Asterix versus Caesar (1985)

Film: Asterix Versus Caesar
Release: 1985, Theatrical
Starring: Roger Carel, Pierre Tornade, Serge Sauvion
Directed by: Gaëtan Brizzi, Paul Brizzi
Previous in the series: The Twelve Tasks of Asterix
Next in the series: Asterix in Britain
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When an overly ambitious recruit in the Roman Legion kidnaps the chief's niece and her fiancé, Asterix & Obelix are sent on an adventure to bring them back

Hans' thoughts:

In most of the Asterix movies, the roman empire is presented as sort of stock villains, being an all encompassing force that either controls or works with the main villain of the story. This is one of the stories where the Romans are actually the main event, being a constant source of peril throughout the story. 

Asterix Versus Caesar is actually an adaptation of two Asterix books, Asterix the Legionary and Asterix the Gladiator. The story takes most from Asterix the Legionary (though tweaking it), as the kidnapped ones in this case are Panacea and Tragicomix. In the original story, Tragicomix was actually drafted for the Roman army and sent to Africa, whereas the whole kidnapping part comes from Asterix The Gladiator, where the Romans kidnap the bard Cacofonix. Why they decided to mix these two particular stories together I don't know, other than the whole rescue mission angle the stories actually don't have all that much in common.

While this movie certainly doesn't do the source material any favors, rest assured that it's definitely a fun movie. The wít and charm of the comics are attempted here, with varying but mostly positive results. I also have to admit that this is the only Asterix movie I've seen where Caesar actually seems threatening. He's a threat in the other stories to be sure, but unlike most other stories he's not used that much for comedic effect. In this movie, the lack of presence during most of the movie, the idle threats followed by chuckles and the fact that he's got a pet panther running around just made him into such a sinister looming figure.

Overall though, this movie could have been so much better than it turned out to be considering the strong source material. A lot of the smiles of the comics are gone, as the movie has been given the "adult treatment" trying to make the audience take the movie more serious than they probably should. The best comparison I can come up with is the extreme change of tone between the two last Sam Raimi Spider-man Films. It's just too focused on a sense of drama that, in reality, doesn't have a place in this series. There are scenes where we follow the captives, and most of the time you will want the movie to go back to Asterix and Obelix instead of seeing Tragicomix being a stoic hero. There's a reason his name is what it is.

After this movie, Asterix would go back to have more focus on the comedic aspect of the series, the next in line being Asterix in Britain. As an experiment, this is a nice little movie but I have to admit that the fact that none of the other animated Asterix movies tried to focus on the "drama" that the series had a pinch of potential for makes me happy. It's hard to bash this movie, but I feel that most of that comes from the nostalgic value this has for me.

All in all this is one of the weaker Asterix movies, though still leagues ahead of some of the worst. If you don't really have a fondness for Asterix, you can give this a pass without missing out in much.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2 (2013)

Film: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2
Release: Video, 2013
Starring: Peter Weller, Ariel Winter, Mark Valley
Directed by: Jay Oliva
Previous in the series: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Gotham's protector has returned to duty, his actions having lead to a major gang being split up into a bunch of clusters, one of them following his example. Meanwhile, the man known as the Joker is planning his own sinister return..

Hans' thoughts:

The thing about adapting a piece of work is that everyone will have their own opinion on what is important from the original product. Therefore, some modern movie makers has gone the route of splitting their movies up in two in order to get as much from the original as possible (a trend I believe started with Harry Potter). 

So in this one we delve further into the theory of Batman being the cause of all his villains. On top of that as a bigger stake in the film we have Superman showing up in the picture, being the tool of the president of the united states. What I like about this movie is that even though it's been quite a while since I reviewed the last one, I was able to immediately get back into the action. Of course, this could be due to me having read the original graphic novel several times but I feel that, since the original story is made so you get it all in immediate succession , it's still a feat to be able to carry over the status quo and expand upon it, just like a good sequel should do. However, as with most of the DC direct to video animated movies, I have to stress that they're mostly made with the already established fanbase in mind. While this one may not be the worst case, taking some of the things at arms length never hurts. 

As for the voice work, I really liked Peter Weller's take on an older Bruce Wayne, giving him a deep voice, but not cartoonishly dark or gruff like, say, Christian Bale's take on the character. In all honesty, while Kevin Conroy may very well be considered the best Batman voice actor out there, Weller gives him a run for his money in this performance. It felt like he was channeling Adam West in his performance, an acotr who unfortunately does not get as much praise in this role as he rightly deserves. If you've forgotten what Adam West sounds like, you need not look further than the current animated satire show Family Guy, where he voices the mayor of the fictional city of Quahog. 

One thing that's always nice in elseworld stories like this one is seeing alternate takes on popular characters. In this case I'd like to highlight Jim Gordon, the commissioner of Gotham Police department (although recently retired in this case). While none are quicker to give Frank Miller flak than me these days, I have to commend him on his writing skills for this particular character. Almost every version of Gordon he's done has been right on the money, regardless of how he may have done in the case of a lot of other characters. Especially this story and "Batman: Year One" is where Millers ability to write Jim Gordon shines through. 

The animation style continues to be pretty good, keeping the basic look of the original comic while updating it for, I imagine, the purpose of broad appeal. Okay let me retrace my steps a bit. What I mean is that it looks like the original drawings to a point, but a lot more clean. A lot of the rough lines are cleaned up and the proportions for the body types are more anatomically correct. The coloring is also better, but that's to be expected when the original artist has his best work in the negative space department, his most beautiful work being that of the Sin City series.

All in all, this movie manages to update the story into a broader appeal and to a modern audience. Also toning down some of the more strong messages from the original work. While still managing to tell a good story and keeping alive the spirit of the story. To any fan of, especially the modern Batman movies, I strongly recommend checking both this and it's predecessor out, as a lot of the things that happen in the "Dark Knight Trilogy" are inspired by this story. I also recommend it to anyone who loves the Batman character and his extended cast - this take on him is a classic and this animated version manages to do it justice.

American Splendor (2003)

Film: American Splendor
Release: 2003, theatrical
Starring:  Paul Giamatti, Shari Springer Berman, Harvey Pekar
Directed by: Shari Springer Berman, Robert Pulcini
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Harvey is a world-weary, sarcastic man with a failing second marriage and a sore throat when everything comes crumbling down around him, wanting some sort of outlet for his day to day annoyances, he starts writing comic books.

Hans' thoughts:

American Splendor is fun movie. The main character, Harvey Pekar, oozes of sarcasm and world weariness in such a way that it actually adds to the movie's charm. We follow him from just before he starts making comics, till after his struggle with a serious illness. All the while the movie is occasionally interrupted and narrated by the actual Harvey Pekar. The first thing that pops out when you watch the movie is the style. The movie is made like a comic book, having tekst boxes and bubbles occur every now and then for comedic effect. The weird time skipping style of interrupting the movie with a short presentation by the actual person being presented also gives the movie a cozy feel, like you're actually hanging out with the people this movie is about, hearing their tale. It also cements how well represented the people in the movie actually are, giving others than Pekar himself a chance to say something directly to the audience. The movie is of course somewhat based on the comic book of the same name, American Splendor. It's an autobiographical comic book where the characters in the comic are people the writer actually met and interacted with on a daily basis. Making this movie also a fairly personal piece. 

What I like this movie most for, is the way it presents it's characters. It makes a point saying that just because you aren't a fictional character, it doesn't mean that you don't have something that makes you unique. Not in the sappy way, but more in the way that yes - good character writing actually comes from writers basing it on their own interactions with actual people. The movie is about how interesting normal life can actually be, and as the characters state countless times: In real life, everything doesn't end up hunky dory. There'll always be something worth complaining about, all you really have to do is learn how to deal with it. 

A bittersweet film yes, but a funny one as well. Taking a lot of things that people may take for granted and putting them in the spotlight. Granted, this form of comedy is not for everyone. The atmosphere may be too simple and quiet for people used to more over reactionary forms of storytelling. Thus, this movie doesn't have a major goal the characters have to achieve, some high tragedy they try to overcome or even really, all that much in the way of an ending. But that's what's so good about it, it's honesty. To a lot of people, life is nothing but a series of happy and sad events, that doesn't mean it's meaningless though. This is what this movie seems to convey, to me at least.