Don't fast forward this one: My 'Superman' trailer reaction

I've been pretty tired of comic book movies in the last few years, primarily because of the flood of Marvel movies that have been released. The more recent movies failed pretty hard - i.e. "Madame Web," "The Marvels," and "Dark Phoenix" for instance. I certainly wasn't eager to see those. "Captain Marvel" from 2019 was also just plain terrible. 

When it comes to DC movies, well, I've been a little more partial to them probably because I was more familiar with DC superheroes in my youth. They've stuck with me. 

This upcoming and highly anticipated "Superman" movie, scheduled for release in July of 2025 is directed by James Gunn who also directed my most favorite Marvel movies, "Guardians of the Galaxy" Vol.1 and 2. So, "Superman" has my attention. I also shared my thoughts on "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3" on an earlier post.

With the movies DC Comics has released in the last 10 years, there have been a respectable number of hits.  

I thoroughly enjoyed director Zack Snyder's cut of "Justice League" - all four hours of it. I gave it a positive review for a column I used to write in a local newspaper. 

The 2023 movie "The Flash" was enjoyable enough for me, primarily because I wanted to see Michael Keaton in his 1989 Batman outfit one more time. And it gave me what I wanted! I walked away satisfied seeing Keaton as Batman one more time. Anyone who read my comments on Tim Burton's 1989 movie "Batman" may remember I have a special place in my heart for "Batman."  

I've become not-so-hateful towards 2016's "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice." It has grown on me, and I want to watch it again. 

I enjoyed 2017's "Wonder Woman" though its 2020 sequel "Wonder Woman 1984" was disappointing. Lastly, the 2019 DC movie "Shazam!" was surprisingly very enjoyable! It's 2023 sequel, "Shazam! Fury of the Gods" was a big miss in my book despite a few good things it had going for it.  

Otherwise, I've lost most of my interest in the stuff Marvel has been coming out with. The best days of Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU) is past. The fatigue is real. With DC seemingly not making as much of a desperate attempt to keep up with the MCU and just doing its own thing on its own time, I'm more excited to see what they come up with as far as movies go. And this trailer grabbed my attention like it did with millions of other movie-goers. 

Superman is the most American superhero out there. That attribute needs to shine through in this movie, especially with our social climate being what it is. That patriotic mentality certainly helped make 2022's "Top Gun" sequel "Top Gun: Maverick" one of the best movie sequels ever made. That movie is fantastic!

I think Superman needs to maintain his stance for "truth, justice, and the American way" in this upcoming flick. Ten years ago, to think otherwise of Superman would seem far-fetched. But that was ten years ago.

The trailer starts with Superman crash landing in a frozen wasteland, beaten severely thus creating a sense of urgency. What or whom could possibly beat up Superman so badly? Doomsday is my only guess. 

Anyways, pumping "Superman" with the all-too-commonplace woke ideology and anti-American sentiment and shame is my biggest concern for where this movie might go. The 2022 movie "The Batman" with Robert Pattinson leaned a bit in that direction as I recall, leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Even folks who don't read comic books can still get behind Superman, especially as a figure of Americana.

Otherwise, based on this trailer, "Superman" looks like it'll be a fun and enjoyable movie. Superman looks like Superman. It has all the appearances of what a Superman movie ought to be. In other words, it looks like it'll meet expectations! That's my prediction.

David Corenswet as Superman in the upcoming movie, "Superman."

I think my opinion is pretty much the same as that of most people from what I've seen online. 

David Corenswet is cast as Superman alongside Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner (Green Lantern), Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, Isabela Merced as Hawkgirl and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor. Seeing Krypto, too, is a welcomed move for producers to include. No doubt Krypto will bring the movie plenty of marketing opportunities. After all, Krypto proved to be popular in "League of Super Pets" (2022). 
Corenswet was recently in the successful movie "Twisters" - a sequel to the 1996 "Twister." And Brosnahan had a successful run on "House of Cards." 

Hoult certainly isn't a bad actor. I enjoyed his performance in the 2019 movie "Tolkien" in which he played the lead role of "Lord of the Rings" author J.R.R. Tolkien. I also enjoyed his performance in the 2022 comedy horror movie, "The Menu." 

So, all in all, I think the cast in this new "Superman" is pretty solid. 

Like everyone else, no doubt, I'm anxious to see where this movie fits in. Is it a reboot, or does it have a place within the rest of the recent DC movies? If it's a reboot, I'm ok with that. 

As classic and foundational a film it is, I think the 1978 movie "Superman" with the late, great Christopher Reeve, has a mediocre storyline. "Superman II" is a much better film. In fact, it's one of my favorite all-time superhero movies. "Superman III" is...umm...well, it has Richard Pryor! And "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" is a tired and feeble snore-fest. 

I also thought 2006's "Superman Returns" was sorely lacking though Brandon Routh as Superman was a good casting choice. I saw "Man of Steel" (2013) upon its release, and don't remember much about it. I guess I ought to check it out again. 

So, I'm o.k. with a reboot. Regardless of what kind of movie "Superman" turns out to be (reboot or continuation), from the looks of this teaser trailer, it leans heavily towards the possibility of being a well-made and worthwhile flick. It certainly packs a lot in for a movie simply called "Superman." I can't wait to see it. 

Don't fast forward this one: My 'When We Went Mad: The Unauthorized Story of MAD Magazine' trailer reaction

Does anyone still read "MAD Magazine" anymore?

I mean anyone under the age of 40. Anyone at all?

Probably not. But as I'm already in my early 40s and listen to the Gen Zs and Gen Alpha's I've found myself working with in my last three jobs, the more I realize just how out-of-touch I am with whatever's popular now. I'm long into the "when I was your age" stage of my life, especially when talking to my kids. It's a bit painful to think 'MAD Magazine' is an old joke. As I heard someone once say, there's no such thing as an old joke if you've never heard it before!

These kids today with their sensitivity, and inclusivity, and trigger warnings, and cultural appropriation labels, and all that other crap just don't have a good and hearty sense of humor anymore thanks to their flaky parents who take everything way too seriously. 

I love satire! Jean Shepherd. P.G. Wodehouse. H.L. Mencken. Gilbert and Sullivan. "Weird Al" Yankovic. If these are my entrees, "MAD" is my dessert! *Chef's kiss. 

The best thing about "MAD" is that no one in politics or pop culture is spared a ribbing. When it comes to politics, I guess you can say each side gets the same treatment. It's comedy where it hurts. Humor in the jugular vein. How's that for equal outcome? 

Our politically divided country needs a sense a humor, especially among those sour faced, hysterically shouting zim/zers with their face masks and half-shaved dyed heads.

They're too comfortable telling the rest of us what kind of humor we can or cannot have, and what demographics are untouchable or not when it comes to cracking jokes. And anyone who dares question their "expertise" must feel the wrath of the woke like a heretic about to be torched at the stake. 

As long-time "MAD" publisher and EC Comics Co-Creator Bill Gaines once said, "Don’t believe in ads. Don’t believe in government. Watch yourself--everybody is trying to screw you!"

"MAD" was once America's joke book.

It started off as a satirical horror comic published by EC Comics back in the 1950s called "Tales Calculated to Drive You Mad." It was started by American cartoonist, Harvey Kurtzman.

EC is especially known for a variety of other comics, which include the horror classics, "The Vault of Horror," "The Haunt of Fear," and the ever popular, "Tales from the Crypt." I've collected a nice, delectable assortment of such EC horror reprints for my leisurely reading pleasure.
In 1955, "Tales Calculated to Drive You Mad" was converted into a magazine to skirt the requirements of the Comics Code Authority which enabled comic publishers to self-regulate the content of comic books in the United States. Comics would be required to brand their covers with an ugly little comics code label.

So, the first "MAD Magazine" is issue no. 24. Kinda weird, huh?

I read "MAD" on a fairly regular basis in the late 1980s through the early to mid-1990s. I even had a subscription, paid for reluctantly by mom, from 1992 to 1995. And though mom most likely threw my stack of 'MADs' away years later, deservedly so no doubt, little by little I've come across those issues I used to own...and then some.

I had quite a stack of "MAD" in my younger days. Aside from issues received in the mail, a few of my issues were hand-me-down issues from my older brothers. And some I picked up from the magazine rack at my local Safeway grocery store.
For years I was on a hiatus from "MAD" until around 2018 when, in a random bookstore, I came across the latest issue at the time which had the words "Landmark Final Issue" (no. 550) scrolled along the top. 

To my shock, but really no surprise, it looked as though the "What, me worry?" magazine was on its last chapter with issue no. 550. 

"MAD" moved its DC Comics owned publishing office from 485 MADison Avenue, New York over to Los Angeles. 

It then ended its news stand distribution. "MAD" readers would only be able to purchase their regular issues through subscriptions and comic store sales - if local comic shops choose to sell 'MAD.' 

"Landmark final issue!" That just couldn't be. The era of "MAD" could not end. The number one "Echh" magazine couldn't disappear, despite the encouragement to do so from parents and schoolteachers alike, and the merriment and mirth they would obtain from seeing it go. But "MAD" couldn't go. Not like this. The idiots can't untie for the last time without me. 

So, I bought my first issue in 30 years, for $5.99 - cheap!

I then started hunting old back issues of "MAD" at comic stores, antique stores, dumpsters, back alleys, the black market, the internets, the back alleys behind the black markets on the internets, shady dealers, garage sales, doctors' office waiting rooms, and anywhere else where people were trying to rid their homes of 'MAD.' And, well, I have a lot of 'MAD Magazines' now. Over 200 issues which includes mostly regular issues along with a bunch of 'Super Specials.' I even own a Swedish issue thanks to my 3rd-cousin, Sten, in Sweden. Not to mention a (dis)respectable library of 'MAD' paperbacks often found in the "Please, get them outta here" sections found in used book stores and thrift shops. 

I'll add that 'MAD Super Specials' can still occasionally be found on newsstands and grocery store magazine racks. 

I thought I possessed the end of an era with issue 550. I even bought a little bag and cardboard backing to preserve this garbage.

I read it and it wasn't completely as I remembered 'MAD.' To begin with, it went from the $1.75 (cheap) cover price to a $5.99 (cheap) cover price. 

And the pages are printed in color on glossier stock. It's nice but there's something about the paper pages of old, in glorious black and white print that entices me. 

That ink and paper smell that permeates when breaking open a "MAD" is the scent of those childhood days sneaking an issue onto the school yard
or staying home from school and lying in bed sick with a cold or flu and flipping through this rag.

I admit I went a bit out of my head collecting these things. Or maybe my brains fell out thanks to those years of reading this stuff - a side effect I knew would come about someday. After buying that landmark final issue, I ended up buying more back issues. And then more. And more...and more. Now, I have three long boxes full of 'MADs' along with a handful of (dare I say) 'Cracked magazines' and one issue of 'Crazy Magazine' - Marvel's attempt at humor in the jugular vein. I never read nor heard of "Crazy" magazine, but I read a few issues of "Cracked" in my day. 

My back issues date back to the magazine's early days of magazine-hood in the mid-1950s. My oldest issue is no. 33 from June 1957.

When "MAD" relocated to Los Angeles, they have continued printing the magazine, starting over at no. 1 which was printed in 2018 right after issue no. 550.  

Since issue one in 2018, the magazine is mostly reprinted material from previous issues, along with some new content. I've purchased subscriptions to "MAD" since 2019. 

But the majority of my back issues are from the 1970s and 1980s. 

So, I guess all that's left for me to say is...hello! My name is Mike, and I'm a "MAD" reader. I don't

know? It just sorta happened. One thing led to another. I was just minding my own business. You know, it's just one of those things. I'm a victim of circumstance, really. Honestly, I just read it for the articles. As a matter of fact, I don't really enjoy it that much. I swear it's not my fault, officer! I'm just holding them for a friend! Am I being detained or am I free to go? 

'MAD Magazine' has been pushing limits when it comes to society's sensitivities since its beginnings. Issue #166 had a fat, big, middle finger printed on the cover for all to see. Newsstands and grocery stores refused to carry that issue because decent people existed in large numbers back then.  Despite public outrage, both from adults and from school kids who got their magazines taken away by teachers across the nation that April in 1974, the magazine managed to survive.  

In issue no. 270, they poked fun of the 80s sitcom "Perfect Strangers" which is probably the satire I love most. The usual gang of idiots over at "MAD" titled that parody, "Perfectly Strange." Even as I write this, I can think of a few movies I would like to see "MAD" kick around a bit, or just re-read from issues passed.

In a 1989 interview, Bill Gaines said he didn't know why his magazine had lasted among young readers, even amidst the distractions of video games and such. But somehow it has, so they kept it going.
"MAD" artist, Ray Alma, stated on a recent YouTube interview with a channel called "Pop Goes the Culture" that, perhaps the publication would fare a whole lot better with an on-line presence - leading the internet in colorful, tongue-in-cheek memes, and the like. I think it would pump some new life into 'MAD.' It could well give it a few more years. Somehow, I feel the end is on the horizon for the magazine. It hasn't come yet, but I have a sense it's coming sooner than later. 

(Reel Me In Dept.)

My Thoughts on the Trailer

I had no idea before today (Aug. 5, 2024) that a documentary and tribute to the legacy and influence of 'MAD Magazine' was in the works. 

Evidently a trailer for it dropped back in 2013. 

And I just discovered that the documentary's world premiere, according to the film's Facebook page, is supposed to premiere Aug. 22, 2024. 

According to the film's description, it'll include celebrity interviews from Judd Apatow, Quentin Tarantino, Howie Mandel, the late great Gilbert Gottfried, David Zucker, Bryan Cranston, and “Weird Al” Yankovic. 

But I'm particularly interested in the interviews with the artists and writers including Al Feldstein, Dick DeBartolo, my favorite caricature artist Mort Drucker, Sergio Aragones, "MAD" fold-in creator Al Jaffee, and bunch of other faces from among the "usual gang of idiots." 

As stated in this trailer, the magazine is a "fun house mirror of our culture and society." 

I'm anxious to see what sort of impact this one satirical magazine has had on American popular culture. As a former news reporter, probably undermedicated after what that all entailed, I take interest in this kind of highly informative content. 

"MAD" dropped on American society at a time when society was ripe for a little self-satire -1955. It persisted with its tongue-in-cheek humor through periods when society needed some common ground amidst division here and there. 

America finds itself ripped in two, politically speaking, these days. WE Americans have very little in common these days, especially left-wing college students completely saturated with politics and social issues compared to all the rest of us normal Americans.  

The political has permeated into every facet of life and society. Lightening up seems out of the question.    

I would love to see "MAD" find some new blood and reach a new audience, perhaps in a new format, if possible, to raise the levity a bit. It's no cure to anything, but maybe it would be an enticement to cool off the thick social tension. 

I generally enjoy documentaries, especially about oddball subjects (i.e. "Shut Up Little Man," "The Pez Outlaw") so this one is right up my alley. "MAD" is a unique piece of pop culture and media.

There have been other such publications that most likely take some amount of inspiration from "MAD" such as 'National Lampoon Magazine," "Cracked Magazine," "'The Onion" and "The Babylon Bee." 

As some of "MAD's" long time artists and writers have passed, there's no more opportunities to get the stories from their own mouth as this upcoming film has accomplished. There's little in the way of full-length documentaries, if there are any, in which the gang at "MAD" are all together to share their stories, experiences, and shattered dreams of doing anything else other than working for "MAD."

I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach (different from indigestion) that this is a last big hurrah for "MAD." 

Otherwise, if they haven't done so already, the publishers (i.e. DC Comics) might start considering other platforms and formats to publish the decades old magazine, even if alongside printing the actual magazine itself. Maybe not? Maybe the magazine is doing just fine financially. Should young blood find its way into the magazine, I hope they don't resort to preferential treatment of one political side while taking cheap shots at the other. But I'm old, and these guys from "MAD" (the ones still alive) are even older, so these kinds of things are nothing short of old people talking about the good ol' days, how they came to be, what they were like, and where they've gone. I'm all for that! If I'm not in that mindset now, I'm a lot closer to it than before. Very close!

Still, I sincerely wonder if anyone still reads "MAD" anymore.

*Read my review of the not commercially nor critically successful 'MAD Magazine' movie, "Up the Academy." Spoiler - it's revolting! So revolting, in fact, that the publishers called it "Throw Up the Academy" in issue no. 218. 

Don't fast forward this one: Ralphie's Old Man and The Wizard of Oz

After watching movies and programs based on the writings of satirist Jean Shepherd and posting my thoughts on each one here on this blog, I wanted to include my thoughts on the latest movie based on Shepherd's work - "A Christmas Story Christmas."

I reviewed this next "official sequel" to the 1983 comedy, "A Christmas Story" for the Junction City Union newspaper last year. It's about Ralphie losing his father just before Christmas. So, it's fitting to add my thoughts about a particular scene in "A Christmas Story" that I never paid attention to until I watched it with my kids last week. Then it hit me. 

After Ralphie and his kid brother Randy go to visit Santa at the mall, and one of Santa's elves push Ralphie down a slide, the shot switches to actors dressed as characters from "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) parading down the mall past Santa's set-up. Ralphie's "Old Man." as he's referred to, skips along with these characters singing "We're off the see the Wizard." He concludes his rendition with, "I'll see you in Oz, folks!" 

It's a brief scene, but it's memorable.

Ralphie's dad doesn't seem like the kind of dad who would care about seeing a children's movie like "The Wizard of Oz." During the post-World War II time period "A Christmas Story" seems to take place in, from what I've been told, parents often dropped their kids off at movie theaters while they ran errands and such. The kids would stick around the theaters until their parents were ready to pick them up. 

Darren McGavin in "A Christmas Story."

So, the kids would watch their kid movies and the parents would run around town to do whatever they needed to do. Kids could easily catch two movies, along with a bunch of cartoons and whatever else they played in theaters back in the 1940s during afternoon matinees. 

The Old Man isn't really the singing type. In an earlier scene when the Parker family are driving back home from the tree lot after picking out their Christmas tree, everyone in the car is singing "Jingle Bells"... except the Old Man. 

While Mrs. Parker and the kids are singing their lungs out, Mr. Parker looks like he just wants everyone to hurry up and finish so he can get back to a quiet car ride.

So, maybe the Old Man not only caught "The Wizard of Oz," but he actually enjoyed it. After all, there he is signing and parading with the characters out in public, arm in arm with Mrs. Parker. He's certainly embracing this small moment. And he's not in front of his kids. He and Mrs. Parker are heading over to collect them from visiting Santa. 

Maybe the Old Man has a difficult time connecting with his boys on their level. Rather, he wants to come across in their eyes as tough, hard working, and as the leading family patriarch he is, setting aside the things of his childhood. 

This makes the ending of "A Christmas Story" all that more thoughtful. That is, the one person who gives Ralphie his BB gun, after all the other adults in his life shoot him down (no pun intended) and tell him "you'll shoot your eye out" is the adult he never asked - his dad. 

This one brief Oz scene shows that Ralphie's dad does have an inner child which does come out to shine once in a while, even if just for a few seconds. He knows how to connect with his young boys! 

Thirty years later, I (re)joined a film fan club

Laugh if you have to. Or, if you don't have to laugh, laugh anyways. 

Nearly 30 years ago, my late dad and I decided to join a fan club. It was all my idea because when I become interested in something, I have a habit of diving completely into it.

This fan club called itself, and still calls itself, "The Sons of the Desert." It's actually an international organization "devoted to the work and lives of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy." So, yes...it's a Laurel and Hardy fan club. 

I first heard about this group in the early 1990s after my dad received a video collection of Laurel and Hardy films distributed by a company called "Video Treasures." Before each feature film, a series of home movies and photos of Laurel and Hardy, with narration from Stan Laurel's daughter Lois Laurel, would play. They were followed by a quick advert for the Sons of the Desert Laurel and Hardy Appreciation Society. 

It sounded corny but alluring. Who doesn't want to join a crew of like-minded individuals?

Named after their 1933 film "Sons of the Desert," this organization has chapters, or "Tents" as they call them, pitched all around the world. Each Tent is named after a Laurel and Hardy movie. And the spokesperson for each of these Tents is referred to as the "Grand Sheik." During regularly held meetings, films and content pertaining to Laurel and Hardy are watched and appreciated, as is the nature of an appreciation society. It's like a classic comedy movie night, really. 

What's fascinating is that this appreciation society has been around since 1964. It was started by author and scholar, John McCabe, whose first book was an authorized biography of Laurel and Hardy.

So, back in the 1990s. I wrote an inquiry to the address shown on that Sons of the Desert blurb. I received a response back in the mail indicating that there was a Tent called "Call of the Cuckoos" located in nearby San Francisco - I was living in Oakland at the time. No other name could be more suitable for something located in San Francisco. So, my dad and I joined up and attended some of these film screenings this San Francisco Tent held month to month in an auditorium inside a Methodist Church. A projector and screen were always set up. And a folding table with snacks and beverages were always present.

I read somewhere that comedian Bill Murray himself once jokingly referred to these Sons of the Desert fan members as a "bunch of weirdos" when they were presenting him with some kind of honor or award. Again, maybe some of the members really get into Laurel and Hardy. But, so what? 

Some of the attendees were a little eccentric, but so is half the population of San Francisco. Others were friendly and fun to chat up about movies. I was still in my teens and was probably the only young kid in the group. Other members were actually about the same age I am now. Attending these film screenings spurred in me a desire to read about films in general, research movie producers, and, well, everything I do on this blog. For instance, I'm currently enrolled in a film appreciation course online. I think dad and I attended these gatherings regularly for about a year. Of course, being a member of this group wasn't anything I shared with any of my peers. None of them would have cared anyway. 

I think the highpoint of being a member occurred when dad and I attended a screening of some Hal Roach films somewhere in Sacramento. Lois Laurel was also in attendance. She was such a polite lady who was warm and welcoming. I was a bit star struck seeing her. Stan passed away in 1965, long before I was born. So, meeting his daughter was the closest I would get to meeting the legend himself. 

She gave me a signed postcard-sized photograph of herself as a little girl beside her father taken on the set of the 1937 movie "Way Out West." Unfortunately, at some point between then and now, I lost it. 

Sadly, my dear old dad passed away in 2018. Every once in a while, before he passed away, I would bring up "The Sons of the Desert" to him. 

About a year ago, I began researching a not-so-well known female comedy team comprised of Zasu Pitts and Thelma Todd. These two ladies were joined together as a comedic duo by Hal Roach who produced the majority of Laurel and Hardy as well as the "Our Gang" (aka "The Little Rascals") films as well among others. 

Zasu Pitts left the act after making 17 comedy shorts with Todd. She was replaced with Patsy Kelly who, together with Todd, made 21 comedy shorts until Todd died under unusual circumstances in 1935 at age 29. 

A few Christmases ago, my wife gave me a complete DVD collection of their films. I've been working my way through every single one. I also downloaded some periodicals about them and requested my local library to purchase a copy of the book "The Hal Roach Comedy Shorts of Thelma Todd, Zasu Pitts and Patsy Kelly" by James L Neibaur. I'm writing something up about this female comedy team as they deserve continued recognition. Their comedic legacy has faded too much over the decades, unlike
Laurel and Hardy and the Little Rascals. I'll have more to come about Pitts, Todd, and Kelly later. 

But watching their films, and reading about them, brought the Sons of the Desert to mind. 

I admit I was kind of embarrassed to talk about having been part of a Laurel and Hardy fan club in my teenage days. It seemed kind of stupid. Uncool. But now, again, so what? It's right up my alley.

No matter how corny or quirky it seems, the Sons of the Desert don't strike me as just a mere fan club. They actually work hard to keep this part of film history alive and well decade after decade. Laurel and Hardy are a foundational pair in comedy. Their work and dedication deserve not just appreciation, but a whole international society dedicating to appreciating. It would be ashamed if Laurel and Hardy faded too far into obscurity. The same goes for a lot of classic films. As I heard someplace before, there's no such thing as an old joke if you haven't heard it before.

This group introduces new generations to Laurel and Hardy films, classic cinema in general, and to the film industry from that era as it pertains to this comedy duo and the Hal Roach Studios. And the members certainly enjoy themselves while doing it.

Evidently, they're still as active as ever, especially in Europe. So, I looked up any nearby Tents to where I live now in Kansas. There's one in Basehor, Kan., - a town I never heard of - called the "Hog Wild Tent." Unfortunately, it's an hour and 40-minute drive from me. Well, that's too far. 

Regardless, I can still join as a "delegate at large." And I did. For a membership fee of $35, I can still be a part of things and receive the group's publications and such in the mail. After 30 years, they lure me back into this Laurel and Hardy Appreciation Society "The Sons of the Desert." As Stan Laurel once said, "You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead." 

Don't fast forward this one: If a movie is going to swear, it needs to keep it real...

Mark Wahlberg as Stuart Long in the film "Father Stu."

I recently wrote a review for the biopic "Father Stu", released April 15 in time for Easter. 
While I thought the movie is one of the best religious pictures I've seen, others were less favorable because of the amount of profanity in the film. How can that be tolerated? It's a religious film!
As I noted in my article, "Father Stu" tells the story of amateur Stuart Long, who grew up with no religious background, a distant alcoholic father who became so after the death of Stuart's brother, Stephen, at age six. 
So, needless to say, there's swearing in the film because the real Stuart Long cursed and swore. He was probably a master at it. 
Like Stu in his later life, I too am a Catholic. I'm certainly not a great at being one.
Having been raised in the city of Oakland, California, swearing was all around me throughout life. I'm guilty of it myself. Old f-ing habits die hard, for f--k sake!
For me, even from a religious standpoint, swearing is spitting. It's severity, or sinfulness, depends on how it's used. An f-bomb stings when it's hurled directly at somebody as opposed to dropping one after you stub your toe, or getting a jury summons scheduled the same week as your long-awaited vacation. Even then, it's a gross habit and does nothing good for the swearer. 

Some people are bothered by our society's arsenal of dirty words, and that's completely understandable and worth respect. Others don't seem to mind. In those cases, it is what it is. Swearing has become inconsequential in today's society. People just blurt out their obscenities like its confetti. Yet, there are many pockets of places where it's still frowned upon. 

Mark Wahlberg and Jacki Weaver in "Father Stu."

So, I understand the dismay some religious groups and individuals have at watching the movie "Father Stu" about a convert to Catholicism, that's laced with profanity. 
But it needs to be in there. It's a biographical picture, and that's who Stuart Long was before he converted. 
If a movie is going to depict a real person, and that person swore a lot, then it's important for a biographical story to keep things real. The movie is trying to convey reality, and do so in a way for the audience to relate and become invested in it, even if elements are unpleasant to watch and hear. 
If a character, based on a real person, is a drug using ex-con, and an all-around mean son of a bitch, it would take me out of the story if they never used any profanity but rather spoke lines like "Gosh darn it, you big dumb, dumb head" in intense situations. 
How can the audience take the story seriously if a character, who obviously doesn't care much for what comes out of their mouth, has dialogue that doesn't fit their personality. 
Or, if they come from parts of the country such as New Jersey, like in "Jersey Boys" (2014) with young Catholic Italians swearing here and there, where language like that is commonplace, then obviously it's going to be included.
Sure, some movies might over do it. The movie "Goodfellas" (1990) comes to mind. But, then again, the characters are all pretty much Italian mafioso. So, again, it's expected. There sure is a lot of it, though, in that movie. It's not pleasant to hear. Then again, the characters are unpleasant as well.
I have to add that one of the best scenes I've seen in the movie involves profanity. 
In the 2010 biographical film, "The King's Speech" about King George VI and his speech therapist Lionel Logue, who helps him overcome his terrible stutter during his ascension to the throne in 1936, one the best scenes involves a string of "such language."

After Logue hears the king use the word "bloody," a common vulgarity in the U.K., he tells the king, "Vulger, but fluent. You don't stammer when you swear."

"Oh, bugger off!" the king replies. 

"Is that the best you can do?" 

"Well... bloody bugger to you, you beastly bastard."

"Oh, a public school prig could do better than that."

"Shit. Shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit!"

And the words keep coming, and coming, and coming, without a stammer. 

"Defecation flows trippingly from the tongue!" Logue later says. 

I know a lot individuals are adamantly, and admirably, opposed to swearing. And that's fine. It turns me off when I hear others use it over and over again. I'm certainly not endorsing it, nor trying to pursued people to just accept it. 

But sometimes, a movie needs colorful language for the sake of realism. What needs more consideration is whether or not a movie should be made in the first place. That's the bigger issue. In "Father Stu's" case, the answer, thankfully, is "yes," swear words and all.

Don't Fast Forward This One: Ten Movies I'd Like to See Remade, Rebooted, or Sequeled

I believe there's a current misconception that movie remakes and reboots are a somewhat new concept Hollywood implemented because they're out of ideas. 

The truth is remakes are as old as movie making itself. 

If I mention The Wizard of Oz, surely the first thing that comes to anyone's mind is the 1939 movie with Judy Garland. Of course it would be. It's a great movie. It's known around the world. It's one of those movies that's almost mandatory viewing.  

But what about the 1910 silent movie The Wonderful Wizard of Oz? How many people know that exists? 

There's also the 1925 silent movie The Wizard of Oz starring none other than Oliver Hardy of Laurel and Hardy. By the way, it also stars actress Mary Carr who later acted with Laurel and Hardy in their 1931 movie One Good Turn as well as their 1932 movie Pack Up Your Troubles - the latter was my first review for this blog. So, technically the famous version of The Wizard of Oz is a remake.

Incidentally, 1910 also saw the release of a horror movie called Frankenstein. That was just a little over 20 years before Boris Karloff made his iconic version of the monster in 1931's Frankenstein.

And speaking of the 1931 movie Frankenstein, a series of sequels followed that movie - Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein, The Ghost of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, House of Frankenstein, and Frankenstein Saves Christmas. 

(O.k., I made that last title up.) 

But House of Frankenstein spawned a sequel of its own called House of Dracula. And there was also the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein which starred Boris Karloff. 

So, sequels (or money makers, or cash grabs...call them what you will) are as old as the industry.   

A remake or reboot doesn't necessarily mean the original is lacking. I doubt that's always, if not often, the reason movies get the remake/ reboot treatment. Rather, it's merely a retelling of a story. Remakes and reboots take nothing away from original movies. They're still there, and they're still loved and watched. Plus, there's enough movie fans out there curious enough to see new versions of old classics to make reboots profitably worth it. 

There are some rare instances were remakes are better than the original movies, and leave the originals in a pile of forgotten films. Audiences remember the 1980 comedy Airplane! more than the 1957 movie Zero Hour! which it's based on.   

So, there's a few titles I'd like to see rebooted, or remade, or just given a sequel.  

And I'll start with that Laurel and Hardy movie I just mentioned.

Pack Up Your Troubles (1932) - I recently watched the movie Diary of a Wimpy: The Long Haul. 

Anyways, it dawned on me it's loosely based on Laurel and Hardy's 1933 movie Sons of the Desert. 

My hunch was confirmed when a clip from that movie appeared in Diary. Otherwise, the movie was terrible, and I don't want to talk about it anymore. 

As I said, Pack Up Your Troubles was my first entry on this blog. I included it because, aside from being Laurel and Hardy's second feature length film, it also includes subject matter that's rather dramatic for a typical slapstick Laurel and Hardy movie. 

I don't think a straight up comedy remake of this movie would sit well with modern audiences as it involves an orphan girl whose father is killed during World War I, and whose mother has abandoned her prior to her father's death. 

Rather, I think a movie such as this could easily inspire similar stories if it hasn't already. In the movie, Stan and Ollie take it upon themselves to search for the girl's grandparents by asking every person they can find with the last name "Smith" (one of the most common names in the history of last names) to inquire if the girl's father "Eddie Smith" is their son. 

I think the story line is very unique and something worth exploring for a modern drama, especially with the dawn of the internet. Maybe a comedy would work. I mean, it worked back then. I leave that up for producers to decide.

The NeverEnding Story (1984) - Anyone who read the book The NeverEnding Story by Michael Ende is aware the 1984 movie only tells half of the story, and leaves out a considerable amount of adventures and circumstances. 

That doesn't make the movie bad. There's just so much more material to re-imagine. 

Ende, who published the book in 1979, hated the movie. He had some harsh words to say about it. For instance, regarding the Sphinx gates Atreyu must pass through in the film, Ende commented that, "The Sphinxes are quite one of the biggest embarrassments of the film. They are full-bosomed strippers who sit there in the desert."

He also said The NeverEnding Story was "disgusting," and accused producers of ruining his story just for the money. 

Ende said they didn't understand the central themes of his book. 

Meanwhile, the film's director, Wolfgang Peterson, said the rights to the story are in some sort of litigation limbo, the end of which isn't on the horizon. 

So, based on that, I doubt a remake will happen anytime in the foreseeable future...if ever. 

As Peterson told Entertainment Weekly, "It is my understanding that some films you should just leave alone, and that's how I feel about this film." 

I respect that mentality. 

Of course I have a "but," otherwise I wouldn't be blogging about this.

Where the movie leaves off with Atreyu finding the Childlike Empress is actually the middle of the book. 

Though it's a great, entertaining and enjoyable film, a remake which includes more elements and characters from the book has a lot of potential for success. 

For instance, in the book, Atreyu first meets Falcor the Luck Dragon after rescuing him from the web of a giant spider named Ygramul the Many. 

Also in the book, Bastion fails to give the Childlike Empress her new name. So, she has to search for "the Old Man of Wandering Mountain" to choose her new name. Well, on second thought, maybe that part wouldn't sit well with audiences.

Anyways, a remake could certainly be made in two or three parts similar to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I think a remake could be fantastic, and introduce audiences and fans to a lot of new characters and story elements offered in the book.  

I know there's a NeverEnding Story II and, as I just learned only few years ago, a NeverEnding Story III. Let's just pretend those don't exist - especially part 3. 

In the meantime, I suppose the best way to be introduced to everything The NeverEnding Story has to offer is to read the book in some cozy corner.

Firestarter (1984) - Based on Stephen King's 1980 novel, Firestarter, this movie already spawned a 2002 sequel in miniseries form called Firestarter: Rekindled. I've seen the movie but not the sequel.

The 1984 film starring Drew Barrymore, Heather Locklear, Martin Sheen, George C. Scott and even Art Carney is a movie about a young girl who can ignite fires with the power of her mind. It's kind of like King's story Carrie but in Firestarter, all the girl, Charlie McGhee (Drew Barrymore), can do is start fires.

It's a decent but underrated film. It didn't initially perform particularly well either. 

I particularly like George C. Scott who makes a great antagonist in this story. 

But in the wake of a Stephen King renaissance with many of his book to movie adaptations, and remakes of previous King films, Firestarter could be a great modern showcase of special effects. There's plenty of room to recreate and popularize a not-so-well known King character like Charlie McGhee. 

A retelling could make a very compelling and intense movie for modern audiences. And with special effects more special now, there's promise for a great and memorable film. As long as there's good writers on-board, of course. 

  

The Haunted Mansion (2003) - When I went to see The Haunted Mansion in theaters back in 2003, I ignored the possibility that Eddie Murphy's presence in the movie could be a terrible casting decision. 

Based on the attraction at Disneyland and Walt Disney World, I had a lot of expectation that The Haunted Mansion would be a great movie, especially after the success of The Pirates of the Caribbean, also based on a Disney attraction. 

The visuals from the Haunted Mansion ride, and the on-screen possibilities surrounding what the ride features is immense. 

There has been a lot of talk about director Guillermo del Toro making a new Haunted Mansion movie completely separate from the 2003 film. With his love and appreciation for the ride, and for Disney, along with his masterful talent, a reboot possibility has "fantastic" written all over it. 

The 2003 movie was an absolute showcase of terrible movie making. 

As talented and funny as Eddie Murphy is, casting him was completely out of place. And the entire experience really cheapened the historic Disney ride, turning the ever popular scenes from the attraction into laughable gimmicks on the screen. 

The writing was bad. The casting was poor. The movie was a disgrace to the classic ride developed by Walt Disney himself. It deserves treatment from someone who can and will show it the appreciation and respect it deserves - Guillermo del Toro!

Gremlins (1984) - There are some movies I love to write fan fiction novels for. I mean, I just jot down notes and paragraphs, and conjure up what-if scenarios in my head. One of those movies I've had ideas about is Gremlins. 

I'd love to explore the story before the story - the origin of Mogwais and if there's any Chinese lore behind them. 

As they multiply in water, are there any liquids or substances that would make them do something else? Or if they ate specific things after midnight, would they morph into something different than a gremlin? What about Mr. Wing's grandson who surreptitiously sold the Mogwai to Billy's dad in the beginning of part one? Let's bring him back.

In Gremlins 2, Gizmo gets wet after a malfunctioning water fountain shoots water far into the air, landing on Billy Peltzer's drawing on his work desk. 

The water, looking like it mixed with paint from the picture, runs off the easel and splatters on Gizmo's head. The Mogwai's that pop out of Gizmo are rather unique and "colorful" in personality. 

So, how would other substances effect the offspring of a wet Mogwai? 

There's a lot of possibilities to make a prequel film. 

There is an upcoming animated program called Gremlins: Secrets of the Mogwai scheduled to debut on HBO Max. According to various sources online, it's supposed to be set in 1920s Shanghai, China. I'm game! 

Escape From Alcatraz (1979) - I'm surprised a remake to Clint Eastwood's 1979 movie Escape From Alcatraz, based on the true event surrounding the penitentiary's most famous escape attempt of 1962, hasn't been done yet. 

While the movie is classic and entertaining, it's also a bit slow in its pacing. I'll add it's also pretty accurate.

Escape From Alcatraz is a movie that really deserves a remake. The true story is very captivating and amazing. 

The question of whether former Alcatraz inmates Frank Morris (played by Eastwood in the original movie), and brothers John and Clarence Anglin actually made it through the frigid waters of the San Francisco Bay on their makeshift rafts is one the most compelling mysteries in prison break history. And it's a unique part of San Francisco's history.

I believe new evidence has surfaced (no pun intended)  since the movie's release that the escapees very possibly survived. These stories could certainly be included in a remake, making a new movie much more fascinating and engaging. 

As of 2009, the case remains open as the FBI handed over the case to the U.S. Marshall's Service. 

I certainly believe a modern adaptation of Escape From Alcatraz would work well with modern audiences. 

Creepshow (1982) - The 1990 movie Tales From the Darkside (based on the anthology TV series by George Romero) was, I hear, supposed to be a third Creepshow movie. As it's an anthology movie, it does have a Creepshow feel to it. That's probably due to writers being George Ramero and Stephen King.

The new series Creepshow on Shudder starts off well with its first story Gray Matter, based on a short story by Stephen King in his book Night Shift. The segment starred Adrienne Barbeau who also starred in the story The Crate in the original movie.

The second story in the show, By the Silver Water of Lake Champlain was written by Stephen King's son, Joe Hill. 

Hill, by the way, played Billy in the opening and closing parts of the original 1982 movie. Otherwise, there's not much else I remember from watching the Shudder series.

I found the series more dull than scary. And often segments would start off captivating and end like a deflated balloon.

New cringy Creepshow stories for the big screen, from the masters of macabre storytelling, is something horror fans have wanted for a long time. 

The Black Cauldron (1985) - In this cinematic era of Disney's live-action remakes to their classic animated movies, The Black Cauldron should be among that list. A live-action treatment could be spectacular in special effects. Though the original animated movie fell flat on its face and seems like its been forgotten by most, the animation and imagery in the movie is very memorable.

With its $44 million budget, The Black Cauldron was the most expensive animated movie ever made at the time. But it grossed $21.3 million domestically, and was a big financial loss for Disney. 

The Black Cauldron earned the nickname, "the film that almost  killed Disney." Even The Care Bears Movie did better financially at the box office the same year. So, I can see why Disney executives might be apprehensive to make a live-action version of this movie, if its has ever even been considered. 

Maybe their initial mistake was making it animated. After all, their other animated movies are so different in style and tone. It is no doubt the darkest animated Disney movie to date. A live action platform, and better writing of course, may help redeem Disney for their mistake that is The Black Cauldron. It's a story that deserves a second chance as a reboot.

 

The Blob (1958, 1988) - The 1958 SciFi Horror movie The Blob (one of my personal favorite 50s movies) was Steve McQueens fourth movie, and his second credited movie. The 1988 remake was bloodier, scarier, and pretty good for a remake. 

But I'm interested in a new story that shows where these blobs come from. How would they fair attacking a modern society. What does their planet look like? Is it just covered in blob families? 

The 1958 movie ended *spoiler* with the U.S. Air Force carrying the blob to the frozen wasteland of the artic, where they drop it down so it'll remain there indefinitely. Freezing renders them immobile. The words "the end" appear and morph into a question mark. That's sequel material right there.

Should a modern version of The Blob be made, it could certainly draw audience's attention by making it a direct sequel to the 1958 movie. I think that might make it more appealing than just having another remake like the 1998 movie.

Since it's never establish what the blob is or where it came from, other than falling from the sky in a meteor, there's plenty of room for exploration. 

 

Clue (1985) - When I first saw the trailer to the 2019 movie Knives Out, I initially thought it was a remake of Clue before the title reveal. 

Clue is based on the board game of the same name, which was developed in 1944,and launched in 1949.

While the movie Clue is enjoyable overall, and has a great cast including Christopher Lloyd, Tim Curry, Eileen Brennan, Madeline Kahn, and Martin Mull, it still could use a writing uplift. 

As a teenager, I found this movie hilarious. As an adult, for some reason, it's just not as funny. I don't know why. I mean, it still has moments that make me laugh. Otherwise, it just seems to lack a little something. To me, the multiple endings make Clue come across as disjointed.

Whatever the case might be, I think a remake or reboot would suite the movie nicely. 

And while recent murder mystery movies such as Knives Out which did really well upon its release, and 2017's Murder on the Orient Express didn't do so badly, this may be a good time to see a remake of Clue. Murder mysteries never seem to go out of style. 

  

Don't Fast Forward This One: 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' reminds me of 'A Christmas Story'

Peter Billingsley in A Christmas Story

Rachel Harris and Steve Zahn, Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Some might be surprised that I enjoyed 2010's Diary of a Wimpy Kid. It's an entertaining movie. 

I never heard of the book series by Jeff Kinney (my kids recently started listening to the audio books) the movie is based on until I found this movie at the public library in Lincoln, Nebraska back in 2013. 

I decided to watch it on a whim. To be honest, I can't remember my exact reasoning to give this movie, definitely not made for the likes of me, a try. But I did. 

I know Diary of a Wimpy Kid received less-than-savory, albeit not absolutely terrible reviews. Still, I enjoyed it more than I expected to. It's target audience is junior high kids. While I'm not a junior high kid, I used to be one.

While watching it, Diary of a Wimpy Kid kept bringing the 1983 Holiday comedy A Christmas Story to my mind.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid centers on young Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon). He fights a lot with his older brother, Rodrick. He torments his younger brother Manny a little too much. He's also starting middle school, and is bombarded with mixed thoughts and misguided expectations about it. He's basically like most kids. 

Through Greg's narration, thankfully not over done, we understand what those expectations and goals are. He realizes, even at 13 or 14 - however old he is -  that what he is familiar and comfortable with is changing, and will continue to change. It's a hard lesson when a kid first realizes that it's happening. And with it comes realization that he must somehow cope. 

Heffley learns the good parts as well as the bad parts of middle school fairly quickly. A lack of popularity will resort to the new kid eating lunch of the cafeteria floor. P.E. teachers will also favor the bigger kids over the smaller ones. Though the audience has an unbiased view of this one particular aspect of typical American life for juveniles through the eyes of an 14-year old, they're still able to sit on the outside and look in. 

A Christmas Story, released nearly 30 years prior, is also based on a book - In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash by Jean Shepherd. 

Like Diary of a Wimpy Kid, it takes an unbiased look at a slice of typical Americana life.

For anyone who has consistently missed the movie's 24-hour marathon on TBS every Christmas, it's about nine-year old Ralphie Parker and his quest for a Red Ryder BB-gun, which he deems is the perfect Christmas present. 

The story is narrated by an adult Ralphie, reminiscing on his pursuit.  

A Christmas Story takes place in the 1940s - a period often viewed as America's "golden age." But the Parker family are less than golden. I talked about it in a post called Is A Christmas Story really a stupid movie? Ralphie is living in the 1940s while Greg is experiencing life in current time. Anyhow, it's satirical, but both movies are certainly not watered down.

Like A Christmas Story, Diary of a Wimpy Kid knows a thing or two...or three, about human behavior. It doesn't talk down to young audiences when portraying Greg's experiences transitioning just a little closer to adulthood, and seeing life as it really is. The story does a decent enough job depicting the common adolescent mistake of projecting specific personas to gain respect and attention from peers which children think they deserve and need for survival. Greg even goes so far as to try and turn his friend, Rowley, into what he wants him to be. As Ralphie has his friends Flick and Schwartz to pal around with and confide in, Rowley is about all Greg has. He doesn't "have" his older brother, Rodrick, for any support. Rodrick just assumes Greg will be "dead or homeschooled" before the year ends. 

But rather than appreciate Rowley for his own sake, Greg tries to change Rowley's image in order to bolster himself up on the popularity scale.

Both movies, especially Diary, reminds me of the line in John Lennon's song Beautiful Boy. "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." 

Both kids sure fantasize a lot about how their life ought to go if only they could steer their respective adults into doing things their way. But adults seem to love humiliating kids, whether their P.E. teacher is watching the big kids tackle the small kids, or their parents force them to wear humiliating bunny outfits their Aunt Clara sent them at Christmas.

Ralphie fantasizes how a Red Ryder BB-gun could possibly save the lives of his entire family from creeping marauders if only his parents, his teacher, and Santa Claus himself could see things his way. Greg, meanwhile, dreams how obtaining popularity could lead to an adulthood full of success, if only his parents, his friends, and fellow classmates could see things his way. 

At Warren G. Harding School, where Ralphie is enrolled, he and his friends face the pressure heaved on them by dog-dares, double dog-dares, and triple dog-dares. In the film, we see this pressure applied to poor Flick who's dared to stick his tongue to a frozen pole. Chickening out such a dare leads to a lasting stigma.

Meanwhile, at Greg's school, the stigma comes in the form of the dreaded "cheese touch" - it's a side story about a moldy piece of Swiss cheese forever present on the black top of the school yard. Anyone who touches it has ths "cheese touch" which is similar to the dreaded "cooties." 

It's the ultimate rejection because the entire school is in on it. When I was in elementary school, there was a moldy Oreo cookie that never left its spot on top of the support beams just below the awning at the main door of the music building. No one dared touch it. For all I know, it might still be there 25 years later.  

Anyways, dares are as old as kids themselves. As long as kids exist, so will dares. 

I think it's the simple dialogue from a pre-teen's line of reasoning, the honesty of these kid's lives - anticipations, hopes, expectations, and disappointments - that make these movies similar. Both are narrated by the main character.  

But Wimpy Kid doesn't condescend to its young audience. Yes, there's boogers and other gross out humor. Yes, there's the weird kids. Everyone in middle school had their encounters with "weird kids." Ralphie did as well. All in all, Wimpy Kid has a pretty good grasp on human nature and experiences, especially when it comes to a person's need to belong. 

We see this in Greg Heffley and his quest to be popular. 

All these depictions, though silly, don't go overboard. They're funny from an outside perspective looking in. It's a style similar to that of...you guessed it...A Christmas Story. 

When it comes to finding a niche to fit in, young Greg's options seem pretty limited to school and what it has to offer. 

Both he and Ralphie do get what they want, but it doesn't come to them in the way they thought it would. 

Ralphie gets his BB Gun, but from the one person he never asked. Greg does have his popularity, but he gets it through sacrificing his reputation for his friend Rowley. And he finds his "popularity" with those who actually knew him all along, and see his selflessness for what it is. He learns to appreciate what he always had. It just didn't come the way he initially wanted it to.

All audiences need to relate to Greg Heffley and Ralphie Parker are their own experiences being a kid. Either at some point in our lives, we had a toy we sorely wanted, convinced it would bring us happiness unlike anything else. And, at some point, we started a new chapter in our lives where our first task on hand was obtaining acceptance. We just needed to know the terms we needed to meet to obtain that acceptance. Both movies don't water anything down. They're blunt. What you see is what you get, even if you're 11-years old. Welcome to life!

Don't Fast Forward This One: My 10 personal favorite comic book movies

My "Comics to Movies" series of reviews is moving forward rather slowly, but it's still moving. I keep another blog 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com which I've been giving more attention to. 

As the readers who follow my blog (I think there's two) know, I've been working on a series of reviews and commentaries on lesser known movie adaptations of comic books. In the meantime, I put together a list of my personal favorite movies in this genre.
I'm sure I'll be thrown some comments like "What? You included Dick Tracy but not Avengers: Endgame!" Yeah - I did. There are more comic book movies I enjoy immensely, but these below are ones that stand out to me. They're my personal favorites. 

And while Marvel has made some fun movies these last 10 + years (Ant Man, SpiderMan: Home Coming) as well as some less than savory movies (Doctor Strange - yeah, I didn't like that one). These picks, however, stand above the rest in my mind.  

Batman (1989) - This really stems from a nostalgic place for me. 

Tim Burton's 1989 movie Batman helped change the general public's idea of the caped crusader from the campy 1966 series image to a darker, grittier, no-nonsense superhero who doesn't spout off lines about good dental hygiene or always crossing on the crosswalk. 

While this image of Batman was already common among comic book readers, thanks in large part to artists like Frank Miller and his 1986 four-issue series The Dark Knight Returns, I wasn't reading any of that at the time of Burton's movie. I was heading to second grade in June, 1989. 

And this movie was "the movie of the summer." It made a huge impression on me. I became obsessed with Batman after I saw this. It's an obsession that has quieted down some, but hasn't died completely.  

I remember the theater exploded in cheers and applause at the scene in the third act where Batman flies his Bat Plane through the cloud cover of Gotham City, lining itself against the full moon to create the bat logo before flying headfirst towards the Joker's deadly parade. I still remember that. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) - Despite the ridiculousness behind the idea of four mutated turtles, as well as how tired parents must have been with all the hype surrounding the Ninja Turtles back in the 1990s, this movie is actually a really decent film. I'm trying to approach it from an outside perspective looking in. 

The story line is a serious one, even with the understanding that the audience at the time would predominately be children. 

The movie tackles truth, family bonds, trust, dedication, personal honor, selflessness versus greed, and corruption in society, 

The movie starts off rather serious as we witness a crime network of teens at work, all organized just to steal a man's wallet. It then goes to just how swift this network is at stealing televisions, and even an entire truck of electronics. It sets a serious tone for a movie about heroes with a huge kid fan-base. 

And though critic Roger Ebert wrote that he didn't walk out of this movie with renewed spirits as he wasn't expecting much when walking in, he did say "this movie is nowhere near as bad as it might have been, and probably is the best Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie." He wrote that in his review back in 1990, I think it's an opinion that still holds true. 

Oh, and throw in some Jim Henson puppetry. That's the topping on the pizza!

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - I admire Marvel Studios for bringing comic heroes to the big screen that aren't as mainstream as commonly recognizable heroes like SpiderMan or Captain America. 

Guardians of the Galaxy falls into that category for me. I was unfamiliar with the Guardians until the movie came out. I was sold by the trailer and the positive reviews.

It was definitely one of the first comic movies I sat through and thoroughly enjoyed, and felt good about after watching. 

Maybe that's thanks the use of light and colorful atmosphere as opposed to the seemingly consistent dark, shadowy, rainy atmosphere often seen in comic movies. 

The humor is right up my alley. I loved the chemistry of the characters. Chris Pratt is a perfect casting choice as Peter Quill/ Starlord. The dialogue was somehow believable...even for Rocket Raccoon. It's original for being a comic-based film. And though I call it a superhero movie, it's really more about individuals very different from each other, yet still able to work together towards a common goal. And those individuals become important to each other after their mission is accomplished. I felt good walking out of the theater when I saw this. This is my favorite among Marvel movies so far, followed closely by Guardians of the Galaxy vol. II. 

Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance (1972) - Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vegeance is the first of six samurai movies based on the Manga series by Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima. The actors clearly take this movie seriously. The acting, sets, camera work, and dialogue - this is a fantastic and well done film. Granted the effects are certainly a product of a budget probably on the lower side. The fighting scenes are entertaining. It's a darker movie for sure as the protagonist, Ogami Itto, is an assassin-for-hire knowing full well his way of life is evil. But he still maintains a sense of compassion towards those suffering from injustices. 

I reviewed Sword of Vengeance among my "Comic to Movie" reviews, which you can read by clicking here. 

Dick Tracy (1990) - What sets the 1990 Warren Beatty movie Dick Tracy apart from other comic book based movies is its style. It's the most comic-styled movie I've seen. It's a modern film noir with bright colors amid a somewhat gritty backdrop. 

It was an original style for its day. In other words, Dick Tracy is as close to an acted out comic strip than any other movie I've seen. The colors. The framework. The imagery. And on top of that, the all-star cast make this movie distinct from other movies in this genre. After Batman, which was released the year before, I think Dick Tracy was a source of inspiration for future comic book movies. It's kind of an unsung hero of such movies. I wrote about this film earlier on my blog as well. The link to that can be found here: Dick Tracy

Joker (2019) - This was certainly a different angle for a comic movie. It's based on one of the most iconic antagonists ever printed on old text stock. Without going into too much detail, this movie wasn't afraid to show certain modern mentalities are fueled more by emotion than on reasoning and deduction. I loved this movie for being something audiences haven't seen yet in the way of origin stories and social commentary. 

Joaquin Phoenix's performance is fantastic as he depicts the breakdown of a mentally ill man left alienated and alone by his government (via his social worker), his career, those close to him, and finally by his community.

Akira (1988) - This movie is just outright amazing. Based on the 1980s era Manga series, the animation is absolutely striking and impressive. I can't think of a big enough word? The story is unique and brilliant. I just admire this movie so much. I'm not necessarily into anime, so Akira is really the only anime movie I enjoy so far. Friends have recommended other anime titles to me, but I just haven't gotten to those yet. I'm sure I will, though. 

The dark apocalyptic story is brilliant. The pace of this movie goes faster and faster. Akira is a masterpiece in animation and storytelling!

Superman II (1980) - Don't get me wrong. I love the first Superman movie! But the second film I've always found more engaging and comic book-y. There's a lot that's been said about Superman the movie. While the first is a fantastic on-screen introduction to the Man of Steel, the sequel gives us a little more of Superman. The audience has more personal insight into Clark Kent/ Superman. Plus, the action with General Zod is really edge-of-your-seat storytelling. 

Wonder Woman (2017) - Even though I'm not among the target audience for female superhero films like Wonder Woman, or Captain Marvel, I still have a little more appreciation for female superheros who don't need to rely on male counterparts. Characters like Batgirl, or Supergirl, or She-Hulk are certainly iconic and have a well deserved fan base. Still, Wonder Woman doesn't have a "Wonder Man" to help bolster her popularity in any capacity. She's a source of inspiration for her female fan base. Sure, a character like Batgirl is as well. And that's fantastic. Wonder Woman stands heroic on her own. 

The 2017 was such a fun and exciting movie. The action was brilliant. It was nice to get a DC Comics hero that was neither campy nor dark and gritty, hidden in shadows and disguises. And that Wonder Woman was made with an underlying respect evident in the movie is commendable.  

The audience in the theater I watched Wonder Woman in applauded at the scene where she climbs onto the battlefield amid gun fire, and walks determined towards the enemies among the storm of bullets. Not since 1989's Batman had I heard an audience applause at a DC Comics movie. 

Shazam! (2019) - Shazam! was a surprise of a movie for me, and I'm sure for a ton of other people. 

I think the fact this movie did so well surprised a lot of audiences. But it was fun, different, and well played. The movie has a central theme surrounding family. Its story reminds me of the essay scene from the 2000 movie, Finding Forrester where Sean Connery's character, William Forrester, reads Jamal Wallace's essay towards the end of the movie.

He says, "Losing family obliges us to find our family. Not always the family that is our blood, but the family that can become our blood. Should we have the wisdom to open our door to this new family, we will find that the wishes we had for the father who once guided us, and for the brother who once inspired us, are not merely wishes at all. A family is not what you always imagine it will be." That sentiment surely applies to the story of Shazam!

Watching it brought me back to the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland where I first saw Batman in 1989. It's certainly a lot different in style and tone than any Batman movie. But it still left an impression on me.

Zachary Levi playing a kid in the form of an adult, without making it stupid, was believable. I think DC was smart for making this movie with care. 

The enthusiasm in this story is refreshing to see. Perhaps it pulled some of that from Marvel's SpiderMan movies? I don't know. But, it's there and great to see.