Fox Superhero universe

I have still not seen the Wolverine.

I have heard good things about it, but I know that my wish was not fulfilled. So I don't really know why I would go see it. I may eventually.

I knew my wish was a long shot. I didn't however, know the direction they are apparently going for the future of the Fox Superhero movies.

I did a post on the Fantastic Four and mentioned that there was going to be a reboot, and I did a post on the X-Men: Days of Future Past movie they are making.

I did not make mention of the fact that these two entities are going to collide in the future. That is correct, The Fantastic Four and the X-men are going to be in the same universe and collide.

This is obviously an attempt by 20th Century Fox to get in on the crossover crowd that Marvel, so far, has gone unchallenged with The Avengers.

The question is, which studio will create their shared universe first, DC (Warner Bros) or Fox?

Furthermore, there is reports of a X-Force movie in the works. I don't know, much at all about X-Force. I know it is made up of a collaboration of Marvel characters, like Wolverine, Deadpool, Colossus, etc. The movie probably will not include Wolverine but there's rumors that Deadpool may be in the movie followed by more X super heroes.

I'm actually very surprised.

I thought that the remaining Marvel characters owned by Fox and Sony would eventually die out and they'd be forced to sell those rights back to Marvel/ Disney. That is a case that many fans (myself included) want to happen.

But Fox (at least) thinks they can join this competition we once thought was exclusive to Marvel/ Disney and DC.

Fox is going to continue with the string of movies surrounding the X-men universe they have created. Days of Future Past will probably open up a totally new world that will create different spinoffs and cross overs that will last for a very very long time. They have the Fantastic Four reboot and X-Force, and all three of these teams, along with whatever else Fox wants to throw at us will eventually be in the same movies. None of these movies have been planned by they will happen more likely than not.

Although Fox still has a lot of options they own the rights to, I just don't know if this is enough. X-Force seems to just be an offshoot of the X-men. And I've said before, I don't think the Fantastic Four are an enticing group to normal movie goers.

Also, there are some... problems... with the first three X-men movies and the next three.

Which makes me wonder.

Is this going to work?

When X-Men: Last Stand came out in 2006. It seemed as thought the film was at a good close. It was the end of a trilogy that unfortunately had a lack luster ending but was complete nonetheless. Yes Magneto had his power revival and Patrick Stewart came back to life? I guess. But it still seemed pretty closed up. X-Men origins provided a prequel as X-men: First Class provided a GOOD prequel.

Now I don't know if there was a plan from the beginning when they made Last Stand to create a new phase as it were of X-men, I personally don't think there was any idea of that until The Avengers did so well and Fox realized what they were competing with.

The problem is, The Last Stand causes so many problems that Days of Future Past is going to have to fix.

1. Charles Xavier died. - Yes he had a moment where he was "alive" at the end but there was no explanation for that. Granted the vagueness of the revival opens up for a lot of leeway but its still a glaring problem. This resurrection better be good is what I'm saying
2. Too many Xavier and Magneto mix ups. - Now that First Class has come out with younger Xavier being shot. It makes Patrick Stewart standing in both Last Stand AND Origins not make sense at all. He's walking when he goes to Jean Gray's house... and he's with Magneto. The timeline is so skewed in the earlier movies with the release of First Class that it makes combining these universe very complicated. It supports the idea that they had no idea that this second phase of X-men Movies was going to happen. 
3. Rogue doesn't have her powers - Yeah, remember when you made Rogue a pointless character because her boy drama was too much. Because of that, she no longer has her abilities. Now this is a comic book movie. Basically anything can happen and that's probably what is going to happen in Days of Future Past. There is no way that Rogue is not going to have powers in this next phase of movies. 

These are only a few of the problems Days of Future Past is going to have to fix if its going to be a good movie. I really want the movie to be good and I want to see more X-men movies, All i'll say is tread carefully Singer. You still haven't impressed me yet. 

Once again, I haven't seen The Wolverine. I want to, I just don't want to spend money on a movie that is not going to end the way I want it to... meaning in a way that ends with Wolverine being recruited into the Avengers. 

I really want it to happen but I don't even need to see the movie to say, this will never happen... ever. 

Overall, we shall see where this goes. I think X-men movie makers are going into a minefield they created themselves. There are things that they did without knowing the outcome. And they're going to have to try and make it out safely.

What do you think of a shared universe? What is your favorite? Real or rumored of course. 

Heisenberg will be Lex Luthor

There's a rumor spreading around the internet about Man of Steel casting.

No, Not this one. No one is freaking about this at all

Let's just get an understanding. This is going to happen. Ben Affleck is going to be playing Batman in the Man of Steel sequel. Stop pretending like you're not going to see this movie. This movie is a clash of the two greatest superheroes in the universe, like hell you're not going to see this movie. 

No I'm talking about new Man of Steel 2 news. I am still unsure of whether or not this has been totally confirmed but its coming out the same way the Affleck news came out which makes me feel like it is true. 

 

The recent news has said that Bryan Cranston has been casted as Lex Luthor in the new Man of Steel movie.

This is a casting that I have wanted for a very long time. For a long time it was speculated that Cranston or Mark Strong would be casted for the role.

If you are a fan of Breaking Bad (as I am) you should be freaking out right now.

Walter White has become one of the most manipulative characters on television today and that is exactly what you need in a character like Lex Luthor. He needs to be a legitimate businessman who is very very visible in the public but has a very dark side to him.

Now these characters are not the same. Warner Brothers would not hire Cranston to get an exact copy of that character, they would hire him because they know that he can portray a beloved Superhero villain. Cranston will be able to draw on the manipulativeness of Walter White and bring his own take on this character.

Remember this guy? I thought Kevin Spacey was a very good Lex Luthor. I still am trying to schedule in a time when I can watch Superman Returns and give my totally analyzed take on it. But I do know that I enjoyed that movie more than most people did. One of the parts I really enjoyed was Spacey as Luthor.

The problem with Spacey as Luthor was the fact that there was a confusion between whether or not SR was a sequel or a reboot. Spacey was basically doing a mix between his own take of Luthor but also drawing from the performance of Gene Hackman. He was basically doing a glorified impression of the 1978  film performance.

This is not Spacey's fault, and for what he was doing, he did a really good job. The blame is mostly put on the confusion of that entire movie and the direction the director and others wanted the movie to go.

The awesome part about Cranston taking on the role is that this will be the first time the role has been reinvented.

Lex Luthor cannot be obsessed with making his own continent or breaking off california for his real estate ambitions. That Lex Luthor will not work in a Man of Steel Universe. I almost feel as though Lex Luthor needs to be a politician or a politically motivated businessman.

Another thing that I feel is essential for the portrayal of Lex Luthor is that he is not the main bad guy in this Man of Steel movie.

I mentioned this in a previous post, but every movie that Luthor has been the main bad guy hasn't been strong enough for a lot of viewers. I think Luthor needs to be a secondary villain that is carried on to the next movies. His role needs to be underplayed and be more of a puppeteer role that comes to fruition in a later film.

The good news about this is that the rumor says that Cranston is going to be signing on for multiple movies. Which means he's going to be Lex Luthor in multiple movies. I think they can focus on another villain and build up Cranston as a solid adversary to Superman.

Spacing out his rise to being the top antagonist also gives Snyder (or any other director that will be taking on the DC super heroes) time to build up the suit of Armor Lex Luthor has to fight Superman.

As much as people want Lex Luthor's armor in the next Man of Steel, I don't think they should put it in yet.

I think DC should reinvent the character and make him a character that is not defined by his armor. I think Cranston can define the character and reinvent it in a way that makes it totally new. Give Cranston a chance to do that and hold off on it so we're just waiting for Luthor to become the villain.

So... I'm excited! Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, and Bryan Cranston, I'm incredibly excited for this line up. I want it to succeed and I want it to be fantastic.

So what do you think of Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor? Do you like the lineup this movie is casting? Comment below and let me know!

-----------------------------------------------------------UPDATE----------------------------------------------------------

This rumor has actually been debunked. I'm bummed I bought into it so quickly. But everything I said about the character of Lex Luthor stands. They didn't say that he won't be Lex Luthor, but he hasn't been casted yet.

I'm pulling for the casting but we have to wait and see on that one.

The Post Credit Scene

Believe it or not, Post Credit scenes did exist before the first Iron Man movie when Sam Jackson is in Tony Stark's house and mentions the Avengers Initiative.

Though it did exist, Iron Man 1 has set a standard that is pissing theater staff off so much because now every Superhero movie that is in theaters (if not all movies) people are going to be sitting around waiting for Nick Fury or something to be at the end of a movie. Now I don't work at a movie theater so I say, keep it coming, I love post credit scenes!

But it makes me wonder what the future for DC movies is going to be . To a lot of people's disappointment, there was no post credit scene at the end of the Man of Steel alluding to the Justice League or alluding to the next movie.

Although I wanted to see a teaser of the next movie in Man of Steel, I understand why they didn't do a post credit scene. Kal-El is in his very early years as Superman. He's only starting his journey as the savior of Earth and in his mind, he has no idea that Batman exists, or the Green Lantern, or Aqua Man and Atlantis

Totally off topic, I want Aqua Man in the Justice League movie. I know the rumors say its only going to be Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Green Lantern and Flash, but I want Aqua Man in on this. Play Injustice, You'll see why.

Back on topic, Kal-El is just getting used to being Superman, the idea of a Justice League has not been conceived in anybody's mind yet.

There are other reasons, Warner Brothers wanted to see how Man of Steel did in the box office, they wanted to see if they'd have the green light from the audiences to make a sequel. And they most definitely did.

But I have to imagine that Warner Brothers were pretty sure that Man of Steel was going to be a success because they know that fans want a Justice League movie more than anything right now... So if they were confident with it, why not give a teaser to the next movie in a post credit scene?

And then I realized, what if they did?

Remember this?

And This?

What if these hints were the teaser for the next movie? You may think, well that's kind of lame and very small but give it some thought.

Marvel already has capitalized on the post credit scene. The obvious choice for Warner Brothers would be to do as Marvel does and make their own post credit scenes. But maybe Warner Brothers wants to make their own unique kind of teaser. A little bit of a Where's Waldo kind of teaser. Enough to give you an idea of what elements are going to appear in the next movie but not enough to give you an indication of what its going to be about. 

It's similar to how at the end of Iron Man 2, they showed Coulson finding the hammer of Thor, pointing at what the next movie would be. 

Now of course this theory only works if Lex Luthor is in the next movie. But if he is, this may create way that DC sets itself apart from Marvel.

Let's face the facts, DC wouldn't be putting so much force forward into a Justice League movie if the Avengers hadn't come out or had not been such a great success. DC doesn't need to prove that Superheroes in different movies can share a universe, it needs to improve on it, which can be even harder. This may be the one thing they have over Marvel, instead of something as blatantly obvious as a post credit scene, DC may be challenging the viewers to a game of Where's Waldo. If you figure it out, you can get even more excited for the next movie.

Of course, I love post credit scenes. If DC decides to go in that direction, I will be very very happy. But the Where's Waldo game makes me kind of give a thumbs up of approval for DC trying to do something different. 

What do you think? Are you a fan of the post credit scene? What is your favorite post credit scene? Comment below, I want to here your thoughts on this. 

The waiting game is over for Batman

It was just announced last night who is going to be playing Batman in the Man of Steel sequel in which Superman and Batman face off. And the winner is:

Ben Freaking Affleck

Now me and Ben have a little bit of a history. I first saw him in the movie Paycheck. I liked that movie and I think it was mostly due to the story. So I was able to forgo the acting of the movie and just enjoy it. It still a favorite of mine. But going back I realize, Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman are kind of awful in that movie. 

This post isn't about Paycheck. I might do a review of that later but right now I'm going to focus on Ben Affleck. 

The guy has proven to be a really big name in Hollywood. He's been in some very successful movies as an actor and I will say that I have loved every movie that he has directed. 

As a director, I love him. As an actor... its a confusing relationship. 

I mean he's done some really, really shitty movies out there like Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, Hollywoodland (where he actually played George Reeves, the original Superman) and Daredevil. But to counter that, he's also been in some really good movies. Like Good Will Hunting, State of Play, The Town, and Argo. But the problem I see in this is the fact that Affleck did not make those movies great with his acting. Argo and the Town (i'm more talking about Argo since I haven't seen the Town) were great movies but it wasn't due to Ben Affleck's acting, it was his directing that made it good. 

So for me, I have not been convinced that Ben Affleck can act. I think we need someone who can steal the show and really control the role of Bruce Wayne / Batman. That or Henry Cavill is going to have to really up his game to steal the show again. 

That all being said, I think Affleck is up to the challenge. 

Let's look at the positives. Affleck is kind of a pretty boy. This may sound like a bad thing but I think it could be a good angle for Bruce Wayne. You magnify the charisma and suaveness of Bruce Wayne to create a sort of dual personality for Batman. I don't think pulling off Bruce Wayne will be a problem for Affleck. Is he going to be the same Bruce Wayne as Christian Bale? No. And that's a good thing! This is acting, new actors playing roles that have been played before and making them new. 

Also, Affleck is an incredibly fit actor. While true he hasn't been in too many action movies, I think he's capable of it. That's not really the biggest problem I see. The biggest problem is that Affleck seems a little bit too Hollywood to be a menacing Caped Crusader. While it's not too much that he couldn't play a Bruce Wayne, I just don't buy that Ben Affleck could go out and be a vigilante. That's a little bit of an exaggeration but the point is he give off that intimidating feel. Batman has to have that feeling to him when he's facing criminals and he has to have it even more if he's going up against Superman.

Am I skeptical? Of course I'm skeptical. This is the same man who was apart of that awful movie we claim honors the men and women of Pearl Harbor. This is also the character that I was hoping so badly would be given to Richard Armitage... I guess it wasn't meant to be. 

But if Affleck can do this, I will have a newfound respect for this man. 

Think about it. This man is taking on a role that was just done last year by Christian Bale. I understand it was a totally different Batman but Affleck has to accomplish one of the quickest turnarounds for a reboot ever. Put that aside and he's taking on one of the most beloved Superheroes of our generation. It's an honor that not everyone gets, and not everyone who has gotten it has deserved it. (I'm talking to you Clooney)

That being said, If you fuck this up Affleck, it will confirm everything I have ever said about your acting being terrible... But no pressure. 

I'm rooting for him. I like every Batman fan wants to see a good Batman and we can't know until it comes out. I'm going to get really annoyed of this retort because everyone has been waiting to use it when this is casted, but it is true to say that everyone on the internet said they didn't want to see Heath Ledger as the Joker and he turned out to be one of the best incarnations ever played. (That is the last time I will use that retort) 

The last thing I'll mention is the importance of a chemistry between Affleck and Cavill. 

Cavill has already shown he can be the Man of Steel but I just don't know if these two wouldn't like each other... 

Again it comes down to Afflecks look. He needs to have that businessman look... which he kinda does but he also needs to look good in the costume, and if he doesn't, everything is lost. I would say that Affleck could do the same thing he's done for a lot movies, ride on the fact that the script or other actors are stealing the show and get by, but that's not going to work for this movie. Affleck needs to bring his A game and surprise me and a lot of other people that are skeptical of this casting. 

I will reserve judgement until the end of the post credits scene of Man of Steel 2... which they will have! But to quote every judge from every law TV show and movie, "You had better be going somewhere with this Mr. Snyder" 

So what do you think? Do you think that Affleck is a good choice for the Caped Crusader? Why or why not? Comment below and let me know!

The Boondock Saints

From what I have gathered about The Boondock Saints is that people either love or hate this movie... that or they've never seen it before.

The Boondock Saints takes place in Boston when a pair of brothers receive a calling from God to root out the evil and corrupt in the world. They go on a spree of vigilantism all while their crime scenes are analyzed and recreated by a flamboyant, brilliant FBI agent. (Played by Willem Defoe)

Though the main characters of the movie are the two McManus brothers, Special Agent Paul Smecker or Mr. Defoe definitely stole the show. The quirkiness and psychological roller coaster this FBI agent goes through, the recreations of how the crimes went down in his head are the highlights of the movie. Credit of course has to be given to the cinematography of the movie, but it wouldn't be that great if Willem Defoe was not the person executing the scene. Also, his character is gay. Now this was the late 90's. Homosexuality was still very strange to the American public so to see the crack detective be so obviously gay (so much to a point where he dresses up in drag to get into a mobsters house) its still kind of strange to see. But it was a stellar performance, no doubt about it.

The two brothers are played by Sean Patrick Flannery, and Norman Reedus. It took me a few seconds to realize that Daryl from the Walking Dead was one of the McManus brothers. As a Daryl fan... that's pretty cool.

The brothers are decent enough. They play well with each other and they're very matter of fact. They get a calling from God, they don't question it, they just go and do their vigilante thing. Which is something that was strange for me in this movie. And perhaps that's the point. These two are never really affected by the killing that they're doing. They're so driven by their calling and know what they're doing is "righteous" that shooting and straight out executing people is no big deal to them.

Then there's their buddy Rocco who is apart of the Italian mafia in Boston. He is set up when he's given orders to kill a group of individuals the brothers end up killing. The Italian mafia wanted to kill him so he wants revenge. This is another part of the movie that kind of bothered me.

These men are so convinced that their quest of vigilantism is the right thing to do, and yet they obviously bring on a guy who just wants to see the group of people that screwed him over pay. While the brothers are on a quest, Rocco is a goof thug who just wants to kill people and feel apart of the group.

I thought for sure that Rocco was going to start killing people on his own and the brothers would have to make a choice, do they kill their friend, a man who has turned into the very thing they set out to destroy? Or do they compromise their quest and let him live?

I don't know, I'm probably missing the point of the movie.

And then there's this guy.

Il Duce (played by Billy Connolly) is a Hitman contracted by the mafia to take out members they don't like anymore. His whole story is shrouded in a lot of mystery especially since he is not give a "christian name" when he's in prison.

But they never really explain how they get him out of prison. And [SPOILERS] he ends up being the McManus brothers father... out of freaking no where.

There's an iconic scene where the brothers and Rocco are walking out of house where they have just killed someone. Suddenly Il Duce is waiting for them and there's an epic gunfight.

But then later, he comes in and kills a bunch of mafia members... why? I don't know... Didn't they hire him?

Anyway, once he's done killing mafia members... but not Willem Defoe...??? He shows up behind the brothers and then what do you know, he not only recognizes them... but he's their father too... Yeah... doesn't make any sense at all.

By the way, here's the shootout scene, and a great representation of why Willem Defoe is a badass

The cinematography in this movie is really fantastic. Putting Willem Defoe in the crime scene was fantastically done. Going in and out of the crimes themselves and Defore deducting them, brilliant. The random fades to black, different but I liked them. 

I think what bothered me about this was the blatant glorification of vigilantism. It doesn't show the inefficiencies of the justice system or the moral dilemma with these brothers that would lead them to vigilantism, it just shows them doing it accidentally, getting praised for it and saying, "well that was cool, let's do it again."

 There's an interesting scene when the credits start rolling with the media interviewing people and asking them what they think of the vigilantes known as the Saints. 

The answers differ from, "Who gives them the right to do it?" To "The more motherfuckers they kill the better"

If the movie was trying to pose a moral question of vigilantism, it needed to do a better job at it. There's a part in the movie where Willem Defoe knows that the brothers are the ones killing all these mafia members. He has a moral dilemma on whether or not he should bring them in or help them in their quest. He ends up helping them and it leads to this scene.

You can see Willem Defoe's face as they execute the Don of the Mafia. Is this Defoe regretting he helped them? I don't know. That's the last scene we see of Defoe. If the movie was trying to pose that kind of question, they spent more time on the violent murders then they did creating dilemmas of characters, whether its Defoe, the brothers, anybody. The internal conflicts were so insignificant that it almost seemed like they didn't exist. 

Rotten Tomatoes gave this movie a 20% rating. But while critics gave that movie 20%, audiences gave it a 90%. That is a disparity that is unheard of. The movie apparently has a huge cult following and there's a sequel... haven't seen it. I'm not really sure that I want to. 

This movie although entertaining, has a strange lesson its trying to push in a very strange way. The gunfights are fun, violent which is not a bad thing in my book. I just feel like this movie was trying to be more than just a violent action movie. And it failed at it. I wouldn't go as low as the 20% rating but I wouldn't go far from it. 

What do you think? Are you one of the Boondock Saints cult followers? If so, explain to me why this is such a brilliant movie. I don't see it. I'm not saying its bad, I just don't get the cult following. As always comment below and let me know what you think. 

Saints Row: Why so... not serious?

So this came out this week.

I have a long history with Saints Row. I played the first Saints Row back in the day when nobody played it. Understand, I had never played Grand Theft Auto or any kind of open world game like this. So when I played Saints Row, I lost it and fell in love at first sight. It didn't have the greatest or most realistic storyline in the world but it was gritty enough to hook me and enjoy what I was doing. It also allowed me to just roam and do activities as opposed to doing the main story. That is a strength all the Saints Row games have over Grand Theft Auto is that you can play the story but you can also do activities and roam and just have fun.

So with the success of Saints Row one in my mind, I obviously bought Saints Row 2.

And I loved it!

Again, it was the simple feeling of being in a gang. Was it a realistic representation of being in a gang? I couldn't tell you because I've never been in a gang. But it was just fun, gangster, free-roam gameplay you could enjoy. And if you were like me and actually liked the storyline of the first game, you were pleasantly surprised that the story of the second game is a good sequel. At least that was my thoughts on it.

Before I go on, I must put out a disclaimer. As with all the movies and other stuff I have reviewed, I will mostly be addressing the story and all around entertainment value of the game. I may add a little bit about gameplay but I will add little to nothing about controls or the graphics of the game... cause frankly if the story is good and I'm entertained, the graphics to me don't matter.

Anyway, and then the trailer for Saints Row: The Third came out.

I'm going to contradict what I just said and mention the graphics of the game for a second. I saw how the game was designed and I was very confused. Why change up the look of the game? But that wouldn't have mattered if the story and game were entertaining. It couldn't have changed that much, could it?

It did... a lot.

Saints Row: The Third stepped away from the dark gritty feeling of Saints Row 2 and stepped into a flashy comedic direction with the third installment. In many ways, the first two games are totally different games from the third and fourth game.

Like I said before, the story of Saints Row has never been phenomenal but the third game kind of threw all attempts at a story out the window. And the outrageous nonrealisticness of the series was brought to a whole other level.

Now I am in no way saying that Volition made a bad choice when they decided to go in the comedic flashy direction with Saints Row: The Third, I'm only saying its not a direction I personally like. The Saints were no longer a gang, they were a brand name. They were selling energy drinks and when they were robbing banks people would want photos and autographs. (Not kidding, one of the things you find in the game are people wanting to take pictures with you) It no longer had that Grand Theft Auto crime feeling, I just kind of felt like a corporate sellout... that committed crimes. And they mention that a little bit in the game but it doesn't really amount to anything. The Saints don't make any attempts to hide the fact that their merchandise is funding a criminal organization. But again, I'm probably missing the point. Saints Row: The Third brought the series to a level where suddenly crime did pay and nobody has any morals, crime rules.

In Saints Row 2 you still fought gangs that seemed like they could actually exist. You had the Ronin, a Yakuza like biker gang, and the Brotherhood, a group of tattooed monster truck junkies, and the Sons of Samedi, a group of Jamaican drug runners. All of them exaggerated but had a sense of realism to them.

Saints Row: The Third throws that all out the window.

Giant Purple Dildo: Case and Point

I'm guessing that Volition looked at the poor ratings of Saints Row 2 (ratings I still do not get) and realized they needed to switch up the style of game they were making. Saints Row always road the line between Grand Theft Auto and Duke Nukem. The Third drifted more and more in that direction. While there were drastic steps... like the purple dildo... It still remained somewhat based in a criminal world. You still felt as though what you were doing was wrong and criminal. 

Saints Row 3 was kind of a disappointment for me as it stepped away from the gritty criminal world I had come to enjoy in the first two installments, even if others hadn't. 

And now there's Saints Row 4. 

Another Disclaimer: I haven't played Saints Row 4. I'm kind of disappointed I spent the money I did on Saints Row 3 and don't intend to spend too much money at all on Saints Row 4... and here's why. 

You are the President of the United States... The catchphrase of certain trailers is "Hail to the motherfucking chief"... And not only that, but there's an alien invasion. So you're no long having a gang war... you're fighting aliens. And not only that, you have superpowers... screw the cool weapons you could have in the past games, lets just have superpowers. 

Once again, I'm probably missing the point here. But

I'm slowly realizing that I can't take this series that seriously. I mean you recruit Keith David to be your Vice President... that is hilarious. 

This game is not Grand Theft Auto. I knew that from the beginning but now Volition is making it crystal clear that this is not, in anyway, Grand Theft Auto. 

I probably should have stopped taking it seriously after the purple dildo but I wanted to so badly. I played the first Saints Row and saw an alternative to Grand Theft Auto. I thought the gameplay and just style of the game was unique enough to make it its own game and provide gamers another option when it came to the gangster free roam game. Obviously, I was wrong. 

Reading into this game, they're bringing back characters that were thought dead and bringing them into the fourth game. I hope they don't take a shit on the games I cherish... but then again it is Saints Row... I wouldn't put it past them.

So I have no intention of playing the fourth Saints Row game. At least for a very long time. (unless I got it for free) It just seems like the game is better known for its wacky comedic gameplay rather than a gritty story with a dark sense of humor. I'm probably making the first Saints Row something they weren't but it could have gone a totally different direction. 

They're obviously going in a direction that works for them. I just think it could have been a lot more. Perhaps I saw it going in a subtle Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction Tarantino direction. Serious direction but a dark humor addition.

Last time I'll say it. Not the direction they were going. But I wish they had gone that direction.

It would have done more for the story which is my main thought process as you know.


So are you going to get Saints Row 4? What style do you like more? Saints Row 1 and 2 or Saints Row 3 and 4? Let me know, comment below. 

Drive

Or as I like to call it, Ryan Gosling mumbles and stares at things. 

Drive is the story of a part-time stunt driver / part-time mechanic / part-time criminal getaway driver played by Ryan Gosling. He falls in love with a married woman (Carey Mulligan) but when her husband (Oscar Isaacs) returns home from prison, Gosling forgoes his feelings and tries to help out this couple, especially when the husband is in trouble with a gang... or a crime family... or something like that, that's never really clear actually. Without any spoilers, something goes wrong. 

The director of this movie is a gentleman by the name of Nicolas Winding Refn. Refn is a Dannish director who is one of those artsy film makers. His work is not really well known and he doesn't really care. He's got a style to his movies and as long as he is able to do movies in his style, he's making his dreams come true. And for that, I say way to go Refn! Way to follow your dreams!

That being said, its not my cup of tea. Is it a well made movie, yes it is. Is the story good? It's decent enough. I just wasn't fully satisfied with the overall film. 

Ryan Gosling's role in this movie is this meme. He just stares. The first hour of this movie is very VERY slow. And Gosling has maybe 10 lines in the first hour. Whenever he's on screen he's just staring into space, or staring into the camera, or staring at someone else, but its as if Refn saw this meme and said, I can make a movie out that. 

I do have to give Gosling credit. His acting without any dialogue is very good. He's able to give looks and stares that do communicate emotions and he does it well. And the movie does pick up in the second act. 

The only other complaint that I have with Gosling is that he mumbles a lot in this movie. Not a huge complaint, just a bad time when I raise the volume to hear what he's saying and then suddenly there's a gunshot, or there's a loud scene. Luckily this didn't happen too often but it still happened. Again, not a huge complaint, just a note.

This movie surprised me and actually turned out to be a very violent movie. For example: a guy gets his head stomped in. Another guy gets stabbed in the throat. Another person gets their head blown off by a shotgun and you see the bullets tear the head open. Ryan Gosling is brutal in this movie. Not all the things I just mention he does, but all the action kind of detracts any misconceptions that this is an artsy romance movie where Gosling's character from the Notebook is just driving a car. No, that image is soon dismissed when you see the degree of violence this movie takes.

Carey Mulligan does a good job in the movie, as she always does. I personally think she's not utilized enough in movies and that needs to change. 

She, like Gosling, had a syndrome of just staring in the movie. And when it came to these two, I actually thought their stares were charming. There's actually a scene where these two just stare at each other for a good thirty seconds and don't say thing. You know every girl that was hipster enough to see this movie was wishing they were Carey Mulligan and I'll admit it, for a minute I was jealous too...

As the movie is mainly focused on Gosling, the supporting characters are just that, supporting characters. Bryan Cranston is in the movie and it just made me love that man even more. I'm in the middle of Breaking Bad and I love how Cranston can play a variety of characters. His character in this movie is Gosling's boss who just can't win. From the very beginning, I had a very bad feeling about his character and it made me care about him more. It was like looking at a 3 legged dog. Lovable but screwed from the beginning. 

There are other characters in very small roles. Again the focus is mostly on Gosling. Christina Hendricks in it... but barely. I don't really get the point of her character but oh well. The only other person I'll mention is Ron Perlman. I don't think Ron Perlman is that great of an actor, however, this performance was pretty good. Again, it wasn't very complex but it was good nonetheless. Way to go Ron Perlman. 

Now I'll be the first to say that I respect anybody who is willing to risk criticism for their passion for creative work. The one thing I would say about Drive is that there are a lot of moments where nothing is happening, nothing of substance is going on but its meant to be "Art" or have a deeper meaning. There was actually a part, several parts in fact, where the camera is just pointed at Gosling, in a car, staring... that's it. I'm sure there's suppose to be a deep meaning or interpretation of that, but there were also times that I thought my Netflix had frozen. 

Drive is a movie intended to be an "Art" piece. And if you're into that kind of movie, you'll love Drive. If you don't, you'll probably fall asleep (which I did the first time I tried watching it). But this movie wasn't made for you if that's you. 

Overall, the movie isn't my cup of tea but I'm glad I saw it. There's nothing awful about this movie, its just not my kind of movie. I appreciate it for what it is and we can part ways now better people. 

Are you an Artsy movie person? What is your favorite artsy movie? Who knows maybe I'll check it out and you'll get me started on Artsy films. Comment below. Let me know what you think.

Elysium: Sequel...?

You know a movie is working towards being an Oscars contender when all the trailers are super intense and obviously Oscar contenders themselves.

I actually didn't hear too much about Elysium before it came out. I had heard the name but I wasn't incredibly pumped for it. I love a good Sci Fi movie whenever they come out and I loved District 9. I knew I was eventually going to see Elysium but for some reason it wasn't an impending need for me. I've been so disappointed with the movies that have come out this summer since Man of Steel and Star Trek that I didn't make it a priority.

But it happened. And I'm glad it did.

Elysium is the story of a futuristic Earth that is so overpopulated, so diseased, so exhausted that the rich and powerful build space station station that is the Citadel from Mass Effect.

I mean.. c'mon

The story is centered around a man from Earth (played by Matt Damon) who is down on his luck and needs to get to Elysium to heal an affliction that is going to kill him in 5 days. (I'm trying to not spoil anything) All the while the defense... person in the future government (Jodi Foster) is pulling a hard line on people illegally coming to Elysium, employing help from mercenaries (like Sharlto Copley) and thinks the government should be run better... that's all I'll say.

The movie is beautiful. The visuals are stunning, the CGI is fantastic, and the environment looks realistic. I don't know what the budget was but showing what director Neil Blomkamp can do with a limited budget like he did with District 9, its amazing what he could do with a budget like the one used in Elysium

Now as far as cast goes. It's fantastic. I learned that they originally wanted Eminem to play the part played by Matt Damon... I didn't think there would ever be a movie out there that Matt Damon was the second choice to Eminem. It is beyond me. I guess they were going for the Ex-con look like he was a rapper... but nothing has proved to me that Eminem can do anything besides Eminem... and I haven't seen 8 Mile. (future review?)

Jodi Foster is a cold bitch in this movie. She is the poster girl for the 1% if there ever was one. She looks down in disgust at the people living on Earth and there is no remorse in what she does. There's one part where you can kind of see it in the end but I'm getting into spoiler territory.

And then there's Sharlto Copley. This guy is a fantastic actor. He was phenomenal in District 9, I loved him in A-Team, despite bad reviews of the movie (I personally enjoyed it) and he was great in Elysium. He plays this ruthless mercenary secretly hired by Jodi Foster. This guy is just unpredictable and you never know what he's going to do next... all you know is that he is the bad guy plain and simple. You love to hate him and that is the best compliment you can give an actor playing an antagonist I believe.

There are other characters in the movie, Alice Braga plays a childhood friend of Damon's. Plain and simple, she's hot. She's got that cute girl next door look even though she's 30. Way to go. However, she tends to play that love interest that never quite happens. That's all I'll say but it happens in this movie and it happened in I am Legend... weird... There's also William Fichtner who I love in anything he does. He's an underrated actor but he's brings 100% every time he works, he should get more recognition.

I'm still unsure what the connection to District 9 Elysium has. On face value, there doesn't seem to be one. As much as I want to believe, Kruger from Elysium is not Wikus from District 9. But if there turns out to be some connection, I will flip my shit. I think the alien presence on Earth could have contributed to the overpopulation and disease but there is no mention of it. I think District 9 is suppose to take place in the present whereas Elysium takes place in 2154. I don't know. Maybe. I really hope they're connected but there is no indications they are... which I was kind of disappointed at first.

Regardless, Elysium is a solid movie. Definitely check it out.

 Did you see Elysium? Did you see District 9? Do you think they're connected? What are your theories? Let me know, comment below!

Dispelling the rumors: Christian Bale is not and should not play Batman again

There's been a lot of rumors about The Superman and Batman movie. Lots of rumors about who is going to be Batman, who is going to be Lex Luthor... in fact this is happening a lot when it comes to any superhero movie these days. There were rumors about Vin Diesel playing a Marvel character or two. I have to say it would be very fun to be an actor or a movie producer, or hell even Zach Snyder or Joss Whedon in the next coming years because until they release the cast for these movies, they're just going to be fucking with fanboys and enjoying every minute of it.

The most recent rumor is back to Batman and speculation that Christian Bale is being offered a hefty paycheck to return as the caped Crusader. I don't think for one minute that these rumors are true but let's just say for a minute that they are. For all the people who say that it is a good idea for Christian Bale to reprise his role as Batman (regardless of whether or not these rumors are true) This post is for you.

In case you haven't guessed, I have taken a break from the Batman movies. I guess I underestimated the effect of Batman and Robin on me. But I don't need to re-watch the Dark Knight Trilogy to tell you that I freaking loved Christian Bale's Batman. He's obviously the best Bruce Wayne and I'll go into why when I start Batman Begins.

That being said, I do NOT want to see him come back at Batman.

Christian Bale's Batman belongs in a universe with characters like a Ras al Ghul that was just a criminal mastermind with advanced martial arts training... he didn't need a Lazarus Pit, he just needed his intellect and Liam Neeson good looks. Characters like a Harvey Dent/ Two-Face who actually looks like a man who half his face was burnt... not... pink

Yeah... looked silly

Bane was a mastermind criminal who exchanged his Venom addiction for a Sean Connery voice... (All jokes aside I liked Bane a lot) 

And this is just talking about the villains, Batman himself is realistic! He'd be a master crime fighter, fighting criminals from our world... but this Batman could not exist in a world where superpowers, magic, or aliens would exist... you know... like Superman... Not only could he not exist he shouldn't exist in that universe!

And by the way, Christopher Nolan stated that he does not want any of that stuff listed above in the Dark Knight Trilogy. He wants that trilogy to stand on its own and not crossover with Superman or Wonder Woman or anything I have already mentioned

But let's just say we're going to stomp on the creative desires of a brilliant man just because we don't want to put a new actor in the role... because we're dicks like that... Let's just imagine this Batman in the same world as Superman, even the Superman established in Man of Steel. 

Bruce Wayne was a broken man at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. Sure he had a magic leg brace but he had his back broken, he had awful nerve damage... Dark Knight Rises was his last adventure... it just made sense. And then suddenly he comes out of that retirement? Why? Even if he distrusts this alien from another planet (which I mentioned in another post) He's got a good thing going with Selina Kyle, Bruce Wayne according to the world, is dead. You also have to address the fact that Joseph Gordon Levitt looked as though he was going to take up the cowl... so why does Christian Bale need to come back? 

But let's look past the fact that Nolan's Batman universe doesn't mesh with the Man of Steel universe, lets look past the fact that Christian Bale doesn't want to go back to the role, let's look past the fact that Christian Bale's Batman wouldn't want to come back, I must ask... Why?

Why can't we just leave that Batman alone? Why can't we just leave it on the note it was left on which I personally think was a very strong note? Sure The Dark Knight Rises wasn't the best of the trilogy, that's a whole other conversation (I will address in my Dark Knight Rises review), but I still think the conclusion of that movie wrapped up the Dark Knight Trilogy perfectly, why do we need to disrupt that?

This question is going to be brought up a lot with movies I review. I like sequels but I do not think they're always needed. If a trilogy or even a single movie can standalone there's no need for a sequel. This Batman does not need to continue. 

As the rant closes I'll just say, I don't want Christian Bale to return as Batman. I loved his performance but for the purposes of respecting Bale's wishes, Nolan's creative intent and just for things to make sense it won't make sense for him to return as the Batman he played in Nolan's trilogy.

And I don't think its a very popular notion but some people might ask why you don't reboot the Batman franchise, like they're going to, but just have Bale play the new Batman... reread that and think about that for a second. You want Christian Bale to not only go back to a character he said he would never play again and start that character off from scratch in a totally different movie, a totally different universe! Not only does that sound insane from an acting standpoint, try thinking about that from an audience standpoint. The only way that would make sense is if before the movie Christopher Nolan appears and has to explain that the Batman you're about to see, is not the same Batman from the Dark Knight Trilogy. He's a Batman that had a career in a world where the supernatural exists, etc... but its the same actor... just typing that feels weird. So rebooting the character without a new actor doesn't make sense, keeping the same character doesn't make sense... Christian Bale as Batman doesn't make sense!

This is going to be a tall order. Think about it. It's been a year since the Dark Knight Rises was released and we're already talking about a totally new Batman. This has never been done before. Val Kilmer and George Clooney had to make Bruce Wayne their own character but they were drawing from their predecessor. Whoever takes over as Batman in 2015 has to totally reinvent Batman right after Bale already did it.

I commend anybody that can do it.

So I want to hear from you now. What is your favorite of the Dark Knight Trilogy? Who do you think should take over the role of the caped Crusader. Comment below and let me know.