PREACHER - Pilot - A TV Review

The premiere of AMC's 'Preacher' premiered last Sunday, and I'm going to try to review each episode within a couple of days of it airing. I'm still new to this, so work with me here.

SPOILER WARNING - I'll be discussing spoilers not only for the TV series but for the comic as well.

Well, that was...something.

I'm trying, REALLY trying to not compare Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg's adaptation of the classic comic series to the comic itself...but it's hard. But because most of this first episode can only be described in one of the worst ways one can describe a pilot - which is to say 'boring' - I'm left with little choice but to compare the two. It's only been one episode, so while the story appears to have changed (and basically only covers maybe the first third of the first issue of the comic book) it's going to be hard to dissect how much it's different in the long haul.

Issue no. 1

Tonally, it's very different. Though it's based on a comic book, it feels a lot more comic booky than the actual source material. There are moments that are like schlocky sci-fi, some like a grim crime drama, some like a gonzo action movie, and some that are basically just slapstick humor. The comic book definitely had a humorous edge at time, but when it went serious, goddamn...shit got serious. We haven't seen enough of this series yet to see what kind of tone the show will stick with, or if they'll keep on changing things up.

The characterization of the main trio is fairly different, too. The backbone of the characters remain the same, but like Vincent Vega says, it's just a little different. While Jesse's goings-on in Annville firmly establish what life is like in the sleepy Texas town, it tweaks a few things. At first, you'd think the changes don't appear to make a huge bit of difference, but they do - they strike at the characterization of the protagonist. Jesse is basically introduced as a Jason Bourne-type figure, hiding out in a preacher's outfit, and barely hiding his secret identity. A kid comes to him for help for his mother (in an interesting twist, it turns out she is far from needing Jesse's help) and the kid's father has "heard all about" Jesse's past. It paints him as a fairly well-known quantity rather than the mysterious but troubled preacher that issue #1 presents.

Then there's Tulip O'Hare, Jesse's one-time paramour turned hitwoman isn't an skittish assassin, running from her first botched job. Like Jesse, she borders on superhuman abilities, like...well, also like Jason Bourne. Mixed with some MacGyver. When trying to take out some bad guys in a helicopter, she fashions a makeshift bazooka out of coffee cans and duct tape, entertaining a couple of kids she's endangered by keeping up her sunny disposition and peppy speech patterns. It's actually quite annoying, and easily the worst thing about the pilot. And having Tulip already reconnected with Jesse prior to the start of the series, the elements of destiny and happenstance in their reunion are removed from the story. Also...I just don't like Ruth Negga. Didn't like her on Agents of SHIELD, don't like her now.

L to R: Cassidy, Jesse, Tulip

Which brings us to Cassidy. Ah, Cassidy..well, they don't attempt to hide the fact that he's a vampire at all. While the comic took a couple of issues to spill that secret, the pilot drops that info on you right from the start. Not only is he a vampire, but there is apparently some kind of powerful mob chasing him down, so there's a subplot that wasn't present in the comics. He's also a little sillier and a lot more cartoony than the comics, where he had a dryer wit and a less generic psychopath look.

Plot-wise, the biggest departure from that first issue is that Genesis, the all-powerful half-angel/half-demon, once bonded with Jesse, doesn't immediately incinerate his entire flock. While this may not seem to be too big a deal, keep in mind that in the book, once the omnipotent entity merged with Jesse, 200 people died. And that is something Jesse carries with him throughout their journey - a potent mix of anger and guilt and enough blame to go around. Instead, the ending seems to promise that he's going to do something more pedestrian with his fledgling powers like fix all the bad shit that's going on in Annville.

Perhaps the brighest spot, and the one aspect of the pilot that really stuck closely to the source material is Sheriff Root's son, who will come to be known as Arseface. AF's story in the comic book is frequently a source of sometimes cruel and sometimes warmhearted humor, and it seems that is the tone they're using here.  The series could have made his makeup more gruesome or disgusting, but they go the route of 'less is more'. He still has his trademark mouth, but his jovial nature and kind acceptance during Jesse's visit shine through the prosthetics and makes him a very likeable character nearly immediately.

Comic vs. Prosthetics

With its first issue, "Preacher" clearly establishes an outline for the rest of the journey that the subsequent 75 issues will cover. It sets up Jesse, Tulip, and Cassidy, Genesis, the trio's search for God, the entities for and against them, and creates an endgame the series works toward.

The first episode of the series barely sets much up at all. We're introduced to the characters but don't learn much about them, except that they all have ninja-like abilities. Genesis is not explained or explored, and we have no idea what kind of journey, or if there will even be a journey for our protagonist trio embark upon. So with that being said, I didn't much care for the pilot of 'Preacher'. I'll stick with it, at least through the first season, so I can keep writing these things. And who knows, maybe it'll round into form after a few episodes. Maybe it'll be the kind of show that benefits from binge-watching.

And then again, it's Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, so...maybe not.


PREACHER - PILOT - FINAL SCORE - 6/10

EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT LIFE, I LEARNED FROM BATMAN - An Essay

Mostly, this website has been about writing reviews and other articles surrounding the comic book world, in all its variations. But today I want to focus on something a little more personal: how not just comics but Batman in particular has shaped how I approach everyday life.

I wrote about Jeph Loeb a while back, and shared something personal about my life. I'm repeating myself here, but it's ok. About ten years ago, I was visiting my sister in New York when 'Batman Begins' came out on DVD. I'd seen it in the theaters that summer, and while I'd enjoyed it the first time around, I wasn't particularly thrilled with it. It was so very different from any other superhero movie I'd ever seen, and it took me a while to process how amazing it is. (Now, I count it among my favorite movies of all time)

Though I'd always known about the murder of the Waynes and the resulting trauma driving Bruce Wayne to become Batman, watching 'Begins' in that Brooklyn apartment was the first time it really hit me "jesus...that kid just watched his parents murdered right in front of him. His whole life was turned over in an instant and can never be returned." A cruel irony was that within a couple of days, my own father would die of a heart attack. So by the time I'd finally developed real sympathy for Bruce, my own time with my dad was at its end.

I bring this up because I've noticed of late how important comic books are to my life. It's not just a hobby, or a passion, it's the filter by which I can process much of what happens in not just my life, but all life.

So that being said, here are a few things I've learned from Batman.

LIFE - is hard, sometimes cruel, and definitely unfair. But you can take that shit and use it to make yourself stronger, shape it into something to help yourself, your loved ones, or just someone who needs help. Batman lost his parents and fights with every second of his life to save people, strangers, from ever having to know that pain. Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he fails, but he never stops fighting. Sometimes no matter what you do, how much you prepare, or how hard you fight, things just aren't going to break your way. But, you get back up and try again.

LOVE - Who is Batman's OTP? Selina Kyle, of course. And what I've learned of love is that it's based on not just attraction and affection, but honesty, trust, compatibility, and communication. Which is why their relationship frequently never gets off the ground. Bruce may trust Selina with his identity, but not with his heart. He may love her, and she him, but can a thief date a hero? Can a hero date a thief? Yes, they're both costumed characters, but Selina is often playing her own angles, whereas Bruce is always angling for the good of the people. We can have eternal hope for them to finally figure their love out, but the comic has always been honest about the fact that love isn't enough - you have to fully love and accept all parts of your partner and trust that they love and fully accept all parts of you for it to work. And even then, it takes a lot of work.

COURAGE - is not never being afraid. Batman isn't afraid of Joker, or Scarecrow or Croc. But he is afraid of failing. And that drives every single thing he does. And while that doesn't mean he never fails - he does, it's not uncommon - he doesn't let it keep him down. He keeps on going despite the fear, despite the past. Courage is being afraid and fighting anyway. It's standing up for someone who can't, stepping in when you see something wrong, and sometimes putting others before yourself.

FAMILY - Everyone has family, be it your nuclear family, or your friends. Batman often feels like he's all alone, and can only truly rely on himself. But he's got a large cadre of people fighting alongside him and helping him out, with or without his asking. Alfred, Robin, Nightwing, Red Robin, Red Hood, Batgirl, Batwoman, Jim Gordon, Lucius Fox and even Catwoman. Not to mention the Justice League. "For a loner" Selina once says, "you certainly have a lot of strings." We can be alone, we can feel desperately lonely, we can feel like there's no one in the world we can turn to...but more often than not, we've got a bunch of people who will be there for us in a second when we need them.

ADVERSITY - look it right in the eye as you punch it in the teeth and do your best to never let it beat you down. You won't win every battle, but you put yourself in the best position to win the war.

WORK - Sure, it doesn't hurt to be the CEO and a multi-billionaire, but Wayne Enterprises isn't Batman's real job - it's his public face. And while the money pays for the gadgets and cars, he became Batman because he worked his ass off to do so. He built his body and his mind through sheer force of will, proving that just being good isn't good enough. If you want to be great, if you want to be the best, you have to dedicate your life to working for it. And Batman is the best. Even Superman, with all his strength, bows down and accepts lessons from Batman's fighting skills and tactical mind.

ACCEPTANCE - Most of these are about emulating Batman, but this one isn't. Bruce has never really accepted the death of his parents. He let the trauma shape and mold him for the rest of his life. Some of his friends have died and returned - Barry, Hal, Clark. Jason Todd and Damien Wayne have died and returned. But his parents will always remain dead. Bruce can never change that. And while it's driven him to be the best man he can be, he's always been, and will always remain unhappy. It's a cruel thing that happened to him, and I can't imagine the anguish that a child feels when the two pillars of his earth come crashing down. But in many ways, he's never left that alley, never left his position standing over their dead bodies, and as long as he remains there, he's never going to move past it. He keeps his family at a distance, terrified of losing them, never wanting to put them at risk, even at the expense of their own relationships with him. But... they are his family, and they accept him anyway.

The past is prologue. It illuminates the present, but does not have to define it. And in this final respect, Batman can take a lesson from the rest of us.

COMING SOON!

I was on vacation last week, and it took a lot out of me physically, that I haven't fully recovered from. On top of that, work has been insane. SO I will return to writing shortly (I've got a couple of half written articles already) but I wanted to let you know what you can look forward to in the next few posts

Injustice: Gods Among Us Year One - Simply put, one of the best comic books I've ever read. It's nearly perfect.

Justice League - Darkseid War - the end of the New 52??

X-Men - Apocalypse - seeing it this weekend, can't wait!!

Preacher - the pilot (and all subsequent season one episodes, on a weekly basis, I hope)

The Flash, season 2 thoughts.

Arrow, season 4 thoughts.

UNTIL THEN, I'M SO BUSY IT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY!!!

THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN - A Comic Review

There's absolutely no denying that Frank Miller is a talented writer. There was a time when he was Midas, and everything he wrote garnered critical acclaim. "The Dark Knight Returns" is widely regarded as not only one of the greatest Batman tales ever told, but one of the greatest graphic novels ever written. "Batman: Year One" was so beloved that it is essentially regarded as canon in the Bat-lore. But Frank Miller is...a touch inconsistent. If TDKR is a masterpiece, and "Year One" is flawless, is Miller's return to Gotham in "The Dark Knight Strikes Again" as amazing? Well, let's talk about that.

I was 21 years old the first time I tried to read "The Dark Knight Strikes Again". I'd just finished TDKR and Y1 by happenstance earlier in the year, and loved them, so when I'd heard that Frank Miller was writing a new Batman mini-series, I was totally stoked about it. But I had no idea what was going on through much of the first chapter of DK2. I felt lost, as if there was something that had happened between TDKR and DK2 that I had missed. It is a direct sequel but leaps into the future in a way that feels a bit disorienting.

Having faked his death three years prior, Bruce Wayne has re-emerged with his young Bat-army, many of them reformed mutant gangmembers from TDKR. He is also aided by his most recent Robin - Carrie Kelly, who has ditched the yellow cape and now wears a skin tight catsuit, roller blades and goes by "Catgirl". When the Batman first came out of retirement in the previous book, it was not only to combat the growing crime problem in Gotham, but also his own personal demons. The entire book was spent with Bruce Wayne coming to terms with who he is and what he wants. But what he wants in the second book is none too clear. Yes, he is fighting for freedom, but he does it with an almost unappealing arrogance, as if he is fighting only to prove he is right, rather than for true justice.

Cool, but ultimately pointless. 

In addition to Batman and Carrie, there at least a dozen other major characters, all servicing multiple plot lines. Ray Palmer (the Atom) and Barry Allen (the Flash) have been held prisoner until they're released by Batman's forces. Green Arrow comes back into the fold with a mechanical arm. Hal Jordan emerges from a psychadelic netherworld where he exists and an embodiment of pure will. Superman is back, still reeling from the beating Bruce put on him three years prior, and he and Wonder Woman have a surprise for everyone - a child named Lara, who mixes Superman's power with the Amazon's skill and thirst for battle. While there are many forces at work trying to keep the people of not just America, but all of Earth in check, Lex Luthor and Brainiac are the two foremost antagonists of the book.

That is until the "Joker" seems to come back from the dead toward the very end of the story, in a way that seems forced, and unecessary. I'd explain more about it, but I don't want to give away a pretty major spoiler. But...it really doesn't make any sense.

While the original Dark Knight graphic novel had dozens and dozens of panels of talking heads dissecting each and every action of the newly re-emerged Batman, DK2 brings the talking heads back, but without the same satiric punch they brought before. Miller seems to only be interested in exaggerating their absurdity even further than before, with either their over-the-top sexuality (one fictional segment is called News in the Nude) or their relentless fearmongering. The talking heads were once there to poke fun at the way the media examined and re-examined and re-examined ad nauseam the various newsmakers of the world. But DK2 pushes the media to the forefront, making them as ubiquitous a presence as Batman himself, yet he doesn't say anything new or particularly interesting about it.

In addition to sending up the media, Miller does not waste an opportunity to poke the Bush administration with a stick. This is a series that was written in a world that had just been through 9/11, and though the president in Miller's world is a CGI illusion, his words are pretty spot-on for what politics sounded like in those shaky, scary years, where many people were happy to let the politicians do whatever they like as long as they said we were safe. There are even illustrated members of the fake-president's cabinet who bear striking resemblance to Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft.

Slightly exaggerated features here.

But it takes the better part of all three issues (they are not short - all coming in at close to eighty pages long) for the entire picture Miller is painting to become clear. Lex Luthor is trying to control the world, and Batman is trying to stop him. TDKR was a tightly written story with very clear arc throughout. DK2 is a much more meandering story, with frequent bursts of colorful insanity. Much of it plays like an illustrated acid trip.

Like the story itself, Miller's artwork is raw and exaggerated. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. No one looks realistic in any way, with hunched heads, and giant hands and feet. It's a far cry from Miller's stylized yet still basically traditional work with Klaus Jansen on TDKR, and not nearly as good. While all those spirals and geometric gibberish with trippy colors may look really cool, they don't add anything and frequently break any kind of momentum the story itself is building by making your brain stop and think "What the fuck am I looking at?"

Once you do make it past all the zaniness, Miller's annoying habit of creating his own slang and dialect, and way too much focus on what TV is like in the future, it actually isn't a bad story. The bottom line Miller presents is that Batman wants the world to be free to forge its own path, out from under the control of the Luthors of the world. But that gets lost though in all the other noise he presents. Like I said - not a bad story, but it is in desperate need of editing. And maybe Miller needed someone to say to him "maybe tone it down a little, Frank. Not everyone needs swastika-styled shurikens." If he'd had a voice of reason guiding him (as he does with DKIII), this could have been a worthy follow up to his masterpiece. But...it isn't.


FINAL SCORE: 5.5/10

OLD MAN LOGAN - A Comic Review

I'm on vacation this week, but that doesn't mean I'm not all business! SO...the rumor came down a while back that Hugh Jackman's final outing as the Wolverine would be based on Mark Millar's 2008 story arc "Old Man Logan". And then I decided to read it. And review it, because it really is quite good!

Spoilers up in hurr - they're not really big spoilers, but they're still spoilers nonetheless.

I'm not the world's biggest Mark Millar fan. He's quite talented, for sure, but fairly inconsistent, too. I dug his run on "Ultimate X-men" and I enjoyed "Kick-Ass" (and "Kick-Ass 2", though not so much "Hit-Girl" and "Kick-Ass 3") "Wanted" was weird and not really my cup of tea, and "Secret Service" was just plain awful. But he also wrote "Civil War", which is a truly amazing mini-series. Inconsistencies aside, when Millar is on, damn...he is on. So when I realized Millar had re-teamed with Steve McNiven, the artist on "Civil War", to bring us the story of a dystopian future starring a nearly unrecognizable Wolverine, I was on-freakin'-board.

To start, Millar creates a truly desperate image of the world. Imagine a future where the supervillains teamed up to finally, completely destroy almost every superhero in the world, and seize control. America is cut into quadrants, each with a tyrannical villain ruling over it. Imagine fifty years later, an old farmer lives in extreme poverty, desperately struggling to make rent or face the wrath of a bunch of redneck, violent, sociopathic Hulk descendants threatening the farmer's wife and children. They promise his family terrible violence, yet this farmer could easily kill them all, if he weren't a pacifist, sworn to avoid violence at all costs. Now imagine that old farmer is Wolverine, who hasn't picked a fight, killed a man, or even popped his claws in half a century.

That is the backbone of "Old Man Logan". Wolverine has essentially been de-fanged, and is trying to lead a normal, if difficult, life in peace and quiet with his young family. When he finds himself a month behind on rent, he must take a job with an old friend (spoiler alert - it's HAWKEYE!) to travel across the wasteland that America has become, or risk the lives of his entire family.

There are really two stories wrapped in one here. The first really begins when Logan and a now-blind Hawkeye ride across the country, they come across various towns and people in need of a hero, yet Logan refuses to fight, refuses to get involved, almost to the point of absurdity. The second story is the mystery of why that is. First of all, what exactly happened to all the heroes? And how was Wolverine defeated so badly that he swore to never fight again?

Both stories are good and interesting in their own right, but finding out the truth of what really happened fifty years ago is far more brutal and devastating than I can describe without ruining the story. But rest assured, "Old Man Logan is Mark Millar at the height of his talent. He is ON in this book.

Millar brings sympathy when it's due, anger when it's deserved, and an insane amount of excitement when the action breaks out. Though Logan may have sworn himself to peace, that doesn't mean everyone around him has, and the sight of a glaucoma-ridden Hawkeye still having plenty of tricks up his sleeve is certainly a ton of fun. There are plenty of twists, turns, and unexpected surprises along the way. What happened to the cities that just seemed to disappear overnight? Who's is the President? Where is Mjolnir? Why is that Ultron clone wearing a Hawaiian shirt and khakis? And just how did those redneck Hulks even come about? There's a ton of story to explore, and Millar handles it all with aplomb.

Art-wise, Steve McNiven brings a similar art to his previous work on "Civil War" to this book, creating both a cinematic and realistic feeling to the serenity of Logan's peaceful life, and the chaos that results when that serenity is broken, either by violence, or by the emergence of an unexpected villain. Logan spends nearly the entire book refusing to show his claws, and when he finally breaks his oath, McNiven spends three pages giving you an ear-to-ear grin at the unbridled badassness of it.

Millar and McNiven craft a wonderful complete story, create a horribly dystopian future, and expertly weave in awesome action, humor, and even some heart-wrenching poignancy, too. If 'Wolverine 3' decides to go this route and adapt the "Old Man Logan" story arc for their movie, it's going to have a tough time living up to the quality of this book. I really, really hope they succeed.

FINAL SCORE - 8.5/10

POWER RANKING THE ENTIRE MCU

I'm on vacation next week, and I'm actually dealing with some physical problems from typing so much, but I wanted to put something up today to entertain both you and myself. And probably start a fight. So behold! I now rank everything in the MCU, top to bottom! Bring it, suckas!

1. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

2. Jessica Jones

3. Daredevil

4. Captain America: Civil War

5. Guardians of the Galaxy

6. Thor

7. Ant-Man

8. The Avengers

9. Iron Man

10. Captain America: The First Avenger

11. Agent Carter

12. Iron Man 2

13. Thor: The Dark World

14. Avengers: Age of Ultron

15. Agents of SHIELD

16. The Incredible Hulk

17. Iron Man 3

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR - A Movie Review

SPOILER ALERT - This review will contain hardcore spoilers for a movie that just came out a few days ago, so seriously, be forewarned about reading this if you haven't seen the movie. 

As always, first, a history lesson. Perhaps as soon as we knew Marvel studios big plan for bringing their superheroes together in the same cinematic universe, comic readers began licking their chops at the prospect of one day seeing a live-action version of the 2006 comic miniseries, Civil War.

In that story arc, which pitted hero against hero, a horrific disaster turned the US population against superheroes almost overnight. Demanding some political response, the American government, backed by Tony Stark, Reed Richards, and Hank Pym, began to institute the Superhero Registration Act. Go public with your identity, take a government paycheck, accept oversight, and be legal. Iron Man became the public face of the SHRA. Spider-man unmasked on live TV. The X-men stayed neutral. But Captain America fought the SHRA, tooth and nail. He assembled a group of other heroes who didn't want to give up their secret identities, and violently battled almost to the brink of what would be a very hollow victory. Seeing all the damage and destruction hero fighting hero caused, Cap surrenders, turns himself into the police...and is assassinated. Such a massive story, so many characters. Was this thing even filmable?

A dozen successful Marvel studios films, the reacquistion to the rights of a major character, and almost ten years later, the answer is yes. When 2014 saw the announcement that not only would Robert Downey Jr be featured in the third Captain America movie, but that it would indeed be an adaptation of 'Civil War', anticipation exploded. Early 2015 excited Marvel fans once again, as Marvel studios announced they'd reached a deal with Sony Pictures for the rights to use Spider-man in the MCU. His debut appearance would be in 'Civil War'. The then-unreleased 'Age of Ultron' was almost eclipsed by excitement for this nerdy dream scenario. Casting reports saw Avenger after Avenger added to the battlefield. The Russo Brothers, directors of the critically acclaimed previous installment, were set to top themselves, as the somber first trailer dropped in late 2015. So much had to come together just right for this film to be made, and the final result is a fun, exciting exhilarating story that, while it packs some emotional punches, it never quite feels like it's throwing its full weight at you.

Tom Holland is great as the new Spider-man.

There are several things to really like, or even love about 'Captain America: Civil War'. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. turn in their best performances as Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, respectively. They give the entire movie a lived-in feeling. Downey, especially brings something new to this performance. For the first time, Stark is mentally in a really bad place. He's not able to pretend to be the freewheelin' playboy anymore, instead carrying the weight of his own failure with the Ultron disaster, and the end of his relationship with Pepper. Guilt is his primary motivation throughout this movie, and he portrays it well. The rest of the returning cast (Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olson, Paul Rudd, Paul Bettany, Emily VanCamp, Scarlett Johansson, William Hurt) bring chemistry and a familiarity with one another to the screen in a way that makes it feel like a family. This is the closest we've come to seeing the day to day life of The Avengers, and it's cool to see them just hang out, try to process the amazing and terrible things they see. Though there are several heavy moments, the movie is surprisingly light-hearted for much of the time, largely due to the interaction of all these characters who know each other well enough to make a joke. (Jokes that, unlike Whedon's incessant quips, seem natural and organic, and therefore fit better into the context of the movie.)

Making his first appearance in a team-up movie, the addition of Ant-man to the roster of superheroes works very well because A) he's actually quite powerful and B) Paul Rudd is just crazy charming and likeable. Likewise, Spider-man is a really just...cool addition to the cast, though he's not really essential to the story. Were he removed from the plot, it would more or less be the same. This doesn't doom the movie, though. It's very much icing on the cake.

Chadwick Boseman kicks ass as Black Panther

Perhaps oddly, in a movie that promises a Civil War among a dozen heroes we've already grown to know and love, the character we are most emotionally invested in is a new one: King T'challa, the Black Panther. The new monarch of the fictional African country of Wakanda. Chadwick Boseman totally owns this role. After his father is assassinated, purportedly by the Winter Soldier, T'challa goes on a literal one-man revenge mission, giving Boseman plenty of chances to show off his acting chops. While Iron Man and Captain America are duking it out, we're patiently waiting for Boseman to steal another scene with his low, exotic voice, and carefully chosen words. He often across as someone with a older, wiser man's countenance, combined with a younger man's temper. Simply put, he's a very dangerous dude.

Also surprising is the villain of the film. Helmut Zemo (played by Daniel Bruhl) spends most of the movie shrouded in mystery. Though we at first think he's Hydra, he cares nothing for them or their mission. Once we find out he's Sokovian, he counters that the nation meant nothing to him. But when we are finally told that his entire family was killed during the destruction of the city, we find a shocking amount of pity for this guy. He goes to extreme and intricate measures to seek his vengeance, and once it's done, sits down with a gun beneath his chin.

These are the strongest qualities of 'Civil War'. Good characters, solid acting, a good, complex villain, and some really, really kick-ass action. But while they're enough to make this movie pretty damn good, it stops short of the greatness it could have achieved.

While it may be unfair to compare a movie to the book it's based on, I think comparing it to a comic is more fair. A comic is a visual medium, and in that way, closer to movies than books. The Marvel comics had decades of stories to build on to make the Civil War emotionally devastating based solely on the fact heroes were fighting heroes. But that's not the only thing the comic relied on. It showed us heroes fighting heroes, tooth and nail, with ruthlessness, because both sides believed completely that their side was right. A civil war, by its nature, should and will always be devastating, and the cause of it should and will rupture relationships immediately. This movie never does that. It's main inciting incident, while it creates complications and disagreements, does not itself breed the war.

When this...

After a New Avengers mission goes mostly right, but in a very public way, horribly wrong, Captain America and his new team, Falcon, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Vision and War Machine find themselves in the crosshairs of a political hurricane. The public outcry leads to the nations of the world creating the Sokovia Accords, essentially putting the Avengers under the control of the UN.

While the differences of opinion on the SHRA is what led to the comics Civil War, the Sokovia Accords don't do much besides hamstring Cap's team who do not want to be put under the yoke of politicians who may or may not have their own agendas. And the Accords, unlike the SHRA, are not at the heart of the disagreement between Team Stark and Team Rogers. Bucky is what ends up forcing partners to come to blows.

This is perhaps part of the problem - most of the movie is spent with Cap defending a Bucky who we know almost from the outset is innocent. Stark is pursuing Cap and Bucky not because he truly believes that the Accords are right - he even admits he's got no other ideas, and these Accords can be changed to make them more agreeable to Rogers - but because he wants to quiet the political firestorm that is threatening to consume the entire team. But wars aren't fought over ideological disagreements - they're fought when politics fail and emotions rule.

Devolves into this...sadface.

So when it finally does become emotional for the three main characters, it's far too late in the movie. In by far the film's strongest sequence, Bucky is revealed to have killed Howard and Maria Stark, leading Tony into a rage-fueled attack on both Barnes and Rogers. This is the movie at its best. This is what I expected the entire film to be - people actually fighting a battle that they want to win, not a war to stall, or just to capture the enemy; a war to destroy the enemy. This is what the comics became, and why the ending of that miniseries was so devastating. And though this movie ends with the heroes dispersed, hiding out, broken and nursing wounds, the Russos avoid leaving things in too grim a state. There is the distinct impression that most of the wounds will heal fairly quickly, and even Rhodey's paralysis, by far the most major wound, is downplayed as much as possible.

The Russos had a very large hill to climb in making this movie. Not only were they adapting a seminal graphic novel, they were left holding the bag for Joss Whedon. Whedon could have easily set things up for this battle, and probably should have towards the end of 'Age of Ultron'. But he didn't. So the Russos were coming in having to create enough tension to start a war where there had previously only been jokes and convivial bickering. And if we look at the three phases of the MCU as we would a traditional three act story, 'Civil War' feels far more like a close to Act Two than 'Age of Ultron' ever did. So in that respect, they quite succeeded.

But still, the way I see it, if you're going to adapt one of the greatest Marvel stories ever into a film, it has to hit with the same force. And it just doesn't. Cap sends a nice letter and a phone to Tony, who tacitly forgives his friend, as evidenced by his chuckle and decision to futz with Thunderbolt Ross. People died in the Civil War comics. Families were broken, bonds of friendship were destroyed. The film doesn't hit the same level of import that is demanded of it just by using the phrase "civil war". But I don't put that entirely on the Russos. I've seen enough interviews with them to know that they take their job and the material they adapt very seriously. I feel like this is a case of Marvel perhaps fearing the general public might not respond so favorably to a Marvel film that really plumbing the depths of emotion. Say what you want about the shortcomings of 'Batman v Superman' but so many of the criticisms lobbed against it were variations of "it's just too dark! too serious!". Marvel has a right to worry that their franchises would be endangered by starting to mine the territory typically afforded to the DC and X-men films. And this time, their concerns show up in a noticeably restrained movie.

Look, 'Captain America: Civil War' is a really fun and enjoyable movie, and it nails plenty of really great moments, and I think the Russos hit it as high as they aimed. I just think maybe they should have aimed higher. It could have really been a special movie, then. Dark Knight territory.


FINAL SCORE - 8.5/10

BATMAN RETURNS - A Quickie Review

My review of 'Captain America: Civil War' will be out soon, but honestly, my mind is more occupied with revisiting the heyday of Batmania. So with that, let's go back 24 years (holy shit, we're all old) and check out 1992's 'Batman Returns'!

Of course, 'Batman' was going to generate a sequel. It was a monster hit, and the entire country went nuts for anything and everything Batman. I remember being at the UA theater near my home when I saw the teaser poster a couple of years later, and thinking it was so cool that 'Batman 2' was going to be called 'Batman Returns'. I remember seeing the trailers and being so excited that I didn't know how I could possibly wait a few months to see it. I remember buying tickets on Friday for a show on Saturday and going with my mom and sister to the General Cinema at the mall near us. I remember my mom hating it, and in fact, most moms hated it. I remember getting a black-colored McDonald's fry pouchie thing, because they were doing a cross promotion deal. And I remember feeling like I'd somehow gotten away with seeing this movie, because it was so weird and dark and violent.

So it turns out Tim Burton didn't want to make 'Batman Returns'. And it shows on the screen. Not because it's a bad movie, or lazy, but because it's so very different from 'Batman' in nearly every way. Where 'Batman' was a grim, gothic heightened reality, 'Returns' definitely has a more fantastical vibe, closer to its comic book origins. I'd say it was almost campy, if it weren't so genuinely fucking weird. And to listen to his commentary track the DVD (or Blu-ray, if you've got it) it seemed he had to be cajoled by WB into doing it, and given a bigger budget and free reign to just go ahead and make whatever kind of movie he wanted. What we got was Burton off the leash: a funky, idiosyncratic movie, shot in almost monochrome, villains with elongated features and fetishistic costumes, and a Batman who was arguably not even the main character of the movie. Make no mistake though, 'Batman Returns' is about Batman, though, and the way his psychology is illuminated by the abberant psychologies of his antagonists.

The Penguin (played with total psychotic relish by Danny Devito) is driven by his anger, resentment, and genuine hurt of being rejected, first by his parents and then by the people of Gotham. Though while his parents rejected him because he was a grotesque freak, the citizens of Gotham City reject him for being...you know...totally fucking insane. He's not just a dark reflection of Bruce Wayne, both born to lives of privilege, both robbed of it. The Penguin's origin is also a sort of perversion of the Superman mythos, too. Both were given up by their parents - one so that he might live, and the other so that he might die. Both were raised by people who influenced the track they'd take in life. But while Superman had the loving Kents to raise him, Penguin had the criminal circus gang he'd eventually take over. Superman protects Metropolis, while Penguin only pretends to want to save Gotham so that he can assume power over it. Yet he never forgets or lets go of the hurt of being not wanted by the people who should have wanted him most. He seeks to punish all the parents of Gotham because of that, judging them for their hedonistic lifestyles, while plotting to literally murder babies.

Like Batman, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfieffer) is another vigilante created by the crime of another. After her boss tries to murder her, Selina fashions herself a Catwoman costume and goes out, first, to take on a mugger and chastise his victim for being so helpless, and then to blow up a department store owned by her murderous employer. That Selina is trying to form a relationship with Bruce Wayne, with neither person finding out until it's too late who the other really is, is probably the closest Bruce gets to a mirror. They're both people struggling to figure out who they really are. Early in the movie, Commissioner Gordon lights up the Bat signal, and a series of mirrors brings it directly into Wayne Manor, where Bruce sits in the dark, just waiting for Batman to be needed. When Bruce tries to talk Selina out of killing Max Shreck, who admittedly, totally deserves to die,  he promises her that they can just go home, and live happily ever after. He rips off his Batman masks and appears to choose being Bruce Wayne. Selina, though chooses to remain Catwoman,to kill Shreck, and forego the fairytale ending.

Speaking of Max Shreck (Christopher Walken), he's yet a third villain in the move, and perhaps the most villainous. Penguin is motivated by anger, Selina by revenge, but Max? He's motivated only by greed. He's the complete antithesis of Bruce Wayne, who would stand behind his law and order Mayor while Shreck tries to supplant him. Shreck derides Bruce as a "trust fund goodie goodie", and is so supremely arrogant that he can't even believe when he sees Batman unmasked who he really is. He is evil enough to take a shot at Bruce and then four shots at point blank range at Selina for no other reason then to protect the life he's made for himself. He's the darkest mirror of Bruce Wayne within this movie.

I also love this movie, because every bit of action, romance, and psychological exploration in this film is underlined and magnified by Danny Elfman, who's masterpiece of a score still ranks as one of my all-time favorites. Two pieces in particular stand out; the first is when Selina is trashing her apartment just prior to adopting her Catwoman persona; and the second is the climax of the film, and the Penguin's death and "funeral". Elfman's score is so poignant and haunting it illuminates the pity that the story takes on these two villains. They're not villains because they're just bad, like The Joker or Max Shreck. They were made into who they are, and Elfman's wonderful music feels sorry for them.

Tim Burton may not have wanted to do it, but that doesn't mean he didn't do a good job, or didn't try. He delivered something no one was expecting, and paved the way for something closer to the Nolan trilogy by exploring the minds of these characters in an extraordinarily vivid way.

Ok, this review wasn't so quickie, after all.


FINAL SCORE - 8/10

TIM BURTON'S BATMAN - A Quickie Review

This movie was so anticipated they didn't even need the title on the poster

Words cannot describe the excitement, the desperation that gripped me in the summer of 1989. I was 8 years old, Batmania had taken the nation by storm. It was still a time when people stood in lines outside the theater, a time when that line would wrap around the building and you knew, based on that line, something huge had just opened. But being 8, I had to rely on my mom to take me to see it, and she was NOT an easy sell. I didn't see it opening weekend. I'm not even sure I saw it the second weekend. I remember having to nag for days on end to get her to relent, to drop her doubts about the violence and take my sister and me to the movies. I was so excited to go, and I desperately wanted to wear my new Batman t-shirt, but it wasn't clean (I didn't plan ahead in those days) so I took a shoestring and tied a little Batman plush doll (see right) around my neck to show my enthusiasm. I got compliments on it, too.

I was blown away. It was just so freaking fun and cool and exciting and everything I could have hoped for. When it came out on VHS a few months later (November, I think, of '89, which was a really fast turnaround back then. Movies usually took several months, if not over a year to hit the home video market) I would get home from school, sit down, and literally watch 'Batman' from beginning to end. I did this for weeks.

So I'm saying to you, this is a movie I grew up loving. Prince's death a couple of weeks ago inspired me to watch the movie again. I had an old DVD, but now my life demands only the finest in blu-ray for my favorite movies, so I decided to upgrade my catalog and re-examine my first cinematic experience with the Batman. Here we are almost 27 years later, and it still holds up pretty well.

Unlike the 1992 sequel, Tim Burton's idiosyncracies are toned down here, in a grim and grimy adaptation of the Dark Knight. Not beholden to canon or continuity, Burton's film took many liberties with the Batman mythos, but in the context of the movie, they mostly work. There are two main gripes with this film that I have: Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne's love story is too rushed, and her dialogue with him is very trite; and the revelation that in this world, the Joker is originally a sadistic and narcissistic gangster named Jack Napier, who killed Bruce Wayne's parents, which is just too coincidental. Obviously, people had problems with it because it's a violation of canon, but aside from that, it doesn't really feel like a necessary thing. Batman should defeat the Joker and probably even kill him just based on all the horrific crimes he commits during the movie.

But those are fairly minor gripes and they certainly do not temper my admiration for the wonderful feeling of atmosphere that pervades the entire movie. Gotham is a heavy, dark place, scary, dangerous, full of lowlifes and criminals. It seems like the kind of place that definitely would spawn some kind of avenging angel. Burton does a wonderful job of creating a scenario that seems believable, so that you're not rolling your eyes at a man dressed like a giant, armored bat, and another man prancing around and giggling in clown make up. Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson both bring their A-game to the affair, with Keaton seeming so natural as a brooding vigilante who wears the mask of a millionaire socialite. Nicholson brings a sort of slapstick dark comedy to his role as the Joker (something that would be avoided entirely by Heath Ledger's turn in 2008) which made him the undeniable star of the movie. I mean, the dude has top billing over the man playing Batman.

And I haven't even gotten to the wonderful production design, creating a badass batsuit, the oppressive cityscape itself, and of course, the amazing Batmobile. And there's Danny Elfman's iconic and distinctive score, which is still one of my favorite movie scores. Elfman's music is coupled with Prince's experimental blend of rock/funk/pop, providing a crazy sound mix that totally makes two scenes in particlar; trying to imagine the Joker's vandalism of the museum, or his manic energy during his murderous parade without Prince's music is not only impossible, it's boring.

It's not perfect, and it's not my favorite Batman movie, but I think 'Batman' is a great snapshot of a time and a place in American history, and my own life. And I think it's the best possible movie that could have been made at that time. It holds up very well so many years later.


FINAL SCORE - 7.5/10

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON - A Retro Review

The MCU's Phase Three kicks off this Friday (actually, Thursday evening) with 'Captain America: Civil War'. We here at PRC couldn't be more stoked about this movie, and we've been spending the last few weeks taking a look back at all the MCU movies that tie into 'Civil War'. Today's entry wraps up this look-back as we check out the climax of Phase Two, 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'.

You may have noticed by now that when I do these retro reviews, I tend to give some history on the project. Some backdrop for the lead-up and release of the movie. Sometimes it's just for color, sometimes it's tied directly to whatever my particular thesis for that critique is. This is a case of both, because this is not a strong movie, and maybe the expectations and demands put upon it played a part in that.

Following the runaway success of the first Avengers team-up, Marvel Studios had earned so much goodwill among its fanbase, that they could have done 'Avengers: Reading the Yellow Pages' and anticipation would still have been through the roof. Most people assumed that given his tease at the end of 'The Avengers', Thanos would be the main villain. However, in July 2013, MCU honcho Kevin Feige announced Joss Whedon was going to hold back on the Mad Titan, and pit the Earth's mightiest heroes against one of their deadliest foes - 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' was coming in Summer 2015.

Even though it was not a direct adaptation of 2012's comic arc of the same name, the fact that Ultron of the comics had just finished wiping out humanity sold him on die-hard fans as a worthy opponent for Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this was one of the most anticipated movies of all time. The SDCC announcement and teaser footage was all but wiped from the internet, creating a sense of mystery and heightened demand for any glimpses of the film. When the first trailer hit, it broke YouTube records. The public thirst for all things Marvel reached fever pitch. Phase Three was announced nearly a year before Phase Two would even end. The hype could not have been bigger.

Then it was released. And for a while after 'Age of Ultron' came out, nobody wanted to admit the truth. For all the hope, the hype, the awesome trailers, the promise of a darker story with a nigh-invincible foe, the second Avengers film was just plain disappointing.

The initial response might have been to say to yourself "well, my expectations were just too high", and there's probably some truth to that. But there's another truth, too. It's just not a very good movie. It's not a wholly bad one either, but it damn sure isn't a good one.

There is something hollow and empty at the center of 'Age of Ultron'. From the opening sequence, the movie is almost too slick. The good guys toss around CGI bad guys in a way that makes everything seem more cartoonish than realistic, and is definitely a departure from the much more polished first film. So much is going on in nearly every frame of the opening battle that it is, at times, difficult to keep up with who's doing what to whom. There are shots of the Hulk and Iron Man that clearly look like unfinished work, and some rigging on Captain America that survived a digital eraser. Stuff like this makes the film feel rushed and slapped together.

And that, I think, points to a fundamental problem with this movie. Everything feels forced. The screenwriting is lazy and the story advances, whether or not it makes any sense at all. And unfortunately, it frequently make no sense. So the poor(ish, by Marvel standards) reception can't be blamed on too-high expectations. And if that's the case, then the blame must fall on director Joss Whedon. He wrote it, he directed it, all criticism is his. Maybe his heart wasn't in it, maybe he just ran out of ideas. But we'll get to his shortcomings in a little bit. For now, let's look at the story:

A would-be world conquerer, fueled by selfish rage, steals the film's macguffin, which turns out to be an infinity stone. There's a mid-movie squabble, in which the Hulk is out of control and must be subdued by one of his own teammates. A likeable supporting character is killed, and the villain has an army of paper soldiers that the Avengers must battle, but are not very tough. The primary villain has a plan for global domination that isn't terribly well thought out and has a glaring fatal flaw. Cap and Stark bicker until they get a pep talk from Nick Fury, put aside their differences, team up, and defeat the bad guy, with the help of a more in-control Hulk. Thanos shows up in the credits. Which Avengers movie am I talking about?

Even Ultron is confused by what he is.

While undeniably a retread, this story is advanced by the villainous robot Ultron (voiced by James Spader). Ultron is originally intended by Tony Stark and Bruce Banner to be a good guy, until he turns evil after he's given consciousness by...who exactly? The movie never stops to actually state that. Was it Stark and Banner? Was it the mind stone*? Aside from that, just what the hell does Ultron want? We're told very little about what his original purpose is, other than "global peacekeeping", but what does that entail? And once he's created, there are no growing pains. He is birthed, as it were, evil, with burning hatred for the Avengers, and Stark in particular. But no reason is ever really given for why he wants them all dead. And once that is done, then what? What is his endgame?

*unlike the tesseract (a.k.a. the space stone), which is more or less a key, the mind stone as a macguffin is much more problematic. Yes, I understand that it's a macguffin that is mostly just waiting around to be used during 'Infinity War', but still -  while it's ok to tease something for a future film, it's not ok to just flat out leave shit unexplained. Does the mind stone have a consciousness of its own? Does it have will? Did it create Ultron, or corrupt him? Why is Vision different from Ultron? Too many questions.

Ze twins.

Of course, Ultron is not the only character to suffer a lack of development. The Maximoff twins, Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda (Elizabeth Oslon) are, for two-thirds of the movie, painted as villains who team up with Ultron because of their vendetta against Tony Stark. But why? Because their parents were killed in a bombing and Stark Industries manufactured the bomb? That makes as much sense as someone who gets shot being angry at the bullet manufacturer. Once they figure out they're totally expendable to Ultron (because what bad guy ever really gives a shit about his henchmen?) they switch sides and help the Avengers. I guess their blood feud with Stark wasn't so deep, after all. The villain who kick starts the plot, Baron von Strucker (Thomas Kretschmann) may as well be just another faceless Hydra goon, as he only has a few minutes of screen time, and is killed off-screen (about which Stark has to make a joke) because...why?

I won't front. This was dope.

In addition to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, the Vision (Paul Bettany) is a new addition to the team, but with a personality and abilities so nebulous, all we are given to go on is the fact that he can wield Mjolnir. About that... I won't lie, that shit was badass, but still...he is an artificial being, with no soul. Or is he? Does he have a soul? How can he be worthy if he's just an android**? We should have seen Ultron trying to hold Mjolnir and failing, so we can know the rules. Even Stark and Cap concede Vision's ability to do so doesn't mean much. Without fully knowing what he is - man or machine.

**Far too often, the team uses the term AI to describe what Ultron is. And I'm by no means an AI expert, but I think they're still misusing the term. Do they mean artificial consciousness? Or just intelligence? It's actually important in the case of this movie for two reasons - Ultron has emotions that counter his logic and reason, and Vision can lift Mjolnir. They should at least discuss it for a minute. 

One of the bigger "why is this really necessary?" moments in the movie, the Hulkbuster sequence is wonderful fun. It's a geek's paradise, seeing Stark in his suit, taking on one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel Universe, and holding his own! Triumphing, even! And it goes on for just...far too long. Stark fights him instead of just trying to get him out of the city. The one time he does, Hulk escapes and Stark never tries again. And this is problematic within the course of the movie itself. 'Age of Ultron' goes out of it's way to show the Avengers attempting to protect civilians from the destruction their battles create, but at some point, it just becomes tedious to see them shuttling bystanders out of danger's way.

With so many unfinished ideas, I'm not convinced Whedon really knew what to do with this story. And far too many times, his fingerprints are visible in the clay, so to speak. You can tell when he just wanted to make a joke. Like Maria Hill's explanation of the twins; "He's fast and she's weird." Well, that's just...wildly unhelpful in explaining the powers of Scarlet Witch, and not the only time he opts for humor instead of clarification or exposition. And you can tell that he really wanted some kind of romantic angle to explore. In one of the least convincing character pairings I can think of, Black Widow and Hulk are in some kind of weird and painfully uncomfortable flirtation. Their chemistry is so non-existent, that Whedon has to rely on other characters actually pointing out that they're being romantic. And he's not incapable of doing it. In just a few moments, you buy Jeremy Renner and Linda Cardellini as a married couple. So why did things feel so wrong with Romanoff and Banner?

We know from various interviews and articles that Whedon really fought to keep Barton's family and home in the movie. This is a 16 minute sequence that grinds the movie to a halt and the purpose it serves is unclear. Yes, the Avengers need a place to lay low after Hulk's freakout and Scarlet Witch's mindfuckery, but what do they gain from going to Barton's home? Other than some knowledge they didn't previously have, none of them have any sort of epiphany, or reach any sort of conclusion that the farmhouse specifically provides. Whedon fought for it because he wanted it, because he liked it - not because it was a particularly good or creative idea. It could have happened anywhere.

There are two "rules" of writing I think about when I think about Whedon; one is that every sentence should either reveal your characters or advance the plot; the second is that you can't be afraid to kill your darlings. And so much of this film is just that - Whedon opting to go with what he likes over what best serves the story. Jokes over exposition, forced characterization that comes out of nowhere, unnecessary subplots. After production, he took not so subtle jabs at Marvel Studios, claiming studio interference, blaming them for forcing changes. But in the end, Joss Whedon is still responsible for the finished product. He can blame them all he likes, but he didn't walk away. Edgar Wright walked away from Ant-Man, Marvel wanted a more brand-friendly picture, and they got it from Peyton Reed. But Reed also delivered a solid movie. One can criticize 'Ant-Man' for being too similar to the plot of the original 'Iron Man', but it still works. 'The Force Awakens' is very similar to 'A New Hope', but it still works. A retread of old material can work, if you bring something unique, either to the plot, or to the characters. Whedon didn't do that. He held on to his darlings as tightly as he could, and he turned in a half-finished movie. And that is why it doesn't work.


FINAL SCORE - 6/10

Captain America and most of the Avengers will be seen starting tomorrow night in the insanely anticipated kick off to Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, 'Avengers 2.5 - The Stark Knight'...I mean, 'Captain America: Civil War'. Shit looks tight, yo.