Laserwolf65 / Member

Forum Posts Following Followers
6701 59 47

Laserwolf65 Blog

My idea for a series of Superman movies

I haven't liked a single superman movie to date, and as a result I've tried to brainstorm just how I would do a superman movie saga. What follows is a vague idea of what I would do.



Movie 1:

The movie would start off on Krypton. It's very much taken from the animated series with braniac being the supercomputer that helps destroy krypton. We move to earth and things go as you'd expect (growing up in smallville etc...). Supes will be powerful, but toned down (he'd have trouble lifting a tank for instance). It will be established that he moved to Metropolis years before his first apperance as Supes so that it makes it more difficult to link the arrival of Supes to the arrival of Kent. Luthor pretty much owns the city. He wants to create a super police force that would follow his orders. As part of the experiment, the silver banshee is created and she is shown to the public. Superman would be a natural outgrowth of Clark not trusting Lex and his super soldier project. The movie would then be about how the city needs to learn to trust Supes over Banshee. Illegal activities would ensue, but Supes can't concretely link the goings on to Lex. Lex becomes angry and obsessed with destroying superman and as the film ends, strange files appear in Lex's database (sent by brainiac) explaining kryptonian technology and how it was used for advanced cloning techniques.

Movie 2:

The public see Superman as a hero, but Lex is also seen as a good man too. Lex creates a clone of Superman using the info recieved at the end of the last film and some blood left by one of the battles with Silver Banshee. This clone would degenerate into Bizarro and Lex would be implicated. As the movie goes on, the clone continues to degenerate into doomsday and the two fight to the death. Lex will be seen as responsible and put into jail having lost all public backing. As the whole world mourns the loss of Superman, Braniac (who would have constructed himself a body by way of Lexcorp technology) steals the superman corpse.

Movie 3:

I only have a vague idea of how it would go. Essentially, Brainiac would lead a massive invasion of earth. As this is going on, people would have to turn to lex luthor to save them from braniac. He would reveal another clone of superman that would be known as the eradicator. He'd send the eradicator against braniac, but then braniac would send a revived Superman (under mind control of some kind) against the eradicator and he would be victorious. With superman on Braniac's side all would seem lost until the discovery of kryptonite. With this, Lex is able to subdue Superman and snap him out of the trance. Supes will be sent to fight against braniac, but lex will get the final blow (thank's Secret Invasion for the idea). The movie ends with Superman not trusted, and Lex being the public's savior.

Movie 4:

With the invasion over, Lex is running for President. He now knows Superman's weakness(kryptonite), and along with the fact that the people no long trust him anymore, Lex is not worried about Supes as a threat at all. It's here where I don't have all the details, but I figure that Lex would be up to no good and at the climax of the film, he'd don his battle armor (powered by kryptonite) and the two would have a climactic showdown. In the end, Superman is redeemed and Lex is done for good.


What do you guys think? What suggestions do you have? Do you have any ideas of your own that you'd like to share?

Scott Pilgrim vs the world is the worst film I've seen all year.

To anyone who is thinking about seeing this movie, I tell you to not waste your time. This film is an utter travesty. It is a film crafted for people with thirty second attention spans. If you think that that's a joke... it isn't. Every thirty seconds or so the scences change and we're in a new location with new people talking about boring things unrelated to the previous events. This film's mere existence isalarming to me. How can this be passed off as entertainment? Apparently though, all the teens in my showing loved it death. No wonder our students are failing to keep up with the rest of the world.

So Scott Pilgrim falls in love for a girl (for no good reason) and has to defeat her seven evil ex's to continue dating her (again, for no good reason). You'd think that this would be all about fighting wouldn't you? Well no, because almost all of the fights end on complete deus ex machina anti climaxes. Nothing is riveting, and nothing is exciting. Apart from that, the movie has no sense of internal logic to it. Does this take place in a video game? Maybe it's a comic book world. Do people just always turn into coins when they're murdered? To quote the Nostalgia Critic: "EXPLAIN MOVIE! EXPLAIN!!!!"

It also doesn't help that the whole affair is so lifeless. None of the actors emote. Never. They just stare into the camera delivering their lines as monotonously as possible. How can we possibly enjoy a movie where none of the characters/actors appear to be having any fun themselves?

All in all, this film is a plague. I sincerely hope that it does not do well, because if it does we will have to sit through many year's worth of films immitating this travesty. I hated this movie, and if you go to see it, don't say I didn't warn you.

*/*****

There is no such thing as a "must see in theaters movie"

I was talking with a friend the other day about Avatar. He loved it, I thought it was meh. Anyway, he boughtit on Blu Ray and we watched it again. Afterwards, he bemoaned about how much was lost not being able to see it on the big screen with the glasses. I thought it was exactly the same, and an argument ensued.

The whole point I want to make here is that I've never seen why someone should feel like they have to see a movie in theaters. I was out of the country doing missionary work when The Dark Knight came out. When I finally saw it in December 2009, I saw it on a 13 inch SDTV, and you know what? I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. I have seen it on larger and larger screens, and the effect is the same. My point is, if the movie's good, then it'll be good on any size screen. If it sucks, it'll suck on any size screen.

We all need to stop pretending that the special effects are any better when seen on a larger screen. The truth is that they aren't. I wasn't wowed by Avatar's commercials on my TV, nor was I wowed by them on the big screen. I don't need a theater to see that 2001: a space odyssey has some of the best cinematography ever... it's just obvious.

IMO, the only thing that theaters have over the home viewing experience is the sound system, but even then, if you like it on the big screen, I see no reason why you shouldn't like it just as much on the small screen. It is, after all, the same movie.

Memento Review (I just saw it for the first time today)

Memento tells the story of Leonard who has no short-term memory. He lost it defending his wife from a rapist. He compensates for this by writing down notes all the time about what has just occurred so that he might know who he is talking to and what he needs to do. He has a few facts about the man who raped/killed his wife and is on a quest to find him and kill him.

Since Leonard's confusion is the film's main premise, the story is told non-linearly so that we might also feel his confusion. A simple way to put it is that the film is shown in reverse order. This keeps the viewer constantly guessing what is happening and what are people's true intentions. It is very effective.

While the movie is quite good, there are a few flaws. The first, and lesser flaw, is that not all the vignettes are as interesting as the others. The beginning is fascinating, and the last hour as well. There is a good half-hour stretch in between these two points where the film drags a bit. The second flaw is that Leonard's condition does not stay consistent. Sometimes he can remember a seemingly twenty minute conversation, while at other times, he forgets what he was doing after only a minute. There are a few rules to his memory loss (like when a door shuts loudly it seems that this triggers memory loss), but on the whole, it seems like he only forgets when the plot needs him to.

Despite all these flaws, the movie is quite enjoyable. It is confusing, but in a good way. I could easily see myself watch this again in the near future. If you like Christopher Nolan, or if you just like a well-made film, I recommend Memento whole-heartedly.

4/5 stars

(The movie is rated R for language and very brief drug use. There is some violence, but it's pretty PG-13)

The last airbender review

This is not really a film; it is half a film. Those who know me know that my most frequent complaint is that a movie goes on too long, but they'll be surprised to know that I think The Last Airbender needed another hour (yes, a whole nother hour!) for it to make sense.

The story has to do with four nations who can "bend" or manipulate a certain element (air, water, earth, or fire). The avatar can bend all four. He went missing a hundred years ago, and in his absence, the fire nation started a war. Aang, the avatar, is back and has to stop the war.

The movie literally jumps from location to location without any sense of time or purpose. If I was not familiar with the source material, I would not have understood a single thing that happened outside of the first 10 minutes. It's a poorly written, poorly directed, and incomprehensible mess that really needs more time to explain whats going on and why we should care.

Still, I did not hate the move; I pity it. By that I mean that it had so much potential, but it just doesn't work. For my money, all the actors were great, the sets and costumes were beautiful, and the majority of the effects were really well done. Seeing all the talent put into this, I feel bad having to give it such low marks, but Shamylan (or perhaps Paramount) has squandered all that talent to make a disaster of a movie.

1.5/5 stars

I've come to the realization that I just don't like anime.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have sufficient experience with anime to form my opinion. I have seen kiddie shows like pokemon and yu-gi-oh, I have seen action shows like Naruto and DBZ, I have seen parts of Evangelion, I've seen all of Tenchi Muyo, I've seen parts of full metal alchemist, and parts of death note. I have also seen four miyazaki movies (spirited away, nausicaa, laputa, and princess mononoke) and one that he directed (whisper of the heart).

I dislike the animation for one. I realize that they have smaller budgets and staff, but many times the animation just comes off as cheap to me. Unless there's an action scene, there just seems to be little to nothing in terms of character movement. I can't tell you how many conversation scenes I've seen where all they did was take a still image and move the mouths up and down. Now, the movies that I saw didn't suffer to the same degree that the shows did, but I swear that it was still present.

The main beef I have is just with japanese story telling. It just seems to me that they completely forgoe telling a story and instead just focus on filler and character bits. Now, I'm all for character development, but I think that it should be done in the context of the narrative. I know that asian storytelling follows a different philosophy than western storytelling does, and that's just fine. I simply don't like it. I don't like having to wait for what seems like hours for something important to happen (I'm looking at you whisper of the heart!). I know that here on the site I'm in the minority, but I won't apologize for it. I don't like anime, and I don't think that I'll be giving it a chance any time soon.

My Toy Story 3 review

In 1995, Toy Story was released, and my 7-year-old self loved every minute of it. Four years later, Toy Story 2 came out and, while not quite as good as the first, it was still an excellent film. The characters and plots of these films are, and will always be, near and dear to my heart. I, like everyone from my generation, couldn't have been more excited to see Buzz, Woody, and the gang for one last romp; the results of this 11-year wait for a sequel are commendable, but underwhelming.

The movie begins with a mind-blowingly fun action sequence taking place in Andy's imagination. We are then treated to a short montage relating the story of Andy and his toys as he steadily grows older. Both sequences are very satisfying.

As the movie continues, we meet up with Andy at age 17. He's ready to go to college and has to decide what to do with his old toys. Although he wants to put them in the attic, they accidentally almost get thrown out, but eventually they wind up at a daycare center. Everything seems great--what with a plentiful supply of children--but things are not what they seem. It turns out that the paradise is more of a prison, and thus the gang must escape and return home before it's too late.

Here is where the movie sags and seems to go on autopilot. Though I won't spoil anything important, I will say that this is the third movie in row where woody is separated from the gang, the third movie where there's a rescue involved, and the third movie where we see buzz in "space ranger" mode. There are a few good gangs throughout all this (I laughed really hard a couple times) but it's pretty mediocre over all.

All of that changes in the last half hour though. To mention anything would spoil it, but suffice it to say that there's a harrowing sequence in a dump that's just heart wrenching. The ending moments are pitch-perfect as well, giving us the absolute best possible send off for the franchise. I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried twice in this last 30-minute stretch.

It's a shame that a good half of the film is so average when the rest is absolutely superb. All in all, Toy Story 3 is a good, but disappointing and uneven movie. I was glad to see it, but whereas I usually can't wait for a Pixar DVD release, I probably wont pick this one up when it first comes out, rather I'll wait until the price drops.

3.5 stars out of 5

video game magazines are useless

So the other day I was thumbing through a gamepro at the store that I work at and I skipped right to the reviews section. In a 90 or so page magazine, there are only like 6 reviews. In a month like this with so many releases, how can you seriously only have six reviews?

Let's just assume for a sec that you want to wait for a review before you spend 60 bucks for a game. Well, if your source of reviews is this magazine you'd have to wait a whole month (perhaps more) to read a review of No more heroes 2 (just to give an example). For heaven's sake, the a review of that game was up more or less a week before it came out on IGN, and a day after it came out on gamespot. You can access those sites for free too, but it's assumed that you have to subscribe to the game magazine. Lame.

News suffers the same problem. Why wait to get the news from E3 and other events when the stuff is on the net the same day it's released? Not only that, but if by some small chance the magazine gets an exclusive story, the day the magazine gets on the shelf, someone will post the info on the net.

Conclusion: video game magazines suck.

I'm going on a mission! See you all in two years!

Well, monday 12/10/2007 I'm leaving for a mission. I'll be serving in Argentina for 2 years. So long everyone! I'll see you all in 2009 (assuming of course that they don't delete my account). If they do delete my account, I'll be back under a different moniker.
  • 22 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3