Movie Review: "Prometheus"

I've known for a long time (at least the last ten years or so) that I've been getting more and more cynical when it comes to Summer sci-fi (potential) blockbusters.  More and more, they are becoming the same film, and I've grown weary of complaining about them, so I simply don't.  Perhaps, now that I'm 30, my once-latent cynicism can no longer remain silent.

"Prometheus", the latest (potential) sci-fi blockbuster to be released this Summer season, is an example of why movie aficionados like me are becoming less and less tolerant of movies of this ilk.  What could have been a bleek, wonderful opus turned into nothing more than inevitable proof Hollywood sometimes does not fully understand the audiences it is playing to.

The year is 2089.  Anthropologists (at least that's what I'm labeling them as since the film never did) Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) make the discovery of a lifetime -- the same image of a large man pointing to five celestial objects in the sky from 6 different civilizations, the earliest dating back over 35,000 years.  After doing hardcore research, Shaw and Holloway, along with aging trillionaire Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), discover a solar system vastly outside of our own, which could very well have, at least at some point, sustained life.  In hopes of finding out how humans were truly created, Shaw and Holloway are whisked off to the unknown planet on the spaceship Prometheus, along with a motley crew of geologists, doctors, scientists, corporate tag-along Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), an android named David (Michael Fassbender) and the flight crew, captained by the eclectic Janek (Idris Elba, "Thor").  

Once on the planet, the crew does not find the "Engineers" (the supposed creators of humanity), but several dead humanoid bodies and large vases of mysterious black ooze in a metallic cavernous tunnel structure.  The more they investigate, the more dangerous the mission becomes.

Director Ridley Scott ("Blade Runner", "Alien") makes his long-awaited return to sci-fi with some fairly effective results.  Where the crux of the film's problems lies is with the rather horrific screenplay by Jon Spaihts ("The Darkest Hour") and Damon Lindelof ("Cowboys and Aliens").

Where many action films like this lose me is the simple fact that special effects are cool, but they can't carry the movie.  This is where James Cameron's "Avatar" completely lost me.  If the script doesn't compel me, it doesn't matter how beautiful the film looks.  Ridley Scott is a very visual director for the most part, and the visuals in "Prometheus" are indeed fascinating.  The set design alone is quite mesmerizing, let alone the graphics and cinematography.  But the script is what caused everything to come unglued.  

Like "Avatar", the writers, though having moments of genius, designed this for the lowest common denominator.  It's not just that they clearly over-explain what's obvious to those of us paying attention, but the parts of the story that are actually compelling are never fully developed.  By the end of the film, it's clear the filmmakers were less concerned about making a clever, original movie, and more concerned with trying to start a new franchise and/or tie it in to one that already exists.  

Some of the performances are outstanding.  Noomi Rapace has come a long way since her cold, unflinching performance in the original "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", bringing an emotional intensity the film more than likely wouldn't have had otherwise.  On the complete opposite spectrum, Michael Fassbender's portrayal as the soulless, unfeeling David brought chills to my spine.  However, once again, Charlize Theron's performance is atrocious.  How this woman ever earned an Oscar in her lifetime is yet another secret this film fails to uncover.  Similar to her performance in June's other budding blockbuster "Snow White and the Huntsman", power-hungry and bitchy is not a difficult thing to pull off, and yet, Theron always gets cast in those roles and people swoon.  I don't quite understand it, and probably never will.

I've never had a very consistent relationship with Ridley Scott.  It seems like the less he tries, the better he is  (and vice versa).  "Blade Runner"?  Great.  "Kingdom of Heaven"?  Awful.  "Alien"?  Scary as hell!  "Hannibal"?  What the hell?!?  "Matchstick Men"?  Completely underrated.  "Gladiator"?  Completely overrated.  I always walk into a movie with an open mind, but sometimes my biases are correct.

Another thing that made this movie hard to watch was the poor 3D conversion.  Perhaps not quite as bad as "Captain America:  The First Avenger", but pretty bad.  This normally wouldn't be something I would care about too greatly, but when we've already seen flawless 3D with "Men In Black 3" and "The Avengers", putting out a movie with this much hype and fail to use the 3D technology we have to the fullest extent is a rather horrible choice.  

FINAL VERDICT:  In a Summer Blockbuster Season where we've seen how brilliant sci-fi can be, even when the film is not wholly original, "Prometheus" drops the ball big time.  Even with the moments of brilliance and pre-requisite scariness, the film chooses special effects rather than true depth, making it simple box office fodder instead of letting it live up to its true potential.  "Prometheus" marks the first true disappointment of the Summer.  Let's pray it's the last.

Movie Review: "Haywire"

Action films are often polarizing.  They're either really cool...or a "Fast and the Furious" installment.  Put the right director behind the film, and that often means the difference between quality and shit.

"Haywire" is an example of how an action film can be done right.  What could've easily turned into another "Salt" or "Alias" became something more -- with nothing more than quality writing, cast and direction.  No heavy special effects needed.

Mallory Kane (MMA fighter Gina Carano) is in serious trouble.  What was to be a simple kidnapping job in Barcelona for a covert US government group has gone wrong, and now, she's on the hook for murder and several other charges she's not responsible for.  In order to track down those responsible, she has to go through her handler Kenneth (Ewan McGreggor), US Government agent Coblenz (Michael Douglas), head of the Barcelona job Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas), and fellow agents Paul (Michael Fassbender) and Aaron (Channing Tatum) to find the truth.  The problem is...with every answer comes two more questions, and the web of deceit keeps getting more tangled.

Cult classic director Steven Soderbergh ("Ocean's 11/12/13", "School of Rock", "The Good German", amongst MANY others) takes the reigns of "Haywire" in attempts to make one of the few truly intelligent action movies.  From a script by Lem Dobbs ("The Score", "Dark City"), "Haywire" disposes of the explosions, catch phrases and muscular men from East Germany, and focuses on the story.

When you get a cast like this together, it's hard not to enjoy the top notch performances, especially from Tatum, Fassbender and McGreggor, who usually put in amazing performances in what they do anyhow.  The major surprise here is MMA fighter-turned-actress Gina Carano.  Perhaps not the seamless transition Quentin "Rampage" Jackson in "The A-Team", Carano manages to maintain her presence in the league of vastly bigger names.  By keeping her performance low-key in the midst of high-tension situations, Carano takes the lead role by the reigns and makes her mark wonderfully.

Like many of Soderbergh's films, the key to success is subtlety.  Much like last year's great "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", the action is kept to a minimal and the score is underplayed, intensifying the dialogue and situations so that the action is more meaningful.

Keep one thing in mind:  this film is NOT for the typical action fan.  The main reason this film didn't succeed with audiences but did with critics is that subtlety and action don't really combine well for the typical contemporary audience.  While people came expecting Milla Jovavich left empty handed, while those knowing Soderbergh's work know exactly what they were getting out of it.

FINAL VERDICT:  "Haywire" proves the existence of the intelligent action film without being as visually spectacular as "Inception" nor as explosion-ridden and blood-thirsty as "The Expendables".  Low-key and dialogue-heavy, yet still enough pulse-pounding action to keep your attention going, "Haywire" is a great break from the normal action film.

Soapbox Commentary: Video Game...or Interactive Movie?

Since it's Summer Blockbuster Season, and there are many glitzy Hollywood films to be seen and talk about, my girlfriend and I were talking about movies as usual at lunch today.  Eventually, the topic fell on video game movies.

Now, I own a PlayStation 3.  If you haven't attempted to play a game on the PS3 or XBox 360 in the last few years, let me tell you something...they've come a LONG way since "Pac-Man" and "Super Mario Bros."

What was once a simple side-scrolling romp through pipes and prairies, or a little yellow circle eating dots and being chased by ghosts, now is something that plays out like a 10-hour movie (or it is if you play games like I do).

Hollywood is planning some adaptations of recent video game release from the last 5 years.  The problem is that so many of these planned adaptions are titles where the story is so involved and epic, it would take at least two or three movies...just to adapt one video game.

Take "God of War" for example.  The first "God of War" game was released for the PlayStation 2 in March of 2005.  In the game, our anti-hero protagonist Kratos, once a vigilant servant for Ares, the god of war, is tasked by the gods of Olympus to to kill Ares before he destroys Athens completely.  Almost as complicated as your typical "Legend of Zelda" game, Kratos has to talk to an oracle, gain powers from several of the Greek gods, retrieve a bunch of other crap, track down the fallen titan Chronos in the desert, climb up his back, enter one labyrinth, unlock the way to Pandora's Box, find your way through ANOTHER labyrinth, get Pandora's Box, get killed by Ares, fight your way through all the levels of Hades, and finally, you take on Ares.

I mention all this because, since "God of War" has been so popular, since spawning two main sequels, two in-between games, and a prequel to be released next year, Hollywood has been wanting to make a movie out of the franchise.  This would be a huge mistake, even if Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson teamed up for this one too.

Take a look at the video games they HAVE adapted for the big screen.  "Super Mario Bros.", "Double Dragron", "Mortal Kombat", "Street Fighter", "Final Fantasy", "Doom" and "Tomb Raider".  Let me ask you this...were any of these movies good?  Not really.

"Doom" was good, but still couldn't avoid being campy at times.  "Tomb Raider" was at least fun, though hardly anything to write home about, even if the sequel was pretty good (and, yes, I am being kind).  "Final Fantasy" at least didn't try to make a live-action adaptation, deciding a 3D movie was a better idea.  It was a better idea, but the movie also flopped so bad that it bankrupted Squaresoft, the company that released all the original "Final Fantasy" video games.  The others? Well, let's just say I'm still waiting for the RiffTrax on them (assuming they don't already exist).

Do you know why there aren't any talks of a "Zelda" or "Castlevania" movie?  Because the games are too involved, complicated, take too long to tell the story.  If the game has save points, it's too damn complicated for a movie adaptation.

But why would you need one?  Games today are amazing, often utilizing Hollywood talent to do voice acting for the games.  "God of War 3" featured Rip Torn and Malcom McDowell.  Mark Hamill does voice work for many video game adaptations, including "Batman: Arkham Asylum" and "Batman: Arkham City", which featured many of the voices from the "Batman" animated series from the 90s.   The "cinematics" of the games now (or, for those who are not initiated in gamer speak, the in-between-the-action movies where the story unfolds) are often amazing, and should be considered movies all on their own.

Here are some other video games that have captured my attention away from the movies...

"INFAMOUS" (2009) and "INFAMOUS 2" (2011)

When courier Cole MacGrath delivers a package that nearly obliterates Empire City and finds himself in the center of the blast, he obviously should be dead.  But somehow he manages to survive...and wakes up to find that he has the strange ability to manipulate lighting with his hands.

The awesome thing about these two games is that you can choose to be the city's protector, or choose to only look out for yourself -- and it affects the gameplay in a major capacity, especially when it comes to the second game, where it affects the side dialogue and story.

"UNCHARTED" (3 titles in series:  "Drake's Fortune" (2007), "Among Thieves" (2009), and "Drake's Deception" (2011))

Think of it as "Indiana Jones" for the new generation.  Nathan Drake is a snarky treasure hunter always looking for the next big score.  Along with his old pall Sullivan (or Sully, as he's often called), Drake will find him in some very bizarre, exotic locations all throughout the world, wherever the next clue will take him to find the next "treasure trove of a lifetime".  Too bad other fortune seekers are always looking for the same treasure...and always seem to be lead by someone Drake has pissed off in the past.

The movie adaptation for "Drake's Fortune" has been in the works for a long time now, but has faced a plague of problems since they started trying.  No director seems to want to be a part of it, and casting leading man Nathan Drake has been a problem.  Rumor has it that "Limitless" director Neil Burger has picked up the reigns as director, and that Nathan Fillion (TV's "Firefly" and "Castle") is interested to star in the film, but no concrete news has come about.

"DARKSIDERS" (2010; "Darksiders II" comes out August 2012)

The End of Days has fallen.  Heaven and Hell are in a war, and humanity is in the middle of it.  War, one of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, is charged with inciting the war and breaking the treaty between Heaven and Hell.  Insisting he is innocent, War demands that he be allowed to prove his innocence.  In order to do that, he must traverse a post-apocalyptic Earth to seek vengeance on those who would see him take the fall for this crime.

Think that "Legend of Zelda" is too family friendly?  "Darksiders" is for you.  With similar puzzle structures to  "Zelda", along with stunning cinematics and animation, this game will have you begging for more.  The sequel is a parallel storyline where you fight as the horseman Death.  Yeah.  That sounds awesome.

"SLY COOPER" (3 titles in series: "Sly Cooper and the Thievious Raccoonus" (2002), "Sly 2: Band of Thieves" (2004), and Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves" (2005); "Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time" comes out late 2012)

Sly Cooper is a raccoon who is the last remaining member of the Cooper Clan, a family band of thieves famous for stealing from other master criminals.  When Sly's parents are murdered one night, Sly is left an orphan, and meets Murray (a hippo), the muscle and wheelman, and Bentley (a turtle), the tech expert.  Now, as an adult, Sly has his own Cooper Gang and stealing from the greatest master criminal minds out there -- all the while avoiding Inspector Carmelita Fox, who is always hot on the gang's tale.

What seems like a cute little cartoon turns out to be quite a dark little tale about thievery and murder.  But hey, it's addicting as hell.  I've played the original three games all the way through several times now.  It's quite an amazing series, and I'm really excited for the next chapter.  It's quite cheesy and ridiculous at times, but it's addicting and hilarious.

"HEAVY RAIN" (2010)

When a little boy is taken from a park, the search is on before it's too late.  The story follows Ethan (the young boy's father), Scott Shelby (a private detective), FBI Agent Norman Jayden, and Madison Paige (a photojournalist) as they all do their parts to solve the mystery before the Origami Killer takes another young life.

You don't get more interactive movie than this, folks.  Everything that happens in the game pushes the story in a different direction.  If one character dies, the other characters still go on, and so does the story.  There are multiple endings to this game, so it's a different experience every time.  Talk about value!

Soapbox Commentary: SUMMER BOX OFFICE BATTLE 2012 -- Batman vs The Avengers

Summer blockbuster season is usually ripe for rivalry, and 2012 is no exception.  Last year, it was "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" and "Transformers: Dark of the Moon", which was fairly fun to watch, even though it was fairly one-sided.

This year it's an almost repeat of what we faced in 2008 when "Iron Man" squared off against "The Dark Knight.  Indeed, this year we have "The Avengers" about to square off against "The Dark Knight Rises" for 2012 Box Office Supremacy.  With "The Avengers" already grossing $552 million domestically, which beats out "The Dark Knight" from its original #3 spot on the All-Time Domestic chart (not to mention being #3 on the All-Time Worldwide chart with about $1.36 billion), it seems that "The Dark Knight Rises" may have its hands full.

Or does it?

Let's look at few different factors from each movie and see if we can figure this out.

"THE AVENGERS"

1.  HYPE FACTOR: THE SUPERHERO SUPER-MOVIE.(Advantage)

In 2008, before "The Dark Knight" stunned the box office world with its impressive record-breaking run, Marvel Studios was making already doing the legwork to make "The Avengers".  First we had "Iron Man", which had quite the impressive box office run itself.  By the end of "Iron Man", we had our introduction to Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) from the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division ("Just call us "S.H.I.E.L.D."), our first glimpse of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, and the idea of "The Avengers Initiative".  The same year, we saw the release of "The Incredible Hulk", a sequel-reboot hybrid (re-quel?) of Ang Lee's "Hulk", now with Edward Norton as Bruce Banner.  In a small scene during the credits, we see General Ross (William Hurt) talking to Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) about a "special project" he's working on.  

In 2010, we saw the release of "Iron Man 2", which once again had Agent Coulson and Nick Fury intervening in Tony Stark's life, but introduced us to three big nods to "The Avengers":  the introduction of Natasha Romanoff (aka The Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson), Captain America's shield, and, in a post-credits scene, we see Agent Coulson in New Mexico discovering Thor's hammer.  

In 2011, the rest of the puzzle was complete.  "Thor" was released in May, which introduced Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki, but also introduced Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) into the mix.  Agent Coulson shows up again, and, in the post-credits scene, so does Nick Fury...with the Tessuract.  July saw the release of "Captain America: The First Avenger".  The title says it all.  "The First Avenger".  Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, who played Johnny Storm in both "Fantastic Four" movies for Marvel in 2005 and 2007) was introduced, as was a young Howard Stark and the Super Soldier serum which made an appearance 3 years prior in "The Incredible Hulk".  In the post-credits scene, we have Nick Fury hiring Rogers to save the planet, followed by the first unofficial trailer for "The Avengers".

Marvel Studios weaved a tapestry quite brilliantly, making the road to "The Avengers" flawless.  True, I don't think even the heads at Marvel would have guessed the grosses the film has made at this point (especially seeing that "Thor" and "Captain America" were originally seen as under-performers at the box office), but, in the end, you keep teasing the fanboys, and they will come in droves.

2.  JOSS WHEDON (Advantage)

What's better than having the ultimate geek movie?  Having the ultimate geek icon write and direct it!  And Joss Whedon fits that bill perfectly!

After years of working as a writer on different film projects without much fanfare ("Toy Story", "Titan A.E.", "Alien: Resurrection"), Joss used his immense popularity from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and spin-off series "Angel" to create "Firefly", which spawned the 2005 movie "Serenity", both being HUGE cult classics in the fanboy circuit.  And Whedon is no stranger to Marvel, having written for "The Astonishing X-Men" with much critical and fanboy acclaim.  

Whedon loves comic books, and, putting someone who loves the source material behind the camera was the smartest thing Marvel could've done with this film.

3.  RELEASE DATE (Disadvantage)

Since 2002's "Spider-Man", Marvel has, for the most part, released their big tentpole Summer movies in May.  Both Iron-Man movies.  "Spider-Man" 1 and 3.  "Thor".  You get my point.  

And clearly, releasing "The Avengers" in May has been a smashing success at this point.  However, we have a problem. 

When "Avatar" was released in December of 2009, it got the major bucks it did by simply not having a whole lot of competition.  Go ahead and think back to what movies were released then.  Aside from "Sherlock Holmes", you're probably coming up with nothing.  And that's my point.  

With "The Avengers" opening in May, the beginning of Summer Blockbuster Season, it allows other big tentpole movies to hone in on its territory.  Yes, it walked all over "Dark Shadows", and had no problem with mediocre may films "Battleship", "What To Expect When Expecting" and "The Dictator" -- movies that were never going to be huge at the box office.  But then you have "Men In Black 3" and "Snow White and the Huntsman" come out, and, before "The Dark Knight Rises" is released, we'll see "Prometheus", "Madagascar 3", "Rock of Ages", "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", Disney/Pixar's "Brave", "The Amazing Spider-Man", "Savages", and "Ice Age: Continental Drift" released.  And that's not even including all the more minor films (like "Ted" and "Magic Mike") coming out in that time period too.  Timing is everything, and, in the upcoming months, we'll see grosses on "The Avengers" slow significantly.  Hopefully it can squeak out another $50 million domestically to a $600 million total.

"THE DARK KNIGHT RISES"

1. HYPE FACTOR: THE FINAL CHAPTER (Advantage)

If the last "Harry Potter" and "Transformers" films taught us anything, it's that the final chapters of a movie franchise are golden at the box office.  

With "The Dark Knight Rises" being advertised as "the epic conclusion" of the Dark Knight series, it's safe to say people will be coming out in droves to see this -- fanboy or otherwise.  With the sheer amount of advertising that Warner Bros has been doing for this movie, hyping it up as the last movie (when the hell did Sports Center become this obsessed with movies?), this title has been on the tip of everyone's tongue since the first teaser trailer was released last December with "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows".

Another thing that has many people salivating over "The Dark Knight Rises" is that this chapter almost didn't get made.  After "The Dark Knight", following the death of Heath Leger and visual effects artist Conway Wickliffe, director Christopher Nolan almost did not come back for this installment.  Under duress from career and emotional stress over the release, Nolan publicly said he needed time to think about whether or not he was coming back.  Many assumed he was not returning when he opted to make "Inception" in 2010 instead, without remembering he made "The Prestige" in 2006, making a similar 4-year gap between "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight".  But it still stands within reason that, because "The Dark Knight" was loved by so many and broke all the previous box office records (now, ironically, all owned by "The Avengers"), this film could do so again.

2. CHRISTOPHER NOLAN (Advantage)

Let's face it right now.  There is no other director in the same ballpark as Christopher Nolan. 

 The man keeps making gold.  Starting from his breakout movie "Memento" in 2001, Nolan made a name for himself very early on in his career.  Coming to Warner Bros soon after with 2002's American remake of "Insomnia", which was his first film to gross $100 million worldwide, which also gained a lot of attention from  critics as well as audiences.  By the time "Batman Begins" left theaters, movie goers finally had a craving for Batman movies again, and wanted to see more.

Christopher Nolan, unlike his predecessors, knows exactly how to handle the Batman franchise.  Tim Burton made it too dark and twisted.  Joel Schumacher made it too cartoony and ridiculous.  Abandoning all that was built before him, Batman had the first official reboot of a franchise, making it relevant and cool for the first time in over a decade.  

3. RELEASE DATE (Advantage)

Where "The Avengers" has competition from MANY potential blockbusters this season, once "The Dark Knight Rises" is released, it virtually has no competitors for the rest of the Summer. 

 Indeed, the only real competition it will face isn't until November when "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2" is unleashed unto the unwitting public.  That's almost a full 4 months of practically open box office.  

Here's something fun to look at.  Go to your local theater and look at the posters.  Many are for movies that are either coming out in June...or movies coming out MUCH later.  Do you know why?  Because NO ONE wants to open against "The Dark Knight Rises".  It's a fool's errand.  Most movie execs knew this going into this year, and that's why many of the films being released in the subsequent months are the B-movies.  This isn't to say many of these movies aren't going to be good.  Hell, "The Bourne Supremacy" opens in August, and I'm sure it's going to rock...but I doubt it's going to make too much in the wake of "The Dark Knight Rises".  Another example of a great film coming out is "Looper", starring Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt.  It looks incredible, but it's distributed by an independent film company, so it's probably not going to make bank.

Like I said before, timing is everything.  When you release a blockbuster before the real competition, you set the tone for the season, but ultimately you leave yourself vulnerable because nothing else has come out, but inevitably will come out.  When you open up a little later on when others KNOW you're bound to steal business from them, the field is yours.

4.  SUPERHERO/VILLAIN OVERLOAD? (Disadvantage)

If 1998's "Batman and Robin" truly taught us anything (other than George Clooney makes a shitty Batman and Arnold Schwarzenegger is an even shittier actor), it's that too many characters can ruin a movie.  Fast.

In the original "Batman", we only had one villain -- The Joker (played by Jack Nicholson), because, let's face it, that's all you need.  Then in "Batman Returns", you had The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer).  In Schumacher's "Batman Forever", you had The Riddler (Jim Carrey) and Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), as well as the introduction of Robin (Chris O'Donnell).  In ever-so-hated final chapter in this franchise, "Batman and Robin", you had Robin come back, along with Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone), squaring off against Mr. Freeze (Schwartzenegger), Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) and Bane (Jeep Swenson).  That's right kiddies!  Bane was in that too!

Nolan's films have fairly consistently had two main baddies per film.   "Batman Begins" had Ra's Al-Ghoul (Liam Neeson) and Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy).  Sure, it also had Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) in it as well, but he was more of a villain to Bruce Wayne than to Batman, so it can be forgiven.  "The Dark Knight" had Two Face again (this time played by Aaron Eckhart), but most featured The Joker (this time played by the late Heath Leger).  

And now we have "The Dark Knight Rises", which has the return of Bane (now played by Tom Hardy) and Catwoman (now played by Anne Hathaway).  But we may also have a third villain.  Joseph Gordon-Leavitt plays a character named John Blake, a character Warner Bros has yet to release too much information on.  He appears on the surface to be working for the Gotham P.D., but that's it.  One  rumor flying around since the film's inception (pun is only slightly intended) is that John Blake is really Robin, where another rumor says that John Blake is Alberto Falcone, who is not only son of Carmine Falcone but also The Holiday Killer from the comic story arcs "The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory".  

Whether any of these rumors are true or not, the sheer idea of another overloaded Batman movie doesn't seem like a good idea.  Though it probably wouldn't affect the opening box office at all, the backlash would cause bad word-of-mouth, which kills movies like this very quickly.  

***FINAL VERDICT***

So far, "The Dark Knight Rises" has a lot to live up to.  By the time it comes out, "The Avengers" will probably have $600 million (or at least something damn close to it), so playing catch up will be fairly difficult.  However, seeing that the only other movie fanboys have not-so-patiently been waiting for as much as "The Avengers" (if not more) is "The Dark Knight Rises", and, with close to four months going virtually unopposed, it could very well be another Year of the Bat. 

Movie Review: "Snow White and the Huntsman"

Once in a while, Hollywood decides that it wants to release two movies that are similar in plot and theme relatively close to one another...and they think this is a good idea.  In 1997, we had two disaster movies revolving around volcanoes with "Dante's Peak" (with Pierce Brosnan) and "Volcano" (with Tommy Lee Jones).  1998 saw two asteroid movies with "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon".  A bit more recently in 2006, we saw two magician movies with Neil Burger's "The Illusionist" and Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige" (this was one time I didn't complain because both movies, for once, were extraordinary).

This is no different.  Before "Snow White and the Huntsman" came out, "Mirror Mirror" was released a little over 2 months prior.  While "Mirror Mirror" left a lot to be desired (and luckily was obscured by "The Hunger Games"' second weekend), "Snow White and the Huntsman", though facing two strikes against it from the get-go, was a breath of fresh air.

Instead of trying to Disney-fy it and make it soley for the kiddies, "Snow White" goes a different route, making it close to the original Grimm tale while adding its own little twists to make it truly unique.  Here, on the night of her wedding to the king, the now-Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) murders the king in cold blood and brings her dark army into the kingdom to rule, not only with an iron fist, but to bring the kingdom into a literal dark period where it's always a bitter winter and no wildlife can be sustained.  To maintain that she is "the fairest in the land", she locks the king's only daughter Snow White in the castle's tower, and tells her subjects that the girl is dead.

At least a decade goes by.  The queens powers to keep her from aging are starting to wane.  Obsessed with eternal beauty, Queen Ravenna literally sucks the life out of any young woman who she deems pretty enough to sustain her visage. However, once Snow White (now played by "Twilight"'s Kristen Stewart) becomes "of-age", she is deemed "more fair" (which is a bit of a stretch) and she is deemed the reason Ravenna's powers are waning due to her pure and chaste heart (...okay, I'll buy that).  The "magic mirror" tells the queen that, to gain immortality, she must have Snow White's heart.  When her brother Finn (Sam Spruell) retrieves her from the tower, Snow White escapes and flees the kingdom and into the Dark Forest.  Desperate to have Snow White return, Ravenna hires The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth, "The Avengers", "Thor").  Reluctantly, The Huntsman ventures to find Snow White, only to discover that things are not quite what they seem, and The Huntsman soon realizes he's in over his head as Snow White begins to realize her true destiny.

Where "Mirror Mirror" opted to use actual "little people" to play the dwarves, "Snow White" uses the same technology that "Lord of the Rings" used to make the actors appear small.  Here, the dwarves are Muir (Bob Hoskins), Coll (Toby Jones, "Captain America: The First Avenger", "The Hunger Games"), Beith (Ian McShane), Quert (Johnny Harris), Duir (Eddie Marsan), Gort (Ray Winstone), Nion (Nick Frost, "Shawn of the Dead"), and Gus (Brian Gleeson).

At first it was difficult to leave by biases at the door, seeing that I've never cared for Charlize Theron's work to any great extent, and, well, "Twilight" just sucks.  For the last four years, audiences have been flocking to see Kristen Stewart not act in that franchise, and it's hard for me to see her in anything else without making cracks at her expense.  But, as a critic, I know I have to leave these things behind and see the movie for what it is.  And this movie does not disappoint at all.

Director Rupert Sanders makes his debut here from a script written by Evan Daughtery (also his debut), John Lee Hancock ("The Blind Side"), and Hossein Amini ("Drive", 2002's "The Four Feathers").  Sanders makes an outstanding first outing, showing that he is capable behind a camera with the excellent choreographed battles and stirring images, and the script is amazing, adding more depth to the original tale, something that "Mirror Mirror" had the chance to do, but opted to be more glitzy and bubblegum instead.

The true surprise of "Snow White" is Kristen Stewart herself.  Her performance here is reminiscent of pre-"Twilight" films such as "Panic Room" or "The Messengers" where she was allowed to actually give a performance rather than simply phoning it in.  True, it's still a stretch calling Stewart "the fairest in the land", but she still pulls off the role beautifully, and the "rally the troops" speech she gives towards the end is quite moving indeed.  Chris Hemsworth, as always, is brilliant.  Like his performance in "Thor", Hemsworth adds depth and dimension to his character by simply immersing himself in it.  Not once do you think about him as Thor (a feat not quite achieved with Stewart's performance, but Hemsworth also hasn't played the same character in four mediocre movies either), and he steals the show every time.

In terms of the cast, the weakest link is Charlize Theron.  Playing dark and plotting isn't that difficult (ask Eva Green in "Dark Shadows".  There were only two emotions Theron exuded in the entire 2+ hours of the film:  creepy and intimidating.  And it was always easy to tell when she wanted to be intimidating because she would scream her bloody head off every time.  The problem is that she screamed too much, often to the point I'd find myself laughing because it just seemed silly after a while.  Though the film shifted my opinion about Stewart, it solidified my opinion on Theron.

There were parts of "Snow White and the Huntsman" that I found to be challenging as well.  During Snow White's exodus sequence, after running through back alleys, sewers, and eventually swimming in the ocean, she comes to land and finds a white horse just conveniently sitting there, waiting for her.  Really?  I know it's based on fairy tale, and, seeing that all the fairies and trolls and the like make an appearance at one point or another, this is an odd thing to bitch about, I know.  And it's not the only thing that I had a problem with either.  But, overall, the movie was quite a visual treat and one of the few movies of this ilk to actually exceed my expectations.

If you're looking for a romantic movie, this is NOT it.  A bold move on the writers' part was to remove the "true love" aspect of the film, and, quite frankly, thank God.  It would have made too many comparisons to "Twilight", and the filmmakers already had an uphill battle with cynical moviegoers like me who almost passed on this film because of Stewart simply being in the film to begin with.  Instead, they allow the characters to become intertwined through destiny and respect.  It's not about Snow White finding a prince and "happily ever after" ("Mirror Mirror", we're looking at you).  It's about something much more than that.

FINAL VERDICT:  "Snow White and the Huntsman" is the fairy tale all grown up.  A stirring script and stunning visuals make this film well worth the price of admission, and more than worthy to be part of Univeral's 100 Year Anniversary celebration.  Sure, there are moments where you might want to make a crack at "Twilight" while watching it, but don't let it ruin the movie for you.  Because this film is pretty special.

Soapbox Commentary: The Death of Action Films(?)

Just in time for Summer Blockbuster Season and the impending release of "The Expendables 2", Sylvester Stallone decided he was going to open his mouth.

All jokes aside about how the guy is less intelligible than Brad Pitt in "Snatch", Stallone came out and said in a recent interview and said that the recent barrage of superhero movies is detracting from the "real action movies" with everyday men rather than men with extraordinary powers, and sees the genre is, and I quote, "fading away".

Okay.  So the days of "Die Hard" and "Rambo" are slowing down, but calling the action movie a dying breed is a bit of a stretch.  Here's why...

1.  A Rose By Any Other Name...

Remember the good ol' days when an action film was just an action movie?  Comic book/superhero movie.  Sci-fi movie.  Bruce-Willis-blows-the-hell-out-of-a-group-of-East-Euro-terrorists movie.  It never used to matter.  If shit is blowing up and catch phrases are flying, it's an action movie.  That's.  It.  So, it's a been a few years (5 to be exact) since the fourth "Die Hard" movie, and the last "Rambo" film came and went with little to no fanfare.

 Let's, for argument's sake, forget that seven superhero movies have come out during the last five years...

(And, for the record, I'm not counting "Punisher: War Zone" and "The Dark Knight" because, hey, Stallone bitched about men with extraordinary powers.  Batman and the Punisher, having only an array of wonderful toys and a full arsenal of BFGs (hint:  the B means big, the G means guns) respectively, they are just men.)

Not only did you have "Live Free or Die Hard", but you had "The Hunger Games", both installments of Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes", "Avatar" [shudders], "The Surrogates" (with Bruce Willis), the fourth "Indiana Jones" installment, "Eagle Eye", "Inception", "The Town", "Red" (again with Bruce Willis), the first "Expendables", and a slew of others.  I'd list them all, but I believe you get my point.

2.  (Perhaps) An End Of An Era

Maybe it's not that Stallone is meaning the action film is coming to an end, but rather action films starring the classic action stars of the yester-years.  He did, in the same interview, mention "And then you have a bunch of us which is just your basic male-pattern badness...".

Here's the problem...those guys...are just getting older.  And worse yet, they're looking older.  Harrison Ford is going to be 70 this year.  70 for hell's sake!  Steven Segal. Chuck Norris.  Jean-Claude Van Damme.  Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Hell, even Mel Gibson.  Who the hell really wants to see any of these clowns anymore?  Sure, Segal was in "Machete" in 2010 and Chuck Norris is going to be in "The Expendables 2", but let's be honest with ourselves.

Many of the big-time action film stars are turning away from action films.  Al Pacino has been doing more drama and thrillers, and Robert DeNiro has been in more comedies than action films.  Jackie Chan would rather do "Kung Fu Panda" and "The Karate Kid" then another true martial arts movie.  Jet Li doesn't really do his own stunts anymore (look at the credits).  Wesley Snipes is in jail.  Patrick Swayze...well, he's dead, so we can't hold that against him.  Hell, even Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe are going to be in "Les Miserables".

Really, the only action star from the 80s is Bruce Willis, and, yes, his "male-pattern badness" is equal only to his male-pattern baldness.  Out of all the classic action stars of his generation, he's the only one who has managed to stay relevant by staying (gasp) in shape and starring in (bigger gasp) good movies.  He hasn't played John McClane in every movie.  Nay, Willis has branched out, and has, not only the final installment of "Die Hard" coming out next year, but "Red 2", "Looper", and "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" coming out later this year or next.  Can Stallone brag about this?  I do not think so.

3.  The Geek Has Inherited The Earth

These are extraordinary times, and so, Mr. Sly, we need extraordinary men.  And comic book movies have offered us live versions of classic extraordinary men who can bridge the gap between generations.  Kids have loved comic books for decades.  Then those kids have kids of their own, who read comic books.  And so on and so forth.

The box office is not being dominated by testosterone-fueled anymore.  It's being fueled by intelligent action films and comic book movies.  Look at this year alone.  The top-grossing films in 2012 have been "The Avengers" and "The Hunger Games" -- a comic book movie and an adaptation of a best-selling novel (that didn't feature sparkly vampires).  Action films with reasonable substance.  By the end of the Summer, we will see "The Amazing Spider-Man" and "The Dark Knight Rises", which will all be fighting for top supremacy at the box office.  Sadly, "The Expendables" may have to settle for the popcorn kernals of the box office after all the bigger pieces are taken by these comic adaptations.

Look, we're in harsh times in America.  When we go to the movies, we need a full escape from reality.  How the hell are we supposed to forget about the current state of affairs when even the action films are steeped in reality?  It's a lovely thought, but, really, it's the thought that the extraordinary exists that will get people through.  So it's these extraordinary heroes like "Spider-Man" and "The Avengers" that not only entertain, but give people hope.


So, Mr. Stallone, rest assured. action movie will never die.  You can blow up and set fire to anything, but, in the end, action movies will rise from the ashes like a great phoenix and soar to great heights and, often times, great box office tickets.  As long as the story is compelling and the acting is great, people will come to see your explosions.  If not...well...you can always start making comedies again.  Talk to Schwarzenegger.  He knows what I'm talking about.

Soapbox Commentary: Make Love Not War* (*as long as it's not gay love)

Usually I don't like to get political on my blog, but sometimes a story comes out that just really...well, really pisses me off.

Today, there was a story about the right-wing group One Million Mothers (OMM), who are now outraged about DC Comics' recent decision to have one of their more popular characters to come out of the closest -- Alan Scott, the original (or "Golden Age") Green Lantern.  OMM is appealing to DC and Marvel to rethink the idea of having gay superheroes, because "children desire to be like superheroes" and the group claims that this is a  way of "brainwashing" our youth.

That's right, kids.  Brainwashing.  Apparently brainwashing our kids to be hate mongers is far less offensive than brainwashing our kids to be tolerant.

So it's been several decades since the Comics Code and all.  During the code, topics such as homosexuality (or sexuality, in general for that matter), alcohol and drug addiction, and gratuitous violence were off limits.  And then, thanks to Stan Lee (or, as I like to call him, Grandpa Stan...as he has instructed never to call him), artists and writers decided to do the unthinkable...go against the code.  And what happened?  Comics became...relevant!  More real.  More thought-provoking.  More relate-able to the current and upcoming generations.

Marvel has been ahead of the game far longer than DC in terms of political progression.  First it was prominent African-American characters like Blade, Storm, and Nick Fury in the Marvel Ultimates universe. Then it was chronically flawed characters, like alcoholic Tony Stark.  Then, in response to the 80's AIDS Crisis, Northstar became the first openly gay comic character, followed by the X-Man Colossus in 2005 as the next big prominent gay character.  There is still a rumor that Miles Morales, the new Spider-Man in the Ultimate Universe is gay or bi-sexual, though nothing has been confirmed.

DC having the original Green Lantern come out of the closet so publicly is not that surprising.  First, we have  President Obama coming out and supporting gay marriage, then Joe Biden, and even Colin Powell.  So, it's only natural that, since Marvel, who will inevitably be taking "The Dark Knight"'s sweet spot as the #3 all-time grossing film in the US, has already made its stance as pro-gay, DC would finally jump on the bandwagon now that it's popular and socially acceptable to do so.

The thing that pisses me off the most is these right-wing know-it-alls in the OMM think they can use their children as a way to get their point across.  I understand the thought process to an extent.  Threaten a boycott of something popular, and wait until the company caves in because off detrimental losses in profit.

This may have worked in, say, the 1940's.

The problem with today's youth, Christian or otherwise, is curious about the taboo.  When something is deemed controversial and "fundamentally wrong", that's when kids under 16 will race out, give their right arm, left testicle and soul to get their hands on whatever material groups like OMM deem sinful.  It doesn't matter what parents say.  Even if you tell the kid it's bad, they won't care.  You may not buy it for them, but that won't stop them from reading it at a friend's house. Coming from someone who was that age only about 15 years ago, trust me on this.

So.  Parents, teachers, religious leaders, and pretty much anyone who chronically watches Fox News, let me make something clear.  Straight, gay, black, white, brown, male, woman, whatever.  People are people.  Whether you agree with their opinions or not, they are all just people.  And if kids what to read comics with extraordinary people of any sex, creed or race and that inspires them to be extraordinary in their lives because they can relate in one fashion or another to the character of said comics, what truly is the harm?