Untitled

Saturday, March 15, 2014

March Marvel Madness: GHOST RIDER

Greetings, True Believers! Welcome to March Marvel Madness! Every day this month, I'll be looking back on a theatrically-released movie based on the characters of Marvel Comics. It's all to commemorate the April 4th release of the next Marvel film adventure, Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

Today, we're racing with the devil with...

Nicholas Cage stars as the same kooky, off-beat character he's played in countless other films. This time, he's called Johnny Blaze, a motorcycle stuntman who sold his soul to the devil (Peter Fonda) to save his dad when he was a kid. Now, the devil has come to collect, turning Blaze into his personal bounty hunter- with a flaming skull and motorcycle- to retrieve an artifact from the devil's wayward son, Blackheart (Wes Bentley). Along the way, a mysterious caretaker (Sam Elliot) shows him the ropes at being a "rider", and an old girlfriend (played by Eva Mendes), re-enters his life... and offers little other use in the story.

I tried really hard to really like it, but Ghost Rider is merely okay. I've always been a fan of the Ghost Rider character and the imagery of the comic. The problem I have with the film is that it is way too big and polished for me to consider it a good adaptation.

First off, it stars Nicholas Cage. I have nothing against Cage. He's kind of a joke nowadays, but he's an interesting character. However, he's a star (or at least he still was at the point of this movie) and he's there more to sell the movie than portray Johnny Blaze. It's not the hard-living Blaze of the comic; it's the same type of persona we've seen him do in so many pictures, just a bit more subdued. Phone it in, maybe? Perhaps that, too. In addition, Cage's sensibility adds a humorous tone that conflicts with the hellish imagery.

Second, there is a strong pulp element to the comic that has all been crushed by the movie. One would think with motorcycles, stuntmen, and Peter Fonda that director Mark Steven Johnson would imagine Ghost Rider as a throwback to 70s films such as Vanishing Point and Race with the devil. Instead, the movie is just like most superhero pictures of the '00s. Let me guess, origin story? Congratulations; you get a Coke, Smithers. The film employs as much production value as did Johnson's last foray into superheroes. It's not just Ghost Rider and Blackheart's crew that are visual effects, the film itself is soaked with so much CGI, digital editing, and coloring. And sequences like the police chase seem to exist in the picture to show off more of the budget.

Whenever the Ghost Rider appears or whenever western tropes are present, that's where I enjoy the movie. Plus, the cover of Johnny Cash's "Ghost Riders in the Sky" by Aussie outfit, Spiderbait, rips. Outside of that, Ghost Rider is rather uninspired and a betrayal of the source material. The sense I get from watching the movie now is that Columbia wanted another franchise like Spider-Man and it didn't matter what the comic was.

Ghost Rider
2 1/2 out of 5 Cap shields

Friday, March 14, 2014

March Marvel Madness: X-MEN: THE LAST STAND

X-Men: The Last Stand begins as a politician creates a "cure", taken from a mutant child who has the power to make another mutant's ability disappear. This development sparks debate amongst mutants and humans, but Magneto (once again played by Ian McKellen), only believing this cure will be forced upon his kind, gathers an army together to locate and eliminate the source. Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and the X-Men are preparing for whatever may happen, but Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), who gave her life for her friends at the end of X2, suddenly returns from the grave as a lusty, all-powerful mutant called Phoenix. She proves to be a deadly, unstoppable force and joins with Magneto in his quest, forcing the heroic X-Men to into the battle of their lives.

I was maddeningly disappointment with X-Men: The Last Stand when it first came out in May 2006. My complaints were that: a) the film felt like it was in a rush to be over, b) it was dumbed down, and c) Fox opted out of doing the Dark Phoenix Saga- one of the most famous arcs in comics- by using one of my very favorite screenwriting cop-outs: psychology. There were things I did like about it, so for a while I was conflicted about how I really felt about The Last Stand. Now, eight years later, when I watch the film it just pisses me off.

Bryan Singer, who directed the two previous X-Men movies, moved on to Warner Bros' Superman Returns, taking his X2 writers with him. With the adults away, 20th Century Fox were ready to play. Fox hired Brett Ratner (Rush Hour) to give them what they wanted: a shorter, more action-oriented third entry. Nothing wrong with that in any other circumstance. However, watching this movie, there is a blatant disregard that permeates from this picture for what Singer accomplished with the previous films. It doesn't just move at a swifter pace than the last film, it is trying to get to the end as quick as possible. Like it has somewhere else it needs to be. In addition, the filmmakers are out to get rid of as many returning characters as they can, either by the "cure" or by killing them off. Many of the new characters are just cartoons (in really gaudy outfits), not worth any investment. Fox is not very interested in a future with X-Men so much as they are with just one X-Man, and that is Wolverine, who ultimately ends up center stage in the film.

At least Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is an aspect about X-Men: The Last Stand worth praising. Jackman has proven to be a steady rock in this series. There are other great aspects like Kelsey Grammer as Beast, Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde, and the Alcatraz Island climax. In the end, it's Jackman's presence that consistently gives the film some much needed ethos.

I have yet to forgive 20th Century Fox for reducing the X-Men films to the kind of backwards-thinking silliness of their Daredevil and Fantastic Four films. If the upcoming Day of Future Past proves to be the payoff I'm hoping for, maybe- just maybe- I can stop giving my TV the finger whenever X-Men: The Last Stand is on.

X-Men: The Last Stand
2 out of 5 Cap shields

Thursday, March 13, 2014

March Marvel Madness: FANTASTIC FOUR (2005)

Based on the comic book by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, Fantastic Four co-stars Ioan Gruffudd, Michael Chiklis, Chris Evans, and (ugh) Jessica Alba as astronauts who go up into space for a little science experiment, get hit by some cosmic cloud, and come back to Earth with superpowers. The rest of the movie finds the group dealing with powers, celebrity, and each other. At the same time, an old college rival who was on that same mission is adjusting to his newfound powers in an even less healthy fashion. By the end, there's a big showdown between the four mass-market ready superheroes and the big baddie.

Not as detailed a synopsis like in previous entries? Well, that's pretty much all you get in Fantastic Four, and that is shameful. The Fantastic Four was the comic book that made Marvel as we know it. It redefined what a superhero comic could look like, but also what superheroes could be. Heroes that could be relatable. People with super powers yet still have human problems. Without it, there would be no Hulk, no Spider-Man, no X-Men, and no Iron Man. The Fantastic Four should have been the first in line to get their own picture (more on that at another time), but even if not, they still deserve better treatment than what 20th Century Fox gave us in 2005.

Fox didn't make a superhero film with Fantastic Four, they made a product. It practically follows other recent Marvel movies beat-for-beat: from introduction, to transformation, through hero's journey, and finally big, explod-y finale. It's so cookie-cutter, you could almost guess what happens next as you are watching it. It's also a generic-looking movie. There's no real sense of style or personality. The only thing that breaks the monotony is the really bad Mr. Fantastic CGI. However, more egregious is how it tries hard to be cool: Johnny Storm is into extreme sports, there's mainstream rock music, and it goes for the laziest of humor. Also, they hired Jessica Alba. She wasn't cast to portray Sue Storm, she was cast because she was "hot".

The only things I actually got a kick out of while watching in this movie are Chris Evans as Human Torch, Michael Chiklis as The Thing (despite the crummy make-up), and the two of them together. Evans did a great job at making Johnny Storm a likeable guy despite his over-inflated ego. Bruce Willis was probably not available, or wisely said no, but Chiklis still perfectly captures The Thing's gruff but good-natured spirit. Not only do these two resemble their comic book counterparts in performance, but their interplay is gold.

Watching the film now, it's clear at this point in time the superhero genre was in trouble of already looking old. Fantastic Four, despite being based on a groundbreaking comic book, did absolutely nothing to redefine superheroes on film. Fox had a formula and they were going to stick with it no matter what. It's ironic, then, that Pixar released The Incredibles a few months earlier. That turned out to be a better Fantastic Four than Fantastic Four.

Fantastic Four
2 out of 5 Cap shields

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

March Marvel Madness: ELEKTRA

Jennifer Garner returns as Elektra, the warrior woman from 2003's Daredevil. After being resurrected and trained by an old blind man (for reasons never explained), Elektra moonlights as an assassin until she's asked to take out a father and daughter (Gordon Visnjic and Kristen Prout, respectively) whom she got to know while waiting for her assignment. Elektra not only refuses, but she risks her life to protect them from a ruthless organization of mystical ninjas known as The Hand.

Because I thought Jennifer Garner was grossly miscast as Elektra in Daredevil, I blew this movie off when it came out in February of 2005. Now that I have finally seen it nine years later, I can honestly say that, wow, 20th Century Fox really went out of their way to make this work. That was sarcasm.

First off, Elektra is so unimaginative. You've got the assassin-with-a-heart who now has to protect the person they're supposed to knock off, the smart-ass second banana, something someone's not telling, the forced romance, the stock character villians, the "you killed my mother/father" bullshit... It's cliche after cliche.

Second, Elektra is cheap. Her red outfit looks cheap. The effects are cheap. The production design is bland. The score (by TV's Buffy composer, Christophe Beck) is boring. Also, the movie was shot in Vancouver. How do I know that? Every location in Elektra looks like Vancouver. The blind man's training camp: is it supposed to be Japan? Guess what; it looks like Vancouver. The vacation houses on the island? Looks like Vancouver. The Hand's HQ? Tokyo? No, it's probably a building in downtown Vancouver with Japanese architecture CGI'd on top of it. Credit Elektra's shortcomings to director Rob Bowman, who's best known for his work on the television series, The X-Files (Guess where that was shot?... Bingo!). Elektra resembles more of a TV pilot than a theatrical feature.

It's a shame, really. Elektra did have one thing going for it, and that was a very "girl power" vibe that surfaces halfway through the picture. It's too bad that it's only an inadvertent motif, and not a conscious choice by the filmmakers. This picture would have faced an uphill battle anyways because of the mixed response to Daredevil, but with a tired story and cut-rate production values Fox never gave Elektra a real chance to be a winner. It's proof that Hollywood execs think superhero pictures are for boys only. And I'm sure they'll point to Elektra's box-office failure as an excuse to not change that.

Elektra
1 1/2 out of 5 Cap shields

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

March Marvel Madness: BLADE: TRINITY

The Daywalker returns yet again, cutting down vampire muthafuckas as usual. That is, until he's framed for killing a human, and now the police and the feds are closing in on his ass. Blade is captured, but he's soon rescued by Abigail (Jessica Biel), the daughter of his old buddy Whistler, and a cured vampire named Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds). The new trio then team up to stop a group of bloodsuckers who have just resurrected the original vampire, Dracula (Dominic Purcell).

Blade: Trinity is one of the very few Marvel movies I had not seen before starting this series. Man, am I glad I skipped out on it when it was first released. This is Wesley Snipes's third go-around as the character of Blade, and he is visibly unenthused. I don't blame him, because, compared to the first two, this movie- bad pun intended- sucks. New Line Cinema decided to give the director reins to series writer, David Goyer, and he clearly had no interest in taking the franchise into any new directions. All Goyer did was retread the groundwork laid by Stephen Norrington and Guillermo del Toro in the other films. Expect he made things louder, flashier, and a whole lot dumber. It's really easy to see how awful a writer David Goyer is when he's left to his own devices. As a result, what was cool and badass in the other Blade movies is now unintentionally hilarious. Blade: Trinity sees the franchise descending into self-parody. What was once such a hip, innovative franchise suddenly found itself left behind by its imitators

You know what would have been a better third Blade? One that would've embraced the old-school horror of the comic that introduced the character, The Tomb of Dracula. I think that would have been the logical next step following the Eastern Europe atmosphere of Blade II. Think about it: Blade's trademark action set pieces mixed in with gothic castles, dungeons, full moons, fog, etc.? How about Rachel Van Helsing instead of a daughter Whistler somehow forgot to mention was a) still alive, and b) a vampire hunter? And how about a more traditional Dracula instead of a meatball? I can dream, can't I?

I'll still watch Blade: Trinity again if it comes on, though. The saving graces are the intentional comic relief provided by Ryan Reynolds and the fact that I can take it now as a self-parody. I'll take that over any of the serious-minded Blade rip-offs any day of the week. That's right, Underworld, I'm looking at you.

Blade: Trinity
2 out of 5 Cap shields

Monday, March 10, 2014

March Marvel Madness: SPIDER-MAN 2

Tobey Maguire returns as your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. He's also Peter Parker, and he's not having that swell a time. He's behind in school, can't hold down a job, is always late with rent, he's always worrying about his Aunt May, and he can't tell the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst returning), how he feels. As if things can't get any worse, his best friend, Harry (James Franco), has it out for his alter-ego. All of this effects his powers and wears on his soul, and Parker begins to wonder if being Spider-Man is worth it anymore. And on top of that, Peter's idol, Doctor Octavious (Alfred Molina), gets caught in a science experiment gone wrong, and emerges as New York's newest super-villian, Doctor Octopus.

Spider-Man 2 came out in the summer of 2004, and I- like everyone else- went nuts over it. Seeing Doc Ock on the big screen was childhood wish-fulfillment realized, but Molina was also the perfect choice to play him. The returning cast all stepped up their game, the visual effects were astounding, and, man, did that last line have me cheering. Also, for me personally, it was great to see Sam Raimi make a Spider-Man film that looked more like one of his pictures. I was in agreement with the rest of the world that it was better than the first movie.

Ten years later, Spider-Man 2 still has me cheering. Much like the original film, it has remained timeless. It has every bit of the quality and heart, and is every bit a living, breathing comic book as the original. I still think this is one of the greatest Marvel movies, but for a different reason now. Looking at it today, this film really isn't a sequel at all. Whereas X2: X-Men United was a film that improved on its predecessor, Spider-Man 2 feels like the second half of one giant Spider-Man epic. I don't feel the need to rank one over the other. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 should really be taken in as a whole, and as such, remains one of Marvel's greatest cinematic accomplishments.

Spider-Man 2
5 out of 5 Cap shields

Sunday, March 9, 2014

March Marvel Madness: THE PUNISHER (2004)

Produced by (then) Lions Gate Films, The Punisher (2004) stars Thomas Jane as Frank Castle, an FBI agent who's finished his last assignment and is ready to enjoy retirement with his family. However, the son of mobster Howard Saint (played by John Travolta) was killed during Frank's last job, and Saint orders a hit on him and his family in retaliation. Castle's whole clan is wiped out during a family reunion and he is left for dead. Frank recovers, though, and heads to Tampa to seek revenge on Saint. When he's not making Saint's life miserable, Castle is knocking back shots of Wild Turkey in a run-down apartment building occupied by three other tenants who try to provide moral support for the hard-as-stone, nothing-to-lose vigilante in the making.

Full disclosure: I've never followed an actual Punisher title. That maybe shocking to hear to some of you, given all the macho, muscle-bound action movies (including a straight-to-video Punisher movie starring Dolph Lundgren) that I grew up watching in the 80s. I've seen Frank make many an appearance in many other Marvel books, but I have yet to read any of the numerous series starring Marvel's iconic anti-hero (created by Gerry Conway, John Romita, and Ross Andru). That's going to change, but for right now, I can only judge the film as is.

Honestly, I was conflicted at the start of this retrospective. I liked the movie then, but was always unsure of its approach. On the one hand, first-time director Jonathan Hensleigh uses- I guess what he feels is- a more realistic take on the character. That's right, kids, origin story. We get to see Castle's journey from being an ordinary, law-abiding, family man to becoming an urban vigilante. There's a lot more becoming in this movie than there is punishing. At this point, the origin story has become a formula for every single comic book movie coming out. Not only was it was starting to feel all too familiar, but it also felt unnecessary for the character.

On the other hand, it's a little unfair to dismiss the movie now just because it is an origin story. It is still Hollywood's go-to formula for superhero movies. Get used to it. With that, The Punisher (2004) is an interesting experiment, because it is a more grounded approach. That's more likely the reason why Thomas Jane was chosen to play the title character. He's nothing like the macho standard used to draw Frank in the comics. Jane's an unassuming looking guy. It would make the Frank's arc more convincing. He may not be dishing out loads of punishment until the climax, but it's interesting to actually see the transformation.

The movie itself is an agreeable, if not entirely memorable, crime drama. What makes it stand out are the dirty touches that grace the sunny location (in this case, Tampa, Florida), the three apartment tenants (one of which played by X-Men alum, Rebecca Romijn), an Ennio Morricone-esque score by Carlo Siliotte, and John Travolta making one of his less-embarrassing post-Battlefield Earth appearances on film.

I know this version of The Punisher is not going to be for everyone. It's no secret Hensleigh was inspired by action films of the Seventies, and some might argue he should have gone more Dirty Harry with this movie and less Death Wish. However, you can't hold it against a film if it is trying to do something different and doesn't fall on its ass. We've seen plenty of comic book movies do that, but The Punisher '04 is surprisingly not one of them.

The Punisher (2004)
3 out of 5 Cap shields