This last Saturday night, I watched the Incredible Hulk, the re-launch of the series starring Ed Norton as Bruce Banner, Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, William Hurt as General Thunderbolt Ross, and Tim Roth as the Abomination. It should also be noted that Tim Blake Nelson as Dr. Sterns was delightful, and he stole the few scenes he got.

This movie was smart, fast, and well done, and they did us the great service of simply glossing over the Hulk’s origin and diving right into the story. They also made a point of adapting the 1970’s television show as much as they did the comic, taking what worked from the small screen version of the franchise.

My disappointment with the Incredible Hulk is that its advertising campaign touted the movie as being “As Good As Iron Man.” Incredible Hulk was good, but it was not that good. Iron Man was one of the best superhero movies ever made, and Robert Downey Jr. was stellar as Anthony Stark. The Hulk was simply good.

The Incredible Hulk was all around much better than Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk movie. This is easy to explain: The script was much better written on Incredible Hulk.

As far as special effects go, the Incredible Hulk looked stronger than the preceding Hulk; his muscles looked ‘ropier,’ as if painfully distended all the time. As far as the climactic battle between the Hulk and the Abomination, I was less than entertained. But, I will be the first to tell you that I probably wasn’t the target audience for this battle. Fans in their twenties and thirties, looking for the big payoff images that bring their characters to silver screen life, were probably all orgasmic in fanboy way over this spectacle.

I’ve had this conversation before, you see. Fanboys want their heroes to look cool, and if that means rubber gimp suits and vacuum fitted latex, fine. I’m all about the utility—I’d rather see a fully functional, usable suit or costume. But, that’s just me. That doesn’t apply to the Incredible Hulk so much. (Although I was impressed that Bruce Banner kept getting stretchy pants—the stretchier, the better! An important point if you don’t want the Hulk running around al fresco.)

So, do I give the Incredible Hulk a B+ or an A-? It’s a tough call. I’m opting for the B+.

Scott.

Hi, Folks!

Word on the net is that Dr. Stephen Strange may get his own big-budget movie in 2010, or thereabouts. I’ve always loved this character, and I think it would be awesome–more than awesome–to see the bizarre mindscapes and planar excursions of Steve Ditko brought to fruition on the big screen. For those who have looked at Ditko’s incredible art in the early Dr. Strange comics, you know that this would be a mind-blowing feat to pull off. Nowadays, it could be done. Pretty much anything that can be imagined can be pulled off on the big screen if you throw enough money and talent at it. I want to see Dr. Strange get his day the limelight.

I’ve seen some more of the Watchman footage, and that’s cool, because now it sounds like the movie is going to be released. The footage for Rorschach is outstanding. He’ll probably be the runaway favorite character for those who dig the movie . . . Hmmmn, a Steve Ditko theme is developing here. I assume everyone who reads this knows that Rorschach is a version of the Question, a Ditko creation.

There’s an interesting video out on “The Spirit,” with some more Frank Miller footage. I’ve not felt great about this movie, and I have had my share of mixed feelings. I didn’t know the Spirit had a mutant healing factor. Hmmn.

Darkman, starring Liam Neeson and directed by Sam Raimi, is a bit of a cult classic movie.  This is a 1990 Sam Raimi movie before his big budget Spider-Man movies, yet the hallmarks of the Raimi style are still all there, as are many of his favorite actors (right down to the Bruce Campbell cameo). 

Maybe it’s due to Raimi’s horror movie roots (Evil Dead), but Darkman has the feel of the old, classic monster movies.  Darkman is something of the illegitimate lovechild of the Phantom of the Opera and the Shadow.  Perhaps it’s safest to say that this movie sits squarely in the mystery man genre, among the Shadow, the Phantom, the Green Hornet, and the other proto-superheroes.

The Liam Neeson you see in Darkman is from before he became the star he is today, but he still puts on a good show.  Maybe it was the part, or maybe the stylized monster-movie dialogue, but I didn’t feel the presence that Neeson would later come to command.  Larry Drake, the elegant but sadistic villain, radiated a dastardly screen charm.  Drake is another fine example of a hard-working character actor who deserves more acclaim; he’s had a long, successful career, but with the right part he can dominate a screen.

Perhaps it’s silly to review a movie eighteen years after its release date, but that doesn’t bother me.  I had never seen it, and I enjoyed it more than any of the overwrought Spider-Man movies that Raimi would later produce.  I give Darkman an A-.

When I recently watched “The Punisher,” I have to admit that I didn’t have high expectations for it.  I burned out on Gonzo-, over-the-top action flicks with terrible plots and unbelievable action years ago, so I just didn’t think the Punisher would be all that interesting.

One should never just assume anything, though.  As it turned out, the Punisher wasn’t a bad action movie in the Arnold Schwarzenegger/Steven Seagal vein.  Indeed, Punisher had a solid plot, some able actors, and it was set in a somewhat believable world.

Thomas Jane played the Punisher, and he was eye-opening.  This guy is handsome, and his internalized emotions fairly writhe on screen behind his stony exterior.  Sound corny?  Watch the move.  This guy should be a big star.  Travolta was really good, but why expect anything else out this guy—he’s got off-the-scale screen charisma.  May I also add that Will Patton was fantastic, and his every appearance was electric.  I had seen him in the Mothman Prophecies and Armageddon, but it was his role in Punisher that really made me notice him.

The plot was fairly straightforward and effective, and the action was more on the believable side than the goofy, blockbuster-action-movie side.  I don’t enjoy violence, but the fight between Frank Castle and the Russian was downright funny.  There is humor to be found in this movie, but it is mostly a grim, mirthless kind of humor.  I will also say that there is a sadistic undercurrent to the movie, but, considering the subject matter, that shouldn’t be a surprise.  It is a revenge movie, pure and simple.

I give Punisher a B+, but don’t watch it if you don’t like dark revenge flicks.

I liken “Super guy: Behind the Cape” the 2000 movie starring Mark Teague, as Superman meets Spinal Tap, but not as funny.  This is a mockumentary, long on irony, great characterization, and dry absurdities, but short on traditional laughs.  Indeed, while listed on the Internet Movie Database as a comedy, the movie actually comes off more as a serious thought experiment on what a superhero’s real life would be like in our corporate-backed world of excessive laws and regulations.  You soon realize that the power fantasy of super heroic freedom is simply impossible to maintain in our super-litigious world.

If all this sounds a little negative, I don’t mean it to.  This was a small budget movie that was beautifully written.  If you expect dull-minded diversion and entertainment for entertainment’s sake alone, you won’t like this movie.  If you are thoughtful, aware of subtext, and don’t want your entertainment spoon fed to you, then chances are you will really enjoy this production.  I don’t want to make it seem that like this is a movie for elitist thinkers, but it’s certainly not geared for the low-brow/funny pratfall crowd.

As a low budget movie, don’t expect too much from the special effects or action.  I have no doubt they produced the best they could afford.  There is some basic green screen and wire-work action in this, but it’s somewhat obvious and clearly not big budget stuff.  I’m completely cool with that, and I liked this movie for many of the same reasons I enjoyed the Specials. 

I give “Superguy: Behind the Cape” a solid B.

Hi, Folks:

For this episode, I watched Ang Lee’s 2003 movie, the Hulk.  I had never seen it, but from other people’s comments I had come to expect problems. 

The movie was shot beautifully.   Directed to feel something like a comic, the picture was often broken into panels, and hard-edged transitions rolled across the screen in a somewhat unique manner.  Not everyone agrees with me that this faux-comic book approach worked, but I appreciated it for what it was.  The special effects were quite beautiful, and great effort was made to make the Hulk himself appear believable, even when he’d grown to eighteen feet tall or thereabouts.  I heard that the animators employed more than a hundred separate mattes making up the Hulk’s skin to get him just right, and it showed.

That’s all well and good, but then there was that plot.  Whoa-boy.  With millions of dollars at stake, how do they let monstrosities like this happen?  I guess, put more succinctly, how do a bunch of smart people produce a dumb thing?  There were huge holes in the plot, and ridiculous omissions, and actions that defied all logic taken by characters.  You want me to name the plot holes?  I’m not going to bother.  The writers certainly didn’t.  I’m positive these are talented, professional grade writers each capable of great things, yet…

Then, there’s the acting.  Eric Bana was a complete cipher, yet I’m sure this was because he was instructed to act in this manner.  (I’ve seen him in other movies, such as Troy, and I feel confident that he can indeed act.)  Sam Elliott was awesome as General “Thunderbolt” Ross, and Nick Nolte, whose character was awkwardly shoehorned into the plot, was outstanding.  Nolte and Elliott each made the movie enjoyable for their performances, so some small grace is to be found here.

This movie gets a C-.

The Specials

I really enjoyed this movie!  Released in 2000 for a minimal budget of one million dollars, this movie has real heart.  The writing is top notch, and the main characters are really well fleshed out.

Witch the exception of Rob Lowe, I didn’t know who any of these actors were.  Almost all of them are journeyman actors with long resumes and regular work, but I just wasn’t aware of them.  That having been said, they took their parts seriously, acted as if they weren’t in a small budget film that would go largely unnoticed, and they really grew on me. 

There is virtually no super heroic action in this movie, and almost no special effects shots.  Only one punch is thrown, and the movie is really a relationship film.  Despite their awesome powers, these characters lead really lonely, dysfunctional lives, and in the end they need each other.  As the 6^th or 7^th most popular super team in the world, they get little attention and have lives full of indignity piled on top of more indignity.  Some of them are angry (Amok), some are self-deluded (The Great Strobe), some are oddballs and outcasts (Nightbird), some are disconnected from themselves (Deadly Girl), and some have a sense of existential sadness and self-awareness (the Weevil). 

James Gunn, who wrote this screenplay and played the part of Minute Man, is an exceptional writer.  I say this, because, despite the large cast, none of these characters are really one-dimensional.  Amok, besides being angry, is a would-be artist. Deadly Girl, despite her rough-edged Goth attitude, has close friends and a gentle side.  Power Chick is the living embodiment of a positive attitude, yet she is the self-appointed guardian of Doug, the alien orphan.  The Strobe, probably the most one note character in the film, has his world fall apart and he realizes that he has been deluding himself, that he’s not what he thought he was.

I’ve often commented that small budget films like this can excel because a lower budget means fewer intrusions from outside.  This movie absolutely excels, and I intend to purchase this movie as soon as I can to watch it repeatedly.

I give the Specials an unqualified A.

“Zoom: Academy for Superheroes” is a kid’s movie and a Tim Allen vehicle. 

Overall, I enjoyed this movie, and I don’t feel as if I wasted my time watching it.  Basically, it was the Bad News Bears remade as a superhero movie.

Tim Allen seemed loveable and charismatic, like he normally does, and his comedic routines worked pretty well in the movie.  Courtney Cox played her character as a one note caricature, but that’s probably what the movie and director called for.  None of the four superhero kids really caught on with me, to be honest.

The shocker, for me, was Chevy Chase.  I hadn’t seen anything with him in a few years, and I was shocked to see how old he’d become.  I mean, I know that’s not his fault—we’ve all gotten older, right!  But this Chevy Chase seemed at odds with the young comedic actor in my memory.  Well, I guess that’s my problem, not his.  That having been said, I was not all that entertained by his physical comedy in this—maybe kids were, but not me. 

“Zoom: Academy for Superheroes” rates a solid C from me.

I was sorry that I missed Ghost Rider when it was in the theaters.  The Rider is obviously a B or C level character in the Marvel Universe, but, as with Blade, his true potential I figured would become evident on the big screen.  I knew Nicolas Cage had always had a strong desire to play a superhero, and, while I couldn’t stomach the idea of him as Superman, I could really see him in the role of the Ghost Rider. 

I’m of mixed feelings about this movie.  Let’s get the negative feelings out of the way, first.  Most of the dialogue delivered in this movie seemed too strident, as if they were trying to match the feel of a comic book.  Indeed, the same dialogue, transported into a comic, would have worked great.  But, it never flowed, and came out as blurted bits of exposition.  The only actor who pulled it off, and handled his delivery with a more ‘realistic’ edge, was Nic Cage himself.  Cage’s Johnny Blaze was a relatively nuanced character, which set him aside from everyone else in the movie.  Even Sam Elliott’s lines suffered, and Eva Mendes’ lines seemed almost parody.  I have to put the blame on the director here, because I’ve seen numerous Sam Elliott movies, and at least one Eva Mendes movie, and they are capable actors.

The plot had holes in it.  Most movies have plot holes—it’s the nature of cramming X amount of story into X amount of screen time, when all the good bits are left on the cutting room floor (or digital equivalent thereof).  But, this movie had plot holes big enough to ride a hell-borne chopper through.  The Ghost Rider was so powerful, for example, that he takes out three fallen angels, each with minimal effort, one after the other.  In the end of the movie, when the Devil comes to release Johnny Blaze from his contract and return his soul, Johnny Blaze refuses and keeps the Ghost Rider powers (and still keeps his soul in jeopardy, one would assume), and the Devil can’t do anything about it!  That’s insane on multiple levels!  The Devil should have the best attorneys in history working for him, so there should be no way someone can cheat him on a contract! 

Well, it’s easy being negative, so it would behoove me to share what I liked.  First, Peter Fonda as the Devil in a biker movie is too cool: If you can’t place the reference, well…  Nic Cage I believe brought more to the role than he usually does in his action movies.  The special effects were pretty decent, if not great.  Sam Elliott just looks and sounds great, and, while you saw the twist on his character coming from four miles off, it was still so cool to see it played out.

I’ve been going back and forth between B- and C+ on this movie.  In the end, since the movie was fun to watch, and I felt that it delivered for the most part, I’m going with B- with “reservations” appended to it.

Scott

Well, for you, dear friends, I made a leap, and I watched a movie that I would have never seen otherwise—Catwoman.  My dedication to exploring all things super heroic in non-comic media has made me a soldier in war of outlandish entertainment!

With the dismal reviews, the Razzy, and the “ooh, cooties” reactions from everyone I asked about this film, I expected this movie to stink like week old trash.  It didn’t.  Catwoman was entertaining, reasonably well written, stylishly directed, and the actors clearly didn’t just phone it in.  Catwoman’s message was very female-empowering, and Halle Barry was sort of charming in the role.  The dialogue was reasonably sharp, and some of the imagery was quite exciting.

So, given all this, why was the movie a flop?  I don’t know.  I think most people condemned it without seeing it, and simply avoided having to formulate their own opinions.  Maybe it was because its star was an Academy Award winning actress, and this was seen as exploitative and cashing a big check.  Maybe the small but vocal group of fanboys was angry because this movie didn’t represent the Catwoman of DC Comics—Credits listed “Based on characters created by Bob Kane,” but any similarities between Selina Kyle and Halle Barry’s Catwoman were superficial.

Am I saying the movie was perfect?  Clearly not.  There was an awful lot computer generated Catwoman jumping around, and the CG version of the character appeared to lack mass and weight.  (Of course, Jim Balant’s version of Catwoman always seemed immune to gravity as well.)  Most of the characters played to well-known stereotypes, too: Sheryl Stone as the evil corporate villainess; Benjamin Bratt as the too-good-to-be-true detective/love interest; Alex Borstien as the loud but loveable, pudgy best friend; Etc. There were no real surprises here, to be honest.

So, I’m going to vote against the prevailing opinion and give Catwoman a solid B-.  Will this make me more popular as a reviewer?  Undoubtedly not.  But, if I can’t be honest in my appraisals, why bother to do this?

Scott.