The Sound of Thunder...

Here's a quote from Thor comic books: “Stay thy hand! 'Tis the God of Thunder who doth command thee!”

And so it was commanded. A movie was made.

Sometimes a movie can be a damn miracle.

When it comes together like a strike of lightening, it can produce something really good. The film Thor was one of those things which comes once in a lifetime.

The film worked on every single level. And more.

Norse legends, Viking battles, kings, queens and giants. This doesn't sound like a typical summer movie should be.

But this can be credited to the number of people working on the film. One of the writers of the story is J. Michael Straczynski.

I didn't believe it at first. But he made a cameo as the very first guy who tried to pick up Thor's hammer, as one would try to pick up Excalibur in the King Arthur legends. But he wasn't worthy.

But Straczynski was worthy enough of a storyteller.

He understands how a story should work. He knows how to bring the human element into a story and make us sympathetic to that character. He respects the characters. He also helps to relate the characters to us as an audience.

The story is a tightly wound script which weaves between two worlds: one is earth and the other is Asgard. And set between the two worlds is a brewing war between Thor's noble people and the Frost Giants who is always on the edge of hostility.

When Thor brandishes the hammer, he is a god of thunder. He has control of the skies and the storms. He is able to wield a hurricane of power against armies.

And yet he is unable to control his lust for violence. He is reckless, a fool yearning for glory. His half-brother Loki is seemingly more calm... like a serpent slithering in the garden. However, the father Odin (majestically played by Anthony Hopkins) banishes his son to earth.

This is where the human element comes into play for the story. And where comic books go Shakespearean because of Kenneth Branagh.

It is almost an opera of the heavens.

They know enough to not let the wild FX get in the way of the story. They work enough to allow for a great amount of interplay between the characters. Much of it is extremely funny without getting campy.

Thor has grossed an estimated $66,000,000 in the United States and Canada. It also grossed $176,000,000 abroad with $242,000,000 worldwide. This is a Kenneth Branagh with big numbers.

Good. I'm glad it is doing very well. It's a smart film. It's well written. It deserves some high praise. Many positive reviews erupted with this movie.

One of the things I've said before many times. Any superhero film works well if you have an unknown actor in the leading role playing the superhero. It worked extremely well with Chris Hemsworth. He is very charismatic which helps. Yet he has a telling courage which is important to the character of Thor. He is supposed to be noble. And Hemsworth does this.

The film also showcases a fine performance by Clark Gregg as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson. You've already seen him in both Iron Man films. But here he is given more to do.

Thor is the template for future comic book movies. The film holds together a very taunt story while offering an epic glimpse of huge battles between misunderstood sides on both ends. It is a huge bang, this story. Kudoes to all the people involved such as Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, and Stellan Skarsgård.

Comic books have a good future in movies now.

Thor could have been a very silly movie about a man with a stupid helmet and a hammer to drive dull nails. But Thor is enriched by a good story that allows for us indulge.

If you're a comic book fan, you'll have a good time with it., If not, don't worry. The human aspect of the story surpasses everything making this one of the best made comic book films. I'm not kidding you.

Green Hornet is a Big Mess

This was a dumb movie.

Gawd, this was a dumb, dumb movie.

There's no other way to describe it. Everything about it is just a practice of stupidity which should never have made it to the big screen.

Because of the development hell it went through, a real grinder, the 2011 film looked every bit of a mess that the writers, directors and actors put it through. “The Green Hornest” was a movie that should never have been made.

Because it was made a comedy rather than action film.

But here are some of the decent actors/actress in the film: include Jay Chou, Christoph Waltz, Cameron Diaz, Edward James Olmos, David Harbour and Tom Wilkinson. So what are they doing in this movie?

But the biggest mistake was casting Seth Rogen in the leading role. He's generally a talented guy with a lot of good ideas with writing and producing. But not this. But I don't blame him entirely for the film.

The “Green Hornet” went through the same problems as did the “Batman” TV series way back in the 1960s. For some reason, against all good judgment, someone decided to make the “Green Hornet” campy.

It wanted to be funny when it wasn't. It wanted to be hip when it wasn't. It wanted to be a comedy when it wasn't supposed to be.

The original source material for the “Green Hornet” started out in the 1940s radio show playing it straight. When the “Green Hornet” came to the TV screens, introducing the very young Bruce Lee as Kato, it was played straight.

So why was the film “The Green Hornet” made campy? There was no real reason for it if the production crew wanted to capture a piece of nostalgia. Anyone who remembers the “Green Hornet” will tell you it was a straightforward action yarn.

Sounds familiar?

The same thing happened with the Batman TV series. It was a popular fad which limped through three seasons of campy material that is far too embarrassing to watch. The original source for Batman was the comic book which started out as a straightforward action story with a dark side to it. The stories were set at night where the Batman would go through his vigilante acts to bring criminals to justice.

The TV series took a 180 degree turn from the original source and made the Batman into a comedy of errors. It was god-awful.

You see it in “Green Hornet” film. Why campy? You were left wondering if any people in the production crew had any respect for the “Green Hornet” source material. Did they even care how to create this film? There was some potential.

Yet the "Green Hornet" flunked.

Tom Wilkinson was in the film for a couple of brief scenes, and his character was written out after being shot. Wilkinson was smart enough to leave this mess behind when he did. He probably just came in to pick up the paycheck. That's about it. The others in the film weren't so lucky.

The critics of this movie knew exactly what it was about. It was bad trash.

It was mostly mixed reviews. In fact, it was mostly bad reviews. People who still remembered the Green Hornet series of old will be mystified by the sudden turn to campy in the film. This movie was geared towards more adolescents with raging hormones.

I wanted to punch a hole through the movie because it treated me like I was stupid. I can't stand that.

Being old enough to remember the old shows, Roger Ebert gave the headache film one star and wrote it as "an almost unendurable demonstration of a movie with nothing to be about.” That was a spot on review. I could add that you'll want your money and two hours of your life back. But I was smart enough to stop the DVD about halfway because I couldn't get through it anymore. The folks in the theaters weren't so lucky. Lou Lumenick of the New York Post wrote it as "an overblown, interminable and unfunny update.”

The comedy theme seems to keep cropping in the reviews. It wasn't supposed to be a comedy. And Lumernick added that star Rogen was miscast. Film crtic Richard Roeper gave it a D+. That's like the film nearly failed on every single level.
A lot of people were unhappy.

So was I.

It's one thing that people in Hollywood like to do these days. They like to take something something from the old days, something nostalgic, and turning it into a train wreck. All for the sake of a simple profit.
Movies shouldn't be made for profit.

They should be made out of respect for work and craft.

The “Green Hornet” failed on those accounts.

What was it like seeing this film? It felt like my brains was splashing around in a blender. I felt like someone was standing on my head with high heel shoes during the whole time. I felt like my head were being squeezed by the awfulness of the film. And that was the first half hour of it. I wouldn't watch this movie again if you gave it to me for free.

Yes, I found it to be a waste of time. Was there anything good in it at all? Well, I thought the darkly painted Imperial the Black Beauty was pretty cool. But that's not saying much.

Hollywood needs to start thinking about showing respect and endearment to old franchises. “The Green Hornet” suffered a horrible round of people being greedy for making a profit. I don't want it to happen to other shows that may have an affectionate fan following. But you know that Hollywood simply doesn't care. And neither should you if you ever come across this travesty in a video store.

A Darker Doctor Who?

Against all odds, the second part of the Doctor Who season opener paid off. The first part was a proper set up. But the second half really delivered the goods.

You don't see too many examples in film history of great sequels. The number you can count would be the number you can count with you hand.

There is “Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back” which is superior to the first. “Godfather 2” was a near perfect film that was better than the original. “Mad Max 2” was better than its original in terms of plot development and remarkable stunts.

The Doctor Who episode “Day of the Moon” may join the fleet of sequels that was better than the first. Perhaps I didn't expect it to be so good. I liked “The Impossible Astronaut” as there were a few good shockers.

But the fun is in “Day of the Moon.” It's got a bunch of plot twists, excellent pacing and enough story surprises to keep you coming back for next week.

I'm hooked again. For good, this time.

Moffat did say that the series is going to get much darker, more glooming as it progresses. I can't help feeling that there's still plenty of sense of humor in the shows.

When President Nixon asks the Doctor what his future will be like, he wants to know like any other president if he'll be remembered. The Doctor playfully answers, “Oh yes, Tricky Dicky, you'll be remembered.”

For all the wrong reasons.

But it's this kind of writing that remains so much fun. Humor is one way of setting off unease. You see it when Doctor River Song is falling from the fiftieth floor to her death only to have the TARDIS stop her in mid-flight. And she's dropped into the swimming pool inside the TARDIS. The next scene you'll find her drying off with a towel.

There's another fun bit when in the middle of a battle, Rory asks her what kind of professor River Song was. Song answers while shooting down one of the Silence, “Of archeology!”

But there are so many great scene in the episode that makes it look like a million dollar baby. The bit with the Doctor caught in the middle of fiddling with the Apollo 11 circuits is hilarious... and the camera pulling away to show the full scene of the rocket soon to make its historical launch in 1969 really paints a big picture. They spent their money well on this show.

Another fun bit: You can see Amy struggling to get out of her captivity when the Doctor, Rory and River Song makes the final assault against the Silence. Watching Amy struggle as if everyone's forgotten about her is actually pretty funny.

You can see Rory fumbling around with the Apollo model when he was at the NASA station. And he broke off a piece of it. That's what you get when you're messing around with a model like that. Another fun bit.

The Silence continues to be a devious race. They hide in shadows. They are like whispers in darkness. They continue to be very creepy. There is a scene when Amy finds a horde of them clattering and whispering. She realizes they are all upside down hanging like bats in a cave. It's one of the creepiest scenes in Doctor Who. This particular scene reminds me of the Alien movies because of the great use of lighting.

What I also liked about this episode is the great use of technology. That's the Doctor's most useful skill. His ability to turn technology into a good thing. He was able to install several chips into his companion's hands... small recording devices to help them battle the Silence.

The Doctor was able to build a transmitting machine in Apollo 11 as another way of fighting the Silence.

This was all about figuring out a way to fight an enemy that makes you forget who they are the exact moment you look away. Thankfully, some devices would be able to record the images or voices of the Silence. People might be able to forget due to post-hypnotic suggestions. But machines can't forget.

The Silence were almost like magicians planting suggestions and ideas into people's heads. They are sorcerers of hypnosis. But the Doctor was able to find a way around it by using technology. Science triumphs once again.


Doctor Who maintains a life of quality that would be difficult to beat. This season opener set the stage for the rest of the series. It was like a hurricane of ideas. It was like a storm of stories. But it establishes with a very firm hand what the series is going to be like. Fast, gritty, pulling no punches. I loved it. And so will you.

Doctor Who has come back with a great nod to science triumphing over danger. And it should be. Time travel ideas are fun to mess around with. And I'll be interested in seeing what is going to happen next.

What will the Silence be up to for next time?

Who is that little girl in the space suit? And why did she fire up like a brilliant energy as would a Time Lord? Is she a Time-Lady? How is she connected to the good Doctor? Is she the Doctor's daughter? Is the Doctor somehow finding a way to procreate his own race?

The Doctor is the last of his kind. But are we seeing the Doctor making his own Garden of Eden in space?

It's an interesting idea to know that the Doctor may no longer be the last of his kind. You do notice that he no longer says in the shows, “I'm the last of the Time Lords.”

Maybe the Doctor has learned to confront his own guilt and moving on. And creating his race again like a god playing with his own minions.

It's almost frightening.

Doctor Who's Easter Eggs

So what is Easter like without Doctor Who?

Empty, a little dull. But thankfully, Doctor Who comes to us with a blaze glory that matches the feeling and mood of a second coming.

I wonder if the Doctor could walk on water? But this isn't about the Doctor being the messiah or some other crap like that. This is Doctor Who hitting the television screens again while charting unknown territories.

Perhaps the opening episode didn't have breathtaking excitement as the last year's did. It could be that we are all so used to Doctor Who being on TV now. We take it all for granted. Many of us just think that Doctor Who is on for another year.

But this year is taking you along for another crazy ride. What it lacks for freshness it made up for shockers.

The following would be what River Song would endearingly call, “Spoilers.”

The writers of the show are looking to throw you on a curve. They're shaking things up a bit. There are a couple of shockers that'll leave you hanging on your seat.

Number one, the Doctor dies in the very beginning of the show. I'm not spoiling anything here or saying anything at the risk of River Song putting a bullet into me. But it's a nice way to start the season off by creating what could be a Christ-like death.

It'll make you think more about the show when the Doctor comes back again seemingly from life. Is he the real Doctor? Might be be some parallel version of him because he is seemingly much darker character than what we're used to. But I do like of like it when the Doctor acts like douchebag towards others. It's rather funny.

Next on the list. The Silence.

This has got to be on of the creepiest aliens to come along in a while. It's nice that head writer Stephen Moffat and his team are coming up with new creatures to bring menace to the good Time-Lord and his crew.

The Silence reminds me of The Scream painting by the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch. Interesting to note that Munch is from the period as Vincent Van Gogh who made an appearance last season. Probably just a coincidence.

The Silence's intentions are creepy. They move like whispers and shadows in the background. And they can make you forget things. How can you fight something you forget? Is that why they are called the Silence? Because making you forget is their natural defenece mechanism?

They're well dressed in three piece suits which may in fact make them more creepy because they should be civilized.

But they're not.

They make Richard Nixon look like a goody two shoes in comparison.

Moffat's love of time travel ideas is something I enjoy because I like the Back to the Future movies. Those movies offer the idea of time-traveling splintering reality if not fixed right. I think the same thing is happening here. Moffat is putting cracks in the universe and we'll be seeing what the consequences are for the remainder of the season.

Will the Doctor be able to fix all the wrongs here? Give him time.

Th story is set in 1969 America where you can see American at its finest with the colorful landscape while at the same time you see Nixon presiding over the country with his paranoia. It is this mood and atmosphere that creates a tension for the episode.

It's nice for the series to give some scenes to the well known actor William Morgan Sheppard best known for his role in Max Headroom and Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country. More so, his son Mark Sheppard is in it as well who's very good.

But the Doctor Who crew did a nice job of using sights of America to give their opening episode a nice boost. It is a nice gesture for the American fans who have long and dedicated fans including myself.

I'll be interested to see how this new, strange alien race The Silence will pan out for the forthcoming episodes. It's nice to see the Doctor Who team is moving away from reusing old, familiar villains and looking to make new monsters. That's a good thing. One of the reasons why the Tom Baker shows remain my favorite of the old days is because the writers' desire to create new myths and history for the long running series. You already have an excellent fourth Doctor at the helm. Why not take the chance of creating new monsters without relying on the old?

I'm interested in what the role The Silence will play. I know it wouldn't be anything good. How will they be a threat to the Doctor? They were already responsible for the destruction of the TARDIS in the previous season. Now they are moving in closer now like pieces on a chess game, soon to corner the Doctor.

The season makes room for other strong characters such as River Song, the now wedded Amy Pond and Rory Williams. Let's not hope they become casualties in the destructive path of the Doctor's travels.

Anime's True Storyteller

You might have never heard of Hayao Miyazaki.

But you would have watched one or two of his movies already and not even know it.

There's “Princess Mononoke,” “Spirited Away,” “Castle in the Sky,” “Kiki Delivery's Service,” “Ponyo,” “Howling's Moving Castle,” and many more.

I'm willing to bet you saw at least one of them.

Miyazaki hails as one of the foremost and influential animators from Japan whose crisp and simple style often is colorful, always a visual delight. I call him the Walt Disney of Japan. There are many similarities.

His films often have young, innocent children or older teen adults as the protagonist. They are central to the emotional core of the story. His characters are often strong, easily identified by youngsters of today.

Not only that, Disney films have recently repackaged many of Miyazaki's films as Disney presentations complete with a new English audio track for those who do not like subtitles. The voices are some of the most well known actors in the business today: Mark Hamill, Gillian Anderson, Billy Bob Thornton, David Ogden Stiers, John Ratzenberger and many more gave their voice talents to create an English version of the stories.

For those who prefer the original Japanese tracks, you get that too on the Disney presentations. But it is nice to see that Disney is paying its homage and respect to one of the best animators working in the field. He's semi-retired now with his son working in animation. However, Miyazaki said in an interview, “My son will find his own way in animation. I'm not interested in creating a dynasty.”

His own words hold sway. His works and thoughtful stories often portray a youthful rebellion in a world filled with conflict. He has a stunning imagination that fills the animation with visual schemes that are often otherworldly.

Yet, at the same time, he is able to recreate a sense of the past with familiar settings such as 1940s Japan for his beautiful, yet very sad film “Fireflies of the Graves,” appointing him as one of the best presenters of ideas.
Go ahead and pick any one of his movies.

And you'll be washed away by some of the most simple ideas and beauty. This is what animation should be about. Personal vision. It's a unique storytelling that is his own.

Miyazaki spoke of not wanting to create a dynasty. But he did anyway. His great number of films has dominated the animation scene for years. He also co-created the Studio Ghibli to help finance many of his later films. He is essentially an independent filmmaker who brought his films to the celluloid with a personal touch.

His “Princess Mononoke” film was very successful in both Japan and the United States which might have been the most public exposure of Miyazaki's work. Roger Ebert of the Sun-Times placed it sixth of the top ten best movies of 1999. Filmmaker Terry Gilliiam placed it on one of the top 50 best animation ever made.
High praise continue from directors and other animators.

It's unfortunate that his name is not known throughout the western hemisphere like it should be. As with Akira Kurisawa, his works and achievements do shine brighter than his own name did.

It's difficult to pick which ones are favorites. There are so many to choose. They're all good in their own way. They carry the quality and weight of a very hard-working animator who understands how to tell a story.

There is his most famous work “Lupata: Castle in the Sky” which involves a city which floats in the skies according to myth and legends. But several groups of greedy people want to find the floating caste and take the treasure for themselves.

“Princess Mononoke” is one of my favorites because it was my first film which introduced me to the famed animator's work. It was stylish and brilliant. And it offers a kind theme of saving the forest from the reckless hands of humanity. In fact, such themes still make sense in this day and age.

There are never really any villain in his work. They are antagonists who don't understand the situation around them and may come to reason later on in the film. But the films are children's stories. They are meant to teach a lesson. And hope they would somehow capture the innocence of childhood for you.

If you haven't seen any of his works, be a good sport and check one out now. It's worth the time and effort. And you wouldn't feel ashamed about being greeted to one of the most imaginative worlds

It's nice to see that women characters are very strong in the stories. And you'll find that you're sympathetic with the youths in the stories. And perhaps you may feel that you share their dilemma as well.

Miyazaki should be more well known for his works. It's a shame he's not. They're bringing his works under Disney presentations. It's a start.

World of Narnia

There’s nothing wrong with watching a good fairy tale.

And the “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” offers just that. It is also the third part of the Chronicles of Narnia series which began with the explosion of popularity with sword and sorcery stories which became popular when the Lord of the Rings movies hit the theaters.

How does it fare? I do like these films more than the Harry Potter series which are coming to the movie screens at breakneck speed. However, the Chronicles of Narnia has more imagination poured into them.

There have been mixed reviews on this film especially with some of the internet critics. I don’t understand why.

The film has many strong performances from all the child actors and remains true to the spirit of the previous films. The third film has become the subject of negative reviews from the Rotten Tomatoes website, a site I never cared for. I would rely more on the critical responses of Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times and Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel… both of them liked the film for all its worth.

It’s a nostalgic trip to the fantasy land where some animals talk and spirits come back to haunt. And there is also a dragon and a sea serpent to boot as well. But the movie really banks on the magnificent performance of the youngest children Lucy and Edmund Pevensie who are kings and queens in the Narnia world. And they tag along a snot-nosed brat cousin Eustace Scrubb.

The interesting thing is Eustace might be the most important character in this chapter. At first, he squeals, cries like a baby and thinks only of himself. No one likes him. Not a one considers himself part of the family except a talking, sword-wielding rat who serves as his good guide. But throughout the adventures the boy becomes all the stronger for it.

Much of the film is told through his own point of view as he writes in his dairy. He hates everything about Narnia at first. But after a time he begins to believe the fairy tales and myths. He starts to accept his imagination as real.

Apparently younger children who still believes in the old legends are magically transported to this world. The adults lose their faith of imagination and is no longer brought back to the tales of Narnia. The older children become embedded in reality. All you have to do is believe enough to find a doorway back to this fantasy world.

I have already mentioned that the children actors are strong in their leading performance because the story of Narnia is certainly told through their point of view. The strongest performance, however, belongs to one of the adults. It is Anna Popplewell as Susan Pevensie who offers a cameo. She shows a deeper sexuality and forceful personality in the cameo she is allowed in the film.

It is brilliant how they worked into the film how the younger sister Lucy wishes she was beautiful like her older sister Susan. And it becomes a very nice sub-plot that British actress Popplewell is involved in. Such scenes shows how she is becoming a very adult woman who is now interested in getting married and going to rich parties. It is this greed that shows a remarkable flaw in the character.

But it’s a shame that Popplewell won’t be any more films as her character appears only in a few books in the Narnia series. She is indeed a very beautiful woman. And her acting gives a great credibility to the film.

It is all the leading characters in the film are tested by temptation. And the evil is like the trailing snake in the garden of Eden that is seems to overshadow everything else.

The film offers a staggering glimpse of the end of the world with tall waves of waters and the brutal seas in which the Dawn Treader must cross. At the very same time, there is a storm of emotions between Edmund, Lucy and Prince Caspian. They become thrown into a soap opera of jealousy, rage and betrayal which becomes the centerpiece of the film’s pace.

Is it a worthy follow up to the other films in the series? Yes. It is a very enjoyable film which will gain interest from people in all age groups. The film maintains the same kind of innocence and grace reveals the illusion of fantasy.

It is this remarkable innocence that makes this film notable. The same kind of innocence that the Harry Potter films has lost so long ago. It feels like nothing has changed in the world of Narnia. There’s still the sweet nostalgia that lingers in the world between the doorways of reality. It’s a place you wouldn’t mind going to again. And that might be a good thing.

Sucker Punch Review: Good or bad? In between, really.

I saw “Sucker Punch” in the theaters over the weekend on its release.

It’s not a bad movie. It’s not a great movie either. But there are some real stunning imagery worked into the film that boasts of al lively imagination. A gallery of visuals strike with a feast of special effects circling around several very beautiful women. How can it possible go wrong?

It’s the story that bogs you down after a while.

The final verdict, along with many critics, is the visual department is well done. Shame about the story.

It is a messy storyline which centers on a woman who is brought to the Lennox House for the Mentally Insane where it is run by a sadistic warden and the woman often escapes the terrible world of the asylum to cope with it. But it is really a brothel.

The central girl Baby Brown (aptly played by the always watchable Emily Browning) devises a plan to get out of the nuthouse: get five items being the map, knife, fire and key. The fifth element is supposed to be a “mystery” which she will learn herself.

The most challenging aspect of the film is the intercutting between reality and imagination in which Baby Doll uses when she dances. Her thoughts, ambitions and dreams are tossed into a very high-powered women fantasy where they are stronger and faster than mean. And they kick a lot of butt too.

But is it that good a story? No. It doesn’t make sense until the very last threads of the story comes into focus at the very end of the film. By then, you’re bogged down by the confusion of it all. But the music is pretty good for an action flick like this. It’s like watching a very expensive music video.

You’ll get to see rather towering samurai figures in Baby Doll’s initial fantasies. Which strikes a heap of similarities between this film and Terry Gilliam’s film “Brazil.”

It’s almost a rip-off.

I think Gilliam should look into the possible matter of suing the crap out of director Zach Snyder who gave us enough loud, bombastic movies. Excuse me, Mr. Synder, can you tell me where did you get the idea of those massive samurai men using large swords? That sounds a bit… er… like my movie.

But I’m not going to get into that.

I did have some issues with one of the initial reviews of Richard Roeper who clearly didn’t understand anything about the movie.

He gave the film a D which is fine. I’m not going to say it’s a brilliant film though there are portions I liked in it. But he starts saying the film " confusing house-of-horrors story with busty women…”

Number one, I didn’t think any of the major women were busty in the film. Some of them like Jamie Chung looked well endowed and lovely, but wouldn’t fit Roeper’s description. I don’t know why he would go on with a remark like this. He compares them to the Girl Next Door which is a low blow.

But he calls Baby Doll’s an “imagination a fantasy and reality and alternate reality and alternate fantasy-reality.” He doesn’t seem to understand that it’s just her imagination, not an alternative universe. He seems to be confused between the subject matters. This isn’t about an alternative universe. It’s about a woman who goes to the very corner of her mind which is the safest from the harsh world she found herself.

But he is right about one thing.

It is a confused mess.

But what was Zach Snyder thinking when doing this movie? Was he trying to make a schlock exploitation film with beautiful woman or was he making an action film with a psychological story? Maybe both? He does describe it as Alice in Wonderland with machine guns. Okay. I sorta get it now.

Is Synder going to be the next Terry Gilliam in movies? He’s got a long way to go.

He’ll need to start making a clean slate when it comes to scripts. And try to make more sense out of them. I love all the women actresses in it and did like the idea of the film. But it wasn’t executed very well. What is wrong with that guy?

And what was wrong for me for seeing a movie like this? I guess I really was sucker punched.

Mega Funny

Megamind was a fun movie.

More than that, the story was an intelligent spoof which takes up the best of comic book themes and turn it into something different. Most people in the audience would enjoy this film even if they didn't follow the comic books.

Don't be afraid to admit it's the comedy that holds up well.

It's not hard to see that much of it is inspired by the old Superman comic books of yesteryear... the lone survivor of an alien planet and an outsider to the human race.

The film “Megamind” pokes fun at everything. And I do mean everything. Even the names of the characters like Megamind, Metro Man and Titan all have their roots in the comic books. Many comic books of old always did have rather theatrical names that were larger than life. The Iron Man issues created a super-villain named Obsidian Stane. That sounded like a dasterdly name. It's the name that's bound to be villainous. What about names like Mr. Fantastic from the old Marvel comics which suggested something heroic?

So the people who created the film “Megamind” really knew their stuff. They loved their comic books and brought to life a spoof with a good heart to it.

Will Ferrel is always a great actor in comedies and manges to make every movie shine brightly in funny with his presence. Ferrel is a funny guy. He plays the biggest bad guy Megamind who is bent on defeating the super good guy wonderfully voiced by Brad Pitt. Their voices were perfect harmony with the story itself. Ferrel manages to bring a spot of humanity to a madman egomaniac who could have easily been buffoonish. But he seems adorable instead. Ferrel pulled it off well.

There were plenty other voices which elevated the story to comedic heights such as J.K. Simmons as the warden and Tina Fey from Saturday Night Live who plays the female lead. But one of the brightest spots is Ben Stiller who also co-produced the film He plays an intellectual dweeb in the film which Roxanne falls for. Stiller plays it straight which is always his best... Stiller is never funny in his comedies, but when he's playing the straight man he's brilliant. Kudos to Stiller's great contribution to the film.

There are other fun stuff in the film with Megamind's turn of bad English when he is unable to pronounce certain words and comes off with an exaggerated accent.

The music is always a perfect cue in the film. And it does help with the comic effect in the film. The choice of the songs actually makes sense in the film such as “Bad to the Bone” by George Thoroughgood, “Bad” by Michael Jackson and “Mr. Blue Sky” by ELO. Those are really good choices made and they got one or two songs by AC/DC in it. You can never go wrong with AC/DC.

It is the comic element that remains strong. Sometimes some comedies run out of steam or stick around far too long. But this 90 minute movie is the right fit for the comedy. It tells the story of a good and bad guy and gives it an ample twist. Perhaps the message is this: being a bad guy isn't always a bad thing?

It's a mind warp.

But they were able to do it. They were able to make a villain who seems capable of some sliver of good. Megamind is able to put right the wrong he's done when he realizes it. So he was able to admit to his mistakes and fix them.

Not a lot of people can do that. Admit they're wrong.

The entire story is like a comic spoof of Superman versus Lex Luthor with a bundle of fun gift-wrapped around it. How can you not like the movie “Megamind”? And you have to ask yourself it's okay to root for the bad guy. Sure, it's okay. Three cheers for the bad guy. You're on the right side this time.