Suicide Squad (2016) Review

Superpowered beings have emerged from the skies and the shadows, and because of it, a wave of destruction and battles have ravaged cities and increased the number of civilian casualties. Cautious of any potential future threats, intelligence officer Amanda Waller presents a curious concept to government officials that could benefit them more than they could ever imagine: a group of expendable convicts, some imbued with powers of their own, will be lead by Special Forces standout Rick Flag. They will proceed to carry out dirty and dangerous missions in order to have their own sentences reduced, all while being closely monitored by Waller herself, who will implant small explosives in their heads to ensure that they do not stray from the path. When one of the intended recruits goes rogue, intending to annihilate all of mankind, the idea is made concrete, and the team of expendables is hastily assembled and sent to work.



In case you have been living under a rather heavy rock, Warner Bros' track record for big screen adaptations of DC Comics properties during the new decade has been rather...well, rocky to say the least. While a good number of us are anticipating future installments in this newfound universe over the course of the next five years, we seem to be doing so with arguably massive hesitations. After all, when your flagship and launching point for this was the extremely divisive Man of Steel, one can't be entirely surprised that nervousness has reached highs that no fans should ever have to experience. So, during this downtime between superhero films, the decision to bring Task Force X, also known by the more familiar, catchier-sounding "Suicide Squad" to cinemas around the country, sounded like an awfully risky thing to do. Choosing to handle a group of villains whose entire purpose is to forcefully and begrudgingly serve a higher, more noble power against their wills seems unusual. Why not focus on a more guaranteed money-maker like the Teen Titans? Or try to do a bigger, better, and more proper handling of the Green Lantern? True, we are getting those down the line, but the questions still linger in the back of your mind.


In a weird, yet tragic sort of way, the handling of Suicide Squad is not too different from that of another installment in the realm of "comic book" movies that came out just last year. You have an established property, known decently well by hardcore fans, with just enough recognizable names (be they fictional characters or real-life performers) to ensure a good box office intake and high merchandise sales. You have a talented individual sitting in the director's chair and writing the script (in this case, David Ayer, whose track record includes writing Training Day and directing End Of Watch), who has been able to provide more than their fair share of respectable and/or good motion pictures in the past. However, you are also at the mercy of your distributor, who can be rather ruthless, demanding, or pestering at times. Because of this, a myriad of problems arise, shining all too bright for even the blindest of fans to ignore. Much of the humor that was added in due to the backlash that this year's Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice received for being what many called "too dark" feels incredibly forced, with one or two quips and lines out of twelve producing a chuckle. Whenever a filmmaker is forced to go back and do reshoots, or add in material against their will, it rarely ever works to the flick's advantage. Even if someone such as me thought that Batman v. Superan had far more problems than not being fun enough, this decision ends up as more of a grave misfire rather than helping to provide anything extra on the positive side of things. As I said above, there are a small handful of laughs, most coming from Will Smith's Deadshot, but that has more to do with the charismatic actor playing an exaggerated version of himself rather than the iconic ruthless assassin that he has been cast as. For somebody who is a cold, mostly humorless killer in the comics, all you end up waiting on is for him to spout his usual "aw hell nah" rhetoric that he's so well known for. For her first time appearing on the big screen, psychotic fan favorite Harley Quinn is given more than enough time to provide the laughs, even if not all of them hit (and god knows there were a LOT of gags and wisecracks that she spits out). Next to the two cameos from two particular protagonists whose names I will not give away, and an entertainingly ruthless job by Viola Davis as government official Amanda Waller, she's easily the best part of the picture, and Margot Robbie seems to be relishing every minute and moment that she gets to appear on screen. How much of that can steeped in reality and how much is rooted in fiction I'll never know, but I digress. They are the most akin to what we define as a "complete" character, which is oddly one of the main problems that Suicide Squad has, though it's far from its biggest fault.


In fact, the technical and behind-the-scenes aspects of Suicide Squad could realistically be its worst offenders. The computer-generated imagery and effects are, at their best, passable, with the highlight being the earliest version of primary antagonist The Enchantress (played by Cara Delevingne, whose performance devolves into complete B-movie camp towards the end). At their worst, they are inexcusably horrendous. There are far too many instances where they are eerily reminiscent of the work seen in Alex Proyas' Gods Of Egypt, and I assure you, that is the furthest thing from a compliment (and boy do the Enchantress and her brother make for lousy, corny villains). Suddenly, Doomsday's ugly, crowbarred appearance in Batman v. Superman isn't looking so bad after all. It also suffers from some of the choppiest editing that I've seen in a bigger budget film to date. I know that its predecessor had at least a good half hour removed from its running time, but one wonders exactly how much of Suicide Squad was left on the cutting room floor. To my knowledge, Jared Leto's Joker had a large number of his scenes removed from the theatrical print, which may partially explain as to why his character ultimately serves no purpose for being there, contributing essentially nothing to the overall main story arc during his shockingly short amount of screen time. Supporting members of Task Force X, such as Japanese swordswoman Kitana and the quirky Captain Boomerang, though certainly anticipated by readers and familiars such as myself, are barely utilized. I kept wondering if Ayer forgot that they were in the picture to begin with, and others such as Killer Croc and El Diablo, as close as they may come to being "cool," feel an awful lot like MacGuffins, and badly stereotyped ones at that. Truth be told, you could remove nearly every member of the team save for about two or three, and you would end up with nearly the same movie that we get in the end. Say what you will about Marvel's team-up movies and their occasional tendency to overcrowd things, but they attempted to make every single member have a purpose (and a more fleshed out personality) that didn't only matter until the final moments of the third act. Another gigantic snafu comes from what I can only assume was Zack Snyder's influence (he serves as executive producer here), and that is the grating, stupefyingly bad soundtrack that was added in during post-production. Similar to what that director decided to do with the false feminism disaster known as Sucker Punch, we are barraged with an endless amount of recognizable songs for nearly half of the film's length (it's enough to pack onto three LPs). I'm certain that this was meant to be their version of what Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy did with its unabashed love of songs from the 1970s and 1980s, but control is what separates those two pictures from one another. It's the movie equivalent of when your friend makes a sixty minute long playlist in iTunes, then proceeds to play every song on it for the first fifteen to twenty seconds before skipping to the next one. You just want to ask them to stop, take a breather, and remind them that you're starting to annoy every single person that you're trying to please. At the very least, they mercifully didn't play Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train" during the Joker's introduction.


Speaking of the Oscar winner's portrayal as the Joker, I was really hoping that I would not have to discuss this or even type some of those sentences in the paragraph above. However, given that so much of the marketing has been built around seeing him pop up in the picture, it feels inevitable. I am open for different interpretations of a classic character, but given that nearly every incarnation of Batman's primary adversary has at least had the common decency to make him intimidating or even frightening, the decision to write this version of the Clown Prince of Crime as nothing more than an inked, irritating, wannabe Juggalo gangster does nothing but disappoint you in the end. It's a shame, as even with the more photos that were revealed during the buildup to this movie's release, I still had some faith that there would be some semblance of a good Joker buried underneath the platinum grills and horrendous tattoos. If fans and moviegoers are satisfied with this performance, more power to them. But I dreaded seeing him every time that he appeared in the movie's two hour running time, fearful that his overacting and poor mimicry of Heath Ledger was just going to increase my disappointment with the overall product.


I know that I am occasionally labeled by friends, cohorts, and familiars as being too fickle when it comes to reviewing flicks like Suicide Squad. On more than one occasion, I have been labeled a Marvel fanboy, which...well, I can't fully argue against (though I implore that you don't get me started on the recently released X-Men: Apocalypse). At the end of the day, for as much as I think that this is a wasted opportunity and just an all-around rubbish movie, I will come to its defense. While I am currently finishing my own review for this, there is a petition to get websites such as RottenTomatoes.com shut down, due to the backlash that Suicide Squad and its DC brethren have been receiving (thank you to fellow reviewer John Squires for hilariously pointing out that the movie's distributor owns the aforementioned site as well). In a time where nerds are seemingly divided over the silliest, and most trivial of things, I implore that you direct your rage towards those who truly deserve it.


And that, my fellow geeks, is Warner Bros. Please tell them to have confidence in their directors and their vision, even if it garners mixed reviews from fans and critics alike (I'd rather witness this bringing in 50/50 opinions, rather than 30/70). Tell them that going back to shoot additional scenes to make a picture more "lighthearted" or "amusing" isn't always necessary, and that by coupling that decision with the one to noticeably edit out material that feels like it is obviously crucial, can sometimes end up turning your release into an absolute mess, harming the franchise and box office numbers in the end. Tell them to not influence someone in such a way, that they end up going to a red carpet premiere, shouting "FUCK MARVEL!" at the top of their lungs out of what we assume is due to anger, frustration, jealousy, or a combination of all three. There isn't anything wrong with enjoying a nice bowl of pasta without having the need to drown it in shredded parmesan cheese and pounds of grounded black pepper, and yelling at the kitchen staff to bring out the next dish for your guest within five minutes isn't going to help matters either. You are allowed to take things slow. There isn't a need to catch up to Marvel Studios or Fox, as it isn't like these characters are going to be forgotten about tomorrow by the public at large. At this rate, I'm more scared for Wonder Woman and Justice League than I ever thought that I was going to be.



........Of course, I'll be there opening night for both though. I have nothing better to do these days.

Batman: The Killing Joke (2016) Review

After a small group of dead bodies are discovered at a crime scene by Detective Harvey Bullock and Batman, Gotham City's sworn protector decides to pay a visit to one particular criminal, his longtime enemy The Joker, inside the confines of Arkham Asylum, hoping to unravel the meaning behind them. When he arrives, his usually harsher, more physically dangerous methods of getting someone to spill the beans take a back seat to the decision to just talk to his nemesis, in the hopes that after all of these years feuding, they should not end up killing each other in the end. Very shortly thereafter, Batman discovers that The Joker has escaped his prison. Unknown to everyone involved, the psychopath has been devising his most fiendish and sick plan to date: the kidnapping and slow, almost ritualistic torture of the city's own Gordon family, wherein he aims to prove that all it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy.

For all of the continuously negative feedback that DC Comics Inc. has been receiving over the past few years, I believe that not all of it is warranted. Yes, their live-action franchises have been of varying quality, and admittedly, I have little desire to watch that one motion picture released earlier this year ever again. And yet, there is always a beacon of hope. In the television department, we have the unabashed fun of shows such as The Flash and future releases like Justice League Action. In the realm of video games, Injustice 2, the highly-anticipated sequel to one of the better fighting games for this last generation of consoles, is set to be released within the first quarter of 2017 (if you haven't watched the Wonder Woman and Blue Beetle reveal trailer, check it out here!). Finally, as I have discussed many times before, Warner Bros. Animation has been pumping out at least two or three new animated films per year for over a decade, with several consisting of popular and beloved storylines from the pages of their own books. During last year's San Diego Comic-Con, producer and friend-of-all-nerds Bruce Timm announced that an adaptation of Alan Moore's Batman: The Killing Joke, a highly influential work whose actions and decisions still ripple throughout the pages of their biggest titles today, was in the plans and set to be released a year later. Over time, further details kept emerging, as did animatics, casting news, and all-too-brief clips of this dream that was finally becoming a reality. I was certainly excited, but even amongst all of this, I had my reservations about what the finished product would look like.

The animation is certainly a step above DC's occasional tendency to hit or miss in the straight-to-home video department. Brian Bolland's design for the Joker has always been one of my favorites, and bringing even the smallest of details to life, such as the shadows surrounding and blocking out his eyes in the infamous "apartment" scene, or his emergence from a pond of hazardous chemicals, look rather splendid. Other technical aspects, such as the score by longtime DCAU composer Kristopher Carter (Batman Beyond) are also exceptional. Obviously, the thing that will attract most fans (other than the sheer intrigue of the movie's existence) is the return of veteran Batman voice actors such as Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, and Tara Strong. As predicted, they are all in top form, with Hamill delivering one of his finest performances to date as our crazed main antagonist. Some men were just destined to stay attached to a character for as long as they live, and as much as I have respected other portrayals over the years from the likes of Heath Ledger (R.I.P.) Richard Epcar, and John DiMaggio, ol' Luke Skywalker is just irreplaceable to someone like me. Prior to the actual flick starting, the audience was even treated to a short, taped interview with the man himself, wherein he discussed his history with voicing this fictional nutjob, including how he initially thought that he would be selected for a villain such as Two-Face or Ra's Al Ghul instead. It was certainly a nice treat for every fan in attendance.

Okay, so now that we have gotten through the positive aspects of Batman: The Killing Joke, I can kick off my shoes and remove my gloves. Firstly, my fear of the source material being far too short to adapt into any sort of feature length film was realized in a way that I could have never imagined. Without trying to spoil anything for those that are reading, only the second half of The Killing Joke is dedicated to the comic of the same name. While I understand that filler is necessary when the time calls for it (I am a twenty plus year fan of the Dragon Ball franchise after all), attempting to recreate any writing style as unique as Alan Moore's just feels far too difficult to do, especially when your lead-in consists of a weak Batgirl-centric story (with a villain named Paris Franz....not making that up) that does more to harm the reputation and respect that you have for the well-known protagonists. Even if you are not well-versed with Batman outside of the big or small screens, you can meticulously pick out every single portion of this that feels like it was written solely for this picture and every other chunk that was lifted from the printed story. This is all the more shocking when you notice that this project's script was penned by the immensely talented Brian Azzarello of 100 Bullets and Wonder Woman fame. It's the cinematic equivalent of when you go to a fancy restaurant, pining for your favorite dish. Once you receive said entree, somebody that you know walks by, observes what it is that you are eating, and says "Hey, that looks pretty good. But I think it's missing something." This person proceeds to pull ingredients out of their pocket, dumping them onto your meal and making it nearly indigestable as a result, then walks away before you can get a good word in about why they think that this was a good idea.

There has also been a humongous amount of outrage surrounding said filler, as it changes and scrambles the connection between two of our four central characters of Batman: The Killing Joke. While it initially didn't make me fume as badly as it has for others, and I feel that it may have been due to the need for stirring "more controversy" just as Moore and Boland's work did back during its initial release, all it took was about two hours for me to realize that this bold decision was anything but. In fact, it was really, really bad. As a fan of cinema, I've always believed that implications are sometimes best left as just that. It reminded me of the assortment of unnecessary backstories to other madmen in the world of entertainment such as Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers, or when two characters from your favorite form of media would do something completely out of left field because producers and writers thought that a small collection of fans that wanted this could somehow outweigh the larger amount of opinions of those that didn't. Sure, there will always be an air of mystery to it that a select few want to see explained, but a majority of fans prefer to just leave things be. It also casts a broken, dim light on our titular hero that no fan of the Dark Knight would ever wish to see, and worse yet, makes another champion of the DC universe into something that even a modern day Frank Miller would shake his head at. That, or make him wish that he had thought of something so "brilliant." And before I am accused of being an elitist or purist fanboy by my fellow geeks, I am one hundred percent fine with attempting to change or add something to an adaptation. Heck, it's one of the things that is keeping AMC's Preacher, which still stands as my favorite series of graphic novels ever written, so entertaining. But when you're taking one of the very best comic books about the perplexing, dark, and surprisingly complicated relationship between the Caped Crusader and the Clown Prince of Crime, and tacking on an incredible amount of groan-inducing stupid writing, thusly twisting at least half of it into something that more closely resembles high school fan-fiction written by a misogynist masquerading as a feminist, you aren't exactly going to please a good portion of your fanbase. 

Though these following sentences may come across as childish, I am at the point where I just can not wear a fake smile (even with the help of patented Joker gas) and give this a good recommendation. Yes, the handling of the original source material is, for the most part, done decently well, but in the end, it isn't enough to lift this above the most definitive labeling of "an eternal disappointment." Personally, I feel that a shorter, more compact iteration would have worked far better, perhaps in the form of an anthology along the lines of the excellent DC Showcase Original Shorts Collection, especially when you consider that the eccentric English author behind this has a myriad of tales that have yet to receive the animated treatment (Superman: Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow? comes to mind). If you're an Alan Moore or Batman completist, I know that there isn't anything that I've said that will ultimately tell you to save your money and just stick to the graphic novel instead, but if you're paying money in the double digits to see this (I paid THIRTEEN DOLLARS to see this in a theater), I worry that you may be just as insane as any of the inmates in Arkham Asylum.

Speaking of that, I'd highly suggest that you go and watch the Killing Joke recreations in that series of games instead. They're shorter, creepier, and also feature the same top notch voice actors.

Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (2016) Review

Eighteen months have passed since a large battle occurred in Metropolis that resulted in not just the death of Kryptonian overlord General Zod, but massive amounts of property damage and the loss of many innocent lives. At the center of this conflict emerged Superman, a being seemingly sent from the stars who has been equally praised and vilified for his actions during and after the incident. One such critic is billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne, who has been acting in secret for decades as the Batman, a protector of neighboring city Gotham. On the flip side, Daily Planet contributor Clark Kent, the human disguise of Superman himself, believes that this masked vigilante is more dangerous than most believe. When Lex Luthor, the eccentric head of a well-known organization bearing his name receives a mysterious green rock found in the Indian Ocean that causes noticeable damage to those comprised of Kryptonian DNA, he believes that the populace can finally be rid of this flying foreigner that has been dubbed a "god" by those the world over. Unknown to him, Luthor's own research is also being sought out by not just the owner of Wayne Enterprises, but by a mysterious woman whose emergence during this inevitable clash has every party involved intrigued.

The fact that it has taken nearly eighty years for the general public to see two of the most iconic characters in pop...actually, scratch that, GLOBAL culture meet in the realm of cinema is astonishing. Coming off the heels of the rather divisive Man Of Steel (of which you can read my review for here), Warner Brothers and DC Comics have announced that a new world will come to fruition and be shaped around the aforementioned motion picture. Ripe with recognizable heroes and villains alike, it is their answer to what Marvel Studios began with back in 2008, and they hope to reignite the flames of those who had never thought they would see these individuals appear on the silver screen again. And when you make the bold choice of pitting Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent against one another as your second entry in this proposed universe, while also throwing in a small part for a certain Amazonian fighter, you are certainly aiming to kick things off with a bang. It has fans across the globe excited, though admittedly very nervous for the future.

What follows, however, has suddenly warped what intrigue I had into near apathy that borders on utter disdain.

Before getting into the real gist of things, I'm well aware that there are a good chunk of folks who do frequent or read reviews from this blog who could not care less about this sort of niche, but it could be hard to argue about why Marvel Studios has done this "shared universe" idea far better than their competitors at DC has. You planted the seeds early on, starting off with a runaway success (Iron Man) and ending with a love letter to the golden era of cinema that nobody expected to be as good as it was (Captain America: The First Avenger), all the while watching each flower grow into a beautiful bouquet that you could offer to the general public as a thank you for staying around as long as you had (The Avengers). True, releasing two new films a year and having several television shows from now on is bordering on overkill, but even those will lead into something more grand down the line. Here, director Zack Snyder, along with writers David S. Goyer, and Chris Terrio, make the risky decision to throw all of their own seeds into a pot at once, pour several gallons worth of water on top, and shout "GROW DAMN YOU GROW!" as loudly as they possibly can.

Once casting for Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice began to make the rounds, I couldn't argue with or blame those who were disgruntled over some of the choices. To the shock of nobody in particular, nearly all of Man Of Steel's cast returns (including Michael Shannon) in some way shape or form. Henry Cavill does a fair job as Kal-El again, though I do suspect that he will need to be told to act a bit livelier in future entries. Others are relegated to nothing more than the smallest of bit parts, and those who you may have complained about being underdeveloped in that project...well, stay underdeveloped. I love Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne, but their inclusion in the story this time feels like an excuse for several deus ex machinas, with the former delivering some very uncharacteristic wooden lines. Thankfully, some of the new cast turns in some fairly good performances. Ben Affleck proves most of his naysayers wrong and makes for a fine Batman/Bruce Wayne, while Jeremy Irons does his best to brighten the mood with a sarcastic, borderline charming Alfred Pennyworth. Heck, even Gal Gadot, for the very short amount of time that she has during the near three hour running time, is quite exceptional as Diana Prince. One newer addition that falls flat on its face is Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network, Zombieland) as legendary antagonist Lex Luthor, who seems to have been written to act more akin to the clownish smartasses of villains such as Spider-Man's Mysterio or Batman's Edward Nigma, failing to come across as truly evil or intelligent, and more or less resembling an irritating henchman with delusions of grandeur rather than a power-hungry madman with a plethora of knowledge and wealth to his name. I don't believe that this was the fault of the actor himself, but rather the mostly atrocious dialogue that was given to him. At least Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Lex Luthor in Superman Returns felt like you were watching a proper version of the head of Lexcorp.

What ultimately kills BvS is the fact that it misses one very important core component: for a movie that costs two hundred and fifty million dollars to make, it is decidedly, shockingly not fun to watch. Whether it's due to the absurd amount of flashbacks or dream sequences, or just the poorly edited and shoddily-filmed skirmishes, the whole experience ends with you feeling rather numb. Mind you, I can relish in films that are bleak, dreary, and even flat-out depressing. Hell, I'll be the first to recommend cinematic punches to the gut such as Requiem For A Dream, Man Bites Dog, Bedeviled, and Lucky McKee's The Woman any day of the week. And don't get me wrong, graphic novel adaptations such as Road To Perdition, A History Of Violence, and Snyder's own Watchmen are, for the most part, devoid of any semblance of joy, but the three adjectives typed out in the third sentence of this paragraph should rarely, if ever, be used to describe a movie based on a series of comic books that have historically been primarily aimed at people of all ages. Merriam-Webster defines the word comic as something "causing laughter or amusement" which to an extent, can be translated into feeling exhilarated. While there is some joy to be had near the end of BvS (mostly because you realize that this nearly three hour experience will be over soon...until the homage to Return Of the King's barrage of endings kicks in that is), and seeing the Caped Crusader, The Man Of Steel, and motherfucking Wonder Woman team up in order to take down a larger threat does bring a brief smile to your face, it just doesn't excuse the rest of the picture for being so utterly banal and humorless. When you find that watching super-powered and masked beings beat the unholy hell out of each other boring, perhaps you need to remember to insert some heart and soul into your sequels next time around. Thankfully, I am still on board with seeing a standalone Wonder Woman flick, though I pray that none of the producers or writers involved with this trainwreck are attached to it.

I groaned and sighed far too much for me to properly recommend Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice to a casual moviegoer, but just because I didn't have a very good time doesn't mean that some of you diehards won't. Most of what sinks Snyder's second entry into this franchise isn't even the changes in characteristics or morals of the titular protagonists (though there is one that I suspect will anger even those who come out praising it), but just a bloated script, mediocre directing, and erratic acting that was far too reminiscent of the dark period of flicks based on comic books. Perhaps there is an inherent problem with your finished product when it makes an unabashed geek such as myself say "You know, maybe I should have purchased a ticket for My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 instead." I believe that your enjoyment of Man Of Steel will fully determine how you feel about this highly anticipated blockbuster as its positives and negatives carried over in spades. If you are reluctant to partake in a visit to your local cineplex, but still want to see a romping encounter between these two icons, I suggest that you track down a number of the DC Animated Movies that have been released throughout the years (or better yet, track down the multipart epic known as "World's Finest" from Superman: The Animated Series). There's a large chance that it will cost you less money, and it's far more cohesive than something like this.

Or better yet, just go watch Deadpool or 10 Cloverfield Lane instead.

Fantastic Four (2015) Review

While working on creating a teleportation machine, young scientific prodigy Reed Richards is scouted, and eventually recruited by, the director for a research institute that specializes in bringing out the best in gifted minds. After meeting the director's children Johnny and Sue, along with another star student named Victor, the group begins working on a larger, more accurate version of Reed's invention. When the experiment is a success, they are thanked, but not given the rights to venture into  the new worlds that could be discovered along the way. Going out of their way to disobey their elders, the men of the group, along with Reed's childhood friend Ben Grimm, partake in a "test run" to an unknown planet, wherein they encounter something far more dangerous than they expected, and, upon a very explosive return, will alter them in more ways than they could have ever imagined.



Not too long ago, I wrote a review for Marvel's Ant-Man, another new entry in the realm of cinema with a rather troubled history when it came to being completed and released to the general public. When you consider the problematic production and all other things that could have sank the Peyton Reed-directed flick, I thought that the final product was rather exceptional. It balanced humor and action without falling on its own face, while standing tall as a rather solid installment in the very overcrowded realm of superhero-based motion pictures. Ant-Man was proof that you can still overcome the odds and come out on top.


Which is why it honestly does break my heart that the 2015 reboot of comic book legends Fantastic Four is as bad as it is, making for a compelling argument that perhaps the "first family" of Marvel Comics just aren't meant for success on the silver screen. At the very least, they won't find true happiness until they are put into the hands of writers and executives who understand and care about the team, or better yet, much like their wall-crawling friend, they are released back to the world of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.


If you're unfamiliar with this rather odd lot, the two elements that make this team at the end of the day are very basic: fun and chemistry. All of the team's powers make them unique as individuals, as do their attitudes and quirks. Sure, Whiplash star Miles Teller does actually manage to get Reed Richards down relatively well, as the character is a bit egotistical, bordering on being a jerk (one child in the film even flat out says "You're a dick," which may have been improvised so that Teller could remember who he was playing). Hell, even Friday Night Lights star Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Bell of Billy Elliot fame (yes, he was the title character) are halfway decent as Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm. However, if you go back to the latter element that I mentioned in my first sentence, there is not a single trace of magic to be found between any of our main stars. None. You don't get the feeling that these people could be friends outside of this wildly dangerous scenario that they happen to be a part of. True, the Fantastic Four of the comic books could also fall victim to family turmoil, but they balanced it all out by still caring for one another in the end. Oh, and if you're wondering why Kate Mara (House Of Cards) as Sue Storm has been omitted from this paragraph until now, it's because I'll be happy to write a fair critique or evaluation of the lady after she wakes up from the sleepwalking that she called a performance.


Moving on to the former element, that which we have dubbed "fun." If you read a mainstream comic book, be it related to this property or not, you are expected to have a good time. If it means reading something wonderfully weird such as Scott Pilgrim, or even something as insanely misanthropic as Crossed, you are glued to the pages that you hold in your hand. Look at recent big screen displays such as Mad Max: Fury Road or John Wick for the film equivalent of such things. When one's definition of fun in Fantastic Four is watching a video of The Thing beat up someone while working for the army, but not actually seeing him do it as it is happening, then you may to reevaluate your decisions in the screenwriting department. By the time that we get an honest-to-god real battle with supervillain Doctor Doom (which isn't until the final fifteen or twenty minutes), too much time has passed with the characters having spent most of it moping and doping around, not acting like superheroes or even giving any indication that they could ever become one. Boring, tedious, and meandering are too kind of words to use for the setup for this sequence. Oh, and if you had a disdain for Marvel's previous portrayals of the Latverian overlord, you had better hope that you're chewing gum when (or if) you see this picture. You may grind your teeth into dust out of frustration without it being on hand.


While on the way home from this screening, I kept telling myself that while Fantastic Four was certainly not very good, it wasn't awful. I did sit through the previous installment with these characters, and found it to be gutter trash. After all, most of the acting is fairly decent, as is the first ten minutes with Reed Richards and Ben Grimm's first time meeting one another as children. If you get past the fairly dated-looking computer effects, it isn't that offensive to look at either. Was the review embargo for this warranted? Did it deserve the overwhelming amount of negativity flowing towards it as if the movie itself was a magnet? It took me approximately twenty five seconds to determine the answer to these questions: OH. FUCK. YES. When even your own director (Josh Trank of the excellent Chronicle fame) comes out and says that this is not the vision he initially had, then you are in serious trouble. There are fragments of a great motion picture in here that you can feel are just dying to come out should Trank have been given better control and not been forced into rewrites and reshoots. But at the end of the day, the final product isn't exciting, isn't funny, and worst of all, just isn't wholly memorable. If you absolutely have to go to your local cineplex this weekend, I'd advise you to find a way to sneak inside and watch the trailer for 2016's Deadpool, and then leave before Fantastic Four begins. There's a good chance that you'll leave happier and more enthused about your weekend than if you ever paid to watch this one hundred minute-long fecal waterslide.



I'd also suggest bringing a flask so that you may take swigs every time that Kate Mara's hair changes from brown to blonde due to poor editing. Then again, I don't want any of you to die from alcohol poisoning.

Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox (2013) Movie Review

One night while visiting his mother's grave, Barry Allen, a.k.a. The Flash, is alerted to a break-in at the Flash Museum, led by his arch-nemesis Professor Zoom. With the aid of his fellow Justice League members, the villain's plans are thwarted, but not before Zoom taunts the hero about the flaws of his past mistakes, causing The Flash to retreat in frustration. The next morning, Allen wakes up in his office, and finds himself in a new, unfamiliar world, where his mother is alive, his powers are gone, the Justice League never existed, and the world is being torn apart by an Atlantean/Amazonian war. With the help of a newer, darker Batman, Barry attempts to fix and reconstruct his own timeline.


It is rather hard to believe that we are now into the seventeenth entry of movies within the DC Animated Universe . Releasing seventeen films in only six years must certainly be a time-consuming task, as is adapting many of the company's more popular works into feature-length motion pictures. Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is based on a 2011 storyline by renowned comic book author Geoff Johns, which was DC's final event leading into their New 52 reboot. This massive crossover relaunched every ongoing title at the time and, in some cases, even rewrote popular history with particular fan favorites. It is also the first starring vehicle for the fastest man in their world, The Flash, though it isn't the first time the character has been in an animated film, and one could argue that is the most mature and darkest entry in this expansive list of animated features.


Right off the bat, the voice work for Flashpoint is anything but common. Andrea Romano has been a voice director for nearly every entry in the DCAU, be it television or movie, and she gets great performances out of nearly everyone involved in this project. Savvy veterans and fans will immediately recognize fan favorites such as Dana Delany, Kevin Conroy, and Nathon Fillion returning to the roles that made them famous among us comic book fans and 90s cartoon kids, and newer participants such as C. Thomas Howell, Michael B. Jordan, and Cary Elwes absolutely knock it out of the park with the roles they've been given. While I'm always going to believe that Susan Eisenberg is the definitive Wonder Woman, I am starting to get around to Vanessa Marshall's portrayal as the princess of Themyscira, who is absolutely ruthless and cold-blooded here, with very few traits of compassion to show for it. Kevin McKidd plays his incarnation of Batman rather well, but you end up wishing he had brought down the "gruff" aspects just a tad. Not everyone with a five o'clock shadow needs to sound like they've been smoking constantly.


There are also a great amount of cameos scattered throughout the film, which too feature some notable and distinguishable actors and actresses. Some end up advancing the story forward, while some feel like distractions meant to appeal to those who are wondering where their number ones are. Personally, I would have liked to see more come about from these with a longer running time, as it gives the viewer only a few minutes to attach themselves to any of them before they either return to their respective cities/armies, or are just plain offed. I do understand that Flashpoint is a condensed version of a rather large story, but I would have been willing to wait a few more months for a release if these steps had been taken.


Alas, the overabundance of characters, be it negative or positive, is but a small gripe in the end, as Flashpoint's main issue comes from one striking, and very hard-to-miss flaw: the art style is really, really unpleasant to view. Compared to previous efforts, the way these characters are drawn looks incredibly flat or even disproportionate at times, especially in the first fifteen minutes. Designs on the faces in particular almost appear to have been shrunken down to parody-levels of oddness. If you are reading this and thinking that it can't be that noticeable, I may remind you that your eyes are working perfectly fine, and disregarding this can be a truly difficult task. Barry Allen's perceived "mommy issues" may also grind the gears of less tolerant comic book fans (to which even Professor Zoom points out), but hey, people put up with it when Bruce Wayne's the one pouring it out, so why not someone else this time?


Despite my problems mentioned above, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is still a good amount of fun, at times emotionally resonating and arguably better than its source material. Speaking of emotion, I myself didn't have any problems with the levels of violence here, but it will be quite a shock to more sensitive parents who may be skimming over this in a store and thinking it is "just another comic book movie." The film's official rating is PG-13, and they certainly take advantage of this. Characters die rather memorably, there is some mild swearing here and there, and the overall tone may be too dark for any younger children to take. If this doesn't bother you, however, then you're in for a heck of a ride. I recommend a Blu-Ray purchase if you have the money and capability, as the plentiful amount of extras will enhance the overall fun factor as well.

Man of Steel (2013) Review

The last known survivor of a planet known as Krypton, young Kansas native and traveller Clark Kent unearths his true origins over time, while being simultaneously shunned and welcomed by assorted members of the general populace. Soon, relics from his newly discovered past find their way to Earth, and the super-powered being must protect his new home from these Kryptonian invaders.


For the half dozen of you who frequent/occasionally visit my blog, this may end up being the hardest review I've ever had to do for a motion picture. Not due to any difficulty with wording, or frustration with a property that I have a marginal amount of respect for being handled well or terribly, but due to having to bite my tongue when it comes to spoilers. It is a true burden sometimes for us geeks, in that our biggest complaints and compliments often can give away the best (and sometimes most integral) moments of a film. Man of Steel is one of those films. When it shines, it shines brighter than a thousand suns. When it stinks, it reeks of Krypto the Super-Dog feces.


I was one of the few people who didn't initially hate 2006's Superman Returns, though my opinion certainly hasn't been a popular one throughout the years. True, Superman didn't do much of anything in that film, and everyone was essentially turned into Mynah Birds with their performances, plus the angle of Superman being a deadbeat dad wasn't exactly smart, but...actually, that really wraps up why most of that film was a failure. I never thought Zack Snyder was a great choice for directing a Superman film, especially considering how his own body of work has arguably been getting worse throughout the years. Snyder has always seemed to favor style over substance, and he takes several liberties with the character's own sense of morals and beliefs which will draw the ire of longtime fans and geeks alike. Thankfully (and somewhat unfortunately), Zack Snyder delivers more than enough on the action front in this new reboot. Again, I will try my damndest to avoid spoiling anything.


Starting off with the obvious question: is Henry Cavill a good Superman? Well, yes. His version of the character does seem to be a bit more melancholy than we're used to seeing, but I get that they were trying to reach for a different demographic with it. He certainly made up for his lead role in 2011's very silly Immortals. The flashback scenes that litter the film do help build him up and slightly humanize him in the audience's eyes, something which has always been a complaint from non-fans. And my oh my, do those moments when he finally achieves flight feel magnificent. Bravo. Someone who I felt mildly disappointed by was Amy Adams' Lois Lane, who felt severely underwritten and didn't seem to have the best chemistry with her co-stars. Adams is a fine actress (in more ways than one...oh don't judge me), but I think that with more screen time, she could have been just as good as Cavill himself. Pa and Ma Kent, played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, do a good job considering that a majority of their time is spent in flashbacks. Lane was sporting a considerable amount of makeup in order to enhance the effect of looking "old," but I don't think it worked too well. It reminded me of the very strange makeup job done on Guy Pearce in Prometheus. Costner does give a good performance, and does seem to express genuine concern for his son's well being and place in this strange, oftentimes confusing world. In terms of the biological parents, Russell Crowe's Jor-El of Planet Exposition delivers an infinitely better performance than expected, though it did feel like Snyder had an obvious hard-on for the character, as he appears even more than the villains themselves.


But come! Let us talk about the villains chosen to oppose Superman this time around! Michael Shannon takes on the role of General Zod this time around, which is the first time the character has been seen on the big screen since Superman II. And...he isn't very good. Zod feels more comical than threatening this time around, though there are certain acts where he manages to get back onto his A-game. Personally, I found Zod's sub-commander Faora to be a much better, and ultimately more compelling villain. She was cold, ruthless, and willing to do whatever was necessary for the survival of her people, and for her General. She also takes part in the film's first real major battle with Superman himself, and it is quite the spectacle to behold. What, did you think my review was going to be nothing but minor gripes? I think not. The action sequences in Man of Steel are pretty remarkable and have their fair share of excitement, though the final one does feel slightly tacked on. Hans Zimmer also turns in a score that oozes emotion and triumph, and may be worth the price of admission alone.


The film does run rather long, and starts to drag a tad bit with its final act (oops, back to the gripes). While the previously mentioned action scenes are indeed impressive, they come at the expense of character development and decently written characters in general. I know I may sound like a broken record with this, but we've seen over the years that you can still make a good "comic book" film that doesn't skip out on either end and can satisfy most theatergoers. Look at what Marvel have done throughout the years, as has Christopher Nolan (who produces and co-writes here) with the Batman trilogy reboot. This was a complaint many had about Snyder's Watchmen, and there are many moments in this reboot that mirror the best and worst of that adaptation, though as I stated above, they are related to spoilers, something which I will avoid for the sake of this review.


Ultimately, Man of Steel feels more in line with a picture like The Dark Knight Rises than Batman Begins. It is certainly not a perfect film, nor is it a flat out awful one, and I suspect that with repeated viewings, my overall enjoyment of the final product may diminish. For now, it is a very flashy, flawed, and fairly enjoyable superhero romp that is worth a matinee admission.

Iron Man 3 Review

Following the events in New York, several attacks occur around the United States, all seemingly spearheaded by a mysterious man simply called "The Mandarin." Tony Stark decides to take action, and issues a challenge to the terrorist, all the while dealing with demons in his own life, be they from the present, or, as we come to find out, from the past.


Before I start this review, I want to express what a disappointment it is that the experience of the "Midnight Movie" is slowly being phased out. I was curious as to why this was even something up for discussion by theater owners, and found that it was solely due to the terrible event last summer in Colorado, where psychopathic dipshit James Holmes murdered twelve people at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises. Apparently, the thought is that when you take away the planned time of a massacre, it can prevent one. Does this make any sense to any individual who made it past the 8th grade? No? Well congratulations, you're a sane human being. Murderers usually don't care about what specific time of the day they pull off something like this, and pushing a screening for something like Iron Man 3 to 9:02 pm instead of midnight is NOT going to prevent this. There are other ways folks. But I don't want to ramble on too long since this is a post for a review, not a rant.


You know the old saying "The man makes the suit, not the other way around?" Well, Iron Man 3 could be the very definition of that, even if the suit is really damn cool. The third installment in what (I suppose) could be constituted as a trilogy, the film firmly establishes itself from the get go as a Tony Stark story, and not as an Avengers sequel. Without spoiling anything, there are small references here and there to the other characters and previous events in this universe, but it may be best to remind you that the film IS called Iron Man 3, and not Iron Man 3 featuring An Occasional Avengers Character.

The classic theme of the past coming back to bite you in the rear is also greatly explored, as we're introduced to quite a number of new faces in this installment, including A.I.M. scientist Aldrich Killian (played excellently by Guy Pearce), Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), who has created a new regenerative serum called "Extremis," and big baddie The Mandarin, played by the most evil actor of all time, Gandhi. Every new supporting character does a fine job with what they're given, though Kingsley's Mandarin seemed like he almost went into Ultimate Warrior territory with some of his slurring and odd behavior. There's a big twist that happens about halfway through the film that may draw the ire of the comic faithful, but I think it was forgivable given that it enhanced the strength of the film's main villain, who may arguably be the best they've had to date in the Iron Man movies.

Don't worry about the old gang either, they aren't pushed into the background in order to make room for the new kids in class. Robert Downey Jr. is, of course, excellent as always, and Stark's story of rebuilding his life and redeeming himself could very well be a mirror for his own life since taking on the role. True, that was explored in the first picture as well, but, again, without getting into spoilers, it works just as well here, and helps the character grow further, helping remind him that the smallest mistakes and amounts of ignorance can lead to the worst of scenarios. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts just seems to get better over the course of these films, and she's certainly a focal point in this chapter (and without sounding a like a pervert, Paltrow looks pretty damn good here). Jon Favreau also returns as Stark Industries' Head of Security Happy Hogan, and even though his screen time is very small, it brings some nice comic relief to the film. As for Don Cheadle's James Rhodes, I felt like he was somewhat tacked on and didn't have nearly screen time as he could have. But then again, he had almost too much screen time in Iron Man 2, so maybe this was a fair trade.

Finally, the action sequences in Iron Man 3 are, to put it bluntly, pretty damn awesome. Shane Black is no stranger to writing well thought out and memorable action scenes (writing the scripts for Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, while also directing the latter, is proof of this), and the main ones could easily rival those seen in last summer's The Avengers. True, there are a few moments where you'll have to suspend your disbelief due to the classic "convenience" effect, but sometimes that's a given when going to the cinema. There are quite a number of moments where Tony Stark the man gets the chance to shine, proving that he isn't completely useless without his little suit(s) of armor.

While I wasn't the biggest fan of Iron Man 2, and am still nervous about the potential overexposure of the Marvel Universe in Hollywood, Shane Black's Iron Man 3 is damn near everything a moviegoer looking for honest-to-god fun could have. This is one fantastic way to kick off what is sure to be a very interesting summer.