That relatability has a lot to do with the . . . → Read More: Radioactive Spider Blood – Tuesday TubeWatch]]> Other heroes may be dark, brooding and intelligent, or invincible super-nice guys, but no one is as fun to watch as Spider-Man. More than most other super-heroes, he seems like a regular (if really intelligent) guy who is trying to juggle two lives without losing his sense of humor. I can relate to him better than any other super-hero I can think of at the moment.

That relatability has a lot to do with the longevity of the character, and his commercial success. There are multiple Spider-Man comic book lines, and there have been multiple TV shows – not all of them cartoons. And then, of course, there are the Sam Raimi/Tobey McGuire movies (more on the movies in a bit).

One of the cartoons was back in the 1990′s. For the most part, it’s regarded by fans as one of the worst versions of Spider-Man. I’ll admit, it has a few problems, but I really like the series. It was my introduction to some of the more interesting villains (Venom and Carnage, for example), and it had what other Spider-Man stories before it didn’t: a story arc. Stories frequently had an impact on future episodes. That’s always a selling point for me.

Marvel has begun releasing the episodes of that cartoon for free, so head over there if you want to see more. They seem to be releasing one per week. Here is the first episode, “Night of the Lizard,” where Peter Parker’s professor, Doctor Conners, becomes The Lizard.

Fun stuff. I’m also hearing good stuff about the current Spectacular Spider-Man series. I’ll have to check that one out.

I promised some more on the Spider-Man movies. Here’s the latest I’ve heard: there will be a Spider-Man 4, starring Tobey and Kirsten, and directed by Raimi. That’s not new news. But there will also be a Spider-Man 5 and 6, and the studio is going ahead with them even if the “big three” don’t return to the franchise. According to Slice of Sci-Fi:

The first step in the process is hiring a writer for the fifth and sixth installments.   For that, Sony and Marvel Studios have chosen James Vanderbilt.  If the name is familar to those of you who follow news of “Spider-Man,” you may recall that Vanderbilt penned the first draft of the next installment and produced a two-picture story outline that impressed Sony executives earlier in the pre-production process.  Reports in Variety indicate that the new deal goes back to the original script Vanderbilt wrote, which is for a two-picture story arc for the famous web crawler.

And the trade paper reports that if Raimi, McGuire and Dundst leave the franchise after “Spidey 4,” that the new scripts could serve as a reboot for the franchise.

This worries me for two reasons:

1. With new stars would come either a new tone or a copying of the current actors. The first would be annoying (but I grant it could work), and the second would be horrible.
2. With a new director the whole style of the movie could be drastically altered. Yeah, Spider-Man 3 was a weak entry, but I still think Sam Raimi has that world nailed, and if they get someone else, it would have to be someone who loves that world just as much, not someone in it for a paycheck.

So… looking forward to the 4th installment in 2011, and waiting cautiously to see how things play out beyond that.

With characters that have as huge of an existing storyline as Green Lantern, it’d be easy for a movie like Green Lantern: First Flight to get lost in trying to add in all the cool stuff and cameos that could be covered. That isn’t the case here. This is a lean movie. At 70 minutes, you could actually argue that it’s too lean. But I still liked it.

Everything . . . → Read More: Review: Green Lantern: First Flight]]>

Green Lantern - First Flight

With characters that have as huge of an existing storyline as Green Lantern, it’d be easy for a movie like Green Lantern: First Flight to get lost in trying to add in all the cool stuff and cameos that could be covered. That isn’t the case here. This is a lean movie. At 70 minutes, you could actually argue that it’s too lean. But I still liked it.

Everything I know about Green Lantern and Hal Jordan in particular could fit on a half-sheet of paper. I’m no expert. I know the broad strokes. I’ve always loved the character and concept of Green Lantern, though. Intergalactic cops with the ability to temporarily create tangible objects by sheer will (thanks to their rings). Pretty cool stuff. Most of what I know I’ve gleaned from Justice League cartoons and comics, and a few crossover events.

Not being an expert, I have no ideas what true Lantern fans will think of this movie, but I loved it. Was it perfect? No. But I had a good time watching it and it was true enough to the backstory I knew to satisfy me.

The things I didn’t like were mostly just a lack of character definition. I don’t think enough time was spent defining Hal before he got the ring (which he does before the opening credits, as we’ve seen). It would have been nice to see him exhibiting some ingenuity and willingness to accept new ideas before throwing him into a situation filled with aliens and conspiracies. That was probably the biggest flaw with this movie, as far as I was concerned. They just jumped in a little too quick, and had him completely comfortable almost immediately. Five or ten more minutes at the beginning setting him up (in a way that played in to the story later, preferably) would have been well spent.

Aside from that, though, it was a fun ride. There wasn’t a whole lot of subtlety on display here. It’s pretty much a straight line plot, and you gotta roll with it. The final battle is really great. I especially liked the simple shots where the Guardians and other Lanterns are watching the mano-a-mano battle unfold in the sky. That gave the battle a bigger perspective, to me.

It should be said that I wasn’t expecting much from this movie aside from a fun ride. And that’s what I got. My expectations for the live action film will be much higher. It will need that character development and tighter writing to be successful. Compared to the other DC Comics animated movies I’ve seen, though, this is on par with most. Well worth a rental and an hour or so of your time. I’d even be interested in a sequel.

As for the DVD Extras… there was absolutely nothing about behind the scenes on this movie. There weren’t even Scene Selections available, which was pretty annoying. There were some behind the scenes featurettes on other DC movies/events, though. The Wonder Woman movie was plugged, and looks pretty good. But the one I’m really interested to see is Superman/Batman: Public Enemies. That one just looks like a good picture – plus they got the original actors back from the animated series (Tim Daly as Superman, Kevin Conroy as Batman, and Clancy Brown as Luthor). It really looks good. Looking forward to that one in a few months.

Not sure how that helicopter thing is going to work out… that looks a bit cheesy in the trailer, . . . → Read More: Wolverine movie trailer]]> I don’t know a whole lot about Wolverine’s origins other than what is in the X-Men movies. For some reason I never read the comics versions. I’m pretty excited to see this. Plus, it’s got Gambit. I know some people don’t like him, but he was one of my favorite X-Men from the TV cartoons.

Not sure how that helicopter thing is going to work out… that looks a bit cheesy in the trailer, but I’m willing to let it slide for now. Looking forward to this one.

see more crazy cat pics

There needs to be a Hitman Monkey comic book. A depressed monkey running around whacking people… what’s funnier than that?!

“Hitman Monkey: No Funny Business”

Oh, man… that would have been an awesome background character in a Tick episode. He could have been in the background in every scene quietly taking out the “extras”.

The animated Star Wars series is on track. Some tidbits from Ron Coleman, animation supervisor for Industrial Light & Magic:

That’s just wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, here… I fully believe that humans can do amazing things . . . → Read More: Follow-up review: The Prince of Egypt trailer]]> On further reflection there is one more thing I want to say about The Prince Of Egypt. The second trailer (included on the DVD) paints the film as a “triumph of the power of the human spirit”. In other words, they’re saying this movie shows how humans can do amazing things when they put their minds to it.

That’s just wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, here… I fully believe that humans can do amazing things when we put our minds to it. Phenomenal stuff. My issue is that this movie has absolutely nothing to do with that. This movie is all about Moses putting himself aside and completely trusting God to fulfill His promise to deliver Israel. This is an oversimplification, but Moses was little more than God’s mouthpiece. He wielded no power of his own, but rather God used him to show His own power. To use just one example, Moses walked into the water and put a stick in it – God created a dry path through a sea. Without God, Moses just had a wet stick.

It kinda bothers me that the message of the marketing would run counter to the message of the film, but I guess that’s Hollywood.

[tags]movie trailer, marketing, religion, Moses, Old Testament, Exodus, human spirit[/tags]

For those who may not know, the story is set in Egypt during the reigns of Seti (the first, I think), and his son Rameses. (If you somehow don’t already know the . . . → Read More: Review: The Prince of Egypt]]> It’s hard to do better than the Bible for your source material, so this movie had an edge already. In some ways it lived up to (and exceeded) expectations; in others, it left me slightly disappointed, but overall it was an excellent film.

For those who may not know, the story is set in Egypt during the reigns of Seti (the first, I think), and his son Rameses. (If you somehow don’t already know the story, skip to the next paragraph.) In those times, the Hebrews were slaves of Egypt. Seti was having Hebrew babies killed to control the slave population, but Moses’ mother kept him hidden for three months until she could hide him no longer and had to trust God to keep him safe when she put him in a basket in the Nile River. As in many places, the movie takes a little license here and has the basket floating downstream suviving a number of dangerous situations. (In the Bible, it’s not quite as visually exciting: the Pharaoh’s daughter – not the Queen, as depicted in the movie – finds the basket while on a walk.) Moses grows up in the palace until learning of his true heritage, runs away, meets God (literally, through the Burning Bush) who commands him to return to Egypt and free his people, Israel (the Hebrews). With some rather famous and impressive miracles and plagues, culminating in the parting of the Red Sea, God uses Moses to deliver the Hebrews from the Egyptians.

The movie takes an interesting tack in focusing heavily on the sibling relationship between Moses and Rameses, which is not really mentioned in the Bible. It really puts the story in a light most, I believe, had not considered. Assuming Moses did have a good relationship with Rameses, it adds a much more personal component to their conflict. At times through the movie, you can sympathize with Rameses’ perception of Moses as a betrayer. In general he is portrayed more as a human than an all-powerful head of the dominant empire on the planet, and I think that helps in the film. It also sets it apart from other Exodus epics.

Lots of famous people lent their voices to this film, led by Val Kilmer as Moses. I think he did a good job, though one thing I didn’t like was that his voice was also used for the voice of God. That seemed to me to be a poor choice, as it allows the viewer to wonder if Moses is just hallucinating or imagining God, and that doesn’t strike me as consistent with the rest of the film, which clearly portrays God’s power both separate from and working through Moses.

Visually the movie was stunning (especially as I remember it in the theater – it definitely lost significant effect on my aging television and 2.0 stereo – though still very nice). The hieroglyph dream was really cool and innovative. The climactic parting of the Red Sea was extremely well done, with nuances that amazed me.

The music, by Hans Zimmer, was hit and miss. The power and drama of the opening theme (Deliver Us) was utterly fantastic. You’re Playing With the Big Boys Now — not so much. Through Heaven’s Eyes had some excellent lyrics, but musically could have been a little better (not that it was bad, though – I just wanted a little more out of it). The requisite pop single from the film, When You Believe, was (as usual in these situations) much better in the film than its radio version.

While the movie did take liberties, overall it was very true to the Biblical recounting of Moses’ life through the Exodus, and that is a powerful story. Easily a four-star film. I could even be convinced to add another half-star without much persuasion.

[tags]Moses, Exodus, slavery, Bible, Old Testament, Ancient Egypt, movies, musicals, animation, Val Kilmer, Hans Zimmer, Jews, Israel, religion[/tags]

After a promising beginning, dealing with the “death” of Captain America, and setting up some multi-decade intrigue, the movie’s plot devolved into nothing more than, “here’s a character, here’s his/her power, he/she isn’t a team player, now everybody get together and fight something.”

They did attempt a small bit of character development, especially with Captain America and Bruce Banner/Hulk, but . . . → Read More: Review: Ultimate Avengers]]> I was really hoping this movie would be better than it was. Alas, it wasn’t.

After a promising beginning, dealing with the “death” of Captain America, and setting up some multi-decade intrigue, the movie’s plot devolved into nothing more than, “here’s a character, here’s his/her power, he/she isn’t a team player, now everybody get together and fight something.”

They did attempt a small bit of character development, especially with Captain America and Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it was really not handled well. And the villains were not developed at all! With the promising set-up in the World War II setting, there was a lot of mystery surrounding these guys. The writers obviously wanted to do something with it, but either couldn’t figure it out, or it got cut completely out of the movie. Early on, one character even asks, “Why are they still here?” and the response is all we ever get about it: “We don’t know.” That’s it.

The real answer, of course, is so the good guys have someone to fight. But that’s not really helpful, plot-wise.

It’s a shame, because reading about some of these same characters in the current Marvel “Civil War” event in the comic books, it’s obvious that there is a lot of excellent character development and interesting story to draw from. It’s really disappointing that they chose to make this release so unsatisfyingly formulaic. I’ve seen better story arcs in many of the Marvel cartoons (like the X-Men and Spiderman cartoons that aired on U.S. TV in the 1990′s).

These old cartoons are great. In some ways I thought they were superior to our current cartoons. Certainly the lighting and shading of these classics are more dramatic and cinematic. The characters also look more like real humans than today’s typical animations. They even take . . . → Read More: Review: Superman: Max Fleisher cartoon shorts]]> In 1941 and 1942, Superman showed up in some great Max Fleisher cartoons. I just picked up a Volume 1 DVD at the Dollar Store and it was a bargain.

These old cartoons are great. In some ways I thought they were superior to our current cartoons. Certainly the lighting and shading of these classics are more dramatic and cinematic. The characters also look more like real humans than today’s typical animations. They even take the time to have Clark take his pants off when he’s changing into Superman! (It’s also obvious that the look of some of the scenes in Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns (2006) emulate the look of these shorts – and appropriately are some of the better shots in that movie. Some scenes from “The Bulleteers” for example, are very reminiscent of the crashing plane scene at the beginning of the recent movie.)

Each short is around 8-10 minutes long. There is surprisingly little dialog in most of them, which I found actually drew me in more and kept me paying attention to the visuals. Some of the plot points are rather silly by today’s standards – for example, an overpowered “magnetic telescope” bringing a comet to earth – but they are treated with total seriousness and the show never loses its charm. After all, in 1942 this kind of stuff was still being explored and who knew what was really possible?

I’ll be on the lookout for Cartoon Craze presents Superman, Volume 2.

I’ve been watching Justice League and Justice League Unlimited lately. This is good stuff.

Mike got me hooked. I’d caught it while flipping channels from time to time, but never really followed it well, and certainly never knew the episode order. Now I’ve seen all four seasons in order and … wow.

This Justice League is way beyond any previous incarnation. (Actually I suppose I . . . → Read More: Review: Justice League]]> (Originally posted Jul 31, 2005 on my older blog)

I’ve been watching Justice League and Justice League Unlimited lately. This is good stuff.

Mike got me hooked. I’d caught it while flipping channels from time to time, but never really followed it well, and certainly never knew the episode order. Now I’ve seen all four seasons in order and … wow.

This Justice League is way beyond any previous incarnation. (Actually I suppose I should say “these Justice Leagues,” since the first two seasons are the seven member “Justice League” followed by the next two seasons of “Justice League Unlimited” featuring a whole host of heros led by the original seven.) While still mostly “kid-friendly,” these stories deal more seriously with their subject matter than most cartoons. I’d say it’s pretty close to animé in that respect.

One thing I really like is that actions in one episode have consequences in the remaining episodes. Relationships are affected, both on a personal and global (really, literally universal) scale. The consequences of gathering what amounts to an army of super-powered individuals is explored, and is actually the main theme of the fourth, and likely final, season.

I don’t know that there are plans for a fifth season, or even a related new series, but I really hope so. It’s nice to see some smart animation on the tube.

By the way, it’s worth pointing out that these series’ are the latest in a remarkably consistent and interrelated set of series, starting with Batman: The Animated Series, its two (I think) successors whose titles escape me (but undoubtedly start with “Batman”), Batman Beyond, and Superman: The Animated Series. It also seems to be tied in to Static Shock, which seems to be a much lighter show, but I haven’t really paid much attention to that one so far.

While I really love all that depth of story that’s been (and is being) developed, it’s really not fair—I have a lot of catching up to do. The only other of those series I’ve watched is the original Batman: TAS. Off to the DVDs!

[Update: They did go on to make a fifth season (3rd of JLU), and it was good, though not as good as previous seasons. The final episode though, was awesome. For me, it was worth going through the full 5th season to get to that one episode. Oh, and I've since watched all the Superman: TAS shows. Also very good.]