In Defense of (the New) Captain James T. Kirk.

  In my recent internet wanderings, I came across an article online that piqued my interest and got me thinking. While I'd originally intended to respond to the article on the Facebook group upon which it first appeared, I thought this might be a better venue to put forth my argument (and hey, it's been a while since I posted anything around here). So here, in brief, is my counter-point:

With respect to Mr. Womack, who's clearly done his homework, I respectifully disagree. While I concede that the Jim Kirk of NuTrek isn't the same as the one from the original series, consider the circumstances by which they come to their respective stations.

The Jim Kirk of the primary timeline is one who was raised by loving parents, who bore witness to the massacre on Tarsus IV orchestrated by Governor Kodos. The young man who enrolled in Starfleet Academy far earlier, buckled down and became known as the single dullest student there. The Kirk of the Abrams films is not the young man who was in attendance at the peace conference on Axanar, but he does share the rebellious streak that prompted both men to cheat the Kobayashi Maru scenario out of a stubborn refusal to accept a no-win scenario. The Kirk who would go on to be humbled by the cloud creature on Tycho IV as two hundred of the Farragut's crew died is a man forged by years of experience to become the youngest captain of a Federation starship at the age of thirty.

  But by that same token the NuTrek Kirk is a different man in his own right. A man who grew up in the shadow of a father he barely knew, raised by an (apparently) emotionally distant mother and an abusive stepfather. A young man who grew up brilliant but angry at the world, who lacked the focus and direction he so desperately needed until meeting Christopher Pike and being flat-out called on his own bullshit. A Kirk who took the challenges of the Academy and met them and (over the course of years in my mind as there's no way you go from cadet to Captain in three weeks like the first NuTrek seems to imply, I'll grant you that) received the opportunity of a lifetime and became the youngest Captain in starfleet, and moreover captain of the flagship of the Federation. He's arrogant at times and cocky, very much not the Kirk of the primary timeline because -that Kirk had nothing to prove-. NuKirk adopts the veneer of being too cool for school as a defensive shield, to keep people back. Keep moving, keep up the bluff, and don't ever let people see a moment's weakness that can be preyed upon. This Kirk grew up with a chip on his shoulder easily the size of a small moon.

 The classic Star Trek had the luxury of a 45-minute format to tell the story it needed to tell, whereas with the Star Trek films of the current day we have two and a half hours at most to build an entirely new universe from scratch. The mandate of the Abrams films is entertainment with a humanist twist, and while we could explore themes of madness, the use of power, and humanity's place in the universe in the classic series, this new universe hasn't even had a chance to launch into the five-year mission proper. They're dealing with the aftermath of having the table completely flipped by Nero in the first film, of a Federation that is struggling to hold onto those high ideals in the face of a new and uncertain universe. Yeah, it's great that in the future humanity has gotten its collective sh!t together and we're going out into space to explore, but there's every chance that the people we're going to meet aren't going to be nearly so enlightened. That they will, in fact, try to kill us and threaten our entire way of life. It's the Roddenberryian (yes that's totally a word its in the becktionary) ideal slams into the reality of a world where we see the almost daily clash of differing cultures. The character of Admiral Marcus from Into Darkness may be an asshat. . .but he's not entirely without a point either.

 And yet it's through the actions of men like Kirk (Classic or New) that we learn to take on those challenges, to find the way to win even if it means changing the game completely. The theme of Into Darkness was hubris and its consequence: NuKirk had basically been all but told by SpockClassic and Nero that he's going to be a captain of some renown in the future, and he'd gotten a bit full of himself, confident in his own future legend. The humility he earned over the course of the film sets him up to be a Kirk who's an acceptable mix of both universes, at least from where I sit. A Han Solo in terms of confidence and ability but with a Luke Skywalker head on his shoulders. This Kirk has a lot more to learn than his primary timeline counterpart, but he has the same potential and it shines through over the course of the films.

  Just my $0.02.

 ~Stac

First Among Equals: Captain America: The First Avenger.

Hi guys,

My (slightly) more restrained take on Captain America may be found over at the other site I work with, the very cool Department of Awesomology. Stop by, read, enjoy the movie, then if you like the site and our mission statement, maybe sign up and hang out. We're not officially live yet, but we're getting ready to take the plunge.

Stac

Post-View Show- Captain America; The First Avenger.

Later.

Later will come the deeper analysis, the introspection and the critical thinking necessary to judge a work of fiction with any degree of impartiality. For the moment, I trust you will indulge me as I completely lose what little hold I have over my self-control and urge you to see this film immediately. It is easily the best film Marvel Studios has produced, and (in my humblest of opinions)the best film of Summer 2011. There. I said it. The gauntlet has been thrown to the ground.

Now this may be my post-viewing enthusiasm bubbling forth, and perhaps subsequent viewing will cool my feelings toward the piece. I freely admit I'm a Golden Age/Pulp nerd; set something in the 1930s-40s, throw in some weird science, a diabolical arch-fiend out to take over the world and a stalwart hero to oppose him and I'm in like Flynn. But this movie not only met my expectations, it exceeded them. Joe Johnston and his team have done what I never would've dreamed possible: they have created a film that is a tonal and character 180 degrees from the pinnacle of contemporary superhero movies (Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight) while still managing to make it a complete and total equal in terms of entertainment.

I may need a good night's sleep to mull this over on (it's about 3:15 in the morning as I type these words and the mixture of fatigue and giddiness could be coloring my perceptions) but I encourage you, nay, implore you to seek this film out. It's just plain fun in a way that I think most cinematic blockbusters rolled off the assembly line just aren't anymore. The good guys were true blue, the bad guys delightfully nasty, the good fight was fought, and a hero came into his own. My usual tag of 'recommended' seems pale and inadequate. See this movie and let me know what you think. Me? I loved it. It's easily my favorite Marvel movie of all time, and stands shoulder to shoulder with Sky Captain And The World of Tomorrow, The Phantom, and the Fleischer Superman cartoons as a vision of old school heroism and adventure.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to collapse into a satisfied but exhausted heap.

Stac

Ps. Staying until after the credits would be very, very wise. Have a bucket handy to collect your face after it's melted off.

Insert placeholder for new piece here.

Hi guys,

I know, I know. Life keeps happening to me while I make other plans, so for the future let's agree TCD will be updated every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Makes things a bit simpler and removes a bit of the 'when's he gonna update' stuff. To be fair I have done some reading and have material ready to go, I just need to apply butt to chair and my late start today didn't help matters (damn Heavy Rain. .).

Tonight though, I will make a pledge. As I'm off to see a movie about a man with a shield, I'll come back and share my completely uncensored chain of thought regarding Captain America: The First Avenger, even before I compose my Official review for the Department of Awesomology. That seems a fair and even agreement between gentlepersons.

Talk to you later,

Stac

The Victimized Badass: Some Thoughts on Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch.

I've seen the latest opus of director Zack Snyder and let me say this up front: the man knows his cinema. I'll happily give credit where it's due, and Snyder is easily one of the most seamlessly adept genre filmmakers I've ever seen. Since Dawn of the Dead back in 2004 the man has shown a unique talent for conveying action and emotion through his visuals, harnessing the unique talents of the production team under his command to bring amazing things to light. Hell, he made the cinematic adaptation of Watchmen, a comic book I'd believed to be completely unfilmmable, transforming the epic into a new entity while simulataneously paying homage to it's prose and picture counterpart. The same can also be said for 300, his rich and glorious adaptation of Frank Miller's sword and sandals epic.


Simply put, the man can make movies, and when I heard he'd be creating his own unique story in the form of Sucker Punch, and seeing the bits and pieces doled out in teaser trailers and one-sheets, I was on board. I eagerly sat in my seat at an advanced screening, keen to see what Snyder could do with his psyche completely unbound, free to create without having anything to adapt. I saw the film, sat with it, then saw it a second time today. I've had some time to turn the film over and over in my head and I have to say that while it is an impressive spectacle, the film has also done something it clearly didn't intend: it ticked me off. Sucker Punch is the most amazing mysoginist film featuring strong women I've ever seen.


The plot (what there is of one) centers around Baby Doll (played by Emily Browning), a teenaged girl whose mother dies and finds herself and her sister the sole heirs to her mother's estate. This doesn't sit well with their stepfather, who in a drunken tirade kills the younger sister and pins the rap on Baby (we never get any actual names for our protagonists, merely labels). The sequence is really one of the movie's high points; heavy on mood, kind of gothic and score by an amazing cover of 'Sweet Dreams' by the Eurythmics. It ends with Baby being sent to the Lennox Home For the Mentally Insane(clever little shout-out there), and with the aid of a crooked orderly named Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) the young girl is slated for a lobotomy. The specialist will arrive in five days. The film then follows Baby as she struggles to escape, coping with the situation by envisioning the asylum as a Prohibition-era nightclub, the well meaning Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino) teaching her to dance (i.e. work through her feelings) to survive, and the remainder of the protagonists: Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), her sister Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung), and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) assembling around Baby in a mutual bid for freedom, using the newcomers amazing dance abilities to distract their captors as they assemble the items they'll need to escape.

This leads into a fantasy within the fantasy, where as Baby Doll begins her dance numbers we flash into various and sundry fantasy scenarios; from an epic battle in a Shogunate-era castle against oni demons armed with rail guns to pseudo-WWI combat against steampunk reanimated German soldiers to a raid on a dragon's lair to an attack on a robot-filled bullet train. These sequences are the centerpiece of the film and the craft and care that went into them shines through, our five heroines looking absolutely effin' badass as they plough through their enemies, meeting their objectives, and looking damned cool in the process. And if this had been the premise of the movie, that rather than dreams this was an elite female unit of dimension-jumping kickers of ass and takers of names struggling to save worlds throughout the multiverse to prevent dimensional collapse, I would have pumped my fist and said this was the most amazing thing since the application of peanut butter to bread. But it's not and I can't.

I'm doing my level best not to get into spoiler territory here, because I do believe the movie is fundamentally worth watching. But the thing that makes my molars grind is that the badass, empowered women we see on the one sheets and in the trailers. . .they're not real. Or rather they're part of Baby Doll's dream-within-a-dream. Or the dream selves of the characters, who ultimately (apart from the figure of Baby herself) are shown to be anything but self-reliant or badass or strong. There is a moment when you watch these characters go completely to pieces. Is it understandable, given the circumstances? To an extent, yes. There's been some trauma, the pressure is on, etc. But isn't the journey of the film supposed to be the discovery by the girls of their own inner strength and resources? That they are far more powerful than they believed possible? If yes, then why does the film make victims of the girls, having them break down at one minor setback (to the point where a character makes a decision that is just. . .baffling), and then become hapless at the drop of a dime? Much like Chewbacca being a wookie from the planet Endor, this does not make sense.

Why is it that a film that's selling point is badass, confident looking women kicking the absolute crap out of bad guys really about being a helpless victim with some mealy-mouthed message about finding some inner strength within to deal with the pain without. . .and then having that pain without completely bulldoze you into the dirt? Yes, those who have seen the film will argue it ends on a hopeful note. Hopeful? Perhaps. Satisfactory to this member of the audience? Hell no. In my version the girls get away, after some very satsifying Death Proof-style vengeance on Blue's sleazy ass, laughing all the while as the asylum burns to the ground. That is the note the film should've ended on.

I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking this thing, but the film's notion of the victimized badass really made my hackles rise. Why can't a female hero simply be a confident, strong, fully realized character rather than either a victim, a headcase, or some combination of the two? Is there a spectrum that I'm not aware of?


Is Sucker Punch worth seeing? Again, yeah, I'd say so. If nothing else it got me thinking, and in an age of sequels/remake repeat as needed that's something we really, truly need in our escapist fare. Ultimately it is an impressive spectacle, with eye-candy galore and one of the most kickin' soundtracks I've heard in ages, but I can't help wishing for a little more steak to go with the sizzle.

Stac

Through A Glass Darkly: The Justice League Crisis on Two Earths Review.

I have to confess I was initially going to skip out on this review. I mean, really, what do you expect me to say? It's my favorite team of superheroes--The Justice League of America--battling their evil twins from a parallel universe. I mean come on, this is just a recipe for pure awesome. How could it go wrong? The answer is that it does, albeit only slightly. Stick with me and we'll talk about it.

The film opens with Lex Luthor(Chris Noth) and a brightly colored, clownish figure breaking into a secure facility. With seconds to spare (and a delaying action by his associate that costs him his life) Lex uses a piece of stolen technology to jump from his universe to that of an alternate reality, the universe of the Justice League. There he approaches the team for help. His world has been overrun by a group called the Crime Syndicate, a cabal of superhuman criminals who have banded together in an alliance of their five crime families to divvy up the entirety of their world. Beneath a facade of normalcy the Syndicate rules through intimidation and outright violence. Luthor, leader of that world's Justice League, is its sole survivor and needs the aid of our League in order to liberate his world.

Superman(Mark Harmon) is initially skeptical, but the thought of anyone in trouble is enough to sway him to aid Luthor. Batman(William Baldwin) flat-out rejects the notion; they've got enough on their plate on their own Earth, trying to act as a multi-dimensional police force isn't an idea he endorses. Gradually the majority of the League decide it's in the best interests of this other-Earth to come to their aid and join with Luthor, departing for the alternate reality.

Luthor's activities haven't gone unnoticed by the Crime Syndicate; his escape cost two of their members their lives and boss of bosses Ultraman(Brian Bloom) is not happy. Owlman (James Woods) conducts his own investigation whilst simultaneously proposing the division of the deceased bosses' territories. Superwoman (Gina Torres) considers the possibilities of profit on a multi-dimensional scale, while hoods like Power Ring (Nolan North in a dual role) and Johnny Quick(James Patrick Stuart) are about securing their territory and making a quick buck. The nihilistic Owlman keeps his own counsel, but it's clear as the movie progresses that he has his own agenda, a considerably dark one.

Of course, the plot is largely a framework upon which to hang the central premise of the entire flick: superheroes fighting evil versions of themselves. And it's here the film shines. Co-directors Sam Liu and Lauren Montgomery bring some sick fight scenes to the piece, with everything from aerial acrobatics to brutal fist fights to accomplished martial arts moves and all points in between. Each hero/villain pairing gets their time to shine thanks to the capable pen of writer Dwayne McDuffie (a longtime comics writer as well as a producer of the original Justice League animated series), who works in a lot of subtle nods and in-jokes for the long-time fans while still keeping it fresh and new enough not to distance it from a more general audience. The character work here is all top notch; the Flash (Josh Keaton) is snarky and fun, Wonder Woman(Vanessa Marshall) gets some moments of epic badassery in the piece, mirrored nicely by Superwoman's own brand of superhumanly powerful insanity. Mark Harmon makes for a really fun Superman(complete with a slight country-boy twang to his speaking patterns) and Brian Bloom makes Ultraman a bit over the top, but it works for the ultimate supervillain in a world of supervillians. Hell, I'd be arrogant and over the top as all get-out if I knew I was king of the heap and had no moral barometer. Martian Manhunter(Jonathan Adams) gets a bit of development in this film as well, as he finds a potential love interest in the daughter of the American President of the other-Earth(called Earth-3 in the comics but never really provided a designation here).

The crown jewel of the piece however has got to be James Woods as Owlman. His portrayal of this character is one of an icy calm with just a tinge of complete and utter madness. Owlman is the Anti-Batman, which means his insanity is such that even the Joker would probably blanch. His plans are horrifying, but he pulls it off with such control--and even near-boredom--that you are at once creeped out and intrigued all at once. His scenes with Batman are incredible, though William Baldwin is at best capable as the Dark Knight. I really wish they'd gone with Kevin Conroy as the caped crusader, but Baldwin gets us where we need to go.

At 72 minutes the film is the longest of the DC Universe animated productions, and I hope that favorable reaction to the finished product will encourage the good people at Warner Brothers Animation to go flat-out for a proper 120-minute/2 hour feature. These films have been improving in quality by leaps and bounds with each release, and I hope they'll bring a greater scope and depth to them as time goes by and it's proven that the audience is hungry for more along these lines.

All this praise is warranted, but I did mention there was a bit of a problem I didn't notice with the film until a second viewing, namely in the character of Batman. The Dark Knight makes some choices in this film (one involving Owlman, the other with another character) that I found to be a bit reprehensible upon a second viewing. Yes, the members of the Crime Syndicate are no angels, but the Batman I've come to know over the years views life as pretty much sacrosanct. To take the life of anyone--even a psychotic criminal--is completely antithetical to the core concept of the character. Now it could be argued that 'this' Batman is a bit of a harsher fellow than the Batman I know, but still. . .Batman's reverence for life is such that he'd never put anyone in jeopardy, even his worst enemies. That's the sole reason the Joker is still breathing after everything he's done (and he's done plenty). Those moments almost took me out of the film, but they're far from a deal-breaker. Still, I wonder what prompted McDuffie to take the character in that direction.

Also included on the disk is the inaugural episode of a new project called DC Showcase; an Anthology-style series of animated shorts starring second or third-tier DC characters. Up first is The Spectre. Done in a washed out, pseudo-1970s grindhouse film style (which after watching Black Dynamite a week or so ago did not go unnoticed) the Spectre tells the tale of Jim Corrigan(Gary Cole) a detective working a homicide case. Of course, this being a DC feature Corrigan is far more than he appears. I won't spoil it for you, but the Spectre is the wrath of the unavenged dead, and yeah, wrath gets dished out in spades in this short. The nods towards horror classics of the '70s was not lost on this viewer, and the short was found to be incredibly fun. I can't wait to see the next feature on the docket, western gunfighter Jonah Hex. Recommended most highly.

Stac

Geek in the Aisle Seat: The Defendor Review.

Before anything else, I always wanted to be a superhero. So much so that in my youth I even attempted to be one. I dug up an old Superman Halloween costume and modified it to be the Amazing Awesomeguy (or something, I can't recall what my actual heroic nom de guerre would have been) and attempted to patrol my neighborhood. I even stored my super-suit in an old suitcase, cleverly concealed in a nearby vacant lot next to our house in Fort McMurray, Alberta. I think I held on to the idea for about a week, maybe a week and change before abandoning it mainly because:

A) Nothing really happened in my neighborhood

and

B) Being a superhero with no 'crime' to fight was actually pretty dull.

Still, that fantasy has endured even to this day, though I tend to explore through the (arguably) more healthy venues of roleplaying games like Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds or my own writing. The notion of actually dressing up in a gaudy outfit and going out to right wrongs is an appealing daydream. . .but the reality I expect would be far from the pat endings and epic fantasies of my favorite comics. No, for someone to actually consider going out and taking the law into his own hands they'd have to be more than a little messed up.

Defendor is the story of Arthur Poppington(Woody Harrelson), a mentally challenged construction worker who dons a costume (mainly a dark sweater with a duct-taped 'D' on his chest, a helmet with video camera and an elaborate VCR hookup) and--outfitted with a variety of little gimmicks including his grandfather's trench club--goes out into the night to fight crime on the mean streets of the city. Arthur meets with some moderate success at first, roughing up a vile john by the name of Chuck Dooney(Elias Koteas) and coming to the rescue of a young streetwalker named Kat(Kat Dennings). Through her we're informed of his crusade to find the arch-villain of Captain Industry, the murderer of his mother. The story is initially told in flashback at a psychiatric evaluation of Arthur by Dr. Park (Sandra Oh), wherein we gradually learn the full details of Arthur's rise and fall as the heroic Defendor.

Arthur is not a well man, and his initial escapades (while somewhat funny) are tinged with a kind of wincing foreknowledge that for all his luck he's eventually going to get in way over his head. Especially when Chuck turns out to be a crooked undercover cop in the pocket of the Serbian mob, whose boss wants the 'little fly' taken care of in as quick and final a manner as possible. Soon enough Arthur bites off far, far more than he can chew and eventually is run to ground and given a choice. Does he let it go, or does he take one last stand for what he feels is right?

Defendor is a dark film, but for all that it's still highly enjoyable. Writer/Director Peter Stebbings eases you into Arthur's world and you come to bond with him as a character. Woody Harrelson seems to be undergoing a kind of second renaissance these days and he does fine work in making Arthur highly likable. You know Arthur isn't well but you feel for his situation, you understand his plight. Kat Dennings plays Kat as pretty much another user in a long chain of users, but one whose humanity gradually surfaces thanks to Arthur's simple, sweet nature. Elias Koteas practically oozes sleaze during his screen time, and he receives a just reward for his scumbaggery. Stebbings manages the comic and the tragic with a sure hand, and you'll find yourself laughing even knowing the pain that's doubtless to come from 'Defendor's crusade for right. Michael Kelly also turns in a great performance as Paul Carter, Arthur's boss and friend who tries his best to look out for him.

There have been some online who have been comparing Defendor to The Dark Knight, even going so far as to declare it that film's polar opposite. There's some merit to that argument, but for me Defendor was more of a modern day version of Don Quixote. A dreamer who escapes into the world of his fantasies so deeply that they become all that sustain him, even compel him to go forth and try to live that dream. He fails, but even in failure he nevertheless serves as an inspiration to those in his community. Defendor isn't the actioner that the other film that purports to be about 'real people as superheroes' (Kick-Ass) looks to be, but I think it's a worthwhile film about pain, loss, and trying to be better than you are. Recommended.

Stac

Wherever there's trouble: The G.I. JOE review.

"G.I. Joe is the code name for America's daring, highly trained special mission force. Its purpose: to defend human freedom against Cobra, a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world."

G.I. JOE is yet another example of what I like to call a 'six-step' movie. You will no sooner have left the theatre and taken six steps toward your car when the combined stupid of what you've just watched will take the creaking structure that had suspended your disbelief for the last hour and a half and send it clattering to the ground in a broken mass of rubble. It is a film that does have some enjoyable bits of business to it and when it's firing on all cylinders it's an amazingly fun dumb action flick. In the end though the things that irked and didn't work edged out the things I did like to the point where I can't say it'll be on my list of repeat viewings, nor will I be clamoring for the DVD. Let's get down into the nuts and bolts of Stephen Sommers latest popcorn flick and talk about what worked and what didn't. Spoilers ahoy for those who've yet to see it:

THE GOOD:
The visual aesthetic: The film certainly looks impressive, and does have several eye-catching set pieces (G.I. Joe HQ, the Cobra Stronghold, the Baroness' estate). The film leaps all over the world and if nothing else the movie gives you a truly worldwide battle against the forces of evil, with deserts to cities to arctic ice as the backdrop. I can't fault the film for not looking impressive. Stephen Sommers is an old hand at the globetrotting adventure schtick from his Mummy films, and we're served in good stead with some amazing location work, even if most of it is replicated on a soundstage somewhere.

Ray Parks as Snake-Eyes and Byung-hun Lee as Storm Shadow: Admit it: deep down these two were the sole reason any of us wanted to see this film. Yeah, the other Joes are cool enough, and yes the Baroness is as smoking hot as the brief glimpses of her have tantalized at, but c'mon. There's a reason that this former kids show had ninjas on the good and bad sides. Because one ninja fighting soldiers? Cool. Two uberninjas fighting each other? Epic. Parks and Lee bring their martial-arts A-game to the film and they really do liven things up in a film where you'd be more inclined to tug at the dangling plot threads and wonder 'hey waitaminute, this movie kinda suc-NINJAS! KEWL!!' The martial arts both warriors exhibit is damned awesome, and makes for an entertaining series of fight sequences, however ultimately brief they were. Both are equally badass in their own way, and their hard work makes this movie almost passable. Almost.

Sienna Miller as the Baroness: Hot. So very, very, very, very, very, very hot. Let's face it, after Princess Leia and the Gold Bikini, Cobra's own femme fatale the Baroness has to stand as one of the all-time fanboy/nerd crushes. I can't speak for everyone else but there's just something about a kickass woman in glasses (sexy Euro accent optional) that melts me like butter. Sadly there's no accent here, but Sienna Miller does fill the Baroness's boots (to say nothing of the rest of that wonderfully silhouette-friendly leather outfit) with some style and aplomb, kicking ass and taking names. My major gripe comes in the form of her characterization but we'll get to that later on. If nothing else, she looks awesome and kicks some ass.

Dennis Quaid as General Hawk: I've liked Dennis Quaid ever since I first saw him as Tuck Pendleton in Joe Dante's awesome adventure/comedy Innerspace, so it's always great to have him show up in a genre popcorn flick. Sadly he's stuck in the role of the 'Older Mentor/Badass who will be disabled by the third act so the Young Turk Hero can step up and save the day', but what little he does have to do here makes me want more in a sci-fi action hero vain from him. Kristopher Straub, creator of the webcomic Starslip Crisis raised the intriguing point that Quaid is exactly the right age to play an older but still believable Indiana Jones and I for one could see it. He's got the grizzled features, the same wry grin. I say slap a fedora on him and let Harrison Ford collect his gold watch.

Marlon Wayans as Ripcord: Hold it, hold it, hoooooolllllld it. A Wayans brother acting in a film in such a way that I don't want to gouge my own eyes out? I know, I'm as shocked as you are. Wayans' character is actually pretty fun, being the Wiseass Sidekick, and he has a good rapport with the Channing Tatum's Duke (in point of fact I think it's the scenes with him that allow us to see the few glimpses of actual personality Tatum brings to the character). Wayans' comedic bits cut some of the tension and help keep the movie. . .well, not grounded per se but at least allow us to chuckle a bit at the sheer implausibility of it all. The scene where he comforts Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) shows some nice interplay between the two characters, and while I never quite bought the Obvious Romantic Subplot between the two, his character does a lot to make these walking action figures just a bit more human.

All right, now that we've gotten the few bright spots in the film out of the way, let's take a bracing breath of air and dive together in the stygian blackess of the abyss, shall we?

THE BAD:

You cannot server two masters: G.I. JOE was hobbled by it's attempts to try and be both a kids movie and a movie for the adult who might've been fond of the cartoon. You either make it a straight-up kids flick in the brightly colored costumes and the laser bolts, or you make it contemporary and badass with bullets flying and people getting the crap kicked out of them as people most assuredly do in war. Yes, the anonymous mooks get killed by the handful and yes, Duke and Ripcord's squad gets blown to hell, but none of the key players gets truly dealt a death blow, and the people who do suffer the consequences (who aren't General Hawk) we never hear about or from again. The basic message the movie seems to convey is that war and combat can be truly horrific but if you're one of the Main Cast you'll be fine. Ah well, worked for Luke Skywalker and Company I suppose, but at least the tone of A New Hope lays it out from the get-go. G.I. JOE never commits to whether it wants to be a a serious action film or a kid-friendly toy vehicle, and that wobble in tone can be felt throughout the entirety of the piece.

For the love of God, stop explaining everything: Look, I know a certain amount of exposition is required in the first film of a potential franchise but for the love of all things good and merciful stop expositing over things that don't really need to be explained. Say, didja want to know where Destro got his mask? Didja wanna know why Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes hate each other? Didja want to know that Duke knew Cobra Commander (oops, I mean, 'The Doctor') before they became enemies, and that he was the one who called Duke a 'Real American Hero'? Didja? Didja? C'mon, didja?! Well too bad, 'cause we're going to explain it all anyway! Every 'i' dotted and 't' crossed! Who needs to build an engaging mystery or just have an opponent we never truly get to know when we can hammer home plot point and backstory via flashback again and again and again! Guhhh. . .it's like the writers (Stuart Beattie, David Elliot and Paul Lovett) were just throwing story ideas back and forth while they were playing on a ps3. Exposition is great and character motivation is fine, but this is G.I. JOE for God's sake. I don't need to know where Cobra Commander went to high school, or what his real name was, because Cobra Commander is just an evil anonymous badass. Does he have the HISS tanks? Is the Weather Machine there? Does he have Storm Shadow to fight Snake Eyes? Then I'm set, thanks. Really. Just roll the film and get to the action, rather than giving me flashback after flashback to pad out two hours with.

Enough with the black spandex already: Seriously. Stop it. Yes, Bryan Singer made it look cool in X-Men but that does not mean you have to keep doing it over and over. The G.I. JOE outfits the heroes wore never looked that implausible, and at the very least some individuality amongst the uniforms would've allowed them to actually, y'know, have some character, rather than have them all really be plastic action figures. I mean, seriously, swap out a couple lines of dialogue from the script that don't feature names and see if you can tell who's talking on the Joe end of things. I have a crisp, clean $5 bill for anyone who can pull that off. The black spandex costume is just a way of trying to wear growed-up pants when they are so very, very unnecessary. I know you wanted to make it look badass and kewl, but when the team looks less like the G.I. JOE of yore and more like--say--Team America, World Police. . .well, that pretty much speaks for itself.

(Speaking of a better movie, which Team America is, does anyone think the destruction of the Effiel Tower was a shout-out to Matt & Trey from Sommers? Because let's face it, JOE is Team America if they played it deadly serious.)

Baffling, baffling character links: The Baroness was Duke's girlfriend and Cobra Commander's (whoops, 'The Doctor'. Oh, and how funny was it to have Christopher Eccleston calling the kid from Third Rock 'Doctor'? I think I was the only one snickering a fanboy's knowing snicker) brother? Oh, and she turns around to the side of good because her love for Duke burns away the Evil Nanites That Make You Evil, the film's MacGuffin to explain the fanatical loyalty of Cobra troops (they're a mercenary arm of McCullen's operation and not terrorists. Oh no, no no. G.I. JOE fighting terrorists? No. . .) and gives them a chance at love, even though she's quite rightly locked away for killing like a bazillion people. But true love will conquer all!

(These writers need to be beaten with Syd Fields copy of Screenplay and The Best of Larry Hama G.I. JOE trade paperback until they scream for mercy and swear they'll never do it again)

Duke, where's my jet pack: Not one jetpack in your movie. Seriously? A movie with G.I. JOE, with Duke no less, whose classic toy was packaged with one, and he doesn't get a jet pack or an American flag? Stephen, I'm sampling this movie's sauce. . .and it's weak sir. So very, very weak. I go to the movies for two primary things; lightsabers and jetpacks. With Lucas out of the cinematic game I made my peace with a permanent lightsaber defecit but a G.I. JOE movie with no freaking jetpacks?! Damn you sir. Damn you to hell(and no, that glider wing thing doesn't count. Jet. Pack. Pack, with jets).

Okay, so maybe that last one was a bit facetious, but let's face it; G.I. JOE is good, but nothing to write home about. I can see what they were trying to shoot for, but the actual product lacks the energy and gung-ho (heh) energy of the original cartoon. If they make a sequel let's hope they'll tend to take themselves a bit less seriously, and to learn not to use the term 'Joe' as a verb.

Until next time, YOOOOO JOE!

Stac

King of the Impossible: The Flash Gordon Review.

'He'll save every one of us!' -tag line from the film.

Every so often, a film comes along that speaks to us about the human condition. It tells us of the loftiest heights of our ambition, the folly of our hubris, and the hope that one day we might come to know a better tomorrow through cooperation and mutual understanding. It's a film embraced by the general public and touted as an artistic exemplar of all our hopes and dreams, a treatise that could possibly lead to the establishment of a finer, better world for all of us. Truly, when these once in a lifetime motion pictures play on our screens we may consider ourselves blessed.

Yeah, those movies are really great. . .but sometimes you just want to chuck the societal/cultural commentary and cut loose with a film that is just gloriously batshit insane. A film with vibrant colors, broad characterization, derring-do, and sheer badassery on an epic scale. A movie that tanked at the box office upon its debut but found a new life on home video as one of the cult classics of an age. A movie that by no stretch of the imagination takes itself seriously. It can't be bothered to; after all love can wait when there's only fourteen hours to save the Earth! If you like your movies ponderous and full of themselves, I can't recommend it, but if you want a film that's wall to wall fun on an epic scale then Flash Gordon just might be your cup of tea.

Despite what the zeitgeist seems to think these days, there was a time when there were space opera heroes other than Luke Skywalker and James T. Kirk. Flash Gordon was a comic strip hero created in the mold of Buck Rogers, who fought intergalactic evil in the spaceways long before George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry turned their thoughts to crafting their own interplanetary sagas. Flash was a polo player and all-around American good guy who--along with his pluck Girl Friday Dale Arden and semi-mad scientist Dr. Hans Zarkov--wound up travelling in space to solve the riddle of mysterious meteors threatening the Earth. Winding up on the distant planet of Mongo, they quickly become the bane of tyrant Ming the Merciless and his countless hordes of evil minions. Beginning in 1934 and continuing as of at least 2003, the comic strip Flash Gordon remains an institution in Science Fiction and Fantasy. It's spun off comicbooks, cartoons, television shows, movie serials. . .and of course a 1980 feature film from Dino De Laurentiis.

De Laurentiis' contributions to pop culture cannot be overstated. The guy produced some of the all-time classics of cult cinema; Barbarella, Death Wish, Conan the Barbarian, the 1976 King Kong remake, and the Flash Gordon film. In later years he would produce such films as Manhunter (which first introduced audiences to Hannibal Lecter), the David Lynch adaptation of Frank Herbert's epic Dune, The Dead Zone, and Army of Darkness. His production company even distributed the Transformers movie back in the '80s. Simply put, he produced some of the most amazing pieces of escapist cinema to come out of the last thirty years. He is, in short, utterly awesome.

Flash is one of those films I'd only ever heard about online or in fandom magazines like Starlog or Cinescape. By the time I'd become aware of this 1980 release it was largely off the radar. Luckily for me it was recently re-released on DVD for the masses to once again become acquainted with this zany little masterpiece. Our paths crossed just this Sunday past when at a Blockbuster for some rental fare I came across the movie in the for sale section. The painted cover by fan-favorite artist Alex Ross drew me in, but the SAVIOUR OF THE UNIVERSE EDITION subtitle was what clinched the deal. A combination of intense curiosity and boredom contributed to my sudden impulse buy. With a few friends in tow, we placed the newly-bought disc into the player. . .and were transported.

I don't want to spoil the film, so a thumbnail sketch of the plot follows: Flash Gordon(Sam Jones) is the newest quarterback sensation for the New York Jets (in the original comics he was a polo player but I guess that wasn't 'manly' enough) on his way back to the big city after some time in the country. He meets a young woman on the flight home, Dale Arden(Melody Anderson), and they take to the skies in a dual-propped plane bound for Manhattan. Unfortunately for them (and the rest of the planet), Earth has been targeted for destruction by the meglomaniacal Ming the Merciless(Max von Sydow), warlord tyrant of the planet Mongo, who plans to annihilate the planet. . .but not before toying with it for a bit.

Enter Dr. Hans Zarkov(Topol), a renegade scientist whose wild theories about imminent attack from another world have led to his abrupt dismissal from NASA. He plans to use an experimental rocket of his own design to seek out this marauding planet threatening our globe and make them see reason. Thing is, he needs a flight crew for the rocket and his own assistant is somewhat less than cooperative. Enter Flash and Dale who--after their pilots are atomized by one of Ming's fierce attacks--come to a crash landing in Zarkov's greenhouse after Flash (who's been taking flying lessons y'see) manages to bring the plane to a rough landing. With a bit of shaky fast-talking and a pistol for persuasion, the intrepid trio soon find themselves blasting off to the stars, falling into a space warp that leads them to the planet Mongo and it's neighboring moons.

Can Flash defeat Ming and his wicked adviser, the crafty Klytus(Peter Wyngarde) and his lieutenant, the wicked Kala(Mariangela Melato)? Will he be able to resist the cunning charms of the nubile Princess Alura(Ornella Muti), Ming's own daughter? Can he unite the squabbling warriors of the forest world of Arboria and their own Prince Balin (Timothy Dalton) and the winged warriors of the hawkmen of Sky City and Prince Vultan(Brian Blessed) into a force to overthrow Ming's tyrannical rule? Can good triumph over evil within the running time of a classic space opera?

Chances are pretty good you know the answers to all of the above, but if you dismiss the film based on it's (admittedly) hokey premise you'd be doing yourself a disservice. Flash is by no means a classic of the genre that will change everything you know about life, the universe, and everything. But it is an amazingly fun, visually stunning, epic piece of purest, zestiest Gorgonzola cheese that doesn't shy away from the cliches of the genre, but embraces them with a zesty grin and a playful wink. If you can't appreciate Flash's battle tactics in Ming's throne room, or his sincere (and repeated) desire to team up with others to overthrow Ming, if you can't accept that a man can be publicly executed, brought back to life, and then be macked on by an amazingly slinky and seductive alien princess, if you cannot accept a universe where people fly and speak in a seeming vacuum on sky sleds and rockets with fins, if you absolutely positively cannot accept a fleet of hawkmen warriors swooping down from the skies amidst the pounding drums and rippling guitar licks of Queen as we're told Flash Gordon is the saviour of the universe! Well, this film may not be for you. It's a cheesy movie, but also a visual feast and amazingly fun in it's corny, endearing way. If you haven't checked it out I encourage you to do so. Mere adjectives cannot hope to encompass the vibrant colors, ludicrous predicaments, and the exultant joy of the delivery of certain lines('The inhabitants refer to it as the planet. . .Earth', 'Gordon's alive?!') have to be seen in order to be believed.

Mike Hodges's direction of the film seems a mixture of the classic Flash serials as well as the '60s Batman television series, which is no surprise given writer Lorenzo Semple Jr's experience with that show. I could cheerleader about this thing all day, but it's only because I was so utterly taken with a film that just dared to be completely, utterly in love with its subject matter and its universe, while being unafraid to look silly doing so. In an age where Science Fiction and Fantasy have become a bit pretentious with how seriously they take themselves, Flash is a welcome breath of fresh air. No, more than that. He's a miracle! Flash! Aaaahhh. . .!

Stac

The future is history: the Terminator Salvation review.

'[Saying the message that John made him memorize] Sarah, thank you. For your courage through the dark years. I can't help you with what you must soon face, except to tell you that the future is not set...You must be stronger than you imagine you can be. You must survive, or I will never exist.' -Kyle Reese(Michael Biehn), The Terminator(1984).

With that cryptic missive a franchise was born. The Terminator was a lean, mean little science fiction B-movie that featured killer robots from the future attempting to ensure their ultimate victory by destroying their ultimate nemesis before he was even born. A clever conceit that sustained the franchise through the inevitable sequel, Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Like every red-blooded fan reared during the heady days of the 1980s I love the Terminator franchise and the lore that grew up around it; from the films, spinoff comics, video games, even paperback novels. The notion of a future where mankind's machines turn on their masters and bring about a bleak dystopian future that is ultimately reclaimed by the inevitable triumph of humanity under the leadership of one man who taught mankind to stand up for itself. . .well, it's a heady mix. It's one of the oldest stories really. Substitute any conquering horde for the terminators and any evil king for Skynet and you've got the basic recipe for any number of epic tales.

The twist that makes the Terminator saga distinctive however, is that the series incorporated time travel. Yes, in the future John Connor may be the ultimate badass who'll save humanity from the machine, but what if you killed his mother before he was even born? What if you killed him as a child, before he'd learned the skills and lessons of a seasoned warrior? The first two films played on that idea, though the third tended to go off the rails a bit with the revelation that the nuclear holocaust of Judgement Day was 'inevitable'. If there is no fate but what we make for ourselves, how can that irrefutable proof of the human spirit's triumph over nigh-insurmountable odds be justified against the inescapable certainty of armageddon for human civilization via nuclear holocaust and a war with homicidal machines? Needless to say Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, while having entertaining moments, is not really the franchise at its finest.

[Oh, and before anyone thinks to ask: no, I haven't watched The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I'm going to be dealing with the franchise's film incarnation. The series may well be entertaining but it could undercut some of the points I'm trying to make here and really, do we need any more time travel confusion in this article? Yeah, I didn't think so.]

Let's talk about what worked in the film before we get into the flaws:

The Good:

-The Cast: Top to bottom there wasn't a moment with the cast that felt out of place or hokey. Christian Bale plays John Connor with a mixture of determined resolve and a resigned weariness. He knows this future, has fought long and hard to avert this future and his destiny, but he couldn't escape it. He's become a seasoned warrior fighting in the Resistance on the front line, so much so that the elite command from their hidden stronghold don't garner the same respect Connor has earned leading from the front lines. There's also a fear in the portrayal, a fear that the knowledge he's been given via his mother's warnings is dwindling down to nothing, that all too soon he's going to have to succeed or fail based entirely on his own experience and knowledge, rather than that of his 'future' counterpart. Bale shines in this role, and the film is made enjoyable by his presence.

Anton Yelchin is no Michael Biehn, but there's enough of that cleverness mixed with desperation the original character had to make him interesting and likable. The disbelief got suspended fairly quickly once we met him, though there were elements to his character that were a bit perplexing (i.e. bad writing, but we'll get to that).

Sam Worthington's character of Marcus Wright is also an intriguing addition to the overall Terminator saga, allowing us to see a potential missing link between certain threads in the overall tapestry we hadn't thought about before. I'm keeping this spoiler-free, so we can't get into too much detail, but the character was engaging. I liked him a great deal.

The rest of the cast are all adequate in doing what they do, but for the most part they're largely action figures, meant to get us moving along in the plot and not really meant to be dwelt on or cared about overmuch. Bryce Dallas Howard makes a great Kate Connor, but I missed the Katherine Brewster character of the 3rd film (yes, I actually missed something from Terminator 3. Try not to faint) as she seemed a bit more dynamic there. Any film that has Michael Ironside delivering his trademark growl and being all elder badass is no bad thing, and Ivan G'Vera's weary but warm General Losenko--while not being in the movie much--struck me as an interesting character that got some serious short shrift in the film.

Oh, and there's a surprise guest appearance in the film that is simply too awesome not to at least mention in passing. Prepare to have your jaw drop.

-The Visual Aesthetic: Say what you will of McG's talents as a director, he at least made an amazingly vast and epic-looking film. The scenes of a post-apocalyptic world, washed-out of life and color where humans and machines battle tooth and nail for survival are striking. There's a scene in the film where Marcus moves amidst the ruin of the HOLLYWOOD sign and looks out over a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles that was pretty damn breathtaking in scope.

The film is dedicated to the memory of the late, great special effects wizard Stan Winston, and it's clear that the effects team were doing their ample best to pay tribute to him. The designs of the terminator models, the hydrobots, the Hunter-Killers, the cy-killers (trust me, you'll know them when you see them) all have so much care and work put into them that you can't help but be impressed. While there are a number of CGI effects shots in the film, I was impressed by how many practical effects there were too, particular in some of the shots of the terminator endoskeletons. Work was put into making this film look amazing and that care and craft shows in the finished film.

-The War Against the Machine, or Humans Vs. Killer Robots: This film delivers on a promise made in flashbacks peppered throughout The Terminator, and through brief flashes in the sequels. The war against Skynet is brought home in this film and it is as badass as we thought it'd be. Hunter-Killers soaring over ruined cities, humans firing rounds into skeletal-looking robots while the wind and dust whip around them, the struggle to survive by either standing up and joining the Resistance or trying desperately to bury yourself in the sand and hope the mechs don't find you. This is the film we've been curious to see for years and at last, after years of enjoying well-balanced action meals you get to the sugary-sweet dessert that is this film.

So yes, there are some positive aspects to the film that make it an enjoyable enough piece of entertainment. But wait, didn't I say I had some critical problems as well? Yes, yes I did. Strap in kids, the ride gets bumpy from here:

THE BAD:

-Prequel-itis, or Time Travel makes the brain hurt: As I remarked on Facebook a little while back, this movie is a six-stepper. While you're watching the feature and are in its universe you are utterly enthralled, but I guarantee once its over you and your friends will not get six steps to your car before your brain catches a loose thread from the plot and proceeds to pull the whole thing apart.

[Get some aspirin before you read this. Seriously.]

As I said, I will not spoil this review. But consider this; the entirety of the film is predicated on a number of underlying assumptions:

1) Skynet and its terminators will attempt the wholesale slaughter of the human race.

2) John Connor and his Resistance will ultimately overthrow them.

3) Skynet will send three terminators back in time to attempt to kill John Connor in the past.

4) John Connor will send back Kyle Reese and a reprogrammed T-800 to stop two attempts, with Katherine Brewster/Kate Connor sending back a second rewired T-800 (one that in fact kills John Connor near the war's end).

The above list is what's know as predestination paradox. For this future to come about, certain events must happen. Cyberdyne will build Skynet, the military will uplink it into their global defense grid, Skynet becomes self-aware and bombs humanity back to the stone age, John Connor, etc. It holds up well enough until you realize that this film cannot go any other way than the route determined by the previous three films. Skynet has knowledge of the future too, and is attempting to nip the whole thing in the bud by eliminating Kyle Reese. After all, if he doesn't go back in time to save Sarah Connor, he and Sarah won't get all hominahomina and John won't be born at all! It's win-win for Skynet right?

Uh, yeah, but if there's no need to send that first terminator back in time, then it doesn't get demolished, Cyberdyne Systems doesn't get the shattered arm and the neural processor chip that they reverse engineer and thusly lay the groundwork for Skynet's own creation. By killing Reese, they essentially overwrite all of reality and the future of Skynet blinks out of existence. Cue rainbows and puppies in abundance.

Ipso facto, that first terminator must be sent to 1984, Kyle Reese must go back in time and John Connor must be born or else the whole house of cards falls in on itself. You could argue that maybe, just maybe, Cyberdyne Systems might've discovered the means of creating Skynet on their own, but given the cyclical nature of time travel as depicted in the first two movies (and Cameron's original vision) I doubt it. The notion of Judgement Day being an inevitability flies in the face of the human determinism of the first two movies.

Of course, one could also posit that Terminator 3 and Terminator Salvation are an alternate timeline wherein the events of Judgement Day were in fact predetermined, while The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day are the 'original' timeline. . .

[Toldja you'd need the aspirin.]

Simply put, the film relies on A to lead to B, then C, and then D. It wants us to consider this film to be an extension of what comes before. If that's the case, then jeopardy is lost as we already know good and well how this film will turn out. With that in mind this film is entertaining but ultimately irrelevant. You'd be better served renting the first film for 3-5 bucks at Blockbuster or on Netflix and saving yourself a wait in line. Only those who really, really have an urge to see killer robots on the rampage will go to see this flick. Again, it's not bad but what's it ultimately for save to be another video-game-on-god-mode type of movie without any sort of peril? I mean first Wolverine, then this. Say what you will of Star Trek (and we'll get to it in due time) at least it found a neat way to sidestep its status as a prequel and work as its own entity.

-Logic and this movie's lack of it:

You're engaged in a war against a machine network that has access to mobile weapons platforms, flying death craft, orbital satellite monitoring networks and global positioning software that makes the cameras on SCUD missiles look like your grandfather's bifocals. So why, in the name of God and man, would you be hanging out on a rooftop in broad flippin' daylight?! Or fly around in helicopters and jets that can be tracked, outmaneuvered, and overtaken by autonomous vehicles that have no consideration for speed(as they've no pilots to risk injuring)?Or line your perimeter(your vast, open-ground perimeter out in the middle of the countryside with no real discernible cover or bolt-holes) with explosive magnetic mines? Mines that will explode and create a heat signature that could be detected from orbit that might as well say HEY SKYNET WE'RE RIGHT HERE, COME AND KILL US in giant letters of flame? And these are the competent Resistance fighters. Riiiiight. . .

The first Terminator film showed us a humanity that had gone underground, hidden in the subways, the underground parkades, the sewers and the tunnels in their effort to dig in and survive. You don't go out in the day unless you have to, you keep low at night and you don't make a move unless you've got everything planned out well in advance. The machines are smarter, faster, and stronger than an ordinary human being and they will kill you with grisly efficiency. The Resistance of the earlier films fought smart. In the new movie. . .ehhhh. . .not so much. To be fair, the ultimate bolthole of the Resistance leadership is a pretty clever idea, but on the whole the Resistance's tactics just seem idiotic.

-The Other Officer Rule: The OOR is a time-honored cliche whose origins (at least as far as I know) may be traced back as far as classic Star Trek. Simply put; should a protagonist with military rank encounter a similar character of rank greater than or equal to his own, that officer will either be:

A) A massive prick

B) Weak and spineless

C) Cold and efficient

D) Batshit insane

or

E) Combinations of the above (AB, BC, CA, BD, and oh-dear-lord-help-us ABCD).

Nowhere is this rule better illustrated than in the character of General Ashdown, played by Michael Ironside. While his presence in the movie lends a note of sheer badassery, it's sabotaged at the same time by his being slotted so handily into the Other Officer role. He and General Losenko, along with a couple nameless extras, are the 'real' leadership of the Resistance. They give the orders and coordinate the organization as a whole, while Connor is a soldier in the field. Which sounds great, but they exist for no other reason than the Police Lieutenant in an action flick. He's there to drag Connor in, bust his balls, make the unpalatable decisions of war, and seem a bit more morally ambiguous than Bale's stalwart and true hero. It makes no sense, save to somehow make Connor look more heroic because there are lines he won't cross. Losenko seems a more approachable figure, almost a mentor to John, but he's never really given anything to do and lacks the balls to stand up to any of Ashdown's decisions. Hence, he falls into B, while Ashdown is a mixture of A and C.

THE VERDICT:

Is Terminator Salvation worth a look? I'd say yeah, though maybe make it a matinee showing. It's not going to flip everything you know about the franchise on its ear, and its certainly not lacking in flaws, but it is an entertaining popcorn movie that delivers some action and adventure in a dystopian future. If you're looking for a couple fun movies that give you a yin-yang feel, I'd say do a Star Trek/Terminator double-bill. Utopia for the half-fulls, dystopia for the half-empties. Therein lies balance.

Stac

A bold new vision of the past.

My post on the Canadian Calgary Comic and Entertainment Expo will be up later tonight, but for now permit me to get something off my chest that just dawned on me a little while ago.

Like a lot of people, I'm looking forward to J.J. Abrams take on Gene Roddenberry's classic space opera Star Trek. I'm interested to see how the film will look stacked up against fond memories of The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, etc. Not to mention the ultimate Trek feature film, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But my buddy Barry Reese brought up a point in a post on his livejournal that kind of made me sit back and take notice of the new Trek film and made me see it in a way that--while not putting me off the film--has dimmed my enthusiasm for the property just a bit.

This film, in the tradition of classic Trek, deals largely with time travel. As a result of this, the Trek timeline proper will essentially skew into two tangents, with one timeline (let's call it Trek-A) being the 'classic' timeline that leads us to TOS, Next Gen, and the rest. The other (let's call it Trek-B) is the universe of the new film and it's (in the works) sequel.

Okay, fine, I can deal with that. And as a means of rebooting the franchise it's a decent idea; it doesn't alienate the hardcore fanbase and allows for a soft reboot that will bring in new fans and new ideas. But there's also a bit of a flaw in that structure, a glaring flaw that once observed is like a frayed piece of string hanging from a sleeve. Sooner or later you're going to want to pull at that sucker, and when you do it'll either snap off or unravel the whole garment.

Any event depicted in Trek-B that seems like something that will flip over the applecart forever and illustrate that it's 'not your dad's Star Trek' is superceded and overwritten by the knowledge that Trek-A is still out there, where X event did not happen and Y remains the case. Now granted this idea of a multiverse of alternate realities is an accepted part of genre fiction in general (see the works of Michael Moorcock for the notion in its most perfect form), but unlike the characters in the film proper, we know of this alternate reality's existence. Everything Trek-B does is effectively in the shadow of Trek-A. Things may happen in Trek-B that change the status quo superficially, but Trek-A is still there in its origjnal state. Thus, Trek-B runs the risk of appearing lesser than Trek A, or at least being seen as not mattering because of the existence of Trek-A.

Woof but alternate realities are confusing. How did Sliders do it?

The film is also a prequel, and no discussion of prequels can be made without mentioning the Star Wars films, in particular Episodes I-III. These three movies are a prime example of what problems can arise with creating an engaging storyline by moving backward instead of forward.

Now before you get the rope and the posse together, let me get my story straight. This isn't me prequel-bashing for it's own sake, and the problem is certainly no fault of the creative team at Lucasfilm or the vision of George Lucas. It is simply for the fact that we as the audience already know how this is going to turn out. Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader. Palpatine becomes absolute ruler of the galaxy as the Republic crumbles and the Empire rises. Luke and Leia are born and Obi-Wan Kenobi lives to pass on the Jedi legacy. The road is mapped out before us: we were given the details from the Original Trilogy. Thus with this knowledge in place from our experience of the previous films the prequels have no jeopardy, at least where the main characters are concerned. This is not to say they aren't enjoyable stories; we all know that Camelot falls and King Arthur dies yet the Arthurian cycle has endured for hundreds of years. But this foreknowledge in an audience can be deadly for writers trying to create a sense of the stakes being high and anything being possible when we as the audience already have foreknowledge of how certain events turn out. We know Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise. We know Spock becomes his first officer. We know Scotty's the chief engineer and we know the seven leads will walk away from this adventure unscathed, because previous continuity says so. Even if this was a complete reboot of Star Trek, do you think Abrams and company would actually risk changing the status quo in any way? The Internet would crack in half with fanboy outrage.

This is all based on hearsay, and maybe the new film will turn out to be something wholly new and original. But while I'm expecting to be entertained, I can't really say I'm expecting my view of Star Trek to be shaken to its foundations. But then not every film should have to do that. Sometimes an entertaining afternoon out with friends is its own reward.

Plus the Enterprise looks awesome. Save me an aisle seat.

Stac

My vote for Captain America.

The more I hear about the Captain America movie the more relieved I am. Joe Johnston directed one of the all-time best comic-to-film adaptations with 1991's The Rocketeer, and I thought his stuff on Hidalgo was just rock-'em, sock-'em adventure fun. I breathe a sigh of relief at the news the film is in his capable hands.

Speaking of the flick, y'know it never occurred to me until just now but Nathan Fillion would make an excellent Steve Rogers. They might have to digitally weaken him a bit for the pre-Erskine treatment, but he could really pull off the whole super-soldier look with six months physical training.

And come on, the irony of a Canadian playing the Sentinel of Liberty? Delicious.

Stac

Every day, in every way. . .

. . .the Watchmen movie looks just a little more utterly badass.

Stac

Return of the King

Yes, that was a rather long pause. Visiting girlfriend, a cold, and the various vagaries of life in the rat race bogged me down a bit but I'm reasonably sure we've navigated past the tempest and are back on calmer waters. With that in mind, let's move on to a look at a couple of items I've just experienced and enjoyed:

ZOT! 1987-1991 by Scott McCloud

I've read and enjoyed Scott McCloud's excellent examination of the comics medium, Understanding Comics, but I always wondered where his voice of authority on graphic storytelling came from, and what he'd done prior to that epic work. Apart from a look at one of his online strips starring the character, I'd never had the oppurtunity to read any of McCloud's work starring his dimension-crossed lovers amidst the world of the everyday and the world of a tomorrow that never was. With the release of ZOT! 1987-1991, we get a rare and intimate look at both the work of the writer/artist, but also commentary on his creation's roots and his thought processes in its inception and implementation.

Zachary T. Paleozogt (Zot for short) is a swashbuckling, high-flying, (courtesy of antigravity boots), laser pistol firing teen hero of the classic mold who lives in the 'far-flung future of 1965', a utopian vision of the future where everything Popular Mechanics and Tomorrowland promised us--flying cars, robot butlers, a world free of conventional crime or poverty--has come to pass. Oh, there's the occasional supervillain or coal-powered mad scientist from another planet, but by and large the world is a paradise. Zot's uncle Max discovers our world via his super-science, and travel between the dimensions becomes possible. Enter Jenny Weaver, a 14 year-old girl whose parents are dealing with divorce, she's struggling with the pitfalls of public education, and an older brother who's a pain. Their paths cross and it's pretty clear it's kismet, but Jenny maintains that Zot is 'not her boyfriend. . .we just like hanging out.' Mmhm.

The first half of the book 'Heroes and Villains' is a bit of what you'd expect with dimensional travel and the contrast between utopia and the real world. The book itself is a contrast between idealism and realism, and nowhere is that more evident than in Zot's more or less disastrous attempts to apply his superheroic mentality to a world that doesn't treat its heroic figures all that well. Zot also has to learn to come to grips with the fact that just because he believes he can save everyone doesn't make it true, no matter how good a person he is.

The second half of the book is--I think--where McCloud truly begins to find his voice as a storyeller. 'Earth Stories' has Zot trapped on Jenny's Earth with no real knowing if he'll ever find his way home again. Here Jenny and her family and friends come to the fore, each in their own single issue arc that highlights characters that feel as much like real people as they are supporting cast. Of them all, my favorite has to be issue #33 'Normal' featuring Jenny's friend Terry coming to terms with both her sexuality and the pressure cooker that is the high school environment.

Zot! is just plain fun on a lot of levels:the imagery of the utopian 'future', a rogues gallery featuring villains ranging from the humorous De-evolutionaries and Doctor Bellows to the creppy Arthur Dekko and 9-Jack-9. A future with flying cars and swashbuckling heroics makes for entertaining reading. But there's depth here too, and McCloud takes us--via commentary interspersed between issues--into his background and creative processes at the time of the book's creation. It's at once enjoyable entertainment for the reader and wonderful insight into the working method of another creative artist. Reccomended most highly.

Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow Lionsgate Films. Written by Christopher Yost, directed by Jay Olivia.

I'm a fan of superhero comics in general, and if it's one thing we superhero fans love it's resisting any and all forms of change. Now sometimes that's warranted, as in cases where Spider-Man makes deals with the devil, but in others that intractibility can prove to be a major detriment.

Now to be fair it's not all the fault of fanboys like me. Superhero stories cannot truly become the heirs of the ancient sagas and heroic ballads of the past because of one very salient and pertinent fact; superhero comics cannot change. They can provide the illusion of change, sure, but there'll be no last arrow to mark Green Arrow's grave or the ultimate resolution of humans vs. mutants, because once they do that the story's over. And Time Warner and Marvel Entertainment have far too much invested in their properties to ever bring their legends full circle and provide an end to their continually-rebooting-to-keep-up-with-the-times beginnings.

When I first heard of this movie, to be released as part of Marvel/Lionsgate's direct-to-DVD feature film line, I was completely turned off by it. Why not adapt some of Tom DeFalco's excellent MC2 work if we're going to jump Marvel's heroes into the future? Why do the characters look like that? The animation style seems so. . .well. . .stylized. In short, I had my arms crossed and my face scrunched up in the best Mr. Horse tradition, fully prepared to hate this film. But as the advance buzz trickled in, and I heard it got a standing ovation at the San Diego ComicCon (no mean feat in getting an auditorium of comicbook fans up and cheering) I decided to put aside my preconcieved notions and actually let a new idea have a chance.

And I am so very glad I did. Next Avengers is easily the best animated Marvel film yet, walking the tightrope of drawing in new blood while at the same time providing architecture and pieces that longtime Marvel fans will enjoy and appreciate.

It's several decades in the future and Earth's Mightiest Heroes have retired, their world largely trouble-free, to build lives and families of their own. But evil arises in the form of their constructed successor, the robotic Ultron. Originally designed to protect humanity, it decides the best way to achieve it's programmed goals is to control humanity. The Avengers attempt to fight back, but in the end they can't prevail. Tony Stark, the Invincible Iron Man, is ordered by Captain America to get the children to safety. From a hidden sanctum the daughter of Thor, the son of Captain America and the Black Widow, the son of the Black Panther, and the son of Giant-Man and the Wasp are raised in safety. Until, of course, one day when that safety is shattered. Soon a confrontation with Ultron becomes all but inescapable, and can a group of kids, an old armored avenger, a severed android head and the former love of the strongest being on Earth hope to stand against the calculating menace of an enemy that took on the world's greatest superheroes and walked away?

Previous efforts in Lionsgate's work for Marvel have felt a bit constrained, either by their desire to cleave to the comics or to do their best to toe the line with continuity while being accessible to new viewers. With Next Avengers it's clear they've hit their stride. The story of the Avengers' Last Ride (ingeniously told as a bedtime story) is just amazing, and the background nods to the old team are cool enough to make longtime fans nod and smile knowingly. A further miracle is Christopher Yost's writing of the kids, making them feel at once real and heroic, but not annoying or kitschy. Yes, these kids are kids and have a lot of growing up to do, but you enjoy them as people as well as heroic archetypes.

There are bits of business here I'd love to gush about (Iron Avengers, Tony's candid take on Clint Barton's reaction to a request for aid, and the at once touching and ghoulish moment in Ultron's 'Trophy Room'), but that'd run the risk of spoiling all the fun of the film. If you've got about an hour or two and want to have a kickass time that will appeal to all ages, I highly reccomend you check out Next Avengers. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

More soon,

Stac