On a Mt. Rushmore of Movies - Lesser Known (or Underrated) Super Hero / Comic Book Movies

m. brown over at Two Dollar Cinema is hosting a blog-a-thon.  In honor of President's Day, we have the Mt. Rushmore of Movies blog-a-thon.  The premise is pretty simple (I like simple!) - pick a top four of anything movie-related (if you want more details or want to participate, click here.  Otherwise, just roll with it).  Now to come up with a theme, which involves the old thinking cap as this blog has been a little book-heavy lately (not that there's anything wrong with that).  But now it's time to go back to the movies.

I sit here, trying to come up with a theme that calls out to me, but also something that would be slightly out of the ordinary.  Yes, I love comic-book movies.  But that seems too easy.  Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman, yeah-yeah-yeah.  We all know those and there's oddly quite a bit of agreement within the community on what has been good or not in the genre.  So, let's try to avoid those mainstream Marvel/DC flicks.  My theme...

Top Four Lesser Known (or Underrated) Super Hero / Comic Book Movies

(not in any particular order)

Defendor (2009) - Mt. Rushmore head goes to Woody Harrelson

Synopsis (per IMDB): 

A comedy centered around three characters: an everyday guy who comes to believe he's a super hero, his psychiatrist and, the teenager he befriends.  

I believe this would fall into the "lesser known" category.  That, by the way, is a rather terrible synopsis.  On the first hand, it should really use the word "comedy" lightly.  It has a few moments (yes, that is a jar of bees Defendor is using as a weapon in the picture), but the movie has a lot of pretty serious undertones to it.  It is not the fast-paced action/adventure a la the current comic book movie onslaught being released by Marvel and DC.  This is slow, thoughtful, and utilizes Harrelson's ability to play crazy.  

Unbreakable (2000) - Mt. Rushmore head goes to Samuel L. Jackson

Synopsis (per IMDB): 

A suspense thriller with supernatural overtones that revolves around a man who learns something extraordinary about himself after a devastating accident.

Underrated.  Before he was the head of S.H.I.E.L.D. and before he was a jedi knight, Samuel L. Jackson was Elijah Price in M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable.  Like Defendor, Unbreakable is a movie that plays off of comic book mythology in the real world.  It's another slower paced character study with an M. Night Shyamalan twist.  

The Crow (1994) - Mt. Rushmore head goes to Brandon Lee

Synopsis (per IMDB):

A man brutally murdered comes back to life as an undead avenger of his and his fiancee's murder.

This probably needs the least introduction of any I've mentioned so far.  However, with all the flashiness of modern comic-book movies, The Crow from 1994 still holds its ground as an exciting tale of supernatural revenge (I'm a sucker for revenge stories).  Just ignore the sequels and pray to the god of gothic stuff that the reboot is good.

Chronicle (2012) - Mt. Rushmore head goes to Dane DeHaan

Synopsis (per IMDB):

Whilst attending a party, three high school friends gain super powers after making an incredible discovery underground.  Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as they embrace their darker side.

This is a movie that took me by surprise.  It was not what I was expecting at all.  The trailers had always shown it as a bunch of kids goofing off with newfound telekinesis powers.  It starts off rather slowly and seems to play into that goofy high school kids pulling pranks.  But this movie gets DARK.  It gets incredibly tense.  It's worth a watch (keep some Xanax handy).

Not everyone can win, and there are just so many movies I want to put up on that mountain.  Some runner-ups:  The Rocketeer, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Sin City...  

I'm sure there are plenty I'm missing.  What would be on your mountain?

On The King of Thorns (The Broken Empire #2) by Mark Lawrence - REVIEW

This is book #2 in Mark Lawrence's The Broken Empire series.  If you haven't read book #1 (and you should), you will probably want to skip this review (and go buy book #1...  now).  My review for Prince of Thorns (The Broken Empire #1) can be found here.

Synopsis (per Goodreads):

The land burns with the fires of a hundred battles as lords and petty kings fight for the Broken Empire.  The long road to avenge the slaughter of his mother and brother has shown Prince Honorous Jorg Ancrath the hidden hands behind this endless war.  He saw the game and vowed to sweep the board.  First though he must gather his own pieces, learn the rules of play, and discover how to break them.  

A six nation army, twenty thousand strong, marches towards Jorg's gates, led by a champion beloved of the people.  Every decent man prays this shining hero will unite the empire and heal its wounds.  Every omen says he will.  Every good king knows to bend the knee in the face of overwhelming odds, if only to save their people and their lands.  But King Jorg is not a good king.  

Faced by an enemy many times his strength Jorg knows that he cannot win a fair fight.  But playing fair was never part of Jorg's game plan.  

Review:

Having to type "six nation army" only served to put the bass-line of Seven Nation Army in my head.

It feels good to root for the "bad guy." Or maybe it makes more sense to say it feels good to root for the guy who knows what he is.   A hero is full of doubt.  A hero concerns himself with the greater good.  An anti-hero; well, he could care less for the greater good, unless of course that greater good is in line with his own goals.  It's a different feeling than rooting for the guy that is "supposed" to win.  Who, just for a little bit, wouldn't want to see Vader take the Empire?  Mark Lawrence graces us with a homicidal @$$hole that you want to win.  Well played.

Once again, my review for Prince of Thorns can be found here (I'll be sort of referencing it).  I had some fears coming into the second book of the trilogy.  Book one set up an anti-hero you could get behind, but it also set up some explanation.  Explanations scare me.  It was the need for explanation that gave us Darth Frankenstein.  I was afraid they could give us a Jorg who is not the anti-hero we love, but rather some pawn of greater power that is an anti-hero because of design.  They could give us his recognition of that and the possibility of zero badness level (or at least an abated level).  It does and it doesn't.

A fantasy series is like breaking new ground on a construction site.  The first book is the basement.  It is the foundation that will hold up the rest of the series.  The flashiness and aesthetics are minimal here as a foundation is built to support the structure.  It is here you learn of character, you learn of setting.  But as the construction continues, as the building grows, and sequels release, more and more is added to the world.  Locations develop, magic is added in new ways and in greater volume.  King of Thorns is no different.  We learn more of the Broken Empire.  We see more magic (necromancy and others) and more of what the Builders left behind.  But that is all window dressing.  It's signage and lattice-work and trellises.  It is eye-catching, but not what holds everything together.  The bricks and mortar here is Jorg.  It's Makin and Gog and this band of miscreants.  It's emotion.  And for Jorg, it's knowing who you are and taking what you want - world be damned.

I understand I am years late in writing this.  Book three is long since released (and if not next will shortly end up on my "currently reading" spot), and a new series set in the Broken Empire will be released June of this year.  But maybe you haven't read any of this series.  Maybe you are tired of Frodo carrying the ring to Mordor and saving the realm.  Maybe you are looking for something different.  Something dark.  Something with teeth.  If that is what you want.  Mark Lawrence has a trilogy for you.  Recommended.


I give it...  Shrek.
"No, you dense, irritating, miniature beast of burden.  Ogres are like onions.  End of story."

On Riddick

Dong Nguyen developed a little app for iOs called Flappy Bird.  The game was extraordinarily simple in design, and extraordinarily difficult in play.  The concept, tap the screen to get a bird through small gaps.  There is no end-game, no goals other than get through as many gaps as possible. The game took the world by storm.  The designer got more attention than he wanted and pulled the game from iOs.  But it was too late.  The world knew about Flappy Bird.  The world loved Flappy Bird.  And with it gone, it has been emulated to no end.  Type in Flappy in the app store and there will be no end to the games where one must get a flappy something through small gaps.  What happened?  Someone created a formula for a game.  It worked.  Designers trying to cash in on the success copied the formula to varying degrees of success.

In 2000, a low-budget movie was released, chronicling the story of a convict stranded on a remote planet with his would-be captors.  The story initially begins with the attempt to maintain capture of said convict, but quickly turns into survival against the environment as the world goes Pitch Black and chaos ensues.  A simple formula for a movie.  It worked.  It remains my favorite of the franchise. It is considered a "cult classic" (so says Wikipedia - this isn't rocket science, I can use Wikipedia for research if I want!).

Four years later a sequel was released.  The budget of said sequel was significantly higher, and the story strayed into the realm of convict versus bounty hunter versus necromongers (so over-the-top on the naming convention there), dropping the alien-esque aspects of Pitch Black altogether.  The movie was high in action, but with all its fanfare and pomp, it failed to live up to its predecessor.  

Ten years later a third movie was released; Riddick (the movie in question, and where my Flappy Bird story starts to make sense).  After the flopping of the sequel, someone in the production/writing department must have looked back at Pitch Black and said "why did this work where The Chronicles of Riddick failed?  Oh, we eliminated the survival from the environment aspect of the franchise from Chronicles.  Maybe that would help!).  And so Riddick returns to the formula that made Pitch Black so successful: Part B) Convict versus Bounty Hunter.  Part C) Everyone versus the planet.  You may have noticed that earlier I stated Pitch Black was my favorite still (even though Riddick follows a similar formula).  You may also have noticed that I broke the two parts similar in formula to Pitch Black as Part B and Part C.  The problem?  Part A.

Riddick takes approximately 30 minutes to get to a point where there is ANY plot.  It is 30 minutes of Riddick finding himself on a planet and fighting one creature after another.  You would think this would be exciting, but after the third or fourth random monster, brief flashback to the necromonger stuff you hoped would be left behind (and thankfully is after said flashback), and extremely low volume self reflection, it just drags.  I have to wonder how many people the movie lost to walk-out due to the excruciatingly slow start.

If you find yourself willing to brave the 30 minute introduction, the movie then follows the Pitch Black formula and becomes a better/more exciting movie.  It has action, it has monsters, it has Katee Sackhoff (in the shower, no less).  It loses to Pitch Black due to that 30 minute snooze-fest, and due to its attempt to be more edgy through over-the-top action (did Riddick seriously need to dive head first in dramatic fashion to get down that three foot ledge?).  It also has some atrocious dialogue.

So why bother seeing this?  Aside from my griping, once you pass that 30 minute introduction, it is an entertaining survival film that simply fails in its attempt to one-up what made the first movie such a success.  Vin Diesel remains the likable tough-guy convict.  Katee Sackhoff is gorgeous and badass.  And apparently sales of the DVD have been high enough that the company is in discussion to continue the franchise for a fourth film (so some people must have been less critical of it than me).  I wouldn't care to own this (whereas I now wonder why I don't own a copy of Pitch Black), but I don't regret following up on the franchise.

I give it...  Ewoks.

On Gun Machine by Warren Ellis - REVIEW

Synopsis (per Goodreads):

After a shootout claims the life of his partner in a condemned tenement building on Pearl Street, Detective John Tallow unwittingly stumbles across an apartment stacked high with guns.  When examined, each weapon leads to a different, previously unsolved murder.  Someone has been killing people for twenty years or more and storing the weapons together for some inexplicable purpose.  

Confronted with the sudden emergence of hundreds of unsolved homicides, Tallow soon discovers that he's walked into a veritable deal with the devil.  An unholy bargain that has made possible the of some of Manhattan's most prominent captain's of industry.  A hunter who performs his deadly acts as a sacrifice to the old gods of Manhattan, who may, quite simply, be the most prolific murderer in New York City's history.  

Warren Ellis' body of work has been championed by Wired for its "merciless action" and "incorruptible bravery," and steadily amassed legions of diehard fans.  His newest novel builds on his accomplishments like never before, announcing Ellis as one of today's most daring thriller writers.  This is twenty-first century suspense writ large.  This is Gun Machine.  

Review:

How I came about picking up Gun Machine by Warren Ellis is a mildly convoluted story of mistaken identity.  The book appeared on a recommendations page and immediately the name struck a chord of recognition.  Upon further inspection one finds out Ellis did significant amount of writing in the comic book industry.  I read comics!  I must know what he wrote!  Then, as I read the reviews for Gun Machine (and his earlier work) I see he tends to write somewhat over-the-top gore (I'll go into that in a minute) and it hits me.  Punisher Max!  I'm totally picking up this book.  And I did.  And then I realized that it was Garth Ennis that wrote Punisher.  Ennis.  Ellis.  Oops.  Ellis has written numerous things you would know whether you're a major comic book geek or not.  Look it up.  Regardless that it was mistaken identity that pushed me to move this to the top of the read list, I am glad I picked it up.  

Story time is over (ha!).  Review time.  

On to the gore!  Ms. Au Lait and I like our TV.  One of the shows we watched quite a bit of was Bones.  Bones is a sometimes humorous police procedural that utilizes forensic anthropology to solve crimes.  Though the show is generally light-hearted, the premise requiring an anthropologist to solve murders requires that the crimes exhibit a certain...  grotesqueness.  As such, the bodies on the show are generally characterized as some of the more "gross" things in police procedural TV these days.  However; this more a side-product of the show, not what the show is actually about, which is character and case driven.  I would make the same argument for Ellis' work.  Yes, there is gore.  Yes, it is a little over-the-top at times.  However, it is a side-product of a story of a downtrodden NYC detective who just lost his partner, who is having a complete change in his outlook on life, and who is also on a case for a prolific murderer.  

This is a police procedural.  Murders have been committed and the case must be solved.  But this has a flair that Ellis brings to his works.  His characters are witty and quirky (protagonist and antagonist alike).  The action is immediate and non-stop.  

My only complaint (and it's not a bad one I suppose) is that the ending comes too fast.  There is significant buildup to the climax, but the climax happens extremely quickly.  I would have liked to linger a little longer in heat of it.  

In conclusion.  This is a book with entertaining characters and an imaginative plot.  And if I've learned anything from books, TV and movies it's that you need to enjoy the little things.

On The October List by Jeffery Deaver - REVIEW

Synopsis (per Goodreads):

Gabriela waits desperately for news of her abducted daughter.  

At last, the door opens.

But it's not the negotiators.  It's not the FBI.

It's the kidnapper.

And he has a gun.

How did it come to this?

Two days ago, Gabriela's life was normal.  Then, out of the blue, she gets word that her six-year-old daughter has been taken.  She's given an ultimatum: pay half a million dollars and find a mysterious document known as the "October List" within 30 hours, or she'll never see her child again.  

A mind-bending novel with twists and turns that unfold from its dramatic climax back to its surprising beginning, The October List is Jeffery Deaver at his masterful, inventive best.  

Review:

Normally I would omit the part of the synopsis that is self-congratulatory and gives no actual "synopsis" of the novel.  However, I wanted to ensure here that I left in the point that this is a book that starts from the end and, chapter by chapter, works its way back to the beginning.  If you were the Merovingian, you must take a piss because you had too much wine.  It's effect and cause.  It's the picture of the Merovingian, and then the explanation of why there's a picture of the Merovingian (how many times can Szever type "Merovingian" in one paragraph?).  (4). 

So, the question on everyone's mind is - does it work?  It certainly takes some getting use to.  Everything we read and watch is typically follows that "cause and effect" mentality.  There are snakes on the plane, ergo we get tired of these mother$*($&@ snakes on the mother*$&#(##0 plane.  So, in a sense (while reading this novel) you come to expect what the next chapter will be.  Something bad happens, and then we get the explanation of why or how the bad thing happened.  You read along and think, "there's really no reason for this to be backwards."  It would still be a good story had it been going the "right" way.

Then you hit the last 5 or so chapters and you're Charlie Brown.  You have the kick lined up, you think you know what's going to happen, and that (*#$&R pulls the ball away.  The rather straightforward story you just read completely changes, maybe three times, in very quick succession (hopefully that's not too spoiler-y.  I mean, you had to know there would be a twist if you're reading a book that goes backwards in time).

In the "foreword" section (which is the last thing you read...  backwards and all), Deaver explains he was inspired by some of the great films where chronology is toyed with - Pulp Fiction, Memento, Back to the Future...  He wondered if it was possible for a thriller writer to pull off a backwards story.  And to that I say, you have succeeded, Mr. Deaver.  Mind is sufficiently blown.  

On 2013 - Top Three and Bottom One

So, 2013 has come and gone (10 days ago, I know I'm a little behind on the obligatory "year in review" type of post).  It was an entertainment filled year where I went to the theater to see more movies and read more books than 2012.  I hope to continue this trend in 2014.  

I see a lot of top 10 lists around (most of them posted timely around New Year's, but I'm behind on reading the blogs too).  I will cut the list down to the top three and bottom one.  Movies / Books are linked to my review where one exists.  

Movies (only counts if I saw the movie in the theater):

# 3 - Monsters University

I took my four year old to see this and she loved it.  I did too.  Even today, weeks after she received the movie on DVD over the holidays and we have more-or-less had this on TV any time Yo Gabba Gabba is not on, I still love it.  It is fun, funny, and one of the better sequels done by Disney.  Ok, what it teaches children may not be the best lesson in the world, but it's a fun movie filled with a lot of good laughs.  I mean, it's Revenge of the Nerds for kids.

I don't believe it.  I'm on a top of the year list!

# 2 - The World's End

These guys are comedy gold.  All three of the movies are completely different yet all carry similar humor, heart and over-the-top ridiculous goodness.   

Made the list.  Time to hit the pub!

# 1 - Pacific Rim

Giant Robots fighting Giant Monsters.  And Ron Perlman.  

I liked the movie this much!

Honorable Mention - The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug  

This loses a little ground in that to me it didn't live up to the first part, and was an hour too long.  

Bottom - Broken City

Maybe it would have been better had I not gone into the theater thinking it would be an action movie.  Probably not.  So.  Slow.  

Books (based on what I read, not year of release)

# 3 Demon Cycle (I need to cheat and use the series since I did a lot of series binging this year)

I never posted a review of these books, so I feel compelled to at least put a blurb here.  I was convinced I would not like the Demon Cycle books (great way to start a review, no?).  I read the premise and thought it really interesting.  And then I picked up book one.  It starts WAY in the past of the "present" storyline (though you don't know that at the time).  Thinking this is what the story would be, I knew I wouldn't like it.  But the present storyline comes on with a vengeance, and it grew on me more and more with each page.  

# 2 The Republic of Thieves 

Sabetha

# 1 The Lightbringer (again cheating with the series name)

Cliche cloaked man doesn't do justice to a FANTASTIC book series (love the coloring though)

Bottom - NOS4A2

I love Joe Hill, and it's really not fair that he holds this position as the bottom of my 2013 pile.  Heart Shaped Box and Horns are fantastic books.  NOS4A2 wasn't horrible, but it really didn't hold my attention as well as his prior works.  And I should add that being the bottom book I read in 2013 is not necessarily a terrible thing.  I had no 1 or 2 (goodreads) rated books in 2013.  I don't read 50 books a year, so I tend to make sure my selections will hold my interest whenever possible.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  2013 was a good book year for me.  I still highly recommend Hill's works, though maybe you pick up the other two books first.  

On Insane City by Dave Barry AND The House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz - REVIEWS

A quick two-fer.  

Insane City by Dave Barry

Synopsis (per Goodreads):  

Seth Weinstein knew Tina was way out of his league in pretty much any way you could imagine, which is why it continued to astonish him that he was on the plane now for their destination wedding in Florida. The Groom Posse had already sprung an airport prank on him, and he’d survived it, and if that was the worst of it, everything should be okay. Smooth sailing from now on.

Seth has absolutely no idea what he’s about to get into. In the next several hours, he and his friends will become embroiled with rioters, Russian gangsters, angry strippers, a pimp as big as the Death Star, a very desperate Haitian refugee on the run with her two children from some very bad men, and an eleven-foot albino Burmese python named Blossom. And there’re still two days to go before the wedding.

As it turns out, it’s not smooth sailing, it’s more like a trip on the Titanic. And the water below him is getting deeper every minute. By the end, amid gunfire, high-speed chases, and mayhem of the most unimaginable sort, violent men will fall, heroes will rise, and many lives will change.

Seth’s, not least of all.

Review:

Dave Barry writes characters so bizarre, so out-there, so unrealistic, that they are completely realistic.  His novels (and Insane City is no exception) read like some of the great movie capers - Clue, Oscar...  

Insane City carries that same...  insanity, and adds in a dose of The Hangover.  

A wonderful break from Fantasy / Sci-Fi.  Recommended.

The House of Silk: A Sherlock Holmes Novel by Anthony Horowitz

Synopsis (per Goodreads):

In freezing London, November 1890, Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson receive a man unnerved by a scarred-face stalker with piercing eyes. A conspiracy reaches to the Boston criminal underworld. The whispered phrase 'the House of Silk' hints at a deadly foe.

Review:

I need to admit that it was extraordinarily difficult to read through this without picturing Sherlock and Watson as Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. The novel (the first authorized by the Conan-Doyle estate) takes place in traditional Sherlockian times, but even with the imagery updated in my head to the contemporary BBC version of Sherlock, it still made sense and flowed well.  I suppose that speaks well of BBC's version of Sherlock and how close his character is to the original despite the large time differential.

The House of Silk is told by an older Watson, recollecting one last case that was too disturbing to tell in his times.  Thus it would not be discovered for 100 years, and here it is.  It is a fast read, with what you would expect in a Sherlock Holmes novel.  Horowitz did a good job doing justice to the character and I was glad to get another chapter of the great detective in anticipation for Sherlock season 3.

Also recommended.