A new Stargirl one shot by Geoff Johns and Todd Nauck has just been announced that will be set in Africa, involve a reunion of The Seven Soldeirs of Victory, and show and “unearth the secret eighth soldier of victory.” This somehow jeopardizes her role as Stargirl.
Not too much to go on, but there are not many candidates on who the 8th one is assuming Johns is not just adding somebody.
As the Feature image shows the seven are Stargirl, The Crimson Avenger, Speedy, Vigilante, STRIPE, Shining Knight, and Green Arrow. The last four were members of the original lineup, and the first three are legacies of the original. The membership has wavered with both The Crimson Avenger and Vigilante having a sidekick (Chinatown Kid and Wing respectively) occasionally being members. There have been occasional lesser known members like TNT. But it is time to think through the length, one 48 page issue.
They do not have time for a crazy twist, but one shots by Johns are normally character focused. If only he made a cliffhanger all the way back in April 2000 about a common member of the team.
Art by Scott Kolins
Post Crisis replaced Green Arrow with the Spider. He betrayed the team to Nebula Man, and Johns hinted that he was going after the surviving members of the team (all four of them) but never got around to writing it. With the upcoming Infinite Frontier all past continuities are canon, and it seems like a logical time to deal with him.
The Spider fits as a member of the team, mysterious, past connection, and it ties up old loose ends. How does he connect to Stargirl’s origins? I am going to guess it is their shared history as a replacement. He replaced Green Arrow, and she replaced Sylvester.
There is a reason this killed my brother and I’s interest in the franchise. We would pick up every new movie at Blockbuster as soon as we could, and this ended it. This review is going to hurt and that is why I put it off for so long. I love Scooby-Doo, but boy have they made many suckymovies. Part of it is that the Scooby formula works best for TV, not movies. Many of the movies are padded, and that is one of this movie’s many problems. The real main problem is the ending. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. I have never just thought no at a movie like this. It does not help that this is in the What’s New Era. I like the TV show from it, but the movies from it are known for being bad (I have seen 3). This film is completely built on the biggest flaw of the show, awful “heroic” villains.
Velma is the villain. What’s New‘s biggest problem was occasionally an episode would try to portray the masked villain as heroic in an attempt to cash in on Zombie Island. The problem is simple when watching Zombie Island. On a rewatch all of the Zombie’s non evil actions make sense, and actually work better on a rewatch. In contrast take the villain from the camp episode. She wants to kick out an industrializer. She (and all the “heroic” villains) always say nobody was supposed to get hurt, but they are always clearly trying to kill the gang constantly. Meanwhile the industrializer just removes a few trees. Why are we supposed to root for this 2nd degree attempted murder at best? It makes a group of terrible episodes that meshes with an otherwise fun show. This is not something to build a movie around.
Velma’s plan is to scare away some messy treasure hunters. With all the ways this can go wrong you are risking many, many lives, when threat of force should do the job.
I have not seen this movie since… 15 years ago, so it is time to see if it is as bad as I remember.
It starts with a flashback to Cleopatra fleeing to hide Egypt’s treasures after Rome takes over. Her journal calls it the year 41 B.C.E. How does she know they will change the calendar like that? I need to point this out- contrary to what you were likely told Cleopatra was white (Greek), so they did not get this detail wrong. As a kid I liked seeing the brief battle, but as an adult it is underwhelming. The whole tomb and curse of Cleopatra opening is dumb, but the score makes it interesting. Then bad score for opening credits.
Velma and some bland guy names Prince Omar find an “ancient Egyptian necklace” and this seemingly activates Cleopatra’s curse to guard her tomb or something. Next scene introduces the other four gang members, but the next part is just padding. I have reviewed plenty of padding that I love, but Shaggy and Scooby swimming in a mirage is just boring. The only important thing is that the Nile River is gone. Those Ethiopians really are out to get Egypt. Seriously that could cause a huge war in the future. (The Ethiopians are damming up The Nile).
After that it is time to introduce some suspects. Remember how I complained that Return to Zombie Island did not have suspects. Well this movie proves that the movie had a high bar to reach with that. After introducing “Triple A” we meet Rock Rivers. He is the host of a show trying to prove the supernatural. On par for What’s New Scooby- Doo Fred is a hysteric fan of his. He is trying to bring It back after it got cancelled for faking footage. A show like that would not get cancelled. Trust me, many of the viewers would want to and expect to see faked footage. Amelia, the main villain is introduced. She is a treasure hunter, which is later revealed to mean she blows up tombs to get inside. Why is she impersonating Cruella De’ Vil’s voice? She wants the treasure of “The greatest woman to ever rule?” There is no way Cleopatra has that tile.
She finds a marked symbol. Daphne is really dumb and points out the symbol looks like Velma’s necklace… Should Velma be just wearing an artifact? It seems hypocritical. Why do Scooby-Doo movies keep getting Velma so bad?
Amelia and her crew blow more stuff up and a swarm of locusts attack. Omar and his sucky accent are turned to stone and nothing significant is lost. Velma begs everyone else to leave for some reason thinking they will not try to help. Why not just fill them in and get their actual help? You gain very valuable help and remove a huge wildcard. Just fill them in you idiot.
Velma, Daphne, and Fred are separated from Scooby and Shaggy. They all have their What’s New actors. I normally love these four, but their performances seem uninterested. First following Fred, Daphne, and Velma, the evil mastermind gets turned to stone. If her clothes are turned to stone why not turn the necklace and journal to stone? She wants them to leave, so why leave the journal and necklace for them to stay? This whole turned to stone just guarantees they will stay to save her. Learn to improvise. In addition those mummies suck and are getting clobbered by Amelia. Eventually Daphne and Fred escape after a few long and dull scenes. They are chased down by Amelia who steals the necklace and journal only to lose them when she is somehow captured by useless Omar off screen so the writers do not even know what happened.
Scooby and Shaggy’s plot is good and should have been the main focus. It is not complex enough to carry a movie, but it could be the A plot or an episode. They find themselves stuck with this Civil Engineer who is secretly draining the Nile to fund his criminal Empire and pretending to be a priest, and his people mistake Scooby for a reincarnated Egyptian Pharaoh. (The dog version of Hawkman when you think about it). The plot is very stupid, but very entertaining like the direct to-TV-movies. Sure it clashes with the tone, but this is actually fun to watch when they are attacked by a giant evil robot and commandeer a chariot. Why not just focus on evil civil engineer plot? That was way better.
There is a reason this image was in the trailer
Sadly this has to end, as they go back to the main plot. Amelia is captured and to defeat Cleopatra they have Daphne disguise herself. Wait, what was Velma planning on doing to Amelia? Kill her? Seriously Velma you are not good at thinking on your feet, so why did you turn down help from people who are?
The others disguise Daphne as Cleopatra and this results in a decent battle with the fake undead army, and we get what is actually a good climax until the stupid reveal that Velma is the villain.
Is this supposed to be happy? your friend is seriously psychotic.
It was her, Omar, Rock Rivers (for effects), and the workers, and yikes is the explanation for the Locusts dumb. “The Swarm of locusts. I learned to breed them last year in Science class.” Where were these during the last few mysteries. Even worse it sounds like she says “breath” instead of “breed” and this really confused me. Velma is almost as bad here as in Return to Zombie Island, almost.
Meanwhile I am just bored and all this Egypt imagery makes me think of more entertaining Egyptian stories, like Hawkman.
Meanwhile Amelia is begging and whining like crazy, and she is just such a pathetic villain. She actually had a really cool introduction, but it was all downhill from there.
I hate this movie. Some good action scenes are enough to give it one Tree Star, so it is at least not a zero.
What is the worst Scooby-Doo movie I have reviewed? Arabian Knights is the third worst due to its entertaining Sinbad/Magilla story. This movie is stupid, but I see an actual plan. Return to Zombie Island is funnier, but it goes out of its way to spit in the original so much that I give it the crown for worst Scooby movie.
Next time on February 16th in honor of the upcoming Tom and Jerry movie. TheFast and the Furry time.
The beginning is way too predictable. Too little Batman. He is the most interesting character and I think a Batman/Dragon team up would have been the best route. The biggest problem is Kobra was just unintimidating. Jeffrey is creepy, but the only one who comes off as a threat is King Snake.
For good stuff most of the action scenes are very good. Sure Shiva’s methods get very repetitive, but the settings are all different, and everyone else has a range of fighting techniques. This is the best movie depiction of Batman on screen since Scooby-Doo and Batman the Brave and the Bold.
I liked it and will likely do a DTV Wonders on it in the future
On a hardly related note I finally got around to watching The Flight of Dragons. It will come in May at absolute earliest (and knowing me way later) but I will give it a DTV Wonders review.
This is the first ever British animated feature film. It was made by the husband and wife team of John Halas and Joy Batchelor. This made Animal Farm the first animated feature directed by a woman since The adventures of Prince Achmed. The film was made from 1951-1954 (the book came out in 1945), so it was greenlit just after George Orwell’s death. It is known for being very faithful in spite of some major changes, and I actually want to defend the changes.
Style
One major adaptation point is for getting the style. Some people have compared this to an audio book due to the reliance on the narrator. He narrates most scenes, but that is actually good. The book does not read like conventional fiction but like a history book. The narrator captures that by making this seem like a documentary.
Benjamin
I think this is one of the most notable change. In the book he is the cynic representative of… We fans debate and debate what he represents. I think he is the elderly who never seem to die, but there are hordes of theories. He is probably the most central character in the book, and he is the protagonist of the film. He is cynical and knows what the pigs are doing but never tries to do anything about it until his best friend is dead. In the film he is still Boxer’s best friend with some of the same roles, but he is much more of a hard worker. He does not have the stubborn and cynical attitude.
Jones’s wife
In the book he has a wife who runs away. She was adapted out understandably.
Fights
They are very accurate. There are three, and they keep some key details like Snowball’s retreat plan, Boxer being shot in the knee, and the dead sheep. Sure they add in a dog dying, but that is small.
Narrator
The narrator in the book is much more supportive of Communism and ironic about Stalinism working. This is shown in a scene amidst the tough times where everyone is happy thinking of Animal Farm as theirs, as they are free. The narrator is especially critical of Mollie, but that seems to be irony, as she did escape. The narrator in the film is more open about their failures.
Wings as Legs
Squeeler, not Snowball, now comes up with defense of wings as legs. It shows his usefulness outside of evil. One detail I liked is it perfectly captured Squeeler’s speech at Boxer’s death down to the suspicious glancing and silence.
Planned or not
In the the pigs are more diabolical and planned with stealing milk and apples. Napoleon told everyone else to leave and work, while he took all the milk. In film it seems to be spontaneous.
Commandments
It is not in the book about “without cause” being written in blood. A good change. Both versions after have Napoleon constantly saying X is punishable by death.
Cat
In both versions the cat shows up to the meeting late, and just naps not listening. In the book she has a larger role of always skipping work. She tries to take advantage of animalism to illegally eat sparrows. She eventually vanishes, but was always a source fo comfort. In the film the dogs just kill her.
Napoleon becoming more human
In both versions the dogs wag at Napoleon after removing Snowball. “They kept close to Napoleon. It was noticed that they wagged their tails to him in the same way… used to do to Mr. Jones.” (58). In the book he starts wearing a bowler hat after world war 2. In both versions he wears medals, and his 31 new piglets wear green ribbons. In the book he also wants a schoolhosue built for them. Not mentioned in film now they are not allowed to play with young animals, and everyone must step aside for all pigs. Pigs walking on hind legs giving more importance and Napoleon holding a whip.
Dogs
They are nearly perfectly adapted with a few minor changes. In book it is ambiguous if they caught Snowball. They got him in the book. Napoleon was secretive with raising them in the book unlike the movie. A detail I really like is that the dogs are chaperoning the pigs at the end. In the book one tried to kill Boxer and Boxer dominated them all and only Napoleon stopped him from killing them. It makes the reader wonder if they were terrified of Boxer and wanted him dead anyway. In the film that is still shown as when everyone runs to try and save him only the pigs stay behind.
Jones
He breaks the allegory by destroying the windmill, but it does suit the narrative structure. I t also seems to represent how disunity in the USSR in world War 2 hurt them.
Snowball
I think he comes off slightly better in the book, but in both versions he seems to ambitious and misguided. Instead of letting the farm run he is becoming mire human like with his projects and hostility to man.
Sugarcandy Mountain
This was omitted from the film where Moses just looks scared when a few animals are murdered. In the book he represents the Orthodox Church. He flees the farm with Jones, and is later brought back for World War 2 to help make the animals think the afterlife will reward them for their hard work. This is a ploy to remove the promised retirement.
Ending
Famously the book ends with the animals noticing the humans and pigs are identical now. In the film they kill them after this. This was foreshadowed. The animals did not fall for Squeeler’s speech about Boxer’s death. I think it still captures the ambiguity of if this is good. Are they just going to get the same tyranny again. Nobody is happy, and the music is very ominous. Were they trying to predict how they thought the Soviet Union would fall or how they thought Stalin would die (production finished a year after he died but started two years before it). If it was completely accurate his dogs would have killed him. Still I prefer the book ending. When I first read it I had to walk for 1.2 miles to think it through.
This image is so satisfying.
Overall this is the worst adaptation review I have done (other than The Black Cauldron of course). It has many crucial changes, but I think it still kept the most important parts and did a great job with the tone. They clearly cared about the source material and wanted to use it; just with a critical eye. I think this will for be the definitive adaptation for many more decades. I give it five tree stars in spite of its flaws thanks to how great most of it is.
Next time on February 2nd as I promised a long time ago (I think)
Scooby-Doo in Where’s my Mummy
If I remember right this has a chance at being another zero tree star review.
Loyal readers probably knew this would be number one. It has turned me into a deontologist, been a major inspiration to me during hard times, one of the main reasons I handled 2020 as well as I did. It has to be number one on a personal list.
Next time I do not know what Tuesday of this month it will be ready but next is Animal Farm as an adpatation.
I am sure I am not supposed to say this- I had a good 2020. Nobody I know died, I was never in danger of losing my job, and I was not stuck at home.
Lucky
Between the blog and my work this was a very busy year, which I will look back on as full of accomplishments. Time for the annual blog rewards.
Best and worst movies reviewed- Very easy since for the first (and probably last time) a zero and six tree star movie was reviewed in the same year. Best is The Dark Knight Returns Part 2 and worst is True Story of Puss ‘N’ Boots. No, I am not torturing my readers by showing another image from the second movie.
Hardest- Aladdin and the King of Thieves. I spent so much time trying to come up with something to write. It is just not interesting or incompetently made.
Easiest movie to review- All the way back to the beginning with The Secret of NIMH 2. This review basically wrote itself. Makes sense as the movie is so bad its good.
Best review- I am debating between my three Dark Knight Returns posts, my yearly Land Before Time Post, and my Stargirl post. I am going with my review of The Dark Knight Returns Part 2. I am now looking forward to next year when something else can win the best lists (I will probably before then do best DTV movies putting it at number 1 again).
Worst review- I am going to go with Curious George. I really thought this one would be easy, but it seemed much harder. I am sure the double sickness I had did not help, so I am not ashamed of it. Honestly this is the hardest year for me to pick a worst job, since I think I was way more consistent this year.
Best non review post- My list of every natural disaster in The Great Valley.
Big meta accomplishment- Finished reviewing every sequel to a Don Bluth movie. One opened the year, and the other closed it.
This is the first ever adaptation of Rudolph. Yes, that makes it older than the song, which was based off a book.
Time for some dates. The book by Robert L. May was released in 1939. The first ever adaptation is this one by Max Fleischer with Paul Wing doing the voices. The song came out one year later, and in 1951 it was redone with the famous song replacing “Silent Night.”
Since it is public domain you can easily find the 1951 version on youtube. The original version is here. I prefer the original version, as “Silent Night” fits the mood better.
This is a very faithful adaptation. Like in the book they make just as much of a deal about his nose being twice as big as it is bright. Unlike all other adaptations the deer are a weird hybrid of anamorphic and animal like. Previously I have a problem with this, but I let it slide here , because it is consistent. The deer walk like deer sometimes(needed for the sleigh imagery). Besides that they sometimes wear clothes, eat at tables (unlike the book they at least have food there), and they even have beds. Despite this being the first adaptation it really sticks out as a result.
Is the toy deer the equivalent to a doll? Is the human toy the equivalent to a teddy bear?
Despite being the shortest adaptation it has the most dramatic paste. This is the only adaptation where Santa Claus actually tries to do his job during the storm. In the Rankin-Bass film the storm plot is just a quick add on. In the GoodTimes film it is ending fatigue. Here it is the plot, and that is why this is the only one where Rudolph being recruited to lead the sleigh is actually a powerful moment.
Then it is the typical story of using your perceived flaws to be the hero, a message that always appealed to me. It is my favorite of the adaptations despite easily being the most simple. There is no snow witch or yeti, just the unity of plot. There is no plot of not living up to a family name. Rudolph’s father is nobody important, and I like that in a hero.
I just like how the old guy looks.
Being a Fleischer cartoon made for theaters it is not surprising the animation is great, and it was actually fun watching a scene in frame by frame to appreciate it.
This is it. Don Bluth’s films have a total of 20 sequels, and I will now have reviewed all 20 of them. This film is the final installment of the franchise and a series finale to the show, and the protagonist is not Charlie but Carface. He was the villain in the first movie, bumbling minion in the second, and now he gets to be the flipping hero… Was that a reference to the end of the first movie? To my surprise this movie feels much more like a follow up to 1 than it does 2. It starts with music from the first movie and the prettier Heaven design from the first movie. Unfortunately it starts with a frame story that has no impact. These work better in books than movies. I overall like the beginning of the movie in spite of the fact that I am questioning everything since that is what I enjoyed. Time to see if I can summarize everything with nothing but questions.
How do the puppies in Heaven (quit calling that tragic, it is a fact that some puppies die so there will logically be puppies in Heaven) not believe in ghosts? How are Charlie and Itchy considered Whippet Angel’s best angels? What are her mediocre angels like? Why do dog have a bone currency and a cash currency at the same time? Why does Charlie sound and act nothing like he did in the last two movies? Did he go through a ton of character development in the show? Why is everyone taking out “huge” loans from Carface when he is literally banished to Hell? I get him stealing money and food, but why is he stealing toys? Those should just weigh him down. It was established last movie that ghosts are invisible, so why can everybody see Carface, Charlie, and Itchy? Killer lived in the 1930s so why is he there? Charlie and Itchy try to break into Carface’s house, but why are they simply not ghosting through it? Belladonna is called “The Boogie Dog.” Why not a punny name like “Beelzedog” or “Barktan”? With Charlie’s past why do he and Belladonna not have a complex history? Why are those fire imps so puny and easy to beat when the music says to take them seriously? How did Charlie know about that escape door inside of Carface’s house?
Back to the beginning it is another retelling of A Christmas Carol. There are many great versions and my favorite is either “An Easter Carol” or “Arthur Changes Gears.” Carface and Killer (unexpected callback to first movie) uses a dog whistle to steal stuff, and Charlie and Itchy chase him down with no real plan other than Itchy talking about how he will tear him apart. Does anybody but Carface and Killer resemble their earlier portrayals. Tiny Tim is now Timmy who needs an operation to stay alive (according to The Oregon Trail a broken leg can kill you), and he has some surprisingly good banter with Carface to Carface’s enjoyment. This is probably the only legitimately good part of the opening. It is good foreshadowing.
Charlie and Itchy arrive to find Belladonna (I presume a villain from the show) is the main villain. They are going to use a hidden giant dog whistle to mind control dogs into stealing presents to make Carface rich, ruin Christmas (The Whos say different), and… this is so low steaks compared to the last two movies. Then Itchy begs Carface to stop her… Why would he do that? This is not harder to stop than Carface in movie one or Red in movie two.
The Whippet Angel gives them a miracle. Obviously Charlie and Itchy use it to miracle away the dog whistle… Or Charlie come up with a complicated plan to make Carface switch sides.
As much as I am mocking it, I am enjoying this opening, because I think it is unintentionally funny. The only real problem is the same problem with Arthur Christmas. Them implying (At least they are not saying it this time) that Christmas needs snow. As a southerner in the sub-tropics I really hate that. Time to get to the ghosts.
I am the Ghost of Bicycles never RiddenBinky? You are not a part of this fantasy.Banana bread?Go away!
While the beginning is wacky the next two ghost scenes are just dull. They are tiresome and poorly presented. They reveal that both Carface and Timmy were troublemakers as puppies. Carface’s owner ignored him and blamed everything on him, while Timmy’s owner always defends him and tries to fix it. I do like the detail that Carface’s helicopter hat symbolizes his childhood innocence, which he throws on the ground when he becomes the mobster from the first film.
There is a song called “I always get Excited at Christmastime.” Killer’s part is surprisingly good and a nice change of pace from the darkness with the source material, but Belladonna’s lines are just generic evil for the sake of being evil song. I know most animation fans disagree with me, but I hate these classic Disneyesque villains who are just evil. I normally hear Belladonna is popular, so I guess I am in the minority, but that does not mean I will stop criticizing her.
So it has been a wacky beginning and dull middle. The final ghost comes and….
What is with that outfit which clashes so badly with the mood. He looks like Spy Fox. That gospel music in “Clean up your Act” is the same way. This is fun again! Joy to the world! The fun has come back!
Carface’s fear of being sent to Hell gets him to now switch sides, and I think that is a reference to the first movie, since many people have actually cleaned up their act thanks to that scene. I can relate to this.
Notice the easily grabbed wires
Carface and Killer are transported to the whistle in Alcatraz (how did nobody check there) and start mind controlling. Mr. Big would be proud. Seriously it is the same green eyes. For some reason Belladonna acts like only Carface can pull the lever. Carface then has easy access to destroy the highly visible wires, or he destroys the huge cable with far more danger than it should be. Carface really changes every movie. Belladonna goes to kill both Carface and Killer and The Whippet Angel comes to save them.
Is fighting in a suit the best idea?
To my surprise this is her portrayal from the first movie. She is funnier and making jokes. She is powerful instead of the bumbling idiot. Waiting to save also matches her portrayal from the first movie where she lets dogs flee to actually earn redemption. It even fills Charlie’s prophecy at the end of the first film where Charlie promises “He’ll [Carface] be back.” It was an uplifting scene, and I like seeing it come true. Belladonna is whipped by The Whippet Angel in a stupidly funny, yet legitimately satisfying scene. Why did Belladonna choose to have a showdown on a place surrounded by water when it weakens her fire power? Red is literally rolling in his grave. Why not make Hellhound the main villain? Was he too hard to animate?
The ending scene is Carface giving everything back of course, and it is not too interesting but it is a sweet end to the franchise. My problem is it ends with just Charlie and Itchy when Carface is the protagonist of this movie.
I went back and forth on whether I would probably like or dislike this before my third view, and then I remembered something. So bad it’s good=good. As a huge fan of the first movie (I consider it the second best film ever made) I enjoyed the closure, and the references. It captures the weirdness of the first movie way better than the second one. I give it three tree stars. If it had a more comedic middle and better songs it could have been a four tree star comedy. It does not leave much of an impact, but it is a moderately fun watch.
Well old firend, I have reviewed every sequel to your work. It took me over five years (mostly because I hardly wrote for years) but I did it.
Next time- the first ever adaptation of Rudolph. Fans of Disney’s “Very Merry Christmas Songs” might recognize this.
Entry 1 in the DC Animated Original Movies line (DCAOM), and the 6th one I am fully reviewing. It is based om the best selling comic book of all time, “The Death of Superman.” In 2007 the team led by Bruce Timm has finished the DC Animated Universe (DCAU), a group of interconnected TV shows that last for 14 years. Now they are making a series of DTV films with no connection that will often be straight adaptations of a comic book. At this point DTV films had a terrible name. The Land Before Time Seriesfinished two months later, and the Disney DTV sequel machine only had one more film in it. That is why they had to overcome the negative stigma around DTV, by making something with strong brand recognition, and an excuse for lots, and lots, and lots of violence. As a film they could be far gorier than the shows, and it was needed for being 2D animation. CG is associated as for adults and animation for children, and this needed to overcome any negativity. In addition almost all DCAOM films are PG-13. There are plenty of PG and R rated animated movies, but not many that are PG-13.
This is a very divisive movie. What gets all the attention is the second word in the title, “Doomsday.” He only has around ten minutes of screen time, and The Eradicator is the real villain. What is overlooked is the first word, “Superman.” Lois is the real hero and protagonist.
It begins with Luther (voiced by James Marsters, Brainiac in Smallville) saying even gods die. We then get a beautiful opening with music by Robert Karl. His DC music theme is very repetitive, but it is great. He also did First Flight.
Clark (Adam Baldwin) is going to Afghanistan for reporting work. I am not a fan of the art. Lois (Anne Heche) looks too small, but I like making Clark look much older and experienced. It has the key character moments of looking at a picture of his mother and talking to Lois, as they are what keep him going.
Meanwhile some of Luther’s workers are working on a project to harness energy from Earth’s core so Lex can sell it. Instead they find and accidently unleash Doomsday. This is very different from the comics, and that is important. It shows that this is a loose adaptation. Meanwhile Lex has made a cure for muscular dystrophy, but he only wants to sell it in small doses to make the most money off it as possible (how did that work for him in Gods and Monsters?). At the same time Clark is trying to find a way to cure cancer in his Fortress of Solitude. I really love this side of Clark as the scientist, instead of just Earth’s resident strongman.
The scientists unleash an alien warning, and the pacing gets considerably slower. Doomsday breaks out and of course kills everything. They do not show any gore, but it is left to he imagination, as we constantly hear bones cracking. Doomsday’s powers are super speed, strength, and invulnerability.
Lois is on a date with Superman at the fortress, and she is mad that he will not tell her he is Clark. I have no idea how she figured that out. Clark refuses out of fear it will put her in danger (in his defense she is always in need of rescue). Clark and Lois work it out with some time, but a robot informs them of Doomsday and his backstory as a synthetic lifeform made to kill everything that was trapped by its creators. I am unsure of the moral, but I think it is that when evil comes a hero will arise out of somewhere. With this information Clark leaves back for Metropolis (bad move to take Lois with you).
In only 17 minutes we got the key exposition out of the way. Time for what everybody came for, Superman vs. Doomsday. Like Most DCAOM fights this is excellent. For the side characters we see concerned but stoic (until the end) looks from Martha and Lex. Showing her impulsiveness and recklessness Lois drags along Jimmy into hijacking a helicopter to report it, but Doomsday jumps up there. Clark has to save them.
The fight between the titular characters is intense. Both the fight and the music get faster and faster except for brief moments where Clark is catching his breath. Throughout the whole fight Clark is stopping to save everyone in danger, which constantly puts him in danger. This is best shown when Clark stops Doomsday from destroying a train full of people only for Doomsday to mash Clark’s head into the train. This leads to the first time blood is shown.
Of course he bleeds Bats.
Clark seems beaten until Doomsday leaves to kill a kid. Then Clark decides to end them both by flying Doomsday into space and smashing them both. What most people forget is that Clark, not Doomsday, won the fight. Clark gets up and collapses. His last words are asking if everyone is okay. Unlike Batman Clark is a consequentialist. He is in extreme circumstances like this willing to kill to make a much greater good.
Only 28:07 in, and the big scene is done. That is good, as the next issues are the actual interesting story. Doomsday is a cool villain, but best in small doses. He is not interesting enough to carry a movie unlike Lex, Darkseid, Parasite, and The Cyborg. Using him only in the beginning was a good move. He is also based off the Mutant Leader in The Dark Knight Returns, and he is not a very developed villain either.
My new DVD player lets me go frame by frame. I love it.
Jimmy has a subplot where the editor of a gossip tabloid gives him a high paying job. In grief he accepts. He eventually returns to help Lois, but Bruce Timm was right in the commentary that this ultimately made him too unlikable, and his role was not big enough. Jimmy is the film’s weakness.
Meanwhile Lois tries to comfort Martha (handled better than in the film, Justice League). Lex is furious that he never got to kill Superman, and… I think he is gay for him. Most of his dialogue sounds like a jilted lover, and it is similar to Joker in Dark Knight Returns.
Predictable crime becomes a huge problem, as Toyman starts holding children for ransom. Toyman should have been the name of “Lex” in Batman V. Superman, and it is nice to see this powerhouse finally get his due in a film. He is the Superman version of Joker and his actor, John DiMaggio, even voiced him later in Under the Red Hood. Lois realizes Metropolis needs a hero, and starts rescuing Children only for Toyman to realize and throw the bus off the building. Of course Superman shows up to save the bus, apprehends Toyman to heroic music, and he happily flies Lois home. In some subtle foreshadowing he briefly misses Lois’s apartment. Unfortunately a Kevin Smith cameo wrecks the mood. Does he ever do anything else? Seriously?
Before watching this I had no idea what the Reign of the Supermen plot was, so I was spending a lot of time trying to find out what happened. Is this the real deal, and Doomsday will come back the same way, or is this a fake? It gets answered when Clark Kent does not show back up for work, and he never contacts Martha.
Next scene is too narmy. Superman walks into an anti-Superman room where Lex beats him with Kryptonite brass knuckles, and there is no way with dialogue like this we are not supposed to think Lex views himself as a jilted lover.
“Who’s your daddy?”
This scene is too ridiculous, but very entertaining. Lex is overall a weakness in this movie, but I will never forget him.
Next scene reveals that Lex stole Clark’s corpse, and cloned him. I like the mythology gag of mentioning Lex’s roots as a mad scientist instead of an evil businessman.
Time to choose what to call the clone. When I first watched it I called him “Bizarro.” Second time I called him “Ultraman.” After becoming familiar with the Reign of the Supermen I picked a new name, The Eradicator.
Art by Dan Jurgens. He is one with the yellow.
He is a hybrid of the four Supermen. He has Superboy’s backstory, some of The Cyborg’s role, but he has The Eradicator’s personality. I consider that to be the trump card here, so The Eradicator he is.
Meanwhile the robot at the fortress steal’s Clark’s corpse to revive him.
The Eradicator hears on the news that one of the injured children from earlier died. Angered he kills Toyman horrifying the cops. As the hero is a consequentialist, this movie answers why superheroes should not kill from a consequentialist standpoint, the slippery slope. This will come later. Unfortunately the movie does not get into why this is bad enough. I heard plenty of people who have dealt with murdered children rooted for The Eradicator here.
When asked about his actions The Eradicator considers himself the absolute moral authority, and now Martha knows he is not Clark.
You will believe this is terrifying.
This is the best scene in the movie. An elderly woman’s cat is stuck in a tree, and The Eradicator rescues it, and then very calmly calls the lady a menace to society by not taking care of the small stuff. His self righteousness yet calm demeanor is scary, and so is the way he pets the cat. It keeps looking like he is going to strangle it (despite that all evidence shows he loves the cat) or kill the lady (whom he does have beef with). It shows that he wants what is best for Metropolis, but he is unwilling to hold himself back. As Justice Lords Superman once said “Power corrupts and who has more power than Superman.” (I can name several DC heroes by the way).
The cops show up to arrest Superman, and this is why I prefer Superman Vs. the Elite. I like it when the civilians debate if this type of behavior is right, and with all this plot the movie has no time for that… Or they could have made it by cutting the Jimmy subplot.
I do love how horrified the cops are to arrest Superman, and how The Eradicator acts like a moral guardian by enforcing tiny things and telling the cops to watch their language. Lex is mad at his clone, and he tells him to take out some of Lexcorp’s competitors. He makes a huge mistake by telling him “…I brought you into this world. I can take you out of it.”
Dumb move Lex.
The Eradicator walks straight to a beauty parlor and in front of everyone he uses his X-Ray vision to find a bomb inside his brain. He performs open brain surgery to remove it, and he leaves completely unaware of the shock this put he clients into and happily tells them, “…a safe Superman means a safe Metropolis.” He is so distant from humanity, that he has no idea how they are reacting.
Time for Lois and Jimmy to try to be the hero Metropolis needs. Lois successfully plays damsel in distress to Lex (world’s smartest man does not have much common sense) gets the information out of him, knocks him out, and finds the clone facilities with Jimmy. Lex regains consciousness to kill them only for the Eradicator to show up.
Technically he is killing his brothers.
He destroys Lex’s dream of a super army, and eh chases Lex into his anti-Superman room. In the funniest scene in the movie The eradicator just picks up the whole room and throws it across the city (they made a mistake at the end showing Lex somehow survived). The fall nearly crushes a few people, and the robot informs Clark that the military has been sent in to take down The Eradicator.
The Eradicator now resembles a Greek god, as he faces the scared military. He tells the military Metropolis needs him. He kills the soldiers without them firing a single shot, and this is his moral event horizon. No more just targeting villains, but threats to his brand of order.
Did I mention I love my new DVD player?
Clark is only at 67% power, so he dons the reborn suit (Also used in the recent Justice League trailer). This suit lets him absorb solar energy faster to recharge. He brings kryptonite gun with him (ironically his wildcard in the comics was The Eradicator). This shows how he feels like a big desperate underdog this time. Both Jimmy and Lois doubt either are the real Superman. The eradicator immediately knocks away the gun, and the fight.
It is important to make every fight stick out visually. Both main fights are in Metropolis at night. To make it different this one has a cloudy sky instead of a clear sky, and it is airborne. Small changes, but it does work.
Lois retrieves the kryptonite gun, and they go back, as Clark is being clobbered. The Eradicator destroys the gun, but Clark grabs the Kryptonite led container, and uses it to defeat him.
The Eradicator dies while begging Clark to “protect the people.” Sad scene, but I hate that Clark killed him. Clark kisses Lois making her know he is the real Superman, and to Clark’s surprise all the people immediately trust him and are relieved he is back.
That cop is so happy.
In the closing action Clark tells Lois he is Superman.
That is the first DCAOM film. It is very divisive, and I love it. Sure it is rushed, has some ugly designs, and it fails Jimmy and Lex. On the other hand it is never slow, it has several great scenes, great fights, the animation moves well, Lois gets to shine, The Eradicator is great, and it is never boring. Find people who hate this movie all you want, but none of them can honestly say it is boring.
A clear 4 Tree Star movie.
How does this compare to the second go around in a two part movie, The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen. The set up for Doomsday is much better in the second one, but the actual battle is much better due to being shorter in the first. Sure the final movie is superior to the first movie, so it is overall mixed on whether old or new wins.
Next time sometimes in December- An All Dogs Christmas Carol, and whatever brief articles I can make during the busiest time of year for retail workers.
