In defense of Batfleck

So the internet exploded yesterday.  Ben Affleck was announced to be cast as the next Batman, and most comic geeks had their predictable aneurysm at the news.  Predictable, I say, because comic geeks seem harder to please than any other fan group, screaming displeasure at nearly every turn.  Affleck, we are told, is too shallow, too poor an actor, too young, too old, too good looking, not good looking enough, already done a superhero and that movie was bad, too physical, a weakling, too established, not as established as (insert fan favorite here) -in short he's wrong for the role because he's Ben Affleck.

I'd like to defend the decision to make the powers of Batman and Affleck become "Batfleck."

Point #1: We've seen all this before.
Comic geeks went figuratively out of their collective gourds when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker for The Dark Knight.  They were screaming about all the same stuff then as they do again today for Affleck.  Geeks also hated the casting announcements of Michael Keaton as Batman in 1989 (he's a COMEDY actor!  Not serious enough!), Chris Evans as Captain America (he's disqualified!  He's already BEEN a superhero!), Christian Bale as Batman in 2005 (the singing kid from Newsies?), Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk (He's too much not Edward Norton!), and Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man (He's too much Robert Downey Jr!).  To summarize, we've seen all the kicking and screaming before, and more often than not it's worked out just fine.  Give the guy a chance.

Point #2: Affleck is not Daredevil.  Or Gigli.
At the beginning of his career Ben Affleck was regarded as little more than a pretty face.  Audiences either didn't know or didn't care that he co-wrote Good Will Hunting, which demonstrated a depth to him that had yet to be fully explored.  They just knew him as the guy in Armageddon  and Pearl Harbor.  I admit that if he had kept doing movies like those stinkers (as well as The Sum of All Fears and Gigli) I'd dismiss him out of hand also.  But Ben Affleck has worked hard to reinvent himself in the movie business.  He wrote and directed Gone Baby Gone and The Town, starring in the latter as well.  And audiences began to see a talent and depth to him they had not before.  Then he directed and starred in Argo, which is clearly his best film to date.  To summarize: Ben Affleck is not the actor he was ten years ago, and he is still improving.  Give the guy a chance.

Listen folks, I'm as big a Batman geek as you can get.  I've got a host of Batman graphic novels in my collection, action figures, a wealth of Batman trivia knowledge, a bunch of Batman video games, and all the movies (except Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin.  Those don't count.).  I've even got the tshirt.  I'm a geek, and I freely admit it.  I'm also fine with Affleck being cast in the role.

Does it send shivers down my spine?  Yes.  I see all the potential downside that the vocal fanboys on the internet do.

But I also see the upside, and I know the lessons of history in these casting decisions.  With a good director (and Snyder is decent, whatever others think of him), a good script, and good support, Affleck could turn some heads in this role.  Without good direction, script, or the other technical aspects in support not even the "best" actor could make the role of Batman work.

I for one will wait to pass judgment on the final product.  Until then I'll give Batfleck a chance.

Stargate (1994)

At times a movie's premise is much better than the movie itself.  Perhaps that is why Stargate, which is at best an average movie, launched a long-running television show.  The premise is just so good, so fun to think about.  But the strength of the main plot element just isn't enough in this case to support in this case anything more than a lackluster final product.

Everyone does their best to produce something memorable, but in the final analysis none of the performances truly shine, and the special effects don't hold up under the weight of time.  But most crushingly, what really takes me out of the story is how the film treats the soldier characters.  They are supposed to be sympathetic, but it's hard to feel for one-note characters.  Further, the director needed to learn a few things about tactics and how a soldier acts (for example, the number of times these meat heads cock their guns is staggering).  I mean, did no one really plan out this expedition to the other side of the universe?  Did they not sit down and ask James Spader's character (the resident dweeb smart guy) "so exactly how do you intend on getting us home again?"  There's just a lot of loose ends, unanswered questions, and possible plot holes.

Oh, and that alien animal that looked like the mutant evil cross between a camel, goat, and bullfrog?  That thing simply looked terrible.  Quite obviously a bad prop.

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 5/10

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

Whoever first said "they don't make 'em like they used to" clearly did not have Manos: The Hands of Fate in mind when they said it.  Watching Manos is like the cinematic equivalent of eating a brick -it's not a good idea, it hurts while you do it, and you feel pretty terrible afterward.  Please believe me when I say that there is nothing redeemable about this movie.  "Atrocious" is too weak a word to describe it.  Absolutely no one involved in its making had even the slightest hint of competence.  It is by far the worst piece of film making I have ever watched.  On second thought, no one watches Manos.  One can only endure it.

Where to start?  The writing was so abysmal that I could only gape in horror at the extreme stupidity of everything I was seeing.  The entire movie starts off with a bang -a guy gets pulled over for a tail light issue.  The cop gives them a break and lets them go.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the movie.

Seriously, look at those knees.

Moving on, the main characters (the dumbest married couple on earth along with their simpering daughter and pet poodle) run into Torgo while lost somewhere in the American southwest.  Now Torgo is one of the oddest dudes you will ever clap eyes on.  He mumbles all his words in a disjointed way, as though his mouth were not properly attached to his head.  And he has huge knees.

So our lost couple comes on our guy who is talking in a freakish way, with freakishly huge knees.  They ask a few questions, and Torgo answers them by talking about The Master.  As in "I'm Torgo, I look after the place while Master is away."  And "Oh, Master isn't dead, he's away.  Not dead as you would think of it."  He then acts upset that they have a child with them, because the Master wouldn't like it.  This causes our couple to do the most sensible thing imaginable -they ask if they can stay the night.

They decide to stay even when they see this picture that is a crime against film and art:

John Stossel, this is not a good look for you.

Notice the demon dog's glowing eyes.  When we later encounter the dog he is so pathetically unintimidating that we need to see the painting again to remember we're supposed to be scared.

I'd say things improved from there if I could, but then I'd be lying.  A woman looks frantically for her daughter by cracking a doorway about 1 inch,calling her name, then closing the door immediately (because obviously she just conducted a thorough search of the room, right?).  Our family runs from danger for approximately forty seconds before deciding that it's too hard to run for you life.  Say, why don't we go back to where the danger was, maybe everything will be all better now!

Did you notice the giant red hands?
 'Cause I'm trying to be subtle here.

Then there's the Master.  This is the worst bad guy of all time, wearing the worst costume of all time.  It's a sight to behold, to be sure.  He waves his arms around to show off the robe a lot, yells a lot, and fails to laugh in an evil manner.  Then he tells his harem of undead women to kill someone -which they attempt to do by giving him what appears to be a light massage.

It's hard to list all the mistakes made in the filming of Manos.  It's probably easier to list all the things they did right.  Let's see, they did...nothing.  Nothing right at all.

The editing is awful, worse than a third grader's attempt to make a video about his summer vacation.  Nothing fit together, and frequently a scene would simply have an editing break, with the result that characters would instantly move from one place in the shot to another.

Behold -Manos: The Hair of Fate

The camera work was the worst I've ever seen.  Nothing much was in focus, and some of the worst angles possible were chosen for the framing.  The result was that often one character would obscure another, action would be off-frame, or we'd simply get a camera full of hair.

There was no music to speak of.  What music there was, we will not speak of.

I usually rush to blame the director for travesties of this magnitude.  And believe me, the director has a lot to answer for (he makes Uwe Boll look brilliant).  But really everyone that worked on this movie ought to do jail time.  I just don't see how something this bad could be made without evil wicked crimes involved somehow.  This isn't "so bad it's good."  This is "so bad it will make your brain bleed."  Give a camera to an Australian bushman who's never seen an electric light and you'll end up with a better film than Manos.

This is it folks, the one that wins hands down when the question comes up, "What's the worst movie of all time?"

Entertainment: 0/10
Artistic Value: 0/10
Technical Merit: 0/10

Overall: 0/10

But on the flip side, if you see the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode with Manos you are in for a treat!

Red (2010)

Some movies are just plain fun.  Red is one of those movies.  It could have been an average to poor action movie.  It could have taken itself too seriously, and become a common, moderately interesting but ultimately forgettable flick.  Luckily, the director and actors decided not to take themselves too very seriously.  They planted their tongue firmly in their cheeks and simply had fun.

The result is just marvelous.  I won't bother you with the plot, the whole thing is unimportant really.  What is important is that we have a stellar cast enjoying themselves greatly.  Especially John Malkovich.  I love watching Malkovich work in anything, but here he steals the show in every scene in which he appears.  If the rest of the cast make the movie fun, Malkovich provides the glee.

The writing is great.  Again, not the plot, but the wit and way it is written.  Red pokes fun at all the conventions of action movies like James Bond in almost every line.  As an example, at one point two elderly spies are laughing about the "good old days" when they were commonly in action, and one laments "I haven't killed anyone in years!"  To this the other replies with a straight face and a touch of genuine sympathy, "that's sad." 

If you like action, and if you like to laugh, take a look.  This one is just plain fun.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 6/10
Technical merit: 5/10

Overall: 7/10

P.S.  I inflated the "artistic" category more than some might think on this one idea: perhaps there is a serious statement here about how absurd most action movies are.  Is it an artistic critique of the action genre?  Maybe.  Frankly, I just enjoy it.

Reflections on the 47 Ronin trailer

It's no secret now that I've become a rather big fan of Samurai movies.  Films like Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and others like The Hidden Fortress are bread and butter entertainment for me.  And Seven Samurai is among my favorite films of all time.

So when I heard there was a remake of the classic tale of the 47 Ronin in the works my inner Japanese geek's heart went all aflutter.  See, the history of the 47 Ronin is true, having happened in the early part of the 18th century.  The story is held in reverence in that culture, achieving a status similar to the legends of King Arthur in ours.  It is a story not only of battle and courage, but also of honor.  The 47 Ronin in question are Samurai servants of a liege-lord who is dishonored and forced to commit seppuku.  They bide their time, plan a well-thought out attack, and after a long wait strike hard and fast against the man who dishonored their master.  It is the ultimate example of the bushido code at work.  What's more, while the story has been told in Japanese television and film many times, there is no single definitive version nor a single film that is well known to Western audiences.  In other words, this is a great story with a fantastic pedigree that is simply begging to be well made again today.

Needless to say, I got excited about the prospect of 47 Ronin, releasing this Christmas.  I was even cautiously excited still when I learned it would star Keanu Reeves.

Our favorite Japanese actor, Keanu Reeves

Then I saw the trailer, and all hope died.

Remember the key concepts that make the story so legendary: 1) it's true.  and 2) It is about honor and loyalty (bushido).

What I immediately noticed about the trailer is that there is an abundance of people throwing fireballs with their hands, turning into dragons, and evidently floating upside-down while making spiders.  A lot of weird, unreal fantasy nonsense.  They've taken a true story and made it something that seems more at home in middle earth, or in dungeons and dragons.  Color me flabbergasted.

Then of course they've taken out the emphasis on honor and loyalty and made the emphasis action.  I can't be entirely sure based on this trailer, but it even seems the 47 hire or persuade an outsider to join or lead them in their battle.  This entire concept is so anti-bushido that I don't know what to do with it.

What we're left with is a movie that seems to want to be Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Hobbit, and Mortal Kombat all rolled into one.  It's inexplicable, obviously derivative, cheesy, and hopelessly muddled.  This movie could have been great.  Instead, I've seen two minutes of clips and I'm utterly disappointed.

What was the "creative" thought process that could have led to this point?  Perhaps someone says, "Let's make a film about this true story of honor."  Then someone else says "Yeah!  And let's change everything so it's fake and is about sword fighting dragons!"

It's as insulting as if someone were to make Abraham Lincoln into some supernatural vampire hunter.

Top Gun (1986)

This week I made up for a blind spot in my cinematic history.  I saw Top Gun for the first time.  Yes, I think I'm the only child of the 80's who hadn't seen it yet.  Oh, I knew all about it.  I knew Goose died.  I knew that it was packed with terrible 80's music.  I knew he traveled the highway to the dangerzone.  And I'd seen practically every scene at some time in my life.  But I had never actually seen the whole thing from start to finish.

And now that I have I feel confident in saying this: Top Gun is a fairly bad movie.  The story is forgettable, giving no real reason to care about either the characters or the "Top Gun" competition.  The music is horrible and dates the film rather badly.  The editing is among the worst ever, as the film makers tried to use stock footage of the jets to fit their story, with the result that often an F14 that is supposed to be behind the MIG is for a moment pictured in front of it.  And there are plenty of little editing issues like that.

But the biggest issue by far is the acting.  I swear, when Tom Cruise was acting all broken up that Goose had died I thought I'd have to fast forward.  Either that, or use a spoon to induce vomiting.  Honestly, I have no idea why Cruise made such a big splash about that era in Hollywood -the man had as much talent for acting as a cat has talent for singing (thankfully he has improved at least a bit).

So what we are left with is bluster, posture, and a bit of awkward charm, all set to music we'd prefer to forget ever existed.  Oh, and those actors had NO idea how to play volleyball.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic value: 3/10
Technical merit: 4/10

Overall: 4/10

P.S. I wonder how many young men signed up for the navy thinking they'd be in Top Gun, and ended up swabbing the deck for 4 years?

The Expendables 2 (2012)

The premise of The Expendables (and thus also the sequel) is get as big a cast together of the greatest action stars of the last 30 years and have fun.  Plot is non-existent and acting is clearly not a priority.  Everything is secondary to the cast, and having the cast blow things up spectacularly.

The Expendables was fun.  Stupid fun, but fun.  The Expendables 2 on the other hand, is stupid and boring, with little to recommend it.  It ought to be great, but the cast is reduced to bad and tired one-liners that reference their glory days, and the action is simply "hero shots" of our cast as they fire heavy weapons and kill the bad guys.  Explosions are frequent, the body count is huge, but the action is simply dull.  Without a plot to care about, tons of action simply becomes mindless drivel.

The idea of having an action movie not take itself seriously is great.  The execution on this one is terrible.  The word "Expendable" means superfluous, something that can be destroyed without loss.  Nothing could be a better description of this movie.

Entertainment: 4/10
Artistic value: 2/10
Technical merit: 3/10

Overall: 4/10