On the 'No Kill' Superhero policy...

A hot button topic in modern superhero movies - particularly DC movies directed by Zack Snyder - is the 'No kill' policy: that idea that certain characters draw a moral line in the sand that they will never under any circumstances cross.

In general I prefer stories in which the protagonist isn't a cold blooded killer.  That said, I enjoy mindless action pictures like James Bond and Indiana Jones.  That type of movie tends to have a high body count.  So I don't tend to loose my mind if an action movie has a bit of carnage and the protagonist is the one responsible.

The 2013 film 'Man of Steel' is quite controversial largely due to the fact that Superman - all American boy-scout - is shown to take a life.  And from hearing disillusioned fans talk about it, they made it sound like a straight up act of murder.  Superman taking out General Zod the way he did is an inexcusable act.  But when I saw the movie for myself I had to ask: did I even watch the same movie as these fans?  Yes, Supes snapped Zod's neck like it was a twig.  He did it to save a bunch of kids.  No, it wasn't a decision he was happy with.  Yes, it was the only option in that scenario, other than to 'just let people die' when there was something he could do to prevent it.

Fast-forward to 2016.  'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is in theaters, and audience response is mixed at best.  One significant complaint is that Zack Snyder's interpretation of Batman doesn't have a no kill policy.  In the months since the movie's release this has become one of the first things to come up when people state there reasons for hating the movie.  Personally, I didn't even notice that Batman killed anyone.  It wasn't until watching compilation videos such as this one that it became evident to me that, yeah, Batman is responsible for a good bit of carnage in downtown Metropolis.  However, I'm not quite sure why this is the one thing fans fixated on?

Granted, Batman's no kill policy in the comics is pretty much the only reason Joker is still alive.  There are fans who think that it's inconsistent to have Joker - who has murdered one of the Robins in this continuity - running around Gotham and have Batman be ready and willing to take out Superman 'If there's even a 1% chance' that he's a threat.  There's much more than a 1% chance that Joker is a threat.

However, the 'Batman never kills rule' has never been a set rule in the movies.  Particularly not in the Tim Burton movies.  Even in the climax of Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' there's that bit between Batman and Ra's al Ghul - 'I won't kill you...But I don't have to save you!'  Morally speaking having the ability to save an individual's life, but standing back and allowing them to die...well at the very least it's obeying the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

But lets take a look at the MCU for a sec.  The fun loving kid friendly Marvel movies.  In the context of the movies, does it make sense for The Avengers to have a no kill policy?  ...Not really?  And they don't seem to.  Let's take a look at Captain America.  He is by definition a Super-Soldier.  From WW2.  He's seen action.  In 'The First Avenger' you see him chuck a live grenade down the open hatch of an occupied tank.  He also casually tosses Hydra agents out of an airplane.  Cap doesn't seem to have a no kill policy, and in the context of a soldier in an action movie, he probably shouldn't.

Thor.  Thor is basically Conan the Barbarian, but with a bigger vocabulary.  He's a mighty warrior.  True, usually when he does battle it's with Frost Giants or some other mythic entity, but these are still sentient beings, right?

Iron Man.  Let's see,  Tony Stark starts out his heroic journey as the head of a weapons manufacturing company.  Series villains Obadiah Stain, Whiplash, and Aldrich Killian all fail to live through the climaxes of their respective movies.


Black Widow.  She's an ex-assassin and a super-spy.  Need I say more?

Back to BvS:  It looks like most of the times Batman 'kills' it's usually more public endangerment and property damage rather than intentional homicide.  A car chase in a James Bond movie would have the same type of body count.  Ol' Bats should probably have his drivers license revoked.  The other main 'Batman is a murderer!' scene is the one where Batman is beating up Lex Luthor's thugs in a warehouse.  And while this fight scene is rather brutal, how is it different than Captain America or Thor on the battlefield?

It's fine with me if you don't like Batman v Superman.  I jut wish people would either say that they don't like it because they just don't like it, or give a better thought out reason than 'Batman doesn't kill people!'  I feel like the superhero 'no kill policy' is an odd thing to fixate on in a summer blockbuster style action movie.

One of the best on-screen adaptions of the superhero no kill policy is the Netflix Daredevil series.  And the reason it works is that the no kill policy is highlighted and shown to be a big deal.  It's a major issue that Matt Murdock is wrestling with.  It's a line that he comes dangerously close to crossing multiple times over the course of the first season.  Because of this the last couple of episodes are really intense because you are aware that Matt is capable of killing and at this point you really really don't want him to.  And this is the way it should be done.  If you are going to bother with a no kill policy you should have something to say with it.  Otherwise what's the point? 

The no kill policy isn't something that is addressed in most of the Marvel movies because that's not the story they're trying to tell.  I personally don't think it's the story Zack Snyder was trying to tell in BvS either.

-Geekboy.

Batman Returns (1992)

One of my odd quirks is that I remember what year people were born based on movies that came out the same year.  My Grandma shares a birth year with the original 'King Kong' for example, and I have a brother who is quite proud of the fact that he was born the same year 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was released.  Thanks to 'Batman Returns' the ol' Geekboy can also remember when HE was born.

'Batman Returns' is a follow up to Tim Burton's 1989 'Batman'.  Like the '89 Batman, this movie spends most of it's time focusing on the bad guys.  '89 Batman only has one main villain however, the Joker, whereas 'Batman Returns' has THREE villains.  Penguin, Catwoman, and a sleazy businessman named Max Shreck who is pulling all of the strings in this puppet-show.  As you may guess, Bruce Wayne/Batman once again gets a little lost in the mix, particularly since he didn't have the focus and character development he deserved the last time around.

Visually speaking this is an all-out Tim Burton movie, and the visuals are the strongest part of the movie.  Burton ditches the Noir/Gangster inspiration from the last time around in favor of Gothic/German Expressionistic style costuming and architecture.  The German influence is evident as Penguin's look is clearly modeled after the titular villain of 1920s 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' AND Max Shreck is named after the actor who portrayed the Vampire Count Orlok in 1922's 'Nosferatu'.

So, let's take a look at the villains of the film.  They're clearly the characters Tim Burton was most interested in anyway.  We start off with the birth of the hideously distorted Oswald Cobblepot, an infant with a taste for any sort of raw meat he can catch.  He is quickly abandoned by his high-society parents and ends up in the sewers of Gotham where he is discovered and raised by sewer penguins.  No, I am not making this up.  Tim Burton is the one making this up, because that's not Penguin's canon comic book origin.

Two minutes on Wikipedia will tell you that Penguin was bullied as a child for his strange looks.  He was raised by a very human mother and he fixated on her pet birds.  There's nothing in there about sewer penguins.  That said, I do enjoy Burton's take on Penguin.  Burton took a villain who is rather hard to take seriously, cast comedic actor Danny DeVito to play him, and turned him into a truly terrifying figure lurking in the sewers and devouring raw fish.

It's Christmas in Gotham City, and as this is a Tim Burton movie, Christmas is the most scariest time of the year.  LAST year I actually watched this on Halloween.  It works well for either holiday.  Businessman Max Shreck is doing great humanitarian acts to schmooze up to the mayor so that the mayor will approve of the new power plant Shreck wants to build.  The power plant is important.  The power plant is what motivates Max Shreck, and Max Shreck is what - in one way or another - motivates all of the other villains in the story.

Penguin wishes to return to his rightful place in society.  He kidnaps and blackmails Max Shreck so Shreck can help Penguin with his goal.  Shreck reluctantly agrees, but he has plans to use Penguin for his own agenda.

Meanwhile Shreck's timid and mousy secretary Selina Kyle accidentally discovers Shreck's real plans for his so called 'power plant'.  He wants to build a gigantic capacitor that will steal electricity from Gotham for some sinister purpose that is never fully explained.  To shut her up Shreck pushes Selina Kyle out of a skyscraper window.  But because Selina had been shown as being nice to alley cats, the cats are in turn nice to Selina.  Selina is brought back to life by the cats, and now somehow has nine lives.  She's also rather mentally unbalanced and out for revenge on Shreck.

Just like Penguin, this portrayal of Catwoman has very little in common with her comic book  counterpart.  She's an ordinary cat-burglar in the comics.  There's nothing supernatural about Catwoman, She doesn't have nine lives, and she's one of the few sane members of Batman's rouges gallery.  These changes to Catwoman are less easy to justify than the changes to Penguin.  I personally don't think they add that much to her as a character.  I'm personally left scratching my head as to how somebody who adapted Joker's origin faithfully to the comics in the previous film would take so many liberties in the follow up movie.

I would like to point out that by the time all of the villains are introduced and their motivations are set up we are half an hour into the movie and Batman has only been in one scene and hasn't yet had a single line of dialog.

Max Shreck hatches a plan to make Penguin into a local hero.  Penguin 'rescues' the mayor's son after first faking his abduction.  Shreck then talks Penguin into running for mayor of Gotham, thinking he can use him as a puppet and get him to approve of that oh-so-important-to-the-plot power plant I mentioned earlier.  They plan to make the old mayor, the city's law enforcement, and Batman look completely incompetent in order to obtain this task.

Meanwhile Catwoman is taking her revenge on Shreck by vandalizing one of his department stores.  Rather than outright killing him, which is allegedly her motivation.  As his secretary she should know his daily routine well enough to take him out at any time.  Maybe the logic is that like a cat she's toying with her prey, so I suppose this is justifiable.  Anyway, she crosses paths with Batman, and after he bests her in battle she decides she wants revenge on him too now.

So.  Catwoman teams up with Penguin to discredit Batman even though Penguin is already clearly working with her arch nemesis Shreck.  Huh?  The two of them frame Batman for kidnapping Gotham's 'Ice Princess' a bubble-headed blond who is a big part of the Gotham City's tree lighting celebration.  While Batman is occupied with trying to rescue the Ice Princess, Penguin's henchmen hijack the Batmobile.  Penguin then frames Batman for murdering the Ice Princess - causing Penguin and Catwoman to have a falling out - and then he takes over the Batmobile by remote control.

The part where Batman is trapped in the Batmobile as Penguin is controlling it is actually my favorite part in the entire movie.  It's a very Pulpy/Cliffhanger Serial idea - careening through the streets at high speeds and trying desperately to regain control of the vehicle.  Penguin plans to kill two birds with one stone - eliminating Batman and showing him to be a reckless driver to further discredit him.

But Batman escapes and manages to turn the tables on Penguin - revealing to the general public that he is truly monstrous not only in look but in deed.  And at this point the movie falls apart structurally speaking.  The first half of the story is pretty good.  The plot to discredit Batman is interesting and well done.  But like the '89 Batman, after the bad guy's first evil plan fails the story just becomes a series of backup evil plans.

Remember Max Shreck's evil power plant that has been the driving motivation of all the characters in this story?  This plot thread goes no where.  After the plot to make Penguin the new mayor is thwarted Shreck is demoted to a really minor villain.  Even though he was the driving force of the entire story up to this point.  Now Penguin is somehow the main villain and the plot quickly degenerates from something as sophisticated as framing Batman for murder to strapping missiles to an army of remote control penguins.

My consensuses?  This is a very flawed - but still enjoyable - movie.  It takes a ton of liberties with the source material - particularly with Catwoman's character - doesn't deliver on plot threads that we are tricked into believing are really important from the very beginning of the story, and Batman is once again barely in his own movie.  But when all is said and done I actually like this movie a little better then Batman '89.  Unfortunately that only makes the weak parts of 'Batman Returns' all the more frustrating.

I may be in the minority, but I personally believe that 1995's 'Batman Forever' is the best of the pre- 'Batman Begins' Batman movie.  Next time I blog Batman you should find out why.

Merry Christmas.

- Geekboy.

Batman (1989)

To fans who grew up with Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, the film is the definitive Batman movie.  Michael Keaton is the definitive Bruce Wayne, Jack Nicholson is the definitive Joker, and the Danny Elfman soundtrack is the definitive Batman theme.  Can't argue with that last one.  Danny Elfman is awesome.

As a Sam Raimi Spiderman fan, I think I know how Tim Burton Batman fans feel.  Tobey Maguire will always be MY Peter Parker, no matter how much I enjoyed Tom Holland in the role in Captain America: Civil War.  But I personally didn't grow up with the '89 Batman.  I had seen both Adam West and Christian Bale play Batman prior to Michael Keaton.  So, how well does this movie hold up WITHOUT the nostalgia factor?  Answer - a little better each time I watch it.

I really like the way this movie approaches Batman's origin.  There's a fakeout in the beginning as we see two muggers attack a married couple and their young son.  We're supposed to think that the boy is a young Bruce Wayne and we're witnessing his parents murder, but then the thugs are stopped by Batman.  What's going on here ---?

We aren't show the actual deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne until much later in the story.  Instead Batman - and Bruce Wayne - are presented as a mystery that is slowly unraveled by our viewpoint character, photojournalist and golden age love interest Vicki Vale.

We are also introduced to villain Jack Napier, a mobster who wants a bigger slice of the pie AND has his eyes set on the ladyfriend of his boss Carl Grissom.  Grissom apparently finds out Jack's true intentions and sets him up as a fall guy.  In a showdown with Gotham's finest - and the mysterious Bat vigilante - Jack Napier falls into a vat of chemicals and is transformed into the Joker.

Even though the movie is more or less set in 'modern times' (or the late 80's) all the gangsters look and act like they belong in a 30's mobster movie - complete with fedoras, trench-coats, and pinstripes.  Batman '89 is the only movie going for the golden age feel.  'Batman Returns' is visually a Tim Burton movie first and a Batman movie second,  'Batman Forever' and 'Batman and Robin' are slightly campier silver age Batman, and everything after 'Batman Begins' has been inspired by Frank Miller.  But this movie has Batman fighting mobsters like in the golden age, has a golden age villain (Joker first appeared in 1940) Batman's golden age girlfriend (Vicki Vale's first appearance was in 1948) and the creation of the Bat-Signal (which first appeared in 1942).

So how is Nicholson as Jack Napier/Joker?  Is he the best interpretation of the character?  I'm not really a Joker authority - personally Two Face is my favorite Batman villain - but this version does seem closer to the Joker of the comics then 'The Dark Knight' Joker does.  His origin is the same.  True, in the comics his identity before he falls into the chemicals is unknown, and he isn't the one who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents, but other than that he's spot on.  But I actually like Nicholson's performance better BEFORE he's transformed.  It's a bit like Norman Osborn and Green Goblin in Sam Raimi's Spiderman.  To quote Weird Al Yankovic: 'He's riding around on that glider thing, and he's throwing that weird pumpkin bomb.  He's wearing that dumb Power Rangers mask, but he's scarier without it on.'

What about Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman?  Well, he's fine as Batman, but if you ask me he's a little lacking as Bruce Wayne.  He's happy-go-lucky, absent minded, very earnest, and shy.  Except for a few brief moments he doesn't really capture the darkness of Bruce Wayne's character.  In my opinion Val Kilmer and Ben Affleck are both superior in the role because they show the necessary brooding qualities of Bruce Wayne in 'Batman Forever' and 'BvS: Dawn of Justice' respectively.  Also, one downside of spending so much time developing Vicki Vale and Joker is that it cuts into the amount of time that CAN be spent on Batman/Bruce Wayne.

Back to the plot: After his transformation, Joker seeks revenge on Carl Grissom for stabbing him in the back.  He murders Grissom and makes himself man on the top.  He then becomes obsessed with all the press Batman is getting.  He's jealous because apparently mobsters want THEIR names all over the newspaper too.  (Sarcasm).  So he goes after Vicki Vale, first to find out more about Batman and then because he's developed a creepy stalker crush.

The second half of this movie really starts to feel like it's more about Joker than it is about Batman, and I think I figured out why that is.  The two characters are playing a chess match.  Joker makes a move and Batman blocks him.  Batman is never driving the action UNLESS Vicki is in danger.  Up until the climax he never tries to stop Joker for good.  He's just trying to stop Joker's current plot.

This does make the movie a little episodic as well.  Joker does something evil, and then Batman stops him.  So Joker comes up with a new way to cause trouble, and Batman stops him again.  Repeat spin cycle.

Since Joker is the one driving the action and Vicki Vale is our viewpoint character, Batman comes across as a third wheel in his own story.  This movie isn't about Batman as a CHARACTER so much as it is about Batman as an IDEA.

All that said, some of the things that seemed like flaws the first couple of time I watched the '89 Batman really didn't bother me as I watched it again for this review.  This is an enjoyable movie with more of the look and feel of the comics than more modern Batman movies like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.  And the Danny Elfman soundtrack ROCKS.

-Geekboy.

How I Would Fix: Batman and Robin

Welcome back to How I Would Fix: that segment of my blog where I take a movie that many view as sub-par and humbly state that I know more about storytelling then the large group of individuals who came together in collaboration and shed blood sweat and tears to bring their dream project to the big screen.

Today I am taking on 'Batman and Robin', which the internet has declared to be the worst Superhero movie of all time.  At least until 'Fan4stic' happened.

I'm just going to give a quick overview of the same old tired reasons people give for hating Batman and Robin.  Questionable costuming choices.  The fact that the dialog is pretty much just a slew of bad puns.  The Bat-credit card.

But if you get right down to it, these reasons are mostly cosmetic.  If the story was good enough, nobody would care about the cheesy stuff.  Take 'Batman Forever' from the same director of 'Batman and Robin' as an example.  The villains are crazy over the top, Two Face is a disgrace to the original character, and honestly that David Bowie inspired costume Riddler wears in the end of the movie isn't any better that anything in 'Batman and Robin'.  But that movie is SO much fun, and while some people like to hate it, it's still an enjoyable movie with a big fan base.

Before I get started on the story details of 'Batman and Robin' I'd like to talk a little about the casting in this movie.  It really is a pity Val Kilmer couldn't be convinced to reprise the role of Batman from 'Batman Forever'.  His Bruce Wayne was dark and broody like Bruce Wayne should be.  The brooding nature brought some seriousness to 'Batman Forever' to contrast all the silliness going on with the villains.  He was also really suave, reminding me a little of the Pierce Brosnan era James Bond.  On the flip side, George Clooney plays Bruce Wayne as a happy-go-lucky goofball.  This would be fine IF he were depicting the playboy mask Bruce Wayne puts on in public.  But NO.  This Bruce Wayne is a goofball in the privacy of Wayne manor, a goofball in the Batcave, and a goofball inside the Batsuit.

I also heard - and this may just be a rumor - that they originally wanted Patrick Stewart (of Captain Picard fame) to play Mr. Freeze.  I could see this working.  I imagine he'd take the character in a more serious theatrical direction and maybe they would have given him less ice puns to spout.  Instead we got Arnold Schwarzenegger with lines like "Cool Party!"

But enough about that.  I'm not here to talk about bad puns.  If you're here to listen to somebody complain about puns, there are countless other uninspired 'Batman and Robin' reviews about that out there.  You're here because you want solutions, not somebody wining about the same old things.

So.  A brief synopsis is in order.  There is trouble in the Batcave.  Batman and Robin bicker almost constantly because Robin feels like Batman is holding him back.  Batman thinks Robin's young and impulsive behavior will get him killed.  In short, Robin is like a whiny teenager, and Batman is like a helicopter parent.  Meanwhile, Mr. Freeze is stealing diamonds which he is using to build a giant freeze ray.  His plan is to freeze Gotham City unless they give him enough money to fund his research - finding a cure for the life threatening disease his wife has.

In another part of the world, a rather unhinged botanist, Pamela Isley, is - trying to breed plants that can kill people because people are killing the environment?  After she becomes a Supervillain, she travels to Gotham City, because Wayne industries was funding her research.  Discovering that she now has the power to manipulate men, and also that Batman and Robin are the only people who can stand in her way, she decides to divide and conquer, driving a wedge between the already bickering dynamic duo.  She also decides to team up with Mr. Freeze for whatever reason.  Meanwhile Barbara - Pennyworth? Not Barbara GORDON?  Shows up and decides to become Batgirl.  Oh, and in an unimportant subplot, Alfred is dying because he has the same decease as Mrs. Freeze.

Now, what would I cut out entirely?

First of all, I would get rid of Bane, Poison Ivy's henchman and third villain.  He's unnecessary, (so unnecessary I didn't see fit to mention him in my synopsis) and they don't do the character justice.  Poison Ivy has the power to manipulate people, so she could make any bozo her henchman.

I would also cut out Alfred's sickness.  I don't feel like it adds enough emotional weight to be in the story.  Either punch it up or throw it out.

What would I alter?

I would reduce Mr. Freeze's role.  Even though he has clearer motivation and a little pathos here and there, I don't feel like he's a powerful enough villain to carry the climax.  I would reduce his role to supporting villain who kicks off the story.  Again, like 'Batman Forever' has Two Face start the story, but the more dynamic Riddler steals the show and becomes the main villain in the end.  Two Face is reduced to Henchman level in the climax.  I feel like Poison Ivy is more of a threat and has greater on screen presence, even though her motivation is murky at best.  I would definitely keep those moments of pathos Mr. Freeze has though.

The Batgirl problem.  'Batman Forever' faithfully adapts Robin's origin.  How did 'Batman and Robin' mess up Batgirl so royally?  Barbara Gordon NEEDS to be Commissioner Gordon's daughter.  That's how her story goes.

Batman and Robin's relationship.  In a movie called 'Batman and Robin' don't you think the audience wants to see Batman and Robin working together instead of fighting all the time?

So.  Here's how MY version of 'Batman and Robin' would go.  It would run pretty close to the same until Poison Ivy shows up.  The thing is, instead of going after Batman and Robin directly, she would manipulate COMMISSIONER GORDON.  With the commissioner under her power she could control GOTHM CITY'S ENTIRE POLICE FORCE.  Batman and Robin are now wanted men on the run from the very law they've sworn to uphold.  See how that raises the stakes?  See how it forces Batman and Robin to work together?  Even if they've done some bickering prior to this point they have to form a team against a common enemy.

Meanwhile Barbara Gordon has returned from boarding school.  She notices that Dear-Old-Dad is not like himself.  Also, Batman, whom she knows to be a hero, is on the run.  Perhaps there is a flashback to a time Batman saved her from a mugger or purse snatcher or something.  Through a little amateur detective work she gets to the bottom of the Poison Ivy problem.  She then dons a pair of Bat-tights in order to join Batman and Robin in their crusade against Poison Ivy and rescue her Father.






And.  THAT.  Is.  How.  I would fix 'Batman and Robin'.

On Daredevil...

"This Daredevil guy is awesome.  He's like Marvel's version of Batman!"  I've said this early on in my days as a Daredevil fan, and I'm not the first to make that comparison.  Some may even go as far as to say Daredevil is a cheap Batman knock-off!  But is this a fair accusation?  Let's take a look at some of the similarities AND differences between ol' Hornhead and the Caped Crusader.

Some background: I'm a huge fan of the Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale graphic novels, particularly their Batman work (Batman: The Long Halloween - Batman: Dark Victory) and the Color Series (Daredevil: Yellow - Spiderman: Blue - Hulk: Gray - Captain America: White) over at Marvel.  Daredevil: Yellow was my first encounter with the character.  It was a fantastic book.  Sad, funny, nostalgic, and it somehow managed to make me care about boxing.  I've never cared about boxing!  Anytime a book can convince you to be passionate about something you ordinarily couldn't care less about?  That's good writing.  After that I decided to check out the 2003 movie that everyone hates now.  I really enjoyed it at the time, and still do today as a guilty pleasure.  It's not necessarily a completely faithful adaption, but it's a fun movie, and easier to re-watch than those Fantastic Four movies they made back in the day.  It was after this that I started reading Frank Miller's Daredevil run.

We can thank Frank Miller for all of those comparisons between Batman and Daredevil.  Miller helped  reshape and redefine both characters for the generations to come back in the 80's.  Christopher Nolan's Dark Night trilogy is heavily inspired by Miller's 'Batman: Year One' as well as Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's 'Batman: The Long Halloween' which was intended to be a direct continuation of 'Year One'.

Before Frank Miller came along, Daredevil more closely resembled Spiderman than the Dark Knight.  Let's take a look at their origin stories:  A young man gains superpowers because of an encounter with a radioactive substance: in one case a spider bite, in the other a mysterious cylinder that strikes him across the eyes.  That young man receives a great personal loss: the tragic death of a father figure.  He dons a colorful costume in order to bring justice to those responsible.  Afterwards, he begins the double life Superhero, swinging around rooftops with either his grappling-hook-billy-club combo, or using spider-webbing.

So what did Frank Miller bring to the table?

Mobsters:  Miller brought in a minor Spiderman villain, 'The Kingpin of Crime,' and turned him into Daredevil's nemesis.  It the early days ol' Hornhead fought the occasional gangster - 'The Fixer' and 'The Owl' come to mind, but Frank Miller turned it into a full time gig.  'Batman: Year One' also deals with organized crime in the form of Carmine 'The Roman' Falcone, and the Falcone crime family can be found throughout 'Batman: The Long Haloween' and it's sequel 'Batman: Dark Victory'.

Ninjas:  Frank Miller did his best to turn Daredevil into a Kung Fu movie.  The Hand, DD's mentor Stick, his crazy ex girlfriend Elektra, ect. ect.  'Batman: Year One' introduces us to a Bruce Wayne who has just returned from the far east where he has mastered the secrets of Kung Fu so he could fight corruption in Gotham city.

Femme Fatale Girlfriends:  Catwoman and Elektra.  Something about both of these heroes is that they are both into bad girls.  This here is Film Noir influence.  Frank Miller didn't create Catwoman, and frankly I'm not crazy about his take on the character in 'Year One'.  But he introduced the ninja assassin Elektra in the very first issue of Daredevil that he wrote solo.  There's something about having a love interest who operates on the other side of the law that gives our brooding hero one more thing to brood over.

So.  Are Batman and Daredevil basically interchangeable?  Yes, but also no.

Multi-Millionaire vs Every-man.  Daredevil is a little more relate-able than Batman because he has a day job.  And with that day job comes the supporting cast of a day job.  Who is Matt Murdock's best friend?  His business partner Foggy Nelson.  Who are Bruce Wayne's best friends?  His butler and his kid sidekick.  I don't have a butler for a best friend.  Suddenly I can no longer relate to Batman!  Okay, that's a little extreme.  Bruce Wayne's best friends are his surrogate family, and I can totally relate to that.

But let's get back to that day job thing.  This is important.  This is why Daredevil is just about my favorite Superhero.  Matt Murdock is a lawyer by day and a vigilante Superhero by night.  Think about that for a minute.  Daredevil is basically fighting crime 24/7.  Matt Murdock is wholeheartedly devoted to bringing criminals to justice.  I challenge you to find another Superhero who is that dedicated to doing what they do.  On the flip side, Bruce Wayne sits around Wayne Manor brooding by day, and doing the vigilante stuff at night.  Fighting for justice is more like a part time job for Batman.

So, there you have it.  As near as I can tell, those are the key similarities and differences between Batman and Daredevil.  Feel free to tell me about your favorite Superhero in the comments.

Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice - My initial reaction

I just saw Batman Vs. Superman yesterday evening with friends at our local second run theater.  It was just us guys, because two superheroes punching each other in the face was deemed as too masculine by all the girls that I hang out with.

Did I enjoy the movie?  Overall, yes.  I don't think it deserves the mixed to negative reviews it received.  And I think those negative reviews tainted my movie going experience.  For example, I was informed by everyone on the internet that BVS is a confusing muddled mess.  So every time I was just a little bit confused by what was going on, rather than waiting for the story to make sense as it progressed, I would rush to judgement and say, "I'm confused by this!  The critics were right! This movie is stupid!" Even though about 95% of the time what I found confusing was either explained later, or was something I had forgotten from "Man of Steel" which I haven't watched in well over a year.

You'd think that with all of the movies I love that have flopped at the box office I'd be immune to the opinions of critics by now.  But in the 21st century "group think" is so prevalent.  Good media and bad media are determined by the masses.  Opinion is now absolute fact.  I think if we all lived in a bubble and decided for ourselves what we did and didn't like, we'd get more out of entertainment AND be more rounded individuals.

I don't really know yet if I liked or didn't like BVS.  I would need to see it again, preferably after re-watching "Man of Steel."  But I know what I DID like.

Batman's origin.  There is a school of thought that superhero origins in movies are no longer relevant and just bog the story down.  We all know how Thomas and Martha Wayne were gunned down by a mugger outside a movie theater because you already told us about it in Batman, Batman Forever, Batman Begins, and the TV series Gotham.  But it was so well done here in BVS.  I love the way Zack Snyder weaves the mugging and Bruce's discovery of the Batcave together, all with minimal dialog while the opening credits play.  It's a beautifully done sequence, and it doesn't take any more than 5 minutes.

Batman and Alfred's interaction.  These were some of the best moments in the movie for me.  Alfred's dry humor was spot on perfect.  This is very much a grim-and-gritty-post Christopher Nolan DC comics movie, but most of the laughs this movie got from me were either from Alfred or Perry White.  As you may recall there was a great deal of internet outrage when Ben Affleck of 2003's "Daredevil" was cast as "Batffleck" but he really is terrific as Batman.  What was that I was saying earlier about popular opinion not always being right?

Wonder Woman.  I really didn't expect Diana Prince/Wonder Woman to be as cool as she was, but she has a mysterious bad girl quality in her introduction, and great action sequences in the climax.  Some people in my gang thought she hogged the spotlight too much in the climax, but if you put Wonder Woman it your movie, you do need to use her.

Lex Luthor.  The Lex of BVS is another polarizing element of this movie.  Yes, he is an obnoxious little twerp.  Some fans resent the fact that this movie turned Superman's nemesis into a twerp.  But twerpy as he may be, he is also truly menacing, and a diabolical chess-master.

Visuals/Action.  This is a no-brainer.  It's a Zack Snyder movie.  Awesome stylized visuals and great action sequences are a big part of why you watch.  Going in I knew that even if the movie was a train-wreck, it would be a truly spectacular train-wreck.

What didn't I like?

The surreal dream sequences.  Particularly that middle one, where Post Apocalyptic Batman fights Post Apocalyptic Superman in the Post Apocalypse.  This entire sequence is too long and, as near as I can tell, rather pointless.  It seems like Zack Snyder was trying to repeat "Suckerpunch" in this scene.  Now I for one like Suckerpuch.  It's in my top 10 really weird artsy movies.  But BVS isn't Suckerpunch.  It's Batman Vs. Superman.

(Spoiler Alert) WORSE than this dream sequence is the Flash cameo.  Time traveling Flash from the future pops out of Bruce Wayne's computer screen to warn Bruce about future stuff stating "Lois Lane is the Key!" and, when Bruce is just as confused as the audience, Flash states that he "Was too soon."  So.  Is this about the climax of this movie, in which Lois does play a role?  Or is it about the upcoming Justice League movie?  Because Flash wasn't in the climax of this movie, and shouldn't have known how Lois would be involved---!

So, I don't think BVS is a perfect movie, but it is an enjoyable movie if you have the intention of enjoying it going in.  Few movies are perfect.  Don't let that stop you from watching them and forming your own opinions about them.  Because if you just listen to the critics all the time you could miss a few gems.  I know I almost did.