#still conflicted about which version of the film i prefer...i love the pacing of the unrated version

[concoulor]

maybe i do believe in danbert. we all know that crazy little mf wouldn't make a sandwich for anyone but dan

#reanimator #still conflicted about which version of the film i prefer...i love the pacing of the unrated version #but the extra scenes in the integral version are a lot of fun and better explain some things #not a fan of herbert injecting the reagent though because i agree w jeffrey combs that he's just like that normally lol

[cherry-valentine]

Spring 2021 Anime Season

Mars Red is one of two series this season set in one of my favorite periods, the Meiji era. It’s a vampire series that deals a lot with the politics of war as the Japanese military is attempting to establish a vampire unit, supposedly to compete with the British vampire unit (because of course that’s a thing). It focuses on a human military officer named Maeda who is charged with recruiting and managing vampires. Maeda is the type of character I really enjoy. Handsome, a little older than most anime protagonists, chain-smoking, overly serious, and voiced by Junichi Suwabe (who has to have the sexiest voice in all of anime). The series has a classic, romantic feel to it. Its take on vampires is somewhat traditional (they evaporate in the sun, drink blood, sleep in coffins, have super strength and speed, etc.). If it brings anything new to the table, it’s the concept of vampires having different ranks, from S-class down, and how lower ranks naturally fear higher ranks. Still yet, the classic vibe works in the show’s favor. Combined with the historical setting, it gives the show a certain charm. The art is lovely, from the backgrounds to the character designs, and the music is a high point. It easily has the best ending theme of the season.

Fumetsu no Anata e (To Your Eternity) is a unique series. I’ve seen a lot of people comparing it to Mushishi, but with an overarching plot, and that assessment is pretty accurate. The show follows an entity that comes to be known as Fushi. It begins as an orb, and as it makes contact with other objects and creatures, it learns from them and can possibly take their forms. Among the forms it most often takes are a white wolf and a young man. Originally, it’s a somewhat empty shell, incapable of communicating, but as it meets different creatures and learns, it develops a personality and begins to speak. The series is, overall, about Fushi’s journey through this world and all the experiences it gains, both wonderful and tragic. There’s a subtle beauty to the series, with an early focus on nature, but it also has scenes of trauma and violence. The animation is fluid and the facial expressions are amazing. There’s an overall natural feel to it that, like others have pointed out, reminds me of Mushishi (though it’s definitely faster paced than Mushishi). The show also likes to make you cry, so keep that in mind.

Joran: The Princess of Snow and Blood is the other series set in the Meiji era this season, albeit an alternate version of it that has a strange form of technology. To be honest, I’m a little fuzzy on some of the details, but it seems to be about a group called the Nue who work for the government to fight against a growing rebellion. The main character is Sawa, a member of Nue who has some sort of special powers involving her blood, which allow her to transform and battle monsters, or whatever else stands in her way. Her goal is to get revenge for the death of her entire clan (implied to be wiped out because of their power). Sawa is a decent heroine, a woman who craves vengeance and is determined to get it through any means, but is, at her core, a compassionate person who would rather live in peace. It’s this internal conflict that makes Sawa compelling (even if it’s not entirely original). The other characters are interesting, particularly Tsuki, whom I won’t talk much about because it would involve spoilers. The plot and details can get a little convoluted, but the action and animation are solid. When Sawa transforms, the art style changes, and it’s a really cool visual effect. The music is also nice.

Shaman King received a remake this season. I was a huge fan of the original, and so far I’m enjoying the remake, but to be honest, I’m having trouble seeing the point. The art is almost the same (just a lot shinier), the voice actors are the same, the plot is the same. Maybe it’s just that it’s been so long since I saw the original, I’m unable to remember the details and so I can’t tell what’s different. But to me it feels like I’m just rewatching the show. Which is fine, because I loved it to begin with. Maybe it gets different later on. Maybe it more closely follows the manga. I’ll keep watching to find out. For anyone new to the series, it looks like the remake is a solid place to start if you want to get into it. I won’t go into plot details for a story this old, so I’ll just say it’s a top tier shounen fighting series with a unique art style and some very memorable characters. If you like that sort of thing, and missed the original (or you just want a refresher), definitely check it out!

Godzilla Singular Point is a true delight. I’m a huge Godzilla (and kaiju in general) fan. I’ve watched every single Godzilla movie, as well as all the related movies (the Mothra films, Rodan, etc.), but I never watched the previous Godzilla anime that was on Netflix a few years ago. It just didn’t sound like something I’d like. Singular Point, however, is right up my alley. Set mainly in a small seaside town that’s suddenly attacked by bird-like monsters known as Rodans, we have two geeky protagonists using their intelligence to figure out what’s going on while more and more monsters appear. Mei and Yun are excellent heroes. They rely on their wits rather than physical strength, which is a refreshing approach. It’s also interesting that they have little to no face-to-face interaction. Instead, they chat with each other via text as they work separately. They often challenge each other with science questions. It’s adorable. The show’s overall feel is fairly upbeat and energetic. The colorful art and peppy character designs by Kazue Kato (who did Blue Exorcist) help with this feel. It should be noted that Godzilla himself doesn’t fully appear until halfway through the series. It says a lot about the quality of the show that I don’t actually mind that at all. Some of the science stuff does go over my head, but the general plot is easy enough to follow and the action is very well done. It also has fantastic music, with my favorite opening theme of the season. Even if Godzilla isn’t your thing, consider giving this series a shot if you like nerdy science types as heroes.

Burning Kabaddi is a sports anime about an unsual sport. I’d never heard of it before now, and if people in the comments were not talking about the very real sport, I would have assumed it was made up for the anime. The show is aware that the sport is obscure, so it takes great pains to explain the rules and details so that we can all follow the action. The story centers on Yoigoshi, a soccer prodigy who decides to drop all sports once he gets to high school due to all the drama and angst that surrounded him (mostly due to his teammates being jealous of his talent), and pursue a career as a streamer. All the various sports clubs at the school want to recruit him (especially the soccer club, of course) because they’ve heard of his skill and he has an athletic build. He rejects them all, but the Kabaddi club is strangely relentless. He ends up being manipulated into joining (the vice captain of the team straight up blackmails him by threatening to show his online streaming account to the whole school). Despite this rocky beginning, Yoigoshi actually starts to enjoy playing Kabaddi, and more importantly, begins to bond with his new teammates. It’s pretty fun stuff that doesn’t take itself too seriously. The art is serviceable for a sports anime and the music is fine. The series isn’t going to blow your mind, but it’s a fun way to spend twenty minutes every week. Worth a watch if you have a weakness for hot blooded sports anime.

The World Ends With You finally got its anime adaptation and I was so excited. The game is one of my all-time favorites. So far the anime is pretty good. The art is a near perfect replication of the bold, thick-lined art of the game. The battles are exciting and cool. Best of all, the anime often uses music from the game. This is important because the game has one of the best soundtracks, ever. Every time I recognize a song from the game, I almost squeal. If I had a complaint, it’s that the pacing feels a little off at times. It feels like the anime is rushing through the story, but that’s understandable. In the game, it took longer for everything to happen because you were walking from place to place, fighting battles along the way, stopping to scan NPC’s, shopping at stores, spending time in menus, etc. The anime has to cut most of that out, so naturally things are going to move faster. The result is that you don’t get to spend as much time with these characters, and so you feel less attached to them. Anyone watching the anime who didn’t play the game might feel like the emotional beats are lacking. I feel like this anime is definitely meant to be enjoyed by fans of the game, rather than newcomers to the story. But if you are a fan of the game? You should be watching this every week. It’s an excellent refresher on the story, just in time for the second game to come out this summer. Super high on my watch list.

Boku no Hero Academia has a new season. To be honest I don’t remember what number we’re on. This season, so far, focuses on a tournament-style competition between the two main hero classes. I would much prefer the plot to move on to something more exciting involving the villains, but I suppose they have to throw arcs like this in every so often just to remind everyone of which characters have which quirks. The plus point is that instead of being an individual competition, it’s team-based. What this ultimately means is that characters that are viewed as weaker or having more obscure quirks actually get a chance to shine. These are characters who definitely aren’t going to win one-on-one battles. In an individual tournament, it’s pretty much a given that characters like Deku, Bakugou, and Todoroki are going to win most of the matches. But in a team, everyone has to work together. The end result is that the lady characters, all of whom have fairly weak or situational quirks, finally FINALLY get to actually do stuff! Even better, in several of the match-ups, the girls have taken the lead in planning and strategizing. It’s been pretty nice to watch. The girls from the other class have been very proactive as well. I really wish the girls could do more in “real” battles with villains, since it’s clear that they can step up when they need to. Who knows? Maybe this is a sign of good things to come.

86 is a new mecha/sci-fi anime based on a series of light novels. The setup is fairly cool: In a country where everyone has silver hair and eyes, the people live in what looks like a utopia. There is a war going on outside their protected land but all combat is performed by automated robots, so there are no human casualties... or so the government would have the people believe. In reality, there is a district that exists on the outskirts of the country called 86, where people who don’t have silver hair and eyes are sent to pilot the robots and fight to protect the country that shunned them. Most of the pilots are children or teenagers. The mortality rate is high. Only a few people in the government know of their existence, mostly military types that include “handlers”. These handlers each take on an 86 unit and communicate with them through a system called “para-raid”. Using this, they monitor the battlefield from their safe positions and issue commands. Naturally, most handlers view their units as nothing more than tools in the war, and most 86-ers view their handlers as privileged snobs who know nothing of actual battle. The real plot kicks in when Lena, a young Major, becomes the new handler for a particular 86 unit. Lena is sympathetic to the people of 86, but it’s going to be hard getting her notoriously rough unit to accept her. The plot is a bit complicated and the show deals with some weighty themes (racism, privilege, war, child soldiers, death). Lena is a likable enough heroine and the members of 86 are all interesting and fairly well written. The music is fine. The art... well, it’s pretty to look at, but it feels a bit generic to me. A bit too shiny. The mecha designs are great, but I’m not crazy about the character designs, which feel like they could be from any other modern anime. I also find it sad but hilarious at the same time that the women’s military uniforms are clearly designed for fanservice (they include mini skirts, thigh-highs with garters, and a short jacket that opens up just above the chest to show the tight shirt underneath) while the men’s uniforms are just totally normal military wear. To be honest it’s just too stupid to actually be offensive, so it comes across as comical. Thankfully, the interesting setup and plot carry the show, making it good enough to overlook the generic visuals.

Moriarty the Patriot has a new season... maybe? I think it’s technically still season one, but with a split cour. Regardless, it feels like a new season so I’m treating it as such. The series focuses on famous Sherlock antagonist Moriarty, here represented as a trio of handsome brothers (though one of them is clearly the protagonist and the leader of the group) who work as “crime consultants” and basically help the lower classes wage class warfare against the nobility. This season shifts the focus away from the individual crimes Moriarty concocts and instead focuses on larger-scale conflicts that involve government conspiracies, corrupt cops, etc. We’re also treated to a lady James Bond (finally!), fixing one of the very few complaints I had about the first cour (that it lacked strong lady characters). The show remains very compelling, with beautiful art and excellent new opening and ending themes.

Best of Season:

Best New Show: Godzilla Singular Point

Best Opening Theme: Godzilla Singular Point

Best Ending Theme: Mars Red

Best New Male Character: Maeda (Mars Red)

Best New Female Character: Sawa (Joran)

#Anime Reviews #Spring 2021 Anime #Seasonal Anime Reviews #Seasonal Anime #Anime #Text #Godzilla Singular Point #Mars Red #moriarty the patriot #Fumetsu no anata e #Burning Kabaddi #86

[ahouseoflies]

The Best Films of 2020

I can’t tell you anything novel or insightful about this year that has been stolen from our lives. I watched zero of these films in a theater, and I watched most of them half-asleep in moments that I stole from my children. Don’t worry, there are some jokes below.

GARBAGE

93. Capone (Josh Trank)- What is the point of this dinner theater trash? It takes place in the last year of Capone's life, when he was released from prison due to failing health and suffered a stroke in his Florida home. So it covers...none of the things that make Al Capone interesting? It's not historically accurate, which I have no problem with, but if you steer away from accuracy, then do something daring and exciting. Don't give me endless scenes of "Phonse"--as if the movie is running from the very person it's about--drawing bags of money that promise intrigue, then deliver nothing in return.

That being said, best "titular character shits himself" scene since The Judge.

92. Ammonite (Francis Lee)- I would say that this is the Antz to Portrait of a Lady on Fire's A Bug's Life, but it's actually more like the Cars 3 to Portrait of a Lady on Fire's Toy Story 1.

91. Ava (Tate Taylor)- Despite the mystery and inscrutability that usually surround assassins, what if we made a hitman movie but cared a lot about her personal life? Except neither the assassin stuff nor the family stuff is interesting?

90. Wonder Woman 1984 (Patty Jenkins)- What a miscalculation of what audiences loved about the first and wanted from the sequel. WW84 is silly and weightless in all of the ways that the first was elegant and confident. If the return of Pine is just a sort of phantom representation of Diana's desires, then why can he fly a real plane? If he is taking over another man's soul, then, uh, what ends up happening to that guy? For that matter, why is it not 1984 enough for Ronald Reagan to be president, but it is 1984 enough for the president to have so many Ronald Reagan signifiers that it's confusing? Why not just make a decision?

On paper, the me-first values of the '80s lend themselves to the monkey's paw wish logic of this plot. You could actually do something with the Star Wars program or the oil crisis. But not if the setting is played for only laughs and the screenplay explains only what it feels like.

89. Babyteeth (Shannon Murphy)- In this type of movie, there has to be a period of the Ben Mendelsohn character looking around befuddled about the new arrangement and going, "What's this now--he's going to be...living with us? The guy who tried to steal our medication? This is crazy!" But that's usually ten minutes, and in this movie it's an hour. I was so worn out by the end.

88. You Should Have Left (David Koepp)- David Koepp wrote Jurassic Park, so he's never going to hell, but how dare he start caring about his own mystery at the hour mark. There's a forty-five minute version of this movie that could get an extra star from me, and there's a three-hour version of Amanda Seyfried walking around in athleisure that would get four stars from me. What we actually get? No thanks.

87. Black Is King (Beyonce, et al.)- End your association with The Lion King, Bey. It has resulted in zero bops.

  ADMIRABLE FAILURES

86. Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (Cathy Yan)- There's nothing too dysfunctional in the storytelling or performances, but Birds of Prey also doesn't do a single thing well. I would prefer something alive and wild, even if it were flawed, to whatever tame belt-level formula this is.

85. The Turning (Floria Sigismondi)- This update of The Turn of the Screw pumps the age of Miles up to high school, which creates some horny creepiness that I liked. But the age of the character also prevents the ending of the novel from happening in favor of a truly terrible shrug. I began to think that all of the patience that the film showed earlier was just hesitance for its own awful ending.

I watched The Turning as a Mackenzie Davis Movie Star heat check, and while I'm not sure she has the magnetism I was looking for, she does have a great teacher voice, chastening but maternal.

84. Bloodshot (David Wilson)- A whole lot of Vin Diesel saying he's going to get revenge and kill a bunch of dudes; not a whole lot of Vin Diesel actually getting revenge and killing a bunch of dudes.

83. Downhill (Nat Faxon and Jim Rash)- I was an English major in college, which means I ended up locking myself into literary theories that, halfway through the writing of an essay, I realized were flawed. But rather than throw out the work that I had already proposed, I would just keep going and see if I could will the idea to success.

So let's say you have a theory that you can take Force Majeure by Ruben Ostlund, one of the best films of its year, and remake it so that its statement about familial anxiety could apply to Americans of the same age and class too...if it hadn't already. And maybe in the first paragraph you mess up by casting Will Ferrell and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, people we are conditioned to laugh at, when maybe this isn't that kind of comedy at all. Well, don't throw it away. You can quote more--fill up the pages that way--take an exact shot or scene from the original. Does that help? Maybe you can make the writing more vigorous and distinctive by adding a character. Is that going to make this baby stand out? Maybe you could make it more personal by adding a conclusion that is slightly more clever than the rest of the paper?

Or perhaps this is one you're just not going to get an A on.

82. Hillbilly Elegy (Ron Howard)- I watched this melodrama at my mother's encouragement, and, though I have been trying to pin down her taste for decades, I think her idea of a successful film just boils down to "a lot of stuff happens." So in that way, Ron Howard's loss is my gain, I guess.

There is no such thing as a "neutral Terminator."

81. Relic (Natalie Erika James)- The star of the film is Vanessa Cerne's set decoration, but the inert music and slow pace cancel out a house that seems neglected slowly over decades.

80. Buffaloed (Tanya Wexler)- Despite a breathless pace, Buffaloed can't quite congeal. In trying to split the difference between local color hijinks and Moneyballed treatise on debt collection, it doesn't commit enough to either one.

Especially since Zoey Deutch produced this one in addition to starring, I'm getting kind of worried about boo's taste. Lot of Two If by Seas; not enough While You Were Sleepings.

79. Like a Boss (Miguel Arteta)- I chuckled a few times at a game supporting cast that is doing heavy lifting. But Like a Boss is contrived from the premise itself--Yeah, what if people in their thirties fell out of friendship? Do y'all need a creative consultant?--to the escalation of most scenes--Why did they have to hide on the roof? Why do they have to jump into the pool?

The movie is lean, but that brevity hurts just as much as it helps. The screenplay knows which scenes are crucial to the development of the friendship, but all of those feel perfunctory, in a different gear from the setpieces.  

To pile on a bit: Studio comedies are so bare bones now that they look like Lifetime movies. Arteta brought Chuck & Buck to Sundance twenty years ago, and, shot on Mini-DV for $250,000, it was seen as a DIY call-to-bootstraps. I guarantee that has more setups and locations and shooting days than this.

78. Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (David Dobkin)- Add Dan Stevens to the list of supporting players who have bodied Will Ferrell in his own movie--one that he cared enough to write himself.  

Like Downhill, Ferrell's other 2020 release, this isn't exactly bad. It's just workmanlike and, aside from the joke about Demi Lovato's "uninformed" ghost, frustratingly conventional.

77. The Traitor (Marco Bellochio)- Played with weary commitment by Pierfrancesco Favino, Tomasso Buscetta is "credited" as the first informant of La Cosa Nostra. And that sounds like an interesting subject for a "based on a true story" crime epic, right? Especially when you find out that Buscetta became a rat out of principle: He believed that the mafia to which he had pledged his life had lost its code to the point that it was a different organization altogether.  

At no point does Buscetta waver or even seem to struggle with his decision though, so what we get is less conflicted than that description might suggest. None of these Italian mob movies glorify the lifestyle, so I wasn't expecting that. But if the crime doesn't seem enticing, and snitching on the crime seems like forlorn duty, and everything is pitched with such underhanded matter-of-factness that you can't even be sure when Buscetta has flipped, then what are we left with? It was interesting seeing how Italian courts work, I guess?

76. Kajillionaire (Miranda July)- This is another movie so intent on building atmosphere and lore that it takes too long to declare what it is. When the protagonist hits a breaking point and has to act, she has only a third of a film to grow. So whispery too.

Gina Rodriguez is the one to inject life into it. As soon as her motormouth winds up, the film slips into a different gear. The atmosphere and lore that I mentioned reeks of artifice, but her character is believably specific. Beneath a basic exterior is someone who is authentically caring but still morally compromised, beholden to the world that the other characters are suspicious of.

75. Scoob! (Tony Cervone)- The first half is sometimes clever, but it hammers home the importance of friendship while separating the friends.

The second half has some positive messaging, but your kids' movie might have a problem with scale if it involves Alexander the Great unlocking the gates of the Underworld.

My daughter loved it.

74. The Lovebirds (Michael Showalter)- If I start talking too much about this perfectly fine movie, I end up in that unfair stance of reviewing the movie I wanted, not what is actually there.* As a fan of hang-out comedies, I kind of resent that any comedy being made now has to be rolled into something more "exciting," whether it's a wrongfully accused or mistaken identity thriller or some other genre. Such is the post-Game Night world. There's a purposefully anti-climactic note that I wish The Lovebirds had ended on, but of course we have another stretch of hiding behind boats and shooting guns. Nanjiani and Rae are really charming leads though.

*- As a New Orleanian, I was totally distracted by the fake aspects of the setting too. "Oh, they walked to Jefferson from downtown? Really?" You probably won't be bothered by the locations.

73. Sonic the Hedgehog (Jeff Fowler)- In some ways the storytelling is ambitious. (I'm speaking for only myself, but I'm fine with "He's a hedgehog, and he's really fast" instead of the owl mother, teleportation backstory. Not everything has to be Tolkien.) But that ambition doesn't match the lack of ambition in the comedy, which depends upon really hackneyed setups and structures. Guiding Jim Carrey to full alrighty-then mode was the best choice anyone made.

72. Malcolm & Marie (Sam Levinson)- The stars move through these long scenes with agility and charisma, but the degree of difficulty is just too high for this movie to reach what it's going for.

Levinson is trying to capture an epic fight between a couple, and he can harness the theatrical intensity of such a thing, but he sacrifices almost all of the nuance. In real life, these knock-down-drag-outs can be circular and indirect and sad in a way that this couple's manipulation rarely is. If that emotional truth is all this movie is trying to achieve, I feel okay about being harsh in my judgment of how well it does that.

71. Beanpole (Kantemir Balagov)- Elusive in how it refuses to declare itself, forthright in how punishing it is. The whole thing might be worth it for a late dinner scene, but I'm getting a bit old to put myself through this kind of misery.

70. The Burnt Orange Heresy (Giuseppe Capotondi)- Silly in good ways until it's silly in bad ways. Elizabeth Debicki remains 6'3".

69. Everybody’s Everything (Sebastian Jones and Ramez Silyan)- As a person who listened to Lil Peep's music, I can confidently say that this documentary is overstating his greatness. His death was a significant loss, as the interview subjects will all acknowledge, but the documentary is more useful as a portrait of a certain unfocused, rapacious segment of a generation that is high and online at all times.

68. The Witches (Robert Zemeckis)- Robert Zemeckis, Kenya Barris, and Guillermo Del Toro are the credited screenwriters, and in a fascinating way, you can see the imprint of each figure on the final product. Adapting a very European story to the old wives' tales of the American South is an interesting choice. Like the Nicolas Roeg try at this material, Zemeckis is not afraid to veer into the terrifying, and Octavia Spencer's pseudo witch doctor character only sells the supernatural. From a storytelling standpoint though, it seems as if the obstacles are overcome too easily, as if there's a whole leg of the film that has been excised. The framing device and the careful myth-making of the flashback make promises that the hotel half of the film, including the abrupt ending, can't live up to.

If nothing else, Anne Hathaway is a real contender for Most On-One Performance of the year.

67. Irresistible (Jon Stewart)- Despite a sort of imaginative ending, Jon Stewart's screenplay feels more like the declarative screenplay that would get you hired for a good movie, not a good screenplay itself. It's provocative enough, but it's clumsy in some basic ways and never evades the easy joke.

For example, the Topher Grace character is introduced as a sort of assistant, then is re-introduced an hour later as a polling expert, then is shown coaching the candidate on presentation a few scenes later. At some point, Stewart combined characters into one role, but nothing got smoothed out.

ENDEARING CURIOSITIES WITH BIG FLAWS

66. Yes, God, Yes (Karen Maine)- Most people who are Catholic, including me, are conflicted about it. Most people who make movies about being Catholic hate it and have an axe to grind. This film is capable of such knowing wit and nuance when it comes to the lived-in details of attending a high school retreat, but it's more concerned with taking aim at hypocrisy in the broad way that we've seen a million times. By the end, the film is surprisingly all-or-nothing when Christian teenagers actually contain multitudes.

Part of the problem is that Karen Maine's screenplay doesn't know how naive to make the Alice character. Sometimes she's reasonably naive for a high school senior in 2001; sometimes she's comically naive so that the plot can work; and sometimes she's stupid, which isn't the same as naive.

65. Bad Boys for Life (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah)- This might be the first buddy cop movie in which the vets make peace with the tech-comm youngs who use new techniques. If that's the only novelty on display here--and it is--then maybe that's enough. I laughed maybe once. Not that the mistaken identity subplot of Bad Boys 1 is genius or anything, but this entry felt like it needed just one more layer to keep it from feeling as basic as it does. Speaking of layers though, it's almost impossible to watch any Will Smith movie now without viewing it through the meta-narrative of "What is Will Smith actually saying about his own status at this point in his career?" He's serving it up to us.

I derived an inordinate amount of pleasure from seeing the old school Simpson/Bruckheimer logo.

64. The Gentlemen (Guy Ritchie)- Look, I'm not going to be too negative on a movie whose crime slang is so byzantine that it has to be explained with subtitles. That's just me. I'm a simple man. But I can tell you that I tuned out pretty hard after seven or eight double-crosses.

The bloom is off the rose a bit for Ritchie, but he can still nail a music cue. I've been waiting for someone to hit "That's Entertainment" the way he does on the end credits.

63. Bad Hair (Justin Simien)- In Bad Hair, an African-American woman is told by her boss at a music video channel in 1989 that straightening her hair is the way to get ahead; however, her weave ends up having a murderous mind of its own. Compared to that charged, witty logline, the execution of the plot itself feels like a laborious, foregone conclusion. I'm glad that Simien, a genuinely talented writer, is making movies again though. Drop the skin-care routine, Van Der Beek!

62. Greyhound (Aaron Schneider)- "If this is the type of role that Tom Hanks writes for himself, then he understands his status as America's dad--'wise as the serpent, harmless as the dove'--even better than I thought." "America's Dad! Aye aye, sir!" "At least half of the dialogue is there for texture and authenticity, not there to be understood by the audience." "Fifty percent, Captain!" "The environment looks as fake as possible, but I eventually came around to the idea that the movie is completely devoid of subtext." "No subtext to be found, sir!"

  61. Mank (David Fincher)- About ten years ago, the Creative Screenwriting podcast spent an hour or so with James Vanderbilt, the writer of Zodiac and nothing else that comes close, as he relayed the creative paces that David Fincher pushed him through. Hundreds of drafts and years of collaborative work eventuated in the blueprint for Fincher's most exacting, personal film, which he didn't get a writing credit on only because he didn't seek one.

Something tells me that Fincher didn't ask for rewrites from his dead father. No matter what visuals and performances the director can coax from the script--and, to be clear, these are the worst visuals and performances of his career--they are limited by the muddy lightweight pages. There are plenty of pleasures, like the slippery election night montage or the shakily platonic relationship between Mank and Marion. But Fincher hadn't made a film in six years, and he came back serving someone else's master.

60. Tesla (Michael Almereyda)- "You live inside your head." "Doesn't everybody?"

As usual, Almereyda's deconstructions are invigorating. (No other moment can match the first time Eve Hewson's Anne fact-checks something with her anachronistic laptop.) But they don't add up to anything satisfying because Tesla himself is such an opaque figure. Driven by the whims of his curiosity without a clear finish line, the character gives Hawke something enigmatic to play as he reaches deep into a baritone. But he's too inward to lend himself to drama. Tesla feels of a piece with Almereyda's The Experimenter, and that's the one I would recommend.

59. Vitalina Varela (Pedro Costa)- I can't oversell how delicately beautiful this film is visually. There's a scene in which Vitalina lugs a lantern into a church, but we get several seconds of total darkness before that one light source carves through it and takes over part of the frame. Each composition is as intricate as it is overpowering, achieving a balance between stark and mannered.

That being said, most of the film is people entering or exiting doors. I felt very little of the haunting loss that I think I was supposed to.

58. The Rhythm Section (Reed Morano)- Call it the Timothy Hutton in The General's Daughter Corollary: If a name-actor isn't in the movie much but gets third billing, then, despite whom he sends the protagonist to kill, he is the Actual Bad Guy.  

Even if the movie serves up a lot of cliche, the action and sound design are visceral. I would like to see more from Morano.

57. Red, White and Blue (Steve McQueen)- Well-made and heartfelt even if it goes step-for-step where you think it will.

Here's what I want to know though: In the academy training sequence, the police cadets have to subdue a "berserker"; that is, a wildman who swings at their riot gear with a sledgehammer. Then they get him under control, and he shakes their hands, like, "Good angle you took on me there, mate." Who is that guy and where is his movie? Is this full-time work? Is he a police officer or an independent contractor? What would happen if this exercise didn't go exactly as planned?

56. Wolfwalkers (Tomm Moore and Ross Stewart)- The visuals have an unfinished quality that reminded me of The Tale of Princess Kaguya--the center of a flame is undrawn white, and fog is just negative space. There's an underlying symmetry to the film, and its color palette changes with mood.

Narratively, it's pro forma and drawn-out. Was Riley in Inside Out the last animated protagonist to get two parents? My daughter stuck with it, but she needed a lot of context for the religious atmosphere of 17th century Ireland.

55. What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael (Rob Garver)- The film does little more than one might expect; it's limited in the way that any visual medium is when trying to sum up a woman of letters. But as far as education for Kael's partnership with Warren Beatty or the idea of The New Yorker paying her for only six months out of the year, it was useful for me.  

Although Garver isn't afraid to point to the work that made Kael divisive, it would have been nice to have one or two interview subjects who questioned her greatness, rather than the crew of Paulettes who, even when they do say something like, "Sometimes I radically disagreed with her," do it without being able to point to any specifics.

54. Beastie Boys Story (Spike Jonze)- As far as this Spike Jonze completist is concerned, this is more of a Powerpoint presentation than a movie, Beastie Boys Story still warmed my heart, making me want to fire up Paul's Boutique again and take more pictures of my buddies.

53. Tenet (Christopher Nolan)- Cool and cold, tantalizing and frustrating, loud and indistinct, Tenet comes close to Nolan self-parody, right down to the brutalist architecture and multiple characters styled like him. The setpieces grabbed me, I'll admit.

Nolan's previous film, which is maybe his best, was "about" a lot and just happened to play with time; Tenet is only about playing with time.

PRETTY GOOD MOVIES

52. Shithouse (Cooper Raiff)- "Death is ass."

There's such a thing as too naturalistic. If I wanted to hear how college freshmen really talked, I would hang out with college freshmen. But you have to take the good verisimilitude with the bad, and good verisimilitude is the mother's Pod Save America t-shirt.

There are some poignant moments (and a gonzo performance from Logan Miller) in this auspicious debut from Cooper Raiff, the writer/director/editor/star. But the second party sequence kills some of the momentum, and at a crucial point, the characters spell out some motivation that should have stayed implied.

51. Totally Under Control (Alex Gibney, Ophelia Harutyunyan, Suzanne Hillinger)- As dense and informative as any other Gibney documentary with the added flex of making it during the pandemic it is investigating.

But yeah, why am I watching this right now? I don't need more reasons to be angry with Trump, whom this film calmly eviscerates. The directors analyze Trump's narcissism first through his contradictions of medical expertise in order to protect the economy that could win him re-election. Then it takes aim at his hiring based on loyalty instead of experience. But you already knew that, which is the problem with the film, at least for now.

50. Happiest Season (Clea Duvall)- I was in the perfect mood to watch something this frothy and bouncy. Every secondary character receives a moment in the sun, and Daniel Levy gets a speech that kind of saves the film at a tipping point.

I must say though: I wanted to punch Harper in her stupid face. She is a terrible romantic partner, abandoning or betraying Abby throughout the film and dissembling her entire identity to everyone else in a way that seems absurd for a grown woman in 2020. Run away, Kristen. Perhaps with Aubrey Plaza, whom you have more chemistry with. But there I go shipping and aligning myself with characters, which only proves that this is an effective romantic comedy.

49. The Way Back (Gavin O’Connor)- Patient but misshapen, The Way Back does just enough to overcome the cliches that are sort of unavoidable considering the genre. (I can't get enough of the parent character who, for no good reason, doesn't take his son's success seriously. "Scholarship? What he's gotta do is put his nose in them books! That's why I don't go to his games. [continues moving boxes while not looking at the other character] Now if you'll excuse me while I wait four scenes before showing up at a game to prove that I'm proud of him after all...")

What the movie gets really right or really wrong in the details about coaching and addiction is a total crap-shoot. But maybe I've said too much already.

48. The Whistlers (Corneliu Porumboiu)- Porumboiu is a real artist who seems to be interpreting how much surveillance we're willing to acknowledge and accept, but I won't pretend to have understood much of the plot, the chapters or which are told out of order. Sometimes the structure works--the beguiling, contextless "high-class hooker" sequence--but I often wondered if the film was impenetrable in the way that Porumboiu wanted it to be or impenetrable in the way he didn't.

To tell you the truth, the experience kind of depressed me because I know that, in my younger days, this film is the type of thing that I would re-watch, possibly with the chronology righted, knowing that it is worth understanding fully. But I have two small children, and I'm exhausted all the time, and I kind of thought I should get some credit for still trying to catch up with Romanian crime movies in the first place.

47. Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (Jason Woliner)- I laughed too much to get overly critical, but the film is so episodic and contrived that it's kind of exhausting by the end--even though it's achieving most of its goals. Maybe Borat hasn't changed, but the way our citizens own their ugliness has.

46. First Cow (Kelly Reichardt)- Despite how little happens in the first forty minutes, First Cow is a thoughtful capitalism parable. Even though it takes about forty minutes to get going, the friendship between Cookie and King-Lu is natural and incisive. Like Reichardt's other work, the film's modest premise unfolds quite gracefully, except for in the first forty minutes, which are uneventful.

45. Les Miserables (Ladj Ly)- I loved parts of the film--the disorienting, claustrophobic opening or the quick look at the police officers' home lives, for example. But I'm not sure that it does anything very well. The needle the film tries to thread between realism and theater didn't gel for me. The ending, which is ambiguous in all of the wrong ways, chooses the theatrical. (If I'm being honest, my expectations were built up by Les Miserables' Jury Prize at Cannes, and it's a bit superficial to be in that company.)

If nothing else, it's always helpful to see how another country's worst case scenario in law enforcement would look pretty good over here.

44. Bad Education (Cory Finley)- The film feels too locked-down and small at the beginning, so intent on developing the protagonist neutrally that even the audience isn't aware of his secrets. So when he faces consequences for those secrets, there's a disconnect. Part of tragedy is seeing the doom coming, right?

When it opens up, however, it's empathetic and subtle, full of a dry irony that Finley is already specializing in after only one other feature. Geraldine Viswanathan and Allison Janney get across a lot of interiority that is not on the page.

43. The Trip to Greece (Michael Winterbottom)- By the fourth installment, you know whether you're on board with the franchise. If you're asking "Is this all there is?" to Coogan and Brydon's bickering and impressions as they're served exotic food in picturesque settings, then this one won't sway you. If you're asking "Is this all there is?" about life, like they are, then I don't need to convince you.  

I will say that The Trip to Spain seemed like an enervated inflection point, at which the squad could have packed it in. The Trip to Greece proves that they probably need to keep doing this until one of them dies, which has been the subtext all along.

42. Feels Good Man (Arthur Jones)- This documentary centers on innocent artist Matt Furie's helplessness as his Pepe the Frog character gets hijacked by the alt-right. It gets the hard things right. It's able to, quite comprehensively, trace a connection from 4Chan's use of Pepe the Frog to Donald Trump's near-assuming of Pepe's ironic deniability. Director Arthur Jones seems to understand the machinations of the alt-right, and he articulates them chillingly.

The easy thing, making us connect to Furie, is less successful. The film spends way too much time setting up his story, and it makes him look naive as it pits him against Alex Jones in the final third. Still, the film is a quick ninety-two minutes, and the highs are pretty high.

41. The Old Guard (Gina Prince-Bythewood)- Some of the world-building and backstory are handled quite elegantly. The relationships actually do feel centuries old through specific details, and the immortal conceit comes together for an innovative final action sequence.

Visually and musically though, the film feels flat in a way that Prince-Bythewood's other films do not. I blame Netflix specs. KiKi Layne, who tanked If Beale Street Could Talk for me, nearly ruins this too with the child-actory way that she stresses one word per line. Especially in relief with one of our more effortless actresses, Layne is distracting.

40. The Trial of the Chicago 7 (Aaron Sorkin)- Whenever Sacha Baron Cohen's Abbie Hoffman opens his mouth, the other defendants brace themselves for his dismissive vulgarity. Even when it's going to hurt him, he can't help but shoot off at the mouth. Of course, he reveals his passionate and intelligent depths as the trial goes on. The character is the one that Sorkin's screenplay seems the most endeared to: In the same way that Hoffman can't help but be Hoffman, Sorkin can't help but be Sorkin. Maybe we don't need a speech there; maybe we don't have to stretch past two hours; maybe a bon mot diffuses the tension. But we know exactly what to expect by now. The film is relevant, astute, witty, benevolent, and, of course, in love with itself. There are a handful of scenes here that are perfect, so I feel bad for qualifying so much.

A smaller point: Daniel Pemberton has done great work in the past (Motherless Brooklyn, King Arthur, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.), but the first sequence is especially marred by his sterile soft-rock approach.

  GOOD MOVIES

39. Time (Garrett Bradley)- The key to Time is that it provides very little context. Why the patriarch of this family is serving sixty years in prison is sort of besides the point philosophically. His wife and sons have to move on without him, and the tragedy baked into that fact eclipses any notion of what he "deserved." Feeling the weight of time as we switch back and forth between a kid talking about his first day of kindergarten and that same kid graduating from dentistry school is all the context we need. Time's presentation can be quite sumptuous: The drone shot of Angola makes its buildings look like crosses. Or is it X's?

At the same time, I need some context. When director Garrett Bradley withholds the reason Robert's in prison, and when she really withholds that Fox took a plea and served twelve years, you start to see the strings a bit. You could argue that knowing so little about why, all of a sudden, Robert can be on parole puts you into the same confused shoes as the family, but it feels manipulative to me. The film is preaching to the choir as far as criminal justice goes, which is fine, but I want it to have the confidence to tell its story above board.

38. Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets (Turner Ross and Bill Ross IV)- I have a barfly friend whom I see maybe once a year. When we first set up a time to meet, I kind of dread it and wonder what we'll have to talk about. Once we do get together, we trip on each other's words a bit, fumbling around with the rhythm of conversation that we mastered decades ago. He makes some kind of joke that could have been appropriate then but isn't now.

By the end of the day, hours later, we're hugging and maybe crying as we promise each other that we won't wait as long next time.

That's the exact same journey that I went on with this film.

37. Underwater (William Eubank)- Underwater is a story that you've seen before, but it's told with great confidence and economy. I looked up at twelve minutes and couldn't believe the whole table had been set. Kristen plays Ripley and projects a smart, benevolent poise.

36. The Lodge (Veronika Franz and Severin Fiala)- I prefer the grounded, manicured first half to the more fantastic second half. The craziness of the latter is only possible through the hard work of the former though. As with Fiala and Franz's previous feature, the visual rhymes and motifs get incorporated into the soup so carefully that you don't realize it until they overwhelm you in their bleak glory.

Small note: Alicia Silverstone, the male lead's first wife, and Riley Keough, his new partner, look sort of similar. I always think that's a nice note: "I could see how he would go for her."

35. Miss Americana (Lana Wilson)- I liked it when I saw it as a portrait of a person whose life is largely decided for her but is trying to carve out personal spaces within that hamster wheel. I loved it when I realized that describes most successful people in their twenties.

34. Sound of Metal (Darius Marder)- Riz Ahmed is showing up on all of the best performances of the year lists, but Sound of Metal isn't in anyone's top ten films of the year. That's about right. Ahmed's is a quiet, stubborn performance that I wish was in service of more than the straight line that we've seen before.

In two big scenes, there's this trick that Ahmed does, a piecing together of consequences with his eyes, as if he's moving through a flow chart in real time. In both cases, the character seems locked out and a little slower than he should be, which is, of course, why he's facing the consequences in the first place. To be charitable to a film that was a bit of a grind, it did make me notice a thing a guy did with his eyes.

33. Pieces of a Woman (Kornel Mundruczo)- Usually when I leave acting showcases like this, I imagine the film without the Oscar-baiting speeches, but this is a movie that specializes in speeches. Pieces of a Woman is being judged, deservedly so, by the harrowing twenty-minute take that opens the film, which is as indulgent as it is necessary. But if the unbroken take provides the "what," then the speeches provide the "why."

This is a film about reclaiming one's body when it rebels against you and when other people seek ownership of it. Without the Ellen Burstyn "lift your head" speech or the Vanessa Kirby show-stopper in the courtroom, I'm not sure any of that comes across.

I do think the film lets us off the hook a bit with the LaBoeuf character, in the sense that it gives us reasons to dislike him when it would be more compelling if he had done nothing wrong. Does his half-remembering of the White Stripes count as a speech?

32. Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (George C. Wolfe)- This is such a play, not only in the locked-down location but also through nearly every storytelling convention: "Where are the two most interesting characters? Oh, running late? They'll enter separately in animated fashion?" But, to use the type of phrase that the characters might, "Don't hate the player; hate the game."

Perhaps the most theatrical note in this treatise on the commodification of expression is the way that, two or three times, the proceedings stop in their tracks for the piece to declare loudly what it's about. In one of those clear-outs, Boseman, who looks distractingly sick, delivers an unforgettable monologue that transports the audience into his character's fragile, haunted mind. He and Viola Davis are so good that the film sort of buckles under their weight, unsure of how to transition out of those spotlight moments and pretend that the story can start back up. Whatever they're doing is more interesting than what's being achieved overall.

31. Another Round (Thomas Vinterberg)- It's definitely the film that Vinterberg wanted to make, but despite what I think is a quietly shattering performance from Mikkelsen, Another Round moves in a bit too much of a straight line to grab me fully. The joyous final minutes hint at where it could have gone, as do pockets of Vinterberg's filmography, which seems newly tethered to realism in a way that I don't like. The best sequences are the wildest ones, like the uproarious trip to the grocery store for fresh cod, so I don't know why so much of it takes place in tiny hallways at magic hour. I give the inevitable American remake* permission to use these notes.

*- Just spitballing here. Martin: Will Ferrell, Nikolaj (Nick): Ben Stiller, Tommy: Owen Wilson, Peter: Craig Robinson

30. The Invisible Man (Leigh Whannell)- Exactly what I wanted. Exactly what I needed.

I think a less conclusive finale would have been better, but what a model of high-concept escalation. This is the movie people convinced me Whannell's Upgrade was.

29. On the Rocks (Sofia Coppola)- Slight until the Mexican sojourn, which expands the scope and makes the film even more psychosexual than before. At times it feels as if Coppola is actively simplifying, rather than diving into the race and privilege questions that the Murray character all but demands.

As for Murray, is the film 50% worse without him? 70%? I don't know if you can run in supporting categories if you're the whole reason the film exists.

28. Mangrove (Steve McQueen)- The first part of the film seemed repetitive and broad to me. But once it settled in as a courtroom drama, the characterization became more shaded, and the filmmaking itself seemed more fluid. I ended up being quite outraged and inspired.

27. Shirley (Josephine Decker)- Josephine Decker emerges as a real stylist here, changing her foggy, impressionistic approach not one bit with a little more budget. Period piece and established actors be damned--this is still as much of a reeling fever dream as Madeline's Madeline. Both pieces are a bit too repetitive and nasty for my taste, but I respect the technique.

Here's my mandatory "Elisabeth Moss is the best" paragraph. While watching her performance as Shirley Jackson, I thought about her most famous role as Peggy on Mad Men, whose inertia and need to prove herself tied her into confidence knots. Shirley is almost the opposite: paralyzed by her worldview, certain of her talent, rejecting any empathy. If Moss can inhabit both characters so convincingly, she can do anything.

26. An American Pickle (Brandon Trost)- An American Pickle is the rare comedy that could actually use five or ten extra minutes, but it's a surprisingly heartfelt and wholesome stretch for Rogen, who is earnest in the lead roles.

25. The King of Staten Island (Judd Apatow)- At two hours and fifteen minutes, The King of Staten Island is probably the first Judd Apatow film that feels like the exact right length. For example, the baggy date scene between a gracious Bill Burr and a faux-dowdy Marisa Tomei is essential, the sort of widening of perspective that something like Trainwreck was missing.

It's Pete Davidson's movie, however, and though he has never been my cup of tea, I think he's actually quite powerful in his quiet moments. The movie probes some rare territory--a mentally ill man's suspicion that he is unlovable, a family's strategic myth-making out of respect for the dead. And when Davidson shows up at the firehouse an hour and fifteen minutes in, it feels as if we've built to a last resort.

24. Swallow (Carlo Mirabella-Davis)- The tricky part of this film is communicating Hunter's despair, letting her isolation mount, but still keeping her opaque. It takes a lot of visual discipline to do that, and Claudio Mirabella-Davis is up to the task. This ends up being a much more sympathetic, expressive movie than the plot description might suggest.

(In the tie dispute, Hunter and Richie are both wrong. That type of silk--I couldn't tell how pebbled it was, but it's probably a barathea weave-- shouldn't be ironed directly, but it doesn't have to be steamed. On a low setting, you could iron the back of the tie and be fine.)

23. The Vast of Night (Andrew Patterson)- I wanted a bit more "there" there; The film goes exactly where I thought it would, and there isn't enough humor for my taste. (The predictability might be a feature, not a bug, since the film is positioned as an episode of a well-worn Twilight Zone-esque show.)

But from a directorial standpoint, this is quite a promising debut. Patterson knows when to lock down or use silence--he even cuts to black to force us to listen more closely to a monologue. But he also knows when to fill the silence. There's a minute or so when Everett is spooling tape, and he and Fay make small talk about their hopes for the future, developing the characters' personalities in what could have been just mechanics. It's also a refreshingly earnest film. No one is winking at the '50s setting.

I'm tempted to write, "If Andrew Patterson can make this with $1 million, just imagine what he can do with $30 million." But maybe people like Shane Carruth have taught us that Patterson is better off pinching pennies in Texas and following his own muse.

22. Martin Eden (Pietro Marcello)- At first this film, adapted from a picaresque novel by Jack London, seemed as if it was hitting the marks of the genre. "He's going from job to job and meeting dudes who are shaping his worldview now." But the film, shot in lustrous Super 16, won me over as it owned the trappings of this type of story, forming a character who is a product of his environment even as he transcends it. By the end, I really felt the weight of time.

You want to talk about something that works better in novels than films though? When a passionate, independent protagonist insists that a woman is the love of his life, despite the fact that she's whatever Italians call a wet blanket. She's rich, but Martin doesn't care about her money. He hates her family and friends, and she refuses to accept him or his life pursuits. She's pretty but not even as pretty as the waitress they discuss. Tell me what I'm missing here. There's archetype, and there's incoherence.

21. Bacurau (Kleber Mendonca Filho and Juliano Dornelles)- Certain images from this adventurous film will stick with me, but I got worn out after the hard reset halfway through. As entranced as I was by the mystery of the first half, I think this blood-soaked ensemble is better at asking questions than it is at answering them.

20. Let Them All Talk (Steven Soderbergh)- The initial appeal of this movie might be "Look at these wonderful actresses in their seventies getting a movie all to themselves." And the film is an interesting portrait of ladies taking stock of relationships that have spanned decades. But Soderbergh and Eisenberg handle the twentysomething Lucas Hedges character with the same openness and empathy. His early reasoning for going on the trip is that he wants to learn from older women, and Hedges nails the puppy-dog quality of a young man who would believe that. Especially in the scenes of aspirational romance, he's sweet and earnest as he brushes his hair out of his face.

Streep plays Alice Hughes, a serious author of literary fiction, and she crosses paths with Kelvin Kranz, a grinder of airport thrillers. In all of the right ways, Let Them All Talk toes the line between those two stances as an entertaining, jaunty experiment that also shoulders subtextual weight. If nothing else, it's easy to see why a cruise ship's counterfeit opulence, its straight lines at a lean, would be visually engaging to Soderbergh. You can't have a return to form if your form is constantly evolving.

19. Dick Johnson Is Dead (Kirsten Johnson)- Understandably, I don't find the subject as interesting as his own daughter does, and large swaths of this film are unsure of what they're trying to say. But that's sort of the point, and the active wrestling that the film engages in with death ultimately pays off in a transcendent moment. The jaw-dropping ending is something that only non-fiction film can achieve, and Johnson's whole career is about the search for that sort of serendipity.

18. Da 5 Bloods (Spike Lee)- Delroy Lindo is a live-wire, but his character is the only one of the principals who is examined with the psychological depth I was hoping for. The first half, with all of its present-tense flourishes, promises more than the gunfights of the second half can deliver. When the film is cooking though, it's chock full of surprises, provocations, and pride.

17. Never Rarely Sometimes Always (Eliza Hittmann)- Very quickly, Eliza Hittmann has established herself as an astute, empathetic director with an eye for discovering new talent. I hope that she gets to make fifty more movies in which she objectively follows laconic young people. But I wanted to like this one more than I did. The approach is so neutral that it's almost flat to me, lacking the arc and catharsis of her previous film, Beach Rats. I still appreciate her restraint though.

GREAT MOVIES

16. Young Ahmed (Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne)- I don't think the Dardennes have made a bad movie yet, and I'm glad they turned away from the slight genre dipping of The Unknown Girl, the closest to bad that they got. Young Ahmed is a lean, daring return to form.

Instead of following an average person, as they normally do, the Dardenne Brothers follow an extremist, and the objectivity that usually generates pathos now serves to present ambiguity. Ahmed says that he is changing, that he regrets his actions, but we never know how much of his stance is a put-on. I found myself wanting him to reform, more involved than I usually am in these slices of life. Part of it is that Idir Ben Addi looks like such a normal, young kid, and the Ahmed character has most of the qualities that we say we want in young people: principles, commitment, self-worth, reflection. So it's that much more destructive when those qualities are used against him and against his fellow man.

15. World of Tomorrow Episode Three: The Absent Destinations of David Prime (Don Hertzfeldt)- My dad, a man whom I love but will never understand, has dismissed modern music before by claiming that there are only so many combinations of chords. To him, it's almost impossible to do something new. Of course, this is the type of thing that an uncreative person would say--a person not only incapable of hearing the chords that combine notes but also unwilling to hear the space between the notes. (And obviously, that's the take of a person who doesn't understand that, originality be damned, some people just have to create.)

  Anyway, that attitude creeps into my own thinking more than I would like, but then I watch something as wholly original as World of Tomorrow Episode Three. The series has always been a way to pile sci-fi ideas on top of each other to prove the essential truths of being and loving. And this one, even though it achieves less of a sense of yearning than its predecessor, offers even more devices to chew on. Take, for example, the idea that Emily sends her message from the future, so David's primitive technology can barely handle it. In order to move forward with its sophistication, he has to delete any extraneous skills for the sake of computer memory. So out of trust for this person who loves him, he has to weigh whether his own breathing or walking can be uninstalled as a sacrifice for her. I thought that we might have been done describing love, but there it is, a new metaphor. Mixing futurism with stick figures to get at the most pure drive possible gave us something new. It's called art, Dad.

14. On the Record (Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering)- We don't call subjects of documentaries "stars" for obvious reasons, but Drew Dixon kind of is one. Her honesty and wisdom tell a complete story of the #MeToo movement. Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering take their time developing her background at first, not because we need to "gain sympathy" or "establish credibility" for a victim of sexual abuse, but because showing her talent and enthusiasm for hip-hop A&R makes it that much more tragic when her passion is extinguished. Hell, I just like the woman, so spending a half-hour on her rise was pleasurable in and of itself.

  This is a gut-wrenching, fearless entry in what is becoming Dick and Ziering's raison d'etre, but its greatest quality is Dixon's composed reflection. She helped to establish a pattern of Russell Simmons's behavior, but she explains what happened to her in ways I had never heard before.

13. David Byrne’s American Utopia (Spike Lee)- I'm often impressed by the achievements that puzzle me: How did they pull that off? But I know exactly how David Byrne pulled off the impish but direct precision of American Utopia: a lot of hard work.

I can't blame Spike Lee for stealing a page from Demme's Stop Making Sense: He denies us a close-up of any audience members until two-thirds of the way through, when we get someone in absolute rapture.

12. One Night in Miami... (Regina King)- We've all cringed when a person of color is put into the position of speaking on behalf of his or her entire race. But the characters in One Night in Miami... live in that condition all the time and are constantly negotiating it. As Black public figures in 1964, they know that the consequences of their actions are different, bigger, than everyone else's. The charged conversations between Malcolm X and Sam Cooke are not about whether they can live normal lives. They're way past that. The stakes are closer to Sam Cooke arguing that his life's purpose aligns with the protection and elevation of African-Americans while Malcolm X argues that those pursuits should be the same thing. Late in the movie, Cassius Clay leaves the other men, a private conversation, to talk to reporters, a public conversation. But the film argues that everything these men do is always already public. They're the most powerful African-Americans in the country, but their lives are not their own. Or not only their own.

It's true that the first act has the clunkiness and artifice of a TV movie, but once the film settles into the motel room location and lets the characters feed off one another, it's gripping. It's kind of unfair for a movie to get this many scenes of Leslie Odom Jr. singing, but I'll take it.

11. Saint Frances (Alex Thompson)- Rilke wrote, "Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something helpless that wants help from us." The characters' behavior in Saint Frances--all of these fully formed characters' behavior--made me think of that quotation. When they lash out at one another, even at their nastiest, the viewer has a window into how they're expressing pain they can't verbalize. The film is uneven in its subtlety, but it's a real showcase for screenwriter and star Kelly O'Sullivan, who is unflinching and dynamic in one of the best performances of the year. Somebody give her some of the attention we gave to Zach Braff for God's sake.

10. Boys State (Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine)- This documentary is kind of a miracle from a logistical standpoint. From casting interviews beforehand, lots of editing afterwards, or sly note-taking once the conference began, McBaine and Moss happened to select the four principals who mattered the most at the convention, then found them in rooms full of dudes wearing the same tucked-in t-shirt. By the way, all of the action took place over the course of one week, and by definition, the important events are carved in half.

To call Boys State a microcosm of American politics is incorrect. These guys are forming platforms and voting in elections. What they're doing is American politics, so when they make the same compromises and mistakes that active politicians do, it produces dread and disappointment. So many of the boys are mimicking the political theater that they see on TV, and that sweaty sort of performance is going to make a Billy Mitchell out of this kid Ben Feinstein, and we'll be forced to reckon with how much we allow him to evolve as a person. This film is so precise, but what it proves is undeniably messy. Luckily, some of these seventeen-year-olds usher in hope for us all.

If nothing else, the film reveals the level to which we're all speaking in code.

9. The Nest (Sean Durkin)- In the first ten minutes or so of The Nest, the only real happy minutes, father and son are playing soccer in their quaint backyard, and the father cheats to score on a children's net before sliding on the grass to rub in his victory. An hour later, the son kicks the ball around by himself near a regulation goal on the family's massive property. The contrast is stark and obvious, as is the symbolism of the dead horse, but that doesn't mean it's not visually powerful or resonant.

Like Sean Durkin's earlier film, Martha Marcy May Marlene, the whole of The Nest is told with detail of novelistic scope and an elevation of the moment. A snippet of radio that mentions Ronald Reagan sets the time period, rather than a dateline. One kid saying "Thanks, Dad" and another kid saying, "Thanks, Rory" establishes a stepchild more elegantly than any other exposition might.

But this is also a movie that does not hide what it means. Characters usually say exactly what is on their minds, and motivations are always clear. For example, Allison smokes like a chimney, so her daughter's way of acting out is leaving butts on the window sill for her mother to find. (And mother and daughter both definitely "act out" their feelings.) On the other hand, Ben, Rory's biological son, is the character least like him, so these relationships aren't too directly parallel. Regardless, Durkin uses these trajectories to cast a pall of familial doom.

8. Sorry We Missed You (Sean Durkin)- Another precisely calibrated empathy machine from Ken Loach. The overwhelmed matriarch, Abby, is a caretaker, and she has to break up a Saturday dinner to rescue one of her clients, who wet herself because no one came to help her to the bathroom. The lady is embarrassed, and Abby calms her down by saying, "You mean more to me than you know." We know enough about Abby's circumstances to realize that it's sort of a lie, but it's a beautiful lie, told by a person who cares deeply but is not cared for.

Loach's central point is that the health of a family, something we think of as immutable and timeless, is directly dependent upon the modern industry that we use to destroy ourselves. He doesn't have to be "proven" relevant, and he didn't plan for Covid-19 to point to the fragility of the gig economy, but when you're right, you're right.

7. Lovers Rock (Steve McQueen)- swear to you I thought: "This is an impeccable depiction of a great house party. The only thing it's missing is the volatile dude who scares away all the girls." And then the volatile dude who scares away all the girls shows up.

In a year short on magic, there are two or three transcendent moments, but none of them can equal the whole crowd singing along to "Silly Games" way after the song has ended. Nothing else crystallizes the film's note of celebration: of music, of community, of safe spaces, of Black skin. I remember moments like that at house parties, and like all celebrations, they eventually make me sad.

6. Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution (Nicole Newnham and James Lebrecht)- I held off on this movie because I thought that I knew what it was. The setup was what I expected: A summer camp for the disabled in the late '60s takes on the spirit of the time and becomes a haven for people who have not felt agency, self-worth, or community anywhere else. But that's the right-place-right-time start of a story that takes these figures into the '80s as they fight for their rights.

If you're anything like my dumb ass, you know about 504 accommodations from the line on a college syllabus that promises equal treatment. If 2020 has taught us anything though, it's that rights are seized, not given, and this is the inspiring story of people who unified to demand what they deserved. Judy Heumann is a civil rights giant, but I'm ashamed to say I didn't know who she was before this film. If it were just a history lesson that wasn't taught in school, Crip Camp would still be valuable, but it's way more than that.

5. Palm Springs (Max Barbakow)- When explaining what is happening to them, Andy Samberg's Nyles twirls his hand at Cristin Milioti's Sara and says, "It's one of those infinite time-loop scenarios." Yeah, one of those. Armed with only a handful of fictional examples, she and the audience know exactly what he means, and the continually inventive screenplay by Andy Siara doesn't have to do any more explaining. In record time, the film accelerates into its premise, involves her, and sets up the conflict while avoiding the claustrophobia of even Groundhog Day. That economy is the strength that allows it to be as funny as it is. By being thrifty with the setup, the savings can go to, say, the couple crashing a plane into a fiery heap with no consequences.

In some accidental ways, this is, of course, a quarantine romance as well. Nyles and Sara frustratingly navigate the tedious wedding as if they are play-acting--which they sort of are--then they push through that sameness to grow for each other, realizing that dependency is not weakness. The best relationships are doing the same thing right now.

  Although pointedly superficial--part of the point of why the couple is such a match--and secular--I think the notion of an afterlife would come up at least once--Palm Springs earns the sincerity that it gets around to. And for a movie ironic enough to have a character beg to be impaled so that he doesn't have to sit in traffic, that's no small feat.

  4. The Assistant (Kitty Green)- A wonder of Bressonian objectivity and rich observation, The Assistant is the rare film that deals exclusively with emotional depth while not once explaining any emotions. One at a time, the scrape of the Kleenex box might not be so grating, the long hallway trek to the delivery guy might not be so tiring, but this movie gets at the details of how a job can destroy you in ways that add up until you can't even explain them.

3. Promising Young Woman (Emerald Fennell)- In her most incendiary and modern role, Carey Mulligan plays Cassie, which is short for Cassandra, that figure doomed to tell truths that no one else believes. The web-belted boogeyman who ruined her life is Al, short for Alexander, another Greek who is known for his conquests. The revenge story being told here--funny in its darkest moments, dark in its funniest moments--is tight on its surface levels, but it feels as if it's telling a story more archetypal and expansive than that too.

  An exciting feature debut for its writer-director Emerald Fennell, the film goes wherever it dares. Its hero has a clear purpose, and it's not surprising that the script is willing to extinguish her anger halfway through. What is surprising is the way it renews and muddies her purpose as she comes into contact with half-a-dozen brilliant one- or two-scene performances. (Do you think Alfred Molina can pull off a lawyer who hates himself so much that he can't sleep? You would be right.)

Promising Young Woman delivers as an interrogation of double standards and rape culture, but in quiet ways it's also about our outsized trust in professionals and the notion that some trauma cannot be overcome.

INSTANT CLASSICS

2. Soul (Pete Docter)- When Pete Docter's Up came out, it represented a sort of coronation for Pixar: This was the one that adults could like unabashedly. The one with wordless sequences and dead children and Ed Asner in the lead. But watching it again this week with my daughter, I was surprised by how high-concept and cloying it could be. We choose not to remember the middle part with the goofy dog stuff.

Soul is what Up was supposed to be: honest, mature, stirring. And I don't mean to imply that a family film shouldn't make any concessions to children. But Soul, down to the title, never compromises its own ambition. Besides Coco, it's probably the most credible character study that Pixar has ever made, with all of Joe's growth earned the hard way. Besides Inside Out, it's probably the wittiest comedy that Pixar has ever made, bursting with unforced energy.

There's a twitter fascination going around about Dez, the pigeon-figured barber character whose scene has people gushing, "Crush my windpipe, king" or whatever. Maybe that's what twitter does now, but no one fantasized about any characters in Up. And I count that as progress.

1. I’m Thinking of Ending Things (Charlie Kaufman)- After hearing that our name-shifting protagonist moonlights as an artist, a no-nonsense David Thewlis offers, "I hope you're not an abstract artist." He prefers "paintings that look like photographs" over non-representational mumbo-jumbo. And as Jessie Buckley squirms to try to think of a polite way to talk back, you can tell that Charlie Kaufman has been in the crosshairs of this same conversation. This morose, scary, inscrutable, expressionist rumination is not what the Netflix description says it is at all, and it's going to bother nice people looking for a fun night in. Thank God.

The story goes that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, when constructing Raiders of the Lost Ark, sought to craft a movie that was "only the good parts" with little of the clunky setup that distracted from action. What we have here is a Charlie Kaufman movie with only the Charlie Kaufman moments, less interested than ever before at holding one's hand. The biting humor is here, sometimes aimed at philistines like the David Thewlis character above, sometimes at the niceties that we insist upon. The lonely horror of everyday life is here, in the form of missed calls from oneself or the interruption of an inner monologue. Of course, communicating the overwhelming crush of time, both unknowable and familiar, is the raison d'etre.

A new pet motif seems to be the way that we don't even own our own knowledge. The Young Woman recites "Bonedog" by Eva H.D., which she claims/thinks she wrote, only to find Jake's book open to that page, next to a Pauline Kael book that contains a Woman Under the Influence review that she seems to have internalized later. When Jake muses about Wordsworth's "Lucy Poems," it starts as a way to pass the time, then it becomes a way to lord his education over her, then it becomes a compliment because the subject resembles her, then it becomes a way to let her know that, in the grand scheme of things, she isn't that special at all. This film jerks the viewer through a similar wintry cycle and leaves him with his own thoughts. It's not a pretty picture, but it doesn't look like anything else.

[oltnews]

They really don't say anything to Scarlett Johansson. She may be the star of "Black Widow", but that doesn't mean that she has any idea when the movie trailer will be released. You may remember that we had a first surprise glimpse of "Black Widow" earlier this week. And when we say early, we mean early. Tuesday, our story was published just before 2 a.m. The trailer fell late Monday without fanfare or advance warning, and Johansson told Stephen Colbert Thursday evening that even she didn't know it was going to happen. "I woke up and received a text from Chris Evans saying," The trailer is superb. "I don't know what he was doing at 5 a.m. It's another story. Yeah, getting up, of course," she said, responding to Colbert's joke. haven't said it! They hide everything from me. " Also read: 'Black Widow': Natasha Romanoff has a family reunion and kicks ass in the first trailer for Marvel Prequel (Video) Johansson was on "The Late Show" to promote "Marriage Story", which she performed with Adam Driver, aka Kylo Ren from the "Star Wars" trilogy. So Colbert asked if she had any idea who would win a fight between Kylo and Natasha. She didn't have a lot of response, nor about the details she was allowed to say about "Black Widow", other than the fact that it was between "Captain America: Civil War" and "Avengers: Infinity War ". Johansson says the film is a "homecoming" in which Natasha must now face some of her guilt over the things she did before becoming revenge. However, fans wondered why a solo film, Black Widow is not an origin story that goes back to its training beginnings in Russia, and she explained why this story was better. "I could never have made this film 10 years ago when we had just started our journey with Marvel. It’s a film that speaks so much… the character informed this film. My trip with Natasha informed this film. She’s a character who’s a fully recognized woman. It has a complexity that it is delicious, "said Johansson. "Not to say it would have been something else or totally entertaining in 10 years, but we can do things that are good." Also read: Review of the film 'Marriage Story': Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver split up in the devastating drama of Noah Baumbach Colbert also had another theory to direct by her: that it was Johansson's last go-around as "Black Widow". Here is why: it is his eighth appearance because the character and the spiders have eight legs. Can't it be a coincidence? Of course, Stephen. Check out Johansson's appearance on CBS "The Late Show" above. All 23 Marvel Cinematic Universe movies ranked, from worst to best (Photos) No one on the Internet wants to talk about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it's something we simply can't continue to ignore. But seriously: even if this seemingly unstoppable franchise has rabid fans around the world, nobody can agree on those they prefer (or at least, for that matter). TheWrap film editor-in-chief Alonso Duralde gets into the subject - and no, he's not paid by anyone at Disney to love (or hate, for that matter) any of these films. wonder 23. "The Incredible Hulk" (2008) Released just five years after Ang Lee's "Hulk", this second attempt to make a man a leader in the great green creature radiated by Gamma proved just as disappointing. If we've learned anything from the Avengers movies, it's that Bruce Banner works best when he's a supporting character (and when he's played by Mark Ruffalo). wonder 22. "Ant-Man" (2015) Although this film deserves to be rewarded for not having put the fate of humanity at stake - the stakes are more than the size of a child's train - the stabs to the humor of the film seem to be overestimated , and little natural charm from Paul Rudd comes to the fore in what should be a breezy caper. We can only wonder what the original version of Edgar Wright might have looked like. Disney / Marvel 21. "Thor" (2011) Director Kenneth Branagh tackles the the-and-thou of Asgard's segments, but the little town where the pinnacle is played out has been one of the most cheesy fake towns on the screen since the terrible movie "Supergirl" in years 80. On the positive side, actor Chris Hemsworth shows a scintillating spirit in this adventure of the god of thunder, coupled with an impressive musculature. wonder 20. "Iron Man 2" (2010) The best MCU movies do a good job of distracting you from all the setup of future franchise entries; this one offers so much empire building that it might as well have a "Pardon Our Dust" sign on it. Still, Scarlett Johansson's first appearance as Black Widow, dispatching opponents down the hall, made an unforgettable impression. Disney / Marvel 19. "Captain America: the first avenger" (2011) Just like he did in "The Rocketeer", director Joe Johnston excels at portraying the brilliance of the 1940s, although the characters are not as vivid as the USO sparrow. But fear not, true believers - the screen adventures of Cap have improved a lot in his later solo and team movies. wonder 18. "Thor: The Dark World" (2013) Firmly average, yes, but an improvement over its predecessor and a good time, skillfully balancing superheroes, second bananas, entertaining villains and the occasional killer one-liner. In no way a cornerstone of the MCU, but this one, mainly, works. Disney / Marvel 17. "Iron Man 3" (2013) Director and co-writer Shane Black doesn't always have the narrowest understanding of history - what is the infamous Extremis still doing, and why? - but he shows his skill in witty jokes (which Robert Downey, Jr. can make within an inch of his life) and breathtaking action (a flight rescue of a dozen passengers who have just fallen from Air Force One). Disney / Marvel 16. "The Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015) It's always fun when the group comes together, but it's also hard to rediscover the magic of this first time. This sequel offers a lot of excitement and banter scripted by Joss Whedon, but it's also a bit overloaded with characters and support setups for the next MCU movie series. Both fans and enemies of superhero movies can find arguments for their arguments here. Disney / Marvel 15. "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" (2017) The group is back together, and they are as hilarious as when they first came out, but overall, this sequel gives the impression that it is only vamping (entertaining) until the next major change of the intrigue in the MCU. Kurt Russell appears as Ego the Living Planet, who claims to be the long-lost father of Peter Quill / Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), and although the film is more concerned with character and emotion than intrigue , not all the movement the moments ring true. Disney / Marvel 14. Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) This sequel has a better idea of ​​his own stupidity than his predecessor, as Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) flee the Feds, fight the phased-in ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) and thwart plans of a gangster (Walton Goggins), while planning a rescue of the mother of The Wasp (Michelle Pfeiffer) from another dimension. Feels more Disney - in the sense of Kurt-Russell-as-Dexter-Riley - than Marvel, but still fun. Disney / Marvel 13. Captain Marvel (2019) Both the personal development and the retro of the 1990s are played with a fairly heavy hand, but it's a lot of fun to have here, Brie Larson's heroine, both bubbling and haunted - nothing like amnesia to spice up another story of origin - to one of the biggest feline bananas in the history of cinema. 12. "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) It's a little difficult to judge this one on its own merits, because it is clearly a half-film; we will not really know how this film will materialize until we have the sequel. But in the meantime, he does a pretty impressive job of juggling some 25 major MCU characters and keeping his sense of humor even in the face of mass destruction (and intense scenes involving torture and genocide). Disney / Marvel 11. "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) You get all the T-crossing and I-dotting required at this point in the game, but the capper for the first piece of the MCU saga is a mostly satisfying season finale that offers rare moments of catharsis among moments of entertaining characters. which will cause laughter and maybe even a few tears. Disney / Marvel 10. "Spider-Man: Far From Home" (2019) This second outing from director Jon Watts and leader Tom Holland maintains the lark tone and focus on the characters that make these films feel like such a unique corner of the MCU. This time, the post-snap (or "blip", as the film says) Peter Parker and his friends are heading to Europe in a film that looks like a road comedy that sometimes blows up some superheroes. Disney / Marvel 9. "Thor: Ragnarok" (2017) Director Taika Waititi ("Hunt for the Wilderpeople") strikes a delicate balance between breathless action and the fate of the universe on the one hand and ironic stupidity and catchy jokes on the other. Fortunately, he has Chris Hemsworth, who excels in both, surrounded by spirit like Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo and franchise beginners Tessa Thompson, Jeff Goldblum and a glorious Cate Blanchett. Disney / Marvel 8. "Captain America: Civil War" (2016) The plot and the pace aren't as tight as in "Winter Soldier", but if you're looking for somber human conflict and exciting superhero-on-superhero action, this movie does a lot of good as "Batman v. Superman : Dawn of Justice "did wrong. Disney / Marvel 7. "Iron Man" (2008) It all starts here - a story of superhero origins for literalists who cannot hide behind explosive planets or radioactive spiders. Jon Favreau, then most famous for directing "Elf" and writing and co-starring in "Swingers", seemed a strange choice for the material, but he knows how to give us the two characters (played by Downey and Gwyneth Paltrow with plume) and ka-blam. wonder 6. "Black Panther" (2018) While the titular African superhero king of Chadwick Boseman takes something from a back seat to a troika of fascinating female characters - played by Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira and Letitia Wright - the film nevertheless overflows with excitement and of a rich history. (And Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger ranks among the franchise's biggest villains.) Disney / Marvel 5. "Spider-Man: Homecoming" (2017) Less motivated by guilt and haunted than previous versions of the character (on the page or screen), Tom Holland's Spider-Man has enough on his plate to manage his superhero growing pains. Hungry to join The Avengers but still struggling with everything he has to learn - he's only 15 years old after all - our hero faces the evil blue collar The Vulture (well Michael Keaton, Birdman) in a funny adventure all by presenting real challenges, formidable characterizations and a wonderfully detailed cast. (You must love a teen movie that works for Zendaya, Tony Revolori, Abraham Attah and Josie Totah, as well as scene-robber newcomer Jacob Batalon.) Sony / Marvel 4. "Doctor Strange" (2016) It would be too easy to ridicule the master of the mystical arts on the big screen, but director Scott Derrickson and his team somehow gave us a version of the surgeon-turned-magician, Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who seems at ease in the real world, rubbing shoulders with the Avengers and crossing tripping and dazzling dimensions where no one else could go. 3. "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014) Pleasant, casual and steeped in the super hits of the 70s, this comic adventure is something of an outlier - both tonal and geographic - in the Marvel universe. Yet whether Rocket Raccoon and Black Widow intersect or not, this saga that covers the stars reminded us that there is more than one way to tell a story about superheroes. Disney / Marvel 2. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014) Aggressive patriotism meets anti-government paranoia in this fascinating tale that pits the captain against labyrinthine plots. It also turns out that Steve Rogers is much more interesting in time travel in the 2000s than firmly at home in the 1940s. And you will believe that the Falcon can fly. Disney / Marvel 1. "The Avengers" (2012) Still the gold standard of the MCU, this film reveals that Joss Whedon gets comics in their DNA, in the same way that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were fluent in the language of serials in the "Indiana Jones" movies. Putting all of these heroes in one room (or helicopter, anyway) has produced tremendous results, although the success of the film has led to the all-superhero-all-time ethos of contemporary Hollywood. Disney / Marvel Previous slide Next slide TheWrap reviewer Alonso Duralde orders the MCU, including "Spider-Man: Far From Home" No one on the Internet wants to talk about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it's something we simply can't continue to ignore. But seriously: even if this seemingly unstoppable franchise has rabid fans around the world, nobody can agree on those they prefer (or at least, for that matter). TheWrap film editor-in-chief Alonso Duralde gets into the subject - and no, he's not paid by anyone at Disney to love (or hate, for that matter) any of these films. https://oltnews.com/even-scarlett-johansson-didnt-know-black-widow-trailer-was-falling-video-thewrap?_unique_id=5ea1a7409999e

[blue-mint-winter]

Review: Thrawn Treason by Timothy Zahn

Thrawn Treason is the third Thrawn book belonging to the new canon timeline and the thirteenth Star Wars book written by Timothy Zahn. Thankfully, this time number thirteen brings luck to us readers as Thrawn returns in a great form!

The novel covers the small gap left open in Star Wars Rebels season 4, when Thrawn was recalled from Lothal to Coruscant. As it turns out, he never actually went to Coruscant, instead he’s tasked by Tarkin to stop a vermin problem that causes delays in supply deliveries for Krennic’s project Stardust. Thrawn has only a week to deal with the gralloc infestation or he would lose funding for his TIE Defender project. However, Thrawn’s investigation quickly comes upon a much graver threat to the Empire. Thrawn and Chiss admiral Ar’alani must join forces to fight the Grysk, but it could be taken as treason by certain Imperials...

The book’s main strength is the well-written mystery. As Thrawn’s investigation progresses we learn more and more about secrets, plans, motives and intrigues on all three sides - the Empire, Chiss and Grysk. This sense of steady discovery gives the reader much enjoyment. The decent pace of the book also doesn’t allow for any boredom.

What really sets this book apart are the excellently written space battles. The unique strategies and sound reasoning used in them make for a very intellectual form of entertainment, which isn’t that common in Star Wars literature. Even in the films battles fill the role of a spectacle. I personally love the final battle strategy of Thrawn’s which really showcased his prediction ability as well as was the finest space battle strategy ever written by Zahn.

Characters were enjoyable, though this time we’re deprived of Thrawn’s POV - only a few short dialogues were shown through his eyes. Instead we follow the story through the eyes of Eli Vanto (yay!) returned to us with the Chiss, Karyn Faro, who only gets cooler in this book, Assistant Director Ronan and Grand Admiral Savit. Eli and Faro are firmly in Thrawn’s camp, so really no surprises there, but what I really really liked was Ronan’s POV. Ronan is Krennic’s one and only Number One Fan in the whole galaxy and I find that incredibly amusing. His inner commentary on the Empire, Thrawn, Eli and everything happening provides an interesting counterpoint to the more rational Thrawn-biased view of other characters. Still, in the end Thrawn wins Ronan’s grudging respect, which naturally adds to Thrawn’s awesome points.

I like that the book managed to insert Thrawn into the Krennic-Tarkin power struggle without making it about Thrawn. Rather he gets dragged into the middle of it and just does his own thing and it ends as most of these political matters he’s involved with, with no clear winner or loser. Though I sure am now glad that Thrawn never went to Coruscant thanks to Ezra, because Palpatine was definitely onto him at the end there.

In the novel we uncover new information about Chiss and Grysk and it only makes me more curious how the situation in the Unknown Regions will be resolved. Will Zahn continue writing about it in his Thrawn books, will it be taken up by the new TV shows or even films? I hope for more books, because only Zahn gets the essence of Thrawn and Chiss right as their one true creator. After reading this book, I realized just how different was Rebels’ version of Thrawn. Book Thrawn is an intellectual, he prefers to solve conflicts with his smarts. Rebels Thrawn was a big bad Imperial on steroids, sparring with battle droids for fun. It’s very hard for me to reconcile these two Thrawns. Strong physicality is just not Thrawn’s style in my opinion and we never see anything like that from him in the books. On the other hand, I appreciate that Rebels showed Thrawn doing actually evil things. The books as always have a problem with whitewashing Imperials and Empire as the institution, but at this point it’s just a staple of Zahn’s writing. When you read his books, you know what you’re getting into, it’s too late to complain.

For a book that shows us only one short adventure of Thrawn’s, Thrawn Treason packs a solid dose of action, wits, new information and even some humour. I definitely enjoyed it. The score is 8/10.

#star wars eu #thrawn treason #my review #sw eu

[lawfulgoodness]

Justice League Movie Review

Everything before the cut is spoiler-free.  If you click “Read More” though, that’s where the spoilers will be.

As a point of reference, I hated BvS, loved Jenkins' Wonder Woman, I’m still undecided about Man of Steel, and I found Suicide Squad pretty forgettable.  In general I prefer DC characters and comics over Marvel, but have enjoyed the Marvel movies on average more than the DC ones.  The Flash is my favorite comic book character of all time (generally preferring Wally West over Barry, but that's okay because the DCEU seems to be going more for Wally's personality for the character).  For some of you, that's probably enough for you to ignore the rest of this, but I never expect anyone to agree with my opinion on movies.  I’d rather just give you information about it and enough of my thoughts to let you know if it’s worth $10 and 2 hours of your life to go see.  That’s a decision for you to make; I won’t try to make it for you.

The Good: The short version is, I liked the movie.  I enjoyed the 2 hours I spent at the theater, and I felt like the characters I was watching on the screen were pretty accurate representations of their comic book counterparts.  Cyborg is a little more conflicted / bitter about his state than I'm used to him being, but he doesn’t go overboard with it.  It was just a side that I’m not used to seeing of him.  Aquaman is also a little more frat boy and a little less stiff formal royalty than some other adaptations, but the basic demeanor and relationship with land-dwellers was pretty good.  All-in-all, the interplay between characters is solid, good group dynamics, and solid character building for each of the main characters, especially for an ensemble cast where it's hard to give any single character their own screentime.

The Bad: Some of the pacing felt off, so that by the end you're watching the ultimate 20-minute long fight scene without much emotional depth.  But honestly, I've yet to see an ensemble comic book movie that doesn't fall into this trap.  Justice League is no more guilty of it than anyone else.

The Ugly: You can tell they had to photoshop Cavil's moustache out of several bits.  Without getting into spoilers or the DCEU drama, some scenes were reshot while Henry Cavill was working on another movie, which contractually obligated him to keep his mustache.  As a result, they tried to digitally alter his face to take off the mustache in the reshoots.  It shows, and makes Cavill's face look weird and "plasticy" in some shots.  Additionally, Ray Fisher's face in most of the Cyborg shots looks similarly plastic.  Maybe that was more by intent, but it's unfortunate that CGI seems to be the go-to method for applying these kinds of effects  I feel like the film suffered for it.

But on the whole I enjoyed the movie and I’m excited to see where the DCEU goes from here.

For more details and/or possible spoilers, Click Here:

Honestly, “Justice League” really makes me want to watch “Man of Steel” again.  My problem was always that it ended without Superman really being Superman.  We got part of an origin story, but he still wasn’t quite there yet.  We didn’t really see how he dealt with Zod’s death.  Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice also seemed to just skip over that, so it was really unfulfilling (plus everything that’s already been said about Bats and Supes fighting is just a lousy premise for a movie).

However, it does feel like Superman is finally Superman.  There’s some folks that seem to be upset that this isn’t the Superman they wanted.  But from my point of view, this was the end goal...  “Justice League” is a really good culmination of Superman’s “Origin Story” in the DCEU.  The world realizes the hero it has in Superman, and he has gained an appreciation for his role in a world where he won’t ever fit in, but there are still things to love & appreciate in it.  I’m not sure I’ll ever forgive Zack Snyder for what he did to Jimmy Olsen, Jonathan Kent, or Lex Luthor, but I do feel like he has given us a really good narrative that “explains” who Superman is: a quiet and shy romantic who helps others because he can and because it’s the right thing to do.

Some other things I liked about the move, was the fact that we see Batman unapologetically appreciate Superman.  You don’t have to look too far to find media or stories where you can tell they are friends, but this is probably the mushiest Bruce has ever gotten over Clark and I love it.  Not in a shipping way, but just in a really honest, human vulnerable way.

I really didn’t like the “resurrection” fight scene.  I couldn’t really figure out why Supes was beating the crap out of everyone.  It could have been written better, but I couldn’t tell if he was just supposed to be confused, disoriented, or really, really pissed.  It seemed like that latter, but I couldn’t figure out why.

Also, seeing Batman just grab a gun and start shooting things (even if they were undead parademon things) was weird.  I’ve tried to get used to his planes & cars having guns for movie purposes, but just watching him just stand their shooting parademons with one of their laser guns just didn’t feel right.  I feel like that’s a slippery slope that ends with Batman turning into the Punisher.

On the negative side, I’m still not digging the washed-out color palette, but it seemed to get a bit better in this movie.  Again, I think that’s on purpose and likely planned from the beginning as part of the arc.  This movie ends where I would have preferred the DCEU to start: a band of colorful heroic characters make themselves known to the world, and seek to inspire and protect those around them.  It took Superman dying and coming back to make it happen, but I am more excited about the future of the DCEU than I have been in a long time.

#DCEU #Justice League #Zack Snyder #my reviews

[dailystillstarcrossed]

Actor Medalion Rahimi Spills on New Shondaland Series 'Still Star-Crossed' & Why You'll Fall in Love With Princess Isabella

It's been a hot minute since Shonda Rhimes has graced us with a crisp new series. Now, conveniently timed and generously lessening the harsh blow of Scandal's cancellation, we can confirm: It was totally worth the wait.

Still Star-Crossed is a period drama like you've never seen before, picking up right where Shakespeare's epic play Romeo & Juliet left off. Based on Melinda Taub's 2013 novel of the same name, the show tells the story of the Montague and Capulet families as they continue to battle for power, prestige, and love. In retrospect, a follow-up makes a lot of sense. After all, any community with this many issues is proven to make for quality TV.

The notable diversity of the series' cast is an exciting (if not expected) complement to its as yet untold story, calling to mind Rhimes' splendid ability to create and produce addictive dramas that still manage to stand apart from the crowd.

Zimbio caught up with actor Medalion Rahimi, who plays Princess Isabella on the ABC series, a week before its May 29 premiere.

Zimbio: Tell me about your character, Princess Isabella. What makes her different?

MR: Princess Isabella is Prince Escalus' [actor Sterling Sulieman] sister. He's been away for a few years, sort of learning how to become a ruler. Isabella, meanwhile, has been at home with her father, so she's learned a lot about how the city works and how the politics are at home. Some might say she's more fit to rule, or more capable to rule because she has so much knowledge of how it all works, but because she's a woman, she doesn't have the opportunity to be in power. So she steps aside and lets her brother rule, but that's very difficult for her to deal with. She still acts as an advisor, but she does have a taste for power, and I think she wants more.

Zimbio: Does Escalus acknowledge and respect Isabella, or is he begrudgingly taking her advice? What is the dynamic between them?

MR: Most of the time he's a little reluctant, but she does actually convince him to listen. There are times they do butt heads and he doesn't follow through or do what she recommends, so that's where the conflict happens. They get themselves in a little bit of trouble.

Zimbio: Got it.

MR: They're young rulers, they're still figuring it out. They want to make their father proud, so there's a lot of pressure.

Zimbio: So lots of sibling rivalry?

MR: I think there's tension, but you can tell they're still loving with each other. As the season goes on, though, that tension starts to build. I don't know what that breaking point would be like, but I'm sure there would be one eventually.

Zimbio: Normally when a character has the title "Princess" in their name, a certain kind of person comes to mind. It sounds like Isabella isn't, you know...trope-y.

MR: Oh yeah. She isn't necessarily concerned with, you know, when the dress-maker is coming over to make her dress for the ball. She's more concerned with the Montagues slaughtering the Capulets, and what do we do, because our city is being torn apart. She's much more concerned with politics and power, not so much the frivolous things like getting her shoes or dresses made, or falling in love. She's not even looking for that. You know, she's an eligible princess, and eventually she might need to find somebody in order to cement relationships between other cities, so it'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Zimbio: For sure! So in Season 1, do we see Isabella with any sort of love interest at all?

MR: We do see someone. I can't say too much, but it's sort of just introduced, and...well, she has someone that comes into the picture who changes her mind about certain things. But she's very hard-headed, and she has one goal, so that's another conflict she has to face, is following her heart versus following her head. Usually she's following her head. Escalus is the one who's always following his heart, so that's why they say Isabella is more fit to rule. She's more logical.

Zimbio: Do you relate to Isabella as a person?

MR: Absolutely! I wish I was as strong as her. But she lives a very sheltered life, she doesn't ever get to leave the palace, and I had a pretty sheltered, strict upbringing, so I understand that — wanting a taste for freedom and having your own life and making your own decisions. She doesn't really get to do that, so I feel for her. She's constantly encaged, and also wearing these corsets, which are a physical metaphor for her being so oppressed, in a way. You get to see the corsets, what they're made out of. In one scene you see the whole process of her getting ready, and they show what it takes. It's really cool.

Zimbio: Ugh, yeah, I've always wondered about that. I can't even imagine.

MR: We were lucky in that we tried to be authentic, but they gave us more comfortable versions of the corsets. We weren't actually using whale bone, but you'll see. There was one corset I wore that was really crazy. It was really uncomfortable, but it was worth it.

Zimbio: It's no secret Shonda Rhimes has the Midas Touch. Did you have more confidence going into this show because of her involvement?

MR: I trust Shonda so much because all of her past work has done so well and has made such an impact on people's lives. She always casts such strong female leads, which as an actor — or actress, I prefer to say 'actor,' but 'lady actor' — I appreciate. As soon as I tell people this is Shonda Rhimes' show, they're like, 'Oh! That's gonna be amazing!' She has this great resume, this history, so I'm hoping that's gonna get us more attention. She really does have the Midas Touch, I just saw the cut of the series pilot after she put her touch on it and it looks amazing. It has that fast pace of Scandal and the drama of Grey's Anatomy and it's just, like, you can tell it's her, but it's also so different than anything that ABC or Shondaland has ever done before.

Zimbio: Did you know how diverse the cast would be when you signed on?

MR: Absolutely not! I was really excited about being cast in a period piece being a Middle-Eastern actor. Then when I found out who my brother was I was a little surprised at first. I was like, 'Oh, okay! This is cool,' and then I started seeing more of the cast and I just thought it was amazing. It made me really excited. I was a little nervous, because I know people are going to ask questions like, 'How does this work? This doesn't make sense,' but we're not trying to focus on race as much as we are just the prejudice and the power struggles. It's not black versus white or anything like that. Everyone was cast because they were just right for the role.

Zimbio: Ebony Magazine recently pointed out that this period of time in history — the 1300s and beyond — has been portrayed in a lot of TV shows and films, but most have failed to illustrate the fact that minorities even existed in society. The stories tend to revolve around white enclaves, or white families.

MR: Oh, absolutely. You know, if people want a reason for [Still Star-Crossed's casting], it's that Verona was a port city. People were coming from all over, they were doing trades and things like that. So there could have absolutely been people from all over the world, the Moors or Africa, whatever, if you want to really explain it. But again, this isn't an historical drama, it's an historical fiction. It's Shakespeare. People should remember that, and keep an open mind. It's fantasy.

Zimbio: Definitely! That's what makes it so fun. Do you think fans of Romeo & Juliet, or Shakespeare in general, will be pleased with Still Star-Crossed's portrayal of the same universe?

MR: I think they will. We've also taken a bit of liberty with the characters, so as long as they're open to that, I think they'll quickly fall in love with everyone. There are some characters who aren't in the play that viewers will get to meet, which is cool. There might even be some characters from other plays!

Zimbio: Interesting! So, some cross-overs from other Shakespearean pieces?

MR: Maybe, yeah. I think they were trying to do that by alluding to certain people. I can't say who exactly, but you'll see!

Zimbio: I heard that in Season 1, Isabella will be forced to "succumb to a twisted scheme." It brought to mind the fact that, often in history (but also in modern times) women have had to make moral concessions in order to do what is, ultimately, the best thing for them. For their survival.

MR: Absolutely. Isabella, for the greater good, definitely has to set some of her own morals aside and get herself into really uncomfortable situations, but it's because she's so dedicated and so loyal to her city and her people that she does it. I feel for her. She definitely gets herself into a really sticky situation. That will be Episode 5, I believe, in the middle of the season.

Zimbio: Is Still Star-Crossed one of those shows where someone dies every other episode? I mean, should viewers make an effort to hold characters at arm's length, Game of Thrones-style?

MR: I would say so, yeah. Unfortunately, there are a lot deaths, so yeah...

Zimbio: I'll brace myself.

#medalion rahimi #princess isabella #still star crossed #interview #spoilers

[amberlovesanimation]

First Thoughts on the Anastasia Broadway Cast Album

So I grew up watching Don Bluth’s Anastasia, like a lot of people, and it’s now definitely one of my favourite movies of all time. I’m also a huge theatre geek, so when I first heard whispers about an Anastasia broadway musical, I was VERY excited. Sadly, I haven’t watched the show because I live in Manchester, England (I read the plot online and I am VERY disappointed that Rasputin isn’t the antagonist), but I pre-ordered the cast recording asap (I don’t think it has every single song on it, though) and they’ve recently released it onto soundcloud here  and I have opinions that I want to share lmao. Also, these are just my FIRST thoughts, after hearing the album ONCE - in my experience, I tend to grow more attached to songs the more I listen to them, so these definitely aren’t my final opinions on this soundtrack.

Prologue / Once Upon A December - This very first song actually made me cry because of the nostalgia XD and also Mary Beth Peil has an AMAZING voice.

A Rumor In St. Petersburg - I also really like this song, including the additions they made to it. Not much else to say really.

In My Dreams - I got chills listening to this song; it’s so beautiful, I can’t wait to learn it.

Learn To Do It - Admittedly, I personally prefer the faster pace and more upbeat original version of this song, however this new version saved itself with the part where Anya flips her shit and has a go at the boys. Amazing.

The Neva Flows - So this is the antagonist’s (Gleb) first song, and uh...it’s pretty good, I guess, especially during the crescendo. They’re definitely trying to create a more humane “villain”, showing how he’s been affected by what he witnessed as a child. Still would’ve preferred In the Dark of the Night, though...

My Petersburg - I like the energy of the song, very upbeat, I love the ending buildup. And I’ve always loved how adaptations of films delve deeper into the characters’ backstories a bit (like Shrek the Musical)

Once Upon A December - Beautiful. I’ll probably always prefer the original, due to nostalgia, but Christy Altomare did a really good job capturing Anya’s emotions in this more vulnerable moment. They were right to not mess with this song too much.

Stay, I Pray You - I have no idea who tf Count Ipolitov is but this is a very emotional choral song, and has a beautifully melancholic melody. I love how Anastasia ends it.

We’ll Go From There - Awh, this song is so cute! I’m glad they gave Vlad (ha that rhymes) a song about Sophie- sorry, I mean Lily. Nevermind all three of the gang are singing it....I like it! It’s a good, quick way to show their feelings (which are mainly anxiety) at this point.

Still - Um why the fuck is Gleb in love with Anya. I HATE that. Haven’t they met, like, twice at this point? I’ve only read the wikipedia page for the plot so maybe I’m wrong. But still....fuck this subplot. So yeah this song is ok I guess, I think I’m just too stubborn about my dislike for the changed story lmao. I also quite like the whole....idea? of this song, how it ends with “but still...” like, it doesn’t need t explain what comes after the “still”, it just needs to show his hesitation/inner conflict.

Journey To The Past - I’m not bothered by the fact that they moved this song to this point in the story, it still fits well actually, and like with OUAD, they smartly didn’t change it much. And like with OUAD, I’ll always prefer the original, but this version is also amazing.

Paris Holds The Key (To Your Heart) - It’s a great chorus number, and definitely a good one to start off act 2 with. Again, I prefer the original, although I like how Anastasia has a solo in this one too.

Crossing A Bridge - I love this song, tbh I’ve realised I think I just love any added Anya moment now lmao. I’d love to see this live, to see the image of her on the bridge singing this.

Closing/Close The Door - (the wikipedia says “Closing” and the soundcloud name says “Close”). Like the Anya moments, I will lap up ANY added Dowager Empress moments, too! Her tired, hopeless emotions were shown a little bit in the original film, but I love how this explores them further. So low-spirited and heart-wrenching.

Land of Yesterday - Another thing this musical explores more in-depth is Russia in general, the state of it, its people, and this song is really cool. Lily’s voice is amazing!!!! (Caroline O’Connor)

The Countess and the Common Man - Awh Vlad and Lily have a love duet!! Fuck yeah! This is what I signed up for!! It’s funny, flirty, and all-round lovely.

In a Crowd of Thousands - I don’t mind that the story of how Dmitry and Anya’s pasts were linked has changed, because the new one they made up is presented so beautifully in this song. I absolutely LOVE Altomare’s voice in this, possibly more than in the other songs, and omg when she realises!! When she realises!! You’re like oh shit ! It’s her and they both know it now!! It’s also a nice development to Anya and Dmitry’s relationship.

Meant to Be - This was also in the original film, and I think it’s done wonderfully here. ‘Nuff said.

Quartet at the Ballet - The Swan Lake music gives me huge Barbie nostalgia! And then it blends so seamlessly in and out of the OUAD tune...ahh I love it. I like how it shows all these inner thoughts of these different characters, like We’ll Go From There. The ending with the overlapping solos is beautiful omg.

Everything to Win - This is a good song, but not one of my favourites or anything, it’s nice to see Dmitry’s conflict. The ending is sweet (or I guess bittersweet).

Once Upon A December (Reprise) - I’m not crying, YOU’RE crying!!!!

The Press Conference - Yet another good chorus number; I love the typewriter sound effects. And Vlad & Lily’s parts are quite funny (it’s funny when he spells out his name, for some reason. And her high notes at the end..DAMN GIRL). I’m slightly feeling like they’re being kind of lazy with the use of the OUAD tune, however.

Everything to Win (Reprise) - Nice!! Good! I like it!

Still / The Neva Flows (Reprise) - Can Gleb just shut the fuck up already. Yes, I’m still salty. (although admittedly this is a good song - I especially love Anya’s fierceness in it).

Finale - I’m not surprised they decided to end on Once Upon A December, and this is exactly what you’d expect from a musical finale, tbh.

In conclusion - I love the musical’s soundtrack, yet I’m still iffy on the whole villain thing. Feel free to reply or reblog with your own thoughts, it’ll be fun to discuss!

#anastasia #don bluth #anastasia the musical #anastasia broadway musical #broadway #musical

[captainignatiuspigheart]

Gosh time really does fly, while simultaneously flexing with all the integrity of sun-warmed chewing gum… so, yeah, it’s Friday already and I haven’t completed my sole personal task of the week – recording what the I’ve watched and done. Obviously I’ve done relatively little, except drunk spectacular quantities of beer and gazed listlessly at our blossoming lilac tree. That’s right: I’ve been outside! In fact, I spent most of last week outside. Work very kindly ordered us some desks in an attempt to aid good workspace habits, since I’ve been sitting on the sofa with my laptop on my knees for six weeks or so… It’s a nice little desk, but it does rather fill our front room. The brightening weather gave me ideas! After a day sitting under said lilac tree I got quite enthusiastic, ordering a WIFI extender thing (with antennae! Must be good.) and unfurling the gazebo. I even went so far as to lay out four of the concrete slabs that have been stacked in our garden for more than a decade, pending the creation of a patio. It was quite lovely. I spent my days in sunshine, watching the cats race around the garden, the gentle scent of lilac and roses wafting into my hardworking face. Pretty nice week all round really.

Reading: The Human (Rise of the Jain #3) by Neal Asher

I don’t often pre-order books (I know, as a publishing person I should know better…) but that’s mostly because by to-be-read stack both physical and digital is absurd. The coronavirus means I want things to look forward to! I’ve been reading Asher’s Polity books for years – fast-paced military space opera with great intergalactic conflict, high tech, terrifying aliens and engaging heroes. The set up… it’s an advanced human civilisation slowly taken over by the AIs we built, so that now Earth Central is a massively powerful AI who runs the whole show, and much better than we ever managed. The AIs do have a ruthlessly utilitarian slant though, and while mostly that means they do make life better for the majority, sometimes it means they sacrifice whole worlds to save the rest of the Polity… This is so far into the story that it’s near impossible to summarise what’s going on! Ancient alien technology – the Jain – enables nano-(and even pico-)engineering on a thrilling scale, but is horribly prone to taking over its user and sequestering every resource in sight, utterly destroying the civilisation that tried to use it. A vast array of active Jain tech has been swirling around the heart of a galaxy for millions of years. For the last few hundred years, Orlandine, a vastly upgraded “haiman”, half AI, half human who has seemingly tamed Jain tech for her own purposes, as well as the gnomic moon-sized alien entity, Dragon, have been preventing it from escaping and wreaking havoc.

That all went spectacularly tits up in the last book, and this is the final struggle to contain the Jain before it wipes out everyone. This installment really builds on the transhuman character development of Orlandine, the Polity AIs, the horrifying crab-like human-munching aliens, the Prador, and a host of other characters, many of them infected with Jain ambition among other things. It’s impossibly epic, with vast stakes, finally revealing the true dangers of the alien tech and a lot more about where it truly comes from. As a huge fan of the universe, I was delighted by this, even if the ending comes about a little quickly. Fear not though, there are plenty of hints at what is still unknown, and critical figures are conspicuously absent. Bring on the next trilogy please!   

Building: LEGO Y-Wing Starfighter – LEGO 75181

Ermagherd, is I believe, how the young folk express their fondness for a thing. It is how I should like to express my fondness for this splendid build! This is the first UCS (ultimate collector series) I’ve had the chance to assemble, and I’m pretty impressed. In truth, I nicked it from work (sliced open the box and emptied it into a rucksack, walks away whistling etc), and probably would not have bought it for myself. It’s Star Wars, so it’s huge and mostly grey. The Y-Wings are rightly iconic for getting blown to pieces above various Death Stars, but they look so damned cool. I’ve already got a LEGO Y-Wing, now that I think about it – the 1999 edition that came with a tie-fighter. It was rad at the time, but this massive set comprehensively blows it out of the water and vaporises the lake it was skimming over. At a mere 1967 pieces, I was confident that I could build it in an evening, but naturally failed. Instead it dominated an entire Saturday afternoon while I watched more of season two of Agents of SHIELD (which I’ve had to pause to watch Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers: Age of Ultron because the latter takes place around episode 20!). Rarely have I spent a Saturday afternoon so productively!

New school

Old school

Beginnings…

Like a lot of the larger LEGO vehicles I’ve built, there are plenty of time when I have no idea what I’m assembling. This one went through a canal barge to crucifix stage pretty quickly, and as soon as the cockpit clips in it’s instantly recognisable. That cockpit itself is loaded with clever building tricks to give it a smooth and curved underside as neat as the top, sneaky stuff to invert the direction of the studs. It’s stuff I’m terrible at in my own building and I’m keen to learn from it. The nacelles have simpler tactics for allowing intense greebling all the way round the square pillars. The greeblage is mighty all over the back and underside of the Y-Wing. One of the things I often admire about official LEGO sets is the masterful balance of detailing, whether it’s in a scatter of cheese slopes, a light touch in patterning brick colours, or in this – while there’s a lot of detailing, it’s not so insanely overdone that it detracts from the model at a distance. The Y-Wing looks fantastically good, such a nice version of the film designs. There are though a bunch of stickers to apply on the cockpit which stressed me out to apply neatly. Not half as much as the massive sticker for the info plaque though. It really shouldn’t generate such anxiety! Nevertheless, I think I got it on perfectly. 

The minifigs are great, as you’d expect, with a finely detailed Gold leader and a shiny silver R2-BHD astromech.  Yeah, I love this thing. It is way too big to put anywhere in our house, sadly, but it will come apart into three neat pieces for transporting back to work once all this is over. Lamentably, having assembled this one, I now find myself eyeing up the far smaller A-Wing that’s just been released. That’s definitely shelf-sized…

Sticker hell

This has displaced a cat

Too big

Watching: Star Trek: Picard

We’d been waiting for all the episodes to be released on Amazon Prime before we began this. Our preference is definitely bingeing hard, rather than the agonising wait till next week. I’ve not reflected much on the change in our viewing habits in the last decade, but I think I’m getting more enjoyment from being deeply embedded in a show for a couple of weeks than dipping in and out of several simultaneously. However, I fear I’m going to have to do a second watch of Picard, because unlike Discovery which I adored from beginning to end, I just don’t know what to think of this new spin-off. Perhaps we’ll find out while I ramble…

The character of Jean-Luc Picard is obviously great – Patrick Stewart made Star Trek: The Next Generation come alive, and even though a lot of it is barely watchable now, the interactions of Captain Picard and his close-knit crew are delightful. TNG set the ground for the vastly superior Deep Space Nine that followed, with its huge and rewarding story arcs advancing the previous episodic narrative. With the exception of the Borg episodes, TNG never got the opportunity to do that, and with the similar exception of First Contact, its follow up movies are dreadful, though none as bad at those of the original series. I’ve been without Picard since First Contact in 1996 (holy fuck, how long?!), though the aforementioned dodgy movies have continued. So, a twenty year or so wait to return, that’s pretty high stakes. 

Picard disabuses us pretty quickly of this being a high action show like Discovery. In a curiously similar vein to the new Star Wars movies’ Luke Skywalker story, Picard is long retired from Star Fleet, having been fired/quit when Star Fleet backed away from a commitment to help resettle the peoples of Romulus after their home planet got fried. He’s spent the rest of the time chilling in his vineyard home, tended by ex-secret service Romulans and generally doing fuck all but seethe that Star Fleet let him down. He’s run away from his responsibilities, having failed to be the man he thought he was. Enter a young (spoiler) human-passing android on the run from some dudes trying to kill her. She doesn’t know she’s an android but knows a lot of stuff, is super-fast and knows she needs to find Picard. It’s no shock to discover that she’s Data’s daughter, somehow. But she gets offed by some more Romulan spec ops bad guys, and Picard’s off on a mission to find her twin sister, save the galaxy, stop the Romulans etc. 

Since Picard’s no longer Star Fleet he has to assemble a rag tag crew (stop me if you’ve heard this one before) since Star Fleet really don’t like him any more. The pacing is glacial at times, and it’s hard to understand what they’re actually aiming for in this. It takes ages to get into space (which is all fabulously Star Warsy rather than the Trek we’ve seen before) where we finally catch up with a ruined Borg cube that’s being rehabilitated by Romulans (for reasons I honestly can’t recall), and on which the android twin is working, while dating an actual piece of shit Romulan secret secret secret service guy who’s part of an inner circle dedicated to wiping out all synthetic life. 

There is a lot of great stuff in here – Seven of Nine’s return is a delight, Riker!, learning that Romulan assassin folk are just feudal Japanese folk, complete with haircuts and robes is peculiar, but kinda fun, and eventually a lot of things happen, quite fast. Picard nearly dies, they find more androids, he saves the day. I don’t honestly consider that to be a spoiler! The whole show is soaked in nostalgia, which is only partly rubbing off on me. If there weren’t so many people involved, and such cool design work going on I’d write it off as a vanity project. It’s definitely more than that, but I don’t know what… Watch it, if you’re into Trek, otherwise I cannot imagine this having any appeal at all.  

Doing: Virtual Improv Drop-In with MissImp

Last week’s new improv workshop was with Stephen Davidson, who’s just the loveliest and most passionate guy. His workshop is a real delight! Enjoy.  

  Last Week: The Human, Star Trek Picard and LEGO UCS Y-Wing - fun times with new Trek, splendid Neal Asher space opera and another fun MissImp online workshop! @missimp_notts #nottgoingout @nealasher #picard #books #lego @lego Gosh time really does fly, while simultaneously flexing with all the integrity of sun-warmed chewing gum… so, yeah, it’s Friday already and I haven’t completed my sole personal task of the week – recording what the I’ve watched and done.

#nottgoingout #book review #books #lego #LEGO 75181 #LEGO UCS #LEGO Y-Wing review #MissImp: Improv Comedy Theatre Nottingham #Neal Asher #Rise of the Jain #star trek #Star Trek Picard #Stephen Davidson #the Borg #TV review #working from home

[mrmichaelchadler]

Out of the Past: Noir City: Chicago is Back for 10th Year

This year's Noir City: Chicago seemingly borrows a title from classic of the genre itself: Out of the Past. 

For the 10th anniversary of the Chicago edition of their traveling festival, which runs August 17 to 23 at the Music Box Theatre, 3733 N. Southport, programmers Eddie Muller and Alan K. Rode have taken a page from the golden age of Hollywood. Each day of the weeklong event pairs two A and B titles for a double bill of maximum noir. (The term “B movie” of course was used to define films programmed as the lesser half of a double feature.)

“This year’s programming concept does seem really simple,” said Muller, founder and president of the San Francisco-based Film Noir Foundation, which presents the festival, with sponsorship from Turner Classic Movies’ weekly “Noir Alley” showcase (hosted by Muller, a.k.a. “The Czar of Noir” himself). He also will introduce films during the festival’s opening weekend at the Music Box. “The irony is that we’re doing what they were doing 70 years ago.”

Earlier this year, for the San Francisco edition of Noir City, Muller used the same concept, and “it was kind of revelatory,” he said. “It really focused my intros, and by programming this kind of double bills, we could address things that were different from year to year. By 1947-’48, noir was in full flower. It really wasn’t a movement until then. As it went forward, it changed and morphed into something different. It’s also a great way of balancing a well-known film with something more obscure that you couldn’t fit in otherwise.” 

Rode, Muller’s partner in noirdom (and an FNF director-treasurer), reports the concept worked really well when they reprised it in Hollywood in April. “We had to cheat a bit to program ‘The Scarlet Hour’ (pictured below) since it’s a 1956 B-release paired with a 1952 A-title ‘The Turning Point.’” But they couldn’t resist because it’s a rarely seen noir by Hollywood heavyweight Michael Curtiz (the subject of Rode’s latest book, Michael Curtiz: A Life in Film, as well as a current retrospective at the Music Box).

“It’s exciting to show ‘The Scarlet Hour’ because it’s a real rarity,” said Rode, who will intro the second half of the Noir City lineup at the Music Box. Other than noir aficionados, “it’s sad that no one is interested in seeing films like this. We’re dealing with a generation who thinks Bill Murray in ‘Ghostbusters’ is a golden-age movie.”

In the past, all Noir City titles were shown in 35mm, but Muller and Rode have bowed to changing times. “If you want to hold out, you’re not going to be able to show certain titles,” Muller said. “‘The Scarlet Hour’ is a 35mm print from the archives. It might be the last one we ever get. In the future, we’re going to get them in digital restorations. That’s the way it is. But I would prefer to show a restored digital version of a film instead of being a stickler and insisting on a print that’s possibly worn out.”

Rode points out that Paramount quit making prints about seven years ago and other studios have followed suit. “I do have to say that some of the DCPs that Paramount has done are gorgeous,” he said. “They have that granular look, it doesn’t look artificial. If you want to see some of these films, DCP is going to be the medium of choice.”

This year’s festival kicks off with two ’90s neo-noirs directed by Carl Franklin, “One False Move” and “Devil in a Blue Dress.” “As much as I’m loyal to hard-core fans who want to see older, classic movies, I want to be able to take advantage of the moment,” Muller said. “It’s important to show that noir is not calcified. I see a natural extension from noir to current cinema. Plus, it’s interesting to see the African-American perspective on this genre.” Though he’s currently making a film in Pittsburgh, Franklin will appear opening night for post-screening discussions. “He’s willing to go the extra mile to be in Chicago for Noir City,” Muller said.  

“For our 10th year in Chicago, it’s a terrific lineup and somewhat of a milestone,” Rode said. “It’s always great to come to the Music Box and continue relationships we’ve developed over the years. Even when the Cubs are playing, the Music Box is the place to be.” 

Here’s the lineup of Noir City: Chicago 2018, with commentary by Muller and Rode:

“Devil in a Blue Dress” (1995), Aug. 17, 7 p.m.: Based on the first book of Walter Mosley’s Easy Rawlins series, “Devil” follows a ’40s-era detective (Denzel Washington) assigned to find a society woman hiding out in L.A.’s black neighborhoods. “Modern updates of classic noir typically don’t do well,” Muller said. “Hollywood thought ‘L.A. Confidential’ was a flop. The same with this title. However, it features Denzel at his most sexy and most movie star-ish.”

“One False Move” (1992), Aug. 17, 9:45 p.m.: Muller calls Carl Franklin’s breakthrough movie, about a hayseed cop (Bill Paxton) trying to root out a gang of killers, “one of the great crime films ever made. We’re showing it second, because it’s hard to watch. People might walk out because of the violence, the first scene is really intense. Also, it’s a good way to salute Bill Paxton”—who died last year at age 61. “His death didn’t really register. It’s one thing when it’s Tab Hunter [who died three days shy of his 87th birthday in July] but when it’s someone as young as Bill—that’s tragic. Noir City revives golden-age movies that people have missed, and now that applies to films from the ’80s and ’90s as well. Billy Bob Thornton co-wrote the script, and its race-related themes are still timely 25 years later.”

“Conflict” (1945), Aug. 18, 3 p.m.: Reverting to his heavy roles after his transformation as a romantic hero in “Casablanca” (1942), Humphrey Bogart plays a murderous husband with designs on his wife's sister. Rode regards “Conflict” as “one of Bogie's most overlooked films,” in part because the title was shelved for two years over a rights issue. 

“Bogie hated making the movie, it was too close to his own life,” Muller said, referring to the actor's rocky relationship with third wife Mayo Methot. “‘Conflict’ was Jack Warner’s payback.” Instead of cashing in on the star’s new appeal, the studio chief “wanted to stick it to Bogie” to show him who still remained the boss,” Muller said. “But his plan backfired, because after “Casablanca,” “the public didn’t want Bogie to be a bad guy anymore.”

“Escape in the Fog” (1945), Aug. 18, 5 p.m.: For the watershed noir year of 1945, “we had a lot of movies to choose from,” Muller said of this thriller about an Army nurse (Nina Foch) terrified by a recurring dream in which she witnesses a murder on the Golden Gate Bridge. “But ‘Escape in the Fog”—it’s Budd Boetticher,” referring to the Chicago-born director, best known for his seminal Westerns of the ’50s. “It’s great to see something early from him. I love to show films by directors who are going on to bigger things ... and it’s from Columbia, which always supplies us gorgeous 35mm prints.”

“The Blue Dahlia” (1946), Aug. 18, 7 p.m.: This classic noir, penned by Chicago-born crime-fiction icon Raymond Chandler, gives Alan Ladd one of his signature roles as a returning soldier accused of murdering his unfaithful wife (Doris Dowling). It reteams Ladd with Veronica Lake, after their successes as Paramount’s leading romantic duo in “This Gun for Hire” (1942) and “The Glass Key” (1942). 

Muller finds it mystifying that Ladd has been virtually forgotten by modern audiences, unlike fellow noir heroes Bogart and Robert Mitchum, and that Lake continues to be dismissed as a mere vamp (albeit with a stylin’ hairdo). “People had such a wrong notion of what she was on screen,” he said. “She was not a femme fatale. Lake was brainy and didn’t need the guy. ‘The Blue Dahlia’ is a classic example of that. I don’t like the idea that women were sexy dames just out to corrupt men. Plus, her films projected a very significant image during the war for American women.”

“Strange Impersonation” (1946), Aug. 18, 9:15 p.m.: Beset by blackmail, a scheming assistant, a disfiguring accident and romantic betrayal, a research scientist (Brenda Marshall) plots her revenge. “I have a soft spot for B movies that make absolutely no sense,” Muller said of this pivotal early film by director Anthony Mann. “I love the ones where there's some sort of weird science in a crime film. And this film is right in that sweet spot."

Rode calls “Strange Impersonation” “one of most bizarre movies ever made … it’s 68 minutes of real weirdness absolutely not to be missed.”

“The Unsuspected” (1947), Aug. 19, 2 p.m.: After the secretary of a radio personality (Claude Rains) turns up dead, he hints at murder. “This film marks Michael Curtiz’s first production away from Warner Bros [his longtime studio home],” Rode said. “He was trying to do something similar to ‘Laura,’ but didn’t turn out that way. Claude Rains is great and gives the perspective of the role that radio that played in pop culture back then. Plus, the camera work by Curtiz and cinematographer Woody Bredell is something to behold.”

Muller added, “I’m always on lookout for noir written by women. The Charlotte Armstrong novel [adapted by Bess Meredyth and Ranald MacDougall] is really good. ‘The Unsuspected’ is just juicy, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but with a cast like Claude Rains and Audrey Totter, it doesn’t have to.”

“Blind Spot” (1947), Aug. 19, 4:15 p.m.: Of this fast and furiously paced B, Muller observed: “It’s a very cleverly written film about cleverly written stories … a very smart and savvy commentary on literary vs. genre fiction.” Chester Morris, best known for the “Boston Blackie” series, plays a down-on-his-luck writer who pens a murder mystery to show how easy it is, “and then he blacks out and can’t recall the ending, and he’s the prime suspect.”

Muller also applauds the performance of Constance Dowling (older sister of Doris) as a secretary/dangerous blonde. “Look her up on the internet,” he said. “She became Elia Kazan’s mistress, then her next lover committed suicide over her. She’s quite beguiling on screen.” 

“I Walk Alone” (1948), Aug. 19, 6:15 p.m.: After a 14-year stretch in the slam, a Prohibition-era bootlegger (Burt Lancaster) discovers his former partner (Kirk Douglas) has no intention of sharing the profits of their previous spoils. “It’s a great cast, with Burt and Kirk in the first of the seven films they made together, along with the always amazing Lizabeth Scott—a star fest in a cool Hal Wallis production,” Muller said.

Its source elements once considered lost, “I Walk Alone” has been restored by Paramount and will be shown in DCP format. “I’m happy my relationship with studios leads to these kinds of rediscoveries,” Muller said. “The Film Noir Foundation is the impetus for a studio like Paramount to find the original elements, do a digital scan and then create a new DCP. Kino will release the film in a Blu-ray edition this fall. All of this resulted because of me being a pain in the ass all these years.”

“Bodyguard” (1948), Aug. 19, 8:30 p.m.: After getting bounced for insubordination, a homicide detective (Lawrence Tierney) takes a job in a meat-packing plant where an inspector has been ground up along with the product. “It’s one of [director] Richard Fleischer’s down and dirty noirs,” Rode said. “He didn’t truly move into the noir groove until ‘Narrow Margin,’” referring to the director’s 1952 classic noir on a train. “Plus, it stars Tierney, the meanest man in film noir. And one of the writing credits is by Robert Altman, then just 23.”

“Lawrence Tierney, what can I say?” Muller said. “‘Bodyguard' is great, terrific and so entertaining. I stay in the theater and watch it every time because Tierney is always so intriguing on the screen.”

“All My Sons” (1949), Aug. 20, 7 p.m.: Muller and Rode admit that this film version of Arthur Miller’s Tony Award-winning drama about an ethically challenged businessman (Edward G. Robinson) and the failure of the American dream is “not really noir but noir-stained.” They both believe in stretching the boundaries of noir when appropriate. “Plus, its theme about a guy profiting from war and the guilt he faces over manufacturing defective parts has resonance to this day.”

Rode observes that “All My Sons” is another completely overlooked film—it’s not on DVD, not available on streaming platforms. Robinson gives one of his great performances opposite Burt Lancaster [as one of Robinson’s sons]. They’re both so good, and the film features lots of great character actors, including Harry Morgan and Lloyd Gough.”

“The Spiritualist” (1949), Aug. 20, 9:15 p.m.: A shady medium (Turhan Bey) persuades a widow that he can communicate with her late husband in what Muller and Rode consider an underappreciated gem from master cinematographer John Alton, who virtually invented the look of film noir in the ’40s. “Again, it’s as good as B movies get,” Muller said of this Eagle-Lion programmer also known as “The Amazing Mr. X.” “John Alton’s one of my faves—it’s more his movie than the director [Bernard Vorhaus]. You can tell that Alton is calling the shots. I showed it years ago, and Bey showed up, and that’s what he said, too. He told story after story about what a genius Alton was, dictating the whole day’s shoots according to his lighting scheme.”

Rode also recalls that 2000 screening in Los Angeles of “The Spiritualist,” when Bey appeared unexpectedly: “No one knew he was. He asked, ‘Where are all the great character actors I used to work with?’ Very sweet guy. The only print we had was a bad one with splices, and the film broke three times.”

“The Man Who Cheated Himself” (1950), Aug. 21, 7 p.m.: A veteran homicide detective (Lee J. Cobb) involved with a married socialite (Jane Wyatt) covers up a murder and then discovers that his rookie brother (John Dall) has been assigned to the case. Muller claims Felix E. Feist’s crime drama has “the weirdest casting ever in a noir.” 

Rode agrees: “Lee J. Cobb finally, just off his breakthrough role on Broadway in ‘Death of a Salesman,’ finally plays someone his own age, this time as a horn-dog detective, opposite Wyatt, usually the paragon of virtue.” Shot on location in San Francisco, “it’s really worthwhile.”

At the Music Box, “The Man Who Cheated Himself” will be shown in a restored 35mm print, funded by the Film Noir Foundation and the UCLA Film & Television Archive. 

“I Was a Shoplifter” (1950), Aug. 21, 9 p.m.: This programmer about an undercover cop (Scott Brady) and a five-finger discount ring is a real rarity, and even more remarkable, Muller reports he has never seen it: “We realized in it was in Universal’s archives; Alan swears it’s worthwhile. There are films I consciously don’t watch because I’m saving them. When I’m 75, I want to have films to look forward to.”

Rode confirms the movie’s bona fides. “It stars Scott Brady, the good brother of Tierney family,” he said of the actor, the middle sibling of the Tierney acting clan. “They were on completely different sides of the spectrum in most movies.” Shot on location in Los Angeles and San Diego, “I Was a Shoplifter” features Rock Hudson, Peggie Castle and James Best in bit roles, and Tony Curtis as a sinister sidekick improbably named Pepe.

“The People Against O’Hara” (1951), Aug. 22, 7 p.m.: In his only film noir, Spencer Tracy plays an alcoholic attorney who comes out of retirement to defend a neighbor’s son (James Arness, later of “Gunsmoke” fame) against a homicide charge. “Tracy’s character cuts close to the bone,” Rode said of this film, directed by Oak Park native John Sturges, best known for his epic actioners such as “The Magnificent Seven” (1960) and “The Great Escape” (1963).

Muller again lauds the camerawork of John Alton: “one of the many Hungarians who transformed Hollywood. His career completely coincided with the rise of noir. After 1947, he was the go-to guy for the genre.”

“Pickup” (1951), Aug. 22, 9:15 p.m.: Of this lurid potboiler about an older man duped by a femme fatale, Rode said, “the moment this one starts, you know you’re not talking about a truck.” Beverly Michaels, the film’s deadly dame, was married to Russell Rouse, author of the classic noir “D.O.A.” (1949), in real life. Their son is Oscar-winning editor Christopher Rouse (“The Bourne Ultimatum”). “I once asked him how it was like growing up in a noir nuclear family,” Rode said. Meanwhile, “Hugo Haas spent his career making bad remakes of ‘The Postman Rings Twice,’ with an older man being tormented by a younger woman.” And in “Pickup,” Haas plays the beleaguered husband (named Jan “Hunky” Horak) himself.

Once reviled as “the foreign Ed Wood,” Haas deserves more respect. “I find his movies hugely entertaining, and fans go nuts for them,” Muller said. “I love his backstory. He was an esteemed actor in Moravia [now part of the Czech Republic]. When he came to the U.S., his compatriots were embittered by their lower status, but he wasn’t afraid to embrace the low-budget mystique. All of his films made money, and he worked with fabulous actresses. His formula was absolutely flawless. I have nothing but admiration for Hugo Haas.”

“The Turning Point” (1952), Aug. 23, 7 p.m.: When a reporter (William Holden) and a prosecutor (Edmond O’Brien) investigate a crime syndicate, they discover a family member might be on the take. “It’s a great cast, with a panoply of character actors,” Rode said. “When Ted de Corsia [known for his many villainous roles] plays a voice of reason, you know it’s serious.” 

A riff on the Kefauver Commission probe into organized crime in the early ’50s, “The Turning Point” was filmed on location in Los Angeles, with scenes set at iconic spots such as Angel’s Flight and the Bunker Hill neighborhood. It was directed by German emigré William Dieterle, who notched up a few noirs in his extensive filmography. “I think he’s underrated, he was a protege of Curtiz’s,” Rode said. “It’s not just a crime expose, there’s a definite noir element.”

Muller notes that the Film Noir Foundation had pursued this Paramount release for years and finally persuaded the studio to restore the title, which be shown in the DCP format. “It’s much like ‘I Walk Alone.’ I thank Paramount for rescuing it,” he said. “How did this movie slip through the cracks? I think this film will surprise, because it’s much darker and bleak than people realize.”

“The Scarlet Hour” (1956), Aug. 23, 9 p.m.: Michael Curtiz’s thriller pits an adulterous pair (newcomers Carol Ohmart and Tom Tryon) against a possessive husband (James Gregory), with a jewel robbery as the lovers’ method of deliverance. “It’s a little over the top, but it’s perfect for what it is in this festival,” Muller said. “This crime drama has so many elements of film noir, but you can see everything changing. It’s such a rarity; I’m so proud finally able to get this film,” which will be shown in an archival 35mm print. “Paramount doesn’t do that anymore—ship an archival print from the vault.”

Rode reminds noir fans that “The Scarlet Hour” is not available on DVD or streaming platforms. “It’s terrible but somehow terrific,” he said. “It was Curtiz’s last chance. He was old and had made several bad movies. This was his opportunity to capitalize on his reputation as a star marker—but Tom Tryon and Carol Ohmart? It didn’t work out, but the movie is often compared to ‘The Postman Always Rings Twice.’ Carol comes across as a really feral fatale.” 

Shot all over Los Angeles, “The Scarlet Hour” features a great supporting cast, with E.G. Marshall, Edward Binns and Elaine Stritch in her film debut. Plus, there’s a scene with Nat King Cole singing at Crystal Ballroom at the Beverly Hills Hotel. “Curtiz might have been an SOB, but he was ‘Casablanca,’” Rode said. “We always have that.”

Festival passes are $85 apiece ($75 for Music Box members). Opening-night tickets, $12 ($9 for members). Single-feature tickets, $11 ($7, members). Double-feature tickets, $15 ($12, members). For more information about Noir City: Chicago, click here 

from All Content https://ift.tt/2KV4rYh

[eridianshores-blog]

The MCU vs the DCEU

Warning: There be spoilers ahead! The films Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Suicide Squad are discussed at length! Many of the films in the MCU are discussed in more general ways as well. Continue at your own risk!

Which do you like better?

I want to like what DC is doing better, but it’s pretty obvious that Marvel is doing the better job with its characters.  Honestly I wish Marvel had chosen a different set of characters to follow rather than the Avengers.  I get that there’s a lot of legal shit tangled up with all that, but it doesn’t change that I don’t see heroes like Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, etc. as superstar heroes.  I think the X-Men would’ve been the strongest starting point - and for the record I’m not the biggest fan of the existing X-Men movies or the mega-focus on Wolverine.  However, I think the modern MCU approach towards the X-Men might’ve worked out alright.

Before we really get into it I guess I should clue you in as to my level of “experience.”  Throughout this entry I am talking purely about films - those that are official a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the DC Extended Universe.  I realize that Marvel’s TV shows take place in the same universe, but I haven’t seriously watched any of them so they’re excluded.  DC’s TV shows take place in an entirely separate universe (do they all even exist in the same one?) so obviously they’ll be left out of these talks as well.

I’ve seen all 3 DCEU films and I’ve seen them multiple times; I’d say I know them pretty well.  When it comes to the MCU though, I’m a little more in the dark.  I’ve seen Avengers 1 & 2 several times along with Civil War.  I’ve also watched all 3 Iron Man’s, Hulk, the first Thor, and Guardians of the Galaxy.  I know, I’ve missed a lot, but I do feel like I’ve seen enough of the earlier films to say what I want to say here.  Feel free to disagree or tell me where a movie directly contradicts something I’ve said, I’m cool with it.  Honestly I wouldn’t mind seeing the rest of the MCU movies just to see them, but most of them are still $20 and I’m not ready to shell out a couple hundred bucks for movies that I know I probably won’t love.

I would safely say that it’s difficult to discuss this “Golden Age” of superhero movies without at least acknowledging what came before.  I’m familiar with a lot of the older stuff, such as the first 4 Batman films, the first 4 Superman films, and Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, plus other random oddities like Spawn, Steel, Blade, and probably others I can’t remember. My knowledge is patchy when it comes to those early years of superhero movies where all kinds of shit was cranked out: Daredevil, Elektra, those couple of Punisher flicks, Hellboy, Raimi’s Spider-Man’s, Sony’s Spider-Man’s, all those damn X-Men and Wolverine movies, Green Lantern, Green Hornet, the Fantastic Four movies, Catwoman, the Ghost Rider movies, and what might’ve been the best of all of them, Superman Returns.  I’ve actually seen a fair number of these in passing, and truthfully, it kind of turned me off to superhero movies by the time Marvel started figuring out what went right and what went wrong and started something new.

When it comes to the DC guys, I like a lot of the heroes they’ve chose to focus on better.  I mean you’ve got Batman and Superman, heroes who Marvel is hard-pressed to compete with.  I also like the idea of getting into Wonder Woman’s story.  Beyond that we’ve got a rich Bat-family which, if handled correctly, could be great to see onscreen: characters like Robin, Nightwing, Red Hood, Batgirl, Red Robin, the Outsiders, etc.  When it comes to potential, I think DC has a slight edge.  Now when it comes to actual execution, well, DC could learn a thing or two or three or four from the MCU.

A big reason why the MCU is so successful is because it started out slow, making easily digestible, standalone movies that basically anyone could sit down and follow from start to finish.  They didn’t rely on the viewer’s extant knowledge of the source material, they didn’t over-extend themselves with complicated plot lines, and they weren’t too heavy-handed with placing references to future films.  Most of them are also fairly light-hearted and don’t take themselves too seriously, further increasing their appeal across multiple demographics.

The plots of these early movies have never been anything stunning; instead, the focus of the films has been largely on characterization.  I will admit that, for the most part, the various writers and directors have done a pretty good job at achieving this goal.  By the time the first ensemble film rolls around we’ve developed a decent rapport with most of the characters...there’s some unevenness that’s not beyond criticism, but the intent is clear and by the time everyone is on screen together it feels more or less natural.

Moving back over to the DCEU for a minute, they haven’t done anything close to the MCU’s approach, except for possibly Man of Steel, although it was tonally different than the standalone(ish) MCU movies (we’ll get to that soon). In defense of the DCEU, I’ve heard some say, “well they don’t have to do it like Marvel does!”  Obviously they don’t have to, but the problem is that DC is so blatantly and desperately trying to get themselves where the MCU already is minus a dozen or so films.

Let’s break it down real quick: Man of Steel was a pretty good flick in my opinion.  I’d probably say it’s the best Superman film so far.  Say what you want about the old Donner films, but they’ve become quite dated over the years and the bar for superhero movies has risen well above spandex and Hackman’s cartoonish version of Lex Luthor.  The movie is a little too long and structured oddly, but it’s one of those things that makes a lot more sense the second time around.  Unfortunately, as the beginning of the DCEU, it shouldn’t take repeated viewings to “get it.”  

Already Man of Steel is a) not easily digestible, b) over-extending itself, and c) not light-hearted at all.  Personally I think some of the “Clark Kent wanders the earth” scenes should’ve been cut, and the rest of them should’ve been put in order to give us a more linear experience.  As it is, apart from the spectacular intro sequence, the first half of the movie jumps between present day and some random point in Superman’s past as a child / teen / young adult on earth.  I think it’s actually a pretty good origin story, it’s just too jumpy to get into and the non-linear format is going to be a huge turn off to most moviegoers.  Normally I don’t give a shit about what appeals to “most moviegoers,” but the problem is that this format doesn’t seem to be done for any real reason.  I think it would be more interesting to watch Superman grow into his powers over the years and go through these changes with him rather than the scattershot backstory we’re given.

It’s not all bad though.  MoS differs from the MCU in one important way: the darker tone.  I said that the MCU could attribute part of its success to the lighter flavor of their films and I still believe that, but for me personally, I like the darker and more serious feel of Man of Steel.  Call me crazy, but if it was up to me, all this shit would be straight up R-rated, no holds barred, balls-to-the-wall crazy shit.  I know it would destroy the commercial viability of the films, this is just what I’d prefer from a purely artistic standpoint.  Anyway, the DCEU has caught criticism for not being as “fun” as the MCU, but I see this as a good thing.  I just don’t care for all the wisecracks and one-liners from Tony Stark or the fish-out-of-water giggles courtesy of Captain America, or the Sam Jackson-ization of Nick Fury...I know a lot of folks eat this shit up but it isn’t for me.  I don’t mind some subtle humor or the insertion of an honest to God good joke, but lightening the mood just to, well, lighten the mood, feels like pandering to all the wrong fans.

Man of Steel is a somber film.  Superman is genuinely confused about his place in the world.  He watches his adoptive father die.  He deals with surviving Kryptonians who attempt to embrace him only to find that he doesn’t share their ideals, yet earth isn’t ready to accept him either.  We get a lot of inner conflict from this guy who’s basically invincible.  If you can forgive or at least look past the missteps in pacing and structure, there’s a very human story at the movie’s core about acceptance and identity.  And this is where the serious tone makes all the difference.  When the film takes itself seriously, I take it seriously.  In the MCU, it’s hard for me to truly accept that the end of the world is on the way when we’re being treated to sarcastic quips and sight gags involving Iron Man’s armor.

Until now, I’ve only addressed the first half of MoS.  The second half is well worth the wait and one of the most worthy climaxes of any superhero film to date.  I love that Superman is up against a real threat - Zod turns out to be Superman’s equal; his inexperience with earth’s environment is compensated by his tremendous combat skills and military training.  Some have criticized the battle as overly long, but I think it’s awesome.  I also think it’s clearer and less muddled than some of the big MCU fights, namely those in Avengers and Avengers 2.  The way these 2 titans decimate Metropolis is spectacular.

A lot of people criticize Superman’s killing of General Zod, saying stuff like, “why didn’t he just cover Zod’s eyes,” or a number of other things.  I hopped on this bandwagon for a while, but then I got to thinking, and I think the point of the gesture was to show that nothing short of death was going to stop the General.  Whether it was today or tomorrow or in 200 years, Zod was a zealot who would never, ever stop.  Maybe Superman didn’t have to kill Zod right that second, but I think that in that moment, Superman realized there was no other way for this to end, especially after the already monumental loss of life.  Alternatively, maybe the DCEU Superman is OK with killing in some circumstances...I don’t know that we’re ever treated to a scene where Superman vows never to take a life.  Batman’s behavior in BvS lends some possible credence to this theory, as he very plainly takes the lives of some of the thugs in the car chase.

Besides the increased seriousness over the MCU, another plus in the Man of Steel column is the presence of a strong villain who drives the plot.  General Zod was a fantastic villain precisely because he didn’t see himself as a “bad guy.”  He saw himself as a visionary, a pioneer, the savior of an extinct race, the one avenue of possibility that his people had of living on.  And can we really blame him?  Would the last (or one of the last) humans simply shrug their shoulders in resignation about the death of their species, culture, society, everything?  If there was any possibility, wouldn’t they at least entertain the thought?  What if the last human landed on a planet full of ants and could potentially bring back the human race at the cost of all the ants’ lives?  What if it was a planet full of dogs?  Gorillas?  Homo erectus?  Where do you draw the line?

In some ways Zod’s arc was one of tragedy, aside from what could be considered treason back on Krypton.  (Although sometimes there is a very fine line between sedition and patriotism.)  General Zod didn’t fight for himself, or for power, or for material gain, he fought for the rebirth of his people.  Sure, he didn’t mind killing all of earth’s population to do so, but this was just a side-effect of terraforming; I don’t think it’s necessarily a case of Zod being hellbent on destroying humanity just for the hell of it.

Now Man of Steel doesn’t exactly go out of its way to portray General Zod as a sympathetic character, and I guess that’s OK...I think the most important thing to take away from the film is that the writers actually spent some time on General Zod.  They took the time to develop him and give him some depth.  Movies in the MCU have very deliberately chosen to not focus on the villains except as a means to an end.  Loki is the closest thing we’ve ever really had to a well-developed antagonist.  If you look at the other bad guys - Whiplash, Ultron, Ronan, Abomination, Mandarin (ugh) - they’re as flimsy as a wet noodle and twice as forgettable.  I’m not saying we necessarily have to care about the villains, but the core conflict between hero and villain should be adequately explored.  Instead, the MCU seems more content to use bad guys as a way to tell us more about the good guys.  There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just that it seems like that’s all the villains are good for.

I even remember reading a statement from one of the directors or producers or some big-wig over at Marvel Studios where they said that these films weren’t about the villains, but that they were about the heroes.  Is this really the right way to go?  Could this be why the MCU films feel a little less than awesome to me?  I don’t need a film specifically about Whiplash or Ultron or whoever, but I do want the film to center on the conflict between hero and villain, and not on some other situation whereby the villain basically ends up being a consequence of whatever else is going on.  Marvel should know as well as anyone that heroes and villains do a lot to define each other, and I think they’re making a huge mistake by giving such unequal focus to the 2 parties.

This may also have something to do with Marvel’s picks not having the most memorable of villains.  One of their biggest cards - Thanos - has been teased for the last 8 years or so and everyone else has been sort of bleh.  (Though that’s not really an excuse; the MCU could make them not-bleh if they tried.)  Iron Man doesn’t have a Joker to go up against, Captain America doesn’t have an Apocalypse, etc.  I’d really like to see MCU change this as time goes on.  Sure, maybe we don’t know as much about these bad guys, but that’s precisely why Marvel should spend some time introducing these villains and fleshing them out.

Let’s shift back to DCEU’s shortcomings as we get into Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.  I don’t really know where to start with this one.  I appreciate the film’s ambition and scope, but the story is so choppy and muddled plus DC made a really weird decision to adapt this particular story/stories this early in their timeline.

Marvel quietly did its thing with the standalone flicks and established not only its characters but also the world in which they live.  The DCEU barely got started on this with MoS.  BvS picks up 18 months later and throws us smack into a whirlwind of plot threads where the only thing capable of keeping the viewer afloat is previous knowledge of the comics.  One thing I found 100% bizarre was that the entire film was predicated on the loss of life resulting from the battle between Superman and Zod.  What I don’t understand is how anyone can hold Superman responsible.  Yes, a shit ton of people died, but if Superman hadn’t done anything, it’s highly probable that everyone on the fucking planet would’ve died.  Even if some other random heroes came out of left field to stop Zod, he’d probably at least level Metropolis before they made any progress.  How can anyone even begin to blame Superman for the loss of life?  If Superman hadn’t done anything, all those same people would’ve died any damn way as Zod’s World Engine thoroughly raped the shit out of Metropolis.  Why the fuck does this point seem to be lost on every fucking person in BvS, especially Senator Finch and damn Batman!!??

Aside from the aforementioned stupidity, I can understand Batman’s trepidation about Superman.  He’s super powerful, we don’t really know much about him, and even though he basically saved the world, it’s still difficult to predict his future intentions or actions.  The film had some interesting subject matter to work with, but it’s really hard to put together a coherent story out of what’s going on.  We’re always jumping from one setting to another, maybe with different characters, we’ve got no clue how much time is passing, and we don’t really get any quality time with any of our characters.  It’s extremely hard to make an emotional connection with anyone in this film.

This next point hits at the DCEU on a deeper level, but it’s a point worth making.  Excuse my French, but quite frankly, DC blew its load way way way too damn early.  I guess I can understand DC’s decision not to want to produce the second Batman origin story inside of 10 or 11 years, but they didn’t have to jump forward 20 years into Batman’s career.  We’ve got 2 huge DC events wrapped into one here: The Dark Knight Returns / Batman vs. Superman, and the Death of Superman.  

Of all things, Ben Affleck as an older, hardened, more weathered Batman / Bruce Wayne actually works fairly well.  The problem is that he spends a lot more time as Bruce Wayne and we don’t get to know much about his whole Batman side.  Hell, we don’t even really spend any time in the Batman mythos - we’re fully steeped in Superman mythos and Batman is just sort of a “guest.”  The actual fight between the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel is viscerally satisfying, but the problem is that we don’t have any emotional investment in either of the characters.  Yeah, we’ve sortta bonded with Cavill’s version of Superman, and yeah, the film works very hard to make sure we understand Batman’s perception of Superman (even though we know he’s not the problem) so there’s some emotional resonance there, but it doesn’t achieve nearly what it could 4 or 5 years down the road and with a little more DCEU context to draw from.  Think about it: the stakes would be so much higher if we were 10 or 20 films deep and the possibility of Batman or Superman dying was more real.  But the death of such a giant so soon?  Not even.

Furthermore, we know that neither Batman or Superman is going to die (nor is one going to be responsible for the death of the other) this early in the DCEU, so in many ways the fight is predictable.  I mean I love Batman’s preparation and I love his ingenuity and I really dig that he basically won the fight, it just bugs me that there was so much more potential that’s ultimately been squandered forever.  However, we did get one amazing quote out of the whole thing and Affleck actually delivered it perfectly:  “Breathe in.  That’s fear.  You’re not brave.  Men are brave.  I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you’re here for a reason.  My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter, for no reason at all.  They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to.  You were never a god.  You were never even a man.”

Then of course we have the big battle with Doomsday (who’s never quite named, Luthor simply introduces it to Superman as “your doomsday”), the stuff with Wonder Woman, the kryptonite spear blah blah blah and Superman apparently dies.  We all know damn well Superman isn’t dead (especially with the announcement of a Justice League film for God’s sake) so what the fuck is the point?  Why have him “die” when we know it isn’t real?  There’s no emotional impact.  It feels like nothing more than setup for another movie.  I mean seriously, the death of Superman could’ve been a big deal.  It could’ve been a major turning point in the DCEU...but instead, it’s just a wasted gesture.  The first time I saw BvS I sat there and thought why are they even including this!?  It’s not even like we think he’s not dead, or he’s probably not dead, or maybe he’ll come back one day...we straight up know that he’s not dead!  C’mon DCEU.  Seriously.

We’ve also glossed over a good deal of Batman’s backstory, which is why we really should’ve had some sort of DCEU Batman film to introduce him.  We know that the Joker has come and gone and we also know that Batman has become a little less idyllic and a little more disillusioned and less principled than the version we typically think of.  It’s very obvious that he’s already spent a long time fighting crime and that what he’s seen and done has had a profound effect on him.  This is not Batman in his prime.  This is Batman in his golden years.  Nothing wrong with that, but it just seems like a really strange way to introduce a character.  Of course the films can play with time and we can certainly have movies that take place earlier, but this could potentially make for a very messy shared universe.

The relationship between Batman and Alfred was also pretty lousy.  Batman was too old and Alfred was too young; there was no father-son chemistry between the two, it was more like Alfred was Batman’s hacker-sidekick.  Batman at his best is a lone wolf, and it’s through Alfred that we often learn a lot about who “Bruce Wayne” / Batman truly is.  The relationship here was poorly, poorly handled.

Jessie Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was the casting travesty that we all thought Affleck as Batman was going to be.  He’s squirrely, twitchy, nervous and neurotic...nothing like the charismatic business man that Luthor was.  Luthor was always a super-nerd underneath, but on the exterior he was smooth and debonair...this version is unlikeable to the core and worst of all, way too young.  The role itself was interesting enough and fit into the film appropriately; the problem is that the role just wasn’t Lex Luthor.

Forever ago I said that the early MCU films were good about not dropping too many setups and whatnot for future films.  Well in their desperation, DC filled BvS with this crap.  We get the whole Wonder Woman / Flash / Aquaman / Cyborg montage which was basically pointless. we get Wayne’s dream-sequence with Flash (durr huh?) and most egregious of all, every single scene with Wonder Woman.  I appreciate seeing Wonder Woman on screen as much as anyone, and I think she has great potential as the focus of a movie, but there is just no reason in the world for her to be involved in the events of BvS.  It’d be nice if we at least had some kind of bullshit reason why she got involved, but we don’t.  She’s just there for the audience to get familiar with and to do 99% of the Doomsday asskicking.  I mean she looked great and I enjoyed watching her hold her own against Doomsday, but that doesn’t change that she just didn’t really belong in the film.

The movie is better with repeated viewings, but it’s not as good as Man of Steel.  I still want to know why why why DC chose to inject some of its biggest moments into the DCEU so early.  Let’s get on to number 3...

DC chose to go in a really weird direction for its third outing.  Forget Batman and Superman, let’s take a bunch of third and fourth rate villains and make them the protagonists of the movie! Why oh why was this a starting point for...anything!?  We could’ve had a Batman movie dealing with the Joker and Harley; instead we have Harley’s introduction, but since Harley can’t really exist without the Joker, we have the Joker and Harley’s backstory sortta forcefully wedged into all this Suicide Squad stuff....even though the Joker has nothing to do with the Suicide Squad.  Had this been done correctly, we’d already know who Harley was, have no need for the Joker, and more time could’ve been spent on Suicide Squad’s simultaneously confusing and inept plot - maybe we could’ve even delved into the romance between Harley and Deadshot...?

It’s hard to give a shit about most of these people.  Captain Boomerang (I feel goofy just typing that) could’ve been introduced in a Flash movie.  Maybe we could’ve gotten a sort of “Bat-family” movie where we see Katana as a member of the outsiders and another Bat-villain like Deadshot or Killer Croc.  I feel like we should’ve been somewhat familiar with at least half the squad, and very familiar with at least 2 of ‘em.  Trying to mix origin stories and “team: assemble” plots is too much for a typical movie to handle.

The good news is that Suicide Squad starts off as something different and quirky.  We have the goofy intros, Amanda Waller’s ball-busting dialog, and an overall interesting perspective on the average superhero movie.  Oooh a watching a bunch of bad guys is gonna be fun but how are they gonna make us care about them?  Turns out that the movie has a hard time answering this question.  We had a pretty good movie on our hands up until the (first) helicopter crash and we spend 15 minutes watching everyone walk down 37 alleyways and talk to everyone else.  

Once the real fighting starts things become a little formulaic.  Deadshot and Flagg form some kinda insta-bond over God-knows-what with Deadshot saying shit like, “I gotcha back!”  Katana sides with the criminals despite professing that she isn’t one.  Harley, believing that the Joker is dead, decides the best place for her is the squad, despite being 100% free to go (since Joker disabled her neck explosive nanite thingy).  Croc says something that could almost be considered selfless and heroic when it’s time to plant the underwater bomb.  Seriously, we have all these hardened criminals who suddenly begin talking utter nonsense and copious amounts of cheese.  This total shit is laughably epitomized when Diablo, seconds before his self-sacrifice, says, “I already lost one family, I ain’t losin’ another!”  BWAHAHAHAHA what?

The movie skips straight from “expendable thugs” to “mildly heroic individuals, all capable of redemption” and skips the middle.  Suicide Squad really needed to break with convention to stay true to itself, and although it held for a while, unfortunately it slipped straight into the conventions that make this type of movie unsuccessful.  I can understand having one character capable of or in search of redemption - El Diablo - and one totally bad seed who just doesn’t get it - seems to be Boomerang judging by the ending - but this little mission doesn’t cure Harley of crazy, or diminish Deadshot’s capacity for killing strangers for money, or undo the lifetime of mistreatment that turned Croc to “Killer.”  It’s not just hokey, it’s bad writing.  And it’s made even worse after what was a largely successful first act.

Even if you push all that aside, we’re still left with DC’s penchant for crafting nonsensical plots.  Do we ever really get any explanation for all this shit with the Enchantress?  Waller keeps her heart in a box to control her but it doesn’t control her but she still needs it to destroy the world even though she’s already summoned her “brother” who seems perfectly capable of destroying the world himself.  Huh?  And why was what’s-his-name included?  Slipknot, that’s right...just to prove the nanite bombs work?  Just to prove that Waller and Flagg are basically just as sick, twisted, and cold-hearted as their team full of criminals?

And then there’s that scene when they “complete” their first mission, just to find Waller in a room surveilling...something.  What the hell did any of that even mean?  And then Waller just executes like 4 or 5 government employees for what reason?  I mean I just don’t understand any of that shit.  It doesn’t really bode well for the squad either, as it basically just pushes them all away - well, until Flagg somehow inspires them to be a team and get shit done - or what the fuck ever.

The showdown with Enchantress and her bro isn’t as dazzling as it should be.  First of all, from what we’ve seen of the pair and what they’re capable of, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t have been able to wipe the floor with at least half of the Suicide Squad before they even blinked.  Diablo’s Aztec-God Kotal Khan form was pretty damn convincing as a worthy adversary for the duo, but Harley and her baseball bat...?  Boomerang and some boomerangs?  Flagg and a gun?  What the fuck are they even doing here?  The Suicide Squad really should’ve gone up against something a little more human for their first outing.  Most of them are basically normal - crazy, but physiologically normal.  Croc has his strength, Katana has no inherent powers but she does have a somewhat mystic sword, Diablo of course has “real powers,” but the rest of them are just highly skilled at whatever.  And we’re supposed to buy that they went up against this 6,000 year old witch and prevailed with a few dead government red shirts and a couple of scratches?

I’m also not sure how much I agree with how the whole “Suicide Squad” concept is handled.  The whole point was that a bunch of ho-hum villains were thrown together to pull off crazy jobs for the government and that it didn’t really matter if they died because a) they’re bad guys, and b) they’re fairly insignificant bad guys.  We don’t really get a “real” death in the movie, at least not one that’s caused by the “dangerous mission” at hand.  Slipknot dies, but it’s just because he’s an idiot and because climbing / grappling is a stupid “power.”  Diablo also bites the dust, but it’s an act of self-sacrifice.  This goes back to what I just said in the previous paragraph, but couldn’t the Enchantress take a least one of them out in the heat of battle?  A quick blade through the chest?  Maybe one of those weird molten-metal-Matrix-tree-branch appendages from her brother?  Deadshot and Harley have too much star power to go down - I’ll accept that.  Boomerang is perhaps too worthless to matter, but what about Croc?  Isn’t he sort of a pained, tragic character?  Or what about Katana, crying at her sword-imprisoned-husband before battle?  Oooh ooh or how about Flagg? Then we could have another stupid moment where we find out how much the team respected him or some shit.  Really, I just wish someone had gotten the axe because right then, right there, on that day, Enchantress (or her bro) got the better of them.

Suicide Squad is full of logic holes and blatantly pathetic writing.  It’s one of those films where I want it to be better than it is, but if I’m honest with myself I know it just can’t get there.  This might be one of the coolest concepts so far in either the MCU or DCEU, and it’s a shame it couldn’t be any more fun and original than it was.  This is a movie that really needs a foundation to build off of, and the DCEU hasn’t yet laid any of the necessary groundwork.  And like BvS, we get odd little clues to a universe as-yet-to-be-revealed to us, such as during Harley’s intro where we’re flat out told that Robin has been murdered, presumably by the Joker, with Harley as an accomplice.  DC!  Why you do this!?  You could make a fantastic, poignant, widely discussed film where Robin freakin’ dies!!!  Will we get that?  Who the hell knows.  But even if we do, the surprise is already ruined, because we know that at some point, in this universe, at least one iteration of Robin dies.  See what I mean about DC blowing their load too early?

I think - assuming DC was just hell-fucking-bent on an ensemble “assemble” flick - they should’ve given us the Teen Titans.  I know the Titans have some unfamiliar faces, but not any worse than the Suicide Squad I would think.  Anyway, a Teen Titans movie would've been a great intro to Robin (wherever the hell he fits in...), and since the other members are a little more unfamiliar, the movie could’ve simply introduced them without the audience feeling like complicated backstories full of exposition via flashbacks were necessary.  It would also introduce us to Cyborg, which can only be a good thing going into the upcoming Justice League film without much information on anyone.  With a Teen Titans film in place, maybe DC would push the Justice League film back a couple of years (to keep from being repetitive) and in the meantime we could get proper standalone films for Batman, Flash, and Aquaman, as well as perhaps a proper follow-up to BvS (all in addition to the upcoming scheduled Wonder Woman movie).  These films could’ve also introduced - at the very least - Deadshot, Harley (and Mr. J), and Captain Boomerang (and at the most Katana and Croc as well), which would then provide an appropriate segue into a Suicide Squad film!  Ta-da!  Ain’t that plan grand?

Ahh...now we get to this part.  I think most Batman fans and cinephiles alike were just holding their breath until the inevitable next Joker.  Ok, maybe it wasn’t as urgent as actual breath-holding, but damn near everyone was blown away by Ledger’s performance and they knew that one day, sooner or later, someone else would don the white face paint.  Whether you creamed your pants over Ledger’s version of the Joker is pretty much irrelevant at this point - the point is that Ledger’s Joker has become the de facto standard for the character, almost instantaneously influencing the Joker’s portrayal in video games, comics, cartoons / animated features, and beyond.  Ledger took the character from “weird clown guy” to a dark and dirty place, filled with chaos and mystery.  And whether or not the next Joker would be “better” or “worse” than Ledger, one thing was for sure: it was going to be different.

And lo, Jared Leto, who you might remember from Requiem for a Dream or My So-Called Life or maybe even the crazy-ass Mr. Nobody (or the band 30 Seconds to Mars), ended up with the green hair and purple suit. [Sighs]  I don’t know what I think of this version, and I’ll tell you why.  First of all, it’s difficult to label him as an essential piece of Suicide Squad, and a big character like this hanging around on the outskirts leaves the audience feeling one of two ways: a) we should be seeing a lot more of him, or b) why the hell is here in the first place?  More often than not I find myself leaning towards Option B.  It doesn’t really have anything to do with the performance; rather, it has to do with his scenes feeling forced into a movie just so the movie can say, “look, it’s the Joker!”  On some level I get that we “needed” Harley’s backstory, but on the other hand, we weren’t treated to the same level of backstory when it came to Deadshot or K.C. or Captain fucking Boomerang.  

The other fundamental with Leto’s Joker as he exists right this moment is that he has virtually no connection with Batman.  The whole point of the Joker is to act as the antithesis to Batman - Batman is the hero who looks like a villain, Joker is the villain who looks, at the very least, like an innocent clown (I know, not really, but if we weren’t so heavily inundated with Joker’s appearance, the connection between “clown” and “innocence” would be more obvious) - Batman is meticulous and methodical and exacting, the Joker is reckless, wild, and impulsive - and then what really worries Batman is that part of him likes beating the shit out of bad guys, and part of him knows that “Bruce Wayne” is the real mask, and he sees those aspects of himself in the Joker, and it’s immensely threatening for him to think of himself as so close to a line that he considers the Joker to have already crossed.  Alright that was long-winded and poorly structured but the point is that Batman and Joker are peas in a pod, and it’s difficult to enjoy / understand the Joker without viewing it through his conflict with Batman.  I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am saying that we need to be properly introduced to the Joker via Batman before we start trying to follow Joker sans Batman.

And last but not least we move on to Leto’s actual portrayal and interpretation of the Joker.  From what I’ve seen so far, I have some really mixed feelings about it.  Remember the conversation in Tropic Thunder about “going full retard?”  If not, go YouTube it and watch the scene - it’s a quick scene where one actor explains to another that he’s never going to win an Oscar by “going full retard” and then uses examples from actual cinema, his advice ultimately being that, even when playing a “retarded person,” you can’t go “full retard.”  My explanation is not a substitute; go watch the scene!  Replace “retard” with “crazy” and you’re approaching what I think about Leto’s Joker.  So far, it feels like Leto is going “full crazy” which just ain’t gonna work.  We’ve got to have something to latch onto besides all out batshit crazy (pun intended).  For instance Ledger’s Joker was devious and, whether he was completely conscious of it or not, he had an excellent understanding of human emotion and behavior.  Need proof?  How about his manipulation of others with his ever-changing and equally disturbing “origin” stories?  Or forcing Batman to choose between Rachel and Dent?  Or switching the detonators on the boats?  Or his little pep-talk with Dent where Two-Face was basically birthed?  In some ways he’s got that whole “insane-genius” thing going on...but I’m really, really not seeing that spark of “genius,” however heinous and depraved as it may be, in Leto’s iteration of the character.

I will reserve full judgement until we’re able to see more of the character, but so far it just seems like we’re getting Leto’s personal version of “weird” and while distinctive and memorable, I’m not sure if it’s enough to carry this version of the character to greatness.  Another point of contention is the new Joker’s apparent penchant for stereotypically gang-like activities.  I mean he’s hanging out in the club, all blinged out, driving the (alleged) Lambo...for all intents and purposes he’s a street thug.  Maybe a totally bizarre street thug, but still a street thug.  Maybe this approach could’ve worked prior to Ledger’s Joker but now...well now I think the audience expects more, much more.  Having a materialistic and vain Joker just doesn’t feel right nowadays.  Granted Suicide Squad doesn’t show us much and there could be several other explanations behind the club scene besides the Joker acting as some sort of Godfather (which is kinda what it looks like), but it’s still hard to imagine our current Joker looking like part of a hip-hop entourage while our previous Joker burns gigantic piles of money.

Man, ok, I know I flew the hell off topic there with Suicide Squad...I guess I had more to say about it than I thought.  Like I said though, I want so badly for it to be a better movie than it really is.

I guess by pointing out all these issues with Suicide Squad I’ve by default discussed why and how the DCEU is so far behind the MCU.  To sort of start wrapping things up here, I think DCEU is in a lot of trouble.  While I can 100% appreciate the ambition behind all 3 of their in-universe films, they’re full of systemic issues that Marvel has gotten around by simply taking their time and building something from the ground up.  DC seems to be doing too much from the top down, and I fear that the upcoming Justice League movie will be just as problematic; sure, we’ll know Wonder Woman better by then, but we still won’t know much more about Batman or Superman and we’ll have at least 3 other characters to juggle for the first time (Cyborg, Aquaman, Flash) if not more.

If you’ve read this far, then I’m positive you’re aware that both Marvel and DC have a lot of TV shows on the air as well as many others planned.  Marvel has smartly decided that their TV shows will also take place in the MCU.  This is great - it leaves the door wide open...if each and everything little thing doesn’t connect, that’s ok, because that’s how universes work.  However, if the situation permits, they’ve got an assload of material to work with should they choose to do something epic and massively rewarding for fans.  DC, well, DC is just being a dumbass about it all.  They’ve got lots of shows - Gotham, Supergirl, Arrow, Flash, probably more on the way (something based around the “Birds of Prey” I think?  or is that already a thing...?).  DC has a perfect, golden opportunity to play catch-up within this medium, but what do the do?  Drop the fucking ball.  They’ve said conclusively that the TV shows do not take place in the same universe as the films; furthermore, they seem to be on the fence or downright confused as to whether or not all of the TV shows are happening in the same universe.  If I remember correctly, there was some sort of Flash / Supergirl crossover but instead of treating it as a full-fledged crossover, the pulled some comic book trickery and said some shit about one show existing within “Earth-2,” implying that the visiting show was outside the “normal” continuity of the home show.  How fucked up is that?  And why?  Wouldn’t it actually be easier to sit down and work out the connections from the beginning rather than doing what the fuck ever year after year and completely destroying what could be a built in fan base for all DC-related / inspired media...?

As painful as it is to watch DC dig this hole, I’m equally interested in how the MCU is going to grow and evolve in the next couple of years, particularly as this “first generation” of heroes gives way to a new group.  Now in a comic book the writers can keep on cranking out Iron Man stories one after the other for years on end, but somehow I don’t think the MCU will work out this way.  The simple fact is that we’re not going to be following Iron Man and Cap and Thor and Hulk and whoever else indefinitely.  Maybe one of these days these sorts of franchises will become so incredibly lucrative that these companies will “breed” and groom actors to play a certain role indefinitely, but I think I can comfortably assert that reasonably well known actors like Downey Jr. and Evans and Hemsworth and Jackson don’t want to be associated with these characters for the rest of their careers.  I’m sure the paycheck is nice, but from an artistic perspective, these guys and gals are going to want to move on at some point, whether it’s 3 or 9 or 16 movies down the road.  

I sincerely hope the MCU can keep the momentum going but I do have some doubts...after all, our A-team (both actors and heroes) of Iron Man, Thor, Cap, and Hulk got knocked back a few notches between Age of Ultron and Civil War - compare the previous cast the the “new” team of Avengers: Cap, Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Falcon.  

I guess you can count Hawkeye and Black Widow in there somewhere, but honestly, I’ve got 3 words for those 2 characters: dead fucking weight.  And really, Johansson is way too damn hot to be thrown in the background set on “dual-wield” while Hulk runs up buildings and Thor obliterates giant bio-organic floating skeleton creatures with a hammer and Stark whizzes around popping off plasma bolts and Cap sets his shield to physics = null.  C’mon Marvel, she’s freakin' gorgeous and all you can do is put her in dumb scenes with the Hulk, who is easily the least interesting Avenger outside of battle.

I digress.  For the record Margot Robbie was insanely hot in Suicide Squad - 50% of that is just ‘cause she’s a good looking chick, but the other 50% that really sets my loins aflame is the whole kinderwhore-inspired look.  (For the record, she also played Jordan Belford’s (Leo DiCaprio) wife in Wolf of Wall Street and she was pretty damn hot there as well (I didn’t know that was her until I specifically looked up what else she’d been in)...but the kinderwhore-ish look just pushed her into a whole other realm of fucking sexy.)  But then of course you get into that whole “2-kinds-of-hot” thing...Robbie, Suicide Squad version, is hot in that, “agh I want to fuck that right now” sort of way, whereas Johansson - although most absolutely definitely fuckable - also has that sort of classic beauty about her.  In addition to being very sexually attractive, she’s just pleasant to look at.  A chick can definitely be of the former variety without possessing qualities of the latter, but I’m not sure I can think of any time where the latter doesn’t also possess the sex appeal aspect...it may not be as urgent or immediate, but it’s still there.

Still digressing.  Most of this post is one big digression.  I apologize and applaud anyone who’s made it this far.

Let’s finish this up, shall we?  I’ve been writing this for days upon days and I got other cool toy shit I want to hurry up and write about before I forget it.

In summation, I will continue to keep faith in the DCEU, at least for another couple years worth of movies.  I like what Marvel is doing and I think they’ve landed on a workable formula, the problem is that I’m just not tripping over myself to see films about Ant-Man or Doctor Strange or even guys like Iron Man and Thor, simply because I’ve never really been that interested in them.  I mean I guess it depends on who you are and what you were exposed to, but as a kid I was interested in other heroes and really, even the big shots like Iron Man, were more or less just characters I knew of in passing.  Perhaps the MCU isn’t doing enough to make these characters interesting - perhaps these characters just don’t have the same built-in appeal as Spider-Man or Batman, etc.

When these MCU films start dropping in price and I can start loading up on 3 - 5 movies for $7.50 - $12 at Walmart, I'll be glad to give them a fair shake in the comfort of my living room, but as long as we’re at $20 a pop I’m sorry, I just don’t have $20 worth of give-a-damn when it comes to the Winter Soldier (holy shit a metal arm (I know, I know, everyone says it’s a great friggin’ movie)) or damn Ant-Man (I know I know, everyone says it’s a great friggin’ movie).  And in my defense, there were lots of really, really crappy superhero movies that came beforehand.

Bottom line:  DC, I love your characters, but you need to get your shit together.  Take it slow.  You don’t have to one-up the MCU just yet, and you’re on the road to potentially ruining what may be the greatest hero of our times, Batman.  And please, do something about your godawful TV situation.  To Marvel: I think you’ve got a lot of stuff figured out, but I think your entire universe would benefit from injecting a little more dirt and grime into your films.  They’re a little too light and a little too popcorn friendly.  Don’t go down DC’s road and make incomprehensible crap that masquerades as complexity - don’t do that shit - but man, let’s get a film with some gravitas, with some balls.

So, what in the hell do you think about the quality of the Marvel Cinematic Universe versus the DC Extended Universe?  Lay it on me!  Did I nail it down pretty good or am I way off base?  Should I keep my mouth shut until I’ve dredged through the whole of the MCU...?  Is Ant-Man really that fucking good?  Was the tie in with Winter Soldier and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. really as brilliant as the rest of the internet seems to believe?  And while we’re at it, is anything in the DC TV-verse (what the fuck do we call it?) worth watching, or am I in the clear by being as dismissive as everyone else?  Tell me tell me tell me!

#dc extended universe #marvel cinematic universe #mcu #dceu #marvel #dc #dc comics #batman v superman #batman versus superman #batman vs superman #dawn of justice #man of steel #man of steel film #suicide squad #suicide squad film