So 2012 was a year of Super Hero Comic Book Movies huh? Let's see we had Nolan's conclusion to The Dark Knight trilogy, the Ghost Rider sequel (sidenote: the guy who wrote that is now heading up AMC's The Walking Dead, because once again, AMC doesn't want to pay people to make good shows, they favor just pawning it off to a guy who wrote the sequel to Ghost Rider), The Amazing(ly sucktackular) Spider Man, that other super hero movie that had all those guys fighting a lame villain, and a movie probably none of you have seen Dredd. Which is a shame, because out of all of those, Dredd was the best super hero movie of the year. Seriously, the best super hero movie of the year, was one that nobody saw. Now that's not to say that The Dark Knight Rises, or The Avengers, weren't good, I enjoyed them, but I should note they are not without their flaws. The Dark Knight Rises, could have started at the scene where Batman and Catwoman went into the tunnels to find Bane, and it would have been way better. I felt the first hour of that movie was just fluff to show off Catwoman, err, I mean Selina Kyle, since they never really called her Catwoman. The Avengers was a great popcorn movie, where you can watch and not have to think, and just shovel popcorn into your mouth while a bunch of stuff explodes on screen, and then someone says a funny one liner. As far as a great Super Hero movie, it does hit that bar, but only because it's the first movie of its kind, where there is a bunch of super heroes running around fighting aliens.
So now I should probably explain why Dredd was the best comic book/super hero movie of the year right? Okay then, to do this, I'm going to use a comparison with Dredd against a movie you probably saw The Amazing Spiderman. The reason why is simple, both of them are remakes, and one sucked, and one did not. So let's look at the originals for a moment, to see where this all began. Judge Dredd was a god awful Sylvester Stallone film that came out in 1995. Based on the comic of the same name, the worst decision they made, was letting Sylvester Stallone and the studio make the decisions. Why was Rob Schneider in that movie you ask? Because the studio felt he needed to be the comic relief in the film, which Stallone was not a fan of. So why did that movie suck? Well if you've seen it, you know it's cheesy, over dramatic, and one of Stallone's worst films (Wait, what is a good Stallone movie, besides Tango & Cash?), and it has a line from the comic where Stallone grumbles, or stumbles, through the Stallone draw of, "I am the law!" I bring that up, because the line is also used in Dredd, but to much better effectiveness, which I will get to later. Spider Man on the other hand, was a great movie. I actually mean that too, Sam Raimi was able to do a great origin story, which you don't normally see done well, except the Raimi Spider Man, and Nolan's Batman. Raimi's Spider Man was a good movie, because it was able to draw you into the Spider Man universe, while sympathizing with nerdy Peter Parker, and cheering for him to beat the Green Goblin and save the city.
So what makes a good super hero movie to begin with? Well let me tell you, a real good superhero movie DOES NOT NEED AN ORIGIN. Yup, let me say that again, you DO NOT need an ORIGIN movie for superheroes. But how are we suppose to know about them? Well if you are going to do a super hero or comic book movie, you probably are already a fan, and know the story. But didn't I just say the Nolan Batman Trilogy, and Sam Raimi's Spiderman were good? Yes, it is true you can do a good super hero origin movie, but they don't all need to be. Example, Tim Burton's 1989 Batman. Sure there is mention of how Bruce Wayne became Batman, through Vicky Vale's investigation, and through flashbacks, but for the most part, it was Batman versus Joker. If anything, Tim Burton's Batman showed a perfect prototype for a great super hero or comic book movie, instead of harping on the origin of the hero, the movie should focus on the origin or creation of the villain. Because isn't the villain really the source of all the conflict in the super hero movies? And if it's already a stable comic book franchise, the majority of people going to see a comic book movie at the very least are familiar in some way with the characters, setting, etc. If not, that's what a movie trailer is for! If you don't believe me, take a look at the Batman Animated Series. That show was picked up from the guys making just the introduction to the show, with Batman chasing after bank robbers on rooftops, yet there is no title, or saying of Batman, because they figured that everyone would know what this show was about just from that. They didn't pander to the audience, they catered to it, giving people what they wanted. Each episode was a half hour movie, that's it, no more no less (yes some were two parters, but now you're getting into semantics). It was only into the third or fourth season that the title was changed into The Adventures of Batman and Robin, but that was only because Warner Bros. Studio forced that upon them, along with a long list of rules involving kids, which I probably will do a post about how stupid studio execs are sometimes, considering they ruined that show, because of one dumb line of logic: Kids only will watch shows with kids in them, hence Robin needs to be in every episode, but he can't be put in harm's way, or harm people, or other kids can't be harmed, and on and on and on, seriously. Now I can tell you I would have fit under the category of a kid when this show was being run, and I hated any episode that had Robin in it, because it wasn't going to be Batman anymore. Now you might be saying that this is all ridiculous, Batman Begins was an awesome movie and it was all about an origin. Yes that's true and it makes total sense with the way that Nolan did it, but again let's look at the facts, Nolan came in with an idea to do a trilogy for them, and the studio let him do it, without interfering, I'm sure on some level they did, but for the most part, I'm sure Nolan was able to do what he wanted with those movies. But to counter that point I ask this question, what was a better overall movie Batman Begins, or The Dark Knight? My guess is the majority of people are going to say The Dark Knight. Why? Oh let's see, cause we already knew who Batman was, so you could just get right into him fighting the Joker, and low and behold, a super hero movie that isn't bound to doing an origin is free to get to the real source material. Because shocker to all you fans of Christopher Nolan's Batman films, ALL of his ideas that were put into those movies, were like a greatest hits collection of ideas from a plethora of Batman comics and storylines. You mean Nolan ripped them off? Yes, and no, he took ideas and molded them to fit his story, which honestly, is what any good writer does, even Shakespeare did that with his stories to give you some frame of reference. Now you might say, but Nolan didn't do anything on the Joker's origin, shouldn't he have done that? Possibly, but it wasn't the origin of the Joker Nolan focused on, but rather the origin of Two-Face. If you think about it, The Dark Knight, was all about Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face. Again, the better comic book movie focuses on the villain's origin, and not the hero. And if all of that isn't enough, for anyone who has seen it, knows that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a terrible movie that did not need to be made, 'nuff said.
So let's finally dig into this comparison. First of all let's start with The Amazing Spider Man, which was directed by Marc Webb, who's previous directing credits include 500 Days of Summer, and some music videos for bands like No Doubt, 3 Doors Down, and Green Day, so that gives you some kind of idea of how high quality a filmmaker Mr. Webb is. Now I have not seen his 500 Days of Summer, but I'm sure it sucked. Also who thought giving a guy who's only real directing job was on a romantic comedy (which I'm sure was not funny) a job directing a super hero movie? Then you have the writing team of the guy who wrote all the Harry Potter screenplays, a guy who's been writing since 1956 whose credits include the Raimi Spider Man sequels, and a guy who wrote The Rundown, you know The Rock and Stifler in the rainforest. The wonders of Hollywood. So why did The Amazing Spider Man suck? First of all, did this movie really even need to be made? Didn't we just have to labor through the crappy third Sam Raimi Spider Man film just a few years ago? (Notice I have not knocked on Sam Raimi's third Spider Man movie, only because I don't think that was his fault, I think that movie is a product of too many studio execs putting their input over Raimi, and it's not like he really has a choice other than to say, "Any other shitty plot device you would like me to put in there, guy who signs my check?") Apparently five years is long enough to warrant a reboot. So now it's Marc Webb's turn to try this out and what does he do? Well let's see, he turns Peter Parker into a dick, yeah Peter Parker is an asshole in this movie, seriously, just watch how he interacts with Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Oh and now in this movie, Peter Parker rides a skateboard, wow, that's so like, relating to the youth of America, cause Peter Parker rides a skateboard now. I wouldn't have so much a problem with this, if they literally did not have scenes in the film where in one shot he doesn't have a skateboard, then in the next shot he's carrying it around, that's just lazy. Another problem with this movie, was everyone was pretty much a one dimensional character. Yes you can say Peter does go through a change, but it's an origin movie, someone has to change, but other than that, everyone else is just stereotypical characters. Gwen, the love interest, is the cute next door girl with a bit of sass, and her father, played by Denis Leary is the Captain or whatever in the police department, that is a stereotypical hard nose veteran cop, and so on with Peter Parker's Aunt and Uncle. The one funny thing that I noticed, was the bully Flash, goes from bullying Parker, to a scene where after Peter's Uncle had been killed, Flash came up to genuinely express his condolences, and Peter just acts like an asshole. So Peter is an angst ridden angry skateboarding teen who gets bitten by a radioactive spider, and soon becomes Spider Man. A really cool (cough) idea Marc Webb had was to show a first person perspective of Peter running, jumping, and webslinging around rooftops, but it just looked like a cartoon, it wasn't real. So not only are we treated with Peter trying to master his new powers, we also are treated to an origin story of the villain in this movie which is the Lizard. I really had no problem with this choice, cause I'm okay with a giant CGI villain when it's fantastical like a giant angry lizard, but that was until his plan is revealed. Here's the problem I have with all the super hero movies of late, and this includes The Amazing Spider Man, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, is that the villain(s) in all these movies, their evil plan is to detonate some kind of bomb ie TDKR, or opening a portal to open up to an alien army, ie The Avengers, or detonating a biological weapon that turns everyone into a lizard, ie The Amazing Spider Man. Can't anyone in Hollywood think of something else? Why couldn't the Lizard, who finds out Peter's identity, just try and go after his loved ones, and just have an epic game of cat and mouse? I'm sure there could be a way to create some great tension, hunting after each other in the sewers, if it was made like a creature movie, such as The Relic. Resulting in a street top brawl, where Peter saves a bunch of citizens and stops the Lizard, instead of Peter must stop the bomb. We've seen it all before, you watch this, and you know that it's not going to go off, if you want to use that plot device, I'd like to see it where it actually does explode, then what, huh Hollywood? Here's an idea for a Spider Man movie, instead of just trying to throw a bunch of ideas in there, take one good comic storyline and make that into a movie, such as the most popular Spider Man storyline of Venom, and do that as a movie. Didn't Topher Grace play that already? Yes, but how much of that was an afterthought. Hollywood is trying to cram in just way too much stuff into these movies, sometimes one villain is more than enough. So in the next Marc Webb Spider Man movie Jamie Foxx is playing Electro. Whether you like Jamie Foxx or not, I could care less how he plays Electro, because I think that's one of the dumbest villains in all of the Marvel Universe. But wait, it needs more! Apparently Paul Giamatti is in talks to play the Rhino. So you've already got one super villain, we need more? This is ridiculous. Honestly, if you want to make a great Spider Man movie(s), the only good way of putting a bunch of villains together, is to follow the Sinister Six storyline. Or if you want to do Venom in a big way, you could follow the Maximum Carnage storyline, where you could have not just Venom, but Carnage as well. Instead we are treated to Electro and Rhino. Sweet a guy who shoots lightning, and a big Russian idiot in armor, can't wait to see how brooding angry teenage Spider Man deals with them, yawn. Gee, I wonder if Electro will have a big electrical doo hickey that will threaten New York, and Spidey must stop, so that he can kiss Mary Jane, do you see where I'm going with this?
So then why was Dredd such a great movie you ask? First of all, Dredd was directed by Pete Travis, who's previous directing credits include Vantage Point and Endgame. While the screenplay was written by Alex Garland, who's previous credits include a movie called 28 Days Later... So which team would you like to have making a movie, a guy who directed music videos with a really cheezy writing team, or a guy who has at least some experience in action suspense films, with a writer who was able to bring back the whole zombie stuff everyone seems to love right now?
Let's take a look at the comic universes. We are all pretty familiar with Spider Man's universe, nerdy, I'm sorry, I mean skateboarding punk, asshole teenager, Peter Parker, becomes Spider Man, and uses his powers for good to save New York City against a bunch of super criminals. Judge Dredd takes place in a post apocalyptic world where the vast majority of the population lives in huge cities called oddly enough, Mega City 1, and so forth. So as much as New York plays a big part of the Spider Man movies, Mega City 1 also plays a big part in these movies. In this huge future cities, crime runs rampant, and to help speed along due process Judges serve as Judge, Jury, and Executioner, shelving out sentences there on the spot, no trial needed. All of this is conveyed in the opening part of the movie, no origin necessary, Mega City 1 is introduced, Judge Dredd rolls up on some bad guys, and dispenses justice.
That's all you need to know about Judge Dredd, there is no backstory, no origin of how Dredd became a Judge, because all of that doesn't matter, Dredd is a judge, and he's a badass, move along. In fact, what I really loved about this movie, is a point could be made that Judge Dredd, isn't even the real protagonist in the story. The real meat of this story begins after the opening sequence where Dredd is called back into the Hall of Justice to meet with his supervisor. There he is introduced to a rookie who is only let in on the merits of her being an anomaly, or mutant in Dredd's universe, as she is a psychic, able to read people's minds. Because of her talents, they feel she can be a valuable asset to them, but because of her low test scores, they want to give her a trial run, hence where Dredd comes in. Really Dredd is a combination of two movies, Training Day, and The Raid: Redemption. I'm assuming most people know the plot of Training Day, where as Redemption is a movie about a swat team going into a gangster's apartment complex, and getting trapped inside, with no back up, or a way out.
At this point, I would like to address the cast in Dredd. Karl Urban, who you may know as the new Bones in JJ Abrams Star Trek, or the guy from that god awful video game movie Doom, plays Judge Dredd. I cannot say enough, of what a great job Karl Urban did in this film. First of all, how many actors in Hollywood star in a movie and never shows his face? Does Christian Bale wear the cape and cowl through then entire movie? Hell even Heath Ledger made an appearance in TDK without Joker makeup, but not Karl Urban. Only in the very beginning of the film do you see Judge Dredd suiting up, but even then you don't see his whole face, and from that point on, his helmet never comes off, not once. As awesome as I think that is, it's not even the best part of his character. The one thing that annoyed the ever living hell out of me, in all of Nolan's Batman films, was Christian Bale's stupid growly Batman voice. Seriously, I cringe every time Bale spouts out a line as Batman, especially in the scenes where he's talking to himself, or with someone that already knows his identity, and he still talks in that rough growly voice. I can understand where he is coming with that, wanting to mask his voice, blah blah, but there is a way to change your voice without sounding like Batman is constantly constipated with a hemorrhoid and a migraine. Two reasons that can prove that point, Michael Keaton and Kevin Conroy. Conroy more than anyone, because he was able to differentiate Bruce Wayne's voice and Batman's voice making them sound completely different, while not sounding like a ridiculous asshole (Don't forget the infamous Christian Bale going off recording). If you don't believe me watch Dredd, yes Karl Urban does do a rough growling voice, but it's not over the top, it actually feels like that's just how Dredd talks. Especially, when it comes to the line of, "I am the law," is done beautifully, not only vocally, but contextually too, because it actually makes sense, instead of Stallone just using it as a one liner to sound tough.
The other actress that really made this movie is Olivia Thirlby, whose previous works include the movie Juno. She plays the rookie cop Anderson, with psychic powers that is taken out on a trial run with Judge Dredd. I say that Anderson could easily be the protagonist in this movie, because she is the only character that seems to go through a change. Nothing against the Judge Dredd character, but there's nothing really that needs to change Dredd, just like Wolverine is Wolverine, Dredd is Judge Dredd, 'nuff said. Unlike Dredd, Thirlby never wears a helmet, "It affects my psychic powers," she says. Also you will notice that once Dredd and Anderson are introduced, Anderson is the one that directs the action, where to go, what to do, as Dredd is just a training officer, evaluating her. To fellow writers out there, notice how every line of dialogue, and every scene is important to the story. There is nothing in this story that is just thrown in there to be thrown in, ie., there is a scene where there are some kids skateboarding, where you don't really think anything of it at first, but unlike Spider Man, those kids skateboarding actually do come into play at some point in the story, not in any major way mind you, but enough, that it conveys that if you put something in a movie, it should have reason behind it, not just because some demographic needs this kind of stuff in it, so they will purchase a movie ticket.
So is having another character, who is not the hero, being the protagonist in a super hero movie necessarily a bad thing? Not in my opinion. Take a look at the animated movie Batman: Year One, based on Frank Miller's comic. Again, if you ask me, Jim Gordon is the main protagonist of that movie, as most of it is seen through his perspective, where Batman is important to the story, but he's not the main character of the movie. Does that mean I want to see a Batman movie where Batman is not the main character? Not very likely, but that's not to say it couldn't be done. Now I know if I catch flack for anything it's going to be this. Take a Superman movie, to be honest, I always had a problem with Superman, because he always seemed pretty invincible, except for obviously kryptonite, not much can stop him. Well where is the conflict? Where are the stakes? Everyone knows Superman is going to save the day. So why not make a Superman movie, where maybe it's Lois Lane being the protagonist? She's someone we can end up relating to, while still being able to enjoy Superman saving the day. I know sounds weird right? But if done correctly, could make for a really good movie.
Also, while I'm griping about Superman movies, here's my biggest problem with them. Now I'm not talking about Christopher Reeve Superman, I actually think those movies are great, at least the first two, as I don't care for any of the others. Singer's Superman sucked, cause uh, well, nothing really happened that we hadn't seen before, although I will say Kevin Spacey played an awesome Lex Luthor, and I wish Spacey would play more villains. But even the new Superman by Zach Snyder, which I'm sure will be enjoyable, the one thing that annoys me about the Superman movies, is where the hell are the huge monsters for Superman to fight, leveling entire cities in the process? Seriously, we now have the technology to do this, I mean hell if Michael Bay can do it with Transformers, why can't we see a super hero movie with huge epic Godzilla style city fights (Thank you del Toro for Pacific Rim!)? Yeah the Avengers kind of did it, but again, that movie was all about the heroes, and no one cared about the villain. Seriously, did anyone look and go, oh man that Loki, he was awesome like Heath Ledger's Joker? I would say he was the lamest villain ever, but I think that title goes to the first Hulk movie with mutant poodles and Nick Nolte. Yet another reason why did that Hulk movie suck so much? Cause there was no villain!
Back to Dredd and Anderson being the protagonist. So as Anderson and Dredd set out on their Training Day, the rookie picks the call, and sets out to what I assume is just another day for Judge Dredd, albeit one of his worst, but we are watching a movie right? It can't just be Judge Dredd dulling out parking tickets for two hours. So at this point I won't go much more into detail as anyone that is reading this, I do hope this convinces you to spend your money or at least convince another friend to see this movie, but I will prove to you how Anderson is the main protagonist in this movie. As the action picks up in the movie, Anderson is put into a situation where she is called out by Dredd to execute a suspect who just shot at them, who is reaching for a gun. She hesitates as he begs for mercy, but after some reluctance, Anderson pulls the trigger and puts one through his head. In the next scene, a tenant saves Dredd and Anderson, and in this scene, that only lasts for a few moments, you will feel more for the Anderson character, than you will after two whole hours of angry teenage Peter Parker. Later on in the movie, it's very quick, you might not even notice it at first, but your brain will, at the end when Anderson and Dredd go to confront the main villain in this movie, there is a henchman on the ground, reaching for a gun, and Anderson walks up, shoots him in the back, and keeps moving without hesitation. Now that's not everything, but it's a small microcosm of the change her character goes through, without it being hammered into the viewer. Subtlety does have its impact, not all audience members are idiots, and Hollywood should stop catering to them. If people are too stupid to get smart movies, then they shouldn't watch them. Hollywood's biggest mistake nowadays is trying to create movies that everyone will go see. That's not what movies should be, movies should be something that caters to people who like that movie.
Lastly, as I said there is no origin for Judge Dredd in Dredd, but there is an origin of the villain played by Lena Headey, who you are probably familiar with as the evil incestuous queen from Game of Thrones, or Sarah Connor. While granted she is a fine actress, I don't think she's an over the top villain in this movie at all, and does very well. For those of you that have seen Dredd and read this, yes I griped about a villain at the end using a bomb for the major climax, and yes it is used in Dredd, but look how much time is spent on this, which is very little. It's not like a major complex plot point, it just makes for a really cool death scene, and isn't that what we really want at the end of a movie like this? To another point, I'm sure a lot of you enjoyed The Dark Knight, and yes Heath Ledger's Joker was amazing, but remember at the end, he too used a bomb to hold people hostage on the ferry. Again, in a proper context of the story this is forgivable, as it was not really his main plan, turning Harvey Dent into Two-Face was. Whereas in the Dark Knight Rises, that's all the plan was, just to detonate a huge bomb off.
Hopefully someone who reads this will begin to question Super Hero Comic Book movies from now on. Just because they have a cool actor, and a dark rough voice, doesn't mean its going to be good. Now I hate guys who just complain about movies, and that they just suck, cause that's not all I've been doing right? Who am I to judge all these great filmmakers? I'm not saying all of them are bad, but if I had the opportunity, I know I could make a better movie than The Amazing Spider Man. I've gone over what I would do with a Superman movie, Lois Lane trapped in a falling building while Superman battles a huge beast, better than what I saw Bryan Singer do. For Spider Man I would do what I suggested earlier, Sinister Six, or Maximum Carnage. If you want to know what I would do for Batman, it would have to be something like the Arkham Asylum storyline, just the worst day in Batman's life, that's what I would do. Of course if I really could do a Batman movie, obviously I would do The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, which recently was made into an animated movie, which is good, but could have been better if they made it R rated. For those of you not familiar with it, The Dark Knight Returns is about a retired 55 year old Bruce Wayne coming back out of retirement, dawns the cape and cowl, and kicks Gotham a completely new asshole, fighting new villains and old, and even an old friend with a big red S. If I could do it now, Bruce Willis as Batman, and Kevin Spacey, John Malkovich, or Gary Oldman (Commissioner Gordon?) as the Joker. I would not make it unless it could be R rated as well, and as far as going into major plot details, like Heath Ledger's Joker said, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
