Movie Review: Megamind

It is not a big secret that I am a fan of both animated movies and super hero movies. Combine them, a la The Incredibles (2004) and I am up for it.

Also not a secret is my tendency to root for the likable villain...and key in on the likable. Syndrome (Jason Lee) in The Incredibles, absolutely. Mr Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) in Batman and Robin (1997)...not so much.

Of course, with the advent of the Shrek franchise, the "twist" of starring the villain has really taken off with mixed results. The first, second and fourth Shreks were pretty good...Shrek the Third closely resembles its name if you simply drop the "h" sound from the title.

Happily N'evr After (2007) was so abominably bad I should ban it ever being mentioned on this website again on pain of being forced to watch it three weeks straight.

Of more recent vintage, Despicable Me (2010) was very good.

But with that background, I anxiously awaited the release of Megamind wherein Megamind (Will Ferrell) tires of his villainous battles with the heroic Superman clone Metro Man (Brad Pitt) and tries to become a hero.


Brief outline; Megamind and Metro Man have battled so often their battles have become predictable cliches, the outcome known to both of them.

When Megamind inadvertently discovers Metro man's secret weakness and defeats him, he is able to run amok in the city with the help of his faithful Minion (David Cross) and his Brainbots.





Success is not all it is cracked up to be, however, so he sets out to create a new enemy to face. But the new enemy foils his plans by turning into a villain. Can Megamind mend his ways, defeat the new villain, and get the girl?


So synopsis out of the way, lets get to the good and bad of this movie.

First, the good. There are some great moments of humor, the action is entertaining, the dialogue pretty good too. They take some well-aimed potshots at trite, predictable Super hero conventions but do it in such a light-hearted, entertaining manner that it does not feel pretentious.

They also take a tired old story line, punch it up and let you enjoy the tale of redemption embarked on by the titular hero of the piece.

Now the bad. There is not much. I was entertained from beginning to end. The extended flashback felt like it fit, as each piece fell into place it made sense, and the resolution was creative, entertaining and satisfying. So the bad part would be...I wish this was out on DVD now so I could watch it again.

If you enjoy light-hearted animated romps with a delightful sense of humor, go see this movie.

Movie Review:The Spirit

Frank Miller is infatuated with color schemes of black and white with splashes of red. In The Spirit he uses these to great effect. As a director he has a great eye for stunning visuals and iconic moments. As a writer he has a wry, twisted sense of humor that translates well to the stylized movies he likes to put out.

The Spirit (Gabriel Macht) is a super-hero whose primary super-power is his ability to repeatedly come back from death. He acts as a sort of detective/spy for the police force while battling his arch-nemesis the Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), a villain who has the same ability and a wicked sense of humor.

For example, the Octopus has a bizarre preoccupation with eggs. He also has a never-ending series of cloned minions (Louis Lombardi) that die with regularity only to come back with new names ending in -os; Pathos, ethos, Adios (the last one we see) and, after one long monologue about not getting egg on his face, he names his next minion Huevos...Spanish for egg.

The Octopus is trying to attain the blood of Heracles to make himself immortal. Silken Floss (Scarlett Johannsen) is is assistant trying to pay her way through college. Sand Saref (Eva Mendes) is tyring to attain Jason's Golden Fleece because it is shiny. The Spirit is trying to end crime in his city.

That is about it as far as story, which is fine. This is a pretty action-filled romp with occasional spots of humor and some outstanding visuals. If you like those sorts of movies, you will love The Spirit. 

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.