Looper - Review

Time travel is one of those premises in storytelling that can collapse under its own weight and logic if not handled with enough tact. In a clever scene in Looper, the film both acknowledges the fragility of time travel as well as advises the audience not to get bogged down in the technical details. Looper is a film written and directed by Rian Johnson, known for Brick and The Brothers Bloom (neither of which I have seen at this point in time).

The year is 2044, the U.S. is in an economic collapse, and organized crime is abundant. In the year 2074, time travel has been invented but becomes immediately outlawed, but crime syndicates use the technology to dispose of targets in the past, as tracking technology in the future has made it virtually impossible to dispose of bodies secretly. The target is killed upon arrival by a “looper”, an assassin paid by silver bars attached to their victim. To tie up any loose ends, a looper will eventually assassinate themselves from the future, will be given a huge payday and thirty years to live a rich life before being sent back to be assassinated in the past, closing his loop.

Joe Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is our protagonist. He reaps the benefits of his lifestyle, he’s efficient in his work, he enjoys the night life, and he looks out for himself and no one else. When his contract is up and he meets the future version of himself thirty years his senior (Bruce Willis), he fails to close his loop and a manhunt begins for both versions of him. What follows might be the most invigorating science-fiction film of the past decade. 2044 is a very believable, very poignant vision of our future, the United States economy has crumbled away, cars have remained the same aside from solar panel apparatuses fashioned onto them, phones have been reduced to a tiny holographic square with easy access, and ten percent of the Earth’s population is telekinetic.  In Joe’s future, there are stories of The Rainmaker, a man who is effectively closing every loop single-handedly, and Old Joe has come back to the past to murder the Rainmaker while he or she is still at a young age.

This being my introduction to Rian Johnson, I find myself wishing I had known him prior to this film as both his writing and directing prowess is something to boast about. Looper is very pleasing to the eye, with plenty of visual nuances which serve to have me commend the impressive cinematography. The film takes place in a dystopian Kansas and as dystopia goes, I have no complaints here. The basic premise is something that sounds very flimsy on paper, and the advertising for this film gives the impression it’s a typical action piece, and while it is that in a lot of places, it’s also a lot smarter than that.

Performances are as good as your going to get for this kind of subject material, and there’s even a child actor who won’t give you any PTSD flashbacks of Jake Lloyd, in fact, you won’t know whether to love or be frightened of this little guy. Bruce Willis, for once, actually looks like he’s putting effort into his performance, which we don’t often get these days considering the schlock he attaches himself to. Emily Blunt, despite being a British actress, pulls off a surprisingly flawless Midwestern twang. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors, and while I don't feel the make-up applied to make him look more like a young Bruce Willis was necessary, it does give the performance its own sort of signature. 

Because my reviews offer no spoilers, it’s hard to discuss in gritty detail what makes this film so great without going into that territory, so in short, Looper is very much a film for everyone. A film student and aspiring filmmaker like me can enjoy it from every technical standpoint; aside from a few hiccups and a polarizing ending (I personally liked the ending just fine). General filmgoers can enjoy for both entertainment value while also experiencing something clever and innovative. It’s a please-all picture. 9 out of 10.

The Amazing Spider-Man - Review

Every action has it consequences, and every achievement has its own setbacks. Batman Begins popularized the film reboot, not to be confused with a remake. Just earlier today, I was discussing the difference between the two with a friend and fellow comic book fanatic. We both came to an agreement that a remake is often a re-iteration of a film from a past era, like the many horror remakes released in the past decade. A reboot, however, often revitalizes an established franchise or property based on a single source material. Hence, Batman Begins is not a remake of Batman or any of the three sequels, but a reboot of the franchise set in its own continuity.

Plus, I notice that a lot of remakes tend to re-use the same title as the original work, though not all the time (i.e. Internal Affairs vs. The Departed). In some cases a franchise can have both a remake and reboot, the abysmal 2001 Planet of the Apes is a remake of the original 1968 film of the same name whereas Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the property with its own liberties due to the backlash associated with the Burton film. I brought up reboots because Batman Begins has essentially popularized it, especially for comic book adaptations, and I notice that this along with origin stories is starting to grate on audiences and fans alike. The Amazing Spider-Man falls under both categories.

I’m of the argument that there are so many reinterpretations of a comic book license in the actual medium alone that I’m fine with any amount of reboots to keep the franchise going while not affecting the integrity of a particular run, such as the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, which not only lost its way by the third film in its own right, but was never the most relevant portrayal of the character in my opinion, so I welcomed a different take on the mythos.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a reboot of the Spider-Man property, and stars Andrew Garfield, replacing Tobey Maguire from the previous continuity. The film essentially does its own take on the character’s origin with remains relatively faithful to the source material while taking its own small liberties for the advantages of this particular version. Peter Parker is shy, he puts up a wall with people, but also enjoys skateboarding and is most likely a parkour practitioner, the script essentially modernizes the character and eliminates a lot of the stereotypical notions associated with the archetype. Peter Parker is still very much a nerd, but not like his portrayal in his original iteration and the Raimi films, which contrary to popular belief, is an extremely outdated standard for the most part.

The love interest of this film marks the triumphant return of Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), Peter’s original girlfriend in the comics, who is often misrepresented or dismissed in various adaptations. She’s intelligent and sympathetic, and the chemistry between the two feels more tangible than Peter and Mary Jane from the Raimi films. The villain of this film is Dr. Curt Connors AKA The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) who begins as a mentor and slight father figure for Peter prior to his transformation, which warps his logic and moral compass. Aunt May and Uncle Ben of course return for this new take, played now by Sally Field and Martin Sheen.

Martin Sheen’s Uncle Ben was a major strong suit for me in this film and while I did like the late Cliff Robertson’s portrayal of the character, I prefer how Ben is written in this film, especially in instances where he puts Peter in his place, as any good parental figure should when warranted. To elaborate, when Peter makes a mistake in the original Spider-Man, like when he leaves Ben to work on the house while Peter was out having fun with his newly discovered powers, there’s not even so much as a slap on the wrist. In this film, when Peter forgets to pick up his aunt and ignores Ben’s phone call, Ben forces him to apologize and gives him a stern lecture. It just seems more realistic to me, and I know this in the context of a main protagonist who will dress up in red and blue and swing around New York City like a wildberry Tarzan. However, I still feel it fleshes out how things work in this world, and helps get me invested.

I notice that viewers unaware of the politics behind how the movie was made tend to like it more than those who do, and it also comes down to a matter of preference, camp or no camp, fantasy or grounding it in some form of reality. To me, The Amazing Spider-Man works better for me as an adaptation and the tonal whiplash I’ve heard criticisms on do not affect me, although I do feel that The Lizard’s ultimate plan does feel straight out of a Silver Age title. I prefer to the original Raimi film, but still hold Spider-Man 2 in first place. 8 out of 10.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution (PS3) - Review

I can’t stand military first-person shooters. I mean it; I CANNOT stomach the generic, consumable garbage your average meathead will pinch pennies over to get their fix. This statement applies to titles that fit that criterion, most notably (and quite obviously) franchises like Call of Duty and others like it. I don’t mean to sound overtly pessimistic and critical, but I can’t help but sigh when an industry is overrun by the same regurgitated bile shoved down consumers’ throats over and over and over again. However, if we’re to be fair, FPS titles do not all fall under the same stereotype and the genre is not the only offender. The point is, it’s a breath of fresh air to see something not only different, but innovative, something that bleeds creativity, heart and soul put into what we as gamers experience throughout wonderful narratives or just honest entertainment. Deus Ex: Human Revolution falls under this category.

A prequel to 2000’s Deus Ex and the often-dividing sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War. Human Revolution is set in the year 2027, 25 years prior to the events of the original game, and 45 prior to Invisible War. The game begins at Sarif Industries, both famous and infamous for the controversial science of human augmentation, biomechanical, as the nanotechnological augmentations present in the first game have not yet been developed. Adam Jensen, a security specialist, while on a routine security detail, he and other employees and scientists are attacked by a rogue team of augmented combatants, and Adam is critically injured. David Sarif, CEO, has Adam undergo extensive augmentation in order to save his life, and Adam is determined to uncover the truth behind the attack, while the world around him is divided, polarized by those for, against, or indifferent towards what Sarif Industries’ experimentation does for aspects of human integrity and conflicting moralities.

Human Revolution is a stealth-based action RPG with first-person view. As Adam is a man with cybernetic enhancements, various upgrades in the form of Praxis Kits greatly affect how you progress as a player in your exploration. Between a landing upgrade that negates any damage you may have sustained from a high fall, to advanced hacking prowess, to the strength to lift obstacles that would otherwise block a shortcut around a multitude of enemies, this mechanic is one of the best takes on a traditional experience and leveling system I have ever seen. Dialogue choices while interacting with important characters actually have an effect on discovering certain truths behind the big mystery, conversations with NPCs here make the ones in oh so perfect Skyrim a joke.

A shortcoming in gameplay, however, is actual gunfighting, which isn’t much of a step above your average shooter, aside from some of the more creative weaponry. Combat against large hordes is difficult and monotonous, and there is little incentive for it, so naturally, stealth is preferable. Going back to difficulty, Human Revolution is not an easy game. Adam, even with durability upgrades, goes down in a matter of seconds when exposed to excessive gunfire, which attributes to the game’s sense of realism, but can also alienate the casual gamer.

The plot, while never quite hitting that high stakes level of intensity, does justice to the sci-fi genre, and as an avid fan of dystopia (mentioned before, I know), I was impressed. From an aesthetic standpoint, the game is gorgeous, and the environments are interesting, which help the player dismiss the sometimes robotic character animation and faulty lip-syncing (which I’m never a fan of) regarding in-game models. Voice acting gets the job done, in spite of no performance that particularly stands out, but the atmosphere, the narrative, and the fantastic score by Michael McCann help keep everything especially balanced. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, overall, is a fantastic experience for any fan of great science fiction as well as fans of the original game, and this review doesn’t do it nearly enough justice. Experience it yourself. 9 out of 10.

Dragon Age II (PS3) - Review

Dragon Age: Origins is surely going down as one of my favorite RPG titles of any of the console gaming generations.  With repeat playthroughs and hours upon hours put into it, I will be holding onto my copy of the Ultimate Edition for quite some time. As much as many may want to deny it, however, that remarkable RPG that I hold very near and dear... had a sequel, a very... polarizing sequel, to say the least. Now it’s no secret that I’m a fan of BioWare’s Western RPGs thanks in no small part to Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age: Origins, whereas Bethesda tends to offer a very open and accessible world with irritating bugs and lack of depth or emotion, BioWare tends to offer an engaging narrative with memorable characters while providing interesting gameplay. However, to put it plainly, they fumbled the ball on this one.

Dragon Age II begins with Cassandra Pentaghast beginning an interrogation with Varric Tethras in the aftermath of the the game’s storyline. In his interrogation, Varric narrates the events preceeding, and we go back to the beginning. The Hawke family, including Bethany, Carver, Leandra Amell, and yourself (first name inputted by the player) are fleeing Lothering during its attack by the Darkspawn Horde in Origins. The player chooses a between a Warrior, Mage, or Rogue as well as his or her gender, absent from the previous game however, is a choice of race, including an elf or a dwarf. 

The Hawke family is joined by Aveline Vallen and her husband, who shortly dies along with Bethany or Carver depending on your class. Returning from Origins is Flemeth, Morrigan’s mother, who helps the Hawke’s and Aveline to transport to Kirkwall in exchange for delivering an item to the Dalish elf tribe in the surrounding area. Over the course of the story, you will become known as the Champion of Kirkwall, and will decide the fate of the city as tension between the Templars and Mages grow, setting the foundations for a war in the next game. You will be joined by many a companion, including Varric himself, Anders (who returns from Dragon Age: Origins – Awakening), Isabela (originally a duelist in The Pearl brothel in Origins) and others.

Shawn Hawke, my protagonist.

To get straight to the point, being the Champion of Kirkwall isn’t as exciting as it may sound, especially when compared to being a Grey Warden in the first installment. Due to Kirkwall and the surrounding mountains being the primary setting for the story, you’re unfortunately reduced to a custodian with a sword, but not quite a mercenary. The plot suffers heavily from being mostly (if not entirely) build-up for Dragon Age III, which at the time of this review, is in development. While I did feel that the climax and ending to the game were satisfactory, a lot of the preceding narrative remains stagnant from a storytelling perspective, I found myself uninterested a considerable amount of times.

Taking example from the Mass Effect franchise, the dialogue list from the first Dragon Age has been replaced by the dialogue wheel and like the aforementioned franchise’s Commander Shepherd; Hawke has a voice for both genders as opposed to The Warden being the silent protagonist outside of taunts and quips during battle. Core gameplay and user interface have also seen a significant change, as abilities have been organized into different sections and trees depending on specialization, which replaces the original game’s ability chart. Combat is now more action-oriented, with added button mashing and faster-paced conflict. While I miss the more methodical gameplay adopted from KotOR, I do like Dragon Age II’s new mechanics. I just wish they were as varied as the previous game’s.

Despite my complaints, I can’t help but admit that the new characters grew on me, and they helped carry me through the tale, as well as cameos of characters from Origins based on my imported save file, and save imports throughout sequels are always a plus for me, especially when it deals with a different main protagonist. I'm also not sure whether the graphics are better or worse than the previous game because of the very different design choices, but I do feel that Origins seemed to have more life in character expression. In the end though, Dragon Age II, while a disappointing sequel, does have more heart than most generic titles out there, even if at times it can get extremely, and I mean extremely boring. I look forward to seeing how BioWare will hopefully making up for its shortcomings in the next installment, which this successfully got me excited for. 7 out of 10.

Whatever Happened to the Handheld Gamer?

I remember a time when portable gaming was just as viable as console gaming, at least in my own experience. When I was younger, I’d be just as excited getting a new title for my Game Boy Color (and later Advance) as I would for my console systems. For my birthday, there could be a game coming for the GBA that I was more excited for than something new for the PS2 that would obviously have superior graphics and more advanced technology and innovation. Yes, there are still plenty of gamers out there loyal to portable systems, but recent inventions have drawn a border between the devoted and casual world of gaming.

Today we have the Nintendo 3DS and the PlayStation Vita competing for attention like the Game Boy and Sega Game Gear 22 years ago. The difference between today and now goes beyond just graphics. With the institution of smartphones and devices such as the iPad, portable gaming to the casual consumer is cheap and harmless. Why pay $40 for the latest 3DS title when you can get Angry Birds for $0.99 on your Android or iPhone, the same device where all your apps and other instances of convenience call their home. With today’s smartphones acting as on-the-go, miniature computers, the instant accessibility and price range is quite appealing to the general public.

On April 21^st, 1989, Nintendo had released the revolutionary handheld gem known as the Game Boy. Back then, it wasn’t too far away from the capabilities of a Nintendo Entertainment System if you look at it from a modern perspective, titles for this system were not unlike what’s offered in the library of apps and digital stores today, such as Dr. Mario and Tetris, which are both (particularly the latter) popular to this day. Nintendo kept the momentum going nine years later with the Game Boy Color, which not only offered what the system provided in its own title, but was also a more powerful device, not by leaps and bounds, but just enough to keep the old and new generation satisfied. I feel it’s important that the original Game Boy had lasted almost a decade before a successor, as systems nowadays would never last that long. You’re lucky if you get to a half-decade. Sure, the Game Boy had redesigns prior to Color like the Game Boy Pocket and Game Boy Light, but those we’re purely cosmetic.

Other than the Sega Game Gear, Nintendo never had any competition in this particular market until the PlayStation Portable hit Japanese shelves in 2004. By then, the Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance had already become a staple, and the Nintendo DS had been released a month prior to the PSP. Smartphones were around by this time, but not nearly as accessible or embedded into popular culture as they are now. The PlayStation Portable, while boasting far more powerful graphics and machinery, did not live up to much critical finesse nor did it sell as well as the DS due to Nintendo’s broader demographic and the PSP’s lack of stellar installments that we’re neither ports nor spin-offs of already established console franchises.

At the time of this post, I do not own either a 3DS or a PlayStation Vita, but I can tell you that I am more interested in the 3DS, the Vita may be the more powerful machine, but fancy graphics do not account for superior entertainment or art the same way special effects relate to filmmaking. Also, I do own a smartphone of my own, and have played some of the popular titles, such as Angry Birds and the admittedly addicting Bejeweled 3 and Plants vs. Zombies, which I both originally played on a PC. But this goes back to my point that a smartphone as well as other devices such as an iPod Touch are practically handheld computers. “I can play this on my phone, you say? Well, my phone is always in my pocket. The game’s always available to me, then? Well, that’s awesome.”

The fact of the matter is these innovations are leaving a hole into the handheld market. Yes, there will always be longtime fans (like myself) who rush out to buy the latest Pokémon version and shamelessly buy port after port of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (and yes, I do plan on getting the 3DS remake). However, with parents letting their toddlers fiddle with an iPad (which I roll my eyes at and sigh and I’m not even twenty years old yet), and the wider appeal of simpler, more run-of-the-mill entertainment for a buck or two is sadly a little more welcoming to the uninitiated. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying handheld gaming is a dying effort; I’m just worried of its increasingly plummeting significance. And so at the end of this all, I ask fellow gamers, will you keep the fire burning?

He Who Would Break The Bat

With The Dark Knight Rises already out and myself personally loving it, I’ve honestly become a little Bane crazy. I was very much looking forward to seeing him in the film given that I know about his origin from the comics and how he works. While Bane isn’t exactly a favorite villain of mine, I think he’s very effective when given the right story. However, I feel that he is often misrepresented when portrayed outside of the original source material, and find it ironic that his reinvented persona in The Dark Knight Rises is the most accurate portrayal he’s had outside of the comics aside from a single cameo in The New Batman Adventures.

Bane first appeared in Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1 in 1993, written by Chuck Dixon. Dixon, Doug Moench, and Graham Nolan (illustrator) originally conceived the character as a dark mirror to the classic pulp action hero Doc Savage, and was created for the well-known Knightfall storyline. Bane, as written in Vengeance of Bane, was born and raised in the amoral Santa Prisca prison Peña Dura to serve his father’s sentence. Bane honed his natural skills to train his body and mind, reading as many books as he could get his hands on as well as taking tutelage under a Jesuit priest and progressively becoming the most respected and feared inmate. Because of this, the prison holders forced him to become a test subject for the Venom steroid, previously introduced in Batman: Venom (Legends of the Dark Knight #16-20) where Batman had attempted to utilize the drug to his advantage, which less than stellar results. Although the drug had almost killed Bane, he ultimately survived the treatment and found that it greatly enhanced his physical strength, and was fitted with a supply of it, he must take a dose of it every 12 hours, or he will suffer dire side-effects.

As a child, Bane suffered nightmares of a demonic bat, and sees it as a representation of Batman. That, and coupled with the fact that like Peña Dura, Gotham City is a place where fear rules, Bane feels that a confrontation between them is fate. And so we begin the Knightfall storyline, where Bane leads a mass breakout at Arkham Asylum, and Batman is forced to overexert himself for three months getting a good amount of his rogues gallery back into the asylum. Exhausted by the end of it, Batman retreats back to Wayne Manor, where Bane (who had deduced his identity) ambushes him and in one of the most iconic scenes in Batman lore, breaks his back, leaving him unable to walk.

Part of the reason Bane has been so well endowed in terms of the comics is because there was enough build up toward his character, he was able to take a steroid that Batman himself couldn’t utilize and use it to his advantage, makes him a more physical durable and offensive force. However, unlike portrayals like Batman & Robin and the Arkham video games, he is not just a brute force with no discernible tact or intelligence. Bane also acts as a mental foil to The Dark Knight, hence why I thought he was a good contrast to the Joker for the third Nolan film. When you really get down to it, while Bane isn’t the most popular villain, nor is he a favorite of most, he honestly is probably one of the most effective, more so because he already knows that Batman is Bruce Wayne.

Although, while I know his main iconography is often associated with his strength being increased by Venom as well as his luchadore mask, I feel that these are just gimmicks, little quirks to the character that do not define him, at least not significantly. The main drive of the Bane character is his physical equilibrium as well as near mental symmetry compared to Batman, he can battle the Caped Crusader on both ends. These can both be done without the Venom and luchadore mask (which were both absent in The Dark Knight Rises). Besides, the mask in a live-action film would look ridiculous (Batman & Robin being evidence to that), so I was welcome to the very different mask in the film.

The Animated Series

The New Batman Adventures

Anyone who knows me knows my absolute love for Batman: The Animated Series as well as the entirety of the DC Animated Universe (minus Static Shock and the scarcely known Zeta Project). I could spend all day talking about it, but I won’t, the reason I bring it up, is that The Animated Series episode named after the same character, almost gets it right, but kind of fumbled the ball. You’ve got the Venom; you’ve got the mask (which looks ridiculous in this episode), Bane is calculative and smart. So, what went wrong? The ultimate fact (this could be just me, not sure) of the matter is that he seems like more of a caricature of Bane than Bane himself, very exaggerated, over-the-top with a seemingly forced Spanish accent, and really, he isn’t much of a threat, he’s disposed of rather easily, and isn’t portrayed as nearly a force as he can be. What made up for this was his appearance in The New Batman Adventures episode “Over the Edge”, where they got it right, and the returning actor Henry Silva, turned in a more reserved and grim performance befitting him.

In terms of The Dark Knight Rises, without giving spoilers, Nolan gets the ultimate point of the character, and in my opinion, his reimagining for the sake of Nolanverse continuity actually made him a more interesting character overall. Bane in the film is not just Bane in name only. And so I end on my favorite quote from the film, of course by him: “Oh, you think darkness is your ally? But you merely adopted the dark, I was born in it, molded by it.”

The Dark Knight Rises - Review

And so we come to the end of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy. This was my most anticipated film of the entire year, partly because I love Nolan’s take on the mythos, mostly because I’m an avid comic book and Batman fanatic. I already know this film will be nitpicked more than it deserves and will not be considered a superior installment over The Dark Knight for a few reasons. Firstly, the expectations are different. I went into The Dark Knight expecting a good time and came out mesmerized and completely blown away by it. Second, The Joker is top dog for Batman villains, and so any movie without one of the most charismatic and entertaining villains in fiction is destined to underwhelm most. Third, far too many have the incorrect notion that The Dark Knight is the epitome of what a Batman film should be, and that nothing can succeed it, and lastly, the film goes in a different direction than most would expect.

The Dark Knight Rises picks up eight years after the end of the previous installment, where the Dent Act has since eradicated organized crime in Gotham City. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is in recluse, lonely and guilt-ridden Rachel’s death in the last film, and he finds himself living a life without purpose. The years Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) has spent keeping the secret of Dent’s turn eight years prior has been plaguing him. But, with a new menace in town, Batman puts on the cape and cowl once again to face a new enemy, Bane, the villain famous for breaking Batman’s back in the comic book storyline Knightfall.

The first act of the film gives Gotham City a new feel, and the turn of a near decade instills a fresh and welcome atmosphere for the film’s setting. Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordon have become seasoned in the passing years, and a young John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has stepped up to the plate. Performances from the recurring ensemble cast including Michael Caine’s Alfred Pennyworth and Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox are great as always, and the additions of Blake, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) do not clutter the overall narrative. I have to give special praise to Christian Bale in the best performance he’s delivered within the trilogy, particularly for Bruce Wayne, who goes through a major character arc. No spoilers, of course, but just let it be known that it makes me happy so many years have passed between films.

The storyline is the largest a comic book film has ever had, never have we seen the stakes so high for a character, although the narrative is not without a few hiccups. There were the occasional instances in which I tilted my head and questioned some of the logic and science behind some of the technology, but when you get down to it, it’s been nearly a decade since the last film. Think about how much technology has advanced in our own time given the short time span in recent years, we are constantly in a state of advancement. Also, for as grounded in reality as the Nolanverse films are, like the character of Batman himself, it’s still hyper-reality. What I like about this story in particular is that it brings the trilogy full circle, and is a direct continuation of Begins and Dark Knight.

Anne Hathaway, despite many doubts surrounding her casting, is a damn good representation of the Selina Kyle character, she’s lovely, she’s deadly, she’s enjoyable to watch. The original character of John Blake is an addition that helps the story proceed smoothly, as he acts as a child of both Gordon’s and Batman’s ideals. I feel the film would have suffered were this character not included. Bane’s portrayal in this film is the most accurate he’s ever had outside of comic continuity, ironic considering that no, he does not utilize the Venom steroid. In fact, I’d go as far as say that his reinvention here makes him a more interesting character than he is in the comics.

This is a very bleak and dystopian film, which always tickles my fancy in any kind of fiction, when done properly. Despite the iconography associated with The Joker and all the chaos he instilled in the previous entry, Bane unleashes Hell in Gotham City in a way The Joker could have never accomplished. That, coupled with the fact that Bane is physically superior to Batman as well as a mental foil makes him all around, a more effective villain. I love The Joker as much as any good Batman fan, and do agree that he is the Caped Crusader’s true archnemesis, but he could never tear down Gotham like Bane does here.

The new Batwing, or “The Bat” as it’s called here was something I was extremely skeptical about upon its coverage in the trailers. I had hoped they would use the Batwing in the third installment but when I had seen that it resembled an airborne take on the Tumbler, I was disappointed. To my surprise through, I liked it. Would’ve liked to see Batman utilize some new gadgets, but I’m not going lose any sleep over it. All-in-all I’m delighted to see another solid set of three movies again, it’s been quite a while but there is no Curse of the Trilogy to be found here. Nolan has left his stamp on Batman adaptations and I am curious as to how the second reboot will turn out. As it stands here though, The Dark Knight Trilogy is one of the best. Enjoy the superhero epic. 9 out of 10.

Let the Right One In - Re-Review

In an age where even the term “vampire film” is often met with either an eye roll or spiteful chuckle thanks to the abominable Twilight novels and adapted films (yes, both are bad, don’t make any excuses), it’s a shame that a film like Let the Right One In is so overlooked in the U.S. Come to think of it, foreign films in general are harder to jump into, especially for the average moviegoer. I’m a film buff as well as film student, so I have the prior knowledge and tact regarding them, but the general public is so spoon fed on commercial schlock that art house films are rarely profitable in America. The Tree of Life, for instance, despite being an American-made film, only made back little over a third of its original budget in domestic market but did about 4 times as well in other countries. But, I’m getting off-topic.

Let the Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in) follows a young boy named Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), a morbid, lonesome boy of 12. Oskar spends his day going to school, where he is bullied by a group of kids his age. In one of their encounters, Oskar is actually sliced across his cheek. When home, he uses his spare time to fill in his scrapbook of newspaper clippings regarding murders, crime and forensics interest him, as indicated by both the scrapbook and his knowledge of the subject during a scene in the classroom. His frequent abuse at the hands of his cruel classmates causes him to visualize and partially act out physical retaliation, often stabbing a tree with a pocket knife while muttering the same insults he himself receives. When new neighbors arrive, he quickly befriends a young girl, Eli (Lina Leandersson, dubbed by Elif Ceylan), despite her initial and open hesitation towards him. As their relationship grows, so does Oscar’s affinity for violence and desire for revenge. Upon the revelation of Eli’s vampirism, Oskar still welcomes her.

Oskar is obviously not an a-typical pre-teen, his fascination with the macabre and openness towards Eli forebodes a dark future for him as an adult, though we shall never see him as one. Not only is this unconventional for the vampire sub-genre, it’s a rather unconventional horror film to boot, being that it’s an art house piece as well as partly a black romance. The child actors are nothing short of great, and it further institutes my stance that youth is no excuse for poor performance. Oskar and Eli are two halves of a whole, Oskar bringing out Eli’s humanity while Eli helps Oskar awaken his animosity. Oskar is a character of mystery and sympathy but is never uninteresting nor preachy, Eli is just as quiet and reserved as he is, but she exhibits the confidence and surety Oskar needs, being far older than she appears on the outside.

Because the narrative is so fresh, it’s hard to predict where it will go, which makes the horror all the more compelling as well as generally effective. From a technical standpoint, it’s a very visually appealing film, with the backdrop of Sweden in the snow to the magnificent indoor lighting thanks to some creative techniques by the filmmakers. The film’s greatest strength though, is ambiguity. Points and questions raised by the progression of the plot or the audience are rarely answered but aren’t ignored; instead we are given the opportunity to debate amongst ourselves for the answers. It’s the unfortunate shortcoming of the American remake by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield), Let Me In, which sacrifices ambiguity and subtlety for the grotesque and for shock value.

All-in-all, Let the Right One In, to me, is a masterpiece. Its main cast is impactful, its narrative wonderfully fulfilling, its presentation nothing short of enchanting. To label it as just a vampire film greatly undermines its overwhelming integrity. I have seen it again and again and find nothing significant enough to take away from the experience, except maybe visual effects due to it being a low-budget film, unavoidable, either way. Other than dismissible nitpicks, it’s a film that had me thinking about it for weeks the first time, and still causes me to ponder a little with each new viewing, morbid and gorgeous at once and throughout. 10 out of 10.

Superman vs. The Elite - Review

I find myself defending Superman as a character more and more these days. In a world where characters are flawed and grounded in realism, even in the comic book industry, a red and blue boy scout can seem fairly dated. Superman is one of my favorite comic book characters, right under Batman for the top spot, and while more than enough people offer well-deserved praise to the Caped Crusader, people tend to dismiss or berate Superman for what he is. What is the real problem when you get down to it? I usually hear the following:

• He’s too powerful.
• He’s too much of a boy scout.
• He wears red underwear on the outside.
• He’s not that interesting a character.
• He isn’t relatable.
• He wears red underwear on the outside!

DC Comics themselves have had trouble with the character in recent years, what with Superman Returns’ critical backlash and the constant change in writer and artist for his non-Action Comics New 52 run. Everyone from bloggers, classmates I’ve talked to, to fellow comic book fans argue that Superman is no longer relevant in today’s world. If we were to channel the debate into a single Superman story, we would have Superman vs. The Elite. Based on Action Comics #775, entitled “What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?” The film depicts Superman’s interaction with a new group of anti-heroes called The Elite, led by Manchester Black. The Elite are modern, new school, and are willing to do what is necessary to enforce what they believe is peace, including stepping above the law and murdering criminals.

This of course doesn’t suit Superman, and causes him and the group to butt heads. Superman works inside the law, doesn’t take a life, and will often settle a dispute diplomatically before taking physical action or precedent. Superman is the ideal citizen, a symbol of old-fashioned peace and justice; The Elite represent an order of lethal force and action. The argument that Superman isn’t relatable baffles me considering his origins as an alien sent to Earth and had to struggle with fitting in with a society that could and would most likely shun him for being different, Superman was an allegory for prejudice and status quo decades before X-Men had ever touched the subject. Though to be fair, it isn’t as prevalent as X-Men mostly because it isn’t the central focus of Superman’s appeal. He’s not really meant to be relatable so much as he is supposed to be looked up to; he sets a better example for humans than humans do themselves.

That’s not to say Manchester Black is an entirely black and white individual, he just comes from a different world. He was brought up differently, were he not put through such hardships as a child; he might’ve become more like Superman, who he initially admires but later looks down upon. Black is the leader and most important aspect of the group, whereas the rest of the team is there to act as variance and have very little traits or personality quirks to remember, other than Menagerie constantly hitting on Supes and making plenty of entertaining innuendos whenever around him. The art style definitely put me off at first. I got used to it as I watched the film but I wouldn’t exactly call it good. There seems to be no rhyme or reason that the movie decided to adopt this very cartoony, very caricature style with Superman having a ridiculous chin. Action Comics #775 never had such a style, so it’s not like they were taking example from it in the character design department. Either way, the narrative would have benefitted with a greater art design, this just looks kind of silly.

The film was written by Joe Kelly, who had written the original issue, and the writing is good. Superman is written properly and voiced by George Newbern, who had previously voiced him in Justice League and Justice League: Unlimited. The story addresses serious issues but like a true comic book adaptation it knows when to take a step back for some fresh air with effective comic relief and levity. Bottom line, Superman vs. The Elite is an effective way to represent the argument I’ve had to defend more and more often. It, like the All-Star Superman adaptation before it, are both credible representations of the Man of Steel, and why he is the way he is. Looking forward to the next DC Universe Animated Original Movie, The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1. 8 out of 10.

The Avengers - Review

So it’s finally here, the superhero crossover to be written in stone as one of the most important events in both Hollywood and comic book history. Years of build-up and publicity has led up to the massive crossover that is The Avengers (Avengers Assemble in the UK and Ireland). It all began four years ago in what I like to call the “Superhero Summer of ‘08” which made way for the likes of Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, The Dark Knight, and even lesser loved titles such as Hancock and Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. Iron Man was a great surprise, and has gone down as one of the most loved and well-received comic book adaptations to date. For those of us who stuck around after the credits because of word-of-mouth inciting something worth seeing, we were dumbstruck to see Nick Fury address Tony Stark and mention the “Avengers Initiative”. Some doubted it could happen, others wept in fanatic glee, myself being of the latter category. Well, four years have passed and we’ve seen Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger, five summer blockbusters building up to the ultimate amalgamation. Iron Man did it best and Captain America did it worst, but we’ve arrived at this point nevertheless.

The Avengers begins with Loki arriving on Earth and stealing the Tessaract (the MacGuffin from Captain America) from S.H.I.E.L.D., forcing Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) under his control via a weapon obtained from the Chitauri. Following the destruction of the S.H.I.E.L.D. base that housed the Tessaract, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) is prompted to reactivate the Avengers Initiative, ordering Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) to collect Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) while Nick Fury goes to meet Captain Steve Rogers (Chris Evans). Soon Thor Odinson (Chris Hemsworth) arrives on the scene and we proceed into a narrative of great banter, humor, tragedy and of course action, lots and lots of action.

When you get down to it, The Avengers has a very basic, very predictable plot. What saves it from tired trope is the unification of each respective character and how Whedon’s signature clarity of adroit and wily interaction and chemistry help carry an otherwise pale three-act structure. Dissimilar to the likes of Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich, the strength of the narrative is held up by each hero, and their discussions and fallouts remain true to their corresponding personalities. My personal skepticism towards this project involved how the characters would bounce off one another as well as each member of the team getting their just due, not to mention the clash between Thor’s magic versus Iron Man, Cap, and Hulk’s sci-fi. Thankfully it seems anything that may have caused friction does not, and each flavor (namely the heroes themselves) is able to blend into a rich and delicious smoothie. Corny, I know.

Each character has grown rather significantly since their own film, Stark retains his glorious sarcasm but seems more mature and collected compared to the exploits in his first film, Thor is far more patient, and Mark Ruffalo plays Banner a lot differently than Edward Norton did, he plays Banner as a man who’s been through a lot and now just wants to find solace and peace within himself. Personally, I feel he's the best Bruce Banner we've had. Loki as a villain has come into his own as far more a threat than he was in Thor, and now displays the mischievous and blatantly psychotic tendencies he exhibits in the comics, most notably in a conversation he has with Natasha. Most loose ends regarding baggage from previous entries are tied up, including a brief discussion with Thor regarding Jane from the his film. Although, while Loki is a solidified antagonist, the Chitauri as an army are little more than cannon fodder. However, I can dismiss the notion considering the context and scope of a project like this, especially in light of the mid-credits scene which reveals who’s been pulling all the strings. The point is that there are bigger things at stake here to worry about than lack of depth for a militia who’d surely be defeated either way.

In no lesser sense of credit, Joss Whedon has nailed this rather imperative film. The Avengers is a massive flick with a great script, characters you’ve been brought up to speed on in their own individual films, incredible chemistry between all of them, and a payoff well worth the near half-decade of anticipation. While I wouldn’t call this the peak of any potential comic adaptation, I will say that the novelty will never be the same, for this is a monumental instance, and while some faults surface, they don’t detract much from the enjoyment, especially for a comic book fan like myself, unless you’re a purist, but I digress. 8.5 out of 10.

Mushi-Shi (TV) - Review

I’ll admit that I’m not the biggest otaku nowadays, at least in the anime sense. I used to be an avid anime fanatic for a good amount of my life but grew out of it around my sophomore year of high school, Full Metal Alchemist being the last great series I had loved before going on a three year hiatus. Today I don’t exactly consider myself an anime fan anymore, so I won’t pretend that I am. It was just one of those things that got away from me. However, I have just finished a particular series that I believe deserves discussion. Mushi-Shi is the award-winning series adaptation of the manga of the same name written by Yuki Urashibara. Both the manga and anime depict the supernatural occurrences surrounding creatures called Mushi, ethereal, ubiquitous life forms in touch with the essence of life in its purest form, unseen by most. Ginko (Travis Willingham), a Mushi Master and main character of the series, travels about the world, studying and collecting all forms of Mushi, as well as helping to resolve situations with people who may have come into contact with them.

The series is episodic, each episode dealing with a fresh storyline and the overall span of the show retaining only one recurring character other than Ginko himself. Each episode is separate from the other, and is treated almost as a short film rather than the fraction of a larger narrative, which I can appreciate considering I’ve grown tired of monotonous story arcs and pointless melodrama that the culture is often stereotyped for. What struck me initially about Mushi-Shi was its atmospheric backdrops and relaxed nature and tone throughout most of the episodes, no sexual objectification of female characters, no angst-ridden, homoerotic rivalries, and thankfully no poorly drawn, lazily executed and pandering filler stories.

Some of the stronger episodes include “The Light of the Eyelid” in which a young girl’s contact with Mushi causes her to feel extreme pain when her eyes are exposed to light but in turn grants her otherworldly sight of the Mushi’s river of life when her eyes are closed in the midst of unspoiled dusk, and “One-Eyed Fish”, which reveals how Ginko received his strange white hair and single, functioning green eye. Each new story brings its own characters and conflict for a spectacular short story that can either end in happiness and tragedy, strength of the series as a whole lies within its unpredictability, as every conclusion can end differently. One story can end with a bittersweet close while another can evoke a smile.

Thanks to some of the best animation I’ve seen in recent years (particularly for backdrops and setting), Mushi-Shi is able to use the medium to its full advantage from a storytelling perspective, utilizing designs and spectacle involving the Mushi and particular tale in question which tend to work better than they would for a live-action TV series or feature film. Could a girl being lifted up into the sky by a string hanging from the clouds seem plausible outside this medium? Could Ginko’s peculiar modern clothes blend with Edo/Meiji period wardrobes worn by the other characters add more to the mystery of his character or just seem clashing were it a live-action take? Or, does it only work because of the rich Japanese culture backing it up? Considering that Ginko seems to wear modern clothes in the Japanese live-action film, it could be the lather, or I could be overthinking it altogether.

Bottom line, Mushi-Shi is an always thrilling, always entertaining, and completely immersive piece of fiction. It’s aesthetically brilliant, and comes highly recommended from me, especially for someone like myself who has grown tired of the abundant tropes often associated to this kind of animation. I wouldn’t say this has brought me back into the culture, but I have come out of this 26 episode masterpiece with a new sense of optimism towards it. Who knows, maybe things will change down the road. I don't generally give ratings outside of movies and video games simply because it's just my own preference, but I'm sure I've illustrated my point well enough.