He's back. One of Marvel's all time favorite heroes returns in his new film, The Wolverine. Based off of the 1980s comic arc by Chris Claremont and Frank Miller, Wolverine is in seclusion in the Canadian wilderness, struggling with the pain of killing the woman he loved, Jean Grey (at the end of X-Men: The Last Stand), in order to stop the Pheonix from destroying the world. When a figure from his past makes a sudden reappearance in his life, Logan is whisked off to Japan to say good-bye to the dying man. There, the man offers him a gift Wolverine never believed he could have: mortality. When the man's granddaughter, Mariko, becomes a target by Yakuza assassins, Wolverine does everything he can to protect her, growing close to her in the process. Now he must face his fears of immortality in order to save the woman he is starting to love, but can he knowing that the world continues to spin yet he stays static?
This movie, directed by James Mangold, has many positive aspects going for it. The story is well paced, not feeling rushed and very minimal scenes seemed like they took too long to be played out. Also, the multiple flashbacks were portrayed in such way that it was clear when it is the 1940s, and when it is present day making tag lines on the bottom of the screen unnecessary. It was a little daunting when they announced the film to take place in Japan, and that ninjas were going to be used as adversaries to Wolverine, almost guaranteeing recollections from multiple 80s ninja flicks where the fighting was almost satire worthy. However, the fighting in The Wolverine is not completely unbelievable (fighting on top of a bullet train withstanding) allowing the audience to appreciate the fights and not laugh at the ridiculousness of it. The focus of Wolverine and his growth is very well done thanks to the talents of Hugh Jackman, who has always performed the role excellently.
You've probably been searching for the "but", well here it is:
BUT . . .
While this film is definitely entertaining and one of the better movies of the summer, by the end it feels as if something is missing.
Perhaps it is the lack of mutants? When you go to the movie theatre to see the mutant of all mutants, it's almost expected for there to be . . . well . . . mutants. By the end of the movie, only three mutants are every shown, one being the title character. That's it. While the storyline does stick close with the comics, and the whole movie is about Wolverine, it most likely would have been beneficial to include more mutants (on a side note, it probably would have been amazing to have Deadpool-you know, a cool version unlike the one in X-Men Origins-to be in that crowd of ninjas. Can you say, "Hello, Deadpool movie"?).
Perhaps it's because the way the movie was portrayed in the trailers? In the trailers, it was consistently shown that Wolverine was given the option to lose his immortality, which we then assume he took because he could no longer heal himself. Doing this made it seem that Wolverine has been struggling with the fact that he can live forever while everyone else dies around him. That is never stated in the movie. In fact, the only thing that is shown and ever discussed is that he feels guilt over killing Jean, and the only time his immortality is ever brought up is by the man who offers him mortality.
What is sad about The Wolverine, is that during the movie you sit in your seat enraptured with the story, action, and quality graphics, yet all of that is overshadowed when the in-credits scene appears. By the time the audience leaves, they're not talking about the movie, they're talking about that one scene. That is what they leave with. The entire two hour movie loses to a five minute or less scene.
The Wolverine is a very well done piece, definitely one of the top action movies of the 2013 summer. But it is safe to say, concerning the final scene, that the creators saved the best for last.
Sincerely,
The Night Owl
It's the end of the third act, everything in Metropolis is broken and shattered, why not just add the general public's view of Superman to the casualty list? The shocking death of General Zod by the hands of Superman sent comic purist heads and pretty much the majority opinion of society in a whirlwind; Superman had broken his code of seventy five years and actually killed his enemy. This one act, this one shot that took less than a minute to play out, has many debating that this modern Superman is not the hero the world is annoyed with yet secretly loves, and that the Superman that first made us believe that man can fly and can be a source of good, is gone.
Is he really though? Those who disagree with this sentiment have an answer for the question, "Why did the Man of Steel creators do this?" Superman is not only the most mocked superhero that everyone doesn't like (and still has the highest rate in sold products) because of his great power, but has also historically been hounded for what many consider his greatest stance, that death is not the answer and that he believes in peaceful results. This is often thwarted by the same villains breaking out of whatever prison the Kryptonian puts them in, resulting in more chaos and death. This has long been a source of those questioning his supposedly advanced intellect. Wouldn't you prevent more chaos and death if you just eliminate the source of it? Yes, you have to sacrifice your moral code, but hey, capitol punishment, right? The creators then, says those who support the deadly move, make Superman do what fans have been chanting for decades: "off with his head!"
Yet even as Superman does the act, the audience who called for him to do it for years, who criticized him for continuing the never ending parade of escape, destruction, defeat, locked up, repeat, even as he kills Zod, we are all stupefied. We can't be satisfied, can we? We thirst for blood, yet when it's spilled, we look on in horror and disbelief; what kind of barbarian kills a living being with his bare hands? So what if he killed thousands, destroyed one of the most successful cities in America, threatened a family with small children, and attempted to destroy Earth to recreate his alien home world? Zod still shouldn't have been killed. Why does the word hypocrite come to mind . . .?
But perhaps hypocrisy is not the right word to akin to this situation. Perhaps it should be called expectation. No matter how hard we yell at the movie screen, or how loud we're shouting in our heads for Superman to just "finish him off!" we can--or could--always count on Superman to not be a killer. For the past seventy five years (yeah he's that old) we as an audience, our parents, and even (for some) our grandparents have been drilled with the knowledge that Superman will--would--never stoop to the level of his adversaries, for fear of becoming just like them. We have always held on to this high expectation of Superman, that no matter the circumstance he will never sway from his no killing policy. We always expect him to show us that he does not have to kill to stop evil, since to kill is the way of a true villain.
So . . . what does that say for Man of Steel? Is Superman, the man who stands (stood?) for "truth and justice" really gone?
There is something that has not been mentioned yet in this debate, an important aspect of Superman that has been present since the first issue from 1938: his role as a Christ figure. A Christ figure, in literary terms, means somebody who embodies the characteristic and sacrificial nature of Jesus Christ, and Superman is the ultimate Christ figure. It is stated most popularly in the original 1978 Superman film and is even mentioned in the new installment by Jor-El: he is sending his only son to Earth in order to save the human race, to be a light to them, and to lead them in the way of goodness. Russell Crowe's Jor-El says that they will "stumble and fall" but that one day "they will join [him] in the sun." Heck, even in the nineties Superman dies and resurrects in order to save mankind from Doomsday in the Death of Superman series. And the Fortress of Solitude? Where he goes and speaks to his omnipotent father from the great beyond? Someone going to church and praying? Lots of parallels there.
According to Christian belief, when Jesus died on the cross He took the whole world's sin upon Himself, so that no one would have to suffer the consequences. When Superman is faced with the decision of allowing Zod (whom he has finally captured) to murder an innocent family or to compromise his moral belief in not ending a life, instead of allowing the people to suffer he kills Zod. His emotions about it are made explicitly clear in the film with his dismayed face as he looks at the still form of the evil Kryptonian. Instead of allowing more suffering to happen to the innocent, which would have happened had he allowed Zod to kill the family or let him go from the choke hold, Superman put the pain of doing something horrible on himself, so that he would be the only one affected. Yes, thousands of people had already been affected by Zod's rampage, but Superman realized that it would never stop unless he put the pain on himself.
What many are saying about this new, red brief-less Superman is that it has killed their inner child. As they watched their longtime hero end a life with his own hands, it's as if there is no more hope for humanity. Time is an important factor here. The Superman that enchanted us was from a time where keeping the hopes of children and teens alive was essential. It was a time of war, protests, and many other things that could plague a child should they be aware of it. Thank goodness for those comics to distract them. Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan set out to recreate Superman, to make him fit in our modern world. A world where police now have to be present at movie theatres in case some nutcase who calls himself the Joker decides to barge in and kill the movie goers, a world where children have to attend school always looking over their shoulders for fear a madman will burst in the door and gun them all down. A world where a child who has been taught to not allow adults touch them, must go against what they learned when they go to the airports, for fear someone might be carrying a bomb. That is our world now. Is it too much to say that Superman has changed with it? That when forced to make a difficult decision, you have to choose the lesser of two evils? That in order to be safe we must be groped at airports, allow police to roam school campuses, and (the forefront of the controversial world) use drones to spy on Americans. The only thing Superman has that these other "lesser evils" don't have? His choice only affected him, put all the blame on him, ruining only his image, while the rest of the world benefited from it.
Was allowing Superman to kill a smart move by the creators? Probably not. If their goal was to create discussion, then they succeeded (hence this long piece). To avoid all this controversy, they should not have backed Superman in a corner, forcing him to make that decision. They have already stated that the death of Zod will be addressed in the second Man of Steel movie, showing the affects it had on Clark Kent. Unitl then, the world will continue to debate about Zod's death. However, there is something else to be concerned with; if they dared to put in Superman killing his enemy in order to reflect the severe changes our world is going through today, one must wonder as we the human race continues to head south (after the Boston bombing, National Security debates, more chaos in the Middle East, and who knows what else) what will Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan have this modern Superman do in the sequel?
She lived when she should have died. She passed when she should have failed. She fought when she should have ran. In The Cadet of Tildor, Cadet Renee de Winter enters her last year of training at the Academy, where she will then be given the honor of serving the Crown in the elite military squad called Servants. But before she can graduate and serve her country, she has a list of challenges to conquer: the physical test she must pass in order to graduate, the belief of everyone around her that she will fail because she is not as big or strong as the boys in her class, the mysterious actions of her best friend Alec, and the new brutal combat instructor, Korish Savoy. As if school wasn't enough to worry about, her country is on the brink of civil war between two warring crime gangs--the Family and the Vipers--and the new, young king,. But when the conflicts of those three enter her school, Renee must decide whether to act on the law, or to act on her instincts.
This new fantasy novel by Alex Lidell is an exciting ride full of twists and turns, with bits of magic thrown in here and there. Each character possesses an amazing back story, that not only ties in with many events that are occurring throughout the book, but also aids in explaining how the characters came to be who they are today.
The presence of a female protagonist such as Renee is a healthy break from the more severe "girl power" characters that have been produced previously. Her weaknesses are evident when compared with the male characters, yet her strength is evident in that she will not let her short comings impede her from doing all she can to help her friends and her kingdom. And isn't that, the strength in one's character, the best strength of all? The story has a healthy balance when it comes to Renee, showing not only her positive aspects, but also her faults. Situations in the story also cause her to rethink her stance in that the law must be followed at all cost; that maybe the world isn't black and white, but that there might be areas of gray.
While there is very little "magic" in the book to really be called a fantasy, Tildor is a wonderful kingdom to read about, and the people inside of it more so, making The Cadet of Tildor a very enjoyable story.
