Sidewinder Reviews: Star Trek Into Darkness

                It’s been a long time since I’ve posted any movie reviews.  I’d like to say it’s because I’ve been too busy or this, that, or the other, but the fact is, I just haven’t really had any movies I want to talk about.  Until now.

No, seriously, out of the cavalcade of movies I’ve had the pleasure or displeasure of watching since my last review, this one became so polarizing in my own mind that I found myself incapable of not talking about it.  So check your phasers and have your Klingon-English travel dictionary ready, we’re going where plenty of men have gone before…Sidewinder Reviews Presents: Star Trek Into Darkness.

                I’m going to go ahead and address this right off the bat: Colons.  Star Trek: Into Darkness is correct.  Star Trek Into Darkness is just bad grammar.  Even my spell check is having a fit with it.  Mr. Abrams…that should tell you something.  If spell/grammar check calls you out on it…fix it.

Anyway, so what do we talk about here?  Well, the movie has been out long enough that I don’t think I’m going to spoil it for anyone.  With that said…if you have not seen this film and don’t want key plot points given away, stop reading and check it out now.  You have been warned.

So if I had a word to describe this movie, it would be “Redundant”.  Our film kicks off with Kirk and McCoy fleeing a race of aliens like they just wandered into an Indiana Jones flick, running straight for a cliff while Kirk holds high some kind of golden scroll.  Apparently what was supposed to be a mission of observe and report turned into get nosy and meddle while under Kirks command, because they were supposed to only study the very primitive aliens, and instead Spock risks his life to stop their volcano from destroying their civilization while Kirk exposes the presence of the Enterprise in an effort to rescue his friend from certain death.  For some reason Admiral Pike took acception to this, or more likely to the fact that Kirk lied on his report and Spock didn’t.  I can’t help but wonder how the movie would have been different if Kirk had told the truth in his log.  But he didn’t and Starfleet takes away Kirk’s command, giving the Enterprise back to Admiral Pike and Pike making Kirk his first officer.

Kirk and Pike attend a special meeting of the best of the best of Starfleet as they talk about rouge Starfleet agent named John Harrison and his attack on a highly classified location in London.  Just then Kirk figures out that this has all been a set-up and Harrison attacks the meeting.  Kirk destroys Harrison’s ship but not before Admiral Pike is killed and Harrison escapes.  Kirk is then placed back in the captain’s chair of the Enterprise…thus making the opening sequence and subsequent demotion unnecessary.

The crew figure out that Harrison has fled to Kronos or Qo’noS, depending on your source material.  Frankly I prefer the latter.  Anyway Qo’noS is the Klingon home world and any Federation presence there may be seen as an act of war by the warrior race.  Admiral Marcus argues that war with the Klingons is inevitable and dispatch Kirk and the Enterprise to hunt Harrison down and wipe him out with 72 brand spanking new photon torpedoes.  Despite the gaping holes in these orders, like how the Federation would ever approve of the execution of a man without a trial or investigation, or why he needs to fire all 72 torpedoes, Kirk accepts the mission and alienates the entire crew as he’s barking nigh unreasonable orders.  The final straw happens when Mr. Scott resigns his position because Kirk is forcing him to take the torpedoes without checking them out first.  To be fair, Scott has a good point since firing a torpedo that hasn’t properly been checked could cause the entire ship to blow up.  But orders are orders.

Kirk then changes the perameters of the mission, deciding to capture Harrison and bring him back to Starfleet for trial.  A hitch arrives when the warp core to the Enterprise suddenly malfunctions when they arrive in Klingon space, making them sitting ducks.  Kirk, Uhura, Spock and crewmen 21 and 24 arrive on the planet and, after a brief battle, capture Harrison when he learns the number of torpedoes aimed at him.  When placed in the brig and giving a blood sample Harrison teases Kirk with the questions that have been bugging him since he was first dispatched.  Namely why does Admiral Marcus want this man dead, and why did he need to use all 72 torpedoes.

We’re going to take a quick mental break here because this is where we go back into the territory of the unnecessary.  While talking to new crew member and weapons expert Dr. Carol Wallace, she explains to Kirk her plan of going off ship with a torpedo and opening it up to see what’s inside.  While explaining her plan she takes him to a shuttle (to be used for said plan) and strips down to her underwear…for no reason.  There was no reason for her to start changing clothes while talking TO HER CAPTAIN.  The scene doesn’t lead anywhere and it’s just a pointless bit to get the actress out of her clothes for a minute or two.  Granted earlier we had Kirk getting busy with a couple of cat girls, but that harkens back to Kirk from the previous film with the Orion girl.  This…this had to point.  As soon as she catches him looking she tells him to turn around, but for crying out loud, why, Abrams, why!  It’s because of these shenanigans that I have to preview these movies based on family oriented franchises before I let my kids watch them.

Back to the show:  We discover that Harrison is in fact Khan, the seventy two torpedoes are his fellow super humans cryogenically frozen, and that Marcus used Khan to develop better weapons for Starfleet because Khan is apparently very savage.

Marcus appears in the U.S.S. Vengeance, Scotty returns to save their bacon, Khan kills Marcus and takes the torpedoes that Spock blows up, disabling the Vengeance, having removed the 72 Captain Americas, and the fight plummets to Earth, where Kirk dies saving the ship and Spock gets angry and chases Khan through San Francisco only to capture him because his blood can revive Kirk.

Yeah, I rushed through that last bit because it’s time we covered what went right and what went wrong with this flick.  I won’t bust on the title and the pointless skin because I’ve covered that.  Let’s look at this movie critically for a second.

Tone:  As the title implies, it’s a much darker Star Trek film than we’re used to.  This isn’t so bad in retrospect.  Star Trek has always tried to match with the times it’s appearing in.  In the 60’s it was bright and colorful with neat and tidy endings, because that’s what we wanted and needed and were familiar with in the 60’s.  Today, things are dirtier, and to have a Star Trek film open with a blatant act of terrorism is an unfortunate sign of the times.  The vibe of not trusting your marching orders, and to not really know who the enemy is has become very forefront in our culture, and this movie addresses that.  However it ends on a happier note, with the status quo reset, and the 5 year mission of exploration about to begin.  The movie is about challenges; challenging what you think you are with who you could become, challenge what you think is right against what you are told is right, and challenging the darkness in yourself in order to find the light at the end.  In that regard, I think this movie works really well.

Characters:  The core cast is done wonderfully.  The crew of the Enterprise I think continues to pay respect to those who came before them as well as taking the characters in new directions.  That said, Khan I think failed.  Actor Benedict Cummerbach is a fantastic actor, I love watching him work, but I don’t think his version of Khan worked that well, but then, this is a Khan from a different timeline.  Khan from the original series was a cold and calculating, ruthless leader, not a brutal and savage hit man.  I think the director took ruthless to mean savage, but this Khan felt so different from Ricardo Montalban’s character that they might as well have not named him Khan at all.  I’ve heard complaints that having a pasty British actor play a guy named Khan was insulting, but I don’t think that’s the real issue.  Ricardo’s Khan would quote Milton and Melville and Shakespeare.  He was a clearly educated leader, someone you could see ruling a society.  This Khan doesn’t fit with that.  Maybe that was by choice, but as someone who truly loved “Space Seed” and “The Wrath of Khan”, the switch is to jarring to really enjoy.

Legacy:  This movie hinges around Khan for me, but if I put that aside, if I take this movie for what it’s worth, pretend I’d never seen a single Star Trek episode or film until the reboot, I have to ask if it’s a good movie.  And it is.  It really is a good, dark, science fiction story.

Okay, one more grip:  The U.S.S. Enterprise was sitting on an ocean floor.  It’s a space ship.  The pressure from the ocean should have crushed it.  Don’t tell me “they had shields up” because they were talking about beaming Spock out of the volcano which can’t happen if the shields are up.  I know, its science fiction and I shouldn’t think too hard about it, but come on people.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed the review, and if you did, check out some of Sidewinder Reviews other hits.  Until next time, whenever that is…enjoy the show.

Michael

Universal Studios: Werewolf: The Beast Among Us

            Why do I put “Universal Studios” in this title? Because this film was quite clearly billed as being from Universal Studios.  Seriously, this film wanted you to know that this came out of the same film company that gave us the big four: Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and…the Wolfman.

 

            But first let’s talk a little history here.  Back in 1941, Universal Studios cranked out what has become a horror classic “The Wolfman” where Lon Chaney Jr. portrayed Larry Talbot, a man afflicted with lycanthropy after being bitten by a werewolf.  That movie went on to spawn a handful of indirect sequels where Lon Chaney Jr. continued the Talbot character as he struggled with the beast within.  In some of the sequels the writers even bothered to explain how he came back from the dead (spoiler alert, Talbot dies in the Wolfman).

 

But the point is this character became a staple of the horror genre, so much so that the story itself is almost constantly replayed in other films, with varying degrees of success.  However, it wasn’t until 2010 that we got our first straight forward remake of “The Wolfman”, this time with Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, the man fated to become the titular monster.

 

This was…not a good movie.  It failed horribly in the box office.  It failed on DVD, even with it’s “Unrated: Extended Cut” edition.  What made it worse was that it was straight out of Universal Studios, which brought it into the canon of those classic monster movies.

 

Universal Studios had actually intended to spin “The Wolfman” into a series of movies, making it their own franchise.  However, given the financial and critical failure of the remake, they initially adjusted their ideas.  The sequels wouldn’t be of 2010’s turn, but rather of the 1941 classic.  That idea was also scrapped, since few of the horror movie going audiences would pay money to see a sequel to a movie nearly sixty-five years old.  At least that’s what the executives at Universal thought.

 

So that brings us around to “Werewolf: The Beast Among Us”, a sequel-in-spirit to the Wolfman concept, if not one specific storyline.  Universal Studios had so little faith in this film that if it wasn’t released simultaneously to NetFlix, Red Box, and DVD, then the releases were pretty darn close.  I caught it on NetFlix so I missed out on any special features that were present on the DVD.  Our story follows that of a group of werewolf hunters, because apparently in this world, the werewolf plague is so prevalent that you actually need werewolf hunters…several groups of werewolf hunters, so many groups that, they run into each other regularly.  Come to think of it, the supply of werewolves doesn’t seem to meet the demand of hunters.  The film opens up with what starts off as a relatively intense scene where a young woman, left outside on the night of a full moon, is seeking shelter at the home of a small family.  The father, in all his loving hospitality, takes several shots at her through a slot in the door, fearing that she is in fact the monster that has been menacing the area.  The house is then attacked by a werewolf tearing, literally tearing, a hole in the roof and descending.  The film tries a “less is more” approach with the monster effects in this scene because you rarely see the monster straight on, rather we are given shots of the monster’s talon and the bodies that fall as it swipes.  The monster kills the mother and father before the boy, all the while fingering a strange talisman hung from his neck, backs against a wall.  As the monster approaches the boy, he sets off a trap where in a chandelier falls and impales the beast.

 

Here we are met with CGI of a lesser quality, as the monster slowly transforms back into the girl from earlier, validating the fear the father had.

 

The boy grows into Ed Quinn, best known for his role as Nathan Stark from Eureka.  I’d tell you his character’s name, but I honestly can’t remember it and nothing I found in research to this film gave it to me.  By the time this review posts, there will probably be a hundred different sources telling me what it is, but the important thing is I don’t care what his name is.  He’s portrayed as a “Billy Badass” stereotype werewolf hunter, with long coat and jaunty riding hat, so we’ll call him Billy.

Billy has his team of hunters, including a patch eyed braggart, a young woman with a flame thrower, and Adam Croasdell as Stefan, the resident ladies man of the team.  They are hired to solve a werewolf problem in a village who is suffering under the attacks of a werewolf that is apparently larger and faster than anything seen before.  Whatever, the pacing came to a sliding halt at this point so I didn’t honestly care about Billy’s motivation or the introduction to characters that would have little to no impact on the story.  What we do get is a traveling scene where in we meet “new” creatures called wurdulaks.

I had to do some research on this, but a wurdulak, or wurdulac, is a vampire like creature from Russia that rises from the dead to feed on the blood of its still living family.  It’s also a death metal band, but that’s beside the point.  Here, the wurdulac is a significant problem since many of the deceased victims of werewolves will rise as these creatures if the bodies are not torched.  This adds a new wrinkle to the concept, and could have been made very interesting if they had played a bit more with it, at least more so then they actually did in the film.
 

Our hunters make it to the village where we meet the rest of the essential characters.  There is Daniel, played by Guy Wilson, a physician’s assistant who wants to study at university but won’t leave his village while the werewolf plague is still in place.  There is his girlfriend, who is written rather blandly, his boss, the Doc played by Stephen Rea.  You may remember him from another werewolf movie, Underworld: Awakening.  Or you may not.  He pops up from time to time in these kinds of movies with moderate success, usually playing the same character. 

Also in the town is Daniel’s mother, Vadoma, played by Nia Peeples.  She runs the local bar/brothel in “the village”.

 

            For me, the setting is very weird.  I think it’s likely to be Romania, but it’s never clear as no one has a consistent accent.  Daniel, who is established to have grown up in the village, has a clearly American accent, as does Billy Badass.  The girlfriend may be American or thinned British, and there are some vague European accents floating around.  They do nothing to firmly establish where the hell we are!  It could be anywhere, but it’s probably nowhere.

 

Remember how I said there were other groups of werewolf hunters?  Yeah, there’s another character with his own team of targets who runs afoul of… “our heroes?” and the two teams end up getting in each other’s way while the werewolf tears up the town for another night.  I’m not going to get much into how this story unfolds, or spoilers about whom the werewolf ends up being, but I have to say there were some really good ideas put out in this movie.

 

            While the identity of the werewolf’s human form is still secret, we have a lot of red herrings thrown about.  Before one werewolf attack, we see the constable suffering some sort of fit.  Before another attack, Vadoma goes missing, and even the Doc is put into suspicion before the identity is revealed.  This was played, I think really well, and really kept you guessing.  They treated this like a mystery and I had a lot more fun dissecting the identity of the monster.  It even distracted me from the Sy Fy channel grade special effects.

 

            The flip side to that is I don’t think the actor properly portrayed their shock and horror when they realized they were in fact the monster.  Again I won’t spoil it for you, but what starts off as a really good sequence of realization and regret gets quickly forgotten and it looses all momentum entirely.

 

The wurdulac subplot is brought up one last time, though you kind of see it coming if you are paying attention, and the pay off is “meh” at best.  You are kind of left with an equal measure of “what made you think that was a good idea” and general disinterest.

 

            So, would I recommend this movie?  Maybe if you just want to kill a little time.  It’s not a good werewolf movie, by far, but it’s also not the train wreck I thought it was going to be.  It lays some good foundation to build better movies on, but at the same time, its quality may keep those better movies from being made.  It is somewhat in spirit of the old Wolfman movies I mentioned before, but different enough to make it its own story.

Images for this review are the exclusive property of Universial Studios.

Sidewinder Review! Thor!

Released in 2011, Thor has met with probably the greatest divide among fans of both the Marvel Comics character and films.  First, we should probably look into a little bit of background for the character himself.  Created by comic book legend Stan Lee, Thor is based on the Norse deity of the same name and served to bring “culture” to the Marvel Universe.  What caused Thor to stand apart from the Marvel U proper is the epic nature of his tales, the fact that they were portrayed on a much more “mythic” scale with an almost Shakespearian quality to the storyline.  These were not so much about super heroes fighting super villains as they were about the intricate and complex relationships between these massively powerful beings.  Stan Lee and writers after that very much took the Norse mythology and implanted it as a whole into the Marvel Universe.  Asgard was very much a real place in the comics, and the mythos was treated as if it were actual history.  Further, Thor was treated more as a plot device in his early stories, as he was banished from Asgard to Earth, but even then he was denied a physical form.  Rather, when Dr. Daniel Blake discovered an ancient walking stick and struck it on the ground, the stick would transform into Mjolnir and Thor would appear to deal with whatever the threat of the day was.  The storyline focused more on Thor’s redemptive journey in understanding the true weight of responsibility and heroism, as well as Blake taking much more agency in his own life.

 

The film does not follow that story.  In fact, there is a lot that has changed from the comics to the film, probably more so than most other comic book franchises.  Here, Asgard is treated as another world, not so much another dimension but more of another planet.  The set design for this world is fantastic, and you can feel very much immersed in this universe.  Thor, portrayed by Chris Hemsworth, is almost delightfully arrogant when we first meet him, proudly parading through the great hall after some significant victory.  But it’s this pompous nature that his father Odin, portrayed by Anthony Hopkins, finds greatly disappointing, especially since Thor is next in line for the throne of Asgard.  Odin dressed down Thor for not understanding responsibility, and this is followed by the best trickster scene I’ve seen so far in film.  Loki, Thor’s “brother” saddles up beside him and sympathizes with Thor about his plight, and uses very calculated prodding to get Thor fired up to lead an attack on Jotunheim, the home of Laufey and the ice giants who are the sworn enemies of Asgard, under an uneasy truce, and propagators of an attempt to steal a spoil of war, the Casket of Ancient Winters.

 

What follows is a brilliantly choreographed battle sequence that showcases the special abilities of all involved, from the ice giants’ frost manipulation, to Thor’s hammer swinging, to Loki’s magical misdirection, to the Warriors Three and Sif laying the smack down.  Eventually, however, they get in over their head and Odin has to come in for a save, which greatly damages the truce.  As punishment for his arrogance and belligerence, Odin banishes both Thor and Mjolnir to Earth, casting a spell on the hammer stating that only one who is worthy may wield the power of Thor.

 

            The film alternates in settings between Asgard and New Mexico, where we meet Dr. Jane Foster, her assistant Darcy Lewis, and their mentor Dr. Erik Selvig, and admittedly conveniently placed person of Norwegian heritage.  They run into Thor, literally, when trying to uncover the mystery of a spatial disturbance, the wormhole that dumped Thor there in the first place.  When SHEILD agent Paul Coulson takes control of Mjolnier’s resting place and all of Foster’s data, Thor leads a charge into the SHEILD facility with the expressed purpose of retrieving his hammer and with it his powers.  When that fails, an emotionally distraught and crippled Thor is taken into custody.  This is a scene that Hemsworth, I think, portrays beautifully.  His Thor is clearly damaged and shut down by these events, and he doesn’t have to explain that in dialog, he does it entirely with facial cues and body posture.  Selvig frees Thor and our hero resigns himself to exile on earth and begins a romance with Foster, built upon his understanding of “the nine realms” and how they interconnect.

 

            Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Loki has discovered Odin adopted him after the war with the ice giants ended, shortly before the strain of using up a lot of power causes Odin to fall into the “odinsleep”, a regenerative cycle.  Unfortunately, this particular odinsleep seems far more serious that those of the past, causing confusion and panic amongst the Asgardians, and giving Loki leave to take control of the kingdom.  The Warriors Three plus Sif come to Earth intent to bring Thor back, but Loki heads them off at the past by sending a Destroyer after them.  Loki’s plan is simple on paper.  By cutting off Thor, and initiating the destruction of Jotunheim, he plans to please his father, proving himself to be the son and leader that Thor never could be.

 

            He doesn’t count on Thor sacrificing himself to save those he cares for, thus earning the power of Thor.  Powered up, Thor beats the Destroyer and returns to Asgard with his friends, leaving Jane and the Earth company behind.  Thor confronts Loki and ends up destroying the Bifrost Bridge in order to safe Jotunheim and stop Loki’s plan as Odin wakes up.  Loki, now despondent that he went from king to utter failure and only served to elevate Thor, falls into the void.  Thor and Odin make amends while Jane and her team search for a way to open a portal back to Asgard.

 

I won’t say this is the best movie ever, or even the best comic book movie, but I think it’s better than most. The violence is mostly fantasy based, the language isn’t bad, and the acting is pretty solid.  Essentially, it’s a film I can watch with my kids without feeling the need to leap across the couch to cover tender eyes and ears.  Thor is a good, clean, family film that manages to tell an engaging story without having to result to “raciness”.  That’s not to say that it’s perfect.  The character of Darcy Lewis was, for the most part, unnecessary, and Selvig wasn’t much better.  They shoehorn the character Hawkeye, who later plays a more significant role in the Avengers, but in Thor, he’s relegated to “Hey!  It’s Hawkeye!” and then quickly forgotten. 

 

Again, its important to note that A LOT has changed from the comics to the films, and I can understand how that would upset a lot of the long time fans.  However, I don’t feel this was done to the detriment of the character.  Thor still feels like Thor, and they hit all the right notes for an introduction movie.  Yes, Asgard went from a mythical plane for gods to roam to another planet, but it makes sense in a way within the context of the Marvel movie-verse.  One thing I had to come to terms with way back when X-Men came out was that the movies are not the comics, and vice versa.  If you are going to enjoy them, you have to accept them on their terms and not try to shoehorn your own preconceived notions about how you think the story should flow.  I believe they did do the comic justice and that you had very strong performances from all the cast.  Thor felt like a Shakespearian play featuring super powered beings, which is what the comic was, and since it was directed by Shakespearian thespian Kenneth Branagh, I think it sits nicely as a very enjoyable movie.

 

Now, about Darcy Lewis.  Why do I keep coming back to her?  Because I think she’s a very misunderstood trope in films.  You have the character of Thor, an alien (essentially) and he meets BOTH Darcy and Jane at the same time.  Neither gives him a particularly warm reception at first but he ends up developing a relationship with Jane.  I think Darcy’s presence, and the presence of most female sidekicks to female leads in films, is to show that there is chemistry between the male lead and a female lead, not that they end up together simply because they’re the only two in the film.  It very well could have turned into a Darcy/Thor romance, but it didn’t because he connects with Jane more.  I think these sidekick characters are often discredited as useless kibble, but there is an overall purpose for them.

 

Film reviewer “The Blockbuster Buster” from thatguywiththeglasses.com, mentions in his “honest review” of the film that he felt that Thor’s attitude change came too easy, that someone (like Darcy) should have died in order to facilitate the change, show the need for personal responsibility in Thor, having his reckless actions cause her untimely demise at the hands of…probably the destroyer.  But why?

 

Why do we want sideline character to die just to prove the situation is serious?  The Destroyer was there with the expressed purpose to kill Thor.  Thor has already developed a bond with the humans around him, and it’s not like he doesn’t understand the concept of personal responsibility…it’s been drilled into him by Odin since he was born, he just never exercised it prior to coming to Earth.  He’s already learned that the man he was isn’t going to get him back his power.  He’s already felt the devastating results of Odin’s disfavor.  He doesn’t need guilt to push him forward.  Even when he lashed out at the ice giants at the beginning of the film, it was a response to the threat they presented by burglarizing their vault.  For that matter, prior to getting struck by the Destroyer, he was already helping get people to safety, putting himself in the line of fire to do so…the change was already made!  Not every hero needs personal tragedy to push them forward.  Sure it makes for a compelling read, but when everyone has that skeleton in the closet, it actually looses it’s effectiveness in a narrative setting.  Some people actually do the right thing, because it’s the right thing to do, not just because “if I fail, people die.”

 

I suppose it all boils down to the fact that Thor is a film, based on a comic book, with a toy line, that the whole family can enjoy.  This isn’t Transformers 1, 2, and 3, where the violence and sexual connotations can be a little overwhelming for a parent trying to keep their young children away from that.  You can just sit back and enjoy the fun of the movie.  Yes, it was a set up film for the Avengers, more so than Captain America and Iron Man 2, but it was still a good film and I personally highly recommend it.

Sidewinder Reviews Double Feature: Clash of the Titans and Wrath of the Titans

Starring: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Finnes, and Alexa Davalos

Directed by: Louis Leterrier (Clash), and Jonathan Liebesman (Wrath)

                For me, growing up, Clash of the Titans circa 1981, was one of my absolute favorite films.  What wasn’t to love for a young boy, you had a hero, the damsel in distress, giant monsters, adventure, and the best spoken line ever in that genre “Unleash the Krakken!!!”  That movie launched myself and many others into an appreciation for Greek mythology, and from there an understand and appreciation for many of the true classics such as the Iliad and the Odyssey.  Then, as was very popular in 2010, it got remade.

                I have a love/hate relationship with remakes.  On one hand, I can view it like a rebooting of continuity, such as is popular for DC Comics.  It’s an opportunity for a new voice to write the characters, ironing out a lot of the flaws from the original and perhaps making the story fresh and new fro new audiences.  Looking back at 1981’s Clash of the Titans, I can appreciate it with a great deal of nostalgia, but I have to admit that the acting and special effects could certainly have been done better, so from that perspective, I can see the merit of the remake.  However, more often than not, remakes end up damaging the integrity of the story and rather than doing justice to a character, they end up insulting them.

And even from there, it all depends on what you deem a “remake”.  Does Star Trek 2009 count as a remake?  We are starting the franchise a new with a fresh cast reinterpreting the classic characters, but it still tied into the old Star Trek storyline with Leonard Nimoy as Spock, so it’s one half remake, one half continuation.  Batman Begins tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne from a fresh perspective, but can you call it a “remake” of Batman 1989?  I’d say you couldn’t even call it a prequel.  Rather than a remake, it is more of a “reboot”.

                Which is where we pick up Clash of the Titans 2010, where the plot bears little resembelance to the classic original.  Here Perseus is at odds with the gods, Hades is fueling the fires of a confrontation with the mortal realm, and is the primary antagonist of the story.  I won’t even go into how far off that is from the original.  So Hades is threatening to unleash the Krakken on Argos unless they sacrifice Andromeda, the queen’s daughter.  Skipping over a lot of stuff, this leads to the epic adventure, where in Perseus learns of his relationship to Zeus, fights monsters, beheads Medusa, kills the Krakken and leaves for “a simple life”

There was a lot changed from the original, mostly in Zeus’ relationship with Perseus, and more directly, the creature Calibos, who was originally a scorned suitor to Andromeda who got spurred because she loved Perseus more, not Perseus’ insane quasi-evil step dad.

But was this better?  Eh, kind of.  On one hand, the intertwining of relationships between characters, the rolling family feuds among the gods, does feel very Greek, however it deviates too far from the source material for me to enjoy the story line.  Let me qualify that, I mean it deviates too far from Greek mythology for me to enjoy it.  Hades, in mythology, isn’t a usurper.  He is a dark overlord who dominates his domain.  Here, Finnes portrays him as a hand wringing villain looking to usurp Zeus’ throne.  He wasn’t like that in the myths.  He was patient, he was cold, but he rarely left his realm and rarely did anyone come to visit him because he was the god of Death.  His kingdom was constantly growing, and while storms may fade and seas dry up, everything dies, so his kingdom was literally without end.  There was no reason to make him the primary villain in this story.

However, aside from the special effects, there were some story elements that I really did enjoy, like the gods gaining their strength from mortal prayers.  That gave them a vested interest in keeping the old faiths alive, because it ensured their immortality.

Now the pacing was a bit slow at parts for me, but overall the story was well done, the special effects were amazing, and it was nice to see some life and nods to the original work.

But wait!  There’s more!

Wrath of the Titans was released in 2012 and picked up the story after Perseus had lived as a simple fisherman for many years, having a family, and raising his son Helious.  Then Zeus, who apparently keeps tabs on Perseus, pops in an tells him that Kronos, the uber titan from old, and Perseus’ grandfather, is breaking the bonds that hold him to the underworld because human prayer is in such short supply that the gods can’t use their power to keep him there.  Perseus rebukes Zeus, saying he’s not leaving his son to go on a god’s errand, then later that night has a nightmare about Kronos busting loose and going crazy.

The next morning, monsters are unleashed from the Underworld, specifically a Chimera, which they play fast and loose with when it comes to its design, and Perseus has to struggle to kill it in order to save his son and what villagers weren’t destroyed in the attack.  He then goes to pray, essentially placing a phone call to Zeus but a badly damaged Posideon shows up to tell him that Hades and Ares have teamed with Kronos and have captured Zeus!  Zeus hands him his trident and tells him to seek out other demi-gods (which echos an earlier line from Zeus about the gods calling their children together) to find “the Fallen One” and stop Kronos.  This leads us to Perseus calling on Pegasus , going to meet now Queen Andromeda, and them meeting Agenor, a thief and conman currently under her arrest.

The trio work together to find an uncharitable island, fight of Cyclopes, and meet Hephesteaus who apparently designed the underworld and then went loopy.  That leads us to the next level (it really starts to feel like a video game now) where we have a boss fight, another map to go through, another boss fight, the freeing of Zeus, and the discovery that only by doing some weird morphing thing can they merge the weapons of Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon together to form a spear capable of taking down Kronos.  What follows is an extremely long battle, and I won’t spoil the ending for you.

But how does it hold up? Well the addition of Agenor wasn’t as distracting as I initially thought it would be.  At first I thought “great, another thief/conman”, but they didn’t linger on that.  Instead, they had this character experience distinct development based on figuring out who he’s supposed to be.  I’d complain that they didn’t stick with the myths, but Agenor is only documented partially in the myths and never given any defining character traits.  Sam Worthington turns in a “more of the same” performance, meaning he could literally be replaced by anyone else and no one would know the difference, and while I’m glad that Neeson and Finnes are getting work, as both are incredible actors, I’d like to see them try on different roles from time to time.  I just feel like this is all just more of the same with nothing really interesting happening.  The monsters looked alright, but without a really strong driving story, the monsters are just things that happen.  Kronos was also a bit of a disappointment.  I think they were trying for a “living volcano” theme, but it just fell flat for me and the design just wasn’t interesting.

So, final verdict?  I recommend giving the 2010 film a look see, but I’d skip the sequel unless you just really want to.  They are nowhere near being great movies, but also they aren’t “bad”.

Until next time, this is Michael Bauch with Sidewinder Reviews, reminding you that when it comes to escapist entertainment, go big or go home!

Trail-er Breaker: The Lone Ranger 2013

Alright, so I finally got to see the first official trailer for Disney’s new film, The Lone Ranger, set to come out…in 2013.  Where to start?  The obvious place to start would be Johnny Depp as Tonto.

So let’s talk about the Lone Ranger.  This is a character that has been interpreted in films repeatedly, starring in his own comic book series and television show, and…he has suffered greatly.  The major problem with the character is that outside of being the stalwart cowboy action hero, riding a white horse, wearing a white hat, no one really knows how to portray him.  I remember some time ago they tried doing a “reinvention of the character” and make him kind of a womanizing jerk, which failed horribly.  The problem is, he’s kind of “too good for his own good”.  They thought back then by giving him character flaws they could humanize him.  But there is a way to portray that kind of character while still making them compelling.  I look to Captain America: The First Avenger, with hope that Disney and Jerry Brukheimer can somehow instill that sense of “right man for the right job” into the Lone Ranger without stooping to old tricks of “but he’s really a tortured soul.”  What makes characters like Captain America, and by extension Batman and the Lone Ranger isn’t their pain, it’s their unwillingness to compromise in the face of overwhelming odds.  It’s that “not one step back” mentality because they know they are right and they will fight anyone who challenges their ideals of freedom that makes them compelling.  But…we don’t get a sense of that from the Lone Ranger in this trailer.  There is nothing about this character that makes us believe this movie is going to be about him.  I fear, just from an initial viewing, that the Lone Ranger will be a sidekick character in his own movie, relegated to being Johnny Depp’s straight man.

Why do I fear that?  Because we see Depp’s Tonto on horseback, in prison, and riding underneath a train, wearing some very off putting face make up, a bird headdress, and speaking in the classic stunted speech pattern of Tonto.  Lone Ranger doesn’t even get to talk in his own movie trailer.  It is very clear that they were trying to build this advertising for this film around Johnny Depp being weird.  Which, Depp is very good.  Like a pirate, he stole one franchise away from Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly.  He reinvented classic characters, and managed to get us to feel compassion for a cold blooded psychopathic barber.  Johnny Depp has an ability to create compelling, if visually off putting characters and becoming the focus of any given scene he’s in.  Which is what made me incredibly nervous when I read he was going to play the Lone Ranger’s sidekick.  Johnny Depp is a lot of things, but he is no man’s sidekick.  That told me immediately that the Lone Ranger movie was not going to be about the Lone Ranger, and sure enough this trailer made that abundantly clear.

Beyond seeing Johnny Depp being, Johnny Depp, there is nothing compelling about the trailer itself.  Its voice over, trains, weird visuals of what I think was supposed to be a rolling brothel, and gun fire, but nothing in this trailer made me want to see this movie, nothing sold me on the idea of this film.

Maybe in subsequent trailers something will pop out and make me want to see it, but thus far, I can wait for it on Red Box.

Once Upon A Time Season 2 Episode 2 "We Are Both"

If you don’t know what the ABC show “Once Upon A Time”, stop reading this blog, go watch Season 1, then come back.  We’ll wait.

                Back?  Fantastic, so this week we apparently go back to basics with the show’s format, where in the meat of the show takes place in the town of Storybrooke, with flashback sequences to the Enchanted Forest.  This time around our focus is on the emotional journey of Regina, the Evil Queen.  At the end of last season, we met Regina’s overbearing, magically inclined mother who ruined Regina’s life with her controlling nature.  In “We Are Both”, we discover both how her mother gained her magic, how Regina eventually gained that same magic, and how the answer is one of the show’s most obvious but entertaining villains.

Meanwhile, in Storybrooke, life is turmoil as the fairytale characters have regained their memories and the seven dwarves test the boundaries of the town, only to come to a horrific discovery.  Sneezy crosses the boundary and forgets his fairytale self, his mind trapped in his “real world” counterpart.  The news, naturally, terrifies the townsfolk who are already trying to rebuild after Mr. Gold (aka Rumplestilskin) unleashed a wraith in an attempt to murder Regina (episode Broken).  David, or Prince Charming, tracks down Jefferson (the Mad Hatter), trying to uncover how to get back to the Enchanted Forest, where Ella and Snow White were trapped last episode.  (Deep Breath)…okay, and that is still not all that happened.  Regina strikes a deal with Mr. Gold, getting her old spell book and with it her powers.  When David schedules a town meeting, and doesn’t show because he’s chasing the Mad Hatter, Regina crashes it and takes back her son.

And you know what?  I’m not going to tell you how the third act ends.  You really should watch it.  This episode packs in a lot of information in under an hour, and kudos for that.  Unfortunately all of that information moves so fast, you risk losing plot points.  Apparently Mr. Gold is greatly concerned about not being able to leave the town, but if they mentioned or hinted as to why, I missed it in the shuffle.

Finally we go back to the Enchanted Forest, in real time, to catch up with Ella and Snow White, for a rather predictable twist/cliff hanger ending.

All in all, this episode isn’t bad.  It’s not the best one of the show; however, it’s not bad.  It’s certainly stronger than Broken, probably because they had a bit more focus this time around.  If you missed it, you really should check it out, since not seeing it will probably leave you scratching your head later on down the season.

Until next week, remember when it comes to your escapist entertainment, go big, or go home.

Michael Bauch

Top 10 Comic Book Movies

These films are what I consider to be the current high point of comic book films.  These are strictly an opinion, and only that.  Everyone is entitled to their own point of view.  I welcome you to, if you disagree, to comment below on what you think the best films are, and why.  But I only ask you to keep it clean.  I'm not swearing, so I please ask you not to.  Thanks.  Now, lets get to the list.

10. Blade

            Blade renewed interest in comic book movies.  Blade was good enough to open doors that allowed movies like X-Men and Spider-Man to be made.  Blade eased the pain and sorrow left in the wake of Batman and Robin.  Blade was just a damn good action/horror movie.  Wesley Snipes perfectly captured the character of the day walker, a vampire immune to sunlight, and who fights off the blood sucking hordes of his nocturnal cousins and created a character that fights to defend humanity but was still clearly separated from them in a very dark way.  I think he made Blade a very compelling character because you understood that he was a monster who was fighting monsters and he knew it.  He knew he would never be human and it probably bothered him quite a bit.  So, with all they got right on Blade, why is it so low on the list?  For one simple reason, it doesn’t fit that well with the comic book counterpart.  Blade in the comics was a constant failure.  He’s had multiple re-launches with solo titles and they always fail to grab attention.  Blade the movie did what Blade the comic book character never could, it made money.

 

9: Watchmen

            I am not an Alan Moore fan.  There, I said it, and I don’t care.  I think he’s the poster child of everything that’s wrong with an author.  He’s arrogant, he’s blatant, he’s self absorbed and he thinks he’s smarter than his readers.  I just don’t like him, not as a writer and frankly not as a person.  But I like the movies adapted from his work, which is ironic since he hates these same movies.  Alan Moore has never endorsed any movie based on his work complaining that they always deviate from his original intent and that the story was suppose to be blah blah blah…I hate to break it to Mr. Moore, but 1) a work of art means many things to many different people and you can’t tell people how to interpret your work and 2) You don’t own the rights to these works and since you want nothing to do with the production process you don’t get to complain about the finished product.  Well, okay, you do get to complain, but no one has to listen to you.  But what about Watchmen?  Well, Watchmen was a pretty good movie, in my opinion.  It had a lot of interesting character development, it took some pretty basic character concepts from comics and gave them a very dark turn.  I can even get past glowing blue penis to enjoy this movie.  The story starts off as a murder mystery that expands into a wider web intrigue and devastation on a global scale and is probably one of the best put together storylines I’ve seen in a long time.  I’m also glad to see they had a better finale than some weird squid mutant monster thing.

 

8: 300

            This…isn’t quite Sparta.  This is what Spartans thought Sparta was, but history tells a different story.  But if you wanted actual history, you wouldn’t be watching 300.  It’s a very stylized movie that actually pulls off the look of a very old painting come to life. It covers the story of the 300 Spartans led by king Leonidas as he marches against the armies of Xerxes in his bid to take Greece.  Now there are some weird visual elements in this film, things that will make you cringe, scratch your head, want to hurl, or all three, but again it’s a well put together movie and very enjoyable if you like heavy, stylized action flicks.

 

7: The Crow

            We’re talking strictly about the Brandon Lee film, not the sequels, and not the tie in television series.  This is only the self contained story of Eric Draven and his revenge from beyond the grave against those that murdered him and his girlfriend.  It’s a very touching love story, when you get to the bare bones of it.  This man was so compelled by this injustice that he actually returns from the grave to exact bloody vengeance against a gain of thugs.  Once his work against the gang is complete, he wants nothing more than to return to the grave and join his love, but the gang leader, an over lord of crime if you will, has his own revenge against Draven now, given how Draven pretty much wiped out most of his criminal empire.  What starts off as a very specific revenge story unfolds into a story about what we leave behind when we go, and the consequences of revenge.

 

6: The Punisher

            Speaking of the consequences of revenge, this Thomas Jane vehicle was, to me, just a flat out fantastic movie.  Did it have some flaws, yes it did, but considering what they managed to pull off on what was essentially a shoestring budget, they did a wonderful job.  Thomas Jane stars as FBI Agent Frank Castle whose family is murdered by John Travolta…I mean Howard Saint.  Travolta and Jane are picture perfect for their roles and they really bring out the subtle nuances of these two men who are in a war of revenge.  Castle discovers as his war against Saint’s empire unfolds that it reaches further than he ever imagined and that perhaps his destiny is forever set by his actions.  And, at the end of it all, it did something the comics never could; it made me interested in something that had the punisher attached to it.

 

5: Batman: The Dark Knight

            Its Batman verses the Joker, law against chaos put in the ultimate contest.  Christian Bale reprises his role as the Batman from Batman Begins.  At this point, Batman’s quest has gotten the attention of the entire criminal world.  The mobsters are scared stupid of Batman since nothing seems to limit him, not even international politics.  Thus enters the Joker, played by Heath Ledger.  I have to say, when I first heard that Heath Ledger would be playing the Joker, I had my misgivings, as I’m sure a lot of people did.  But I had to remember director Christopher Nolan was involved and he cares enough about his projects that he wouldn’t put an actor into a role unless he knew, he KNEW they could make it something special.  And he hit pay dirt. It really is a shame that this is Ledger’s final, completed film, but he gave an outstanding performance.  When I first saw a trailer that actually featured the Joker, you could not have convinced me that this was the same guy from 10 Things I Hate About You and A Knight’s Tale.  Ledger threw himself into this part and it really shows.  I really think they could have just used Aaron Eckhart’s Two-Face for another film, however I can see how they felt him appropriate for the story.  Batman is the ultimate in law and order, the Joker is the ultimate in chaos and mayhem.  Two-Face is both.  He is the balance and that may have gotten a little lost between a lot of other really powerful performances.  What keeps this movie at the mid-way point on this list is the fact that it’s not really paced that well.  Well, it’s paced alright, but it’s extremely fast.  You really have no time to breath, and that’s because the events taking place in the story are coming at the characters extremely fast and the audience feels that.  When I first saw the film, it was on DVD and my friends and I literally had to take an intermission halfway through just to breath.  That kind of pacing, while making for a good action setting, isn’t good for the performances themselves.  The subtle work of the actors risks getting lost in the mayhem, and that is a crime given that you had fantastic actors like Bale, Eckhart, Ledger, along with Gary Oldman and Michael Caine.  These actors never give a bad performance, even if they are saddled with bad movies, and unfortunately you don’t really have time to digest their work when it’s buried in the high stress concepts of the film.

 

4: Iron Man

            Really this is just Robert Downey Jr playing Robert Downey Jr.  Tony Stark is actually a really bland character in the comics and prior to the film was considered a B-list superhero.  Downey’s performance in the role breathed new life into the character and made him relevant.  One thing I absolutely love about the performance is the amount of character development involved.  In the film, Tony Stark starts off a jaded ass who knows he’s the smartest man on the planet.  By the middle of the film he’s got a mission in life, a goal, a personal quest to set right the wrongs his jaded ass-ness let happen.  He’s still an ass, but a lot less jaded.  By the end of the film, he’s still an ass but now he has purpose.  Stark remained essentially the same guy but with a new perspective on life which is really how it should happen with these kinds of characters.  A lot of times they try to force feed character development and you really have no sense of the emotional or existential journey the character made to get from where he was to where he is at the end of the film and that takes you out of the film.  Here we have a very soft change, you didn’t see him change completely, you just saw him get angry for the right reasons and you can see how this sudden shift in his outlook jars even him.

 

3: The Incredible Hulk

            They really did this one right.  One of my biggest problems with a lot of interpretations of the Hulk is that you don’t quite know which one you are looking at.  In the first attempt at the character in film you didn’t feel anything for the Hulk or for Banner.  Banner was just bland, as was a lot of things in that movie.  Edward Norton as Banner was something pretty impressive.  He showed the character’s personal struggles without force feeding you a lot of introspective exposition.  You didn’t need anyone to tell you what he was feeling, you just knew by the performance itself.  The chemistry between Norton’s Banner and Liv Tyler’s Betty Ross was a lot more believable as well and she turned in a fantastic performance as the love interest/fellow protagonist.  Plus there was a big monster throw down at the end of the film and the epic Hulk Smash moment.  Speaking of the not-so jolly green giant, when you compare this film to the previous one, this Hulk seems a lot more believable.  The other Hulk was a much brighter green and eventually they had him running around in the purple pants made so famous by the early comics.  This Hulk had a darker shade to him, both color and personality.  With the first edition of the Hulk, they played him too safely.  He didn’t kill but maybe one or two people and that was more of things the Hulk did caused their deaths.  In the first foray on screen in the bottle factory, you are pretty certain that the Hulk really killed those guys.  They didn’t tone down the amount of violence or the quality of violence the Hulk is capable of, they didn’t pull any punches.  When this Hulk swatted, punched, or kicked someone, you knew that if the target wasn’t super-human, he was dead, and with the skeletal consistency of a beanie-baby.

 

2: Iron Man 2

            I put this one higher on my list than the first Iron Man film because I felt this was the most logical and natural evolution for the character.  Again, there is some character development involved, but not so much that you loose the essence of who Tony Stark is.  Robert Downey Jr. gives a portrayal of a successful man’s downward spiral into alcohol and self loathing that is just so genuine that it reminds you that this actor understands his character in a way no one else would comprehend.  You see the character at his lowest low, and at his absolute very best.  There isn’t a bad performance anywhere near this movie and it maintains a good balance of comic book action and real world concepts that you don’t think of it so much as a “comic book” movie, but more of a “sci-fi action” film.  The concepts they present are probably the most believable when you compare them to other films such as Spider-Man or even the Incredible Hulk, because you can see this kind of technology working, and you can see a very human character dealing with some very human issues.

 

1: Superman 1 & 2

            Superman was my first comic book character.  He was my childhood hero and I still have a soft spot for the man of steel today, but as I was compiling this list, I had to look at the Superman films not through the eyes of nostalgic childhood affection but through the eyes of a discerning adult.  Superman 1 and 2 get ranked as number one for a variety of reasons.  Now some may wonder why I have them tied together, and I have it that way because they are essentially one very long movie.  Superman: The Movie starts us off on Krypton where Jor El is condemning General Zod and his ilk to a sentence in the Phantom Zone.  This is yanked right out of the comics and was done so well that it pretty much set the tone for these characters for the next thirty years.  The reason that this is important is that this is essentially sequel baiting done in the very beginning of the film.  Sequel baiting are loose plot threads and partially done scene that hint at where the next movie is going to go.  A lot of these sequel baits happen right before the closing credits, or as the more popular trend is now, during the closing credits or at the very end of said credits.  Superman gave you the sequel bait at the very beginning and you didn’t even know it was sequel baiting.  You have that infamous line “You will bow down to me Jor-El!  You, and one day, your heirs!”  Now if you are just watching this movie as a stand alone film that the scene just serve to show how concepts of justice are not only part of Superman’s mindset, but actually present throughout his entire life, even that brief stint on Krypton.  Jor El is explained with this scene and a few following it completely so that you get to know who he was and what kind of genetic background Kal El comes from.  When you watch Superman 2 right behind this one, which feels like it takes place a very short time after the events of Superman 1, you realize that this is foreshadowing Zod’s return and invasion of Earth, essentially linking the two movies from the very beginning of the first all the way to the end of the second.  This has to be one of the most successful set ups for a film series and give the feel that you aren’t watching one movie, then it’s sequel, but rather just one very long movie.

 

On top of that the cast was just about picture perfect.  I still have some issues with Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, but I’ve pretty much put those issues to rest.  I don’t necessarily like her in the role, but I understand that at the time she was the best choice for the character.  I still would have preferred Lysette Anthony, but spit in one hand, wish in the other.  Reeve as Superman is unquestionably the best piece of casting that wouldn’t be duplicated until Robert Downey Jr. got a call back for Iron Man.  Across the board the casting and the portrayal of these characters was spot on from Terrance Stamp as Zod, Marlon Brando as Jor El, and Gene Hackman giving a chillingly comedic performance as Lex Luther.  One of the best villain moments I have ever seen has to bee in the third act of Superman 1 when Superman is confront Lex Luther and we get the following exchange:

 

Superman: Is that how you get your kicks, Luther?  By planning the deaths of millions of innocent people?

 

Lex: No.  By causing the death of millions of innocent people.

 

Hackman delivers that line with such a dead pan, matter of fact tone that you can’t help but look past all the comedic antics up to this point and realize he is one evil bastard.

Now, I love Iron Man to death, at least in films, but I can’t sit there and watch them with my son.  He’s too young to be exposed to many of the adult themes offered in the films, but I can sit with him and watch Superman 1 and 2.  It’s a film that engages both the children and the adults and is enjoyable no matter what era you are watching it in.