.

My wife noticed a time error in the film as well. At one point, the Stock Exchange is invaded by Bane and his gang. It is in BROAD DAYLIGHT, as you see several times. It is stated, by one of Bane's gang members, that the download they came for would take NINE MINUTES (or something close to that). The gang ends up fleeing from the exchange, during the DAYTIME, while the download continues. A chase scene ensues, including the arrival of Batman. This chase, apparently, happens LAST AT NIGHT -- it is VERY dark outside. The download finishes during this chase scene. The NINE MINUTE download lasts from BROAD DAYLIGHT to LATE AT NIGHT. ... Don't mind the caps, just pointing out how glaring the flaw was.

The problem with the time jumps may be due to another issue with the film that I had: the plot was too grandiose, without reason for it to be so.

Supposedly, the villains want to destroy Gotham utterly, continuing the mission started by the League of Shadows. The rig a nuclear time bomb that prevents outside interference and turn Gotham upside down, allowing convicts and anyone willing to join Bane's army rule of the streets. A court is established to find the wealthy or previously well-to-do characters guilty and sentenced to exile or death (by exile). While I love the Scarecrow cameo, it didn't make enough sense for the villains to wait so long for the bomb to go off. Also, it didn't seem reasonable that Bane or Talia would be willing to sacrifice themselves for one city (seeing as how they never seem intent on leaving before the explosion). The League of Shadows was never Gotham centric -- they destroyed any corrupt city/society.

It was a very comic book set up, one that even included enough time for the hero to recover and find a way to stop them. Nolan avoided this in the past; yes, these were all comic book movies, but they were generally able to avoid the camp that comes with them. The drawn out evil plot is not something I expected to see, even though it has been a Batman staple since his inception. It just didn't seem fitting to me. The villains won and should have made it a complete victory -- Bruce watching Gotham destroyed in any fashion would have broken his spirit enough.

On the subject of camp, Bane's voice made some of his lines, even his great ones, goofier than anything. I loved the way they crafted the character, but that voice really brought the quality of the movie down for me. That I was even able to enjoy the character says something, I suppose.

All of the acting was great, really. I had issue with Selina Kyle's blonde friend, but other than that I think everyone did a phenomenal job and I enjoyed the characters they included and the general story elements of the movie. I'm fine suspending disbelief for a comic book film.

The title of the film, for me, was a misnomer. For the entire movie, Batman doesn't rise, he falls. First, he is out of the suit for eight years while his body atrophies. Then he is beaten handily by Bane and crippled. The next time Batman beats Bane but is stabbed by Talia, resulting in another loss. Finally, Batman dies in an atomic explosion because his plan to defuse the bomb fails. Bruce Wayne, on the other hand, does rise. But I do not equate Bruce with the "Dark Knight". Maybe that is an error on my part, but this was definitely a movie about the death of Batman and the rebirth of Bruce.

I'm sure other meanings can be made to fit the word "Rises", but I'm not willing to play Devil's Advocate at the moment.

The ending of the film and how they handled it did redeem some of the issues I had as well. The revelation of Bruce's faked death was foreshadowed nicely and Blake's finding the Batcave makes an excellent cliff hanger... though it is more of a tease with this being the end of the series and everything I've read saying the next Batman film will be a reboot. If that's the case, they wouldn't have anyone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman, so the ending is mostly just there for flavor, which works.

For now, I'm going to move on to character comparisons. If I feel like adding more to above, I will at a later date!

Batman: This film pulls from the Knightfall series of comics. They feature Bruce Wayne having his back snapped by Bane. Unlike the movie, Bruce is then replaced by Jean-Paul Valley (also known as Azrael). Eventually, Batman gets better and takes the mantle back. In the film, he never relinquishes the cowl and simple (ish) gets better. I thought that the character of Blake was going to end up being Azrael. With the ending, it is possible he does end up becoming the new mantle, though nothing of Blake seems similar to Jean-Paul. I think they way this movie did it was fitting for Nolan's trilogy.	Azrael as Batman
Bane: In the comics, Bane is a genius level criminal that becomes a test subject for a powerful drug called 'Venom', which greatly increases his mass and strength. The movie removed the Venom but kept the genius and made him a skilled fighter, skilled enough to handily defeat the Dark Knight. The movie's back store for him (but attributed to Talia) does pull snippets from the comics: comic Bane WAS born in an underground prison, and the potential candidates for his unknown father were also accurate. Ra's al Ghul was NOT one of them, though an English Merc was a possibility. I like that they chose to take elements from the comics and I think they chose the correct ones. The plot twist with Talia being the actual child prisoner was interesting and surprising to some fans (though not anyone who knows Ra's only has a daughter). I don't care for (comic) Bane, but I did very much enjoy (Nolan) Bane.	Bane with Venom tubes visible
Catwoman: (Comic) Catwoman has several styles and has had her origin rebooted at least once. As a general description, she is a friend and foe of Batman, similar to Spider-Man's Black Cat. She acts as sex appeal and a female icon in the Batman roster, as well as an off and on romance with the Bat. (Nolan) Catwoman is never called Catwoman. She is Selina Kyle only, and a burglar who happens to steal from Bruce Wayne and come to work with the Batman. The character is complex and done well in a single serving, which isn't always interesting to do. Surprisingly, I liked Hathaway in the role, which I didn't expect to, though I think this is because the character was re-imaged for the movie.	A modern image of Catwoman
Talia al Ghul: This is one of the characters I do not think Nolan did well with. In the comics, she has a conflicted relationship with her father and Batman. She is one of the Bat's major romances -- she is actually the mother of his son, Damian, the current Robin. Her conflicted character make her an interesting villain. (Nolan) Talia did not have any conflict. She was fulfilling her father's wish. They made her backstory interesting by mixing it with (comic) Bane's, but that is about it. I think the watered down, one-dimensional villain was a poor display of the Talia character, and I didn't care for the actress they chose. One of the worst death scenes I have ever seen, I think.	One example of Talia, a woman of many outfits
Robin: I really liked the character of John Blake in this film. He was an interesting counterpoint to Batman and Gordon. He is also the character I have the most issues with. 'John Blake' as a character is NOT from the comics. The tie in is that his first name is 'Robin', leading us to attribute him to Batman's sidekick (the first name isn't revealed until the very end). This was a weak attempt at misdirection and a wasted character spot. Blake's back story of being an orphan could have easily fit (with slight tweaks) the characters of Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake, the first, second, and third characters to take the Robin mantle, respectively. My understanding was that Nolan refused to do an actual Robin story. I dislike when a director chooses to let personal opinion change integral characters. I'm not much of a Robin fan, but I know many have their favorite iteration, not a one of which was represented with any faith. Good character, could have easily been accurate to the comics and been that much better for it.	An image of the many Robins they had to choose from

That's all for now. If anyone would like to see a different character show, say something! I'm leaving out Gordon and Scarecrow because of my disinterest in the former and the limited screen time of the latter. If there's someone I missed, I'd be willing to add them.

Any questions, comments, or concerns, I'd really like to see them! And, if you think I write about anything interesting, follow me! I'd love the support!

The Dark Knight Rises - Initial Reaction (Spoiler Free)

I saw the final episode of the Nolan trilogy last night and have a lot of reactions.

First, to get this out of the way, I don't think this film was better than The Dark Knight and I think the character development in Batman Begins topped what they attempted in this one.

That being said, it is a decent ending to the trilogy, I liked it, and I give it a definite go. Even my wife liked it, and that says a lot considering it kept her up until 3:30am (and I fed her after midnight -- if she gets this reference, I'm so dead).

Throughout the film, there were several things I didn't like. Some of them come from adapting a large story to a movie, others come from design choices with the comic adaptation.

My non-spoiler gripe was Bane's voice. About 50% of the time, possibly more, it is just awkward sounding. I'm glad they didn't go too far with the Darth Vader route, but the entire Bane intro scene made me cringe. Also, some of the lines Bane delivers are actually... campy. Nolan had done decently well before with avoiding camp (for the most part). I don't know the character of Bane THAT well, but that's not something I remember being attributed to the character.

Also, Batman has another moment where his voice/yelling demands is abhorrent. I almost think it's thrown in there as a nod to just how foolish it is, but I'll leave that up to you to decide.

If you know the comics, you will catch most of the plot twists before they slap you. If not, they did such a good job that people in the theater were really surprised. I wasn't embittered that I already knew what was going to happen, and they had at least one surprise that, even if you've read every issue of Batman, you wouldn't necessarily see coming.

I can't go into too many of the things I really liked or the other things I had issues with without giving mild spoilers, and I am going to avoid that in this post. Come Monday, I'll do a full run down.

As a final comment, I think they nailed the pacing for the length of the film. Yes, some things were a bit rushed. Yes, I personally would have done certain things different. And yes, it is still a long movie. That being said, it didn't feel like a long movie. The Dark Knight almost feels like two movies when you're watching it, and that is a major issue with pacing that isn't present in The Dark Knight Rises, which is actually 12 minutes longer.

That's all for now folks, next post will include a more detailed "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" review of The Dark Knight Rises as well as some character analysis for those who have no idea who the hell Batman beat up this time (or why the crowd kept clapping at random points).

I'd love to see some other reactions in the comments, but please avoid spoilers until Monday!!

Thank you!