New Boss New DCEU

     According to Variety we have a new DC Films president in charge of supervising the DCEU, Walter Hamada. Hamada will be replacing Jon Berg and Geoff Johns. It's not a big loss for Johns as he will be the new creative officer for DC Entertainment and help Hamada. Hamada will not only observe films in the DCEU continuity, but all comic book films as well.
       It is apparent that Hamada being in charge of the DC films is a response to how the entire DCEU is doing right now. It's not doing so well right now. Justice League is a box office failure, as of now, only raked in $652 million worldwide with a budget of $300 million compared to Marvel's Avengers who made $1.5 billion at the box office. And unless your movie was Wonder Woman it has been met with dissatisfaction from critics and fans alike. So what do you do when your cinematic universe is sinking faster than the Titanic? You try to keep it afloat. And making Hamada being the captain in charge of seeing the whole thing steer in the right direction might be a good idea.
      One of the problems with the films is that there isn't a clear and concise vision with most of the films. As evidence with how all over the place Batman v Superman was with its plot and how it was setting up the cinematic universe and how discombobulated Justice League was with how things were poorly fitting together, was the vision wasn't clear or at least wasn't executed properly under Berg and Johns. Hamada could be a better visionary or at least steer things in a good direction as he was responsible for the successes of It and The Conjuring franchise. Whether he can fix the DCEU is a big question and it will be hard work, but at this point it wouldn't hurt.

Justice League: Did It Suck?

Justice League is the latest film in the DCEU universe. If you have been keeping score DC's movie universe has been 2 for 1 as BvS kinda sucked and Suicide Squad was a bit of a mess. The only film that showed a glimmer of hope was Wonder Woman. This time around you have a few more heroes joining Batman and Wonder Woman are a few more heroes from DC to save the world and honestly save the entire DCEU. Will they do it or will this another point in the list of "you're doing movies wrong DC"? Oh, and Zack Snyder made this so, fun times?

So let 's get to the plot. There might be spoilers.

     It's up to Batman and Wonder Woman to recruit and form a league of heroes to stop an upcoming force that could doom us all. The main villain, Steppenwolf, a super evil badass warrior who everyone from Earth, Aquarians, Amazons, and just regular men had to stop uniting three companion cubes, oops I'm sorry, Mother Boxes is back to finish the job and prepare for the coming of Darkseid by using the three sequels worth of AllSparks from the Transformer movies, I mean Mother Boxes, to change the climate of Earth. Basically like what General Zod tried to do in Man of Steel, except more of a hellish apocalyptic wasteland. Sounds epic? Not really.
     The whole movie was lull. Very vanilla in a sea of bland snow. You had a build up, not much character buildup or honestly really good movie pacing, but an ok introduction to all of the heores and everyone getting together to prevent Steppenwolf from his plan and not having a proper trade off at the climax in the movie. The actual final showdown was anti epic and climatic in the most possible way. Again, you had all this build up to the final battle with Steppenwolf being all evil intergalactic badass that EVERYONE on Earth had to stop him from turning the planet to a wasteland the first time to being defeated by his own fear after being knocked around by Superman and Wonder Woman. It also hurts as the battles with Steppenwolf were more epic, especially that Amazon fight scene (God I miss watching Wonder Woman after this). As the polar opposite of how anticlimactic things got you're met with a pretty HUGE WTF.
     It wasn't all bad. You did get a bit of lightheartedness in a response to DC's plan to make everything all Dark and Gritty™. You did get a generous bit of comedy which was cute. The MVPs of the movie have to be Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher, and Jason Momoa. Ezra had great comedic timing. Even though he was the comedic relief of the movie it wasn't annoying in any sense, which can happen alot in these movies. Ray Fisher's cyborg was the character the film decide to give a lot character growth which Fisher handled it well, compared to everyone else. Jason Momoa is basically Atlantis' answer to Wolverine and there's nothing wrong with that. For everyone else everyone did play their parts well. Warning if you loved Wonder Woman Diana, she's not here but who figured her to be. This is years later while she's used to being in man's world and Steve is dead. She can be a bit broody instead of Amazon Ariel in her solo movie. The Superman part was pretty good.

Final Verdict
     Honestly I feel like Justice League honestly doesn't know what movie it wanted to be. It tried to be comedic like Suicide Squad but didn't go all out like Suicide Squad did. It tried to be uplifting at times like Man of Steel and in some cases Wonder Woman but it just feels like lip service and half assed. Meanwhile Justice League trying to be everything it winds up not being much and boring. It doesn't help that it faced the same issues that Batman v Superman met with connecting everything. Batman v Superman gave you a lot of stuff going on as well as the main story. Justice League meanwhile didn't have much only having one big plot and still had trouble linking everything together or making things flow effortlessly. I like many people who saw Wonder Woman wanted to see DC and Warner Bros steer this universe into the right direction and had hope that after Wonder Woman that this would be the case. Like Tyra Banks we were rooting for you, Justice League, how dare you! Learn something from this DC. Hopefully letting Zack Snyder stick with Superman movies since that is the only part he got right, pretty much. Justice League gets 2 SuperFriends out of 5.

Should Nightwing Be A TV Series?

     Warner Bros, while trying to make sense of not only the entire DC universe but the recent Batman movie fiasco, is apparently making a Nightwing movie in the future. No release date or news or who's on board for the movie has not been revealed other than it is being made by Chris McKay from the Lego Batman movie and it is being written by Bill Dubuque who wrote The Accountant. For those who don't know who Nightwing is he's Dick Grayson, the first Robin, deciding to be the JC Chasez to the Justin Timberlake Batman-led dynamic duo an venture off into a solo super hero. While a movie may be cool and all, there are some things that question Warner Bros' decision to make it a movie and maybe making it a TV show might work better.
     First of is the obvious, we have no fucking idea what is going on in the DC movie universe most importantly the Batman part. Batman vs Superman and Suicide Squad hasn't really established a clear map of when things have taken place. We do know that there was a Robin, but one he's dead and two it's Jason Todd not Dick Greyson. BvS is suppose to be when Batman and pretty much every other hero aside from Superman are brand new and things that we know in the comics haven't happened yet. There's no clear indication when Batman went through already two different Robins before he started fighting crime, especially when we haven't even gotten a full story on Batman yet.
     Maybe a TV series can help explain things by taking place a few years after whatever may come from the upcoming Batman movie? There is a possibility that the Batman movie and maybe even the Justice League movie might give a better story about Jason and Dick, but a show doing that would probably go smoother than anything the movie universe might try. There could even with a Jason Todd/Red Hood storyline that might play out better than it would in the movies.

What are your thoughts?

Captain America: Civil War vs Batman vs Superman: Who Did It Better?

 
     Captain America: Civil War is out and you know what that means. No, not comic book nerds flexing their comic book knowledge and pages of feuds of Team Captain America or Team Iron Man all over forums and Twitter. Review time! Instead of doing a typical review like I always do I'll do a compare and contrast putting Civil War up against another superhero movie that was similar to it: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. Civil War was suppose to be Marvel's answer to Batman vs Superman with the plot being almost identical: Superheroes fighting each other and the world being pissed at them. With both movies having the same story and theme, which one did it better?

     Both movies touched on a similar subject: Should the government keep superheroes in check? In both cases you had issues where superheroes while trying to save the day cause accidents where casualties are taken.

    Civil War only touched on the subject a couple of times. It was talked about a couple of times, but completely took a back seat to fill the movie with more action and Bucky's story.  The whole let's keep the Avengers in check felt more like a ploy or excuse to have everyone fight for the last leg of the movie. It wasn't very coherent as it went to can we trust the Avengers to handle thing properly to a basic story of revenge.
    BvS did a much better job dealing with this issue. It was more of the plot behind the movie. It was better handled as it was a common issue throughout the whole movie. The issue affected almost every character. You got a idea of how it affected Superman, Batman, and the people proposing the idea of if we can trust Superman and should we regulate him.
     Piggybacking off of the topic of story, Civil War's pretty fluid. Aside, again, from the issue of regulating superheroes and just trying to make that issue a catalyst for a revenge story, nothing felt out of place or weird. For the most part the plot was woven well compared to BvS where its director, Zack Snyder, was for the most part tried to fit concepts in that weren't executed as well. Especially using the movie as the introduction to a vast DC universe, where Civil War and Marvel did exactly right (no shock).      
     The introductions of new characters, Spider-Man and Black Panther and old ones like Ant-Man were done well, especially how the introduced Spider-Man without the long origin story, at least not yet. BvS didn't do that well as they just did a "five minute oh, here are the guys we're putting in the next Justice League movie at around the end of the movie, fun times lol?"
     So who did it better? Civil War was a cookie cutter superhero movie and there is nothing wrong with that as a lot of them are good and they know what the fans want. A lot of action, testosterone, and a little bit of comedy in the mix. I do respect BvS more as it was trying to be a bit different.  It didn't work out like Snyder hoped it did, but I can see what he tried to do. It probably was trying to be the Manturian Candidate of superhero films. I did like the fact that BvS had a theme of can we really trust these superheroes and it kept if throughout most of them movie, which Civil War didn't really do that much of and it got messy a bit.


What are your thoughts?

Batman v Superman: Does It Suck?

The most anticipated movie of 2016 was just released over this Easter weekend: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The hype and anticipation for this movie was and still is crazy and for good reasons. For one, this movie is suppose to be the first film of many that will start the DC movie universe. A lot is riding on this movie, especially considering that it is a follow-up, not a sequel (sort of) to Men of Steel that was favorably a disappointment by DC fans and critics alike. Will it rise above our standards and expectations? Does it suck?

Story

The premise of the movie is that it takes place a couple of years after the events of Man of Steel. Superman has become a polarizing figure. You have people who trust him thinking that he is here to help humanity meanwhile you have people who think that he is a problem that needs to be dealt with or be put in serious check. One of these people is Bruce Wayne/Batman. Lex Luthor also has that issue, but to those who haven't seen it yet I don't want to spoil it too much. The movie did feel like a mix-up of The Manchurian Candidate, an episode of Homeland, and the last season of Smallville (only written better. Slightly)
     Batman v. Superman for a majority of the movie had this sort of political feel to it and deal with the issue of Superman in a political way. There is a lot of action in it, but what director Zack Snyder tries to do is mainly focus on how the world would react to a being like Superman if he did exist.
     For the Batman parts it did feel like Snyder try to make things Christopher Nolan-esque, but he didn't execute it properly. Another thing that wasn't executed properly was the DC Universe tie-ins. Batman vs. Superman is suppose to be the first movie that launches the live action DC movie universe. The film did feature a few cameos from other heroes that will be in the upcoming Justice League film, but these cameos were too blatant and didn't offer anything to the storyline other than oh look here they are. Wonder Woman was the already and most obvious tie-in they have and it would've made more sense if they would've just stuck with her and subtlety include the other heroes in other DC projects. Snyder should've taken notes of what Marvel has done to construct their movie universe more carefully.

Performance

The movie is sort of a sequel of Man of Steel so I'm not going to discuss Henry Cavill and Amy Adam's roles as Supeman and Lois Lane. For the most part it was a continuation of their roles in the last film so it you loved/hated it then, you probably will in this movie. The standout of the movie was Gal Gadot. Not much was known about her and her acting chops before she was cast as Wonder Woman. People were worried about whether or not she would deliver the role and she did effortlessly. Another person that did good was Ben Affleck. When we heard that he was going to be Batman people flipped, almost like how they flipped when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman in the 1989 film. I kept an open mind about him playing the character and he didn't disappoint. Affleck played a different Bruce Wayne than what we normally seen in the past live action films. His Bruce was more of a person who was haunted and troubled by the death of his parents and moved by vengeance that it almost driven him to insanity. Jesse Eisenberg was good in most parts. The movie's version of Lex Luthor was pretty much a paranoid almost in the same way of Superman turning against humanity as well as Bruce was, but on a more extreme way. Eisenberg played brilliant militant genius well, insane brilliant militant genius not that much.

Final Verdict

Did Batman v Superman suck? Not that much. I respected the script and its topic, however there were parts that were poorly executed and were unnecessary. A lot. It wasn't a bad movie at all, but it's nothing precisely to write home to, especially considering how other superhero movies fared better. Snyder made a much better film than Man of Steel but he's no Christopher Nolan, and that was apparent with what he tried to do with Batman. It gets a 2.5 out of 5.

DC Movie Universe: What Will Marvel Do?

     Earlier this week we got news that along with the new "Justice League" movie, Batman v Superman, DC and Warner Bros. is planning  to release  a lineup of superhero movies for most of the superheroes involved. That means we will be getting an Aquaman movie along with a Wonder Woman movie (finally). Warner Bros. and DC are already making plans for Wonder Woman, looking for female directors to make the film. Does all of these movies being planned after a huge all-star superhero lineup movie sound familiar? It should. It sounds like DC is taking a lesson from Marvel's Movie Universe and they are making a universe of their own.
      This is kinda no surprise. We hear that the sequel to Man of Steel is going to not only Batman in it, then Wonder Woman, and then Aquaman, Cyborg, The Flash, and possibly a Robin? Not only who's in the movie, it would be awfully foolish of DC not to try to copy Marvel's movie strategy. Ever since Marvel came up with this idea to have a majority of every superhero movie they come out linked, every movie has been a hit. The Avengers, which brings this universe all together is Marvel's biggest success to date and its follow up, The Age of Ultron, is the most anticipated movie of 2014. DC's plan seems to be let's beat Marvel at its own game. The question is what can Marvel do to stay on top?
     As far as movies go, Marvel doesn't need to do much. As long as they keep up with the quality of story and production, they will be fine. Marvel has a finely ran machine in the movie department. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. In order for Marvel to excel, they have to go past movies and maybe start venturing into new territory. Maybe Primetime TV? Primetime TV is where DC reign. DC has had it run of Primetime shows for the past few years. We had Lois and Clark before Smallville on the CW and now DC has shows like Arrow as well as newly premiered shows like The Flash and Gotham. Since DC is trying to take on Marvel on their home turf, movies, Marvel needs to do the same. We haven't gotten much from Marvel when it comes to Primetime shows. We do have Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, but that seems to be the only thing right now. The time is now for them to expand a bit. There's a possibility that S.H.I.E.L.D might be them testing the waters for something big. There are rumors that there is an X-Men TV series being planned and that would be a good start for Marvel to come out on the offensive. They do have some good material for them to put out. It would be nice if we do see something else like a Fantastic Four drama on the CW or Fox as well.
     Whatever the plan is for Marvel, they have to consider how they're going to outdo not only themselves and the competition. They have reinvented the Superhero genere, making it a spectacle instead of it just being a movie about your favorite superhero. Whether or not if they are going to do the Primetime TV takeover route, I'm sure they are making plans on what they can do. Hopefully it will be good.

OMG!! Why Did They Cast HIM?!?!

   

     So, if you haven't heard, Jesse Eisenberg is our new Lex Luthor. The actor is the recently added to the cast of the upcoming Batman and Superman movie coming out in 2015. Warner Brothers believes that Eisenburg will direct the role into "new and unexpected directions." Warner Bros' decision to cast Eisenberg is obviously due to them wanting to portray a much younger Lex Luthor to match the recent graphic novels and TV adaptations of the iconic villain which does so. Eisenberg is 30 while the previous actors that portrayed Lex, Kevin Spacey (46) and Gene Hackman (48) were in their late 40s. Bryan Cranston, who everyone wanted to be cast in the role, is 57. Reaction to the casting says that some of you are not liking this decision one bit. I'll admit it, the cast of the new Superman/Batman is turning into a big WTF of who is playing what. We have an unknown actor, Gal Gadot, playing Wonder Woman that we have no idea how good she will be with the role and nothing to critique her acting and who can forget the internet meltdown that was Ben Affleck as our new Batman. There have been a petition and tireless crying from comic book fanboys for weeks demanding that Affleck needs to go, but people complaining about who is playing their comic book faves is new right?

Heath Ledger as Joker

When it was announced that Heath Ledger was to play the Joker in the upcoming sequel to The Dark Knight, fans all over the internet had an outrage. How dare the guy from Brokeback Mountain play the Joker?!?! Much to say, Ledger's performance was critically acclaimed, silencing all who dare questioned whether he would do the role justice. Roger Ebert said "He transformed the character of the Joker, who we thought we knew so well, into a suffering, haunted being, stripped of all emotion except for ruthless self-pity."


Daniel Craig as James Bond

It's one thing when some Bond fans don't think you're right to fill the legendary shoes of Britain's favorite spy, but it's another when even the director thought you weren't the right choice. Before working with Craig for Skyfall, director Sam Mendes had doubts on whether Craig was worthy of the role until he saw him in Quantum of Solace. "I watched him go through that intense pressure and come through that with flying colours," says Mendes. Oh, and it doesn't hurt when Roger Moore says that you were a kickass Bond.

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman

So when news started circulating that Anne Hathaway would be donning the iconic skintight leather suit and cat ears for The Dark Knight Rises, surprise surprise, people weren't liking it. Well, they did have a reason. This was new territory for Hathaway. Most of the roles she was in were different than Catwoman. People were already comparing to Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman in Batman Returns, saying she will never live up to that role. Much to say, Hathaway's performance was great. Hathaway portrayal of  Catwoman was well met, praised by critics. A review in Washington Post stated: “Hathaway is the sensational secret weapon of this production, a tart, leggy operator who can turn on a dime from damsel-in-distress to canny kitten-with-a-whip.”

So there you have it. A short list of few actors that got a lot of criticism for being chosen to play legendary fictional characters and rose above the pressure. Will the cast of the new Batman/Superman be just as critically acclaimed? We'll see. Will everyone suck? Maybe. Will Ben Affleck be considered a better Batman than Michael Keaton or at least not as bad as Val Kilmer? The Fates will decide. What I'm saying people is give them a chance.