My Collection

I don't get it.

I've read review after review of this movie. Every fact has been accurate. My problem is with the emotional translation of the expectation.

The Clone Wars was a good movie. If you are 8-12 years old. At 35, I was able to enjoy it for what it was: a good kids movie set in the Star Wars universe.

What are these other reviewers wanting? I was 5 when Star Wars came out. 8 when Empire came out. 11 when Return came out. Most people who now claim to have been Star Wars fanatics fell right around the same age. This meant, at the peak of our hysteria, we were around 8. We thought (and still do) Empire was the best movie. And it is.

We were 8.

We wouldn't have, for a minute, been able to appreciate the dialogue of Pulp Fiction, the directing of Out of Africa, the story of Avalon or the acting in Glengarry Glen Ross.

We were 8.

So...I took my 8 year old to see The Clone Wars. And he was entranced. The action, the humor, the battles, Ritto the huttlett. Everything I've read as a complaint to this movie.

You know why? Because it was made for an 8 year old.

So was the original Star Wars trilogy.

Hey...my generation. Stop criticizing George Lucas for making movies for kids. It's what he did from the minute he made Star Wars until the day he gave into the mid-30's fanboy and created Revenge of the Sith. He enjoys it. That's why he made another Indiana Jones. It's why he can't stop making Star Wars things. HE LIKES IT. He does a great job appealing to that age. And the kids love it.

You aren't going to get the amazement of an 8 year old out of these movies while critiquing it with the intellect of a 36 year old. So stop trying.

If you have young kids who love Star Wars, take them to see it. Show George that there is a reason to keep making these things. Kids love it.

It's 1981. I walk in to QuikTrip, a convenience store in the Midwest, in this case Broken Arrow, OK. I fumble through my allowance, trying to find out if I want a 3 Musketeers bar, a Twix bar or a made-by-me sundae from the soft serve ice cream bar. I'm bored with all that stuff, I tell myself. And I drift over to the comic book rack. I've never read one, except maybe for an occasional Richie Rich, Looney Tunes or Tom and Jerry one. I find a rather odd book from DC Comics called Captain Carrot and his Amazing Zoo Crew. #1. It's a collector's item! Aren't they all?

I buy it. I read it. A gazillion times. I love it. But it doesn't translate into other additional comic book purchases, at least for another year or so. No, I was too busy pumping my allowance into Ms. Pac-Man.

Fast forward to 1982...maybe 1983. I walk into a Walgreens in Sunrise, FL. (I got around quite a bit as a kid). I buy a DC Comics issue of Brave and the Bold. It's a "team-up" comic, which featured, in this case, Batman and Ragman. Yes...Ragman. I read it. A gazillion times. Again...no translation into additional comic book purchases though.

Fast forward even more to later in 1983. I walk into a 7-Eleven in Thousand Oaks, CA (see what I mean...I got around...cross country this time) with my allowance. Still struggling to define the merits of one calorie-laden candy bar over another. And out of the corner of my eye, I locate the Avengers. I buy it. I read it. A gazillion times. This time, I'm hooked. Yeah, maybe I'm a little slow, but I finally realize that I like these little things.

Obsessively, comic books consume my life from 6th grade until early high school, when girls took over my interests. During that span of time, Daredevil met Elektra. Superman was rebooted John Byrne style. Mike Zeck introduced the black Spider-Man costume that would eventually become Venom. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came out of their shell. Alan Moore made sure adults would read comics too with Watchmen. And Frank Miller redefined Batman, and comic book writing, with the The Dark Knight Returns.

I was done with comics when all of the above ensured that prices outlasted the paltry allowance of an early teen. I just couldn't afford to continue. It didn't stop me from being interested when Batman, from Tim Burton, Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson, came out. It looked dark. Not Frank Miller/Dark Knight Returns dark, but dark. It was outstanding, at the time. It was the best anyone had, and could have, done. And it became a joke of a franchise.

Then came Batman Begins. I saw it the day it came out in 2005. I was absolutely blown away. I still think it's the best comic book movie ever made. The film snapped in the middle of the presentation. I waited for an hour or so to get into another showing so I could finish watching. And at the end, when they alluded to the Joker being the next villain, I was salivating.

And then came The Dark Knight.

I was a bit confused when I heard that the title would be The Dark Knight.
I know Batman had been called that for a long time, but I guess I equated it to Frank Miller's story. Also, the choice of Heath Ledger didn't fill me with a lot of confidence. I mean, I liked him, but I had Johnny Depp in my mind as a good Joker.

Was I wrong...

This movie was appropriately titled, but it could have easily been called The Joker. The movie was entirely about, orchestrated and scene stolen by Heath Ledger's absolutely flawless portrayal of Clown Prince of Crime.

I winced too when I heard early buzz about The Dark Knight. One, I didn't want to get too hyped about it because it would not have been able to meet my expectations and, in some ways, it didn't. However, I really hated the talk of Heath getting Oscar mentions. Everyone knows that those kinds of things are randomly leaked to create buzz, plus the added death of Ledger only exacerbated the talk.

I have to say though...I saw The Dark Knight twice. I had to, apparently. No, not because it was "the thing to do." I had to because I clearly missed some things in the first showing.

First things first...The Dark Knight is a very different movie from Batman Begins. This shocked me. Batman Begins flowed so perfectly that I thought, at the very least, it would be a smooth movie. It was far from it. The beginning was a little slow starting, but at the same time it had to set up so much of what the whole movie was about, and the length of the movie was already too long, the result was a very choppy, seemingly poorly edited movie. I was stunned by this. When I saw it a second time, I didn't get it as much, and when I go see it in Imax next week, it may flow even better. But Batman Begins was perfect the first (full) time I saw it, so this cut seemed rather messy to me. I'm curious if there will be a different, extended cut of the film on Blu Ray that may make it go more smoothly.

Nevertheless, it is a nonstop roller coaster ride of a movie (how cliche is that??).

Let's talk comics.

Joker has never had a fully established origin. It's curious to point out that nearly every writer who takes him on as a character takes past origins and adds to them, subtracts some, etc. And all the changes are from his perspective. As though HE changes his origin. That is why the "Jack Napier" character in Tim Burton's Batman now looks to be pretty stupid, especially the completely fabricated component that The Joker killed Batman's parents. I never liked that.

Needless to say, I was SO happy to see David Goyer and Christopher Nolan treat Joker the traditional way. No matching prints, no names, no aliases, an ever-changing explanation of his scars, etc. From a comic book character-to-screen portrayal, it was absolutely perfect.

What is overlooked many times in these two movies, compared to the campy Batman franchise from 1989-1997, is that Christopher Nolan hates CGI. He believes Batman is a human trying to be more than human, which is true to the comics, and that the portrayal of him should be very human as well. From straight combat, to references to real military equipment, to the scars and bruises on his body, Batman is as real as he can possibly be. That is why, when he thinks he has the "typical Gotham criminal" pretty sized up on how to handle them, it was very human to admit that he didn't see a criminal with the complete chaotic, insane, without-a-weakness criminal coming. Joker outplayed Batman throughout the whole movie, which was absolutely perfect. He made Batman a better hero, a better detective. This movie is just as much about Batman's growth as Gotham's Dark Knight as it is about the impact Joker has on everything in sight.

It was also human, as well as tightly tied to the Batman Begins story, that Bruce wanted to inspire fear in the hearts of Gotham's criminals while, at the same time, inspiring strength in the people of Gotham to take over their city, and that humanity saw given hope when Harvey Dent entered the picture. He and Bruce shared the goal of a stronger, people-run Gotham, only he did it legally and in public. He was definitely Gotham's White Knight. Throughout most of the movie, I understood (at least I thought I did) the contrast between Batman's Dark Knight and Harvey's "White Knight." Batman had to be dark and fearful to rattle the cages and inspire change. Harvey had to be the white knight so that, as Bruce alluded to in the movie, Batman could slip back into the shadows while the people of Gotham finished what Batman had begun.

And in yet another show of humanity, the Joker exploits every single person in the movie for his own amusement to prove that no matter how admirable Batman and Harvey's efforts were, they were all corruptable. Joker thought the pursuit of law and order was, itself, the big joke. And Joker had every intention of delivering the punchline.

In the end, Joker was right. Harvey, after losing his beloved Rachel Dawes, played by the wooden Maggie Gyllenhall (my only real complaint of the movie), plays right into the Joker's plan and shows his "other side" (Ugh...I'm sorry...I even had trouble typing that one) by killing a few traitors and kidnapping Gordon's family.

The movie was pure chaos from minute one, with the Joker the only one capable of keeping his finger on the pulse. The anarchy, combined with the history of the Joker character and Ledger's flawless performance, made for a movie that absolutely delivered the goods. No one could have done it better.

The end, when, in yet another humanity-laden theme, Batman realizes Harvey wasn't perfect, but that he represented the closest thing to perfection Gotham had in years. His "legend" needed to continue so that Batman's vision could be realized. And, as all good heroes do, he sacrificed his already-damaged reputation as a vigilante so that Harvey's legacy, and Gotham's path, could continue. He had to be the true DARK KNIGHT to Harvey's White Knight. He would continue fighting as a vigilante, but he would also have to now linger in the shadows even more so that another person would step in one day where Harvey left.

I ranked the movie a 9 out of 10, one rank short of the 10 out of 10 I gave Batman Begins, because of some very small, seemingly insignificant problems I had with the movie. One, it was too choppy during the first 30-45 minutes. Again, maybe I will grow out of that, but I stand by it at this writing. Two, Maggie G sucked. She is just unappealing in every way and was absolutely the wrong choice for this movie. Third, I, like most of America, are a little irritated with Christian Bale's Batman voice. In the first movie, I liked it. Especially in his first battle scene as Batman. It worked, while making me giggle...just a little. However, in The Dark Knight, it was too much. I get that he has to instill fear, so that has to be over the top, plus he has to completely differentiate Batman from Bruce and this "character" was it. It just seemed to be a bit much in The Dark Knight. And if something like that makes the audience giggle or wince, it's not working.

All in all, though, The Dark Knight was near-perfection. I would hate to be Christopher Nolan and David Goyer. It's going to take Johnny Depp as The Riddler and Angelina Jolie as Catwoman to even get close to amount of interest The Dark Knight stirred. I doubt anything else will ever come close to $471 million in 5 weeks and the #2 all-time highest grossing film. The stars (pardon the pun) were aligned for this one. It hurts that Ledger died, but what a way to go...

I love most of these straight-to-DVD releases of animation that both DC and Marvel have been putting out. Although Wonder Woman isn't at the top of my list of comic heroines, to complete my collection, I had to get it. And I watched it. The animation was good. I'm not sure why DC felt obligated to throw in some gratuitous language and sexual innuendo to give it a PG-13 rating, but it's your basic Wonder Woman origin story, modernized. Keri Russell is NOT woman enough for the voice and seems miscast. Otherwise, it was adequate story combined with excellent animation. If you like this kind of stuff, you won't be disappointed, but if this isn't your cup of tea, don't waste your time.

Although it had a bit of a clumsy ending, this was a GREAT interpretation of his origin! Liev Schreiber was a FLAWLESS Sabretooth!! While I preferred the unraveling of the story that Bryan Singer did in X1 and X2, and I bet he could have done a LITTLE better job, this version is absolutely nothing to sneeze at. Taylor Kitsch was perfectly cast as Gambit and Ryan Reynolds is a dead-on, pardon the pun, Deadpool. I heard they might do a spin-off movie with Deadpool, but after seeing his head chopped off, my feeling is that the idea to do that has...ahem...died. :)

Much better than I thought, and more in line with the actual gritty, violent comic book, but silly nonetheless. Apparently Punisher is difficult to translate into film, though I can't figure out why.

Better the second, third time around, but far off the mark with the comic book, lacks a lot of depth and destroys the Dark Phoenix saga. This was an absolutely horrible X-Men movie overall and Brett Ratner deserves all the blame.

Unbelievably strong interpretation of the comic. Bryan Singer's ability to develop strong characters from the source material is near flawlessy done, only trumped by X2, a rare sequel that bests its predecessor.

An absolutely perfect execution of a hard-to-deliver comic book. Wolverine's back story was flawlessly done and provides an enthusiastic background for the upcoming Wolverine movie.

An absolutely horrible film. Michael Bay should be ashamed that he isn't capable of toning down his over-the-top action, concentrating a LITTLE on the story and, when doing a film marketed to kids, leave out all of the sex, drug and racist material.

Watchmen was a socially-relevant, very gritty graphic novel from the late 80s written by one of the most original comic book writers of the time (or any time), Alan Moore.

Many of Alan's books have been made into movies. From Hell. V for Vendetta. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And he refuses to put his name on any of them because he thinks movies are pointless drivel.

So, for over 20 years, people have been trying to prove Alan wrong and find a way to put his "masterpiece," Watchmen, into film form. And no one had the balls, or technology, to accomplish it.

Until now.

First off, Zack Snyder has done the PERFECT translation of Watchmen into film. There is no way it could have ever been done better. Ever. By anyone.

However, that still doesn't mean the book translates to film well. It doesn't. At all.

Zack is very aware of how much it is possible to forever ruin Watchmen by making it into a cheesy movie, so he sticks to the source material almost verbatim. This makes for an interesting viewing experience, if you've read the book. It's like the book is being read to you.

However, it's like the book is being read to you.

It doesn't have a movie flow. It has a book flow. The film struggles to emotionally connect you with any character, except for Rorschach, who is the highlight of the film. PERFECT casting. And being so distant from the era of the cold war, even though we are seeing hints of it again, it's incredibly difficult to feel what the book made readers feel in the 80s when the cold war was so prevalent.

From the perspective of being faithful to the book, Zack should be commended and, in that respect, the film is perfect, even if they replaced the giant squid with nuclear explosions. It's a 5 star film.

However, from a film-watcher's perspective, it was too long (and, yes, I realize it had to be), it was too dated (and, yes, I realize it had to be), it was too boring and it did not flow well at all, though I think it picked up in the last half hour.

If you were a fan of the book, you HAVE to see it. If you have no idea about the book, do not waste your 3 hours and $15.

Side note: I was a huge comic book reader in the 1980s. What made Watchmen important was that, at the time, in the era of Ronald Reagan and the Cold War, what was weird was that comic book writers would not tackle the subject of nuclear war. It was almost like a silent rule that even though super heroes are supposed to save us from everything, we all know writing that a super hero could stop nuclear war is just dumb and unrealistic (even though the concept of super heroes themselves is dumb and unrealistic). It was very strange. Since no one could figure out a way to have a hero stop EVERY nuclear missile before hitting their targets, they just avoided the subject.

So when Alan Moore decided to tackle the subject head-on, he did it in a very unique way, and probably the only way it would have made sense. In Watchmen, the heroes manipulated mankind from destroying themselves. THAT is the way they saved them. They brought them together by making a common enemy from which they could unite. The heroes didn't have to "stop all the bombs." They simply had to manipulate the leaders from ever wanting to release the bombs.

It was genius.

Alan's disgust of the government, status quo, etc., and his story's descent into chaos are themes in many of Alan's stories. V for Vendetta is another great example (and much better done film). He is a master storyteller though, and superb character developer. Rorschach, in particular, comes across to me as Alan himself, which is why I think the character appeals to the reader so much. Uncompromising and blunt, like Alan himself.