Fresh Loaf

It’s a clash of the titans. Superhero publishers Marvel and DC Comics have had a pitched rivalry for decades, and in the battle for the big screen, Marvel has enjoyed more victories at getting its costumed characters like Spider-man into movie theaters (the huge success of DC’s The Dark Knight notwithstanding). DC takes the consolation prize for crafting much better shows for television and straight-to-DVD, from the longstanding live-action hit “Smallville” to last year’s intriguing cartoon feature Justice League: New Frontier.

Apart from such tolerable, kid-oriented series as “X-Men: Evolution” and “The Spectacular Spider-man,” Marvel’s animated output isn’t nearly as interesting. DVDs like The Invincible Iron Man and the two Ultimate Avengers films feel more like marketing trial balloons for future film products. Marvels newest animated movie, Hulk Vs. (released today) proves to be a notch above its predecessors, but its eyes still seem more focused on the cinema than its immediate audience.

Hulk Vs. contains two films of about 40 minutes apiece. “Hulk Vs. Wolverine” seems like a way to prime the pump for this May’s theatrical X-Men Origins: Wolverine prequel starring Hugh Jackman. The other, “Hulk vs. Thor,” provides an animated dry run for the characters tapped for 2010’s announced Thor film, reportedly to be directed by Kenneth Branagh. Essentially, the Hulk is a sort of guest star in his own films.

In a sense, the films succeed by aiming low. Hulk Vs. harks back to the pleasures of special double-length, giant-size issues of comic books that would contain two stores of monster mayhem for the price of one. Although the Hulk’s Jekyll-and-Hyde relationship to his alter ego Bruce Banner provides plenty of metaphors for the tension between emotion and intellect, Hulk vs. puts all the emphasis on the monstrous green protagonist’s ability to smash stuff. So which film is better? Who wins in “Hulk vs. Wolverine” vs. “Hulk vs. Thor?”

(more…)

Bookmark It

Marvel Comics’ next superhero to get a big-screen introduction (following next summer’s prequel X-Men Origins: Wolverine) will be The Mighty Thor, the Norse God of Thunder reconceived as a Superman-style do-gooder by Stan Lee, Larry Leiber and Jack Kirby in 1962. Variety reports that Kenneth Branagh is in negotiations to direct the big-screen Thor film, which has a release date of July 16, 2010. (Incidentally, Iron Man 2 is set for May 7 of that year.)

Branagh is an intriguing potential choice. As his generation’s best-known interpreter of Shakespeare for the big screen, he could deftly handle the antiquated dialogue of the Thor comics, which have more “forsooths” than a day at the Renaissance Festival. Branagh’s fluency with special effects and action scenes is a bigger question mark — he didn’t really distinguish himself with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein — but his Henry V suggests he could bring gravity and wit to the (literally) mythic elements of the story. Rumor has it that much of the Thor script takes place in Asgard, realm of the Norse Gods. Screenwriter Mark Protosevich says:

“It’s going to be like a super hero origin story, but not one about a human gaining super powers, but of a god realizing his true potential. It’s the story of a Old Testament god who becomes a new Testament god.”

It sounds pretty ambitious for a superhero popcorn movie — more Lord of the Rings than Spider-Man. The next question becomes, who could play a convincing Thor?  In the comics, he’s a strapping guy with long blonde hair, and his look includes a red cape, a winged helmet and a big honking hammer. To even approximate the comics, you’d need someone with the physique of He-Man era Dolph Lundgren, but with the vocal authority of a Shakespearean thespian.

So is “Lost” star and former Georgian Josh Holloway a crazy choice?

(more…)

Bookmark It