The Man Who could Replace Christopher Nolan

You don't need me too tell you what a brilliant director Christopher Nolan is, you know that already. He's taken the dying Batman franchise and transformed it beyond our wildest dreams, simply by looking at it as a film, not a comic book film. It would definitely be tragic if Christopher Nolan were to leave the Batman film series, especially since Warner Bros. would be sure to continue without him. But let's think about this. If the worst were to happen and Nolan, for whatever reason, didn't direct Batman 3, who would be the next best choice? Many would say that Nolan is irreplaceable, and that anyone else at the helm would be disastrous. However, I believe there is someone who could fill Nolan's shoes, someone who can tell a brilliant story worthy of the Nolan films: Aaron Schoenke (pictured below, left).

You probably haven't heard of him, but believe me, you don't know what you're missing out on. He's a independent filmmaker working for a small production company in California called Bat in the Sun. He's written and directed a number of fan films based on the Batman comics, including Dark Justice, Batman Legends, and Patient J. But don't mistake the term "fan film" to mean poor quality. These films are all well filmed, written, and acted, especially considering the limited budget. Dark Justice and Batman Legends are fairly short simple films, but it's in Patient J that his potential truly becomes apparent.

"Fan film" barely applies to this one. Patient J is a brilliantly written psychological story revolving around the Joker. And when I say brilliant, I'm not exaggerating. Patient J is The Killing Joke good; The Dark Knight Returns good. It' just as intriguing and twisted as any Joker story ever written. And not only is it well-written, but it's well-cast. Actor Paul Molnar (pictured above, right) portrays the Joker, and while his depiction of closer the the comic book version than Heath Ledger's performance, it's easily better than Jack Nicholson. I would never advocate replacing the late Ledger, at least not this early, but I just might be willing to give Molnar a shot. His performance is priceless. He resembles the comic book Joker down the the finest detail, the expressions, the voice, the laugh, everything. It's as though the character just walked off the comic book pages.

Now I don't want to give the impression that I want Christopher Nolan replaced. I want Nolan to stay as long as he's willing. But in the unfortunate, and unlikely, event that he doesn't return, Aaron Schoenke is possibly the only other filmmaker on the planet that I would entrust with the responsibility. I truly hope Schoenke one day gets his shot a being a major Hollywood director. After seeing what he's done with what he has, I can only imagine what he'd do with multi-million dollar budgets at his disposal.

If you're still in doubt as to Schoenke's talents, check out Patient J yourself.

What about you? Do you think Aaron Schoenke would make a good director for a Batman sequel? What other directors would you chose should Christopher Nolan chose to leave the project?

Movie Review: Max Payne

Well, looks like it's time for another cinematic video game adaption (at least Uwe Boll isn't directing this one). This time it's the 2001 game Max Payne, a third-person shooter inspired by the Hong Kong action film genre. Like the game the film version of Max Payne centers around the character of the same name (Mark Wahlberg), a cop whose family was killed by junkies on some kind of super-drug called Valkyr. As a result, Payne has become cynical and antisocial, and is obsessed with taking down everyone connected with the drug. joined by an assassin named Mona Sax (Mila Kunis), looking to avenge her sisters death, thanks also going to Valkyr. As they slowly unravel the origin of the mysterious drug, Max battles his inner demons and confronts the reality of his loss.

The Pros: Video game movies have not had much of a proud history, and Max Payne is not going to break that pattern. Though honestly, it's no worse than any other game adaption either. I've seen a number of reviews of this movie that sounded angry or disappointed. Seriously, what were you expecting? The reason video games don't make good movies is because they were never meant as story-telling mediums. The plots are there simply to string together a series of fights and/or challenges for the player. Now I realize that there are plenty of games with good story lines that would make great films, so eventually a video game film will pleasantly surprise me, but until then, I have zero expectations for these films. Which I why I don't hate this film like others. Sure, it wasn't good, but I wasn't expecting it to be, so I enjoyed it for what it was. The acting and writing wasn't terrible, certainly not good, but not as terrible as has been said. And there was definitely some beautiful set pieces and action.

The Cons: OK, now that I'm done defending this film, it's time to get serious. Why I expected this film to be bad, that doesn't change the fact that is was pretty bad. As you've probably expected the story is nothing special. We've seen this movie done a thousand time before, and done so much better. I already said the acting a writing didn't bother me, but it was still only adequate. But that wasn't the worst part. The worst part was that this movie has surprisingly little action. After seeing the trailer, I was under the impression that this film would be more or less non stop gunfights and bullet time. And I would have been fine with that. But the trailer lied. This movie has a grand total of three action scenes (depending on what you count as action), and none of them last more than two minutes, except the finale. The film isn't well-written enough to be a deep, and it's not action-packed to be exciting, to it Ultimately has very little to offer.

The Rest: BTW, was I the only one who found it impossible to take Mila Kunis seriously as a bad@$$ assassin? Seriously, she doesn't look the least bit dangerous. I just can't look at her without thinking of That 70's Show.

The End: As I said, I came into this film, expecting absolutely nothing. And while I wasn't disappointed, I wasn't surprised either. This is a movie filmed with missed opportunities, it could've been worse, but it could've been better. As you've gathered by now, this it's hardly worth seeing in the theatre. Wait until it comes to DVD and rent it sometime when you're bored and have see the better stuff a thousand times.

Overall, I give Max Payne a Copper Anarchy Coin.

Click here to visit the official site for Max Payne.

Movie Review: Eagle Eye

Well, Shia LaBeouf is at it again, eager to show off his newly grown facial hair (I think it's supposed to be a beard). Teaming up once again with the same director that brought us Disturbia, he's now moved on to a political thriller. Eagle Eye tells the story of two ordinary people, a slacker named Jerry Shaw (LaBeouf), and a single mom named Rachel Holloman (Michelle Monaghan). Both suddenly receive a mysterious phone call telling them that they have been "activated", which apparently doesn't mean aroused. The mysterious caller kept in contact with both of them, and is somehow able to control electronics such as computers, cell phones, traffic lights, and vehicles. She brings them together and forces them to commit a series of terrorist acts, framing them as traitors to the United States. And so begins the chase as Jerry & Rachel have to outwit their mysterious tormentor ans clear their names.

The Pros: If you liked movies like WarGames or Enemy of the State, this is should entertain you. This film's best quality is definitely the "thriller" part. It's fast-paced, practically hits the ground running and never really slows up. It's definitely exciting enough the keep you on the edge of your set, and the action scenes, while highly implausible, are well done. While there is some social commentary here, this film is not very heavy on the political part, which may not necessarily be a bad thing, depending on the viewer.

The Cons: This movie relies heavily on fast-paced adrenaline-rushing action; in fact too much. The characters have little to no time to develop before they are thrown headlong into this adventure. As I said, the action is pretty implausible, even though the pacing generally covers that pretty well.

The End: I gotta admit, when I first read the plot for the movie, I thought it was a comedy. What kind of spy thriller teams up a 20-something slacker and a single mom? I half expected them to hook up at the end of the movie. Which would be really weird, considering Michelle Monaghan is ten years older that Shia LaBeouf. Man, she's really robbing the cradle there. But lo and behold, it was not a comedy, nor did it unintentionally come off as one. It was a fun, exciting ride that probably should have been released as a summer film. And while the film isn't that deep, it is enough to make you question our dependence on technology just a little. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm logging off now before my computer starts giving orders.

Overall, I give Eagle Eye a Bronze Anarchy Coin.

Click here to visit the official website for Eagle Eye.

Movie Review: RocknRolla

English director Guy Ritchie is known for crime films, so it's no surprise when seeing his latest creation, RocknRolla, to find that is revolves around the British underworld. London gangster and real estate tycoon Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson) is making a deal with a Russian billionaire (Karel Roden). To seal the deal, the Russian loans Lenny his prized "lucky" painting. Unfortunately for Lenny, the painting is stolen by his stepson, a crackhead missing-presumed-dead rock star named Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell), the titled RocknRolla. Meanwhile, the Russian's personal accountant Stella (Thandie Newton), is bored and looking for excitement, and hired a trio of gangsters called the Wild Bunch (Gerard Butler, Idris Elba, & Tom Hardy), to help her steal from her boss. Ultimately, they all explosively collide, everybody trying to claim their fortune.

The Pros: This film isn't called RocknRolla for nothing. Just like the trailer, this film's soundtrack is filled with rock music various artists. The music is all but constant, even though RocknRoll has little to nothing to do with the plot. The dialogue is very well-written and witty, including lines like "there's no school like the old school, and I'm the @#$%ing headmaster".

The Cons: While the film is hardly boring, it's far from action packed. The violence is surprisingly tame a very infrequent. The first action scene occurs well over and hour in. And as hot as Thandie Newton is, all she does is stand around smoking and talking, with the exception of one 5-second sex scene where all we see is her face. The plot is a bit nonlinear and muddled, and the side plot with the Wild Bunch and Stella feels pretty unnecessary.

The End: "People ask the question...what's a RocknRolla? And I tell 'em - it's not about drugs, drums, and hospital drips, oh no. There's more there than that, my friend. We all like a bit of the good life - some the money, some the drugs, other the sex game, the glamour, or the fame. But a RocknRolla, oh, he's different. Why? Because a real RocknRolla wants the @#$%ing lot." These are the opening lines of the film, and they describe what's to come pretty well: a tale filled with dangerous characters that want it all. And while this is definitely Guy Ritchie's best work in a while, it's hardy Reservoir Dogs. It's an interesting Dark comedy, but ultimately promises more than it delivers. Ironically, this British film has gained better reviews here in the US than the UK. Though Guy Ritchie claims a sequel isn't certain, the ending of this film doesn't just hint at one, it explicitly names a sequel. So if Guy Ritchie gets his way, expect The Real RocknRolla before long.

My Rating:

Click here to visit the official website for RocknRolla.

Movie Review: Fireproof

From the same self-proclaimed "small church in Georgia" who brought us Facing the Giants, comes yet another Christian film, Fireproof, this time dealing with the subject of marriage. Caleb Holt (Kirk Cameron) is a decorated fireman who lives by an old fire fighter's motto: never leave you partner behind. But he's about to do just that in his marriage. His wife Catherine (Erin Bethea) have been married for ten years, but have drifted so far apart that they file for divorce. However, Caleb's father (Harris Malcom), unwilling to see a relationship fall apart so easily, convinces his son so try an experiment called "The Love Dare", a forty day challenge of showing love to one's spouse in order to "fireproof" the relationship. Caleb takes the dare, mainly for his dad and not his wife. But eventually he comes to realize he still loves his wife as God teaches him the true meaning of love and marriage. But is it too late to convince Catherine that he has truly changed?

The Pros: So often the biggest problem with Christian films is the writing. The dialogue is written stiffly, especially is the faith-related parts, and the characters sound as if they're reading from a Sunday school book. But while this film does still have that problem is a few areas, it's not nearly as bad as usual. They characters feel real and keep our interest. The humor is good, the acting believable, and the emotions are heartfelt.

Also, the makers of this film have obviously come a long way since Facing the Giants. Not only were the able to obtain a recognizable actor like Kirk Cameron, but they are able to afford bigger & better effects than last time. Speaking of Kirk Cameron, you have to admire him. It's clear he is not doing this for a paycheck or recognition, as this is still a small, independent film with a limited budget. He's here because he believes in the project, and as such gives a great performance.

The Cons: As I said, the dialogue still feels pretty scripted is some parts, though it's not as bad as it could have been. Aside from Kirk Cameron, none of the cast has any recognition, though they fill their roles well enough. As Christian films go, this one has zero subtlety. It's clearly made for the church-going crowd, so if that's not you, this is not your film.

The End: In comparison with other Christian films, this is definitely a step above the rest. It's much more well written and entertaining than most, and certainly pleases it's target audience. Hopefully we'll see more from the people, who, for a church, have proved capable filmmakers.

My Rating:

Click here to visit the official website for Fireproof.

Mad as Hell: V for Vendetta for Real

One of my favorite graphic novels is Alan Moore's V for Vendetta. It echoed all the frustration many must be feeling during the slow destruction of democracy in the UK. Alan Moore, who lived in Great Britain, wrote a compelling story that unfortunately bear an eerie resemblance to reality. It's seems they take another step toward socialism everyday. They banned guns. The violent crime rate went up. They rig traffic cams to monitor drivers like they were children. But surely they wouldn't resort to censorship, would they? Oh wait, yes they would.

Most of you remember the action film Wanted, which was released in theatres a few months ago. According to a recent news article, Britain's Advertising Standards Authority has banned several promotional posters from use in the UK, after receiving complaints that the posters glamorized firearms and violence. No duh.

Anyone else wish V would show up right about now? How many angry voices do you suppose it took to ward such censorship. Hundreds? Thousands, even? Nope. According to the article, only 17 complaint were filed concerning the posters. Yeah, you heard write. Count 'em, 17. Who mostly likely all can from the same snooty circle.

Just in case your not already shocked, let me give you an idea of how amazingly small that number is. The population of England (not including the rest of the UK) is roughly 50,762,900 people. Now, 17 is what percent of that? Hold on a sec, I need a bigger calculator. Man, I hate math.......OK, got it. 0.000033%. That's less than zero percent. So it's not exaggerating to say that literally nobody is offended by these posters.

So apparently is takes literally nothing to get something censored. Imagine if this had been applied to the recent Tropic Thunder controversy. The film would have never seen the light of day. They had hundreds of people complaining, when apparently it only takes seven-freaking-teen. Once again we have PC tyranny at it's worst. How can art and free expression prosper in a world where any overly sensitive whiner can shoot it down at will? It makes me mad as hell.

Just in case you haven't seen them, here's a few of the banned images:

Source: Yahoo News

News: Stallone as the Dark Knight?

Hey, hey, calm down! Christian Bale isn't going anywhere. However, Sylvester Stallone has just been named by Frank Miller as his first choice to portray Batman Sr. should his most successful graphic novel, The Dark Knight Returns, ever get cinematic treatment. In a recent interview with the LA Times' Geoff Boucher, Miller was quoted as saying “Just that mouth of his, the scowl and the way it would look in a mask. I loved Rocky Balboa. This wounded warrior, that’s what Batman is in The Dark Knight Returns.”

Obviously, The Dark Knight Returns is the popular Batman graphic novel of them all, and for my money the best. The prospect of bringing it to the big screen definitely excites me. But I don't know about you, but when I picture such a movie in my head, the face I attach to Bruce Wayne isn't Stallone's. Don't get me wrong, he's one of my favorite stars of all time, he just doesn't seem to fit the role.

Geoff Boucher himself didn't seem too fond of the idea. “Put Stallone in a mask and you get Judge Dredd again," he later said, "and nobody wants that.” (personally I liked Judge Dredd, but I wouldn't waste time defending it.)

It's always been my dream to one day have a Dark Knight Returns movie with Clint Eastwood in the lead role. Sure he may be so old that major special effects and stuntmen use would be needed, but I still can't think of anybody even close, unless you want to wait 30 years for Christian Bale to grow old. I'm not saying I couldn't see Stallone as Batman. After all, he did two similar movies, Rocky Balboa & Rambo, that dealt with bitter aging fighters much like The Dark Knight Returns did with Batman. People haven't been too fond of Frank Miller lately, but I for one still have faith in him. The Spirit is one thing, but there's no way he could screw up The Dark Knight Returns. Could he?