Super - A Review

A social outcast notices that crime is rampant and the police force is powerless to stop it. Wondering aloud why nobody has ever tried to become a real superhero, the outcast dons a spandex costume, grabs a weapon, and becomes an unlikely vigilante and folk hero. During his travels he finds a kindred spirit in a younger female. Together, they bring down the biggest crime lord in the city, and learn a lesson in confidence, determination, morality and sacrifice.

This movie was called Kick Ass.

A social outcast notices that crime is rampant and the police force is powerless to stop it. Wondering aloud why nobody has ever tried to become a real superhero, the outcast dons a spandex costume, grabs a weapon, and becomes an unlikely vigilante and folk hero. During his travels he finds a kindred spirit in a younger female. Together, they bring down the biggest crime lord in the city, and learn a lesson in confidence, determination, morality and sacrifice.

This movie was called Super.

I don't know the details concerning the development of Super, so I can't rightfully accuse it of plagiarism. It may just be a happy coincidence. Or it may just be the latest example of the Deep Impact/Armageddon phenomenon. But based on the gap between release dates, it's hard not to point fingers.

At any rate, the film wasn't totally without merit, so don't cast it aside quite yet. Super is the antithesis to Kick Ass. Where Kick Ass was the story of young man trying to make the world a better place, Super is the story of a full-fledged adult going off the deep end, head first into an empty pool. We are supposed to recognize with Kick Ass. We are supposed to fear and pity The Crimson Bolt.

Our hero, Frank D'Arbo, is not a likable person. He's barely sympathetic. He's mentally unstable, an emotional trainwreck, and if you cheer for him, you are clearly misinterpreting the film. Frank's wife abandons him for an unspecified evil drug-dealer/strip joint owner/mafia boss, causing Frank to hallucinate, believing himself to be tapped by Christ to clean up the world.

Handcrafting his own costume, wielding a pipe wrench, and dubbing himself "The Crimson Bolt," Frank brings his concussion-inducing brand of justice to drug dealers, child molesters, and line jumpers alike. Along the way, he meets 22-year old Libby, a comic book geek fresh from the Jonah Hill school of acting. Weaseling her way into Frank's affairs, she adopts the mantle of "Boltie," kid sidekick.

Super won't be appearing at your local multiplex. There are many questionably over-the-top scenes of depravity, gore and psychotic assault. This film starts out campy, but during the second act, it turns dark. It wasn't even submitted to the MPAA for rating. You'll have to seek out a locally owned and operated theater where the programming director has the cajones to show such a film.

What separates Super most from Kick Ass is how the superheroes are portrayed. Kick Ass was ineffective, but he had noble intentions. With proper training, equipment and planning, he turns into a formidable force. The Crimson Bolt, however, is just a psycho. Imagine if Travis Bickle was a fat guy who put on a mask and cape. He doesn't plan, ever. He just gets bigger and more weapons. He never exercises, and he wails upon anybody who upsets him. Boltie is even worse, being one step above a San Diego ComicCon attendant in terms of skill, attacking anybody who even looks at her funny, laughing like a maniac all the way. Why do the hot ones always have to be crazy?

I describe Super as being 1/8 Edgar Wright, 1/8 Sam Raimi, and 3/4 Ed Wood. It passes frequently into the 'So Bad Its Good' territory, but that's its saving grace. Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Kevin Bacon, and Nathan Fillion are spot-on perfect with their hamminess. They, along with the entire supporting cast, are so over-the-top, you get suckered in by the complete insanity of the film. And insanity is available in abundance. Throughout the course of the film, people have their skulls cracked open by wrenches, peoples faces get blown off, people are on the business end of pipe bombs, somebody gets scalped and has their brain poked at with a corn dog, somebody takes glass shrapnel to their face, and there is an onscreen rape.

And that's the beauty of it. That the filmmakers had the sheer audacity to show us this violent imagery. It's refreshing that no matter how far we've come, how far we go, and how much we see as film fans, we can till be shocked and titillated. There is no upper limit, and as long as we can stomach the gory imagery of an evisceration, it's actually quite fun.

If you're looking for a good movie, you'll be sorely upset. If you want a superhero-themed Grindhouse movie that makes Darkman look like Underdog, I recommend it.

Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it.

Can anyone verify the authenticity of this image?

Cat Scratch Fever

Christopher Nolan announced several casting decisions earlier today concerning his next project, "The Dark Knight Returns." The heavily-awaited sequel to The Dark Knight has been the focus of much speculation by the fans.

Clayface was an early contender for the next featured villain; his character's backstory and subsequent struggles with identity and humanity seem right up Nolan's alley. However, Nolan was quick to dismiss these rumors. Nolan's Batman universe is cemented in realism. Fantastical elements (such as a walking, talking, shapeshifting pile of goo) will never be part of the franchise.

The Riddler was also an early speculated fan-favorite. Mere weeks after The Dark Knight came out, photoshopped images and posters flooded the net. Such images proffered casting possibilities ranging from Neil Patrick Harris to Johnny Depp to Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It's the same sort of badgering and mouth-foaming fandom that was responsible for Venom being shoehorned into Spider-Man 3, so I thank Christopher Nolan from the bottom of my heart for not succumbing to fanbase peer pressure.

Instead, Nolan has decided on Tom Hardy to play the super-strong, steroid-allegory Bane. The web is now full of film fans pretending they know Tom Hardy from any role other than Eames in Inception. Bane was previously featured in the 1997 movie Batman and Robin, and I don't need to say anything else about that.

Also announced: Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, the professional cat burglar, sometimes adversary, sometimes ally, sometimes love-interest of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. I have not heard more nerds whining about such a trivial issue since Roger Ebert claimed video games weren't art.

Here are five reasons why the Anne Hathaway rage is unfounded:

1) You nerds will never be fucking happy.

In Batman Begins, nerds were complaining about Katie Holmes' portrayal of Rachel Dawes. They claimed her acting was wooden, stilted, and the worst part of the movie.

In The Dark Knight, nerds were complaining that Maggie Gyllenhaal's portrayal was lackluster and whiny, and she wasn't attractive to play Rachel. (Can someone please explain to me how and why nerds on the IMDB Message Boards have such ridiculously high standards?)

Now, before Anne Hathaway has even received a copy of the script, everyone is claiming she is all wrong for the role of Selina Kyle. I claim there is not a single actress in Hollywood that will ever satiate the whining masses. So it's a moot point at best.

In all fairness, past Catwomen have set the bar unreasonably high.

2) Anne Hathaway is not a terrible actress.

Granted, Anne's filmography is nothing to write home about. There's a bunch of formulaic romances, and a couple of quick paychecks, but it's still a damn fine resume. And let's be honest with ourselves; this isn't some prestigious, artistic, era defining piece of cinematic mastery. This is Batman. A man in a leather suit beating people up for two hours. It's the man's equivalent of the chick flick. Anne Hathaway not moving backwards or forwards with her career, she's moving laterally. Anne Hathaway is not someone randomly pulled off the streets; she is an acceptable choice for the role.

Besides, even though she's made some questionable decisions, she's also made some very good movies. She has an Oscar nomination for God's sake! Watch Rachel Getting Married, watch Brokeback Mountain, watch The Other Side of Heaven. Stop posting images of The Princess Diaries, and give credit where credit's due.

I'll double check, but I don't think Eartha Kitt's available...

3) Catwoman is not a sacred icon.

Halle Berry completely fucked up Catwoman. So did everyone else involved with that movie, but I don't care enough to look up their names, so Berry's getting all the blame from me. Anne Hathaway cannot possibly do anything worse to the character than what Halle Berry did.

Despite that cinematic embarrassment, Catwoman is not a particularly respected or feared member of Batman's rogue gallery. Her greatest asset is being the rare female adversary, but her popularity is nowhere near Harley Quinn's and Poison Ivy's. There is nowhere for Catwoman to go but up.

Egyptians worshiped cats. Maybe they were on to something...

4) Christopher Nolan knows what the fuck he's doing.

After Joel Schumacher razed, burned, and salted the Earth, nobody thought Batman could be saved. Or at least, he'd never be taken seriously again. But Christopher Nolan made Batman Begins and proved everyone wrong.

Nobody thought a superhero movie could be considered great cinema. That even the best superhero film would be just another popcorn flick. But Christopher Nolan made The Dark Knight and proved everyone wrong.

Christopher Nolan has made six of the best films of all time, and he has only made six films. Give the man the benefit of the doubt.

To Christopher, Thanks For Everything! - Julie Newmar

5) There is no possible way you are not seeing this film.

Really? Are you really claiming Anne Hathaway's casting bothers you? As if there was any possible reason you would not see this film on opening day?

It's the sequel to The Dark Knight. It could be five minutes long and made entirely with finger puppets; you would still see it. We know you better than you know yourselves.

Stop your bitching and go eat a Hot Pocket. The Batman franchise is fine.

You're getting awfully worked up for someone whose whole gimmick is cat puns.

B D D E E A Ab A Ab A Ab D D E E

Here is Why I'm Looking Forward to Iron Man 2:

I have my tickets to see Iron Man 2 this week. Hell, I'm seeing a double feature; Iron Man followed immediately after by Iron Man 2 (the refillable popcorn bucket pays for itself.) Like all superhero movies, I go in with the rosiest of glasses. Superheroes are my weakness; anything remotely related to superhuman powers utilized to fight evil gets my adrenaline pumping. I even have nice things to say about Daredevil.

Because Iron Man is one of the premiere examples of the Superhero Movie, a sequel utilizing the same director and actors will assuredly be just as miraculous. Right?

Here is Why I Should Be Worried About Iron Man 2:

Like any blockbuster sequel, lightning rarely strikes twice. Filmmakers forget what it was about the original that made it such a legendary film, skimp on storytelling and narrative, and instead use the dramatic increase in funding towards spectacle: fighting scenes, special effects and actor paychecks. Look at all the trailers and commercials; Scarlet Johansson doesn't have a single line of dialogue, she just wears leather and does a choreographed fight/dance down a sterile hallway. What could she possibly have to add? Gwyneth Paltrow barely did anything in the first film, but her screentime seems to be ramped up considerably for the sequel. And Samuel L. Jackson is there too. For those not in the know, the film world is planning to tie together every Marvel Superhero film into a giant diegetic universe with Jackson serving as the crossover element until the final Avengers denouement, but no one seems to realize the repercussions of having so many A-list actors eternally on retainer.

In addition, there's the seemingly mandatory element that must be observed by every superhero sequel: Double the villains. While the first movie is reserved for the strongest, infamous or most iconic villain in the hero's rogue gallery, the sequel has to compensate by dividing the plot between two lesser foes. Here, we have Whiplash and Justin Hammer each vastly different in operation and execution. Plus the American government is attempting to terminate Tony Stark's night job, serving as a third antagonist to an already bloated story. But Iron Man 2 goes one step further by doubling the heroes. Along with Iron Man, there's War Machine, who is exactly the same as Iron Man in every way, except gray and piloted by a marine.

All this, plus Iron Man 2 seems to take itself less seriously than its predecessor. Iron Man goes skydiving. Iron Man goes to Monte Carlo. Iron Man goes to the VMA's. The original Iron Man was written by the same guy who wrote Children of Men. The sequel is written by the guy who wrote Tropic Thunder. The differences show. I'm not saying the film about the guy with a nuclear reactor in his chest who puts on a suit of armor with a built in jet-pack to blow up terrorists should be grounded in reality, I'm simply stating that the filmmakers should be aware of where the line is drawn.

Here is Why I'm Not Worried About Iron Man 2:

Trailers give away way too much information. Instead of trying to entice audiences, trailers summarize and compress the entirety of a film into a two-minute synopsis. Comedies give away the best jokes, action films give away the best scenes, and the ending to romances can be guessed before the announcer says "From the people who brought you..." I've only seen one exception to this in recent years: Pixar. Think about it; Wall-E's trailer revealed it was a film about a little robot cleaning up the Earth, but made no mention of the anti-consumerism rhetoric. It never even showed the Axiom. Up made mention of Carl flying to South America in his house via thousands of balloons, but you would never guess a majority of the plot had to deal with poachers. And you can tell Toy Story 3 is going to have more to it than Woody and Buzz surviving a daycare center.

Iron Man 2 seems to follow the same formula. We see Iron Man dicking around with his superpowers because that is totally what the hedonistic Tony Stark would do. Until Whiplash shows up at Monte Carlo and strikes some sense of responsibility into him. I'm guessing the entirety of what we've seen in the trailers only occurs in the first thirty minutes. After that, we have free range for an entire plotline. Who knows what it will be. Maybe it'll be epic, maybe it will suck. Either way, it will at least be worth seeing.

Plus Nathan Fillion gives it his personal endorsement, so that has to be worth something.