Movie Review: Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice

Hey there Chaos fanatics! No, I haven't forgotten about you, not at all. Its just that I've been really busy the past few weeks. I am working on a large painting project which I will show off when its done. I have a ton of 40K stuff that I have to put together... Wowza.

Anyway, like the title says, I'm going to share my two cents on Batman Versus Superman: Dawn of Justice. No doubt you've heard the film is divisive, to say the least. Well, Old Man Chaos intends to wade into those waters, with his own take on the proceedings. So- away we go.


First, I must acknowledge that Batman Versus Superman is not a perfect film. Indeed, it has serious flaws. However, it is also a very entertaining movie, with some thought provoking ideas and two incredible performances (and a bunch of good ones as well). Indeed, I feel the good far outweighs the bad.

SPOILERS TO COME






STILL THERE? SPOILERS ARE COMING!

To start, one must admit that BvS, like The Force Awakens, serves many masters. TFA had to accomplish a TON- show that SW is viable and relevant, get the bad taste of the prequels out of our mouths, dial up the nostalgia/fan service, create new compelling characters, create an exciting movie in its own right, and lots more. TFA is, frankly, a minor cinematic miracle in how many of these things it accomplished. We can quibble about having yet another super-death star and the like, but the fact is TFA did what it HAD to do to save the SW franchise and pull it forward- and the result is a highly entertaining film to boot.

BvS also serves many masters. Snyder and co had to: make a quality sequel to Man of Steel, try to deal with fan anger over the "mass deaths" issue, try to create a new Batman after Bale/Nolan's definitive take, lay the groundwork for a new DC franchise, go head to head with Marvel, and lots more. BvS accomplishes many of those as well. However, while JJ made it look EASY in TFA (seriously, the movie feels like seeing an old friend), Snyder runs into problems in BvS. For some people, these problems derail the whole thing. I however do not see it that way. I think the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts.

I want to start with the negatives first, if I may. First and foremost, the damn flashbacks / dream sequences / warning from the future. Right here is where the filmmakers try to build their universe too quickly. They throw so much at you, stuff that makes little sense. But worse, these sequences stop the film dead in its tracks. The movie just starts to build momentum when the first dream happens. Then the film chugs to recover when a (thankfully) shorter dream takes center stage, once again jarring the viewer out of the main thrust of the film. Both annoyed me- I think they should have been trimmed into a melange of images that make no sense- but happen quickly. Or perhaps they should have been excised entirely. The flow of the film suffers for these sequences.

The flow of the ending is very choppy, as we jump from ending to ending. Once again, I wish this had been done in a more linear fashion. But instead we jump from place to place, backwards and forwards. This diminished what I felt could have been a truly powerful conclusion. Instead it gets muddled, and again their eye is on setting up the future DC franchise, taking it off the BvS film itself.

I wish that the Lois Lane story was given a bit more import and time- I think showing Lois as a peerless investigative reporter is essential, and the "bullet" mystery is great, but it gets lost amidst the rest of the film's bombast. And its so important, but that importance has been blunted because of the truncated feel of her "side story".

There are some pacing issues overall, and a few things that don't make 100 percent sense to me (admittedly, I think I need to see the movie again to sort it out. I say that because as I think about it so much in BvS actually DOES make sense. It may be me. It may be that scenes were deleted).

Now, I really want to get into the plot and our three leads, as I feel these aspects are what makes the movie better than a casual look and/or the negatives might suggest.

First, Snyder and company throw a lot of questions at you about the Man of Steel. Should he be held responsible for the battle of Metropolis? Is he a hero or not? Should he be held to the same rules as the rest of us? Is he a god? A savior? An alien? The film devotes some time to these questions- politicians and the TV pundits / talking heads debate these quite a bit. Some criticisms have been laid that Snyder doesn't resolve these. That's outrageous. Of COURSE there's no consensus or conclusion to these. Look at the US right now- we argue about EVERYTHING. Nothing is "settled". I think the film does a fine job of building all of these up without a "full" resolution. That would be too easy, and Snyder doesn't fall for it.

Indeed, that is the core of the film. If such a "Superman" existed, how would the world respond? How would people view him? The entire film is about this very issue. Both Batman and Lex Luthor are, for their own reasons, consumed by these questions.

 Let's start with the easier of the two, Batman. First, I want to say that Ben Affleck gives this his all and then some. His performance is so good, so on the mark for THIS version of Batman, that its practically a revelation. Not only does he have the physical presence, the gravitas, the determination- he also has doubts about his "mission", and his witty banter with Alfred (played nicely by Jeremy Irons)- all done to near perfection. I cannot wait to see "Batffleck" in future DC films. He's that good. I still think Bale is the best, but in time... who knows?

Now let's look at Batman's motivation. He has been fighting crime for years. He has grown frustrated in his mission (criminals pop up like weeds, he laments to Alfred). He has lost Robin, and possibly other allies. You sense the weariness. It seems that fighting crime is a losing proposition. As he hits this point and becomes so bitter, his life is changed when he witnesses Superamn fighting Zod in Metropolis. Wayne Enterprise workers are killed, and Bruce can do nothing. He sees gods fighting with him and his people as nothing but ants. This feeling of powerlessness is added to his frustrations of a weary Batman, creating an even more bitter and vindictive Batman.

The film makes it quite clear that Batman has been getting worse. He has, as the film starts, been branding some criminals. In the film he does indeed kill (indirectly with the Batmobile and plane, but still). While many are screaming that this is breaking Batman's cardinal rule, I say not so fast. First, every modern film Batman (except for Clooney- and that should tell you something) has killed. Burton's Batman killed the Joker, Joker Henchmen, Penguin Henchmen, Penguin... Val Kilmer killed Two-Face at the end of Batman Forever. And Nolan... try as he might, he didn't avoid it either. How many League of Shadows goons did Bruce kill escaping their mountain citadel? He then later KILLS Ras (the line "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you" hardly absolves him). In TDK he doesn't kill, but in TDKR his Bat-Plane surely blows up a few LoS henchmen (along with Talia). He may not kill Bane, but Batman doesn't even blink when Catwoman guns him down. Hell, Batman doesn't even check to see if Bane is alive! So please- don't give me the Batman doesn't kill thing. At least in film.

However, and more importantly, it serves the plot and arc for Batman. He has no hope, and he descends, ever closer to that line, the abyss that will make him what he hates. A villain. He's so close to that. And the appearance of Superman makes Bruce feel as if his entire career as Batman is pointless. What difference does a criminal make when you've got Superman and others who could destroy the world. Batman has been fighting small fires (and losing). Superman upends Bruce entirely.

Now, while Bruce is internalizing this, he comes to the conclusion that Superman must be destroyed. This may be the only thing Batman might do to keep the world safe, the only thing Batman can succeed at. Bruce becomes determined to stop Superman, using ANY means necessary. He believes that only such a measure can save THE WORLD. Not Crime Alley or Gotham- the future of the world.

Batman cannot see that Superman is good, as Bruce is too far lost in his own despair. Alfred tries to act as Bruce's conscience, but Bruce may already be too far gone. All he can see is the danger. He cannot admit to other possibilities. So, he sets out to fight and destroy Superman.

That brings us to... Lex Luthor. Now, Jesse Eisnberg's performance may be the most divisive thing in the film. And while I get some of the complaints, I find that the character is actually well handled in the final analysis. And what he symbolizes in the plot is just enormous.

First, this version of Lex is an amalgamation of all the versions of Lex. So many people want the bald ruthless industrialist version. The fact is this version has only been around since the 1980s. Lex has gone through LOTS of incarnations. In the Golden Age, "Luthor" was a mad scientist with red hair, with futuristic weapons at his disposal- he threatened the world many times over in the 1940s. Later versions have Lex Luthor as a bald mad scientist type blaming Superboy for an accident that caused the baldness.

 The eccentric and outlandish insane genius persisted for years (and is the basis for the Gene Hackman version). Then, in the 80s, Luther got reinvented as the megalomaniac industrialist billionaire businessman that we know and love today.

BvS Lex Luthor is a combination of those elements, combined with the new billionaire, the tech guru. Look at guys like Jobs, Zuckerberg, Beezos, and any of the other silicone valley billionaires. They are an eccentric bunch- nerds and geeks. But- they are a major force in our economy and just about every other facet of our lives. Indeed, their nerdiness and tech have made them VERY powerful. The Internet not only has info on EVERYBODY, it also has the power to mold people, shape events, change the world. In fact, it is scary how much power and influence the tech world has over us.

Eisnberg's Luthor combines the various Lex incarnations with this modern "tech industrialist" sensibility. The result is a Lex who is full of insecurity, nervous tics, and eccentricities. Underneath that veneer though, is a man used to getting his own way. His company literally has the sum of human knowledge at his fingertips. as well as the money and power that goes with that. Luthor is truly the (invisible) master of his domain. He is used to having total control, with everyone dancing to his tune- other businessmen, consumers, the media, and naturally politicians...

Luthor is king of the world- but like Batman, his world changes when Superman fights Zod. Suddenly, like Batman, Luthor's accomplishments feel VERY small. He is the king of nothing. He is an ant to Superman. This feeling of powerlessness drives Luthor. But, rather than be like Bruce, wanting to protect the world, Lex only sees his own ego. He views Superman (and the meta-humans that he is researching) as a personal challenge. Lex will have all of these beings dancing to his tune, one way or the other. Its the only we he can stay powerful and, frankly, relevant.

Some critics have said Luthor's intentions are murky. Nonsense. He spells it out (in his eccentric way). Luthor compares himself to Prometheus at a party. This legend tells how Prometheus challenged the gods- stealing fire and giving it to man. That is exactly how Luther sees himself- he is going to take on the gods. What other challenge is there in life for someone like him?

This scene takes on new meaning when you realize Lex KNOWS who both of his guests are long before.

 So- Luthor does many things- and you have to sort though his many layers of machinations. He begins to keep tabs on meta-humans (and Batman presumably). He learns a lot about them- facial recognition software is a wonderful tool- Luthor quickly figures out that Batman is Bruce, and Superman is Kent. Lex learns about Kryptonite as well. So he sets out to put the two against each other. Lex engineers events that make Superman look questionable (the dessert bullets, the explosion of the Senate). Meanwhile, he ALLOWS Batman to dig in a little into Lex's knowledge, with Batman discovering Kryptonite. Lex WANTS Batman to get the Kryptonite. He wants to make Bats kill Supes. Why should Lex get his hands dirty? After all- he's making this happen, and that gives him his kicks.

But- why would Superman fight Batman? Lex kidnaps Ma Kent (and in his best scene) Luthor explains that if Supes doesn't fight Batman, Ma Kent will die. Some have criticized this, after all is this all Lex is capable of- brute force against an old woman? Nonsesne. He manipulated Batman so well, testing his intelligence. For Superman, brute strength will do (hence the crude threat to Ma Kent). As Luthor throws pics of the captive Ma Kent at Superman, the hero falls to his knees. Lex is exultant, and Eisnberg gives him a cruelty unmatched by many modern comic movie villains (he exudes more menace and evil in this ONE scene than Mandarin, Ultron, Dark Elf, Ronan, and most of the other Marvel movie villains put together). In this moment he is evil, despicable and perhaps, MORE powerful than Superman.

So, Batman and Superman fight. Now lets get to the third piece, Superman himself. Henry Cavil does a good job here, though his role is less flashy than either Batman or Luther. Superman is a man still unsure of himself, his powers, and his place in the world. He WANTS to help, and doesn't want reward. He is idealistic (a dream of a Kansas farmer). But, even he sees how dark and hopeless our world is. Can he stay pure? Can he truly "save" others? Superman is uncomfortable of the hero worship, and he is truly hurt by the criticism and jealousy. He has many doubts. However, he does have convictions. As Kent, he appears to be a bit of a crusading journalist, feeling that Batman only attacks the poor and disadvantaged, and his tactics are brutal, savage. To Superman, Batman is bad- and worse, represents what Superman could be if Kent LOST his moral compass.

For both good and bad, Superman is forced into a bit of a reactionary role, reacting to Batman, Lex, and events that Lex has caused. This both strengthens and weakens the character's portrayal. When he confronts Lex, he is hamstrung- he wants to protect both Lois and Ma Kent. He has no choice but to dance to Lex's tune. Or does he?

When Supes goes to fight Batman (unaware of the Kryptonite threat), rather than fight Superman tries to reason with Batman, but Bruce is past that. The fight is brutal, but Batman has the upper hand with the Kryptonite. As Batman is about to land the killing blow (with a Kryptonite Spear of Destiny no less), Superman calls out Martha- his mother's name AND ironically Bruce's mothers name. Now, some asked "Why did Superman call out his mother's first name rather than say 'mom'"? They didn't hear the whole thing- Superman is struggling to breathe- he says to Batman that he needs to save Martha Kent- how else would Batman have known who "mom" was? No. So it actually makes sense. With that, Batman stays his hand- he and the god have something in common after all. All of Bruce's doubts (and Alfred's lecturing) come to the surface. Batman has been a fool. Superman is GOOD. Bruce was wrong. But he vows to correct the mistake by rescuing Ma Kent. Batman's line "Martha will not die tonight" sent shivers down my spine.

Meanwhile, Lex plays his last hand. He has spent a part of the film researching the secrets of Kryptonian knowledge and technology. Once again playing Prometheus, he uses this knowledge to build Doomsday- again, to prove his superiority, but also as insurance against Superman (should he win) and the other meta-humans. The battle with Doomsday is brutal, with Wonder Woman making her appearance (a minor role, but Lex had her in his file and she was concerned about it). When all seems lost, Superman grabs the Kryptonite spear, and destroys Doomsday with it. In the process, Superman is also killed.

(For those complaining about Doomsday- in the original Death of Superman comic storyline, Doomsday was one dimensional, to say the least. A force of nature without direction or goal. Indeed, Doomsday is just a plot device to kill Superman. The main meat of the storyline is the Return of Superman- which involves various Super-imposters and versions of the Man of Steel. Now, Doomsday has been upgraded since. But in the original story, he has ZERO character or motivation. For me, Lex's engineering of Doomsday is good enough for me. There are more Superman villains out there- to me Doomsday is sub par at best- so I'm glad they got him out of the way). 

In the end, Bruce realizes the error of his way, and vows not to fail again. He swears to honor Superman's sacrifice. It is clear that Superman's example has redeemed Batman. Batman has come out of the darkness, morally and spiritually. And now Batman wants to assemble these other meta human heroes to protect the world. The life and death of Superman now serve as an example, and Bruce means to live up to that as best he can. It is a great conceit, and it flies in the face of the "comic standard" idea that Bruce is reluctant to join  the Justice League. I loved the turnaround. It also plays into Jor El's lines in MoS saying that Superman should be an example to all mankind, and I appreciated the callback to that.

To me- that is what the film is about- Batman's redemption. Naturally, Superman will come back (I think...). We will also see new DC heroes as well. The film successfully makes you WANT to see what happens next. But it is Batman's character arc (compared/contrasted with Lex's) that make the heart and soul of the film.

I left a ton out, but that's OK. I think the film is a good, but not great one. It's flaws detract from what could have been a great movie. I give it 3 out of 4 Marks of Chaos. Subsequent viewings may change the rating, but that's what I'm thinking right now.

Brief Movie Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Hey there Chaos fiends! Welcome back to the dreaded Chaos Corner. I have taken a bit of a break from 40K painting- I intend on resuming in the next two weeks. I've been busy lately- work stuff, and I got a shinny new Xbox One, so it has distracted me from my usual addiction. Fear not, as this is only temporary (I need to beat the very creepy game The Evil Within first). At any rate, I'm here to offer a brief review of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

First, I musty say- don't believe the naysayers. This movie is a blast, a ton of fun. Whether its better than the first Avengers (its DARN close) is debatable. Is it the best Marvel movie- no, that title belongs top Cap 2. The truth is Avengers 2 is an action packed movie with a good sense of humor.

I think the problem is expectations. After Avengers 1 and Cap 2, the expectations were sky high. Through the roof. Impossible to reach. I suspect that some who haven't enjoyed this movie simply kept comparing it to Avengers 1- and their DREAMS of Avengers 2 should be. It was never going to match that.

I must admit, the movie has flaws. It feels rushed in several areas- particularly with Ultron himself (who is fascinating but needed more time to develop). There were some beats that didn't quite work (Quicksilver). The movie also feels overstuffed with characters- they ALMOST manage to successfully juggle them, but they don't quite get it right (unlike Cap 2- when you think about it, that film has lots of major and minor characters, but they balance them very well). They dispense with some things far too quickly (von Strucker).

On the other hand, the film gets a ton right- more than enough to make up for its flaws. The team's chemistry remains spot on, and each of the Avengers gets a chance to shine at some point. The humor is also very sharp and witty. The action scenes are top notch- filled with excitement but never too much to follow. The movie (despite its 2 1/2 hour length) moves briskly. I was also very happy with how they handled Vision. I can't wait to see more of him. The movie also has a bigger scope, with the Avengers running to several nations to fight Ultron (Korea, Eastern Europe, "Wakanda"). Ultron was an impressive villain- a dark reflection of both Iron Man and Banner (I just wished we got more time with him).

So- I didn't give any spoilers, but I think Avengers 2 is a great movie- action, humor, good actors. Better than Avengers 1? Does it have to be? I don't know. I do know it was a fun time at the theater, and it certainly is strong enough to be in the Marvel Pantheon. For me, the Marvel films are fun, and I love watching them. But- they are not deep films. Certainly Nolan's Batman is deeper and more thought provoking- taking current issues and using them for comic book stories while also having emotional resonance. The only Marvel film that has done that is Cap 2- NSA / drone strikes along with the sinking feeling that Cap's fight against Fascism / Totalitarianism has not been won, rather it is only just begun. Its current, but also resonant emotionally. The rest of the Marvel films are fun affairs, and seeing these characters handled with such respect has been a pleasure for this former comic book collector.

If you like the Marvel films, go see Avengers 2. It is, at the very least, a fine comic book film. Chances are you will enjoy the heck out of it! I know I did. In fact, I am hoping to see it again soon...

A Nerd Confessional

Hey there everybody! Old Man Chaos is here with another posting from the Eye of Terror. This one is, I think, a bit unusual, but it is something I'd like to do more frequently (when I have the time, that is). So, away we go...

I am, as my wife says, a Nerd. There. I said it. I am a very large nerd. I have been involved with many nerd activities. Warhammer 40K? That makes me Nerd #1, for sure. But, there's more. I love video games. I have been playing video games since the Atari 2600. I was playing video games before they were "cool" (which did not happen till Playstation One in 1995- before that, people played games, but they weren't widespread or a BIG part of culture till then). I owned so many game systems (NES, SNES, Genesis, Sega CD, Turbografix, and much much more).

Does anyone recognize this one?

As I kid, I saw my world through video games. I loved Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy, Sonic, Castlevania, Mega Man, etc. I was skilled at video games (I had no skills in traditional sports), and they transported me to so many places. Sad, but nerd true, I have video game music on my ipod. To this day, I play games.

Nostalgia for the 8 and 16 bit days aside, I believe the pinnacle for gaming was the XBox 360 and Wii days of the mid 2000s. Those were a great few years to be a gamer- the games that came out then were simply amazing- Mass Effect, Fallout, Bioshock, Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, House of the Dead Overkill... plus xbox arcade and virtual console... wow. I must admit, my gaming has slowed down since I got married, but I do own a Wii U (Mario Kart is just fantastic multi-player fun), and I would like to get an XBox One at some point.

I was also, for a very long time, a comic book addict (I think 40K supplanted it, ultimately)- I got into comics in 1989 when I saw the movie Batman- which inspired me to buy a few Batman books, including the trade of A Death in the Family. I started with Bats, but I went to Spiderman, X-Men, and others. I was going comic book shopping once a week, buying tons of issues.

I was there for the comic book explosion and ultimate implosion in the 90s. I had like a billion X-Force 1 bagged, of course. I was there for Death of Superman, and more importantly for me, Knightfall (still a fav). I was there for Morrison's incredible (and unsurpassed) JLA run (that was in college for me by that point). On the Marvel side, my favs were Age of Apocalypse and Infinity Gauntlet. But, I was also there for the messes, like the Clone Saga and Onslaught.

I stopped in 1999/2000 for the most part, as I simply couldn't keep up with all the crossovers and "events" anymore. Ugh. That killed it for me. I briefly returned in 2005 (Thanks to Bats again, as Batman Begins made me go back), just in time for Grant Morrison start his Batman run (which I never finished), and I picked up Civil War. After that, too many damn crossovers reminded me why I stopped, and so I quit cold turkey. Now, I once in a while buy a trade or something. I recently got the Infinity Gauntlet Omnibus- what a pleasure to read. Of course, I use the Internet to monitor major comic developments (Thor is a woman? Puh-lease- Publicity stunt.), but I don't buy anymore. I do still love comic movies, of course.

Speaking of, my third "Nerd love" is movies. I think film is a powerful medium if used correctly. I don't see every movie. Many would bore me or just be unappealing. The movies that I love are sci-fi. Well-done horror* films. Comic movies. Tarantino (he's his own mixed up genre). My love of movies come from my parents, who loved watching movies in their down time.

Growing up when I did (1980s), my parents exposed me to "classics". Star Wars (saw Jedi in the theater). Star Trek (Trek III being the first Trek I saw in theaters). Alien. The Godfather (my Italian father's Bible). The Black Hole. Jaws. Young Frankenstein. My mother took me to see Ghostbusters and Monster Squad. I also saw older sci-fi, like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1950s), War of the Worlds (1950s), Godzilla (the FIRST one, thank you). My mother loved classic horror- I saw Dracula with Legosi, Frankenstein, Invisible Man, all those Universals.

My passion for good movies has continued, almost undiminished. On my own, I "found" other films. For a while I was into seriously into horror- but again, the classics- Texas Chainsaw, Evil Dead, Halloween 1-3 (yes, 3), and Romero's Dead trilogy. I was always into sci-fi, of course- I didn't get to Terminator until I was in high school though. I liked Jurassic Park but didn't love it for some reason. Independence Day- now that was a movie! I also got into action films, like Die Hard. In college, I saw a ton of history-related films- Patton, Dr. Strangelove, The Great Dictator, Saving Private Ryan, etc. In the 2000s, we had a great run- Lord of the Rings (which were a revelation), Nolan's Batman (similarly, a revolution in comic films), solid sci-fi like Children of Men and the War of the Worlds remake.

I have seen many movies with my wife- we do date nights by going out to dinner and a movie. Sometimes we see what she wants (Twilight. Yes- love makes you do strange things). Sometimes its what I want (Watchmen). My wife loves the Marvel films (she loved GotG), so that's great news for me. We see Oscar bait in the winter (like American Hustle, which was excellent). Most recently, we saw American Sniper- a fantastic anti-war film masquerading as a gung-ho war film (idiots on BOTH sides are having knee-jerk reactions without really "seeing" the movie). We are totally looking forward to Avengers 2 this summer, and the new Star Wars, naturally.

So- what was this article, anyways? An exercise in nostalgia? Hoping to just get readers thinking about their own nerd experiences? Putting readers to sleep? Maybe all of the above. This site, Corners of Chaos, will always be Warhammer 40K focused, but I would like to do other things. Perhaps reviews of some of my favorite movies or classic comic stories. So, this was my first step- and I hope that I will be able to do more on this blog... Or just go back to 40K, as my next project beckons to me... Harlequins are certainly tempting me...

Until Next Time...

Mini-Movie Reviews- Apes, Guardians, Turtles

Hey there everyone! Old man Chaos is here with some mini-movie reviews. Now, am I reviewing miniature movies? Or will my reviews be brief? Ha ha. The jokes never stop around this joint. I'll be here all week.... At any rate, I have seen a couple of movies over the past month or so so I figured I'd give my 2 cents, as per usual. So, let us begin...

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

I have a long history with the Planet of the Apes franchise. I love the originals. They are incredible films (yes, they are dated now, but you have to think about them in the context in which they were made). This series has every sci-fi staple that you can imagine: space travel, time travel, alternate timelines/realities, nuclear holocausts, mutants, environmental messages, distopian police states, war, racial allegory... I could go on. And the series is also very good at connecting the various threads, ideas, and names- its not perfect, but this franchise is an awesome universe.

Then, after Battle for the Planet of the Apes, the series ended (logically so, I might add). Recently,
there have been 2 attempts at rebooting the franchise. Tim Burton tried it first, and though the movie had some strong make-up effects and visuals, the plot was bad and well... let's not talk about that ending. The more recent attempt was Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I am in the minority here I suspect- I didn't like this one either. My "brain" was interested- a totally different take on the franchise, with cutting edge effects. However, my "heart" wasn't in it- it did not engage me the way the old franchise did. I felt Rise was just dull.

Fast forward to this summer. All advance reviews said that Dawn was a game-changer- an excellent movie that did real honor to the old franchise while charting a new course. I decided, with some trepidation, to see it. And boy... it was amazing!

The story, actors, digital effects... it all combined to tell a great story of how humanity has just about collapsed and apes are in the ascendant. However, both species exist near each other- will they fight? Can they get along? This movie explores themes of war, suspicion, abuse of nature... The apes are just phenomenal- they look like animals, but each one has a soul. This is captured perfectly by Andy Serkis as Caesar- the leader of the apes. While he is suspicious of humans, he wants peace. His second in command, Koba wants to fight the humans- for all too human reasons, and actually rather compelling reasons, interestingly enough. What is set in motion is a multi- dimensional struggle within the ape community, the human community, and between the two species. The action is hard hitting, the quiet moments are pitch perfect. And, in PotA tradition, the ending is morally ambiguous, to say the least.

Ironically, with everyone saying this movie takes the franchise into "new waters"- I disagree- I feel that this movie borrows heavily from Battle of the Apes- the themes of peace and suspicion are there. Heck, change Koba's name to Aldo and presto... its a re-imagining of the weakest of the old franchise. I'm fine with this though. It borrows but is still very different (Koba's motivation is much stronger than Aldo's; Caesar here is more ambivalent toward humanity).

This was a real treat. I give it 3 1/2 out of 4 Marks of Chaos. Check this one out- fan of Apes or not, there is a lot of meat to this film, and it has lots of good action scenes for casual film goers.

Guardians of the Galaxy

The Marvel movie franchise has had its ups (Captain America 2, Avengers) and its downs (Iron Man 2), but overall this franchise is incredible. The Marvel characters have gotten incredible treatment in these films- movies that are fun, filled with character moments, and ultimately they are very loyal to the essence of these characters (no emo-Spidey here). This trend of fun movie going continues in Guardians of the Galaxy- though focusing on lesser known characters, the movie is still a blast and fitting with this Marvel spirit.

The actors give it their all here, with Chris Pratt doing well as the heart and soul of this rag tag team. Rocket Raccoon is also well realized, with Bradley Cooper's voice being almost unrecognizable (in other words, not his Hangover shtick).  Though he says little, Groot also tugs at the heartstrings. Dave Batista is a lot of fun as Drax, providing both action and some comic relief (nothing goes over his head ha ha). Last, Zoe Saldana is again the queen of sci-fi as Gamora- beautiful but dangerous, she realizes the error of her ways and tries to stop a terrible plan she has helped to set in motion.

The movie is fun. Lots of humor, great character interplay and banter. The action scenes are also quite good for the most part.The movie's soundtrack is almost a character in itself, with some fun 1970s tunes in there. The movie also gives the best explanation of Thanos and the "Infinity Stones" yet- setting the ground for all that cosmic stuff. I think Josh Brolin will do just fine as Thanos (he's here briefly). I am looking forward to his character taking center stage at some point.

There are problems here though. First, the bad guy Ronan the Accuser. Now Lee Pace is just fine in the role (menacing, etc). However, his motivation is paper thin, and he is never really developed. He's kinda just there. Red Skull, Loki, and Winter Soldier / Pierce all make an impression. Sadly, Ronan falls into the Malekith/Whiplash/Chitari realm of being boring and underdeveloped. This is too bad- it takes the teeth out of the tension and conflict.


Karen Gillan fares a bit better as Nebula (she is given a bit more to do) and her appearance and

attitude make an impression (hope to see more from her as well), but she's second fiddle to the bland Ronan. The climax is also too familiar and bland- destructive energy cloud, hero fights baddie, energy thing happens, battle won- we've seen this too often in Marvel movies (see Cap 1, Thor 2, Avengers).  Come on Marvel people- we can do better than this (see Cap 2).

So, I would give Guardians 3.25 out of 4. Cap 2 is still the absolute highlight of the Marvel franchise, but GotG was a ton of fun and I can't wait to see their further adventures (and more Thanos).

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Oh. My. God.

I went into this with LOW expectations. I loved the old cartoon (had the action figures and all that), but I'm not a diehard fanatic as an adult. As the promotions began for this movie, I wasn't sure what to make of it. The more recent trailers convinced me that the prognosis wasn't good. But, a friend of mine was dying to see it, so off we went.

Thanos. End. It. All. Now.

This movie is a wreck. A horrible wreck. The plot is nonsensical, to put it mildly. Megan Fox looks nice, but can't act her way out of a paper bag. Will Arnett belongs in another movie. The Shredder seems to have been thrown in at the last minute (trust me- his relation to the plot is stupid and he acts basically as just muscle). William Fitchner is here for a paycheck, pretty much.

Nurgle... Take away my pain...

The turtles themselves are not bad- they have some good moments of camaraderie, and some jokes do well (most fall flat though). Then Splinter shows up knowing things that his character simply has NO WAY OF KNOWING AT ALL- he should be called Exposition, not Splinter. Poor plotting 101.

Dear. God. No.

The action scenes are haphazard and without stakes. There is no tension. No cohesive narrative. The villain's plot makes no real sense at all. Shredder looks good but that's about it. This movie was just awful. There are few times where I feel CHEATED going to a movie. Even weak movies have some redeeming value (For example- Machete Kills at least had a fun performance from Mel Gibson, most of the film was poor). Ask my friend Pete about Lost in Space (the joke is we "never" saw it, if you know what I mean). This movie was that bad.

Let's put it another way. I bought the 1990 Turtles movie on bluray for $4.99 at Best Buy in order to watch it and purge the crap I had just seen (and the 1990 movie isn't the greatest either- but it has heart and character development).

Zero out of Four Marks of Chaos. And for the record, it is films like this that makes Khorne want to collect skulls, by the way.

Anyways, that's my movie reviews. Planning on seeing Sin City 2 (hoping Rodriguez has brought his A game) this weekend. Until next time...

Iron Man 3 Review

Hey there Chaos lunatics! Old Man Chaos went out to the movies last night with Mrs. Chaos and we saw Iron Man 3, naturally. So- is this a promising start to a new series of Marvel movies, or is the movie going to be another near disaster a la Iron Man 2? Let's find out, shall we?

Well, I am pleased to say that IM3 is miles ahead of its immediate predecessor, thank the Chaos gods! IM2 was a weak, confused, and altogether bland movie. Thankfully, IM3 corrects that, being a solid movie that is full of action, humor, some plot twists, and a rather dramatic theme (which I will get to in my spoiler section). There are some problems with it, and they are not simply nitpicks- and these problems prevent IM3 from reaching the heights of the other Marvel movies.

The plot seems straight forward enough- Tony has been traumatized by the events of The Avengers- he nearly died, he realized that the universe is a much bigger and more dangerous place than he ever conceived, etc. While he is suffering from his anxiety (which is causing him personal problems with Pepper), he is faced with problems from two fronts: the first (and seemingly lesser) threat is from Aldrich Killian, a scientist/businessman who may be giving Tony some competition in both business and love; the second threat is that of The Mandarin, the leader of the terrorist organization The Ten Rings, who has stepped up his terrorist threats against the US, even putting Tony Stark in his sights.

What follows is a movie that has a lot of humor, a bit of mystery, and a strong amount of action, some of it cartoony, some of it a bit gritty, as it turns out (The Air Force One scene is fantastic). Tony is stripped bare here, and he must realize what it really means to be a hero, without the money and tech that he relies upon so much. For a good chunk of the movie, he must rely on his brain, his wits, and his stubborn determination. The help he gets from Pepper and Rhodes and even Jarvis is limited, and he really is on his own for a while. The stakes are high, not just for Tony but for America and even the world as a whole. We don't need Chitari- humans are bad enough- I appreciate the scale of the threat, and it is an appropriate challenge to Tony at this stage of his superhero career. The best part of the movie is an underlying, subversive message about terrorism. Agree with it or not, it is a fairly strong idea for a comic book movie- while it doesn't quite reach Nolan's Batman in that department, it is nice to see some bigger themes here. This is clearly not your average, run of the mill comic book sequel. I'll take on these themes in the spoilers after the main review.

The problem is the movie is a bit too twisty-turny for its own good. A few too many reversals, a few too many "What the fu- is he thinking?" moments, a bit too convoluted. The movie is smart, no doubt, but like Tony, may be too scatter-shot for its own good. It has some real serious themes (again, in the spoilers), but the movie is so stuffed with things that doesn't quite deliver on those themes (at least in my opinion). They get lost in the shuffle. Further, some of the action bits are really odd/implausible. See, IM 1, 2, and The Avengers set up some rules for Tony and his suits- this one seems to disregard them all- as these suits seem to defy all logic and physics. Tony can seem to go in and out of them at will- in the air, on the fly (literally in mid air)- all at mind bending speed, and with incredible ease. Thus, while your eyes were taking things like that in, you felt that Tony was not in any danger, no matter what. He almost didn't need the suit, he seemed so indestructible in those final action scenes. This hurts the movie, taking away the sense of danger and risk.

The actors are all good, with one exception. Downey again proves that he is the perfect choice for Iron Man- a mixture of bravado and doubt, a genius who doesn't have all the answers, and in this- an inventor who can't simply invent his way out of this mess. He goes through an impressive character arc- his anxiety isn't really about the Chitari in New York, I suspect; its Tony knowing that he isn't the end all be all anymore, that there are things bigger than him, and he many not be worthy of these challenges and rewards. Downey does a great job of realizing that arc, even when the movie itself seems to forget it. Paltrow, Cheadle, Hall, and Faverau do great supporting work, each are up to the task of matching Downey's sarcasm, and they bounce off him effectively. Kingsley is great, but I have to talk more about him in the spoiler section. Unfortunately, the weak link is Guy Pearce. Now he's a fine actor (Memento anyone?), but he's kind of blah here. Perhaps its the nature of the role (again, spoiler section), but he never quite energizes the screen. I didn't feel for the character (neither hate, nor awe, nor pity, or anything else). His character just never came together for me. This is really bad, since so much of the plot is tied to him, thus hurting the movie.

I want to get into a few spoilers, so let me just say that Iron Man 3 is a very enjoyable Marvel movie, one that certainly is better than Iron Man 2. I give it 3 out of 4 Marks of Chaos, though I feel it is a notch below Iron Man and Thor. The best part is that they could have played it safe, with a basic plot and basic villain, but instead they went for somewhat riskier territory. I appreciate that very much. I only wish they had streamlined it a bit (taking out some of the twist-turns and asides), and I do wish that Pearce's acting/character had a bit more dramatic weight behind it. If you want some spoilers, check below after the ratings and pic...

OK- so let's get into some spoilers...

This movie has a fairly interesting and big theme. Tony's opening narration lays it out very clearly: "We create our own demons". Before he became Iron Man, Tony was an asshole. A callous, indifferent asshole who only cared about himself. He certainly didn't care for those around him. For all his genius, he failed to grasp the consequences of his actions. In a flashback to the 1990s, Tony is indifferent to the disabled Killian- who learns "desperation" due to Tony's treatment of him. Further, Dr. Hansen is simply used by Tony for sex- her brilliant ideas for the supposedly regenerative Extremis experiments are nothing to Tony, he just wants to bed her. Both Hansen and Killian want a scientific breakthrough, and Tony is the only one who can help them. Instead, he just uses Hansen, and gives a big FU to Killian, and then goes about his drunken way. He doesn't care.

Hansen ends up teaming with Killian, forming the scientific and research business AIM. Naturally, AIM does all kinds of tech and weapon stuff, including Extremis, which still doesn't work right- the subjects that live become heat mutants, while those that die simply explode.

One must fill in the blanks a bit, but based on what was said by several characters, AIM became this huge tech and weapon corporation, with Killian at its head. Of course, at some point, Killian becomes truly unstable (or, perhaps, greedy and ego driven, as Tony had been). Killian and AIM actually create the menace of The Ten Rings terrorist organization- it is meant to drive up demand for regular weapons and bio-weapons like Extremis, while also allowing Killian a way to hide his failures.

But what of The Mandarin? Therin lies the rub. Ben Kingsley is great as this "character". He is odd, speaking in a stilted manner. He is outlandish, but menacing. He is also a figurehead. Just as The Ten Rings was invented by Killian, so was The Mandarin- a "face" to this manufactured threat. The Mandarin is just a face on TV, an actor- when it is revealed, my jaw hit the floor. Kingsley then plays him like a drugged out foppish actor, who seems to not get the consequences of his actions. It was a move I didn't see coming, and I bet it pissed off fans of the comics. But, did they really expect 10 magical rings and a Fu Manchu style of bad guy? An Asian villain that is so stereotypical just wouldn't work, and I give the creators credit in how they made The Mandarin a manufactured threat- his name, his image, his style, all designed to create fear. The Mandarin is Osama Bin Laden if he had been created by focus group surveys and marketing researchers. It is bold, and I loved it. Heck, it only adds to the subversion that the guy isn't even Asian ("The Mandarin") or even Middle Eastern- he's a British actor, and that it kind of says that Americans are so afraid and they can be fooled in such an easy manner. While this take on The Mandarin is ballsy,  it means that Killian is the real bad guy of the film, and frankly he made for a much more bland villain, and this weakness keeps the movie from becoming great. 

As a side note, Harry on Aint It Cool News posited an alternate theory (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62211). He suggests that the actor IS a terrorist. That The Mandarin is real, and that he has been pretending to be a simple pawn. Harry believes that he is the puppet master, and that Killian just thinks he's holding the strings. While Harry makes a compelling argument, I must disagree. Killian seems to be in charge throughout, and there are several statements from him, Hansen, and even the vice-president that confirm this. The bigger problem is, if Harry is right, it would undermine the entire theme of the film- "We create our own demons". The Mandarin would not be a creation of Killian, who was ultimately a creation of Tony's callousness. Thus, Tony would be wrong, he would have learned nothing, and the bigger theme wouldn't work. Part of me would love to be wrong here, as I would enjoy seeing Tony actually fight The Mandarin- a real face off between the Kingsley and Downey would blow my mind. However, doing that would negate this whole movie, since its subversive themes and events would be ruined.

The subversive implications are quite straightforward. The movie could be seen in this light: Tony is the USA- brilliant, dynamic, but often too cocky and arrogant. Tony's past arrogance has caused the creation of this threat, and now he must deal with the consequences. One could argue that American economic and foreign policies ultimately created the threat of terrorism we now face. Our foreign policies pissed off these people, and American big business profits from the chaos and war. I don't know if I agree with that (terrorists may or may not have legitimate gripes with the US, but they ARE responsible for their own actions in any event)- but it is a compelling theme to be in a comic book movie. Certainly the idea that they changed War Machine to the Iron Patriot is NOT just for the heck of it- this move  supports the US/Tony theme. However, the movie doesn't, in my opinion, develop these issues to a full conclusion, and instead relies upon the typical big action scene climax. 

However, what if Tony were able to really grasp his notion that we created our own demons? Look at the chronology: Tony is a dick, and thus makes Killian into a monster (forget that Killian bares his own responsibility for his subsequent actions for the moment). Killian creates AIM and The Ten Rings. Obidiah Stane will come to work with The Ten Rings (selling weapons to both sides, unknowingly copying AIM), and then hires that organization to kill Tony. Of course, this kidnapping makes Tony into Iron Man- he realizes the errors of his past, and tries to redeem himself by becoming a hero. He takes out the terrorists in Golmira, stops developing weapons, and defeats Stane. He then goes on to defeat an alien invasion of Earth, saving the world. Finally, he must confront his demons, and does final battle against The Ten Rings/Mandarin (really just Killian/AIM), and defeats them. That is quite a circle of events here, but it doesn't get fully realized in the movie. Does that mean when we create our own demons, can we overcome them? Do we inadvertently get strengthened by the demons we create? Again, compelling themes, but they don't get the attention that they deserve.

I don't know if I'll see IM3 in the theaters again, as I must save my hard earned cash to see other movies and pay for my 40K addiction, but I will certainly see it again when its out on Blu-Ray. Knowing the twists and the bigger ideas, I want to see the movie in that light.

Until next time.