Will a Hex be good for DC Comics?

You know when news comes out on April Fool's Day, you have question it's validity. But some things are too silly to be made up. Take the decision from DC Comics as an example. They are moving forward with a film based on the great character Jonah Hex.

You must recall this character. Jonah Hex was born in 1839, under a bad sign. He was abandoned by his drunk parents, and taken in by Apaches. He was then abandoned by them. So he joins the U.S. Cavalry until the Civil War when he joins the Confederate Army (though he did not support slavery - one of the vital requirements to a prosperous Southern economy). Eventually he becomes a bounty hunter scarred with a "Mark of the Demon". Somehow he gets transported to the year 2050, gets married, has a child, is abandoned by both and then returns to the Old West. He is then shot by a bank robber, stuffed and put on display outside of New York City.

How can anyone forget that comic book character.

Honestly there are elements of the story that might be interesting. But there have been few Western's made in the past 2 decades that were really worth watching. Add in Josh Brolin as Hex, and John Malkovich as a voodoo user that wants to create a zombie army to win for the Confederate South, and the potential starts to go bad fast. (I believe they offered Malkovich a lot of money for this one.)

It is also reported to have Megan Fox in some capacity, Will Arnett as Hex's Union soldier partner in the battle, and Michael Shannon as the ringleader of a gladiator circus. I swear I am not making this up.

If it were just a western, I might buy it. If Brolin was not involved I might be interested. But voodoo armies? A wild west gladiator circus? Really?

DC Comics has long been regarded as the poor red-headed step-child to Marvel. This was because DC was very silly and childish in their storylines as opposed to the generally more complex and compelling stories of Marvel. When it comes to movie conversions of these comics, DC has generally followed that same policy (with the exception of the latest Batman movies - based on the graphic novel and not the comic book). Thus Marvel shines, and has a huge audience following.

I don't think that this film, of a mostly unknown and uncared for comic book character will work. DC might as well make a movie based on Metamorpho or Doom Patrol for all their popularity.

I'll be looking for the trailer, and we will see.

Replacing Gil Grissom - Fishburne or Russell or Malkovich

Oh how the rumors are flying now. With the fact that William Petersen will be ending his well-known role of Gil Grissom on C.S.I. the race has been on for producers to find a replacement. Previously I stated that I felt without the presence of Grissom the show was more than likely to fold. I may have spoken too soon.

The buzz is out stating that Laurence Fishburne will be stepping in and heading the C.S.I. original. Now that is a surprise to me. Fishburne is a definite presence and is renown for his roles in movies, like Apocalypse Now, The Matrix, The Tuskegee Airmen as well as stage like Thurgood. Obviously the producers of C.S.I. are looking for serious star power to fill the gap Petersen will create.

Is this enough to make the show continue to be interesting and viable? That’s hard to say. The purported storyline that would go with the character replacing Grissom is that the character would have

“same genetic profile as a serial killer but hasn't previously acted on any homicidal impulses.”

Now what that exactly means I’m not sure. It could be a spin in the series similar to the premise on the cable television show Dexter – where the lead is a serial killer but works within the legal system. It could be that the thought of such could drive the back stories on the television program.

Either way I am sure that Laurence Fishburne is more than capable enough to lead this popular show.

But the Hollywood rumor mill has a few other choices in mind as well. Also slated to be in the running for this program is John Malkovich and Kurt Russell. Both are strong film leading men, just like Fishburne.

For me, considering the proposed storyline that goes with the top spot, I would prefer Kurt Russell I think. He has a hard edge (like the Snake Plisken character from Escape from New York) to his characters that could be played well off of his generally calm demeanor. I can easily see him as a very dark, but highly charming character.

It’s not that Laurence Fishburne or John Malkovich can’t do the same, they have. But I think Russell can be more believable as a vile, sinister, evil and yet deceptive character. He really has the look for it.

So here is a question, who would you prefer as the lead of C.S.I. – with the understanding that he may or may not also be a serial killer:

• Laurence Fishburne
  
  
• John Malkovich
  
  
• Kurt Russell