Movie Review:Iron-Man 2

Comic books went through a massive change from their inception. Much early fare was basic escapist entertainment with outlandish story lines, fantastical feats of derring-do, and campy stories that delivered a high fun factor.

As the mood of the nation changed, so did the super hero comic. By the late 80s or early 90s it seemed many titles focused more on the personal, typically angst-driven problems of the titular hero with the action scenes providing the next beat in that story, almost secondary to the main point of the book.

In that period, when they were trying to be taken as a serious medium, they delved deeply into a variety of social issues and causes. For some, this was a wonderful thing. For others, they started to miss the fun factor that made the medium special.

That is not a criticism that can be leveled at Iron Man 2. The fun factor is high, the action sequences numerous and spectacular, the violence at near spaghetti western levels, and the scenery...just gorgeous.

Director Jon Favreau has a great eye for spectacular, eye-pleasing moments that border on the iconic, a sly sense of humor, and a talent for bringing out the best in his well-populated star list. Perhaps the moment that best displays this is the Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) in the donut.
From a story standpoint, Iron Man is excellent. The basic storyline is nothing spectacular, nor are any of the sub-plots taken individually...but when melded together they provide a very nice texture to frame an overall effect that has re-watchability.

Additionally, they show a knowledge of and respect for the fans of the comic book. This is shown by little things such as Stark using the phrase "war machine" in regards to the suit Rhoades (Don Cheadle) is wearing that had a brief run as its own comic titled War Machine. It was a very nice touch.

It is one reason the movie works on many levels. The non-comic fan gets a big, bold action-adventure. The comic fan gets to see little bits and pieces of the Marvel Universe on the big screen with homages to the "canon".

From a cinematography standpoint, I think most viewers can find many things to enjoy. The scenery...whether nature or the inhabitants...is often spectacular and easy on the eyes. (When Stark says of Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johannsen), "I want one", many viewers probably already had that thought when they saw the Ironettes).

If you go into this expecting Schindler's List you will deservedly be disappointed. But if you go in expecting one-liners, double-entendres, over-the top action, gorgeous visuals, and a lot of fun you will love it.

Of course, being me, I have to find SOMETHING I did not love about this movie; how, exactly, did the rather light-weighing Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) manage to haul around a suitcase containing a full Iron Man suit? How did Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) make and retain all his money if nothing he makes works?

Those, of course, are things that are irrelevant. Just roll with them.

On the other end of the spectrum are two nice surprises for fans of the Marvel Universe...one being the sighting of Captain America's shield and the other...well, stay through the end of the credits. Nice teaser to be found there.

If you like fun movies with beautiful people and high-octane action, great special effects and fun...this movie is a must-see.

The Weasel is full.

Movie Review: G.I.Joe:The The Rise of Cobra

For whatever reason, movies that spark the nostalgia of childhood always strike my fancy and rank high on my list of movies I am excited to see. Certainly the third installment in the Ice Age franchise was greatly anticipated, and Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen ranked as must-see cinema for me.

The only reason GI Joe did not rank that was was because this franchise went off the rails in the previews. Whereas the comics I recall and the cartoon when I was able to watch it were more or less set in a "real physics" universe, albeit with A-Team like sparsity of casualties despite constant warfare and gunfire.

Yet in the pre-view they have the absolutely idiotic "Delta 6 Accelerator Suits" which allow them to dodge missiles. Whatever. It was at that moment this tent-pole wannabe franchise went off the rails for me.

I had very conflicted feelings about seeing it. I was going to hate the straying from the "feel" of the GI JOE lore but it did look like a pretty good action flick. Still, it is GI JOE and has a huge brand-name cast so off I went. I was totally prepared to hate this movie.

The flick starts bizarrely in 1641 Medieval France where James McCullen (David Murray) has been arrested by the French for selling weapons to their enemies. Thus the McCullen clan habit of arms dealing and selling weapons to both sides was established.

Click to modern day where General Hawk (Dennis Quaid) is watching a modern day McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) tell NATO of the nanomite warheads he has developed for no apparent reason.

This is one of the myriad of non-sensical plot holes you must ignore if you are to enjoy this movie. Why, exactly, the "peace-keeping" mission of NATO suddenly has them independently paying for Doomsday weapons is never addressed in any way, shape or form. Moving on, nothing to see here but the ripped, torn, bleeding carcass of a gazelle that wandered into a lion pride.

The task of transporting these warheads from Kurgystan or some such random country (see above plot hole comment; why a Scotsmen working for NATO has his lab there is...well...best not to think about it. You won't like the answer anyway.) is assigned to Duke (Channing Tatum) , Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) and their team of anonymous casualties.

Enter the forces of the Baroness (Sienna Miller) and Storm Shadow (Byung-Hun Lee) who try to seize the briefcase, only to be foiled by Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and some other Joe I cannot remember.

Yes, the characters are introduced so fast and in such large bunches that they are hard to remember...but I am okay with that as at least they were true to that part of the Joe lore. As well as all of them having nick-names, though why Duke is Duke and Ripcord Ripcord prior to becoming Joes is another intriguing mystery best left unexplored.

From there the story takes off. The scenes of exposition are few and far between and widely spaced between some rather intense set-piece action scenes, long chases, huge explosions, and the requisite and awesome Snake Eyes versus Storm Shadow one on one combats which should satisfy any fan of sword play...unless, of course, the viewer has seen the movies from which their fight scenes seem to be almost directly ported over.

It is an open question whether the heavy references in this movie to other movies are "tributes", "homages" or "plagiarism". For your intellectual integrity, do not compare the missile dodging scene to any other recent high profile movies based on toy franchises that had a massive city battle which saw missiles fired at two figures in full chase mode who then contort wildly to avoid them...

There were so many references to many famous movies. In fact, they cribbed so heavily from Black Hawk Down that instead of simply re-shooting scenes down to the same camera angles...they simply took footage from it as you see in the final credits.

In case it is not obvious, even after seeing it I am highly conflicted about this movie.

As a GI JOE movie, it blew great hairy chunks of monkey under arm pit sweat. The unworldly physics of the Accelerator suits, the stupidity of the nanomites and various "pistol that blows up a city block...no wait, it sniper-level hits just the intended target...no wait, it blows up 2 widely dispersed enemies and the entire wall behind them" weapons, the death of a major, major part of the JOE lore...these are major strikes against it.

Not to mention they use the tag line "GI JOE:A Real American Hero" even though it is deliberately an international task force based in Egypt. Oh, and the American President has a very thick, obvious, and not American accent.

At the same time, as an action movie this may have been even more adrenaline-pumped and action packed than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or even Live Free or Die Hard. The action scenes are long, packed, photographed well with very little of the annoying bouncing that has been all the rage lately. These are action scenes that are filmed so well you can actually, you know....see what is happening. That is outstanding.

But on the negative side are the repeat jokes and the bad acting. Example A: When Cobra attacks in the desert, the camels sense the under-the-surface invasion and react to it. When the Joes attack the Cobra base, the Polar Bear senses the under-the-surface invasion and reacts to it. Tit-for-tat, take that.

And the acting...oh, what happened? Way back when the abominable Punisher:Warzone was out, I complained about the cheesy, cartoon-like acting of Dominic West in the role of primary villain and how it really detracted from what was very nearly a really good Punisher movie.

Enter The Doctor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who apparently disagrees with me. His walk, his gestures, his vocal inflections...until I looked up the credits I actually thought it was Dominic West. His cartoonish acting was extremely distracting. In his "homage" costume to Star Wars and Hellboy he decided to reference one of the more disappointing Comic Genre movies in recent memory? Why was this allowed?

Marlon Wayans is also pretty uneven, going from playing it straight and in the feel of most of the cast to getting in touch with his prat-fall Three Stooges homage side.

The change of heart Scarlett has is not sold particularly well either, but that is part of having perhaps too many sub-plots.

Ironically, I prefer my movies, even popcorn-fests such as this one, to have a variety of story-lines...provided the director takes the time to develop them and they make sense.

In this case, Director Stephen Sommers was so busy over-using the tired and true (not a typo) flashback device so often used to cover weak story-telling to actually develop current stories.

So in the end we have a real mish-mash. It is a great action flick with a couple real poor performances, interesting but not fascinating story, a nice twist that you may or may not see coming, and a curious (probable) death to a well-loved character and other abuses of the franchise that simultaneously manages to be great and horrific at the same time.

If you insist on your "GI Joe" lore matching the canon, save the 40 bucks a night at the movies will cost you. If you love action movies, go see it today. If you are indifferent...well, you might get distracted.

Part 6: Pulling it all together

Clearly, there are a great number of factors to consider when putting together a Super Hero movie. The end result can range from fantastic on down to horrible. Obviously, the intent is always to provide the audience with the best experience possible but still, for almost every Spiderman we get a Daredevil and for every Batman Begins we get a Batman Forever. What separates the best from the worst?

The Hero Saves the Day or Movies you Should not miss.

There are some movies which escape the genre of Super Hero movies. They can and should be enjoyed even by people who perhaps are not so much fans of comic books yet still love good action movies or just plain entertaining features.

Any discussion of the greatest Super Hero movies of all time has to include The Dark Knight (2008). It contains every element needed to appeal to both the core audience for action movies and to the more casual fan. The storyline is complex, the characterizations layered, and the themes that run through the movie are easily accessible.

Interestingly, one of the most important lines any Super Hero movie must consider is life and death. Will people face real death or will they simply be put in peril yet ultimately escape. The Dark Knight turns the question into a primary theme. The Joker (Heath Ledger) is an indiscriminate killer who uses a variety of methods to dispose of enemies, police, and innocent bystanders. On the other side of the divide is Batman (Christian Bale) who refuses to take a life.

Questions of morals and corruptibility run throughout the movie. Yet it is not so lost in following these questions that it forgets to fulfill expectations for dynamic action. Though the primary villain, the Joker, has weaker motivations than you will typically find for villains on this list, the visuals, story, and action combine to fill over 2-1/2 hours with entertainment.

Close behind is an animated feature, The Incredibles (2004). Easy to dismiss because it is an animated feature, The Incredibles is a surprisingly well put together feature. The cast of heroes from Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) to Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) to Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) is one that is instantly recognizable as belonging to the Golden Age of heroes. The villain Syndrome (Jason Lee) has classic motivations, a cool look, and provides a distinct threat to the heroes that is believable and fun to watch as they overcome it. The action sequences are mind-blowing and highly entertaining. To casually dismiss it because the Incredibles are not a DC Comics or Marvel Comics creation and because it is animated is to do yourself a huge disservice. The Incredibles bears up well to repeated viewings and should be high on the list for anyone who enjoys good Super Hero movies.

The Hero is On His Way or Movies Worth Seeing more than once.

There are several movies which are on the cusp of greatness. They are above average action movies with good characters and story lines yet are not quite on the same level as the very best of the genre.

Take a movie like The Fantastic Four (2005). It explores themes of how to deal with being different in a variety of ways, Dr. Doom (Julian McMahon) provides a great challenge for the heroes, the path to the final confrontation is entertaining with some nice turns along the way, and the final battle is epic. This is a movie which has a deserved fanbase but it is not quite on the same level as the top few movies.

In the same vein would be a movie like Iron Man (2008). Perfectly cast from Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) to eye-candy Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to fun villain Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), it jumps right into the action and keeps the audience entertained from beginning to end. There is a nice dose of excellent action, strong supporting characters, and the theme of redemption for Stark is one that the audience can latch on to. Yet there is just...something, some undefinable something that marks it a step below the very best. Perhaps it is the less deep motivations of Stane or the surprisingly short final confrontation with the Iron Monger but something makes this movie one that, while entertaining, just is not on the same level as the very top tier.

There are a number of movies that fall into this vein. 2 of the 3 Spiderman movies fall into the realm of movies that are highly entertaining, have engaging action sequences, cool villains, and explore themes that most people should find interesting. In the first of the three, that theme has to do with how power is handled and in the second the themes are revenge and dealing with broken dreams. Where do they fall short while The Dark Knight and The Incredibles succeed? Perhaps the motivations are just a bit off or the resolutions just a bit hokey...sometimes it is hard to say why one movie works better than another movie, a theme we will explore more in the underrated section.

Some movies make it into the realm of eminently satisfying movies simply because one certain element stands out above the others. For example, The Incredible Hulk (2008) is a pretty average movie for most of the length. The opening is slow and somewhat maudlin. The action sequences seem to be battling the ghosts of The Hulk (2003) and, while good, are not great...until the finale where the Hulk (Edward Norton) battles the Abomination (Tim Roth). Here we see the true potential of Super Hero movies with a battle that is truly titanic. Two seemingly evenly matched super strength warriors battle each other across a city and their path of destruction is truly memorable. If not for this scene then it is possible that, incredibly, The Incredible Hulk would have followed The Hulk into the pits of disappointment. The motivations ring hollow, Norton is not particularly sympathetic as Bruce Banner, and the story tends to drag in places yet the movie is redeemed by the finale.

Down to Defeat: Whither the Hero? or movies gone wrong.

As fun as it might seem to watch Super Hero movies, sometimes the boat is missed and the results are disappointing. Perhaps the poster child for this is the aforementioned The Hulk. It spends so much time on metaphysical questions that it fails to deliver the story lines that are needed in a fantasy world such as one inhabited by Superheroes. It exhibits the same flaw that ultimately crippled Fantastic Four:Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007). A weak path to the movie, albeit with some very cool special effects, ultimately is not saved by the finale but instead turns the entire movie into a travesty, a weak echo of what was expected. Both finales involve not a fight of epic proportions and over the top action but instead a metaphysical, abstract mind-meld that leaves the audience disappointed. It is not necessarily that either effort was a bad movie or even that the endings were unsatisfying...if they were a different genre. But in a Super Hero movie you want action and both movies failed to deliver it for their denouement.

Another way to miss it is to miss the "feel" of the source material. It has been tried twice with the Punisher franchise. The first time, when Dolph Lundgren took on the role of Frank Castle in the 1989 version the movie was roundly panned, possibly because Dolph Lundgren has the screen presence of a leper and the grace of a 1-legged mule. He simply was not a sympathetic character and his acting removed the viewer from the world they were trying to immerse themselves in. When Thomas Jane took on the role in 2004 he suffered many of the same issues. His facial expressions vary so seldom that you assume he is attempting to recreate the legendary Kuleshov Effect. While the climax is indeed a bloodbath worthy of the comic book source material, the variety of guns he uses is remarkably small and not nearly as over the top as expected. We have seen larger arsenals of weaponry in a variety of flicks. As a result, The Punisher is just another gunfighting movie that does it more poorly than a lot of other gunfighting movies and does not have a storyline or characterizations to make up for it.

Superman Returns (2006) is another example of a movie that is a fine effort at movie making but a failure as an attempt at a Super Hero movie. The climax is reached without a real super hero type activity and as a result it is a rather depressing, maudlin, dark-hued effort that leaves people waiting to see Superman (Brandon Routh) unleash on them wondering what happened. If this movie were not Superman then perhaps the cheese-ball overacting of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and his rather pedestrian motivations could have been overcome to give us an entertaining foray into the questions of relationships rekindled after an unexpected time apart. Perhaps not. But we will never know.

When Super Hero movies forget their core audience and either are not true to the source material or else fail to deliver action packed finales they almost always end in tremendous disappointment.

Who Was that Masked Man? or, Super Hero movies that have been underrated.

As Super Hero movies go, the box office numbers for Hellboy (2004) and Hellboy II:The Golden Army (2008) were not stellar. Yet both efforts star a wisecracking Super Hero (?) Hellboy (Ron Perlman) in the best tradition of the Gold Age of comics. He is an interesting character study of "genetics versus environment"and his desire to be "normal" provides an entertaining sub-plot. To be sure the motives of the villains are pretty stereotypical but the movies move along at a good pace, are entertaining to watch and should have been much better received.

Another fine example would be Daredevil (2003). The movie had interesting characters, an action packed plot, motivations that made sense, and while the battle with Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan) was disappointing, it did come after an epic battle between first Daredevil (Ben Affleck) and Elektra (Jennifer Garner), then Electra and Bullseye (Colin Farrell), and finally Daredevil and Bullseye that is not to be missed. Yet it has been roundly panned and dismissed as a weak effort. I suspect it has more to do with the timing of its release with Ben Affleck in a starring role than the quality of the movie itself.

This look at Super Hero movies obviously overlooks older, and sometimes great efforts such as Superman (1978) and is not meant to look at every movie ever made. But in looking at the list, one thing becomes clear. When people set out to make a Super Hero movie, they sometimes go half way or they forget their core audience. It is all too easy to dismiss those audience members as dorks or geeks and assume the same level of effort to produce great movies in other genres is not required for Super Hero flicks.

In truth, some of those audience members are among the most discerning members out there, capable of catching subtle nuances and themes that fly over the heads of many audience members. To create a great Super Hero movie, it is incumbent to treat the source material and audience members with respect, to give us a script that includes sensible motivations, 3-dimensional characters, explores issues people care about, and still delivers the action we crave to resolve those situations.

In real life it is not possible to resolve disagreements with girlfriends by defeating a Super Villain...but that is what we want in our movies. That is what we look for, it is what we want, and it is what we celebrate. Long live the Super Heroes.

How can the Climactic Fight alter your perception of a Super Hero Movie Part 4

The most important part of any movie is the climax, that moment when all the threads of the story you have been following (theoretically) come together to give you some sort of resolution. In Super Hero movies that resolution is virtually always achieved through combat. A great climactic fight can save a bad movie and a horrible climax can ruin a good one. And sometimes it makes no difference...

While every genre has certain conventions which must be observed it is perhaps the Super Hero movie which is most reliant on a particular element. Romantic comedies must have a boy gets girl element, even if there are movies such as The Break-up (2006) which defy that convention and do not have a stereotypical happy ending. Westerns can have the hero die as John Wayne did in The Cowboys (1972) or even be set in places other than the west as the entire Star Wars franchise was. But a Super Hero movie without over the top action and fights? Uggh.

Test this theory out. Go watch the Hulk (2003), the vastly and rightfully maligned version. Watch it as a character study. It is actually an excellent movie. Clearly Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) has issues. He struggles with guilt. He struggles with identity. And most of all, he battles with who his Father (Nick Nolte) actually is. The movie is a very deep movie on some levels and takes a long, hard look at that. If it were marketed as Pan's Labyrinth (2006) was it would have been a niche film to be sure but very highly regarded in that niche. Unfortunately, it was marketed as a Super Hero movie.

As a result, the final, climactic battle...well, actually, the complete lack of one...destroyed the appeal of the movie. The battles with the Army along the way were not much better. People went to see a Hulk fight and got introspection and weirdness.

Contrast that with the epic battle between the Hulk (Edward Norton) and the Abomination (Tim Roth) at the conclusion of The Incredible Hulk (2008). Oh smurf yeah. Now we are talking. This fight was what Super Hero fans are looking for. It had huge amounts of fisticuffs. The moment when Hulk rips apart the police car and pounds the Abomination with it is awesome. The portion where the Abomination sends the Hulk careening through buildings is outstanding. And in a tremendous homage to the Hulk fanboys know and love, we even get a verbalized Hulk Smash. This fight is over the top, destructive, impressive, and satisfying.

An easy comparison would be the final battle between Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) and the Iron Monger (Obadiah Stane). It is surprisingly short. Of course, the action bringing us to this point was plenteous and entertaining but the climax seemed like it had just started when it ended and, significantly, ended not by the efforts of Iron Man but actually at the hand of Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Yet despite the length and somewhat unheroic denouement, the fight was a great conclusion to the movie that left the audience feeling satisfied. This helps demonstrate that the length of the climax does not necessarily make or break the meaning that fight imparts to the film.

Arguably, the climactic battle of Daredevil (2003) was between Daredevil and Bullseye, not the Kingpin (Michael Duncan Clarke). It went on for quite some time. Actually, the climactic battle was among the lengthiest in Super Hero film history, starting with combat between Daredevil and Elektra, moving on to take in Elektra against Bullseye,

and then moving on to a sprawling battle between Daredevil and Bullseye. That portion of the movie is quite lengthy and moves from rooftops to a cathedral including a tremendous set-piece on the organ. But even then it is not done as the barely able to walk Daredevil makes his way to the Kingpins office for the final confrontation.

For all its length and interesting situations, somehow the fight did not capture the attention of the audience and the movie failed. This indicates a great climax cannot save a movie. Of course, the almost complete lack of any combat can pretty much ruin one. Lets check out one of the best action pictures from Superman Returns (2006). It looked a lot like this:

Okay, so that is a visual joke. But not much of one. Having Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) serve as the primary villain pretty much doomed the final battle to lameness and as a result, the movie has not engendered a huge call for a sequel.

Clearly it is incumbent on a Super Hero movie to have some sort of super fight. It can be short or long as long as it is there. Movies like The Hulk and Superman Returns struggle to entertain their audience without them. Arguably, without the dog fight and the psychedelic mind-meld, had The Hulk had this

we might never have gotten The Incredible Hulk because we wouldn't have needed it to satisfy.

Open memo to writers, directors, and producers of future Super Hero movies. Please, give us a satisfying combat to finish up your flick. Remember, whatever else you are trying to do, whatever questions you are trying to answer, remember your core audience; people who enjoy super fights. Remember, even a movie like The Dark Knight (2008) which is primarily about what it takes to corrupt good people, it still offered a fantastic and action packed finale to resolve the various story lines. I think I am on pretty safe ground in saying people enjoyed it more for that than they would have a group session in therapy.

Super Hero movies, whatever else they do, whatever other ground they cover, they still, in the end, are about action. And that, more than any other factor, makes or breaks the movie.

Is he good or evil? The 2 sides of questionable heroes, Part 4

Every so often there comes along a moment so iconic it leaps of the movie screen and makes its way onto posters, shirts, and other paraphernalia. One such moment was when Spiderman saw his reflection as Venom. Besides being a stunning visual, it also is a stunning visual metaphor for one of the trickiest roles in Super Hero movies. That would be taking it from hero to villain or villain to hero.

Venom is one such example of course. When he performs a symbiotic relationship with Peter Parker (Tobey McGuire) he acts for good. Yet the entire time it is a struggle that leads Parker to moves that are out of character for him such as trying to kill Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) or his strut and humiliation of Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) in the restaurant. Yet ultimately Parker is able to overcome those effects. Venom, of course, is unquestionably, undeniably and irredeemably evil in the hands of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace).






This contrast with someone such as Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhardt). He is pretty unquestioningly good at the beginning of The Dark Knight (2008). He is the White Knight to Batman's (Christian Bale) Dark Knight. Whereas Batman works with fear and terror, Dent is a symbol of hope. His courageous stand against the death threats of the gangsters and Joker (Heath Ledger) provides an example to the citizens of Gotham that there are good men among their leaders. His heroic move to take the fall for Batman when the town insists on his arrest spoke to his heroic intentions.



Yet even at the height of his heroism there were signs he had certain flaws in his character. His habit of deciding things seemingly by chance in flipping a coin showed one of those flaws. He was cheating the entire time. There was no chance whatsoever in those coin flips and that willingness or desire to take advantage in these situations showed that while he might be upright and courageous he also was willing to bend or break rules to get what he wanted.


Thus when he was physically scarred in the explosion minutes after losing Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhall) it was really just an external showing of an internal truth. His now-scarred coin became a true measure of chance. However, he was now willing to go places he was previously unwilling to go and perform actions he was previously unwilling to perform. His move from hero to villain was a long trip and certainly reversible. That is primarily true because he bought into it completely as both hero and villain. He was willing to risk his life to put the mobsters behind bars or to stand against the Joker. After the corruption, he was equally willing to give up everything to achieve his new aims.

This stands in sharp contrast to Elektra(Jennifer Garner).

She is the daughter of a gangster. Does she truly not know what he does for a living? That strains the bounds of credibility. She is in many ways the epitome of apathetic neutrality. She does not stand up against evil nor does she seek to perform good actions. She simply is. Yet it is not a lack of capability. Her fight with Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck) on the teeter-totters is not only entertaining, it demonstrates a high degree of capability.

Her move into the realm of super is unclear as to whether she is hero or villain. You would argue villain based on her opponent being Daredevil and also since she is seeking vengeance on the man she believes kills her father. Yet she quickly turns and fights Bullseye (Colin Farrall) when she learns the truth. Again she is neither hero nor villain but instead falls into the nebulous realm of major players who have questionable alignments.

On the third point of the triangle is the individual who moves from evil to good. The iconic example of this is unquestionably the Silver Surfer (Doug Jones and Laurence Fishburne(voice)).
At the beginning of the movie he is clearly evil as his role consists of finding and preparing planets for destruction, even if they are inhabited. The story arc has more to do with the attempts of the Fantastic Four to stop him and then, once they learn his true role as merely the herald for Galactus, to convince him to stop the destruction.

At the end of the movie he is unquestionably a hero as he conceivably commits suicide to stop Galactus. Of course, as anyone who knows the history of the Fantastic Four knows, he is probably not dead but the fact he was willing to sacrifice everything to save the planet, the true epitome of a hero. The sacrifice does not have to take place. There simply has to be a willingness to make the sacrifice and that he unquestionably is.

Clearly, the story arcs that take characters from good to bad or vice versa can provide great value to the goal of entertaining the audience in Super Hero movies. Keep an eye on these subplots in any given movie and it might enhance your enjoyment. Go back and watch the 3 Spiderman movies and concentrate solely on the character arc of Harry Osborne (James Franco) as he goes from neutral to bad to neutral to good. It is an oft overlooked sub-plot that helped turn that series into great entertainment.

Can Villains determine the entertainment value of a Super Hero Movie? part 3

There is a moment in Iron Man (2008) where the villain of the piece, the Iron Monger aka Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) picks up an SUV to hurl it at the worn down Iron Man aka Tony Stark (Morton Downey Jr.) where I went, "This is a very cool villain." Although the movie was not exceptionally action packed and the fight between Iron Man and the Iron Monger is not particularly long, nevertheless the Iron Monger was a flat out cool villain.

It was his coolness as a villain that turned the movie from another, "Oh, it was nice to see but...I don't know if I would see it again" type fare into, "When that comes out on video, we are buying that one!" because it is one that will stand up to repeated viewings. He is an interesting villain and a capable one. But the reason he is interesting is because they took the time to flesh him out.
On first viewing Obadiah Stane is a believable family friend. There is an obvious familiarity and camaraderie between Stane and Stark that is fun to watch and believable. His motivations make sense...he wants to preserve the business. He wants to maximize his own power and, as it turns out, is willing to harm those who get in his way such as Tony Stark. Their conflict thus flows naturally and is easy to believe.

That is the hallmark of a strong villain. They are not specifically seeking to test their wits against the hero. The conflict that arises between Super Hero and Super Villain arises organically as the respective parties pursue their own goals. A great example of this would be the villains who fought Spiderman.

It started with the first Green Goblin. He was not specifically seeking out Spiderman. He was simply angry at the failure of his schemes and, mentally unhinged, he lashed out. Spiderman sought him out and took the fight to him. This changed a bit when Harry Osborn sought revenge for his fathers' death but by then the paradigm of Spiderman versus the Green Goblin had been established and would itself have been believable motivation. By having the character arcs intersect seemingly by chance rather than just creating a villain who simply wanted to battle a hero we were presented, if not a 3 dimensional then at least a complex 2 dimensional character who seems to act in their own self-interest as opposed to some villains of movies past who seemed to exist solely to provide a foil for the hero and whose motivations were not particularly believable.Dr. Octopus is a further example of this. Far from just some cartoonish villain, when we first meet Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) he is in fact a hero of sorts. It is only after his experiment goes awry that we see him become evil. But it is a tempered evil...he does not suddenly become a maniac or psychopath...he simply tries to set things aright and makes poor choices which lead to his turn to the path of crime which then is exacerbated by his interactions with Harry. Their interactions which fit very well with each character's personal motivations.

Thus Doc Ock is not just random villain X with no interests of his own. In truth he is someone we can care about, even if eventually that care is that he be defeated. Of course, in the flick he eventually redeems himself, a fact which for many fans of villains actually condemns him, but that is for another piece. Until then, Doc Ock follows the Spiderman villain pattern,

Contrast that with a villain such as Bullseye (Colin Farrell) from Daredevil (2003). He is a more stereotypical villain.His motivations? Money and hitting everything he shoots at. He has to hit the bulls eye with darts, paper clips, shuriken, and even pencils. On the bright side he is quite entertaining. His method of disposing of the old woman on the plane was quite amusing and his quip about the guard he killed with pencils memorable as well. And there is no denying he has a very cool look. Colin Farrell nailed this role.



On the downside he is pretty much a 1 dimensional character. He serves as nothing but a goon, a hired thug brought in specifically for a job. His one motivation is anger when Daredevil (Ben Affleck) makes him miss. That is a weak motivation indeed.



It is possible that weak villains such as Bullseye and the Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan) had a lot to do with the weak box office done by Daredevil. Their motivations were irrelevant to the movie and thus it lacked the depth that has set the good Super Hero movies apart. Or perhaps not. After all, a very popular arch-villain in a current movie has far more in common with Bullseye than with the better developed villains of Spiderman and Iron Man.

Is there any question the Joker (Heath Ledger) will go down in the annals of movie history as one of the greatest antagonists of all time? He mesmerized the audience while on the screen and haunted all the events occurring off it. He made The Dark Knight (2008) into must-see entertainment even for non-fans of comic books.In many ways, he was everything a good villain should be. He was dangerous, he was a threat to the existence of the hero, he caused the protagonist existential quandaries as well as physical opposition, and he performed actions that screamed "villain" in ways that are usually reserved for the most depraved individuals.

Yet if we take a step back we quickly realize he was actually a pretty one dimensional, almost cartoonish villain. His role has more in common with Bullseye than it does with even the Green Goblin.

He does not care about money. He does not care about power. He does not even particularly care about his own life. Check out the way he screams, "Hit me! Hit Me! HIT ME!!!!!!" As Batman roars towards him on the Batcycle. Or the way he aims a loaded gun in his mouth and puts it in the hands of Harvey "Two Face" Dent (Aaron Eckhardt). He is willing to die to corrupt people.

That is his entire motivation. To corrupt people. That is about as cartoonish as it gets yet he is still an undeniably entertaining villain, thus demonstrating you don't have to have a rounded villain if the movie is handled correctly.

The Hellboy franchise is one that seems to have gotten that often touchy line correct. Villains range from Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beren) to Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) to Wink (Brian Steele). At one end you have Wink and Kroenen...
They are stereotypical goons. It is hard to say what their motivations, hopes, dreams or desires are because those are never mentioned. They are just muscle, just obstacles for the hero to overcome. At the other end of the spectrum is Prince Nuada. He is a complex villain. His desires make sense and might even find a few viewers who sympathise with him in the current social paradigms. He knows his choices will be unpopular yet he believes in them so strongly that he ends up killing his Father while professing love for him. He is strong, intelligent, and cares for his followers. His story is really what draws you in while the love story of Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) is almost a sideline. A villain who is over half the story is complex indeed. And that adds a great deal of interest even to movies which are more interested in providing a fun experience for the viewer than a great or deep storyline.

And that brings us to the Abomination (Tim Roth).

Is he a good guy at the beginning of the movie? Or is he just a villain who does not yet realize it? The path he takes from super soldier to what you see pictured here is every bit as important to the story of The Incredible Hulk (2008) as even that of Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) himself.

The downward spiral as he tries to amplify his own power to compete with the Hulk seems to be part of what corrupts him. The process as his ego compels him to attempt things beyond his strength makes for an entertaining tale. And at the end his sheer strength leads to one of the most entertaining Super Hero battles to hit the big screen yet.

From Bullseye to Abomination, from the Joker to Wink, villains are a crucial part of the world of the Super Hero. Without a proper villain a Super Hero movie is pretty pointless. It behooves the prudent writer to put some thought into their villains.

Coming up next:assessing the tweeners...are they heroes or villains?

Assessing the Heroes Part 2

The recent spate of Super Hero movies has been very entertaining for me. I am a closet Comic Book lover who prefers a bit of the 40s, 50s and 60s feel when they were more about entertainment and less about angst. About the time every new title that hit the market echoed the angst of the Fantastic Four my interest began to wane. I think the Darkhawk title was a pretty good example. It started out with a sense of fun and adventure...then made a left turn into every issue being so full of angst that it became an exercise in misery.

Of course, the poster child for angst came from Marvel comics with the Fantastic Four. Thus rose the challenge; how can you make a bunch of angst-ridden heroes into an entertaining movie? Well, for the male portion of your population, starting with Jessica Alba as Susan Storm is never a bad idea. There are not a huge number of straight males who don't find her smoking hot. I freely admit to not being one of those few.

At the same time, simply adding her to the line-up does not make a movie entertaining in and of itself. What do Awake (2007), The Eye (2007), The Love Guru (2008), and even Good Luck Chuck (2007) have in common? Jessica Alba was in the movie and it did not draw crowds. It isn't enough to have beautiful people such as Alba and Chris Evans (Johnny Storm) roaming around. The writers still must like us care about the characters they portray.

The difficulty of having his wife reject him and always appearing odd is something that had audiences empathizing with Ben "the Thing" Grimm (Michael Chiklis). The all brain, no comprehension of sexy woman hitting on you syndrome of Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffud) struck a chord with millions of geeks, nerds, and comic book aficionados. And so forth.

Further proof that being sexy does not an entertaining movie make comes in the form of versatile actress Jennifer Garner. In the middle of her run on Alias she made movies as varied as 13 Going on 30 (2004) and Daredevil (2003). How is it the first was considered a success and the second a failure?

Again, it has to do with whether the character was entertaining. Somehow Elektra (Jennifer Garner) came across as not butt-kicking but as a bit needy, whiny and weak. How that is possible when someone looks like she does in the above picture is hard to understand. It also illustrates the fine line between creating a character that works and one that doesn't.

That is the secret to making good lead characters. Give us a character we can like. After well-publicized life problems, why would fans flock to a Robert Downey Jr. movie? To be sure, there is plenty of attractive flesh in Iron Man (2008)...I think this picture gives you a feel for the tone.

But nobody in their right mind is going to shell out $30 bucks (assuming 2 tickets, some popcorn, soda, and maybe a candy of some sort) for a few glimpses of toned legs and skimpy outfits unless the story is entertaining. While very few of us will have a device of questionable scientific legitimacy keeping us alive, many of us might wish we could jet-set around Vegas and California with the beautiful people, drive fast cars, and have a cool, fun, high paying job. Being on the edge of losing that and seeing the need to make a difference as Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) did in Iron Man draws people in, entertains them, and sends them home happy. And it never hurts if the good guy looks cool and can blow stuff up using an outfit like this. If you want to purchase one just like it for me for Christmas I will happily forward my particulars to you. And for those who never read the Iron Man titles, here is a minor spoiler for you. When Rhodie (Terrence Howard) scoped out the silver suit in Stark's home and says, "Next time"...he gets to wear a suit like that under the name War Machine. If that character is part of the next Iron Man it will be a major geek-out moment.

Now, you might think from what I said above I think characters should have no angst or something along that line. Far from it. In Batman we have a character who, in the current incarnation, is so angst-ridden that he considers giving up the super hero game in The Dark Knight (2008). Yet the movie is hugely entertaining...including him. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) can do things very few if any of the viewers can. Yet his struggle to deal with tragic losses without becoming hateful and vengeful resonates with many people. His troubles are deep but not presented in a way that overwhelms you with dreariness. Contrast that with, for example, Superman (Brandon Roush) in Superman Returns (2006)In trying to restart the Superman franchise there were a lot of external factors. George Reeves and Christopher Reeves, 2 iconic Supermen both came to unfortunate and tragic ends. Christopher, in particular, was still so associated with the franchise that many questioned if reviving the franchise was even possible. With that in mind, Superman Returns was entirely too dreary. The choice to shoot everything in greyish, muted, dark tones, to score it with moody music and to couch the attempt to rekindle heat between Superman and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) in terms of her smoking habit tended to turn the movie too dreary and subsequently fan excitement for a sequel has been, to say the least, rather muted. Nor is Superman the only franchise to suffer this malady.

The Punisher franchise could offer an excellent counterpoint to most of the movies out today. Unlike Batman, The Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Superman, or even the X-men, the Punisher of the comics not only never had any compunction about killing people, his title was noted for exceedingly high body counts. Yet in the restart after the roundly panned Punisher (1989) in which Dolph Lundgren played a Frank Castle similar to the comic in that he used large numbers of huge weapons, the Punisher (2004) spends so long setting up the background that Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) never gets his guns off, so to speak and the cliactic battle is too little, too late for fans of the comic version and too brutal for those who went into the movie not knowing what to expect. That is part of why Punisher: War Zone (2008?) is having so many problems in production; the studio is rumored to be afraid to make a movie that will appease the hardcore Castle fans but still want to be hardcore.

Fortunately, we have an example of a hero who is willing to kill done right. For sheer fun, very little beats the wise-cracking, butt-kicking demon turned good guy, Hellboy.He has no compunction about killing. In fact, some of his best lines have to do with opponents he believes he has killed who refuse to stay dead. The killing is never matter of fact, random, or brutal. How do you politely say...it is in fact fun? Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) plays it just right to make it entertaining.

So when you look at what forms an entertaining protagonist there are clearly several factors that come in to play. Is the character entertaining? Do they avoid having so many problems that instead of having fun the viewer is dragged down into misery? Are their goals, dreams, and actions something people can relate to in some way, however tenuous that vicarious thread might be?

And to me it mostly comes back to fun.

Cinematic Superheroes; Rating the Greats, part 1

The financial success of the Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Hellboy, X-Men and Batman franchises in recent years ensures us that the foreseeable future will be inundated with further entries into the Super Hero genre. Actually, calling it "Super Hero" might not be exactly correct as from time to time we veer more into "Comic Book Hero" realm, a subtle yet sometimes important distinction. The Comic Book hero would include source material such as the oft-maligned and underrated Judge Dredd (1995) and the rumored Jonah Hex movie. If they stay true to the source material I will be there opening day for that one. However...if they go the route the scripts have been rumored to go...not so much. If I wanted to watch X-Files material I would watch the X-Files.


And therein we have one of the issues surrounding Comic Books as source material. The audience becomes a moving target even within the "fanboy"/nerd/geek paradigm. On the one hand, you have people like me...I know the general outline of even 2nd tier Heroes such as Darkhawk, the Green Arrow, Elongated Man, etc. and have a pretty good sense of the Superman pantheon of enemies, for example. Yet I have nowhere near the level of interest of people who, for example, recognized the name on the test tube in The Incredible Hulk (2008) as belonging to the guy who injected the Super Soldier serum into Steve Rogers (Captain America). On the other end of the spectrum are people who needed me to identify Steve Rogers as being the alias for the iconic Super Hero, to whom names like Zsasz or the Mad Hatter are unlikely to bring to mind Batman villains.


That leaves open the question of whether or how much origin story to kick in when starting a new tent pole Hero. In Spiderman (2002) the answer was yes, we will give the relatively long form version. In Daredevil (2003) the combination of too much back story and Ben Affleck unfortunately sunk a potentially very entertaining franchise as fans turned away in droves from a movie that, in retrospect, was actually quite entertaining. In The Incredible Hulk (2008) they dispensed with the back story entirely and assumed the audience would quickly comprehend the potentially complex relationships between the 3 main characters.


There is, like so often in the movies, no "right" or "wrong" answer. The Fantastic Four (2005) was essentially nothing but origin...yet it was entertaining and paved the way for further movies. Iron Man (2008) was also quite heavy on the origin portion yet left fans clamoring for more. Why did these movies succeed while Daredevil, The Hulk, and, arguably, even The Punisher (2004) failed?



Over the next few days I will explore a variety of factors that help explain the success, failure, and entertainment value of various comic book and Super Hero movies. Along the way the factors that make these movies entertaining...or not...for many people who may not have ever encountered the material prior to seeing these movies.