Superman, Thy Name Is Jim

In a recent post, I mentioned that there’s a new Superman reboot in the works, overseen by Christopher Nolan (‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Inception’) and directed by Zack Snyder (‘300’, ‘Watchmen’). While this definitely counts as a dream team, especially considering Mr. Nolan’s success in reinvigorating the Caped Crusader (that’s Batman for the non-fans out there), speculation has already begun regarding the most important factor of all: Who will (or can) play Superman?

According to Comingsoon.Net, actor Arnie Hammer (‘The Social Network’), who has apparently “made a lot of people’s Superman fantasy-casting lists”, reports that the studio may be seeking a more mature (35-40) actor for the role. As the interviewer notes, this could be taken as a sign of hope that Jon Hamm (‘Mad Men’, pictured below) could be up for the part.

While I think I could buy Mr. Hamm as Superman, I am not quite convinced he could pull off a Clark Kent. This is an important factor when casting the Man of Steel, because it means that the actor needs to be able to alternate between the almighty king of the superheroes and a clueless geek at the drop of a hat, as Christopher Reeve accomplished with ease in the classic ‘Superman’ films decades ago. Actors who could fill Mr. Reeve’s shoes aren’t too common in Hollywood either, as was made painfully obvious in Bryan Singer’s watchable entry ‘Superman Returns.’

I could dance around the subject, but instead I’ll just say it: Jim Caviezel should play Superman.

Best known for ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and ‘The Count of Monte Cristo,’ and recently starring in the independent sci-fi adventure film ‘Outlander’ and AMC’s mini-series ‘The Prisoner’ alongside Sir Ian Mckellen, Caviezel has appeared in just about every genre. His portrayal of Christ in ‘The Passion’ and Edmond Dantes in ‘Monte Cristo’ are of particular interest. As Dantes, Caviezel takes audiences on a whirlwind adventure of love and betrayal, and his strength of character carries the whole plot (along with an exceptionally despicable villain in co-star Guy Pearce). As for ‘The Passion,’ Caviezel’s casting was perhaps the most important factor in the success of the film, more so even than Gibson’s directing, and that strength of character will be a necessity if Nolan and Snyder want to be successful in reintroducing the "Last Son of Krypton" to a modern audience.

Now that’s a Superman. Sure, he might not have Jon Hamm’s chin, but neither did Brandon Routh (who wasn’t a great Superman by any means, but few could doubt Mr. Caviezel would have been a superior choice).

As for playing Clark Kent, Caviezel has such a traditional outlook on life that you’d think he’d been born in Smallville himself. Superman needs humility to complement his power, and Caviezel is as humble as they come. His ability to alternate between meek and powerful as an actor was made evident in 'Monte Cristo', which also showed us he can rock a cape in his role as the Count. In his personal life he’s an outspoken Catholic, and there’s more than a little Christology in the original Superman films for him to develop, which I’m sure he could accomplish beautifully.

And just imagine his future resume: “Have played both Superman and Jesus.” What more could an actor wish for?

UPDATE: It looks like Snyder and company will be pursuing an unknown actor for the role. So in that case... Caviezel for Jor-El!!

The War Against Free Speech

What do comedian Vince Vaughn, Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, and journalist Juan Williams (pictured above) all have in common?

In the past few weeks, each of these men has become a participant in the ongoing struggle against the symptom of cultural decay that has until recently held Western society in an unshakable stranglehold. I say “recently” for the obvious reason that the recent experiences of each of these men- Juan Williams in particular- have had a mildly deleterious effect on this not-so-silent killer of free speech, a morally relativistic sentiment more commonly referred to as “Political Correctness”- which Dictionary.com defines as “adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology,” and which the Urban Dictionary defines as “people who try so hard to say the right thing they end up just looking like twats.” I’m partial to the second definition, myself.

In case you don’t spend much free time watching the news, skimming political blogs, or listening to Whoopi Goldberg politely converse with Bill O’Reilly (NOT!) on ‘The View’ (the who?), here are a few headlines you might have missed, in no particular order:

1. Dutch politician Geert Wilders faces trial in his home country for expressing his negative feelings concerning Islam

2. (Former) Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris- whose brain-child “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day” caused her to receive numerous death threats- goes into hiding without so much as a murmur from most major news outlets

3. Gay rights organization GLAAD causes an uproar over a movie trailer in which Vince Vaughn makes a supposedly offensive joke concerning the masculinity (or lack thereof) of electric cars, but remains silent when Islamists demand that gay performer Adam Lambert cancel his Malaysian performance (which he did not, while agreeing to tone down certain aspects)

4. NPR fires reporter Juan Williams for making a statement about Muslims that the network found bigoted (but that clearly wasn't)

5. The Obama administration joins the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) in attempting to pass a resolution in the U.N. barring the “negative stereotyping of religions.”

If you can decipher the true intentions behind news item #5, you can see a clear pattern here. Despite the protections of the First Amendment, we are observing a trend in government and media to suppress speech linking terrorism to Islam. Which makes sense, because clearly there isn’t any link between Islamic fundamentalism and Jihadist violence. What, you mean you don’t think Islam is the “religion of peace?” Well, aren’t you just the stereotypical right-wing loony bird!

That the movement to criminalize any individual in a Western nation raising valid complaints against the basic tenets of the Islamic faith has gained so much traction is cause for concern, to say the least. Thanks to his legal team, Geert Wilders managed to evade his charges, but would he have had the same good fortune in any other European court? This is altogether unclear, and that fact alone should frighten us all- including truly moderate Muslims who still see the West as a beacon of hope.

Ask yourself this: What could be a more Western value than freedom of expression? Is this capacity for free discussion and debate not the cornerstone of our entire societal history? Is it not the source of reason with which good ideas flourish and bad ideas are banished to the ash heap of history? With what other underlying value in mind could we have possibly turned back the tides of the numerous communisms and fascisms of the twentieth century?

And yet, as the news items above have shown, our quaint little Freedom of Speech is not a liberty we ought take for granted.

Since I don’t have the resources with which to properly inform anybody adequately about these cases, here are a few links to follow for the best summaries (which all just happen to be from the National Review):

· What Wilder’s Trial Means: A column by the editors of National Review Online

· Context of the Wilders Case: Just as the title indicates

· Obstructed View: Concerning the effect of some of these recent events on free speech

· The Closing of NPR’s Mind: The plight of Juan Williams (pictured at top) and modern political discourse

· Islam And Totalitarianism: By Andrew C. McCarthy

Now, I wouldn’t want anyone to think that my source material is cut from singularly conservative cloth, so here’s my version of a curveball: A speech by the vocal British atheist Christopher Hitchens, concerning free speech in general. I’ve found myself watching snippets of this talk on Youtube quite often as of late, and I encourage everyone to take a look. Sadly, there are few public figures capable of arguing so passionately in defense of free speech, thought, and writing. Were it not for his positions regarding Biblical scripture, he’d make a great NRO columnist as well.

But since Mr. Hitchens tends to (sloppily) link his critique of extremist Islam to other Abrahamic faith systems, be sure to take a look at Word On Fire’s counterargument concerning organized religion here. Gotta love that Father Barron.

What's right with Resident Evil?

There are few things in the world of cinema less exciting than the prospect of a movie franchise based on video games. The problem is a simple one: Why would fans, or any other audience members for that matter, bother to pay the increasingly hefty ticket price when it costs roughly the same amount to rent the game itself for a week and totally immerse yourself in the world of interactive virtual storytelling? These were some of the challenges facing writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson as he prepared to initiate what would eventually become a major B-Movie franchise based on the bestselling ‘Resident Evil’ videogames.

Not surprisingly, critics didn’t see much of value in the series, and have successively panned each of the four films to date. Despite all that bashing, however, the series has only gotten more successful with time. The most recent entry, ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife’, has made over 250 million dollars worldwide thus far, all for a budget of 60 million. As a result, the as-yet-untitled 'Resident Evil 5' is already in the works for future release, notwithstanding the "wisdom" of the so-called top critics.

So let's take a few steps back and ask ourselves: How far off-base are the critics concerning the allegedly poor quality of Mr. Anderson's work? If the directing is so amateur, the acting so terrible, and the script so pathetically two-dimensional as reviewers would have us believe, what is it that keeps audiences coming back for more? What does Anderson understand about success that critics and the more artsy-fartsy members of the film community don’t? The answer is deceptively simple, and if there are directors out there who would rather entertain their audiences than come up with yet another botched attempt at leftist self-promotion, they’ll start to pay attention- if they care about the weight of their wallets, that is.

Hollywood has been coming out with zombie flicks ever since George A. Romero brought us ‘Night of the Living Dead’ in 1968. Since then, there has been a never-ending barrage of movies starring the walking dead, from “Day of the Dead” to “I Am Legend” (which, for all of it’s ‘Cast Away’-ness, is still a zombie movie in my book). Unfortunately for '28 Weeks Later,' the more graphic the gore and the more serious the tone, the more disturbing- and less enjoyable- the zombie genre becomes.

I haven't taken a poll or anything, but I’d be willing to wager that the average moviegoer isn’t too comfortable with graphic depictions of cannibalism. I know I’m not. Sure, ‘I Am Legend’ didn’t feature any gruesome violence (although much was implied), but that’s probably why there weren’t any people around for the zombies to eat in the first place.

Since 'Resident Evil' strikes the tone of B-Movie cheese right off the bat, the zombie-violence that follows registers as "cool" or "fun" rather than "gross" or "distressing." There's nothing traumatic about watching cute girls shooting big guns at big monsters, that's for sure.

There's also the fact that only in 'Resident Evil' are viewers treated to a variety of zombie-like creatures, as opposed to a legion of simple undead cannibals. Thanks to the experiments of the villainous Umbrella Corporation, the slow-moving, brain-craving drones are the least of our heroes' worries, especially compared with an invulnerable seven-foot axe-wielding executioner, or a pack of skinless Doberman Pinschers with a taste for live prey. And it doesn't hurt that whenever the protagonists are pitted against this fearsome menagerie, the result is a gloriously stylized fight to the death, slow motion style.

But the real reason the ‘Resident Evil’ series has been such a success (as far as zombie movies go) is a result of its relationship with ‘Walker Texas Ranger.’ Yep, as is the case with all things good in life, Chuck Norris was at least indirectly responsible. Don’t believe me? Here’s what you’re going to do:

1. Print out a copy of a ‘Walker Texas Ranger’ episode script.
2. Change the character of “Walker” from Chuck Norris to an attractive female lead (Milla Jovovich).
3. Cross out the name “Walker” where it appears in the script and replace it with the name “Alice.”
4. Cross out the word “Texas” anywhere it appears and replace it with the phrase “post-apocalyptic Earth,”, “abandoned research facility”, or something similar.
5. Cross out the phrases “drug smugglers,” “human traffickers,” “gang members,” or similar phrases. Now replace them with the word “zombies.”

If you have followed these steps correctly, you should currently be holding a script for one of the four ‘Resident Evil’ movies, finally grasping just how cool this franchise is. Oh, yes, and now you’re updating your Netflix queue.

Up In The Sky!

In the wake of the unexpected phenomenon that was Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight,’ it would seem that the bigwigs at DC Comics are trying to seize an opportunity to match the sudden rise of Marvel Studios, currently raking in a considerable profit from ‘Iron Man 2’ DVD sales, with no fewer than three expected blockbusters- ‘Thor,’ ‘The First Avenger: Captain America,’ and the highly anticipated ‘The Avengers’- forthcoming.

While the writers at DC haven’t the luxury of their own film studio, next year will see the release of ‘Green Lantern,’ starring the action hero/funny-man Ryan Reynolds, and based on the fan-favorite hero of the same name. As with Marvel’s upcoming ‘Thor’, ‘Green Lantern’ is new to the big screen, leaving him plenty of space to thrill audiences with only a passing familiarity with the source material. And as we all learned from ‘Iron Man,’ a little originality can go a long way at the box office.

Of course, originality isn’t always such a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with, say, a character who has been around for over 70 years and whose storyline is familiar to most Americans born after 1938.

We’re talking, of course, about Superman, soon to return to theaters courtesy of producer/general overseer Christopher Nolan and director Zack Snyder (‘300'). Considering that Nolan and Snyder are respectively responsible for two of the most successful conservative films in recent memory (referring to ‘300’ and ‘Dark Knight,’ of course), news that they’d be working together on any project would be enough to thrill the countless blacklisted Hollywood conservatives, not to mention the legions of conservative audience members currently starving for an ounce of sanity from American filmmakers. But a SUPERMAN film, of all things?

Be still my comic-loving heart.

Now, is there still a chance they’ll screw it all up? Of course. With a character as near and dear to America’s heart as Supes, that chance is multiplied tenfold. But besides the challenge of locating a suitable actor, finding the right balance and style for the visual effects, and the innumerable technological difficulties presented by a film as large in scope as the newest addition to the Superman franchise is sure to be, let’s just hope the filmmakers don’t forget about Superman himself. The story may provide the bricks, but the characters bring the mortar.

Correctly identifying Batman’s unshakable reliance on Moral Law and sheer willpower was one of Christopher Nolan’s most important achievements in ‘Batman Begins,’ one that was only magnified in ‘The Dark Knight.’ Removing or diminishing this feature of Batman’s personality would remove the foundation upon which the new Batman franchise was built. In Superman’s case, the most important character trait that Snyder and Nolan must remember is Superman’s unshakable virtue. Like it or not, the king of the superhero genre is still just an old-fashioned Kansas boy, a Boy Scout who, despite all his godlike power, wouldn’t hurt a fly, unless this particular fly posed a danger to the Earth. Or maybe just Lois Lane.

Anyhow, here’s to you, Mr. Snyder, in the hopes that you can find it in your gory, Spartan heart to give audiences, especially children, the Superman they deserve, a Man of Steel who still fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

You know what they say: You don't tug on Superman's cape.