Batman: The Killing Joke

While live action movie adaptations of DC Comics' superheroes continue to struggle with the recent Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) release, the same can't be said with their continuing line of animated adaptations. Since Superman Doomsday (2007), Warner Bros. continues to release animated movies of DC Comic's famous stories such as Superman vs. The Elite (2012), Wonder Woman (2009), and many others under the Batman name. With their most recent Batman movie probably being their riskiest yet since The Dark Knight Returns (2013), the adaptation of Alan Moore's famous graphic novel of the same name; Batman: The Killing Joke (2016). Will this adaptation live up to the psychological horror or will this killing joke fall flat?

The film begins with Barbara Gordon as Batgirl, played by Tara Strong, who fails to stop a robbery while unknown to her that the robber becomes obsessed with her. While tracking the criminal down, Batman, played by Kevin Conroy, becomes concerned that she is not taking the case seriously and possibly going too far as he takes her off the case in fear for her safety. After coming across the crook again and nearly beating him to a pulp, Batgirl realizes that Batman was right and retires from crime fighting. Time passes and as Batman and Detective Harvey Bullock investigate a murder scene they conclude it was The Joker's doing. After realizing that he escaped from Arkham Asylum, The Joker, played by Mark Hamill, attacks Barbara and kidnaps her father, Commissioner Jim Gordon to be subjected to torture physically and mentally.

During the time of the story, flashbacks are shown to explain the Joker's past as a struggling comedian who is desperate to support his pregnant wife.While back in the present as Batman finds Barbara in the hospital, he learns what the Joker has planned for her father. To prove his point how anyone can give into madness just from one single bad day. Will Batman be able to stop the Joker from his horrific plot or will the Joker show that we're all doomed to become insane like him?

In case if one couldn't tell from this synopsis this is not your average Batman story, like the original graphic novel back in 1988 this film is presented as a horror story. There is a reason this movie is stamped with an R rating unlike the other DC animated films. While it does present some blood in its violence and mild swearing, the imagery alone is enough to warrant it as it is brutal and psychologically traumatizing. When Bruce Timm said that he and his crew were gonna keep this movie 100% faithful to the original source material, they meant it! From the story to the designs, the character expressions good grief it was all there. So when one sees this in their movie department and think that kids will enjoy it just because its about Batman, you will be sorely mistaken!

I didn't want to reveal too much of the plot since doing so would remove the shock and impact this story has as its a film that needs to be seen. With that said though, how does it hold up as a movie adaptation? To get the negatives out of the way this film will be VERY polarizing. Adaptations of Alan Moore's work can be VERY difficult to pull off and most of them sadly did not do well. The Killing Joke (2016) stood  a better chance aside being animated that having a cast and crew who KNOWS how this story works really benefited its execution. With that said, adapting a thought provoking story from book to film still isn't easy. While I thought it worked really well, there will be some who'll believe the film fails to properly represent the original source material since people get different emotional responses between the two forms of media. But that problem is more of everyone having their own different perspectives.

The other problem for many who read the original book and possibly those new to this story is the additional material added for Batgirl. Barbara Gordon in the original story didn't get that much character as her involvement was harshly criticized for being used as a plot device to move the story along. To of which even the creator Alan Moore regretted since then. The film tries to change that by adding in twenty minutes of new original footage to show Batgirl in action to help convince the audience why her character is important to the story. People can see this as a problem in two ways: One being that some might see the footage as being pointless if they want a 100% retelling of Batman: The Killing Joke (1988) without adding anything new, or that what is presented in the new footage can be seen as off putting as there are some moments that will make people scratch their heads. As a character, Batgirl is as she's always remembered for, but some of her actions can be divisive given the much darker tone in this film's universe. Some might accept it but still find it off putting while others might not like it overall. Then again, this is not your typical Batman story, it IS supposed to be different and shocking. But as mentioned before, not everyone will have the same reaction so it is up for the audience to decide for themselves if it works or not. It works for me since I understand what the filmmakers are going for as an adaptation, but I can see where the criticisms can be valid.

With that said, the film is very entertaining coming from a fan of the original graphic novel such as myself. The story is 100% faithful, the animation fits the style as close as it can to Brian Bolland's original artwork while combing it with some of Bruce Timm's own art style. However most of my praise goes to the top notch voice cast in the film. If you can think of any people to portray these iconic characters, it would be them. From Kevin Conroy to reprising his role as the Dark Knight who gives a great performance making Batman dark and gritty while staying natural whereas other actors before had to alter their voice to TRY and make Batman sound threatening. Tara Strong as Batgirl gives a very passionate performance as a heroine who strives to do what is right but is struck by tragedy, never trying too hard or to little to present her emotions into her character. And finally the actor who steals the spotlight, Mark Hamill as The Joker. While many people would remember either Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger as the clown prince of crime, it is Hamill who knows how to capture the insane criminal. Ever since playing the role in Batman: The Animated series from the 1990's to the successful Batman Arkham video games, this film shows how Mark Hamill will continue his chilling performance to be the best Joker in the entire franchise, bar none!

Batman: The Killing Joke (2016) is set to be released on blu-ray and DVD on August 2nd as I highly recommend it for any Batman and/or fan of The Joker to add it to their collection. But for those who are seeing this for the first time, just be prepared for some frightening moments as you may never look at Batman's iconic villain the same way ever again.

Finding Dory

Its been over ten years since Pixar dived into the deep blue to tell a story, but given the rise of sequels to popular films we get one with Finding Dory (2016). When it comes to sequels from Pixar Studios the results are mixed, so far Pixar has two beloved sequels with Toy Story 2 (1999) and Toy Story 3 (2010), one critical bomb with Cars 2 (2011), and one critically divided film with Monsters University (2013). Its easy to see how Finding Dory can leave people skeptical once it was announced, but with that said will this film continue the Pixar legacy? Or will this film be another example of how most sequels can never live up to the original?

One year after the events of Finding Nemo (2005), the amnesiac Dory, played by Ellen DeGeneres, is living with Marlin and Nemo in the reef but is beginning to have flashbacks and fragmented dreams about her past before meeting up with Marlin in the last film. Realizing why she was out there to begin with, to find her parents. The only clue Dory has to go on with is that she vaguely remembers they lived at: "The Jewel of Morro Bay, California.". But after getting them lost in the process of her search and wrapped in plastic, Dory is "rescued" by some volunteers who happen to work at a Marine Life Institute. In Quarantine she meets a seven-legged octopus named Hank, played by Ed O'Neill, who desperately wants to escape the facility and go on the truck to Cleveland where he would live safely in closure due to his fear of the wild open ocean. The two help each other where when Hank helps Dory find her parents, Dory would give Hank the tag that she was tagged with so he could go to be transported away. Coming across characters like her childhood friend named Destiny, who is a near-sighted whale shark, and a beluga whale named Bailey who claims he lost his ability to use animal echolocation. While that is going on Marlin and Nemo attempt to rescue Dory with transportation being their greatest obstacle, as they seek help from two sea lions and a loon to help them find their blue tang friend. So time is of the essence as Marlin and Nemo scramble to rescue their friend while Dory struggles to remember her past as she is determined to find her lost family.

It was interesting to figure out how Finding Dory was going to turn out since most animated sequels either get a lot of attention and care from the creators, or deal with executive meddling that ruins the film due to creative differences. Thankfully this film averts the latter and tells a great story. The best way to talk about the film is to focus on the flaws first since honestly there are very little. After the opening title the film relives several moments that people would remember from the first film, mostly with the quirk that Dory presented in terms of her short term memory loss. They're humourous but they could be left out and would not hurt the film. But in relation to that the humour that Ellen DeGeneres brings to her character can be mixed at times. It worked with the first film as Dory was used to help lighten the mood and bring optimism to a scary and almost hopeless situation of Marlin possibly loosing his son. In the sequel however, Dory still does have her shining moments of comedy but I felt I was getting more of DeGeneres's way of speaking and being funny as she reads her lines. DeGeneres still emotes and makes Dory come alive in her performance, but some moments at least to me felt like they could've either toned down the memory loss humour or redo some of her lines.

Finally the tension here isn't as high as in the last film, that is due more to the environment they're in. In the original the ocean is MASSIVE filled with big dangerous animals such as sharks, jellyfish, angler fish and whales that shows why the sea is not a friendly place. While in the sequel most of the action and rescue takes place in a facility that is run by humans. Unlike underwater predators the humans really pose no threat in the story as they're just regular people doing their job running the aquarium. If anything they're just seen more as obstacles as the lead characters try to avoid getting spotted and caught by them. The tension is there in the story but just not as high as it was previously. But like I said earlier, these flaws are very minor.

With that said, the strengths of the film definitely outweighs its flaws. The animation is terrific as always from Pixar, nicely detailed and colourful. The cast is great as the new characters are very likeable and entertaining, though I found that its Hank the octopus that steals most of the scenes in the film. Hank is a bitter loner due to his experience at the facility that actually cost him one of his tentacles, he serves as the perfect pessimistic counterpart to Dory's optimism. Hank's character works similarly to a convict trying to break out of prison who hates being burdened with a wide-eyed innocent who can help him escape but is frustrated by the innocent's flaws. Its a good combination for not only comedy but character growth as well for how Dory and Hank help each other out.

Without giving too much away there is one more thing that I want to address that I honestly think is the film's major strength and it revolves around Dory and her short term memory loss. In Finding Nemo, her memory problem didn't get much focus as they wanted to keep the focus on Marlin trying to save Nemo. Because of that her disability is presented mostly as a character quirk for laughs but can be also problematic as Dory struggles to remember certain information despite her best of efforts. Nothing offensive but this was seen as a missed opportunity. In Finding Dory however, Dory's mental disability is a driving force for not only her character but also the flow of the story. It not only serves for the tragedy of her backstory but also shows why we like Dory and want to see her succeed. She is aware of her flaw but does her very best to strive through. It also helps that the film doesn't try to hammer in the message to its audience of how people with disabilities are just as capable as everyone else, it just shows how Dory works with her strengths along with her weaknesses. Presenting a message through the character's action and not bluntly telling the audience the moral.

An interesting contrast to the film Me Before You (2016) where that film stereotypes people with disabilities, where the lead character plans to kill himself as he cannot stand living in his condition of being paralyzed from the neck down. Which to me sounds like a very contrived "woe is me" plotline to a badly written soap opera. In a time where we want more representation of people with disabilities in film, this is an interesting predicament. The film for adults stereotypes people with disabilities and was criticized by others with similar disabilities for perceiving a message that anyone with any disability is a burden onto families, as seen here in the Guardian's article: We long to watch disabled characters like us. Instead we get Me Before You. Where as the family oriented film like Finding Dory is actually destroying stereotypes about people living with disabilities by encouraging others to never give up and keep going, as best described by the CBS news story; "Finding Dory" shatters stereotypes about disabilities with empowering characters. Once again, an ANIMATED FILM targeted for children gives a sophisticated and encouraging presentation that treats us like thinking people, unlike the live action film that attempts to be adult but tries too hard to be tragic and instead insults people with actual disabilities. This is why proper representations in media matters.

With all that said, Finding Dory is another hit in Pixar's lineup and a great film to start off the summer. Funny, thought-provoking and heartwarming, this is a film that encourages anyone no matter what obstacle, difficulty or disability one may have, as Dory says herself; "Just keep on swimming!"

X-Men Apocalypse

The X-Men movies have an interesting history under the production of 20th Century Fox. At the time when superhero movies couldn't be taken seriously, studios were determined to make them as realistic and dark as possible for the cynical audiences and for the most part people enjoyed them. With their rise of popularity with X2: X-Men United (2003), followed by critical bombs with X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), to eventually becoming beloved again with X-Men: First Class (2011) and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). Now because of how comic book movies has been on a rise with praise with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Fox is hoping to cash off of that trend to make more references to their source material with X-Men Apocalypse (2016). Would the mutants be able to rise up as their own successful franchise again or would this film be the sign that they either need to stop or be sold back to Marvel?

Years ago in ancient Egypt, a being named En Sabah Nur, also known as Apocalypse played by Oscar Issac, was believed to be the first mutant ever born so he ruled over the land as their God. Until one day he was betrayed by a rebellion and put into sleep by his safeguards until years later. He rises up in 1983 to see how much humanity has changed, believing them to be weak without his presence, Apocalypse intends to destroy the modern world and remake it in his own image.

Set during the time of the X-Men's younger days since the events of Days of Future Past, Charles Xavier, played by James McAvoy, recruits the newest members to his group which consists of Scott Summers, played by Tye Sheridan, and Jean Grey, played by Sophie Turner. Meanwhile Mystique, played by Jennifer Lawrence, rescues two mutants from being prisoners in a fight match with one of them unfortunately recruited by En Sabah Nur himself to become one of his four horsemen of Apocalypse. 

With the two sides being formed, Erik Lehnsherr, played by Micheal Fassbender, lives a secluded life in alias with his wife and daughter in Poland in peace, until he used his magnetic powers to save a co-worker that he was discovered as Magneto and loses his family as a result. Erik's grief earned the attention of Apocalypse himself who recruits him after helping advance Magneto's power.

Apocalypse eventually discovers Xavier's psychic powers and attempts to use that said power to prevent interference from nuclear weapons, have his horsemen to spread destruction across the globe and plans to transfer his consciousness into Xavier's body and use his new power to enslave the minds of the survivors. So it is a race against time for the X-Men to rescue their friends, the other mutants and stop Apocalypse from his mad desire for world domination.

X-Men Apocalypse left me with mixed results when seeing the film. On the one hand you see the characters looking much closer to their comic book counterparts than before, also the action is great and easy to follow. But the story goes ALL over the place and some of the actors felt like they were just phoning it in, especially Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. Since First Class, her character was much more interesting as she was sympathetic but also tragic, but in Apocalypse, Lawrence's performance felt like she was just there for her paycheck. As a result her character didn't feel like it had much importance compared to Days of Future Past. But her sub par acting is actually an example of the biggest problem with the film.

While the actors did their best with what they had to work with, the film's story just wasn't that engaging. The problem to me was its tone; it felt too dull and repetitive for a story that was building up to what was supposed to be the end of the world. It repeats a lot of the common complains about the past X-Men films when they started back in 1999, you get that you're supposed to feel for the mutants since they are a target for prejudice from everyone else. But the problem is that we've seen that so many times that it felt like the franchise hasn't moved on. It is like the people at Fox believe we've never seen any of the past X-Men films before this one.

Two other problems held X-Men Apocalypse back as well, one is that there is lack of tension. Apocalypse is supposed to be an all powerful being who is like a God and the personification of Doomsday, but the slow pace and average performances doesn't pull the audience in to the looming threat. Days of Future Past worked since we saw what became of the world in the future and how the X-Men are trying to avert it, every move counts as you feel time is against them. With Apocalypse it feels like the film is on auto pilot. The other problem is a minor one but completely pointless to the film where we see a fight sequence of Hugh Jackman reprising his role as Wolverine. His character served no purpose to the film but to advertise the next Wolverine movie. It ruins the pace of the film when they're trying to advertise another film right in the middle of the action.

Despite my problems with the film, X-Men Apocalypse certainly did have great moments that I enjoyed. While most of the acting is average, two of the biggest scene stealers belong to Magneto and Quicksilver. Fassbender once again delivers a powerful performance as the Master of Magnetism as you feel his sorrow and anger within the story. While not as significant as in Days of Future Past, Fassbender gives all that he has to show why Magneto is a tragic figure but also a powerful threat. With the film going back and forth from being either dull or dreary, Quicksilver's character is the saving grace to bring some smiles to the audience. There is an entire sequence where he saves the inhabitants of the Mutant Academy that is hilariously delightful. Set to the tone of Sweet Dreams by Eurythmics, the entire sequence with how Quicksilver saves everyone but also provides goofy moments on one hand feels so out of place that you're not sure if its appropriate, but it serves to see how an effective superhero he is that it was just fun to watch.

In the end I can't say that I regretted seeing X-Men Apocalypse, as there are moments I enjoyed, but the flaws of the film keep it from being an excellent movie. Thankfully its no where near as bad as The Last Stand or as boring as Origins: Wolverine, if anything, this film is just average in the end. Its good but it could've been much better too. I can recommend this for die hard X-Men fans, but for the causal movie goers, give it a watch at least once and come to your own conclusion.

Captain America: Civil War

With 13 movies and counting the Marvel cinematic universe is still going strong. Ever since the success of The Avengers (2012) the superhero team just keeps getting better with deep story telling, bigger threats and great character development. In addition every time a new character is introduced people would assume the film would flop since the idea sounds so absurd like Ant-Man (2015). Only for the film to surprise everybody with how well executed and enjoyable the film really is. But lately their purpose as superheroes is not only being brought into question but to also a great dilemma as now they are forced to take sides of a controversial legislation. This is what leads us to their most recent entry, Captain America: Civil War (2016).

One year after the events of The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), Captain America, played by Chris Evans, leads the few remaining Avengers to stop a heist from Crossbones. To avoid capture Crossbones attempts to blow himself up and as Scarlet Witch tries to displace the blast with her telekinesis, the resulting explosion destroys a nearby building resulting in the deaths of Wakandan humanitarian workers. At Avengers H.Q. Thaddeus Ross, played by William Hurt, who returns from The Incredible Hulk (2008) informs them that the United Nations is preparing to pass the Sokovia Accords, which lets them gain control over the Avengers and their actions. Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr., leads the pro-registration side, as he feels guilty for Ultron’s creation and Sokovia’s destruction. Whereas Captain America leads the anti-registration side as he has more faith in his own judgment than he does towards the government’s. The Cap’s reasons makes sense after the events of Captain America: Winter Soldier (2014) since S.H.I.E.L.D. was taken over from the inside by his old enemies at Hydra while trying to save his brainwashed friend Bucky Barnes from Hydra’s control. However the struggle to protect his friend grows difficult as a bombing in Vienna kills King T’Chaka of Wakanda and the blame is put on Barnes as T’Chaka’s son, T’Challa vows to kill the Winter Soldier as he becomes the Black Panther. To make matters worse, a man named Helmut Zemo is tracking down Barnes to use the same brainwashing tactics Hydra used to make Barnes a killer again, and the only way Captain America can stop this is for him and Falcon, played by Anthony Mackie, is to go rogue. Because of that action Iron Man has Ross’s permission to form his own team to stop the renegades. Siding with Captain America is Falcon, Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, Ant-Man and Winter Soldier. While Iron Man is joined by War Machine, Black Widow, Vision, Black Panther and the newly recruited Spider-Man. As the heroes are forced to fight each other based on different ideologies in a race against time to stop Zemo.

From how I described the film it sounds like a lot to take in. Aside needing to see the past films, Civil War actually makes its own story easy to follow that everyone can understand and know why the characters made their choices. The complete opposite of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) where the story made no sense, the heroes didn’t feel like actual heroes and the entire conflict was so forced that its resolution made me feel empty and frustrated. Whereas in Civil War the characters felt like themselves and their points were valid and understandable. Every character helped contribute to the narrative, didn’t feel left out and kept the story’s focus on Captain America himself. Civil War also raises the stakes by making the audience decide which they feel is the better way to save the world. Do you let go of your freedom to be protected and secure by the government? Or do you hold on to your freedom with the cost of losing your own protection and safety? One of the best elements of the film’s story is that it would’ve been so easy to vilify one side over the other such as making Iron Man the villain since his ideals goes against Captain America’s. But the film lets the audience sympathize with Iron Man and those on his side while still showing why Captain America and his team are against the registration. People will pick one side over the other, but for many like me it is hard to decide because they make such valid points but there are flaws with both as well. Neither is perfect and yet all they want to do is for the good of the world, but because of past events, government intervention and manipulation from an outside source, this entire conflict is much more tragic than it leads on. Cause there is more to this Civil War than the clashing ideologies. Without giving away too much I can describe the cause of the Civil War with a quote from Camelot (1967): “Revenge…the most worthless of causes.”

With happened regarding Hydra infiltrating S.H.I.E.L.D., the Winter Soldier, Ultron, and the events that happened within Civil War, the audience will see what happens when revenge consumes the minds of the characters, which sadly does reflect us in this time period making Civil War a more tragic story than possibly intended. In a time when we’re afraid of what could hit us next from natural disaster to terrorist attack, we look up to heroes like The Avengers to give us strength and hope in these dark times. But when we let tragedy turn to vengeance and release our anger and grief onto those that have sworn to protect us, it only leads to more suffering. And that to me is what makes this action packed flick a tragic superhero film. To see these heroes develop since 2008 to be torn apart not just because of clashing ideologies, but because they let outside sources manipulate them for a much darker purpose, and as a result possibly loose even more lives.

With all that said this is truly a film to see for the summer. Predictable admittedly given the track record the Marvel movies have had. But the main thing that makes Captain America: Civil War stand out from other superhero films is that it changes the status quo of how their built up their own films. Once united our heroes are now divided more than ever. Leaving us wondering if we will ever see any resolution to the events after Civil War. But considering the line up we have its safe to say for when that happens we’ll be able to see our Avengers Assemble once again. Till then, if you want a film of heroes clashing that gives you action and make you think, then look to the captain and his fight with the armoured avenger.

Ratchet and Clank

 

Movie adaptations of video games always have bad luck when being adapted as theatrical movies. Some can please the fans like Mortal Kombat (1995) while most of the time they alienate everyone like Super Mario Bros. (1993) and any film directed by the infamous Uwe Boll. Animated films of video games can provide the opposite result pending on intending target audience. The numerous films of Nintendo’s Pokemon have been successful and well liked among its fans but were made only for the fans and not everyone else. Disney’s Wreck-It-Ralph (2012) is the one exception that is well beloved by nearly everyone and they don’t need to know anything about video games to enjoy the film. The only downside for Wreck-It-Ralph is that the film contains an original story with video game elements and cameos of famous characters. Meaning that while it is still considered the best video game film, it is not a video game adaptation. Flash-forward to 2016 and we have Sony’s first video game movie with one of their famous Playstation mascots from 2002, Ratchet and Clank (2016).

Ratchet is a lone Lombax on the planet Veldin who is a skilled mechanic that dreams of one day joining the Galactic Rangers along side his hero, Captain Qwark. Elsewhere, Chairman Drek builds a robot army with the help of Dr. Nefarious for his plans to construct a new planet by taking part of other planets by destroying them. One of the war machines became defected and becomes the little robot Clank who flees the factory to warn the Rangers about Drek’s army. After Ratchet is rejected from the Ranger tryouts, he discovers Clank who crashes on his planet while trying to locate the Rangers. Ratchet takes Clank to planet Kerwan during an invasion and was able to defeat them, resulting in Qwark reluctantly recruiting Ratchet and Clank into the rangers much to his regret. Trouble brews as not only is Ratchet excited to be a hero while ignoring Clank’s warnings about the impending threat, but also Drek and Nefarious intend to succeed in their goal by manipulating the imbecilic and jealous Qwark under the promise of being popular again. So time is of the essence for Ratchet and Clank not only to prove themselves as heroes but save the galaxy from the evil that plans to destroy it.

Compared to other video game adaptations, Ratchet and Clank looks and feels 100% like the actual game. The settings are exactly as fans remember them, the visuals are smooth and crisp, no characters are redesigned and they have most of the original voice cast who played the characters since 2002. So this should be a perfect adaptation right? That is what I would say but the sad truth is that unfortunately it does not. As a fan of the series I do stand by that this is one of the better movie adaptations of a game we have had in years. Which makes the end result all the more disappointing when the story fails to deliver. The story is not awful by any means as it does stay true to its source material. But as a film it is criminally generic, as it does not offer anything new to fans and newcomers alike. The film basically goes from point A to point B, tell a few one liners here and there, pretty much telling the same kind of story we have seen before about an underdog who wants to prove their worth. It is like the film is set on autopilot the whole time.

I should note that before the film came out on April 29^th this year, the remake of the original game provides a different experience that I have to compare the two in this review. Like the film, the game is a retelling of the original that even includes some cutscenes from the film during gameplay. Unlike the film however, the game goes more of the original PS2 title that fans would remember as it even expands the plot. More importantly, the story and humour fairs much better as a game since players are allowed to experience it and feel the rush of saving planets with a massive arsenal of weapons to control. When comparing the two mediums however, I realized why the film was so mediocre. Remember the comment I made about Ratchet and Clank feeling like its on autopilot? One other film did the exact same thing, Lego Batman 2: DC Superheroes (2013). Released first as a video game then re-released as straight to DVD film telling the exact same story without the player interaction. That realization to me hurts Ratchet and Clank even more since it was released weeks after the game came out. So now the film feels like a theatrical commercial for the more entertaining game instead of an original theatrical production.

I seriously don’t want to hate this movie cause it is not really that bad. Professional film critics who relentlessly slam Ratchet and Clank forget that this film was not meant for them. It was meant for gamers and fans of the franchise like myself while introducing the characters to a new audience. To its credit it is still very faithful to its source material. I just wish more thought and effort was put into the story to make the movie not only stand out from the game, but provide a long lasting impact that makes me want to watch the movie again. Hardcore fans of the series will certainly get their fill with this movie, as will kids who are new to the franchise. But as a moviegoer, I advise to either rent the film after home release or just play the game instead to get a richer experience. There is no reason for me to hate this movie like other critics do, but as a fan it just left me feeling empty.

The Jungle Book Review

With the craze of adapting fairy tales as realistic movies it is no surprise that Disney followed suit with that trend. Their idea is to remake their animated films and update them for the 21^st century. Disney’s live action remakes are often hit and miss, financially successful but mixed with their audiences. Some changes work but for the most part failed to capture what made their animated counterparts iconic. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (2010) felt more like Alice in Narnia, Maleficent (2014) tried to convince the audience that the original Sleeping Beauty (1959) was a lie the whole time, and Cinderella (2015) was polarizing where most of the updates work but the remake turned the main character into a more sexist caricature in a film that is SUPPOSED to be a modern update. Because of those problems I groan every time Disney announces a new remake based off of one of their own animated features, and with The Jungle Book (2016) given the same treatment I was skeptical. However, upon watching the film my worries were put to rest.

The film works the same as the original 1967 film, Mowgli, played by Neel Sethi, is raised by wolves but word gets out that the tiger Shere Khan, played by Idris Elba, is after Mowgli because of his hate for humans. So the panther Bagherra, played by Ben Kingsley offers to take Mowgli back to the man village but Mowgli doesn’t want to go as he feels the jungle is his home. Along the way they come across Baloo the bear, played by Bill Murray, who promises to let Mowgli stay in the jungle until he learns about Shere Khan so he tries to take Mowgli back as well. Along the way they encounter Kaa the snake, played by Scarlett Johansson, King Louie of the monkeys played by Christopher Walken, and eventually have the battle against Shere Khan in the end that would determine Mowgli's fate.

The remake’s narrative is almost exactly the same as the animated film. The basic plot points are there but the movie extends them while keeping true to the original and makes references to the Rudyard Kipling story. Improving some moments that does not insult the animated film like Maleficent did. The characters feel the same but some changes fit the darker tone and even get some expansion. Mowgli for example doesn’t come off as impulsive and hot headed as the original, he’s still determined to stay in the jungle but you feel his pain that he does not want to leave his only family that he’s ever known. In addition, the film has Mowgli invent gadgets and tricks to help him gather food, showing how Mowgli is learning to fend for himself when we didn’t see much from him in the animated film. For Neel Sethi’s first major lead, his portrayal as Mowgli its commendable. In addition, the wolves actually get more screentime considering that they play a big part in the actual story, Mowgli’s Brothers from the original Jungle Book.

The other characters stay the same but the changes to the villains are very noticeable. Kaa is actually more intimidating compared to the original who was more comedic. King Louie is still comedic but is much more villainous compared to the animated Louie. More threatening but is still entertaining thanks to Christopher Walken’s performance. On a side note, when Walken started to sing “I Wanna Be Like You” I literally had to hold my hold my breath to avoid laughing out loud in the theater, it was THAT hilarious! Its not bad by any means but Walken is known for coming off so awkward in his performances that it makes it entertaining whether he intended it or not. Either way it was the funniest moment of the entire movie to me. Finally the big character difference is with main villain himself, Shere Khan. The original was very calm and dignified but can be intimidating since almost all of the animals fear the strength he possesses. While the remake’s Shere Khan is not as charming but he makes up for it with how frightening he can be. After Mowgli’s departure to the village, Shere Khan kills the leader of the wolf pack and holds them hostage unless they bring Mowgli to him. So while many may miss the charming tiger of the animated film, those looking for a more aggressive and frightening villain will certainly get what they want here.

With all that it sounds like the film is a superior remake right? Well…yes and no. Compared to the other live action remakes, The Jungle Book is a much better film but there are some changes that may not make everyone happy. To have more character interactions than before, others were either cut back or removed. While the elephants are in the remake they don’t have any lines at all but they are much more respected by the other animals compared to the original. In addition the vultures were cut entirely so anyone who loved the Beatles inspired buzzards from the original will be disappointed. Another flaw I found was with its ending, which doesn’t ruin the film but for those wanting the exact same ending may be in for a surprise. Honestly I thought it was a cop out at first, but after learning that its already getting a sequel with the same director on board, I hope that they can expand on Mowgli’s story similar to how his continued in the original book. So this nitpick is very minor.

The other flaw is something that will be unavoidable when talking about the remake is that how Disney once again failed to make a true adaptation of Kipling’s story. Though I wouldn’t call it flaw exactly since the animated film intentionally didn’t follow the original story, as its focus was to make the movie entertaining for western audiences. Its just there are two groups of people when it comes to adaptations of famous stories: those who love different interpretations and those who wants a 100% retelling. People who love the original story may be disappointed with this movie but for those that love the original film or accept that this is not a 100% adaptation will still be entertained. If anyone wants an adaptation that stays true to the original story, the 1976 Chuck Jones animated short is so far the most faithful adaptation of The Jungle Book in regards to Mowgli’s story.

After the disappointment of the last remakes, I can safely say that Disney’s The Jungle Book is a must see for those who love the original or are seeing this story for the first time. It is very rare that a remake not only updates the last film properly but also compliments the original without insulting it. A modern remake like this doesn’t come around everyday that respect its audience, see it while you can!

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

Warner Bros. and DC Comics just took their first step into creating the DC Cinematic Universe with their two iconic superheroes battling it out. With Zack Snyder returning to direct, will this superhero fight be enough to live up to the hype of this legendary encounter?

18 months after the events of Man of Steel (2013), Superman, played by Henry Cavill, becomes a controversial figure. Some believe him to be a hero while others see him as a threat, and among those that believe the latter is Bruce Wayne, played by Ben Affleck. In return when Clark learns about Batman’s actions he sees the dark knight as a threat too.

Meanwhile Lex Luthor, played by Jesse Eisenberg, tries to convince Senator Finch to grant him permission to weaponize the recently discovered kryptonite to use against Superman. Only to have his request denied.

While decrypting a date file Bruce received from Diana Prince, played by Gal Gadot, he receives a vision of a post-apocalyptic future with a warning that Lois Lane plays a crucial role in the distant future in regards to Superman’s actions. Batman becomes even more convinced that Superman is a threat. During their conflict they are unaware that they are both being manipulated the whole time by Lex Luthor for a much grander scheme. As the race is on for not only to stop the two powerhouses from fighting but to also stop the mad plan that Luthor has in store.

With that has been built up to since 2013, does Dawn of Justice live up to the hype? Without giving too much away…no. No it does not. The sad thing too is that I REALLY wanted to like this movie as I enjoyed Man of Steel with all its flaws, and that was one of the most polarizing movies of 2013. But Dawn of Justice feels like they're trying to fix their mistakes from the last film, they only made more problems in return. I can describe the two major problems with this film right here; convoluted story that goes all over the place and being senselessly dark that feels too forced.

If you read how I described the summary of the film’s plot, you should get an idea that the story goes all over the place. The reason is because DC Comics is desperate to try and catch up to Marvel with their success of the Marvel cinematic universe. The difference is that while Marvel built up major events by giving the heroes their own film that help develop their characters. DC tried to cram a lot into one film. It is like they took one step forward then dashed all the way through just to get to their major crossover event without careful planning. DC’s attempt is to have all their heroes introduced at once and then give them their own movies. The idea isn’t bad as they have done it before with their critically acclaimed animated series Justice League (2001-2004), but the problem is that with lack of care and respect for their material this film comes off as desperate. This is not what I want to see for their first attempt with the DC Cinematic universe.

Having a jumbled story is one thing, what bothered me the most is how senselessly dark this film is. Ever since the success of the Nolan Batman films, DC Comics has been on this trend to make their stories as dark, gritty and realistic as possible. Something that has been a major criticism that not just applies to their films but also their comics since the New 52 reboot. That is not to say DC heroes can’t be dark. It has been done before and quite well when the team knows what they are doing. That has been shown in their animated shows as well as their straight to video films like Superman vs. The Elite (2012) and Wonder Woman (2009). But instead of hiring people who know how to write these iconic heroes, they hire people that try to make the film as dark as possible that can be described as a child trying to be adult with no knowledge how to be one. It just reeks of immaturity, and in a time where comic book movies have been getting better in quality and presentation, Warner Bros. and DC seems resistant when it comes to their live action movies.

Another element to add to this problem is the story that initially was inspired to make Batman v Superman, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns (1986). This else-world story was famous for two reasons; bringing Batman back to his darker days and was the first to ever have Batman and Superman fight each other. But the reason why the two heroes fought each other was very different compared to the movie. After Batman came out of retirement, he reclaimed his city from the rising number of criminals that actually made Gotham the safest in America. But the humiliated Ronald Reagan didn’t like being outshined by Batman so he sent Superman, who became a tool of the U.S. government, to take down Batman as a result. In the midst of the conflict the two friends did not want to fight each other as they have their own ways of dealing with criminals. But as long as Superman is under the control of the government, he had to fight Batman.

Despite their reason for the fight, the book showed that they still respected each other as heroes. Whereas Dawn of Justice forces the two to fight each other that results in making Batman a paranoid idiot and presents only to provide fan service to those who read the inspired story. Even then using those elements doesn’t help this movie but hinders it. What’s ironic is that there is an animated adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns that is much better than Batman v Superman. The animated movie kept its dark tone but respected its heroes and audience unlike the Zack Snyder film that was advertised everywhere but didn’t respect their intelligence. 

With all that said, Batman v Superman utterly fails to live up to everyone’s expectations as a massive comic book movie. If DC wanted to catch up to Marvel they should do what made Marvel successful to begin with. By treating their IP’s with respect. Providing well-paced action, easy to follow storylines, likeable characters and most important of all, present why we love these heroes to begin with. Even if they continue on the dark path, as long as those elements are there with a crew that knows the material inside and out, DC will produce live action movies on par with their animated hits. But as long as DC Comics keep up with their futile attempt to be “edgy”, our patience with them will only grow thinner.