Google

Google

www.google.com

Why Comic Book Movies Need Directors like Darren Aronofsky

Up until recently Darren Aronofsky was planning to direct the upcoming sequel to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I was incredibly excited to see this film, even though I did not like the first film at all. (Why did they do that to Deadpool?) The reason I was so excited? I love really good movies, and I love comic books. When a kick-a director like Aronofsky is hired to a comic book movie, I am instantly excited. (And also it's really fun to say his name.)

It would be just like this, but with Wolverine.

Aronofsky was the original pick to direct Batman Begins before Christopher Nolan was ultimately chosen. If a similar outcome occurs with Wolverine, you won't find me complaining. Christopher Nolan reinvented the superhero genre in a way that few have ever done in any genre. He made comic book movies that people who would never go near a comic shop openly admitted loving. What should we have expected though? This was the guy who made Memento, he got hired for a reason.

Nolan isn't alone however, almost all of my favorite comic book movies were directed by directors already known for making unbelievable movies. Nolan's Batman films, Raimi's first two Spiderman films, and Favreau's Iron Man films are all proof that putting an awesome comic book property in a great director's hands is a good start to making a great film.

Just when I had almost forgotten about this...

The good news is that the powers that be seem to be beginning to understand this principle. Marvel is  getting Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright involved in two of their upcoming releases. (Two of the absolute best in the business in my opinion) Superman is going to be produced by Christopher Nolan and directed by Zack Snyder. This summer is even beginning to see this trend with Matthew Vaughn directing the new X-Men film.

This isn't just a short term influx of getting more talented directors involved in the superhero genre, this is the future of the genre. I hope Darren Aronofsky eventually directs a comic book movie, but I hope most of all that one day David Fincher and Steven Spielberg are a part of this discussion.

...That last one my just be wishful thinking by me.

Diary of a Sucky Weekend For Movies

Did you go see a new movie release this weekend? Did you enjoy it?

If your tastes line up with the majority of critics the answer to that second question is a resounding "no." The highest grossing film this past weekend was "Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules", which is a sequel to a film that was supposedly released around six months ago.

I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that this movie actually exists.

The film has been widely panned by critics receiving just 39% positive reviews on the popular movie review site www.rottentomatoes.com. The movie should then, one would think, be considered a failure. The reasons movies are now made however has far more to do with what's profitable than they do with what's good. "Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Roderick Rules" made over $23 million this weekend. That's already 2 million dollars more than it cost to make, once the rest of its theatrical run and DVD release are counted, it will be a wildly financially successful film.

Full disclosure, I have not seen this film. I have however seen the trailer, and it made me want throw my laptop on principle. If your out there and you like this movie, awesome, but please do not email me telling me I need to watch it.

The number two movie this weekend was Zack Snyder's "Sucker Punch." If critics didn't like "Diary of a Wimpy Kid," they loathed "Sucker Punch." This film received only 21% positive reviews on RT. Opening weekend was a little less kind to "Sucker Punch," it made only $19 million. I may be alone in thinking this, but I do at least admire Zack Snyder for trying to make something new and fresh, even if its not good. 

The whole movie isn't actually this cool.

My point is, when it comes to movies, "good" is not a synonym to successful. My favorite film last year was Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World." I haven't checked, but if I remember correctly this movie made about $5 at the box office. The film was funny, exciting, and original. I have watched it at least 20 times since I purchased the blu-ray, and fortunately many others have too, as it's picked up quite the cult following. It is as rich in detail as any film ever made, but to lots of studios it would be considered a dismal failure. There's a problem when many people working in Hollywood consider "Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Roderick Rules" to be a more successful film than "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World." Re-read that last sentence. That's really all I have to say.