Continuation of the movies and trailers of 2013

So yesterday I posted my rambling rant of the Man of steel movie, today I figured I would mention a few other movies but mostly comparing a couple of Marvel trailers. So let the rambling begin…

Thor: Dark world was a movie that I was looking forward to. After all I liked the first one, I enjoyed the visuals of Asgard and the quasi sci-fi/fantasy that it enveloped. Imagine my surprise when I left the movie a bit confused. Many people were talking about how this was the best superhero movie of this year…after seeing a few of these reviews I wondered did they see the same movie I did? Don't get me wrong it was a decent movie, visually it was adequate, acting was done very well especially when the actor wasn't Natalie Portman. Character wise…I wondered if they forgot who they were writing for. Loki was perfect as always, all you have to do is tell Tom Hiddleston what his lines are and he will always give you a great performance. Loki basically can write himself. Thor, well this was relatively the same Thor that we saw in the Avengers so there wasn't going to be a deep meaning for him like there was in the first Thor movie. What really bothered me the most was Odin, I enjoyed Odin in the original movie. Probably because I am a fan of Anthony Hopkins, however it goes a bit deeper than that. A movie such as Thor or any superhero movie needs a character that is the moral foundation of the franchise, this character is the teacher to the hot headed characters the rock to which everyone looks to for guidance or to see what they can become. In Superman movies it was Jor-El, in the Star Wars (ORIGINAL TRILOGY) it was Obi-Wan and later Yoda, in Captain America it was Dr. Abraham, etc…In Thor: Dark Underworld Odin wasn't the wise old sage/king he was the demented character who wasn't the same as he was in the first Thor. This 'new' Odin didn't care about Earth for the most part and thought of Humans as a inferior species who didn't need Asgard's help. He was willing to let Natalie Portman's character die (Which might have been a good decision considering her acting recently.) But in the first movie it was explained that he defended Earth, and fought for the 'freedom' for other world's. In the first movie we heard Odin speak of being wise, of being generous of being virtuous. In the sequel we get a man who is no longer wise but unwilling to budge when it concerns Asgard and the other realms. The funny thing is at the end (SPOILER ALERT) when Thor is talking to Odin, Odin seems wiser, he is the person he was in the original movie, at least until it's revealed that that Odin is actually Loki. Which is another point, this movie should have been called Loki, when that character is in the scenes I enjoyed watching it. I was able to delve back into the movie, the problem with that is this movie was suppose to be a Thor movie, and while I love Loki's character he has been in 3 Marvel movies. It's time to move on from a Loki themed movie and bring more of the Thor universe to the screen. Just a few thoughts. I didn't hate the movie but I didn't think it was a great superhero movie.



Now to what really has fascinated me recently, the trailers to a few movies. For this I am going to focus on two of the recent ones, X-Men:Days of future past and The Amazing Spiderman 2. Before I begin I have to say these franchises, at least when it comes to comics, are two of my top 5. Both have similarities the mutants in X-men are trying to be accepted by the Human race, Spiderman/Peter Parker is also trying to fit into society. For the most part he is still an awkward teenager. So I want to say I am looking forward to these movies. BUT one has peaked my curiosity more than the other.

When I heard that Brian Singer was going to be coming back to the X-men franchise I was somewhat nervous. Let's face it Superman: Returns is still somewhat fresh in our minds as nerds, but also what can he do after the disastrous X-men 3 from Bret Ratner. While it's hard to judge a movie by a trailer it can at least give us some insight for what is to come. When the trailer for Days of future past came out, I played it…and played it. I must have watched it 10 times before realizing that the trailer had so much emotion. There are certain things we can determine, obviously this movie was going to feature Wolverine alot, yea I get it people like Wolverine. Fine. I can live with that I suppose. BUT when watching the trailer I was drawn to Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Ian McKellan as Magneto. It was the voice that caught me and the way they looked. These are two actors who are getting older, it's obvious but something in the trailer made them look even older. They had the look on their face of two leaders who were extremely tired of what they were facing. They knew that defeat was on the horizon and they might have a chance to correct it so that it doesn't happen so that their 'kind' was not exterminated. The few words they spoke was something that gave me goosebumps and pulled at the heart strings (I suppose kids today use the word feels). This seems like an X-men movie different not just from the third one but the others as well. With the glimpses of Wolverine in the past interacting with Xavier and Magneto we get a sense of how big the conflict is. When I heard the young Xavier say "I don't want your suffering I don't want your future!" It gave me even more goosebumps. This is going to be a darker movie, especially when they use parts of the Days of Future past comic series as a guide. But the thing that let's X-men get away with this as opposed to making a dark Superman or Spiderman movie, is the X-men were about what could happen, that a holocaust was possible when it came to mutants. That their struggle was more than a freedom but that they had a right to exist. This is the kind of movie that needs to be dark, that needs to be dramatic because of what's at stake. It isn't about turning world leaders into mutants, it's about the mutual survival of both species Humans and Mutants. With this trailer it was also announced that the sequel will be called X-men: Apocalypse, as nerds we can imply that this movie will set up the next one's villain the ultimate mutant Apocalypse. This is a nerdgasm, something we always wanted the villain who everyone has to rally to defeat. I am looking forward to this more and more. I hope and pray Brian Singer doesn't disappoint.

Now to a trailer that I thought was good just not great, The Amazing Spiderman 2. If anyone hasn't seen it watch it here-

The Amazing Spiderman 2 Trailer

Okay after you watched it I have one question, were you disappointed? Were you ecstatic? I was both, there have been rumors for over a year that this would set up the next movie which will feature the sinister six, again something that fans have wanted since the Raimi version, well that and a good Venom who was in a movie for longer than 10 minutes…but again I digress. I was disappointed because it's the same Parker we get in just about EVERY Spiderman movie. The Peter who is having trouble balancing personal life with the life he feels he needs to leave as a hero. We get it it's hard wearing tights and swinging through the city, the audience isn't stupid it's implied in EVERY superhero movie that this balancing act is difficult and can ultimately be his Achilles heal due to villains finding out who he really is, who his family and friends are and using them as leverage. BUT we don't need to have this thrown into our faces in every movie. Some movies do it casually, they do it with a bit of tongue in cheek. I will use two examples Batman (1989) and Batman Begins (I'm leaving man of steel out due to the fact I think it was clumsily written when it comes to this) In the '89 version of Batman Bruce Wayne is trying to tell Vicky that he's Batman in his apartment, now he tells her that his life is 'complex' and all before being interrupted by the Joker. You can tell from the scene that Bruce really can't balance heroic life and social life. That he is defined not by his money but by what he does behind the scenes. That was all the audience needed basically a five minute scene to see how tortured Bruce Wayne was. Then in Batman Begins we don't see a necessarily tortured Bruce we see a Bruce who needs to have an excuse as to why he isn't Batman but a billionaire-playboy. We get a scene with Alfred telling him how to take up a sport to explain the bruises he receives, how he needed to throw money around and act like, well an asshole. That's basically it, another 5 minute scene that shows the audience that 'hey I do this in my time but also have a hard time balancing things.' These two movies, while they had their flaws didn't necessarily think the audience was stupid and couldn't understand their points of view. In my opinion Spiderman movies are hard to write, therefore the writers and director have to go to the tried and sometimes true method of internal conflict of the hero. For me, this trailer fails to grasp my attention. It fails to let my imagination fill in all the holes of what will happen, sure I will see the movie but I am not as excited as I was when the first Spiderman came out or the first The amazing spiderman came out. I think the acting will be well done but I am more excited about X-men, Captain America, etc. I want to be excited about this movie like I am about days of future past or even Godzilla. BUT I am not, which is sad in a way. From Sony's point of view they want to compete with Warner Bros., The Avengers, and Fox's marvel franchise. Some will say 'but all they got is the spiderman universe' which I think should be enough, it should be enough. The Spiderman universe is a large area to draw from, a large enough area to change Peter Parker to being the reluctant hero to being a hero who quits bitching about all his problems in at least every movie. I hope this movie surpasses my expectations.

So what are your thoughts, what are your opinions comment and subscribe and let's share.

The superhero reviews of 2013 MAN OF STEEL

Been a long time since I published anything and I am glad that life has somewhat calmed down for me to write again. 2013 saw some major changes, I recently moved and now things have settled. In between work I was at least able to see some 'nerd' movies as my sister would say but what I was more surprised by was the trailers for next years movies that have sprout up. Let's start with the movies first.

The Tale of two Supermen movies.

This year we finally got another Superman movie, granted it was Man of Steel. While I enjoyed the movie I have to say I am not sure it was a Superman movie, at least it didn't feel like it to me. The cast did a great job, so did the director but for me (and what I am about to mention has been mentioned alot but I still think it rings true. Let's start by the character of superman, in most of the comics and incarnations Superman/Clark Kent/Kal El is the opposite of Batman at least with personality and motives. In man of steel he was Batman with blue spandex as opposed to black armor, which is fine I have no problems seeing Henry Cavill in tights or shirtless or naked. BUT I digress, the way the character was written just seemed off. I get it he's alone no one can relate to him (just like every other superhero movie) but the way he was written he is dark, moody, not sure what to do. This was a new take on Superman, but it wasn't a completely new take on the superhero movie. While being dark and moody works for some heroes it doesn't necessarily work for a man that claims his symbol is the symbol of hope, he was suppose to be the man of tomorrow. This works for Batman, this is a person who saw his parents get killed in front of him. He's depressed lost and not sure what to do initially. In Man of Steel, Clark learns where he came from from both his dad's and through archives from Krypton. That was the most enjoyable part for me, it was a revamping of the scene from the Christopher Reeve movies. Again this is an old tale of the confused hero, we had it in all of the batman movies, we had it in most of the spiderman movies we even got it in Thor, Captain America and even Iron Man. Superman is suppose to be different he is suppose to be the opposite of Batman, the opposite of the hero's who are willing to even kill to punish the villain.

Which brings up the differences of other Superman movies. In Man of Steel, Zod was different than the one in Superman 2 which was great. This Zod was still in the mindset of being a protector of Krypton, even by killing the ruling council of Krypton in the beginning. This wasn't done just for power, Zod felt that the planet that he was doomed by it's present leadership. So he took the action that he saw was the only solution for the survival of his people. After his imprisonment he realizes that Jor-El was right and Krypton was destroyed. So he tries to recreate Krypton, no matter the cost to Earth or any other planet, it just happened that Kal-El was on Earth and it was convenient to get the Codex from him and use the planet he's already on. BUT this is where Superman gets written poorly in my opinion, Superman, the defender of Truth and Justice and the American way (Is he still?) battles Zod and his army. In some ways it was reminiscent of the Superman 2 battle in metropolis except for a few items. First did Superman kill Zod in the Christopher reeve series, YES. Did he let metropolis get destroyed, no. In Superman 2 when Zod realized that Superman was trying to save the people of Metropolis Zod realized Superman's achilles heal, the compassion for the people of Earth. So Superman had to lure Zod and his minions to a place where no one could get hurt. In Man of Steel even after Superman destroys the terraforming device, Metroplis gets destroyed more and more. I get it we live in an age where there has to be spectacular destruction or violence for an audience of this day and age to understand the magnitude of the conflict. I felt the terraforming machine was enough but we still had to see more and more buildings topple down. It was awkward, it wasn't superman. Even in the Avengers the team evacuated and saved as many citizens as they could. In Man of steel he was to preoccupied. Even in the flawed Superman Returns movie, we still see Superman save the citizens of Gotham, we saw him make the extra effort even when he could have fought Lex sooner rather than later. In Man of Steel we only see Superman take it personally when a family is about to be vaporized by Zod's heat vision.

This movie was difficult for me to fathom that it was actually a Superman movie, there are other reasons but the reasons I just stated are the bigger items. This is what bothers me when it comes to the sequel that will feature Batman, why do we need two Superheroes who are dark and moody? Will they change Superman to fit the more accepted characteristics or will it really be about two of the same heroes who just wear different color clothing…