Franchisicide Vol. 1, Book Two

You know how Hitler invaded Russia and completely lost the war because of it only 100 years after Napoleon did the same thing? History repeats itself. Just like how Spider-Man came out and made a shitload of money all while being a terrible film, then Spider-Man 2 came out and kicked ass. You couldn't have asked for a better Spider-Man film than Spider-Man 2.

So X-Men came out, sucked a big dick and made a shitload of money. Then, X-Men 2 came out, kicked a ton of ass and made a shitload of money. You couldn't ask for a better X-Men film than X-Men 2.

I don't see where this stigma of bad sequels comes from. I can name a bunch. Sure, there are more bad sequels than there are good sequels, but there are more bad films than there are good to begin with. I digress.

X-Men 2 takes all the problems with the first film and jettisons them into orbit. Finally, the action stops screeching to a halt so Professor X can drone on about the canon. The script explains the world this film exists in with intelligence and subtlety, streamlining a lot of the unnecessary details. The film stops screeching to a halt so that we can have the obligatory action scenes. We advance the plot with these action scenes. They fit into the film, unlike the first film where every one of those scenes could have been removed and had no effect on the story.

Also, with a cast this large, making the action scenes that bland and disposable is simply not an option. The characters need to develop in the action and the plot needs to advance in the action.

And while we're on the subject of action, the fight choreography and wirework are infinitely better this time around, making action scenes you want to watch. Characters like Nightcrawler are used to their fullest advantage with some very creative action scenes, including a showstopping fight scene in the White House that opens the film and gives us a sense of mystery to propel the story forward.

Storm and Cyclops' characters remain slightly underwritten but nowhere near the way they were last time, and Jean Gray gets more time to develop in this film.

Wolverine gets some more elbow room, too, and Hugh Jackman does wonderful things with the role. My favorite bit was the action scene (imagine that! Character development in an action scene) in the school where Wolverine turns around and stabs the SWAT member in the chest. Wolverine's signature berserker rage is portrayed perfectly by Jackman, and you really get an idea of how dangerous Wolverine is when he starts killing the SWAT team.

In summary, this was a much, much better film than the first and exactly what I'd want from the X-Men franchise. Brian Singer seems to have grown up as a director and he's layed out a perfect template for a third installment that not even Bret Ratner could screw up. I am visibly excited for the third installment, which I will watch this evening. Stay tuned, phantom readers.

Franchisicide Vol. 1, Book One

Today I embark on an ambitious campaign to watch every franchise available to me and chronicle my experiences here.

The idea came to me last night when a friend of mine and I were watching the trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the ten billionth time when he casually mentioned that he had all three X-Men movies at his house and that we could watch them all if I wanted.

I recently had a similar experience with the Spider-Man films (which we will explore at a later date).

So, for the first series we'll be looking at the X-Men trilogy: X-Men, X2: X-Men United and X-Men 3: The Last Stand.

Today we'll start with X-Men.

I suppose I should go easy on this film, seeing as how it came out even before the sadly gimped Spider-Man and before Spider-Man 2 established that it was possible to make a good film out of a superhero's mythology. But bollocks to that, a lousy film is a lousy film.

And don't think I say that without a heavy heart because I have a lot of affection for superheroes and the X-Men cartoon from the early 90's holds a special place in my heart for introducing me to the wonderful world of laser vision. Not to mention Wolverine is, next to Spider-Man, Marvel's best character.

Unfortunately the film suffers from just about every problem I can think of. In fact, I'm a bit overwhelmed by the task of cataloguing every one of the problems, so let's start with what's good before I deliver the finishing blow to its skull with a tire iron:

- Hugh Jackman

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's move on to what's wrong:

The characterizations are some of the worst I've ever seen. We were off to a great start with Wolverine's introduction. Hugh Jackman has the perfect look for the part, the perfect attitude and he has the berserker rage down. The opening with him cage fighting for money is very appropriate and his character gets a great start with some well-written dialogue between him and Rogue. Unfortunately, I think at this point the writer was killed and replaced by a cylindrical robot with pincers for hands. Suddenly all characterization stops and we get characters that literally have no motivation, no personality and the audience has no reason to give a shit about them. When the movie ended, I asked my friend who Storm was. Why was she there? What was her stake in the plot aside from going along with Professor X's Bambi-eyed obsession with protecting the people who want him dead (an interesting angle that was never really explored). She could have been anyone. Any one of the X-Men could have played that part. She could have been removed the script entirely and it wouldn't have changed the story at all.

After his introduction Wolverine just becomes a vessel for Professor X to go on and on about the expansive mythology which weighs down the plot more than anything I could have imagined.

Talented actors and great characters in this film give new dimension to the word "waste" that I never could have fathomed. Cyclops, Magneto, Sabretooth, Rogue, Jean Gray, essentially every character in the film was well cast and savagely betrayed by the script.

The script is so heavy with exposition and explanation that when the plot finally kicks into gear we're given contrived set-ups and terrible fight scenes until the movie ends on an especially stupid note.

I've never seen a climax set up in such a contrived manner. Ever. And with the sheer number of action films I've watched, I think this will be one of those whiteout moments I'll never forget.

The way they seperate the X-Mans so they can all have their own little personal battles reminds me of how I set up climactic duels with my action figures when I was five. I probably would have loved this movie when I was five.

Anyway, I could go on about Brian Singer's terrible direction and the dated production, but I won't go there. I've said what I need to say, but I would like to mention that I was disappointed when I rewatched Spider-Man recently, but the second film turned out even better than I remember.

An Open Letter to Marc Forster

I'd like to start by letting Marc Forster know, if he's reading this, that it's okay. We all forgive him. We understand what happened and we know that he will go on to make good movies. We understand that it was too soon to take on something like Quantum of Solace, in several senses of the word. It was too soon because you're primarily a drama director. You've never done a genre film and you probably never planned on it. You've never thought hard about action films, and you likely underestimated the visual complexity and the enormous amount of minutia that is pivotal to the success of such a film. You took Paul Greengrass's second unit director and had him film the car chase because the Bourne films are popular and they're the current trend in action films. We realize you didn't have a finished script because of the writer's strike, and to make matters worse, you had a strict timetable that didn't allow you as much control over the project as you needed.

To your credit, you created two brilliant sequences. One, the opera sequence (and not just for the portion without sound, which I would merely call a "nice touch") for the scene where Bond pushes the man off the roof. My god, I didn't know cameras could do that. Couple that with Mathieu Amalric's reaction shot and subsequent dialogue, and that's a great twenty seconds. The other being the "Oilfinger" scene, with more great dialogue and a rather jarring reveal, aided by some great lighting and Judi Dench's best scene in the film.

Then there are the little things that I liked a lot. The choreography in the scene where Bond throws the man through the glass door, when Bond punches the bike. That sort of thing.

Mathieu Amalric was an excellent choice. It's a pity his part wasn't better.

The plane chase was garbage. The boat chase was on the verge of bad. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. I understand your ambition to tie the environmental themes to the action, but sometimes these things don't work and we have to accept that. Although, given the writer's strike, I suppose you had to go with what ideas you had and, again, I don't blame you.

Hell, us action fans would be happy to have you back in the genre as long as you're willing to learn from your mistakes. Personally, I think you're a great choice for World War Z. We know you were brought on to the Bond franchise to help flesh out the character, and it's not fair that you were given such an action heavy film. You would have done a great job on Casino Royale.

Here's something you should have pitched EON and your producing partners: You direct everything but the action, while Martin Campbell has a second unit directing the action. You could have had the film you wanted released when you wanted. Or maybe, I don't know, wait out the writer's strike and have the movie out for summer 2009. Execs are scrambling for tentpoles and QoS could have been fast tracked for summer '09. In fact, that's a much more viable release. Did you punch anyone when they told you it would be coming out in November? Like a PA or something? That's stupid.

It's a shame that Quantum of Solace ended up being a good film with a great film peaking out, but the entire time I watched it I couldn't help feeling bad for you. You had all the pressure in the world on your shoulders to produce a sequel superior to Casino Royale, and I can almost imagine the studio executives:

EXEC 2 (through hysterical laughter): Remember that idea you had to stage a writer's strike? Throw that at him in the middle of scripting!

EXEC 1: Then we'll give him a ton of money! And we'll put it all on him when the movie tanks!

A bunch of strippers then walk in and put sashes around the executives that say "Screw you, Forster". One of the executives puts a lighter to the overhead sprinklers and cocaine starts spraying everywhere.

I'm sorry to hear that you won't be returning for Bond 23, but for whoever takes the reigns (Martin Campbell! Martin Campbell! Or Paul Haggis. I'll take either, but Martin Campbell has made the two best Bond films of the last 35 years and I think he's been being visited by an incorporeal Ian Fleming or something) has some stuff to fix. Here's what to do. I hope you'll reconsider, and if you do, here's what to do.

- Get another second unit director. Your current second unit director is PAUL GREENGRASS'. LET HIM MAKE BOURNE FILMS. You are making a Bond film, not a Bourne film. I understand that you're going in the same direction and that it makes sense to come to the same conclusion, but the Bond character is interesting because he exists in a stylized universe. The appeal of the Bourne films is their realism and their desire to throw you into fight scenes with Bourne. Greengrass can do that, but, I'm sorry, Mr. Forster, Bond cannot.

- Strike a balance between post-modernism and tradition. Casino Royale took the notion of that stylized universe and added realistic elements. But let's note that the Bond traditions are still there. The villain with the physical deformity that makes him more intimidating. The pre-credit action teaser. Bond seducing the villain's girlfriend. Bourne is the ultimate post-modern action hero, and Bond is a traditional hero. You can fit him into a post-modern world, but if you make him too post-modern, he loses his unique appeal. I want to see Bond in the next film, not Jason Bourne.

- Take some time to make the film. I'd rather have a film equal to Casino Royale in 2012 than a stripped-down film like this in 2009.

- Give Daniel Craig more to do. The guy is a great action star and is always convincing in a fight. But he's also a great actor who was sadly underused and just abused by the stunt team in this film.

That seemed a little harsh, so let me tell you the things you should keep, should you reconsider and come back for another film.

- The realistic reactions. Where Bond leaps onto a ledge and smacks into the wall. Where Bond steers a boat into another boat and gets thrown around the deck. When the door of Bond's car gets torn off, glass flies across his face and he appears to get a rather severe case of whiplash.

- Scenes like the opera scene. It fit very well with the realistic tone of the action, and was anonymous enough that anyone could have come up with it, allowing some continuity between films should other directors choose to try the same sort of thing.

- Peter Lamont as production designer. Yes, awesome.

If you don't come back, please make World War Z. You can redeem yourself for this. If Paul Haggis comes up with a good third film, your film could eventually be seen as an excellent part two of one of film's great trilogies. I hope you take my advice, because I don't see anything else working. I hope you get me a job, too. And a seven-figure salary. But for now I'll take you fixing the Bond film, your mistakes and the mistakes of the producers and executives.

But good try. You should know that no one could have done better under your ludicrous circumstances.

Why the Makers of Call of Duty: World at War Deserve the Death Penalty

Dear Treyarch,

Suck all the dicks. All the dicks in the world. I've had your game for almost a month now and the only consistent feeling I've had towards it is that it should suck all the dicks. All the dicks in the world. Every dick it can get its little mouth on.

This is unfortunate because I'm a big fan of Call of Duty 4, but after giving your game a serious pat-down, I can only offer it a big, steaming plate of dicks.

I don't know if my uncontrollable rage can defy its own nature and be controlled long enough for me to think of all the things that are wrong with this game, but I'll try.

• Get rid of those goddamn tanks. You know, the tanks that take six rockets to kill even though we're only spawned with two rockets? Stop that. This means that we have to go shoot two rockets at a tank, then, if we survive that, we go off and prance about the fields of Seelow until a confused hunter takes off half our skull. Then we're spawned with two more rockets, wash, rinse, repeat. How long do you think that process would take, Treyarch? Two minutes? Out of a ten minute deathmatch? That's a fifth of play time, (of course, many matches don't last that long, in fact, most of them don't). That's a fifth of the game where the tank driver knows he's safe and can cruise around unchalenged blowing people to pieces. And that doesn't take into account people who use Bomb Squad x3 special grenade or anything else. Any perk that's not rockets or is totally null and void because then the team doesn't stand a chance against tanks. The tank is a totally overpowered supression weapon. Perch it on a hill and your enemies will go running for cover and your snipers and close-quarters fighters can systematically eliminate anyone left. It's cheap, stupid and I refuse to drive a tank (aside from to hide them from other players) in game.
  

• Most people don't pay attention to what team they're on because you change so often and they're often indistinguishable at long range. Therefore, we rely on the names displayed above the character to determine if they're on our team or not. So, when I come around a corner and there's a guy with no display above his head, I start shooting. Then, we show up on our enemy's radar, and we're greeted with dozens of anonymous grenades landing in every orifice of our body.

• The spawns. This is quite possibly the most egregious offense and is responsible for at least 15% of my deaths (and an uncalculated number of my kills). When I spawn, don't want to be greeted with an enemy's knife as soon as I land in this world, wide-eyed and virginal, ready to gut the American menace. If nothing else, spawn me next to a teammate, so at least I can have some company when I die. I can't tell you how many times I've been sniped, and then spawned five feet away from where I died, only to be plugged again immediately. If someone is charging towards an area, don't spawn his enemies there, they wouldn't stand a chance. It doesn't make any sense. It turns the game into a game of whack-a-mole, if the mothers of the moles involved were being given folded American flags every time one of their offspring were clubbed by a drooling four-year-old. I feel terrible when I'm running in a straight line and I kill someone, only to have them spawn in front of me, right in my crosshairs, with them looking the opposite direction. This happened three times to the same guy once. It's absurd.

• When I shoot something, that means I want it dead. Not that I want to get his attention like I recognize him from the training academy. He's on the other team! The Russians and Germans didn't go to the same training academy, anyway. I was using bolt action rifles for a while because I like to think that I'm a pretty good shot. For a while in Boot Camp and into Team Deathmatch for a while, I was doing a bang-up job, once getting a 30-kill 5-death spread with the Arisaka. But once I got to the higher levels my gun seemed to only fire confetti. And to make matters worse, whenever I would be popped by someone else using an Arisaka I would watch my killcam and they would never hit me directly. It's like there was a killbox or something, like there was a small room for error. It was frustrating to see someone shooting me in the pinky and cueing some orchestral cellos when I would tie someone to a chair, put my foot on their stomach and shoot them between the eyes at point blank and they would shrug it off and stab me in the balls with their retractable shoe-knife. I never had this problem in Call of Duty 4! I prestiged using the M16 and the majority of my kills were headshots. Granted they're a bit different, but accuracy is still the dominating factor for both.
  

• Hacking is a serious problem. I'm tired of being shot from underground. It's stupid. I have to use my rocket launcher to kill those assholes, and then I don't have anything to use against the tank monsters. As if it mattered.

I'm about finished with this game. This is the second time I've gotten to level 21. The first time (on my friend's XBox 360) I achieved it in one night using mostly the Arisaka, Thomspon and Gewher. It's taken me several days to achieve the same thing on my Playstation 3. I would like you to know that I will be going back to Call of Duty 4 in the near future. Thanks for nothing, Treyarch.

Your Pal,
Oliver

P.S.
Suck all the dicks, you assholes.