Back in May, I couldn’t wait to write this column. I started this yearly recap of comic book films mainly as a counterpoint to the number of articles in the mainstream media bemoaning the fact that comic book films exist at all and the journalists who are trying to speed up them going out of favor.

So, when The Avengers broke big, setting all sorts of box office records and becoming not only the highest grossing film of the year, but also the third highest grossing film of all time, I thought 2012 was going to turn out to be one of the best years for comic book films in their entire history.

And it was. But it was also one of the worst years as well.

In the early morning hours of Friday, July 20, James Eagan Holmes entered the crowded Theater 9 of the Century 16 multiplex in Aurora, Colorado. The theater was full of fans eager to be the first to see The Dark Knight Rises, the last film in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy. They would become victims of one of the most violent crimes in recorded history. Holmes, dressed in armored clothing and carry numerous firearms with him, opened fire in that crowded theater. By the time shooting had stopped, 58 people would be injured, and 12 people would be killed.

It is impossible to talk about the year in film in any context without talking about the Aurora shootings. The joy of seeing a film in a crowded theaters full of your fellow fans is forever tainted. This type of exuberant film fan became prey that night.

Now, four months on, it is still easy to look back on that night and see only the darkest part of human nature. An evil man methodically came up with a way to kill as many people as he could. It doesn’t get more sinister than that.

But I found that when great darkness shows its face to the world, there is always a bright and shining light that rises up to greet it. It’s natural to focus on Holmes and his despicable acts. But I also look towards the example of Matt McQuinn, who shielded the bodies of his girlfriend and brother with his own, sacrificing his life to save theirs. I look to Jarell Brooks, a young man who was wounded getting a woman and her two small children, people he didn’t know, to safety. I look to Emma Goos, who stayed in the theater to tend to the wounds of an injured victim while the shooting was going on. I look to All C’s Comics Collectibles, the Aurora comic shop that started the Aurora Rises charity to help benefit the victim’s and their families and I look to the numerous comic artists and writers that helped make that charity an ongoing endeavor  I also look to Christian Bale, who, on his own with no fanfare and publicists in tow, visited the Aurora area after to shootings to give his fans whatever comfort he could.

Yes, the Aurora shooting gave us a glimpse of the worst that humanity had to offer, but it also gave us a glimpse of the best that humanity has to offer as well. And while we filmgoers will never be free of the paranoia that night in July caused (especially when just two weeks ago a plot to do a similar shooting in Missouri during a showing of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 was, thankfully, stopped before it could be put into fruition), we should never let that fear stop us from doing the things we enjoy. We might never be able to stop bad things from happening, but we can always be there to help each other out when they do.

Now that I’ve said what I needed to say on that, let’s go back to the frivolous world of comic book films.

List taken from BoxOfficeMojo.com (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2012&p=.htm)

As of last night, comic book adaptations hold three of the top five spots on the yearly highest grossing films list. I’m sure Skyfall and the aforementioned Breaking Dawn, Part 2 might have some say if The Amazing Spider-Man stays in the Top 5, but even if it does fall out, we will have three comic book adaptations in the Top 10. And that has never happened. The closest we came to that was in 2008 when The Dark Knight and Iron Man were one and two and the original superhero comedy Hancock was number four. Add to that the fact that a sequel to another comic book adaptation, Men in Black 3, was #11 this year and you have a very good year for the comic book film.

Even Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, a film with a well-deserved 18% fresh over at Rotten Tomatoes and which debuted an underwhelming third in its opening weekend was able to make over $132 million worldwide against a $57 million dollar budget. Yes, I am a fan of comic book movies and even I am stunned by that fact. That’s why Nicolas Cage keeps on getting to make movies.

The only true flop of this year’s six comic book adaptations was Dredd, whose $30,931,946 worldwide take was considerably less than its $50 million budget. I can only assume that the Sylvester Stallone version killed just about any interest anybody might have had in the character, which was a shame. I found the film a faithful adaptation of the original source material which held up well as a film on its own.

As lucrative as this year was for the comic book film, it is a year in flux. The Avengers marked the end of the first phase of Marvel’s film slate, and Phase 2 begins next year with Iron Man 3 in May and Thor: The Dark World in November. It will be interesting if they can carry any Avengers momentum over into those releases, or will fans force the studio to prove itself all over again.

And The Dark Knight Rises closes the Nolan era on DC/Warners’ Batman property. They start anew with their Superman franchise with The Man of Steel in June. There’s a lot riding on this new take on the character, as Warners is looking to not only get a franchise to replace Nolan’s Batman films on their docket, but also potentially use the film as a springboard into their planned Justice League film and to bring other DC comic heroes to the big screen.

In addition to those three films, there are at least nine other comic book adaptations scheduled for next year, including Hugh Jackman returning as Logan in The Wolverine, sequels to Red, Kick-Ass,300 and Sin City, and properties from publishers such as Dark Horse, Boom! and other smaller companies. 2012 proved that people still are willing to go to see comic book films. However, odds are that not all of the films released next year will be great successes, so we can expect the mainstream doubters to start the chorus of the comic book films doom next year. But for now, let’s bask in the highs the comic book film rose to, and take a moment to contemplate the lowest lows they experienced this year.

1. ParaNorman (Focus Features, 3,429 Theaters, 93 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Stop-motion animation has the air of an especially quaint form of film making. It is time consuming, exacting, and considering you get a similar look and feel from CGI animation, seems especially archaic. That’s what makes it all the more charming.

Of course, charming might not be the right word for this one. This film centers on a young boy who has the ability to see ghosts. He stumbles across an centuries old curse and must save his town from legions of the undead.

2. The Expendables 2 (Lionsgate, 3,316 Theaters, 102 Minutes, Rated R): I feel I don’t even need to talk about this film, because The Expendables 3 is already in the works. Nicolas Cage is already on board, and producers have a wish list that includes Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford and Wesley Snipes (All the while, a lonely Steven Seagal sits by the phone, desperately waiting for a call that looks likely will never come).

Of course, we’ll have to see how this one does first. They’ve upped the ante by adding Jean-Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris to the cast and supposedly signing Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis up for more screen time. But will that be enough to have this one improve in the surprising success of the original?

3. Sparkle (TriStar, 2,244 Theaters, 116 Minutes, Rated PG-13): This film is a remake of the 1976 film of the same name that starred Lonette McKee, Irene Cara, and Phillip Michael Thomas. It is a pastiche of the story of the Supremes, only with the 60′s singing group in question being sisters who fall apart as fame takes hold instead of complete strangers.

It is a story that hold some interest and has been made into movies and musicals a number of times (Dreamgirls, anyone?). But this version has an extra dollop of pathos being that its the last film of Whitney Houston.

The original had a plot line that one of the sister’s downfall was brought on by drug abuse. I wonder if that plot point carries over to the remake, and how fans of Houston will react to it considering the pop star’s final fate.

In this day and age, if you are a form of media that covers another form of media, eventually you will come up with a list. Rolling Stone has put out special, oversized volumes about what songs, albums and guitarists are the best in their eyes. Entertainment Weekly can be counted on at least one issue a year feature a list of some kind, most recently it was the “50 Best Films You’ve Never Seen” and “25 Best Cult TV Shows From the Past 25 years.” And VH1 and E! have made it a staple of their programming.

The reason why they turn to list making is simple–because it’s popular. In a world full of opinionated people, any collated list  that represents the authoritative ranking of anything will get attention. People want their tastes validated. Or, they want to see how wrong these media outlets are. These lists sell copies.  They garner high ratings. They get shared on Facebook. They get linked to. And the more controversial the better, For example, take Sight and Sound‘s yearly poll’s swapping of Citizen Kane with Vertigo and the furor that kicked up.

But sometimes, it appears that there’s more that goes into constructing these lists than just picking the best or worst of a particular medium. Some lists seem to be compiled just to garner controversy. Yes, there will be “no brainer” items on the list, but there will also be notable omissions as well. There will be items included that seems to serve no other purpose than to make people angry. And even if you agree with every item put on and left off, you have the rankings themselves to quarrel over.

A sterling example of this are two lists that have appeared on Newsarama.com, one of the oldest comic book news sites on the Internet, over the last week. One was the “10 Best Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES Of All Time” and the “10 Worst Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES of All Time.” Both lists were compiled by the “Newsarama Staff,” and both are controversial in their own right. At best, the lists were sloppily compiled with mind-numbing gaps of logic, at worst, the list were compiled deliberately to anger comic book movie fans and generate controversy.

Here is Newsarama’s 10 Best List:

1. Heath Ledger, The Joker, The Dark Knight
2. Robert Downey, Jr, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, & The Avengers
3. Gary Oldman, Commissioner Gordon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises
4. Hugh Jackman, Wolverine, X-Men, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men First Class
5. J.K. Simmons, J. Jonah Jameson, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3
6. Tom Hiddleston, Loki, Thor & The Avengers
7. Chloe Grace Moretz, Hit-Girl, Kick-Ass
8. Andrew Garfield, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man
9. Anne Hathaway, Selina Kyle, The Dark Knight Rises
10. Chris Evans, Jensen, The Losers

The lists are “best comic book-based performances” not “Best SUPERHERO comic book-based performances”: Granted, Newsarama focuses mostly on the mainstream superhero genre, and adding another word to the already gangly title would have made it even ganglier, but we have to take the titles of these articles to heart. That means, this should be the definitive list of ALL performances from ALL movies based an ALL kinds of comic books. Yet, there is no Paul Giamatti from American Splendor on this list. Nor is there Thora Birch or Steve Buscemi from Ghost World or Tom Hanks, Paul Newman or anyone else from Road to Perdition. 

I could go on. But what these titles are doing is advertising one thing and selling us another. And that is a recipe that is custom made to generate the kind of “you left XXX of the list” controversy that builds up links.

The Green Hornet? The Phantom? Comic Book-Based?: You’d think a news website with 10 years of independent coverage of the world of comic books would be able to tell what films were made from comic books and which ones weren’t. Baring that, you’d think they’d be able hire writers with an active connection to the Internet and the ability to access Google from it. Newsarama apparently is able to do neither.

The Green Hornet was based on a radio program that began in January1936. The Phantom was based on a comic strip that began in newspapers a few weeks after the Hornet made his first broadcast. . While both were adapted into comic books, neither originated there nor were their comics their most remembered incarnations. Calling The Green Hornet and The Phantom “comic book-based” would be like calling Star Wars and Star Trek comic book-based. And you can find far worse actors than Seth Rogen and Billy Zane in those franchises.

This might seem to be just a matter of semantics. But I believe it is indicative of the hap-hazard way these lists were constructed. Because you don’t have to look too hard to find two more bad performances in a film that was actually based on a comic book.

To Newsarama, “all time” means “within the last 12 years”: With the exception of The Phantom, the Schumacher Batman films, and the early Superman movies, all the films on the list were made after 2000. That means out of over 70 years of comic books being made into films, only a little over a decade of films were being seriously considered.

Yes, there have been a whole lot more comic book films to chose from in the last 12 years. But, as I realized doing my History of the Comic Book Film feature, the comic book film did not begin with X-Men. What? Newsarama couldn’t find a top ten worthy bad performance in Sheena, Red Sonja, Howard the Duck or in Dolph Lundgren’s Punisher? And on the good side, what about Brandon Lee’s Crow, Jack Nicholson’s Joker or Wesley Snipes’ Blade? The fact that there wasn’t one performance from the above that made either list is a disservice to what Newsarama was trying to create. It shows tunnel vision, something that handicaps any attempt at creating a comprehensive list.

Their selection process is dubious and abitrary at best:  They pay lip service to the quality work Chris Evans has done in a number of comic book films, yet make a point of telling us that they can pick only one performance of his for the list (and the pick his least well-known role at that). Yet, Hallie Berry gets slammed for playing both Storm and Catwoman. They lump the combined casts of two films as one entry, and two actors who had played the same role almost 20 years apart as another selection.

You get the feeling they were making up the rules as they went along. Or, rather, constructing the rules of selection so that it suited them best.

Take, for instance, this “ground rule” from the introduction to the worst list.

…it would be way too easy and frankly not all that much fun to pick-on a lower class of Hollywood actor in barely feature-quality train wrecks like Roger Corman’s Fantastic Four or the 1980s Captain America. So yes, Shaquille O’Neal, you get immunity this day.

Okay, I’m no fan of Shaquille O’Neal, and I’m sure he would want his being left off a list of bad actors argued, but the reason Newsarama left him of the list just doesn’t make sense. When Shaq made Steel, he had already made two feature films (Blue Chips and Kazaam). And Steel was a $16 million dollar film made by Warner Brothers, not some film made for $200 and a bag of potato chips in someone’s basement. Could Shaq be considered a “lower class of actor”? Probably. But so could Billy Zane, king of the B-movie. Maybe if Shaq had a small part in Titanic, then Newsarama would have considered him worthy of inclusion.

This is how they defend their position:

Well, Tobey’s Peter Parker was naive and earnest enough, but he just didn’t have Parker’s inner beauty.

Yes. Really.

Putting Christopher Reeve on the list of worst actors might have been done just to anger people: I’m trying not to believe that they’d do something so wrong just to generate site hits, but Newsarama is not making it easy by how they open their defense of their opinion:

Yes, we’re going there, and in advance, we’re genuinely sorry you’re upset.

Yes, they went there, but did they go there thinking their opinion would be controversial, or knowing it would be controversial and get a lot of reaction?

Listen, whenever you have a list like this, there will be items on it that butt up against conventional wisdom. But seldom has there ever been a case where something flew in the face of overwhelming public opinion like Newsarama is is doing here.

If you are going to “go there,” then you’d better have an incredibly strong argument to back up your position. Unfortunately, Newsarama doesn’t.

…Reeve just wasn’t that accomplished a film actor.

In defense of this position we could point to his lack of much of a post-Superman resume, but the truth is now 30-plus years later with a more critical eye we simply don’t find his portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent very much like any Superman or Clark Kent we know… or like, for that matter.

His Clark wasn’t mild-mannered, he was a cartoonish buffoon. His Superman far too earnest and eager-to-please for someone with the power of a god. In short, he was a mild-mannered Superman, frankly lacking in the charisma you’d expect from an actor playing a cultural icon. A more theatrical rather than natural actor, Reeve’s Superman was a caricature of a comic book Boy Scout superhero and not a fully developed character.

Where to begin. Hmmm.

I wonder who this editorial “we” is? Perhaps it is someone who  is 12 and has only known the John Byrne interpretation of Superman. But, the character was around for 50 years before Byrne revamped him. Back when the film was made, the comic book Superman was a more staid version of the one found in the film. The mental image the editorial “we” has of Superman is so contrary to what the character’s image really is that it makes it seem that this entry came from a website that wouldn’t know a comic book if it fell in their lap, not a “respected” comic book news site.

I’m so glad they didn’t use Reeve’s lack of a post-Superman career as their only defense for their position, because is a defense that could be swatted away with one word–typecasting. Typecasting is the reason why Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher had less than stellar careers after Star Wars, and why Harrison Ford’s post-Star Wars career is so extraordinary. It is what the cast of the Harry Potter films are struggling with now, and what the cast of Twilight is working hard to avoid. Once you become so associated with such an iconic character, it’s hard for Hollywood to see you in any other role. This was the reason for Reeve’s lackluster post-Superman career, not lack of talent.

But Reeve’s performance was pitch perfect as Superman. I don’t know what the editorial “we” was thinking, but Superman doesn’t stand “Sarcasm, Bullying and Badassery”, he stands for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Yes, Reeve’s Superman was earnest–and honest and forthright–but that IS Superman. And Reeve played him in such a way that he never was hokey or corny.

As for Clark Kent, Reeve played Kent as a role Superman was himself playing. Superman portrayed Kent as an awkward and bumbling fool so no one would see through the flimsy disguise and put two and two together. It’s a brilliant piece of acting, and if you aren’t able to pick that up, then you have no business talking about acting performances whatsoever.

I have to laugh at the  ”30-plus years later with a more critical eye” part. Like that is supposed to win us over, that they’re looking at the performance in a serious manner as an adult, and therefore, he is right. That might have held more water if Chris Sims and David Uzumeri didn’t take a similar look back on the first Superman back in March for rival comic book news site Comics Alliance.  They ripped the film to shreds, but still called Reeve’s performance, and these are direct quotes, “amazing” and “darn near perfect.” So much for that argument.

Taking this into consideration, it’s hard to not believe the trashing of Reeve was done purely to garner controversy. If so, at least it worked. Not only am I talking about it, but also many comic book professionals, the people Newsarama make a living covering, took umbrage with the list as well.

Creators like Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:

Marvel Comics editor Steve Wacker:

And legendary comic writer Mark Waid:

That tweet set off a Twitter war between Waid and Newsarama editor Lucas Siegel,which is not the behavior you expect from an editor who should be keeping a journalistic distance from one of people he would be covering, but it is the kind of behavior you’d expect if you want add more controversy to the already controversial matter.

Another sign that this whole thing might be hit bait is that they spun of the controversy to another article on the site, an OP/ED piece by frequent Newsarama contributor Vaneta Rogers , glorifying Reeve’s performance and giving yet another page full of ads for Newsarama from the controversial list.

I hope this isn’t the case, that Newsarama is manipulating the popularity of lists to gain hits for itself. Presenting honest, well-formed and well-thought out opinions is always something that should be striven for. But putting out incendiary opinions in a clumsy and hap hazard manner isn’t. And it looks like Newsarama did the latter and is trying to pass it off as the former.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we continue our four week “vacation” overseas with the most notable one-off comic films Japan has to offer.

If Europe is to be commended for so easily accepting comic books as art, then Japan should be given the gold star for the way it totally embraced the art form. Manga is read by all-ages in Japan, and by all social classes and has reached a level of cultural status unseen in the country.

Over the last quarter century, manga’s influence has grown into the United States, to such a point that if you were to walk into any bookstore (if any bookstores still exist when this post is published), you’d find the shelves dedicated to manga out numbering the shelves devoted to American comics by four to one. While Magna’s dominance of the American market is a relatively recent occurrence, American audiences were exposed to one of manga’s greatest characters decades before.

Osamu Tezuka has been called the Japanese Walt Disney for a variety of reasons. Both have had an indelible effect on the fields of animation and comic books in their respective countries. Both have inspired generations of fans and influenced generations of artists. And both have created characters that have touched the hearts of millions.

Tezuka created many characters in his lifetime, but perhaps the most popular in the United States was Astro Boy. Created by Tezuka in 1951, the character was a little robot boy who was created by a scientist named Dr. Tenma as a replacement for his dead son, Tobio. When Tenma realizes that the robot could never take the place of his dead son, he sells the robot boy to the circus. While at the circus, he catches the eye of another scientist who works at the same Science Ministry as the robot’s creator. The scientist, Professor Ochanomizu, adopts the robot, and becomes its legal guardian. The robot, now known as Astro Boy, would go on to have many adventures, striving to keep Japan safe.

American audiences were first exposed to the character when the Japanese anime adapted from the manga was redubbed and run in syndication on U.S. television. The U.S. cartoon originally ran from 1963 to 1965, although it has been rebroadcast at various times since then.

In 2009, the robot boy got computer animated with the film Astro Boy.

The film cost $65 million to produce and featured an all-star cast of voices, including Nicolas Cage, Freddie Highmore and Nathan Lane. However, it only grossed under $40 million worldwide.

If Astro Boy was the Mickey Mouse of manga/anime, then you can argue that Akira is the Citizen Kane of the mediums. Akira first appeared in 1982 in the pages of Young Magazine and was created by Katsuhiro Otomo. The story told the tale of a Neo-Tokyo, a new version of the city that sprung up after being destroyed at the start of World War III. A nuclear bomb was blamed for the blast, but it was really due to the powers of a telekinetic named Akira.

Neo-Japan is dominated by civil unrest, an oppressive government, and warring biker gangs. When a gang member by the name of Tetsuo Shima develops telekinetic powers similar to Akira’s, all hell starts breaking loose.

The manga was an epic story with various subplots and characters interwoven together. Some say that Akira is a parable for postwar Japan and the generation that was born after WWII. The story was brought over to the United States in 1988 by Marvel’s EPIC imprint, was part of the first wave of the manga invasion, and helped the cyberpunk genre take off. Otomo would write and direct a film version of his story, which would hit theaters in 1988.

The film differs from the manga to quite a degree, as it would due to trying to convey six volumes of story into a two-hour film, but the film made a lot of best-of lists and stands today as a cult classic. A live-action version of the story, with everyone from Leonardo DiCaprio to James Franco to Zac Effron rumored to be attached to it, is in development hell even as we speak.  

Another manga turned film soon to be remade by Hollywood is Old Boy. The manga, which ran in Weekly Manga Action from 1996 to 1998, focuses on a man who was imprisoned in a private prison for 10 years and, upon his release, has to track down the people who kept him captive and the reason why he was held. The manga was the basis for the Korean film, Oldboy.

The film, while keeping the basic plot of the manga, makes a couple significant changes to make it darker than the source material. The character is locked up for 15 years, not ten, and still has to find a reason why, but the path he takes has more disturbing twists and turns. Incest is added as a plot point, the violence and gore is amped up, and the resolution is less positive. But, like Akira, even with the changes, the film Oldboy was very well received. It also is heading for an American remake, with Spike Lee tapped to direct the project.

Next up, the European comic book film franchises.       

I am convinced that there could eventually be a great movie made out of the Ghost Rider character. I’d settle for even a good one. But for that to happen Nicolas Cage will have to let the project fall through his hammy hands.

I’ve had a while to think this this film, more than it really deserves, and I have decided that the film is better than the first film. But that isn’t much of a complement, because I could make a better Ghost Rider film than the first one using action figures and empty cereal boxes. But this new film isn’t any good.

And, yes, I said this new film and not this sequel, because this a soft reboot of the franchise. This film makes it clear that Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage)willingly signed the contract with the Devil (now named Roarke and played by Ciarán Hinds instead of being tricked into signing by Peter Fonda’s Mephistopheles) and Blaze wants the curse removed, a change from the last film’s ending, where Blaze rejected Mephistopheles’ offer of removing the curse in order to use the power for good.

The story, in a nutshell, is that the devil is after a young boy by the name of Danny in order to put his essence into. No, not in that way you pervs. Danny is his son. Satan/Roarke is going to leave his old, beat up body and possess his son’s youthful one, therefore combining the two main versions of how the Antichrist will be created. Johnny Blaze is offered a deal. If he tracks down the kid, keeps him safe and stops the Satanic takeover from happening, then the Ghost Rider curse will be removed.

The plot, well, the plot exists to serve the plot’s purpose. What do I mean? Okay, early in the film, Ghost Rider interrupts Roarke’s mercenaries just as they were about to kidnap Danny. Ghost Rider is taken out of commission by two shotgun blasts and a grenade explosions. Later, when Ghost Rider tracks the mercenaries down a quarry to get the kid back, he shrugs off two direct hits from missiles that the bad guys describe as “bunker busters.”  In other words, weapons that are about 500 times as powerful as a shotgun blast or a grenade. No explanation given why Ghost Rider got so resilient all of a sudden. Other than at that point of the film, Ghost Rider needed to free the kid from his captors.

There are tons of this kind of stuff in the film. The plot also introduces elements that work for the narrative but make little sense when you think of them. This wouldn’t be a problem if the film moved fast enough so you didn’t have time to think about these plot points. But the film drags at points.  I mean, let’s start with the main plot point. It is stressed in the film numerous times about how Ghost Rider is a “spirit of vengeance” and cannot be controlled. He’s a weapon against sin and if you have done anything at all you need to repent for (the film offers illegal downloads as a low-end sin option), then Ghost Rider will attack you. Is this the ideal being you want to send to protect the son of Satan and his mother, a woman who made the beast with two backs with the Great Beast? The movie should have been over as soon as Ghost Rider found them. Two repentance stares and he’d be on his merry way.

The film doesn’t really build its characters or the relations between them either. We get shortcuts instead of character building scenes. “Here, here are two characters with daddy issues, you provide the rest.” “Here’s a scene with a child in danger while his mother watches, you fill in the blanks.” That might have worked if you even remotely cared for the characters or knew anything about them. This film doesn’t give you that much to work with.

And, not to belabor the script problems, but there is serious issues with tone. Most of the film is dead serious, end-of-the-world stuff, but every so often, a scene of out and out camp pops up and smacks you in the face.  There is room for humor in the concept, but not in the way presented here.

Worst of all, the story is credited to David S. Goyer and he is one of three men who wrote the screenplay. Yes, this was done by the one of the people responsible for Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the Blade franchise. What happened?

The direction by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor shows signs of inspiration. There are a couple of nice touches provided by the directors but often it is overshadowed by their Matrix-lite visual style.

But their approach to directing their actors was probably spraying condiments all over each of their sets and telling their cast to have at it. Because the entire cast in the business of chewing scenery, and cousin, business is boomin’.

Over-the-top acting is the rule of the day. Some of the cast do well hamming it up. Hinds adds a kind of Shakespearean pompousness to his role as Roarke. And Idris Elba (apparently in a race with Chris Evans and Ryan Reynolds for the most comic book films on his resume) seems like he is having fun chewing scenery as the drunken, French, machine gun-wielding priest Moreau. But then you get actors like Johnny Whitaker, who plays the head mercenary Carrigan. Whitaker has an uncanny resemblance to a young Kurt Russell, and his performance here calls to mind Russell’s performance in Overboard, only without Russell’s subtlety and tact. He’s aiming to be the wise-ass, quotable bad guy. He only comes off as smarmy and over-baked.

As I was watching these actors overact, I thought that this was deliberate. I thought this was designed to make Nicolas Cage, never the most restrained of actors, seem normal. That was until I saw the scene where Cage as Johnny Blaze goes to interrogate that gangster to find out Carrigan’s location. I think we can now take down that bee scene from The Wicker Man off of You Tube, because we have a new example of the worst acting Nic Cage has ever done. Cage is so over the top in the scene that it defies belief. It is truly horrible acting. It makes his awful performance in the rest of film seem Oscar worthy. And his performance throughout the rest of the film is completely rotten.  

I can go on and on telling you how bad this film is. But I’m not going to. It is a boring, poorly acted, poorly written piece of tripe. This is not a film for seeing. It is a film for laying down and avoiding.

1. This Means War (FOX, 3,189 Theaters, 98 Minutes, Rated PG-13): The casting for this film is unique. Not so much for Chris Pine. He’s done action, he done romantic comedies, so being in a romantic action/comedy isn’t that unique. But Tom Hardy has been building a reputation for being in serious action films. And lest we forget, Reese Witherspoon is an Oscar winner, and here she is playing the object of Hardy’s and Pine’s affections. I’d call that a step down.

Yes, Pine and Hardy play C.I.A. agents who find out they are dating the same woman–Witherspoon. Each man uses the government agency’s equipment and resources to spy on the other and sabotage their dates whenever they can. Now you know why it took so long to find Bin Laden.

It is a unique take on the romantic comedy. Still a step down for Witherspoon, but it could be fun.

2. Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance (Sony/Columbia, 3,174 Theaters, 95 Minutes, Rated PG-13): And now, a sequel that no one asked for and the original film doesn’t deserve.

Just so it be known that as a comic book fan I can be objective about comic book movies, the first Ghost Rider was awful. It did transport most of the great elements of the comic book character to the screen, but it inserted them in a plot that was incredibly stupid and nonsensical.

Considering the most memorable part about this film’s trailer is the fact that Ghost Rider pisses fire, I can’t say I have much hope that this will be all that better. The action moves to Europe (why? probably because it was cheaper to shoot there) and find Nicolas Cage returning to play Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider. He is ine Eastern Europe trying to stop the devil from taking a human form. This must be a different devil that made him Ghost Rider in the last film, who form looked like a human–Peter Fonda to be exact.

I’ll be seeing this film tomorrow so check back here for my review of it.

3. The Secret World Of Arrietty (Disney, 1,522 Theaters, 94 Minutes, Rated G): If the plot, a bunch of little people who share a house with humans find their existence threatened when they are discovered by the much larger humans, it probably because you experienced The Borrowers in one of it’s many forms, be it books, BBC TV series, or even film versions.

However, this time the story is not being told with an Anglo-centric point of view. It is being directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, who has worked as an animator on a number of films helmed by “Japan’s Walt Disney,” Hayao Miyazaki, including Spirited Away and Princess Monoke.

This should be a fresh take on a time-honored favorite and a change of pace from a lot of other kiddie fare out there. .

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we discuss how a comic book storyline renewed interest in a Man of Steel film and the torturous process that bringing the next Superman film to life really was.

When Cannon Films went bankrupt, the rights to the Superman franchise went back to the Salkinds. Thus began the process of bringing Superman V to the screen, this time tapping Superman comic book writer Cary Bates to work on the script. The plot of this aborted attempt involved Superman dying and being reborn in the city of Kandor, which was miniaturized and placed into a bottle. This film never came to pass as another story involving the death of Superman caused Warners to take a more active role in the film franchise.

The 1990s in the world of comic books was one of a speculator boom. Encouraged by tales of Golden Age comics being sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, speculators started buying comics in the hopes of getting in on the ground floor of the next big thing. Comic companies helped the speculation frenzy along by starting new series with new number ones, promoting hot and popular artists, creating variant covers for their titles, marketing gimmicks and controversial or provocative storylines to lure this new breed of collector in.

DC Comics had the perfect idea for such a storyline for the Superman books, one that would bring people in—the marrying of Superman/Clark Kent to Lois Lane. But there was a problem. Corporate parent was building to a similar event in their Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman TV series and wanted the comics to coincide with that. But that plot point was a ways off in the TV series, and DC had to pick another shocking event to bring speculators to Superman. They did the most logical alternative—they decided to kill him.

The story involved an unstoppable beast called Doomsday that creates a path of death and destruction on his way to Metropolis. When other heroes such as the Justice League fell in their efforts to stop the beast, Superman took up the grim responsibility to stop the creature himself. He did, but in doing so suffered fatal injuries. He died in the arms of Lois Lane right in front of the Daily Planet building.

Savvy comic book readers knew that Superman wouldn’t stay dead. There have been hundreds of characters that were far less important to their company than Superman that had supposedly died for good only to come back later. Nobody expected Superman’s death to last forever.

That is, nobody except the members of the non-comic savvy general public. The death of Superman received national attention from the mainstream media. Millions of people, many who probably didn’t pick up a comic book since they were kids, lined up at comic shops to get the historic issue. Again, it was the speculator craze at work. Superman was dead. This was his last issue alive. It will be worth something someday.

The issue Superman died in, Superman #75, sold out of almost 3 million copies of its first printing (by comparison, a title is considered a smash success if 100,000 copies are ordered). Of course, since it printed in such high numbers, there are a lot of copies around. Today, almost 20 years after it came out, your copy of Superman #75 won’t buy you a fancy house. It won’t even buy you a compact disc at manufacturer’s suggested retail price. You’d get maybe $15 for it in mint condition.

But this doesn’t belie the fact that the death of Superman was a wide reaching pop culture phenomenon. The time was right to restart the Superman film franchise. Warner Brothers bought the rights back from the Salkinds to control the franchise in house and appointed producer Jon Peters to shepherd the project along. On paper, this seems like a good decision from a comic fan’s perspective. After all, he, with producing partner Peter Guber, produced 1989s Batman, one of the best comic book adaptations of all time. However, either Guber was the creative force of the tandem or acted to keep Peters impulses in check, because, under Peters, the development of the next Superman film became a costly and infuriatingly non-productive journey.

Jon Peters

The project was titled Superman Lives. Lethal Weapon 4 screenwriter Jonathan Lemkin was tasked with writing the first script, with the most unctuous plot point being Superman’s “life force” entering into Lois Lane and impregnating her so the hero can be reborn at a later date. Man, I’m almost sorry that this film wasn’t made. Having to fight your way through a picket line of religious zealots protesting the virgin birth of Superman 2.0 to see the movie would have been fun.

Lemkin’s script was rewritten by Gregory Poirier before Kevin Smith was called in for a rewrite. Smith found this version of the script to be “too campy” and was tapped to start over from scratch. Smith discusses his involvement with the Superman franchise during his documentary, An Evening With Kevin Smith. Warning! Contains salty language! And Spanish subtitles! And is a bit long!

Smith describes many of the problems of Peters’ approach to the Superman franchise: one, Peters’ and the studio’s dedication to using the film to sell as many toys as possible, two, Peters’ lack of knowledge and/or respect for what made the character great in the first place, and three, Peters being influenced by other films, most notably the Star Wars franchise, instead of the two he should have been influenced by—Superman and Superman II.

Robert Rodriguez was approached to direct but was busy with The Faculty at the time. Then Warners went to Batman director Tim Burton, a director Smith suggested early in the process. Burton agreed to do the film and was granted a $5 million pay or play contract, meaning that even though he obviously did not become the director of Superman Lives, as it was then known, he would still get paid.

Burton threw out Smith’s script and turned to Wesley Strick to write a new version. Burton chose Nicolas Cage to star as Superman and Warners hired him with yet another pay or play contract, this time for $20 million. In his book Burton on Burton he gives accolade to Cage this way:

“I was excited about working with Nic because the way we were thinking about it, it would have been the first time you would believe that nobody could recognize Clark Kent as Superman—that he could physically change his persona, so it wouldn’t be as simplistic as taking off a pair of glasses. Without doing make-up or anything, Nic is the kind of actor who can pull something like that off.”

I don’t know what is more egregious about this statement—the insult is gives to Christopher Reeve and his performance earlier in the franchise or the gross overestimation of Nic Cage’s acting ability.

Pre-production began on the film as sets were built, Pittsburgh was chosen as a shooting location and Cage went through some costume tests:

What Tim Burton's Superman would have looked like, courtesy TimBurton.jp

But the studio had issues with the cost of Strick’s script and brought in Dan Gilroy to write a cheaper version of it. During the rewriting process, Burton left the film to handle Sleepy Hollow, never to return.

The studio then tried to shop Gilroy’s script around to directors to have one sign on with no luck. The studio then hired William Wisher Jr. and Paul Attanasio to do their takes on the script before deciding to go in a completely different direction.

Next time! J.J. Abrams! McG! Brett Ratner! Bryan Singer! More disappointment!

1. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part One) (Summitt Entertainment, 4,061 Theaters, 117 Minutes, Rated PG): There will be millions of people in this world who will greet this film with cries of how are global nightmare is now at an end. No, the cry isn’t coming from Twilight fans, grateful that the next installment has finally arrived (although that’s only because its the next to the last installment, then there will be no more).

No, those cries will be coming from the Twilight haters, who have been waiting for the day that the franchise would slip out of national consciousness. There has seldom been a franchise that garnered this much teeth gnashing and vitrol as this one did.

I have to say that you can count me in this number. I have not read the books but I have watched enough of the films (they are in contant rotation on the Showtime networks) to know that the plot is weak, the acting bad, and the changes they meade to the accepted vampire and werewolf mythoses were achingly inane (sparkly vampires who can walk about in the daytime aren’t vampires).

But the plot point that is introduced in this segment where Jacob, who lost out on Bella to Edward, sorry Team Jacobites, finds himself irresistably drawn to Edward and Bella’s daughter. With the Penn State scandal still fresh in the air, that is creepy enough as it is. But what jacks up the creep factor even more is that this attraction starts when the spawn is still in Bella’s womb. I’m sure there are people who are calling for Joe Paterno and anybody even distantly related to Penn State to be thrown in jail who think that negative-May/December romance is so, well, romantic. And that’s just wrong.

2. Happy Feet Two (Warner Brothers,  3,606 Theaters, 100 Minutes, Rated PG): The first Happy Feet was a charming surprise, with a lot of heart that made up for the slightly heavy handed ecological message. I liked it a lot in that it was a kids movie that wasn’t afraid to have a bit of a dark side to it.

Part of the charm of the first movie is gone. Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman, whose best Elvis Presley/Marilyn Monroe impersonation since Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern Wild at Heart one, was a high point of the original, are missing from the credits in this one. Instead, we focus on a grown up Mumbles (Elijah Wood) who faces an opposite problem than his father has with him, his child with Gloria (voiced by P!nk, taking over for the late Brittany Murphy) who will not dance.

Regardless, if this film is a half as good as the original, it should be a great success.

Of the majors, Happy Feet Two has a shot not only at a Best Animated nomination, but, if it’s good, picking up a statue. Cars 2 was  a weaker than normal effort from Pixar, so the award is up for grabs. And the first Happy Feet waddled off with the award in 2007.

And there is no way The Twilight “Saga” pulls a Lord of the Rings and gets nominated on its final go round. So give it up, Twi-hards.

In the smaller releases, the biggest Oscar contender has to be The Descendants. It is written and directed by Academy favorite Alexander Payne (winner for his script for Sideways, for which he also got a directing nod, and was also nominated for writing Election) and stars someone the Academy loves, George Clooney. Bonus: points, it adapted from a novel about a man who reconnects with his estranged daughters after his wife suffers a horrible boating accident. It opened in Los Angeles and New York on Wednesday, and will be bumped up to 27 theaters nationwide today.

Drive Angry In 3D (Summitt Entertainment 2,290 Theaters, 104 Minutes, Rated R): As Nicolas Cage slowly works his way through the low-rent genres, he kills two birds with one stone this week. He takes on Grindhouse -style action and the 3-D trend. I fear to see what is coming next.

The plot is simple. A cult leader has stolen Cage’s baby. He wants it back. Gunshots, chases and explosions ensue.

Considering that Cage put out a film in the last few weeks that went down in flames, don’t hold your hopes for this one, no matter how good the supporting cast is around him. It might be worthy if it has a sense of humor, but the ads make it hard to tell if that’s the case.

Hall Pass (Warner Brothers/New Line, 2,950 Theaters, Rated R): Wow. Two R-Rated films in one week. What year is this, 1986?

This film has a lot going against it. On the surface, it’s about two men who’s wives let them out of their marriage for a week so they can experience being single again. First off, speaking as a married man, that never happens. At least not without consequences. Two, the men are played by Owen Wilson and Jason Sudekis as dorks. Why do I call them dorks? Because they want to cheat on Jenna Fischer and Christina Applegate, that’s why.

But it’s done by the Farrelly Brothers, who haven’t done so well in the last couple of years but are solid directors. The cast has a lot of high points, namely Fischer and Richard Jenkins. And it’s going up against Drive Angry, so it’s got that going for it, which is nice.

1. Season Of The Witch (Relativity, 2,816 Theaters, 95 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Nicolas Cage has had a interesting career after winning his Oscar. It’s easy to look at the stinkers on his post-Oscar resume (Ghost Rider, The Wicker Man) and write him off as a Cuba Gooding, Jr/Mira Sorvino like disappointment. But with every clunker he sprinkles in the hits (National Treasure, Con Air, The Rock) and the daring, Oscar-worthy fair (Adaptation, World Trade Center)

It seems, for better or worse, Cage does the films he’s interested in. And more often than not, it’s genre films like this one, films with a twist to them.

Problem is, these films are seldom any good and die a quick death in the box office. This film has the weekend to itself, but from all I’ve seen, it looks like another clunker. I just don’t see Nicolas Cage, with his blown out hair extensions, as a 14th century knight.