Dungeons and Dragons - Honor Among Thieves (movie review)

This is truly a Dungeons and Dragons movie. It is not just a medieval-Europe fantasy movie with the D&D name on it. It doesn't merely use lore from an official D&D setting (Forgotten Realms in this case). This really is the experience of D&D as a movie. 

You can see it in the way the plot is set-up and executed. You can see it in the way the main cast members interact. You can see it in the way battles play-out, especially with the magic. Yes, the magic system in the movie obeys similar rules as the game. It's a lot of fun to watch this play out.  Fun. To describe the movie in a word, that is what it is. This is a fun movie. 

Fitting for a movie sub-titled "honor among thieves", this movie can be called The Heist at a very high level. Edgin Darvis is a bard and he is putting a team together so they can steal from a dangerous and powerful individual.  As this mission develops, you can see the Game Master setting up the goals and challenges for the player party. Each set-piece is a challenge for the players to overcome through the use of their skills and their creativity and their teamwork.
Travel scenes are boring, so the Game Master typically skips over them.

This is a team that works together, but its members also bicker. There is a scene where they argue about the plan is going to be. That is precisely what it is like to be in a D&D party about to go on a mission; they argue about what to do and who is going to do what.  The scene in the battlefield graveyard, where they use the Speak with Dead spell, is quintessentially a party trying to find the information they need. 

Everyone gets their character moments; moments to shine and moments to roleplay are shared by all of the main cast, and no one interrupts. When Edgin is expositing on his backstory, he gets to do this bard thing (story-telling and persuasion) and he also dispenses Bardic Inspiration. Holga, a barbarian, gets to be a total badass in a fight scene with guards and also a personal roleplay scene with her ex-husband. Doric, a druid, has this amazing wild-shape chase scene. Yendar shows gets moments to be paragon of both mighty stoic warriors and compassionate holy warriors. Everyone gets their moment to be important and contribute to the success of the mission, because D&D is a communal experience; it is people coming together to tell a story together. 

Magic! There is legit D&D magic in this movie. I noticed Meteor Swarm, Polymorph, Misty Step, Gravity Reverse, Prestidigitation, and even Bigsby's Hand! Atunning to a magical item is a plot-point and it becomes an awesome moment, too. Blink and you'll miss it, but there is a clutch break-the-caster's concentration moment in the climax. 

Having said all this, it is not necessary to be a fan of D&D or to know anything about it to appreciate or understand the film. It works perfectly well as a generic fantasy adventure story. The "attuning to a magic item" thing I mentioned is presented as "I have to do this thing or the item won't work", which is all a viewer needs to know. Knowledge of D&D just makes for a richer experience. 

Trickster Eric Novels gives "Dungeons and Dragons - Honor Among Thieves" an A+

Brian Wilkerson is an independent novelist, freelance book reviewer, and writing advice blogger. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor's degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

His fantasy series, Journey to Chaos, is currently available on Amazon as an ebook or paperback.

Sword Art Online - Ordinal Scale review

Sword Art Online - Ordinal Scale is an amazing movie. Before watching it, I read a review that said it did a good job of using the franchise's strengths and avoiding its weaknesses. I agree with that sentiment.

 
The interacting of physical existence and digital existence, for instance, is well executed in the movie's augmented reality. It has many different uses beyond games like "Ordinal Scale", such as working as a GPS, counting calories in food, and staying in contact with A.I. friends. The game itself is part of this by allowing the player to be conscious while playing. This combines the appeal of games such as Sword Art Online (adventure, fighting monsters, earning treasure etc.) with vigorous physical excercise, and helps the players to stay in shape in the open air.

 
People who dislike Kazuto/Kirito for being an overpowered solo player will rejoice at seeing him make a fool of himself the first time he plays Ordinal Scale. Being a VR nerd, he is absolutely unsuited for combat in AR, and he doesn't become effective until his little sister puts him through a training montage. Even after that, his victories are a team effort.

I was happy to see the focus on Kazuto and Asuna's relationship. Since the end of Mother's Rosario, she has been urging him to meet her mother and the primary subplot, their character arc, is about a promise they made to each other while in Aincrad. When tragedy strikes, the depth of their bond is on full display and there are many tender moments.

The new girl, Yuna, shows absolutely no interest in Kazuto. Her character arc is entirely separate from him. He's not even the only player she asks for help, just the only one who figured out her message.

The story's villain is a quite a contrast with the usual. He is much more sympathetic in his goal and his methods show multiple motivations instead of the For The Evulz that previous villains have held.

The battles are fantastic. Most of them are against bosses from SAO that were not seen in the original cannon so there is no reptition. We also get to see Klein's guild, Furinkazan, in action. This means we see the truth of their status as a front-line guild. Their coordination is flawless.

Beyond the battles themselves the film itself looks fantastic. It is crisp, clean, bright and overall stunning.

If I had to name a flaw in the film, it is the speed by which Kazuto climbs the ranks of Ordinal Scale and becomes skilled enough to challenge its best player. It is a montage of what appears to be several days but could be longer. It's a little jarring but frankly, I see it as a Necessary Weasel based on the time constraits of the film itself.
 
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale" an A+


Click here for my review of the chronologically next story (or rather the start of it): Sword Art Online Volume 9 - Alicization Beginning



Brian Wilkerson is a freelance book reviewer, writing advice blogger and independent novelist. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

Movie Review: Legends of the Hidden Temple

Legends of the Hidden Temple began as a TV game show on Nickelodeon. When I was a kid, it was among my favorites. I loved watching it, especially the Temple Runs at the end of each episode. Now, imagine my delight when I discovered that there was a movie about the show that was basically a one-hour-long temple run!

This movie does a splendid job as an adaptation of the TV show. The idea of the challenge, the traps and puzzles of the rooms, the temple guards, the time-limit, Olmec as a guardian etc. all of it is translated into a "this is the real deal" adventure from the game format. Kirk Fogg is here too as a theme park tour guide.

Frankly, it's amazing how they fit parts of the show into this adventure. The team names were animals that lived in the temple, one of the kids is given a helmet by his parents just in case he jumps into something dangerous and needs it, the three minute count down, and, of course, Silver Monkey Shrine jokes. This is only a small sample. Fans of the show will love spotting these. I did, obviously.

Furthermore, it is not just a translation of elements. There is a cohesive narrative here. There's backstory to explain the purpose of the quest (for once, Olmec's stories include himself). The three siblings have character development (mostly the elder two). Yes, the plot is simple and straightforward, maybe even "bare boned" but it is solid. It has just enough to support the main event.

Trickster Eric Novels gives Legends of the Hidden Temple an A+

Click here for the previous movie review: Assassin's Creed (2016)

Brian Wilkerson is a independent novelist, freelance book reviewer, and writing advice blogger. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

Movie review: Assassin's Creed

I just saw this; like just now (I started writing this immediately after getting home). It was fantastic. It's hard for me to understand the negative reviews. I'll try to address them in my review but the main focus is going to be my own impression.

PLOT

The prologue does a good job of providing information about the series, the Assassin vs Templar war, and the Apple of Eden. There's this awkward text scrawl at the start but it passes quickly and the mission briefing for Aguilar is much more effective. There is no info dump anywhere around here.

Just like in the games, there are two plotlines: there is one in 1491 and one in the modern day setting of 2016. I don't think it is asking too much for audiences to follow two plotlines, and especially not when they interweave this much. The 1491 plotline follows the local chapter of the Assassin Brotherhood attempting to prevent a conquest of Granada by the Templars(via the Christendom coalition)  in addition to keeping the Apple of Eden stored there from falling into Templar hands. The 2016 plotline is the Templars researching the 1491 plotline through the Animus technology developed by Abstergo. Callum's personal plotline involves his conflict with his heritage, both in his father and his ancestor. It was interesting to see him introduced to this shadow war, gain information and waver back and forth on the fence before coming down on one side.  It's developed well in my opinion.


I like the use of the new Animus. Augmented reality with solid weapons instead of a chair makes sense from a Watsonian POV. Surely being able to move around and mimick movements and have something iconic in one's hand would aid the synchronization. The cutting back and forth aids the perception of synchronization as well as the concept of the Bleeding Effect (via muscle memory). Although, I can understand why some don't like it; it is kinda of jarring or even narmish to see Aguilar fighting real enemies in his present and then Callum lashing out at nothing and climbing aspects of a machine instead of Aguilar with a building. The first time the machine starts up is an extended process but that is just for the first time; likely so the audience can see how it works.


The game series as a whole has a grey-and-grey morality even if the individual games themselves do not. One can understand why Sophia wants to eradicate violence in humans at large while also  recognizing the extreme means and ends that she is working with and towards. It is easy to both sympathize with the ideas of freedom represented by the Assassins in general while also seeing that their methods are bloody (both for themselves and others).

I was not confused by the plot developments and had no difficulty following them. I thought there was sufficient exposition without going into info dump. I have a working understanding of the story's lore but I was also paying attention.

The ending is good. It is conclusive but it also has a sequel hook. Similar to the games, it is a single chapter in the ongoing war between Templars and Assassins.


CHARACTER

I like Callum Lynch. He's a complex guy; got a lot of layers. He's a Momma's Boy because he only has fond memories of her and something crucial regarding that happens in the main narrative. He has a mess of Daddy Issues because his Dad apparently killed his mom. He says that he is an aggressive guy but also that violence helped him stay alive which implies he would rather not be aggressive. He was "executed" for capital murder and yet it is the mercy that his assassin ancestor demonstrates that, to me at least, is the turning point in the climax.  He doesn't like the Brotherhood of Assassins or their Creed and comes to want to destroy them but then comes around to understanding them.


Sophia, likewise, is a complex Templar. She doesn't seem to care about the war with the Assassins and insists that Callum enter the Animus of his own violation despite her "life's work" hanging in the balance and the fact that time is not on her side.  It's more like convincing him to join her side, or at least her cause, and she wants to bond with him instead of using coercion and impersonal force like her father. It's the Templar goal of improving humanity by infringing on free will (in this case, the capacity and tendency for violence) but her methods and ideology are Assassin-like.

What I like about the Assassins in general is that they are impressive but not superhuman. It's like a deconstruction of Charles Atlas Superpower. Their training makes them skilled and strong and quick etc. but they are still human. It makes their commitment to personal sacrifice more meaningful because the sacrifice is often necessary.

Unfortunately, not everyone gets development. There are two plotlines and two casts so there's not enough screen time to go around. However, I feel that this resource was well utilized and that minor characters were given sufficient development for their role.


POLISH

This movie looks amazing. I'm talking about the practical effects for things like the Hidden Blade and Leap of Faith. "CGI slogfest" does not describe this movie. When reading reviews along those lines, it sounded more like a generic insult than something specific with this movie.

Trickster Eric Novels gives Assassin's Creed 2016 an A+

Click here for the next movie review: Legends of the Hidden Temple

Click here for my previous movie review: Doctor Strange (2016 MCU)

If you'd like to read my review of this movie's novelization, you can find it here.


Brian Wilkerson is a independent novelist, freelance book reviewer, and writing advice blogger. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

Movie Review: Doctor Strange

I saw Doctor Strange shortly after it came out. I will examine plot, character and polish before assigning a grade.

PLOT

How can anyone compared this movie to Iron Man 1? Here are the only similarities: Arrogant and brilliant rich guy gets injured somehow, his worldview changes, he develops new abilities and decides to become a superhero. That's it. That is all. It's high level, basic, general stuff, and it's going to be shared across a lot of stories. The reason for the arrogance, brilliance and wealth is different; the injury is different and has a different context. The way the worldview changes is different. The new abilities are different and the way that they are developed is even more so. Their enemies and how they deal with these enemies are different. Their natures as superheroes and why they make the decision and where they are at the end of their origin are all different. "How Dr. Strange is different from Ironman" could be its own blog post and it would likely be longer than this review here.
Anyone who has read my blog for a while knows my feelings on The Fruitless Quest for Originality.

 In sum, Marvel Studios is making super hero movies. Therefore, they will all share certain characteristics because they are in the same genre. That's a good thing. Superhero movies are what people go to see (yes, different people have different tastes and go for different things (like Loki) but all these things are under the same umbrella)).

Despite the previous paragraphs, there's plenty of original stuff here.
1. This the first MCU movie in the fantasy genre. Previously entries have all been science fiction or sufficiently advanced science at most. Now we have sorcerers and mystic threats like Dormmau.
2. Kaecilius is neither the "unstoppable monster" nor the "white guy in a suit" that I've heard critics complain about in regards to MCU villains. He's driven neither by greed nor ego nor fantastic racism but a sense of great personal loss. The villain revealed in the stinger is also quite different from anything else seen in the MCU so far.
3. Strange is a doctor, and unlike Bruce Banner, he IS that kind of doctor (i.e. medical) which means the Hippocratic Oath comes into effect. You will not find a climax resolution like this one anywhere else in the MCU.
　
The movie follows a steady and logical progression. I've heard some say that the manner of which Dr. Strange first heard about Kalma-Taj is an unbelievable coincidence and to that I say "miraculous recoveries are going to make waves and other patients looking for miracles are going to ask about them". There is no instant expert here' "study and practice; years of it" are what it takes to be a competent sorcerer and even shortcuts like photographic memory and reading books in astral form while your body sleeps only takes a novice so far so fast. Strange is outclassed by every sorcerer out there and he doesn't win via luck or asspulls (whether or not you consider the Cloak of Levitation to be one of those is YMMV).
　
The ending is great. Stephen Strange is all set up to act as Doctor Strange in future films but it doesn't have any of that Mighty Whitey stuff that people were worried about (the Ancient One is a more complicated topic) because of spoiler (I can discuss this with a reader privately if they would like to do so).  The stinger shows him in his classic costume and jumping into another dimensional threat adventure.

CHARACTERS

Strange is great. Benedict Cumberbatch did a great job with both the arrogance that Strange starts with and the selflessness that he develops. He has distinctive traits like his watch collection, insistence on the Hippocratic Oath and the bookwormness. The circumstances of his heroism are also well played. He is a different kind of hero than any other presently in the MCU; he's not an atoner (Iron Man), or a boy scout (Captain America), a proud warrior race guy (Thor), secret agent (Hawkeye) a dad trying to make ends meet (Ant-Man) etc. He's just a guy looking for a cure yet he still steps up to save the world.
　
Mordo is also great. I've heard he's a flat character in the comics but that is definitely not the case here. He's a mentor figure. He shows compassion but he has limits. He helps others and yet has some frightening inner demons. Even after he and Strange part ways in the end he is not a clear cut villain. There's plenty of room for an argument about him being an anti-villain. The plot of the movie is such that his What the Hell, Hero? towards Strange is both right and wrong at the same time.
　
Wong has a small role but it is still a meaningful one. He's this scary tough librarian and also a straight man. Yes, he's both of them.

The Ancient One is a classic mentor figure. It's very well done. She is a formidable sorcerer, a wise teacher and leader, she has gravitas but she is still human. She has plenty of her own flaws and mistakes.
　
Kaechilius is a multi-layered bad guy. He came to Kamar-Taj a broken man seeking power, much like Stephen Strange. He was welcome in, trained, and assisted in overcoming his tragedy. He did but in a way that made him a super villain instead of a super hero. However, he doesn't think of his plan as an Evil Plan and he has some basis for this. He wants everyone to be immortal so they don't experience the loss of family like he has. He makes quite a touching Motive Rant during a pause in his fight with Strange. There's a spoiler that grants him another layer.

POLISH

If there is one thing everyone agrees on it is the amazing, mind bending, visuals. Inception has nothing on Doctor Strange.
　
Trickster Eric Novels gives Doctor Strange (2016 MCU) an A+

For the next movie review, Assassin's Creed, click the title.

Movie review: Swan Princess - A Royal Family Tale

Swan Princess (number 5): A Royal Family Tale. Watched it out of curiosity because I remembered the first three films. I will examine Plot, Character and Polish and then assign a grade.

 PLOT

This is the most original/different of the Swan Princess sequels in terms of plot. There are no expies/former partners of Rothbart to serve as villains or holiday themes. Granted, the idea of a Chosen One prophecy is not original but I'm not thinking about that kind of scale but the scale of the series (you can see what I think about absolute originality at this here link). Also, Odette doesn't get kidnapped! Does that count as a spoiler? It's a point in this story's favor of altering the recipe established by the first three films.

The third point of difference is the sense of time. Every film following the first treated Derek and Odette as in the early stages of their marriage. The fourth film was about their first Christmas as a couple. This is the first one to go beyond that and give a sense of them being married for some time. Also, adopting a child certainly changes the dynamics. Again granted, Alise fills the Damsel In Distress role filled by Odette previously but having Odette being part of the rescue party is still a point of change; the fourth point of change. Another little spoiler alert: no changing into a swan this time (number 5!)

A sixth point is that there's a different sort of ending than the first three and the stock footage from the end of the first does not make an appearance here. That's a favorable thing about the switch to CGI right?

Enough about the differences. This plot itself is one that I like.

The plot of "chosen one preventing about a golden age" is classic medieval fantasy. Furthermore, that there is a band of rescuers with diverse skills (a hunter, a flyer, a chemist, etc.) further calls to mind the classic quest narrative.

Alise is not dropped in for the cute factor; she is well integrated into the story. The movie begins with Uberta saying I Want Grandkids and the main couple discussing it afterward. Alise' father is killed incidentally by the Forbidden Arts and Odette feels a kinship with her because of this. Alise herself does something to defeat the Big Bad.

 CHARACTERS

Alise is adorable. She is a cute little Woobie taken into the loving care of Odette and Derek. That the animators were able to convey so much emotion from her without having her say a word for 99% of the film is a credit to them. Her relationships with others are cute and sweet but not saccharine (YMMV of course).

Odette's more active role is much appreciated. In my opinion, she was always on the verge of it but plot hang ups interrupted it. It's not an Action Girl thing but a Plucky Girl thing mixed with All Loving Heroine. It's also a Mama Bear thing; in the words of Scully "there's no strength like a mother's love".

Derek is not an idiot for once. The movie's plot is not underpinned by some Idiot Ball like in previous movies ("What else is there?" to "I'll destroy the notes after the festival" and others). More perceptive with people and traps and doesn't go off alone anymore. Like with Odette, this character development is welcome in my book.

Scully the Scullion (i.e. Flying Squirrel) is my favorite character in this movie It is how his voice sounds both wise and comical. It is in his skill with potions.  It is the jokes he makes without reducing himself to mere comic relief.

 The villains are also a refreshing change of pace. Instead of an evil sorcerer and their single minion, a two person operation, there is instead something like a militant cult. Furthermore, the vast majority of them are well-intentioned extremists, which is also a first for this series.
 POLISH

 The CGI looks good in my opinion and main characters like Odette avert the No Flow in CGI thing regarding hair. I haven't seen the fourth film so I can't speak about its quality but the CGI here is good. After watching the first three films it can take some getting used to, that's all.

 Trickster Eric Novels gives Swan Princess (number 5): A Royal Family Tale an A+

Movie Review: X-Men Apocalypse

I watched X-Men Apocolypse during a weekend in May and my overall opinion is positive. There are flaws in the narrative but Its The Same Now It Sucks, is not one of them.  I will do my usual of examining Plot, Character, and Polish while also addressing flaws that I have heard and read. Then I will assign a grade.

PLOT

The prologue is fantastic. It is basically the climax of a different story with different heroes who enact their plan to defeat the Big Bad and save the day. Then there's this cool-looking "time tunnel" for the credits. It's a great start.

On the other hand, the movie's main narrative starts out divided. Normally, I take this as a bad sign because it shows a lack of focus. There's a scene with Scott's Cyclops powers awakening, then something in Poland with a guy who is implied to be Magneto. It's a "how is this relevant" sort of feeling. Then there's a scene with Apocalypse waking up and walking around Cairo.

The rest of the plot is more unified and focused. Even the Weapon X (Essex) thing fits in with the likely/logical response to what happened previously. Also, the plot doesn't follow a standard escalation. The final battle looked to be something pen-ultimate before the tables turned again.

I've read how the biggest criticism of this movie is that it deals with the same themes as previous X-Men movies and doesn't break any new ground. In response to that:

1.  All of These X-Men Films are X-Men Films
-->Of course, they're going to be similar in themes and problems and conflict etc. They're all working from the same premise. X-Men without Fantastic Racism is not X-Men. Diabolic villains that are not influenced by something relating to such a theme is likewise a minority in their Rogue's Gallery.

2. "Not Breaking Ground" is Not a Flaw.
--> Dismissing a film because it is not ground breaking is like saying everything has to be innovative in order to be worth something. If something is "not ground breaking" then that it is not a problem because the person with this mindset would toss something innovative away once they have experienced it.  Look up "Seinfeld is Unfunny" on Tvtropes to see what I mean. 

 I am disgusted every time I see a review that is negative solely (or even mostly) because the reviewer thinks it is "same-old same old". They will never, ever, find anything original; not in any medium. It may sound "fresh" to them because they haven't personally seen anything like it, or no one has done anything recently like it, but that does not make it original. A well constructed and executed paint-by-numbers piece is worth more (in my opinion) than an original piece of crap. 

 3. These Characters and Plots are Not Static
--> if you're still looking for broken ground, or at least something different from previous films, then you're not looking hard enough. For instance, Magneto's not the villain this time.  He's neither the Big Bad nor does he usurp the Big Bad's plan or become the next Big Bad. If you're paying attention, you'll notice that Magneto's role has been different in every movie and none more so than this one.

In regards to the villains, there has been plenty of diversity in villains. In fact, Apocalypse is the first "take over the world" villain in this series. The first movie was about turning humans into mutants, "X2" was a psychic genocide against mutants by a non-mutant, and "The Last Stand" focused on the mutant cure and the rampage of Dark Phoenix.  In "First Class", Shaw had this Nuke 'Em option which probably would have killed everyone (mutant and otherwise) and in "Days of Future's Past" there is the Sentinel plan which goes horribly wrong and wipes out everyone. Apocalypse is unlike all of them. 

 

 

In terms of flaws, I would point to the divided narration after the prologue and the lack of set up for Jean's Phoenix Force. There are a few indications of it before it comes to the fore.

 The Ending is great. There is resolution to the Apocalypse conflict but both smaller personal problems remain and the larger struggle for mutant-human coexistence continues.

CHARACTERS

Xavier. It's interesting to see him in this film because it is half way between what he was like in ''First Class'' and how he appears in the first X-Men movie of the original trilogy. He's started the school, become this All Loving Hero teacher and he's in a wheelchair but he's still (comparatively speaking) young and inexperienced.  He's started down the path of becoming the "wise old sage" Professor X is generally known as but he is still young and still tender, so he's kind of a student too.  He's also not a Wide-Eyed Idealist. He is still The Idealist but not wide-eyed.  He shares Erik's fears about mutant oppression but he is confident that they can be overcome.

Raven has evolved into a counterpoint to her foster brother. Instead of teaching control and self-acceptance in a safe mansion bubble, she is out in the trenches rescuing mutants from human cruelty. She urges him to teach his students how to fight; not to go to war but to prepare for a war.  You could say she is the Realist to Xavier's Optimist.

Erik is cynic.  He's tried Xavier's way and it cost him his family a second time. He even tried the "protect those that fear you" thing when saving a co-worker. Now he's back to working on mutant supremacy. It's kind like of like watching someone fall back into addiction after being sober for a while. Yes, he's done awful things and, yes, he adds a few more in this movie, but he's not a monster. He's someone that has been broken by grief, several times, and recruited by someone evil when he was at a moment of weakness.

POLISH

It looks amazing. Whoever put together Quicksilver's "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)" scene deserves an award.

Trickster Eric Novels gives X-Men Apocalypse an A+

The previous movie review is Ant Man

Brian Wilkerson is a freelance book reviewer, writing advice blogger and independent novelist. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

Movie Review: Antman is a mega fun

I watched Ant-Man on the day it came out, but it is only now that I have time to review it. This is a heist movie taking place after Avengers: Age of Ultron concerning the Pym Particle technology for shrinking things. I will examine Plot, Character, and Polish and then assign a grade.

PLOT

First of all, I want to dispel any misconception that this movie is a re-tread of Ironman. While it looks similar due to both the hero and his evil counterpart wearing powered armor and the conflict is over the armor's proper use there are numerous differences. The most important of which is that this movie is a heist movie. It revolves around a plan to steal the prototype Yellow Jacket armor from Daren Cross and delete all the data on it so another cannot be built. The second is that Daren Cross is a legitimate creator of the Yellow Jacket; Hank Pym refused to tell him the formula or even confirm that it was a real thing and not just a hoax, so he reinvented it. The roles of Iron Man and Iron Monger are then, in part, the opposite in this film. A third point is the difference in cast but that will be in the CHARACTERS section.

I like the plot because I think it is has a sound foundation and built up. The Evil Plan is established, Scott is recruited, trained to stop it, the plan develops and then the heist is carried out.
Personal conflicts and arcs are wrapped around this basic structure to flesh it out and give it meat. It can be both silly ("Baskin Robins Always Finds Out")  and profound (The speech about second chances).

The ending is satisfying. It closes the conflict of this movie while pointing to new adventures for Ant-Man in future MCU projects. 

CHARACTERS

Scott Lang is about as far away from Tony Stark as one can get. He's much closer to Average Joe than the "genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist" in both his everyday demeanor and the world that he inhabits, which includes roommates and annoying retail jobs. The only reason he's included in Hank Pym's plan, is because he is both trustworthy and expendable. In fact, I'd say he has more in common with Steve Rogers.
This is what made him so engaging and interesting as a character. Scott Lang is truly a hero for the little guy. He's not a famous war hero, a (demi) god, enormous green rage monster, a super spy, etc. He's just a guy in a suit and he didn't even make the suit.  What he is underneath the suit is just as heroic as anyone else in the MCU.  Enough comparisons with other heroes; Scott stands on his own without them.
He is quite the devoted father. It's clear that his daughter Cassie means the world to him. All of their scenes are adorable. He has a streak of self-depreciating humor that is shown most prominently during his scene with Falcon. For a third point, he's a modern day Robin Hood.


Hank Pym is a grouchy old man but it's easy to see the rusted heroism inside of him. He plays a Big Good role in this film directing and training Scott. His dynamic with his two apprentices has Star Wars overtones (the bad original one and the good new one), which is cool.

Luis, Kurt, and Dave, A.K.A. "The Three Woombats", are great for comedy, but they are also more than just funny guys. They're skilled at what they do and, aside from their (off-screen) petty crimes, heroic in and of themselves.

Darren Cross makes for a great mix of hamminess and villainy while also distinct from other MCU villains. He has this Well Done Son Guy complex with Hank, but at the same time, it's more of a Surpassed The Teacher sort of thing. His offhand comment about "morning meditations" also sticks out.

Hope Van Dyke is an interesting character because, as she points out, she is far better suited to be The Hero of this story than Scott. She works at the place, she knows the technology, she has Cross's trust, and she knows "how to punch".  This leads to a More Hero Than Thou with her father for the first half of the film. Scott takes the role not because he's better qualified, as would be the case in another film, but because he is expendable.
She's not a love interest. The make out with Scott at the end occurs off screen and so quickly that it's more a joke than honest romance or ship tease. Her reconciliation with her father is by far the more important relationship in terms of emotional content (just like how Scott's relationship with his own daughter is more important to him).  However, if there's an Ant-Man II, I imagine that this will change because there's a Generational Xerox thing going on with Ant-Man and Wasp.

POLISH

As has become standard with Marvel Studios, this movie looks fantastic. It has smooth pacing, it has great special effects, and hilarious jokes.

Trickster Eric Novels gives Ant-Man an A+

The next movie review is X-men Apocalypse

Brian Wilkerson is a freelance book reviewer, writing advice blogger and independent novelist. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

Movie Review: Avengers 2 Age Of Ultron

I saw Age of Ultron the other week and so now I can continue with my reviews of movies from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This one will cover plot, characters and polish and then assign a grade.

PLOT

This movie has a different pace and momentum than the previous. Starting out with a battle against HYDRA, it lulls for for a funny party at Avenger's Tower where Ultron is created, shows up and rebels. Then there is a series of confrontations followed by a climax. I like this approach because it makes it different from the previous film. There is certainly no sense of formulaic or paint by number stuff going on here. Only the most basic sense of storytelling tools like Rising Action and Climax followed by Falling Action and Resolution.

Also, the Evil Plan is certainly more complex. Loki's goal in The Avengers was basically to open a path for an alien invasion. Here we have a Well Intentioned Extremist upgrading himself while working on a Social Darwinist thing to "bring peace in our time" as his creator instructed. If Ultron's motives or reasons or goals seem to shift frequently, that's not bad writing. That is good writing because it showcases Ultron's personality in this verse. For one, he's crazy, for two, he's manipulating the twins by withholding his true goal and three, he simply changes his mind the Avengers steal his Vision.

Battle scenes are amazing, as has become standard with the MCU. My favorite is two part. One of them is the Hulk vs the Hulkbuster armor. The other involves a Hold The Line involving the Avengers and a couple new allies.

I don't see the problem with the Natasha/Bruce romantic angle. Given what she says, it makes sense (though a nod to Betty would have been nice). I don't see the "sterilization" thing as misogynistic at all. Isn't the fact that she it happened at all mean that the Red Room considers her value far and away outside her ability to produce children?

Ending is great. There is resolution to the conflict and then a springboard to the solo films of Phase 3. It's a shifting of narrative weight that provides both closure and excitement for the next installment.


CHARACTERS

Ultron is a fantastic villain. He looks menacing with his robotic stuff and he certainly puts up an impressive fight in physical combat while carrying out a multi-pronged Evil Plan. He has the snark comedy (very well delivered by James Spader) and making this even better is that he gets it from his "father" Tony Stark, and he hates being compared to him. On one hand he's this sinister philosopher villain and then he goes and does something goofy or childish like the "smaller people" line. A combination of insanity, immaturity mixed with great knowledge, and a dash of obfuscation and manipulation, and the true extent of his Evil Plan remains flexible and mysterious.

The Avengers continue to perform well. They are a better oiled team than in the first movie, as natural because they've been working together against HYDRA for some time now, but there is still tension. Iron Man's "peace in our time" philosophy clashes with Captain America's "don't try to win wars that haven't started" philosophy. With knowledge that Captain America 3: Civil War is coming, you know that this is where it starts.

Hawkeye gets great development here. Not only is he a badass archer and secret agent, but he's also The Heart of the team and a family man to boot.

POLISH

This movie looks amazing, both in battle scenes and in quiet scenes.

Trickster Eric Novels gives Avengers: Age of Ultron, an A+

Review for Avengers 1 can be found here

Godzilla original (1954)

I watched the original Godzilla after watching the 2014 Reboot because I wanted to gain perspective. For the record, I will point out that it was the unedited Japanese version "Gojira" rather than the Americanized "King of the Monsters". I will examine plot, character, and polish and then assign a grade. Comparisons to the 2014 reboot will follow when necessary.

PLOT

This film has a horror/mystery sense to it. The early scenes are dedicated to figuring out what's going on and how to deal with it. The scenes jump between numerous groups before settling on Emiko and Dr. Serizawa. This gives a greater sense to the immensity of the problem of Godzilla. Even when he's not on screen, people are affected by his presence; daily living decisions have to account for this monster.
This sort of atmosphere is missing in the 2014 reboot, which tries too hard to make the audience care about the Brody family. The soldier going home plot is a parallel and competing plot thread with the "rampaging giant monsters" thing instead of contributing to it.

This original film has a moral dilemma that makes its conflict poignant. Godzilla was awakened by a super weapon, nuclear bombs, and the only feasible way to stop him is with another new super weapon, the oxygen destroyer. If its existence is revealed, then it too would ravage the world as others would seek to use it in the future. The anguish that Dr. Serizawa  feels as he watches Godzilla rampage is finer than any drama film I've ever seen.
It's also missing in the reboot. Instead we have stuff like "This giant monster is the consequence of nukes so we're going to hit it with a bigger nuke." Only the new Dr. Serizawa realizes how stupid this sounds. It's Godzilla's gravitas that's missing. No one gives him the respect/fear he deserves until the end of the movie. "King of Monsters-Savior of our City?" is one of my favorite parts.
It's the MUTO that feel like the main monster in the reboot. Their first destruction and casualty causing is in a nuclear plant. Then they raid a nuclear waste facility and steal an armed warhead and bring it into a heavily populated area. It's like they stole Godzilla's shtick. He himself feels like a side note in comparison. This is another point in the original's favor and against the reboot.

The climax has a great emotional pitch. Dr. Serizawa  uses his invention and in such a way that it will never be misused. It's quite an achievement that he can make his own (off-screen) death more dramatic and compelling than the giant monster being stripped to the bone.
The final line is about the possibility of other Godzilla and how irresponsible uses of nukes could wake another one up. It is very much in line with the rest of the movie, both in message and in tone.
The reboot feels confused about its climax. It's messy. The humans scurry around like ineffective ants and Godzilla simply leaves after killing both MUTO. The message, if any, is as follows: If confronted with two or more hostile giant monsters, "Let them fight".

CHARACTERS

A success of the original film is how it personifies the common japanese citizen. Instead of forcing an everyman audience surrogate who is supposed to represent everybody, there are numerous small scenes. There's the old fisherman talking about old legends, there's the woman and her Famous Last Words next to her children, the reporter with his Dead Line News, the council trying to get a handle on things and decided what to do with the information they have, the team that analyzes the footprints and such. It's a lot of non-protagonist attention and it works much better than the reboot's obsession with the Brody family.

Dr.Serizawa is fantastic. Despite his isolation, eye patch, and oxygen destroyer, he's not a stereotypical mad scientist. He's a morally upstanding guy who wants to make the world a better place, and just happens to stumble upon a potential super weapon. He really doesn't want to be come a "destroyer of worlds" and at the same time he can't stand watching Godzilla rampage.
His actor does a great job as well. He's cold and aloof to the reporter but it's clear to see his anguish in private. The expression he makes when he burns his research notes is tragic; it's like he's building building his own funeral pyre. You can see him mentally preparing himself for his heroic sacrifice.
I see Brody Sr as his reboot counterpart. He is someone I would like to see more off. As I stated in my previous review, he has the passion and motive that could have made him a compelling character. I can imagine him and Godzilla forming an Enemy Mine situation to kill the MUTO; the former for revenge and the later for a meal.

Ogata is also good. He's a got a job to do and he does it, even if it means confronting giant radiation breathing monsters. He makes a great contrast with Dr.Serizawa. He's like "I get your Scale of Scientific Sins problem, but people are dying."
You could say that Brody Jr is his counterpart in the reboot. He's a soldier, he has family issues, and he's trying to kill the monsters. The difference is that the reboot forces the movie to follow Brody Jr to the expense of other characters. This weakens the movie.

POLISH
This is where the original movie losses points with me. Given the era and the movie's budget, the special effects are silly. When you get a good look at Godzilla's face, you see googly eyes. The destruction of cities and such are clearly model sets. I remember a scene where a car crashes and, mid-frame, it transforms into a toy. The rampage is still effective but only when license is given for the real life context.
In that respect, the reboot blows the original out of the water. Godzilla and the MUTO truly look like a giant reptile and insects instead of men in rubber suites. The atomic breath is breath-taking in its awesomeness. The destruction couldn't look more real and devastating. If there's one thing I can praise without reserve about the reboot then it is how it brought life and immensity to Godzilla and his two giant monster foes.

Trickster Eric Novels gives "Gojira" an A

I watched the 2014 reboot because I've heard a lot about Godzilla but never watched one of the films. The closest I'd come was the cartoon series based on the 1998 film. So I bought the original. In the time to come, I'm going to go through the rest of the franchise. Perhaps then I will have a different perspective on the 2014 reboot. Until then, you can read what I think about it in the previous post: Godzilla 2014 review

Godzilla 2014 review

I watched the 2014 reboot of Godzilla a few weeks back. It was my first Godzilla movie. Before that my only Godzilla experience was watching the animated series (featuring the son of Zilla) when I was a kid. It wasn't quite what I was expecting so I did a little reading while composing the first draft of this review. I decided to watch the very first Godzilla movie (Japanese original, not  "King of Monsters" adaption) before finishing this review.  Next week, I'll post a review for the original, kind of like what I did with the original and reboot of Robocop.

 
PLOT
 
What we have here is jumbled. The prologue starts in 1954, in the ocean. Then it jumps forward half a century to the Philippines, and then another time and space jump to Japan and then another of fifteen years to America. At the start of the first act, the protagonist then immediately goes back to Japan. As if that weren't enough, the movie shifts back to America a couple scenes later. It's disorienting and it makes the movie feel like it's confused about its identity.
 
The focus on Ford Brody increases the confusion. He is only tangentially related to the MUTO or Godzilla by way of his father's research. After his father's death, he spends a good portion of the movie simply trying to go home and this coincidentally puts him in the MUTO and/or Godzilla's path. There are frequent splits between traveling and MONARCH working with the Japanese and/or American military trying to get a handle on the giant radioactive monster situation.
 
The plan to kill both monsters is stupid. You have a creature that feeds on radiation and your plan is to throw a nuke at it. This is despite the fact that the first scenes of the movie is a similar plan failing. The scientists point this out, and the military basically says "that plan failed because we didn't throw big bombs at them". 
Considering the solution and its dilemma in the original, I wonder if the writers for this reboot watched it. If they did, they've either forgotten or didn't care.
The MUTO steal the warheads, take them to a heavily populated city, and the military has to radically adjust their plan to getting the bomb out before it goes off. Dr. Ishiro Serizawa says "let them fight" and this time the military listens.


Now, about Godzilla and his treatment in this film. I say the following after having watched the original uncut Godzilla (Gojira) in the original Japanese (with English subtitles).

I understand the whole "build up anticipation" thing and "nothing but action gets boring" thing.  It works very well in the original. The problem in this movie is that it is not "sneak peaks" and instead teasing. When viewers see a full body shoot of Godzilla, hear him roar, and he's facing another monster, they expect to see a fight. Instead, the film immediately jumps forward to after the fight and only shows a couple seconds in a in-universe TV. That's not delayed gratification. That is laziness and saving on the budget.

I think the Monster Delay trope works well in the original. I don't think it's handled well here. At least, it's not in regards to Godzilla. The MUTO are handled better. That early scene where they cause the tragedy at Janjira is perfect as an introduction scene. It has alarms, mechanical destruction, and all that stuff that is nice to set up danger. A couple scenes later, there is a dark and shadowy scene where a MUTO fights soldiers. That's also good. Everything else until the climax is simple chain jerking.
 
The ending feels...off. After killing both monsters, Godzilla goes back into the sea. Since he was described as an "apex predator" I would have liked to see him eating the dead MUTO.

CHARACTERS

There isn't much to talk about in regards to characters. The military guys, including our protagonist Ford Brody, are kinda dull and interchangeable. The scientists guys are mostly here for exposition. The civilians, like the Brody family, are here to scream and run away. This is the case for the better part of two hours.

Ford Brody feels like a plot prop. He emphasizes how isolated his father has become in his search for the truth of the Janira Incident. He provides a piece of knowledge to MONARCH after his father dies. He enables the plans for the nukes because he's a bomb disposer for the military. Besides this skill and his marriage, there's nothing to his personality but Stoicism. He watched his dad die when they were on the verge of reconciling and this doesn't matter for more than a scene and only because MONRACH needs the above state nugget of knowledge.

He doesn't seem to care that there are giant monsters running around and at times it sounds like he wants to leave the story entirely and fade into the background like one more civilian.

The problem I have with this movie, and all the Word of God and hyper defenders and apologists of it, is just this. They talk about the minimal Godzilla and monster fighting because they want something more human, emotional, and True Art instead of sheeple-pleasing CGI and destruction. YET THE HUMAN CHARACTERS DO NOT DELIVER. Thus, it sounds like an excuse to save on special effects than anything "artsy".

 The one exception to this is Dr. Brody. He is a passionate man. He has a connection to the plot through the Janjira Incident. He has a personal tragedy and a drive to overcome it that makes him cheery worthy. I don't understand why the plot starts with him and then time skips fifteen years to focus on his son. The only reason could be to prove that Anyone Can Die, but you'd think that they wouldn't hand protagonist duties over to someone as uninvolved in the plot as Ford.

The giants monsters, MUTO and Godzilla alike, are stronger characters than Ford despite their lack of lines and screen time. They are more active characters to be sure. They have a plan and carry it out. Despite being on screen for less than ten minutes out of two hours, they carry the entire movie. Without them, there would be no movie. The humans are interchangeable and lesser in importance. If you want a disaster movie, use a tornado or something.

POLISH

The pacing is funky. It's like start and stop in a car. If the climax were the only scene to have the monsters, that would have been sufficient. My problem is the constant jerking away.

Godzilla and the MUTO look great. The revealing shot of Godzilla, in particular, is fantastic. Starting with the foot of stomping, trailing up the body to show a full shot and cap it with a roar. It was awesome! Now if only they didn't cut away until after the fact. Seeing them on TV is a let down, and now that I think about it, a Take That against the audience.

The final battle is also awesome. There's an extended full fight between Godzill and both MUTO. The Big G's breath weapon looks amazing. Watching the soldiers HALO jump into their midst and sneak into the MUTO nest was also pretty cool.
 
Trickster Eric Novels gives Godzilla 2014 a C

I might as well say right now that I prefer the 1954's original, man-in-a-suit and all. You can see why in my next post: Godzilla 1954 original

Movie Review: Captain America the Winter Soldier

I reviewed phase 1 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe so now I will review Phase 2, in between book reviews of course. This one here is for Captain America the Winter Soldier.

PLOT

The basic thrust of the film is Steve Rogers investigating the assassination attempt on Nick Fury and a possibile conspiracy within SHIELD. Joining him on this mission is fellow avenger Natasha Romanof and a new friend, Sam Wilson. Thus, it has a much different feel to it than his original. It is a spy movie instead of a war movie, which again, reflects Steve's temporal status as the "Man Out Of Time".

 I watched a Marvel feature which pointed out that, unlike Thor 2 and Iron 3, this sequel will be truly different from the first because Steve Rogers is the "Man out of Time". He can't go back to his original setting after saving the day. This greatly informs the plot in many ways.
-->For one thing, it's funny. The running gag of Steve not getting modern cultural references is continued here: the first scene shows that he has a notebook of things he's missed and wants to understand. Then, much later, he understands when Natasha makes a War Games reference.
-->It's also dramatic. Steve comes from a time where there was a clear line between "good guys" and "bad guys" but here he starts to wonder if SHIELD is the former or the latter. As shown in many of the advertisements, he says "This isn't freedom, this is fear."

There's a theme Order vs Chaos in this film and it's played with to a greater extent than many examples. Both SHIELD and HYDRA represent Order in different aspects, the Knight in Sour Armor and the Knight Templar, respectively, and both of them are opposed to an nameless and shapeless Chaos. It's basically Fear and Lack of Control that they're opposing. In pursuit of this goal, they force Captain America and his allies into a form of heroic Chaos, who in turn, are trying to return the setting to a nobler Order.

I didn't find any plotholes, fridge logic, or otherwise anything not structually sound plotwise. I looked but I couldn't find anything.

Considering the bomb shell that is dropped here, Marvel Studios does an admirable job closing the movie's initial conflict. At the same time, they drop a number of sequel hooks. Simultaneously, I am delighted at the closure of one MCU project and I'm excited for the next.

CHARACTERS
This movie is the first to truly examine Steve's Fist out of Temporal Waters problem. Avengers throws him right into the plot of alien invasion. Here we see how he's adapting; learning how to use the internet, catching up on things he missed, and enjoying the much better food and lack of polio.

He's also a SHIELD agent and there is significant friction betwee him and his boss, Nick Fury. It's like a Knight in Shining Armor working for a Knight in Sour Armor. What I like about his portrayal here is how he be Captain America, this paragon of virtue and integrity, without becoming a cheesy and/or jingostic figure.

This is also the first film to take a solid look at the internals of SHIELD and its agents. Nick Fury, for instance, is shown in his capacity as Director of SHIELD instead of Recruiter of Avengers. We see the sort of things he does and the politics that he has to manipulate. There's also more about the man himself and his history. Then there's Natasha Romanof. While we still don't know what happened in Budapest with Hawkeye, more light is shed on her past and she herself is further developed as a character.

As for villains, it's quite a contrast with the original, and again, it makes a poigant statement for our Man Out Of Time. Red Skull was a megalomaniac Obviously Evil Take Over the World kind of guy. The villain for this movie is subtler, more sinister, and therefore more dangerous. Alexander Pierce pulled the wool over on someone as paranoid and crazy prepared as Nick Fury, and his Project Insight is much scarier than the Chitarui invasion. Aside from the fact that it has flying and self-sufficent aircraft carriers, it feels like something that could happen in real life, or the near future at any rate. What's worse, he used an organization that was supposed to protect the world from people like him to do it.

POLISH

This movie looks and sounds amazing. From the hand-to-hand between Captain America and the Winter Soldier, to the Helicarrier muntions, to Sam's Falcon suit, it's all breathaking.

The pacing is good too. We get a ground level view of what the world is like for Steve, then the plot builds up into a intriguing spy thing that becomes another epic climax.

For those that scorn "mindless superhero genre action" there's plenty of emotional moments here; plenty of scenes showcasing conflicting philosophies.

 Trickster Eric Novels gives "Captain America the Winter Soldier" an A+

Old and New RoboCop

Two weeks ago I watched Robocop 2014 (my review for it can be found at this link) and last weekend I watched Robocop 1987. Many reviews of the former are written from the perspective of the latter, and so I thought it would be fun to do the opposite. There will be plot, characters and polish before I assign a grade.

PLOT

I found the 2014 plot to be tighter than the 1987 plot.
In the 1987 version, you have many plot threads: (1.) There's the Old Man wanting to make Delta City on the decayed ruins of Old Detroit, (2.) Rick Jones promoting his 209 series, (3.) the rivalry with Bob Martin's RoboCop program, (4.) the hedonism of Boddicker's gang, and 5.) the non-sequitor news segments all in addition to (6.)  RoboCop's war on crime and (7.) struggle to regain his humanity. All together, it makes Robo feel overshadowed simply because there is so little time focused on him. I like it, make no mistake about that, but the 2014 plot line is more streamlined and so it feels more put-together.
In the 2014 plotline, everything relates back to Omni Corp's desire to sell robots in America. (1.) The Novak Element is about making robots look good and humans look bad, (2.) Robocop's war on crime is about proving robot effectiveness and (3.) his balance between human and robot is a deliberate PR move to warm people to the idea of robot law enforcers. (4.) Antoine Vallon's gun smuggling business is used to demonstrate the "Human Cops Are Corruptible" angle vs. the "Soulless Robot" angle.

There's satire and political commentary on both sides but, as with the plot, the 2014 version is more focused. It takes the mocking stick and pokes it directly into corporate political lobbying. Robocop is exclusively used by Omni Corp as a Public Relations stunt in order to sway public opinion and enable them to sell their purely robotic law enforcers on American soil. The point is selling these robots to fight crime in America, instead of the two step "clear out crime and then start an urban renewal project" with its corporate rivalry and backstabbing.

The 1987 version has many more targets. There's consumerism from all those commercials, criticisms of those that enjoy ultra violence (the gang's torturing of Murphy and blowing up cars while gleefully laughing), and corporate corruption shown best in the "bitches, leave" scene which involves snorting cocaine from a prostitute's breasts and culminates with Boddicker blowing him up because Rick Jones paid him too.

The criminals (corporate and otherwise) are also focused on different targets and both times they create a parallel.

Back in 1987, Robocop crushed a cocaine factory in pursuit of his killers and he was originally killed chasing bank robbers. The corporate side of things had Bob Martin snorting cocaine and Dick Jones planning to sell a white elephant that needed lots of service and spare parts, i.e. robbery.  ("Who cares if it works!?")

In 2014, the focus is on selling weapons. Alex is blown up because of a sting he did on illegal guns that he traced to the evidence bin in the police department, pointing to corrupt cops. On the corporate side, we have Omni Corps (possibly) bankrolling the Novak Element to give them good press and twisting the arms of politicians to influence legislation. Both sides talk about their need to push "product" and their product is weaponry.
It's worth noting that the cops in 1987 version were only "corrupt" in so far as they were owned and operated by OCP.

In both films there's the issue of robot replacements for police officers. In the 1987 version, the police are afraid of that happening and yet they go on strike, which causes anarchy. In the 2014 version, this is explicitly what Omni Corp plans to do but with pure robots instead of more Robocops. There's no talk of a strike, but perhaps that's because the police aren't privatized in the remake and "public servants can't go on strike".

Considering the twenty seven year difference between the two, there's a case of Technology Marches On between them.
In the 1987 version, you have wonder how Robo Cop arrives Just In Time to stop crimes like the convenience store robbery, the attempted rape in the alley, and then the robbery at the Gas Station. It's too quick for a police radio. The 2014 version resolves this problem of narrative necessity by giving him surveillance feeds. There are cameras all over the city and so RoboCop can monitor large sections of it at once and cycle through all of them quickly.

On the other hand, this means he doesn't need the data spike which means he doesn't get the data spike. After watching the 1987 version, I was disappointed that I didn't see it in the 2014 version. In addition to accessing data, it can stab people like a dagger and flip the bird to other people. It's a multi-purpose tool.

I believe these differences are based in the different times they were produced in. When the first one came out, I wasn't old enough to talk so I can't speak for that era. However, the 2014 version's talk of the War on Terror, laws governing the use of unmanned drones, and mouth piece news programs, is much more familiar to me than Detroit's crime problem, privatized police forces, and abandoned steel mills.
Also, a story about a robotic policeman is naturally going to make more sense in the era that has more advanced technology.

On a minor note, there's in-universe reasons for his differing levels of robotization. It's minor because it's a small detail but I've seen it brought up in reviews and Tvtropes so I'll address it here.

In the 1987 version, the scientists were excited about saving his left arm but Bob Martin, who wants a robot, insists on removing it for a full body change. In the 2014 version, Peter Sellers insists on saving the right hand because he wants a human effect for the PR Boost. In a deleted scene, he says, "you can tell a lot about a guy by his handshake." This fits the tone of both movies: impersonal product vs. appealing PR spectacle.


 CHARACTERS

In 1987, Murphy has the TJ Lazar gun twirling trick. It may have come from a children's show but it is a distinct and more importantly "humanizing" thing. It was something only he did and he did it because his son thought it was cool and "I get a kick out of it." It remains after his mind was wiped and connects him to his memories as a family man.

Murphy 2014 has no such trait, but he compensates by spending more of the movie as himself instead of as RoboCop. Indeed, he is only called "Robocop" in a "Good Cop Bad Cop" joke by Lewis. Thus, we see more of him as he was/is and how his persona responds to increasing levels of robotization.

The portrayal of Murphy's family are polar opposite.
In the 1987 version, we only see them in memories. They've long since moved away. This is a great sense of loss for Murphy personally and means he has fewer people to interact with. More of his identity is gone because they are gone.
In the 2014 version, they are a more substantial presence. It is his wife that signs the consent form that transforms him and she helps him make the initial adjustment.  It is also his wife that triggers his "reboot" so to speak after his dopamine levels are artificially lowered.

In the 1987 version, the people who transform Alex Murphy into Robocop are background characters. They have no names and disappear once Robocop begins investigating his own murder. We learn nothing about them. The corporate guys take center stage.
In the 2014 version, the transformation team is condensed into Dr. Dennett Norton and his assistant. Dr. Norton is one of the main characters because he is the one programing Robocop and he is the lynchpin between Robots-Fighting-For-Justice and Corporate-Bottom-Line.  I place him in the top three with Peter Sellers and Robocop himself.


 POLISH

There's no doubt that 2014 version looks better. Even with nostalgia goggles, it is impossible to state that its special effects are inferior to 1987 version.  The 209 in the original looked silly but they look sinister in 2014.  The battles between them and Robocop are thrilling as opposed to funny.

Personally, I prefer the 2014 version but they're both great movies.  B+

Movie Review: 2014 Robocop

This week's post will be different than usual. I watched the 2014 Robocop yesterday and I want to share my thoughts about it. While I was debating whether or not to give it a shot, much of the stuff I read about was comparisons to the original Robocop. Being a remake, that's fair enough but I'm going to judge it on its own merits. I've never seen the original and this one has inspired me to look into the old one.
Like a review request for a book, I will examine plot, character, and polish and then assign grade.

PLOT

I like the plot. I like the way that the world is set up (the droid soldiers, the Dreyfus Act, the Novak Element) and why someone like Robocop is wanted. It's a solid grounding for the plot to come.

The story's conflict is a mix between Robocop solving crimes in Detroit and Omnicorp milking him for PR to overturn a law that forbids them from selling their product in America. On a third front, there's Alex's family and partner trying to hang onto the human part of him as he is steadily reprogrammed into a robot.

He wakes up as Robocop fully aware of himself and who he is, but this is steadily eroded as OmniCorp's CEO demands him to be more like the robots they're deploying elsewhere. Alex does not know that they're doing this yet he becomes more and more "soulless robot" as the movie goes on. The movie may be rated PG-13 but watching this sort happen is still unnerving.

For more on those that dislike the movie for its rating, I have this-War on Terror, political lobbying, biased media, poking fun at the last two, and Alex's body horror.

My only complaint plotwise is the decision to upload the entirety of the DPD's data base into Robocop minutes before his first official appearance. The opportunity for something to go wrong was high because that's a LOT of data going into a mostly human brain. Then when he has problems downloading the information relating to his own near-death, they don't skip over it. It feels like a weasel to make him act robotic.

There is a great ending. It has resolution but still has plenty of room for more Robocop adventures.


CHARACTERS
I like this version of Alex Murphy. On tvtropes, he's what we'd called a "Disney Anti-Hero" because he's heroic at the core and rough around the edges. We're introduced to him as a disrespectful cop, who doesn't trust his fellows except for his partner, and who comes down hard on criminals, but he's also a family man, a good partner, and incorruptible. Indeed, the car bomb is set up because two corrupt cops say he can't be bought.

Dr.Norton is a fascinating character because of the depth and berth of his persona. He's the one responsible for transforming Alex Murphy into Robocop and the following programing. It's clear that he's constantly weighing numerous values with each action. For instance, should he install the combat mode which makes Alex a passenger in his own body-without his knowledge-or let Mattox condemn him as a failure, preventing him from going home and seeing his family ever again?


Raymond Sellers is the CEO of Omnicorp and the Big Bad for this movie. However, he too has a fleshed out character. He's personable, friendly, and while he's interested in making money, he's not (initially) portrayed as an unscrupulous asshole. Even after he decides to turn Robocop into a martyr to advance his company's agenda, he doesn't become a mustache twirling villain. There's a classic villain ball at the climax, but that can be put down to (justified) over-confidence than evil gloating.


POLISH

One thing that cannot be denied is that this movie looks awesome! The Omni-corp drones, Robocop himself, the various associated technology/gadgets and the battle scenes; all of these are sleek, stylish and make for a stunning picture.

I also like the pacing.  The main meat of this film is Alex Murphy as a human, who happens to be Robocop, so the first act of the movie that shows him as this human is essential. Indeed the importance (or un-importance) of  "the human element" is a reoccurring theme.

There's not a boring moment or time wasted. Even the intimate scene with Alex and his wife is used for character development because he breaks it off to investigate a car alarm nearby.  (In my view, this is the Chronic Hero Syndrome that is exaggerated after his transformation).

Trickster Eric Novels gives Robocop 2014 a B+


UPDATE

I have since watched the original Robocop. If you'd like to see a comparison review, click here

Three Varieties of Protagonists

As I travel the vast distances of Tvtropes, and examine various stories across the mediums, I find some archetypes that are meant to relate to the audience; be relatable to them and form a connection to them.  It relates to the power of the protagonist to inspire or comfort.

I don't buy into this "relatable/identifiable protagonist"; I can enjoy Big O's Roger Smith, Evangelion Shinji Ikari, Ranma 1/2's Ranma Saotome and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann's Kamina all the same.  However, I see that sort of thing on TvTropes and in reviews. One review in particular, one for my own A Mage's Power is the inspiration for this post and another one.

I've written about two of these types before, the Loser and the Champion, but that one was more my personal feelings on the matter. I hope to make this one more objective and informative.

The first type is The Champion. I see this type as a larger than life presence. Someone that is bursting with confidence and drive to achieve their goals, and their goals will be just as ambitious and lofty as their personality. They're likely to be loud but just as likely to more of a tranquil focus. The point is to create a dynamic personality that can both carry and drive a plot, who is also fun to cheer for.

Example: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagan: Kamina  is technically not the protagonist (a matter of heated debate in the fandom) but he is pretty close nonetheless. He is so popular that he has become a meme for badass masculinity; his sunglasses are photoshopped onto unrelated characters to make them more badass because in doing so they become more like him.

Th second type is The Loser. The protagonist has flaws upon flaws that make them fail at everything. I don't understand why anyone would do this. I see a few possibilities such as a Seinfeld style comedy or some philosophical drama about a guy whose life gets progressively worse, but these are limiting and would get old and confining quickly. Generally it's better to have a flawed protagonist than an outright loser.

Example: Shinji Ikai from Neon Genesis Evangelion. He's a whinny and weak willed and overall he's depressing to watch.  He would have died in the first episode if his mom didn't go berserk and tear the Third Angel apart on his behalf. A lot of his fanfiction involves him growing a spine in one way or another and some of the more popular (as I've seen on TvTropes and Fanfiction.net)  make him into an outright champion.

These two are a contrast of  "Wishing you were" vs "Glad you're not". Oddly enough, both shows have enjoyed tremendous popularity. In the middle of these two is the third kind.

The Everyman:
A nice person without distinguishing traits; no eccentrics, no major virtues, nor any outstanding vices. Their personal history is different and their story but they themselves are more cookie cuter. They exist to be "relatable" and this is supposed to work by appealing to the lowest common denominator and giving them traits that the target audience as a whole supposedly has.

I can't think of any use for this kind of character other than Audience Surrogate and so they will likely be a Supporting Protagonist or a Pinball Protagonist because they're too bland to carry the story on their own.

Naturally, there are more than just these three kinds of protagonists but I pointed them out to sketch a way stories geared toward a particular audience are viewed and made. The Protagonist is designed to appeal to and/or relate to this audience because the writer/publisher/etc believe that will increase sales/viewership/etc. This is not the case with me.

When I wrote A Mage's Power, I was more interested in the world that Eric would inhabit than Eric himself.  I put great thought into how the magic system worked, the gods and their purpose in this world,  justifying the existence of monsters and respawning like in RPGs, and the social/political culture of kingdom that Eric lives in. Eric himself received little attention in the pre-writing stage because he was less important. As a result, he became generic, and because my self-imposed "Zero to Hero" challenge, he was spineless and incompetent.

In other words, he became a hybrid of the Loser and Everyman. This lead to other reviews that said the plot lacked direction. Indeed, because Eric has no goal beyond getting by in the first book, he does not drive the plot and so indeed he gets involved in a number of different activities and not one of them commands the spotlight.

I came to this conclusion after receiving a certain review. It praised the supporting case but was critical of the protagonist. These supporting characters all had more thorough backstories than Eric starting off and developed more quickly during the drafts. It is only while rewriting the second book, Looming Shadow, that I feel I have truly gotten to know my protagonist.

Avengers Asemble!

I'm finally getting around to reviewing this movie. It's the reason I watched the others: The Incredible Hulk, THOR, Iron Man 2, (but not the original) and Captain America. The first time I watched it it was my birthday back in July. Now, in November, I'm finally reviewing it. I will consider the points of 1.) Epic 2.) Humor. 3). Character and 4). Plot.

1. Epic

The very first live action super hero team movie. No one else has tried to make individual superhero movies and then bring them all together into one adventure. This film is action packed coolness from the time Loki zaps into Earth through Iron Man's trademark big entrances to HULK SMASH and the big alien invasion and how the avengers counter it.

More than eye candy; Joss Whedon made sure there were personal conflicts underlying the undeniably awesome battles. Loki and Thor as the classic Cain and Abel but also the conflicts between avengers like Iron Man vs Thor and other philosophical conflicts involving SHIELD and other people and/or groups.


2. Humor

There are multiple kinds of humor. First of all there's pop culture jokes but what makes them funny is how Captain America, being a freshly thawed WWII veteran, doesn't get them. Coulson's fanboying him is also funny; a stoic and professional MiB with vintage trading cards. Robert Downey Jr truly does a terrific job playing Tony Stark; his smug sarcasm and odd behavior is always fun to watch.

3. Characters

The characters do a fantastic job playing off each other. Tony rubs everyone wrong and is delightfully arrogant and hammy. Fury stays on the border of morality in his manipulation. Coulson has met everyone except Banner; there's great history there. Tom Hiddleston had way too much fun playing Loki but also shows the depth of the character. Mark Ruffalo is my favorite actor for Bruce Banner so far; angsts about the Hulk but not to the point of wangst and with a dry sense of (often self deprecating) humor.

4. Plot

One would think with a plot centered on a powerful item like the Tesseract it would follow a basic maguffin hunt, right? Wrong! Loki acquires the Tesseract in the first act. He's captured in the third out of five. It's a dynamic plot structure. I don't detect idiot balls or anything of the sort which makes the plot so much better. One of my favorite instances comes just before the climax. I won't spoil it (though anyone reading this likely already knows) but it involves Stark and it's something the audience can figure out at the same time he does.

I can't think of anything bad to say about it.

Trickster Eric Novels gives "The Avengers" an A+

Review for Age of Ultron can be found here.

A "Incredible Hulk" trumps a mere "Hulk"

Continuing my exploration of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I watched "The Incredible Hulk". I was skeptical when I bought it because "Hulk" was such a disapointment but I am a skeptic no more. In addition to having a plot this time, the reboot veers away from the human melodrama that killed the first by including plenty of action and occasional humor.

The story begins long after the experiment that transformed Bruce Banner into the Hulk. It focuses on a cure. Every action Bruce takes is towards a cure and leads the plot. On the other side of the coin, Blonsky's drive to progressively upgrade himself into the next Hulk. Thus we have passive and peaceful Banner vs aggressive and war-like Blonsky melding like yin and yang; a fascinating cinematic device. This is the sort of thing that was missing in the last Hulk movie.

Considering the poetential for action inherent in such a superhero there was little of in "Hulk". In contrast,  the "Incredible Hulk" tells the origin story briefly durring the opening credits and fills the audience in after a five month time skip. This allows it to go right to the HULK SMASH and give Bruce enough time to come to terms with initial angst. Furthermore, instead of whinning about it, this Bruce is proactive. He studies soft-handed martial arts, practices meditation, and wears a watch that monitors how close he is to hulking out. Living in a shared Marvel universe is also a bonus.

I love shared universes. Each story in the shared universe adds to all the others; a 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts', sort of thing. General Ross wants to weaponize Banner's DNA; why he wants to do this is not stated directly but inferred by the wider universe. First of all, The US government wants to recreate the super soldier serum (Captain America) to match the power of hostiles that can drop out of the sky (Thor) or wear powered armor (Iron Man).  Thinking about these elements provides a higher level of enjoyment.

　
The film is not perfect. There is a contrived coinicidence where the plot could have gone in a completely different direction. Then there's an idiot ball that I could have been avoided but is understandable.  Every time Banner hulks out it's in response to Ross attacking him but this is only pointed out by people who can't stop him anyway. On the whole, these issues are minor.

Trickster Eric Novels gives "The Incredible Hulk" an A-
　

The Power of THOR

Yes, late I know, but life happened. Anyway, THOR is a great movie but not for the usual reasons one would think of in the Super Hero genre. Yes, the battles are great. Yes, the special effects are impressive. However, the real pull for me was the twist on the usual villains that would inhabit this genre. They are are not (completely) evil and their minions are not cannon fodder.

The plot is notable is it's lack of a traditional "Big Bad" villain. They are the best part of the film from a story telling perspective. There are two and neither of them is the 'pure evil take over the world and laugh evily' sort.

The first villain Laufey who is introduced as a villainous character but doesn't do anything until Thor invades his world and kills a bunch of his people. This makes him an anti-villain because he is justified in his actions. One cannot dismiss him as 'pure evil monster to be smitten by the hero'.

The second is Loki. He is Thor's best friend and truly cares about him. It's only after a certain mind-shattering Revelation that he decisively moves like a villain but even then one can argue that this action was secretly to help Thor. His motivation becomes increasingly complicated as the story progresses and even at the end it's hard to call him a true villain.

Both of them lack evil plans at the story's beginning and so any evil they commit is more 'take advantage of an opportunity' than pre-meditated villainy. What's more, one can (and certainly my fellow tropers have) argue that their actions are justified, or at least understandable, given the context. The villains and their minions too.

On TvTropes we have a trope called "What Measure is a Non-Human" that states non-humans will always be treated worse than humans and when it does happen it's alright. It's okay for the hero to massacre a group of monstrous looking creature because they're evil or something. One of the reasons THOR is such a great movie is because the hero thought this was the case and was exiled for being a 'vain greedy boy'. Thor spends a great deal of the movie learning the opposite. The Frost Giants look monstrous and did indeed invade Midgard (Earth) in ages past to create a new ice age but they are not at all threatening in the main story line.

On a lighter note, humor. There's great humor. Thor and Selvig get drunk and sing. Thor and Loki have amusing brotherly moments. Darcy's role is Plucky Comedy Relief. My personal favorite involves Agent Coulson, the Destroyer, and Iron Man technology.
　

Trickster Eric Novels gives "THOR" an A+.

Iron Man 2

Last week I reviewed Iron Man 1 and said I was going to watch Iron Man 2 that sunday. I did and now I have time to review it as well. The tone is different and that should be expected. Tony is no longer a muggle transforming into a hero but a hero sustaining that image in a world that knows both of his identities. It's a great movie, not like the first, but in it's own way.

The plot has a tremendous emphasis on 'legacy' and appropriately Tony's first scene is giving a speech on the importance of leaving behind a bounty for the world's children, of course with his trademark arrogance ("I'm not saying that the world is enjoying it's longest period of uninterrupted peace in years because of me.") and dancing girls in skimpy attire designed to look like Iron Man. Sins Of Our Fathers appears on the other side of the coin. It turns out that Howard Stark is not solely responsible for Arc Reactor technology. Anton Vanko worked with him but they had a disagreement in how it should be used so Howard deported him back to Russia, where he spent forty years in a vodoka rage. His son, Ivan, seeks revenge on Tony for the suffering Howard's actions caused him.

Entwined with the idea of legacy is the future of the Iron Man technology. Countries such as Iran have been trying to duplicate it in the six months since the last movie ended and The United States Government demands that Tony turn over his technology to them. Senator Stern is made to look like a minor villain for his attempts to paint Tony as a threat and it's not hard for the audience to agree. What he wants to do is the same thing that the first movie's villain did: create a more lethal version of Iron Man and mass produce it for war.  Tony, being more paranoid than ever, refuses to do so and proclaims himself the world's guardian. ( "I have successfully privatized world peace.")


To contrast the first film, this story is not an upward climb of Tony becoming more heroic but a downward spiral as he self-destructs. He's dying from Palladium poisoning caused by the reactor that keeps him alive. His personal character arc is split between selflessly providing for the future and selfishly enjoying himself as best he can. The problem is this looks like erratic behavior because no one knows except Nick Furry and Ivan Vanko so he alienates his friends tarnishes his claim to be the world's guardian.

The climax is suitably exciting and resolves most of the plot threads but there is one left: the government demanding Tony's Iron Man technology. This could be because Rhodes keeps the War Machine model so they have what they want, or it could be that after a second disaster with someone stealing Tony's technology (which Tony himself has to clean up) they backed off for now. (Avengers offers a third option but I won't say it here in case you haven't seen it. It will come out on DVD this week. See it!) In any case, I would have liked to see something definitive. Though the award ceremony does show Tony and Uncle Sam are back on friendly terms.

As you can see, Iron Man 2 is a lot more political than it's predecessor but I believe this is an attempt at Deconstruction and it works well. It's a good source of conflict, nicely compliments the villain's Evil Plan and sharpens Tony's character as a Technological Pacifist, albeit an arrogant one.

Trickster Eric Novels gives "Iron Man 2" an A.

The Stinger points toward the next Marvel Hero, Mighty Thor, and I will review that later this week.

Iron Man

The last time I reviewed a movie it was Captain America.This time I review a different sort of patriot: Tony Stark the Iron Man. Yes, I've been on something of a Marvel streak ever since I saw The Avengers on my birthday. You'll see a review for that soon enough, but first, here's Iron Man.

First I want to say this is a thrilling movie. Being a Super Hero film one expects great fight scenes and Iron Man delivers on every occasion. The MK I is a juggernaut coming out of the Ten Rings cave and yet you can see how clunky it is and not quite invulnerable. Contrast this with the MK III against the same group and it's no contest. The climatic showdown is without a doubt the best of the lot, not only for the greatest action but for turning the plot of 'War Weapon' vs 'Peace Weapon' into walking metaphors with Iron Monger vs Iron Man. It is poigant in addition to really awesome. Super Heroics at its best.

There's a heart beneath all the action. By leaving for the unknown world Tony sets out on an archtypal Hero's Journey that is as heartwarming as his battles are awesome. After he returns from captivity one can see that there was a hero underneath his hedonistic demeanor and he becomes more heroic as he builds the Iron Man suit. By the time he completes it, he's flying to save a village from raiders.

Robert Downey jr gives a wonderful performance as Tony Stark. He's funny, he's serious, and, most important, he's so genuinely heroic (and a jerkass) that he can make you think he's not reciting from a script. In fact, he isn't; many of his lines are ad-libbed.

Finally, Iron Man is an examplary case of how to use a romantic sub-plot in a super hero movie. 1.His relationship with Petter Potts is present and it's important but the only scene to focus on it exclusively is a brief Dance of Rommance. The rest is in the background as a subtext to the hero-sidekick interactions.  2. Petter has a role beyond Tony's Love Interest; she's the only (excluding Rhodney) person with his absolute trust. This is a plot point at many occasions and she is resonsible for uncovering the Big Bad's Evil Plan.


Trickster Eric Novels gives Iron Man 1 an A+.  I plan to watch number two tomorrow.