Joshua the Anarchist

And Not a Single Fuck was Given that Day

2012-01-17T14:35:00.002-05:00

Hat-tip: Cinema Blend

So, apparently J.J. Abrams has finally elected to get off his ass and make the damn Star Trek sequel. Hear that, JJ? That's the sound of no one caring. It never ceases to amuse me how, despite the ludicrously high praise the first film received and the disturbing number of fans defending it as "just what was needed to bring the franchise back", the hype for a follow-up to this now 3-year old film has been virtually nonexistent. "Mild curiosity" seems a overly generous way to describe the fans reactions every time a casting rumor or story clue is released. Sorry defenders but this movie most certainly did not "bring the franchise back". Your argument is invalid.

In fact, the emotion I'm most sensing from the fans with regard to this film is fear; fear that they'll be stupid enough the make Khan Noonien Singh the villain. Fortunately that seems not to be the case at the point, meaning the internet community can return to their default state of complete apathy on the subject. Honestly, the only thing that has me the slightest bit interested it finding out who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing. The common belief is that he's playing a villain, but he hardly seems the Khan type, nor does he seem a likely choice to play a Klingon baddie. I could easily see him as a Romulan commander (an actual Romulan, not those tattooed thugs from the last one that might as well have been Klingons), but they already did the Romulans. It'd be amusing to see him play Q, or Trelane if they wanna stick with TOS characters, but that seems unlikely. The old "crew jerked around by a playful, omnipotent asshole" is not a very cinematic plot. Though if they are insisting on sticking to TOS characters, the question must be asked: Why? They've already said "fuck off" to the continuity, there's no reason the Borg can't show up a century early now.

Crossover with Diamanda Hagan

2012-01-09T17:29:00.001-05:00

I did a crossover video with Diamanda Hagan! We reviewed the dark Horse comics adaption "Virus".

Anarchy at the Movies: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2011-12-23T17:27:00.001-05:00

Beware the wrath of Lisbeth Salander.

Anarchy at the Movies: Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows review

2011-12-19T00:34:00.000-05:00

A disappointing followup to a promising beginning.

80's Hair Metal: The Musical

2011-12-13T22:35:00.003-05:00

I should not be looking forward to this. It's a jukebox musical (which are rarely any good), its lead actors are from primarily a singing background, and it's directed by Adam Shankman. And yet...

Damn my weakness to musicals and 80's rock!! Please tell me that someone breaks into Aerosmith's "Dude (Looks Like a Lady)" right after that lame joke 30 seconds in.

Plot looks pretty standard, bohemian rock 'n roll lovers versus straw man religious fundamentalists. Tom Cruise will probably end up being the highlight performance as the aloof, washed-up, eternally wasted rock star. You can tell they have little faith in their two lead actors (both relative unknowns and singers by profession), given how many big names they've filled the supporting cast with. Hell, they're barely even featured in this trailer.

So, people who've seen the play: Is it any good? Is this just another Mama Mia with the story awkwardly built around the songs? What're we looking at here?

Movie Review: Rango

2011-12-10T15:11:00.003-05:00

Rango is one of those films that wear's its influences on its sleeve. It's equal parts Sergio Leone and Hunter S. Thompson, a point driven home by two separate cameos featuring the Man with No Name & Raoul Duke. But oddly enough, the thing that sprung to my mind when pondering this film was the Cutie Mark Crusaders from My Little Pony (yes, my curiosity about the "Brony" movement got the better of me), in as much as both are based around the idea of building a character as a complete blank slate in search of an identity.

Rango tells the story of a domesticated chameleon with aspirations towards being an actor who finds himself suddenly stranded in the Nevada desert. He is a coward who is completely unprepared for the harsh wilderness, so when he arrives at a small frontier town of desert wildlife, he immediately fabricates a more rough 'n tumble identity for himself, fooling the locals into believing he is a ruthless gunslinger by the distinctly Spagetti western-ish name of "Rango". However he soon learns the the town is imperiled by a outlaw rattlesnake, bandit rats, & a corrupt mayor, and you can guess where it goes from there.

Now admittedly the set-up doesn't sound like anything special, just your basic "becoming the mask" story of someone impersonating a heroic figure, being found out, and improbably bouncing back to achieve genuine heroism in the final act. It's a path well trodden even by other animated films such as A Bug's Life & Chicken Run. But where Rango sets itself apart is in the execution, being a far smarter film that expects far more of its audience than similar films.

Rango's actual name is never revealed, a move that serves two functions. It reinforces the Italo-Western setting by making the protagonist a traditionally nameless wanderer, but more importantly, it serves to illustrate Rango's defining character trait. Rango does not simply lack a name or a history. He lacks any sense of identity whatsoever. As both a chameleon & an self-professed actor he's spent his entire life mimicking others, trying on various persona's for size but never finding one truly his own. And having been isolated in a lizard tank for presumably his entire life, with no one to interact with or "act" for but the inanimate objects he affectionately assigns names to, he's never had a need to discover his own identity.

Now, having been thrust into an unforgiving world he is completely ill equipped to handle, Rango faces the realization of how utterly incomplete he is. He has no idea who he is because he's lived his entire life in a bubble, unable to interact with anything or anyone. Unlike other movies where the third act is all about the hero earning the forgiveness of everyone for his deception in time to save the day, here it's about Rango's self-actualization. He doesn't become the person he was pretending to be. He discovers he always was the person he was pretending to be.

And the film delivers on this notion with incredible maturity & subtlety for something marketed as a children's/family film. No one ever gives a cheesy speech about being "true to yourself", Mufasa doesn't appear in the clouds & say "remember who you are". The closest it comes to outright spelling things out is a (possibly hallucinatory) conversation with "the Spirit of the West" (played by Timothy Olyphant doing a scary good Clint Eastwood impression). Instead it uses a mix of symbolism, surreal dream sequences, and just plain good writing to tell the story of a drifter looking for his place in the world.

Outside of the comedic scenes, the film feels less like an animated family movie than it does an actual Spaghetti Western that happens to be performed by cartoon animals. The music, look, and atmosphere are very authentic to the genre of Western they're referencing and played mostly straight. The villainous Rattlesnake Jake (who is officially one of my favorite kid's film villains ever) might as well be Lee Van Cleef from The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, and the co-conspiring Mayor evokes nothing so much as the corrupt railway tycoon from Once Upon a Time in the West. It's not a spoof or a parody, it's a loving tribute to the genre in the form of a near pitch perfect recreation. I can only hope that it might serve as a gateway drug to some of the kid's that see this to get into Spaghetti Westerns when they grow up.

"The Lorax" trailer

2011-12-09T22:33:00.001-05:00

An adaption of a Dr. Seuss book with needless story padding & generic kid's movie slapstick? Fourth verse, same as the first.

The thing that continuously disappoints me about the Dr. Seuss movies is that they all have seemingly no interest in actually capturing the tone of a Dr. Seuss book. They just take the basic plot and the aesthetics and drape it over a formula slapstick kids movie. There's no real sense of the surreal or childlike wonder. When I was a little kid my mom used to read me stuff like The Butter Battle Book & The 500 hats of Batholomew Cubbins, and they always felt to me like bizarre fairytales & fables that existed in a world all their own, not some wacky sugar rush. These movies feel more like the cereal commercials I watched in the 90's rather than the bedtime stories that soothed me to sleep.

Once again they seem to be really stretching out & filling in relatively small parts of the book to pad out the running time, in this case giving a name & a backstory to the previously nameless boy to whom the Once-ler narrates his encounters with the titular Lorax too. This strikes me as particularly unnecessary. Unlike The Cat & the Hat, The Lorax was one of the longer of Dr. Seuss's books, it seems to me there's plenty there to work with. Even more baffling, they seem to have reworked things so that he is in fact the star of the film, with the Once-ler & the Lorax as merely side characters whose story inspires him to "speak for the trees!" For the trees have no tongues, you see.

Yes, I do apologize for that joke.

Also, WHY CAN WE SEE THE ONCE-LER's FACE??!! I know that seems like a nitpick, but The once defining visual aspect of the Once-ler was that all you ever saw of him with a pair of long green gloves. These movies have at least been good at replicating Seuss's artwork up until now.

Anarchy at the Movies: Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1

2011-11-19T20:50:00.001-05:00

Probably the funniest movie of the year...if only it was trying to be.

Won't Get Fooled Again

2011-11-18T22:23:00.003-05:00

Oh no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I've been on this ride already and I refuse to get my heart broken again. You won't get me hyped up this time, Sly. As far as I'm concerned this is garbage until proven gold.

Anarchy at the Movies: Immortals

2011-11-12T19:09:00.000-05:00

So...is it anything like 300?

Anarchy at the Movies: In Time

2011-10-31T05:55:00.001-04:00

Josh reviews the latest release from one of his favorite directors.

The Lunatic Fringe: The Usual Suspects (The Extended Cut)

2011-10-26T00:58:00.002-04:00

When the last episode of The Lunatic Fringe was released, it was missing a introduction featuring skits, cameos, and an explanation of the show's new format that had to be cut to get the episode out by the deadline. This is that episode as it was originally intended to be seen.

The Escapist published one of my articles!

2011-10-06T19:31:00.006-04:00

The article's called "Wonder Woman's Vanishing Boyfriend". It's basically about gender issues in comics.

Click here to read it.

J. Edgar trailer

2011-10-01T18:55:00.000-04:00

Hat-tip: Graham Finch

Wow, somebody actually requested I talk about this. I honestly didn't think anybody was reading these things. Well, here we go...

The reaction most people seem to be having to this seems to be "blatant Oscar bait, BUT...Clint Eastwood". And I find it hard to disagree. A film covering the life from childhood to death of a powerful, idealistic man drawn slowly into corruption, played by a talented, versatile young actor (ok, Leonardo DeCaprio isn't really young anymore, but with that boyish face of his, it's hard to tell), artificially aged with heavy makeup, it's hard not to think "this is trying really hard to be Citizen Kane". But of course, it's completely different: here they made an actual biopic rather than fictionalizing a real life person.

I kid, of course. This is Clint Eastwood after all, so it will almost certainly be good, even if it's not terribly groundbreaking from the looks of it. The old "idealist rises to power yet falls into corruption" story is one of the most popular topics for dramas, especially Oscar contenders, and frankly I think we've made too many of them already. I tend to think the Academy, and high-minded film scholars in general, perhaps place too little value on optimistic themes in storytelling. We've made a lot of Citizen Kane's, but not a lot of Mr. Smith goes to Washington's. Life is grim enough already, we don't need movies to constantly remind us of it. We could use more films with that kind've hopeful, pick-me-up spirit we used to get from Frank Capra oh so long ago.

As an aside, I find it amusing they had to name this after the title character's given name. I imagine they didn't want anyone thinking this film was about vacuum cleaners.

Anarchy at the Movies: Drive

2011-09-20T08:37:00.001-04:00

Josh takes a look as Ryan Gosling's action debut.

Movie Review: Rubber

2011-09-07T11:18:00.000-04:00

Rubber is quite possibly the finest example I've seen of a film that eschews expectations merely for the sake of eschewing them...and why that doesn't usually work.

Directed by French musician Quentin Dupieux, better known by his stage name Mr. Oizo, Rubber is a horror/comedy in the *cough* fine tradition of Leprechaun, Jack Frost, and other tongue-&-cheek horror flicks from the 90's. Like those films, its main gag comes from replacing the usual monster or serial killer with something utterly nonthreatening. Normally these movies feature either monstrous versions of normally friendly mythical figures (leprechauns, Santa Claus, etc) or anthropomorphic inanimate objects made animate (toys, snowmen, etc). Rubber takes this a step further by going the inanimate object route but rejecting the anthropomorphic aspect. Tragically, the films central menace is in fact not a living, homicidal condom as one might snidely discern from the title. No, here our killer is a tire. A tire that kills you with its mind. It's Scanners meets The Brave Little Toaster.

Now with a premise that revolves around a sentient tire blowing up people's heads with telepathic powers, one would expect a uninhibited, utterly insane, anything-goes film. Surprisingly, this is not the case. Dupieux instead goes for a very subdued, dark comedy, something like what might happen if you asked Wes Anderson to make a horror film.

As with most horror spoofs, Rubber makes every effort to be self-aware. Fortunately it does not take the lazy Scream approach of playing everything straight & inserting a Greek chorus character to occasionally wink at the audience. On the contrary, the film's level of self-awareness breaks the fourth wall up to and including making the audience actual participatory characters. The film literally begins with an actual audience being bused out to the desert to watch the events unfold through binoculars, as if the "movie" was an on-location real-time play. Said audience provides commentary throughout the film and even eventually interacts with the actual actors. In fact, it is arguably this unique approach to the fourth wall, rather than the killer tire, that is the most notable aspect of the film.

You're probably wondering how exactly they explain the presence of a living tire. Well, Dupieux makes sure to nip that petty request for reasoning in the bud the moment the film starts. The movie's basic philosophy and universal answer to any & all inquiries is simply "no reason". The opening of the film features a monologue by veteran stage actor Stephen Spinella (easily the highlight of the cast), listing plot points and aesthetic choices in famous films that have no obvious reasoning behind them, and then declaring Rubber to be a "tribute to the 'no reason'".

So clearly Dupieux has no intention of explaining any of the bizarre occurrences transpiring within his story, and as such asks his audience to accept the film on its own terms. The problem is that asking your audience to accept that the point of your story is that it has no point is a serious gamble, because if you fail to entertain, the film is a complete waste of time for everyone involved. Even if your goal is simply to have fun, no film is truly aimless, so if Dupieux wanted to simply make people laugh, his success is debatable. This style of comedy has never appealed to me, so I cannot accurately gauge whether others will find it funny, but for me, the premise was far funnier than the delivery. To the film's credit, it does not rely entirely on the visual absurdity of a killer tire for its comedy, and it is certainly a unique experience as well as a fascinating experiment with fourth wall breaking, but ultimately it seems to mistake oddity for humor.

The tagline for the movie asks if we are "tired of the expected". Indeed I am, Mr. Dupieux. I am not, however, tired of reason.

Anarchy at the Movies: Fright Night

2011-08-26T04:34:00.001-04:00

The first good horror remake in...um, has there been one?

"Ghost Rider 2" trailer

2011-08-19T14:08:00.002-04:00

You cannot tell me you don't wanna see a movie about Nicolas Cage PISSING FIRE.

I gotta admit I was excited when I heard that the duo of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor were directing this thing. The first Ghost Rider film was a mixed bag, it coupled a great lead (as well as some brief but great turns by Sam Elliot and Peter Fonda) with terrible villains and mediocre direction. So basically this new one is keeping what worked and ditching what didn't, which is exactly how one should approach a sequel.

The thing about Ghost Rider is that even the first one was probably way better than the character deserved. Ghost Rider's really had nothing more than a massively badass look to go on since day one, because his actual character was an after thought. They just had this cool design and needed something to do with it (if memory serves he was originally going to be a Daredevil villain). So when there's really nothing more to your movie's hero beyond having a flaming skull for a head, the kind of go-for-broke insanity that Neveldine & Taylor bring to their work is probably the best way to go.

It is kind of disappointing that Peter Fonda isn't returning as the Devil, but on the plus side Christopher Lambert is apparently playing a sword-wielding monk. Holy Christ, if he plays this role with the sly sense of humor he did Raiden, this will be priceless.

Movie Review: Super

2011-08-13T04:49:00.001-04:00

There's a new genre of film emerging, so new it doesn't even have a name yet. "Realistic Superhero Movies", "Hipster Superhero Movies", "Indie Superhero Movies", whatever name we eventually settle on, this genre has already established its own formulas and clichés, despite there being only four entries so far, give or take a few. Super is the latest of these entries, and while it is one of better ones, it also does absolutely nothing new.

Most of these films have been indie flicks that never found widespread mainstream release, so for those not in the know, the four films falling under this genre so far are, from best to worst: Special, Defendor, Super, and Kick-Ass. Yes, the most well known of the four is also the least worthy of your time; good, but hardly representative of the best the genre has to offer.

Films of this genre tend to play out like Taxi Driver if instead of getting a Mohawk, Travis Bickle wore spandex. Super is no exception. Rainn Wilson takes the Bickle role, a socially awkward, mentally-disturbed individual who seeks to solve the injustices he perceives in the world through violence, with mixed results. Jodie Foster's character from Taxi Driver has her character traits divided between two characters here: Liv Tyler is Wilson's tarnished damsel in distress, his estranged drug addict wife who is under the sway of the local drug lord; and Ellen Page is the jail bait sidekick (of legal age, in this case, but the age gap between the two is still significant), a young comic book vendor who joins Wilson in his crusade.

Of all the films of its kind, Super comes to closest to dethroning Kick-Ass in the category of gratuitous violence. Wilson's alter ego dishes out brutal, sloppily-executed damage upon a host of characters, whether deserving or otherwise. Heads are blown apart by bullets, people are stabbed to death, genitalia is mangled with blades, the film pulls no punches. However, the tone & portrayal of said violence is inconsistent. Certain scenes are handled in such as way as to make the audience feel uncomfortable, such as a scene where Wilson attacks a man with a pipe wrench, presumably killing him or causing a serious head injury, for the crime of cutting in line. At one point Ellen Page's character leads Wilson to nearly beat to death a young man she suspects may have keyed her friend's car. These scenes seem to be set up to rebuke the societal glorification of violence, but are outweighed by the majority of the scenes which revile in that very glorification. Director James Gunn's goal may have been to draw his audience in with the fun, gleefully gory action scenes only to pull a bait 'n switch and chide them for enjoying it, much like Michael Haneke's Funny Games. Unfortunately, all it succeeds in doing is make the film feel at odds with itself.

To the film's credit, it brings one new element to the table by incorporating religion in Wilson's motivation. Among the influences that lead Wilson to don his costume is a fictitious Christian children's show called The Holy Avenger, featuring a hilarious turn by Nathan Fillion. The show is a rather obvious parody of the real life Bibleman series, and as someone who was unfortunate enough to watch that show as a kid (I still have the VHS tapes), I can confirm that yeah, that's pretty much exactly what it was like (with the exception of the abstinence episode. Trust me, in Christian children's programming, sex does not exist). Anyway, as a result of a dream brought on by the show, Wilson comes under the delusion that he has been ordained by God to wage war on crime as a superhero. The problem with that is that it ultimately adds nothing to the film beyond another layer of disturbing psychosis to the protagonist. The film doesn't seem to be making any statement about religion driving people to violence anymore than Kick-Ass was saying that comic books drive kids to violence. In today's social climate, casting a violent religious fanatic as your main character is something that must be handled with severe caution, and to add it in with no apparent point to it seems very ill-advised.

Even beyond the violence, the film goes out of its way to disturb its audience, again with no apparent goal in mind. From a macabre hentai-inspired dream sequence to the first female-on-male rape scene I've seen since The Rookie, moments of extreme emotional discomfort are littered throughout the story with little connection between them. Ellen Page's role itself is rather inexplicable, as unlike Wilson, she has no apparent motivation for her actions. Wilson has a long history of hardship and abuse, a lonely depressed man with no friends for whom losing his wife to a drug dealer is the final straw that breaks his mind, leading him down his irrational path. Page, on the other hand, has plenty of friends, including a loving boyfriend, plus a stable job, nice apartment, etc. She has no major hardships are suffers no major injustice that the audience is informed of, and yet she behaves far more psychotically than Wilson's character ever does, reveling in violence and killing without provocation or regret.

Finally, Super makes the final act mistake that almost every film like it has made. It set out to ground itself firmly in the real world, with the fights being awkward and messy, Wilson having difficulty finding crime to fight rather than there being a mugging every few blocks, all the standard tactics of a "realistic" superhero film. The problem is that these films can never figure out how to make the last act feel climatic without bending or outright breaking their own rules. While Wilson's final assault on his enemy's mansion doesn't quite break the laws of physics, Murphy's law does take a few minutes off. He gets all the lucky shots in, all the guards happen to look away at the exact right time, and none of the wounds he receives along the way manage to be fatal, or enough to put him out of action. Honestly, I'm waiting for one of these films to have the courage to just have to good guys loose. Stick to your premise and end with the exact bloody mess of failure that would really result from a bunch of crazy people trying to fight crime in brightly colored outfits.

Super is a film filled with many interesting, but ultimately unfulfilled ideas. It aspires to by many things: a statement on violence, religion, the superhero ideal, but succeeds in none of them. It's definitely James Gunn's most ambitious film to date, his previous two, Tromeo & Juliet & Slither, being largely superficial gore fests, but ultimately it proves to be an overreach. It's not a horrible film as it does succeed at its core premise, that of a dark comedy about a depressed loner vainly struggling to control his miserable life by becoming a makeshift superhero. The performances are excellent: Wilson manages to ellicit genuine sympathy as an incredibly lonely man desperately searching for some kind of happiness, Kevin Bacon is an often times funny but still hatable villain, and no amount of bad writing in the world can keep me from enjoying the spectacle of Ellen Page in a spandex superheroine outfit, especially with her swearing up a storm and killing people with Wolverine claws. It's worth a watch, but tries to be more than it's capable of being, and frequently stumbles as a result.

The End of the Secret Six

2011-08-03T20:37:00.007-04:00

"Good don't last. But messed up, that goes on forever."
-Deadshot, Secret Six #36

Today, the final issue of one of the greatest comic book series of the last five years at least was released. If you haven't been following Secret Six (like you SHOULD be!) it's appeal can be a little hard to describe. Gail Simone's writing style while working on this book tends to be equal parts Joss Whedon & Quentin Tarantino: All of Whedon's clever witicisms and endearing character development combined with Tarantino's sudden, brutal violence and dark sense of humor.

Books like Suicide Squad, Thunderbolts, and Secret Six have in recent years really tapped into the limitless possibilities that come up when the stars of your story are the bad guys. When you read Justice League, Avengers, X-men, etc. you can trust the characters to follow a fairly predictable pattern of behavior. They're not gonna hurt innocent people, and even if they do it'll be an accident and they'll feel really bad about it. They're not gonna sell each other out for personal gain, or try to kill each other over minor conflicts. They have a strict code of superhero etiquette and they're sticking too it. Even in the darker books with brooding "anti-heroes" and such the characters are still essentially good people. Supervillains don't have that problem. You never know what they're gonna do. In any given situation, they're equally as likely to stab their friends in the back as they are to do the "right thing", if not more so.

Of course, such a tactic is a double edged sword, as it's pretty hard to get your audience to care about a bunch of self-serving murderous bastards (This is what you should not do, now let that be a lesson to you). And that's where Secret Six always shined. The protagonists were villains through and through, but they were also people with layers to them. It helped that we weren't dealing with major villains like Lex Luthor or Darkseid, arch-criminals on the top of the heap. These guys were C-listers at best, losers even among the super-villain community. They had friggin' Catman for God's sake. This added an underdog element to the story that went a long way toward getting the audience on their side. It's a lot easier to root for criminals when they're just trying to survive in the world and not plotting genocide or world domination.

But don't underestimate them. These guys could kick serious ass. Gail Simone took Catman, a goofy Z-list Batman villain, and revamped him into DC's answer to Wolverine. And don't forget Bane, also known as "The Man Who Broke the Bat". Scandal Savage may have a undeniably silly name, but she's also a ninja who's dad was Vandal Savage (one of my all-time favorite villains by the by), so I'd keep that to yourself. Deadshot is the world's greatest marksman and another one of my old favorites. Jeannette is a literal banshee who once took down Wonder Woman. And Ragdoll...you don't wanna know about Ragdoll.

Oh, and as Huntress pointed out in this last issue, they once took out the ENTIRE Secret Society (For those who don't know, they're an army composed of basically every supervillain on the PLANET). So yeah, they're not exactly pushovers.

Anyway, this series has been one of the funniest, most tragic, most involving things I've ever read, and its cancellation is probably the harshest blow the DC reboot has dealt. Fortunately, Gail gave it just about the perfect sendoff. Everything we loved about the series is in this one book. Ragdoll saying something random and creepy yet hilarious? Check. Messed up yet heartfelt emotional moments? Check. Bane acting like Spock trapped in Dwayne Johnson's body? Check. Deadshot & Catman's violent bromance? Check. Scandal's unpredictable love life? Check. Well-laid plans going completely wrong almost immediately? Check. This series has always been about a group of deeply flawed misfits that find a bizarre, unconventional family in each other, people who have been cast out by society and the underworld alike, people who want to do the right thing on some level but constantly fail too, people struggling against impossible odds. Issue #36 caps it all off beautifully.

I really have only one criticism, so spoilers from here on out.

After the Six (well, eight at this point, the number isn't fixed) have their Butch & Sundance last stand against a horde of superheroes, Huntress muses "In the end, we won. Of course we did. We always win. Because we're heroes. Right? It's because we're heroes. Damn us all to Hell." The line implied the heroes were somehow in the wrong here, that there was a better way they could've handled things. Yes, the Six are our protagonists. Yes, we've come to care about them a great deal over the course of the series. And yes, we are saddened to see them fall before the might of superior forces. That does not change the fact that they are, by their own admission, the bad guys. Even then they plotted to hunt down and murder Batman's sidekicks. Sure the odds were overwhelmingly on the heroes side, and it was pretty cool to see some of them sympathize with the Six after seeing the way they genuinely cared about each other, unlike most supervillain teams. But to imply that Huntress & company were somehow wrong to take the Six down? That seems like a step in the wrong direction.

But that's one line in an otherwise great book. It's sad that this series had to be scraped to make way for the the big boys and their new #1's, but is a weird way, it almost compliments the theme of the series. As Catman said: "We're the Secret Six. We're always outmatched. And we never win."

Oh, and next time you make love to someone, make sure to thank them for the use of their nethers.

"Battleship" trailer...no, really

2011-07-27T19:45:00.003-04:00

So apparently the very idea of making a movie out of a board game wasn't enough stupid for them. They had to throw in the Decepticons.

This honestly could not look more like fail if it tried. Sure we already knew that a Battleship movie would have next to nothing in common with the actual game aside from the title and involving battleships in some way. After all the game has no recognizable story or characters for them to adapt. At least Candyland has characters and locations and could conceivably be made into a Hanzel & Gretel-meets-Alice in Wonderland style kids movie. But a Battleship movie would presumably just be a generic Naval war film.

But NO. They couldn't stop there. A well-known brand name alone does not a blockbuster make. And so we get this utterly blatant attempt to ape the Transformers movies. Seriously, you could rewrite the title card to say "Transformers 4" and you wouldn't notice anything amiss.

Oh, and they don't show her in the trailer, but Rihanna is in this. Yup. She's making her cinematic debut. Joy. Look I know a pop star turning out to be a good actress isn't unheard of, but for every Justin Timberlake there are dozens of Britney Spears's (and yes, she had a stab at an acting career).

You know, whenever people hear about things like this: remakes, adaptions, etc. they always say Hollwood is out of ideas. Not true. Hollywood is swimming in good ideas. They're just running out of marketable ideas, or at least they think they are. There are tons of comic books and novels begging for a movie, tons of enterprising young filmmakers with great scripts and ideas. But nobody's ever heard of them. And I think that's what pisses me off about this the most. Sure we could make great movies out of Hawkman, the Suicide Squad, the Spectre, hell, even Ragman would make a pretty awesome flick! Oh, but those things are only popular with a niche audience. But everybody's played Battleship! Sure it has no plot and people will make fun, but who cares, it's brand recognition! Guaranteed box office hit! Greenlight that shit!

Anarchy at the Movies: Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-07-25T23:03:00.003-04:00

Joshua the Anarchist reviews the best movie of the Summer.

Your Daily Dose of Awesome

2011-07-23T15:40:00.001-04:00

OK, I still have zero hope that the Spider-man reboot will be anything more than bland and unnecessary. But this...well played, Mr. Garfield.

"In Time" trailer

2011-07-22T23:15:00.005-04:00

Oh, hell yeah.

For those not familiar with Andrew Niccol, he's a director who specializes in my favorite kind of movie: high concept science fiction. He wrote and directed Gattaca & S1m0ne, AND scripted The Truman Show. This is his first sci-fi film in nine years, so needless to say I'm pretty psyched to see this. Gattaca & The Truman Show were masterpieces, and this looks to be in the same vein of thinly veiled science fiction allegories used for the purpose of social commentary.

Sure it's more science fantasy than science fiction, for example the premise involves a technology that switches off the "aging gene". I'm terrible at science, but I'm pretty certain no such thing exists, it's just the nature of matter, organic or inorganic, to break down over time, so it's more like they rewrote the laws of physics. Still, that's pretty much how Niccol's films work, the story isn't about how whatever sci-fi tech involved works, but about how it's presence affects the characters lives.

So yeah, definitely one to look forward to. Probably gonna fly under the radar for most people considering the release date unfortunately, but I'd encourage you all to check it out, or at least hunt down Niccol's other work if you haven't already.

"The Amazing Spider-man" Trailer

2011-07-20T14:21:00.004-04:00

It's finally here, the first trailer for Mirror's Edge the movie--I mean, the Spider-man reboot.

Yeah, I'm not a gamer, and even I immediately made the connection after that first-person platformer shot that takes up half the goddamn trailer. Also, why did the spider bit his neck instead of his hand? NERD RAGE!!

Well, nitpicks aside, there's really nothing terribly wrong with the trailer. Honestly, the movie probably won't be horrible taken on it's own, and I never thought otherwise. The problem with this whole reboot idea is in concept. It's not just that it's unnecessary, that's obvious to anyone who was alive when the first Spider-man movie came out, which I'm guessing is most of you. But the fact is, while the first film is not that highly regarded in comparison to other superhero films (it's liked but not loved, vastly eclipsed by the way better sequel), It has been around just long enough to have proved itself a classic. Everybody saw it, everybody remembers it. Everybody remembers the upside down kiss, the opening narration etc. It's embedded itself into pop culture in a lasting way. An to remake it so soon it nothing short of laughable. It not like The Hulk, where the just calling a do over after they tripped at the starting line. This is them scrapping the franchise after ONE critical failure of an otherwise successful series of films, even though it still made a profit. What, THIS is the franchise where Hollywood actually listens to the critics? What happened to that attitude when they were making the Transformers movies?

John Carter trailer

2011-07-14T12:34:00.008-04:00

It's about damn time.

Seriously, how is it that we're only NOW getting a John Carter of Mars movie? Imagine if the upcoming Conan reboot was the first time that character has ever graced the big screen? Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels that began with A Princess of Mars in 1917 is one of those essential examples of pulp sci-fi that pretty much every major space opera owes its existence too. Before Slave Leia, Dejah Thoris was THE sex symbol of geek culture. Hell, she arguably still is.

Even if you've never read the novels in your life, you probably recognize the above image. Frank Frazetta's paintings are a large part of what kept franchises like Conan & John Carter in the popular culture, or at least nerd culture. So tell me: with a classic franchise this old and this culturally significant, why the hell did the fucking Aslyum get around to making a movie out of it before Hollywood did?!

Not that the trailer looks super-great or anything. It's pretty discouraging when the two most visible leading actors are best known for being in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Although apparently Willem Dafoe is playing Tars Tarkas (think Goro from Mortal Kombat but green). I'm curious as to whether he with be physically playing the role or just voicing a CGI version (given the brief glimpse of an alien we see, I'm guessing the latter). Still this is yet another instance of a veteran Pixar director doing his first live action feature, so fingers crossed for Andrew Stanton. Plus I'm glad that it doesn't look like another Prince of Persia, that is it doesn't look like another action-comedy that Disney desperately wants to be their new Pirates of the Caribbean.

Still, this movie is a good 30 or 40 years overdue. I highly doubt it'll accumulate quite the cult following that the original Conan movie did, but we'll see.

(P.S. Dejah Thoris is wearing WAY to much clothing. Yeah yeah, Disney movie and all, but still that's kinda what she's known for, being basically nude. Besides, Mystique got away with it.)

Anarchy at the Movies: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

2011-07-04T05:44:00.001-04:00

At least Green Lantern isn't the worst movie of the Summer anymore.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" trailer

2011-06-29T00:20:00.009-04:00

So they're making another one of these, I guess. And it's directed by...Brad Bird?!

Yes, apparently this is Brad Bird's first attempt at a live action feature. Anyone who's seen his Pixar films (which I assume is all of you and then some), or his criminally underrated The Iron Giant, knows he can definitely tell a good story (he also wrote the even more underrated *batteries not included, but didn't direct it). Unfortunately, he didn't write this one. In fact, J.J. Abrams apparently stuck around after the last one to help with the script, and brought his Alias writing staff with him. Although Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzmen are nowhere to be seen, which is always a plus.

This will definitely be interesting to see Bird test his range as a director. Many directors tend to sink when they stray from their well-trodden path into unfamiliar ground. Martin Campbell, a director mostly known for action pieces using old school stunt-work and on-location shooting, tried that just weeks ago with Green Lantern, a film that was roughly 78% shot on green screen, and look how that worked out. Let us hope Bird is a little more adaptable.

The trailer doesn't look terribly promising. Pretty standard rehash of the Mission: Impossible formula. Definitely hating the music: a hip hop song followed by a scant few cords of the Mission: Impossible theme? What the hell? The cast is fine: Paula Patton as the obligatory hot chick (this is her first big blockbuster film to my knowledge, so only time will tell if this is her breakout role into the mainstream), Simon Pegg (who seems to be appearing in more & more action oriented roles lately) as presumably the comic relief, and Tom Wilkinson, always good.

Not to doubt the great Brad Bird, but somehow I don't see this being a hit. The studio clearly isn't banking on it, considering they gave a December release date to a film clearly made for the Summer. Plus, it's the fourth in a franchise, and I highly doubt we're going to get two good post-trilogy sequels in one year. Though admittedly I did like the second one a lot more than most people, so maybe it'll be this year's guilty pleasure for me.

The NEW Justice League

2011-06-27T14:45:00.009-04:00

So they tell me this will be the new post-reboot Justice League. I remain unimpressed.I'm hoping that the theory that this is just DC's version of Heroes Reborn is correct, and everything will be back to normal in a matter of months, because nothing about what we know so far has convinced me this is a good idea. Supplying continuity-free versions of your flagship characters to attract new readers is great. Abandoning your existing readers in the process is not great.

Though looking at this picture makes me pretty confident this won't stay around very long, because nothing about it screams "timeless" to me, it screams "we're still stuck in the 90's". My first beef with it it more of a personal one, admittedly: It's a Jim Lee illustration. Yes, he's a good artist, but somehow his work just rubs me the wrong way. His facial features are always too sharp and angular for my taste (meaning he has the exact opposite problem of Ed McGuinness) and I've never liked how short he tends to draw Batman's ears (though they are longer here than normal for him).

But the main problem with these designs it that they have the same problem most comic book art had in the 90's: TOO MUCH DETAIL. Remember that godawful redesign Ant-man got in Heroes Reborn? Same basic problem. Lines, creases, all the extra surface detailing they could think of has been added, presumably to make there costumes more "realistic" (though someone needs to explain the realism in Superman wearing armor). Cyborg is the worst offender, drawn in that godawful post-Bayformers style. Apparently all robots/cyborgs by law must now be cluttered up with a ton of useless little metal bits just kinda hanging off of him. The old rule of less is more goes double for character designing. They less detail you use the more memorable the design is.

Also Wonder Woman's redesign is apparently staying. Honestly I could live with her having pants it it weren't for all the black. No matter how much more "modest" her costume gets, replacing the blue and gold of her costume with black and silver is just plain wrong. It removes any of the regal nature of the character's aesthetics. And where the hell are the stars?

Flash, Green Lantern & Aquaman are OK, design-wise, and Batman's looked worse. Although in redesigning the Big Two, it seems like the editorial mandate was "lose the jock straps." I guess they were sick of everyone making "underwear on the outside" jokes. It really bugs me when comic book companies do this kind've thing in response to old wisecracks, it just comes off as immature. Remember in the 60's when they brought the first Batwoman & Batgirl in as Batman & Robin's girlfriends solely to stop the gay jokes?

Plus, changing Superman's costume, even in the slightest, is never gonna stick. It's just won't. He has BY FAR the most iconic costume in the history of fiction. Even Batman & Spider-man have more freedom. Batman's chest emblem is almost constantly changing, Spider-man goes back and forth on the underarm webbing, etc. Superman is constant. No costume change ever sticks with him. Even people who've never picked up a comic book in their lives know every detail of his costume by heart. Hell, the man can't even get a new haircut without people noticing (though to be fair, the ponytail with a product of it's time).

We can't see enough of the rest of the characters to comment on their costumes: There's Deadman (interesting choice), Green Arrow, the Atom, Hawkman, someone I'm told is called Element Woman (I haven't been reading Flashpoint), A blonde who could be either Power Girl or Black Canary (it's not clear from the headshot), Firestorm, and Mera. This being a reboot, it looks like Firestorm is a white guy again, score one for equality. Though it is interesting that Aquaman AND his wife are now fellow league members together. Not thrilled at Hawkman showing up without Hawkgirl though. I mean, by the very nature of their backstory I've always felt they should be a package deal, but whatever.

Oh well, here's to the safe return of our continuity very soon (please don't let this be permanent, please don't let this be permanent...).

The Geek Chorus #2: Who Reviews the Reviewers?

2011-06-26T19:05:00.010-04:00

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

The Latin phrase meaning "who guards the guards themselves" or more commonly translated as "who watches the watchemen" thanks to some graphic novel in the 80's no one remembers.

I'm certainly not the first person to do a bad takeoff of the famous phrase and I certainly won't be the last. I bring it up only because I think people tend to take the wrong message away from this saying sometimes, or at least different from what I take away.

I'm often asked why I call myself Joshua the Anarchist. It tends to make people angry, in fact, that I use a political term to describe myself, despite that fact that what I do online has nothing to do with politics. I've explained my reasoning numerous times and have no intention of going over it again here. I only bring this up to give context when I tell you that I am in fact an anarchist, at least at this stage of my life, by political affiliation (that's still not why I call myself that, but we won't go into that here). I usually deny the chance to debate my reasoning behind this belief. Besides, this isn't a political blog and I have no intention of changing that now. The only explanation I have is this: the aforementioned question "who watches the watchmen" is ultimately a pointless one to answer. Because once you answer it, you must then ask "who watches they that watch the watchmen? And who watches them?" The cycle is infinite. Once any man is given power over another, he must be made accountable to someone in order to prevent him from abusing said power. And that person in turn must be accountable, and so forth and so on. So the only solution I see is for there to be no watchmen to begin with.

Those of you still reading this are probably wondering what the hell any of that had to do with reviewers. Quite a bit actually. Reviewers are essentially watchmen. We feel that artists and their creations should be subject to some accountability. We study and evaluate art and make sure to let the artist know when we find it lacking. Obviously we are very different from actual law enforcement; after all, art has no concrete laws. There is very little that can be called objectively good or bad. Nonetheless we as reviewers have managed to come to a rough collective understanding over what constitutes "good" art and "bad" art. And while we may not agree on everything, we as a community do see too it that artists cannot become too lazy or complacent in their art without risking mass ridicule.

However, a trend has been developing in the amateur reviewing community lately that a feel I must comment on: The Reviewer of Reviewers. Seemingly born out of the same idea of holding accountable those who hold others accountable, the idea is exactly what it sounds like: a reviewer that, instead of evaluating movies, tv shows, video games, literature, music, and so fourth, instead evaluates their fellow reviewers. And I mean know offense to anyone when I say that this...is just a plain bad idea.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the mindset that brought this on. This being the internet, any old schmoe with a mind to do so can log on and call himself a "reviewer" and as a consequence, there are a lot on really bad so-called "critics" out there. For the most part, the really bad ones remain in total obscurity, but inevitably some end up rising to the top, even if only out of infamy. And even the good ones sometimes have flaws we often feel they don't get called on enough. So I can understand the desire to form a review show to try and keep them in line, or simply voice your frustrations to anyone who will listen. But trust me when I say that the whole idea is flawed from the start.

For starters, when any given reviewer voicing his/her opinion on a movie, video game, whatever, he/she has one big advantage: He's/she's not voicing said opinion in the form of a movie or video game. Sure, reviewers that make videos as opposed to written reviews are subject to a little hypocrisy occasionally. Perhaps they accuse a film of having bad editing in a review with even poorer editing, that kind of thing. But by and large, anyone who tries to counteract a review by saying "I don't see you doing anything better" is going to come off as a fool. Reviewers are not filmmakers or game programmers (for the most part), so little they say can be directed back at them. Even those that do make art themselves at the very least aren't trying to criticize bad art using their own bad art. They leave that to the Scream movies.

You've probably figured out what I'm getting at. It's way to easy to become guilty of hypocrisy when critics start reviewing other critics. It's very likely that while criticizing another reviewers' comedy, you're own jokes are eliciting groans. Criticize their editing, writing, opinions, screen presence, whatever; it can & will be thrown right back at you, even if you're in the right. I've seen reviewers of this type, whose production qualities & acting are terrible, trying to tell me that the Nostalgia Critic or the Spoony One suck, and rarely have I see a so-called "reviewer of reviewers" whose videos were above average. To be frank, most of them are pretty terrible and they end up making fools of themselves. There are exceptions to this, of course, but even if you make excellent videos, every time you say some one else's reviews suck, half your audience is going to reply "so do yours". And there's no defense you can offer beyond "no they don't".

And the problems don't end there. You may honestly want to critique reviewers in order to help reviewing improve and weed out the bad from the good. But no matter how noble your intentions may be, you are always going to have the appearance of a parasite. Reviewers of reviewers always give the appearance of simply trying to piggyback on the success of others. Most people that get into the game seem to be thinking "if I make a video about someone else's videos then I'll get his/her audience to watch me too!" And even if that's not your reasoning, there's no way for you to demonstrate that. It's another inescapable accusation for which there is no defense. No matter how civil and analytical you try to be, you will always come across as little more than a troll begging for attention.

And finally, going back to my original point, the entire concept is circular. Even if you insist on asking the question "who reviews the reviewers?" what's to prevent someone from asking "who reviews those that reviews reviewers?" How far would it go? The whole idea is silly enough as is, but what if it's taken farther? Sure, that sounds somewhat far-fetched now, but only because the idea of reviewing other reviewers is fairly new and not very widespread. No one using this concept has yet become popular enough to really be noticed, at least not to my knowledge. No review of a reviewer has ever gone viral. But supposing it does? Would a community of Reviewer-Reviewer-Reviewers really be far behind?

Now fortunately the same logic that lead me to advocate the utter dismantling of civilization as we know it need not fully apply here. Because what I think those people responsible for this trend aren't considering is that reviewers are already being help accountable: by everyone. Even before the internet, most reviews of any kind were printed in newspapers and aired on television. If they did anything wrong, there were plenty of readers and viewers perfectly willing to write letters calling them out on it. And now in the information age, reviewers are more accountable than ever. They don't need to be evaluated by other critics. That's what email, comment sections, and star ratings systems are for. Trust me, whatever critic you have a beef with has been told so over and over, and there's nothing preventing you from leaving a comment or two and joining the hate parade.

Whatever you take away from this article, don't walk away thinking that I hate anyone who produces a show like this, or that I think they do lousy work. I have friends who actually run such shows, some of whom do so with a delightful sense of self-aware parody about it. I only wish to point out the fallacy in trying to take this concept seriously. There's nothing wrong with posting opinion blogs about a reviewer, obviously, but trying to build an entire show around that is an exercise in futility.

Celebrate "The Rocketeer's" 20th Anniversary

2011-06-25T10:32:00.005-04:00

Tuesday was one year to the day that The Rocketeer was released, a fun little pulp superhero movie that sadly gets overlooked too often. If you haven't seen it, you probably should, if for no other reason than to quell any reservations you might have about the new Captain America film (they have the same director, don't 'cha know?). It included, among other goodies, Nazi fighting (always a plus), Timothy Dalton playing an evil Errol Flynn parody (Flynn was rumored to be a nazi sympathizer, they do a take off on that), and the ever-ageless Jennifer Connelly at the sexiest she gets with her clothes on (yum yum).

Anyway, being a cult item the film is not without it's diehard fans, and talented ones at that, as evidenced by this animated fan film that's been circling the net. Check it out after the jump.

The Rocketeer 20th anniversary from John Banana on Vimeo.

The Lunatic Fringe: The Usual Suspects

2011-06-23T23:43:00.003-04:00

On the two year anniversary of the show, The Lunatic Fringe gets a brand new start with this look at Bryan Singer's The Usual Suspects.

PLEASE NOTE: A lot of my fellow reviewers went out of their way to provide cameo footage for this anniversary episode. All their efforts are greatly appreciated, and it pains me to inform them that none of it is featured here. This is due to two reasons 1) Time. I simply didn't have time to complete the entire video, skits and all, by the due date I set for myself, and 2) On the advice of a friend I have decided to cut back on cameos, in-jokes, skits, and other material in order to make the show more accessible to new viewers and focus on my strengths as a writer and performer. However, I do plan to complete the full video, cameos included, and release it at a later date. I offer my thanks to all those who contributed and my assurances that their efforts will not go in vain. Stay tuned.

Anarchy at the Movies: Green Lantern

2011-06-18T10:40:00.003-04:00

A great light has gone out in the universe...it's the fans' hopes for a good Green Lantern movie.

Hope for Green Lantern?

2011-06-11T11:44:00.007-04:00

Yes, the CGI looks like shit. I think at this point it's an accepted fact at this point that this, like The Incredible Hulk, was rushed out and will enter theaters looking unpolished at best. In this era of CGI over-saturation that happens more than it should, but hey, what're ya gonna do?

Nonetheless, this clip gives me hope, mainly because it seems that the film is getting a lot of the important stuff right. For one thing, it's well-shot, bad CGI not withstanding. You can clearly see everything that's happening, which shouldn't be a big deal, but it is. The shots are steady and at a good distance, the editing is natural and un-intrusive. Even in the good action movies these days, I'm sick of wanting to reach out and steady the damn camera myself. Not really surprising in retrospect. Martin Campbell did direct three of my favorite action films of the last few decades (GoldenEye, The Mask of Zorro, and Casino Royale).

But the thing that really excites me is that it actually feels like the way a Green Lantern fight scene should. If you've ever read the Green Lantern comics, you've probably given yourself a headache trying to picture any of it playing out in live action. Every other panel the rings produce a different shape or item. Even the Justice League animated series struggled with this, which is why they gave Jon Stewart a more no-nonsense tough guy attitude, not prone to complicated and elaborate constructs. Mostly he just used the ring to fly, shoot lasers and erect force fields. Later in the series he would flex his creative muscles and give us the occasional giant drill or set of fists, but that was about it.

Compare that to this. In the space of less than a minute, Hal Jordan pulls out no less than four different constructs. Jon Stewart would've just blocked the flaming Parallax lugie with a force field, threw the truck with a simple tractor beam, then shot it with a laser blast. Not Hal. Catapults, springs, gun turrets, that's the way a Green Lantern handles things. This shows a real grasp of and respect for the source material. Fingers crossed folks. This could be a good one.

Anarchy at the Movies: X-Men First Class

2011-06-08T06:27:00.001-04:00

It took them five tries, but the finally got it right...for the most part.

Anarchy at the Movies: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

2011-05-24T01:17:00.002-04:00

If the friggin' ship couldn't be bothered to show up, you probably shouldn't either.

Anarchy at the Movies: Thor

2011-05-16T09:23:00.002-04:00

Whosoever watches this review, if he be interested, shall go see the film Thor! Joshua the Anarchist give's his belated opinion on the Thor movie.

Anarchy at the Movies: Sucker Punch

2011-03-29T20:22:00.002-04:00

Is it as bad as you've heard? Let's put it this way: NO.

The Geek Chorus: DC Needs to Grow a Pair

2011-03-25T08:19:00.013-04:00

Klaatu Barada Nikto, everybody! Joshua the Anarchist here. Like most attention-hogging internet…person-types, I often have many a thought pop through my geeky little brain. And due to the aforementioned attention hogging, I can’t bear the thought of not forced my crazy stream of conciseness on the nearest unsuspecting ear. Unfortunately, since 140 characters have become unsuitable to contain my uncensored madness, I had to seek out an alternate means of venting. And since ripping off better and more successful reviewers than me worked out so well on youtube, I figured I’d swip another concept from MovieBob and create my own nerd soapbox column. So now, whenever I feel that old itch returning, I’ll resist the urge to kill again, and instead give you all a terrifying inside peek into the inner workings of my brain.

So to start off, let’s talk about an old buddy we all know, if not love: DC Comics. DC, you are awesome…even if you’re initials are a bit redundant (DC actually stands for "Detective Comics"). I have an infatuation with you that Nintendo fanboys would call overzealous. You’re one of those constants in the world that makes life a little less pointless. You practically invented the comic book superhero as we know it today. And while some may complain that your characters don’t change or evolve much, I see it as one of your strengths. Your classic characters are constant, they’re always there with new stories to tell. You’re a lasting standard in the comic world, and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon. So why the fuck are you so scared?

Look, thanks to Bruce Timm you’ve successfully kicked Marvel’s ass consistently in the animated series department, admittedly not a hard thing to do since Marvel has a habit of canceling every good show they make. You’ve even dominated them in the arena of live action TV, for whatever that’s worth (actually, this one was pretty awesome). But let’s face it: In the cinema, Marvel is making you their bitch. The box office take of The Dark Knight doesn’t change that. No matter how much money Batman makes, having only one successful superhero movie franchise to your name is pathetic, and it needs to change.

But in order to fix this problem we need to address the core reason why Marvel has had a steady stream of new adaptation’s coming out in the past decade, and you’ve spent the last twenty years trying to get Superman & Wonder Woman off the ground. Marvel gets results because they take risks, and you don’t. Remember, these were the guys that had the balls back in the 90’s to make a Howard the Duck movie! And even though that particular gamble didn’t pay off too well, did they give up? Fuck, no! And now they have multiple adaptation’s, if not outright franchises, of most of their flagship characters, with the remaining well on their way.

Now admittedly they did play it safe at first with Bryan Singer’s self-hating X-men series (the black leather, oh God the black leather!!), but as time has gone on they’ve gotten bolder & bolder. Was it a big risk when they put Thor’s hammer at the end of Iron Man 2? You bet your ass it was, because now they’ve made a concrete connection between Iron Man’s world of earth-bold science fiction and an extra-dimensional universe of magic and ancient Gods. They’re even seriously considering using the Mandarin for Iron Man 3, a character who’s totally antithetical to everything the villain’s have been so far. Forget being a magic-based character in a sci-fi series, he’s a borderline-racist old school Yellow Peril sorcerer/mad scientist with a pet dragon! Does that sound like an insane business move to you? Of course it does, but they’re doing it anyway! Even if it doesn’t pay off, at least they had the courage to try. And to top this all off, they’ve promised to take all these vastly different characters from vastly different settings, and lump them all into one movie. What…colossal…balls.

DC, you need a set of colossal balls of your own if you ever want to get anywhere in the movie industry. Admittedly you’ve been pretty good about turning out adaptions of noncanon characters outside of your universe, but that’s not cutting it. You need to start building up the DC movie universe, and to do that, you’re going to have to take a few risks. Because right now, you’re basic business plan seems to consist of cowering in the closet, terrified that the movie-going public will find your non-Batman flagship characters to be silly, or unrealistic. DC, grow a fucking spine already. Have you forgotten who you are? You practically invented this genre! You and most of your core character have been household names for decades. Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman; Everyone knows they’re names; everyone knows their costumes. Even if people laugh and make the usual ignorant jokes about how “lame” Aquaman is, do you think that means they wouldn’t see the movie? Fuck, no! Infamy is just a profitable as fame, guys. Even if it’s only out of curiosity, believe me, Aquaman would more than make his money back. Nobody thinks movies like The Smurfs is gonna be good either, but it's still gonna to make a profit, guaranteed. Financially speaking, guys, it’ll be pretty hard for you to fail.

But beyond just having the gumption to get these projects going, you need to stop stressing out about how “unrealistic” your characters are. Not every superhero movie needs to go the Batman Begins approach of explaining every little detail. Once again, that’s not what you built your company on. You’re DC! Larger-than-life is what you do! We don’t love your characters because they’re scientifically plausible. We love them because they’re epic and out there! To quote Frank Miller, "I don't need to see sweat patches under Superman's arms, I want to see him fly". We don’t care that real people can’t fly, or run faster than the speed of light. We don’t care that Atlantis isn’t a real place, or that there is no such thing as Amazons. We come to you to get away from reality! We want outlandish, flamboyant superhero escapism. And so does the movie-going public, whether they’ve read the comics or not.

Let’s put it this why. You know why the entire civilized world justifiably loves Spider-man? I’ll give you a hint: It’s not because he’s realistic. Remember, “realistic” & “relatable” are not the same thing. Sure, the idea of a radioactive spider-bite turning someone into a superhuman acrobat is ridiculous. But people go with it because the person these implausible things are happening to is likable and relatable. Batman has been many things, but relatable has never been one of them. Hell, Superman may be arguably a little more straight-laced than you’re average schmoe, but an idealistic, somewhat naive farm boy is far more relatable than a super-scientist/ninja/detective who’s mastered every combat style, science, and language known to man, yet still has the mental wherewithal to be the a playboy, socialite and master of disguise, in addition to having more money than God. Face it, guys: Batman is a Mary Sue. He’s never wrong, he never makes mistakes. Nobody can relate to that, no matter how “realistic” his environment might be.

Well, fortunately for DC, it’s looking like they might be starting to learn their lesson. The new Green Lantern trailer, (‘bout fucking time) looks great despite some spotty CGI, but better yet, it isn’t ashamed to show what it is. It made the wise decision to stand up and boldly proclaim that this new movie hero fights giant-headed supervillains in outer space with a ring that makes giant fists to punch people. Awesome. Maybe they’ve finally figured out that audiences will accept any out-there concept you throw at them as long as you ground it with relatable characters.

But if so, this has to keep up. You’re off to a good start, DC, but you need to follow through on this. If Green Lantern is what it looks like and does well, this could be a new beginning for you. Despite what the whiners have to say, you made a very good choice hiring Zack Snyder to make the new Superman. A more action oriented Man of Steel is really what you need at this point. Now if you could just drop this stupid idea of a Wonder Woman TV show and get the movie back on track, we’ll be getting somewhere. Maybe someday we can actually think seriously about getting a Justice League or World’s Finest movie off the ground? Maybe?

But seriously DC, it’s time to man the fuck up. This business is about risks. Take a few, or you’ll never get anywhere. You may end up with a few flops, shit happens. But if you keep at it, it’ll pay off in the long run.

P.S. Oh, one last thing. Just in case you decide to stick with your asinine business plan of “realistic” superheroes, let me at least ask this: why the fuck are you still not talking about a Question movie? I mean, shouldn’t that be a no-brainer? The guy’s a cult favorite who’s simultaneously more realistic and more relatable than Batman has EVER been! Look, obscurity didn’t stop you from making Jonah Hex, so make this happen already! Just don’t hire some Pixar reject to direct it this time. Or Megan Fox. Seriously. No Megan Fox.

Anarchy at the Movies: Drive Angry

2011-03-01T07:32:00.002-05:00

So will this movie in fact cause you to drive home angry?

Top 10 Films of 2010

2011-01-31T02:54:00.002-05:00

Joshua the Anarchist names the ten best films of last year, plus a few extras.

Commentary: Lunatic Fringe: Beauty & the Beast: Enchanted Christmas

2010-12-30T18:10:00.000-05:00

Instead of a new Christmas episode, you get a commentary of last year's Christmas episode!

I Love You, Phillip Morris review

2010-12-25T06:46:00.002-05:00

Now that I think about it, I'm surprised Jim Carrey hadn't played a gay guy already.

Anti-Life Signel Episode 6

2010-12-23T21:38:00.000-05:00

With Joshua out Xmas shopping and Derek feeding Alistair, Steven James, Xaria (aka Diamanda) and Cin Wicked welcome special guests Marzgurl from That Guy With The Glasses, Spazzmaster from Xtreme Network Online and 16-Bit Jeff from The Geek Fighters to talk about the year that was 2010.

Tron Legacy review

2010-12-19T21:12:00.003-05:00

A geek icon resurrected after almost 30 years? Thank the Users!

Anti-Life Signel Episode 5

2010-11-14T21:02:00.000-05:00

Kyle, aka OanCitizen joins the Anti Life Signal gang as they talk positive versus negative reviews, merchandising and loving animals.

The Lunatic Fringe: Hellbinders

2010-10-22T11:26:00.002-04:00

Johnny Yong Bosch plays a ninja. What more do you need to know?

Anti-Life Signel Episode 4

2010-10-15T20:59:00.001-04:00

Does the Anti Life Signal need more gay? Rantasmo joins the Heralds Of The Signal to discuss queer media and representation... and hyenas.

Movie Review: The Social Network

2010-10-05T01:51:00.009-04:00

I hate Facebook. Not the most original sentiment, but true, nonetheless. At not as just as a personal "I don't get the appeal" issue. I do get the appeal. Three or four years ago I was just as addicted to the damn thing as anyone else. Most people who've ever been on Facebook can attest just how quickly time-consuming the site becomes when you first start. As this movie itself observes, it's addicting. There's just so much damn stuff to do! With a rudimentary working knowledge of computer script, any code monkey can create an app & have thousands of users jumping through hoops for him.

If you're like me, however, you soon come to this slow realization that all this "stuff" you're spending so much time doing, is, in every sense of the word, useless. It's note accomplishing anything, it's not a social activity (or at least not a healthy one, but we'll get to that), and before long you realize it's not even any fun, at least not for very long. It's busywork, the most empty way to kill time possible.

Then if you're like me, you begin to spend less & less time on the site, reducing it to the occasional status update or message every few hours. And before long you begin to notice just how disgusting and degrading the whole system is, and you become angry with yourself for not noticing it. Facebook is quite possibly the worst step taken in human interaction in the last century. Forget concerns about your kids texting each other from across the room, this is something far more serious that a lack of personal communication. This is a system that actively encourages it's users to publicly label and rank their friends, to compare and dissect their every flaw and personality trait for all to see. Thanks to Facebook we live in a world we're no one need get to know each other anymore through normal interaction, just sum yourself up in a detailed profile & let everyone screen their friends like goddamn job applicants. The entire human experience has been reduced to a digital assembly line...by Facebook.

That may seen over dramatic, and maybe it is. Feel free to disagree with me, but I bring this up to illustrate something very important about The Social Network. Whether you love Facebook or hate it, no one can deny that it can changed our society dramatically, for better or for worse. For that reason, the subject that The Social Network has to discuss with us is one of, if not the most relevant and important issues this generation could possibly face...so it's a shame the film doesn't much feel like talking about it.

As most everyone knows by now, the film chronicles the founding of Facebook by Mark Zuckerburg, and the controversy surrounding said founding. Zuckerburg is one of the more interesting public figures of the 21st century, to say the least, and it's fair to say he's probably not happy with his portrayal here. Jesse Eisenberg gives a career-making performance which brilliantly conveys a Zuckerburg who is nothing short of a narcissistic sociopath. A brilliant sociopath, but a sociopath nonetheless. From the very first scene, Eisenburg exudes a ever so subtle coldness, not a lack of emotion but rather a lack of empathy. He is completely incapable of respecting or even considering the emotional needs of others, a problem only compounded by his staggering intellect. He is Sherlock Holmesian in his inability to contain his utter disdain for anyone less intelligent than himself, which is more or less everyone. And like so many biopic protagonists before him, it is these flaws that will be his downfall, emotionally if not physically (the man's still the world's youngest billionaire, after all).

The films plot structure is nothing to write home about, basically your standard rise-and-fall success story formula. It's through the performances & the dialogue that the film has managed to distinguish itself the way it has. Every single actor with any role to speak of here is well above average. Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin) plays the likable, struggling everyman, giving us a reason to care about the protagonist by being Mark's anchor, so to speak. Armie Hammer undertakes the task of playing his own twin in as seamless a fashion as any actor could, giving very subtle but deliberate personality differences. Rooney Mara, whose character drives the plot almost as much a Zuckerburg himself, is ironically given only two scenes, both of which consist primary of her telling Mark off, but manages to pull of a very likable a believable persona for her character. Brenda Song manages to rise above her Disney Channel roots to a satisfactory level, despite the fact that her character has no real function outside of making Eduardo's live harder. And Justin Timberlake (Sean Parker), proving once again that he is far more talented than anyone wants to give him credit for, steals the show as the corrupting "bad boy" influence who lures Mark into a life of excess.

Aaron Sorkin, famous for the TV series The West Wing as well as the most quoted courtroom drama of all time, A Few Good Men, does his usual excellent job providing his characters with consistently witty dialogue. And combined with the razor sharp editing & directing of David Fincher, the film is surprising fast paced, entertaining and humorous considering it's decidedly mundane subject matter.

And yet, I can't help feeling like there was a massive missed opportunity here. As mentioned before, Facebook is a very important cultural landmark in our development as a society, for good or for ill. Yet all David Fincher seems interested in exploring is what a jerk Mark Zuckerberg was to his friends.

Thankfully there are a few conversational pieces scattered throughout the film regarding the societal implications of Facebook. The film starts right off with Zuckerberg creating the precursor to one the the more popular, and socially sadistic, apps of Facebook, with allows users to compare and rank your friends based on looks, skill, possessions or personality. Zuckerburg & Parker openly state that the site heralded the end of privacy in our culture (and it did). There's even scene in which Eduardo's girlfriend becomes furious that his facebook status was never changed from "single" (though considering he's the co-founder of the damn site, it's not as disturbing as it normally would be).

The problem is that all these individual moments feel largely incidental, and never form into a theme or subtext of any kind. Even as Zuckerburg conspires to control and auction off peoples' personal privacy for his own gain (much as he does in real life), this is never dealt with beyond the fact that Zuckerburg is betraying and alienating his friends, despite the fact that he's if forever altering the world around them as they argue. The film just never takes a moment to seriously ponder the big picture ramifications of what these people are doing. And considering where we are now as a culture, still exploring a relatively new advancement in communication, had the film been daring enough to really deal with those issues, it could very well have been the defining film of our generation.

Aside from the general lack of ambition, there are a few minor issues that keep the film from achieving true greatness. It's relies a little too heavily on some well worn plot elements, like a party getting out of hand and publicly embarrassing the company, or a background character who amounts to a complete stranger coming in to offer a flash of insight at the very end. The pacing, while fun and energetic, feels a bit too fast at times, which is unfortunately a symptom of our times, that filmmakers have to work extra hard now to hold today's anti-intellectual, easily-bored audiences' attention. But despite all this, it is still an excellent film and well worth your time. It's not Fincher's best, nor is it the best movie of the year by far, but it's up there.

8/10

P.S. Yes, I am well aware of the irony in the fact that I despise Facebook, yet have a Facebook fan page. Just because I'm a judgmental dick doesn't mean I'm not also a whore.

Underdog vs. McGruff the Crime Dog! Who Wins?

2010-09-28T15:00:00.003-04:00

McGruff walked down the seedy street, tightening his trench coat around him. The was crime afoot. A new drug had hit a streets, a drug unlike anything seen before. It came in pill form and was so powerful, it was known to give it's user temporary bursts of superpowers. The side effects were horrible to behold. The user's eyes would light up like an explosion, their pupils would spin in circles, and once McGruff had sworn he'd seen an American flag in their eyes. McGruff had been frustrated by this case for a while, but this morning something had happened the made him determined to end this blight on his city once and for all: his beloved nephew, Scruff, had become addicted to the pills.

There could only be one suspect in McGruff's eyes: the canine crusader Underdog. As hard as it was to accept that a mutt who'd so tirelessly championed justice could do something so dastardly, it was a well known fact that Underdog drew his powers from the same kind of pill, and even if he was not the distributor, he was most certainly the source.

The trick was finding Underdog. It had taken a while, but after questioning Underdog's known associates, like Sweet Polly Purebred, as well as the head of the drug operation, Riff Raff, he had finally learned Underdog's secret identity: humble, lovable Shoeshine Boy. McGruff should've known; there weren't that many talking beagles in town, after all.

McGruff turned a corner and there was Shoeshine Boy, a friendly smile on his face, hard at work shining the shoes of a customer.

"Stop right there, Underdog!" growled McGruff, "I'm taking you in for questioning, and I'm confiscating that ring of yours!"

"I know this case may seem airtight" said Underdog, as his zipped into a nearby phone booth, emerging an instant later in costume, "But all your facts are not quite right. I'm not the fiend behind this plot! Bar Sinister is the man you sought!"

"A likely story pup," retorted McGruff, "now are you gonna come quietly, or am I gonna have to take a bite outta crime?"

You decide, dear readers! Dog vs. dog! Who emerges victorious?

Anti-Life Signal Episode 3

2010-09-13T02:21:00.002-04:00

Special guests Obscurus Lupa of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com and Apollo Z. Hack of Xtreme Network Online fill in for Cin Wicked and Derek as they, Steven James, Xaria and Joshua The Anarchist discuss modern b-movie culture.

VLOG 8/15/10: Expendables & Scott Pilgrim

2010-08-15T12:43:00.001-04:00

In which I I spend more time talking about the actors than the actual movies.

Preview Askew: Vampires Suck

2010-08-10T00:15:00.002-04:00

...and so does this trailer!

Great News & a Podcast!

2010-08-08T22:11:00.002-04:00

For those of you that don't know yet, I have recently been invited to be a part of Xtreme Network Online! I am very happy to count myself among the many talented reviewers that populate the site. To welcome me into the fold, site owner Nick "Enigma" Gipson invited me to participate in the latest episode of the featured podcast of the site: Broadcast Xtreme! Check it out:

MEGAVLOG 8/8/10: Predators & Inception

2010-08-08T04:12:00.003-04:00

Two movies that are old news by now, but I'm talking about them anyway. Besides I already promised.

Predators

Inception

MVT3K: Every Morning

2010-08-03T19:40:00.004-04:00

I was one of many lucky critics to cameo in the latest episode of Music Video Theater 300. Check it out!

Click "Read More" for the full cameo.

Lunatic Fringe: Top 13 Underrated Movie Villains

2010-07-23T14:26:00.002-04:00

This one's for the villain deep down in all of us! Featuring a cameo by Cin Wicked!

The Anti-Life Signal #2

2010-07-22T10:04:00.004-04:00

This episode welcomes a new herald of the signal with Xaria aka Diamanda Hagan!

Marvel as the crew talks 3D Movies, Batman, The Last Airbender, Bitchslap and a whole lot more!

You can find this episode here.

Email the Signal crew at antilifesignal@gmail.com.

Your Daily Dose of Awesomeness

2010-07-14T00:04:00.004-04:00

Never before in the history of man has any trailer been this badass, honest, straightforward, and completely free of bullshit. The gauntlet has been thrown, men of the world. Your balls are at stake. If any of you are not in the theater August 13th I will personally kick your ass. Because I AM A MAN!!

VLOG 7/9/10: Eclipse review

2010-07-09T01:48:00.000-04:00

Finally, a Twilight film I could care less about.

Preview Askew: Mortal Kombat Rebirth

2010-07-04T02:22:00.002-04:00

Hallelu! It's Preview Askew Number Two! Oh, what? I had too!

And to those of you who would like to point out that this is technically not a trailer, but a short film, I say: shut up! It was featured on Trailer Addict AND it is previewing a upcoming film that may or may not (I'm betting not) be made, so it counts!

With that in mind, I hope you enjoy Preview Askew: Mortal Kombat Rebirth.

VLOG 6/19/10: Jonah Hex review

2010-06-19T04:40:00.003-04:00

Fun fact: There were only seven other people in the theater besides me, and all in their fifties at least. I'm not even sure what that says.

NOTE: The first few minutes of this have nothing to do with the movie, just some ranting about my latest move, so start at about 2:35 if you want to skip all that.

As you can probably tell, the shear suckitude of this movie left me pretty discombobulated so I left a few things out or unsaid. I don't think I emphasized heavily enough how colossally incoherent & confusing the editing here is. Those who have seen Neveldine/Taylor's films know they favor a hyper-kinetic style of editing. There is a right way to do this, like in their Crank films, and a wrong way. Jonah Hex is a fine example of a third option, known as the fucking wrong way. Apparently Neveldine/Taylor were originally slated to direct but for reasons completely unknown to me were replaced by a guy who's never directed action in his life. Apparently he made the ill-advised attempt to replicate Neveldine/Taylor's style...and failed as utterly as one can fail. I already mentioned the final fight, but there's another good example where Hex is interrogating someone at the aforementioned underground fighting arena. The match is between some thug and this mutant snake/man thing that drinks rattlesnake venom and spits it on his victims. This fight has nothing to do with, well, anything, but the director keeps interrupting the conversation to cut back to it. The most relevance it has is that Hex disposes of the guy by throwing him into the arena.

Another thing I found rather offensive is this one scene were they feel the need to clarify that Jonah Hex never supported slavery, even though it has nothing to do with the conversation. I guess they thought everyone would assume that just because he fought for the south he supported slavery. Hey, you know who else opposed slavery? ROBERT E. FUCKING LEE!!! The Civil War wasn't just about slavery, there were many issues involving State's rights that were at stake! Just because he fought for the Confederates doesn't mean the audience is automatically going to assume he must be a racist, slave owning Klansman! Give your audience some credit for thinking, you ignorant shitheads!

For those comic book purists out there, I'd like to emphasize that I have no problem with taking creative liberties with characters if they work. Some characters have backstories far too complicated to work within a film structure, and arguably Jonah Hex is one of them. I'd also like to say to my fellow Western fans that I also have nothing against introducing supernatural or science fiction elements into a Western setting. I'm actually a big fan of Weird West stories, and Jonah Hex himself has fought against zombies, ghosts, Cthulhu, and even been flung into a post-apocalyptic future to battle robots. In fact, the original script was about fighting zombies and if they'd stuck with that and let Neveldine/Taylor direct, they'd probably have a much better movie.

The End of Mad as Hell

2010-06-17T08:47:00.002-04:00

You may have noticed that the two Mad as Hell vlogs I've made so far have been deleted. This is because I've come to this slow but obvious-to-everyone-but-me realization: they were not funny, entertaining, or informative, and in the end they did more harm than good. I knew from the beginning that many people would find it insulting or take it personally, which is why I tried posting those disclaimers. It didn't help.

As previously and repeated stated, the Mad as Hell rants were not edited or crafted in any way. They were simply vlogs of my uncensored streams of angry consciousness. What I should've known was, that is not a good thing. They accomplished nothing aside from making me look like a colossal ass. Just because I didn't actually mean many of the gross generalizations and offensive things I said doesn't not mean it was OK for me to say them, disclaimer or no.

With that in mind, I am retiring the Mad as Hell segments, at least for now. I'm not ruling out the possibility of bringing it back one day, but if I do, it will be planned out and edited. In the mean time, I'd like to formally apologize to anyone who was hurt or offended by anything I've said. It was not intentional, and I hope no one wrote me off as an insensitive dick over this. With that let's put this embarrassing fiasco behind us and never speak of it again. Ever.

Preview Askew: Jonah Hex

2010-06-16T14:18:00.005-04:00

When Megan Fox is deemed worthy of sharing the screen with Josh Brolin, humanity is doomed.

NOTE: This is the pilot of a potential new series of what is essentially rifftrax for trailers. Let me know what you think and maybe I'll make more.

The Anti-Life Signal

2010-06-11T20:12:00.004-04:00

Yours truly has joined a foursome of fellow critics to form a new podcast dedicated to the annihilation of all life. The first episode is now available. Behold, the Anti-Life Signal! Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

East vs. West #1: Kyoryu Sentai Zyuranger vs. Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers Season 1

2010-06-04T18:44:00.001-04:00

It has been a long time coming but finally Cin and Josh’s epic journey to correct the energy imbalance in the morphing grid has begun! Watch as they (and maybe their friends) battle against unknown forces to help you decide which series are superior. It’s time for the battle, whose side are you on?

TGWTG Forum Tribute to Kickassia

2010-05-17T02:34:00.001-04:00

Pledge your allegiance to Kickassia!

VLOG 5/11/10: Iron Man 2 review

2010-05-11T14:57:00.000-04:00

Time to talk about the same movie that everyone else will be talking about. The last film made it onto my top 10 list. Can this one be half as good?

VLOG 4/17/10: Kick-Ass review

2010-04-17T20:00:00.002-04:00

Is this truly a groundbreaking advancement in superhero films? Here's my opinion.

The Lunatic Fringe: Transformers pt. 2

2010-04-04T06:07:00.003-04:00

There's only so many ways I can say "sorry it's so late." Anyway, Happy Easter and enjoy.

VLOG 3/19/10: Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths review

2010-03-19T02:40:00.003-04:00

Well, due to some lost sounds files, the long wait for the next Lunatic Fringe episode will be even longer. So to make up for it, here's some inane rambling about something that came out weeks ago. I'm so good to my fans.

Your Daily Dose of Awesomeness

2010-02-02T12:18:00.002-05:00

For those of you who wanted to see someone treat Edward the way a normal girl would treat a stalker, I'll do you one better: Buffy kicking Edward's ass!

East vs. West preview

2010-02-01T13:22:00.001-05:00

A glimpse of what’s to come. Prepare yourselves viewers, for the future will be… MORPHENOMINAL!!!!

Megavlog 1/31/10: Top 10 Films of 2009

2010-01-31T16:11:00.008-05:00

It's that time again! Pickin's was slim this year, but here's my list of the top ten best films of the year of 2009! (and yes, I got a haircut)

Check below the cut for the list.

10. Ink

9. Watchmen

8. Zombieland

7. Moon

6. Crank: High Voltage

5. (500) Days of Summer

4. Up in the Air

3. Where the Wild Things Are

2. Up

1. Inglourious Basterds

VLOG 1/8/2010: Sherlock Holmes review

2010-01-08T03:28:00.000-05:00

Was Guy Ritchie's Victorian epic a mindless actioner or an intelligent flick? Inspector Anarchist is on the case!

The Lunatic Fringe: Beaty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas

2009-12-31T23:53:00.002-05:00

Better late than never. Here's by belated Christmas present to the viewers: a special review of Beauty & the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas.

Your Daily Dose of Awesomeness

2009-12-21T23:26:00.001-05:00

This is why I love independent filmmakers. I need to get on the ball with my own short films.

VLOG 12/20/09: Avatar review

2009-12-20T03:25:00.005-05:00

I swear to God I had not seen Spoony's review when I filmed this. Here's my thoughts on James Cameron's Avatar.

And furthermore...The more I think about this movie, the more I hate it. They couldn't settle for beating us over the head with environmental propaganda, but they even throw in a rant against the War on Terror. They might as well have had the words "all white people are evil" omnipresent of the screen.

By the way, is the actual name of the mineral they're mining for unobtainium? Are you fucking kidding me? I thought at first that they were joking and would mention the real name later, but NO!! As if Pandora wasn't a lousy enough name for the planet itself. And how the fucking hell were the Na'vi communicating in the battlefield? They just squeezed their throats a little, and it worked exactly like a walkie-talkie! Explanations, movie!! We need to know these things!! Honestly, when Sigourney Weaver hit us us with the bullshit about how everything on the planet is connected, the movie's mail order "corporate asshole" took the words right out of my mouth: "What have you people been smoking!?"

And the real tragedy of it is that it truly is massive waste of truly groundbreaking technology. I think is speaks volume that the best actor in the movie is Zoe Saldana, whose character is entirely animated. I've honestly never seen animated characters so realistic and expressive, and it breaks my heart that there were no three dimensional, well developed characters behind said faces.

EDIT: Also, the longer I think, the more I realize that this technology really isn't that groundbreaking. Sure it was more realistic looking, but not that much. CGI technology has been steadily improving over the years, and this is really nothing more than another small micro-step, not a game-changing leap forward. It's still not seamless, and it still can't fully replace real-life actors, concrete matter, and practical effects. Pixar mastered the art of making animated characters believable & expressive over ten years ago, without the aid of a real actors face as a model. So really, even the special effects don't stand out that much.

The Lunatic Fringe: Transformers pt. 1

2009-12-14T19:31:00.004-05:00

Sure the dialogue is stupid and the characters obnoxious, but at least the action is cool, right? Yeeeaah...not so much.

Rewrites: Judge Dredd

2009-12-04T02:08:00.008-05:00

Hello and welcome to Rewrites, a new blog series in which I give my take on bad movies that I consider wasted potential, and tell you how I would have done them differently. Or I might just take something that's already good and make it better, or at least different, or just expand on existing franchises, whatever just pops into my head. Why? Well, sometimes I just like to hear myself talk.

To start off this series, I'm gonna go with a movie I already love, I just wish it was a genuinely good movie and not just a guilty pleasure: Judge Dredd

What to Keep: First off, the casting of the title character was absolutely perfect. Sylvester Stallone is Judge Joseph Dredd. I honestly cannot picture anyone else in the role. I've never actually read the 2000 AD comics myself, but based on the research I've done, the character is actually supposed to be a loud, over-the-top caricature. I means just look at him:

Who else but stallone could pull of a character that looks like that and still be badass? Well, maybe Jason Statham if you must recast.

Another thing that was fine was the costume & set design. Well, for the most part, but we'll get to that is a minute.

What to Change: First let's find a new director, and man is this a no-brainer: Paul Verhoeven. It could not be more perfect. Judge Dredd would clearly work best as a kind of Starship Troopers/RoboCop style dark political satire, So who better than the man who directed both of those movies? He could make it not only entertaining as hell, but socially relevant at the same time.

Now let's recast. No disrespect to Max von Sydow, but I have a hard time picture Sly Stallone growing into a Swedish Shakespearean. Sure, the movie danced around the idea the Dredd was Fargo's clone by never actually calling him a clone, but still, lets keep this within the realm of possibility, shall we? My personal vote goes to Ian McShane. Seriously, how glorious would that be?

For Judge Hershey, I guess I'll go with Lena Headey, make her a household name before 300. If you made the movie now instead of in 1995 however, I'd totally get Eliza Dushku. Yeah sorry, Whedon nerd. And for the part of Fergee, we'll get Martin Lawrence, in order to make the character even more annoying and unfunny. PSYCHE, I jest of course, let's hire Brad Pitt. You'll see why in a minute (think 12 Monkeys Brad Pitt). Most other major characters from the original movie won't be appearing in my version, so onto the plot.

The plot for the original movie was loosely based on a story arc from the comics called "The Day the Law Died!". And as with most adaptions, the solution is more adherence to the source material. This means Rico is completely removed from the equation and Judge Cal takes his place as the new Big Bad. Armand Assante could take that role too I guess, but for some reason I keep picturing James Woods in the role (or since Cal is based on the roman emperor Caligula, cast Caligula himself: Malcolm McDowell). Cal is a member of the Council of Five, and like Judge Griffin in the film, desires to dethrone Chief Judge Fargo and rule Mega City One. Unlike Griffin but very much like Rico however, he is completely bat-shit insane. So there's room aplenty for hilarious scenery chewing.

Like in the comic books, Judge Dredd is one of several clones of Fargo, a fact that is public knowledge. Fargo is currently experiencing doubts about the Judge system, wondering if justice is world the price of freedom. He voices these doubts to Dredd, who barely even understands what he means. The law is all he knows.

Judge Cal then makes his move. He assassinates Fargo, frames Dredd for it, and assumes the office of Chief Judge. He then appoints his pet goldfish as Deputy Chief, why not? He begins a reign of terror, brainwashing all the Judges and executing anyone who speaks against him.

Dredd manages to escape imprisonment with Hershey's help and, now a wanted fugitive, goes underground. He finds a large group of impoverished citizens would fled Cal's tyranny, living in Undercity, led by street thief Fergee, who'd been arrested by Dredd more than a few times. Dredd tries to organize a citizens revolt against Cal, but finds that they all think of him as just as much of a dictator as Cal, seeing little difference between the Judges' police state and outright enslavement.

Dredd And Hershey recruit what Judges they can, including council member Judge Griffin who escaped being brainwashed, gather was citizens are willing to follow them, and launch an assault on the Grand Hall of Justice. However, the are ambushed by the Kleggs, alien mercenaries hired by Cal. The survivors escape back to Undercity, spirits broken. In order to win back the peoples confidence, Dredd and Hershey start taking out Klegg patrols guerrilla style, slowly frustrating Cal's regime. Cal grows increasing insane, and is tormented by nightmares of Dredd, causing him to tighten his grip on the city, executing innocents on whims, sealing of the city, and outlawing everything that could bring joy, burning luxury items in the street.

Eventually life is made completely intolerable for the people of Mega City One, and the rally behind Dredd, though more out of hatred for Cal that actually trust in Dredd. Panicking, Cal sentences the entire population to death, activating a Doomsday measure that floods the entire city in poisonous gas within hours. Dredd and his army attack, finally defeat at kill Cal, and shut off the gas, but not before it's killed a good tenth of the city.

Judge Dredd is offered the vacant seat of Chief Judge, but refuses, as the death of Fargo and the citizens mistrust of him have led him to reconsider his entire belief system. He finally understands what Fargo was trying to say, but is too devoted to the law to actually consider quitting. He elects Griffin as the new Chief Judge and elects to take the Long Walk in order to reaffirm his faith in law and order.

But we're not done there. We're gonna make this sucker a trilogy, baby. We can follow it up with Judge Dredd 2: Dark Judgement, in which Dredd comes out of retirement to save Mega City One from Judge Death and the Dark Judges. And for the grand finale, Judge Dredd 3: Apocalypse War, based on, of course, the Apocalpyse War storyline, in which Mega City One wages nuclear war against their Soviet counterpart, East Meg One. And as the main villain Sov Judge Orlock, we could cast...wait for it...Dolph Lundgren! Yes, it's Rocky vs. Drago once again, only with really big guns! Just tell me you don't want to see that!

Commentary: Blade Runner review

2009-11-30T00:42:00.001-05:00

My commentary on The Lunatic Fringe: Blade Runner. Please excuse any audio issues, I'm still getting used to this method of recording.

VLOG 11/24/09: New Moon review

2009-11-24T03:00:00.000-05:00

They couldn't wait a few years to subject us to another Meyer spawn? Peachy. Here's my thoughts on The Twilight Saga: New Moon.

VLOG 11/21/09: Response to Dollhouse cancellation

2009-11-21T11:01:00.000-05:00

Joss Whedon's Dollhouse has been canceled. Why, cruel world!!??

Say Hello to Our First Affiliate

2009-11-08T11:32:00.004-05:00

Joshua the Anarchist officially has his very first affiliate! Cin Wicked of Cinfully Wicked Critiques. If any of you were wondering why there aren't any good music reviewers on the net, but more game reviewers than you can count, your prayers have been answered. The central feature of Cin's site is a video series called Song Lyric Smackdown, in which he deconstructs the lyrics of various songs. I've reposted one episode of the series below as a teaser. He also reviews RPGs, television shows, and has a book reviewing series planned. The two of us has agreed to collaborate on a number of videos already, so look forward to crossovers and guest appearances aplenty. Check out his stuff, it's fan-damn-tastic!

Visit Cin's website at CinfulCritiques.blogspot.com for music reviews and more!

The Lunatic Fringe: Repo! The Genetic Opera

2009-11-01T10:53:00.006-05:00

Probably one of the best films of 2008, and it slipped completely under the radar. Joshua the Anarchist gives Repo! The Genetic Opera the attention it deserves.

VLOG 10/26/09: Law Abiding Citizen review

2009-10-26T18:56:00.003-04:00

"It's gonna be biblical!" Or is it? Here's my review for Law Abiding Citizen.

VLOG 10/20/09: The Tournament review

2009-10-20T15:21:00.005-04:00

Reviewing a good old fashioned badass action film you might not have heard of. Unfortunately it's not getting a theatrical release. Click "Read more" for the trailer and a link to buy the DVD.

Click here to buy The Tournament on DVD.

Why the Joker is not the Greatest Supervillain of All Time

2009-10-04T10:40:00.017-04:00

Yeah, I know, right? How dare I say that there might be a comic book villain out there better than the Clown Prince of Crime! Especially after the glowing review I gave The Dark Knight (admittedly not the most analytical review I've ever written). And I'm not just talking about the Heath Ledger Joker, I'm talking about the Joker in general, from the comics to the small screen to the big screen. Don't get me wrong, I love a little clown on bat action as much as the next comic book nerd, but that doesn't change how I feel. The Joker is overrated. How so? Here so:

Ask almost comic book fan, hell anyone who saw The Dark Knight, who their favorite supervillain is, they will almost always answer The Joker. But there's a followup question no one ever seems to ask: Which one? And I don't mean which actor, I mean which Joker. Because there's been like six of 'em. Unlike Batman, who remained fundamentally unchanged over the years, the Joker becomes a completely different character every time he switches hands. While the tone of Batman's universe has ranged from dark to light to outright parody, the idea of Batman has always been the same: he fights crime to avenge the death of his parents. The Joker has no such consistency. And by that I don't mean they change his origins, I mean the Joker's character has no one established set of motivations.

Every writer has a different take on him, a different reason why he does what he does. Some say he's an anarchist who believes life itself is one big joke. Some say he's a failed comedian psychotically obsessed with making people laugh. Some say he believed insanity is the cure for misery and wants to make everybody "happy". And no, I don't buy that it's just part of the insanity of his character, that he reinvents himself constantly. That's just an excuse, and I'm not falling for it.

But which is the real Joker? You see the problem here? Saying the Joker is the greatest supervillain ever is a really unspecific statement. There's more than one Joker to pick from. I'm not saying they aren't all great villains on their own, I'm just saying they're not all one character, not by a long shot.

So in my mind, the Joker comes short of the title for supreme comic book baddie. So who do I think is the ultimate comic book villain? Lex Luthor? Doctor Doom? Galactus? Nope, nope, and yeah, right. The award for greatest comic book supervillain of all time goes to (drum roll, please)...Darkseid!

They don't get much more badass than Darkseid. In fact, they don't get anymore badass than him. If Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now was an alien despot, he'd pretty much be this motherfucker, right here. Like many people my age, I was first introduced to the Lord of Apokolips through Superman: The Animated Series, and later Justice League. But as cool as he was then, what made him truly awesome was what I learned about him once I actually got into comics...like what the hell the Anti-Life Equation was.

There are many things that make Darkseid the supreme bad guy. One of them is his supreme arrogance. He regards everyone else, even Superman himself, as little more than insects. And sure, most villains have a big ego, but he actually has the muscle to back it up. Not only can his Omega Beams he shoots from his eyes completely erase you from existence, but they even turn corners! I know that seems like a small thing, but think about this. He doesn't even have to look at you to kill you! He doesn't think enough of you to give you a second glance. Even the Joker will give you the courtesy of looking at you when he kills you.

But I think that one thing about Darkseid stands out more than any other: Most supervillains want to conquer the universe, and most of them follow the same old schtick: kill the hero, build an army, take over the world. Yawn. But what is Darkseid's master plan? To mathematically prove the futility of life thereby destroying all hope in the universe leaving people with no choice but to submit to him. Ho-lee shit. Any dumbass can say they want to conquer your planet. But not even Galactus can say he wants to systematically destroy your every last hope and dominate you mind, body, and soul. He doesn't force you to serve him, he convinces you to serve him. Because hey, your life's pointless so why put up a fight? Darkseid's goal in life is to show everyone that resistance really is futile. Suck on that, Borg!

Mad as Hell: Ignorant Audiences

2009-09-22T13:29:00.005-04:00

Just blowing off some steam about some things that really piss me off about the average theater goer today. Sorry for the background noise, the air conditioning's really noisy.

WARNING: This is an uncut, bitter rant recorded in the heat of the moment. Therefore it can get very personal and tactless. So unless your very thick-skinned you may be offended by some of what is said.

VLOG 9/6/09: G.I.Joe: Rise of Cobra, District 9, & Inglourious Basterds review

2009-09-06T12:56:00.004-04:00

Finally, after countless requests, I get around to reviewing a few of the latest movies. Sorry about the lateness and general poor quality of this one, I've got very little free time right now, and my software just wasn't cooperating.

DVD Review: Green Lantern: First Flight

2009-07-24T18:08:00.007-04:00

On his first day on the job, a rookie cop works with a rogue senior officer who isn't what he appears to be. But enough about about the Oscar-winning crime film Training Day, lets talk about Green Lantern: First Flight, the latest direct-to-DVD animated feature from animation legend Bruce Timm. The film documents the first mission of Hal Jordan (Christopher Meloni), the most enduring character ever to bear the mantle of Green Lantern. Sinestro (Victor Garber), a highly respected officer of the Green Lantern Corps, takes the young Jordan under his wing. However, Jordan soon discovers that Sinestro is involved in a conspiracy to take down the Corps, and must stop Sinestro before he takes over the universe. Wow, maybe this is Training Day.

The Pros: As much as I joked about the plot's similarities to Training Day, in no way to I consider this a ripoff. But despite the title, this film is not a origin story. In fact, his origin is over and done with within the first five minutes before the credits even role. This is not a bad thing, however, in fact, since his origin is covered in detail is Justice League: The New Frontier, you could very easily consider this a spin-off of that film. This film is basically like the second half of your average superhero film. Most superhero films spend the first half introducing the character and then transforming him into a superhero, then he usual meets his villain and has his first adventure as a superhero in the second half.

One of the best aspects of this film is the animation. Bruce Timm & Company have always been superior animators, but this is some of their best work ever. The explosions are beautifully realistic, and nowhere will you see better space battles involving no space ships. The redesigns on the characters are great too, particularly on Sinestro and Kilowog, who always looks somewhat ridiculous in the comics. Incidentally, Michael Madsen as Kilowog = AWESOME!!

The Cons: There seems to be an unwritten law that all Direct-to DVD animated features can be no longer than 80 minutes in length. It's a law that needs to be done away with because it's been seriously affecting the quality of these otherwise stellar DC animated films. Justice League: The New Frontier and Wonder Woman in particular suffered greatly because of their short running times. They simply leave too little time for real character development, and often the plots feel rushed.

It's my understanding that fans intially disliked the character of Hal Jordan when he first appeared in 1959. He was thought of a a bit of a stiffneck, with no real characteristics to distiguish him personality-wise. However, the more recent portrayals of Hal Jordan particularly is Darwyn Cooke's excellent graphic novel DC: The New Frontier, Hal is portrayed as someone more akin to Marverick from Top Gun, the hotshot pilot with a devilmaycare attitude. And while that is ostensibly the Hal Jordan portrayed here, the film rushes by so fast you barely get even a sense of that.

Hal doesn't even seem have time to react with suprise and awe to any of the fantastic events happening to him out of the blue. I don't know about you, but if I were suddenly recruited into an alien police force, I'd proabaly start babbling like an idiot. But Hal just takes it all in a stride. It would've also been nice to see Hal actually learning to use the ring. One of the best parts of the Iron Man film for me was the bits with Tony Stark getting the hang of his armor. Here, Hal pretty much masters the ring either instantly, or offscreen, either wat depriving us of some great comedic moments.

The Rest: Not that I'm complaining, but this film was way, way more violent than I was expecting. Superman: Doomsday wasn't as brutal as this. Blood is spilt almost literally every other scene. In fact, if not for the fact that most of it is alien and therefore not red, this film might've very well received a R rating. And not all of it isn't red. There's on seen where character is impaled and covered in his/her (no spoilers!) own very red blood.

The End: Overall, this is fairly average work for Bruce Timm. Of course even mediocre Bruce Timm is lightyears beyond most people. I would however reccomend watching this back to back with Justice League: The New Frontier, to really get the full Hal Jordan experience.

Overall, I give Green Lantern: First Flight a Silver Anarchy Coin.

Click here to visit the official website for Green Lantern: First Flight.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-23T22:11:00.010-04:00

Evil is on the loose, the forces of darkness are attacking both the magical and human worlds, and the most dangerous wizard of all time is gearing up to destroy the world. So naturally, the most important thing in the world right now is to get Ron and Hermione together. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the 6th installment in the film franchise based on the much beloved book by J. K. Rowling. It is Harry Potter's (Daniel Radcliffe) 6th year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The truth of Voldemort's return has finally been exposed, dark wizards are not only openly attacking the magic world, but the muggle world as well, and Harry seems to be the only hope of preventing the Dark Lord's victory. Oh well, back to school. Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) has finally aquired his dream job as the Defense against the Dark Arts professor (which explains why we never see him teach a single class or even discuss this fact beyond mentioning it is passing once), and a new professor named Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) has taken over the potions class. Harry's new potions textbook is mysteriously marked "Property of the Half-Blood Prince", and is filled with notes and corrections that allow Harry to excell in the class. On a completely unrelated but far more interesting note, Harry and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) go investigating Voldemort's past, Draco (Tom Felton) is dragged into a plot to kill Dumbledore, and all the kids start hooking up (OK, not so interesting).

The Pros: There's not denying that the Potter books were very well written. I'm not actually finished with them myself (I've only read the first three), but no who has read any of them can deny that author J. K. Rowling possesses a talent for sucking her audience into the story from page one. It's virtually impossible to be bored reading her work, even if you're not a habitual reader.

But the Harry Potter books are more that simply great stories, they are coming-of-age stories, and some of the best ever written. You could literally give a kid one book a year starting at age eleven. Kids decades from now might very well be growing up on these books and maybe even the films as well.

The Cons: Admittedly, I'm not the biggest fan of the Harry Potter mythos. I grew up on The Chronicles of Narnia books, so that's always been by fantasy franchise of choice. So maybe it's just that I'm growing tired of the films, but this one came across to me as boring. Really boring. I even considered giving it a re-watch just to make sure it wasn't just me (and I probably will eventually, with lowered expectations), but I honestly don't think it will do much good.

This film is the first real wake up call to the fact that the Harry Potter books are very difficult to film, maybe even unfilmable is some cases. And I'm not saying that because they're some kind of sacred cows that can never be done justice, I'm saying that because they're simply to long to be put on film with proper coherance. There's simply too much that has to be lost for time reasons. And I hate to have to say that because the films thus far have been extraordinarily faithful to the books, which is a rare thing. For example, I understand the plot element the title derives it's name from is vitally important to the plot in the book, but whatever it did lend to the overall story has apparantly but cut from the film, which already has a very long running time, to long to not have an intermission.

Another thing that bothered me was that the most interesting characters were really pushed into the background. I know I'll take hate for saying this, but the three main characters (Harry, Ron & Hermione) are actually the least interesting of the cast. Harry is a passive blank slate for the other characters to mold and use as they please, Hermione is an unlikable know-it-all bitch, and Ron, well, is just a dork. In fact, when it comes to the kids, my three favorite characters are Luna Lovegood (because she reminds me of River Tam), Neville Longbottom (because he reminds me of Samwise Gamgee), and, believe it or not, Draco Malfoy. Yeah, I know, but as much of a asshole as he is, you have to admit he has far more dimensions to his character that Harry ever had. Not that you could tell that at first. In the first film he was just the stereotypical snobby rich kid. But as early as the second film we started to see that there was indeed a real reason for his behavior. I mean, think about it: His dad, who abuses him, essentially works for the devil! That'd screw anyone up. Harry's aunt & uncle are mean, sure, but they're nothing next to Lucius Malfoy (by-the-by, it's pretty telling of Harry's character that after witnessing Draco's plight multiple times, he still has zero sympathy for him).

Once again, I haven't read the book, but everyone who has tells me that there's supposed to be a huge battle scene in the school at the end, a battle that was despertely needed but left out for some reason. It's honestly hard to believe that this is supposed to be the follow-up to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which had some of the most spectacular battles in film history. But this really killed the momentum of the series.

The End: I think I can safely say that this is the second worst of the Potter films, with Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets retaining the award for worst. Chamber of Secrets was a boring retread of the first film and a completely pointless addition to the story. Half-Blood Prince is certainly boring, but it's certainly not pointless, nor a complete retread. It's more like a less entertaining version of Order of the Phoenix. Of course, even the worst of the Potter films are still good films, but they're still disappointing by this series' standerds. All I can say is that they picked a hell of a time to break the pace with the saga nearing it's climax. If they do make Deathly Hallows into two films, they better step it up.

Overall, I give Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the Bronze Anarchy Coin.

Click here to visit the official website for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.

VLOG: July 23, 2009

2009-07-23T22:08:00.003-04:00

Moving, censoring, laptop repairs, and the next Lunatic Fringe episode.

Movie Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-30T15:25:00.002-04:00

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on EVERY F@CKING @$$HOLE THAT PAYED TO SEE THIS SH%T!!!!! Here's my revenge, um review on the Transformers sequel.

How X-Men Origins: Wolverine should have ended...

2009-06-29T21:19:00.005-04:00

Courtesy of: ScarletVulture on deviant ART

Yes, I'm still pissed about the Wolverine movie. But revenge his good for the soul. If your soul is a twisted black void of despair like mine. Anyway, gaze upon the glorious retrubution wrought on Baraka-Pool by the true Deadpool, with a little help from a very talented fan.

Movie Review: Good

2009-06-29T17:10:00.010-04:00

You may remember me calling this movie the "Best Movie Nobody Saw" last year, without actually having seen it. I finally had the opportunity a month ago, and I figured I owed to you guys to review it. Good is based on a stage play by C. P. Taylor, and it tells the story of John Halder (Viggo Mortensen), a German college professor during the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. He opposes the ideas of the Nazis, especially because his best friend Maurice (Jason Isaacs) is Jewish. He is convinced the the Nazis will never last, and it will all be over soon. However, and Hitler grows more powerful and pressure grows for Halder to join the Nazi Party. His job is in danger, his books are being burned, and his sick mother is near suicidal. Eventually he gives in and joins up, moving up in the ranks. However, when Hitler begins rounding the Jews, Halder must risked everything to save his friend, who already feels betrayed by him.

The Pros: After doing my research on this film, I'm not sure I fully understand it as well as I thought I did upon first viewing. The tagline "Anything that makes people happy can't be bad, can it?" led to to believe it was an anti-fascism statement, and seeing the film itself only served to reinforce that. As I said before "People see fascism as the stereotypical black clad stormtroopers policing the streets and herding helpless civilians like they were cattle, like we've seen in the movies. Fascism is an attractive thing. It promises us peace, and for some it delivers. That's why it's so dangerous. If it looked like Darth Vader, who would go for it?"

However, the people who were involved in the making of this film have lead me to consider that I may be misinterpreting the films intentions. Viggo Mortensen is an outspoken liberal, and C. P. Taylor was a known socialist who often drew from that when writing his plays. I find in hard to believe that he would right a story that condemns his own personal beliefs, as this film seems too.

But regardless of what it's message is, Good is still very, well good (sorry, I had to make that joke). Viggo Mortensen and Jason Isaacs are excellent as usual. You can truly feel the emotional conflict within Halder, and we understand him enough so that we don't completely hate him when he chickens out and joins the dark side. Jason Isaacs character by be rather unforgiving an dogmatic at times, but he's still admirable, and he truly want him to escape an survive. We simpathize with his plight and his determination not to be driven from him home. And the ending is truly haunting. However you chose to interpret this film, it will be forever burned in your memory.

The Cons: This film definitely has is pacing problems. Having Viggo in virtually every scene helps, but there's no denying that there are more than a few scenes a story elements that felt unnecessary to the main plot. This is especially clear in the final scene, where the film just sort of stutters and dies instead of simply ending. It feels like the movie is already over, and the characters are just wandering around waiting for the credits to role.

The End: Admittedly, this movie wasn't quite as good as I imagined but still a well made film, and certainly deserving of more attention than it got. To me, any film that gets you to think is a success, especially in the film industry today.

Overall, I give Good a Silver Anarchy Coin.

Click here to visit the official website for Good.

The Lunatic Fringe: Blade Runner

2009-06-23T23:12:00.006-04:00

You'd think a movie that's supposedly all about anti-corporate themes would have less product placement. The first episode of The Lunatic Fringe takes an unforgiving look at the cult classic Braid Runner...uh, I mean Blade Runner.

EDIT 11/8/11
This was my first attempt at deconstructing a popular film, one that in hindsight I'm not terribly proud of. The standard formula of making snarky comments whilst summarizing the plot just isn't the proper context for presenting my arguments.

The more recent review of "The Usual Suspects" was essentially a reboot of the Lunatic Fringe show concept, using a more analytical and less comedy-oriented format. I intend to eventually redo this review in that format.

So for anyone who has never seen this before, please take this review which a grain of salt, because frankly, it's not very good.

Watch the commentary for this episode here.

Movie Review: Up

2009-06-09T19:17:00.000-04:00

Geez, why do we even review these Pixar films anymore? There's really nothing more to say other than "Pixar's awesome". But I'll do my best. Up tells the story of Carl Fredricksen (Edward Asner), a recently widowed senior citizen who's being forced into retirement so his house can be torn down to make way for new construction. Throughout their lives, Carl and his wife Ellie (Elie Docter) had dreamed of adventure hoping to someday make their home at Paradise Falls, a famous landmark in South America that was explored by their childhood hero, Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). Determined to fulfill his late wife's dream before he dies, Carl, in an act of desperation, turns his house into a ramshackle airship using thousands of balloons, in order to fly to South America and land his house on Paradise Falls. He is joined on his quest by a stowaway boy scout named Russell (Jordan Nagai), a strange tropical bird dubbed Kevin, and a dog named Doug (Bob Peterson) who talks using a hi-tech collar.

The Pros: When Pixar first appeared in 1995 with its hit film Toy Story, I honestly didn't think that much of them. Sure, I was six, but still. Even today, I'm not as impressed as most by their earlier films. Sure they were all good, and just having a studio that makes consistently good films without fail is an accomplishment, but I just thought they were a bit overrated. Don't get me wrong, I love Toy Story, but 100% on Rotten Tomatoes? Seriously? A Bug's Life was good, but was still a step down after Toy Story, and Monsters Inc. didn't pick up the slack. I simply don't believe that being to first to showcase some new technology or special effect, or starting some new trend necessarily makes a movie great. It just means they were the first to do something, nothing more.

Then they released Finding Nemo, and it was all uphill from there. With the minor exception of Cars, Pixar films have been getting constantly better and better, to the point that we've all but forgotten animated children's classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, and Beauty and the Beast. In fact, the only animated feature film Pixar has yet to match, in my opinion, is Fantasia, which will forever hold the crown for best work of animation in my mind. The Incredibles remains my personal favorite of their movies, but Pixar's absolute best film is unquestionably WALL-E. And Up has not dethroned it. But it comes daaaaaammmmmn close.

Up's greatest appeal, to me at least, is the nostalgia factor. Just as WALL-E payed homage to and captured the feel of the very best 70s & 80s science fiction films, Up does the same for the classic Hollywood adventure films, such as The Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Dr. Doolittle, Around the World in 80 Days, The Time Machine, and just about any "Lost World" adventure film you can think of. The fact that they cast Christopher Plummer in the film and modeled Carl Fredricksen's appearance on Spencer Tracy in his later years only adds to the old Hollywood feel. (Pointless Trivia: The villain was actually based on Charles Mintz, a cartoon producer who stole the idea for Oswald the Lucky Rabbit from Walt Disney, forcing him to create Mickey Mouse as a replacement. Walt has his vengeance from the grave!!)

Aside from this, Pixar continues to deliver heartfelt entertainment and adventure of the highest caliber. The story, the characters, the humor, the uncontrived action, emotions, and adventure, are all near-perfect.

The Cons: I do not believe there is such a thing as a perfect film. We as human beings are far from perfect, and thus are incapable of producing anything perfect. However, you know a film is great when, whatever its flaw may be, you cannot find it. I honestly cannot think of a single thing that bothered me about this film. It is a near-flawless work of art.

The End: When I was a kid, my favorite classic children's film was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (damn you Tim Burton for bastardizing it, by the way). Up has absolutely everything that made me fall in love with that film and more: genuine emotions, memorable characters, visual creativity, and never, ever a dull moment.

Overall, I give Up a Gold Anarchy Coin.

Click here to visit the official website for Up.

Movie Review: Terminator Salvation

2009-06-05T22:20:00.000-04:00

Sorry for how criminally late this is (where have I heard that before?) This new format takes some getting used to. Anyway, here's my review for Terminator Salvation.

RIP David Carradine

2009-06-04T14:38:00.000-04:00

Bill is dead.

I know that sounds like a joke in extremely poor taste, but it's not meant to be. But I just can't help but think of Kill Bill at a time like this. It was probably the best film he ever did, as well as the best role he ever played. It was made for him. And considering the film's title and subject matter, I think most people are thinking along the same lines.

All references aside, David Carradine was truly one of my favorite actors. Sadly I never say his famous TV show Kung Fu (though I've been meaning to for some time). I mostly know him as the star or some of my favorite B-movies, including Death Race 2000 and Lone Wolf McQuade. So it kind of appropraite that the last film I say him in was Crank 2: High Voltage.

To me, and a lot of other people, Carradine was the definition of awesome. It wasn't just that he was a perfect fusion of Clint Eastwood and Bruce Lee. It wasn't just the fact that with is interest in Eastern philosophy, he was practically a karate cowboy in reallife. It was his voice. He had quite possibly the coolest, most recognizable voice in film history. Most people have Morgan Freeman as their favorite narrator. Not me. I had Carradine. I tuned into history channel just to see him host Wild West Tech ('course the fact that I love westerns didn't hurt). It's a great human tragedy that he didn't do more voice work. Danny Phantom became ten times the show it was just from those few episodes his guest starred in.

And with that, I leave you with, well, you all knew it was coming, right?

God bless you, David. We'll miss you.