Slightly Off the Mark

Three things were clear to me after watching James Gunn's version of "Superman":

 First, every future version of the Superman story, be it movie, TV show, or animated, should be required by federal law to utilize John Williams' 1978 score. They should even include the sheet music in the comics.

 Second, that dog stole every single scene it appeared in.

Third, James Gunn understands comic book movies.

This latest version of Kal El's story starts in mid fight, with Superman getting the worst of it. Gunn wisely avoids still another version of the origin story: It's been three years since Superman donned his colorful outfit, complete with underwear on the outside. As Clark Kent he's already a star reporter, dating Lois Lane and perfecting his alter ego. But as Superman he's overstepped his bounds by interfering in a foreign war, giving everyone's favorite arch-enemy, Lex Luther, the chance to sink his reputation.

Luthor's master class in villainy causes Superman to not only lose public support, but to question himself and his reason for being on Earth. Also, he can't get that darned dog to behave. Soon Supes is hitting rock bottom, part of Luthor's master plan.

 David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan fit right in as Superman and Lois, and in general the supporting actors do great. I had a little trouble warming up to Nicholas Hoult as Luthor, mostly because his voice was so different from Gene Hackman's, but by the end he was perfect. (Although the character's motivations seemed particularly petty, even for him.) Like Krypto, Nathan Fillion steals every scene he's in as Green Lantern Guy Gardner, a kind of anti-Superman from a personality standpoint.

 Milly Alcock has a fun cameo as a new hero, and Fillion's Gardner made for a great comic trio with Edi Gathegi as Mr. Terrific and Isabela Merced as Hawkgirl.

Speaking of those characters--the "Justice Gang"--that's one of the things Gunn does very well. He knew better than to jam major heroes like Batman or Wonder Woman into the first movie of a possible future franchise. Instead, he made a deep dive into comic lore for supporting characters who could be both interesting and fresh. When's the last time you saw Metamorpho in a live action show? I barely remember him from when I was reading comics.

Gunn also understands what made Superman great to begin with, and he took the character back to the beginning, to even before Christopher Reeve times. Superman isn't dark. Superman is a Boy Scout. Not only does Superman wear his underwear on the outside of his costume, he pauses in the middle of city-wide destruction to save squirrels. You want to enrage him? Kidnap his dog.

This is what makes "Superman" a great movie. It's a throwback in the best possible way, and it shows that  truly nice guy can still be the hero of the story. Not only that, but a movie starring that character can still be fun.

We can only hope this is the beginning of a universe every bit as entertaining as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, back in the day.  

You can read our books here:

·        Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0058CL6OO

·        Barnes & Noble:  https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/"Mark R Hunter"

·        Goodreads:  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4898846.Mark_R_Hunter

·        Blog: https://markrhunter.blogspot.com/

·        Website: http://www.markrhunter.com/

·        Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ozma914/

·        Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MarkRHunter914

·        Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markrhunter/

·        Twitter: https://twitter.com/MarkRHunter

·        Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@MarkRHunter

·        Substack:  https://substack.com/@markrhunter

·        Tumblr:  https://www.tumblr.com/ozma914

·        Smashwords:  https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/ozma914

·        Audible:  https://www.audible.com/search?searchAuthor=Mark+R.+Hunter&ref_pageloadid=4C1TS2KZGoOjloaJ&pf

Remember: Reading is the best super power.

I like my Batman about halfway between the camp of the TV show and the relentless pain and drama of the most recent movies: My favorite was the 1989 version. It's probably no coincidence that the first Michael Keaton Batman movie also gave us my favorite Joker, in Jack Nicholson. But that's all a matter of taste, of course.

In this version Batman is just two years into his crime fighting career, and already questioning whether he's doing any good in a crime-ridden Gotham City. Most of the police hate him (with the exception of Detective Jim Gordon, well played by Jeffrey Wright). His seemingly only employee, Alfred, warns of the Wayne fortune's impending collapse, and now a serial killer is sending the Batman notes with strange riddles along with the bodies.

One of Batman's nicknames is "The World's Greatest Detective", a part of his persona often ignored in screen versions. But this movie is more a detective story (and psychological thriller) than a superhero flick, and we get to see Batman using his powers of observation and detective skills as much as his fighting abilities and cool devices. He allies with Gordon and the enigmatic Selena Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) to find answers he might end up not wanting to know.

It slows the movie down compared to most superhero moves. In fact, Batman often resembles more of a mix of James Bond and Sherlock Holmes, as he follows clues and questions suspects.

I'm not a fan of making superhero movies more "realistic" ... they're superhero movies. In particular I'd like the villains to be at least a little bit more like the originals, although you can't fault the casting (including Colin Farrell, John Turturro, and Paul Dano.) Many were surprised at how good Robert Pattinson is as Batman, but not me--I remember the same criticism of comedy actor Michael Keaton, who's still one of my favorites to play the role. As Bruce Wayne, not so much--Pattinson plays him as a single minded and perpetually downbeat mess--although, to be fair, that's exactly what the character would be like at this point in his life.

So there it is: I found The Batman too bleak and grounded for my taste, and yet it's a brilliant film, evidence that "comic book movies" have grown up. I hear there might be a TV series spinoff from this movie, and yes: I'd watch it.

Make sure you wear an adult diaper, though--a lot gets packed into a bladder-filling three hours.

My Score:

Entertainment value: 3 1/2 M&Ms out of four. From the fights and chases to the characters and Gotham City itself, it's a treat--although it's dark both figuratively and literally.

Oscar Potential: 3 M&Ms. It should be four out of four--The Batman is full of Oscar level work.

Which came first? The DC Captain Marvel, or the Marvel Captain Marvel?

The answer is neither, kinda. Here's the full scoop:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-marvel-shazam-share-a-strange-past-1199825

Here's a quick recap: Captain Marvel came along in 1939, one of the very first superheroes and, for a time, one of the most popular. Put out by Fawcett Comics, the title outsold Superman and led to a whole family of Marvels who were called, collectively ... ahem ... the Marvel Family.

But National Comics Publications decided Cap (yeah, some called him that) was a rip-off of their creation, Superman, and the resulting lawsuit dragged on for twelve years. (Captain Marvel didn't shoot lightning bolts at the time, and his powers really were similar to Kal-El's. Their alter-egos were both news people, and their big adversaries were both bald evil scientists.)

By the early 50s superheroes were losing popularity, so Fawcett caved and just buried their hero forever. Or at least until 1973, when the Big Red Cheese (as his arch enemy called Captain Marvel) was bought by DC--formally National Comics. But by then Marvel had their own Captain Marvel--in fact, there have been at least six variations of that name, by at least four different publishers, if you include Captain Marvel, Junior.

So DC started calling their guy Shazam, at least on the cover, which meant he could never actually identify himself. "Hi, I'm Sh--um, let me write it down for you."

When I last read comics regularly, Captain--um, Shazam was a member of the temporarily more humorous Justice League, which was also my favorite incarnation and darn, why couldn't they have kept that humor in the DC movies? For Shazam! the movie they went back to that, getting humor from the fact that the red-clad superhero remains, underneath it all, a fourteen year old kid.

Whew. Lotta history going on.

Although I didn't realize it, Shazam! sticks closely to newer details introduced when DC made major changes in its lineup. The story still features Billy Batson (Asher Angel), an orphan who keeps running away from group homes in search of his mom. One day a Philadelphia subway takes him to a way unexpected stop: the lair of an ancient wizard (Eijmon Hounsou, who ironically was also in Captain Marvel) who's been unsuccessfully searching for a pure heart to take his power. Billy ... will do.

Unfortunately, one of the wizard's previous rejections, Dr. Sivana (Mark Strong) successfully finds the lair, and gives in to temptation there (a demon orb, which really should have been in a safe). Now he also has superpowers, along with a cadre based on the Seven Deadly Sins, and is seeking to take Billy's new power for himself.

The joy of the film is in seeing the full grown Shazam (Zachary Levi) learn and deal with his powers, while still acting like a boy in his early teens. Joined by another orphan, Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer), they experiment, have fun, and go just a bit overboard, until Shazam is brought back down to earth by his first honest to goodness villain, played straight and scarily by Strong.

Doctor Sivana, now and not quite so now.

As is my habit, I won't go much into the rest of the plot, but suffice it to say there's plenty of action and fun. However, I'd hesitate to let little kids go; the Seven Deadly Sin monsters are pretty darned scary, and there's a (funny) subplot involving Santa Claus that might not go over well with those who still believe.

It's a can't-miss cast, some of whom I can't describe because--spoilers. Special credit should go toward Billy's new group home family, including a group of awesome kids (and we all know kids in movies can sometimes be the opposite of awesome). My wife and I were especially happy to see a couple of favorite actors from favorite TV shows, although I won't describe who just in case others might get the same fun surprise we did.

Levi does an amazing job of bringing out the fourteen year old in the adult body, and he plays well with the ultra-serious Strong. There are plentiful shout-outs to the comics, but for the most part they don't interfere with the enjoyment for those who weren't already fans.

My Rating:

Entertainment Value: 4 out of 4 M&Ms. I'm not sure you can compare comic book movies these days, any more than you could compare, say, a romantic comedy to a romantic drama. I think I enjoyed this more than the other Captain Marvel, but wouldn't say it's better overall. Either way, I had a blast.

Oscar Potential: 1 out of 4 M&Ms. It's a great movie for what it is, but doesn't try to take itself seriously--which is the kiss of death as far as Hollywood recognition is concerned.