For those of you who don’t know, Geoff Jones is one of the greatest comic book writers working today, which is why it was so exciting to hear that his story arch Superman: Brainiac was being adapted into an animated film. DC has a habit of bringing it’s go to guys to the small screen, and for the most part they do it incredibly well. I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but its frustrating seeing them create such enjoyable animated films and fail so horribly when they try to do live action versions of their characters. Though, at this point it might be that the company is taking a note from its animated department when it comes to the upcoming Man of Steel film. I digress though, Superman: Unbound is not the best animated super hero film I’ve seen over the past few years, but it is something that Superman fans will undoubtedly enjoy.

Why so sad, panda bear?

The movie tells the story of Superman’s first encounter with one of his greatest foes, Brainiac. While it’s not the first time we’ve seen this villain get the animated treatment, it is the first time we’ve seen him present such a tremendous threat to the hero. The story itself isn’t especially remarkable, but the animation is spectacular. It has a sort of fusion feel to it, an east meets west. There are some aspects that seem to be heavily influenced by anime, but at the same time it doesn’t let this influence overpower the animation. It does however give the film the opportunity for the Man of Steel to show that he’s more than just big punches, and I applaud director James Tucker’s ability to create such dynamic action sequences.

Besides the animation the most noticeable aspect of this film is the fact that Superman is not voiced by George Young Newbern this time around, but rather by Matt Bomer (who you might know from the series White Collar). Personally, I found it a little jarring to hear someone else voicing a character I had grown up with, and I wasn’t a big fan of the change. Bomer just didn’t have the commanding presence that is needed for a character of this caliber. Over all, it just made the film feel off balance.

Despite its flaws though, it manages to stand proudly with the rest of the DC Universe Animated Original Movies series. I’ve never been much of a fan of big blue, but the more opportunities I get to see him kicking butt and taking names, the more he’s started to grow on me. While I think I’m still team Batman, I have gotten to a point where I’ve managed to put my bias aside and genuinely look forward to pretty much anything DC release in their direct to video line. It would be nice to see them release films of this caliber in theaters, but being able to geek out on my couch isn’t half bad either. I don’t’ think this is one of their finer projects I’ve gotten the opportunity to see, but it’s is a fun little film.

Almost forgot the most important part of any show: abs.

Comic books are a hot commodity right now, and that’s partially why we launched a sister site only focusing on funny books. With the recent announcement that The Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is being picked up by ABC, it got our minds thinking about other comic book TV shows that would be awesome. So, we thought it was time for an extended edition of The Pitch, wherein we take a look at five ideas for awesome shows that we would love to see. We know that we’ve gotten our fair share of awesome shows like The Walking Dead and Arrow, but we comic book nerds are well-known for always wanting more.

Don’t get your hopes up, because none of these shows has been confirmed, or probably even pitched, but we like to get creative from time to time and share our obsession with our fellow geeks. So, we looked at not only classic cape-sporting heroes, but also a lot of other serial comics that might translate to television well, and even thought about some channels that might be interested in airing the shows.

Don’t get me wrong: There are plenty of heroes that deserve their chance to get off the page, but not all of them could make for a long-running series. So, it was a little hard trying to determine which comics had what it took. Still, we’d love to hear your ideas, so make sure to leave a comment at the bottom and let us know what you think.

The violent show.

5. 100 Bullets- The premise of 100 Bullets is that there is a man who comes to you and gives you the opportunity to take revenge against the person who has ruined your life. He gives you a handgun, documentation on your target and 100 untraceable bullets. It’s not your typical cape-and-tights comic series, and that’s not a bad thing, especially when it comes to being adapted fortTelevision. I can see Bryan Cranston as Agent Graves, the series’ protagonist. He’s coming off of Breaking Bad this year and has the acting chops to pull off anything that’s thrown at him. Unlike his previous projects, though, this one would need to find a home on a premium channel, so something like HBO would be the right choice. The channel has done a lot with its shows, and a series that’s one part pulp, one part noir and one part ethical experiment would be right at home. Having a decent budget would give it the opportunity to pick up some recognizable actors for some of the bigger parts.

The edgy show.

While the first Star Trek was fueled by sentimentality and nostalgia, along with a dash of spectacle, the long-awaited follow-up Star Trek Into Darkness seems to be superior in every way. The film reunites all the characters you know and love from the previous film, only this time around, it feels more like it follows the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise than like it’s James T. Kirk: The Movie.

Of course, Chris Pine plays the predominant role in the film, but he doesn’t overshadow the rest of the cast, especially the new villain (though it probably isn’t proper to call him “new”), played by Benedict Cumberbatch. And even while finding balance between the characters,Star Trek Into Darkness never forgets why the audience is there in the first place: to see giant spaceships shooting bright lights at each other. In this regard, it’s glorious.

KHAN! …Too soon?

By now, you’ve probably all heard that this villain this time around is Khan (before you cry “spoiler alert,” check the IMDB page: It’s public knowledge), and it’s not exactly Ricardo Montalban’s version of the character. There is something that seems much more dangerous about this alternate version of the Enterprise’s greatest villain. It’s in this that I expected to find some cries of outrage, but once again, J.J. Abrams touches on the fact that this is not the crew we know from the series’ history. Rather, his version shows what might as well be an alternate reality, one in which you never know what could possibly happen next. The most I will say is that someone close to Kirk dies, and his mission to stop Khan is a personal one.

Since he burst on the scene years ago, J.J. Abrams has proven not only that he’s a master of his craft, but he’s one of the best when it comes to character-driven features. As a director, his characters come first, and around them a story is built. That isn’t to say that the plot takes a backseat, but rather that he builds it organically, letting the characters shape their own destinies. It’s this approach to Star Trek that has allowed audiences to view a more in-depth side to characters like Spock (Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy), Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Kirk himself, and this time around, their motivations and inner workings are crucial to the film’s success. We get to see them all grow and change, and I think everyone will be pleased with a certain twist on an old classic. (That’s really as vague as I can get, but you’ll know it when you see it, Trekkies.)

Where’s a red shirt when you need him?

The performances in the film are top-notch, even if they’re not quite as memorable as the predecessor. They will evoke plenty of reactions from the audience. Simon Pegg serves especially well as the much-needed comedy relief and integrates flawlessly into the film, helping to ease the tension and the pacing. Cumberbatch, though, seems like the true star of the movie, not because he gives a better performance than, say, Quinto or Pine, but because his character seems so much more interesting and, to be blunt, fun. He also helps to give perspective to characters like Kirk, because at the end of the day, he might be a great captain, but he’s still just a man surrounded by fantastic alien creatures.

Setting phasers to fun… Damn it, I did it again.

Now for the part I’m sure you’re all waiting for. The movie is absolutely gorgeous and shouldn’t be viewed in any other format than 3D. I would even go so far as to say it warrants being seen in IMAX. There’s so much detail put into the effects and so much action that you wouldn’t want to waste what might be one of the best movies of the summer on regular, boring, old 2D. It’s an event; treat it one and spend the extra few dollars. You’ll be happy you did.

All of my excitement aside, I can honestly say Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t perfect, but it is everything that it needs to be and more. It’s beautiful, epic, funny and just downright awesome. There might be some part of your brain that goes, “wait a minute, that doesn’t seem possible…,” but in those moments, you need to say,”Shut up, brain. This is Star Trek.” Trust me, this is the best popcorn flick of the year so far, and it’s hard to imagine the kind of person who could possibly be disappointed with it.

Click for Larger Image.

So, Star Trek Into Darkness premiered today and it is glorious. Which adds to this unease feeling that J.J. Abrams might be on his way to becoming the king of the nerds with it recently announced that he’s taking on the Star Wars franchise next. For some reason though, it feels like there’s something fundamentally wrong with one man doing both…

Last| Next

It’s probably a little pointless to try to put a list like this together, especially because a new, awesome spacecraft comes out every year, and with the new Star Wars movies right around the corner, I’m sure that we’re about to get a lot more. Still, that hasn’t stopped nerds from fighting over this for decades. So, we thought it best to throw our hat into the ring and alienate a huge portion of our audience no matter what we chose. Hey, a little rage war never destroyed a website as respected as ours before, has it? Seriously, was this a bad idea?

10. Eagle 5 (Space Balls)- When considering the ships of Space Balls, our decision came down to a choice between Space Ball One or the Eagle 5, and we thought that a Winnebago with wings was probably a bit more memorable. It’s no Millennium Falcon, but it’s not something you easily forget, especially when you have someone like Barf (John Candy) as a copilot. I’m sure we could have come up with a much more significant spacecraft for the No. 10 slot, but we thought we would have a little fun before we got down to the hardcore nerd debate. Besides, who says space travel can’t be fun and comfortable?

9. The Prawn Mother Ship (District 9)- this was a tough one because it came down to this mother ship or one of the ones from Independence Day. In the end, while we respect the classic of our childhood, it seemed like the ship from District 9 was much more ominous in nature. It did, after all, just float around in midair for years, doing nothing before taking off. Nothing good can come of that. Seriously, it’s a morality issue in the sky. To be fair, it doesn’t do much, but the idea of a mother ship is always intimidating, especially because you never know what is lurking inside. Think about that next time you mess around with E.T.

Guys, this probably isn’t good…

While Marvel seems to be dominating the theaters lately with a number of incredibly successful films, DC Comics seems to have carved out a niche by releasing several exceptionally well-done animated films straight to DVD. Marvel has generally been trying to play catch-up on this front, but every once in a while they release a good one, and Hulk Vs. is an adequate example of that.

The movie is divided into two stories that pit the green juggernaut against two other titans of the Marvel universe, Thor and Wolverine. That being said, the two stories are very different from each other. Both do their best to expand the universes in preparation for upcoming films (to be honest, I have no idea what goes on in Thor) and introduce several new characters despite the primary focus being on the title fights themselves. However, I personally favored the battle between Wolverine and Hulk, because there is much more of a story behind it, and not just two super-strong guys smashing each other.

Hulk smash effeminate hammer man!

The story behind Thor (Matthew Wolf) and Hulk (Fred Tatasciore) clashing is pretty typical. Of course, Loki (Graham McTavish) is behind everything as he transports Hulk to Asgard to do what Hulk does best (spoiler: It has something to do with smashing). From there, Thor does battle, and the two destroy half the realm in the process. Director Sam Liu presents a very straightforward story with animation you might expect from a Saturday morning cartoon (oddly enough, it feels very much like a precursor to The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest).

While it works for the most part, there’s just nothing spectacular about the animation or the story. Then again, since I’m not a huge Thor fan, the more subtle references might be lost on me. Overall, the story is just a stream of violence with characters tossed in for fodder.

Huh, this might be a little one-sided.

Hulk Vs. Wolverine, on the other hand, feels like a much more balanced comic book story put on screen. I found it much more enjoyable because, as a comic book fan, I’m well aware that Wolverine actually was introduced as a character sent to kill the Hulk. In this film, Wolverine (Steve Blum) is sent into the Canadian wilderness to hunt down the monster tearing its way across the landscape. Their battle is short-lived, as Wolverine’s old team shows up to capture the Hulk and take revenge on their former leader.

Directed by Frank Paur, this installment seems to cater more to the older comic fans out there, as it has more blood and a deeper plot focusing on revenge and the monsters inside us all. While this one is still action-packed, the action is more focused and the fights more intricate. This gives them an opportunity to take a backseat to the characters themselves. Plus, Hulk Vs. Wolverine has an amazing appearance by everyone’s favorite Merc with a Mouth, Deadpool (Nolan North).

Neither story is bad, but there is no cohesion between the two of them. Despite the fact that the Hulk shows up to smash in both, the pacing and types of stories are different enough to make it feel a little episodic. Of course, that might be the point of the DVD, but it feels like it was used a little too much to set up future projects and films from Marvel, a stepping stone instead of a standalone piece. People who aren’t familiar with comic books might not want to pick this one up. For the hardcore Marvel fans, though, this is a nice was way to spend an afternoon and offers the equivalent of a standalone miniseries outside of continuity.

Now, just for the sake of full transparency, I’ve never read The Great Gatsby, and that probably makes me a bad person. I did, however, get to see the movie, and I’m pretty sure I would have enjoyed the book more. Director Baz Luhrmann (who gained fame with the film Moulin Rouge!) brings his signature opulent style to this adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s American classic, and it’s not quite as pretty a picture as I’m sure we were all hoping for.

Hello, lllladies.

For me, Luhrmann has always been a director who is about the sights and sounds in his films, and his newest movie is certainly filled with plenty of sights and sounds. The problem is, they all seem to be at odds with each other. The movie opens in a frantic mess as it tries to emulate the breakneck pace in which narrator Tobey Maguire, in what could be his blandest performance to date, gets wrapped up in the hustle and bustle of the roaring 20s.

Unfortunately, this is all done with inconsistent editing, a seemingly out-of-place soundtrack (produced by Jay-Z) and over-the-top (and ineffective) visual effects. Needless to say, the first act puts a bad taste in the audience’s mouths that even Leonardo DiCaprio has a hard time rinsing out after the film stops playing like an obnoxious music video.

The Great Gatsby does sport an impressive cast (besides Maguire, who is starting to wear on my nerves), who do the roles they are given justice. While I’m sure everyone is excited to see DiCaprio as the prodigal Gatsby, I was most impressed by Joel Edgerton‘s manipulative Tom Buchanan. He creates such layers in the character that, even though it’s easy to hate him nearly every second of the film, toward the end he garners a slight sympathy. The audience won’t necessarily forgive him for being such a prick, but at least there’s depth to the character, which adds to overall uncertainty the film creates. Like The Wizard of Oz, things suddenly go from being black and white to having a great deal of color tossed in, and that’s not a bad thing at all.

I’m thinking straw hats need to make a comeback.

For me, the film was as garish and extravagant as the fabled parties Gatsby held. It seems like Luhrmann tries desperately to remind everyone that he was responsible for the visual spectacle that was Moulin Rouge!, and this works during certain scenes. But there’s no cohesiveness to these scenes. The film is filled with poorly executed transitions that try to simulate the feeling of the camera moving boundlessly through the world Gatsby seems to rule, but instead it creates a jumbled visual mess that not even 3D could save. (To be honest, this movie probably isn’t worth the price of those cheap plastic glasses.)

Ah, love… Or something.

By now, it’s probably easy to see that Luhrmann is attracted to a certain type of story. His rise started with his stylish adaptation of Romeo + Juliet and moved to Moulin Rouge!, both of which were tragic love stories, and (spoiler alert) this is the American tragic love story. Or is it? The Great Gatsby never quite captures that chemistry between Dicaprio and his lost love (Carey Mulligan). Don’t get me wrong: On their own, they are terrific, and even together they play their parts beautifully. But the film never captures that moment when the audience can fully connect with them and invest in their relationship.

So, is The Great Gatsby a bad movie? Meh, no, but it is a disappointment. It’s hardly going to stand up to the other blockbusters waiting in the wings this summer. In fact, it’s probably the type of film we’re barely going to remember toward the end of the year, which is a shame, because there are some pretty impressive performances. It’s become a running joke lately that Dicaprio doesn’t have an Oscar, and while it’s only May, I’m betting this won’t be his year either. Not because he was bad, but he is surrounded by such tasteless imagery and effects that it’s hard to focus on him at all. So, be warned: The Great Gatsby’s film adaptation isn’t near the level that a greatly respected novel deserves, and will probably just end up disappointing you.

Click for Larger Image.

Last | Next

I’ve said this in past reviews, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I thought that it would be useful in clarifying what I mean:

Gore is not a substitute for horror.

The two certainly aren’t mutually exclusive; in fact, lots of horror movies can be considered gory. However, not all gory movies should be considered horror films. The two are both purposefully crafted to invoke a physical response from the audience, but these responses are very different.

A happy medium?

In a horror film, there are moments that trigger your fight or flight reflex. You cover your eyes, look away and feel discomfort because of the adrenaline that has started pumping. It’s this suspense, this reaction where the dark part of your brain feels like you’re in danger just through empathy for the characters, which makes a horror movie great. Don’t get me wrong: A lot of supposed horror movies fail to do this. When a film does manage to invoke this response, though, you’ll know it, because you’ll start telling yourself to calm down.

Gory films invoke a very different, yet equally disturbing response. Your stomach starts to feel hollow. You get a slight feeling of dread, not for the sake of the character, but for the sake of being subjected to the aftermath of what happens to the character. In the end, you might wind up an emotionally drained mess because you’ve tried so hard to separate yourself from what’s happening on the screen. The audience isn’t necessarily afraid of what’s going to happen so much as it is disturbed by the imagery that follows.

Like I said, the two are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of terrifying movies that feature either gory imagery or disturbing concepts. Look at last year’s smash hit Sinister, which featured films depicting families being murdered. But more often than not, it showed the protagonist’s reactions to these films, creating an emotional connection with him and investing the audience in the character. On top of that, just trying to imagine what he was seeing is probably more disturbing that anything Hollywood could throw at you (well, with the exception of the recent Evil Dead film).

The master of… Uh… I’ll get back to you on that.

So, what do I mean about gory movies that’s aren’t scary? Well, the best example I can come up with is Eli Roth. His first film, Cabin Fever, was a perfect example of this (we can talk about the Hostel movies later). It was disturbing, it was bloody, it was gory as hell, but it wasn’t really scary. It’s one of those movies that appeals to a small group of fans who have affectionately been dubbed “gore-whores.” I’m personally not a card-carrying member of the group, and I do my best to avoid films that use gore for gore’s sake. Does this make me a total wuss? Maybe, but at the same time I think that this approach to filmmaking is overly self-indulgent. It’s like the director is challenging himself not to make a movie that’s good, but rather make one that goes too far. Personally, I would rather watch a movie that leaves me jumping at shadows (this year’s Mama, for example) than a movie that makes me think twice about ordering the chili fries.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not trying to offend anyone here (well, maybe Quentin Tarantino’s goon, Roth). People who love bloody, disgusting movies are welcome to them, but don’t try to tell me that that’s the reason they are scary. Understand that there is a tremendous difference between blood and fear. Some of the scariest movies ever made never actually kill a single character on-screen. Horror stems not from the act itself, but the suspense in the moments before the act. Gore stems from the act and the moments after. Horror is for adults, while gore is for frat boys trying to gross each other out (no offense to the ladies that love gore). There’s a maturity that come with horror that gore seems to lack.

That’s my rant for today. Let me know what you think about modern horror and what I consider a sub-genre of it.

Well, “top 10″ might be a little generous. How about the 10 most bearable natural disaster movies? Nah, it doesn’t have the right ring to it.

Anyway, it’s a pretty simple concept. We’ll look at the films over the years that show case Mother Nature at her most savage. The only rule is that no intelligent force can behind the destruction (and no, we’re not going to get into an argument about the invisible hand of God). That means alien invasions are out, as are any manmade catastrophes. This is good, old-fashioned natural selection at its finest as the universe tries to destroy mankind. It’s times like these that it almost actually seems appropriate to quote Uma Thurman from Batman & Robin, but that was a natural disaster of another kind, and we won’t dignify Joel Schumacher by doing such a thing.

10. The Core- See, this is what we were talking about when we said 10 “bearable” movies. The Core is not exactly a cinematic masterpiece, but it does have Aaron Eckhart, which counts for something. To be honest, I can’t even remember what this movie was really about. Hillary Swank discovers that the Earth is going to stop spinning or something, and so the logical step is to dig down to the center of the planet and set off a bomb. I know what you’re thinking, but science hasn’t proven that it won’t ever happen (and if it has, scientist have way too much time on their hands), so don’t knock it. Actually, you can knock the hell out of it; it’s not that great a movie, but it’s the best you’re getting. (Well, the worst of the best.)

9. The Perfect Storm- Being from Florida, the staff of Stars & Popcorn is familiar with so-called perfect storms, or as we like to call them, lazy afternoons. This storm though isn’t in Florida, which is why it was probably so bad. I mean, down here, when bad storms hit, we only take short trips to the store for necessities, like beer. In the film, we get to watch a sea-hardened fisherman played by George Clooney go toe-to-toe with a massive storm in the name of making a few extra bucks. It’s all a lot more dramatic than that, but we’re focusing on the core concept here. The most upsetting part of the whole movie is that Clooney’s fishing captain character still looks better than we do on our best day. Oh, that and their lives being in peril and junk.

Guys, I want to go home now.