Trailer Thoughs: The Mummy (2017)

If you're a big monster movie nerd like I am, then you've probably heard that Universal Studios is trying to make a shared universe mega-franchise using modern day remakes of their classic monster series.  The new 2017 film 'The Mummy' is going to be the first film in the series.  Now, the reaction of most people when they hear this is something like: 'Oh, they're just trying to be Marvel.  Just like everybody else is.'  And there is definitely some truth in that.  Pretty much everybody IS trying to be Marvel right now.  But if anyone has a right to try and be Marvel it's the Universal Monsters.  They did it first.  1943's 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman' was one of the first ever film crossovers, and then Universal brought Dracula into the fold with 1944's 'House of Frankenstein' and 1945's 'House of Dracula'.  There's a longstanding tradition for Monsters meeting up and fighting each other.

 Universal made headlines when they announced that the new Mummy was going to be female.  'First ever female Mummy!'  Somehow the news spun that as Universal is a champion for women's roles in Hollywood?  Like we didn't think women could play monsters before, or something?  (I feel like there's a Mother-in-law joke in there somewhere).  The thing is: Anyone who REALLY KNOWS MUMMIES should know that this isn't true.  One of the earliest and most influential mummy stories is Bram Stoker's 1903 novel 'The Jewel of the Seven Stars' which featured the vengeful queen Tera who was a FEMALE MUMMY.  Later installments in Universal's original series such as 'The Mummy's Ghost' and 'The Mummy's Curse' had Princess Ananaka, ANOTHER FEMALE MUMMY.

One thing to note is that this movie, and I assume the other movies in the series will be as well, is set in the modern day.  It'll be interesting to see how they pull this off.  So much of what makes Mummies in particular work is the backdrop of superstition and mysticism of an early 20th century setting.  All that 'Curse of the Pharaoh's' can come off as Saturday Morning Cartoon stuff so many years after the discovery of King Tut's Tomb. 

Let's talk about the latest trailer.  Looks like it could be promising.  We've got a variety of locations, a look at Russell Crowe's Dr. Jekyll - who appears to have a wise-yet-judgemental 'How dare you unleash the ultimate evil on humanity?' role, a few glimpses of the action (That awesome flooded tomb!) and a look at Princess Ahmanet's powers.  I gotta say, the way she flips and scurries up that chain like a spider is awesome!  I'm a little concerned about her ability to make a giant flying head appear in the sky though.  That's the signature move of Imhotep from Stephen Sommers' 1999 Mummy series.  There are enough fans wondering why this movie stars Tom Cruise instead of Brendan Fraser as it is.  Personally I think this movie would do better if it avoids comparison to a popular film series that a lot of people grew up with.

That said, let's talk about the title, huh?  The 1932 Mummy, the 1959 Mummy, the 1999 Mummy and this new film are all simply called 'The Mummy'.  That gets a little confusing, doesn't it?  Maybe they should take a page from 'Kong: Skull Island's' book and give us a new title to go with our new mummy.

-Geekboy.

The Unknowable Future

Over the past few years there have been some major changes in my family dynamic.  And there are more changes coming down the pipe in the near future.  It's inevitable at this point.  Maybe it's because of all these changes, but I've been thinking a lot about these two songs lately.  They both deal with family life and how it changes with time.

The first song is called 'Boats & Birds' by 'Gregory and the Hawk'.  My interpretation of the song is that it's about empty nest syndrome.  A mother is singing to her child about how she knows that they will have to grow up and someday and the child will live his or her own life.  'You can skyrocket away from me - And never come back if you find another Galaxy - Far from here where there's more room to fly - But leave me your stardust to remember you by.'  The song is about coping with the fact that sometimes you have to let go of the people you care about.

The other song is 'House of Gold' by 'Twenty One Pilots'.  It has sort of the same premise, but the roles are flipped.  This one is about a son who wants to have the means to provide for his mother in her later years.  She's provided for him after all, and it's only fair that he return the favor.  'She asked me, son, when I grow old - Will you buy me a house of gold - And when your father turns to stone - Will you take care of me?'  The son wants to care for his mom in the event of his father's death.  He worries that he won't be able to provide for her needs financially.  My favorite line in the song is 'And since we know that dreams are dead - And life turns plans upon there heads - I will plan to be a bum - So I just might become someone!'  This drives home for me the point that the future is unknowable.  We can't control it.

And what are our biggest fears?  The unknown.  And if the future is both unknown and unknowable it stands to reason that the future and the change it brings can be one of our biggest sources of anxiety.  And fear can be such an isolating emotion.  Fear of the unknown future is not something we have to face alone however.  Because the unknown future and the fear it brings are universal.  Everyone has experienced it or will experience it.  Everyone you come in contact with should be able to empathize with your worries.  That makes everyone you meet a potential part of your support group.  Or, if talking to other people about your worries is too scary, you can have you fears quelled vicariously through songs like 'Boats and Birds' or 'House of Gold'.  Songs help because they remind us that we aren't so alone.

-Geekboy.

Thoughts On: Shrek (2001)

'What did you do this weekend, Geekboy?'  Well, I watched the Dreamworks animated film 'Shrek' with my family.  Because about the only other thing I could muster up the energy to do was watch sword-fighting clips from Errol Flynn swashbucklers on Youtube.  That's right.  The party never stops when I'm around.

'Shrek' is pretty much beloved by kids and adults across the board.  Why is that?  What makes it tick?  Why is 'Shrek' hailed as the perfect modern fairy-tale for the 21st century?

Is it because there's enough princess stuff for the young girls, enough action and gross-out humor for young boys, and a nostalgic pop soundtrack for the grown-ups?  I think appealing to so many demographics is definitely part of the success.  As a kid I really dug the actions scenes with the suspension bridge over the pit of lava and the dragon chase through the castle (and still do as an adult).  My Dad liked 'Shrek' primarily for the jukebox soundtrack and Donkey's wacky antics.

But jokes and catchy music only go so far.  What is it about the story and the characters that resonates with all ages?  I think it's because it's a story about oddballs.  And let's face it, we're a society of oddballs.  Few things are more compelling than three individuals who come together, learn to see past their differences (or differences that are actually similarities in disguise) and become buds.

Let's take a look at the title character Shrek.  He's a loner who takes the whole introversion think very seriously.  As an introvert I can identify with this character right away.  But as the story goes on we learn that a big part of the reason Shrek hates being around people is that people hated being around him first.  They started it.

Then we have Donkey.  When he crosses paths with Shrek he has that whole 'We oddballs must stick together!' thing going.  Shrek, who is so used to being alone, is incredibly annoyed by this.  We identify with Shrek here because we all know what unwanted company is like.  We introverts will find all living beings to be annoying at some point in our lives.  Our family, our friends...no we don't ACTUALLY hate everybody, we just need a little space right now.  And the ability to hear ourselves think.  But on the flip side of this we also identify with Donkey.  Because we all go through that awkward stage where we desperately want someone - ANYONE - to like us.  Often this awkward stage is called puberty.  And as much as Shrek doesn't really want Donkey around, Donkey does slowly begin to draw Shrek out of his shell.

And to complete this trio we have Princess Fiona.  She's trying her hardest to behave the way a perfect Princess should act, because that's the role in society that she's expected to play.  But let's face it - that's just not her.  In addition to this she has an embarrassing secret: That whole 'turning into an ogre when the sun sets' thing.  This resonates with the 'Oh, nobody would like me if they knew about (fill in the blank) ' that most socially awkward people have going.  So, Fiona is basically pretending she's something that she isn't - twice over - in order to fit in.

These characters are all basically three sides of the same socially awkward coin.  So the narrative of these three people who don't fit in anywhere become friends - or in Shrek and Fiona's case fall in love - is the sort of story we oddballs need to hear.  Because deep down we know that there's nothing so wrong with us that we can't have friends or fall in love, but sometimes we need a reminder.

That may not be why Shrek resonates with everyone - I don't know what you extroverts get out of it - but I think it's why it resonates with me.  Leave a comment about why Shrek resonates with you.

-Geekboy.

Seven Samurai (1954)

I just recently watched Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece.  What's that?  All of Kurosawa's films are considered masterpieces?  I shall be more specific then.  I just recently watched Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece 'Seven Samurai'.  Seven Samurai is probably the closest of Kurosawa's films to being a household name in the USA, even among people who aren't film geeks.  There are so many adaptions and remakes that even if you haven't watched the original you've probably seen something that was at least heavily inspired by Seven Samurai.

The reason I finally knuckled and watched this is because I'd just seen the 2016 'Magnificent Seven' with friends.  I'd also seen the 1960 Magnificent Seven, the 2004 anime series 'Samurai 7' and the 1980 Roger Corman B-movie 'Battle Beyond the Stars'.  I wanted to talk about some of the differences between adaptions, and figured I had to go back to the original source to do that right.

So, why HADN'T I watched Seven Samurai all this time?  Other than 'Foreign films are expensive,' which isn't a good reason, because I had seen it available for free at my local public library and just didn't get it out.  My big reasons where A: The run-time is about 3 and a half hours, and B: That's 3 and a half hours worth of subtitles and I'm not really a fast reader.  My concerns were insignificant.  There's an intermission and the 2 hour mark, so you can easily watch the movie over two nights.  The intermission is a pretty good stopping place, particularly if you're already a little familiar with the story.  As for the subtitles, well, most of the Kurosawa movies that I've seen are pretty minimalist when it comes to dialog.  There were about two places where I had to rewind and hit 'pause' to finish reading the subtitle, but for the most part I was able to keep up pretty well.

Once upon a time in Feudal Japan a group of bandits ride up to a small farming village with the intent of pillaging and plundering and putting big hickeys on all the fair damsels (Ray Stevens: Erik the Awful.  Look it up).  They decide to hold off their attack until after the harvest.  The bandits are overheard by one of the farmers, who warns all the other villagers of the oncoming attack.

The impoverished farmers are distraught.  There's no way they'll survive the year without the harvest.  After consulting the village elders they decide to hire Samurai to ward off the attack.  As they have nothing to offer the Samurai other than rice they are advised to find 'Hungry Samurai'.

So a group of volunteers go into the city to find Samurai.  Just throwing this out there, one of the major themes in this movie is class differences.  I don't fully understand the social system of Feudal Japan, but it's made pretty clear that protecting the lowly farmer is not worth the time of the mighty warrior class.  The farmers are treated like dirt by all of the Samurai that they meet.  They're just about ready to give up and go home when they witness a Samurai performing a selfless act.  A bandit has taken a young farm boy hostage and is hiding out in the barn.  The Samurai we'll come to know as Kambei shaves off his topknot and disguises himself as a monk taking food to the boy, and quickly takes out the thief.

The village people (No, not THOSE village people) decide that they want THIS Samurai to defend their village, so they hurry after him.  But before they can approach him another individual beats them to the punch.  Enter Katsushirō, a young Samurai who wants to be the Luke Skywalker to Kambei's Obi Wan Kenobi.  Kambei is all 'Aw, guys, this is to much,' to about all this attention.  He's nothing special.  He's reluctant to train Katsushirō, but agrees to let the youth travel with him.  He's also reluctant to help the farmers, not because he's not sympathetic to their plight, but because he's never been on the winning side of a war.

Kambei is eventually convinced to help, and after hearing the lay-out of the village decides it would take at least seven samurai to defend.  So they go about recruiting Samurai.  They eventually scrounge together six, plus a loud and clumsy town drunk with a Katana who goes by the name of Kikuchiyo.  He's a real Samurai, just like the rest of these guys, and he has a family tree to prove it!  Kambei isn't convinced, but he's unable to keep Kikuchiyo from tagging along.  And so, they become the Six Samurai + This Guy!

 The seven arrive in the village and...discover it's basically deserted.  All of the villages have gone into hiding, completely terrified of the warriors they've hired to protect them.  Kikuchiyo gets the idea to sound the alarm and all the villagers come running, thinking the bandits have arrived.  Kikuchiyo ridicules the townsfolk for begging the Samurai that they're terrified of to save them from the imaginary attackers.  The six decide that Kikuchiyo is useful after all as a moderator between the farmers and Samurai.  They have now truly become...the Six Samurai + This Guy!  Wait, what?  They even make a battle flag with six circles and a triangle, just to show that they're the Six Samurai + This Guy!

 Some of the farmers begin to develop private reasons to resent the Samurai.  One, fearing for the safety of his daughter, forces her to cut her hair and disguise herself as a boy.  Several of the villagers live on the opposite side of a bridge that Kambei intends to destroy to help fortify the town.  Odds are good they'll lose their homes in the coming attack.  And then there's the fact that, because of the class difference the Samurai are allowed to treat the farmers like dirt.  Interestingly, even with the class difference, the Samurai treat the village elders with the utmost respect.

Katsushirō discovers the disguised Shino, and the fact that she's a girl, and the two fall in love behind her father's back.  The seven train the villagers for the upcoming attack, and Kambei is busy with strategy and fortifications.  We learn that Kikuchiyo was actually raised as a farmer, and that's why he's such a good moderator between the villagers and warriors.

After a few skirmishes, the bandits attack for real.  Thanks to Kambei's strategy they're able to pick off the bandits a few at a time.  Unfortunately, the bandits have the Samurai outmatched in firepower.  One of the Samurai, Kyūzō, sneaks into the enemy's camp to steal on of their matchlock guns.  Katsushirō gets a bad case of hero-worship over Kyūzō's bravery, and Kikuchiyo gets it in his head that if HE gets another gun then maybe the others would start to respect him.  So he leaves his guard duty in the hands of one of the villagers and sneaks off to steal a gun.  Unfortunately this plan backfires.  Some of the bandits break into the camp because Kikuchiyo shirked his duties.  One of the Samurai is killed in the attack, and of course Kikuchiyo blames himself.

Having picked off a good number of the bandits, the Samurai prepare for a final battle.  They plan to allow all of the remaining bandits to break through there defenses and then trap them in the village to finish them off.  Unfortunately the bandit leader breaks away from the others, and finds his way into the hut where the women and children have barricaded themselves.  He has a matchlock, and he starts picking off the Samurai one by one.  In a scene that mirror's Kambei's introduction, Kikuchiyo fights his way into the hut and takes out the bandit leader, but at the cost of his own life.

Kikuchiyo is buried with the other Samurai.  The completion of his story arc is that he's finally shown the honor that he craved the for the entire movie.  He fought and died and was buried with his comrades.  This is the part of the story that really resonates with me, and it's a part of the story that most remakes, with the exception of the anime series Samurai 7, fail to capture.  And that's why you should watch the original Seven Samurai.  I've enjoyed both the 1960 and the 2016 versions of 'The Magnificent Seven,' but each version strays further and further from the source material.

If you want to get into Akira Kurosawa movies and don't know which one to start with I'd recommend starting with Seven Samurai.  I personally found it more accessible than the others I've seen - 'Rashomon' and 'The Hidden Fortress' - because I was already familiar with the story.

I'd like to follow this up with some thoughts on the remakes, but we all know how good I am at finishing series of posts that I start.  See you next time.

-Geekboy.

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.

Thoughts on: Van Helsing

Happy Monster Month.

Van Helsing is a 2004 monster mashup brought to us by writer/director Stephen Sommers of The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) fame.  And this movie is too much fun for it's own good.  Or your own good.  So you probably shouldn't watch it.  That's how much fun it is.  It'll give you cavities or something.

If I were to describe Van Helsing to a first time viewer in only one sentence it would go something like this:  Steampunk James Bond dukes it out with Dracula whilst wearing a really cool hat.  Seriously, Van Helsing, I'm jealous of your fashion sense.

In a little more detail: Van Helsing is an ageless being with convenient memory loss who is working for a mysterious organization known as the Knights of the Holy Order.  The Knights of the Holy Order are the only thing standing between us mortal men and the forces of evil.  In his briefing with a grumpy Cardinal (who stands in for M from the James Bond movies) Van Helsing is informed of the Valerious family curse.  Several generations back Granddaddy Valerious made an oath that he and his descendants could not enter Heaven until the Vampire Dracula has been vanquished.  It is up to Van Helsing and the gadget creating friar Carl (Who is the comic relief Q stand-in)  to stop Dracula before he can wipe out the Valerious line.

The line consists of of two gypsies: Prince Velkan and Princess Anna Valerious.  That's right.  This movie had a Princess Anna nine years before Frozen.  Take THAT Disney!

So before they can take out Dracula, Van Helsing Carl and Anna must face a bunch of classic monsters.  Dracula's Brides, Igor, Frankenstein's Monster, and Werewolves - oh my!  And in true James Bond fashion, Dracula has a secret master plan that involves using Frankenstein's science experiments to create and army of vampires.

As a tribute to the Universal classics the film starts in black and white.  The Universal logo fades into the opening shot - a lit torch - and we pan down to see a bunch of angry villagers carrying torches.  That's a cool trick Sommers picked up from the other Stephen and the way the Paramount Mountain is the opening shot in all the Indiana Jones movies.  This story starts where the 1931 Frankenstein ends.  An angry mob is trying to put a stop to Dr. Frankenstein's work, and because nobody ever told them not to play with matches a windmill gets burned down.  Since nobody in the village can mill grain anymore they all starve to death.  Guess they didn't think that one through...

Okay so they don't starve, but that's what would have happened in real life.  Or they'd just go on gluten free diets.

The parts of the movie in Frankenstein's lab are among my favorites.  The set designers went all out.  There are all these Tesla coils are electric arcs and sparks and boiling cauldrons and pretty lights...It's classic mad scientist stuff gone Steampunk.  And this movie's Frankenstein monster is my favorite version of the creature.  He's a Cyborg with partially robotic parts.  A piston in his leg, metal plates welded onto his shoulder, that green glowing thing on his chest...His head is partially transparent so you can see his brain and all these glowing lights inside.  His face pops open at one point and he has to put it back together.  It's pretty crazy.

The characterization of the Frankenstein Monster makes this movie for me.  He's intelligent - like Mary Shelly's original - rather than the mumbling brute from the classic movies.  He's literate as well - he is shown with a Bible.  For the sake of irony they made the Monster religious.  Dracula keeps calling the creation of the Monster 'The triumph of science over God!' and meanwhile the Monster is quoting Psalm 23.  The Monster is also shown as having the moral high ground over Van Helsing.

One of the main themes of Van Helsing's character arc seems to be inspired by the proverb 'Whoever fights monsters must see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.'  Just like a Vigilante Superhero, Van Helsing spends most of his free time brooding about the dark path he must walk.  For Example:

Anna: 'Don't you understand forgiveness?'

Van Helsing: 'Yes.  I ask for it often.'

 And then:

Anna: 'Some say you are a murderer.  Others say you are a Holy man.  Which is it?'

Van Helsing: 'It's a little of both I suppose.'

And of course, by the movie's climax Van Helsing is at risk of becoming a literal monster as well as a figurative one.

For as much as this is a popcorn flick about Van Helsing punching monsters in the face there is a good bit of depth.  There's also this contemplative nugget about mortality:

Van Helsing: 'I'm sorry about your brother.'

Anna: 'I will see him again.  We Transylvanians like to look on the brighter side of death.'

Van Helsing: 'There's a brighter side of death?'

Anna: 'Of course there is.  It's just harder to see.'

Much as I love Van Helsing, I feel a need to acknowledge that it isn't a perfect movie.  A lot of people don't really like it.  They say the special effects are cheesy and dated.  To which I have several responses.

1: This movie is twelve years old now.  Yes there have been advances in CGI in those past twelve years, but movies like this are stepping stones to where we are now.  Where we are now is another stepping stone to where we will be in the future when the movies of the 2010's look cheesy and dated.  We can't be where we are now without the stepping stones.  Respect the stepping stones.

2: Classic monster costumes - with some very rare exceptions - don't look real.  Having werewolves that look cheesy is part of the long and proud cinematic history of cheesy looking werewolves.

3: A special effect that doesn't quite look real REMINDS US TO SUSPEND OUR DISBELIEF.  When you're watching a movie like this you shouldn't take it too seriously.  The filmmakers weren't taking it too seriously.  They were having fun with it.  You should also have fun with it.  If we can be taken out of a story by a cheesy special effect we weren't that invested in the story in the first place.

Speaking of suspension of disbelief - you really need it for some of the plot devices.  There's a full moon whenever one is needed to serve the story.  There are a bunch of werewolf transformations in a story that feels like it takes place over the course of just a couple of days.  The lunar cycle clearly works differently in Transylvania.  Also, the ENTIRE CLIMAX happens at the stroke of midnight.  Yep, a 10 + minute fight scene.  We're clearly working on movie time rather than real time.

The only think I see as a real problem is Dracula's performance.  It's crazy over the top, and takes me out of the story at times.

A major point in favor of this movie is that it doesn't cheat and give us a happy ending.  It gives us the right ending instead.  (The happy ending and the right ending aren't always the same thing).  It's a little melancholy rather than outright tragic, and still triumphant.  But it really pulls together the story's themes of mortality and life after death.

If you're a fan of monster movies I definitely recommend this entertaining tribute to the classics.  Stephen Sommers dedicated this movie 'To the Memory of my Dad'.  I'd like to think that the two of them watched the Universal monster movies together.  It's a sweet mental picture, and it would explain why Sommers made 'Van Helsing' and 'The Mummy'.  I saw this movie for the first time just after the passing of my Dad - we watched a ton of action movies together - and I think Sommers' dedication and the themes of life after death are a big part of why this movie is so special to me.

-Geekboy.

Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/friedrichn124387.html

The Wolf Man (1941)

"...Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers at night may become a wolf when the wolf-bane blooms and the autumn moon is bright..."

Happy Monster Month.

Today we're going to look at one of the most influential werewolf movies of all time: The Wolf Man. 

Unlike the some of the most famous Universal monsters - Frankenstein and Dracula - the Wolf Man is NOT based on a preexisting novel.  So the storytellers are allowed more creative freedom and they crafted a fantastic story that would influence other werewolf fiction for years to come.

Our story begins with the wayward son Larry Talbot -played by Lon Chaney Jr. - who has just returned to his ancestral home.  Ironically Larry is a bit of a wolf even before he is bitten.  Using a telescope to spy on a shopkeeper across the street he quickly pops over to flirt with her.  The shopkeeper, Gwen (Evelyn Ankers) tells Larry about the werewolf legend after he expresses interest in a cane topped with a silver carving of a wolf's head.  She also makes an allusion to the classic fairy tale 'Little Red Riding Hood' which is foreshadowing the future of her dangerous relationship with Larry.  Despite her numerous protests Larry convinces her to go out with him that night.

She brings a friend along, and the three of them go to see a gypsy caravan that has just come to town.  Gwen's friend is attacked by a wolf.  Larry tries to come to the rescue, using his silver cane to kill the wolf, but he's too late to save her and he's bitten himself.

The authorities don't find the body of a wolf, but the body of the gypsy fortune teller - played by Bela Lugosi - and Larry's silver cane at the scene of the crime.  This leads to the obvious accusation: Larry Talbot may be an accidental murderer.  Town gossip spreads, and Larry - while convinced that it was a wolf he killed - is slowly becoming unsure of himself.

Larry has a growing interested in the werewolf legend.  He sees the old gypsy woman - mother of Bela the fortune teller - who convinces him that he is now a werewolf because he's been bitten.  But Larry's father - played by Claude Rains - is trying to convince him that it's all in his head.

This movie is on a slow burn.  It plays out almost like a psychological thriller and you're unsure for the first half if Larry is a werewolf or if he's loosing his grip on reality.  Lon Chaney Jr.'s performance is terrific: he plays Larry as a tormented and confused individual with an increasingly guilty conscience.  One of the best examples of this is the scene where he and his father go to attend a church service.  Larry is standing in the doorway as everyone else takes there seat.  He feels the eyes of everybody in the room.  Whether it's his feelings of guilt or his fear of how the townspeople view him he's unable to stay in the room: Outcast, he runs from the church.  This is done without dialog folks.  Just Lon Chaney's expressive face.

Unlike Vampires, the classic Werewolf is almost always a sympathetic character.  If Vampires can be seen as symbolic of external forces of lust and other temptations, I'd have to say a Werewolf represents our inner demons.  We try to keep them under control, but every now and then the beast comes out and we do something we'll regret later.

The second half of the movie plays out like a tragedy.  Part of the Wolf Man curse is that he sees who his next victim will be before he kills them.  As Larry begins to realize what's happened to him he worries that he'll hurt those he cares about, including Gwen.  Trying to fight fate he gives Gwen a protective gypsy charm meant for him, allows himself to be tied to a chair overnight, and asks his father to take the silver cane with him as he goes out at night.  Nothing seems to work.

To finish off the tragic motif, Larry's father comes face to face with the Wolf Man unaware that it's his own son.

 While the Wolf Man costume may be a little cheesy compared to The Frankenstein Monster or the Gill Man of 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' fame - they basically glued hair all over Lon Chaney's face and hands - the film has an undeniable spooky atmosphere.  Lots of running around spooky forests with spooky tree limbs and spooky mist.

If you only ever watch ONE Universal monster movie, do yourself a favor.  Watch the Wolf Man.

-Geekboy.

The Return of the Vampire (1943)

Happy Monster Month.

Today I want to tell you about a lesser known classic horror movie called 'The Return of the Vampire'.  When you think of American horror movies about Vampires or Werewolves, the Universal Horror films like 'Dracula' and 'The Wolfman' probably come to mind.  This one is from Columbia Pictures, and I think that because a different studio made the movie we get a fresh spin on the genre, although a familiar face - Bela Lugosi - is playing the villain.

A spoiler warning probably goes without saying at this point.

 The story starts in a clinic in England about 20 years prior to WW2 (one interesting thing about this movie is the way it uses setting and time period as a plot device).  A doctor is trying to determine the cause of the strange blood-loss in his patients.  He does a little research (before the invention of Wikipedia, kids!) and discovers that a Vampire is the cause of the trouble.  Unfortunately his Granddaughter - and our future heroine Nikki - is attacked.  The doctor and his assistant, Lady Jayne Ainsley - Mother of a young boy named John - Trail the vampire back to his lair.  They're attacked by the Vampire's Werewolf servant Andreas, but succeed in driving a stake through the Vampire's heart.

Fast-forward to the 'Modern Day'.  The repentant Andreas is now working as a lab assistant for Lady Jayne.  Childhood sweethearts Nikki and John are engaged.  The war is in full swing, and the London bombings wreck havoc in the graveyard where the vampire is buried.  Two bumbling caretakers find his unearthed coffin and decide to pull out the stake before burying him again.

The Vampire - Armand Tesla - rises from the grave and plots his revenge on Lady Jayne for driving a stake through his heart all those years ago.  He once again enslaves Andreas and forces the Werewolf to help him impersonate a defecting German scientist and infiltrate Lady Jayne's household.

 Nikki is attacked, and Lady Jayne realizes that Tesla has returned.  She has been trying to convince the Scotland Yard inspector that Vampires are real for most of the movie.  Shout-out to Lady Jayne by the way, as she has an unusually active role for a woman in a monster flick.  She and the Inspector discover that Andreas has once again fallen under the Vampire's influence.  John is also attacked.  Tesla puts Nikki in a hypnotic trance and lures her to his hideout.  Lady Jayne and the Inspector trail Nikki, but lose the trail when they're attacked by Andreas.

Andreas is shot by the Inspector.  He and Tesla escape with Nikki and return to their hideout - an abandoned church that's been partially collapsed in the bombings.  Tesla betrays Andreas, leaving him to die.  Andreas finds a crucifix in the rubble.  Through his faith he breaks the spell Tesla has over him and returns to his human form.  He then uses the cross to drive Tesla into the light from the rising sun.

'The Return of the Vampire' helped me to realize just how much Religious symbolism there is in the vintage horror movies.  The classic vampire movie tends to go something like this:

In the days before the invention of the Boy Band Bloodsuckers, Vampires were used to represent evil incarnate.  Hypnotic and seductive, a Vampire seeks to gain control of it's victims.  Vampires can be seen as symbolic for temptation: appealing on the surface, but they'll ruin your life in the long run.  Tesla uses his powers over both Andreas and Nikki.

The Vampire's victim is often a young woman (Nikki).  Odds are good She'll represent innocence and purity.  She's the one the Vampire wants to get his hooks into.  Her soul is in danger, and must be protected at any cost.  She's a damsel in distress from a more chivalrous era.  Her character is probably considered politically incorrect now, but it makes for good thematic storytelling.

Our dimwitted heroes don't seem to realize why our heroine is acting strangely and experiencing blood-loss that they can't account for.  At some point your Van Helsing type Vampire expert with a PHD in Vampire Slaying should show up and try to convince everybody that Vampires are real.  Our simple heroes will be reluctant to believe said Vampire expert, but they'll slowly begin to come around when he (or in this case she) produces enough evidence.

And how does one do battle with a being that represents pure evil?  With relics that represent the powers that oppose evil.  Crosses, Holy Water, ect.  The fact that Sunlight is used to destroy a Creature of Darkness is about as clear cut Good vs Evil as you can get.  In Bram Stoker's original novel 'Dracula' Dr. Van Helsing uses Communion bread against the titular bloodsucker.

Perhaps I'm reading between the lines too much, but what about Bela Lugosi's famous "I never drink...wine." quote from the 1931 Dracula?  The common interpretation is that Dracula never drinks wine because he's far too busy drinking your blood, but I can't help thinking about how wine is traditionally used to represent Christ's blood during Communion.
 
I think it's sad that so much of the symbolism has been lost in modern monster stories.  Stories about Vampires and Werewolves are often frowned on in Christian culture, even though they have a ton of allegorical potential.  At the end of the day 'The Return of the Vampire' is about Andreas' redemption through faith.

If you like traditional monsters and want to see something with all the familiar elements but presented in a new way, give this lesser known movie a watch.

-Geekboy.

Thoughts on: The Mecury Men

So, today I'm going to do something a little different.  I'm going to review an independent web series.  Here are some reasons why you should watch 'The Mercury Men'.

#1:  It has an awesome premise.  The Mercury Men is about an invasion in an office building.  Our protagonist is an unlikely every-man hero with a compelling story arc.  It's a claustrophobic thriller that shows us something about human nature.

#2:  It's just wacky enough.  Even though it's set in the 70s it has a real Dieselpunk flavor.  Brains in a jar, ray guns, a Pulp Adventure hero who could give Sky Captain a run for his money...if you like the kinds of stories I like, your interests have already been peaked.

#3:  Quality production values and good story telling.  I don't know what kind of a budget this show had, but the special effects are decent, and it's well shot in black and white.

#4:  It's free. 10 quality 7 to 9 minute episodes that you can watch for free online.  The first story wraps up  by the 9th episode.  Episode 10 was intended to kick off a second season which hasn't gotten off the ground as of yet.  Here's a link to the official Mercury Men Youtube channel.  Go watch it and then come back here, because we're going to spoilerville in this post.

So the story starts off with Edward Borman, a disgruntled office employee.  He is asked by a young woman whom we will come to know as Grace to stamp an important form, but he refuses because it's three minutes to closing time.  As he is leaving the office is attacked by the titular Mercury Men.  After taking out a janitor, the Mercury Men come after Borman.

Borman is rescued by Jack Yaeger, our ray-gun wielding hero.  Jack Yaeger works for an organization known as 'The League' who defend the earth from the sinister Mercury Men.  The League is lead by a mysterious 'Dr. Tomorrow' who no one has ever seen.  Yaeger and Borman discover the true mission of the Mercury Men: to construct a machine powerful enough to pull the Moon into the Earth.  Yaeger tries to recruit a terrified Borman after calling the League for reinforcements who can't possibly arrive in time.

Yaeger and Borman are separated in an attack.  Jack Yeager is captured by the Mercury Men.  A terrified Edward Borman tries to use Jack's radio to call for help.  "Can anyone heart me?  I need help!"  Borman kneels over the radio transmitter, and it almost looks like he's praying.

This little web series does seem to have a good bit of Christian symbolism, which I think is really cool.  We've seen Eastern philosophy in Star Wars, Humanism in Star Trek, a Mormon parable in classic Battlestar Galactica, but science fiction stories that feature Christian allegory are few and far between.  The only other one that comes to mind is the Tron franchise.

Borman is contacted by Dr. Tomorrow, who tells Borman that he must rescue Jack.  Borman tells Dr. Tomorrow that he can't, and that Dr. Tomorrow should send somebody else.  Dr. Tomorrow responds that there isn't anyone else, and that's why he chose Edward Borman for the task, even if he's unwilling or feels inadequate.  As a Christian, I believe that God has a plan for each of us, that we were created for a specific reason.  This story is a really good illustration of that.  Borman show a reluctance to follow the path that's been chosen for him the same way Moses or Jonah show it in the Bible.

So, Borman sets out to save Jack, even though he's shaking in his boots.  After he's successful, Jack drops a third Biblical clue.  He states that the Mercury Men feel threatened by humans because even though they are 'made from the very dirt of the Earth' they're capable of space travel.

So they come up with a plan to deactivate the Gravity Engine that the Mercury Men are using to alter the course of the moon.  Along the way, Edward Borman runs into Grace, who is a) scared out of her wits, and b) still upset that he never stamped her form.  "We have to get you out of here!"  "I'm not going anywhere with you! You're a horrible little man!"  I love that part.

So Jack and Borman have to fight off the Mercury Men and deactivate the Gravity Engine.  Jack is knocked out in the battle and Borman is once again alone.  He has to find a way to defeat the invading aliens all by himself.  It all turns out alright in the end though.  Jack gives Borman his own raygun, and states that "This is only the beginning."  Suppose that makes Borman an official member of the League.

Grace returns to Borman's desk because she 'Really really needs that form stamped."  This is a great way to close the story as it mirrors the beginning in a humorous way AND shows us just how much character growth Borman has gone through over the course of the story.  In some ways I suppose The Mercury Men is a bit like a disaster movie.  We see the best and worst sides of people when they're thrown into an extreme circumstance, and those who wouldn't ordinarily may just have to take charge.  Only this is better than most disaster pictures, because it has more ray guns.

The Mercury Men is probably just about my favorite web series, but be sure to let me know about your favorite web series or independent film project in the comments.  I'd love to hear about them.

-Geekboy.

Daredevil (2003) Vs. Daredevil (2015)

So I just recently watched the first season of Netflix Daredevil.  Yeah, I know what you're thinking.  "Geekboy, as a comic nerd and Daredevil fan you should have seen it ages ago!"  Some of us don't have Netflix accounts okay?  Some of us are now waiting impatiently for season two to come to Amazon, okay?  OKAY?  Good.

As someone who doesn't hate the 2003 movie quite as much as everybody else, I thought it would be fun to do a little compare and contrast.  What did the show do better than the movie?  What elements of the movie still hold up?

I think when people look back at the movie they forget the time period it was made in.  2003.  The same era as Sam Rami's Spiderman, (Which holds up pretty well) Brian Singer's X-men, (Holds up okay, X2 more so than X1 and X3) and those Fantastic Four movies (which really don't hold up well at all).  In my opinion, Daredevil holds it's own with X-men, is better than Fantastic Four, but is not quite as good as Spiderman.

Then 2008 happened.  DC/Warner Bros. The Dark Knight blew away critics and fan alike, and Marvel got their own studio and the complete creative control that comes with having your own studio.  A few years down the road Disney and Marvel Studios would merge.  Marvel received additional financial backing and a beefed up marketing campaign out of this deal.  The budget, storytelling quality, and respect for the source material of superhero movies has been climbing ever since, and it's easy to forget that when you look back at the earlier superhero movies.

All that being said, Daredevil 2003 does have some problems.  I think the main reason people hate this movie is that it's overcrowded and rushed.  They tried to squeeze every iconic Daredevil thing into ONE MOVIE.  So, we have Daredevil's origin, his fight to take down Kingpin, battling his nemesis Bullseye, and most of the Elektra saga in an hour and 40 minute runtime.  (Please note that I'm talking about the Theatrical release.  I haven't seen the Directors Cut, but I've heard it expands the Kingpin storyline, gives Nelson and Murdock more screen time, and overall vastly improves the story.)

Ideally it should have been a trilogy, with part one starting with Matt's origin and ending with the death of Elektra's father.  Part two would pick up with Elektra joining The Hand for her Ninja training and then returning to Hell's Kitchen to take out Daredevil, and ending with her death and the hands of Bullseye, whom Daredevil would take out in the climax.  The third movie would bring in Stick and The Hand, deal with Elektra's resurrection, and end with Daredevil going toe to toe with Kingpin (who has been pulling the strings this whole time).  At this point we could have an Elektra spinoff in which Elektra and Stick battle what remains of the Hand.

So the biggest weakness of the movie is taken care of in the show.  They can take their time to tell the story.  My favorite thing about Daredevil 2015 is the way they focus on and develop the supporting cast.  Foggy Nelson, Karen Page, and Ben Urich all get lots of screen time.  And although the show is 'dark and gritty' Foggy and Ben bring a lot of humor.  It's not humor like all of the Joss Whedon quips in 'The Avengers' though.  It's a more realistic Film Noir style humor that feels like real people having a real conversation.  It's a little cynical, but it's laugh out loud funny.  The villains also get more development and backstory thanks to the format of a 13 episode miniseries.

That greatest strength of focusing on the supporting cast can also be a bit of a weakness though.  It's called Daredevil, but there are places where Matt Murdock feels like a third wheel in a story about Karen, Foggy, and Ben as they fight to take down a sympathetic Wilson Fisk.  Compare that with the movie, where Matt is NARRATING HIS OWN LIFE STORY.

So kick off this compare and contrast, let's take a look at each character in turn.

Foggy Nelson:

I honestly think the relationship between Foggy and Matt is a lot of fun in the 2003 movie.  The continuing playful argument about Alligators in the sewers of New York, a clever nod to all those times Daredevil fought Sewer Alligators in the comics, that scene in the office where Foggy repeatedly misses the basketball hoop and Matt gets it on the first try, and that bit where he gives Matt mustard instead of honey for in his tea, and then Matt switches drinks with Foggy when he isn't looking.  Foggy doesn't necessarily get all of the screen time that he deserves, but it's clear that Matt and Foggy have a fun and believable working relationship.

I enjoy Movie Foggy so much I was a little worried about the show, but Netflix Foggy KILLS IT.  He's funny, has a believable relationship with Matt, he's willing to roll up his sleeves and do some grunt work - literally when they're helping out an elderly woman fix up her apartment - and has moments of bravery beating up thugs in a dark alley.  Then there's that part where he's in hospital bed, and Karen has to make sure he stays there rather than hop out of bed to search for Matt when he's missing.  Plus his relationship with Karen is super sweet.

This feels a little close to call.  I love both versions of Foggy.  But Netflix Foggy does have more time to shine, and they are able to show us more aspects of his character.  But I really think this is the TV show format rather than quality of writing or actors portrayal.

Karen Page:

This one is no contest.  In the movie Matt and Foggy do have a blonde secretary in one scene.  She only has one or two lines of dialog, and I don't even remember if she's named as Karen.  The movie was focusing on Daredevil and Elektra though, so it makes sense to pretty much skip Karen Page.  As I can't really talk about Karen in the movie, I can't talk about Elektra much either -not until I see Season 2 at any rate.

But Karen in the show is worth talking about.  She pretty much kicks off the story.  As the first client for Nelson and Murdock, she's the one who pulls our heroes into the web of intrigue that is the organized crime of Hell's Kitchen.  She also brings Ben Urich aboard.  She's the glue that holds Nelson and Murdock together later on.  I've read that the actress wanted to find a middle ground between the girl-next-door Karen Page of the Silver Age and the darker, post 'Daredevil: Born Again' Karen.  The show does a really good job with this.  Karen starts out as a good person in big trouble, and by the end of the season, after all the poking around in the hornet's nest that is Kingpin's crime organization, she's battling some inner demons.  She's done things she regrets.  She's carrying a lot of guilt for some of the consequences for her actions.

Ben Urich:

This one is tricky.  On one hand, I feel like the Ben Urich of the movie does a better job of adapting Ben's relationship with Matt and with Daredevil.  In the comics, Ben figures out Daredevil's secret identity and struggles with whether he should print it in the Baily Bugle.  On the one hand, story of a life time.  On the other, it would ruin Matt's crime fighting career.  Ben decides Daredevil's secret is worth more than a Pulitzer prize, and he and Daredevil become allies similar to Batman and Commissioner Gordon.  And the movie adapts this story.  The show does not.

In the show Ben and Matt share very little screen time.  The season is half over before they even appear together.  BUT.  But this Ben has so much more development than the movie's Ben.  We're rooting for this guy from the beginning.  He's introduced by fighting the insurance company that doesn't want to pay for his sick wife's medical care.  He's frustrated by the paper he works for and the small stories he's forced to work on when bigger things are being swept under the rug.  He's a crusader with so much to loose, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop fighting.

So.  Point to the movie for Matt and Ben's relationship, but ultimately a point to the show because Netflix Ben is awesome.

Wilson Fisk (AKA: The Kingpin)

Personally I think movie Kingpin feels more like the Kingpin of the comics.  Maybe the actor's size has something to do with that.  He's huge.  It's totally believable that he can hold his own against Daredevil in the climax.  Also, he never looses his cool.  The Kingpin of the comics is cold and calculating.  He's a bit like a Bond Villain that way.

The Kingpin of the show is more fleshed out.  He's more human.  There's all this wonderful build up for the first three episodes where criminals are afraid to even whisper the name Wilson Fisk.  So when we first meet Fisk, he comes across as a bit of a paradox because he seems like a slightly awkward nice guy.  Until he snaps.  Then he goes into something that's a cross between a berserk rage and a temper tantrum.  He's the exact opposite of keeping his cool.  I do think it's interesting that the only time Kingpin gets his hands dirty is when it's personal.  If he thinks you're going to hurt some one he cares about, or harm his relationship with that person, he will kill you with his bare hands.  I like how they included Fisk's relationship with Vanessa.  In the comics, Vanessa was Kingpin's one weak spot.  She managed to talk him into giving up a life of crime until she's kidnapped by a rival mob.  The show puts it's own spin on the Fisk/Vanessa relationship.

This is another close one, but in my opinion the Kingpin of the movie is more accurate the comics, so point goes to the 2003 movie.

Okay, now for some more complex stuff.  Daredevil himself.  I feel like I need to break this into a couple of parts.

Origin Story:

The movie is a sort of frame story, beginning with a Daredevil who has been injured in his battle with Bullseye.  One of Matt's first lines is in the form of voice-over: "They say that just before you die, your whole life flashes before your eyes.  That's true...even for a blind man."  Personally I think this is a really clever way to start.  Some people think the voice-over narration is kind of cheesy, but as a fan of Film Noir era detective stories and 80's action shows like MacGyver, I see voice-over as a good narrative technique.  And this bit of narrative prepares the audience for a flashback AND tells newcomers who may not be familiar with the character that he's blind from the get-go.

We're then told how Matt was blinded as a child, and his increased abilities, of his father - a boxer who is murdered when he refuses to throw a fight, ect. ect.  Pretty faithful to the comics.

The show follows the same beats, but they drag it out over about four episodes, and they expand on everything.  They go into greater detail of Matt's relationship with his father, making Battlin' Jack Murdock's death really tragic.  They have an episode devoted to Matt's training with his mentor, Stick, and finally an episode devoted to his college days with Foggy and why he first put on the mask.  This is where I have my first real beef with the show.  In every other telling of Daredevil's origin story I've seen IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEATH OF MATT'S FATHER IS WHY HE FIRST STARTED FIGHTING CRIME.  That's not the case here.  Matt is first seen taking out a sexual predator.  I'm still scratching my head about this change.  Was it to make Matt seem more selfless?  Maybe.

But there's a bit of a disconnect between Battlin' Jack's death and the rest of the story if Matt's initial motivation isn't bringing his father's killer to justice.  The only clue we have that this is part of Matt's motivation is that he keeps his costume in a secret compartment in the trunk that holds all of his father's boxing gear.  This is a nice shout out to Daredevil's original yellow and red costume, which he made from his father's robe.

So the movie messes with this part of the Daredevil Mythos as well.  It's revealed at the end that Kingpin used to work as a mob enforcer, and that he was the one who pulled the trigger and killed Jack Murdock.  This was done to make the final battle personal and tie everything up in a neat bow, so I can see the reason for the change.

To be fair, I haven't watched season 2 yet, and I heard that 'The Fixer,' the man who had Battlin' Jack killed makes an appearance.  So I can't really judge the show's origin fairly yet, BUT so far it's my opinion that the two origin stories are tied.  The Netflix origin story may be fleshed out, but leaves out what I feel is a crucial detail.

Daredevil's Powers:

One interesting thing the show does is it really plays down the fact that Daredevil is a superhero.  This makes sense for the feel the show-runners were going for.  I recall producer Jeph Loeb stating in an interview that they wanted to make Daredevil a good crime drama first, and a superhero show second.  And that's apparent in the way they depict DD's powers.  We're only shown the world as Matt sees it once or twice.  If you've ever read a silver age comic you probably noticed how Matt is always telling the audience things like: "I just love being blind.  My other senses are better than seeing.  I can tell you how many grains of salt are on a pretzel, just by licking it!"  Who cares how many grains of salt are on a pretzel?  WHAT KIND OF A SUPERPOWER IS THAT?

To contrast, Matt never brags about his powers in the show.  For him, it's just a fact of life.  At one point he informs Claire that she just reopened a nasty wound by moving around to much.  "How do you know?" she asks.  "I could taste copper in the air," he responds, in a 'can't everybody taste copper in the air?' sort of way.  She like: "Copper, of course." in a rolling her eyes -I-think-you're-a-little-crazy- sort of way.

But since the movie is from Matt's point of view, we're shown how he sees the world on a regular basis.  My favorite is the way he sees the world more clearly when it rains because the raindrops echo off all the surfaces they hit.  This leads to a sweet moment with Elektra, a really sad moment at her father's funeral, and is foreshadowing for the climax.

So I don't think there's a clear winner or a loser here.  Both do a great job of showing Daredevil's powers, it's just that the one does it in a more realistic and understated way.

Moral Values:

I've said before that Daredevil is pretty much my favorite superhero because of his dedication to fighting justice.  The movie doesn't always do the best job of showing this.  For example, that rooftop scene with Elektra in the rain I mentioned earlier: Matt hears someone being beaten in the alley below.  Does he go to the rescue?  Nope.  He's too busy hanging out on rooftops with his new girlfriend!  Fans have called this scene out for being out of character, and they're right.  Matt Murdock would never do this.

But the show gives us a Matt Murdock who is on a slippery slope morally speaking.  At the beginning of the show we really don't know where he stands and which lines he's willing to cross.  We see him in a confessional seeking forgiveness "Not for what I've done father, but for what I'm about to do!"  He almost starts as an antihero, on the path to becoming a real hero.  Or not.  We don't really know until the end.  He also comes across as a little hypocritical, calling out Foggy and Karen when they're sneaking around like amateur detectives, saying they need to take out Fisk through legal means.  True, he's trying to keep them safe, but he's a vigilante sneaking around at night trying to take Fisk down.  Hypocrite.  Also, he had me really worried early on when he takes on a client that he knows is guilty.  Matt!  No!  You only defend the innocent!

The show had me on the edge of my seat when it came to Matt's moral condition, and that's a good place to be.  Point goes to the show!

I have one more point - and this one is kind of minor.

The Soundtrack:

Even people who hate the 2003 movie (AKA, most people) acknowledge that the soundtrack is awesome.  Songs match the moods of scenes they're in.  My favorites are the two tracks from Evanescence - 'My Immortal' during the funeral for Elektra's father, and then 'Bring me to Life' during her training montage.

But some of the soundtrack decisions really have me scratching my head.  And I'm not just talking about how Tamer's 'Beautiful Crime,' the awesome song from the trailer is never featured in the show. (Disappointing---!)  There are two places in the finale where the music doesn't work for me.  One is in the beginning of the episode, a funeral, where this blues 70's thing is playing and killing the otherwise somber mood.  I think a slow instrumental piano or cello piece would have been more fitting.  The other place is where the FBI are rounding up mobsters in slow motion as opera music is blaring.

Not all of the music is this mismatched.  I love the part and the end of the first episode where an instrumental rock piece builds in intensity as Matt trains in Fogwell's Gym, and we're shown glimpses of the criminal element he'll spend the rest of the season fighting.  And the theme music is beautiful, with somber piano, strings and bells.  But when the music doesn't quite work it's really jarring.

Point goes to the movie.

Bottom Line: I really like both.  The movie is underrated and unfairly criticized in my opinion, but is not without flaws.  The show absolutely lives up to the hype.  Great storytelling and fully developed characters that feel like real people.  With adaptions superhero origins that have been told and retold over and over again in comics there is definitely room for more than one interpretation on film.