Superman (2025)

Well, that was just fantastic. This is the Superman movie I've been waiting for since I was a kid.

I loved the first three Christopher Reeve movies growing up, but everything went downhill from there. Superman IV was obviously a poorly-edited rush job. Then there was a long wait until Superman Returns, which had some good ideas but wasted them. Then we have the DCEU, which decided to take the most colorful comic superhero and turn him into an angsty broody mess. Which is too bad, because I think Henry Cavill did great in the role. It's just that Zack Snyder had no understanding of the character.

But the new Superman movie is a love letter to the comics. (Spoilers incoming.) I'm so glad it didn't bog itself down with another origin story. Instead it just has an opening text that explains he's been Superman for about three years. It also includes a few other heroes such as Green Lantern, Mister Terrific, Hawkgirl, and a couple of surprises.

It has a great cast. I particularly loved Lois Lane. She looks like she stepped out of the animated series, and her voice reminds me a lot of Margot Kidder. I also thought Jimmy Olsen did a good job. I wasn't sold on David Corenswet's Superman when I saw the trailers, but now that I've seen it in context, he does a great job. His Clark and Superman actually look and sound different, which is critical for a Superman actor. I mean, okay, maybe he wasn't as good at it as Reeve, but he was definitely a better Clark than Cavill.

But a good hero needs a good villain, and Lex Luthor does not disappoint. Not to dis on Gene Hackman or other past Luthors, but this is the grandiose Lex that Superman deserves. I mean, Hackman's Lex, while well-performed, was basically a greedy land developer. Kevin Spacey is persona non grata, and Jesse Eisenberg brought great shame to the DC universe. There were some really good Luthors on TV (live and animated), but I'm going to stick to movies here.

I can't say Nicholas Hoult is the perfect Lex. He did a decent job, but some of his megalomaniacal speeches fell a little flat. But that's okay, his actions spoke louder than words. His evil comes across in a way that I don't feel we've seen on-screen before, and he really shows us how money can be a superpower.

The elephant in the room: A lot of people (particularly former Superman Dean Cain) are complaining that the movie is too "woke". Of course, you know me, I'm all for woke. But even if I wasn't, I honestly don't see how this movie is more woke than any of the previous Superman movies.

Batman v Superman

Some are saying it's because it has a strong pro-immigrant message. Again, that didn't hit me as a major theme in the movie. There is a subplot where Luthor turns public opinion against Superman, and the fact that he's an alien is one of the bigger factors there. But this is an idea that was already explored in the Henry Cavill movies.

The only difference is that "woke" is currently the big buzzword that red hats like to use to decry anything that promotes common decency. So if you're conservative and avoiding this movie because Fox News told you to, I promise you're being lied to (as usual). The new Superman movie is no more woke than the previous ones, and if you like those you'll love this one.

Anyway, Superman (2025) is a fun, action-packed movie that feels like a comic book brought to life. Some filmmakers try to make comic heroes more realistic or gritty, others lean so far into the "comic book" aspect that the movies turn silly. But this movie gets it just right. It's silly enough to be fun, but real enough to keep you invested. Nothing's ever going to replace the Christopher Reeve movie in my heart, but damn if this doesn't come close.

Ranking the Superman Movies:

(Note, I'm just including movies where he's in the title. I'm excluding movies that just happen to include Superman, such as Justice League.) 

1. Superman (1978)

2. Superman (2025)

3. Superman II

4: Superman III

5: Superman Returns*

6: Man of Steel*

7: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

9: Superman IV

* Note I had a hard time deciding which should be higher between 5 & 6. I think Man of Steel is a much stronger movie, but Superman Returns is actually fun. Even Man of Steel's action scenes feel lifeless and dull.

That New Superman Trailer

I’m really looking forward to this. Look, I hate to pick at old wounds (I’m lying), but I’m still bothered by the fact that some executive saw Watchmen and said, “Wow, Zach Snyder is really good at making grim, dismal movies about dark heroes, we should totally give him… Superman!” It bugs me to death that if you watch the entire DECU from 2013-2023, Batman has more laugh-out-loud moments than Superman.

That. Should. Not. Be.

The new Superman movie doesn’t look like it takes itself seriously at all, and honestly that’s exactly what we need right now. It looks like everything the Justice League movie should have been. And there’s a dog.

I’m especially excited to see Nathan Fillion’s take on Guy Gardner. He was always one of those characters I loved to hate.

Unfortunately this is going to be a make-or-break movie for the new series. They already have several movies planned after this one, but if Superman bombs, that could spell disaster for all those plans.

I’m gonna stay optimistic, though. I can’t wait to see where this new cinematic universe takes us.

Shazam! Fury of the Gods

Fury of the Gods is fun and enjoyable. It's extremely cheesy, but if you've seen the first one, you should know that going in. There's a few over-the-top parts that you'll either love or hate, like the "Skittles unicorn" scene. And like the first movie, there's a lot of tone whiplash - sometimes it seems a little dark for kids, but other times it's too light for adults.

If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.

Injustice (2021 Animated Movie)

I loved the Injustice video games and the comics. The problem was, you needed to read/play both to get the full story. After the opening scene, the game jumps forward five years to a time when Superman is already in power. The comic fills in those missing years.

A quick summary for those not in the know: The Joker gives Superman a Very Bad Day. Superman is so traumatized that he loses his grip on morality and adopts a heavier stance on crime. The more people resist him, the more he doubles down. His views escalate until he is a full blown dictator.

The comics start out great, but some of the later years start to drag. The first year is especially quotable, with some of the best lines in the history of comics. The video game is a fun, solid fighting game with a well done story mode. The graphics are a bit dated at this point, but it often goes on sale for under $5. So if you haven’t played it, seriously, pick it up sometime.

With five years of comics and several hours of gameplay, it was hard to condense this story into a single animated movie, but I think they did a good job. The movie mostly draws from the comics, particularly the first year. In fact, I’d say that the first half of the movie is pulled straight from Year One. After that, it draws bits and pieces from the later years, smatters in a bit of the plot from the game, and throws in some original ideas as well. In other words, the climax is a little messy.

Now, here’s where I disagree with other reviewers. They complained that the movie wasn’t faithful enough to the source material. Actually, the first half is almost too faithful to Year One. Okay, there’s a few big changes. For example, one prominent hero is killed early on, probably just to avoid some plot holes. But I was quoting the comic as I watched the movie. My wife watched my lips moving. For the first half, I almost always knew what was about to happen. That’s pretty faithful.

The second half? Well, they did what they had to in order to tie things up. They could have made it an animated series instead of a movie, but I don’t think that was ever in the cards. Appreciate the movie for what it is, not what you feel is missing. I’m sorry your favorite scenes were cut, but suck it up and move on.

But on the flip side: Reviewers also praised the voice acting, and that’s the part I felt was a little weak. Okay, there was nothing wrong with who they cast for which voice. But again, I like the comics because they were so quotable. And when it came to the most memorable lines, the actors just didn’t quite deliver them the way I’d envisioned. They’re fine voice actors, but their comic timing was off, or they didn’t put the emphasis on the right words, or something. I know, follow my own advice and suck it up. But it irks me that they were so close to perfection.

They removed some plot elements that were only there to justify game mechanics. In the game, it was silly that Superman could go toe-to-toe with characters like Green Arrow without knocking their heads off in one blow. They explained this by inventing pills you could swallow that gave everyone the strength and durability of Superman. The movie thankfully removes this plot point. Seriously, the whole reason evil Superman is so scary is because he’s so powerful. Make everyone else just as tough, and the concept loses its teeth.

Also, the game involved characters from two universes, to explain why characters are able to fight each other. The movie does touch on the parallel universes idea, but not as heavily as the game. I won’t say more to avoid spoilers. But what it does with the idea, it does well, at least in my opinion.

Now, I know “Superman turns evil” stories have been done to death at this point. DC itself has put out stories like “Red Son” and “Crisis on Two Earths”, but the concept has inspired a lot of non-DC works as well, such as Invincible and Brightburn. But even though the idea is tired, Injustice is one of the best uses of the concept. And the Injustice animated movie is probably the most accessible way to see the story. It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely is worth a watch, especially if you haven’t read the comics or played the game.

Injustice is currently streaming on HBO Max.

Ranking the Batman Films

Okay, this is hard, because so many of them are apples and oranges. So instead of going by quality, I’m mostly going by which ones I would actually take the time to sit down and watch today.

1. Batman Returns (1992)

This might be a hot take, but bite me. Batman Returns is the movie that really made me appreciate Tim Burton’s gothic style. It has my favorite Batman soundtrack, and my favorite theatrical Catwoman. I’m not fond of this version of the Penguin, but you can’t have everything.

2. Batman (1989)

I have a soft spot for this movie. It came out at exactly the right time in my life, it was a cultural phenomenon, and it was hugely influential to future super hero movies.

3. The Dark Knight (2008)

This is probably the most legitimate super hero movie ever made. I can’t put it higher because it’s so heavy. I mean, I can’t just pop it into the Blu-Ray player for fun. It’s too… good.

4. The Batman (2022)

Thoroughly enjoyable, and sets a new standard for Batman movies.

5. Batman Forever (1995)

While this was the beginning of the end for the 90s series, it struck a great balance between flashy and dark. It’s too bad the follow-up movie dropped the dark altogether.

6. Batman Begins (2005)

I feel like this deserves to be higher, but it’s just not as fun as it was when it first came out. Impressive movie, but it became boring after a few rewatches.

7. The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

A good, solid movie, but the weakest of the Nolan trilogy.

8. Batman: The Movie (1966)

Pure, campy fun.

9. Batman & Robin (1997)

Dirty rotten franchise killer! Still, fun to watch if you’re in the right mood.

10. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

The Batman (2022)

Good movie. One of the better versions of Batman I’ve seen. There’s not a lot I can say about it, because it’s exactly what you think it is. Guy dresses as a bat, fights crime, solves a mystery, has a love/hate relationship with the cops, etc etc etc.

After the Schumacher series became too over-the-top, people praised the Nolan reboot for being more down-to-earth. While The Batman has a few moments that are hard to swallow, overall it feels even more real than the Nolan trilogy. Is this how things would actually play out if Batman existed? No, it’s still fantasy. But instead of comic book fantasy, it feels more like hard-boiled detective novel fantasy, or mafia crime film fantasy. But it’s still more believable than the previous films.

Some reviewers complained that the movie doesn’t break any new ground, that it’s too “by the numbers”. While they’re not wrong, I still disagree. There really isn’t a better “baseline” Batman movie. The 1989 film is too comic booky by today’s standards (though it was groundbreaking at the time), and Batman Begins (while excellent) is too focused on Batman’s origin story. I think The Batman is the generic Batman movie we always needed, the one that sets the tone for the modern Batman universe, one that other movies can build off of.

Also, some people complained that the movie was too dark. Not in violence (though it is more violent than previous Batman movies), but in brightness. This is true, but for once that darkness is actually done well. Every single frame is lit the way the director intended. If you only see a character’s face when there’s a muzzle flash, it’s because the director only wanted you to see their face when there was a muzzle flash. It’s artistic darkness.

Compare this to Disney+ shows like The Mandalorian and Moon Knight, where the night/underground scenes are just plain DARK, with no hope of the viewer having any idea what’s going on. The Batman does darkness right, using it to guide your attention rather than just hide the action.

Spoilers going forward.

I liked this version of Selina Kyle, but the romance felt a bit forced. It wasn’t bad, I just think I could have written better, and I suck at romance.

I thought the Riddler was great. For once he didn’t come off as campy. It felt like a Saw movie with Batman in it. This version of the Riddler had an actual reason to send Batman riddles, instead of just being crazy. And the riddles themselves were deeper, rather than feeling like they came from a 1960s joke book.

This was a great version of Batman, but I’m not sold on this Bruce Wayne. I get what they were going for, but he looked too much like “emo” Peter Parker from Spider-Man 3. Arguably Bruce Wayne doesn’t even appear in the movie, because he kept the Batman persona regardless of whether the costume was on. No “clueless womanizing socialite” disguise here, just the brooding recluse focused on his personal mission.

Bottom line: Overall, it’s a worthwhile reboot. They recently announced that a sequel is in the works, and I definitely will see it.

Ranking the DCEU

1. Wonder Woman (2017)
2. Aquaman (2018)
3. Shazam! (2019)
4. The Suicide Squad (2021)
5. Suicide Squad (2016)
6. Birds of Prey (2020)
7. Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
8. Justice League (2017)
9. Man of Steel (2013)
10. Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
11. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

This one is kind of hard, because honestly, none of these movies are as good as the MCU.  That really pains me, because I grew up liking DC more than Marvel.  I'm hoping the upcoming Flashpoint movie reboots things in a way that allows future DC movies to be, well, fun.  That's not asking for too much, is it?  Superhero movies that actually make me smile?

I've already blogged about most of these movies, but here's some specific notes.  In release date order, with links to my original blogs (if I blogged them):

Man of Steel (2013) - Not terrible, but it was overly long and dull.  Superman is supposed to be full of optimism, but this movie shoots for more gritty realism.  But the bigger sin is that it set the tone for this entire series of movies.  Want to know why the DCEU never reached the heights of the MCU?  Bad foundation.  

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) - AAAAAAAUUUUUUGGH!  'nuff said.

Suicide Squad (2016) - Fun, quirky, but suffered a lot from bad editing and the lackluster ending.

Wonder Woman (2017) - The closest the DCEU comes to a perfect movie, but it kind of runs out of steam halfway through.  I wish the villain had been cooler.

Justice League (2017) - Kind of fun, but full of flaws.

Aquaman (2018) - I debated on whether this should be number one.  Both this and WW are strong movies, maybe the only two A-list movies in the series, but Aquaman felt sort of silly in ways Wonder Woman did not.  It was a tough call.

Shazam! (2019) - Again, DC just can't make a perfect movie.  Who is this for?  On the one hand, it's light-hearted and feels like a kid's movie.  On the other hand, it has some of the scariest scenes in the entire DCEU.  But it is fun, like a Shazam movie should be, and a lot more entertaining than most of the movies on this list.

Birds of Prey (2020) - A beautiful mess.  This has the distinction of being the last movie I saw in a theater, and isn't that sad?  Overall, I liked it, but they really didn't know what they were doing here.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) - I really wanted this one to be better, but there's just too many flaws.  Gal Gadot is as amazing as ever, but the story just isn't very good.

Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) - Of the two Justice League cuts, this one is the better movie.  But it's less fun than the theatrical cut, and that's why it's farther down the list.

The Suicide Squad (2021) - I'm not even sure if this counts as a DCEU movie, as it's sort of considered a soft reboot.  But there's no reason it can't exist in the same universe as the films that came before it.  Anyway, it's worth seeing.

The Suicide Squad

I don't know, I kind of liked the first Suicide Squad movie.  It had a dull "final boss" and it wasn't edited very well, but it was fun and had a quirky charm.  But most people didn't like it.  Go figure.  

2021's "The Suicide Squad" seems to have a lot more fans.  I can see why.  If nothing else, the final battle is a lot cooler.  But the two movies are similar enough that it's hard to review one without comparing it to the other.  So, a quick comparison:  

I like the characters better in the second one.  King Shark beats Killer Croc, hands down.  

I like the dialogue better in the second one.  Some of the comedic exchanges are pure gold.  However, it reminded me a little of Joss Whedon, in that it was obvious that all the dialogue was written by the same person. 

I like the soundtrack better in the first one.  Which is funny, because James Gunn usually nails soundtracks.  Though the first Suicide Squad kind of used up most of its soundtrack in the first half hour.

One of the problems I have with most people's opinions, is that they tend to only remember the last half hour of a movie.  When I saw "Attack of the Clones" with one of my relatives, she went on and on about how the movie was just jam-packed with non-stop action.  But that's not true, AotC is actually a pretty talky movie until about halfway through.  But the last 45 minutes is very exciting, and that's what you tend to remember most.

And that's kind of how I felt watching The Suicide Squad.  I'd already heard positive buzz about it, so I went in expecting a non-stop thrill ride.  But about halfway through I found myself thinking, "So, when does it get good?"  I mean, it wasn't necessarily bad up to that point, it just wasn't the laugh-a-minute actionfest I was promised.  But when the movie finally paid off, it really paid off.

And that's another way it contrasted with the first Suicide Squad movie.  I thought the first movie had a really strong opening, and gradually got duller and duller toward the end.  

Anyway, I like both movies, but the new one is definitely better.  Neither one is perfect, but they're both pretty fun.

Justice League: Does Whatever A Snyder Can

When they announced the Snyder Cut of Justice League, I did not think it was the best idea.  Despite my misgivings, I promise you I went into the Snyder Cut with an open mind.  Even when some early reviews said it was overly long and devoid of humor, I was determined to make up my mind for myself.  How often do I agree with professional reviewers, anyway?

Well, the Snyder cut is overly long, and it really doesn't have enough humor.  But honestly?  It is the better version of the film.  It's more coherent, it's fixes some plot holes, and overall, it just feels more complete.

So I was wrong, I'll cop to that.

That said, I still can't say I love it.  Zack Snyder really Snyders his hardest here, and if I was a Snyder fan, I would be in heaven.  But Snyder is simply the wrong fit for this property.  It takes itself way too seriously.  I'm not saying comic book movies shouldn't be serious, but Snyder is going for a "Lord of the Rings" level of epic here, and it's more than I ever needed out of a comic book.

I won't lie, I laughed way too hard at this.

Watching Snyder try and squeeze profoundness out of such goofy characters is like watching a Spongebob Squarepants movie directed by Stanley Kubrick.  He overuses slow motion - I mean, like, seriously overuses it.  It's justified when it's the Flash, showing his perception of the world while he runs around.  But it's used for dramatic reasons way too often.  An early scene has Lois Lane buying coffee in slow motion, which is a bit much.  I have to wonder how much shorter this movie would be if it took out even half of the slow motion.

And I really can't stand how much Snyder hates color.  He uses a sepia-esque style similar to what he did in 300.  It's supposed to be artsy, but everything just looks washed out.  And guess what, he's also releasing a black & white version.  People who hate color shouldn't be making comic book movies.

Left: Aquaman.    Right: Snyder Cut

Side note:  I'm probably one of the few original generation Star Wars fans who actually prefers the Special Editions.  They have their flaws, but I do like the new content.  But it is obvious that George Lucas was "fixing" things that bothered him, not things that bothered fans.  For example, making the ewoks blink in the Blu-Ray release.  I don't think I'd ever heard a SW fan complain that the ewoks didn't blink, but apparently it bothered Lucas.

An even better example is in the Empire Strikes Back.  It always bothered Lucas that in one scene we see Vader in Cloud City, and shortly thereafter we see him back on the Star Destroyer.  I doubt any viewer ever said, "How did he get back there so quickly?"  But it bothered Lucas, who saw it as a plot hole.  So in the Special Edition, he went full overkill, showing way too many shots of Vader's shuttle trip back to the Star Destroyer.

Well, Snyder does the same thing here.  Why were Batman's gauntlets able to block Parademon blasts?  Nobody ever wondered that, ever, because we all know Batman's a master of gadgets.  But Snyder felt the need to explain it, with a scene of Batman and Alfred constructing the gauntlets.  Anyway, while some of it was unnecessary, a lot of the additions really do make the story work better.

Bottom line?  It's a solid movie.  Objectively, it's much better than the theatrical version.  However, I would happily watch the theatrical version again and again.  It's not perfect, but it's kind of fun.  I do not intend to watch the Snyder Cut ever again.  It's an endurance test, and it's not why I watch superhero movies.

I think Snyder's style works when he has the right subject.  I liked Watchmen.  But I grew up with these characters, and all I want is a decent Justice League movie made in the same spirit as the MCU.  Bright, colorful, optimistic, and most of all, fun. 

Still, I do hope that the Snyder fans now have the movie they want.  This movie may not be for me, and I'm sad that it will probably be decades before another reboot gives us a Justice League movie that does the team justice.  

The Snyder Cut - Why?

Okay, so in 2013, Zack Snyder directed Man of Steel.  It wasn't the best Superman movie ever made, but it was serviceable.  In 2016, Snyder directed Batman Vs Superman.  It was an awful, bloated piece of dullness, and it was almost universally panned.  

In 2017, Snyder directed Justice League.  He had to quit before it was done, due to a personal tragedy, and Joss Whedon was hired to apply the final touches.  It wasn't a great movie, but it was a step up from BvS.  I actually like it, I just wish the villain had been better.

Look, Joss Whedon has his flaws.  I mean, he kind of peaked in the 90s, and a lot of his writing is... detectable.  As in, a character says a line, and you're like, "That sounds like Joss Whedon."  It's not bad, and sometimes it's pretty funny, but it's often obvious that all the characters were written by the same person.  But for the most part, I still like his writing.

In any event, I'd much rather watch a super hero movie directed by Whedon than Snyder.  Whedon actually seems to like comics, while Snyder only likes deconstructing them.  I'm really sick of the "deconstructing" trend.  It's not edgy or new, and frankly it's become just as tired as people think straight comic book movies are.

I'm convinced that Whedon's touches are the only reason Justice League was watchable.  Before he stepped in, Justice League was destined to be another four hour angsty snorefest.  Of course, the movie was too far along for Whedon to completely save, and he didn't want to alter Snyder's vision too much anyway.  So it's still a Snyder movie for the most part, and as such, it got mixed reviews.

I, for one, think it's underrated.  Like "Solo: A Star Wars Story", Justice League paid for the sins of its predecessors.  A lot of the people who hated BvS didn't even bother seeing Justice League, and I don't blame them.  I'm pretty sure a lot of the hate for the movie comes from people who didn't even see it.  But it still could have been better, and it joined the ranks of soon-to-be-forgotten super hero movies like Amazing Spider-Man movies or the Fantastic Four reboot.

And then rumors of the Snyder cut surfaced.  And for once, those rumors turned out to be true, or at the very least a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The new version of the film is on its way, much to the joy of Snyder fans.

Except... there aren't any Snyder fans.  BvS saw to that.  I mean, there's an exception to every rule, but I've yet to hear a lot of people stick up for BvS.  In fact, some of the people who hated on BvS are the same ones who demanded the Snyder cut of JL.

So what's the deal?  Explain this to me like I'm a five year old.  Why are people so interested in seeing a worse version of the same movie?  Who saw Justice League and said, "This would be better if it was twice as long, and featured a ton of slow motion dream sequences."  Might as well name Steppenwolf's mother "Martha" just for the hell of it.

Look, I want the Snyder Cut to be good, and I do plan to see it.  And I'll admit, some of the new footage does make me a little excited.  But I'm just not sure why anybody expects it to be better than the original cut.  We already know what Snyder is capable of.

DC Universe

I need my Marvel fix!  Okay, so Far From Home came out 7/2/19.  Black Widow doesn’t come out until 5/1/2020.  That’s just ten months, but it feels like ages.  Realistically, this is not the longest break they’ve had.  Iron Man 2 came out nearly two years after The Incredible Hulk, and Iron Man 3  came out almost a year after The Avengers… still, arguably the MCU wasn’t in full swing yet at the time.  This break just feels longer because I’m used to a new Marvel movie every five or six months now.

Still, this was a good time for a break, and the future does look pretty saturated.  To be honest, I’m more interested in some of the upcoming TV shows than the next three movies.  Specifically, WandaVision, Loki, and What If.  But those are pretty far off.

In the meantime, I’m catching up on some DC.  I’ve always preferred DC’s characters over Marvel’s, mostly because I got into them at an early age.  Those characters just mean more to me.  It really bugs me that DC has been in such a slump lately.  Yes, I loved the Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies, but they still made me say, “Wow, that’s almost as good as a Marvel movie.”  I mean, imagine if Pepsi’s new slogan was, “Pepsi: Almost as Good as Coke.”  It’s not a flattering look.

The big difference IMO: Marvel optimizes, DC reinvents.  The MCU takes the most iconic versions of their heroes, makes little changes like modernizing their costumes so they look less like cosplay, and cleans up the details that were too convoluted or made them less cinematic.  The current DC trend is to reimagine their characters – which is great for standalone movies like Joker (which I still need to see), but is terrible for building a shared universe. 

The DCEU feels like a set of Elseworlds graphic novels.  What if Superman wasn’t a boy scout?  What if Batman was shortsighted and reactionary?  What if Ares was a foppish gentleman?  What if Aquaman was a hunky dreamboat?  What if the Flash dressed like a robot?  Look, I love Elseworlds.  They’re some of my favorite comics to read.  But for movies, these reimaginings only work as unconnected, one-off films.

We cancelled our cable last year, and we’ve been experimenting with different streaming services.  We currently have Amazon Prime, Netflix, CBS All Access, Disney+, and DC Universe.  If you’re on the fence about DC Universe, it’s… well, it depends on how much you love DC.  It’s like this… Netflix has thousands and thousands of movies and TV shows, but I’m only interested in about fifteen of them.  DC Universe has, like, twenty movies and TV shows, but I’m still interested in about fifteen of them.  I exaggerate, but the channel really is light on content. 

But that wouldn’t bother me if, at the very least, they’d make sure they had everything DC.  They’re still missing a ton of DC movies.  I understand not having the newest releases – gotta give people time to buy those DVDs before you let them stream ‘em – but even a lot of the older DC films are conspicuously absent.  Everything just looks so sparse – you go into the movie section, and you see about fifteen movies.  You go into the TV section, you see about fifteen shows.  The only thing really big is the Animated Shorts section.  Maybe DC just isn’t big enough to warrant a channel.  Maybe Warner Bros should have started a streaming channel instead, and let DC be a subset of the programming, like Disney+ does with Marvel. 

But the content that’s there is pretty cool.  Right now we’re watching Doom Patrol, which is really good.  The DC Animated Universe from the 90s-2000s is also a welcome addition to our household, even though we already own the Justice League series on DVD.  We just watched the first episode of Harley Quinn, and it was very funny, but too adult for my wife’s tastes.  I’ll have to find time to watch it without her. 

We haven’t tried Titans yet, but it’s on our list.   And we’ll want to rewatch the first two seasons of Young Justice to prep us for season three.  So yeah, there’s a ton of content for us.  But still… it just doesn’t feel like a good value.  It’s about the same price as Disney+, but only has about a quarter of the content.  And I keep finding myself doing the math – if I were to just go ahead and buy all the DC content I want on Blu-Ray, how much would that cost versus a year of DC Universe?  But the truth is, it is a pretty good value if you’re a DC fan… just not nearly as good a deal as the Marvel fans are getting with Disney+.  YMMV.

Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Something Something

Birds of Prey was surprisingly fun.  I had low hopes because the trailers were just awful.  But they really are just bad trailers, almost like the studio is trying to sabotage the movie.  Don't fall for it.  And don't fall for the huge campaign against this movie being perpetuated by sexist dudebros on Twitter.

First things first - Get over the whole "they don't look like they do in the comics" bullshit.  Movies have a history of changing things up.  When Batman came out in 1989, they gave him a new black costume to make him darker and more cinematic.  The 2000 X-Men movie didn't even attempt to dress them like their comic book versions.  The absolute best version of the Joker - from 2008's The Dark Knight - is almost nothing like the comics version.  

Also, recognize that BoP is basically an origin movie.  Just because these characters don't look like their comic equivalents now, doesn't mean they won't later.

Second thing - Those of you who are worried that the movie looks too "woke" - as in, has a SJW bias - it really doesn't.  Yes, the main characters are all women, and yes, most of the males in the movie are psychopaths, and yes, there is an overall theme of female independence... but beyond that, it really doesn't hit you over the head with any sort of message or agenda.  Hell, Deadpool had a stronger "treat women like people" message than BoP does.

And speaking of Deadpool, the writing is similar.  Harley makes a lot of fourth wall jokes, and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously.  I didn't think it was quite as violent as Deadpool, but it does earn its R rating.

The characters:
Harley Quinn - Despite the Birds of Prey getting top billing, it's Harley's movie.  If you liked her from Suicide Squad, you'll like this movie.  Her best moments are when she reminds you she was once a psychiatrist, and lapses into psychobabble until she's distracted by something shiny.

Black Canary - She really didn't have much to do with her comic book counterpart, but she was still a solid character.  I felt like it didn't give her enough background to explain why she was such a good fighter.  A lot of people complained about them hiring an African American actress.  To me, that's like complaining they cast 6'2" Hugh Jackman to play a much shorter X-Man.  If they nail the role, skin tone is a tiny quibble.  And she did fine.

Huntress - She was my favorite character in the movie, but she doesn't get much screentime.  Her personality didn't seem very fleshed out, but I think that's because when she's not living for revenge, even she doesn't know who she is.  I saw touches of Starlord - the whole "Haven't you heard of me" shtick from the first GotG.  But other times, she almost feels like she didn't have any scripted lines.  Still, I liked her.

Renee Montoya - I didn't really like her.  This version of Montoya was disillusioned and fed up with the system, and she was unnecessarily foul-mouthed and irrationally unprofessional.  There was a great joke in there about how cops do their best work after they've been ordered to abandon the case and put on suspension, but this Montoya is so disrespectful to her coworkers that I'm surprised she's lasted this long on the force.

Cassandra Cain - She's a great character, but I wish they'd named her something else.  She has nothing to do with the comic book character of the same name.  This wouldn't bother me, except Cassie was a great Batgirl in the comics, and this closes the door on that version of Batgirl getting a movie any time soon.

Black Mask - Ewan MacGregor isn't bad, but he feels a little miscast.  My wife suggested Sam Rockwell might have been better for that role, and I see her point.  Black Mask doesn't really remind me of his comic book version here, but I never thought he was that interesting in the comics anyway.

The fighting choreography is fantastic.  I've heard that the fight scenes were done by the same person who did The Transporter and John Wick.  It really shows.  Great use of improvised weapons and slow-mo shots.  Unfortunately, sometimes you could spot the victim of a move getting into position to take the blow, or helping the attacker throw them.  That's an editing problem.  But the fight scenes are worth the price of admission.

I didn't like the whole 70's lounge aesthetic.  It reminded me of Quentin Tarantino and why I hate his movies.  But it wasn't so bad as to affect my overall enjoyment.

When they handed this movie to Margot Robbie, she got to choose between this and Gotham City Sirens, which would be about the trio of Harley, Catwoman, and Ivy.  Robbie chose Birds of Prey because she wanted to give the spotlight to some lesser-known characters.  But if BoP does well, Robbie will probably get to proceed with the Sirens movie.  I really want that to happen, but so far BoP isn't doing well.  So if you're reading this, please go see BoP.

I'm not going to say Birds of Prey was a masterpiece - it's just a fun afternoon, and nothing I need to see a second time.  But it's much better than the trailers make it out to be.

Superman - Deus Ex Machina?

Superman is one of the world's most popular superheroes, and yet an awful lot of comic fans hate him.

People who hate Superman often refer to him as a walking Deus Ex Machina.  He’s just so powerful, and he just has too many powers.  They say that nothing is a challenge for him, and that his comics are boring.  But they’re wrong, of course.  A character’s power level has little to do with how interesting their comics are.  They still have ways to create drama in Superman comics: They give him even stronger villains, or they put him in situations where his powers aren’t of any use.  Sometimes they also depower him, but that’s kind of cheating.  I mean, if I wanted to read a comic about a depowered super hero, I’d just pick a hero who has no powers.

Superman’s actually pretty versatile.  When he fights someone who is his physical match, the stories remind me of Godzilla.  Two incredibly tough creatures tossing each other into buildings, causing all kinds of destruction to the city around them.  When he fights someone magical like Mr. Mxyzptlk, it becomes more cerebral, with Superman solving puzzles to defeat them.  People think his only weakness is Kryptonite, but he’s also quite vulnerable to magic, alien weapons, and the fear of losing his loved ones.  The fact that he’s a big ol’ boy scout is probably his biggest weakness of all, because it means he has to hold back his full strength in order not to seriously hurt his weaker enemies. 

Yes, he has a lot of powers.  In a universe with so many super heroes in it, somebody had to win the super power lottery.  But it’s the writing that makes the difference.  

Batman, on the other hand… 

Oh, Batman.  For a guy without super powers, he has every ability it’s possible for a human to have.

Let’s see, he’s the World’s greatest detective, one of the world’s top ten martial artists, an expert ninja trained by the world’s greatest assassins… He’s one of the world’s richest people, which gives him access to the world’s greatest tech, which includes his utility belt, which, I’m sorry, but rivals the Sonic Screwdriver for being able to do whatever the plot requires at the time.

Batman has a genius level intellect, a mastery of science, and he has a photographic memory.  He’s at peak physical strength, and knows 127 forms of martial arts. He's been trained as a stage magician, he’s an escape artist, a master of disguise, he’s multilingual, he’s a pilot, he has a computer database with so much information that he can discover any enemy’s weakness, and he has an ability to plan ahead that borders on precognition.  Plus, he has a persona that strikes fear into his enemies, despite being every bit as moral as Superman when it comes to taking a life.

If you look at power levels, the only big difference between Superman and Batman is that Batman’s abilities aren’t considered “powers”.  And frankly, that’s just semantics.  If you want to argue what’s actually possible, Batman’s abilities really aren’t that much more realistic than Superman’s.  Yes, it’s technically possible for humans to do the things Batman does.  But for a single human to master every skill Batman has mastered?  That would take more years than the average human lifespan.

Besides, if he needs to, Batman can replicate any of Superman’s powers using technology.  So basically, Batman can do anything Superman can do, and much, much more.  If anybody is a walking Deus Ex Machina, it’s Batman.  The only reason Superman is always the target of this type of criticism is because comic fans prefer dark, brooding heroes to angelic paragons of morality.  So leave Superman alone!

That said...

I do wish Superman’s writers didn’t feel the need to make him the best at everything he does.  I mean, he already has the most powers, he doesn’t have to be the best at them too.  There shouldn’t be any question as to whether the Flash is faster than Superman.  Speed is the Flash’s only power.  Just give him this one.  Superman’s speed is just as impressive without having to make him as fast as the Flash.  Nor does he need to be the strongest or the most invulnerable, either. 

In many ways I find the original version of Superman more interesting.  Back when he was first designed, he was faster than a speeding bullet, but only barely.  He was more powerful than a locomotive, but that doesn’t mean he could lift a mountain.  He could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but he couldn’t actually fly.  And it was said that “nothing short of an exploding shell could penetrate his skin,” which is a lot more vulnerable than he is now.  But over the years, the writers kept giving him more and more powers, and his existing powers became stronger and stronger. 

One of my high school friends used to draw his own comic books.  He had a tendency to design absurdly powerful characters, basically gods who could only be challenged by other gods.  I remember this one character he showed me.  It was basically Superman, but with about a dozen extra powers.  

I remember my friend telling me that the only way this character could be killed is if you fired twenty-one suns into his chest.  You know, assuming you can build a cannon that fires suns in the first place, and then assuming you can get the character to stand still that long.  And how do you even load such a weapon?  Anyway, I told my friend, “Dude, there’s not going to be any drama there.  Characters who can’t be killed are so boring!”  My friend thought about that for a minute, and said, “Fine.  Thirteen suns, then.”

So my point is, Superman is a lot more interesting than some people give him credit for.  But he’s at his most interesting when he isn’t overpowered.

Robert Battinson

Half the internet says Robert Pattinson is a terrible actor.  The other half has actually seen him in movies besides Twilight.  Personally, I haven't seen him in enough things to have a strong opinion one way or another.

But in my opinion, it doesn't really matter who plays Batman.  The character is supposed to have the personality of a dead fish - that is 100% by-the-comics canon, fight me.  The action scenes will be done by a stuntman, so Pattinson only has to "act" sporadically, and only with the bottom three inches of his face.  The qualifications it takes to play Batman are thus:  Have a pulse, don't have a beard.

He only needs to have personality in Bruce Wayne mode, but since Bruce is the real mask, that barely matters as well.  Everyone who has ever played Bruce Wayne has portrayed the character differently; there doesn't seem to be a canon way for him to act.

But all I'm really saying is don't judge Pattinson by Twilight.  Much like the Star Wars prequels, the Twilight series made all its actors look worse than they really are.  I mean, look how much Anna Kendrick's career has taken off.  Either some directors just don't know how to get the most out of their actors, or some scripts just don't bring out an actor's full ability.  I don't know. 

My prediction is that he'll be somewhere in the Kilmer range: better than Affleck and Clooney, but not as good as Bale or Keaton.

Shazam!

S'alright.

Shazam! doesn't take itself too seriously.  It feels like an 80s super hero movie with modern special effects.  The main reason to see this one is for its humor, which is great in some places, but falls flat in others. 

It is a kid's movie.  In fact, I was surprised by two or three scenes I felt were too much for younger children.  It was so close to being a perfect family film, that I'm not sure why they crossed that line.  I'm usually not one for censorship, but there were a couple of scary scenes and curse words that could have been toned down without the movie suffering at all.

When "Transformers: The Movie" came out in the 80s, they threw in a couple of superfluous curse words just to make sure it got a PG rating.  They wanted to make sure kids brought their parents so they could point out the toys they wanted.  I'd almost think the same thing happened in Shazam!, but do people still drop their little kids off at the theater any more?

The craziest thing is that out of all the modern DC movies, this silly movie has the best villain.  It's a low bar, sure, but Dr. Sivana was much better than the most recent Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Steppenwolf, Ares, Incubus, or any of the villains in Aquaman.  Sivana had a deeper backstory, better acting, and a pretty cool look.  It's amazing they wasted him on such a shallow movie.

The pacing of the movie felt a little off.  It felt like the climax started halfway through, and then the finale went on and on forever.  It was still exciting and funny, but it just felt like an unusually long final fight.

Overall, it's a decent film, I'm just not sure who the target audience is.  I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think I'll ever watch it again.

Aquaman

The Aquaman movie is a blast.

It's silly, it's campy, and at its core it's a by-the-numbers standard superhero flick.  But it's also visually stunning and has some great action scenes.  I can't in good conscience claim that it's a "good" movie, but it's definitely worth the price of a ticket.  

DC needed this right now.  They keep trying to reinvent their superheroes, when audiences are wanting iconic versions first.   Marvel's doing it right.  Thor: Ragnarok reinvented the character by taking away his hammer and changing the nature of his powers.  But they waited until the third movie to do so, after they'd already established an origin story audiences were familiar with.

They let him evolve and mature into a new version of Thor, instead of presenting audiences with an unfamiliar character and saying, "Hey, this is Thor, not like the Thor you grew up on, but we're calling him Thor anyway."  DC is trying to rush things.

There's a lot going on in Aquaman, almost too much.  They flesh out his origin with several flashbacks, he fights two of his most well-known villains (Black Manta and Ocean Master) when a single villain would have been fine, there's a war between underwater kingdoms, he goes on a quest to find an ancient artifact, he fights for his birthright, and so on. 

At 2 hours and 22 minutes, it' a little long.  But honestly, I had too much fun to care.  It has more than enough action scenes, but even the exposition scenes are so full of eye candy that they don't slow it down. 

It was also cool to see Jango Fett as Aquaman's dad.  Hmmm... and I just noticed both Batman and Aquaman have fathers named "Thomas".  I can't wait to see the climax of "Batman v Aquaman".

Okay, I suppose I've got to list the downsides:  The script wasn't great, the plot was full of convenient contrivances, and the acting sometimes felt artificial.  Black Manta especially made me laugh, because with his mask on he sounded like Dark Helmet.  

But this is one of those movies where the end product is so much more enjoyable than its flawed parts.  I wish the current DC movie universe was more consistent with its quality, so I could buy them all and be proud to have them on my shelf.  The series is far from great, but Aquaman is definitely one of the standouts.

Who Would Win?

A few years ago I was reading a thread on some message board.  The subject: Could Superman beat the Hulk?  

Of course, hundreds of Hulk fanboys cited their evidence, while Superman lovers brought up their facts.  At least two canon examples were presented of Superman actually beating the Hulk, but the Hulk fans dismissed those issues for whatever reasons.

I think one problem comes from the fact that Hulk fanboys just picture them trading punches until one falls down.  This turns it into a simple mathematical problem.  Who hits harder?  Who can take the most punches?  But it doesn't work like that.  Superman's had his share of fistfights, but he uses his mind as least as often as he uses his fists.  He constantly faces villains stronger than himself, otherwise his comics would be boring.  If he can't beat them with his fists, he beats them with his wits.

So while a strict boxing match could go either way, an actual comic battle might end up with Superman grabbing the Hulk and flying off into space somewhere.  Or building walls around him at super speed.  Or sucking all the oxygen out of the room.  Or zipping off to the Fortress of Solitude and returning with a Kryptonian device that disperses gamma rays.

The question wasn't "Could Superman beat the Hulk in a straight fist fight where no one flies or does anything clever?"  It wasn't "Could the version of the Hulk in 1997 beat the version of Superman from 1983?"  It wasn't "Would Superman absolutely always beat the Hulk in every possible scenario?"  It was a simple, straight, "Could Superman beat the Hulk", a question which was answered with the first actual example from the comics.

Superman obviously can beat the Hulk, since he has.  "Oh, the Marvel vs DC fight doesn't count because that was a version of the Hulk that gets weaker when he's angry."  Sorry, nope, you didn't put that in the question.  There are always going to be external factors.

The Batman ones are especially funny, because the first question asked is always, "Does he have prep time?"  Batman doesn't need prep time, he's been planning for every possibly fight for decades.  One of his defining traits is that he's always ridiculously prepped.  If the Hulk ever showed up to fight Batman, Batman would already have  plan for it.  Despite existing in different universes, Batman probably keeps an anti-Hulk weapon tucked away in his utility belt.

So I hate to burst your bubble, but here is the answer to every "Who Would Win" question:

Any fictional character can beat any other fictional character if the story is written that way.

There ya go.  If Jar Jar Binks can take out a battle tank by tripping over things, then Superman can beat the Hulk.  If Squirrel Girl can beat Galactus, then Superman can beat the Hulk. If Jeff Goldblum can defeat an alien armada by using a computer virus, then Superman can beat the Hulk.

'Nuff said.

Justice League

Just got back from the Justice League movie.

It's still not as fun as the Marvel films, but it's an improvement over Batman v Superman.  Simply put, it's less depressing.  In some ways it felt like watching several mini-films focusing on different characters, until the end when they all fight together.  With that in mind, I'm going to break my thoughts down by character. 

Batman: I'm still not a fan of Batfleck, but I enjoyed his performance here more than I did in BvS. His personality seemed inconsistent to me - there were times when it felt like the writers were trying to make him into Tony Stark, and other times when he was still as dull as he was in BvS.  Technically I think this was the result of multiple script writers, but in-universe I'm going to chalk it up to this being late in his career.  This Batman has been fighting crime for 20 years, so he's learned to lighten up sometimes.

The Flash: He was the tipping point that makes the movie watchable.  Without his humor, the movie would have been another snoozefest.  He's not my favorite version of the Flash, and his costume hurts my eyes, but overall I like him.  I can't wait to see him in future films.

Wonder Woman:  As usual, Gal Gadot is the best thing in the movie.  She doesn't do much here that we didn't already see in the last two films, but she feels like the most solid character to me. 

Cyborg: He was pretty good.  I like what he brings to the team.  However, there isn't much to him yet.

Aquaman: While I generally like his character design, I didn't like the surfer dude aspect of his personality - he's supposed to be Atlantean royalty, and yet he sounds like a caveman.

Martian Manhunter: Made you look.

Steppenwolf: Ugh, this villain was terrible.  I don't know if they should have gone ahead and used Darkseid, but Steppenwolf was so dull.  He was two dimensional and badly rendered.  I did like the his outfit (he looked more like Ares than Ares did in Wonder Woman), but I wish they'd picked someone with more name recognition.  I guess with all the hero backstories going on, they didn't want to use up a villain who would need a lengthy origin story.

Bottom line:
It's not as good as Wonder Woman, but it's fun and gives me hope for the future.  Maybe DC will learn their lesson.  If the next Justice League movie uses a tone more like the animated series, this cast should work just fine.

Wonder Woman, GotG2, and Spider-Man Homecoming

So, in the past month I’ve seen three super hero movies - Spider-Man Homecoming, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and Wonder Woman.  All three were incredible, and you can’t go wrong with any of them.

Possible minor spoilers ahead.

Wonder Woman

This was my least favorite of the three, but don’t take that as a negative when the competition’s so fierce.  It’s like saying pizza is your least favorite out of pizza, sex, and video games.  It’s just that a lot of my love for the Wonder Woman movie is actually relief.  Relief that the current DC movie continuity isn’t completely cursed, and relief that a female-led superhero movie can actually do well.  The movie’s biggest strength is that it fills me with hope for future movies.  Wonder Woman gets so much right, and was so necessary to the movie industry, that it feels like sacrilege to point out the flaws. 

But to be completely honest, I think the movie is sort of generic.  90% of what I loved about the movie only worked because it was Wonder Woman.  If they’d swapped her out for a male character (let’s say Hercules if we want to keep the general theme), it would have been just another forgettable action flick.  I love the movie, but it’s not going to be as rewatchable as the Marvel films.

Most movies try to save the best stuff for the end, but I found WW more entertaining at the beginning.  The first half of the movie is outstanding, but the it gets a little dull towards the end, and the final battle is just your standard boss fight.  The villains didn’t exactly sweep me off my feet, and the casting of the Big Bad seemed like an odd choice.  More than anything I see the movie as a foot in the door, proof that female superheroes can succeed in Hollywood after all.  In a future where female-led superhero films are more common, I’m not sure Wonder Woman will really stand out much.  But the success of Wonder Woman means that future might actually happen, and that’s very important.

Guardians of the Galaxy 2

This is my favorite of the three.  If you liked the first one, it’s more of the same, though there’s more character development this time.  While I love the first GotG, the characters were one-dimensional quip-generators, kind of like Suicide Squad in space.  The sequel gives them more depth, which slows down the movie but not enough to make it boring.

The opening battle is one of my favorite movie sequences of all time.  From the trailers, that particular fight looked underwhelming to me.  But in the film itself, they actually made the scene better by taking the focus off the fighting itself.  For spoilers sake I won’t to go into detail, but it had me dancing and singing in my seat.

People find me strange because I’m not very much into music.  (Well, that’s not the only reason they find me strange.)  In my life I’ve owned maybe 3 tapes and 6 CDs, and the ones I’ve owned haven’t seen a lot of use.   I don’t have to listen to music while I’m driving, I don’t go to concerts, and I never just sit and listen to music while doing nothing else.  I generally consider music as something to keep it from being too quiet, but I've never been into it.  And yet, roughly 50% of my love for the GotG movies has to do with the soundtrack.  The music ties into the action so well, that I simply can’t imagine the same films with a standard issue orchestral score.  I’m happy to report GotG2’s soundtrack is just as good as the first, if not better.

GotG2 is definitely the most rewatchable of the three movies I’m reviewing here, and I can’t wait to wear out the blu-ray when it’s released.  I will say that of the three, this movie is the least child-friendly (which is a weird thing to say about a movie with a talking raccoon).  I don’t know if I would bring a small child to this one, as some of the language is a little strong for young ears (including a scene where they talk about Ego's penis), and some of the death scenes are a bit graphic.  Not actually bloody, just… explicit.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

A lot of people complain about reboots, and the Spider-Man franchise is their go-to example.  Personally, I’m okay rebooting a series if you have a good reason for doing so.  But I do hold a reboot to higher standards – did you really have an idea worth throwing out the old continuity?   In this case, definitely yes.  Bringing Spidey into the MCU was the best thing that could have happened to the character.  It changes the character so much.  In the previous films he’s pretty much the only superhero in the world (as far as we know), but in the MCU he has people to look up to.  Instead of just “I can outdo myself and help more people,” now there’s the additional element of “I want to impress the Avengers.”

I think the smartest thing they did was skip his origin story almost entirely.  At this point everyone in the audience knows how Peter got his powers, and there was no reason to waste screen time on it.  There’s one short conversation about getting bitten by a radioactive spider, but there’s almost no mention of Uncle Ben or how power relates to responsibility.  Instead Peter’s moral code is just based around “it’s the right thing to do,” which is deep enough for a 15-year old boy, as far as I’m concerned.  I think the Civil War movie summed it up best when Peter said, “When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen? They happen because of you.”  Which is basically a different way of saying “with great power…” but sounds a lot more like how people actually talk.

Michael Keaton did a great job, and I found him a lot more believable than the ax-crazy moustache-twirling villains Spider-Man usually fights.  In some ways I found his motivations a little too understandable, and I have to wonder how many of my friends would turn to supervillainy if presented with the same circumstances.  Occasionally he'd lapse into his Beetlejuice voice for a second, which was distracting, but I didn't mind.

I loved the overall tone of the film.  When the Ant-Man movie came out I kept saying how glad I was to see them using different genres.  Instead of everything being just a “Superhero Action” film, some of them focus on comedy, sci-fi, drama, and so on.  Well, Homecoming is a high school comedy that also happens to be a super hero film.  I’ve seen several reviewers compare Homecoming to a modern John Hughes film, which might be giving Homecoming too much credit, but it’s easy to see what they mean.

So if you only get to see one of the above movies, which should you see?

Well, GotG2 is my favorite, but for other people I’m going to have to recommend Spider-Man.  I think it has more universal appeal.  But let’s face it, if you’re fanatic enough to be reading this, you’re probably going to see all three eventually.

DCTV

Gotham - We watched the first five or six episodes of Gotham, but it was just too dark for us.  I've never been able to get into criminal-focused shows.  Real life is depressing enough, and I'd rather focus on the good guys than the bad.

Arrow - I've tried to get into Arrow, but I just haven't.  It's not as dark as Gotham, but it's still a bit too dark for me.  Plus the cheesy parts are a little too cheesy, probably because they stand out more against all the dark.  When the whole Arrow team gets into costume, it just looks like cosplay to me, because the rest of the world is so gritty and real.

The Flash - This is the best super hero show on television.  Yes it's even cheesier than Arrow, but that's the theme of the show and it's just good fun.  It's like a live action cartoon.  The cast really works well together, and I really enjoy seeing their takes on DC villains.

Legends of Tomorrow - It's kind of fun.  I enjoy watching it.  But, I don't know, it just doesn't feel structured enough for me.  They threw all these characters into a blender and hoped something cohesive would come out, but really it's just kind of a chaotic mess.  But it's a fun mess.

I think my biggest problem with LOT so far, is that I feel like I've seen most of what it has to offer.  They spent the first season bouncing around from time period to time period, always with the same mission (track down Vandal Savage in that time).  I like some of the characters more than others, but I don't find myself in love with any of them.  The breakout character is Captain Cold, and even he got less interesting as time goes on.

But some of the things I've heard about season 2 have piqued my interest, so I'm still going to give it another go.

Supergirl - I'm trying so hard to like this.  Supergirl is one of my favorite comic book characters, and I really want more female superhero shows to gain popularity.  Producers are so leery of female superhero movies, because most of them have tanked hard.  Never mind that those movies were just bad on many levels that had nothing to do with the hero's gender.  If we can just get a few good ones out there to break the perceived curse, then maybe it will open the door for more to be made.

But honestly, the Supergirl TV series is lukewarm at best.  I really like the casting job on the title character, but the rest of the cast is kind of meh.  Hardly anybody has a lot of chemistry together, and I just don't like how some characters are portrayed.  The government agent characters are especially annoying, going back and forth from "all business" to "touchy feely" so much I get whiplash.

And I really don't like most of the villains.  There seems to be a tradition now where the first episode sets up where most of the show's villains will come from.  It makes the writing easier, and keeps you from wasting a lot of screen time on villain origin stories.  Smallville had the kryptonite give everybody different super powers.  The Flash's villains mostly got their powers the same way he got his.  Well, Supergirl has Fort Rozz, a Kryptonian prison from which powerful aliens keep escaping.  I'm just not digging that plotline.

There's an overarching plot about a group of evil Kryptonians, and frankly they're just boring.  I've never been fond of having too many Kryptonians in a Superman-family series; the Kryptonians bored me in Lois and Clark, they bored me in Smallville, and they bore me here.  I've always preferred the continuities where Kryptonian survivors were kept to a minimum.

Supergirl's not great, but it's got room for growth, and I really hope it gets better in the second season.  I know there's going to be a lot of changes with it changing networks, so hopefully it will be enough to save the show.

DCAU - Of course, none of these shows are anywhere near as awesome as the Justice League and Young Justice animated shows.   That entire era of the DCAU was some of the best stuff on television.  Unfortunately, as of the “Flashpoint” animated movie, that era is pretty much over.  The new series of movies is a lot more adult, and a lot less fun.  I still keep adding the new animated movies to my Netflix queue, and I don't hate them... but man, they used to be so much better.