Editorial: Shifting The Blame

Most people who care about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has by now seen the human-like character designs of the titular characters and as you may have guessed the reaction to the designs and the trailer overall has pretty much amounted to a collective groan of disbelief among fans of both the original source material and movies in general. I for one completely agree, the designs look absolutely hideous and the casting choices are just so big misfires you'd think it was a parody of what a modern trailer for the turtles might have looked like. But no, unfortunately this is very real and it is coming out no later than this upcoming August. People are completely outraged, calling for the head of producer Michael Bay, with their hatred for his Transformers movies still fresh in their minds. The Bay Turtles they're calling it, why must Bay ruin our childhoods they're saying. You'd think I'm overstating here but some of these statements are actually downright seething with hatred. 

No wonder Hollywood don't take them seriously. if you go back a couple of lines you might see the problem right away. They're calling for the head of the movie's producer. Meaning because Mr. Bay's name is attached to the film, the reputations of the people actually working on the damn film are spared. Which is why in this little article we're answering some of the most common fan reactions to the trailer.

• "The plot for Bay's Ninja Turtles is just downright stupid compared to the source material", okay so the actual screenwriters Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec and Evan Daughtery had absolutely no creative impact on the production whatsoever? By the way how would you know the fine details of the plot if the film isn't slated for release until August?
   
• "Bay is killing our childhoods with these ugly Ninja Turtles" Setting aside the fact that the words "You killed my childhood" should only belong to the child soldiers of the world.. I'm sure if you asked Mr. Bay himself, he'd tell you that he does in fact not have training in art direction nor actual CGI animation, that credit goes to concept illustrator I. Javier Ameijeiras and the rest of his (I'm sure) talented crew. Nevermind the animators and visual effects artists attached to the production.
  
•  "Megan Fox ruining yet another childhood favorite with her presence" Nevermind the 9 different people that makes up the casting crew of the picture or her need for a paycheck to pay for bills and sustenance.

I get the need for a face to attach to something you hate, abstract concepts based on modern tendencies are pretty hard to lash out at however if you're going to lash out - don't just attack a guy with the title "producer" attached to the film. Turtles is, as I said, not due till August and while I'm not looking particularly forward to it given Hollywood's track record regarding remakes of 80's properties - don't act like spoiled children. The 2014 Turtles will probably suck, it will probably make you feel you wasted money on your ticket. However making such a big public outcry over a mere trailer is why the "geek community" isn't taken seriously by most bigwigs. Because most of them as understandably adopted the attitude that the public doesn't know what it wants. Even if you disagree that there is such a thing as a "geek community", that's how the casual viewer sees us, just like the casual viewer wouldn't be able to tell you the differences between Goths, Emo's, Punks, Vamps, Romantic Goths and so on. They just see a bunch of kids dressed in black.

Astro Boy (2009)

Film: Astro Boy
Release: 2009, theatrical
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Freddie Highmore, Donald Sutherland
Directed by: David Bowers
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When his son is killed in an accident, the minister of science Doctor Tenma puts his memories into a revolutionary new robot lookalike - the powerful Astro Boy.

Hans' thoughts:

In the 1950's, a man named Osamu Tezuka created the comic series "Tetsuwan Atom", or "Strong-Armed Atom" (known as Astro Boy internationally). The series was a tremendous succes, kickstarting japanese animation and setting up a lot of the aestethic choices that we now consider "anime" and "manga". Years later, in 2009 an American adaptation was created using CG animation, that's the one we're looking at. Astro Boy is essentially a science fiction version of the classic tale of Pinnochio, the titular character Astro is built in the image of a scientists deceased son and giving all of his memories. However Astro is not a perfect clone of the child named Toby, he has his own personality and dreams so his creator decides to get rid of him. Now in the original story, Astro loses all memory of ever being called Toby and establishes his own life while becoming a powerful crime fighter in the ongoing ethical battle about the laws of robotics and the rights of robots as citizens. In the movie they decided to downplay the superhero aspect of the character, and instead focuses on his search for an identity.

If I had to be downright blunt about it I was not so fond of this movie. It feels kinda stilted, as if some of the energy of the original work has been removed in favor of misguided subtlety. The otherwise really energetic Nicolas Cage plays a very quiet, at times even awkward Doctor Tenma and the same can be said for most of the other actors. The movie also suffers from way too many secondary characters. Astro is quickly pulled from one situation to the next and in some cases we barely get to know a character before we're sent along to the next scene. In one particular example of this, a group of kids were introducing themselves and then Astro is pulled into a completely different scene for 2 minutes to be introduced to even more secondary characters. As if the writers suddenly got bored with one scene and decided to simply start writing the next one. It does the movie a giant disservice of us not really caring about when a character we've only seen for a minute or two suddenly hijacks the movie to be put into focus again. Nevermind the very blunt scene transitions that's already apparent in the product.

This lack of discipline when it comes to what exactly they wanted to do with this movie is very disheartening, and it isn't helped by the fact that the movie has a tacked on environmental message which has no grounds in the original series, nor is it used as part of the ongoing narrative at all. At one point it seems as if they also wanted to talk about class warfare but once again they bring up the subject and then drop it again as soon the next scene starts. At the very least, I liked the art-style. They took the original style and made it more culture-neutral and streamlined. Characters are still recognizable but a lot of the exaggerated features from the comics and cartoon is downplayed severely. Likewise the color scheme and environments of the movie is beautiful and I really wish that the attention to detail in that department had been carried over intro the rest of the production. It's really unfortunate that such a gorgeous looking movie ended up with such a lackluster script and direction. It seems rushed, which is weird considering that there was no large demand for a western adaptation of Astro Boy - a 50 year old series. As it stands I can really only recommend the movie to curious fans of the original series.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

Film: Kick-Ass 2
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloë Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Jim Carrey
Directed by: Jeff Wadlow
Previous in the series: Kick-Ass
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: 5 years after the fall of drug lord Frank D'Amigo, his son Chris is still seeking vengeance on the world's first costumed hero. Donning an all-new costume, he becomes The Motherfucker: The world's first super villain.

Hans' thoughts:

This movie is exactly what a sequel should be, instead of trying to do a formulaic repeat of success, it broadens out the universe and the story and takes the next logical step. From the first hero to the first villain, this move is the other side of the coin in a lot of ways.

Kick-Ass was a wild movie for sure, but it was also a little dramatic - trying to remind you at every turn that the story was still supposed to take place in the real world. To some extent anyways. Kick-Ass 2 on the other hand puts the pedal to the metal, this is very much a comic book movie and a good one at that. There's more action, more characters, bigger scenes, bigger events, bigger everything.

In this movie we not only get the first supervillains, but also the very first superhero team "Justice Forever". This team is lead by a completely unrecognizable Jim Carrey in the role of Colonel Stars and Stripes. But really, you could have told me it was someone else and I would've believed you - kudos to the makeup department on the facework and to Carrey himself for a excellent performance. He really managed to the take on the guise of someone else. Most of the members of Justice Forever - however likable, is kinda one-note archetypes. There's not much to them but they're likable enough to not become grating or feel flat.

This is more than can be said for The Motherfucker's team. While all his teammates certainly get backstories and each have at least a single moment of their own, only the character Mother Russia really stood out to me as a completely realized characters. Though the same thing happened to the heroes team, at least they managed to make me able to tell them apart based on more than the look. 

The breakout actor of this movie is definitely Mintz-Plasse as The Motherfucker, he really getting his acting chops fit into shapes and he had a lot of very cool moments - even in spite of the character itself being a whimp. He plays the wimp in such a way that you actually like him though, and I found myself kinda wanting him to succeed. This is mainly due to the two leads. While they certainly acted decently, Kick-Ass was just kind of around because his name was in the title, not having all that much to do in this movie before the final act. And while I love Moretz as Hit-Girl, she does not manage to pull off the struggling teenager persona all that well. This is in part because the actor who played Marcus, her caretaker, felt sort of bland to me.

Overall, Kick-Ass 2 did a lot more with the universe and has much better action than the original, I just doubt there is all that much more you can do with this property - though they seem to be setting up a sequel for it. I look forward to seeing just where they intend to go with it next and until then I will have had a very enjoyable experience.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Film: Kick-Ass
Release: 2010, Theatrical
Starring: Aaron-Taylor Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloë Grace Moretz, Nicolas Cage
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Next in the series: Kick-Ass 2
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The nerdy high-schooler Dave Lizewski decides to live out his fantasy as the superhero persona Kick-Ass. Accidentally, he gets thrown into one man's violent war against a powerful drug lord.

Hans' thoughts:

In a world much like our own, Dave Lizewski decides to dress up like a hero. Not because of some revenge-scheme or other normal-type motivations - he just figures it's the right thing to do. 

Kick-Ass came out in 2010, critically acclaimed but bashed by parent interest groups. This is mostly due to a ton of curse words and the movie being littered about with over-the-top violence mostly committed by an 11-year old actress.

Personally? I thought it was a lot of fun! Being laddish at heart and a big comic book geek I could relate a lot to the different personalities in this movie. I think many comic book fans like myself has fantasized at one point or another about putting on a mask of our own, and fighting the people who make the streets unsafe at night. The movie is of course, also a very sobering experience as the very first time our hero actually goes to fight crime, he fails miserably to the point of being nearly fatally wounded. The movie also has a lot of funny moments, some of the best being characters snapping the movie back to reality and putting a mirror up to the audience "Everythings fine?! You're grabbing a fucking bazooka!". Though not the point of breaking the 4th wall, the movie is showing you that it is very much aware of just how insane the premise is.

On the acting side you have Nicolas Cage in perhaps my favorite role he's done yet. His socially awkward, southern Big Daddy has some of the funniest moments and perhaps the best shot action scene in the movie. While Johnson and Mintz-Plasse also both do a very good job of portraying dweeby teenage guys that are in way over their heads, the break-out star of the movie is young Chloë Grace Mintz starring in the role of the ass kicking Hit-Girl. She has the biggest number of action scenes and some of the most badass moments in the film.

The movie does have it's problems though, slight plot holes like how does a single security camera manage to capture an entire hollywood-style fight scene from a single position. Or how amateur superheroes can have such well-made costumes. But really, it's a comic book movie and I really had no problems with suspending my disbelief.

Overall, this is one of my favorite superhero movies, and action movies overall and I look forward to what's going to happen next in this universe.

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.

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.

Asterix in Britain (1986)

Album cover

Film: Asterix In Britain
Release: 1986, theatrical
Starring: Roger Carel, Pierre Tornade, Graham Bushnell
Directed by: Pino Van Lamsweerde
Previous in the series: Asterix Versus Caesar
Next in the series: Asterix and The Big Fight
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Britain has been invaded, and Rome has declared marshall law. In a small village, the only free britains try to hold off the legions. The warrior Jolitorax is sent to his cousin in Gaul for help.

Hans' thoughts:

50 B.C. All of Gaul has been overtaken by the Roman military machine. All? No a small village - oh whatever you know this part. It's Asterix. If you for whatever reason don't know who Asterix is by this point, you must've lived under a rock for most of your life. Having been represented in video games, childrens books, cartoons and of course comic books Asterix has become one of the most iconic characters when it comes to the European comic book industry.

Released in 1986, this is the 4th time Asterix has been brought to the silver screen and the 3rd adaptation of an original Asterix comic book adventure. Actually, I like to call this movie the second in the "Asterix globetrotting adventures". The first one being Asterix and Cleopatra (1968) with the third and fourth ones being Asterix in America (1994) and Asterix and the Vikings (2006). I might be the only one that feels this way though. With the exception of the latter two, none of them were released back to back.

My weird habits aside, this is one of the better Asterix movies. It's arguably the one that's aged the best, most of the Asterix movies being very grounded in the period it was made. This has resulted in some strange occurrences (such as Justforkix owning a cellphone pidgeon in Asterix and The Vikings from 2006). 

This movie also does a lot better animation-wise. Grounded, the former movies (especially Asterix and Cleopatra) had very good, imaginative pictures. However, this movie has better colouring, better backgrounds and the characters stay much more on model than in former installments. This looks like a big budget movie. Though I have to say the shading is very sparse, the artists instead choosing to make the colors flat a lot of the time. This leads to some of the scenes feeling very flat, it feels like you're watching a movie and that is a problem. It's a bit weirding seeing as Asterix Versus Caesar from the prior year had fantastic shading. 

This is a fun movie, it doesn't allow you to put much thought into what's going on and instead just throws 90 minutes worth of laughs at you. The cheese factor is high in this one, so if you're picky about history you might want to turn off your brain for a bit. It allows for a lot of silly explanations for real world things, such as why tea is so big in England. This story is a jestful mocking of neighbours from the French, not feeling mean spirited in any way.

Garfield The Movie (2004)

Film: Garfield The Movie
Release: 2004, theatrical
Starring: Bill Murray, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Breckin Meyer
Directed by: Peter Hewitt
Next in the series: Garfield 2 - A Tail of Two Kitties
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Garfield the cat lives with his owner Jon Arbuckle on a dead-end street. Garfield being a walking ego, lives in total luxury until Jon is talked into adopting a dog by the vet he has a crush on.

 Hans' thoughts:

Of all the properties to make a movie about, Garfield is a very weird choice. Well-known for the newspaper strip of the same name, Garfield is a about a fat house cat that tortures those around him to feed his own greed. He likes lasagna, he loves to watch TV and he embodies cats as well as their owners pretty well. I can see why some might think that the humor of Garfield might translate well to the big screen, but as a live-action movie? Eh..

Okay let's get the casting out of the way first. As far as Garfield himself goes, Bill Murray is pretty much the perfect choice as the sarcastic cat. Murray's own comedic career is based very much in being a sarcastic, self-centered jerk on screen and that goes very much hand in hand with Garfield. The rest of the casting is pretty weird, the most questionable choice being Jennifer Love Hewitt as Liz the vet. In the comic strip, she's just as sarcastic as Garfield but in this movie she's played very much as the one-note love interest for Breckin Meyer's way too socially capable Jon. No seriously, in the comics Jon is supposed to be this wacky, socially awkward loser but in the movie he just seems like.. some guy. He's just way too successful in this movie.

The movie is filled with weird choices like this, such as making Garfield the only entirely computer generated character. The other talking animals in this movie are just real animals with weird looking computer effects pasted on top. I realise that making every single animal computer animated would have been expensive and that making Garfield just a normal-looking cat wouldn't have lent itself well to the visual gags - but really, I'm questioning the purpose of making the movie live-action at all as it stands.

This mix-up of CGI and real animals was just way too distracting

As for the plot, well it stays sort of true to the comic strip. We get a new origin story for Odie, we get Garfield just wasting time in front of the TV and we get a lot of familiar characters thrown in. There are new characters here, but they're not really imposing that much on the regulars. In actuality, even the main villain barely gets screentime. Speaking of the main villain, could they have tried any harder to make the perfect opposite of Garfield? He's a bald guy with an inferiority complex that's allergic to cats and hates lasagna. It's like the black smurf's from the Smurf comics that's evil and nasty because, well, the story tells them to.

As far as a Garfield the Cat story goes, I suppose you could have gone with a worse plot. I just really think they should have considered just making it an animated feature instead and stuck with it. The cgi cat certainly looks like Garfield, but it just looks so out of place in a live-action feature where it's the only cgi animal around. In the Scooby-Doo movie, the only animal aside from the random passing bird in the far away horizon was Scooby himself. It sort of worked because there were no real animals on screen to compare it to. The jokes in this movie are also really hit and miss, while Garfield himself gets the occasional one-liner there's not really much to salvage in it.

This movie would only serve well on services like Netflix or Hulu. Maybe a rental at best. If you're curious, sure. Give it a try. I just personally think you're better off watching the 80's TV-show Garfield & Friends instead. That or just reading the comic strip. As it stands, this movie is just downright bland.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

Film: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Alternate title: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - The Original Movie
Release: 1990, theatrical
Starring: Josh Pais, Michelan Sisti, Leif Tilden, David Forman
Directed by: Steve Baron
Next in the series: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II - The secret of The Ooze
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After a spree of strange burglaries hit New York, journalist April O'Neil goes to investigate. When a group of thugs attacks her, April is saved by a very unusual group of heroes.

Hans' thoughts:

To my generation, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was a huge cultural phenomenon. They were everywhere - lunchboxes, cartoons, comic books, video games, action figures, board games, playing cards, even a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle themed band was touring around at one point. When the popularity of the series was at its absolute highest, this movie was made. Now, as I was born the year this film hit theatres, I can't say I know exactly what kids' reaction was when they heard of it. However, I can tell you that the VHS tape of this movie has been played in my home more times than I would care to count after I was old enough to work the machine myself. I have to admit though, after I've become an adult I have not seen this movie quite as frequently. So here goes:

The movie opens up with a nearly shot-by-shot remake of the first episode of the DIC cartoon show. Of course it's rewritten, both because the writers weren't completely lazy and because, well, a movie has way more time to establish the setting than a 20 minutes long cartoon episode. This is also great in another way because this movie actually spends a lot more time giving the turtles themselves distinguishable personalities. Sure, the cartoon told us what the characters were like as early as their opening theme song but in the actual episodes of the cartoon the personality traits of the characters were more of an exception than a rule. Especially the human characters are given more to do than their damsel-in-distress status in the cartoons.

The costumes in this movie is pretty well made, courtesy of
The Jim Henson Company.

The costumes in this movie look really good. They even made the turtles have distinguishable features outside of the colors of their headbands and master Splinter even looks good whereas he could just have looked like a big ball of fur, or even a dog. There's an explanation for this, these costumes are made by The Jim Henson Company, the company responsible for The Muppets, The Fraggles, Yoda in the original Star Wars trilogy and movies like The Dark Crystal. As far as I understand, the costumes (for the turtles at least) are regular padded costumes, but with animatronic masks controlled remotely. As such, the movement of the characters are the result of two seperate puppeteers having to synchronize their work for the best effect. This has various results, suffice it to say that I feel Michaelangelo comes out of this on top, with his puppeteers managing to keep the lipsyncing problems to a minimum.

As for the human characters, it's a matter of hit & miss. While I like the actress playing April O'Neil, I really wish they had given the role to a person who looked more like the character. Visually, the actors come with varying degrees of being faithful to the source material. As much as it saddens me, the weakest link in this matter is Shredder. While they certainly tried to make the design of the costume true to the cartoon version, one could argue that they should perhaps have done their own thing in this case. As for the upper spectrum of the human actors we have Elias Koteas playing Casey Jones. He both looks and acts exactly like the character. Unfortunately, this actor never went on to do anything great, which is shame because he shows real promise.

Now for the elephant in the room concerning this movie, the climax. After a pretty good set up (a gang using the troubled kids of New York as potential recruits), this movie ends up with a pretty sorry ending. This is the one thing I always hear people complain about considering this movie and I can definitely see where they're coming from. The climax is really disappointing as the battle is set up as something huge and as someone who grew up on the turtles it really saddens me to see that they didn't do this as a major fight scene. Of course, it might have been hard to do considering how heavy the costumes probably are.

The Phantom (1996)

Film: The Phantom
Release: 1996, theatrical
Starring: Billy Zane, Kristy Swanson, Treat Williams
Directed by: Simon Wincer
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When a New York business man steals skulls of mystical power, The Ghost Who Walks is called into action.

Hans' thoughts:

Credit is due for the mere fact that they actually dared making a movie with this character. The Phantom is one of the lesser know superheroe-esque characters and he wear a bright purple outfit while on duty. So props is definitely given for even trying to make modern audiences take this character seriously. As for the actual movie, it's a mixed package. On one hand you have some pretty cool stuntwork and an epic tale, you even have a very nice score and this could very much just have gone as an Alan Quartermain or Indiana Jones movie. It has mystical artefacts and junglestunts and our hero is both daring and skilled. On the other hand you have a very by the book plot, and the villain (Treat Williams) is really hamming up the acting to the point of it going from sorta amusing to just downright obnoxious. He's very camp. Some of the mythos is also not explained very well, at points we see the main character talking to a ghost that no one else can see but it's never fully explained who it is except in throw away lines. A lot of the story is told in throw away lines. At one point of the movie, the main character even feels the need to retell his entire origin. However, if you like period piece adventure and really well-done action it is certainly entertaining.

Tintin & The Lake of Sharks (1972)

Film: Tintin and The Lake of Sharks
Release: 1972, theatrical
Starring: Jacques Careuil, Georges Atlas, Jacques Balutin
Directed by: Raymond Leblanc
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: A sweep of forgeries is going through European museums, with the forgeries becoming more and more advanced. In Syldavia, Tintin and Haddock is getting ready to visit their friend Prof. Calculus who's been working on a secret project near a cursed lake.

PLEASE NOTE: While certain factors seem to point to there being an English release of this movie, I haven't actually been able to find any information about it.

Hans' thoughts:

The Adventures of Tintin is a very European comic book series, it doesn't have superheroes like American comics or giant robots like Japanese manga. As far as comics go, Tintin is very down to earth and somewhat realistic, somewhat. If you read the stories, you will get a pretty fair idea about the evolving mentality of 20th century Europe from 1929-1976. Tintin himself is a very one-note character, unlike his well-known friends he doesn't have much of a personality. He is heroic to the core, brave and a quick thinker. He is also friendly beyond belief. To me, Tintin is a "insert youself" character, as he most of the time just serves to react to the things that happen around him. Bouncing dialogue off of characters like the bumbling genius Calculus or the drunken short-fused Captain Haddock. This movie, overseen by the comic creator himself, serves to capture a lot of the elements of the comic book, it does however take some liberties. As an example, you will find a lot more science-fiction in this story than is common in the original comic book. You will also find some James Bond like elements in both the plot and Tintin himself. The voice acting - well I can only speak for the Danish soundtrack and it seems well-enough. Unfortunately it suffers from a lot of unnecessary echo, probably due to the sound quality of the era. Sadly, or maybe rather thankfully, the movie has never been re-dubbed.