Menu

why this sucks

1488539-joker2

Why This Sucks: The Killing Joke (Animated Film)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Killing Joke is a big part of why I love Batman.  Back in late 2007/early 2008 I was introduced to the essential Batman graphic novels.  The Long Halloween, Hush, Arkham Asylum and The Dark Knight Returns were eye-opening, but it was The Killing Joke that had the most profound effect on me.  It seemed the writers of these Batman books understood how to create a story that lived within the covers of its own volume moreso than other comic writers.  The average person could pick up Hush and, without doing any additional homework, appreciate it for the great story that it is.  While a lot of Batman books share this idea, The Killing Joke is so singularly its own thing that it earns additional praise as the years go on.  An animated version of the story is a no-brainer, especially given the popularity of Bats in the past ten years and the success of previous animated features like The Dark Knight Returns and Year One.  All the pieces were there, including Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill returning to the cast and an R rating, the first animated DC film of its kind from Warner Brothers.  So how, exactly, did it go so wrong?
The-Joker-from-The-Killing-Joke

It is important, I think, to look at this story in context, so here are the bullet points for those of you who aren’t familiar (SPOILERS EVERYWHERE).  The novel begins with Batman going to Arkham to speak with Joker about their future and what is in store for the both of them.  Batman seems earnest in trying to reason with Joker as he plays a game of solitaire, half-listening to Batman.  It is revealed that the man across from Bats is an imposter and Joker has escaped again.  Batman, immediately, is on the warpath.  The novel then shifts to a dual-plot, telling the story of Batman hunting Joker while also showing a young comedian, revealed to be Joker, trying to make a career and life for him and his pregnant wife.  All this is told in flashback, and we see the comedian’s fall from grace after taking a deal with some local gangsters.  Part of what propels the action in the main timeline is Joker’s attack and kidnapping of Jim Gordon and his daughter, Barbara.  Joker shoots her through the pelvis and shatters her spine, rendering her paralyzed from the waist down.  Before leaving, it is suggested that Joker may have committed heinous acts against Barbara due to pictures he takes at the scene and uses against Jim Gordon to push him over the edge.  If you want to know the rest of the story, I implore you to read the novel.
batman-killing-joke-animated-movie-batgirl

You could watch the movie, but I would strongly suggest you cut out the first section of the film.  You see, the filmmakers made a really odd choice in that they wanted the story to have more focus on Batgirl.  To further flesh her out, they added an opening prologue plot about her and her infatuation with Batman.  Also, she really likes being around Batman.  Furthermore, she is constantly talking about Batman.  Did I mention that she likes Batman?  While there is some ham-fisted plot about Batgirl trying to take down a local crime lord named Paris Franz (ugh), the prologue does nothing useful outside of make Batgirl look like a useless little girl.  There’s a controversial sex scene added in which is really out of character for both parties involved, but rather my issue with the change is that these writers have completely missed the point of what makes this novel great. MV5BMTc0NDY0MjY4MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTA5OTQ3ODE@._V1_

The Killing Joke is a Batman vs Joker story at its core.  There’s an argument that one could make about it being about Jim Gordon, but to me the unique nature of the story, especially due to the largely controversial ending, is how it confronts the notion of Batman and Joker as rivals/enemies.  The story is framed around two attempts on Batman’s part to help Joker and redeem him.  It seems that for once the Dark Knight is trying to do something different and make a real positive change.  He sees the writing on the wall, and knows it only ends with one of them dead.  Because of this, and Joker’s response to it, The Killing Joke has endured for almost three decades.  The animated film completely diminishes this story in favor of forcing a “strong female lead” into the plot.
batman-the-killing-joke-first-image-revealed-mark-hamill

Right now we are in a strange moment in film where there is an intense emphasis on gender equality in film roles.  Ghostbusters, The Force Awakens and even Star Trek Beyond have gone out of their way to cast strong female leads that aren’t dependent on the men in their lives, and that is a great thing for girls growing up looking for the same role kinds of models us guys have had for years.  The Batgirl subplot just seems like a cheap attempt at gender equality in a story where it is not even close to being a factor.  The entire story of Batgirl’s prologue is this long-winded response to misogyny to the point where Batman actually has to explain to Batgirl how she’s being objectified by the villain.  I’m sorry, but none of that has anything to do with The Killing Joke.  It is unnecessary and, frankly, stupid commentary in a story that has a completely different focus and point to it. batman-killing-joke-animated-movie

For a flick I was looking forward to this was a big disappointment. When the flick is sticking to the source material it’s ok, but the animation does look cheap and thrown together.  The cinematic polish of The Dark Knight Returns in particular is completely gone here.  There is also a really odd choice to not embrace the original art style and color tone of the novel which just screams laziness to me.  This is not the worst thing I’ve ever seen, and it’s not the worst piece of Batman on film I know of, but it certainly has some glaring issues that I can only assume were the work of a really misguided creative team, and that is Why This Sucks.

maxresdefault-1

Why This Sucks – People Who Think Batfleck Is A Murderer

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It finally happened.  One of the geekiest meet-ups in geek history, Batman V Superman, is here, and with it a whole lot of stylistic choices that we need to reconcile.  Some like the flick, most kind of hate it, but there’s been a real groundswell of love for Affleck and his iteration of both Bruce Wayne and Batman despite the problems many have with the script, myself included.  I, personally, loved Affleck in the role and would not have changed anything about the performance.  There seems to be one detail that the fanboys and fangirls are up in arms over, and that is Batman’s alleged vigilantism crossing the line of him breaking his moral code of not killing people.  While I absolutely, 100% agree that making Batman into a murderer breaks the essence of this character, I honestly don’t understand what people are complaining about.  This isn’t the first time these types of kills have happened in a Batman film or comic.  Furthermore, I did the legwork for you and present three distinct examples of Batman directly killing the bad guys.  You believe this?  Me, Jack Valley, defending Zack Snyder?  Miracles do happen people.  On with the article.

Batman

If we are going to nitpick Batman to death we have to start here.  Tim Burton, for all the good he did, admittedly had little interest in the comic book iteration of the Bat.  With several direct allusions to Batman being an actual BAT-man, Burton brought a lot of style and darkness to the universe.  There are staples of the character that were brilliant here, such as the Anton Furst Batmobile and choosing to not tell the origin story.  Michael Gough’s Alfred is still the guy that comes to mind when I hear that name anywhere.  For all the good things in this film, there are some bad, and that has been detailed on this site before.  Most of all, though, what is likely one of the biggest problems in this film, Batman kills indiscriminately, and in, I would argue, a much more brutal fashion than Affleck ever does.  Not only does the Bat drop grenades next to a handful of henchmen at the chemical plant, he throws another guy off of the bell tower at the climax of the film to his death.  Furthermore, he brings Joker to his demise as well.  While a lot of people like to forget these details, I do not.

Batman-1989-batman-confronts-the-joker

Batman Returns

In the admittedly very dark sequel, the Caped Crusader may actually be a more deranged psychopath than the previous film makes him out to be.  While one could argue that Batman had no choice in taking out Joker in the last movie’s climax, here Batman is killing fools with style.  For instance, he gives a fire-breather a taste of his own medicine by using the Batmobile’s jet-engine to light that fool up.  There are at least a dozen ways he could have easily avoided burning the guy alive, especially when you consider all the “wonderful toys” that must be outfitted in the Batmobile.  Within that same sequence, the Bat straps a ticking time bomb to one of the circus performers, making his death an absolute certainty.  Also, although again this may be more of a crime of inaction, he allows the Penguin to just fall to his death at the end of the film.  These are all hardly the type of vigilante justice we believe we are entitled to when it comes to Batman lore.

maxresdefault

Batman Begins

Christopher Nolan’s first entry in the series was and, I would maintain, still is a game-changer.  Nolan found a way to keep the subject material light while also maintaining a bit of that comic book levity to keep us both grounded in reality and in awe of the spectacle on screen.  Of the more clever ideas in the film, the way Nolan uses Ra’s Al Ghul as a title rather than an individual’s name is truly inspired.  The death of the first Ra’s Al Ghul, however, is problematic, because not only does it show Bruce Wayne as willing to kill, it makes for a really confusing situation.  The entire reason Bruce lights Ra’s temple on fire is because he disagrees with their methodology.  While everyone focuses on how Bruce saves Ducard, we forget that the petty thief and, most likely, others like him probably burned alive in the temple.  Say what you will about the League of Shadows and whether or not they deserved what was coming to them, this is a morally grey area that the movie does a great job misdirecting the audience from.  Make no mistake, however, because Batman probably killed a bunch of people in this scene.  Deal with it.

P.S. Depending on how you look at it, he probably should be brought up on a charge of manslaughter for letting Ra’s bite it on the tram.

Batman begins 3

All this and I didn’t even mention the one truck driver that gets DESTROYED by the Batmobile in The Dark Knight…

So there you have it.  Say what you will about the problems with Batman V Superman (of which there are PLENTY) but this repetitive argument that Batman is an indiscriminate killer now is baffling to me.  That whole “have to break some eggs to make an omelette” adage applies here.  Collateral damage has ALWAYS happened and will ALWAYS happen in comic book films.  Granted, the Darkseid-nightmare sequence has Bats using a handgun, but that was a dream sequence.  That may be his ultimate dream, to be able to just gun down the bad guys, but the fact that he struggles with this idea is part of what makes him a phenomenal character.  Also, that one scene where (SPOILER) he blows up the KGBeast’s flamethrower?  That’s taken DIRECTLY FROM THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, so let us all take a step back and question what the hell we are complaining about.  With the twenty-four-hour news cycle being what it is, this whole idea became a “thing” over the weekend and I think any real Batman fan would fully appreciate and understand the choices they make with Batfleck.  This one little detail seems to be deterring some from even giving this iteration of the character a fair shake, and that is Why This Sucks!

two-thumbs-down

Why This Sucks – Circle-Jerk Movie Criticism

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We live in a fantastic age.  Despite the endless parade of bullshit prevalent everywhere you look, we are able to view this bullshit through a magic square that lives in our pocket 80% of the time.  As movie fans, we have access to any film we want at our fingertips, almost anywhere on the planet, 24/7.  That’s an amazing thing.  As such, that creates a void for content.  When you have that 24/7 access to information, someone out there needs to create content for you to consume.  It’s the general nature of the universe.  At some point people needed to eat and didn’t want to have to make food themselves, hence the formation of a restaurant.  People want to work out without making a huge monetary investment in gym equipment, hence communal gym memberships.  

ymls4video

The news media preys on this concept, constantly generating content during a non-stop news cycle that now exists on social media as well as on TV.  In the geek world, websites like Binge Media and several others participate in this system by delivering you content.  Regardless of your opinion of a certain film, TV show or video game, you can’t really argue that we pander to the lowest common denominator.  My friend and co-staffer Garrett Collins is the living embodiment of this idea.  I, personally, take pride in the fact that we do our thing without groveling to what may be popular or easy.  It has come to my attention, however, that a certain site has started doing this by trying to explain to the reader why widely loved movies are successful.  It’s been going on for a while but, frankly, I couldn’t keep quiet any longer and would like to take a point-by-point look at why this is a stupid endeavor that translates to truly masturbatory column writing.

2013-LT-MovieReview-ThumbsDown

Why I Care – The Godfather is an amazing film.  Labyrinth is an innovative and endearing family film.  You all know how I feel about The Dark Knight.  These are very high-quality film classics that, despite how you may feel about them, are difficult to argue against.  They’re important films, and we all know this.  Writing an article detailing the “how’s and the why’s” of why they are great films is pedestrian.  You’re talking down to your audience if you think they need their hand held when you say “The Godfather is a great movie”.  The reason this is a problem for me is because it diminishes what we all do.  By turning a forum for movie lovers to learn new things about the cinematic landscape into a gigantic circle-jerk of widely-accepted approval is the blogging version of handing everyone a participation medal.  There’s nothing valid being added to the ether if you take the incredibly simple path of saying that movies that most cinephiles have seen are amazing.

AntonEgo

Why It’s Unsatisfying – We live in a generation full of people who were handheld through a lot of aspects of their lives.  There is this fear of failure and propensity of acceptance that damages critical consensus and leaves us all worse of for it.  If we spend time trying to explain why The Empire Strikes Back is a great film we’re wasting time.  We all know Empire is a great film, we don’t need to read 500 words about something we’re already innately aware of.  This is unsatisfying on a very deep and ideological level because you, again, are doing nothing outside of promoting an idea that doesn’t need promoting.  Now, if you were going to come out and make an argument that Attack of the Clones is a great film, there you have something that’s worth reading because it may illuminate some ideas and perspectives that you had not realized before, rather than circling back to the “safe” perspective.  

Nigel Farage

Why It’s Infuriating – Take, for example, your kid’s soccer match.  Let’s say you are watching the match and you know, unquestionably, that they could have done a better job.  There’s nothing wrong with telling your kid that if they put some extra effort in that they can achieve great things, rather than coddle them and just say “great job”.  In the kid’s mind, this devalues the compliment of doing a “great job”, and in effect makes whatever you tell them meaningless over time.  The same could be said about explaining what makes a great film “Work”.  Rather than give the kid some constructive criticism so that it can grow as a person, you’re essentially stunting their growth and doing nothing to help them in any way.  All the kid will hear over time is white noise.  In a similar way, we already know that a great film works because, well, it’s widely considered to be a great film.  Breaking down the elements that make it great does nothing constructive because if a film is great we already know it in our heart and soul.  You can’t take a ticky-tack approach to explaining the pieces of what make a movie great because the best movies have an intangible kind of magic to them.  Yeah, Pulp Fiction has some great writing and innovative story structure, but you remember the moments in the great movies before you compliment the technical pieces of it.  That, and a whole lot of other reasons, are why circle-jerk movie columns suck!

anchorman-2-classy-movie-poster-TR2125

Why This Sucks: Anchorman 2

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

movies-anchorman-2-poster_1I believe I heard John Cleese refer to comedy as being brittle.  He spoke about how with comedy, the tone has to be exactly right because if it fails at any point, you can lose your audience and, in turn, lose the joke.  A lot of filmmakers struggle with comedy.  Even the veterans, like the once god-like Mike Myers stumble and fall when attempting new things, like The Love Guru.  Anchorman 2, for all intents and purposes, should have been an easy slam-dunk.  You have the entire original cast returning, plenty of juicy celebrity cameos and the blessing of fans everywhere.  So why is it, then, that Anchorman 2 so horribly mucks things up?

I am a devoted fan of the original film.  I remember seeing it in the theater with my two brothers and my dad, and at at the time, loving it.  That love never really went away and I to this day find myself quoting the film, sometimes unknowingly.  I always liked the idea of an Anchorman sequel, but never really wanted one too badly, as I felt the original film was very much lightning in a bottle and couldn’t be replicated.  With news of the new film and the rumors that the likes of the notoriously picky Harrison Ford signing on in a key role, I got excited.  It turned out to be all for naught, unfortunately, as A2 falls prey to the recycled joke disease that has plagued so many films throughout movie history.  There were a few bright spots in the film, such as the scene where Will Ferrell has dinner with his boss’ family and tries to “assimilate” with them, and I’ll admit a few scenes made me laugh, but I was overwhelmingly insulted by the trend used in the film where they just took all the jokes from the first movie, put them in this movie and tweaked them all slightly.

anchorman-2-news-team

Look familiar?

I find it sad that the amount of talent on-screen here did not translate to quality comedy.  There is always the argument that the naysayers will give you about “overthinking a stupid movie” or “reading too much into it”, but to that I suggest those people squarely A) Go fuck themselves and B) Take a look at Monty Python.  Monty Python was, arguably, the greatest comedy group of all time.  They were all Ivy League college students and grads who decided to set their sights on breaking down comedy and discovering what makes people laugh.  Their success was a direct result of understanding what about stupidity is funny and using that to their advantage.  Ferrell and his collaborator Adam McKay have that ability, as evidenced in their previous work together.  Somehow here, however, they didn’t use that knowledge and instead copied and pasted from the first film.  Maybe it was studio pressure, maybe it was a lack of genuine creative interest, but if anyone wants to honestly tell me that Anchorman 2 deserves to be spoken of in the same breadth as Anchorman, they need their head examined.

anchorman-2-002I used Mike Myers as an example earlier of how comedians sometimes mistake what the audience wants with what will actually work in a film, and to see that look no further than Austin Powers vs. Austin Powers 2 and 3.  3 and, to a lesser degree, 2, both have compromised elements that work against the finished product, such as shoehorning in Seth Green’s transformation into Doctor Evil.  The problem is, when you take from earlier films in a series, no matter how funny/interesting the idea was the first time, but the second time you see it it feels wrong.  Case in point, SPOILERS, the fight scene at the end of A2.  I’m sorry, but I didn’t find one piece of that scene funny.  Not only did most of those celebrity cameos do nothing for me, but the inclusion of ass-clown Kanye West was like a bitch-slap in the face of comedy.  While in real life that guy is a walking punchline, the fact that a group of talented individuals I personally like and appreciate gave him a paycheck to star alongside them is betrayal on par with when William Wallace nearly slits Robert The Bruce’s throat in Braveheart.

WallaceDevastating

This is but one example, but it is the freshest in my mind because it so thoroughly fails to deliver the goods, despite the effort.  At the end of the day, what did I expect out of Anchorman 2?  Not much.  I certainly didn’t expected to be blindsided by laziness, sloppy writing and piss-poor casting choices, but sometimes that’s the way it goes.  Fuck this movie, go rent the first one instead.

 

the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-5222b6be4dc82

Why This Sucks: The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey (2012) - Dwarves banner

 

Why This Sucks

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I’m going to get this out of the way right from the get-go: I love the Lord of the Rings films.  The extended editions of those films are, to me, perfect.  I wouldn’t change a frame of any of them, even though you could totally argue Legolas gets all the bitchiest, least-meaningful lines.  It was with a glad heart that I approached the idea of seeing The Hobbit film.  For years, Jackson moved from project to project, never definitively saying whether he would pursue a Hobbit film.  When it was finally announced that he was producing with Guillermo Del Toro directing, I was happy.  I thought if there was one guy who could breathe fresh life into the Tolkien-verse, Del Toro would be a great and unique choice.  When Del Toro left and Jackson stepped back in, I was gleeful.  A mere decade after the release of Fellowship, we were going to get a new Hobbit film.  All of the press releases and Jackson’s video blogs did nothing but bring my expectations to a fever pitch, and I was loving everything I saw.  I was even intrigued by the idea of a film in 48fps, something unseen in cinema up until this films’ release.  Unfortunately, like many films before it, Hobbit 1 was a real letdown of the worst kind.  It was, like the Star Wars prequels before it, a bloated, cgi-infused-yet-vapid attempt at fantasy, proving that not only was making The Hobbit into a movie a bad idea, but also that stretching it into a trilogy was a downright cash-grab.

The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-27864490-1920-800Expectations are always tricky when it comes to sequels but I think the biggest problem with The Hobbit is that it doesn’t contain any of the emotional importance or rich content of the LOTR trilogy.  The Hobbit, when you break it down, is a simple children’s book.  It follows a simple lead character who goes on a quest to help a band of dwarves steal some treasure.  The Dwarves in this book don’t really factor into anything else happening in Middle-Earth at this time, so this self-contained story has little effect on the world it is set in.  It is this problem that permeates throughout the entire film.  For the most part, LOTR’s characters and plot were integral to Middle-Earth.  Much of the geography, distance and warfare was specific to the area in which it was located.  In The Hobbit, it doesn’t matter if the crew is rolling through Helm’s Deep or motherfucking Grove Street from GTA, moreso than the other trilogy this movie is about a bunch of assholes walking, as Clerks II said.  The film never asks the questions LOTR does about identity and morality and, in my mind, leave the viewer with a whole lot less to relate to.

thehobbit-p1_7785Another severe issue with this film, which I think will continue in the next two, is the repetitive nature of certain plot points.  I was absolutely disappointed when I saw Gandalf once again use a butterfly to summon the Eagles which would then fly the heroes to safety.  I was upset to see certain musical cues misinterpreted in this film, such as the scene where, for some unknown reason, Thorin rises to beat on the CGI goblin-boy to one of the evil Ringwraith themes from LOTR.  It was an odd moment that seemed like it was copied and pasted from a greater film, although pasted incorrectly and without the proper emotional weight.  The Hobbit relies too much on what has worked before and chooses to not innovate or show anything new.  When you look at Fellowship, the main Uruk-Hai was a guy in a suit and it fucking plays when you watch it today.  Seeing this goblin Azog asshole be totally CGI is a letdown and takes me out of what I’m watching.  If I wanted to see great graphics I would be playing a fucking video game, you assholes, not paying $16.00 bucks a ticket to sit through subpar 3D effects and a bunch of dwarves singing about bullshit.

The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-27864515-1920-800The most criminal thing about Hobbit 1 is the fact that it gets a few key things SO right.  The entire riddles in the dark sequence was spot-on, featuring another dynamic performance by Andy Serkis.  The digital effects employed in this scene really harken back to the LOTR trilogy’s emphasis on building the practical effect first, then adding the CGI as a sort of complementary bonus.  The opening moments of this film, as well, were a flooding wave of nostalgia as well.  Seeing Frodo happy at the beginning all but brought a goddamn tear to my eye and it reminded me why these characters meant something to me.  That’s the problem with The Hobbit.  I never got to see what it is about these characters that matters to me.  Bilbo worked so much better in LOTR because he was an old, regretful, ignorant hobbit who lived his life, loved his family and yearned for something more.  Here, Bilbo is going through the motions in a paint-by-the-numbers plot about proving he is worth a damn.  It gets old fast, and I don’t know how this character can have a more meaningful arc as the series continues.  Gandalf was largely wasted here, with his sparse subplot not really factoring into anything going on, and even Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman’s appearances seemed like empty shells of their previous performances, which was sad to see.

I never thought I’d say this but Peter Jackson has gone the way of George Lucas, investing time and energy into the importance of visual effects without backing up those effects with innovative storytelling.  I hope I’m wrong about the next two films, but I’m probably not going to be, and that is why this sucks.

tstpre

Why This Sucks: Taken

, , , , , , ,

tst2

Why This Sucks: Taken

By Jack Falvey IV

Acting is a job. I get that. It’s been called one of the greatest and one of the worst jobs in the world, and by God it must be difficult to turn down a massive payday for appearing in a bonafide shitstorm from time to time. Even the actor’s actor, Gary Oldman, whose casting in the new Robocop screams cashgrab, stoops to these levels. I guess it’s not something all actors are lucky enough to avoid, but there are some performers who I feel are above this sort of thing. If you had asked me before 2008 to make you a list of great actors who wouldn’t resort to this kind of acting, Liam Neeson would easily be a guy I’d have thrown up there. Sure, Episode I didn’t pan out, but I wouldn’t begrudge the guy for trying to get involved in the Star Wars franchise. Films like Michael Collins, Batman Begins and, of course, Schindler’s List did a lot to give Neeson a level of credibility the Irish actor maintained for a long while. He’s just not the kind of talent I can buy half-assing a mediocre action performance, and unfortunately Taken proved to be a horribly miscast mess.

tst1

Neeson was stunt casting for this movie. He’s the only A-lister in the film, whose script is a poor fucking excuse for Neeson to move from A to B to C and punch all of the bad guys in their turkey necks along the way, even the ones that wear funny hats. Nothing about the performance or the story calls for Neeson, and that’s the biggest problem with the movie. For such a simple film, you’d think that they would have given his character something to do, but essentially the plot comes off as a clichéd paint-by-numbers thriller straight from the early 90’s. Taken has a lot of tonal confusion going on that works against it. For instance, the climax of the film takes place aboard a yacht where a never-before seen antagonist, named “Singh” in the cast list, ends up fighting Liam Neeson for all the marbles. This is weak shit. You’re telling me that the writers couldn’t even come up with an enemy for Neeson to be pitted against? Not giving the kidnappers a face to hate was a juvenile mistake. Not every action film needs a singular bad guy but this movie certainly suffered for not having one. Neeson is above taking out scores of C to D level baddies throughout the course of a film. This is Jason Statham fodder, not Liam Neeson level badassery. Put Nic Cage in this movie and I get it. I fucking buy it. Cage is a cheesy bastard and he relishes flicks like this, but it’s fucking impossible for me to buy Neeson going through the motions.

With these thinly structured action films, studios used to have guys like Stallone or Schwarzenegger to add their personality into the roles. Say what you will about the overall quality of a movie like Commando, the fact is people still enjoy it despite the cheesy bullshit rampant in that film. Taken is a wholly stale film, both visually and content-wise. It has neat little bookends that hammer home the happy ending the story leaves us with so perfectly that you completely forget that the best friend who was also kidnapped was not only never mentioned again but probably dead or worse. It sends a great message for future storytellers that their action heroes can half-ass a job and still come out on top in the end. You see, this is a funny thought in a so-bad-it’s-good way, but because the film isn’t self-aware it becomes a strange and confusing omission.

tst3

I think what may be the most annoying element of the film has to be the PG-13 rating. I can’t remember a film, outside of maybe Die Hard 4, that felt so neutered. This should never have been anything but an R. Maybe with an R rating a lot of these issues go away. Neeson dropping some f-bombs here and there and taking out motherfuckers by ripping out their necks ala Road House could have worked for me. This movie is supposed to be over the top, yet the director clearly held back at every chance he got. Neeson’s “I will find you and I will kill you” speech is one of the worst pieces of writing I’ve ever heard. It doesn’t come across as badass, it comes across as weak because of its own insincerity. I’m a firm believer in the tried-and-true R rated action film. Terminator 2, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Bad Boys 2 and even Hot Fuzz; these are all staples of that genre and they exceed expectations by not holding back. Taken is a study in what happens when artistry is squashed by marketability. Listen, I understand this movie did gangbusters in the box office and it has its audience, but for myself this one comes up way too short. It is sad that not only does Hollywood make a film like this but also that people clearly go out and pay to see it. I know for the film geek crowd this is preaching to the choir, but Taken really is the shining example of how not to make action films, and I’m baffled by its mass appeal. That, and also the fact that Neeson doesn’t get a chance to pistol whip a European midget throughout the entire runtime, is why this sucks.

wtssupslide

Why This Sucks: Man of Steel

, , , , , , ,

Why This Sucks: Man of Steel

By Jack Falvey IV

I fully recognize that Superman is not an easy character to adapt.  A hero who will always win, no matter what, is simply un-relatable.  The entire reason we all watch superhero films and read superhero comics is because we see a glimmer of ourselves in the characters.  Superman has never had that.  He’s always been the outsider looking in.  Supes looks great on paper but hasn’t had a perfect film adaptation yet.  Donner’s Superman is the closest we’ve come, but even there comic book continuity was replaced with Hollywood flash and movie-star influenced decisions.  While Reeve was a great Superman (and filled out the tights like a fucking champ), Hackman wasn’t the Luthor from the comics, to say nothing of the ridiculous ending.  Donner did get one very important thing right in understanding the sense of wonder that comes along with Superman.  Superman is a character that, in order to work, needs to be at least happy, wondrous and hopeful.  He is supposed to represent the best in humanity, what we’re supposed to strive for and how we should treat one another.  With Man of Steel, Snyder proved that not only does he not understand the importance and fundamental ideas the character represents but also that beyond the visual elements he has absolutely no interest in story, characters or fucking logic.
wtssup1
I have so many problems with this movie, but I guess the biggest one was the writing.  It makes me realize the impact Jonathan and Christopher Nolan had on the recent Batman films, grounding the plot in reality and rooting that trilogy in character based plot elements throughout.  David Goyer only seems interested in reinvention for reinventions’ sake.  Henry Cavill looks the part and actually works mostly well for the flick, but would it kill the guy to smile one fucking time?  How can the Kryptonian inspire hope if he spends the entire movie mulling around like a fucking homeless Emo kid?  In the scene where he is learning the limits of his abilities, it would have been great if he acknowledged how amazing it was to be able to fly.  Just once, say something along the lines of “Wow!”, or maybe even laugh a little, or smile, or smirk, fucking SOMETHING.  I know people call out movies like Spider Man for doing this and being cheesy, but I really think it needs to be in a Superman story to remind the viewers of his humanity.  Otherwise, we’re watching a wooden Christ-figure go through the motions like a tollbooth attendant with absolutely zero passion or emotion.  It’s a fucking shame that in a two-hour and forty-something minute film that there wasn’t one moment that reminded me of being a kid again, especially in something as primal as a superhero film.
wtssup4
There were a lot of questionable scenes throughout, but the one that really slapped me sideways was one in which a flashback reveals a young Clark playing in his yard with a red cape on.  Who, exactly, was he trying to emulate in this scene?  He grows up to become Supes, so what exactly is this red cape bullshit?  Coincidence?  This is a minor gripe in comparison to some of the other shit pulled in this film.  Prior to the release, it was announced that the film was going to leave Kryptonite out of it.  This sounded great, as the third act of every Superman film incorporates Kryptonite in increasingly ridiculous ways as the films went on.  Taking that plot device out seemed promising and even caught the attention of the most hardened cynics, myself included.  However, despite making a conscious effort to eliminate Superman’s one physical weakness from the film, they still manage to neuter Superman at a critical moment in the film.  During the pre-finale set-piece with the world-engine, Kal-El can be heard coughing while flying around the device he would proceed to then try to take down.  During a scene that preceded this one, I believe Kal says something about the area around the world engine having the same atmosphere as Krypton, thereby rendering his powers useless, or at least weaker, when in the vicinity of said world engine.  However, even this offhand comment is pretty much ignored when, in an instant, Superman does the same muster-his-strength pre-flight struggle-face and finds the inner power to defeat the machine, despite his momentary weakness.  This is poor writing.  This is the exact same fucking plot device as the super-vegemite from previous films that conveniently is only an issue for as long as the script needs it to be.  Fuck that.  Fuck that stupid shit.  Story needs to be grown organically, plot devices shouldn’t be tacked on out of the fuckin’ blue.
wtssup2
Now I know this is a reboot, and DC is trying their hardest to erase Superman Returns from out collective consciousness, but there are a lot of strange substitutions/changes from general Superman lore that bother me a little.  It’s mostly window-dressing type stuff, but things like no Fortress of Solitude, making Jimmy Olsen a woman and having Lois Lane know who Clark is almost from their first meeting is a series of strange choices.  I don’t know how these elements are going to be handled in the next film but I feel that with the extreme realism of this flick that they’re really painting themselves into a corner with the Clark disguise angle.  Just a weird choice that feels like the filmmakers have to prove something.  It reminds me of Scott Farkus’ little minion from A Christmas Story, all empty threats and nothing to back it up.
 wtssup3
I think my biggest problem with the film was how they mishandled Kal-El.  People like Max Landis have gone over this in detail, but Superman, simply put, should be smarter than he is portrayed in this film.  Demolishing Metropolis is unnecessary and a slap in the face of what Supes represents.  He protects the people of Earth, he’s not supposed to disregard them during a fistfight, regardless of the implications.  I don’t want to live in a world where Superman isn’t looking out for us.  My heart fucking aches when I think about the children who will grow up with Man of Steel and not understand one of the longest lasting, most enduring characters in the history of fiction.  Also, Zack Snyder can go fuck himself, and that is Why Man of Steel Sucks!
stsupre

Why This Sucks: Star Trek: Into Darkness

, , , , , , ,

stsu4

Why This Sucks: Star Trek: Into Darkness

By Jack  Falvey IV

I will preface this by saying that while I’m not a full blown Trekkie by any means, I have seen the entire original trilogy, all of the films and much of the Next Generation, so I am more of a Trek journeyman than anything else. Ask me to recite a sentence in Klingon and you’ve lost me, but if you were to ask if David Warner appeared in any of the flicks, I’d be able to answer correctly (two flicks as two different characters, bitch).

I was hoping Into Darkness would be a strong entry into the franchise. The trailers, posters and TV spots made it look like a worthy, stalwart follow-up to the, in my opinion, magnificently constructed reboot. That film did a notable job of taking elements that were canon to the universe as a whole and reconstructing the parameters of what we knew about these classic characters, creating a fresh spin on Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew that did not feel like a retread of what came before it. You could argue that Eric Bana’s villain was headstrong and underwritten, but since he wasn’t the focus that doesn’t bother me. All these elements make it that much more disappointing that Into Darkness not only keeps a pain-by-numbers approach to the plot but also simultaneously shits in the mouth of Gene Roddenberry’s ghost.

stsu3

The film starts off with a technically impressive chase through the woods and an Enterprise underwater. It was really interesting seeing that for the first time, and gave me hope that we truly were going where no man has gone before in this film. In fact, for the first half of the film I was mostly intrigued. Kirk seemed to be immature given his rank, and Cumberbatchs’ mysterious villain seemed pretty cool. That is, until, he mentioned that his name is “Khan”, a surprise that I had surmised before getting to the theater. Khan was a great Trek adversary in his original incarnation, but overall a shitty villain. Take Khan out of Trek and put him in any other situation and you have a pathetic, easily beaten old man. Ricardo Montalban is what makes Khan work. His delivery, persona and presence make Khan operatic, cheesy and schmaltzy, and Trek fans, myself included, love him for his campiness. Reinventing Khan is an intriguing idea, and I think for the most part Cumberbatch does a good job. However, it is his reveal in the film where the plot becomes a pandering, fan-servicing fuck up that flies in the face of everything that made The Wrath of Khan so great.

First of all, who the FUCK thought it was a good idea, after the reboot, to then “re-imagine” The Wrath of Khan. Now I know what people will say, “This is a new timeline/Khan is different”. That is bullshit. This film is clearly trying to milk every drop of milk from the teat that is Star Trek II, inserting lines from that film and lifting a third act plot point DIRECTLY from that older, stronger film, but more on that later. The problems with this film stem from what I believe to be a fundamental misinterpretation of the overall theme and point of Star Trek II, which is one of sacrifice. Spock, in Trek II, needs to sacrifice himself for the “good of the many”, a lesson of humility that is essential to his arc as a character. His loss, reflected onto Kirk and the rest of the crew, is arguably the most powerful Trek scene of all time and holds up today. In STID, switching the roles and making Kirk sacrifice himself, only to be revived by a FUCKING Tribble’s blood (FUCK Tribbles) mere minutes later is pedestrian writing. What is the FUCKING POINT of rehashing a beat from a previous film but taking away all the emotion? “Killing” Kirk was childish and stupid, and subconsciously something that absolutely no one believed would last. There’s no feeling behind the act, and it makes the film feel more polished and, ultimately, more bland.

stsu1

I had other gripes with the film, particularly how it blatantly breaks Trek lore and clearly gives no fucks about doing it. First of all, the Enterprise hasn’t gone on their “Five-Year Mission”, meaning technically, they shouldn’t have found Khan yet. Now the film explains this, saying that because of the events of the first film Starfleet is exploring space at a rapid rate, searching for whatever they can, and that Khan’s ship was found floating out amongst the stars. However, how the FUCK is a Tribble in here if Kirk and the Enterprise haven’t found it yet? I know I’m harping on a small detail, but it shows that the filmmakers are only interested in connecting this film to everything that’s come before it with showy, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameos that are contrived and meaningless in the grand perspective of the film. In Batman Begins, before Nolan planned out a second entry, the subtle hint of Victor Zsasz being in Arkham was effective and only there for the most ardent fans of the lore. Most people don’t even notice he shows up. His presence in the film is a nice easter-egg that doesn’t impact the pacing or tone of the film whatsoever. The reference exists in the film and needs no additional films or plot details to explain or justify its inclusion. By shoehorning in the Tribble-blood miracle cure in the third act, the filmmakers took an obvious reference and made it overtake the plot of the film. This is bullshit of the highest order. Geek culture films have risen above this pedestrian type of contrivance and don’t need these “Oh look at me!” moments in their films.

My last gripe is the climax of the film. There haven’t been many films that successfully allow their villain to live by the end and still be brought to a satisfying conclusion. The Empire Strikes Back, Kill Bill Volume I and The Dark Knight have done it well, but here it was such a resounding bit of hurried bullshit that I laughed the last ten minutes of the film off. By just freezing Khan mid-arc screams two things. The first of which is “We don’t know what to do with this character now”. The second is “He’d be great in the sequel!”. Neither of these sentiments have any business being in an entertaining film. I can’t articulate how upsetting it was to see them shelve Khan for Part 3.

stsu2

Having Spock get into an emotional fistfight was, without question, probably the single silliest thing I’ve seen thus far in Trek lore. Spock is a character that has the ability to rise above his environment and keep a cool, calm demeanor. He is not a physically imposing adversary, although he can handle himself in a fight, very methodically. I hated that he just punched Khan really hard and managed to beat him, the Eugenics-infused demi-God of the old Earth. Stupid, stupid, fucking stupid.

All-in-all, Star Trek Into Darkness is easily the most potent misstep in the series as it tries to re-do what was done before it, failing miserably, and that is why Star Trek Into Darkness sucks!