New address

This blog has been moved to a different URL.

For new content, go to:

www.braelstrom.net

I Miss Reaper

Reaper was a short-lived CW series that ran for two seasons from 2007 until 2009. It was about  Sam Oliver, a college drop-out stuck at dead-end job, who, on his 21-st birthday learned that his parents sold his soul to the Devil. He now has to work as a Reaper, essentially Hell's Bounty Hunter, catching souls that have escaped from hell and are going about doing their unfinished business, usually wreaking havoc of various proportions in the world of the living. Souls are captured in "vessels", which are specialized containers disguised as common household appliances, with a different vessel for each soul. Fortunately, Sam can rely on the help of his best friends, the lovable goofballs Sock and Ben.
As you imagine, Reaper was a series that focused mostly on the comedic aspect of its premise. It's a show that very much felt like Supernatural's lighthearted, goofier cousin and it frequently delivered some big laughs. While Brett Harrison's Sam was a solid, dependable lead, for me it was Tyler Labine's Sock and Ray Wise's Devil that made the show really memorable. Labine plays your typical obnoxious comic-relief character, but for the most part, he managed to keep Sock in the sweet spot right between really funny and really annoying, creating that rare really likable character that you'd still probably punch in the face. Most of the funny banter between the three friends comes either from Sock, or from the other two bouncing lines off of him, which made for a really enjoyable dynamic between them.

As for Ray Wise, he outright stole every single scene he was in. His Devil is one of my favorite portrayals of Satan of all time. He has a slightly creepy, but mostly really cheesy uncle sort of vibe going on, with a Jack Nicholson's Joker grin seemingly glued to his face. He's sleezy, manipulative and constantly plays pranks on just about everyone, but mostly on Sam, frequently teleporting him to random locations just for the hell of it, if you pardon the pun. Maintaining the jokey side of Satan for the most part made his serious moments stand out even more. When the situation called for it, this was a Devil you wouldn't want to cross and Ray Wise could switch from delightfully cheesy to cold and menacing at the drop of a hat.
Early on, the show's routine would go something like this - Sam is going about his mundane existence, harboring a crush for his colleague Andi and not really doing anything about his life, when The Devil teleports him somewhere, makes fun of him for a little while and gives him a vessel and a hint about the escaped soul. A good chunk of the episode is then spent trying to piece together what the soul wants and how the vessel works and after at least one encounter in which either the vessel doesn't work or something else goes wrong, there's one final battle in which the soul is successfully captured and brought back to hell - via a portal in a DMV, because, as the Devil puts it, "any place that seems like hell on Earth, is hell on Earth."  Neat. It seemed strange that all of these escaped souls just happened to be always popping pretty close to where Sam lives and works, but it's easy to forgive. Eventually the show did break out of its formula and started to try out some different things. Some changes were nice, like finding out more about the deal that Sam's parents made with the Devil or having Andi figure out that Sam is Hell's Bounty Hunter and the two of them eventually starting to date, while others were kind of weird, like Sock's crush on his step-sister. The show also brought in a whole bunch of demon characters near the end of a season one and really played around with them in season two, including having Ben even dating a demon. It became less about capturing souls and more about the mythology of this bizarre world and where Sam and his friends belong in it. Season two played around with some really cool concepts that I can't go into much detail out of fear of spoilers and while it was also where the aforementioned step-sister crush storyline happened, it was for the most part fresh and exciting.
The show was cancelled and while there were talks of renewing it and even of a comic book or animated spin-off, none of that has happened and it doesn't look like it will. It's a shame, because the show had a solid premise and a lot of potential, particularly with the direction it was heading at the end of season two, what with introducing angels and such. I think there's a lot that could have been explored with this world and these characters. Still, it's two seasons of good, solid entertainment with plenty of laughs, memorable characters, some cool concepts and decent special effects, so I recommend you check it out if you find the time.

Wouldn't you trust him?

Batman: Assault on Arkham Review

Arkham Asylum has lousy security. You'd think that a place that has pretty much weekly breakouts (holidays too when you have Calendar Man) would try a little bit harder. Like maybe not let in someone suspicious who the system couldn't recognize the first five times you ran his ID, but then suddenly did. Or maybe change the passwords every once in a while, especially when a former member of your staff has gone homicidal and is a wanted criminal. You know, the little things.

The main "heroes" of Assault are the Suicide Squad, a bunch of B and C-list villains rounded up by the US government to run dangerous missions in exchange for reduced sentences. It's a good set-up and a fun bunch of characters - Killer Frost, Captain Boomerang, Deadshot, King Shark and Harley Quinn. Boomerang and Deadshot have a rivalry, which results in some fights and a couple of funny lines, nothing really special there. Shark and Frost have a "cool" dynamic (the movie makes plenty more ice puns, don't worry) going on and watching them interact was kind of fun. Harley and Deadshot have a sort of romance going on, which at first I really got into, because it was nice to see Harley taking interest in someone other than the Joker, even going as far as making her hate him for what's he done to her. Unfortunately, it doesn't really go further than that and the implication is that everything goes back to the way it was by the end, which annoyed me. Deadshot sometimes shows off a picture of him and a little girl, which I guess is supposed to mean we should be sympathetic towards him, but it doesn't really work, because he never talks about his daughter with anyone. We don't see them interact in flashbacks or anything, so it was impossible to care about that at all. The plot follows the Suicide Squad as they must break into Arkham to retrieve something from The Riddler, which seems like overkill, considering the aforementioned blatant security problems. Then there are set-ups, double-crosses, ulterior motives, all very predictable and unexciting. Nothing really happens, plot or character wise. Nobody learns anything or gains anything. The action is decent and frequent, but without a good story and character development to back it up, it just ends up feeling rather dull, watching people you don't really care about punching each other. 

Assault on Arkham is supposed to fit with the Arkham video game franchise continuity, which at first I thought would be great. Arkham Origins failed to deliver on its promise to shine a spotlight on a bunch of secondary villains and instead made its story about the Joker and Bane, and while it wasn't a bad story, it threaded familiar ground for the franchise, so I was hoping Assault would make up for that. It kind of does, because it is ultimately about the Suicide Squad and sticks with them for the majority of the time. Batman and the Joker are present, but are definitely side characters. Like I said though, while Assault is about the Suicide Squad, it doesn't really do anything with them. They fight together, share a few memorable moments and lines, they start double-crossing and going their separate ways, or are unceremoniously killed off. That's it. Trying to fit it in the Arkham game continuity makes it even more of a mess though. The Penguin looks and acts nothing like The Penguin from the games and even though he had only scene, it was very distracting. Breaking up Harley and the Joker is a cool concept, but it's wasted in this continuity, because the two are together in the games Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, which clearly take place after Assault. The movie is riddled with oddities and inconsistencies like that, and it's frustrating and distracting. 

The animation is decent. The actions scenes in particular look great, but the backgrounds are very lackluster and bland, which kind of sucks the excitement right out of the fights. The character designs, while distinct, didn't really astound and having the guys all dressed up and the gals in revealing skimpy outfits and frequently undressing was just as tasteless as it was pointless. I also noticed a pretty glaring mistake at one point, as Deadshot switched facial hair several times within the same scene. The voice acting is top-notch, with Bat-veteran Kevin Conroy once again donning the cape and cowl and Troy Baker reprising his spectacular debut from Arkham Origins as the new Joker. Even three years later, it's still sad that Mark Hamill retired from the character, but Baker seems more than worthy to fill in those clown shoes His performance is reminiscent of Hamill, but still has its own unique flavor to it. Hearing the Joker cuss thanks to the R-rating was also quite fun. 

Overall I thought Assault on Arkham was a pretty big waste of time. Even die-hard Batman fans won't be able to glean much from this one, sadly. Go back and watch Superman/Batman: Public Enemies or Batman: Under the Red Hood (yet another stellar Joker, this time by John DiMaggio) again, while you wait for Arkham Knight. 

Here we see The Joker about to break out of his cell because the wiring for the door was in the wall of said cell. Yet another brilliant decision by Arkham Security.  

A Tribute to Robin Williams (1951-2014)

I freely admit that I am not familiar with Robin Williams' career in its entirety. I've seen a lot of his movies and some of his stand-up, but I know there's a lot of what he gave the world that I have yet to experience. What I do know is that I have never seen Robin Williams be bad in anything he set out to do. He's been in bad movies, as have just about all actors at some point in their careers, but he himself was not bad in them. Even with a sub-par script, he always gave it his all. The sheer warmth and utter joy of his performances brought a smile to my face even if sometimes the jokes he was given couldn't. When he smiled, the whole movie smiled with him. When he laughed, the world seemed a little less darker. I remember how, when a friend of mine was quoting some of Robin's raunchier, a lot more adult-oriented humor, I was a little set aback at first. Back then, I knew him best as the lovable clown and I couldn't imagine him deliver such crude, albeit really funny jokes. Then I watched his stand-up and I didn't need to imagine it. It was my favorite lovable clown, cussing like mad and it worked like a charm. I remember the first time I saw Robin Williams take on a role with a heftier dose of drama in Good Will Hunting, and how effortlessly he slipped into it, yet still freely incorporating humor, without in any way jeopardizing the more serious tone the movie required. His range as an actor and a comedian is truly something to be admired and this is coming from someone who hasn't even all of his work yet. Robin Williams was a man of many talents - a gifted comedian, a great actor and an all around wonderful human being. He will be sorely missed, but never forgotten. May he rest in peace.

My Problem with Marvel's Villains

The Marvel Cinematic Universe does not have particularly interesting villains. Now, before you go nuts, yes, there is Loki - he is all kinds of interesting. What about the rest though?

Remember these guys? Me neither.

Abomination, Iron Monger, Whiplash, Red Skull, Mandarin, Malekith, Ronan the Accuser - how many of these guys really struck a chord with the audiences of their respective movies? In a good, non-they-totally-ruined-the-Mandarin, memorable kind of way. I don't think any of them made that much of an impression, which seems puzzling. Okay, Iron Monger and Whiplash are just guys in variations of Iron Man's armor and Blonsky just turns into an uglier, brown version of the Hulk, but the other guys, particularly Red Skull, Malekith and Ronan have great designs. Their look is very creative, very distinct and just all around really cool. Even if not all of the villains look that great, they are all played by critically acclaimed actors (most of them British - quite a bold move by Marvel Studios to cast British actors as villains, I wonder if it will catch on). We're talking heavyweights like Jeff Bridges and Ben Kingsley, established names like Christopher Eccleston, Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, up and coming new actors like Lee Pace etc. All of the villains also pose a legitimate threat to their respective heroes. Whether they plan to destroy a city, a nation, the world, the galaxy or the whole universe, all of these guys have power and can stand their own against the likes of Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy alike. So we have a bunch of menacing, dangerous villains, half of which look really cool, unique and badass, all of which are played by great actors and all of them almost completely forgettable. Not boring, but not really that interesting either. What's the problem here?
Well, they're all too one-dimensional. Think about it. Blonsky wants the power of the Hulk, Iron Monger is after the money, Whiplash wants revenge, Red Skull is a Nazi, Mandarin wants revenge and power, Malekith wants revenge and power and Ronan wants revenge and power. Not that there's anything wrong with simplistic, straightforward goals, but for most of these guys, those goals are their entire character. The rest is just hints. Blonsky has a hint of pining after the energy of his lost youth and getting off on the power of the Hulk like an addict. Whiplash and Mandarin have a hint of a deeply held personal hatred for Tony Stark that drives them to extremes. Ronan has a hint of deeply held personal hatred for Zandarians, who have caused the death of many in his own family. Red Skull has a hint of being a Nazi... no wait, he is a Nazi. Anyway, the point is, these hints are usually established early on in the movie for about a minute or two and might be casually referenced here and there during the rest of it, but for the most part, the villains are there to be the threat, the boogeyman that the hero fights during the climax. Heck, if the actors playing them weren't so good, we might not even have picked up on those hints. In The Incredible Hulk, Tim Roth has a scene that barely lasts a few seconds of him just looking at his reflection in a bathroom mirror. In those few seconds, he manages to convey a look of pure, ravenous hunger, a harrowing, all-consuming lust for power, trapped inside of a gaunt shell of a man. Why couldn't we see more of this? Why was it only a few seconds?
Again, the problem is not with the goals themselves. If you look at Loki, his goals can also be boiled down to wanting revenge and power, but with him, you really get to know why he's after those things. We know his full backstory, not just hints. We know his pains, his struggles. We are intimately familiar with the demons that haunt him and that makes him easy to relate to and all the more memorable. His frustration and desire to be someone of worth, someone powerful and respected is something we understand, because we see where it's coming from. In a a lot of ways, Loki is just as pathetic as he is menacing, just as worthy of pity as he is of scorn and that's what makes him interesting.

You just want to give him a hug and then punch him.

In the words of a wise green ogre, he has layers! All good characters need layers, villains included. Not just hints of layers. Blonsky's thirst for power could have been just as compelling and tragic as Loki's. Ronan's desire for vengeance could have been explored much deeper, delving into his personal tragedy, allowing Lee Pace to emote something besides righteous, over-dramatic anger.
The strength of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has always been its heroes, and not its villains. Just because Ronan is a bit lackluster, at least in terms of character, doesn't make Guardians of the Galaxy any less enjoyable, because the Guardians themselves are great characters. Just because the Iron Man villains are mostly dull doesn't mean the Iron Man movies are bad, because Robert Downey Jr. The thing is, the villains don't have to be dull, lackluster or simply one note. They can be so much more than just evil people doing evil things for the sake of being evil or angry. There really is no excuse for that when Marvel has such great actors and creative designs at their fingertips. If they can pull it off with Loki, why not the others? Let's hope Thanos and Ultron mix things up a bit in future Marvel installments.


P.S. I'm not counting The Winter Soldier, because he was basically brainwashed and was more of a glorified henchman, at least so far. It would be like counting Hawkeye from the first half of The Avengers as a villain.

The Worst Plot-hole in The Dark Knight Rises

I do this fun little exercise for my brain that I call "plot stitching". The way it works is, I take any plot hole from any story and I try to explain it in a way that fits that particular story and is not too contrived. I think it's good practice for anyone interested in storytelling. For instance, let's take some of the more notorious plot holes from The Dark Knight Rises, the third and final chapter in the Christopher Nolan Batman saga. How did Bruce Wayne make it from the prison to Gotham? Well, Bruce Wayne is a smart man who's been around the world and has access to many resources. It's not unlikely that he has contacts all over the world, people he's met in his travels, who would be willing to help. Even more likely for someone who spends most of his time dishing out vigilante justice is that he has money stashed throughout the world in various safehouses in case of emergencies. Once he gets to the nearest one and gets his bearings (or would that be batings?), reaching Gotham shouldn't take too long. As for how he got inside Gotham without anyone spotting him - he is (spoilers!) Batman after all. Sneaking into places unseen is kind of his thing. Okay, but why would he waste time setting up and enormous flaming Bat symbol when there's a nuclear bomb hours away from destroying Gotham? Well, what if he didn't? It's far more likely that some of the people trapped in Gotham, who still believe in Batman and hope he will come to their aid in their darkest hour, prepared the symbol either to inspire their fellow citizens or simply to spit in the faces of Bane's followers. Batman stumbled onto them and decided it was too good of a set up to waste. Not the best explanations, but at least they're plausible.
There is, however, one moment in the The Dark Knight Rises that defies any logical explanation. A plot hole that infuriates me beyond compare. Most people harp on the aforementioned seemingly miraculous return to Gotham, but what bugs me a lot more is what happens immediately before it. Bruce Wayne breaks out of the prison in which Bane left him to die. He escapes, achieving both a physical and metaphorical "rise" from the dark, overcoming his fear and weakness so that he can return to his city in its time of need - and then he drops a rope down as he leaves. He drops a rope down so that all the other prisoners can climb out and escape. Let's break this incredibly stupid moment down and see all the various levels in which it makes no sense whatsoever.

Still not as big as this plot-hole. 

Let's start with the prison itself. The entire point of this prison and the reason it doesn't have any guards or security systems is that it is supposed to be impossible to climb out of the pit and escape. Actually managing to do it is a testament to your will and determination. You earn your freedom by achieving the impossible and rising above your physical limitations. This is all fine and good until you realize that as soon as once person manages to get out, he can just drop a rope for the like Bruce, thus completely circumventing the spiritual journey and incredible challenge for everyone else. Maybe it would have been nice to leave at least one guard to make sure that doesn't happen.
More importantly, why would Bruce Wayne of all people drop a rope down to a bunch of, as far as he is aware, hardened criminals sentenced to the deepest, darkest pit? The same pit both of the movie's villains came from? The ones trying to nuke a city? Sure, he met a nice friendly doctor, but we didn't see him interact with the rest of the prisoners. They could be murderous psychopaths for all we know - and at least some, if not most, probably are, because, again, both of the main villains of the movie were from that very prison. That means that even out of the people he knows from the prison, the majority are dangerous criminals. On the one hand, yes, Bruce Wayne values all life, but given the circumstances, wouldn't it make more sense to come back after the crisis is averted and make sure everyone is out, but still kept somewhere secure? As it stands, he just let go hundreds of dangerous criminals out, without any means of controlling them or even keeping track of their location. Not to mention that all of this presumably happening within walking distance of a populated area, since obviously Bruce Wayne made it out okay - unless he survived because of his incredible bat-endurance and simply left everyone else to die a slow, painful death in the harsh desert.
What baffles me most is that him dropping the rope happens in all of two seconds. It's not brought up again, nor does it have any significance. You can blink and miss it completely. Knowing that something so blatantly stupid can be so easily fixed makes it all the more frustrating for me. Now don't get me wrong - just because I can plot stitch some of the bigger problems doesn't mean they don't piss me off, but at least I can think of a way that those could have been explained. Those two seconds of Bruce Wayne dropping a rope, however, just mystify me. The complete lack of logical and common sense, both from a plot and character standpoint hurt my brain more than anything else in the entire movie. For me, this is the absolute worst moment in The Dark Knight Rises.
Bruce leaving Blake to be Gotham's defender even though he's had absolutely none of the years of intense training and of physical and mental preparation, the study of the criminal mind, or any of the wealth of resources that Bruce had at his disposal through Wayne Enterprises is a close second.

Guardians of the Galaxy Spoiler-Free Review

So what, there was a pre-credits scene, a post-credits scene, but not a mid-credits scene? 0/10, worst Marvel Studios movie to date. I mean, sure, the movie itself was incredible, but the lack of a 30-second teaser namedropping something that I then have to google to understand and be excited about in the middle of the credits just left a bitter taste in my mouth as I walked out of the cinema. Thankfully, remembering the scene of the talking raccoon firing a gun and laughing maniacally while on the back of a giant humanoid tree quickly cured that.
Before I talk about the movie proper, let's go over just how much it had working against it even before production started. Guardians of the Galaxy is about a roster of characters that were completely unknown to a general audience, two of which are the aforementioned gun-trotting raccoon named Rocket and the humanoid tree called Groot.  Even in the comics, this iteration of the team is fairly new. The movie is also set entirely in outer space, spending almost no time on our little blue planet, which is a first for any Marvel Studios movie. The nearest thing to a comparison is the Thor movies, but even in those, Midgard was present and frequently visited. In terms of universe building, Guardians expands on certain plot points and characters from previous movies, but doesn't have an immediate, strong connection to any of them. There's no Nick Fury to tie everything together neatly, just Thanos' giant smug purple mug. So, what we're left with essentially is a high-concept science-fiction movie about a group of utterly bizarre and unknown characters, most of which are aliens and they're fighting other aliens in outer space. Now, to me personally, that sounds awesome, but it lacks any sort of mainstream appeal whatsoever. So how come it made close to 95 million dollars opening weekend?

They were originally "Team Rocket" but apparently that was taken

Well, the marketing focused on fleshing out the movie's colorful group of screwball characters and outlined Guardians as a fell-good action-adventure movie with a strong emphasis on humor, set against some wonderful 70s tunes - which is good, because that's exactly what Guardians is.
So, how does this feel-good, humorous action adventure start off? At the deathbed of a cancer patient. Yikes. Wasting no time on that heartbreak. You know, it wasn't the awesome trailers, ridiculously awesome concept or the 92% on Rotten Tomatoes that made me realize this movie was going to be amazing - it was that opening scene. Why? Well, it's at that point I understood that this was going to be more than just a ludicrously silly sci-fi movie. It was going to be a ludicrously silly sci-fi movie with a heart. It's a movie where the talking raccoon can have a heavy-handed emotional scene less than a minute after another character has used the phrase "pelvic sorcery" non-ironically and it still manages to tug at your heartstrings. It's a movie that know it's characters are silly people, but they are still people. They have feelings and desires, demons to deal with it and tragedies to overcome. That's the glue that tied the whole movie together for me - being able to take it seriously just made the silly moments even more hilarious.
Every character has his own distinct identity and style of humor and they all complement each other perfectly. The movie smartly focuses on their team dymanic, keeping the plot simple and straightforward. The writing is sharp and exceptionally witty, making the characters endlessly quotable and all the more memorable for it. The actors give it their all and deliver with solid performances, embracing the madness of this world with ease. It's also impossible not to mention how breathtakingly beautiful Guardians is. Every frame oozes digital visual splendor. It's a movie soaked in imagination and saturated in vibrant colors.
The only slightly negative thing I can mention is that some moments stretch even my limits in terms of how how corny it got, but they were very few and far between. If you're a person who has a hard time dealing with silliness, I can't imagine you'll like Guardians. It's a movie that celebrates silliness and flaunts overkill with pride. It aims to overwhelm and it ground its character just enough to keep everything from falling apart and for me, it worked beautifully. It's one of the best Marvel Studios movies so far and one of the most entertaining and gorgeous flicks I have ever seen. I (G)root for the Guardians of the Galaxy 100%.

Also, Karen. Just Karen. 

Untapped: X-Men Origins Wolverine

X-Men: The Last Stand’s reception at release was lukewarm at best. Whether you hated it through and through, like some fans do, or found a way to enjoy it despite its many flaws, like me, I think we can all agree that it is the low point in the trilogy (that rhymed a lot more than I expected). The series needed course correction and at the time, a prequel centered on the franchise’s most popular character seemed like the best way to go. I was really looking forward to X-Men Origins: Wolverineback in the day and I still remember the bitter taste of disappointment from the summer of ’09 (Luckily from me, the Star Trek reboot was right around the corner to lift my spirits sky high). Let’s talk about the movie that could (and should) have been, as we take a closer look at X-Men Origins: Wolverine’s untapped potential.

Strike 1 (5 Minutes in)

Wolverine’s backstory was revealed in the 2001 miniseries Origin: The True Story of Wolverine and given the similarities in the titles, it makes sense that the movie opens in the 19^th century Canada, where the comic took place. What doesn’t make sense is that less than five minutes in, James has already popped his claws, killed Thomas Logan and has run off with Victor. 

It's okay, we're only a couple of minutes late, surely we haven't missed anything important.

The iconic image of James shouting in a mixture of grief, pain and rage with his arms outstretched, claws appearing for the first time, as he stands over the dead body of what he believes is his father (that much was never made absolutely clear) and then killing his father’s killer, only for him to reveal with his dying breath that he might be his actual father, has no impact whatsoever in the movie because these characters were introduced merely second ago. It’s a hollow, rushed and completely watered down version of what is essentially the most significant event in the comic. This is supposed to be to James Howlett what the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne, and Uncle Ben were to Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker, respectively. In the movie, it’s merely a footnote, as well as the only part of theOrigin comic that made it to the big screen. Now, I can understand why they were reluctant to focus that much on the comic storyline. If you followed it too closely, you would have a movie with very little action and very little Hugh Jackman, which might be hard to market to summer blockbuster audiences. Nevertheless, I feel like they could (and should) have handled this much, much better.

Strike 2 (10 Minutes in)

The Wikipedia recap of the comic concludes with Victor catching up to James and telling him that they should stick together, because they’re brothers. It’s clear that Victor also has the same mutant abilities as James, except instead of claws he has, well, actual claws (“really sharp nails” just doesn’t quite have the same ring to it). Their claws, healing factor and keen senses make them natural killing machines (see every Wolverine story ever) so what follows is a montage of the two, now played by Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber, fighting in a series of major historical wars, starting with the American Civil War, then the two World Wars and finally, the Vietnam War. 

Saving Private Ryan with Wolverine? Sign me up!

We see that apparently over time, Victor has grown increasingly violent, to the point where James has to stop him from hurting others. The montage is also the movie’s title and credit sequence and is over in about four minutes. For me, this hurt more than the opening. Adapting the comic poorly, yeah, that sucks, but at least you can still pick up the comic and read that story done well. Blatantly disregarding one of the coolest concepts for a movie ever? That’s inexcusable. I’m not even exaggerating; this should have been the main focus of the movie, the two brothers, fighting side by side in some of the greatest war of the last 150 years, Victor Creed, embracing his animal side and ultimately becoming the villainous Sabretooth and his brother James Howlett, desperately trying to save him from this darker path, while also resisting the urge to succumb to it as well. This is a fantastic premise and especially with talented actors like Jackman and Schreiber in the helm, it could have been a truly great film. Not to mention that the setup is perfect for spectacular action set-pieces across multiple wars. I cannot even begin to imagine what they were thinking, rushing this whole sequence with barely a spoken line of dialogue. It’s not like the conflict between the two brothers is not important. As a matter of fact, it’s integral to the story, so it makes even less sense that they wouldn’t spend more time establishing their relationship. We know that Victor became violent, but we don’t know why. The couple of seconds we’ve seen him grinning while firing a machine gun are not sufficient character motivation. As a result, Liev Schreiber’s talent is wasted here, which is really a shame, because he was a fantastic choice for this role.

Stryke(r) 3 (20 Minutes in)

Less than ten minutes in, the movie has already committed two grievous offences. It still has a shot at redemption, though, when we see William Stryker show up and offer the brothers to join his super secret military squad of mutants. 

One black guy, one Asian and not a woman in sight.  Just when I was starting to get worried we didn't have enough ripped white dudes in comic book movies.

Okay, a 1960-70’s mutant black ops team is a solid premise too. That way you can also expand the mutant character roster, bringing in fan-favorite characters like Deadpool, Gambit, the Blob (he’s popular, right?) and others (although the presence of Will.i.am doesn’t bode well). It’s also still not too late to explore the conflict between James and Victor as well as see how they’ll react to meeting others like them. After Stryker recruits them, the team goes to Nigeria and attacks a heavily defended outpost. We get a roll call of character’s names and abilities, which is a fun, albeit lazy way to introduce them. Then it all comes to a screeching halt in the next scene, in which the team tracks the meteor fragment they were looking for at the outpost to a small village. The villagers are reluctant to give them information, so Stryker orders to have them killed. James stops Victor and the rest, says he didn’t sign up for this and quits the team. This could have been a significant moment if he hadn’t joined the team just 10 minutes ago. That’s the third great setup for a story the movie shrugs off in less than 20 minutes. It’s even worse when you realize what the meteor fragment was. Adamantium. They were setting up the Weapon X storyline.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that the Weapon X storyline was wrapped up in X2: X-Men United. A big part of that movie was Wolverine digging up his past, only to finally come to grips with who he is and start to look forward, rather than backward. When William Stryker taunted him with what he still didn’t know about his past, Wolverine told him he didn’t care. He knew enough about who he was to not want to go back. It was a satisfying resolution that gave both the character and the audience enough information, while also retaining some to still keep that air of mystery. Just like Wolverine himself, we knew enough. We saw the lab at Alkali Lake. We saw enough brief glimpses of his escape and transformation through flashbacks to piece it all together. We saw Wolverine get closure and leave that part of his life behind him. There was nothing more about Weapon X that we needed to know, so why is that the focus of your movie? It’s a premise so thin that it had to rely on not only a forced romance and a cheap third-act twist, but also a number of other minor supporting characters (including a painful cameo by Patrick Stewart as Professor X) to support it – and it still fell flat on its face.

To have not one, not two, but three solid ideas for a feature-length movie butchered in less than 20 minutes, only to dedicate yourself the rest of the film to a story that no one wanted to see is unacceptable. Add to that the complete ruination of Deadpool’s character in the third act (seriously, who thought it was a good idea to remove the mouth of someone, whose nickname is the Merc with the Mouth?) and you have a bona fide train wreck of a movie.

The franchise went on a much needed course correction with First Class (which was originally titled Origins: Magneto but that idea was scrapped and re-purposed after Origins: Wolverine for reasons I just spent an entire post explaining), a solo Wolverine movie that doesn’t suck (nonsensical giant adamantium samurai in the third act notwithstanding) and an absolutely brilliant merging of two casts with Days of Future Past, but still, it’s an incredible shame to see all the untapped potential of X-Men Origins: Wolverine go to waste.

Comparing the Ninja Raps

Next week will be the premiere of the first live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie since the abysmal 1990 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III.

As part of the film's marketing and soundtrack, a single titled Shell Shocked by Juicy J, Whiz Khalifa and Ty Dolla $ign was released a few weeks back, blasting our ears with delightful EDM and unforgettable lyrics such as "all my brothers want some cheddar, we all want a cut like the Shredder". This, however, was not the first time that a rap number was a part of a live action TMNT soundtrack. In 1991, when Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze came out, audiences were treated to a rap song simply entitled Ninja Rap, made by the Iceman himself. 

No, not these guys

So, which is the better ninja rap? Let's start with the title. The title of the new ninja rap is a bad pun about shells, which normally would not be a good indicator, but it's certainly more memorable and creative than Vanilla Ice's exceptionally bland Ninja Rap title, so point goes to the new. Lyrically speaking, both songs aren't really about the Ninja Turtles, but rather about Vanilla Ice and the trio of Juicy J, Whiz Khalifa and Ty Dolla $ign bragging about themselves, with a few TMNT references sprinkled in for good measure. That being said, Shell Shocked does make more of an effort to incorporate those references and make them somewhat clever. For instance, the orange Lamborghini that the three buy is apparently called Michelangelo and has nunchuck doors. Also, the "green" in the rapper's pockets is like turtle power. Well, okay, that's not very good, but the other two verses do a much better job of both relaying the basic concept of the Ninja Turtles, while also blatantly referring to the rappers themselves. The idea of family and the bond of brothers is particularly well conveyed in the second verse (although Khalifa's continuing refusal to rhyme is somewhat distracting) and reinforced in the chorus, and using the Turtles' emergence from the sewers as a metaphor for starting from the bottom and becoming a hero/celebrity is a neat idea that's handled pretty well too. Towards the end of the third verse things start to fall apart, though, with lyrics like "bandana on my face like a gangster" and a couple of lines that imply the turtles share their girlfriends It's sloppy, but overall, there was clearly effort put into these lyrics. There's also clearly effort put into the Iceman's rap, but... well, it's Vanilla Ice. He mentions the ninja turtles, the fact that there is four of them and that villains should run away. The rest is mostly generic bragging about how good of a rapper he is, which is unintentionally hilarious.  At one point he even proudly and completely non-ironically proclaims "Lyrics fill in the gap", a line so brilliant it surely inspired Robin Thicke's mind-boggling "What rhymes with hug me?" decades later. Unlike Shell Shocked, the references are sparse, poorly integrated and clearly not the focus, so again, point goes to the new. It's not that different thematically, but it simply does its thing a lot better. 

When it comes to the beat, though, both songs couldn't be more different. They're both very catchy, but while Ninja Rap has a very corny, dorky beat that matches the Iceman's signature lackluster delivery, Shell Shocked has a dark, hard-hitting beat, heavily influenced by EDM. That sense of aggression is in the title and chorus as well. Even if it is a groan-worthy pun, "Knock knock, you're about to get shell shocked" is still a pretty nasty, mean-spirited threat. That sort of attitude was extremely off-putting to me when I first heard the song and in a way, it still is. When you listen to the song in its entirety, you start to get into it and appreciate the lyrics more, but it starts off very much in your face. It's very thuggish, which granted, seems to match the design of the new Turtles, but it doesn't mesh with my idea of them. The Iceman's ninja rap is goofy and upbeat and it lures you instantly with its non-threatening silliness - and that's what I think when I hear Ninja Turtles: silly. Regardless of which version of the characters you go with, there's always going to be something inherently silly about four mutated turtles who are trained in martial arts by a giant mutated rat. Unintentionally or not, Ninja Rap celebrates and embraces that silliness in its music, conveying a sense of joy a goofiness that's sorely lacking from the new rap. On the other hand, Ninja Rap lacks any of the menace or the strong brotherly bond of Shell Shocked, which are also important aspects of the Turtles as characters. Maybe somewhere down the line we'll have some ultimate Ninja Turtles rap. One that combines the best of Ninja Rap with the best of Shell Shocked, acknowledging and embracing the silliness and goofy antics of the characters, while also showing that they can be tough and menacing. 

As it stands, even though in all aspects Shell Shocked is superior to Ninja Rap, what with its tighter lyrics and better understanding of the characters, or at least certain aspects of them, I still prefer the Iceman's version. It's my Ninja Turtle jam of choice, simply because I find it more fun and enjoyable to listen to. I get the same kind of "so bad, it's good" vibe from it that I get from Ice, Ice, Baby. 

Regardless of which version of ninja rapping floats your boat, I think we call agree that it is absolutely inexcusable that neither one mentions pizzas. Seriously, what's up with that?

P.S. Ninja Rap is also not the first rap song about the Turtles, as Partners in Kryme made Turtle Power for the original live-action movie's soundtrack. However, Ninja Rap is the one most people remember, most likely because Vannila Ice appears in the movie and sings it, essentially integrating a music video into the film. When people say "the ninja turtles rap" they usually mean Ninja Rap, which is why I chose to compare it to Shell Shocked. 

My Problem With Bioshock's Morality System

Expect to hear "Bioshock" whenever someone brings up morality in video games and for good reason. The dystopian world of Bioshock is built on tough, provocative ideas that are both political and philosophical in nature. The unique and incredibly immersive setting of the underwater city of Rapture served as the backdrop to a story that asked fundamental questions about what it meant to be human, questions that its haunting, chilling atmosphere made sure you won't soon forget. It was one question in particular that was the core of the morality struggle in Bioshock. One that is simultaneously remarkably simple and infinitely complex - as well as deeply flawed.

What little is left of Rapture centers around these adorable, yet frightening little girls, known as Little Sisters. Their primary job is to harvest ADAM - a remarkable scientific breakthrough, extracted from a unique specie of sea slugs, that allowed people to alter its DNA in just about every way they saw fit, the most popular choice being in order to receive superpowers, known as plasmids, such as telekinesis, pyrokinesis, launching-a-swarm-of-killer-hornets-out-of-my-arm-esis etc. The downside is that excessive use of ADAM and plasmids can have horrible consequences to the body and mind, turning most of the citizens of Rapture into disfigured, psychotic junkies known as splicers. Through some generic tampering, the Little Sisters themselves have been fused with the aforementioned sea slugs, which means that their bodies also produce ADAM, thus making them the primary target of just about every single splicer in Rapture. To get to them though, one must first deal with her protector, the ferocious metal giant known as the Big Daddy, who doesn't take kindly to anyone trying to take his Little Sister away. Once he is defeated, which is no easy feat, the player is presented with the fateful choice that defines the morality system of Bioshock - will he harvest or rescue the Little Sister? Harvesting her involves extracting the slug from her body, thus receiving the maximum amount of ADAM, but also killing the girl in the process. Rescuing her, meanwhile, turns her back into a regular girl, but yields a much smaller amount of ADAM in return. Which is it going to be? Will you selfishly take as much ADAM as you can to improve your own chances of survival, or will you do everything in your power to help these girls, even though that would make your own struggle all the more difficult?
It's a brilliant moral conundrum that works especially well within the context of the game. In a game, a choice like this directly affects your experience as player. There are consequences to your decision that extend beyond the story. Would you be as eager to save the Little Sisters if you know it will make it harder for you to finish the game? Simple and straight to the point.
The first time you are presented with this choice remains one of the most memorable sequences in video game history. It's a tense, emotionally charged moment, as you slowly approach a helpless Little Sister and she backs against a wall, clearly frightened and not knowing what to expect from you. Naturally, I rescued her and all the other Little Sisters I encountered. As I mentioned in previous posts, I tend to stick to the high ground in video games. This is partially because I know that almost all games with a morality system accept the "good" ending as canon to the story, while the "bad" or "dark" ending is usually presented as a "What if?" scenario that doesn't come back in later sequels (the most notable and fun exception was The Ultimate Sith Edition of The Force Unleashed, where you got to kill Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi in an alternative storyline - man, was that satisfying in a remarkably twisted way). Mainly I stick with the "good" choice, because I do strive to be a good person, so I guess I consider being that person in games as decent practice. Anyway, as I was saying, I rescued the Little Sister and planned to save all the rest, accepting the fact it would make the game much more challenging, forcing to strategically choose from a limited amount of plasmids I could acquire - or so I thought.
In the very next level, once I saved a few more Little Sisters, I received a notification that, out of gratitude, they've left me a present. What was in that present?

You get to keep the teddy too, I imagine

 A bunch of ADAM and even some weapons and plasmids. Well then. Way to make the complex morality struggle entirely pointless. Rewarding the player with ADAM and plasmids for being kind to the Little Sisters happens throughout the entire game and it makes sense, but it also completely negates any semblance of a moral dilemma. If saving the Little Sisters gets you just about as much ADAM as harvesting them, as well as leads to the canon ending to the story, the player suddenly has no reason to even consider harvesting Little Sisters, unless he simply wants to be a jerk. The core morality struggle of the game is now a no-brainer.
This is something that bugs me to this day about Bioshock. Sure, the first time you made that choice it was handled beautifully, but that's about it. Wouldn't it have been truly amazing to have to face the same choice over and over throughout the course of the game, constantly wondering if you have enough ADAM to get by, or if you need to harvest the next Little Sister simply to survive? I think it would have. Sadly, it's not what they went with and to this day, it's the only thing I actively dislike about an otherwise spectacular game.

Why the Sinister Six Movie is Probably Going To Be a Mistake

The summer of 2014 saw two different franchises attempt to replicate the successful formula of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ironically, both franchises were about Marvel characters - Spider-Man and the X-Men. Days of Future Past promised to unite the cast of the original X-Men trilogy with the cast of First Class, which pretty much meant every single X-man and woman featured on the big screen, plus a few new characters would be present in some capacity in a story that also involved time-travel and an apocalyptic future. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 promised us Electro, the Green Goblin and the Rhino, while also teasing the death of Gwen Stacy and the truth about Spider-Man's origin. Very big, very complex, very ambitious movies.

When I say both franchises were trying to replicate the Marvel Studios formula, I mean that they were both clearly setting up sequels and spin-offs, while also trying to tell their own stories. X-Men: Apocalypse, another Wolverine and a Gambit movie, as well as The Amazing Spider-Man 3, 4, a Sinister Six and a Venom movie were announced way before Days of Future Past or TASM2 even made it to theaters. If you look at the original trilogies of both franchises, you'll notice that while they did leave possibilities open for a sequel, they were clearly intended to be standalone movies. After The Avengers, that's no longer the case. Nowadays, everyone wants a piece of the "shared comic book universe multi-picture" pie - which in itself is not a bad thing, if it's done well. Days of Future Past was amazing, managing to intricately, yet very fluently weave the stories of all the X-Men together in a way that made sense, but wasn't too complex, giving the characters enough breathing room to have fully realized arcs. It's a movie that understood that you couldn't really fit all of the X-Men into one story and give each of them the same level of attention, so it instead focused on a handful of characters, while still giving the rest a noteworthy place in the grand scheme of things. It was simply brilliant and exceptionally well done. 

As for TASM 2, well.. whether you liked it or not, you have to admit it was all over the place, juggling various different sub-plots and villains, switching from heavy drama to goofy antics within the space of a cut, barely leaving its characters enough room to breathe. I found this particularly distracting, because it was very clear that the movie was more interested in setting up future sequels and spin-offs than its own story. Villain motivations felt especially rushed, probably because of the planned Sinister Six movie. As the title would imply, you need six villains for that, so you'd better crank out as many as you can as fast as you can, I guess. Or should you? Marvel Studios made sure that most of the characters from their Avenger roster had their own solo movie in order to introduce their backstory, character motivation and personalities. The only notable exceptions were Black Widow and Hawkeye, but Black Widow was a supporting character in Iron Man 2, Hawkeye made a cameo in Thor and both characters actually had their own subplot in The Avengers that fleshed them out more as characters. Bottom line, they were all at least introduced to audiences before The Avengers came out. Meanwhile, Sony plans to release the Sinister Six movie as soon as 2016, even though in the rebooted Spider-Man movies, only four villains have been introduced so far (and one of them kind of blew up, although that doesn't necessarily mean he can't come back). In the original comic in which they were introduced, the Sinister Six was made up of villains who had faced Spider-Man at least once prior. Audiences knew who they were, which is why the idea of them uniting was such an interesting concept, which is something a 2016 Sinister Six movie can't offer.

The possible Sinister Six movie line-up. Only the first four from left to right have been introduced in the previous movies

As it  stands, the Sinister Six movie has to introduce at least two more villains, probably three, (or even four, it's not entirely clear at this point) give them backstories and motivations, all while also creating the team and having the team fight Spider-Man. The only way this could work is if they sidelined the new villains to a certain extent, but since the teasers have made it abundantly clear that one of the new villains will be Doctor Octopus, one of the greatest Spider-Man foes ever and the original founder of the Sinister Six, I don't see that working out particularly well. I was worried about the Sinister Six movie even when I thought it would come out after TASM 3, but now I quite frankly think it's a mistake to go through with it. It's a dangerous gamble and one I am not at all convinced they can pull off, particularly after seeing how much of a mess TASM 2 was. The smarter move would be to hold off production on the Sinister Six, make TASM 3, introduce the new villains or flesh out the ones that were already introduced and then go for it. I think the best way to go would be to make it entirely from the perspective of the villains, sidelining Spider-Man himself and keeping him as a supporting character - which is another reason why I believe they should wait, as I think Spidey needs some time to deal with Gwen's death. We need to see him go through that emotional journey. The sequence at the end of TASM 2 was great, but entirely too short for such a significant moment in Spider-Man history. 

In my opinion, Sony seriously needs to slow down and focus more on the storytelling aspect, rather than the franchise making one. Any of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, even the bad ones, could stand on their own. Days of Future Past understood the importance of that. TASM 2 didn't. 

Why I Love Clementine from The Walking Dead

Clementine from The Walking Dead by Telltale is one of my favorite characters of all time. I came to this realization as I was playing the penultimate fourth episode of The Walking Dead Season Two, specifically when I was given a choice between stealing medicine from a defenseless man or giving it back and sending him on his way. At this point in the game's story, medicine would have been a godsend, as one of the members of our group, Rebecca, was pregnant and would soon give birth while many others were injured or in pain. The stranger carried a bag bursting at the seams with various kinds of painkillers and other goodies that would immensely help us. He was babbling unconvincingly about a sick sister that really needed it, and was in no position to do anything if we wanted to take the bag by force. The obvious decision was to simply take it. I didn't. Why?

Well, this situation took me back to a similar choice in the original game, where the protagonist Lee and his group discovered an abandoned car, packed with supplies, of which food was the most important, seeing as how the group was starving. The car was still running though, so there was a good chance that these supplies belonged to someone nearby. Stealing or not, the group really needed those supplies. As Lee, you can choose whether or not to join them in their looting of the car, but perhaps more importantly, you choose for Clementine as well. If you refuse, so will Clementine - and refuse I did. I almost never leave the high ground whenever I'm playing any game with a morality system. My characters are typically paragons of virtue and restraint - they never steal or bribe, threaten or intimidate, pray on the weak or kill the defenseless. So when I made the choice not to steal from that car, I made it because I always make that choice when faced with it. I'm kind of boring and predictable in that sense. 

Here's the thing, though. When I made the choice to return the bag of medicine to its owner, not taking any of it for myself or the group, I did for an entirely different reason. I did it because I felt it's what Clementine would have done. 

Anyone who's played The Walking Dead by Telltale is familiar with the "[insert character name] will remember that." It's a tooltip that pops up whenever you do or say something significant in the course of the story and it's meant to indicate that this choice of words or actions will somehow affect something down the line. Throughout most of the the first game, or first season, I was told many times that "Clementine will remember that." and out of all the characters, it seemed to matter the least with her. Other characters lived or died because of your choices, grew to love or hate you because of your actions, but Clementine stayed an adorable, innocent little girl throughout all five episodes, regardless of how you treated her - or so it seemed.

In The Walking Dead Season Two, you play as Clementine directly and it didn't take me long to realize that with her as the protagonist, I approached each decision in a very different way. Every thing I said or did as Clementine was directly influenced by my perception of her as a character. I know what she's been through in the first game, I know what she remembers and now I get to decide what's she learned. Choices were no longer "right" and "wrong". They were much more than that. It's the first time I ever felt I was a part of a truly interactive character study. I didn't take from the bag of medicine, not because it was the right thing to do, but because Lee had taught Clementine not to steal, no matter what the circumstances. A seemingly small, yet infinitely large distinction.

Earlier one of the members of the group was attacked and bitten by a walker. A bite is a death sentence waiting to happen and I, as Clementine, had to decide right then and there - do I cut off the arm that was bitten, or do I strike the walker that did it, allowing the victim to escape? As someone who watches the show and reads the comics, I know that removing a bitten limb, if done immediately after the bite, works. It prevents the person from turning into a walker. But Clementine doesn't know that. In fact, in her bitter experience (at least in my playthrough of the first season) removing someone's limb after a bite does nothing at all. I knew that cutting off that arm was the right thing to do, but I also knew it would be out of character for Clementine to do it - and that's why I love Clementine so much. It's the only character in a video game that I can think of that's both under my control and fully independent in her own right. I can't wait to see what's in store for her next in the final chapter of The Walking Dead Season Two.