BEST PICTURE WILL WIN: The Social Network SHOULD WIN: Black Swan I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: The Fighter

I liked The Social Network and think it’s a fine, entertaining, intelligent film, but in my mind, it did not invoke the level of craft that Black Swan did, and thus does not deserve to be called the Best Picture of 2010. The final product of Black Swan, from the performances to the directing to the visual effects all the way to the use of sound and movement trumps for me what was just a well-done but straightforward story with The Social Network; that’s not saying the spectacle should trump the storytelling every time, but in this case, I just think more was achieved. But of course being from Boston, I’d love to see Mark Wahlberg up there accepting the statue just because it would be the perfect end to a great real life underdog story, and because it would make my dad happy.

BEST DIRECTOR WILL WIN: David Fincher SHOULD WIN: Darren Aronofsky I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: Darren Aronofsky

Pretty much a redux of what I just wrote for Best Picture; Fincher did a wonderful job and coaxed tremendous work from his young cast, but Aronofsky was just managing so much more. I don’t know enough about directing a movie to dare claim I know what the job entails, but it feels to me like Black Swan was a heftier task for the guy who had to make sure it all came together (and did so beautifully).

BEST ACTOR WILL WIN: Colin Firth SHOULD WIN: Colin Firth I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: Jesse Eisenberg

Again, I haven’t seen The King’s Speech yet (next on my list, if not True Grit), but Firth seems a lock here. The guy’s overdue, always gets nominated and his performance here has been well-reviewed across the board. He’s a talented fellow who always turns in nice work, so I surely won’t be let down when he takes the podium. Still, for me the very best part about The Social Network was Jesse Eisenberg’s turn as Mark Zuckerberg, with every intense reptilian twitch and the way he seemed like he was an alien or robot attempting to mimic a human. The nice thing is this is Eisenberg’s breakout, so he’ll be back.

BEST ACTRESS WILL WIN: Natalie Portman SHOULD WIN: Natalie Portman I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: Natalie Portman

Deserves it, will get it, I’ll be pleased to see it. She gave it her all mentally, psychologically and physically to convey a tireless struggle for perfection and accompanying descent into madness. I’d be shocked if this goes another way.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR WILL WIN: Christian Bale SHOULD WIN: Christian Bale I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: Christian Bale

Another instance where I’ll be surprised if this goes another way. Bale is obviously crazy—in a good way…and maybe the other way—with his method acting and throwing himself completely into every role he takes on, so it was really just a matter of time before he hit on the right one in the right movie to score the big prize. He’s absolutely electric in The Fighter and elevated what’s already a great film to even higher heights. This could be the acceptance speech of the night.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS WILL WIN: No idea SHOULD WIN: Melissa Leo I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: Melissa Leo & Amy Adams

I honestly don’t know what’s going to happen here, because the two ladies of The Fighter really do both deserve it, but conventional award show wisdom says they split their audience and thus open the field for a third party. It really would be nice if just this once the award could be co-accepted, as both were excellent. However, as impressive as Adams was stepping outside her good girl comfort zone and delivering both hilarious and emotional moments, Leo completely transformed herself to the point of being unrecognizable—and then gave the performance of a lifetime. This one’s going to throw off my Oscar pool, I just know it.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY WILL WIN: The King’s Speech SHOULD WIN: The King’s Speech I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: Inception

As one of the two leading contenders for Best Picture, by all rights The King’s Speech should walk away with this one. However, and this is coming from somebody who really just thought of Inception as a pretty solid heist movie as opposed to the game changer most see it as, part of me does feel like Christopher Nolan deserves some consideration for coming up with a concept most would consider among the most original in some time.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY WILL WIN: The Social Network SHOULD WIN: Not sure I’D LIKE TO SEE WIN: 127 Hours

Though I predict The Social Network will win here with fair ease, as it’s the only nominee I’ve seen of the five, I can’t really make a fair prediction. It would be fairly awesome and inspirational to see Aron Ralston get to accept the award, though—or does he not get to since it was only adapted from his story? I feel like they’d let him on stage.

The post The 2010 Academy Awards: Who Will/Should/I Want to Win appeared first on The Faster Times.

Thanksgiving of 1990, my father (an old school wrestling fan) treated me to my very first wrestling pay-per-view, ordering the Survivor Series. In the opening bout I got to see the Tornado team with the Warrior and the Legion of Doom against Perfect and his three teammates from Demolition in an Elimination Tag match; though Kerry got pinned by a Perfect Plex, Warrior would hang in for the win and I celebrated with my dad and little sister.

A couple years later, the Tornado vanished from the WWF and I was too young to really wonder why. It would be quite some time before I learned somehow that he committed suicide and later still that I discovered he was part of a tragic pro wrestling dynasty from Texas where the sons of promoter Fritz Von Erich were like rock stars, yet all but one ended up dying young under tragic circumstances, be it s a drug overdose, suicide, or another grisly fate.Of the men Kerry teamed with and opposed that Thanksgiving night, in the intervening two decades, three have since died prior to their 40th birthdays and dozens of other wrestlers I’ve watched since have suffered similar fates.

And thus you begin to see my love/hate relationship with professional wrestling.

As a kid who loved athletics as well as drama and of course the larger-than-life action and characters of super hero comic books, pro wrestling was one-stop shopping for me. Like I mentioned, it was my father who first got me into it, regaling me with tales of Pepper Gomez’s cast iron stomach and going to the Boston Garden with his own dad to see the matches. I became an avid viewer of the WWF, sometimes perhaps a bit too enthusiastically, such as the time body slamming a friend in third grade got me suspended from school for three days (I still used a little black and white TV to sneak in weekly showings of WWF Superstars in my closet despite my mother banning me from watching).

I fell a bit out of love with the whole enterprise around age 13 or so, but never too far. I’d still get together with friends for the occasional pay-per-view and of course we formed our own wrestling federation, holding matches in my basement and putting a hole in the wall that remains to this day. “The Heartbreak Kid” Shawn Michaels supplanted Kerry Von Erich as my favorite wrestler (and I’m pleased to note that despite a late 90’s bout with drugs, HBK emerged a Born Again Christian and has since settled down happily with his wife and two children, retiring from wrestling of his own volition earlier this year following a decorate career spanning decades).

High school brought with it the “Monday Night Wars” between the WWF and rival World Championship Wrestling, ushering in a new wave of mainstream acceptance for wrestling that my friends and I rode wholeheartedly. We’d gather weekly at my house to watch WWF Raw, journey to my friend Mike’s larger living room once a month for pay-per-views, and even trek to Providence or Boston for live events. We proudly wore New World Order t-shirts to school, filmed ill-fated Physics assignments about the physics of professional wrestling and even had our own toy WWF belt we christened the Newton South Hardcore Championship and fought over in our cafeteria to the delight of our campus safety officers (most of whom also happened to be my high school wrestling coaches).

Once I got to college and beyond and the wrestling boom cooled off with WCW closing and the WWF becoming WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), I still met a lot of friends through a mutual interest in watching guys and girls in tights beat each other up. Even today, I still watch several hours of wrestling each week, as it has become a bit of an escape for me, what with my other major hobby (comic books) becoming what I do for a living.

I still love watching wrestling. I love the physical marvels, the colorful pageantry, the exaggerated pathos, and even the often cheesy but infectious entrance music. But there’s no question as I’ve gotten older, as the industry has gained transparency through various documentaries and DVDs, and as the tragedies have mounted, it’s become impossible to be a discerning fan and not also acknowledge the dark side of the business.

As I mentioned, more and more wrestlers die young each year, from those I watched as a child to those I enjoyed just a couple years ago. The constant travel and separation from loved ones that comes part and parcel with being a star in wrestling not to mention the tremendous physical strain has led many performers to turn to drugs, be it recreationally, to dull their pain or to enhance their physiques. This sad cycle has churned out the seemingly endless headlines about overdoses and heart attacks.

Sadly, when a wrestler is simply found dead in their apartment or something mundane, it’s considered a minor tragedy against the true horrors the industry, those who work in it and those who follow it have endured. In 1999, Owen Hart fell to his death as part of a stunt gone horrible wrong during a WWF pay-per-view. In 2005, after becoming an inspirational figure for overcoming drug addiction and other personal demons to become a World champion, Eddie Guerrero died of a heart attack. And of course no wrestling fan will soon forget the horrific events of 2007 that permeated into widespread mainstream news coverage in the worst way when Chris Benoit committed a murder-suicide of his wife and small son; investigations since have revealed that Benoit have may have been mentally unbalanced for years as the result of concussions sustained while wrestling.

Beyond the deaths, the wrestling business itself is also simply not the nicest one around; it’s an industry where men and women push themselves often beyond their physical limits only to be frequently exploited and discarded for the pettiest of reasons by those running the show.

But do I still enjoy watching wrestling? Yes, I do. When I see a great match or promo, the tragic deaths or poor work conditions may be in the back of my minds, but they’re almost always trumped by the joy of watching people who, despite it all, love what they do get to perform and create something incredible.

In the last couple of years via my job at Marvel, I’ve actually become friendly with a number of professional wrestlers, as our industries have a lot of crossover in terms of interest, and I’ve used my status to ingratiate myself with several grapplers who also happen to be fans of what me and my company do. I’ve gotten to go backstage at shows, hang out with the boys after hours and talk shop about a business I’ve always been fascinated with. I consider myself truly fortunate to have formed a particularly close friendship with one of my favorite wrestlers who also happens to be among the nicest guys I’ve ever met outside the ring; he’s had lunch with my wife and I, I’ve watched his kids, and of course every time his nomadic existence brings him to New York, he’s sure to drop me a text to come by and visit (if he happens to walk out of the Marvel offices with two bags full of free comics, while I suppose that’s just a fringe benefit of getting to see his buddy).

And yet in getting to know the wrestling business better than ever and perhaps even becoming a part of it on the farthest possible fringe, my attitude towards it is more split than ever. Though I didn’t think it possible, I’ve gained even more respect for the men and women who have chosen this to be their profession; I’ve become even more impressed with their talent, passion and how they look out for one another. On the flipside, I’m closer to the seedier stuff, I feel more for my friends when they lose a job, and I constantly fear that I’ll have to read of something tragic befalling one of them someday.

I’ll never love wrestling in so pure a fashion as I did 20 years ago watching Kerry Von Erich, and I know part of me will always resent and disdain the hardship it has brought to so many, but in the end, those who choose to wrestle understand the risks and sacrifices of their profession and do it anyways because they love it and because they know they have a gift; as a fan, I’m so grateful to them for this and for providing me with entertainment and at the best of times even inspiration. Those of us who have a passion for professional wrestling are able to see past the tragedy because these extraordinary people refuse to allow what they do to be defined by it.

Photo by HurleyFamily

The post My Love/Hate Relationship with Professional Wrestling appeared first on The Faster Times.

I also find the show’s lead performer, Matthew Morrison, to be a capable performer with some impressive skills and well-honed charisma; no knocks on that dude.

However, through no fault of his own—that I can tell—I think the character he plays, erstwhile glee club coach and purported do-gooder Will Schuester, may perhaps the most unlikable character on TV today, and it’s seriously threatening to ruin Glee for me.From what I’ve read around the Internet, many people started to take notice of what I’ve been feeling in regards to Mr. Schuester with the show’s recent Rocky Horror homage episode. In said episode—and follow me as best you can here if you don’t watch the show—Will decides to have the glee club perform Rocky Horror, not because he feels like it’s a particularly great show or will do the kids any real good (as far as I can tell), but because Emma, the guidance counselor he’s crushing on, likes it and he wants to get close to her.

It should be noted at this point that Emma is in fact in a committed relationship with Carl, a dentist (played by the awesome John Stamos) who by all accounts thus far seems like a super nice guy who has made her very happy. Emma has a bunch of deep-seeded hang-ups in regards to germs and intimacy, but Carl has helped her get past a lot of them simply by being open, honest and supportive. In contrast, when Will and Emma were briefly together last season, he pretty much tanked the relationship and broke her heart to some degree by hooking up with other women while they were together.

So we’re starting to scratch the surface of why I find this character a heel.

Getting back to the relative present, earlier this season, Carl, being a straight up kinda guy, spoke man-to-man with Will, called him out on still having feelings for his girl, respectfully asked him to back off, which Will promised to do; of course within the same episode, Will went back on his word and tried to woo Emma with a fancy new car and inappropriate Britney Spears dance routine, but then “learned his lesson” (as he tends to do every episode) and all was well.

So with the Rocky Horror deal, Will has once again “forgotten” his deal with Carl, as he blatantly makes another play for Emma. Worse than that, he involves the teenage children he is responsible for teaching and mentoring, urging them to participate in a performance that pretty much every other adult character warns him is too risqué to be having high school kids perform and that several of the students express discomfort over being a part of.

As the icing on the cake, when it seems like his pretty friggin’ evil and depraved plan isn’t working, as Emma asks if Carl can play Eddie in the show and he thus remains a consistent and positive force in her life, Will pulls the kid playing Rocky out of his role on the grounds that “maybe it’s inappropriate”—causing said kid to have further issues with his body image—and takes the part himself, mostly so that he can flat out attempt to seduce Emma, asking her to help him rehearse “Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me,” ignoring that he will have to perform the same number with one of his underage students during the actual performance.

Again, Carl calls Will to the carpet, accuses him (correctly) of setting up this whole sleazy ruse in order to destroy his relationship; Will once more “learns his lesson,” apologizes to Emma, admits that Carl is making her a better person and happier in a way he was never able to, and tries to half-ass make up to the kids he’s been jerking around the whole episode by giving them a lame speech about Rocky Horror being a perfect show for freaks and outcasts like them (awesome) but that it’s not cool for them to perform in front of people so they’ll just do it for themselves with no audience.

Wow.

Now particularly on a show like Glee, it’s not uncommon for the weekly structure of the plot to be one or several of the primary characters making a mistake and then learning a lesson over the course of the half hour or hour; it’s a television tradition that goes way back and is pretty tried and true.

However, when it’s a program centered around a group of kids and their adult teacher/mentor, you generally expect the younger characters to be the ones mostly screwing up and the adults showing them the way. Certainly it doesn’t have to be this way and plenty of great shows have flipped the script, having the kids teach the grown-ups. But for whatever reason, I just have an issue with Glee, a series that does seem to be trying to get across an underlying message of doing the right thing in between songs, having their ostensible beacon light be such a deplorable jerk so often.

Honestly, I think what really did it for me is the recent ad campaign they’re tying into their (admirable) public service promotion where one tag line is “Are you a Sue or are you a Schue?” referring to Jane Lynch’s great Sue Sylvester character as being the “bad” role model option in contrast to Will. Thing is, as much as Sue is a hilarious and over-the-top villain, her moral compass can actually be considered pretty straight-on, as despite her transgressions she’s at least fairly up front about why she does what she does and also has admirable traits like caring for her mentally ill sister and mentoring a similarly handicapped girl as one of her cheerleaders.

In contrast, here are some more of Mr. Schuester’s shenanigans from the first season and a half:

-In the very first episode, he plants marijuana in Finn’s locker in order to blackmail him into joining the glee club.

-When Rachel questions Will’s choreography, he angrily quits being the glee club’s faculty advisor and forms his own acapella group.

-Annoyed at Sue, Will fails all her cheerleaders in Spanish (he’s a Spanish teacher, by the way).

-With Emma wanting to take it slow in their burgeoning relationship, Will decides to make out with the coach of a rival glee club.

-Despite knowing Emma is a virgin due to her various issues, Will responds to her decision she’s ready to sleep with him after being inspired by Madonna with a shit-eating grin.

-Will seduces Sue and then stands her up on a date with the purpose of humiliating her.

-Without much pressure needed, Will joins Sue’s attempt to make the new female football coach feel ostracized and thus quit in order to siphon some of the football budget (not showing any concern for, y’know, the students who play football).

So that’s a sampling. It’s hardly the worst laundry list of offenses on television, but again, from a character both intended to be showing a group of disenfranchised teens the right way to live and featured as the centerpiece “good guy” in a massive campaign about public service, it seems crazy to me. I’d be lying if I didn’t say as much as I enjoy Glee each week, I’m not spending more and more of my time yelling at the TV (to the amusement of my wife) as Will undertakes another dastardly deed.

For a show with such a multi-faceted and deep ensemble cast, I’d urge the folks producing Glee to try and rehabilitate Will Schuester as best they can and spread the bad behavior around a little bit to characters more suited for it; obviously you’ve got some something really special on your hands, and it would be a shame for something like this to tank it.

As a final cautionary parting shot, I’ll say that I can’t definitively declare Will Schuester the most deplorable character on television simply because I quit watching The Office and Private Practice recently due to how thoroughly heinous I found Michael Scott and Addison Montgomery to be; don’t let that happen to you, Glee.

Photo by vagueonthehow

The post Glee’s Will Schuester: TV’s Most Deplorable Character? appeared first on The Faster Times.

Don’t worry about it, I’m here to help.Believe it or not, getting off my ass to write stuff for this site every couple weeks doesn’t in fact pay my bills. No, by day I’m living my childhood dream of working as an editor for Marvel Comics—part of Marvel Entertainment—the biggest comic book publisher in North America.

As a kid, I loved comics on the basic level a lot of kids do: They were cool. As I grew, I came not only to appreciate the inherent morality and, yes, trumped up soap opera of super hero stuff in particular, but I also expanded my palette to other genres and really saw a beautiful marriage of art and words that I truly feel can’t be pulled off in any other medium.

Now, not only have I been fortunate enough to make my living in a field I love and have great passion for since I graduated college, the rest of the world has also caught up and come to realize that comic books rock. Hundreds of thousands of people flock events like San Diego Comic-Con International each year and millions watch films based on the work the talented men and women and our industry have been producing for decades.

However, as many people as show up at the theaters, it’s a shame more of y’all don’t make your way down to a comic shop, bookstore or even hop over to Amazon and see where all that good stuff originated. In an effort to hopefully get a few more of those eyes that thrilled to the silver screen adventures of Batman and Spider-Man on the four-color pages, I’ve compiled some starter suggestions for those of you looking to see where Hollywood’s newest big guns came from and get hooked on the years of material that lies beyond.

THE AVENGERS The culmination of Marvel’s recent movie efforts with “Iron Man,” “The Incredible Hulk” and “Iron Man 2” plus next year’s “Thor” and “Captain America: The First Avenger” will come on May 2012 with “The Avengers,” a blockbuster teaming all the characters I just mentioned and then some. While such a gathering of solo stars may be a rare thing in film, it happens all the time in comics, with the Avengers being Marvel’s finest example. While you can check out the original efforts of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (and later Roy Thomas and others) with the handy Essential Avengers series—as an aside, Marvel’s Essentials series, big ass black and white reprints of old comics, serve as a great and cheap way to jump into the mythology whole hog—I have a personal soft spot for Joe Casey and Scott Kolins’ entertaining and gorgeous Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, which chronicles the highlights of the team’s first year or so with updated storytelling techniques. Also worth a look: Ultimates and Ultimates 2, Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch’s big screen re-imagining of the Avengers had they been founded in the 21st century in a slightly more grounded and hard-edged world (the movies have already derived a lot of touches from these series).

BATMAN You can’t go wrong with Batman: Year One, the 1987 gritty re-telling of the Dark Knight’s origin and earliest days under the pen of the masterful Frank Miller and pencil of the brilliant David Mazzucchelli; “Batman Begins” took much of this story and brought it to the screen, so if you enjoyed the movie, check out the comic. Christopher Nolan also turned to Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale’s Batman: The Long Halloween for inspiration, and I’d recommend that 12-part murder mystery spotlighting Bats as well as his bad guys, plus Batman: Dark Victory, the sequel by the same creative team. If you want to take a trip into the twisted mind of the Joker, so memorably brought to life by the late Heath Ledger, check out Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s The Killing Joke and/or Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo’s Joker.

CAPTAIN AMERICA For the most critically-acclaimed comics starring the Star-Spangled Avenger, you’d want either the too-brief Captain America: Operation Rebirth by Mark Waid and Ron Garney, or the Captain America Omnibus, collecting the start of the still-ongoing run by writer Ed Brubaker, who actually killed Cap and then brought him back, in a story that made major mainstream news. However, if you want to see how Steve Rogers went from 90-pound weakling to super-soldier, I’d suggest either the vintage Captain America: War & Remembrance by Roger Stern and John Byrne, or the more recent The Marvels Project by Brubaker and artist Steve Epting, which has the added benefit of also showing the birth of the Marvel Universe itself at the onset of World War II.

GREEN LANTERN For decades something of an also-ran in the DC Universe, Green Lantern has become a huge deal in recent years thanks in large part to the hard work of writer Geoff Johns, who has really opened up the character while also expanding and explaining the huge sci-fi backdrop against which he operates; short version: There’s an interstellar brigade of space cops with green-tinted power rings who deal with threats across the universe and Earth has a fearless but cocky former test pilot named Hal Jordan watching out for us with the support of a few other human and several thousand alien co-workers. Johns began his run with Green Lantern: Rebirth, illustrated by Ethan Van Sciver and clearing up several outstanding continuity issues to explain in short why Hal Jordan rocked. For over six years now, Johns has been penning the adventures of Hal and friends, peaking with elaborate stories such as The Sinestro Corps War and The Blackest Night—the latter basically a zombie story where all of DC’s dead heroes and villains return to attack the living—but also taking the time to clear up our hero’s early days with the help of artist Ivan Reis in Green Lantern: Secret Origin; much of next summer’s GL movie starring Ryan Reynolds will no doubt borrow from all of this.

IRON MAN Iron Man’s an interesting case subject in that his most definitive and popular take thus far would in fact probably be his first movie, as it elevated the character from one most people outside comics had never heard of and made him a household name, also transforming him into among the Marvel Universe’s most prominent characters—not that he had been far off before—to boot. Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Tony Stark happened to be so spot-on, that for the most part the comic has begun to take its cue from the film, as opposed to vice versa. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t find quite a bit of excellent pre-movie Armored Avenger material, much of it from the classic and lengthy run in the 70’s and 80’s by Bob Layton and David Michelinie, collected in Demon in a Bottle, Doomquest, Iron Monger and Armor Wars. Warren Ellis took his stab at putting Shellhead back at the forefront of the technological cutting edge with Extremis, featuring Adi Granov’s breathtaking painted art that served as the design basis for the movie. Finally, Matt Fraction and Salvador Larroca have spent the last several years incorporating Tony Stark’s new high profile into some slick new stories, beginning with Invincible Iron Man: The Five Nightmares.

SPIDER-MAN When it comes to Spider-Man, the original stuff remains the best stuff, and I heartily steer you towards the defining work of Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and later John Romita Sr. on the first 100 issues or so of Amazing Spider-Man collected in both the Essential and Marvel Masterworks formats or as an Omnibus. The classic origin, the colorful villains and the unique essence of the most put-upon hero of all emerged from this early work; the bonus if you’ve only seen the movies will be discovering the vast world of friends, foes and challenges Peter Parker faced from the get-go. Not to be outdone, writer Brian Michael Bendis has spent the past decade paying tribute to Stan and Steve while also crafting his own utterly original work with Ultimate Spider-Man, a more contemporary take on Spidey that kicked off in 2000 and has been going strong ever since.

SUPERMAN Though the Man of Steel has been around for over 70 years and pervaded film, television and even Broadway, he may well have had his most elegant take in his original medium, comics, only recently. Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely’s All Star Superman presents a 12-part standalone story featuring Supes’ greatest hits without seven decades of continuity you need to follow and does it splendidly; it captures the high fantasy of Superman, the moral core, and everything in between that has made him the world’s most famous super hero. For another great and poignant tale, I’d suggest Superman For All Seasons by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale, and for some great action on a whirlwind tour from Krypton to Smallville to Metropolis, I’d point you towards John Byrne’s Man of Steel.

THOR A Viking warrior from a mystical realm, Thor does his best work when rocking hard and killing Frost Giants with a heavy metal soundtrack you can imagine, and few works in recent years have evoked that ambiance quite like Matt Fraction’s Thor: Ages of Thunder. However, the greatest Thor stories of all-time, building a second-to-none mythology and weaving both fun and epic yarns around the character, came from the great writer-artist Walter Simonson; you can check those out in the Thor Visionaries: Walter Simonson series, but do be warned they come with some baggage of previous continuity and may not be ideal for newbies (but they’re so awesome you really should try). Michael Avon Oeming and Scott Kolins also teamed for a slightly whimsical look at the Thunderer’s early days with Thor: Blood Oath.

WATCHMEN Whether you liked the movie or didn’t, if you have any interest in the comic book medium, you should really give Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons a shot, as it stands pretty solidly as one of the finest super hero offerings we’ve got. That’s really all.

X-MEN The X-Men as you may know them from the movies actually bare very little resemblance to the ones who got their start in 1963, as that team of unusual teenagers included Cyclops, Jean Grey and Professor X, but lacked Wolverine, Storm and any real “it factor” to make it stand out among the crowd. It wouldn’t be until 1975 that writer Chris Claremont—off a hat tip from Len Wein–re-cast the team as an international strike force battling for equal rights in a world that hated and feared them, kicking off an unheard of 16-year unbroken run that has been collected nearly in full via Essential X-Men. Along with phenomenal artistic talent like Dave Cockrum, John Byrne, Marc Silvestri and Jim Lee, Claremont perfected the art of melding action and angst with real world relevance in classic stories such as The Dark Phoenix Saga, God Loves Man Kills and Mutant Massacre. Claremont also teamed with Frank Miller to produce the original Wolverine limited series, an adventure set in Japan that will likely serve as the blueprint for the next Hugh Jackman-driven solo flick.

So that’s a start, but if you take a shine to any of that, hit up your local comic retailer, bookstore or even head to a comic convention—comics rock and there’s literal universes of excitement awaiting you!

The post Want to Read Some Comics? appeared first on The Faster Times.

These days, the late weeks of September bring with them a mixture of bliss and trepidation for my inner couch potato.

In this media-obsessed world we inhabit, handicapping the success of new TV shows has become almost as big a deal as actually, y’know, watching and enjoying (or hating) them. I’m certainly among the guilty when it comes to this, as I love reading books about the television industry like “Desperate Networks” and then treating the new season like a betting pool with my friends and colleagues. But just as my fantasy football league has forever altered the way I watch the game-I can’t believe I’m actually rooting for Peyton Manning-so has this attitude and outlook drastically changed my approach to what I’m going to DVR.

Again, going back to my childhood, I didn’t have a particularly complex thought process when it came to new shows: If it looked good, I watched it, and if it vanished the next year, no biggie (I don’t recall a lot of stuff getting yanked early or mid-season back then, but I’m projecting back to when I was like 12, so I don’t know). Now, I feel like I need a fairly strenuous screening process to avoid heartbreak.

As a semi-late-blooming but devoted fan of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel,” my paranoia that my favorite shows could be pulled away from me without resolution or closure at any time began to bubble in the late 90′s into the new millennium, but because those two always seemed to elude cancellation but the skin of their fangs, perhaps I grew a bit cocky and complacent.

In 2004, I became lucky enough to befriend novelist, comic book writer and burgeoning TV scribe Brad Meltzer, who sent me an advance DVD of the first episode of his new show for The WB, “Jack and Bobby.” The program followed two brothers being raised by a single mother and had the conceit of flashing forward each week to a documentary set years in the future chronicling one boy’s rise of the Presidency while keeping quiet on the fate of the other. I found “Jack and Bobby” to be fun and intelligent, presenting politics to me in a way I found interesting and palatable. It had a great cast of veterans like John Slattery-who would go on to “Mad Men”-and Christine Lahti paired with young talents like Matt Long-who would go on to “Mad Men”-and Logan Lerman plus ace recurring guests like Bradley Cooper (and also featured Jessica Pare, who would go on to “Mad Men”-seriously, that show pretty much strip mined “Jack and Bobby”). I saw a strong future for the show.

The WB apparently did not and pulled the plug after an abbreviated season.

It’s the first time I can really recall a show being cancelled out from under me and it left a scar both because I enjoyed the program and because I felt bad my buddy’s virgin effort in TV couldn’t last longer than a year. Nonetheless, I soldiered on.

2005, however, would be my first fall television season in my own apartment, not having to split a TV with my family or college buddies, so I certainly watched much more and got my excitement up over certain shows. In particular, “Kitchen Confidential,” starring the aforementioned Bradley Cooper and based on the memoirs of bad boy chef Anthony Bourdain, received a ton of hype and seemed like a surefire hit. I thought the debut a laugh riot and looked forward to years of laughs to come.

After two episodes, the show got pulled for the World Series, then aired a couple more to horrid ratings and got yanked before the new year.

I got the full series DVD set of “Kitchen Confidential” for Christmas last year, getting to watch a bunch of episodes I’d never seen because they never aired, and I still can’t for the life of me understand why this show didn’t do better (if you’ve never seen it, do yourself a favor and track it down via Hulu, DVD or whatever). It definitely cut me deeper than “Jack and Bobby” and began to make me very skeptical about trusting new television shows that didn’t have a track record of at least a couple successful seasons under their belt.

While they both got more than a few episodes before going down in their blazes of glory (and in one case Emmys), the mismanagement and cancellation of “Arrested Development” and “Veronica Mars” only strengthened my feeling that entrusting my heart to new TV shows could only end in tragedy. I began to adapt a firm policy of not watching a show until it had been on the air a minimum of one year with solid ratings, catching myself up via DVD before joining live.

This stance lasted less than 12 months.

You see, working at “Wizard Magazine,” I had access to pilot episodes of just about everything; even though we were ostensibly a comic book magazine, we didn’t just get stuff like The CW’s aborted Aquaman show “Mercy Reef,” we’d also receive pretty much anything ABC feared wouldn’t get enough love, or whatever NBC show had even the most tenuous of science fiction connections. Via these free samples, I’d end up falling for everything from “Dirty Sexy Money” to “Gossip Girl” to “Big Shots” (and with that field, I guess one out of three ain’t bad, but man, I really wanted the “‘Desperate Housewives’ for men” show to succeed).

So we arrive at today, and I realize I’m powerless not to try new shows, even when I see the writing on the wall. I caught up on “Party Down” via NetFlix even though I knew better. I watched the first episode of the new Mitchell Hurwitz/Will Arnett collaboration “Running Wilde” last week, chuckled, and the silently shed a tear because that sucker will totally last until May at best.

Oh how I pine for those bygone days when I didn’t care about anything but the “Step by Step” premiere and which new villains Batman would be facing on his cartoon. But I suppose taking a chance on doomed TV shows represent a phase in growing up, and considering all the other overtures in that progression I’ve avoided over the years, I guess taking the bullet on this one can’t be that bad.

The post The Terrifying Allure of New Fall TV appeared first on The Faster Times.

Folks have raved about the new take on “Star Trek” being everything they want from a big screen action blockbuster. One of my new favorites on TV, NBC’s “Parenthood,” borrows its name and feel from a Steve Martin movie then goes its own way from there. The current cinematic Batman franchise not only grew out of the timeless comic books, but rose from the ashes of some pretty terrible films about a decade ago. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” has spawned legions of fans and influenced a whole wave of pop culture, yet it first saw life as a tepid cinematic flop starring Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry.

And hey, I’m not watching the new “90210,” but it’s heading into a third season, so obviously somebody must be.

Granted, this does not forgive the failures. You’re far more likely to see an awful take on “The Wild Wild West” or dull reimagining of “The Manchurian Candidate” at the theater than a nice surprise like this summer’s “The Karate Kid.” And my heart certainly broke last year when The CW fumbled big time trying revive my favorite show of all-time (yes, I say it proud), “Melrose Place.”

But I don’t find the reboot to be a fruitless endeavor. I’ll take the one hit for every three duds; it generally proves worth it.

That said, a few TV properties I think at least merit consideration for rebooting…

CHEERS Here’s a case where I think you take a mix of original series alumni with new faces and the show pretty much writes itself. “Cheers” had one of my all-time favorite series finales, but I really don’t think you invalidate it by showing that a younger guy (or girl) took over the bar and there’s a new crowd learning from Cliff and Norm’s alcohol-soaked wisdom; heck, “Frasier” ran 11 seasons, so obviously we know this world continued on past Sam flipping the lights off. With “Cheers,” there’s a feel and style of comedy that could yield plenty of new stories without having to rehash the old stuff, but a reboot could also benefit nicely from the nostalgia of original cast members dropping by, a classic setting and of course one of the best theme songs ever.

MAVERICK The 1994 Mel Gibson film adaptation of the 1950′s TV series “Maverick”-both of which featured James Garner-happens to be one of my favorite movies of all-time. It’s so charming and witty and clever with its reveals upon reveals. I don’t really think you could replicate the movie, but I always liked the idea of a western where the main protagonist can fight or shoot his way out of a scrape if he has to, but prefers to talk or cheat instead if he can. I think with the right leading man, a modern audience would really connect to a cowboy genre series where the hero skews a bit more flawed and real than the larger-than-life John Wayne types we’re used to. Could you imagine Bradley Cooper as Bret Maverick? If only he weren’t a movie star now!

LAVERNE & SHIRLEY It’s a rare thing these days to see a decent television series with two female leads if they’re not detectives and that’s actually funny-ok, I can’t name any. That seems a shame given how many funny lady comedians occupy our cultural sphere yet only get work as the girlfriend or at best professional partner to the man who they’re not supposed to end up with (Spoiler: They do). “Laverne & Shirley” did eight seasons worth of pretty solid success off the pretty simple premise of two female roommates living life and being funny, so why not give it another shot? I’d watch the heck out of this show if the likes of Elizabeth Banks, Christina Applegate, Anna Faris, Sarah Chalke and/or other possible-non-blond-white-girls wanted to give it a shot.

DALLAS One of the things I was hoping to get from “Melrose Place” was a return to that epic nighttime soap opera formula I loved so much where a world of only a few miles and like five sets felt massive and no amount of melodrama could be considered off-limits. I think one of the reasons the new MP tanked was because it tried too hard to skate the line between a pretense of that and yet and playing safe within the bounds of taking itself seriously, but I say take the biggest, most ridiculous prime time soap of them all with “Dallas” and swing for the fences. You’d need a dynamite cast who wouldn’t be afraid to look ridiculous half the time, but I think the risk/reward would pay off.

BAYWATCH How has the world’s most watched TV show of all-time been off the air for nearly a decade and nobody has attempted resuscitation? Mitch Buchanan would be ashamed. If the rights haven’t been tangled up somewhere, there’s no reason The CW shouldn’t have this on the air right freaking now; it’s not a difficult formula to replicate, folks.

SAVED BY THE BELL Ok, admittedly, I don’t want a reboot here, just “Saved By The Bell: The Mid-Life Years.” Gold.

Cheers photo by Caitlinator

Baywatch photo by AADONALD

The post Some TV Reboots I’d Give a Shot appeared first on The Faster Times.

Last Sunday at the 2010 Emmy Awards, Bravo’s Top Chef took home the award for Outstanding Reality-Competition Program, the first time a show other than The Amazing Race has won the category since its inception seven years ago. The win marked a well-deserved recognition for-in my mind-the best reality food program on television in what has become quite the cluttered landscape, but ironically, I believe it also did more harm than good to the current season as it rounds the corner towards its finale on September 15.

I’ve been enamored of Top Chef since my wife introduced me to it mid-way through its third season, but no question, the show hit a new peak last year with its Las Vegas-based sixth installment. Undoubtedly the choice location played a role as it provided flourishes like the “High Stakes” challenges with additional cash prizes on the line, proximity to great restaurants and guest judges such as Wolfgang Puck and Todd English, and some unique challenges like basing dishes around various casinos or needing to utilize cactus as a key ingredient.

However, while the Vegas landscape provided the sizzle, the steak of season six unquestionably came from the epic brother vs brother rivalry between Bryan and Michael Voltaggio. Not only did it mark the first time siblings had competed against one another on Top Chef, from very early on it became clear that the Voltaggios possessed more-than-impressive culinary skills that could easily land even-keeled and hardworking Bryan against risk-taking and self-assured Michael in the finals, a prospect that appealed to the base intrigue that has sprung from every family feud since Cain took out Abel.

And yet while it did ultimately come down to Voltaggio vs Voltaggio in the grand finale with Michael eking out an extremely hard-fought win, the presence of an especially gifted field of competitors made that showdown anything but a foregone conclusion and packed each episode with plenty of drama as well as provided viewers with a wide range of personalities whom they could choose to back outside the fraternal standouts.

Indeed, at least the top five finishers, if not the top seven, would not have seemed out of place in the winner’s circle-and in any other season perhaps could have easily claimed the crown-and presented a wide range of personalities to boot. Bronze medalist Kevin Gillepsie’s easygoing nature and humility plus affinity for taking down-home Southern cooking and putting it shoulder-to-shoulder with more sophisticated fare made him the guy many hoped would pull an upset on the Voltaggios. Fourth-place finisher Jennifer Carroll had a rough second half of the season, but provided a refreshingly take-charge female voice in the kitchen before that. And number five, Eli Kirshstein, with his quirky humor and bold flavor choices presented a fun wildcard.

From pretty much anywhere beyond the first few episodes, you never knew who would go home on Top Chef season six because weak links were hard to find, and while a Voltaggios showdown presented the most dramatic possible finale, it hardly seemed guaranteed amongst such a proficient and competitive group.

Now that brings us to Top Chef season seven.

Credit where credit’s due: I’ve still watched and enjoyed every episode this season of Top Chef, a testament to what a well-oiled machine the show has become and how good the folks producing it remain at their jobs, but frankly it’s always tough to follow-up something as special as what the Vegas crew provided.

The current season emanates from Washington, DC, a great choice as it has provided the inspiration for challenges set in CIA headquarters and NASA as well as spotlighted the unique and tasty cuisine of local areas stretching to Maryland and elsewhere. The contestants have also made for some of the more memorable characters in recent Top Chef memory, with standouts like self-professed “alpha male” Kenny Gilbert, questionable conniving Alex Reznik, and even kooky seeming flower child John Somerville, who got eliminated way back on the season premiere.

Perhaps the most engaging personality belongs to current final four frontrunner Angelo Sosa, who swings between a manipulative villain type and spiritual warrior relying on self-help mantras; he’s definitely got an odd charisma and his early clashes with Kenny made for some of the season’s most memorable moments thus far.

In large part season seven has relied on interpersonal drama to fuel the storyline of the show, be it the Angelo-Kenny clashes, Alex seemingly swiping dishes from other competitors, or the flirtations between engaged Tiffany Derry and everyman Ed Cotton (“flirtations” that seem heavily manipulated by editing, but hey, you work with what you’ve got). It’s worked, since as I’ve noted the show has remained compelling, but all the contestant conflict in the world can’t mask the fairly undeniable fact only emphasized by last week’s Emmy win: these guys simply can’t cook like their season six predecessors.

As somebody who struggles to heat up his ramen noodles I’m certainly in positions to say the season seven crew lacks talent, and indeed from what I’ve observed on television-which is all I can do until one of them sees this column and invites me to their restaurant-there’s no lack of skills amongst this bunch, but they have the misfortune of following a group in which even the folks who didn’t make the finale had a great case for being there, and the final three may well be the best chefs the show has ever seen. Again, no offense intended to the current Top Chef contenders, but it’s not hard to imagine even the sixth-runner-up from last year dominating this season’s competition.

For the most part, this hasn’t mattered hugely in my enjoyment of this current stretch of Top Chef. The competition has still been compelling, even if it doesn’t seem like the contestants break cooking paradigms and blow the judges’ minds each and every week the way the Voltaggios and friends did. There’s also a thing to be said for parity; if a single chef stood far in front of the rest from day one, it wouldn’t make for a very interesting race to follow, and Top Chef’s producers have been nothing if not diligent in making sure we’ve never had a season that became boring by the second week.

The problem lies in the fact that now that we’re down to four I don’t feel like I have a real vested interest in who wins. All of the contestants certainly feel like they deserve to be here, but none stands out for me. A week ago I would have told you my support would go to Tiffany, as she seemed by far the most likeable and had really emerged as a strong competitor in recent episodes, but she got cut on a fluke mistake in the last challenge (such is life and cooking). There’s some drama left in rooting against Angelo, who has been set up as the ostensible bad guy, but frankly none of his three opponents leap out as an equally compelling “good guy,” or at least none who I feel deserve the win as much as he probably does (again, Tiffany would have been a great fit).

Will I be watching the Top Chef finale? Of course. Will I enjoy it? I’d be shocked if I didn’t. Do I care who wins? Not really.

Of course, that could ultimately be considered far more a compliment than a detraction: the show itself has now transcended the individual personalities of the chefs involved, and I’m more a fan of the brand and its quality than anything else.

I still wish we could have had a hidden third Voltaggio brother this year, though.

The post Who Will Win Top Chef Season Seven? Who Cares? appeared first on The Faster Times.

For one thing, “Entourage” is “Sex and the City” for guys. It’s escapist fantasy for men who get to live vicariously through the characters not just in terms of the women, the wealth and the toys, but more centrally, that deep bond of male friendship that not all guys are fortunate enough to have. A lot of dudes drift from that core group of buddies after high school or college, settling into a more cordial social circle of work acquaintances and the occasional reunions with old friends; on “Entourage,” that childhood crew has stuck together with a fierce loyalty and get to live their dreams alongside compatriots they care about in a state of arrested development the audience envies.

For another thing, at least in the beginning, I think many casual observers got a kick out of seeing the inner-goings-on of the entertainment business; I also believe as the seasons have gone on, the show has lost a bit of credibility in this department, but I’ll get there.

On the critical side, “Entourage” has been able to remain critically relevant on the strength of a very talented core cast. Jeremy Piven may never again find a role he can own the way he has Ari Gold for the past six years, but nobody can say he hasn’t made the most of it like few other actors could. Alongside Piven, Kevin Dillon has been a perennial Emmy contender as Johnny Drama and resuscitated his career to heights it never hit before. Kevin Connolly has the burden of carrying and grounding the bulk of the show’s serious business as E, and as a result his performances don’t tend to be as flashy, but he’s rock solid. I don’t think Adrian Grenier and Jerry Ferrara necessarily stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their castmates in terms of pure talent, but I give them credit for more than keeping up and locking down the chemistry so central to the show’s success. Factor in Perrey Reeves, Rex Lee and the rest of the superlative supporting cast, and that’s a great group of players who you enjoy watching weekly.

Finally, there’s no question Mark Wahlberg has pulled off wonders as the show’s co-executive producer and loose inspiration. His experiences make for a great base, but moreover, his contacts throughout the celebrity community and the wealth of cameos they have provided over the years has been invaluable.

However, even with all these things going for it, I feel that “Entourage” thrived for its first three or four seasons, but has been mostly coasting on its initial success since then.

The problems began to occur in my mind when the show achieved the level of tenure that required it to move beyond merely an introduction a group of characters and exploration of their world into a place where these people evolved and faced true adversity. The first of those requirements ran up against the arrested development appeal I mentioned earlier while the second grew into a problem that has at its worst pushed the show to the point of near parody.

In short, it became quickly evident that no obstacle poses any sort of credible threat to Vince and company, and thus “Entourage” lost any sense of urgency or (no pun intended) drama.

Vince bombs in one movie then gets fired from the next, yet still gets offered a major gig from Martin Scorsese. E neglects Sloan time and again but always wins her back. Any time Ari faces adversity, within a few episodes he’s gotten a promotion, raise or whole new agency.

No member of the central cast ever takes a serious hit and doesn’t almost immediately bounce back. I get that so much of the show’s appeal lies in the idea that these guys live dream lives, but while that can take you so far-and did through the initial seasons-you need to raise the stakes at least a little at some point; “Entourage” has failed to do that, and as a result, it’s become somewhat stale in many aspects of its presentation.

That brings us to the show’s current-and final-season, in my opinion the best it has seen in several years. In part, that can be credited to hard work on the part of the cast and crew, but at the same time, we’re at the point in the season when I always think the show’s at its peak because the characters have just begun to face their trials and I still hold out hope that perhaps these will be the ones that effect lasting change.

However, this time around it truly does feel like there could be jeopardy on a new level. Following a near-death experience, Vince has gone into a full-on movie star downward spiral, complete with drugs and socially inappropriate choice of girlfriend; one thing that has frustrated me with Vince through the years has been how much everybody kisses his ass and hands him the keys to the kingdom no matter how much he screws up, so to see people actually begin to question and come down on him as he behaves like an idiot intrigues and almost delights me.

At the same time, years of treating his employees like dirt during his rise to the top have actually caught up with Ari and it does feel as though even if he gets out of this, there will be consequences he must live with. The other characters’ storylines feel a bit wheel-spinning, but I’m ok so long as they take a backseat.

With this being the final season of “Entourage” and no tomorrow to fret over, I do hope the writers allow the characters to ride off into the sunset not exactly as they came in half a decade ago. I’m not asking for Vince and Ari to crash and burn or for Sloan to leave E, but I want to see the events of the season-and the series-finally take their toll on the characters and how they grow to face that rather than being given more lottery tickets.

“Entourage” started strong and has always remained a favorite of mine even when I knew full well it was underperforming; I’m rooting for them to out on top.

The post Entourage: Can It Go Out on Top? appeared first on The Faster Times.

With the original “Rocky,” he wrote and starred in an Academy Award-winning film. With the first sequel, he created another critically-acclaimed work that proved his character had more than one story to tell. With “Rocky III” and “Rocky IV,” he changed the course of the series and pulled off two legitimate blockbusters that scored big at the box office and cemented further “The Italian Stallion” in pop culture and as an indelible piece of Americana.

“Rocky V” was a bit of a black mark on Stallone’s record. After suffering brain damage as a result of his fight with Drago in the fourth film, Rocky retires from boxing, but loses his fortune due to a crooked accountant. He is forced to move the family back to a more modest area of Philadelphia where Adrian and Paulie resume their old jobs at the pet shop and meat packing plant respectively, while Rocky takes over Mickey’s old gym and ends up as mentor to young Tommy Gunn, who wins his vacated World title. Tommy turns against his trainer out of resentment towards always being compared to him and the movie culminates in a street fight between the two. The other running subplot is Rocky having to repair his ruined relationship with his son after unwittingly neglecting him in favor of Tommy.

With “Rocky V,” it felt like Stallone was almost-and I’m purely speculating here-a bit ashamed at the two prior movies deviating so far from where the larger story had started, thus with a fairly heavy hand he attempted to guide the world of the Balboas back to their Oscar-worthy roots. It feels both forced and a retread, as there’s nothing for Rocky to accomplish he hadn’t already after becoming an unlikely World champion and more or less single-handedly ending the Cold War; the audience wasn’t interested in seeing the guy who got Gorbachev to stand up and applaud him training his protégé or bonding with his son (all due respect to Tommy Morrison, Tommy Gunn was also hardly in the same class as Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang or Ivan Drago when it came to proper foils).

The quality-or lack thereof-of “Rocky V” aside, it doesn’t in my eyes diminish the overall franchise which, as I’ve been touting, stands up alongside any other in movie history when held for comparison.

To begin with, again, “Rocky” won the Academy Award for Best Picture, a feat only 81 other films can lay claim to.

Beyond that, the immediate sequel to the original, “Rocky II,” succeeded in maintaining the standard set as far as establishing a lasting brand. It may not have pulled a “Godfather Part II” and repeated at the Oscars, but that’s a whole other accomplishment. Go over the list of Best Picture winners or even high quality films in general and try to recall how many produced a second installment nearly equal to the first critically.

But where Rocky really establishes its bonafides is being able to change course entirely in “Rocky III” and “Rocky IV,” leaving its status as critical darling behind and morphing into a blockbuster franchise with huge success.

What other movie series can claim to have succeeded in such drastically different venues? What other series not only raked in cash at the box office after collecting its statues, but also wove itself into the fabric of America, becoming a fixture on Cable TV and in celebrated box sets?

The aforementioned Godfather? It’s a classic for a reason, but nowhere near as accessible for the average filmgoer as Rocky. Star Wars? Never go the Best Picture nod. Lord of the Rings? Took three tries, and even so, remains far more niche in terms of its fanbase.

No, I hold tight to my claim: Rocky is the greatest film franchise of all-time because it succeeds on all levels. It succeeds as an award-winning work of art. It succeeds as a popcorn movie that makes you cheer. It succeeds as a love story stretched over several chapters. It succeeds as a sports film, a romance, a drama and even a comedy.

You can’t beat Rocky; Apollo couldn’t, Lang couldn’t, Drago couldn’t, and neither can any other series of films.

In 2006, more than a decade and a half after “Rocky V,” Sylvester Stallone returned to the character he made famous for “Rocky Balboa,” a sort of coda to the epic story he had told over five previous films. Exploring the everyman pugilist as he entered his twilight years, the film marked a true return to the feel of the original. With Adrian deceased and his boxing career a thing of the distant past, Rocky must re-examine the things that drive him, regain the respect and affection of his son, and see if he still has what it takes to hang with a new generation of competitor in the ring.

In many ways, “Rocky Balboa” represents “Rocky V” done right, with appropriate distance from the prior installments and an emotional heart rediscovered. It provided perhaps the greatest franchise in movie history with an appropriate and poignant conclusion.

The post Why Rocky Rules pt. 3 appeared first on The Faster Times.

Here’s where it gets interesting.In 1982, three years after the release of “Rocky II,” “Rocky III” hit theaters. However, the third installment of the franchise marked a significant departure from its two predecessors.

In “Rocky III,” no longer was our hero a hard-luck pug living in relative obscurity on the streets of Philadelphia; Rocky and his family (wife Adrian and son Rocky Jr.) now live in a mansion complete with lavish furnishings and ritzy new clothes. The Rocky-Adrian love story of the prior films takes a backseat to the action here as the couple is happily wed with child and no real dramatic tension to speak of. The bulk of what drives the story is Rocky attempting to overcome the sort of malaise that has come with his new privileged lifestyle and prove that he can still best a colorful new opponent in brash and aggressive newcomer Clubber Lang, played by Mr. T in the performance that made him a pop culture icon.

“Rocky III” is still an excellent movie-truth be told, it may be my favorite of the lot-but in a much different way that than “Rocky” or “Rocky II.” Though there is meat to the story of Rocky having to remember his roots and not give in to the temptations of fame and fortune in order to stay relevant, most people remember this one more for the excellent boxing sequences, the spectacle of Hulk Hogan taking on Stallone in a wrestler vs boxer exhibition, or Mr. T’s scene-stealing tour de force.

To put it more simply: I doubt at any time the people responsible for “Rocky III” thought they were crafting an Academy Award winner.

But “Rocky III” grossed over $125,000,000 domestically, eclipsing “Rocky II” big time. Beyond that, you’d be hard-pressed to find a critic who panned the flick, as it’s a thoroughly entertaining piece of business; but at the same time, nobody was outraged when it went unnoticed come Oscar time, which at first glance seems a tad curious considering this was a franchise only two movies removed from the big win.

Like clockwork, three years later in 1985 came “Rocky IV,” and if you’re the average movie-going fan, this is the reason you may not have known “Rocky” won an Oscar.

When most people think of Rocky Balboa, it’s framed by the image most commonly associated with this fourth installment: Sylvester Stallone draped the in the American flag, thrusting a fist towards the heavens. At over $127,000,000, “Rocky IV” made more money domestically than any other film in the franchise; worldwide, it grossed upwards of $300,000,000. More than any other Rocky movie, this is the one the man (or woman) on the street remembers.

And yet if you ask most hardcore Rocky fans, they have great fondness for “Rocky IV,” but also consider it something of a guilty pleasure.

If “Rocky” was a work of pure art and each subsequent film moved a bit further away from that kernel, “Rocky IV” is where Stallone and company shed all pretense of producing work for critical acclaim and went for the blockbuster (with great success, it should be noted). This movie recast Rocky Balboa once and for all from street fighter getting one last lucky break to international super hero representing all that is good about America, democracy, and so on.

The antagonist of “Rocky IV” is Ivan Drago, a granite-faced Russian behemoth fueled more by chemical enhancements than good-ol’ fashioned training and brought menacingly to life by Dolph Lundgren in his breakout performance. Drago comes to America in order to prove Russia’s dominance and ends up straight up murdering Rocky’s old foe-turned-friend Apollo Creed in an exhibition match, leading our hero to seek vengeance. The death of Creed is a portent of how over-the-top “Rocky IV” ultimately becomes, with the movie by the end truly becoming a microcosm of the Cold War with the respective fighters standing for what is good or bad about their respective nations (from the American perspective, of course).

Adrian, a focal point of the early films, is reduced to a few token scenes of yelling at Rocky about how Drago is too dangerous in this one, again clearly delineating the shift from heartfelt love story to action blockbuster; the trademark training montage that began with Rocky chasing chickens and running stairs in prior installments crescendos to him growing a bushy beard and carrying logs on his back in the Soviet tundra here. The climactic battle between Drago and Balboa feels as if nothing less than the fate of the free world itself is on the line; indeed a Mikhail Gorbachev stand-in watches on from the audience and gradually becomes a fan of Rocky-and thus America-as he witnesses his dogged determination.

Now I should make something clear right about now: It may seem like I just spent two or three paragraphs mocking this movie, but don’t get me wrong, I love “Rocky IV,” and obviously so do a lot of other folks. However, if you view “Rocky” and “Rocky IV” side-by-side (or at least back-to-back, as the other way would probably be more than a bit confusing), I contend you’d be a bit puzzled at how point B was reached from point A.

“Rocky” was a bonafide gem of a film from the standpoint of the art of movie-making. “Rocky IV” was a no-question blockbuster that has inspired intense cheers and devoted emotion from a sizable demographic for over two decades now. While the latter movie came nowhere near winning any awards and had some scenes and scenarios that make you have to chuckle when considering their credibility, it also touches a nerve deep down inside that gives you goosebumps along your arms makes you want to chant for Rocky right alongside the Russian crowd he improbably wins over.

If you can put “Rocky” alongside “The Godfather” or “Rain Man,” “Rocky IV” can hold its own with “The Karate Kid,” “Armageddon” or even “Iron Man” in terms of being a feel-good popcorn delight.

That both movies came from the same framework mythology and not far apart from one another is the franchise’s incredible accomplishment. In the final chapter of my little essay, I’ll touch more on this, briefly cover Rocky’s final fall and redemption, and once and for all assert my claim that this is the greatest series of films ever made.

To be continued…

The post Why Rocky Rules pt. 2 appeared first on The Faster Times.