Home Blog Page 1356

Will ‘Hardcore Henry’ Reinvent The Action Movie?

Monkeys Fighting Robots

People have been trying for years to reinvent the action movie. Everything has been attempted from adding more explosions to importing movies emphasizing the use of trained marital artists as the actors, all in an effort to please the ever evolving film going fans. With every attempt the goal has always been to give fans the authentic feeling, no, the actual rush of adrenaline which comes from putting an actor in a peerless situation and watching it play out. Now a new film will give fans an experience like no other by letting them live the story.

Hardcore Henry is a new film where the entire thing is shot from the perspective of the main character, Henry. The audience will feel the experience the intensity as Henry works to fight against an army of mercenaries in an effort to rescue his wife (Haley Bennett). Through the interaction and perspective shots you, the viewer will feel like you are living the experience of the film from every bullet flying at you to every intense struggle as Henry tries to ward off attackers.

The look of this film seems to give the impression the result will either be of one of two possibilities: If it’s a good film, a new way to watch movies will be born which perfectly integrates with the D-Box and 3-D features in theaters and while at home it would be the ideal use for the slew of Virtual Reality headssets which are to be released later this year. If it’s bad (or even mediocre), it will be dismissed and compared to shaky cam failures trying to modify a genre which people have been enjoying for decades.

Will this be the new dawn of a new age of cinema or will it be another bland attempt to fix something most people feel isn’t’ really broken? To find out which result will ring true, check out Hardcore Henry when it opens on April 8th 2016. You can also attend the special Fathom Events screening on April 7th and watch a special Q & A feature with the director.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

New ‘Captain America: Civil War’ International Trailer

Monkeys Fighting Robots

Marvel Studios released a new international trailer Monday for Captain America: Civil War.

The trailer has some good banter between the Black Widow and Hawkeye, but, unfortunately, no new footage of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man.

“We’re still friends, right?” – Black Widow

“Depends on how hard you hit me.” – Hawkeye

Captain America: Civil War is directed by Anthony & Joe Russo from a screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, Captain America: Civil War picks up where Avengers: Age of Ultron left off, as Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) leads the new team of Avengers in their continued efforts to safeguard humanity. After another international incident involving the Avengers results in collateral damage, political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability and a governing body to determine when to enlist the services of the team. The new status quo fractures the Avengers while they try to protect the world from a new and nefarious villain.

The film stars Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Chadwick Boseman, Emily VanCamp, Daniel Brühl, Frank Grillo, William Hurt, Tom Holland, and Martin Freeman.

Captain America: Civil War is set for release on May 6.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Batman and the Morality of Killing

Monkeys Fighting Robots

There is a terrible beauty to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, one that leaves me simultaneously able to enjoy the movie, but equally infuriated with many of its creative choices. Chief among these is the death toll that Batman is directly responsible for. We will leave aside the Knightmare sequence as that is a dream set in a post-apocalyptic society, so Batman’s resort to lethal force can be excused to a certain extent. What leaves one quite shocked is the willingness to kill or reckless endanger those around him during the spectacular Batmobile chase. This article is going to assume you’ve seen the movie, so if you haven’t come back latter because there be spoilers below.

Synder has been quoted as saying the deaths caused during the chase scene and others aren’t murder so much as they are manslaughter. Deaths for this Batman are unfortunate side-effects, rather than his intended aims. He further argues that Frank Miller’s seminal Dark Knight Returns, from which the movie draws heavily, features a scene in which our hero fatally shoots a mutant gang member. While that scene is ambiguous, the reason such an interpretation has weight or is in any way significant is because we know such an action is not par for the course and Synder doesn’t seem to understand that. Moreover, it’s an interpretation that doesn’t fit with the rest of the book. It’s worth noting that in that same story, Batman refused to kill the Joker forcing the clown prince of crime to commit suicide in order to frame the Caped Crusader. Synder further argues that other directors had Batman indirectly kill people and didn’t get as much criticism. Clearly, he doesn’t understand that past failures don’t justify present ones. This doesn’t seem like a director making a bold choice about a character due to its story-telling potential, but rather a question of efficacy. It’s probably fairer to say that Synder wanted cool stuff to happen on screen during the chase scene and couldn’t figure out a way to have that happen without killing people and therefore, in order to fulfill that vision, Batman became a killer.

I’m a fan of DC Comics; I understand we have a multi-verse. I’ve read stories featuring a Batman, who kills. I’ve read stories of a Superman who establishes himself as the supreme ruler. I’ve read stories about heroes who go too far and the consequences that follow. Those stories can be interesting. Indeed, Mark Millar’s Red Son is one of the finest works the medium has produced in recent memory, but much of their appeal comes from that the are subverting the established norm. It would be shocking to see Knightmare Batman being forced to resort to killing in the wake of the destruction left by Darkseid and a twisted Superman’s regime, but why should we care if this guy is prone to gunning down his problems in the first place? If this Batman agrees in principle that killing is okay to achieve to win his war, then it’s a wonder that any of his foes are alive to take part in Suicide Squad. If he isn’t okay with killing then why should it matter if it’s collateral damage in a car chase vs. snapping a dude’s neck? Synder can’t have it both ways, either these characters have a moral code at the cores, or they don’t. That code need not be right or wrong, but it has to be there if we are to decide who we would align ourselves with. If the point he wants to make is that there is no morality and that the concept itself is relative, then we still require that code to be embodied in our heroes so that we can deconstruct it. Synder’s approach to Batman in this regard is lazy at best and smacks of a director wanting to create a “not your father’s Batman” version of the character.

The movie isn’t about that philosophical conflict as much as the trailers or film-maker would have you believe. Never are our heroes forced to put their ideologies to the test. Never does Batman’s killing ever become something that the character is forced to confront. As much as Superman’s storyline amounts to wasted potential, at least, he is forced to confront the idea that being a god-like figure may not have as positive an impact on the world as he thought. In comparison, Batman is essentially given free reign to do whatever he wants and ultimately, is vindicated for it. Batman and Superman unite not because they have come to a consensus, but out of necessity because there were thirty minutes left and there was some Justice League set-up to be had. One could argue that Batman telling Wonder Woman that he “will not fail [Superman] in death as he did in life” shows that he may be inspired to take a less lethal approach, but it could also just be a surface level reference to assembling the Justice League.Man of Steel, for all its faults, at least, had Clark’s killing of Zod be followed immediately by a blood-curdling scream of frustration and sorrow indicating that the act went against the character’s moral fiber. I may not agree with the creative choice to have him do that, but it makes clear that for this Superman, killing was a big deal, but for Batman, it was just another Tuesday in Gotham City. Alfred remarks that Batman is operating under “new rules” and is becoming cruel, but that is done more as an aside note rather than a challenge to his behavior.

There have been times where Batman has killed or expressed the intent to kill in the comics, but that has been a moral low for the character, and they show that the decision to kill or not to kill is a burden. Personally, I prefer that Batman’s code include no killing and no guns, but there is story potential in examining what happens if he, for whatever reason is forced into such a scenario. The opening episode of Batman Beyond is a great example of this as an elder Bruce Wayne retired upon having been forced to use a gun in self-defense. This Bruce Wayne is horrified and disgusted with himself for even entertaining the notion and vows never to put on the Bat-Suit again. If you are going to have Batman break his code, then make it meaningful and show that this act had weight. Ben Affleck’s Batman is shown throughout the movie to been haunted by the spectres of those he has failed to save be it the citizens Metropolis or his own side-kick. Why can’t the decision to kill have a similar effect on him?

In the latest season of Daredevil, Marvel Studios presented us with two brutal vigilantes, the Punisher and Daredevil, whose philosophical conflict rested on the use of lethal force. For Daredevil, life was sacred, and God was the only one fit to judge in that matter. For the Punisher, the Man Without Fear was only a half-measure and the safety of the average citizen rested on putting criminals down for good. The question the audience is left with is on whether or not there is any meaningful distinction between the two or whether the Punisher is merely the logical extension of a society that tolerates vigilantism. The debate over the choice that Frank Castle has to make every day (to shoot and become a killer or to do nothing and have an innocent life on your conscience) is harrowing and forces one to reassess their beliefs. Batman v Superman had an interesting opportunity to address similar themes, but opted instead for the easy route, for the CGI slugfest rather than the higher burden the film’s own promotion set for itself and one that graphic novels such as Kingdom Come have addressed in the past.

How can the Justice League ever hope to live up to its name if it lacks a moral compass? Justice is an abstract notion, it ebbs and flows. While the titular Justice League movie is sure to inform us as to what these so-called heroes stand for, this universe’s Batman seems to kill whenever it suits him. It’s hard to understand what kind of justice that is and why this man has the moral authority to gather and lead Earth’s mightiest heroes in battle. The story of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is one that my fifteen-year-old self could have written, but even that version of me understood that not every comic book had to be Watchmen. Batman is a complex character that lends himself to darker stories and more brutal tactics that some find unsavory, but that doesn’t mean he has to be a killer. Indeed, it’s more interesting to have him always be tempted by that choice, to have that desire creep in, but to struggle with it and the consequences of that inaction. One of the greatest Batman stories of the modern era is “Under the Hood” where his former Robin; Jason Todd confronts Bruce about his failure to kill the Joker following a series of events that lead to the latter killing the former. Batman argues that despite his desire to kill the Joker, to do so would be to sacrifice soul, to become just as bad as the Joker. For Bruce Wayne, the easy way out would be to kill his enemies, but the morally superior thing, the harder thing is to let them live. Maybe it’s Thomas Wayne’s act of aggression in attempting to take on that mugger that leads to this version of Batman being more willing to kill, but that’s not a Batman that I want to see which is a shame because other than that Ben Affleck is a perfect Batman. It’s quite telling that Bruce Wayne remarks that there aren’t many good guys left in Gotham and not many that stayed that way. I wonder if the Dark Knight isn’t referring to himself in that scene because at the end of the film, I was left with an uneasy feeling towards this Batman and that is not something that I thought I’d ever say.

This discussion will end up being pretty academic because Synder and Co. have been rewarded for their shoddy choices. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice had the best opening weekend of any comic book movie to date worldwide. Warner Bros will make a killing, and it won’t matter what the reviews say or what those who understand the characters complain about. DC seems committed to Synder’s vision, let’s just hope it gets a little brighter from here on out.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

‘Martyrs’ Review: Worst Horror Remake Since ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’

Monkeys Fighting Robots

2016’s ‘Martyrs‘ Tries To Give Hope But Loses Its Heart

Originally part of the “New French Extremity” film movement, 2008’s ‘Martyrs‘ was an exercise in nihilism. The 2016 “re-imagining” focuses more on giving the young women in the film hope. The American remake, directed by Kevin and Michael Goetz, utterly misses the mark for what this story needs. I do believe artists should be able to interpret something as they please. It’s their creative choice and sometime it works out great. Just not in this particular case. You need that feeling of hopelessness to fully get the power of ‘Martyrs‘.

This seems to be a common problem with American films; there has to be a sense of hope, if not the filmmakers fear they will lose the audience. Throughout the ‘Martyrs‘ remake, we never get as dark as the original did. In an effort to hold back, the directors decided to lessen the gore to focus on less visual horror but in doing so, they also lost the psychological horror as well.

Martyrs

The story is about a woman named Lucie who escapes horrendous torture at 10 years of age and returns later in life to avenge the crimes done to her. Along side is her Anna, a girl who she befriends after the torture. Their relationship is tested when Lucie finds the people who tortured her and gets her revenge. This is the start of a sick & twisted tale of revenge and martyrdom. Something handled well in 2008, not so great in 2016.

An example being the fate of tragic character Lucie. In the 2008 version, she doesn’t make it out of the second act alive. While in this new film, her suicide becomes a sad failed attempt. Watching the original film for the first time, this felt like watching Marion Crane die in ‘Psycho’ all over again; so unexpected, so impactful. Now we just see Lucie limp her way to the finish of the film when she should have been left behind.

Another big change as pointed out by reviewer Stephany Slaughter is the dramatic change in relationship between the girls. Gone is the “ride or die” chick that Anna once was. At the first sign of insanity, she runs to call the police. There was a deep connection between the girls in the French film; they loved and trusted each other at first. This new relationship gave us no real reason to be invested. A few chocolate-chip cookies doesn’t sell me on love…

So why do we “re-imagine” a film so niche that the original audience will hate anything new & the new audience won’t full grasp what you are trying to convey? It’s a question everyone asked since the project was first announced and something we continue to ask. I respect the Goetz Brothers for loving the original ‘Martyrs‘ so much that they wanted to give their take on it but unfortunately this movie just comes off like a hollow comparison of the former.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Zack Snyder and DC’s Superman Problem

Monkeys Fighting Robots

The thought of writing a Batman v Superman thinkpiece is almost crushing my soul as I type. I haven’t wanted to spend another waking minute on this abomination of a film, as Zack Snyder systematically destroys cinema with his poorly-constructed battle royale. Batman v Superman is a fundamentally horrible movie on a very structural, base level. And it only gets worse from there. It’s almost objectively terrible, rendering any positive outlook on this picture seemingly flawed and blinded by the desire for it to be good, highlighting the inability for fans of the movie to see the way this thing is so shoddily put together. Scenes stop and start awkwardly, character motivations make absolutely no sense time and time again, other characters know things they have no possible way of knowing, and the less is said about the dialogue, the better.

I didn’t want to pile on this horrible movie because, frankly, I want to move on. But something has been eating away at me since I saw it. It’s one element – a massive element – of the film I cannot shake. Zack Snyder has ruined Superman. He hasn’t simply ruined this new Cavill Superman, mind you, he’s completely upended everything the character has stood for for almost 80 years. This new Superman is nothing the character was built upon for decades upon decades. Snyder and DC, and the DCEU, have a serious Superman problem, and it may be too late to turn back.

Disclaimer: I am not a walking comic book encyclopedia. I enjoy comic films and certain comic books and story threads, etc. Both Batman and Superman are my favorite characters, and I prefer DC to Marvel for the most part, because those are the two heroes I grew up on in the movies. I saw Donner’s Superman, Burton’s Batman, and I worked my way backwards from there into their comic catalogues. So I was eternally optimistic about this film; I wanted it to be great. And even when early reviews came in, my desire for this picture to succeed propelled my blind optimism. Until the film began, my pennant for Batman v Superman was waving wildly.

Superman

Batman is… ok? Whatever, I’m not here to talk about Batfleck because he’s not the issue. It’s Superman, a character Zack Snyder obviously doesn’t care about, doesn’t know, doesn’t respect, and philosophically disagrees with on a political level. Where Batman is an angry vigilante, proactively attacking the evil in the world, Superman has always been a defender of the good. He is a hero, first and foremost, reluctant to commit violent acts until there is no other option. He has an inherent desire to help the human race, to save as many people as he can. Born on an alien planet to loving parents, adopted in the heart of Middle America by equally loving parents, Clark Kent/Superman is a wholesome, caring ambassador for all that is good and all that can be good again.

Snyder’s Superman? He is a loner, a brooding and angry alien who is reluctant to help people. Unless Lois, the only person he honestly seems to care about through two movies now, is in trouble, Superman would rather isolate himself from humans and pontificate on whether or not he should actually use his powers to help society. The first 70 plus years of Superman had the character dealing with the fact he couldn’t save enough people all the time. This new version of Superman wonders if he should even bother wasting his time.

Think about Richard Donner’s Superman from 1978, played by Christopher Reeve. He is still the definitive Superman, and there’s no real argument against that point. He tells Lois he is fighting for “truth, justice, and the American way,” and he “never lies.” This Superman is a caring, warm spirit, everything the very foundation of Superman was built upon. Imagine Henry Cavill saying anything as reassuring as that to anyone in Man of Steel or BvS. He would never say something as thoughtful as this, because he’s barely given a chance to speak at all. Donner’s Superman would wince at the thought of a single human life lost, and that would be the torment driving his character arc. This Superman will do whatever he can to save his girlfriend, everyone else be damned. Case in point: the incredibly careless destruction of Metropolis in Man of Steel. Not once does Cavill’s Superman plead with Zod to stop because of the people in the crossfire. That was, if you remember Superman II, Reeve’s desperate plea, and the whole reason he fled to the fortress of solitude; he witnessed the people in danger, and realized he must lead Zod and his cronies to an isolated battleground to save as many people as he can. That kind of thought doesn’t even cross new Superman’s mind.

Snyder’s marginalization of the definitive superhero is glaring and disheartening. Because this new DC Universe is all super gritty and dark, right? Groan.

Superman

Superman is not dark and gritty in really anyway, but Snyder and David Goyer are dead set on shaping him as such. Why? Why does every superhero have to be dark and brooding now? They aren’t that way in their canon. Before you light the torches and grab the pitchforks, sure, seeing a new and different approach to an icon as recognizable as Mickey Mouse and Jesus could be an exciting proposition. For the sake of argument, let’s say the idea is to make Superman dark (horrible idea, but let’s go with it). Is this what we get when that happens? A practically mute, angry, bitter manchild? No thanks.

And how about one of the more visible lines in the BvS marketing campaign: “If I wanted it,” he tells Batman, “you’d be dead already.” The hero we all grew up on would never say this. At least not in my mind. Superman never used to be predisposed to murder, no matter who it might be (which inadvertently takes us back to the climax of Man of Steel). But Snyder has dedicated his new universe to making Superman a selfish prick, not a savior of men. Any saving he does in BvS is done so reluctantly, at least that’s the vibe I got, because this new Jonathan Kent has told him not that the time will come when he can help people, but that he maybe shouldn’t ever do it at all. Hearing Snyder’s desire to adapt Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead shines light on this political leanings and the direction he’s taken Kal-El. Snyder obviously embraces objectivism in his life, and he has pushed that ideology on a character who would not in a million years identify with Randian politics.

Here we are though, in a new time and place, where every superhero must fit a filmmaker’s flawed vision. Of all the (endless) issues with Batman v Superman, Snyder’s utter dismissal of the second half of the title is the most unsettling. Why can’t we have a superhero, built on the foundation of all that is good in this world, stay that way in some shape or form? There is more conflict for these characters than anger and resentment. At least, there used to be.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

We are all Negan… Especially Rick Grimes

Monkeys Fighting Robots

The entire sixth season of The Walking Dead has been building up to a showdown between Rick Grimes and the ultra-bad guy  Negan. We’ve been told that Negan will be unlike any other character we’ve seen on the show.

“Negan is kind. Negan is respectful. Negan is psychotic. Negan is ruthless.”

Robert Kirkman to Entertainment Weekly

Maybe Negan’s different from other bad guys like the Governor or Gareth from Terminus. But is he really that much different from another character we see every week? Is he really much different than the man he will ultimately battle: Rick Grimes?

“We’ve all done the worst kinds of things just to stay alive.”

-Rick Grimes, Season 3 Too Far Gone

Negan may prefer a barb-wired wrapped baseball bat to do his dirty work, but has Rick been any less ruthless or even psychotic? He shot his best friend, put a machete into a man’s head, choked a man to death, and even ripped a guy’s throat out with his teeth.

When Alexandria was running out of food, Rick had little problem turning his group into mercenaries swapping a slaughter for half the Hilltop’s supplies.

“The Saviors, they’re scary but… this prick’s got nothing on you.”

-Andy from Hilltop to Rick Grimes, Season 6 Not Tomorrow Yet

Andy would probably know better than anyone about the difference between Rick and Negan. He was the Hilltop’s delivery boy dealing directly with Negan and was there as Rick plotted an attack to murder a group of people in their sleep (and punch a severed head in the face).

Even Kirkman admits there are a lot of similarities between Rick and Negan.

This is a guy who, much like Rick, has survived through horrendous things and has developed a system, a way of life, that works for him.”

Robert Kirkman to Entertainment Weekly

But maybe there’s still hope for Rick as Kirkman also points out a distinct difference between Rick and Negan.

“…this is a group that’s led by a guy who’s had his morality dial a few clicks away from Rick toward the darker aspects of his personality…”

Robert Kirkman to Entertainment Weekly

Rick has indeed shown there’s a sliver of humanity left in him and maybe that’s enough of a difference to keep him from proving that “we are all Negan”.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

‘Deadpool’ Becomes the Highest Grossing R-Rated Movie in the World

Monkeys Fighting Robots

When it comes to this weekend’s box office, a lot of people will obviously be talking about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and its towering $166.1 debut — which makes it the highest debut for a March-release ever. That’s certainly impressive, but the DC adaptation isn’t the only superhero movie that broke records this weekend. On its seventh run in theaters, 20th Century Fox’s Deadpool scored a round total of $745.9 million dollars, now making it the highest grossing R-rated movie worldwide in the history of cinema. That’s a lot of money to put in the swear jar. Or a lot of chimichangas to buy. Pick your poison here.

As initially reported by Collider, while this marks a groundbreaking landmark for the foul-mouth vigilante, it still has a little more ways to go in order to become the highest-grossing R-rated film in U.S. history. That’s right, Deadpool still only sits at the number three spot at the moment, with its $349.4 million gross stateside just a teensy bit behind American Sniper‘s $350.1 million and a little ways behind The Passion of the Christ‘s $370.7 million.

And while it’s a given that it’ll hop over Clint Eastwood’s last film in just a matter of days, don’t roll out the possibility of it becoming the highest grossing R-rated film here in the States too. It’s not a sure thing, but it seems highly likely at this point. Much like the titular character in front of it, this movie refuses to die, at least not without a fight. A bloody, balls-to-the-wall fight at that.

How far the R-rated film will go remains a mystery, but the studio should be happy no matter what at this point. It’s been moving full-speed ahead since its shocking $132.4 million debut, and Fox already got the ball rolling on Deadpool 2. Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are currently writing the sequel to their original passion project now. With the massive success of both superhero movie thus far, it looks like this is going to be a very promising financial year for caped heroes. In fact, the only thing that might truly bring down the Merc with the Mouth could be The Avengers themselves when Captain America: Civil War rallies its way into theaters May 6.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

REVIEW: The Walking Dead, ‘East’ – One Big Tease

Monkeys Fighting Robots

As this season’s penultimate The Walking Dead episode, ‘East’ focused on as many characters as possible, making sure we understood everyone’s general mindset before the inevitable clash with Negan, where many characters will likely end up dead. It wasn’t really any new information, but it was just enough to remind viewers who feels what, before leading up to the slaughter.

Rick & Morgan have their classic “murder or mercy” conversation, but Morgan finally doesn’t sound crazy while talking, going through an interesting chain of events to show how saving the Wolf-man saved Carl’s life. Maggie’s not crazy about jumping into the fray, but she’s found her place in running Alexandrian operations & becoming Enid’s foster mother – who, by the way, is a FAR more tolerable character now. Michonne and Glenn are general worrywarts, which justifies their kidnapping, while Rosita’s apparently gunning to be the female Daryl, now that Carol’s gone in a different direction. All these character choices make sense, and align well with what we’ve known of these characters in the past to not feel out of place.

[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciy0KNq-uD8[/embedyt]

That being said, Carol’s transformation this season still feels wholly unjustified, and this episode did nothing to alleviate my concerns about what’s next for her. Sure, it stinks that Daryl had to kill some people, but Carol shot a girl in the head not too long ago. Not to mention all the lives Carol’s chronicled in her Death Note. It doesn’t line up that she’s sobbing at having to kill the Truck Brothers that are off to kill all her friends. Not only that, but she now appears to be a terrible killer – out of the five guys in the truck, she apparently only kills two with her gun, as three of them manage to get back up. It’s possible that all this alienation and loss of killer instinct is all set-up for Carol dying in the finale, but if the softening of her character is really just for that, it’s an absolute waste.

The episode ending with Daryl’s “death” seems silly. There’s been a lot of talk that The Walking Dead may be killing him off, but if anything, this episode seems to refute that. Daryl’s apparent death at the end of ‘East’ is The Walking Dead’s equivalent of (GAME OF THRONES SPOILER) Jon Snow’s ambiguous fate at the end of last season. It is possible that Dwight just killed the fan’s favorite character with a gunshot & cut to black. It’s possible that Negan will come and add Daryl to his death count next week. But if Glenn’s Great Dumpster Escape proves anything, it’s that The Walking Dead doesn’t really like killing main characters. With this big teaser maybe death of Daryl, it seems like Daryl will turn up alive and well next episode, while the major deaths will be contained to more minor characters, like Tobin or Heath.

The Walking Dead Daryl

As far as the set-up for The Walking Dead’s finale, the only thing that’s got me all that interested is the promise of Negan showing up and causing havoc at the camp. Maggie’s seeming pregnancy complications are convenient, but could be something interesting, depending on how it plays out with the fight. Morgan and Carol will likely have a sit-down sequence, as Morgan tries to lead her back to the pack. And to put it bluntly, the show has too many couples. With everyone being paired off, and so close to the finale, there had better be some deaths that split up the overabundance of post-apocalyptic coupling. Wherever everything lands in the finale, though, The Walking Dead will need to sift through whatever characters survive and make sure they know what everyone really wants.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

DC Comics: “Rebirth” – Who’s Missing?

Monkeys Fighting Robots

DC Comics held a panel at WonderCon on Saturday morning to announce the creative teams behind “Rebirth,” the company’s upcoming “don’t-call-it-a-relaunch” relaunch. The writers and artists proceeded to talk about what fans can expect in their respective books, including what characters they plan to use. Most of the DC icons were accounted for, but a few remain missing in action.

Now obviously not every character can get their own solo title, and not every one can be on a team. Was anyone really expecting someone like Elongated Man to be a part of “Rebirth?” It’s doubtful; his appearance would feel out of place. But there were several absent characters of note that fans actually want to see, and whose presence would make sense.

These characters may still appear in some capacity. Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns said that a beloved character will return when “Rebirth” begins, and that another character will die; either of those characters could be on this list.

Plus there’s an upcoming Justice League of America book that’s being kept under wraps, and any number of the heroes below could be involved in that as well.

With all of that in mind, let’s look at the biggest names still missing from DC Comics: “Rebirth.”

Honorable Mention: Earth-2

DC Comics Earth 2 jay garrick

When DC Comics put out their initial “Rebirth” press releaseEarth-2 had its own “Rebirth” special and its own monthly series. But the book had no mention at the publisher’s WonderCon panel. Could this have something to do with the secretive Justice League of America book (which had no mention in that press release)?

Shazam

DC Comics Shazam

Shazam is prominently displayed on the cover of the DC Universe: Rebirth 80-page special, but he’s not mentioned in any of the books that come afterwards. Could Billy Batson be the casualty that Geoff Johns referred to?

Booster Gold

DC Comics Booster Gold

Booster Gold has been at the center of several multiverse shattering events, and yet he is no where to be found during “Rebirth.” How could DC bring back Ted Kord and not bring back Booster?

Martian Manhunter

DC Comics Martian Manhunter

J’onn is also on the DC Universe: Rebirth cover without being mentioned in any of the new books. His solo “New 52” title is currently ongoing, so is he just disappearing once “Rebirth” starts?

Bluebird

DC Comics Harper Row Bluebird

Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown will both be part of Batman’s team in Detective Comics, but their friend Harper Row seemingly won’t be. Since she’s a Scott Snyder original character, maybe she’ll pop up in All Star Batman instead?

Mister Miracle

DC Comics Mister Miracle

Scott Free is currently playing a central role in “Darkseid War,” but he’s absent from “Rebirth’s” Justice League. Hopefully he isn’t being swept under the rug again.

Plastic Man

DC Comics Plastic Man

“Eel” O’Brian had a small cameo during Forever Evil, and fans hoped that it meant his superhero alter ego would soon be reentering the DCU. Was the cameo just a simple Easter Egg after all?

The Atom

DC Comics the atom

The Atom is a fan favorite who was terribly underutilized during “The New 52.” DC should want him in a current book; he’s a major character on their Legends of Tomorrow TV show. Putting him in a comic book concurrently is just smart business.

Firestorm

DC Comics Firestorm

Firestorm seemed to quietly fade away in “The New 52,” and now he’s been relegated to DC’s new anthology book. It’s strange, since he too is a main character on Legends of Tomorrow.

Beppo the Super-Monkey

DC Comics Beppo

#bringbackbeppo

Who else did you notice is missing from “Rebirth?” Let us know in the comments!

Watch the full panel from WonderCon:

[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeclvTBvADI[/embedyt]

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Invisible Connections: Ranking The Films of Michael Mann

Monkeys Fighting Robots

Michael Mann is a national treasure, one of the finest American filmmakers. He hasn’t necessarily collected the accolades or been on stage Oscar night, but that doesn’t take away from his incredible talent, his ability to tell stories about men and women who drift through their very formulated lives, reaching out at every turn for a connection. It’s the invisible connections between his characters, the aching longing that defines his films. Regardless of the subject matter, the films of Michael Mann all carry a connective tissue of desire and despair, of hard men who cannot shed the worlds they’ve cultivated for themselves.

Mann’s filmography is loaded with brilliance. Ranking his films feels like a lost cause, but it’s fun to try and rank unequivocal greatness. He’s directed only eleven feature films – with a few TV movies and series scattered in between – but his style and his impeccable perfectionism have singed a brand into modern auteur filmmaking. Ranking his films is comical because by the time you reach number seven or eight, you’re in the realm of true masterpieces, seemingly inseparable given their very specific motivations within what Mann finds compelling.

That being said, here is a personal ranking. There is no metric to measure the genius of Michael Mann in this list, and this list will undoubtedly differ from 90% of the people who scan it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what makes Michael Mann such an indispensable filmmaker.

Michael Mann - The Keep

11. The Keep – Here is the outlier in Mann’s directorial efforts, a poor 80s horror slog full of unidentifiable stock characters and nonsense. And one most people wouldn’t even remember belonged to Mann. It’s weird to even consider this is a Michael Mann picture, because it’s utterly ridiculous, devoid of any sort of characterization. Perhaps it was just Mann testing his limits on the heels of Thief.

Regardless of the motivation, The Keep is a dirty and forgettable film, laboring through genre tropes hoping to find a merciful end. A group of Nazis must turn to an old Jewish man to help them dispose of a demo they have released on the world. If the metaphors feel heavy handed in that description, just think about the movie itself.

Michael Mann - Public Enemies

10. Public Enemies –For all of its period perfection and slick design, there is something connectively absent in Mann’s story of John Dillinger. While it is perhaps the most accurate cinematic portrayal of Dillinger’s rise and fall (The Lady in Red wasn’t wearing a red dress, but an orange skirt), Public Enemies feels simultaneously claustrophobic and consistently at arm’s length. While Mann’s camera pushes in close on Depp’s Dillinger, there is a detachment to the man and his mission.

Perhaps it’s Johnny Depp as Dillinger. It’s been over a decade since Depp delivered something resembling a quality leading man performance, and here he doesn’t grab us the way we’d expect a hedonistic hood to grab us. The action in Public Enemies is not lacking, however, namely the Little Bohemia cabin assault in Wisconsin. But it’s not enough to rescue the picture’s cold delivery.

Michael Mann - Last of The Mohicans

9. Last of The Mohicans – Michael Mann’s adaptation of James Fenimore Cooper’s historical novel sticks out among his catalogue for obvious reasons. For other reasons – men from different sides working together, the quiet connections among us, the doomed love – the film slides into his filmography rather well. This, and the next film, may be seen as the dividing line in Mann’s work, where he begins finding true greatness.

Daniel Day Lewis is predictably tremendous as Hawkeye, a trapper stuck between loyalties during the French and Indian War. Mann’s attention to detail and Day-Lewis’s persistent methodology work in concert here, creating a textured, believable colonial America. The romance between Hawkeye and Madeleine Stowe’s Cora (anyone else miss her in features?) is tangible, and the film builds slowly to a thrilling, heartbreaking showdown.

Michael Mann - Manhunter

8. Manhunter – Mann was able to harness the white-hot masculinity that was mid-80s William Petersen in his adaptation of Red Dragon. Petersen would have been a bigger star than what he became, but here, in the 80s, there was nobody more hard-charged and charismatic than he. Petersen is Will Graham, the man who captured Hannibal Lector and has the scars to prove it. But he must work with the madman once again to bring in another serial killer. We know the story.

Manhunter is Mann in his comfort zone: the crime drama. And here, he injects the unsettling events with a static energy and steely-synth pop score. It’s strange to examine this film in a vacuum because, five years later, Hannibal Lector would be redefined forever by Anthony Hopkins’ performance. Brian Cox is interesting as Lector, make no mistake, but the power of his performance has been stolen away in the 25 years post-Silence of The Lambs.

Michael Mann - Ali

7. Ali – When I first saw Ali, I wasn’t impressed. Then again, I was a 22 year old and I went to a late showing (undoubtedly under the influence of something) of a film that demanded my full attention. It didn’t go well. For years I dismissed Ali as a film with a great performance surrounded by slog. And then, after the fast-living years of my youth had passed me by, I revisited this comprehensive docudrama about one of the most legendary American figures of all time.

While it still lags at points, especially when Ali is in Africa, the film itself is at times revelatory. Will Smith deserved the Oscar for his seamless embodiment of the great Cassius clay turned Muhammad Ali. But as a whole, Mann taps into the psychology of the most famous athlete of the 20th Century, unwrapping a larger-than-life persona with surprisingly intimate scenes. Not once did I think I was seeing Will Smith in this role; he was Ali from the get go.

And just as brazenly as Muhammad Ali traversed his public life, so he navigated his personal life confused and a little frightened, finding women he was inexplicably drawn to over the years. Ali was attracted to women, and those women were attracted to his ego. But when the man didn’t match the public persona, trouble bloomed. And the cycle seemed to go on forever.

Michael Mann - Blackhat

6. Blackhat – What a difference a year makes. Blackhat was dumped into the purgatory of January releases, and came and went without a whimper in 2015. But over a year later, what Mann was trying to achieve has congealed and come into focus. Blackhat may toggle convention, but that dedication to the plot-drven thriller is what Mann was aiming for all along, and it’s where the film excels. If you give it a chance.

What might have unsettled audiences was the opening act of Blackhat, an exposition-heavy table setting that sometimes loses sight of its very compelling characters. Look past the Adonis physique of Chris Hemsworth, forever Thor, and accept him as an infamous computer hacker. If you allow yourself to get past his build – which is explained in some early scenes – then the film moves along at a wonderfully kinetic pace. The plot is standard – a hacker is wreaking havoc and must be stopped by an even better hacker, who also happens to be in jail – but Mann reaches deep into his characters’ motivations. Beyond the need to end this plot, Hemsworth and Chen Lien, his love interest, seek a better existence than the one they currently occupy.

Hemsworth’s Nick and Chen Lien are the invisible connection at the heart of Blackhat. But beyond the emotional, this picture is rife with static action. A shootout here, a fight there, and they all mean something to these characters in the end. And let us not forget the performance of Viola Davis as, Carol Barrett, a dogged FBI agent desperately painted into a corner. She is the brightest of all the lights here.

Michael Mann- Collateral

5. Collateral – It seems these days Tom Cruise is perfectly fine churning out incredible stunts as Ethan Hunt, and there isn’t really anything wrong with that. But there was a time when Cruise was still seeking out different challenges in his acting. In Collateral, Cruise embodies a character altogether unique from his body of work. He is Vincent, a steely-haired contract killer whose disdain for the detachment of Los Angeles seems to fuel his inner turmoil. Vincent is a wolf, an animal adapting to the world around him moment to moment.

Vincent “hires” the impeccably ordered Max (Jamie Foxx, Oscar nominated), a cab driver fooling himself into thinking he has bigger plans on the horizon, into driving him around for the evening to collect five… ahem… signatures. It isn’t long before Max realizes Vincent is offing potential witnesses in a high-profile murder case, and he is in way over his head. Collateral then churns along mercilessly, balancing a cat-and-mouse thriller with real human drama between two men whose relationship is built strictly on chance.

All of Mann’s signatures are subtly interjected as these two men pull against each other while pushing  towards the same end. Collateral is a sharp thriller with not an ounce of fat on it. And while the symmetry involving Jada Pinkett Smith’s lawyer may be just a but to convenient, by the time that realization comes around we are so invested in the methodically constructed tension, we buy in.

Michael Mann - Miami Vice

4. Miami Vice – Preconceived notions may have ruined this film before it ever even hit theaters. This Miami Vice is not pastels, alligators, and pop music. Though Michael Mann did create the wildly successful 80s police drama, a cultural watershed moment, he had different things in mind when he tackled the undercover world of Sonny Crockett and Ricardo Tubbs in 2006. Miami Vice is a film all about unspoken communication, and it deserves more credit than its received over the years.

Crockett and Tubbs (Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx here) speak primarily in shorthand, because they don’t need to say more. This is an immersive picture about two men, and their team of vice officers, who are so ingrained in an undercover world of serious drug trafficking they don’t have time to explain things to each other. Or the audience. This is Mann working inside a story without the want or desire to lay things out for the audience. Whites why many felt it was too obtuse.

But Miami Vice is a pitch-perfect thriller about men whose lives begin to blur after so many years wallowing in the criminal elements of the world. It’s slick and often gorgeous, with Mann’s digital deep focus adding texture, and his signature character gazes are better here than just about anywhere else.

Michael Mann - Thief

3. Thief – It’s hard to believe Thief was Michael Mann’s feature debut. Much of the DNA of Manhunter, Heat, Collateral, and Miami Vice can be found here, in the emotional tale of Frank, a career criminal who burns hot with the desire to escape his life of thievery. James Caan is all smoldering intensity and, ultimately, frustration once he finds himself under the thumb of a vicious gangster who forces him to pull off another heist.

Mann’s synth-pop energy was birthed in Thief, and the film hums with energy. What’s more, the humans at the heart of Thief are real humans who are often times glossed over in heist pictures. Caan is much more than a one-note bad guy trying to make good, and the best scene of the film is a conversation he has with Jessie (Tuesday Weld), the woman he loves. His story in this diner lays the groundwork for Frank, it explains everything we need explained, and it adds tremendous depth.

Michael Mann - Heat

2. Heat – It’s strange how Heat came and went in the winter of 1995 without much fanfare or accolades. It simply existed back then. But this is one of Michael Mann’s two true, complete masterpieces, a story of cops and robbers and the thin line separating the two. Here is the story of cop Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) and crook Neil McAuley (Robert De Niro), two career men whose line of work juxtaposes one another. While Vincent tries to navigate this world by engaging in all the standard human relationships – friends, family, a wife – he fails. Neil, on the other hand, eschews human connection because he knows he must; and yet, he fails. “There’s a flipped to that coin,” Neil tells Vincent in their famous diner conversation. These two men are the flipside of the same coin in life.

Beyond the team of Pacino and De Niro, still at the peak of their careers, is a full, vivid ensemble of fully-realized characters and career men who lend undeniable authenticity to the narrative. Heat also has one of the greatest shootouts of its kind in cinematic history, a deafening assault in the streets of Los Angeles.

Michael Mann - The Insider

1. The Insider – Mann’s 1999 film about whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand is a complex masterpiece about morality, the best film of his illustrious career. His ability to create a compelling thriller around such a seemingly mundane subject matter – corporate malfeasance – speaks to his craft as a storyteller. Russell Crowe plays Wigand with depth and truth; Wigand is not some moral martyr, but a complicated and flawed human whose drive to spill the beans about big tobacco comes from a very personal place.

The relationship between he and 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino) evolves and devolves throughout the story, and as Wigand’s personal life begins to unravel, it’s Bergman who must keep him from falling off the cliff. Mann’s film is, much like his crime dramas, immersive and authentic beyond simple narrative notes; this is a picture about journalism that seems to fully understand the power and ultimate structural pollution of the occupation. The Insider pulls us into the world of Wigand and shows us his motivations, then pushes us to the brink with these incredibly honest human characters.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube