Archive for DC Comics

Friday Night Knife Fights: MARVEL VS. DC: THE MOVIE EDITION (Part 2 of 2)

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Comic Book Movies, DC Comics, Friday Night Knife Fights, Marvel Comics, Mutants!, Superheroes with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION
(Conclusion)
With Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

 

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Tonight it’s Part 2 of our bout between DC and Marvel.

L.L. SOARES:  That’s right, it’s DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION, where we decide which comic company has fared better on the big screen.

MA:  And now, since we answered all the introductory questions in Part 1, without any further hesitation, it’s time for the moment of truth.  Who has fared best in the movies, DC or MARVEL?

LS:  DC movies have always had the bigger budgets and the higher profiles. The Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN movies were blockbusters, as were the Tim Burton BATMAN movies. I’ve always wished that more DC characters were given a shot at the movies, especially Wonder Woman, but over the years the main thrust has always been Batman and Superman. A lot of people must think those are the only two characters DC has.

MA (laughing):  You mean there are more?

LS:  So it was a pleasant surprise to see a GREEN LANTERN movie come out – even if it was a letdown.


Marvel has had a much more checkered history with movies. A lot of people’s first exposure to Marvel heroes was through clunky cartoons in the 60s (little more than comic book panels moving slightly), then on to better SPIDER-MAN and FANTASTIC FOUR cartoons (which were still rather primitive compared to a Saturday morning staple everyone watched as kids back then, like SUPER FRIENDS (1973-1986).

MA:  I remember liking those old SPIDER-MAN and FANTASTIC FOUR cartoons.  I never liked the SUPER FRIENDS though.

LS:  You didn’t like the SUPER FRIENDS?  How un-American of you!

MA:  I don’t know. They were all too— friendly.

LS:  Even much earlier on, DC had the majestic SUPERMAN cartoons that Fleischer Studios did in the 1940s.

MA:  I love the Fleischer SUPERMAN cartoons!

LS:  Yeah, they had some beautiful animation.

(And, for other early representations, I won’t even go into the early movie serials from the 40s and 50s that featured DC’s Superman and Batman. And yes, even Marvel’s CAPTAIN AMERICA, before there was a Marvel!)

Marvel also had a few live-action television shows in the 70s, the most well-known being THE INCREDIBLE HULK (1978-1982) with Bill Bixby and SPIDER-MAN (1977-1979) with Nicholas Hammond. The Hulk show was pretty much a remix of the David Janssen 1950s show THE FUGITIVE with a big green guy who popped up when David Banner (they even changed the character’s name from the alliterative “Bruce Banner”!) got mad.

There were also some Marvel-related movies in the 70s and 80s, like the goofy CAPTAIN AMERICA TV movies with Reb Brown: CAPTAIN AMERICA (1979) and CAPTAIN AMERICA II:  DEATH TOO SOON (1979), (and don’t forget Matt Salinger in yet another movie—in 1990—called CAPTAIN AMERICA!) and Dolph Lungren’s lame attempt to play THE PUNISHER (1989). But almost everything Marvel did up to this point was low-budget, as opposed to the big, flashy movies based on DC characters.

The first three X-MEN movies (and Sam Raimi’s SPIDER-MAN movies) were a departure from that. They had bigger budgets and were much more high-profile projects. The fact that they were also big hits meant that Marvel was ready to join the big leagues. Suddenly, Marvel characters started to get the same respect as DC’s biggest characters.  The success of IRON MAN, a lesser known hero (to the mainstream – he’s been around in comics since the early 60s), was another big boost. Right now, I’d say the two companies have about equal clout in Hollywood, which is a big change from the 1980s.

MA:  I give the edge to Marvel.

While my favorite superhero movie of all time is THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), a DC comic movie, I’m still going with MARVEL as the one that’s faring better, and that’s because their recent run, beginning with X-MEN in 2000 and SPIDER-MAN in 2002, has been nothing short of incredible.  Even the films I haven’t loved, I’ve enjoyed.

Look at this list of movies:  X-MEN (2000), SPIDER-MAN (2002), X-2 (2003), SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004), FANTASTIC FOUR (2005), X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006), SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007), FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER (2007), IRON MAN (2008), THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008), X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009), IRON MAN 2 (2010), THOR (2011), X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011), and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011), and this list doesn’t include the BLADE movies or the PUNISHER movies.

The folks churning out the Marvel Comics movies have been on an incredible run, and it’s not over yet.  The march continues towards the AVENGERS movie in 2012, and who knows where it will go from there.

And the key to these movies is quality.  These films are all high quality movies.  They look good, they have talented directors at the helm, they have strong acting, and my favorite part— the writing in these films as a whole is pretty decent.

This Marvel run reminds me a lot of what Hammer Films did with vampire movies in the late 1960s/early 70s, when they were churning out vampire films left and right, and most of them were pretty darned good!

The difference is these Marvel folks are operating with a bigger budget than Hammer ever had, so they’re able to pour a heck of a lot of money into these superhero movies, and it shows.  Of course, big budgets alone do not good movies make, so the Marvel people deserve a lot of credit for the quality of these movies.  Sure, the money helps, but without the talent of everyone involved, these movies wouldn’t be as good.

One day people will look back and marvel (heh heh) at this Marvel run.  It’s truly something special.

Ls: You’re right – as far as sheer volume – Marvel’s run has been pretty amazing. Unlike DC, who seem to focus on two or three characters on film, Marvel has been ”spreading the love,” getting as many of their heroes onscreen as possible. And that means more variety and more chances that you’ll find a hero you like.

It’s like Marvel is making up for lost time. For so long, they haven’t had the chance to get their characters into movies – or if so, they were low-budget flicks. Now that they had some big successes, it has opened the door for lots of blockbusters. And you’re right about the high quality. Marvel is very conscious of its brand name and its characters are perceived, and is very protective about what they’re putting out lately (especially now that there is a company called “Marvel Studios”).

That said, Superman and Batman remain the two most famous superheroes of all time and they are well-known throughout the world. But Marvel shows no intention of slowing down and are trying to make their characters as iconic and universal as DC’s.

MA: DC’s recent run hasn’t come close to Marvel’s.  Their recent run began with BATMAN BEGINS (2005), and was followed by SUPERMAN RETURNS (2005) which I didn’t like all that much, and continued with THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), WATCHMEN (2009), JONAH HEX (2010), and GREEN LANTERN (2011).  Not bad, but it doesn’t measure up to the quantity and quality of the Marvel movies.

And the earlier DC movies, BATMAN (1989), BATMAN RETURNS (1992), BATMAN FOREVER (1995), and BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997), and SUPERMAN (1978), SUPERMAN II (1980), SUPERMAN III (1983), and SUPERMAN IV (1987) were a mixed bag.  I strongly liked the first two movies in both the Batman and Superman series, and strongly disliked the last two movies in each of the original eries.  Of course, you can go back to the Adam West/Burt Ward movie BATMAN (1966) which is still a hoot today and remains one of my favorite movies.

LS: Great TV show too!

MA: Awesome TV show!

LS: I didn’t mind the old  ADVENTURES of SUPERMAN (1952 – 1958) TV show, starring George Reeves, either. It was goofy in its own way, too. But not half as much fun as the Adam West BATMAN show.

All in all, it’s a pretty close race, because the best of the DC movies match up pretty well with the best of the MARVEL movies, but I give a slight edge to MARVEL, because the quality and quantity of their movies since 2000 has been consistently impressive.

So, in conclusion, you called it a draw between the two, and I gave Marvel a slight edge, and so by the thinnest of margins, Marvel Movies win out over DC movies.

LS: On second, thought, I think you make a good argument for the sheer volume of quality Marvel movies. I think they’ve pulled out ahead as well. So it’s not that narrow a margin.

MA: There you have it. Marvel wins this month’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

That about wraps things up for us here.  Good night, everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights Presents: MARVEL VS. DC – THE MOVIE EDITION

Posted in 2011, DC Comics, Friday Night Knife Fights, Marvel Comics, Superheroes with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION (Part 1 of 2)
With Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome to another edition of Friday Night Knife Fights. We have a terrific bout in store for you tonight, as it’s DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION. I’m joined tonight, as always, by L.L. Soares. L.L, you ready?

(L.L. SOARES, wearing boxing gloves, delivers a right hook to MA’s chin, knocking him off his feet.)

LS: Yep.

MA (getting back on his feet and dusting himself off): Nice punch. Anyway, it’s DC and Marvel that will be battling, not us.

LS: Too bad.

MA: With the explosion of superhero movies that have burst onto the scene in recent years, it’s time to decide which comic company is faring better on film, DC or Marvel? This debate will concentrate solely on the movies based on DC and Marvel comics, rather than the comics themselves. That’s a debate for a different day.

So, let’s get this rumble rolling. What’s the best movie version of a DC comic? You can choose more than one favorite if you’d like.

LS: Best DC Movie? Probably the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, BATMAN BEGINS (2005) and THE DARK KNIGHT (2008). They’re not perfect, but they have a level of intelligence and moodiness to them that really work. I also really liked 1980′s SUPERMAN II, for reasons I’ll discuss later in this installment.

I really liked WATCHMEN (2009), based on the DC miniseries by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, too. I’m a big Alan Moore fan, and the movie pales next to its source material, but strictly as a movie, it was actually really good. I also liked the adaptation of another Alan Moore series, V FOR VENDETTA (2006).

MA: I agree with your choices, except for V FOR VENDETTA, which I wasn’t crazy about.

LS: Well whoop-de-doo.

MA: For me, THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) is by far the best movie version of a DC comic. But I also like BATMAN BEGINS (2005), BATMAN (1989), BATMAN RETURNS (1992), BATMAN (1966), SUPERMAN II (1980), SUPERMAN (1978), and WATCHMEN (2009).

LS: I’m not a big Superman fan, but I am a big fan of SUPERMAN II (1980), mainly for the performance of Terrence Stamp as General Zod. The one thing I always thought was baffling about the Superman movies is that Lex Luthor is the villain in EVERY SINGLE MOVIE. Even the latest one had Kevin Spacey playing the role instead of good ol’ Gene Hackman, but once again, the bad guy was Lex.

MA: I’ve never understood this either.

LS: Superman has all kinds of other villains they could use. But in SUPERMAN II, while Lex is in it, the real baddies are the three criminals from the “Phantom Zone,” who come to earth to fight Superman. And General Zod is the best of the three. Stamp is just terrific in the role, and his quote “Kneel Before Zod!” is actually a cool catch-phrase.

MA: I agree. I like Stamp as General Zod, too, and SUPERMAN II is also my favorite Christopher Reeve Superman film, and a big reason it’s my favorite are the villains.

There are a lot of Batman movies on my list, but interestingly enough, neither Christian Bale (Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT and BATMAN BEGINS) nor Michael Keaton (Batman in BATMAN [1989] and BATMAN RETURNS) impressed me all that much as Batman. Adam West did his campy thing in the 1966 version, and strangely enough, even though West’s performance, as it was in the 1960s TV series, is high camp, I’d have to say he remains my favorite Batman. Keaton’s overshadowed by Jack Nicholson’s Joker in his first movie, and then by Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman in his second, while Bale is simply serviceable in the role of the caped crusader. Of course, THE DARK KNIGHT is owned by Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, though the film is so good there’s much more to like than just Ledger.

LS: I think that in the movies, almost anyone can play Batman. Once he dons that costume, Bruce Wayne’s alter ego is kind of one-dimensional. That’s why I don’t think any actors have really stood out as Batman so far. The costume is more iconic and effective than the person inside it, if that makes sense. I don’t even think Bruce Wayne is all that interesting either. The Batman movies seem much more interesting for the villains than the hero. Batman always had great bad guys. At least the movies have exploited his “rogues gallery” more than the Superman movies have.

MA: And while Christopher Reeve was constantly knocked for his lack of acting ability way back when, before his personal tragedy which eventually claimed his life, I have to say that as the years have passed, looking back, Reeve is the definitive Superman, though I really do enjoy George Reeves’ TV Superman from the 1950s as well, but I think Christopher Reeve’s comic timing as Clarke Kent lifts him above his TV counterpart.

Reeve’s performance as the Man of Steel in both those Superman movies is a large reason why I like them so much.

LS: Oh, I always liked Reeve. Maybe he wasn’t the best actor in the first one, but even then he’s not that bad, and as the series went on, he really became the best Superman. The funny thing is, I thought Brandon Roush was really good as Superman in the SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006), and was a good choice to take over the role, and yet, because the movie was considered a disappointment at the box-office, he won’t get another shot at playing the character.

MA: I didn’t really like SUPERMAN RETURNS, but it wasn’t Roush’s fault. You’re right. He made an excellent Superman. One of the reasons I didn’t like it was because Lex Luthor was the villain again!

LS: There’s something else that’s interesting about Batman and Superman in the movies. On the surface, Superman is a story about outer space and Batman is a story about inner space. What do I mean by that? Well, Superman is from another planet, so he is literally from outer space. And he seems more “external” for lack of a better word. His dominant power is probably his super strength – and he’s constantly using it to perform amazing feats. Batman epitomizes “inner space” – the workings of the mind. His origin is steeped in psychology. Bruce Wayne often invents new weapons and outsmarts bad guys using his brain. Most of his villains are clinically insane. Everything about him points toward the brain. And yet, in the movies, Superman – the alien – seems more relatable and human, while Batman is more distant and untouchable.

MA: I would agree with that assessment, but we’re supposed to be debating Marvel vs. DC, not Batman vs. Superman.

LS: Sorry about that. It was just something that came to mind when comparing the movies.

MA: Moving on to Marvel, what’s the best movie version(s) of a MARVEL comic?

I’ll go first this time.

I would go with IRON MAN (2008) as the best Marvel version. I thought Robert Downey Jr. carried that movie on his back with a first rate performance, and having Jeff Bridges in the role of the villain didn’t hurt! IRON MAN was a well-made movie that satisfied from start to finish. It was a film with a definite edge and attitude. It’s also a lot of fun.

Other Marvel notables include: SPIDER-MAN (2002), SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004), THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008), X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011)

I also liked X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009) a lot.

LS: My picks for the Best Marvel Movie include the first two X-MEN movies (2000 and 2003), which are very good, as is the first IRON MAN.

I’m not a big Spider-Man fan. The character is even more whiny and angst-ridden in the movies than he was in the comics! But I do think the second SPIDER-MAN movie (2004) is the best of that bunch, and that’s totally because of Alfred Molina as Doctor Octopus!

But my favorite Marvel movie  is PUNISHER: WAR ZONE (2008).

MA: Yeah, I liked PUNISHER: WAR ZONE, but I wouldn’t list it as my favorite.

LS: I just think it’s so over-the-top, so violent, that I don’t think Marvel will ever let one their characters get that “out of control” again on film. I like the pure chaos of it.

Since the first X-MEN film, Marvel movies have maintained a certain level of quality which is much different from decades ago, when Marvel-related movies were mostly low-budget and cheesy.

MA: Yes, I remember those days, when we only saw Marvel in low-budget TV movies. I guess there was the INCREDIBLE HULK TV show (1978-82), but I never liked it very much.

Okay, let’s switch to the worst movies. What’s your pick for the worst DC movie?

LS: It’s easy! It’s a tie between BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997) and BATMAN FOREVER (1995), the two Joel Schumacher Batman movies. I think he was trying to go for the campy feel of the Adam West 60s TV show, but they completely miss the mark, and are abysmally bad.

MA: You got that right. They’re awful. But I actually don’t hate BATMAN AND ROBIN as much as I do BATMAN FOREVER, mostly because in BATMAN FOREVER I didn’t enjoy either Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face or Jim Carrey as the Riddler, while in BATMAN AND ROBIN I actually didn’t mind Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze.

My picks for the worst DC movies are BATMAN FOREVER (1995), SUPERMAN III (1983), SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987), and SUPERGIRL (1984). My least favorite is a tie between BATMAN FOREVER & SUPERMAN III. At least Supergirl was cute!

Okay, now we’re moving on to the worst MARVEL movies, and I’ll answer my own question.

I’ve got two, DAREDEVIL (2003) and HULK (2003). Both of these movies were dreadful.

LS: The third SPIDER-MAN movie (2007) is beyond bad, and it’s a complete waste of Venom, who easily could have been spun off into his own movie if done right – he’s a great character. But the movie just squandered him. The film versions of DAREDEVIL and ELEKTRA (2005) are also incredibly bad, to the point of being difficult to watch.

MA: Yeah, I forgot to include SPIDER-MAN 3 on my list, although I liked it better than DAREDEVIL and HULK.

LS: I might be one of the few people on the planet who actually liked the first HULK movie. I’m such a huge fan of the character, that I found various aspects of the movie to be very interesting, and I liked Eric Bana as Bruce Banner a lot. I just think director Ang Lee over-thought the whole thing and tried to make too much of a meaningful “art film” (for lack of a better phrase) out of something that wasn’t as lofty as Lee’s intentions. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with being ambitious and trying to do something that blows us away, but Ang Lee’s HULK movie fails in the long run. But I liked Bana, I like the way the Hulk looked in the movie and how he fought the military (and those goofy giant dogs).

While the second HULK movie was more satisfying in some ways, because it was more in tune with the comics (he fights a villain from the comics, The Abomination – even if they changed him almost beyond recognition–and things were primed for the coming of another villain, The Leader), it also seemed more by-the-numbers. It was more the kind of movie that comics fans would expect. Ang Lee tried too hard, and the second Hulk movie was too safe, although I did like Edward Norton as Banner. The best HULK movie lies somewhere between the two – something more ambitious than the second one, but not as dense and sometimes impenetrable as the first one.

MA: All right, then.

That about wraps things up for Part 1. Be sure to join us next Friday for Part 2 when L.L. and I will decide, who has fared best in the movies, DC or MARVEL? The second part should be quite the knock-out.

LS: I’ll say. (Punches MA in the face again, once more knocking him to the ground.) Gotta love it. This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. We’ll see you next week for Part 2.

(MA gets back up, and he’s now dressed like a boxer. His face bloodied and bruised, he staggers aimlessly in background.)

MA (doing his best Stallone voice.): Adrian! Adrian!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

4 Comments »

GREEN LANTERN

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Blockbusters, Cinema Knife Fights, Comic Book Movies, Science Fiction, Superheroes with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 20, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: GREEN LANTERN (2011)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

 

(The Scene: A beach at dusk. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES approach the wreckage of a crashed alien spaceship.)

MA: Wow, we’ve found a real live alien spaceship!

LS: Maybe they’ll abduct you to some distant galaxy so I can be spared your bad taste in movies.

MA: No, I think it’s your mother ship come to take you back home. L.L. phone home!

LS: How dare you compare me to that twerp, E.T.! And, for your information, I was born right here on Earth!

(They hear a groan from the spaceship. They approach to find a dying green alien with a bright pink face. The GREEN ALIEN extends his hand and shows them a green ring.)

GREEN ALIEN: The ring has chosen you.

MA: Hey, bud, you’re not seeing double. There’s actually two of us here. Which one of us did the ring choose?

LS: It obviously chose me. (Reaches out to take ring.)

MA: Not so fast! We don’t know that. Let the alien answer first. Which one of us did the ring choose?

GREEN ALIEN (Points to MA, then to LS): You.

LS: Well, that’s it. This alien is obviously retarded.

MA: This isn’t getting us anywhere. Look, there’s two of us and only one ring, and we can’t share a ring.

LS: Share? There’s no sharing at Cinema Knife Fight! I’m taking it.

(LS grabs ring, as does MA, and as they wrestle over it, they inadvertently toss the ring into the ocean.)

MA: Oops.

LS: Now see what you’ve done!

GREEN ALIEN: The ring—the ring—. (Alien dies.)

MA (Shaking his head): Well, he’s having a bad day. Anyway, with the ring gone, there’s nothing left to distract us, so why don’t we start our review of GREEN LANTERN?

LS: I bet that ring sucked anyway. It sure was ugly. Since he came all the way from another galaxy, that alien could have at least brought us some cool bling.

Yeah, start the review.

MA: GREEN LANTERN (2011) is the latest superhero movie to hit the big screen, and this one comes from the DC universe. It’s about a character not as widely known as some of the other DC superheroes, such as Batman and Superman.

LS: I don’t know about that. In the comics world, Green Lantern is a pretty big deal. He was the central figure of the recent “Darkest Night” and “Brightest Day” storylines, probably the two biggest events in the DC Universe in the past few years. He just never had a movie before. Or a TV show. But comics fans know him very well.

MA: Well, for the rest of us in the real world, he’s not as well known.

GREEN LANTERN is about a carefree pilot named Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), who is chosen by a dying alien to join the ranks of the Green Lanterns, a huge collection of super warriors who protect the universe from evil threats. They do this by showing no fear and by using their will power. They have the power to turn whatever their thinking of into reality. So, they can be as powerful as the limits of their imaginations. It’s kind of a goofy premise when you think about it. I mean, if you have the power to conjure up a ray gun, for example, to shoot your enemy, why not just conjure up a dead enemy and save yourself the trouble? I’m sure the comics did a better job of explaining all this, but it’s not covered in any satisfactory depth in the movie.

LS: I think it’s a key point here that the limits of a Green Lantern’s power is the same as the limits of his or her imagination. If there’s a flaw with this movie—it’s clearly that Hal Jordan doesn’t have much of an imagination. Neither did the writers of this movie.

MA: That’s a really good point, because, as I watched this movie, I kept thinking, where the heck is this guy’s imagination?  Why isn’t he using this new power he has to create all kinds of cool things?

Anyway, Hal becomes a GREEN LANTERN, which is a good thing, because the Earth is now threatened by a bad guy named Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), a brilliant scientist infected by another alien, the evil Parallax, which turns him into a super intelligent baddie with a big head who looks like the Elephant Man wearing a lab coat.

LS: Hector is not the villain of the movie. He’s a pawn. A sad, dejected man who has great intelligence but still feels he is a failure. He becomes infected, by the way, because he is called in to do an autopsy on the alien who gave Hal his ring. But the alien has a bad wound that still has traces of the creature that killed him in it – Parallax. When he touches the wound in depth, the traces infect him, turning him into the Elephant Man thingie. He suddenly can read people’s minds and has telekinetic powers. He also has very big daddy issues concerning his senator father (Tim Robbins). He grew up with Hal and has always envied him. And he’s in love with Carol Ferris, who loves Hal. Once he gets his “powers,” it’s clear that all Hector wants to do with them is get back at the people who slighted him – his father and Hal – and finally “get the girl.”

MA: Yeah, there’s also a love interest for Hal with the beautiful Carol (Blake Lively) but, like the rest of this movie, this story doesn’t go anywhere.

LS: I thought Lively was a big weak link here. Sure, she’s attractive. But every scene she was in, I thought her acting was atrocious. It was like watching a very pretty robot. I kept thinking—aside from being hot —what does anyone see in this woman? Why do the main characters all want her affection? She just didn’t have any depth at all as a character, and I can’t tell if it’s her fault or the writers. Probably both.

MA: There’s not much else I want to say about the plot since this movie didn’t really do much for me, and I don’t think its story warrants too much retelling. But feel free if you want to fill in the blanks.

LS: No, you just about covered it. The details actually make the story less interesting. We then have to get into the whole significance of colors. Green represents the power of will, which is the source of the Green Lanterns’ great energy. But there’s also, yellow, the color of fear, which was also harnessed by the ancient inhabitants of the planet Oa, who are blue gnome-like creatures who started all this crap. They created the green lanterns and sit on monolithic perches like a group of Yoda wannabes. One of their group turned to “the dark side” and tapped into the power of fear and it corrupted him, so he turned into the super baddie Parallax—the nebulous monster who is going around devouring whole planets (He’s an awful lot like the Marvel villain, Galactus, another bad guy who eats planets, who I like a lot better. Although he’s kind of goofy, too).

Otherwise, that’s it. The Green Lanterns try to stop Parallax as he drifts throughout the universe, devouring worlds. When he comes into the vicinity of Earth, then it’s up to Hal to save the planet. Can he do it? If you really care, go see the movie.

MA: I couldn’t get into GREEN LANTERN from the get-go. I found its opening sequences which explain the whole back story of the Green Lantern world dull, boring, and slow. It reminded me of the scenes on Thor’s planet in THOR (2011), and the scenes of the Jedi Council in the STAR WARS movies. In fact, GREEN LANTERN plays much more like a science fiction/fantasy film than a superhero movie.

LS: Well, it’s supposed to be like a science fiction film. Green Lantern is one of the most science-fiction based superheroes of all time, at least as much as the “alien come to earth” origin of Superman.

But I agree about the opening sequence. It’s meant to bring us up to speed right away, but it’s boring. And the whole thing about green being willpower and yellow being fear seems incredibly dopey to me. Why can’t the green power of the Lanterns just be pure cosmic energy? Why does it have to be willpower? Seems silly. “I will not eat that piece of cake, thus I have wild, green power!”

Also, the whole thing about the actual LANTERN—it’s a device that’s really just a giant battery. It recharges the ring when it runs out of power. I always hated the lantern in the comics, and here it’s no better. Why does the ring need the lantern to recharge it? Doesn’t willpower come from within? And don’t even get me started on the dumb-ass oath the Green Lantern has to spout to get the recharging process to work….

(A green Energizer  Bunny holding a lantern marches by them.)

MA (pointing to Bunny):  Who knew?

LS:  And, now that I think about, why doesn’t the Green Lantern lose his powers and need to recharge himself EVER in the course of a battle in this movie? If you’re going to introduce something as lame as the lantern, then give it some dramatic relevance. As it turns out, he doesn’t even need the damn thing for the rest of the movie, and this was one chance when they could have made an improvement over the comics and just gotten rid of the damn thing entirely.

(GOLLUM from the LORD OF THE RINGS movies appears on the beach, rubbing his hands together)

GOLLUM: Did someone here mention my precious?

MA: No, not that ring! We’re talking about the Green Lantern’s ring.

GOLLUM: Oh, that makes me sad. I will continue to search for my precious….

LS: Get lost, you idiot (Kicks GOLLUM in the butt, hurrying him along the beach and out of sight)

GOLLUM: Ouch.

MA: The story didn’t grab me, the pacing wasn’t there, the characters were not likeable, and the special effects were passable, but that’s it. I also had the choice of seeing this one in 2D or 3D, and I chose 2D because, to be honest, I’m sick and tired of 3D movies coming out every other week , and then not being worth the extra cost of the ticket.  I hope movie audiences start to feel the same way and stop paying the extra money to see these movies.  Maybe they’ll go away.

LS: I saw it in 2D as well, and gladly so. Not only did I save money, but I knew the 3D aspects wouldn’t add anything to the storyline, just like most 3D movies we see. It was nice to avoid the extra tariff we’ve been getting screwed with to see bad 3D movies.

MA: While I like the Green Lantern’s power—he has the ability to turn into reality whatever he’s thinking about—and think it’s really cool, I did have some problems with it. One, it’s not used enough in the movie. I mean, we hardly see the Green Lantern use this ability. And two, when you think about it, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

LS: Yeah, like I said, for a movie about a character whose main power is his imagination, GREEN LANTERN is incredibly mundane. The character and the writers totally drop the ball on this one. The ring should have gone to someone who really would have excelled in using its power – like a fantasy writer perhaps?

MA: I came away from this movie thinking the Green Lantern’s story was rather goofy.

LS: In the comics, the Green Lantern is up there in popularity with DC heroes like Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. Personally, I think he deserved a bigger budget and a better movie. This one seems second-rate compared to the majority of superhero movies we’ve seen lately.

MA: I also didn’t like the characters in this movie. I didn’t hate them, but none of them were that likeable.

Hal Jordan is supposed to be this likeable screw-up. He’s an amazing pilot, but in everything else, he’s a failure, although he means well. However, he doesn’t come off this way in the movie. How do I know he’s supposed to be this way? Because they tell us in the film. This is a classic example of where a story messes up by telling us things rather than showing us. We hardly get to know Hal at all. We see him briefly with his son, briefly with his girlfriend, briefly with his buddy, briefly training as a Green Lantern, basically, briefly doing everything. Hal comes off like a supporting character in a Tom Cruise TOP GUN (1986) movie. Hey, it’s Hal Jordan. He’s the guy with no fear in the cockpit with the son and the girl—yeah, but what do we really know about him? Nothing. And as a result we don’t like him.

LS: I agree. Ryan Reynolds is completely miscast here. Hal Jordan is supposed to be smart and kinda cool. As Reynolds plays him, he’s a smirking idiot who takes stupid chances and comes off as a real jerk. I have to admit, he grew on me as the movie progressed, but a better star would have made this movie a lot better. Reynolds seems like a kid trying to play a leading man. Early on, I actually hated the character. By the end, I just thought he was so-so. And you’re right about the TOP GUN comparison. Early on, I thought I was watching a sequel to TOP GUN, until the injured alien fell from the sky. Hal could have been so much better!

For some reason Hollywood loves Reynolds and thinks he is perfect for superhero movies. He also played Deadpool in the movie X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009). That worked a little better, because Deadpool is supposed to be a cocky clown. But supposedly his supporting role in the WOLVERINE movie went over so well, that a DEADPOOL movie is now in the works. Reynolds can do no wrong in the world of superheroes, I guess. But for me, he was a completely awful choice for Hal Jordan.

Oh, and by the way, as far as I can tell, that kid was not his son. It was his nephew. Although early on the kid is so worried about his uncle, it seems like a father/son bond. Of course, after that scene, we never see the kid again! So I guess that bond wasn’t very important!

MA: Yeah, I found Ryan Reynold’s performance as Hal irritating as well. I couldn’t bring myself to like him, which is not a good thing for a lead character in a movie.

Blake Lively as Carol Ferris, Hal’s love interest, is beautiful, and she’s a good actress, but in this movie the Carol Ferris character doesn’t do much, nor is she interesting. Lively was in THE TOWN (2010) and she was very good in that movie, so she can really act when given a challenging role. Carol Ferris is not that role.

LS: You can say that again. If Lively is a good actress, I certainly didn’t see any evidence of that in GREEN LANTERN. A CGI cartoon would have had more depth. And, while you mention one of her movie roles, you’re missing the fact that Blake Lively is best known for the TV series GOSSIP GIRL, which is about shallow kids screwing each other over. Not exactly Oscar-worthy material.

MA: I did like Peter Sarsgaard as the villain Hector Hammond, and his was probably my favorite performance in the movie. I like Sarsgaard a lot, and we’ve seen him in ORPHAN (2009) and THE SKELETON KEY (2005). However, as much as I like Sarsgaard, the character of Hector Hammond is not much of a villain.

LS: You mentioned two of Sarsgaard’s more mainstream/genre flicks, but he’s also been a hero of the independent film scene for a long time now. He’s been in some really good stuff like the Oscar-winning film BOYS DON’T CRY (1999), Wayne Wang’s provocative THE CENTER OF THE WORLD (2001), and had an excellent turn in the biopic of KINSEY (2004). Clearly, this guy can actually act, and he’s in the wrong movie here. It was kind of a letdown to see someone this good in a movie this mediocre. And you’re right, because of his talent, he made Hector the most interesting character in the whole movie. I wanted the movie to be more about him. But, in the end, he’s not even the central villain here. He’s just a lackey of the main villain.

And there was an issue that really bugged me. Every time Hector Hammond was about to do something evil, and someone’s life was in danger, the Green Lantern would suddenly appear and fight him. This made sense in a scene where Hammond sabotages a helicopter, because both of them are at the lavish party where it happens. But later on, there is no reason why Hal Jordon would know to be at a certain place at the exact moment he is needed. Hammond is the one who can read minds, not Jordon! This just seemed like bad writing to me.

MA: Mark Strong, who was extremely nasty as the villain in KICK-ASS (2010), is completely wasted here as the Green Lantern leader, Sinestro. I found Sinestro boring and annoying.

LS: I liked Sinestro. I thought Mark Strong played him perfectly, as an arrogant, pompous ass. He goes on to become Hal’s number one nemesis in the comics. How would you know this if you don’t read the comics? Easy. The guy’s name is SINESTRO, as in “sinister.” They might as well have named him BADGUY-IO. And this movie is sort of an origin story of him as well—how he becomes a bad guy. In fact, there’s a very important scene during the end credits that follows up on this. So stick around a little after the credits start to roll, so you don’t miss it. This was clearly DC trying to imitate the whole “extra scene” thing that Marvel does in their movies (but which was missing from the recent X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, for some odd reason).

I’m hungry.  Let’s grab a snack.

MA:  Sure.

(LS & MA approach a snack shack on the beach.  A huge order of onion rings flies off the counter and lands in LS’s hands.)

MA:  The onion rings have chosen you.

LS:  I willed it to happen. For I am the Green Onion!

MA: While the acting in GREEN LANTERN is adequate, the characters the actors are playing are not, and so I blame the writing here. The screenplay was written by four writers, Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim, and Michael Goldenberg. Four writers, and they come up with this?

LS: Yeah, that’s sad. With all those rewrites, they still only attain a level that is a disappointment for a big superhero movie like this.
And, for the most part, the acting seemed below-average to me. I liked Peter Sarsgaard a lot. I liked Mark Strong. I even thought Ryan Reynolds, despite being miscast, had his moments. But the rest of the cast was just ugh. Blake Lively seemed like she just wandered on the set and wasn’t sure what she was doing. Tim Robbins—who can be good, when given a decent role—was boring here as yet another evil politician. BORING! And Taika Waititi as Hal’s best friend, Thomas Kalmaku, was just plain grating. The less we see of him, the better.

And there’s so much wasted talent in smaller roles. The great Angela Bassett is reduced to a one-dimensional government drone. And actors like Geoffrey Rush (Tomar-Re) and Michael Clarke Duncan (Kilowog) seem to be having the most fun here, but that’s because they’re only using their voices to bring CGI characters to life. They don’t have to actually appear in the movie, so that frees them up a bit.

A character with the stature of Green Lantern (in comics) deserved better. This movie is going to be a lot of people’s first exposure to the character, and it’s a weak one.

MA: The humor also misfired. There were so many lines of dialogue that were supposed to be funny, but I wasn’t laughing. I think this was because I didn’t really know the characters all that well. And it was hard to laugh with Hal because it was difficult to know if he was a good guy or not. If he’s truly a screw-up, a guy who’s sort of a jerk, then his jokes aren’t that funny, but the film never really delivers in terms of creating a well-rounded fleshed-out Hal Jordan, and as a result, I think a lot of the humor suffers for it.

LS: There were scenes with obvious, cliché jokes where people in the audience laughed and I was thinking “What the hell are they laughing at?” It was like they laughed because they felt they were supposed to. But I think laughs have to be earned. Not just because “Hey, this is supposed to be funny, so laugh.” Real laughter is an involuntary response. I didn’t laugh once during GREEN LANTERN. In fact, the need for such dumb humor in a movie that deserved a more serious tone made me groan a few times instead.

MA: GREEN LANTERN was directed by Martin Campbell, the same man who directed the James Bond films CASINO ROYALE (2006) and GOLDENEYE (1995), two movies that had much more energy and style than this one. GREEN LANTERN looks fine, but its action sequences—and I was surprised by this—were just average. None of the action scenes in this movie blew me away.

In short, the word that best describes GREEN LANTERN is average, and these days, with all the other superhero movie competition out there, films that are genuinely excellent, average just isn’t good enough. I liked the previous two superhero movies we’ve seen this year, X-MEN: FIRST CLASS and THOR, much better than GREEN LANTERN.

LS: I’m embarrassed to admit it, but I have to agree with you on every point. The thing is, I had heard some advance reaction to this movie, and it was almost all completely negative. So I went in to GREEN LANTERN expecting to see something that was the bottom of the bucket. The thing is, with such low expectations, I was surprised to find the movie wasn’t that bad. It’s certainly not the worst movie to come out in 2011. But it is a disappointment—because it could have been so much better.

MA: I give GREEN LANTERN two knives, and I give it two because it’s not awful. It’s just average.

LS: Average just about pegs it. And in a genre where you expect larger-than-life, flashy characters and lots of high-powered action, average is clearly a failure. I give it two knives as well. It was better than I expected. But nothing great.

(Stirring comes from the ocean waters.  MA & LS turn to see ABE SAPIAN from the HELLBOY movies emerging from the ocean.)

ABE SAPIAN:  Look at this ugly ring I just found.  I think I’ll give it to Hellboy for his birthday.

MA:  I don’t know if that’s such a good idea.  With Hellboy’s imagination, who knows what he’ll conjure up with a Green Lantern ring!

LS:  Which is exactly why Abe should give it to him. Someone like Hellboy—with that kind of power.  Now that’s a story I’d like to see!

MA:  I suppose I can’t argue with that.

LS:  You could.  But you’d be wrong as usual.

MA:  The only thing I’m wrong about on a consistent basis is my ongoing decision to team up with you each weekend!  What am I thinking???

Anyway, we’re done here.

LS:  Yep, folks, we’re done.  We’ll see you next weekend with a review of another new movie.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives GREEN LANTERN – 2 knives!

LL Soares also gives GREEN LANTERN - 2 knives!

2 Comments »

JONAH HEX!

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Comic Book Movies, Westerns with tags , , , , , on June 21, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  JONAH HEX
BY MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES

(THE SCENE: the interior of a saloon in the old west. MICHAEL ARRUDA enters the swinging doors and walks toward the back of the room, where L.L. SOARES is playing cards with a group of dangerous-looking desperadoes)

MA (grits his teeth): The clock is ticking, amigo.

LS (puffs on a cigar): Yeah?  What of it?  Don’t you see I’m involved in some serious business here.

MA (spits onto ground):  The movie isn’t going to review itself.

(A COWBOY with a scar across his face stares into LS’s eyes.)

COWBOY (swallows saliva): You got any threes?

LS (takes cigar out of his mouth): GO FISH! You got any eights?

COWBOY (growls, then starts crying): Yes, I do.

LS (dancing around): I WIN, I WIN. OH BOY, OH BOY!

(The other card players groan and growl in defeat. Then they get up and shuffle away)

LS: Like taking candy from babies.

MA (sits down at the table):  Ready now to review JONAH HEX?

LS: Just one more thing. (raises arm and shouts) Barkeep, a bottle of your finest whiskey for me and my compadre here.

MA:  Much obliged, pardner.

LS:  JONAH HEX is the latest comic book to be turned into a motion picture. This time around, it’s a weird western character from DC comics who came into prominence in the 1970s. Since then, he’s appeared in various series and miniseries, including a few written by horror writer Joe R. Lansdale. So you can see the character has some horror credentials, too.

Hex has the ability to temporarily raise the dead by touching them. But, the longer he revives them, the more they start to burn up. So he only has limited time to get the information he needs out of them.

He also seems to be a kind of immortal. Being that he’s died a few times, but continues to come back. This has something to do with the magic of the Crow Indians, who have a close connection to Hex (his wife was a member of their tribe).

MA:  “Kind of immortal” is the operative phrase here, because he’s says in the movie that he’s not immortal, meaning that at some point or by some way he can die, yet you’re right, he has died a few times and come back. So, maybe he’s like a cat with nine lives, or maybe his mortal weakness hasn’t been discovered yet.

LS:  As we begin, Jonah Hex is a soldier in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. When some of his fellow soldiers, including his best friend, Jeb Turnbull, and Jeb’s father Quentin (John Malkovich), a general who gives the orders, decide to start killing innocent women and children as part of their tactics, Hex has a problem with that and shoots and kills Jeb.

Quentin decides to avenge his son’s death by taking away Hex’s family in retaliation, burning Hex’s wife and young son alive, and branding Hex’s face with a Q, so he will always remember the man who “took away everything he ever loved.” It’s not like Hex was going to forget that anytime soon!

Tied to a cross and left for dead, Hex is revived by the Crow tribe in a strange ceremony. He comes back brimming with a desire for revenge. When he hears that Turnbull has died in a hotel fire, Hex channels his fury into being a notorious bounty hunter instead, who— when it comes to bringing them in “dead or alive”— rarely opts for “alive.”

But Turnbull isn’t dead after all. In fact, he’s the leader of a gang of thieves and cutthroats who have been pillaging banks and trains, in an effort to gather together the pieces of a kind of “weapon of mass destruction” designed by cotton gin inventor Eli Whitney (I bet you never learned THAT in history class). The weapon, which resembles a gigantic Gatling gun that shoots cannonballs, is Turnbull’s tool to finally defeat the Union Army and President Grant (Aidan Quinn). Once assembled, Turnbull plans to use this weapon to assault the nation’s capital during Fourth of July celebrations.

MA:  This super weapon also shoots glowing orange balls, which, and correct me if I’m wrong, aren’t explained all that well in the movie. What are they?   Are they supposed to be nuclear or something?

LS: Well, the glowing orange balls are shot out after the cannonballs, and are the “detonators.” But you’re right, this is never really explained to anyone’s satisfaction, and we have no idea where these orange balls came from.

Once Hex finds out that Turnbull is alive, however, he finds a renewed purpose in life, and the U.S. government capitalizes on this by recruiting Hex to stop the insane Confederate general. Hex is happy to oblige in going after the man who killed his wife and son.

And that’s the story in a nutshell.

(A mysterious figure enters the saloon and approaches their table)

LS (looks up at the shadowy figure): Can I help you?

(Figure tosses coat aside, showing he is really DEPUTY DOG)

DEPUTY DOG: I heard you were back in town, Cinema Knife Fighters.

LS: Got that right.

MA:  Keep your shirt on, deputy. We’re just two honest folk doing a job here, nothing more. We don’t want no trouble, do we now?

LS (chews cigar):  Nothing we can’t finish, anyway.

DEPUTY DOG: No?  Well, I’ve got news for you. I’ve come to clean up this place.

(LS puts his hand on his holster)

(DEPUTY DOG pulls out a wash cloth and starts wiping down the table)

DEPUTY DOG: Is that clean enough for you?

MA: Actually, you missed a spot, but we won’t hold that against you.

DEPUTY DOG: Gee, thanks!  If there’s anything else I can do for you gentlemen, just let me know.

LS:  You can leave us alone so we can get on with our review.

DEPUTY DOG:  Yes, yes, of course. (He goes over to the other tables)

LS: Where was I? Oh yeah, Josh Brolin is actually pretty good as the disfigured, amoral lawman Hex, who will stop at nothing to get the vengeance he craves. I’ve always liked Brolin and I think he’s a good leading man. Malkovich does a credible job as Turnbull. And Megan Fox is even along for the ride as Lilah (at one point, she says her full name is Tallulah – wouldn’t that make her nickname Lulah?), a prostitute who loves Hex and acts as kind of a sidekick in a few scenes. Michael Fassbender also adds some oomph to the movie as Turnbull’s right hand man, Burke, who is adept at hand-to-hand combat, and killing, and who would love to add a notch on his belt for killing Hex.

MA:  I liked Brolin a lot too as Jonah Hex, though truth be told, this really isn’t a good movie for any of these actors. While Brolin is fine, his character remains incredibly superficial throughout this movie. Now, this isn’t Brolin’s fault. He’s fine. The fault is with the writing. The screenplay by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor is more interested in action sequences than characters.

Megan Fox is as beautiful as always, but her character is so very limited, I can’t even tell you whether I felt she gave a good performance or not. She did so very little, it’s hard to judge. She should have had many more scenes with Jonah Hex.

I was most disappointed with John Malkovich as the villain Quentin Turnbull. I’m not sure if he just mailed it in, or again, if it’s the writing, or both. But here’s a guy who should have been really nasty and hated, not some generic cardboard cutout bad guy.

LS:  Yeah, after he kills Hex’s family, you’d think Turnbull would be a lot more despicable. But he’s actually kind of bland. Which is not what you expect from a Malkovich performance.

While I liked JONAH HEX and thought the cast was pretty good, I also found the movie kind of skeletal.

MA:  VERY skeletal.

(A COWBOY SKELETON pops up behind them.)

COWBOY SKELETON:  That’s what I’m talking about!

LS:  At 81 minutes, it moves at a nice pace and takes you from Point A to Point B quickly, but there’s not a long of meat on its bones.

COWBOY SKELETON:  There’s nothing wrong with that.

LS:  Get out here, you numskull!

(COWBOY SKELETON storms off towards bar.)

LS:  No one here is given much to work with, not even Brolin, who chews the scenery when he can. What this means is that a movie that could have been much deeper and more resonant has been reduced to cinema fast food that will leave you hungry afterwards. The dialogue is another weak spot, peppered as it is with lots of sly one-liners from everyone involved, which adds to the light atmosphere.

MA:  And the one-liners aren’t even that good. The best ones were all in the trailers.

LS:  I actually hate it when one-liners stand in for real dialogue. For a movie about family-killing and vengeance, JONAH HEX doesn’t seem particularly intense. And it seems to be a bit too “comic booky” for its own good. Of course, by “comic booky” I mean what people who don’t read comics think they should look and sound like, not taking into account the heights of storytelling the medium has actually been capable of.

JONAH HEX almost seems to be trying to be like an old west spin on the IRON MAN formula with mostly non-stop action and clever little bon mots.

Real people don’t act this way. Real people don’t turn everything into a witicism. Real people suffer. And while there’s plenty of suffering to go around in this movie, we don’t exactly FEEL any of it. Which is too bad. Because had they gone a darker and slightly weirder route  – like the work people like Lansdale have done with the character – this could have been a satisfying foray into old west justice.

As it is, JONAH HEX is a throwaway film about a minor DC Comics character who never really got his due. This movie could have redeemed Hex and given him the showcase he deserved. Instead it just turns him into an action hero in a Stetson.

MA:  This film could have been much more intense, and it would have been better for it.

It started off that way. I thought the initial sequence where Quentin kills Hex’s family in front of him was a rather powerful and intense way to start the movie, and I thought it set the stage nicely for the whole revenge plot. I understood completely why Jonah would be driven to go after Quentin. But other than this scene, that was it for intensity.

You and I often go back and forth about PG-13 vs. R-rated horror movies, and I often argue that a PG-13 horror movie can be just as scary as an R-rated horror movie. Here, though, I’d make the argument that JONAH HEX would have been a better movie had it been R-rated. The revenge theme is dark and very adult, and to do it justice, I think you need to visit some dark places. These places were not visited in JONAH HEX.

I started off really liking this movie. I liked Brolin as Hex, and I liked the comic book look and feel of this movie, but as it went along, and as it became apparent that, as you said, there wasn’t much meat to the bones, I grew tired and disappointed that better things weren’t happening.

I thought the screenplay was strictly average, and definitely much more interested in things exploding  than character development. I have nothing against action scenes, but in a movie where the characters aren’t giving you much in terms of reasons to feel for them, these scenes grow old quickly. And it’ s not even like these action scenes were all that great. They’re not.

Director Jimmy Hayward gave the film a nice look, and unlike you, I liked the comic book look and feel of this film. And there actually were some cool scenes in this one.

I loved the Snake Man scene, for instance. The Snake Man himself was scary, and it’s disappointing that he only appeared in that one scene.

LS: In a better movie, the Snake Man would have become Hex’s sidekick and would have been developed as a character. Here, the character is a throw-away. Which pretty much describes the entire movie. The whole thing is very disposable, which is disappointing. Because you know it could have been a much better movie.

MA: The scene where Hex announces that they’ll need more coffins is a direct homage to Clint Eastwood in A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964).

Now, I love the old “spaghetti westerns” with Clint Eastwood. Even though those movies were violent for their time, there was much more to them than just scenes of violence.  In terms of style, director Sergio Leone imbued those movies with so much style you can’t even compare them to something like JONAH HEX. Those Eastwood movies blow HEX out of the water.

Call me old school, but I prefer my movies to have some decent character development and dialogue, and not be one action scene after another. To me, that’s a video game.

LS: Exactly.

MA: But that’s not to say I didn’t like JONAH HEX, because I actually did. A little bit, anyway. See, I enjoy westerns a lot, and for a while anyway, this one was moderately entertaining, but ultimately, offered little that was new. I’ve seen these revenge stories played out countless times before in films much better than JONAH HEX.

I did like Hex’s power to talk with the dead, and I thought the scenes where he does talk to the dead were the best in the movie. Here was something that you don’t see in westerns every day.

LS: Yeah, the resurrection scenes are definitely some of the better ones here. I wish they’d delved more into that ability of Hex’s.

(A horse dressed like a man comes over to their table, followed by a short burro in a sombrero)

LS: If it isn’t the sheriff in these parts. Quick Draw McGraw!

BURRO: And don’t’ forget me, Baba Louie!

MA:  Can’t I?

QUICK DRAW: This here saloon isn’t big enough for all of us, Knife Fighters.

LS: I know that.

BABA LOUIE:  You’re right about that, Quick Draw.

LS (puts his hand on his holster again and grits his teeth): So what do you two plan to do about it?

QUICK DRAW: Well, there’s another saloon down the street. Me and Louie will probably go there instead.

LS: Good thinking, for a horse.

(MA throws him a lump of sugar).

QUICK DRAW: Gee, thanks!

BABA LOUIE: We’ll go this time, but you two better watch your backs. I hear EL KABONG has been cited in these parts.

QUICK DRAW: Let’s go, Baba Louie. I’m dying for a beer. I think I’ve got the shakes.

LS: JONAH HEX is fine as a popcorn movie, and you won’t be bored by it. But since it’s so shallow and one-dimensional, I saw it as a missed opportunity to be a much better movie. The seeds are there. They’re just never given a chance to sprout.

I give JONAH HEX two knives. Brolin is suitably angry and intense, but the movie doesn’t give him enough to rail against. Malkovich is mostly wasted. And while Megan Fox is known more as being eye candy than for her acting (which isn’t going to change anytime soon), she’s not in this movie enough (and we don’t get to see enough of her, if you get my drift).

Everyone seems to be in a rush, and we’re left with an appetizer instead of a meal. Which is too bad, because I’m sure everyone involved could have given us much more.

I did enjoy the music the band Mastodon contributed to the soundtrack. They’re one of my favorite metal bands.

MA:  I think I liked it just a tad bit more than you, which isn’t saying a whole lot. I found JONAH HEX to be average, average, and did I say?  Average?

LS: Not really surprising, when you consider that director Jimmy Hayward’s only previous directing credit is 2008’s HORTON HEARS A WHO! Not exactly a logical choice for a good, gritty western.

MA: Yet, I’m still going to recommend it because I liked the main character a lot, Jonah Hex, a bounty hunter who can talk to the dead, and I liked Josh Brolin in the lead. I thought the film had a good look to it, and in spite of shallow characterization and action sequences that won’t blow you out of the water, there was just enough meat on those old bones for me to be mildly entertained. You called it a popcorn movie, and I agree, but I like popcorn. It’s not a meal, but it is a satisfying snack.

I give JONAH HEX two and a half knives.

(COWBOY SKELETON returns to their table with a group of other skeletons.)

COWBOY SKELETON:  We have a bone to pick with you.

LS:  Yeah?  What’s that?

COWBOY SKELETON:  Step outside.

(CUT To line of SKELETONS in dusty street outside saloon, facing LS and MA, all of them ready for a gunfight.)

COWBOY SKELETON:  Draw!

(They all whip out pencils and paper and begin to sketch.)

MA (shows LS his drawing of skeleton):  What do you think?

LS:  Not bad. Here’s mine. (Shows MA sketch of 2 skeletons in a suggestive pose.)

MA:  What the hell is that?

LS:  They’re playing “horsey.”

MA:  I think it’s time to end this column. We’ll see you next time folks, with a review of another new movie.

—END—

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

RATINGS

Michael Arruda gives JONAH HEX – 2 and a half knives

L.L. Soares gives JONAH HEX – 2 knives

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers