Elysium: A Movie Review

Elysium is the latest film from Neill Blomkamp, best known as the director of District 9. Much like that film, Elysium is an allegory, using a near-future setting to comment on society today. The allegory here is just as blunt as it was in District 9, but instead of apartheid, Elysium deals with class struggle and illegal immigration.
Well, Elysium is a little more subtle than, say… Machete, but that’s not saying much. This movie makes its message very clear, but in the end it doesn’t have much to say. The first few minutes (or a trailer) tell you everything you need to know about the setting: most people live on an overpopulated, disease-ridden Earth, but the most wealthy few decide to build an orbital habitat for themselves called Elysium. They have access to unbelievable medical technology, and they strictly control all transportation to and from Elysium. The rest of the film is, for the most part, a sci-fi action movie using that premise as a backdrop. Where some people described District 9 as a smart sci-fi allegory masquerading as an action movie, the opposite seems to be true for Elysium. But at least it ends on a less pessimistic note than District 9 did.

I think I would have enjoyed this movie more if the allegory was more subtle, or just dropped altogether. The action scenes taken by themselves are very good for the most part, though I wish movies like this would rely less on fast cuts and shaky handheld shots to convey those scenes. But that’s just me. The action is believable and even though the film uses CGI heavily, it doesn’t overpower the film. There’s enough that isn’t shot on a green screen to make the film feel concrete. The visual effects in general are very well done, and the movie has an abundance of cool sci-fi technology to show off those effects. As with District 9, the futuristic tech here is believable and is largely grounded in existing technology. It helps the world-building immensely, since you can imagine most of these technologies in the not-so-distant future. I should mention that I agree with MovieBob‘s assessment from his review of the film; so much of that tech is used in only a few scenes. It would have been great to see that used more in the movie.

taken from imdb.com

That tendency to introduce interesting technology then show it in only a few scenes is an issue that I noticed in District 9 as well. Really, it seems like Elysium gets a lot of the same things right as District 9 did, but it also has many of the same flaws. However, one thing Elysium does better is the characters. Most of the characters in District 9 were selfish, cowardly, myopically prejudiced, or some combination of those traits, and it was hard to empathize with any of them, least of all the protagonist Wikus. District 9 presented a world that was too far gone to change for the better in any significant way. On the other hand, Elysium has characters who are actively fighting against injustice and the film has a much more hopeful tone.

The characters in Elysium are still pretty one-dimensional, but at least they’re easier to relate to, and the actors all perform their roles well. Matt Damon plays the protagonist Max, a car thief turned factory worker turned freedom fighter who actually has some character development. Without spoiling anything, I’ll say that he begins the film caring only about his own life, but he ends up risking everything to help the population of Earth. Since I keep bringing up District 9, I should say that Sharlto Copley is back in Elysium, as Kruger. On the surface he’s playing a much different character in this film, but really Kruger is just as despicable, cruel, and slimy as Wikus. He’s simply far more badass.

Speaking of despicable and cruel characters, Elysium’s defense secretary Delacourt (played by Jodie Foster) is perhaps even worse than Kruger in that regard. Delacourt bothered me more than most of the other characters. Out of all of them, she really presents a flat image of evil with little nuance. She’s the straw man that this movie sets up just to knock down; she is just as much a biased and implausible depiction of the wealthiest 1% as any character in Atlas Shrugged.

Still, the movie is entertaining, though it does get fairly predictable towards the end, and the climax just isn’t very satisfying. I won’t go into why that is because it would be difficult to without spoiling it, but it does raise an interesting point that the film seems to sideline. The whole society in Elysium seems to be crippled not just because of the gross inequalities and cruelty, but also by their reliance on technology. That ends up being centrally important in this movie, not the oppression of billions, which is mostly a backdrop. I won’t say more than this, but one line of code changes everything, and it seems like that change might not last very long. Simply put, I thought the ending was weak, but I don’t want to spoil why that is.

After watching, it seems like the whole premise just isn’t that well thought-out. The film paints a big picture, but overlooks some important details. It’s a decent movie though; if you don’t mind the heavy-handed allegory, there’s a lot of cool sci-fi tech and some good action scenes that are worth seeing.

Danilo Culibrk, aka Augustus, is a staff writer for the Red Shirt Crew. He wonders how painful (or lethal?) it is to take off one of those exo-suits. You can follow his attempts to board a ship to Elysium on Twitter at @Augustusing.

Only God Forgives: a Movie Review

So this weekend I had a chance to go see Only God Forgives at the AFI Silver Theatre. At the time of writing, it’s still showing there, but I doubt it will be when you’re reading this. My review’s a bit late then, but do check out the AFI Silver if you’re in the area. They’re always showing excellent movies. Anyway, Only God Forgives is directed and written by Nicolas Winding Refn, and like in his previous film, Drive, the lead role is played by Ryan Gosling. Also like Drive, this film is an abstract, surrealist film that bears more resemblance to a painting or a song than to most movies. Both films are bathed in the same bright neon glow, and they feature ambient electronic music in the soundtrack. In a film like this, the plot and characters are secondary to aesthetics and form.  Every aspect of the film is highly controlled and stylized, down to the movements of the actors. Realism is replaced by symbols and aesthetics.

I loved Drive: everything in the film, from the cinematography to the soundtrack worked together, drawing on diverse influences to create a unique experience. But Only God Forgives is not Drive. I didn’t want to compare these two movies, but I’m going to anyway. Drive is a more accessible movie; it’s not as abstract as Only God Forgives and it’s not as violent. Only God Forgives relies on images and symbols rather than dialogue to convey meaning, to an even greater degree than Drive did. Many scenes in Drive had a sort of surreal, dream-like quality, but this is extended to almost every scene in Only God Forgives, blurring the distinction between real and imagined events in the film.

taken from imdb.com

The actors don’t talk much, but they do all speak the language of violence. While the violent scenes in Drive were brutal, there were only a few, acting like punctuation marks in the film’s structure. Only God Forgives is a bloodbath from start to finish. I won’t get into the issue of violence in media here (let me know if that’s something you’re interested in reading an article about), but it’s worth mentioning in a film like this, where violence takes the place of speaking for many characters. At one point, Gosling’s character Julian greets Chang, played by Vithaya Pansringarm, with just two words: “wanna fight?” Chang doesn’t even have to answer.

But the film’s abstract symbolism does make it difficult to understand. There’s no real philosophical message past the assertion of the film’s title, but the film leaves a lot for the viewer to interpret. This isn’t a film like Cloud Atlas, where one character’s speech near the end sums up the entire message of the movie. While the ideas aren’t that complex in Only God Forgives, it might take a little thought to make any sense of the ending. The film doesn’t tell you what to think, but shows you events and ties them together with symbols. Sometimes a sword is just a sword, but not in this movie, where symbolism pervades everything. 

For all that, this movie still isn’t as good as Drive. Or at least not as accessible or enjoyable for most audiences. For one thing, Only God Forgives has almost no likeable characters. Julian only ends up the protagonist because everyone else does horrible things on a regular basis, while he tries not to. But as I said before, the characters are secondary here. They seem to be in the film only to complete the blood-soaked picture. I don’t think we’re meant to empathize with them as human beings, but instead observe them like brushstrokes in a painting.

That treatment of film-as-canvas ends up being this film’s greatest strength but also its weakness. Beyond the aesthetics and almost kabuki-like performance, there’s not much else to this film. If you can appreciate it for its excellent directing and cinematography, this movie is worth watching, but it has very little in the way of a traditional story structure or character development. The characters don’t grow or change; there’s a certain fatalism in their actions instead. By the time they’re all introduced, you’ll know exactly which characters have to die to resolve the story… and earn forgiveness in a way. To put it simply, you can probably understand this film if you realize why it ends with a dedication to Alejandro Jodorowsky.

Also: The AFI Silver is showing Drive on September 14, 16, and 18. If you haven’t already seen it and/or would rather watch in in a theater than on TV, check it out. They’re also showing a few of Nicolas Winding Refn’s other movies, namely the Pusher trilogy for a few days in August as part of their series of Scandinavian crime movies.

Danilo Culibrk, aka Augustus, is a staff writer for the Red Shirt Crew. He needs to check the AFI Silver calendar more often, so he doesn’t miss out on great movies so much and write reviews so late after a film opens. You can follow his drives through neon-lit darkness on Twitter at @Augustusing.

Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Today, Chase (MaristPlayBoy) and his good friend Sam discuss the new Star Trek movie, Star Trek: Into the Darkness. It’s actually pretty good, but don’t expect to be blown away.

Chase Wassenar, aka MaristPlayBoy, is the Lead Editor and Founder of the Red Shirt Crew. You can read his other articles at ToyTMA,  follow him on Twitter at @RedShirtCrew or email him at theredshirtcrew@gmail.com.

RSC Podcast with MovieBob

This week on the RSC Podcast, we talk to one of my favourite people on the internet, Bob Chipman, aka MovieBob. In what is easily our longest (and quite possibly our most interesting) podcast to date, we discuss Valve, Star Wars, Warner Bros. struggles with the Justice League, the current state of comics, and even candy! Click to see more after the break.




Bob Chipman, aka MovieBob, is a true man of the Internet, fluent in cinema, video games, comics, and schlock horror films. You can follow him on Twitter at @the_moviebob, watch The Big Picture and Escape to the Movies on The Escapist, watch Game Overthinker on ScrewAttack, read his regular Intermission article on The Escapist, or follow his personal blog. Hey, I told you he was a man of the Internet.

Chase Wassenar, aka MaristPlayBoy, is the Lead Editor and Founder of the Red Shirt Crew. You can read more of his stuff at Toy-TMA, follow him on Twitter at @RedShirtCrew, or email him at theredshirtcrew@gmail.com.

Stephen “Doc” Watson is an editor for the Red Shirt Crew.  Feel free to validate his internet existence by  sending him a tweet at @DocWatsonMD.

Matthew Bryant, aka Baker Street Holmes, is an editor for the Red Shirt Crew. You can follow him on Twitter at@BStreetHolmes or e-mail him at HMCrazySS@gmail.com.

Zombie Week: Shaun of the Dead

Most people would start the discussion on zombies with Dawn of the Dead, but today, MaristPlayBoy takes a look at his personal favourite zombie flick, Shaun of the Dead.
Well, it’s Zombie Week here at the Red Shirt Crew. Why? Well, if you haven’t noticed, there have been a lot of books, movies, video games, and even board games concerning zombies over the past few years. People much smarter than I am have already discussed at length why zombies have become so popular recently, so I won’t delve into that here. I will, however, explain why those reasons have made kept me away from most zombie-related media.

See, as much as I cling to my cynicism, I actually like people. I happened to have been born as a person and raised by a couple of them. Hell, some of my best friends are people. As such, I find it hard to get behind the whole aesthetic of zombies and the necessary murder of them. It all makes me quite a bit uncomfortable, honestly. The idea that an unstoppable horde of former friends and family could come after me with little or no hopes for escape is honestly one of the worst things I could possibly imagine. If I kill them, I have to live with the image of real people (zombified, granted, but still human in form) dying in front of my eyes, and I’m just not up for that. Then again, I also have a massive fear of death.

Now, this is where you tell me that these are reasons I should like zombie movies, since most of them are horror films and these feelings are the intended result. That’s all well and good, but I’m also not a big fan of being scared shitless. It’s just not a feeling I enjoy. With only a few notable exceptions (I hold that the best of any genre is worth watching), I don’t watch horror movies. For me to be able to successfully get through a zombie film, I need there to be something else to take my mind off the overwhelming terror of the situation.

Enter Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, two incredibly talented members of the film industry that decided to spoof the classic zombie genre by making a zombie movie that was also a romantic comedy, Shaun of the Dead. The result is one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen, able to blend the gory action of a zombie film with the comedic timing that Pegg and Nick Frost nail naturally, with enough symbolism and cinematic skill to earn the movie several awards and recognition as one of the best British films ever made.

This is one of my favourite movie posters of all time, for what it’s worth.

There are many great reasons to enjoy Shaun of the Dead, but Pegg and Frost’s natural chemistry has to be chief among them. So much of comedy is reliant on how the main characters play off of each other to create truly funny moments, and this movie takes advantage of it perfectly. Pegg plays the titular Shaun, a man with practically no ambition in his life that is being held back by his best friend, Ed (Frost), who achieves even less. The two fit their roles beautifully, as the two look and feel like real best friends. The chemistry between the two makes it easy for the audience to buy why Shaun keeps hanging out with this loser, even when it is to the detriment of his relationships with his mother and his girlfriend.

One probably wouldn’t expect that those relationships are the central focus of the movie based on the cover alone, but Wright and Pegg wrote a fantastic screenplay that keeps Shaun’s quest to turn his life around and be a better son and boyfriend in the center of the narrative. Many films would have dropped the set up for a more traditional action comedy once the zombies rolled around, but Shaun of the Dead frames itself such that each scene is another chance for Shaun to prove his worth. To get them through the zombie apocalypse (which, honestly, should be the ultimate test of worth for everyone), he’ll have to grow and mature as an individual, and step up when the time comes.

Who wouldn’t root for these lovable idiots?

I don’t want to spoil the movie on the off chance you haven’t seen it yet, but I do want to touch upon the running symbolism present within the movie. There could not be a more perfect enemy for the sleepwalking-through-life Shaun than zombies. When the movie opens, Shaun is an aimless salesman stuck in a rut with no real passion for anything he does. It would be fair to call him a zombie in his own right, seemingly incapable of any true awareness or growth. Overcoming the zombie hordes is, in a sense, overcoming his own personality flaws. In a bad movie, this would come off as cheesy or cliche. But since this is an Edgar Wright movie, these flaws are portrayed realistically, making Shaun truly feel human, and his subsequent struggles therefore far more relatable to the audience as a whole.

In the end, Shaun of the Dead is brilliant both as a romantic comedy and as a zombie movie. Wright is a cinematic genius that shoots great action scenes with dramatic tension, but more importantly in this case, he and Pegg are writers capable of portraying real people as they are and making their struggles ones in which the audience naturally gets invested. The acting is superb, the writing is phenomenal, and the chemistry among the lead actors ensures you’ll be laughing throughout. As with any comedy, there’s not really much more I can say than “Go watch it”. Seriously. You won’t regret it.

Chase Wassenar, aka MaristPlayBoy, is the Creator and Lead Editor of the RSC. He also recommends you see Hot Fuzz, Paul, and Scott Pilgrim Versus the World, because Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright are worth all of your time and money. You can follow him on Twitter at @RedShirtCrew or email him at theredshirtcrew@gmail.com.

The Unsung Heroes of The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games was just released on DVD, and after purchasing it and watching it with a few friends (one who had read the books but never seen the movie), I thought a little bit more about some of the tributes than I had previously. There are a couple of tributes who, in the games, are glossed over and not really talked about. However, they each played a very vital role in the outcome of the games. The Tributes I’m talking about are so overlooked, one of them never is even given a name, only a nickname: Foxface, from District 5, and Thresh, the male tribute from District 11.

Before I get into any further details: I am warning you now. THIS POST WILL CONTAIN PLOT SPOILERS FOR THE HUNGER GAMES MOVIE AS WELL AS BOOK. 

There. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way. I’m going to assume that if you’re still reading you either are familiar enough with the series to not have pesky spoilers bother you, or you just don’t care how the plot falls out. 

We first get a description of the female tribute from District 5 in the books as a “fox-faced girl.”Right from the beginning she is set up as a sly, elusive and tricky tribute. We see this as well throughout the games, whenever Katniss encounters her. She’s smart, clever, and difficult to catch, preferring to stay out of combat, winning by surviving the longest, rather than by killing everyone else. She’s fast too, and has excellent timing-getting in and out of the cornucopia at the feast before anyone else shows up to try and challenge her. Her death is completely accidental, and actually served, in a way, to help keep Peeta alive. If she hadn’t stolen and eaten those berries, he would have had no way of knowing that they were poisonous, and he would have died from them as well.

In the end, had she lived, I still don’t think she would have won (assuming this was a universe that wasn’t set up for Katniss to win), because she would have eventually been forced into a direct confrontation. We don’t necessarily know anything about her fighting skills, but the descriptions given of her seem to indicate that she would not have done as well as many of the other tributes in close fighting. And certainly Katniss probably could have taken her down with an arrow. 

Thresh, on the other hand, probably could have stood a decent chance of winning. And I would have wanted him to win, if Katniss and Peeta hadn’t. He’s a very large guy, very imposing, scored a 10 from the Gamemakers, and, most importantly, he refused to join the Careers group during the training. So, he’s a big threat, and prefers to be solitary. Other than that, we don’t know all that much about him. We only see him at one point during the games-at the feast, when he saves Katniss from Clove, killing her in the process, and sparing Katniss’ life because of what she did for Rue. If you ask me, that moment right there sealed Katniss’ victory in the games. We don’t know if Thresh fell to Cato’s hands or to the hands of the muttations at the end, but he made it to the top 4, and he probably could have won, if things had fallen out a little differently.

The reason I call Thresh and Foxface the ‘Unsung Heroes’ of the Hunger Games, though, is not because of the respective roles they played in keeping Katniss and Peeta alive, but rather the fact that, to me, they represent the small bits of humanity still left in the arena. Thresh, rather than kill someone he knows will have to die anyway in order for him to win, chooses instead to give Katniss a one-time pass, essentially to even a score. She took care of Rue, the little 12 year old girl from his district, so he took care of her, the only way he could-by leaving her alive, for just a little longer. Foxface is the prime example of survival instincts in action. She plays to her strengths: she’s sneaky, so she skirts around edges, picking at leftovers, stealing, never directly facing anyone. She’s playing the games her way, not the brutal, bloodthirsty way the Capitol wants.

Thoughts? Comments? I’d love to hear them.

Until next time,
Angel out! 

What’s Next for Marvel Day Two: What CAN’T Marvel Do

Now that I’ve taken a look at characters from already established franchises in the Marvel Universe that could join the Avengers soon, it’s time to predict which new franchises Marvel is likely to introduce in the near future. MaristPlayBoy is here to give his take on the best fits for the Marvel Movie Universe as it stands today.

If you missed it, click here to see which characters from the already established franchises I think have a good shot at becoming Avengers in the near future.

Since I am cannot just re-watch The Avengers over and over again, I, like any comic book fan who’s been following these movies, cannot help but try to predict what’s coming next from Marvel Studios. There are so many different directions Marvel can go into, and given the strength of the movies they’ve produced thus far, they are free to pursue whatever they want…providing, of course, that they have the rights.

Now, I could go at length explaining what Marvel can and cannot make given the deals they made with other producers before they were bought by Disney and had the freedom to make their own movies, but I don’t need to because MovieBob already beat me to it. Seriously, just click the link and watch the video. It will explain everything and be more interesting than anything I could have done to explain it.

While I am not going to explain why Marvel can’t make certain movies (watch the video already), I will say that I don’t think the losses are actually that big, at least not in terms of continuity. See, the franchises that were lost are largely independent of the Avengers. Franchises like Ghost Rider, the Punisher, and the much more prominent Spider-Man aren’t really affiliated with the Avengers. Neither are Daredevil and Elektra. They wouldn’t tie in to the continuity produced here anyway, with the possible exception of a nice cameo or two. And is a cameo worth the huge piles of money it would cost to get these characters back?

Not yet, at least. It’s much better for Marvel to let these franchises get run into the ground until they’re not profitable, buy them back on the cheap, wait for the bad vibes around these franchises to die down, and then have them resurface later. There are still plenty of titles to keep them busy until then, so they can play the waiting game, and given the quality of these movies, I think Marvel will emerge victorious on this one.

The only two franchises lost that seem to really be a shame are the Fantastic Four and the X-Men. The Fantastic Four on their own aren’t really big Avengers members, but they share many common enemies like the Skrulls that would have been fun to see. However, Marvel’s ingenuity helped them get away with that one by calling them the Chitauri, the Ultimate Universe version of the Skrulls, to which they had the license (yay loopholes).

The biggest loss, therefore, is that of the X-Men. Because Marvel Studios does not have the rights to the X-Men, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, typical Avengers members, have a lot of limitations on their use, meaning we likely won’t see them on the team in any substantial way. Also, the X-Men and the Avengers tend to fight a lot, and seeing such an epic battle scene would have been quite amazing, but sadly does not seem meant to be unless Marvel is willing to pony over A LOT of cash to make such a deal happen.

So will any of these characters find their way into the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Not in the near future, at any rate. Even IF Marvel could find a way to acquire these IPs back again, it will be quite some time before the stench of some of the awful, awful, AWFUL movies these franchises produced will wear off. And given Marvel’s been rather quiet about gathering any of these IPs (and it doesn’t seem to be Disney’s way to buy things from other major producers, though they’re going to do something with the giant piles of money The Avengers continues to bring in), I doubt we’ll see any of these crossing over with the Avengers in the near future.

But in the end, I think that’s ok, mostly because there are so many other awesome movie franchises that Marvel has yet to produce. What do I mean? Come back tomorrow to find out. In the meantime, comment below or follow us on Twitter at @RedShirtCrew and let me know what franchises are worth buying back from the major producers. Until then, this is MaristPlayBoy, signing out

What’s Next for Marvel Day One: Supporting Characters

Yes, the Avengers was an incredible movie that literally rocked my world and fulfilled all of my childhood dreams, but with the exception of the eight more times I plan to see it, now seems like the best time to look into the future and examine what Marvel Studios will do next in the first of a two part series.

Given how overwhelmingly successful The Avengers just was for Marvel, I’m under the impression that the guys running things in the movie department really know what they’re doing with this project. That also means that they’re well aware that their ability to continue bringing in giant bags of money is directly dependent on what they do with phase two of their Marvel continuity plan. Phase one, bringing the Avengers to the big screen, was executed perfectly, but that success will not be replicated by simply doing the same thing over and over again. What keeps Avengers books interesting in the comic book world, and what will be necessary if the movies are to be successful, is their ability to mesh high profile heroes like Captain America and Iron Man with their B and C list counterparts, thus keeping an interesting variety in the characters.

Now, don’t take this to understand that I’m tired of these properties already. Far from it. I’m already eager for Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Captain America 2, but I’m equally interested, perhaps even more so, with the new properties that are entering this cinematic universe and the new characters that will be brought forth from already established properties. How this phase of the process is handled will determine how long Marvel will reign supreme in the comic book movie world. If they can integrate lower level heroes and make audiences fall in love with them, their empire may last for decades. If not, we’ll look back on these days with the notion that the experiment was an overwhelming success that still had so much more potential to give.

But who are these characters I speak of, and what movies could possibly be coming to expand on this already expansive universe? Well, this is where I get to put on my speculation hat and make some predictions of what will come next from Marvel Headquarters. If nothing else, Marvel’s success with these movies has given them a lot of trust from their audience, and they now have the freedom to pursue all or none of these ideas in time, but the comic book nerd in me is hoping that each of these will see the light of day at some point.

Today, I’m looking at the characters from already established franchises that I believe would make good fits in the movie universe, specifically as members of the Avengers. Each one of these characters would fulfill a very important role in the Marvel Universe: sustainability. Most of them are variations of the already existing main characters, which means their skill set would not be lost if, say, an actor got tired of playing the same part after a while. It also means that there can be a mix and match with the two parts shuffling in and out as necessary, keeping things new with new personalities and the chemistry issues that can bring while still enjoying similar battle styles. It’s a win for everybody, especially the fans. Let’s get started!

Red Hulk


Who he is: Remember 2008’s The Incredible Hulk? Well, there may be a good reason why Marvel kept the movie in continuity despite the relatively lower quality of the movie and changing the main actor (a wise choice, as Mark Ruffalo was incredible). Thunderbolt Ross, the guy who was in charge of overseeing Bruce Banner’s project and spent the rest of the movie trying to hunt the Hulk down becomes crazy trying to destroy the creature that is attacking his city and making a mockery of his armed forces. He exposes himself to gamma radiation and becomes the Red Hulk. In this form, he is able to maintain his intellect and remains a master of battle strategy, but his rage emits heat instead of making him stronger, and too much of it can weaken him severely.

How he’d fit in: If Marvel ever made an Incredible Hulk 2, he’d be the perfect villain. His daughter is Banner’s romantic interest, which makes his discovery that his daughter is literally sleeping with the enemy the perfect catalyst to convince him to go mad to try to stop the Hulk at any cost. Even if the Hulk seems to have learned how to keep his cool in most situations, a charging Red Hulk coming towards him would definitely be enough to bring out his angrier side. A giant Hulk v. Hulk battle would be fun to watch, and in the end, Banner’s ability to help General Ross control that deadly weakness of his would be enough to get him to join the Avengers. A more strategic Hulk would be a valuable asset on the battlefield.

Likelihood: Not that good, sadly. There seems to be a definitive peak on revenue brought in from Hulk movies; though the 2008 movie was far superior to its 2003 brethren, the final box office numbers were nearly identical. Yes, Red Hulk has been very popular in the comic book world, but that rarely leads to increased revenue on its own. Given the Hulk seemed to have good self-control over his anger issues in The Avengers, it’s hard to imagine any movie in which Thunderbolt is driven to these lengths that isn’t pretty contrived. Also, there might not be enough to distinguish the Red Hulk from Abomination, the villain from the last Hulk movie that also had a similar power set to the Hulk. If another Hulk movie is going to be made, I wouldn’t rule this out, but it may be a while before this becomes a true possibility.

War Machine


Who he is: You’ve already met War Machine if you watched Iron Man 2. James Rhodes is a lieutenant colonel in the Marines who also happens to be friends with Tony Stark. In the movie universe, Rhodes has to use Stark’s newest power suit to prevent Tony from self-destructing and damaging others while drunk in the Iron Man suit at a birthday party gone out of control. Rhodes kept the suit and put it in the hands of Justin Hammer, Stark’s rival who had a weapons deal with the United States, went mad with power, and trying to kill a whole bunch of people. Eventually, Rhodes was able to help Tony fight off all the attack drones and save the day, keeping the suit for himself in the aftermath.

How he’d fit in: Rhodes is essentially a more disciplined Iron Man. His military strategy and ability to follow orders makes him a far more easy to work with replacement should Tony Stark have to go out of the picture for a while. He’s a true professional while also being a complete badass in that power armor, which uses more traditional weaponry than Iron Man’s energy beams. Introducing him to S.H.I.E.L.D. could also create some interesting tension in their relationship, as Stark prides himself on being the best, and War Machine gives him a solid run for his money.

Likelihood: We are literally a big naming moment away from already seeing this happen. To what degree the character will be integrated has yet to be seen, but Rhodes seems like the most likely candidate to join Stark on the Avengers from the other characters in the Iron Man universe. Given Rhodes has already been confirmed for Iron Man 3 and is listed, at least on wikipedia, as War Machine, I get the feeling we’ll see very soon just how big a figure War Machine will be in the Marvel Movie Universe.

Valkyrie


Who she is: Valkyrie is the strongest of the Valkyrior, who are very similar to the Norse mythological warriors known as valkyrie. While not a god like Thor, she does age far more slowly and has superhuman strength and toughness. Her age has given her centuries of combat experience, making her one of the most notable strategic minds in addition to her incredible combat skills. Valkyrie also has a weird connection with death, able to sense when someone is about to die and able to take spirits back and forth between the realms of the living and the dead (this gives her a weird attraction to Deadpool, whose rights sadly are not with the Marvel movies studio; that scene alone would be worth putting her into cinematic form).

How she’d fit in: With no offense meant to Black Widow, there simply aren’t many female superheroes that can claim the power that Valkyrie does. Having a strong female character known for her prowess on the battlefield more than her beauty (though her beauty doesn’t hurt) can only be good for the Marvel universe. Also, she plays perfectly off of Thor’s character flaws of humility, as she is a formidable match for him, and I doubt Thor would take too kindly to being seriously challenged by a female warrior.

Likelihood: Moderate to high. She’s been on several Avengers teams in the past, and her abilities on the battlefield as a guardian of sorts make her exactly the kind of warrior S.H.I.E.L.D. would want for their Avenger initiative. Protecting a planet like Earth would come naturally for her, and I would not be surprised to see her leading a charge of Valkyrior into battle the next time a truly dangerous threat comes around.


Beta Ray Bill


Who he is: Beta Ray Bill is a Korbinite, an alien species from a far away galaxy that has been rendered nearly extinct, that crash lands on Earth. In the comics, Bill fights and defeats Thor’s alter ego. While Thor is unconscious, Bill finds and is able to wield Mjolnir, deemed worthy by the hammer itself. After discovering what had happened, Thor challenges Bill to a battle for the hammer, which drains both fighters but eventually finds Bill the winner (he emerges from being knocked out slightly before Thor does). Thor is dismayed at first, but Bill is so filled with respect for everyone’s favorite Asgardian that he lets Thor keep Mjolnir. For his strength and virtue, Odin grants Bill his own hammer called Stormbreaker, which has the same powers as Mjolnir, and Thor and Bill become true brothers-in-arms.

How he’d fit in: Again, Thor is a hero whose flaw comes from his lack of humility, and giving him a challenge like this where he’d have to accept that there are many out there with power that can surpass even his own, provides exactly the kind of foil needed to have the character grow. Beta Ray Bill is definitely a fun character in his own right, whose incredible combat abilities would make him very fun to watch.

Likelihood: Depends on what you’re looking for. Every other character on this list has spent time with the Avengers and is a good fit for that team, but Beta Ray Bill has never done that, and given his character, I don’t see any reason he would. He could, however, assist the Avengers against a certain bad guy that may have been revealed at the end of The Avengers as a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy (more on that tomorrow). If a Guardians of the Galaxy movie is announced, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Beta Ray Bill as a member at some point, and since Marvel has shown that nothing is too comic-y to be put to film, Bill’s quirky characteristics don’t rule him out.

Falcon

Who he is: Falcon is widely recognized as mainstream comics’ first African-American superhero. Though his early days were largely defined by his status as outsider because of his race, the character has largely grown past that due in large part to his friendship with Captain America, who helped train him in martial arts and turn him into an incredibly capable fighter in addition to the empathic link he shares with birds. He’s able to command birds to his will to some extent (it changes depending on the writer), tap into their memories to determine what they’ve seen (though their lack of concept of time means events can be out of order), and see through their eyes to spy on enemies or find someone who is missing.

How he’d fit in: I hate to play the diversity card, but having a strong minority character can only be a good thing for Marvel marketing. Outside of that, such spying abilities would make him a perfect addition to any espionage mission the Avengers would need to pull, and his fighting skills ensure that he’ll be a valuable asset when battles roll around. Also, and this may be just me, but I feel as if the Cap needs a friend to get him through the harsh transition into the modern world, and the two characters bounce off each other really well.

Likelihood: Low to mid, probably. One should never rule out a strong minority character with the interesting skill set that Falcon has, but he’s probably not the biggest priority from Captain America continuity. I could see Falcon showing up in Captain America 3, if such a movie is ever made, before I would believe he’d make an appearance in Captain America 2. Especially since there’s a really obvious choice that comic fans everywhere are clamoring for…

Winter Soldier


Who he is: Remember Bucky Barnes, Captain America’s best friend from the first movie? Were you heartbroken when he fell to his death in that mission gone wrong? Well, have no fear! Being frozen isn’t the death it used to be, at least not in the comic universe. It turns out that the Soviets discovered Bucky’s frozen body and all but brainwashes him, taking advantage of his amnesia to turn him into one of the most effective assassin’s the Russians had ever seen, the Winter Soldier. Heck, he even has a brief romance with the Black Widow (and we know movie audiences are just looking for reasons to put Scarlett Johansson in a tight leather outfit again).

How he’d fit in: In my perfect world, Captain America 2 is essentially the Winter Soldier’s story. Cap is mourning over the loss of everything he loved when a deadly assassin starts reaping havoc on important S.H.I.E.L.D. operatives. Captain America is called in and starts hearing rumors that this assassin is, in fact, his best friend Bucky brought back from almost certain death. With mixed feelings, the Cap now has to go off and fight his best friend, hoping to restore his memory and bring him back into the fold. The climatic scene where Captain America reminds him of the soldier he used to be and Bucky breaks down with guilt would be incredibly powerful if done properly, and the two would be reunited after all these years. Marvel can take all my money if they pull that movie off properly.

Likelihood: I have to think this is where they’re going with this. They never did show Bucky’s body, and honestly, I’m not sure where else Captain America’s story would likely go without this kind of blast from the past. It’s the most fun storyline I can come up with, the deep emotions behind it would make it one of the most memorable of the marvel cinematic universe if done right. With the exception of the inevitable Avengers 2, the idea of having a Captain America movie with the Winter Solider is by far the most exciting possibility in my mind, and I really hope the heads of the Marvel movie studios agree.

Now it’s time to let me know who you think would make a good addition to the Avengers roster from the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America universes. Sound off in the comments below, or follow us on twitter at @RedShirtCrew. And don’t forget to come back tomorrow when I look at which new Marvel movie franchises are likely to see the light of day. Until then, this is MaristPlayBoy, signing out.

Prognosis: Planet of the Apes (2001)

This iteration the Planet of the Apes series directed by Tim Burton is an action movie starring Marc Wahlberg on a…well, a planet of apes. It’s pretty standard low-goal, high-budget sci-fi action fair with one of the most bewildering, shoehorned twist endings in the past decade. The film itself is rather underwhelming, failing to meet the assumed criteria set by the previous films and television programs of the franchise other than having a planet with apes on it, passing as a shiny action movie and little else. It really shows — the action is fairly well-paced and the overall, but its merit as a work of sci-fi is severely lacking by using science fiction as a setting rather than a genre. If you want a synopsis, go to the link at the top of the paragraph; I’m here to analyze, not summarize.

It should be noted that this film is not to be confused with Planet of the Apes (1968) or Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), both of which are much better science fiction films in almost every dimension.

Now, where to begin on this science-fiction train wreck of a movie?

The main issue I have with this movie is that, while it is a reboot, it completely undermines the point of the first movie of the series in which the overarching motif was the complete role-reversal of apes and humans. The original themes and motifs of the original were pretty heavy stuff, if a bit narmy by today’s standards. Humans become savages without complex language or civilized structure, while apes have language, culture, and guns. It makes an effective commentary on the treatment of animals (especially primates) while also criticizing the manipulation of science by bureaucracy, politicians, and religion in favor of anti-intellectualism.

The new Planet of the Apes looks this concept straight in the eye and slaps it across the face with a damp towel. It’s pretty much just using the name as a marketing tool for a mediocre action flick. Sadly, there’s not much surprise in that; as the genre of science fiction expands and becomes more profitable, many of the more subtle ideas, motifs, and conflicts are cut in both time and budget in favor of large set pieces, high-end CGI, and lengthy action sequences. Executives just seem think the general public is too … well, dumb to grasp a lot of the intangibles of science fiction and fantasy. Some actually considered Inception to be a bit of a gamble on these grounds, which is why we see more movies like Clash of the Titans and Transformers than we do in the vein of District 9 or Brazil.

But I digress.

In this installment of the Planet of the Apes saga, the human subordinates are able to speak perfect English, changing the original juxtaposition that made the original so moving. It sacrifices the strong commentary on animal cruelty, sapience, and anti-intellectualism for a shallow criticism of racism and slavery. Now, this idea is not without merit; heck, I think it could have made a great movie. What’s so frustrating is that it takes no risks in showing any sort of duality in its presentation, thus lacking the ethical punch of the more successful films of the series. As a result, we end up getting a watery “racism is bad, mkay?” message instead of anything more meaningful.

That’s not to say that everything is bad in this film. The apes have a very real feel to them thanks largely to the handiwork of Rick Baker, using massive amounts of makeup and cosmetics to create the face of each character to give each a certain fleshiness that just isn’t obtainable with CGI. Technology, weapons, armor, clothes, and set pieces are well designed and set a good tone for the film, taking heavy inspiration from the likes of John Howe and the Brothers Hildebrandt. Overall, it’s a very pretty movie; there’s definitely no arguing that point.

What’s really holding this film back is lack of purpose, for lack of a better term. To me, this seems to be an endemic problem to many of Burton’s films. In any good example of science fiction, there is always a core hypothesis that drives the story. Part of what made the original so frightening and intense was how the anti-intellectualism of the apes was limiting the society of both humans and apes as a whole. We draw parallels between the hypothesis and modern society and see ourselves reflected in alien scenarios, giving a different appreciable context of human actions to the viewer. We project ourselves and society onto the template and make (sub)conscious inferences from there.

Burton’s story has no real hypothesis of the sort — there’s little conflict outside of the physical danger for the protagonist. Wahlberg’s character is rather dull and has no appreciable personal motivations, making him uninteresting and unrelateable. The newer film’s simplicity keeps you waiting for the second moral conflict or plot twist that never really comes to pass. The film instead plays into Burton’s strengths and focuses on the portrayal of the world the characters are in. However, as so many Star Wars fans are eager to tell you, pleasing aesthetics rarely make up for bad acting or plot.

The thing that really bothered me, though, was that the apes didn’t really have a purpose. If you’re going to make a choice in something as important as character species, the choice you make should have purpose in order to pull the story into a tighter focus. This movie could have almost any sapient species or characters and still carry about the same weight. Let’s say he wanted to use jaguar-people. The story still works and has the added benefit of being a bit more original and interesting. Maybe they could have used lizard-men? or how about centaurs? or perhaps just classic greys? This flaw is largely endemic to the branding attempt, but I feel that another species would have been a lot more interesting to view without detracting anything significant from the experience.

I stand by what I said regarding The Day the Earth Stood Still. If they had stuck a little closer to the original premise of the film, the film would have had a tighter focus and would have held its own more effectively as a sci-fi movie. It’s not really a “more than once” movie, so I wouldn’t go out of my way to buy a copy unless it were in a $5 bargain bin at the local mega-mart. After all, there’s a reason that Burton said he’d “rather jump off a bridge” than make a sequel — that should say a lot in of itself. That said, if you find a cheap copy, know a friend who has it, or see it at the library, give it a look. If you’re just looking to kill some time riffing a movie over a bowl of popcorn with your friends, you can definitely do a lot worse.

Doc Watson is the founder of The GameRx Clinic and editor for The RedShirt Crew blog. He would really like to know how any ape in a starkly anti-intellectual society could identify aspirin by name. If you have any questions, comments, or input, leave a comment below or send him a tweet @DocWatsonMD

Prognosis: Stay Alive (2006 film)

To say the least, Stay Alive is quite a… curious film.

For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, it’s a fairly formulaic horror flick with the now memetic tagline “If you die in the game, you die for real.” Essentially, a group of teens and twenty-somethings play a survival-horror multiplayer game together. As each character dies in the game, they die in an almost identical fashion in the next hour. It’s a neat idea with no big surprises here. What’s so disappointing about this movie is that it should have been pretty good. The premise was original, the late-movie twists were good, and there was lots of fairly creative direction. When you watch the film you can see that most of the pieces of a quality film are there. All things considered, this should have been a B- movie. Sadly, the final cut feels sadly more like a struggling D+ by the time you get to the credits.

So where did Stay Alive go wrong?


While all the key pieces are there, they’re poorly assembled, held back by unnecessary boring characters, and have several major loose plot lines. The movie itself feels as though it was written backwards. The ending was solid, with satisfying action, tension, and clever little videogame twists, while the first half of the movie is contrived, boring, and generally uninteresting as all the characters we don’t care about are killed off one at a time, acting as a sort of MacGuffin-sabot to get the plot going. The thing that’s so frustrating about the movie is that you sincerely want it to be better than it is. There are some awesome moments, but the movie never follows them up with effective tension or consequences. 


It’s painfully obvious that the writers knew absolutely nothing about games, based on the number of missed opportunities. This next bit is going to say what I think could have significantly improved the movie. I’m warning you now that this section will contain some spoilers, as it’s hard to give a comprehensive analysis without reviewing a few of the tricks and twists of the movie. In this case, however, they won’t really upset the experience if you decide to watch it.
 
SPOILERS AHOY

Okay, so here’s what I think should change. I’ll try to keep it in broad strokes on missed opportunities, but I can’t guarantee this won’t get a little nit-picky.
 
First up, there should have been a completely different introduction. There was no reason for us to care about the characters who died, and the forced attempt at a sex scene felt really out of place, even in the context of a schlock horror film. Use the opportunity to get us to know the characters that we’re supposed to care about. Show one of them looking around in the game store, finding the game, buying it after getting a weird look from the game store owner. Use the opportunity to foreshadow instead of killing pointless characters!
 
Now, the film did a great job of playing around with the borders between the real world and the world of the game, playing around with the use of the first person in-game on screen and toying with the connectivity of the parallel worlds of the game and reality. Unfortunately, they missed some fantastic opportunities to explore this duality further. For example, it’s established that your demise in-game determines your demise in reality. Why not explore the idea that you could manipulate other player’s avatars when they are AFK in order alter the fate of the respective characters? If they died in-game, will the fate befall the character represented by the avatar, or the character who controlled the avatar? Perhaps both? Could someone try to hijack a character rather than save them?
 
In terms of the methods of demise for each character, it felt like the film couldn’t decide whether or not it wanted to show you the gore of their actual demise. I felt the tension of each death could have been greatly increased if the death was shown in-game and the body was then found later from similar wounds; the mind will create a much more grizzly fate for the real-world characters than the film could. For example, when the police officer dies in the torture chamber of the game, they never needed to show his head pop in the real world. I think it would have been better to show the onset of the officer’s fate and then cut away to another scene; the audience already knows what’s going to happen, so there’s no need to show them. Let them fill in the gaps, and the demise will be more moving.
 
Next up, all the characters were remarkably flat, even for a cheap horror flick. The acting talent was present for pretty much all the characters to be interesting, but the writing was so remarkably lackluster that it failed to hold together even the most basic threads of the plot together. I like to think of it as the “Anakin Effect”; the talent is there, but the writing isn’t. The only two characters that have any interesting development are Hutch and Swink, played by John Foster and Frankie Muniz respectively, but I’d still hesitate to even call them dynamic characters. The script just needed a complete overhaul and perhaps a writer who had actually played a videogame that wasn’t on the Atari 2600.

Speaking of Ataris and poor writing, there were tons of missed plot opportunities behind the nature of the game. There were some neat little tricks, don’t get me wrong. I especially like that the game itself is based on the crimes of Elizabeth Báthory, an actual historical figure. However, they drop the ball on so many great plot threads as well. We meet the developer of the game, but he pretty much just says “I love you Resident Evil, and Imma let you finish, but I made the scariest horror game of all time! OF ALL TIME!” and leaves it at that. How about you make him a descendant of Elizabeth Báthory or some kind of deranged admirer of her deeds? Also, he’s the only one in development that we meet. Surely there was a dev-team, no? You don’t just sit down one weekend and pound out a video game, and I imagine weaving a curse into it takes a little extra effort. Maybe someone other than the developer incorporates the curse, so the developer is completely clueless as to what’s going on?
 
Additionally, what about the beta-testers? That seems like it would be the ideal way to introduce the potential risk of playing the game, with old newspaper clippings of the beta-testers’ deaths discovered after the first one or two characters die. We know one of the shallower characters was a beta tester, so why not use the opportunity to flesh him out some more? Maybe have him be the first to realize the pattern?

To wrap up the spoiler section, the one other thing I wished they fixed was the soul-crushing banality of Abby, played by Samaire Armstrong. The writers at least gave October cliche goth-chick stereotypes, but Abby doesn’t even have that much going for her. It is literally impossible to describe her character other than “that girl who cries and screams a lot.” I know, I know. This is a horror movie. Even then, the least you can do is give us actual characters to care about when they’re in danger; there’s no sympathetic connection between a viewer and character they don’t care about.

END SPOILERS

As the movie stands now, it’s pretty much a textbook example of So Bad It’s Good, made all the more entertaining and/or maddening given that the pieces for a much better movie are there but fail to connect. I’d love to see a reboot, but the first one is so bad that I don’t think it would be a financial success, which is a damn shame. In the end, I say give it a watch with some friends and enjoy making fun of the movie. It’s definitely a pretty bizarre experience, and if you’re anything like me when it comes to bad movies, I promise you’ll have a good time.