SUICIDE SQUAD MINI-REVIEW

Well, here we are. We’ve finally gotten around to SUICIDE SQUAD, and of course, it’s getting trashed by most critics, much like BATMAN V SUPERMAN did. Truth be told, it’s easy to see why: the film is hacked to hell editing-wise (it was a victim of re-shoots in an effort to lighten the tone since since BvS was lampooned for being too dark), so much so that even Jared Leto’s much hyped about role as the Joker ends up with him being barely in the film at all. Not to mention the fact that director David Ayer (FURY) was handcuffed by the studio; the end result being an uneven film lacking a true identity.

Flaws aside though, I really enjoyed it. Hell, I enjoyed it more than BvS. The characters were well cast (jury is out on Leto, just because there wasn’t enough of him to get a true reading) and they all looked the parts, even Will Smith who I’ve never been crazy about being Deadshot. It’s a mess, but it’s a very enjoyable mess, and the fact that we now have all these great DC characters on film for the first time ever (ARROW on TV doesn’t count) makes my little black geeky heart swoon.

Like BvS before it, don’t pay attention to the critics and just go see it. Also like BvS though, I’m hoping we get an uncut version down the line where Ayer’s original tone remains intact. One can only hope.

People Hate "X-Men: Apocalypse" For No Real Reason

"X-Men: Apocalypse" came out last weekend, to a surprising amount of middling reviews from critics and audiences alike. Some of it isn't much of a surprise in all honesty (the X-Men movies have usually wavered in quality ranging from "pretty good" to "pure shit"), but I didn't think "X-Men: Apocalypse" was all that bad. Actually, I thought it was pretty good. It wasn't anything too special, and it wasn't better than the preceding "X-Men: Days of Future Past", but it was pretty good regardless.

Now, in case you haven't noticed by now, it seems any comic book movie not directly from Marvel Studios (yes I know, X-Men is Marvel, but Fox owns the film rights, as they do with Fantastic Four) gets destroyed by critics. How well it does box office-wise is a different story, but critically these movies get savaged. Don't believe me? Look at Rotten Tomatoes; and while you're there, look at the scores for recent Marvel flicks like "Civil War" and "Ant-Man". There's a damn huge difference.

Saying that there's not some kind of bias with critics for anything non-Marvel is saying it lightly. It exists, and we all know it. I watch Marvel movies, and I watch the non-Marvel Studios-produced flicks as well (except Fantastic Four, because I have no desire to whatsoever and never really have). One thing I can tell you is that with "X-Men: Apocalypse", I never felt bored. The stakes legitimately felt high in terms of its story, even if there are plot holes aplenty and non-sensical leaps in logic abound. "Civil War" had some fun moments, but given the gravity of the situation presented in the film's story, the stakes never felt high to me. That however is usually how I feel with all the Marvel movies: there are some genuine shattering events happening, and the stakes just never feel high. Because of that, more often than not, I just get bored to tears. You can shit all over films like "Man of Steel" and "Batman V Superman", but at least the stakes feel high in those films, and one thing they're definitely not is boring.

In terms of the "X-Men" movies though, "Apocalypse" is far from perfect, but it's far from being the piece of shit that everyone is labeling it. I saw some fanboy online saying it "sets superhero movies back 20 years". How do you figure? It does pretty much what every superhero movie does, and it's damn sure better than "X-Men: The Last Stand" or the first Wolverine movie. If X-Men's film rights were owned by Marvel Studios instead of Fox and this movie came out the way it did, everyone would be somehow praising it instead.

In the meantime for you Marvel fanboys that keep your assholes greased up nice for that big fat Marvel cock y'all can't keep off of, try giving something a chance, even if it isn't directly from the studio you all worship.

The BLADE RUNNER Sequel That No One Wanted is Coming

....sigh.....

Remember that sequel to "Blade Runner" you were hoping would one day become a reality? Yeah, I don't either.

Either way though, we're getting it, as Ridley Scott continues to mine his past work in a self-destructive/semi-masturbatory way to squeeze some more cash out of classic properties. Unlike with "Prometheus" and the upcoming "Alien: Covenant" (sweet baby Jesus I didn't realize how dumb that title sounds until I just said it out loud), Scott will only be serving as a producer on the "Blade Runner" sequel, which also sees the original film's co-screenwriter Hampton Fancher returning, as well as Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard. The film is set decades after the end of the original, and will apparently answer some questions the first film left unanswered...

...which sounds fucking horrible.

One of the things that always made "Blade Runner" stick out to me was its ambiguity. I like the fact that the film doesn't spell things out for you like nearly every film released for mainstream audiences has the need to do. So I guess we'll get flat out told if Deckard is a replicant or not? Or maybe they'll just have Ryan Gosling (who is starring in the film) do a shitty and needless voiceover narration to explain things that don't need explaining?

The original "Blade Runner" was a victim of studio interference. That's why there's half a dozen different versions/cuts of the film. Considering all that interference and the fact that the film's studio never had that much faith in it to begin with, does it really warrant a follow up? Can't it just be left alone for fuck's sake?

Oh well, at least it's not getting a remake...

...until the sequel bombs terribly and it's decided that it should be rebooted from the ground up because somebody somewhere still thinks they can squeeze some more cash out of it.

40 Years of "JAWS"

It's the movie that made you afraid to go in the water.

It's the movie that made Steven Spielberg a household name.

It's the movie that pretty much created summer blockbusters as we know them.

It's motherfucking "JAWS".

What would otherwise be a simple-minded B-movie became a global phenomenon and altered the course of filmmaking as a whole. "JAWS" at its core is a monster movie through and through, only with a real monster. No otherworldly alien or rampaging beast created through radiation or some shit, "JAWS" is man versus chaotic nature in the form of one of the greatest natural predators in recorded human history.

I first saw "JAWS" as a kid, like most (if not all) of people from my generation. Its bloodletting and suspense may be tame by today's standards, but for me back then? Holy fucking shit. I was scared shitless and afraid to go near water, so much so I wouldn't even go near my toilet. Granted I was pissing and shitting myself constantly, but that's a story for another day.

Throughout its 40 year legacy, "JAWS" spawned some really shitty sequels and hordes of merchandise and video games (I beat that piece of shit NES game years back), but ignoring all of that, think of the film in its most simple terms. To do that, and I might be talking out of my ass here since I wasn't alive at the time the film was originally released, think of the climate of horror/suspense/thriller/monster films of the time:

There were years upon years of dude in a rubber suit-type monster movies stumbling through theaters seemingly since the dawn of film. Most of these were low-budget schlock that delivered what fans wanted the most: blood, gore, and boobs. They were successful, and that was all well and good. Then out of nowhere, "JAWS" appeared on the screen and changed a lot of things forever...and it made a fuck-ton of money in the process.

Besides the timeless "man versus nature/animal" theme of "JAWS", what really set it apart from other films of the type was the characterizations of our three leads: Sheriff Brody (Roy Scheider), marine scientist Hooper (Richard Dreyfus), and grizzled fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw). The true highlight of "JAWS" for me personally wasn't the blood and suspense and believable terror; it's that scene of all three guys bullshitting and talking on the boat over a few beers. Quint's super memorable monologue of his chilling past experience with sharks will send chills down your spine...seriously.

Chances are you know what I'm talking about and you're reading shit you already fucking know. If for some reason you've never seen "JAWS"...well, what the fuck is wrong with you??? It's a truly perfect film from beginning to end. And to this very day, the final confrontation between Brody and the shark is one of, if not the, greatest showdowns in the history of film.

The Belated Review for "MAD MAX: FURY ROAD"

What a lovely day indeed.

I haven't seen a movie like "Mad Max: Fury Road" come from a mainstream studio in quite some time. It's a glorious throwback to the films of the 60s/70s/80s where a bargain basement plot wasn't shoved down your throat combined with modern filmmaking technology. Right from the time the opening narration ends to the film's final frame, it's non-stop, insane, holy mother of fucking shit I can't believe what I just fucking saw action...and it's absolutely bloody brilliant.

Normally this would be the part where I would talk about the cast and the plot, but both are irrelevant here. Maybe not the cast so much, Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are fucking awesome, but what little there is of a plot is so damn little and unnecessary that it doesn't matter. Normally in any other film this would be a detriment, but here it isn't. There's no exposition or real character development because there doesn't need to be any. Director George Miller knows what the fuck he's doing here, and sweet fucking Christ is it glorious.

I could come up with a million other cliché things to say about "Fury Road", but no matter what I say it will not serve the film justice. You have to see it with your own eyes and you absolutely HAVE to experience it in a theater while you still can. You will not see a big-budget action film like this come from a major studio in mainstream America ever again...at least until there's a sequel...which by that time who really knows if it'll even come close to holding a candle to "Fury Road".

When we were on our way out of the theater after the film concluded, having to make a pit stop in the bathroom, my buddy (not a euphemism for my penis) and I overheard some young dudes that were bashing the film, calling it "weird" and "stupid". For a generation that has grown up on nothing but flashy "Fast and Furious" movies and Michael Bay "films" (I use that term very loosely), "Fury Road" and the idea of Mad Max as a whole is lost on them, and I feel truly sorry for them for that as well.

Oh, and "Fury Road" was directed by a 70-year old man. Directors in their 20s don't nearly have the eye for the kinetic energy that George Miller managed to craft here. I can keep stroking myself about this movie all damn day, but I think this is a good place to stop for now. Go see it if you haven't already. You'll be surprised how much it sticks with you afterward...and you'll be even more surprised how badly you'll want to see it again.

One last thing: if seeing a guy strapped to a war-machine vehicle playing a flame-throwing guitar isn't the most METAL thing you've ever seen, I don't know what is.

Michael Bay Thinks You're Stupid

Blah blah blah, Michael Bay.

Blah blah blah, destroys my childhood.

Blah blah blah, how does he keep getting to produce and direct shitty movies?

Michael Bay gets shit on quite a bit, and he has for quite some time now. Has it been 20 years yet? I'm not sure. I don't recall off the top of my head when "Bad Boys" came out, because honestly I'm too lazy and I just don't give much of a shit to even bother going to IMDB to look it up, but it feels like it's been a while that we've all been slinging shit at Bay while he continues to laugh all the way to the bank. That in itself is the point of all this: just how does someone as critically panned as Bay manage to keep making abysmal films that make money hand over fist?

The simple answer is that Bay himself symbolizes the modern American movie-goer. What does said modern American movie-goer look for that gets his blood pumping?

Explosions, lots and lots of explosions.

Glossy action sequences that feature lots of close-ups of the characters in play, most of which can get pretty uncomfortable.

Frantic film editing. This makes things more exciting apparently, for others (like me) it just makes them feel violently ill like getting churned around in a blender.

Scantily-clad barely over 18 girls, because there's nothing that sells tickets like barely legal poon tang on display.

And last but not least, American flags aplenty...because this is 'MURICA, and if you don't like any of the above, you're un-American.

If you watch any number of Bay films in any particular order, you will see most, if not all, of everything I just listed pop up in his films. Now when I say the average American movie-goer, a large chunk of that audience are teenage boys, hence why most of Bay's films get the ever profitable PG-13 rating.

Now mass marketing crap to kids is nothing new of course, it's as American as processed McDonalds apple pie. However, when a majority of people start bitching and making fun of Bay's works online, yet his films continue to churn out record profits, there's something definitely wrong with this picture here. The "Transformers" movies are one thing. The novelty of the first film wore off quickly as each sequel only proceeded to rot brains worse than the ones that came before, yet they still make BILLIONS of dollars. Why is that exactly? Because people keep laying down their hard-earned money to watch mega-budgeted piles of shit so they have something to bitch about later on internet message boards and social networks.

"Transformers" is one thing, but the latest Bay re-tread to hit the masses is a new take on "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles"...and holy mother of fucking Turtle Christ will people not shut the fuck up over it. I'm not saying their complaints aren't warranted of course, but it's not like anyone put a gun to their heads and made them lay down the money to see such a piece of regurgitated fecal matter.

And, of course, TMNT is making money hand over fist. The movie that months ago, when set pictures and concept art and trailers were released had the internet buzzing with seething hatred and people swearing that "I'll never watch this piece of shit" is making so much money that it will probably knock "Guardians of the Galaxy" from its top spot at the box office. Why is that? Why is something that seemed to be so universally hated raking in millions upon millions of dollars that almost guarantees sequels and the like further down the road that will surely be as hated and looked down upon, yet will more than likely make even more millions upon millions of dollars?

Well, honestly, because the majority of mainstream American movie-going audiences are fucking stupid.

That may sound harsh, but hey, the truth hurts. You can shit all over me for it if you want, and believe me I welcome it, but the same people that bitch and complain about Bay and co. mutilating the source material and all that aren't helping matters by paying to see the fucking thing. I noticed it on Facebook last night when I saw quite a few posts from friends saying "I can't believe how bad TMNT is" and "I can't believe I wasted 12 bucks on that piece of shit". Well, what did you really expect guys? Seriously.

This is modern mainstream American cinema, and it will not get any better anytime soon, mostly because we still fork money over to see garbage that has Michael Bay's name on it. Although I have to admit that I kind of admire Bay's intelligence as a person: he knows he makes shit, and he knows his shit will make money, because he knows the average American movie-goer is a fucking idiot. Rinse, repeat.

If you really feel that Bay's take on films based on licenses you loved as a kid is ruining your childhood, there's one surefire way to prevent him from doing so: STOP PAYING TO FUCKING SEE THEM!

Now as a disclaimer, I just want to say that I'm not calling every person who went to see the movie an idiot, and I'm not calling anyone out if they somehow actually enjoy what Bay offers; more power to you and all that, so please take no offense....


...maybe.

The Belated "Man of Steel" Review

It's been a while since the last time we had a Superman movie, namely 2006's underwhelming "Superman Returns". In that movie, we got a Superman take that did little more than jerk off the legacy of Richard Donner's classic film of the 70s as well as present to us a Superman that was more of a wanky emo brooder turned Super-stalker. Needless to say, not many liked it, and Warner Bros. and DC decided that rebooting it was the best course of action.

Fast forward to 2013, and here we are with "Man of Steel": a more modern take on the classic superhero as envisioned by director Zack Snyder ("300", "Watchmen") and producer Christopher Nolan. Now without further adieu, here comes my belated review of "Man of Steel", so strap yourselves in assholes.

Be warned, spoilers aplenty are ahead:



"Man of Steel" presents a much harder look at the Superman mythos than has ever been presented in film form before. It also packs some of the most unbelievable wanton acts of destruction to probably ever be seen in a summer blockbuster or "disaster porn" film. Seriously. Metropolis gets obliterated so much that it's amazing there's anything left of it. In those regards, the action sequences are brilliant and the wanton acts of destruction are set pieces that I personally have always wanted to see in a Superman film.

The casting and characterizations are mostly well done as well. While main star Henry Cavill didn't leave the lasting impression on me that someone that plays Superman rightfully should be able to do, the rest of the principal cast was mostly great, in particular Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Even Kevin Costner as Supes' earthbound Papa Kent does great in limited screen time, but it's Michael Shannon that really stole the show for me as General Zod. He isn't Terrance Stamp, and who could be, but he leaves a lasting impression. I also enjoyed Amy Adams as Lois Lane and Laurence Fishburne as Perry White (irony!).

Now, here's what so many fans have been having a shit-fit about: the ending. Yes, Superman kills Zod in the film's conclusion. He breaks his neck like a twig to stop Zod from killing more innocent civilians and screams in sorrow at what he's been forced to do. Now I know what you're thinking because I thought the same exact fucking thing when I saw it happen on the big screen: since when the fuck does Superman kill? In retrospect, the idea itself is infuriating, because if it's one thing that Superman stories have been telling us SINCE THE FUCKING 1930s is that Superman always finds another way to save the day. Superman is supposed to represent the best in humanity and put himself over the law...or something. Well, here he broke Zod's neck.

Now, looking back on it, while seeing that bothered the shit out of me, I think I understand why Snyder, Nolan, and screenwriter David Goyer went down this route. Maybe since this was an origin story, they're going to use Superman killing Zod as a benchmark for future events, as to something that Superman can never, ever bring himself to do again, and this is the beginning of Supes deciding to "find a better way" to save the day without having blood on his hands.

That, or maybe film executives still don't get Superman after all these years.

Either way, regardless of its flaws, I enjoyed "Man of Steel" for what it's worth, even more so than I enjoyed "Avengers" or most of the Marvel movies since 2008. That's right, I said it. And since its huge opening weekend, Warner is fast-tracking a "Man of Steel" sequel to lead into an eventual "Justice League" movie. Part of me wants to see that all happen, and part of me doesn't, only because it would never be quite as huge as "Avengers". "Avengers" has the monopoly on safe, family-driven popcorn entertainment that's fairly okay for kids, while DC's properties seem to be going in a darker direction (which I love) that looks like it'll eventually lead into making kids shit themselves.

In 3-D.

Anyway, go check out "Man of Steel", fuck the haters.

JJ Abrams and "Star Wars": My Honest Opinion

The announcement that J.J. Abrams will be directing "Star Wars: Episode VII" sent shockwaves through nerdom all around the universe. After all, this is the guy that helped resurrect the "Star Trek" film franchise more so than anything else. Granted he's done more than that, directed the love-letter to Spielberg "Super 8", produced "Cloverfield", directed "Mission: Impossible III" and had a hand in "Mission: Impossible 4", and co-created "Lost" and "Alias" to boot. So yeah, the guy knows how to get nerds and geeks on their feet. Now for the record, I absolutely adored the "Star Trek" reboot and look forward to the sequel "Star Trek Into Darkness", and I absolutely loved "Lost" despite all the flack it received over the course of its run, but now that I've had some time to think about it, the idea of Abrams handling "Star Wars" blows my mind on so many levels that I can barely comprehend it.

Now, like I had said before, I really think that "Star Wars" should be left the fuck alone. It was bad enough we had prequels, but we really don't need sequels. Even though there's a huge part of me that would like to see new adventures unfold for Luke, Leia, Han, and the rest of the crew; that doesn't mean that we necessarily should. However, the one great thing about having Abrams be the man behind the camera is that I do believe he is the right guy to handle it, in terms of the Star Wars universe being so big that he has the mind's eye to capture it the right way in terms of cinematic amazement.

Then again, it's also more than likely that anything Abrams comes up with (or that Disney allows him to come up with) will be wholly predictable. Out of all the directors mentioned and rumored to be attached to the new Star Wars movie: Matthew Vaughan, Peter Jackson, Zack Snyder, and more besides, Abrams is without a doubt the safest one to go with, just from a visual spectacle standpoint, and because he's the least likely to want to do his own thing and instead go with how the studio directs him to go in terms of making the product the most marketable. That's understandable, considering this is Star Wars and Disney and throwing both of them together makes instant dollar signs, so of course Disney will go the safest route in terms of making the most marketable product imaginable, and that's what Abrams will make: more of a product than a movie.

Just a couple days ago, Jim Chadwick, an editor at DC Comics and a Facebook friend that I often converse with, brought up a valid point: why not hand the franchise off to a director that you would least expect? He brought up Takesi Miike, the brilliantly deranged director of "Ichi the Killer", "Audition", and "13 Assassins" among others. Though he's known by many as a gorehound, Miike has one of the most unique eyes for storytelling in all of modern day filmmaking. Getting someone like him that would inject the perfect blend of darkness and "Seven Samurai"-inspired storytelling (which Star Wars was semi-based on in the first place) would make for a truly unique take on the Star Wars universe, and I would absolutely kill to see such a thing happen.

Now, we know having Miike on board would never in a million years happen, but even someone like Zack Snyder would possibly deliver something a little different that we the fans wholeheartedly deserve. I mean for fuck's sake, we survived three shitty prequels and years of re-shat out "special editions" of the original films that we deserve something special for George Lucas making us look like douche bags. It is my personal hope that Abrams really delivers and proves me wrong at least a little bit, because as apprehensive as I am about this, I can't lie, I am kind of looking forward to it.

That, and I wanna see Han come from work and discover Leia having an affair with Chewbacca. That would be the tits.

Thoughts On the Hilariously Shitty Remake of "Robocop"

Everything gets remade these days, from classics like “Psycho”, “Dawn of the Dead”, and “Total Recall” to even lesser-renowned films like “The Stepfather” and “The Fog”; so absolutely nothing is sacred anymore…even Robocop. A surprise smash hit in 1987, the original “Robocop” is a classic action film that features more scathing social and political commentary laced in it than many other mainstream films from the era. Now here we are in 2012, and there’s a remake of “Robocop” coming very, very soon…for better or worse.

The new take on Robocop doesn’t come out until at least 2013, but there’s already been a fair degree of viral marketing to facefuck the masses with for now. From ads about OCP (the corporation behind the creation of Robocop) and the ED-209 (the homicidal, often malfunctioning robot that growled), to revelations of some big name casting so far (Gary Oldman, Samuel L. Jackson, Jackie Earle Haley, Jay Baruchel, and Hugh Laurie among others so far), this new Robocop flick is coming along fairly nicely so far, and hey, maybe it’ll even turn out half decent…wait what am I saying? Of course it fucking isn’t…

First off, the prototype art of what Robocop’s new look is going to be was fucking laughable. For Christ’s sake he looks like a goddamned Micronaut. To make matters worse, elements of the film’s script have been leaked…and things are about to get more unintentionally hilarious. While the basic elements remain the same: Detroit cop Alex Murphy is killed in the line of duty and transformed into Robocop, things are drastically different in almost every other regard. He goes through different versions (including the classic and iconic look, which gets laughed at by a “criminal focus group”…yes I’m serious) until finally getting tested on Al-Qaeda terrorists. Oh, and he’s also a transformer. And he can make himself look human and normal when need be. And he has a pet cyborg tyrannosaurus that he rides like a horse. Ok, that last part I made up, but the rest is true.

Anyway, the idea of remaking “Robocop” I can understand. Back in the day, the film was such a hit that it spawned two inferior sequels, a plethora of video games and comic books, a live-action TV show, two animated series, TV-movies, action figures, and more besides…meaning that this was a cash cow once upon a time. Getting a modern day remake of it with the hope that there’s still a decent amount of cash to squeeze out of it makes sense, but making all these changes to Robocop don’t make sense at all. Updated technology is fine, but really making him fight Al-Qaeda? Really? Is he going to have a logo on his chest plate that says something like “Anti-terrorism Cyborg Cop”? That’s not being relevant with modern times, that’s just fucking stupid. And speaking of fucking stupid, why the fuck is he a transformer? Is he going to turn into different vehicles and have all kinds of artillery pop out of his orifices too? Good fucking lord, what a bunch of shit. It’s no surprise that when the plot points got leaked over the internet that it’s been ridiculed all over the place already, and it hasn’t even started filming yet!

All in all, you can tell that I’m not exactly thrilled about there being a “Robocop” remake, but I’m even less thrilled that we’d be getting what surely sounds like one big pile of shit. All we need now is it being in 3-D. Wait what? It is? Great. Stick with the original folks, and give this shit-tastic money-grubbing pile of fuckness a big old middle finger.

"THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" Review!!!! (SPOILERS!)

Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy has come to an end. Four years after the release of the monumental “The Dark Knight” comes “The Dark Knight Rises”, which is a more than fitting end to his trilogy. This is my review for the film, and I am going to tell you right now that beware, spoilers aplenty are ahead, so enter at your own risk folks. With that out of the way, let’s begin…



SPOILERS AHEAD! ABANDON ALL HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE!!!!!!!!!!!









From the beginning with “Batman Begins”, we’ve seen a Batman universe that is all about the realism. From his technology to his wonderful toys to even the villains he’s faced, everything about this new cinematic take on the Batman world is grounded in reality, and it’s made for some great entertainment. As great as “Batman Begins” was though, it was “The Dark Knight” that took things to a new level. With the late Heath Ledger’s brilliant performance as The Joker to a thought provoking script that perfectly displayed the kind of repercussions that would happen in the real world if someone decided to put on a costume and take a serious fight to crime in a crooked and corrupt world, “The Dark Knight” was brilliant despite its small flaws, and to me remains the absolute best comic book-based film to ever see the light of day. With “The Dark Knight Rises”, we see the aftermath that such repercussions have created, escalating even further into an environment of full-blown anarchy and chaos, and the one man that can rise above it all to save the day.

With its much publicized filming taking place, a good chunk of the surprises that the film was set to deliver were already known to the public. From Bane’s connection to Ra’s Al Ghul, to Miranda Tate really being Talia Al Ghul, there weren’t that many twists that the public didn’t kind of already know were going to happen. That aside, we were treated to seeing a world where Batman did indeed “live long enough to see himself become the villain” like Harvey Dent had said in the previous film, as he is a broken and hollow man living a life of seclusion. He comes out of his self-imposed exile as Bane makes his presence felt; eventually re-creating the famous scene from the “Knightfall” comics as he breaks Batman’s back and takes over the city. The day is saved in the end of course, culminating with Batman faking his own death and leaving Gotham City cop John “Robin” Blake to take the reins.

In praise of the film, it was wonderful to see all the seeds planted in “Batman Begins” come to fruition. It was twice as wonderful to see this realistic take on Batman culminate in such a thrilling spectacle. While “The Avengers” was an amazing superhero blockbuster, “The Dark Knight Rises” is more of a thinking-man’s blockbuster, drawing you in with believable characters and motivations, along with some surprisingly brutal action set-pieces to boot. Christian Bale, despite what you may think of him, gives his best performance as Batman here. His portrayal of a broken man that can’t stay away from his duty as the Caped Crusader is a sight to behold. Michael Keaton may always be my favorite Batman, but Bale definitely comes in right behind him. Just about the rest of the cast was great as well. I really enjoyed Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, and Tom Hardy was menacing as all hell as Bane. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was great as well in a surprisingly meaty role. I should also note that Bane’s voice was thankfully re-dubbed during post-production. When the film’s prologue was released alongside “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” last year, I’ll be damned if I could understand anything that he fucking said, but here, it’s fixed for the most part. Granted he does kind of sound like Sean Connery in need of a Halls, but hey, it could have been a lot worse.

As for the flaws of the film, the one thing that got me was that Gordon sadly wasn’t featured as prominently as he was the last time around. One of the things that made “The Dark Knight” so great was just how much they featured Gordon and how important a role he played in the proceedings. Here, he doesn’t so much, while Alfred and Lucius Fox seem to spend more time on the backburner as well. Still, the final half hour of the film is so masterfully done and orchestrated that you’ll literally be chewing on your fingernails in anticipation to see how it all comes to an end.

Also in retrospect, when you go to see the film if you haven’t already, thoughts about those in Colorado that were senselessly slaughtered at the film’s premiere will weigh heavy on your head. It’s only a matter of time before we get a handful of idiots that blame the actions of one diseased mind on this film, which is a crying shame in itself. Its times like this that we all wish people like Batman were real.

Do yourself a favor: go see the best, most electrifying conclusion to a superhero trilogy in the history of fucking ever. You’ll be glad that you did.

Thoughts On the "Highlander" Remake...Starring Ryan Fucking Reynolds (Ugh...)

I have a lot of guilty pleasures in my life: grindhouse films, cheesy horror flicks from the 80s, and cigarettes among others…but there’s one guilty pleasure that trumps them all, and that’s “Highlander”. The films, the TV show, the animated series, yes folks, I fucking love “Highlander”. Granted that the first film was truly the only one in the series worth a shit and the long-running live-action TV series got plain fucking ridiculous towards the last two or three seasons, but goddamnit I love everything “Highlander” regardless. The swordplay, the sorcery, the action, the fact that these people that live forever can kill each other by cutting off each other’s heads, I love it all.

With all that being said, the “Highlander” franchise is one of the few franchises that I actually do think should be rebooted from the ground up for a new generation, and low and behold, we’re getting a straight up “Highlander” remake in the very near future. So near in fact that the casting has already been announced as to who will play our hero Connor Macleod in the upcoming remake…and it’s none other than fucking Ryan Reynolds. Yes folks, the overexposed actor that helped ruin “Green Lantern” and rarely plays as being anything other than tongue-in-cheek will be playing the Scottish-born immortal warrior. Makes perfect sense right?

I’m just gonna go out on a limb here and call this the worst mis-casting since…well, since Reynolds was mis-cast as Hal Jordan in “Green Lantern”. He has a wise-ass aura about him that he just can’t help, and for the life of me I can’t see that translating well into a serious take on “Highlander”, unless the people behind it are seeking to make a somewhat goofy or not too serious remake. Personally, I always had someone like Gerard Butler pictured in my head as being the star of a new take on “Highlander”, mostly because he has the scowl and he’s fucking Scottish. In any case, that just sounds horrible no matter what kind of light you look at a Ryan Reynolds-starring “Highlander” remake. It has the potential to be anything but horrible, and then with Reynolds thrown into the equation, it just becomes a recipe for shit.

I’d sooner fuck a sheep than watch this trainwreck.

What the fuck is Bane saying?!

Over the past few days there’s been a shit ton of internet chatter and theories regarding “The Dark Knight Rises”. After the unveiling of the slam-bang six-minute prologue that premiered before the new “Mission: Impossible” flick, a second trailer was released that showed more footage, including the massive destruction of a football field and Batman (Christian Bale) getting his ass handed to him by Bane (Tom Hardy).

One thing that’s gotten a shit-ton of smack slapped on it is the fact that understanding any of Bane’s dialogue is ass-fuckingly hard. I’m not sure whether it’s the voice Hardy is using, or if he’s just muffled by the mask, or a combination of both. Either way, director Christopher Nolan has heard the complaints of the masses…and is probably going to do nothing about it. He’s gone so far to say that he likes Bane’s voice the way it is, and will more than likely not make any post-production alterations or re-dub Hardy either.

So basically we’ll have to wait until “The Dark Knight Rises” comes out on DVD and turn on the closed captioning option so we know what the fuck Bane is saying.

But hey, considering the fact that Bale’s Batman voice is pretty over-the-top in itself, well…what the hell. As a side note, back when I was bartending, “The Dark Knight” was on HBO on one of the TV’s with the closed captioning turned on. During the interrogation scene as Batman walks out and Gordon asks him if he’s going after Dent or Rachel, Batman growls “Rachel”, and the caption came up *inaudible*.

In other words, that was only a taste of things to come apparently.

Though I’m poking fun and pointing out early flaws, all that bullshit aside I can’t fucking wait for this movie. It looks to be every bit as epic (and possibly even more so) than “The Dark Knight” was, and appears to truly be an epic conclusion to Nolan’s Batman films. People are psyched for “The Avengers”, and rightfully so (I am too), but “The Dark Knight Rises” takes precedent over it for me personally, and I’m dying to see how it all winds up coming to an end…

…even if I can’t understand half the shit that the film’s main villain is saying.

"The Dark Knight Rises" First Impressions

It started in 2005 with “Batman Begins”, and now six years later, Christopher Nolan’s Batman films have achieved an almost legendary status. “Batman Begins” was the Batman film that Bat-fans had craved for years: an honest-to-God origin story set in a realistic tone. In 2008 with “The Dark Knight”, we got a sequel that took Nolan’s realistic approach to the iconic character to new heights…but that’s something that we all know.

Now, here we are in 2011, and we’ve had our first official glimpse at “The Dark Knight Rises”, the third and final Batman film to be directed by Nolan, and if the tagline of the teaser trailer promises anything, it’s that this is indeed the end (hell, I swear that “The End” by The Doors played in my head throughout the teaser, but I digress). After seeing the teaser trailer, there are plenty of questions that have risen (no pun intended) so let’s just make a rundown here of what we know from seeing the trailer so far…

We catch scenes from both “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” as we hear a voiceover from Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson) from the first film, followed by a shots of Gordon (Gary Oldman) lying on a hospital bed having a conversation with Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) about how bad Gotham needs Batman back. This is followed by glimpses of Bane (Tom Hardy), the roided-up super villain that broke Batman’s back in the comics…all of which concluding with a quick glimpse of Bane getting ready to take on what appears to be an injured or winded Batman (and just who the hell is that standing in the background?) There are no glimpses of Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) to be found, or of any of the new characters and additions to the cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard). With all that being said, it’s time to make some half-assed (possibly) predictions about what “The Dark Knight Rises” has to offer…

First off, like I said before, Bane breaks Batman’s back like a twig in the comics. His comic book form is that of a hulking brute that uses a drug called “venom” to get enhance his size and strength, along with the fact that he’s also a criminal genius. In his introductory storyarc in the comics, Bane figured out that Batman is Bruce Wayne, and proceeded to tire him out and wear him down by breaking the inmates out of Arkham Asylum, and then putting the Bat-bitch-slap on Batman when he was at his weakest. Could that be what happens in the film? There have already been reports that this is going to sort of be what happens, and that in Batman’s absence Catwoman and others attempt to take up the reigns of saving Gotham City, leading to Batman’s return, as he rises above and saves the day (maybe that why it’s titled “The Dark Knight Rises” perhaps)

Something else that is known thus far is that actor Josh Pence is playing a younger version of Ra’s Al Ghul, and has some sort of tie to Bane in the film. At the end of “Batman Begins”, Ra’s was burned up into a crispy critter, but it was also reported that Liam Neeson filmed some sort of role for the new film. Is it a flashback then perhaps? More than likely, even though Ra’s Al Ghul is an immortal villain in the comics, Nolan’s films have steered far away from supernatural elements and only focused on making things as realistic and believable as possible, so the Liam Neeson take on Ra’s is probably a flashback, unless Nolan is playing some kind of big time trump card. Speaking of trump cards, Marion Cotillard is playing a woman named Miranda Tate, with all rumors saying that the name is really an alias for Talia Al Ghul, the vengeful daughter of Ra’s. Maybe this is going to end up tying everything together somehow? I have no idea honestly, but it’s fun to theorize nevertheless.

With all this in mind, I haven’t even really gotten around to talking about what role Catwoman is going to play in all this. Will she be an out and out villain, or an unlikely ally? Or maybe a little of both? Since “Batman Begins”, Nolan has made a habit of only revealing as little or as much as he wants to in terms of making the audience want more, and with the film a year away from hitting the big screen, there’s still plenty more to be revealed and dissected over. Hell, it doesn’t even finish filming until later this year, but I for one am dying to see what gets revealed next, leading up to what’s going to be the last Batman film to feature Nolan, Bale, and the rest of the principle cast and crew.

Next summer can’t fucking come soon enough.

Fuck Michael Bay, Fuck Transformers...Fuck Me Sideways

Michael Bay represents everything that is wrong with the film industry today. Massive explosions and ultra-flashy action sequences, incoherent plots (if any plot at all), and overly taking himself way too fucking seriously in the process. His “Transformers” films represent this as well, and are quite possibly some of the biggest pieces of mechanical dogshit that you’ll ever see. Now don’t get me wrong, 2007’s “Transformers” was a surprisingly enjoyable film that delivered the goods and showed audiences something we hadn’t seen before: namely giant fucking robots transforming and laying waste to each other and major metropolitan cities. By the time 2009 rolled around with “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”, seeing such scenes had already worn thin, and the novelty had already worn off. Not to mention to the fact that “Revenge of the Fallen” featured an incredibly mind-numbing storyline and incoherent action sequences that NO ONE had any fucking idea what the hell was going on.

Now, here we are in 2011, and Bay has unleashed what is supposedly the final film in the franchise with “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”; a film so insulting to viewer’s senses and intelligence that I really think you can actually become dumber upon watching it. Between featuring a Victoria’s Secret model’s atrocious acting (and fine ass) in a starring role, an incredibly uncomfortable homophobic joke scene, off-the-wall ridiculous plot holes that may cause viewers to suffer brain aneurisms, and a depressed Megatron sitting on a dumpster (yes, you read that right) that gets conned into helping save the day. Yeah…and you thought “Revenge of the Fallen” was bad.

Now let’s get one thing out of the way here. When I was a kid, “Transformers” was my absolute favorite cartoon series and toy franchise out there, so the nostalgic factor alone that gets pissed all over here is enough to make me infuriated at seeing my once beloved “Transformers” has become nothing more than a 2 ½ hour long commercial for flashy cars, mass explosions, hot chicks in scantily clad garments, and Shia LeBeouf filling the screen with his wanker presence. Now, thanks to all that, when someone hears the word “Transformers”, they will automatically think of Michael Bay’s film franchise instead of the 1984 cartoon, and they will groan in disgust and bewilderment that Bay is still allowed to make movies, let alone ones featuring giant fucking robots.

Oh yeah, I’m still waiting for the “Transformers” porn spoof goddamnit, because I know that THAT would be much more entertaining than this bullshit.

Some New Thoughts on "The Avengers" Movie

First and foremost, all I have to say is SPOILER WARNING!!!

If you haven’t seen “Thor” yet, don’t read any further, because I’ll be talking about the film here in a little bit of detail in regards to next year’s “The Avengers”, which finds Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, and more besides all in the same flick (screeching nerdgasm in 5…4…3…2…1…). All that being said, proceed at your own risk…

After finally getting around to seeing “Thor”, the end-credits Easter-egg confirms that Thor’s wicked brother Loki will be the main antagonist of “The Avengers”…or will he? Eagle-eyed viewers of “Thor” no doubt caught the quick glimpse of the Infinity Gauntlet in Odin’s chamber towards the beginning of the film (it looks like a big glove with shiny jewels on it), and comic geeks know that this is a reference to the universe-shattering titan known as Thanos. Thanos turned the Marvel universe on its ear in the 80s and 90s as he sought control over the Infinity Gauntlet and the Infinity Gems, and it now appears that the appearance of the Gauntlet wasn’t just a wink at comic geeks. Apparently, Thanos will also be a major villain in “The Avengers” in addition to Loki, and apparently, the shape-shifting alien Skrulls will also serve as antagonists for the super-team.

So, that’s Loki, Thanos, and now the Skrulls…anyone else think this all sounds like overkill a bit?

From my own understanding, when Marvel Studios first announced that all their films would be linked together to lead up to “The Avengers”, it was mainly perceived that it would revolve around the group hunting down the renegade Hulk. Now that that seems to be pretty much tossed out the window (maybe) we’re left with what sounds like a battle royale featuring a team of Marvel’s greatest heroes against a trinity of evil, cosmic super beings. Maybe it’s all misdirection on Marvel’s part and that of Joss Whedon, but maybe it isn’t either.

Either way though, there are plenty of questions left unanswered so far, such as:

Loki’s plans for the Cosmic Cube, which will be heavily featured in the “Captain America” film coming out this July, plus, if Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet are indeed in the film, what the fuck does anyone want the goddamn Cosmic Cube for?!?!

Now that we’ve seen Hawkeye in “Thor”, will we see other classic Avengers characters like Ant-Man and/or Wasp?

If they use all these villains in the first film, who the hell are they going to have left for possible future “Avengers” films? I can’t really see Ultron holding much of a candle in comparison to Loki, Thanos, and the fucking Skrulls!

Anyway, the fanboy in me is excited; I can’t deny it…even if I do have one or two misgivings, though in all fairness they are relatively small. “Thor” itself wasn’t a bad film, but it still kind of felt like it was really nothing more than a set-up for “The Avengers”; almost exactly like “Iron Man 2” felt for me as well. Hopefully “Captain America” won’t come off feeling like the same thing, but all I can say for sure for now, is that I haven’t looked forward to a comic book movie like “The Avengers” since “The Dark Knight” in 2008…and we all know how that worked out. Let’s hope we get something along the same result.

Thor Trailer: First Impressions

I'm nerding out again, but I don't know if it's in a fit of pleasure or rage yet.

Marvel's film studio is churning out another superhero would-be epic, this time with "Thor", slated for May 2011. One of Marvel's oldest and most celebrated characters, seeing Thor get a big-screen, big-budget treatment merits almost as much surprise to me as seeing my beloved Green Lantern get the same with DC's "Green Lantern" flick slated to hit only a couple months afterward.

After this past summer's New York Comic-Con, some footage from "Thor" leaked online (and was quickly removed), of which it has been condensced here in the first official trailer for the upcoming blockbuster. Chris Hemsworth, best known for playing Captain Kirk's ill-fated father in 2009's "Star Trek" reboot, is playing the title character, the Norse God of thunder. As the trailer shows, he has his patented long blonde hair, mystic hammer, and what even seems like a great take on his costume as well.

But the one thing I can't quite get over is that this guy is playing Thor. When I picture Thor, I picture a big, hulking individual. I mean Christ on a bike, he's the fucking Thunder God!!! Pro wrestler Triple H always seemed like the flesh & blood version of Thor (tell me he doesn't), but I understand getting an actual "actor" for the role. That being said, when I look at Hemsworth, no matter how 'roided up he looks, I just don't quite see Thor. Thor should be a tall, imposing individual. Any fan of HBO's vampire schlock-fest "True Blood" knows that fan-favorite Alexander Skarsgard auditioned for the role, and was even heralded by fanboys the world-over to get the part, but Marvel went with Hemsworth instead. Maybe they have the right idea, but who knows. I said the same thing about Ryan Reynolds when he was announced to play Hal Jordan in the "Green Lantern" movie, and the jury's still out in both cases.

Then again, like I said before, back when it was announced that Heath Ledger would play the Joker in "The Dark Knight", I laughed. We all know how that turned out now don't we?

Anyway, the visions of Asgard look spectacular, Anthony Hopkins looks like a quasi-mix of badass and corny (I can't explain it, you just have to see and hear him for yourself) as Odin, and the reality that this is just another brick on the road to the geek-gasm inducing "Avengers" movie in 2012, where Thor will unite with Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, and more besides are all reason enough to be looking forward to "Thor".

Then again, I also looked forward to seeing "V For Vendetta" getting the big-screen treatment, and well...I'd rather not talk about how that turned out. And Natalie Portman was in that, and she's here playing Thor's human love interest Jane Foster...guess no word of mouth about her "getting shaved" will bring out any non-geeky, meat-head attendees this time around eh?


"Russian like mighty Thor. Has big hammer, seems like good communist" - The Russian from Garth Ennis' "The Punisher: Welcome Back Frank".