Hollywood Faces the Avengers Effect

I realize it's been a long time since I've updated this blog. Personally, I haven't felt very motivated lately to do much of anything, even schoolwork. But now that the semester has ended, I've had time to watch a couple of films in theaters that I've been greatly looking forward to. Namely, "Thor: The Dark World," "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," and "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." I heavily enjoyed all three of these films, all of whom have their own unique strengths and weaknesses.

"Thor: The Dark World" was a great addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a good continuation of both "Thor," "The Avengers" and Phase II. It had more of Asgard, more emotion, a unique if somewhat familiar plot, and some great easter eggs for the wider universe. The appearance of the Collector and mention of the Infinity Stones drove me into a frenzy. Tom Hiddleston was fantastic once again as Loki, and at this point it's clear to me that the emotional anchor of these films is the sibling rivalry between him and Thor.

With that said, I felt that sometimes the darker tone was sacrificed for more comedy, the humans once again felt extraneous, and the main villain, Malekith, was utterly wasted in favor of more screentime for Loki. I understand that he's popular, and enjoyed his presence, but the absence of Malekith undercut his effectiveness as a villain, therefore calling into question exactly why a Thor-Loki alliance was needed.

But enough of Thor. "Catching Fire" was an improvement in every way over its predecessor. Jennifer Lawrence kills it again as Katniss, and this time Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are given greater roles as Peeta and Gale. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Sam Claflin are excellent additions to the cast as Plutarch Heavensbee and Finnick Odair, respectively. The cinematography is better, and in terms of adaptation the film is perfect in replicating the source novel. The action is simply incredible as well, with the new arena a delight with all the obstacles it presents.

As for "The Hobbit," which I saw just last night in IMAX 3D, it was astounding. Improving on "An Unexpected Journey," the film had a darker, more consistent tone and a livelier pace. More happens here than the first film, what with Beorn, the Mirkwood spiders, the elves, Lake Town, Gandalf visiting the Necromancer, and finally Smaug himself. He makes the film by sheer presence alone. Benedict Cumberbatch should be commended for bringing this iconic dragon to life, and presenting him on the biggest scale possible.

Die hard Tolkien fans may wine at the inclusion of new character Tauriel, her relationship with Killi, or the added Smaug battle in the mountain. Personally, I felt they were necessary additions to both make the story more cinematic and to flesh it out from the source, so we care more about the the events that happen in the third film. It also provides better connective tissue to the first trilogy, so at the end of the day we can watch a six-film marathon of LOTR and The Hobbit back to back.

But despite my praise for all these films, there is one thing I found inherent in all of them. Something I've noticed has to do with the recent mindset of Hollywood filmmaking ever since "The Avengers" banked over a billion worldwide last year. "Thor," "Hunger Games" and "The Hobbit" all end on massive cliffhangers. Loki now sits on Odin's throne, Thor unaware. Katniss wakes up to find her home district destroyed, with Peeta captured by the Capitol. Bilbo watches in horror as Smaug descends upon Lake Town, ready to raze it for the dwarves' actions in the mountain. All good cliffhangers, no doubt. Audiences will swarm to see the sequels when they're released. But that's what Hollywood has become. New films are not single, satisfactory experiences anymore. Instead, they exist as placeholders, meant only to build up hype for the sequel.

Now frankly, this is nothing new. "Star Wars," "The Matrix," "Lord of the Rings," "Back to the Future," and "Pirates of the Caribbean" all mastered the art of making placeholder films for the big finale. I've argued before on the pros and cons of trilogies, and franchises in general. But it's important to note that not all big Hollywood films used to come with a sequel hook. Sequels came in after the fact, with original films working just as well as standalones as they do in a larger series.

The examples I've listed above actually do this quite well, as do others like "The Godfather" and each "Dark Knight" film. But nowadays every major film has to be part of a franchise, always getting bigger and bigger to service future films. Since "The Avengers", this has become the paradigm. I've written an entire blog post predicting that this would happen (4). We have gotten into the mindset of the mega-franchise, giant crossovers that focus more on using multiple, interconnected films for world-building instead of continuing a focused story or character arc.

Look at the recent film and TV news that's come out in the last few months, specifically the last few weeks. Disney owns Lucasfilm, both Star Wars and now Indiana Jones. While new Indy films may be a while off, Disney has confirmed "Star Wars Episode VII" is coming in Christmas 2015, the first of a new trilogy of sequel films. In addition, spinoffs released in between the main episodes will expand the universe similar to how the MCU handles the "Avengers" characters. Harry Potter is getting into the spinoff game as well, with a film based on "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" scripted by J.K. Rowling on the horizon.

James Cameron is taking a page out of Peter Jackson's book, and expanding his "Avatar" universe over a trilogy of sequel films meant to be released from 2016-2018. And while the death of Paul Walker has stalled production until April 2015, "Fast and Furious 7" is very much happening, meant to combine stories and characters from all six previous films, including "Tokyo Drift," into one mega movie.

But we haven't even looked at what "The Avengers" is doing to every other comic book franchise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is still expanding. "Thor 2" revealed the Infinity Gauntlet as the end game, and we know Ultron, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, and the Guardians of the Galaxy are all coming in the near future. Not only that, but more crossovers await with the new TV properties. "Agents of SHIELD", honestly a mixed bag in terms of content, nevertheless has great synergy with the films, what with the mystery of Coulson's resurrection, the return of Extremis, and an episode packed with Asgardian mythology. And more TV tie-ins to the films will come, now that we know of Netflix's deal with Disney to bring Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, and the Defenders to life through individual miniseries.

But then there's the other, non-Disney Marvel properties. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is crossing over the old and new casts, building its own mega movie using all the previous X films. And now Bryan Singer has confirmed the follow-up as "X-Men: Apocalypse", based on the biggest X-Men villain of all time. Apocalypse could be Fox's Thanos, through which an even bigger crossover event can be planned using a rebooted Fantastic Four, an X-Force film, a Deadpool solo film, and more Wolverine movies, as rumored. Fox wants its own Marvel Cinematic Universe, as does Sony.

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" trailer confirmed Rhino, Electro and Green Goblin, as well as teasing Doctor Octopus, The Vulture, and the Sinister Six. And then Sony confirmed not only a Sinister Six spinoff film, but a Venom movie as well. With a third and fourth "Spider-Man" movie also in the cards, it's clear that Sony wants its own shared universe to compete with Disney's. If I may make a prediction, I see the second and third films setting up the symbiote and Sinister Six, which then get their own films to develop, before Venom and Spidey team up to take the Six down in the fourth film. Other characters like Carnage and Black Cat can easily be added to the mix, for an even wider universe.

And then of course there's DC. Marvel has three cinematic universes developing, but DC only has one. Luckily, "Man of Steel" has a sequel with both Batman and Wonder Woman in it, played by Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot, respectively. Rumors of a Flash cameo keep spinning, and since Flash was already introduced in the "Arrow" TV show, it wouldn't surprise me if DC just put both "Arrow" and its upcoming "Flash" spinoff into the film continuity to get to "Justice League" faster. They clearly want the "Avengers Effect" to happen to them. Even if they don't combine the TV and film worlds, both already have multiple superheroes existing, so the team-up concept is still in effect.

While the superheroes are all experiencing "Avengers" envy, older properties that have already used the crossover gimmick are reusing it to greater effect, now that they know it's popular once again. Case in point, "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who." Multiple captains and Doctors have teamed up before, and now the reboots are doing it too. Leonard Nimoy's Spock was used to bridge the new films to the old canon, just like how William Shatner's Kirk bridged the old show to the Next Generation in the seventh film. And while we've had five Doctors team up before, this year's 50th Anniversary Special had David Tennant, Matt Smith and John Hurt team up, before stock footage united all 13 incarnations of the Doctor to unite the old show with the new.

Of course this brings up an interesting point. "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who" began as television shows. TV has always had better success with both world-building and character development. Spinoffs are commonplace, in everything from "Torchwood" to "Angel" to the upcoming "Walking Dead" and "Breaking Bad" spinoffs. Television, by its very nature, is serialized, but since there are so many episodes, there's more time to both expand the world and develop the characters within it. But films don't have that opportunity. They're expensive to make, run two to three hours at a time, and take years to release. Some cinematic worlds are ripe for expansion, as I've explained in my trilogy/franchise articles (1, 2, 3). "Star Wars," "Harry Potter," "The Marvel Cinematic Universe," and "Lord of the Rings" are excellent examples of multi-film franchises that can tell intimate character pieces in the context of larger worlds. But the problem is that not every franchise deserves this type of rigorous expansion, even if it seems like it might.

Critics are already claiming that the future of quality entertainment lies in television instead of film. Peter Jackson is already getting flak for expanding "The Hobbit" into three movies, with the first film getting the brunt of the criticism. The second film, while better, still suffers from "middle chapter in a trilogy" syndrome, in a story that some argue shouldn't have been a trilogy. Jackson has used the extra time to expand the world and characters, to the delight of diehard fans, but still people complain of unnecessary length. "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" expanded their final books into multiple parts, and now "The Hunger Games" is set to do it with "Mockingjay," all for the sake of creating a larger franchise.

World-building, if done right like the Disney-Marvel model, can effectively create a fully realized world that engages fans and non-fans alike, with characters anyone can cheer for. But too much expansion makes the crossover aspect a gimmick, replacing story and character with empty spectacle. Another article I made spoke of how the films released in 2015 and beyond may oversaturate the market with mega blockbusters, alienating people with the Hollywood obsession for sequels and crossovers (5). This obsession has, in a way, been around in both the TV and film mediums for years, but never to the extent we're seeing now.

Sequels became trilogies, trilogies franchises, and franchises shared universes, with spinoffs increasingly more prominent. If done correctly, all these announced projects could be successes. They could herald huge box office returns, while delighting audiences with unique characters interacting for a better sense of continuity. But the minute people start questioning why all these extra sequels and spinoffs are needed, the entire model is doomed. Hollywood, in its current form, will fall, just as many have predicted. But if this succeeds, it will herald an interesting change. The success of this model will see Hollywood return to its serialistic roots, once so popular in the early days of cinema.

The fact that many people think of TV as the better medium right now may help Hollywood if it approaches films like extended TV episodes, or in Marvel's case, issues of a comic book. This new model does indeed look promising, but we must be weary of its side effects. Whether a success or failure, we must recognize that this is indeed happening, and by doing so we can decide whether the shared universe model is the correct course for Hollywood to take as it moves into this new cinematic era.

Below are the links to my previous articles, numbered for quick reference in the text above.

(1) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2012/12/consider-trilogy-part-i-three-movie.html

(2) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2012/12/consider-trilogy-part-ii-good-trilogies.html

(3) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2012/12/consider-trilogy-part-iii-franchise.html

(4) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-avengers-effect.html

(5) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2013/07/blockbuster-burnout-how-hollywood-is.html

.

In The Shadow of the Bat: What Ben Affleck Means for Batman vs. Superman

Where were you when Ben Affleck was cast? Last week, news broke that Ben Affleck, the guy who wrote and directed "The Town" and "Argo" and, yes, starred in "Gigli" and "Daredevil," had been cast as the next iteration of the Dark Knight. Affleck is now set to star opposite Henry Cavill as Superman in 2015's still untitled "Man of Steel" sequel, widely speculated to be called "Batman vs. Superman." The Internet, to put it mildly, did not take this lightly. It seems Affleck's former reputation as a talentless pretty boy has refused to die, considering the millions of nerds attempting to usurp Affleck from the cowl with idiotic rants and pointless petitions to the White House. To these so-called "fans" I ask-where do you get off?

Did none of you see "The Town" or "Argo?" Did none of you see Affleck's nuanced performances in "State of Play" or "Hollywoodland," where he played, respectively, a billionaire and an actor-turned-media superhero? Affleck's come a long way from the guy who played Daredevil, having reshaped himself into an Oscar winning screenwriter, actor and director. To put it simply, this guy knows his stuff. Not only is he now a major Hollywood player, but his longtime friendship with Kevin Smith and childhood love of comic books have given him a unique understanding of the superhero mindset. Affleck's past roles have practically primed him for Bruce Wayne, both the playboy persona by day and the brooding vigilante by night.

But this also begs the question- what exactly does Ben Affleck's casting bode for the Superman/Batman film? Ever since the announcement that "Man of Steel" would be followed up by this crossover film, various thoughts have crossed my mind. Does Warner Brothers really have no faith in Superman, to the point they think casting Batman will get more people to go? Is this all an attempt to compete with "The Avengers," and if so is anything about this film really sincere? If there is more to this than a gimmick, how will the film successfully build on the story and character arcs of the previous film while introducing a new, rebooted version of Batman, especially one so soon after the previous trilogy? In short, how the hell is this going to work, Ben Affleck or otherwise?

Well, let's take into account what WB hopes to get out of Ben Affleck as Batman that they didn't get out of Christian Bale. First off, Bale was a more realistic Batman, one who had military grade equipment, sought to take down organized crime, and ultimately wanted to give up his persona to live a normal life. As celebrated as Bale was, there are still many hardcore fans who decry this version as not representing the Batman of the comics. That Batman was the World's Greatest Detective, who had a strategy for everything, resources to take down every superhero, and an uncompromising spirit that refused to quit the cowl. Zach Snyder already confirmed with Affleck's casting that he is meant to play an older, more experienced version of Bruce Wayne. This is supposedly to counter the younger, inexperienced Cavill as Superman. The fact that Snyder wishes to have an older Batman speaks volumes of what we should hope to get out of this movie.

When "Batman vs. Superman" (I seriously hope that isn't the final title) was announced, Snyder had Christopher Meloni read a quote from "The Dark Knight Returns," which features a veteran Batman fighting a Superman who had become a lapdog of the government. While by no means will this film be a straight adaptation (it is a "Man of Steel" sequel first after all), it is obvious that the filmmakers are looking to that comic for inspiration. Namely, the idea of an older Batman putting Superman in his place, so to speak. So, knowing that Affleck is set to play an elder Batman against a rookie Superman, in a plot that both follows "Man of Steel" and takes inspiration from "Dark Knight Returns," we (meaning I) can venture a guess as to how this whole thing will shake out.

David Goyer, the writer of "Man of Steel" and its upcoming sequel, said in an interview that Superman will have to deal with the repercussions of all the destruction wreaked upon Metropolis. Just like "The Dark Knight," this sequel will deal with the themes of escalation and the consequences of the previous film. For Superman, that would ultimately mean owning up to his rookie mistakes of nearly destroying a city and killing a fellow Kryptonian. Since the military still doesn't trust him, it could be that come this film, the public is still having a hard time adjusting to Supes and believing he is a savior.

The voice of the people will be Lex Luthor (Lex Corp was set up too much in the previous film and is too good a foil to both Bats and Supes not to be included here). Through his company, possibly with help from Wayne Enterprises, Luthor rebuilds Metropolis and begins a smear campaign against Superman. He proclaims that this god-like being looks human but is not, and proves it through Superman's inability to own up to the mistakes he has so far made.

While Supes doesn't like justifying killing, he truly believes he did what he had to do for the greater good. He knows he was fighting beings capable to devastating destruction and couldn't stand to see even more life taken, given his inability to use his powers publicly in adolescence. Superman continues to fly around the world, saving as many people as possible from various natural disasters and maybe even interfering in military conflicts. He is literally putting the weight of the world on his shoulders, trying desperately to gain the trust of his adopted people.

Batman, meanwhile, is introduced as a hero several years into his career. He has been watching Superman closely since his first appearance, deeply worried about Superman's allegiances. While his actions in Metropolis at the very least show he intends to do good, Batman sees a man who relies too much on raw power and doesn't take time to think before he uses them. He wants to save humanity, but every time he uses his powers he unwittingly puts more people in danger. If he keeps this up, Luthor will have even more ammunition against him, and the people will completely turn on him. Bruce decides Superman must be humbled in some way, to show that he is just as vulnerable as those he protects so as to make him think properly about the use of his powers.

Meanwhile, the government is also worried about Superman's behavior, and go to Luthor to come up with a deterrent against him. At this point in the franchise, I think it's only right that Kryptonite finally be introduced. Personally, I'd like to think this will either lead to power armor or Metallo, possibly both. Let's say John Corben is introduced as a government liaison to Luthor, who synthesizes kryptonite to power an experimental exoskeleton that could take down Supes. Since Bruce wants to humble Superman, he teams with Luthor and the military to create this exo suit. When another heroic act from Superman unwittingly causes more destruction,  Bruce strong arms Luthor into giving him the suit as Batman so he can use it against Supes, saying no military man is as qualified to take down the alien.

Bats, who has been operating in the shadows for years and is only known by the criminal underworld and certain factions of police, publicly unveils himself. Superman is immediately turned off by the idea of a vigilante operating in Gotham, especially one who uses fear as a weapon. Since Batman seems to represent everything Superman hates (pessimism against optimism, dark against light, fear against hope, etc.), Superman decides to go to Gotham to deal with him. He thinks that if he publicly brings Batman in, he can win the hope of the people. When Supes arrives, Batman engages him with the exoskeleton, using its increased strength, its effects on Superman, and his own analysis of Supes' powers and personality to bring him down. We could also learn here that Batman has even deduced Superman's identity, and here we could get that famous line from "The Dark Knight Returns" that was recited at Comic-Con. In fact, I'd like this entire fight to be a homage to that comic, except for the outcome.

Batman ultimately chooses to spare Clark, saying it was his intention to humble him, not to kill him. He explains that there's a difference between having power and knowing how to use it, and that a man with gifts like his should endeavor to actually help people more than show off brute force. It is only through this can Clark actually succeed in becoming the symbol of hope Jor-El wanted for him. We see that this battle is just as much an ideological one as it is a physical one, with the two heroes seething with hatred as well as envy for one another. Clark secretly admires how an ordinary man could find the willpower to reinvent himself like he has, while Bruce admires how, despite his flaws, that this man could have easily conquered the Earth but chooses to use his powers for good. He secretly wishes he did not have to utilize fear, but instead wants to give people hope the way Superman wants to. In this way, both men have something the other wants, and thus learn and grow from each other. Like good opposites, they attract.

While this is just speculation, I'm guessing that from here we'll have the standard heroes become allies after fighting. Luthor will find a way to replicate the exoskeleton and give it to Corben, and then using the media he will defame Batman as well, trying to make him Superman's accomplice. Corben, now Metallo, can lead the military to bring the two in. Supes and Bats are then forced to go on the run together (like in the first arc of the Superman/Batman comics), and it is here that they realize they each have something the other admires. They gain a grudging respect for each other and come to see the other as a friend. In the end, they work together to take down Metallo, maybe even Luthor if he chooses to climb into a mech suit (possibly a larger, more complete one).

The end result is Luthor defeated and embittered against both men, while Superman and Batman have put aside their differences to become the World's Finest. Batman has humbled Superman in a way that he comes to realize his mistakes, atone for them, and finally become the optimistic, loving hero we all know. In doing this, Superman has realized his full potential, and has given hope not only to the people of Earth, but to Batman as well.

I admit, this is all 100% speculation. But the reason I believe strongly that we will get something close to this or at least thematically similar is because it makes sense given where this film seems to be going. We know Superman, still a rookie in the first film, needs to fully grow into his savior status, meaning he needs to own up to the destruction he caused and learn from it. He'll need to be humbled in some way and learn what it means to be vulnerable, so that he may be smarter in using his powers. This is where having a crossover with Batman could actually add to the story and characters, instead of coming off as a gimmick.

A dark character like Batman will be someone Superman at first despises for being so different from him, but in time he will become a trusted ally. This is because an older Batman will help Clark understand what it means to be truly human, since the underlying element of Bats is his humanity. Given a great script, the meeting of Superman and Batman will advance the characters, story and themes of "Man of Steel" while continuing to expand this new universe to not only create a more comic accurate Batman, but a foundation that "Justice League" can build on. If the filmmakers play their cards right, this movie can be exactly what they need to establish an ongoing DC franchise and compete with Marvel.

This is why the casting of Ben Affleck is actually key to all of this. Since we know he's playing an older Batman, it makes perfect sense for WB to go for this type of storyline. In essence, Batman will at first fight Superman (that will be the main draw for audiences) before mentoring him in how to be a better hero. By helping Superman realize his own potential, Batman will then gain a trusted friend in the war against crime and hope that his mission will someday come true. Affleck has reached the point in his career that he can pull off a compelling portrait of a tortured billionaire turned vigilante, and with his star power he can easily stack up to Cavill while teaching him the ropes. There could even be a meta twist to all this, since the seasoned Affleck, fresh off an Oscar, is the perfect person to help the inexperienced Cavill literally take off. It practically writes itself.

But of course, since this is all the ramblings of one nerd, I could be completely off base. Perhaps WB just wants Affleck for the recognition, to put some much needed star power opposite the still relatively unknown Superman, in hopes of increasing his box office. And that's most likely true in some way. But WB is not what it was in the '90s. Batman and Superman are now their biggest moneymakers, and after Chris Nolan helped make both heroes respectable again, I don't think they're stupid enough to throw all of that away. They casted Affleck for a reason.

After "Argo" and "The Town," Affleck has shown some serious potential not only as an actor, but as a writer and director as well. Whose to say he might come in and revise Goyer's script, maybe even down the line write and direct "Justice League" or a new solo Batman series? The casting of Affleck, while in many ways a gamble, is also WB's safest bet to make sure this crossover flick is more than just a gimmick to compete with Marvel. I'm hoping by 2015 my theories will have some merit, and if they don't, that's just WB's loss for once again squandering some serious potential. Here's to Ben Affleck, our new Batman, and the promise he brings to what could very well be THE comic book event of 2015.

The Kick-Ass Summer of 2013

"Try to have fun," Colonel Stars and Stripes tells Kick-Ass towards the beginning of "Kick-Ass 2." "Otherwise, what's the point?" Words to live by indeed, Colonel. The movies I've seen this past summer are fueled by the desire to have fun. While many try to aim higher than mere entertainment, they mostly just end up as decent popcorn flicks. I guess in that aspect, this summer was disappointing for movies. And yet, I still had a hell of a time seeing all these different films this summer.

Some of them escaped my grasp, I admit. "Fast & Furious 6," "Despicable Me 2," "The Great Gatsby," "The Lone Ranger" and "World War Z" all eluded me. But I still found time to see ten very different, very entertaining films in theaters, the most recent of which was "Kick-Ass 2." With my return to college imminent, I've decided to review "Kick-Ass 2" in the context of the other films I've seen this summer, ranking them all from worst to best in accordance with how much I enjoyed them. This will not only allow me to review the films I didn't get a chance to blog about, but also look back at summer 2013 as a whole and return to the films I did review. So with that said, let us begin.

10. Now You See Me- Jesse Eisenberg. Woody Harrelson. Morgan Freeman. Mark Ruffalo. Michael Caine. All in a movie about magic. This film intrigued me when I first heard about it, and upon seeing it I delighted at the magic tricks displayed by the main cast, who use their shows to steel from the rich and give back to the audience.

The entire endeavor came across as something akin to a modern day "The Prestige" crossed with a heist flick, and was vastly entertaining from the first scene to the last reel.  It all looks great, but while the A list cast is a joy to watch, we have no time to really get to know them. Just as in the film itself, the best magic only serves to distract the audience from something else. In this case, it's all a marvelous distraction from the underdeveloped characters.

9. Elysium- I've already elaborated on how much of a disappointment this film was, so there's really no need to go into detail here. While Neil Blonkamp has created a fully realized sci-fi world, he never goes in depth about the politics or intricacies that define his characters. The potential themes about rich vs. poor are lost amid all the cool sci-fi action, hampering what could have been a heady science fiction flick that was just as much about themes as it was about action.

8. Kick-Ass 2- While being this low on the list seems demeaning, "Kick-Ass 2" was in fact a fun return to the world set up in the first film. Aaron Taylor Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz and Christopher Mintz- Plasse all return to play their respective characters. The film does a masterful job of setting up the parallels between Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl, and the newly christened Motherf*cker as they begin maturing and figuring out who they are and what they want to do with their lives. Hit-Girl's arc is especially emotional, giving her a "Mean Girls" style subplot as she learns to be a "normal girl" before embracing her destiny as a superhero.

Donald Faison and Jim Carrey give hilarious, if brief, turns as new heroes Doctor Gravity and Colonel Stars and Stripes, but the real breakout star was Olga Kurkulina as new villain Mother Russia. The action is great, the humor still works, and the characters are still as interesting as the last film. However, while this works as both a continuation of the first film and an adaptation of the comics (a controversial scene from the book is changed to great humorous effect here), the film never quite reaches the hilarious heights of the original. A worthy sequel, to be sure, but it fails to surpass the uniqueness of its predecessor.

7. This Is The End- I don't usually go see comedy films in theaters, but for this one I had to make an exception. The premise was just too good to pass up. A deliciously meta film about Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and other celebrities as they try to survive the Biblical Apocalypse, "This Is The End" was a treat to watch.

Not only did I get to see all these actors basically poke fun at themselves and their egos for an hour and a half, but I was treated to some hilarious jokes about celebrity culture mixed in with a decent plot about the world ending. One scene in particular, where James Franco and Danny McBride go at it, had me laughing so hard I couldn't breath. I wouldn't say this is the best comedy in recent years, but it gets props for its creativity and its showcase of both the arrogance and humility of some of today's top actors.

6. Star Trek Into Darkness- This movie should have been higher on this list. It was an absolute blast to watch in theaters, both as a continuation of the first "Star Trek" film and as a character study of the growing friendship between Kirk and Spock. Not to mention some great parallels to the way our government runs covert ops in a post 9/11 world. Abrams crafted a damn near perfect "Star Trek" film that serves as an action-packed, yet still heartfelt, science fiction film. What ruins it is an ending that, while still entertaining, is a complete do over of "Wrath of Khan."

It's no secret that Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison is Khan Noonien Sign. While he easily gave the best performance, his character was somewhat wasted in a retread of the classic Khan stories. It did not lessen my enjoyment of the film, but I do wish Abrams and crew were a little more original with their story, as they were with the first film. This is a parallel universe, after all. At least the film promises that future endeavors will take the Enterprise crew to where no man has gone before. And hopefully, the franchise with it.

5. Iron Man 3- I've already discussed this at length, but it bears repeating: I liked the Mandarin twist. While I'm as diehard of a Marvel fan as it gets, I appreciate the risk the filmmakers took in taking Iron Man's outdated archenemy and putting a hilarious, but ingenious twist on him. The film largely works, both as a continuation of "The Avengers" and a capper to the solo "Iron Man" trilogy.

But its greatest strength is being a largely standalone feature, one that perfectly captures the essence of Tony Stark and how it's his genius, not his technology, that makes him special. While it beats "Iron Man 2" by a wide mile, its occasional over reliance on comedy puts it a step below the original, which had a better balance of comedy and seriousness. Still, RDJ is great as ever, and the film thrives as pure popcorn entertainment.

4. The Wolverine- This is, by a wide margin, the best film to feature Hugh Jackman as everyone's favorite feral mutant. Unlike "X-Men Origins" and "X3," "The Wolverine" is first and foremost a character study of Logan, and what it means to have purpose when he's essentially immortal. By losing his healing factor, and at the end fighting an enemy who can cut through his claws, Logan comes to understand what it means to be vulnerable, and through this finds his purpose again when he falls in love with the daughter of a Japanese warlord.

There's a jarring tonal shift towards the end when the Japanese noir/samurai epic suddenly becomes another superhero slugfest, but the action is still personal and the stakes still high for Logan. Plus, that end credits scene was fan service at its finest. All in all, "The Wolverine" makes up for some of the biggest mistakes of its predecessors and proves that even the X-Men franchise can heal.

3. Monsters University- For a film that had no right to exist, "Monsters University" was an impressive prequel that not only stands on its own but also adds more depth to the characters and world of the first film. The focus here is on Mike, and the film is all the better for it. As Mike makes rivals with Sully over who will become the top scarer in school, we are treated to some hilarious college-themed jokes that manage not to gross out the kiddies. This is basically a child oriented "Revenge of the Nerds," and not the Pixar Animal House some were expecting.

The college setting is really an ingenious set up for Mike and Sully to truly bond, all the while learning the importance of teamwork and the powerful lesson of how sometimes, childhood dreams don't come true. A bold take for Disney, to be sure, but then again Pixar has always been bolder than its parent company. While not as emotional as the first, or for that matter many of Pixar's finest of recent years, this still had more effort put into it than either "Cars 2" or "Brave," and signals the return to form for Pixar that I have been craving.

2. Man of Steel- For all the flak this film has gotten from fans and critics about how this isn't the Superman they grew up with, I give this movie props for making me truly care about the invincible man from Krypton. While the action and scale are undeniably impressive, what really sold me was Henry Cavill's performance, which truly sells the identity crisis of Clark Kent as he tries to resolve his human and alien halves.

Yes, there's a lot of destruction, some would say senseless. Yes, Superman does the big no no and kills Zod at the end. But by the time the credits roll, you see the potential that this new series has as Clark greets Lois and gives her that gigantic grin. For all the darkness, the filmmakers still understand that Superman, at his core, is a hopeful character. Dark this picture may be, but in time this new Superman will bask in the sun, and hopefully the fans will follow. Now bring on Batman and Lex Luthor, so we can truly see how optimistic Kal-El is meant to be.

1. Pacific Rim- The level on which this film works is beyond impressive. It's not only a homage to mecha anime and kaiju flicks, it's also a throwback to the feel good summer blockbusters of the '80s and '90s, when characters were underdog archetypes that actually had fun while saving the world. The robot-monster battles are worth the price of admission alone, but Guillermo Del Toro never forgets the beating human heart at the center of all the colossal set pieces. This film is pure, unadulterated, uncompromising, summer entertainment at its finest, and for that it deserves the top spot as my favorite film of summer 2013.

With summer gone and school beginning, I know not how much time I'll get to update this blog. But the geek world keeps spinning, and I'll always have an opinion on the goings on in this vast sphere of pop culture. School may take up most of my time, but the need to talk about nerdy news will never cease. Look out for my continuing rants, as there's no chance of me stopping anytime soon. 

Elysium Review

I love science fiction. Good, hard, earnest science fiction. Sci-fi that creates an entirely new world. Sci-fi that promises good action and character development wrapped in an interesting premise. But what I love most about sci-fi are the ideas it brings. I watch "Blade Runner" and I wonder about what it means to be human. I watch "The Matrix" and I speculate about the nature of reality. You know what I wondered when I saw Niel Blonkamp's new sci-fi opus "Elysium"? Why is there nothing to this world beyond the cool ships, weapons and satellites.

It's a shame, really. I had such high hopes for this film, especially coming off Blonkamp's previous effort, the fantastic "District 9." That film was one of the most original sci-fi flicks I'd seen in years. As intelligent as it was action-packed and heart-wrenching, the film used aliens, and a man who was transforming into one, as a metaphor for humanity's underlying racism. "Elysium" also aims to use sci-fi as a metaphor for a current social problem, namely the gap between the rich and poor. It's just disappointing that, unlike its predecessor, this film doesn't nearly deliver on the clever premise it sets up.

We open in the year 2154, where Earth has become an overpopulated ghetto planet, the equivalent of a third world country. The rich have evacuated to a pristine, high-tech satellite colony called Elysium, where robots tend to their every need and med pods can cure any disease. On Earth, a worker named Max (Matt Damon) is exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. In order to save himself, he needs to get to one of Elysium's med bays.

Desperate, he agrees to have an exo-suit implanted to his nerves, allowing him to download information directly from the mind of his former employer, the CEO of a giant corporation. Things turn ugly when Jodie Foster's Security Director, who wants to stage a coup on Elysium, drafts the CEO into creating a program that could reboot the satellite's entire system. With Max now possessing the information, he's the subject of a manhunt led by Foster's agent Kruger (Shartlo Copey), a psychopath who will stop at nothing to bring Max in.

This is a fantastic set-up, not only for the premise but for how Blonkamp visualizes this future world. The effects are jaw dropping, creating some of the best visuals in a film this year. We are led to believe that this will be more than just an average summer blockbuster because this set up has so much potential. Of course the stage is set for some amazing action, but by having a protagonist trying to break in to a utopian society run by the rich, we could have gotten a cool sci-fi take on the Occupy Movement, or any other timeless tale about the economic gap.

Ultimately, it fails to deliver. The more action Max gets involved in, the more the film becomes about the cat and mouse game between Max and Kruger and less about the societal issues set up, or the world they occupy. We never get to really see the society of the titular satellite, or what really drives Jodie Foster's character into becoming an evil, manipulative harpy. She mentions having kids to protect, but we barely see them. No amount of insight is given into how the rich actually live or how they think.

Of course the rich look down on the poor. But how does living on a satellite with med bays change your way of thinking? Do you see the people of Earth as vermin, biding your time until they all kill each other so you can retake the planet? Are you less cautious because the med bay can heal any injury? (I mean literally-a man's face is completely reconstructed after a grenade blasts it off). We spend so much time with the poor down on Earth we never get to see the perspective of the rich. Blonkamp just assumes the audience knows how the rich are thinking, making the overall conflict very one dimensional.

Compounding this is the fact that Jodie Foster is set up as the main villain, but is quickly overshadowed by Kruger. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing- Copey's sympathetic performance made "District 9," and here he makes for a completely ruthless villain. The film comes alive whenever he is on screen. The problem is not necessarily how his character is written, but how he fits into the plot. Max and Kruger's conflict and the resulting action goes against the themes introduced at the beginning of the film. Kruger is a sleeper agent for Foster on Earth. He seems to have no personal stake in protecting Elysium; all he wants to do is kill people.

Unlike "District 9," where the action progressed the film's story and characters by showing our protagonist side with and protect the aliens, here the action is there for the sake of action, nothing else. There is no social or political subtext about the widening gap between rich and poor, only two men fighting each other in mech suits. The entire film comes across as a visually realized, very well done sci-fi actioner that throws in the rich-poor conflict haphazardly to come across as deep.

Not only that, but aside from Kruger none of the other characters are very interesting. Foster, as I said, is severely underdeveloped. She has no real motivation other than gaining power, and we never get to see her real view on why the citizens of Elysium deserve these resources more than Earth. Max seems developed at first, but devolves into another generic action hero once he puts on the exo suit.

He gets a rather predictable arc about accepting the inevitability of death, and it's no surprise what he does at the end to try and hammer home the suddenly resurfaced social themes. This also raises even more questions about the availability of Elysium's resources. It completely took me out of the film, as I began to ask why a severely polluted Earth would allow a satellite of rich people to hog all the cool tech while the rest of humanity suffers.

In short, "Elysium" is a science fiction film that focuses more on action and visuals than on story or characters, setting up an intriguing world ripe with possibilities but never bothering to explore it in depth. It's disappointing, yes, but at the very least the action is well staged and Copey's entertaining performance made it an exciting thrill ride. It just breaks my heart to see a film with such a brilliantly realized world completely waste its storytelling potential. Blonkamp, either improve your storytelling craft or start working on that "District 9" sequel.

And speaking of sequels, "Kick-Ass 2" is the last film remaining on my summer movie hit list. Tune in this weekend for my review, which will be included in a rant that looks back at all the films I've seen this summer.

Blockbuster Burnout: How Hollywood is Destroying Itself

I've made no secret about my absolute love of movies. They have been my life's obsession since I was old enough to speak and walk. I remember, growing up, watching the likes of the "Star Wars" saga, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, the "Harry Potter" series, and the Sam Raimi "Spider-Man" trilogy, among others. To this day those films still capture my imagination as they did back then.

But now I'm hearing about all the films set to come out in 2015, films that should make my inner child go absolutely nuts. Among them- "Batman vs. Superman," "Avengers: Age of Ultron," "Ant-Man," "Fantastic Four," "Jurassic Park IV," "Independence Day 2," "Pirates of the Caribbean 5," "Terminator 5," "James Bond 24," "Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2," "Kung Fu Panda 3," "Finding Dory," "Assassin's Creed," "Warcraft" and the biggest surprise of all, "Star Wars Episode VII."

My inner cinephile is still reeling from all these announcements, the Avengers, Star Wars and Superman/Batman ones in particular. But while any kid would look at all these titles and swoon, as a cynical adult I look at all this with suspicion. It's something I've noticed the last few years- every summer, we get more and more sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots.

I have been around to remember franchises like Spider-Man, Batman, X-Men, Pirates, Harry Potter, Transformers, the Star Wars prequels, Star Trek and others blossom and falter, while other series like "Die Hard" and "Indiana Jones" were resurrected. Every year, more would come, and every year there would be hits and misses. Such is the way of Hollywood. Almost anyone will tell you how unoriginal the film-making industry is today, with executives only greenlighting blockbusters with franchise potential so they get a return on their investments.

In this day and age, as much as I hate to admit it, I see their point. Film-making is first and foremost a business, and executives invest heavily in brands that turn a profit. I'm not here to remark on Hollywood's obsession with "brands," or franchises. I'm here instead to comment on what this will lead to. The thing is, I don't even have to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

It's already been predicted by the two men who arguably started Hollywood's blockbuster franchise obsession- George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg. Earlier this year, speaking at the University of Southern California, both talked about how the film industry was headed for an "implosion," where "half a dozen mega budget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm" (quote taken from an article of The Guardian). I've mentioned in previous rants how certain event films have changed the paradigm of Hollywood film-making. Now it seems we may be set for another paradigm-a return to smaller, independent films.

I would say the process has already begun. The Internet has made it possible for anyone with a webcam and a computer to make their own films. Thanks to Kickstarter campaigns, we're getting movies like "Veronica Mars" made just from donations. Netflix has made the small screen the ideal place to watch film and TV, some even made exclusively for online streaming. The point is, you don't need a gigantic budget to make a film anymore. Look at how Hollywood is investing its money. Recent films like "John Carter," "Battleship," "Pacific Rim" and "The Lone Ranger," which cost upwards of 100 to 200 million dollars to make, are flopping at the box office. All four were promising films that executives hoped would kickstart a franchise. All four failed. What does this say about the industry as a whole?

Sure, we still have surefire hits. "Iron Man 3" made a billion on the good will of "Avengers," which was considered a huge risk at the time but paid off thanks to the crossover appeal of multiple superheroes. Now every comic book film wants to be just like it. Animated children's films like the recent "Despicable Me 2" still rake in the dough, so it's no surprise we're getting more of that. And franchise resurrections, while not always critically lauded, are almost always box office hits if only for the nostalgia factor. But now we're getting to an age where all of these blockbusters are going head to head, at once, in an incredibly short time frame.

Yes, it's happened before. And yes, the film industry didn't implode. But films are getting more and more expensive. Hollywood is banking entirely off the money made by these films to turn a profit. While some of these films will succeed, not all of them will be the hits Hollywood wants them to be. Some will outright bomb, while others will just underperform. We are living in an economy where people can't just blow all their cash going to see a film in theaters, not when there's a more comfortable, less expensive alternative waiting at home on a laptop.

Hollywood knows this, which is why these franchise films more often than not feel like gimmicks instead of actual movies. People still lap it up, but by 2015 I think everyone will start wising up. They will question, as I have, why all these giant blockbusters are being pitted against each other at once. The whole thing reeks of desperation on the part of the executives. People want to be entertained, sure, and there will still be those drawn out by curiosity or nostalgia. But it won't be as big as Hollywood thinks.

At the very least, some blockbusters will draw all of the attention and leave the other films in the dust. Too many "event" films will come out, too many will tank, and the result will be Hollywood going bankrupt trying to make up for the losses of these films they thought would be "sure things."

Once upon a time, Spielberg and Lucas emerged as part of a generation of directors who were anti-Hollywood, making smaller films as an antidote to the formulaic dribble the studios were putting out. When those films became huge successes, Lucas and Spielberg went from anti-Hollywood to becoming Hollywood. They invented the blockbuster, and the studios have adopted that model ever since. But Lucas and Spielberg have seen this before, and now the Blockbuster Age they have started looks to be coming to an end. The Internet is creating the next anti-Hollywood movement, and soon everyone will suffer from Blockbuster Burnout and call for less expensive, more original content.

Of course this is just a prediction. And for all my talk, I'll still probably end up seeing most of these movies, maybe even multiple times. But I love going to see films in theaters. I'm part of a generation that's used to that. But the generations after me aren't. They see movies at home, on laptops, not in theaters. They will look at all these big movies, speak of how the films will empty their wallets, and choose instead to see what's on Netflix while waiting for the Blu Rays to hit.

I could be entirely wrong. I can't speak for thousands of other moviegoers. But at the rate the film industry is churning out these films, one thing is absolutely certain- come 2015, either Hollywood will get very rich, or watch as their beloved blockbuster model crashes and burns. And should they get rich and crank out even more event films? The entire thing will bust eventually. If 2015 is not the end, then it will at least mark the beginning of it.

I hate to be this cynical. Like I said, I love movies, especially the experience of watching them in the theater. Some of my most precious memories are going to see these big event films at midnight, surrounded by friends and family. I hope future generations get to experience that. But the way things are now, the theater-going experience may take a huge hit, if only for a few years. I don't think it'll ever go away, but in the next decade it will very much decline. All I can do is wait and see, but no matter what happens, my love of watching movies will never diminish. And for the thousands of others who love the art of film, they won't stop either.

In Comic-Con We Trust

It's been over a week since the 2013 San Diego Comic-Con, and yet I'm still reeling from all of its announcements. Clearly THE nerd event, Comic-Con is the place to go to get the scoop on the biggest nerd films of the next few years, as well as events in TV, video games and comics. It's an understatement to say that a lot happened. The pilot episode for the MCU show Agents of SHIELD was aired. Footage from next year's Robocop reboot was shown. We got our first look at anticipated films like "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" and "Godzilla," seeing an aged Caesar and glimpses of the atomic breathing lizard fighting and killing other giant creatures. But of course, the biggest announcements at the Con came from the film adaptations of Marvel and DC, so naturally, in this reaction piece, I plan on focusing on them. 

First up is Marvel, and what better place to start than with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Joss Whedon already screened the SHIELD pilot, which drew unanimous praise from fans thanks to its Whedonesque dialogue and the return of Clark Gregg's Agent Phil Coulson. While that show is set to focus on how human society is reacting the events of "The Avengers," this November's "Thor: The Dark World" will see the cosmic aftermath. Loki himself, Tom Hiddleston, appeared at the Con in character to promote the film, rallying the crowd by asking "Where are your Avengers now?" and getting them to say his name. This was a treat to see, since Hiddleston clearly relishes the role and the audience really loves him. The film might break a billion easily just by having Loki in it. 

But as to the footage screened, from what I hear it detailed a lot of what was seen in the first trailer, with Thor taking Jane to Asgard and visiting Loki in prison. What was new was a brief clip of Thor fighting a giant rock creature, and Loki betraying Thor and apparently cutting off his hand. If this is truly in the film, then the Thor sequel looks to be a huge improvement over the original. Since Alan "Game of Thrones" Taylor is on board as director, I was hoping we'd get a more dark fantasy feel from this film, as befitting a Viking god. It looks like that's exactly what we're getting, and thanks to that footage description I'm more excited than ever for the film to drop in November. 

Next up is "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." While I'm not as pumped for the Cap sequel as I am for Thor, this is based on my favorite Captain America arc from the comics, detailing Bucky returning from the dead as a brainwashed Soviet assassin. As shown in the picture above, Cap is set to get a new suit, heavily inspired by his Secret Avengers comic costume and containing a blue and white stealth shield. The footage shown at the Con revealed Black Widow and Falcon in action, the SHIELD Helicarrier crashing, and a final money shot of the Winter Soldier picking up Cap's shield. 

This all sounds fantastic, and while Cap is not my favorite Marvel character, I'm genuinely interested in seeing his adventures in modern day as he comes to understand his role in the present. On a side note, the Con also screened the Marvel One Shot that will come with the "Iron Man 3" DVD, Agent Carter, which will follow Peggy Carter after the events of the first Cap film. I sincerely believe we should get a Marvel film with a female character, and if the reaction to the Agent Carter film is any indication, it's proof that a solo female adventure can be done well. 

We were all expecting Thor and Cap news, but the real surprise was footage from "Guardians of the Galaxy," which is still filming. Besides Chris Pratt's Star Lord, Zoe Saldana's Gamora and Dave Bautista's Drax, the panel confirmed John C. Reilley as Rhomann Dey of the Nova Corps, Lee Pace as Ronan the Accuser (leader of the Kree Empire) and "Doctor Who's" Karen Gillian as Nebula, the granddaughter of Thanos. Gillian revealed she was wearing a wig at the Con and took it off to reveal her bald head, having shaved her hair for the role. Now that's commitment.

The footage that follows shows the entire Guardians line-up in a Nova Corps rap sheet. Groot and Rocket Racoon are featured, Star Lord has some great one-liners, and the tone seems like that of an actiony sci-fi comedy. It all sounds very promising, so I'm fully on board for the MCU's first foray into the cosmic universe. Specifically, the development of Thanos and the existence of both the Nova Corps and the Kree is promising. Maybe down the line we'll get Captain Marvel, Adam Warlock and Nova. That thought alone is salivating. "Guardians" is still a big risk for Marvel, but based on this footage, I think it'll pay off in a big way.

Which brings us to the last MCU announcement. Many fans were expecting some Phase Three news, maybe a Doctor Strange confirmation or something about the Ant-Man movie. Ironically, we got nothing on Ant-Man but something very big about his creation. Joss Whedon confirmed that 2015's "Avengers" sequel will be called "Age of Ultron," which will bring the iconic robot super villain to life. I had a miniature heart attack at the news, since Ultron is one of my favorite Avengers villains and it will be amazing to see him fight Earth's Mightiest on screen. We know that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch (sans mutant backstory) will be in the film, and now we have our main antagonist. However, fans raged when Whedon revealed that Hank Pym, aka Ant-Man, Ultron's creator, wouldn't be in the film.

Personally, I don't have a problem with this. We already have a basis for A.I. and robots thanks to Stark's JARVIS program and the Iron Legion, which could very easily become corrupted and turn into Ultron. Maybe SHIELD has something to do with it, creating a fleet of Ultron drones from Stark tech as a replacement for the Avengers to deal with threats. Since the Ant-Man movie drops a few months later, it could be Pym could get a mention or a cameo as a SHIELD scientist involved in Ultron's creation, as a way of hyping up his solo film. Not a lot is known at this point, but one thing we do know is Ultron is coming. Just as I suspected, Thanos will be built up using Guardians and most likely saved for Avengers 3, leaving this film to fully develop Ultron as the threat he was meant to be. Color me beyond excited.

But despite my excitement for the main Marvel films forthcoming, I'm anticipating even more the Marvel films from Sony and Fox- "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" and "X-Men: Days of Future Past." Spidey and the X-Men were my gateway drugs to the Marvel Universe, and even if these cinematic versions aren't apart of the MCU, the success of "The Avengers" is clearly inspiring them to take larger risks and be more comic-book accurate. The panels for both films were wildly celebrated, thanks in no small part to Andrew Garfield appearing in costume and character as Spider-Man and the entire cast of the next X-Men movie showing up.

As a huge Spider-Man fan, it was an absolute joy to see Garfield embrace the role as his own, cracking wise the way Spider-Man would and bouncing off the likes of Marc Webb and Jamie Foxx. Speaking of which, the leaked footage for the film of Foxx's Electro looks absolutely breathtaking. Electro seems to have a solid character arc of going from a nobody to a feared menace, amassing god-like power as he performs feats like blacking out all of Times Square. I have no doubt that Foxx will dominate the role, and make Electro a true threat for Spidey to face. This could very well be the best Spider-Man film of all time, between the look of the suit, Spidey at his comical best, amazing action, and a truly threatening villain.

In regards to the X-Men, while I've enjoyed the series as a whole thus far, I still take issue with both the liberties taken from the comics and the lack of continuity between "First Class" and the other films. Thankfully, "Days of Future Past" seems to be correcting all of that. Peter Dinklage, who excellently plays Tyrion Lannister on "Game of Thrones," is playing Bolivar Trask, creator of the Sentinels, and with him comes the entire arc from the comics, complete with time travel. True, Wolverine will be the time traveler instead of Kitty Pryde, but I'm still beyond psyched.

The very idea of all the cast members returning to do a massive crossover event between all the X-films, ironing out the continuity and possibly resetting the timeline "Star Trek" style, is really appealing to me. The end scene of "The Wolverine," wherein old Xavier and Magneto recruit Logan as Trask Industries gathers power, had me cheering, and this entire panel did too. Between the cast members old and new, our first look at the Sentinel robots on the Con floor and some fantastic footage (including a meeting between young and old Xavier), this looks set to fully redeem the X-Men franchise and carry it into the future.

In the midst of all the Marvel news, however, the biggest announcement came from DC. Ok, so we still don't know if they're working on Justice League, Flash or Wonder Woman films. But those movies could very well be in our future if this next film is a success. I don't see how it couldn't. When Zach Snyder announced he would be directing a "Man of Steel" sequel, he brought out Harry Lennix to read a passage from "The Dark Knight Returns" comic, before showing a Superman/Batman logo on the screen. The crowd went nuts, and I nearly died. At long last, DC is finally taking advantage of their properties and building a shared universe. A film with both Superman and Batman together? It will destroy the box office. Granted, this will be a new Batman, but the popularity of the character alone will ensure its success.

I've given this movie a fair bit of thought, of course. As big of a Marvel fan as I am, I want to see DC succeed just as well. The tentatively titled "Batman vs. Superman" film could organically spin out of the events of "Man of Steel," forwarding Superman's character as well as warming audiences up for a new Batman. I could see Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor pooling resources to rebuild Metropolis, distrusting Superman, eventually leading to Bats and Supes fighting each other, before teaming up to take down Luthor and maybe a couple of soldier villains. I could see Superman, racked with guilt over the destruction in Metropolis, embrace his role as the optimistic, uplifting savior after seeing the good in humanity within Batman while also having an example of what not to be (dark, brooding and cynical). I could see Superman and Batman form a solid partnership that could lead to the revelation that other heroes exist in this world, building towards "Justice League."

No doubt about it, the future of the DC Cinematic Universe lies with this film. But then again, maybe it would be better to forward Superman's character arc in another solo film before moving on a crossover. Maybe Batman needs time away from film so people can forget the "Dark Knight" saga. Maybe DC is only doing this to capitalize on Batman's popularity and the "Avengers" crossover appeal. There's no doubt this has the potential to be either an amazing film or a rushed cash-in. But either way you look at it, the fact of the matter is we're getting the two most iconic superheroes in pop culture together in a movie. Stuff like this is what Comic-Con's all about, and I'm hoping for great things to come out of this movie.

But nerddom is far more than just Marvel and DC. I've already mentioned footage from "Agents of SHIELD," "Robocop," "Godzilla" and "Planet of the Apes," to say nothing of "Ender's Game," "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," season 2 of "Legend of Korra," season 4 of "The Walking Dead," updates on season 3 of "Sherlock" and the 50th Anniversary special of "Doctor Who" and even an In Memoriam video for all the deaths on "Game of Thrones." Not to mention Duncan Jones' test footage for his upcoming "World of Warcraft" film. There's so much that happened this year at Comic-Con it's hard to really comment on all of it. I will say that I'm excited for all of it.

The shows mentioned above are either my all-time favorites or slowly becoming favorites, while the footage from the genre films of late this year and next year all look promising. I'm so glad to live in an age where nerd culture is accepted and embraced by millions, and Comic-Con is living proof of that. I hope one day to visit the Con for myself, but until then, just basking in the geeky glow of all the major movies and TV shows is good enough. 

Double Review: Pacific Rim/The Wolverine

There's no doubt that Japanese culture is seeping into the West. Anime is a hot commodity. Japan is the cornerstone of revolutionary video game technology. Old Samurai films like "The Hidden Fortress" and "Seven Samurai" inspired Hollywood classics like "Star Wars" and "The Magnificent Seven." It's safe of say that Japan has come a long way from being our archenemies in the days of WWII. And now, in a summer full of blockbusters that update classic Western comics and TV shows, we have two films deeply rooted in the Land of the Rising Sun. I am speaking, of course, about "Pacific Rim" and "The Wolverine," films I have had the pleasure of watching recently. 

If I were to describe how "Pacific Rim" affected me, I'd say it made me cry tears of nerdy joy. That's literally what ran through my mind as I exited the theater. Guillermo Del Toro, the director of cult hits such as "Pan's Labyrinth" and the "Hellboy" films, basically made a love letter to mecha anime and kaiju films with this movie. For those not aware of these very Japanese genres, "mecha" refers to giant robots, and "kaiju" giant monsters. Shows like "Neon Genesis Evangelion" and films like "Godzilla" personify these genres, both of which have huge fan followings. If you're a fan of either of these genres, "Pacific Rim" will deliver in spades. 

The basic plot follows veteran Raleigh Beckett and rookie Mako Mori as they pilot the antique robot Gipsy Danger, one of the last Jeagers (the mechas of the film) built in a now twelve year long war with Kaijus, giant beasts that have breached our dimension through a portal beneath the sea. The Jeagers and Kaiju all have fantastic nicknames, like Stryker Eureka, Crimson Typhoon, Leatherbeack, Otachi, and Knifehead. Seeing these titans duke it out high above the sky or deep below the waves is a genuine thrill, and worth the price of admission alone. Unlike the "Transformers" films, the action here is crisp and easy to follow, not to mention done on a scale not often seen in film. You don't really get a sense of how massive these things are until one of the Jeagers uses a cruise liner to club an incoming Kaiju. 

While the entertainment value comes mainly from the giant robot-monster action, the film never forgets the humans who pilot these mechanical behemoths. Beckett and Mori have good chemistry together, even if Beckett is a little bland for a protagonist. He has issues stemming from witnessing his brother's death at the hands of a Kaiju, but heals after he Drifts with Mako and sees how a Kaiju orphaned her as a girl. The Drift is another main element of the film, detailing how two pilots are needed to man a Jeager through sharing memories. It's a fascinating concept that emphasizes the bond between characters. 

In the midst of all the action, the true heart of the film is how completely different people come together in times of crisis. Two bickering mad scientist characters, who nearly run away with the film, are a perfect example of this, as is Idris Elba as Marshall Stacker Pentecost, the commanding presence who easily gives off the best performance. His rousing speech about cancelling the apocalypse is probably the most uplifting monologue in a summer blockbuster since the U.S. President united mankind in "Independence Day."

Despite all this praise, don't go in expecting anything deep. This is, after all, a giant robot-monster movie. A really well done giant robot-monster movie, in fact. This won't get any awards for acting (not to say that it's bad, just nothing memorable aside from Elba). It's meant, first and foremost, to entertain audiences with a simple yet moving story of mankind's response to attacks from giant beasts. Unlike, say, "Power Rangers," there's a sense of realism and genuine danger to the proceedings, but it never goes into complete seriousness and always remembers to be fun. "Pacific Rim" is a nerd's dream come true, and for fans of Japanese mecha animes and kaiju flicks, it's practically Heaven. 

"The Wolverine," on the other hand, has a bit of a pedigree to it. And I'm not just talking about the infamous legacy of the previous "X-Men" films, which have ranged from really good (X2, First Class) to decent (X1) to horribly embarassing (X3, Wolverine: Origins). The pedigree I'm referring to is, first and foremost, the film's inspiration from Frank Miller and Chris Claremont's epic Japan saga, as well as the references to numerous Japanese gangster flicks, revenge thrillers, and neo-noir. Unlike its predecessor, this film is set post-X3, following a Logan traumatized by his killing of Jean Grey along with his survivor's guilt stemming from his immortal mutation. Through this great set-up, we get a much more vulnerable Logan who undergoes a mental and spiritual journey influenced by the culture of Japan.

The film begins with a WWII flashback, where Logan, a Japanese P.O.W., saves a soldier named Yashida from the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki. It's an intense and powerful sequence, showing the devastation of the atomic bomb as well as Logan's gruesome survival of it. It sets the stage perfectly for what's to follow, hammering home Wolverine's immortality and Yashida's obsession with mutation. In the present day, Yashida's agent Yukio brings Logan to Japan to pay respects to the old man, now dying of cancer and CEO of a powerful corporate empire. He offers to transfer Logan's healing ability into himself, saving his life while giving Logan the mortality he secretly craves. Logan refuses, but thanks to a mysterious woman named Viper, his healing is repressed anyway, making him mortal just in time for ninjas and Yakuza mobsters to target Yashida's heir and granddaughter, Mariko. 

If it seems overly complicated, it is. Corruption and inner family turmoil abound in a conspiracy that ultimately talks about what it means to be immortal and live a life with (or without) purpose. For a superhero film, this is heady stuff. Oddly enough, this is probably the least comic-booky of all the X-Men films, at least until the last act, where the mutant battles return in full force. Other reviewers say it derails the picture, but I disagree. For a majority of the film, we see a Wolverine more brutal than before, thanks in part to the loss of his healing ability. When it returns towards the end, the threat he has to face is still actually capable to killing him, raising the stakes and making the battle personal despite the mass of CGI. 

What really sets this film apart from previous X-flicks, and from a lot of superhero films, is how personal it all is. This is, first and foremost, Logan's story, unlike the Origins film whose goal was to set up as many mutant cameos as possible. We see Logan compared to a Ronin, a samurai without a master, as he strives to get over the loss of Jean (who haunts him as a ghost) and find purpose again when he falls for Mariko. While the film takes liberties with the Japan saga, it manages to keep the central characters and tone intact, making for an excellent character-driven film focused on developing Wolverine instead of forwarding the mutant mythos. Granted, there are still nods to the wider X-universe, but Logan is still the driving force, and that alone makes this film one of the better X-movies. 

Logan himself is played once again by Hugh Jackman, in what I believe is his best performance as the character to date. He's played the role enough times to really get under Logan's skin, and has mastered both his inner rage and his more vulnerable side. Speaking of crawling under someone's skin, the snakelike Viper, while gorgeous and deadly, contributes little to the overall proceedings. I have a hard time justifying exactly why she was part of the plot, other than to reinforce her ties to the Silver Samurai like in the comics. 

As for the Samurai, they do take liberties with him, making him Old Man Yashida encased in a giant samurai mech suit instead of a mutant who can charge his sword (funnily enough, the original Samurai is in the film as a human archer, and the Samurai we do get can charge his sword anyway). The Samurai made for an engaging villain, though not up there with the likes of both Magnetos, Brian Cox's William Stryker or Kevin Bacon's Sebastian Shaw. He embodied the theme of the price of immortality, and made for one hell of a final showdown. Thankfully, both his battle with Logan and his overall character, while different from the comics, isn't an embarrassment the way Deadpool was.  

The real stars are Yukio and Mariko, the women of the Yashida clan (one the official heir, the other an adoptee). They have amazing chemistry with Logan, particularly Mariko, probably Logan's strongest love interest to date. Yukio makes for a great sidekick, and she's both incredibly strong while vulnerable due to her worry for Mariko and Logan and the angst brought on by her mutant ability (she can foresee people's deaths).

But when you look at the film as a whole, the real star of the show is the Japanese setting, which gives this film a unique flavor. In a stand-out fight sequence, Logan brawls with Yakuza members atop a bullet train. He faces over 40 ninjas who pin him down with poison arrows. He engages in a brutal sword fight with Clan Yashida patriarch Lord Shingen. And then, of course, there's the matter of the final battle against a gigantic robot samurai warrior. Japan covers every inch of the film, and the movie comes off better for it. 

It may not rank with the great Yakuza flicks or Samurai epics, but the fact that it strives for that is impressive. The Silver Samurai fight at the end does revert to superhero formula, but it's refreshing to know that it's only Logan's life at stake and not the fate of the world, as in fellow hero films "Iron Man 3" and "Man of Steel." Saving the world is hinted at in an end-credits sequence, but I didn't mind because it was more a tease for next year's "Days of Future Past," which was utterly brilliant and had me geeking out with memories of the original X-trilogy. 

Both "Pacific Rim" and "The Wolverine" succeeded because they were loving homages to different aspects of Japanese culture. One captured the lighthearted fun of the Japanese mecha and kaiju genres while the other sought to be a Yakuza thriller mixed with Japanese noir and a samurai epic. Both movies have their flaws, to be sure, but they are entertaining films that work regardless. It's great to see filmmakers who love Japanese culture bring it to life on the big screen, resulting in two films that, amid their CGI set pieces, still manage to remain small and personal. Nerds everywhere should rejoice at these two films. But that's not all they have to rejoice about. Tune in soon for my reaction piece to last week's San Diego Comic-Con, and all the fantastic news contained therein.