customers served (give or take a few hundred thousand) since September 2004!
Comments and opinions expressed on THE KNIGHT SHIFT are those of Christopher Knight and not necessarily those of subjects discussed in this blog, of advertisers appearing on it or of any reasonable human being. Any correspondence/irate letters/lawsuit threats/Nigerian e-mail scams can be sent to theknightshift@gmail.com.
After my most recent post about Superman a lot of people, especially friends, said that I needed to see the 2025 Superman movie for myself, instead of being so quick to judge by what, well... shall we say more judgmental voices have spoken about it. It was enough to compel me this evening to use a movie gift card that has been burning up my wallet for awhile now. So I've returned from seeing David Corenswet in his first outing as the Man of Steel.
What did I think about it?
In general, I liked it and I'm probably going to like it even more tomorrow after it's had some time to percolate in my gray matter. One thing I will say that came as a bit of a surprise: it is not political at all. Or at least I never picked up on any agenda infusing the story. It's as straight-up and pure a comic book movie as I've seen in awhile. It's not "woke" (I hate everything that word has come to mean in the parlance of American politics, nothing screams arrogance in an iron fist like "wokery"). It's actually making an effort to not be "conservative" or "liberal" at all, as one sound bite late in the movie touches upon.
The one thing I really didn't care about Superman 2025 was the language. It could be a bit much. No, there is not a single F-bomb that is dropped in this film. But it was more than should have been included in a film about perhaps the most beloved superhero of all time. Maybe in another comic book film (perhaps one devoted to Guy Garner, played in this movie by Nathan Fillion in a stroke of perfect casting) that would be appropriate. But not for a strictly Superman movie. It's not very, well... Superman-ish.
If you can forgive that, then 2025's Superman is a very good time. This movie has quite a bit of heart to it. The film quickly establishes that Superman has been active for a few years already, so he's still figuring things out. Like reconciling his raising by Ma and Pa Kent with his Kryptonian heritage and the powers that come with that. And speaking of that, Corenswet does a masterful job portraying both Clark Kent and Superman as different characters, as they are supposed to be in the tradition of the comics going back almost ninety years. Superman 2025 establishes fairly well that Clark Kent is Kal-El's earthly identity, that Superman is an alter-ego of. It was something that Christopher Reeve was the platinum standard for measuring an on-screen Superman, and Corenswet does his due well in upholding that trick.
Well, I could say more. Better to see it for yourself. I had a good time and you probably will too, if you can forgive a few things. My favorite film featuring the character, and maybe my favorite comic book film of all time, is likely forever going to be 1978's Superman: The Movie. Now that movie did have heart! If that film is 5 stars, Then I'll give 2025's Superman a 3 and 1/2 stars. Worth seeing while it's out in theaters.
My family and I saw A Christmas Story on its opening day in 1983, and I saw it again a few weeks later with my Cub Scout pack. Every holiday season I wind up watching it at least once or twice. And I'll forever treasure the Red Ryder air rifle that Dad gave me for my tenth birthday. This movie is as near and dear to me as this sort of thing is likely to be.
When it was announced that there was a sequel coming and that most of the original cast was returning, my curiosity was aroused. What would it be like to see grown-up Ralphie with a family of his own? I was looking forward to finding out. A Christmas Story Christmas was released two years ago and for various reasons I haven't been able to watch it during the holiday season, when it's meant to be seen. But last night some stars aligned and I decided it was time to see the Parker family is up now.
I'm glad that I did, because A Christmas Story Christmas turned out to be something that I needed right at this moment. I saw a lot of myself in the now 43-year old Ralphie (once again inimitable portrayed by Peter Billingsley). The situation he is in at the start of the movie is much my own at the moment. And then, it is now just over ten years since Dad - my own "Old Man" - passed away, and Christmas hasn't been the same without him. It's been said that you don't know how much you appreciate someone until they're gone. There have now been eleven Christmases without my father and there hasn't been one that I didn't feel his absence.
So seeing this movie last night very much resonated with me. It made me thankful, for the happy times which I have had in my life, however much fewer those seem to have been in recent years. It gave me a little bit of hope, that maybe my pursuit of my dreams hasn't been a vain thing after all. It made me grateful for the loved ones I still have in my extended family: people who are as dear to me as anyone could possibly be.
I could say more, but I guess what I'm trying to convey if nothing else, is check out A Christmas Story Christmas if you haven't already. It may delight you as unexpectedly as it did me. A very worthy follow-up to a beloved holiday classic.
Okay, it's the new movie adaptation that came out just before Thanksgiving. I still haven't seen the original musical yet but now I want to remedy that.
Today is Christmas Day. Two of my dearest friends live the next town over and they didn't want me to spend the holiday alone without us doing something fun together. They picked me up and after a bit of lunch at Waffle House (maybe the only restaurant open on the holiday) we proceeded on to the theater nearby for the 2:45 show.
I knew nothing about Wicked other than it's based on The Wizard of Oz and the musical is composed by Stephen Schwartz (who also created my all time favorite musical Children of Eden). I figured out early on though that it's about the Wicked Witch of the West, the main antagonist of the books. But that's pretty much it.
Well, talk about subverting expectations!
Wicked was unlike anything I've seen in a film. I genuinely was not prepared for either the sheer cinematic spectacle or the twists and turns that the story took. And after the movie one of my friends told me that almost everything in the movie, the effects and the sets and whatnot, are practical: not computer-generated at all. Which absolutely astounded me to be told that.
I could say so much else about this movie. But if you haven't seen it yet, my advice is to go in and see it cold. So I'm not going to say much more than what I've already told you. I must note though: the casting of the Wizard is perfect. So looking forward to seeing Part Two!
The Best Christmas Pageant Ever is a story near and dear to my heart. I played the head firefighter in two productions of the stage play for Theatre Guild of Rockingham County. That was years ago and I still have very fond memories of those shows. So I was curious about how this new adaptation, directed by Dallas Jenkins, would be.
This new film (there was a television movie back in the early Eighties, so this is the second time that The Best Christmas Pageant Ever has been formatted for the screen) pretty much follows the plot of the original novel. The Herdmans, AKA "The worst kids in the history of the world" are the juvenile blight upon the whole town. But a series of events leads to them not only coming to church one Sunday morning, but also demanding to be in the annual Christmas pageant. The uppity church folks want nothing to do with the Herdmans. But as the story progresses we find that the Herdmans maybe "get" the Christmas story better than some ever do. This is a story that is both heartfelt and hilarious. A perfect holiday tale out of the Seventies.
I thought the movie was great, although maybe a bit slow-going at first. I was expecting more "nasty" from the Herdman kids, but what is shown in the movie is pretty much in keeping with their depiction in Barbara Robinson's book. This is a story more than fifty years old and what seems tame today was no doubt quite shocking then. So my expectations were biased, through the lens of modern sensibilities (if only we could go back to that more innocent America). It's a well-cast film, especially the child actors.
I saw it with a pretty large audience for a holiday movie that's not necessarily a "tent-pole" spectacle. Obviously most of the people at the theater today were there to see Wicked (a film I'm hearing only crazy good about) but in the showing I caught there was still a substantial crowd. I did notice that I was the only single person, unaccompanied by anyone else, at the showing. But that's okay. This story is a part of my life and I was going to be there for that sake.
Is The Best Christmas Pageant Ever on the level of a true holiday classic film? I'll say it has potential for that. This is the kind of Christmas movie that there isn't made much of anymore. You know, films like A Christmas Story, and even National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. I can see this movie becoming something families enjoy together every year about this time. Hey, it took a long time for A Christmas Story to come around to the level of holiday tradition, too. I think this movie can make that list, too.
Anyhoo, after all the craziness my life has had lately, my brain very much needed something sweet and endearing and comical to distract itself with. And that is just what The Best Christmas Pageant Ever delivered. I'll give it three stars out of five.
Many years ago an idea hit for a Godzilla movie. There are strong doubts that I'll ever get to make it but the notion still occupies my mind whenever a film about kaiju is released. My idea for a Godzilla film is to set it in Japan in 1954, the year the original film came out. To treat Godzilla as a force of nature like an earthquake or tsunami. Shoot the movie in black and white like Schindler's List. And throughout the film it cuts to the modern day (or maybe it's the Nineties or Aughts) with survivors of the attack sharing their perspectives. Just like the "witnesses" that were seen throughout Warren Beatty's Reds. It would have been as close to a documentary-style film about a Godzilla attack as would be possible.
As I said, I don't expect that film to be made (or maybe someone at Toho will read this post and decide it's a good idea, in which case I will cheerfully say "Do it!"). But if that doesn't happen then I will be perfectly happy with Godzilla Minus One, which I was able to catch last night.
Godzilla Minus One is, absolutely, the Godzilla film that I have been hoping to see for a very long time now. Yes, here is a movie that treats Godzilla as he should be: a natural disaster on ginormous legs and breathing atomic fire. There is no bargaining with such a force of nature. You can only do your best to brace for the destruction in its wake. And maybe it's just me but I've long thought that Godzilla should not be endlessly fighting other kaiju. The tendency there is that Godzilla becomes a nigh-unstoppable force for good... which runs fully counter to his character.
Let me be succinct: Godzilla Minus One is the Godzilla movie we didn't know we needed and thought we would never get.
The film begins in 1945, in the closing days of World War II. Which I loved. Setting the movie in postwar Japan is perfect for a Godzilla story and it immediately ups the stakes, what with the country just then beginning to recover from incendiary air raids and the two atomic blasts. Just when the people of Japan think they might really be on the high road away from devastation, here comes Godzilla to make things even worse.
I'm stopping short of calling this post a proper "review". It's more of just a blunt reaction piece. Godzilla Minus One is a movie that you are going to want to go in cold when you watch it. This movie was a sheer and quite moving delight that hearkens back and brings freshly to the fore all the qualities that one would expect from a serious Godzilla motion picture. I had a blast (no pun intended) watching this movie and I think most of the people reading this will come away from seeing it feeling much the same. WELL worth finding a good theater to see this movie in.
I'll close with this: No, I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet. Real-life events have conspired me prevent me from seeing any movie this year up 'til now, with the exception of this past summer's Indiana Jones film. But I could definitely see Godzilla Minus One being a serious awards contender. It's a film as beautiful in its acting and cinematography as it is massive in scope. In a perfect world this movie would be up for Best Picture at the Oscars in a few months.
If so, the gang at Toho Pictures will have well deserved it.
I think Hillbilly Elegy must have hit Netflix this week. A friend and I were discussing it just yesterday but I had no idea it was coming out so soon. I was about to start on The Queen's Gambit (a series getting lots of high praise from people I trust) but I went with Hillbilly Elegy instead.
Ron Howard's latest film hit hard. Parts of it were like a sucker-punch to the gut. Hillbilly Elegy slapped me hard in the face and didn't give a damn. So much of this movie that resonated with me, and not all of it for good reasons.
Let me be succinct about it. I know people that are like the people in Hillbilly Elegy. And I could see some of myself in it. Maybe too much for the circumstances that life has put me in at the moment, but I digress...
Based on J.D. Vance's 2016 memoir of the same name, Hillbilly Elegy spans the course of roughly fourteen years in the life of a Kentucky/Ohio family. I haven't read the book (yet) but I could identify with the world of young J.D. in this film. The sense of feeling trapped, and realizing that a person has to want to escape hard enough to make it happen. Family as something to love as much as be captive to. The strength to break away without losing one's sense of identity in what came before.
So much that I could say about this movie. It's going to take some time to sink in, no doubt.
Look for Amy Adams and Glenn Close to sweep up a whole bunch of awards for their portrayals in this movie. Especially Close, whose character of Mamaw Vance might be more accurate than many of us would like to admit.
It's not a beautiful movie, but it is an honest one. And I may watch it again soon (but not before watching A Quiet Place, which at least one friend has told me I'm depriving myself by not seeing it yet).
There is likely no disputing that Christopher Nolan is king of high-concept cinema. With Tenet I am wondering if maybe he went for TOO high-concept. It was ten years ago this summer that Nolan gave us Inception: a movie that I have watched many times since and continues to enthrall.
Tenet however, I might watch once or twice again. Three times tops. Just enough to try to figure out what the heck is going on. Because there is some Grade-A gray matter warping at work in this movie. The publicity for it has been clear that it's NOT a film about time travel. Instead it's about "inversion". Reversing the entropy of an object - or people - so that it appears that they are going backward when instead from the perspective of the object... say, a bullet... time is progressing forward linearly. And I can understand that much. But more exposition would have been appreciated.
It would have also helped matters if the sound wasn't overwhelming the spoken dialogue. Straining to make out what the characters were saying became an exercise for the eardrum. Was it deliberate? I mean, it's a pretty discombobulated plot to follow along as it is. Something about arms dealers and a fraudulent Goya drawing. Distracting it with sound and fury just made things worse, intentionally or not.
But if Tenet has something going for it, it's absolutely the visual effects. Nolan and his crew used a real Boeing 747 for this movie. And the battle scene toward the end is incredible to behold if also bewildering to keep up with. It's apparent that Tenet's production team went for practical effects whenever and wherever possible... and that's something I can definitely approve of.
I will give Tenet a score of 7 out of 10. For comparison's sake I would give Inception a 9.5 out of 10. Tenet is a strong effort from Christopher Nolan. Unfortunately this time he came short of making the mark. For further comparison's sake, a perfect 10 of a time-centric movie is the 2004 film Primer. Produced for a miniscule seven grand, Primer proves that a solid high-concept movie can be made without a major studio backing it with a few hundred million dollars.
There is a tradition I never fail to keep: whenever I get snowed in and can't go anywhere, I turn down the lights and crank up the sound and watch the 1982 movie The Thing. Maybe that says something about my baseline state of mind.
John Carpenter's now-classic film of horror and paranoia at an Antarctica research base might not be appropriate viewing for when one is tempting real-life cabin fever. But if Die Hard is a Christmas movie, then The Thing is the perfect wintertime follow-up. And it's a darn nearly perfect movie in every other possible way: the story. The casting. The pacing. The practical effects (which still hold their own against any CGI today). The cinematography. That score by Ennio Morricone. And that building-up of tension as the men of Outpost 31 grow increasingly mistrustful of each other...
So yeah, I'm a huge fan of The Thing. And I've read the original novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell Jr. As well as watched 1951's The Thing from Another World.
And then there is the 2002 video game The Thing, which followed the events of the John Carpenter film and received both commercial and critical acclaim. Partly because of the innovative "trust" element. I'm going to always have fond memories of playing that game, and unfortunately it seems the physical release is the only one out there. Maybe GOG.com will have it for sale sooner than later. Anyway...
I've seen and read and played just about everything Thing-ish. But one item had been out of my zone of interest: 2011's The Thing. Meant to be a prequel to the 1982 film, the 2011 entry was intended to reveal the story of the Norwegians who first discovered the alien vessel and its malevolent cargo.
Helmed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.and with a cast led by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, The Thing '11 was an idea that I just didn't care about once the initial details started coming out. And it wasn't just the notion of depicting the events of the Norwegian camp: something that was perhaps better left to the imagination (the "less is more" school of thought). When MacReady and Copper begin exploring the burning ruins of the base, and then they come upon the radio operator who had slit his wrists, well... it's just like Copper said: "My God, what the hell happened here??"
"What?", indeed. I first saw 1982's The Thing when I was ten years old, and every time I've watched it since my imagination gets sent reeling in wonder about how it went down among those poor scientists before they unleashed extraterrestrial death upon the most desolate wilderness on the planet. What led up to the final survivors shooting at that dog from a helicopter laden with kerosene and grenades?
Did I really want or need to see that portrayed?
And then there was the casting. It screamed "modern American film gore" with an emphasis on "American". Look, we've had a Thing movie from an American perspective: it was The Thing of 1982. A prequel about the Norwegian camp should have a cast of entirely Norwegians. Having it headlined by an American actress with fellow English speakers: it just didn't seem right.
Then there were the effects. Doubtless it was going to be largely accomplished by some CGI rendering engine pushing pixels. I didn't doubt that the transition from the brilliant work in the 1982 film would be a jarring one.
Maybe it's the weather lately. At this time of winter in this location, it should be at least one major snowstorm already this season. Here in mid-February that's looking less likely. So without a proper occasion upon which to watch 1982's The Thing, I thought that maybe... just maybe... I could give the 2011 film a fighting chance. So that's what I did last night.
What did I think?
The Thing (2011) is a gruesome waste of a premise that had strong
potential. There is so much that went wrong with this film. In some ways it is admirably accurate to the 1982 film (the coda where we see the Norwegian helicopter flying off to track down the dog is especially good). But other details are unforgivably ignored (didn't the boffins from Norway already use their explosive charges to blast away the ice from the alien ship?). That's a bigger lingering plot problem than anything from The Rise of Skywalker... and that's sayin' something.
As I'd feared, The Thing 2011 edition tried too much to be a modern "American" horror. Maybe the boys in marketing thought that a pretty young American female among all those Scandinavians would increase the commercial appeal. Instead it distracts from the spirit of the 1982 "original". There would have been nothing wrong with a cast completely comprised of Norwegians, Swedes, and Danish. In fact, I would have preferred it that way. And have the dialogue composed entirely of Norwegian (maybe with English subtitles... or not). As it is the cast of Norwegian characters is woefully under-employed in this movie. A tragedy because they seemed to be taking this project especially to heart. One of the Norwegians is well played by Kristofer Hivju, who went on to portray Tormund Giantsbane in HBO's Game of Thrones. Had I been the one in charge of the project, that's the approach I would have taken.
And it must be said: no modern CGI can outdo Rob Bottin's practical
effects work in scaring the hell out of the viewer. Even when the staff of Outpost 31 was looking at the remains of the creature, with it just laying there on the table, not moving at all: that static horror said it all. That kind of slow appreciation of the monstrous isn't there in The Thing 2011. There isn't a
single creature in this movie that is as memorable as the
Norris-thing. It's all moving too fast and furious. It all looks too shiny. And going back to "if it was me making this movie" I would have tried to replicate the lighting and film grain of the 1982 film. Yeah, film grain is important. It needs to be consistent across a series. It's one of my major complaints about the Star Wars prequel trilogy and it's a major complaint here.
But most of all, I found myself incredibly disappointed with the failure to adequately arouse the kind of paranoia that made John Carpenter's 1982 movie such an enduring classic. The sense of growing mistrust among the Norwegian base staff is so lacking that it seems almost tacked on. There isn't a single scene that comes anywhere close to Blair (Wilford Brimley) going berzerk with that fire axe:
There is so much else that could be said. This is definitely a prequel that became something we never needed. Which I hate to say, because in other hands The Thing (2011) really could have been a very terrific movie. Instead the film ended and I was just very, very disappointed. It's going into the pile of other movies that were made but I'm going to pretend were never produced (Alien 3, anything past the final scene of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and the inevitable sequel to Joker).
And so it is that whatever happened at that Norwegian camp will remain open to speculation. Which is probably just as it should always be. Besides, it's more fun that way.
This won't be so much a detailed review as it is a gut reaction to something barely prepared for. 1917 isn't a movie you'll want to read too much of warm. Just go into the theater and for the next two hours be assaulted by the horrors of hell as few things have done in recent cinema history.
But it hit me on the drive back from the theater tonight: that the two most technically innovative films that I've seen over the course of the past year or so, have each been about World War I. Maybe They Shall Not Grow Old will prove to have sparked a renaissance of interest in the Great War: an event that resonated harder than many might appreciate and indeed still resonates with us today (the ongoing morass in Iraq being but one example). World War I has long been overshadowed at the cinema by its bloodier sequel, and that is unfortunate.
Sam Mendes and his team have done their part in rectifying that (if such a thing can be said) with 1917. Shot and edited to be essentially one long continuous take, the film follows two young British soldiers (played by George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman) on the front lines in northern France, at the war's height in 1917. They have been tasked with crossing the strife-torn landscape with a message that could mean life or death for more than sixteen hundred of their fellow soldiers.
This is a brutal, brootal motion picture. 1917 is an almost merciless meandering through the fog of war. There are no clear edges or "episodic" flow in this movie. There is rarely time to recover from one horror only to be assaulted by another. And another. And another. This is war in all its horror, heartlessness and during at least one unforgettable moment, lack of honor. It is a magnificent traipse through the fallen world's garden of malevolence. It'll be a few days before I'm really "over" this one. No doubt the many who saw it during the same screening will be the same.
Will definitely recommend catching 1917 during its theatrical run. This is one of those movies that really does deserve getting beheld on the screen writ large and encompassing. Expect loads of awards for this one as the season plays out.
Now look, I waited decades... decades... to be able to say that I have seen "Episode Nine". It became like a lifelong hope that someday, as the Plaid One promised in that Reader's Digest article in 1982, there would be nine of the Star Wars movies and I wanted to see all of them. 'Course, Lucas was referring to the core "Skywalker Saga" at the heartmeat of the saga, and had no idea about the other works that would come (like Rogue One, or The Mandalorian which gets better and better with each new episode).
So yeah. I haven't been saying "The Rise of Skywalker" these last several months. Almost every time I've mentioned seeing "Episode Nine". And wanna know a cold hard truth? There are a lot of Star Wars fans, better than I'll ever be, who didn't make it this far. Life in this world can be a cruel, cruel thing. Fate can take any of us at any moment. So many were hoping to see Episode Nine, but for one reason or another... they were taken from us. And often long before there was even a glimmer of hope that there would be any new Star Wars at all past Revenge of the Sith. I owe it to them to honor the dream, that they too longed to see come to pass. It's the least that I can do.
Let's get into it. Last night I caught the first showing of Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (let's just call it The Rise of Skywalker for the rest of the post) along with some friends. After something like 23 trailers the movie began. And so did the end of my quest.
To be as brutally honest as I can be (and there will be no spoilers here), The Rise of Skywalker is a dense hot mess of a motion picture that is heavy - maybe too heavy - on exposition. Perhaps also some derivatives of other works... like, say, The Goonies (that's the closest I'll come to spoilers, promise). And there were two elements of the story that had it been me in the director's chair, would have been drastically changed. One of them makes NO sense whatsoever in line with established canon. The other, well... maybe you will figure it out during the course of the film.
The Rise of Skywalker can be a slog to work through. At least for the first half or maybe even two-thirds. But that last good stretch of it?
Holy smokes!!!
The back half of The Rise of Skywalker almost completely redeems whatever faults came before. Give J.J. Abrams and his crew their due: they did accomplish the seemingly impossible. They tied up eight previous films across the past forty-two years, and put a beautiful bow on the entire saga. Put simply: the thing works! And as I heard some speak while the credits were rolling, this movie even makes The Last Jedi a much better film. Which, I have to agree. The Last Jedi has given me more fits than any other Star Wars movie about whether I like it or don't. I won't be seeing The Rise of Skywalker again this weekend, but I will watch The Last Jedi with refreshed eyes.
Is The Rise of Skywalker perfect? Far from it. But it is what it is: a Star Wars movie. With all the action and outrageousness and humor and nonsense that you've come to expect from the franchise. It may not be the best "entry level" film of the saga. This is a film especially for those who have been along for the ride. But if you have been following the saga all along, I believe you may agree: that The Rise of Skywalker is a magnificent capstone atop this grand monument of modern mythology.
That's pretty much all I'm going to say. It's all you need to have, if you haven't seen The Rise of Skywalker yet. Best to go in cold, knowing as little as possible.
Oh yeah, one more thing: this saga is called "Star Wars". If you thought we haven't seen a REAL "star war", ooh-boy... are YOU in for a treat!
YOWZA!!!! Maybe the greatest Star Wars trailer in all of history. But ahhhh... will the movie deliver the goods come next month? No other way to be honest about it: some days I find myself loving The Last Jedi and others, I find it sorely lacking. There's just more that could have been done with the sense of pacing and time. And spending that much time looking for one guy in a casino on the other side of the galaxy (which makes NO sense given the Resistance fleet's situation) should have been excised completely from the script. But, it is what it is. And this far along in the game I've gotta be loyal to the end. The tickets for opening night of The Rise Of Skywalker were already in virtual hand two hours before the trailer premiered. Bought 'em sight unseen. Because, well... Star Wars.
That trailer marks a personal first for me. Never before have I done a reaction video. This may be the only time it happens. So here's what occurred as I watched The Rise Of Skywalker trailer:
Now let's talk about that other film the buzz has been about...
Since catching it the first night I have seen Joker three times. And if there is any better film so far this year it has thus far evaded my gray matter. Do the Oscars even matter anymore? If they do then Joaquin Phoenix should have a lock on Best Actor with his portrayal of Arthur Fleck. And the film itself deserves the top prize for dang near every known quantity of modern cinematography. But I need to talk about the mental illness aspect...
Some of you already know that my profession is in the mental health field. Mainly, my role is that of peer support advocate. I do my best to assist people with diagnosed mental disorders in leading more productive and meaningful lives. And I do it from the perspective of one who has long had a diagnosed mental disorder: myself. Since last time this blog was posted on I've become a trained and certified specialist in the field. And in the lead-up to Joker it was wondered aloud by colleagues whether this was a film that I should be seeing. I can see their point. Indeed, I see now more than ever that their concerns were not only warranted but prescient. There were some scenes in Joker that were like watching a biopic of my own life (but that's all that I'll divulge on that). It wasn't so much the manic-depression that stood to be triggered as it was the complex PTSD.
It astonishes me that the triggers were there but they weren't pulled. But as recently as a year ago, they would have been. And I like to think that it says a lot about how far I've come as a person. Maybe that indicates something about how much more the bipolar disorder and PTSD have come to be managed. 'Course, I can't take all the credit. God put many people into my life who have encouraged me along the way. Maybe my faith in Him is getting to come back, too (again, not something I'll go into for now).
The second time seeing Joker was to better digest it as a film for its own sake. Within a few more days the movie had been seen by several others around our offices of the mental health department. Joker has evoked more discussion in our field than a film is apt to do for any industry (well, except for how I heard that the techs at NASA were having a giggle-fit while seeing Armageddon). And I decided that maybe with all of the conversation about mental illness as it's portrayed in this movie, that maybe I should catch it again. And I did. And some thoughts have been percolating about it.
So here it is: Joker is not a movie about mental illness. At least not mental illness as is medically understood.
Let's look at Arthur Fleck with an objective eye. He's a traumatized individual, and more than he understands at first. But the one and only true psychiatric condition he's been diagnosed with is his uncontrollable laughter. Including laughing at the most inappropriate times. It makes a wreck of his life and is ruining his dream of being a stand-up comedian. However, strip away those issues... and Arthur Fleck is basically a nice guy with no mental illness of his own.
So what does he have? Psuedobulbar effect is a behavioral disorder. Not a mental illness. There is a difference between the two. In general, mental illness can be treated. Not so much a behavioral disorder and in that regard Arthur Fleck's situation could be much worse. He could be a full-blown psychopath. That he cares for his mother and for others apparently should be thorough disqualification of his having psychopathy. Neither does he seem to demonstrate narcissistic personality problems. The delusions he has? Most certainly mental illness... but those only began to come about after his circumstances began to deteriorate. Left on his own, Arthur Fleck would likely have had a shot at a fairly normal and productive life.
Except that he was born and raised in Gotham City. By someone who wasn't the best of mothers. And he has a behavioral issue that brands stigma upon him by a town without pity. And then one night he takes a ride on a train...
No, Arthur Fleck has no mental illness. He makes some mistakes, but none that would really ruin anyone else for life. His is a behavioral disorder that otherwise has no bearing on his personality. Which, could be argued that he's a guy with a basically good heart. And then one bad night pulls all the triggers and he's set down the path to true madness. Again, not really his own doing.
What is Joker about, then? I see its moral as being much the one of Frank Capra's Lost Horizon: "Be kind to one another."
It's not mental illness per se that gives birth to the Joker in Todd Phillips' film. It's just one bad day followed by a slew of other bad days, and it might be enough to destroy almost anyone (as Alan Moore explored in the classic Batman graphic novel The Killing Joke). It's the toxic buildup of man's inhumanity to man, dropped upon one man who otherwise has no skin in that game. And he utterly cracks.
With enough pressure, it might happen to almost anyone. So no, this iteration of the Joker (one of many, since the Joker loves his past being multiple choice) isn't the spawn of mental illness. He's not even the creation of society at large. But he is the product of the worst of that society when good people choose to be indifferent and unwilling to be intolerant of true cruelty.
As I said earlier, Joker has led to a lot of conversation throughout the professional mental health field. No doubt it will for quite awhile to come. I can easily see Joker being shown and discussed in high school and college classrooms for the next twenty years, at least. So many spheres of thought that this film encompasses: psychology, sociology, law, ethics...
Joker is a masterpiece in every sense. And I look forward to adding it to my Blu-ray collection (which may be coming as early as next month, if rumors about those profit-savvy Warner Brothers rushing it out before Christmas hold water).
Anyhoo, all two of this blog's faithful readers might be wondering: "Chris, where you been dude?"
Mainly it's been the job I've had for seven months now. The past few especially have been loaded with training and certification exams. There is also the matter of how it's a new program we've been getting off the ground. It's been an adjustment, especially mentally: juggling professional obligations with maintaining my own mind. The past number of weeks have borne some radically positive fruit in that regard. But across the board, results are being seen. And there is a lot of personal satisfaction to be drawn from that... and also an honor and a privilege to be working alongside such amazing people.
So, go see Joker if you haven't already. Brace yourself for a whole new era when Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker bows and we have saga rumors never more. Watch this space for more posts soon!
Two matters have persisted in my mind during the past several months leading up to Spider-Man: Far From Home. The first, obviously, is "How the heck does any Marvel movie follow up on the heels of Avengers: Endgame?" Those three hours were a staggering symphony of cinema, made all the more magnificent in that they wrapped up eleven years and twenty-some movies of what had come before. Did Disney and Sony and Marvel seriously believe that a Spider-Man movie could raise the bar on that?!
But for me, the bigger issue was this: "When the heck do we finally see Spider-Man's little world explored and fleshed out on this canvas?"
Because Far From Home represents Tom Holland's fifth outing as the web-slinger. And still by the time of this latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe chronology we have yet to see Peter Parker's unique and classic sphere of influence explored to any great extent. Oh yes, there has been Aunt May (absent Uncle Ben and that life-altering event in Peter's life) and the Vulture (played with unexpected dimension by Michael Keaton in Spider-Man: Homecoming). But what about the weight of responsibility that Peter wrestles with? How is he going to make money of his own without the Daily Bugle to snap photos for (and a J. Jonah Jameson calling him to the carpet at least once a week)? How is he going to acquire his own rogues gallery when the world is unarguably now fixated on cosmic-level villains? And where are those clones?!
(Okay, forget the clones. In fact, let's just forget that "Clone Saga" mess ever happened...)
Peter's own world has its own feel and tone, and Sam Raimi captured and conveyed that perfectly for the big screen in 2002's Spider-Man. And then two years later Spider-Man 2 upped the ante and became one of the very few sequels deemed better than the original. Even Spider-Man 3, for all the things wrong with it, had some resonation with the source comic material. Everything about Raimi's series was spot-on or dang close to it. And rather disappointingly the Marvel Cinematic Universe incarnation has barely attempted that level of inspiration.
Which brings us to Spider-Man: Far From Home.
It's now months after what the world is calling "The Blip": when everyone ashed-away by Thanos' snap in Avengers: Infinity War has been returned to the universe, albeit five years later. Far From Home is our first real look at the in-saga ramifications of Hulk's counter-snap, and as can be expected confusion is rife now that half the cosmos' population is back in existence after half a decade of oblivion. Far From Home addresses "The Blip" rather nicely, exploiting the humor that often comes with such a disturbance. Life is getting back to normal (more or less) and Peter Parker, weary of saving the world alongside all of those other heroes, is looking forward to a trip to Europe with his high school colleagues. Including his best pal Ned (Jacob Batalon, who becomes more fun to watch in the role with each outing) and that elusive relationship with M.J. (again hard-to-get and aloof and played by Zendaya). And maybe he'll be able to shake off the loss of Tony Stark: his father figure and role model. Iron Man's sacrifice has turned into a global memorial... but the absence is felt nowhere worse than the gaping hole in the heart of Peter Parker.
Unfortunately it seems that Nick Fury (isn't it time that Samuel L. Jackson gets his own standalone movie in the MCU?) and S.H.I.E.L.D. are determined to draft Peter and his Spider-Man persona. Seems that a hero named Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal) from the Earth of an alternate universe - blamed on "The Snap" punching a hole in reality - is trying to stop four malevolent forces of nature from destroying our own world just as they destroyed his. Mysterio has determined that the "four elementals" are going to attack Europe next and lo and behold, the track of their storm corresponds with the Midtown School's trip iternerary. Fury catches up with Parker in Venice, lays it all out and... well, chaos ensues as usually happens in this kind of Marvel movie.
If you've been following the Marvel Cinematic Universe all along, this final chapter in the arc that's been building since 2008 serves as a wonderful coda. If Avengers: Endgame was a grand feast, then Spider-Man: Far From Home is the much-needed and pleasurable palate cleanser. It gives the fans a "cool-down" period, time to breathe... and there is already the tantalizing tingle that the next volume of this epic is coming sooner than later. 2008's Iron Man marked the start of this sprawling mythology, and in many ways Far From Home serves as the perfect bookend: for the films themselves and for us as the viewing audience.
How does Spider-Man: Far From Home cap off all that has come previous? It doesn't even really try to. It knew it couldn't. And it still works beautifully.
As for that other matter: I still don't think that Spider-Man: Far From Home brought us fully into Peter Parker's unique corner of the Marvel saga. But it's coming. By the end of this film he has become his own person, and though the legacy of Tony Stark will not be forgot, Peter has indeed become the man who Stark believed he could be. That world is coming... and especially with that mid-credits scene, with a cameo that will either blow the Marvel Cinematic universe wide-open or prove that some casting is simply indisputable.
I'll give Spider-Man: Far From Home four and a half webs out of five. Still not in Sam Raimi-ish terms of quality but it's getting there. And I believe it will land squarely on that turf in the next movie. Maybe then we'll get the MCU's treatment of the Green Goblin or Doctor Octopus. Maybe the next Spider-Man movie will be called Spider-Man: Home Sweet Clone...
Toward the end of Solo, there is a brief scene with Emilia Clarke's character Qi’ra. And maybe it shocked the audience and made jaws hit the floor but for me it was much more upheaving.
Without spoiling for anyone who hasn't seen this movie yet, let's just say that one of the reasons I haven't written anything about the Star Wars animated series The Clone Wars and Rebels is because I have seen very little of them. Not only because there was lack of time to adequately invest myself into those shows but primarily that I hadn't taken them seriously at all. And at the heartmeat of the matter is one character. No offense meant to Dave Filoni but the moment they announced this person was getting injected into The Clone Wars I lost all interest in that show and then again in Rebels. It was cheap, petty, reeked too much of being "gimmicky". So it is that in my own personal canon of Star Wars, The Clone Wars and Rebels didn't exist. And for years I've said this to countless many fellow fans: "The only way I will possibly accept Filoni's animated shows as legitimate Star Wars is if (redacted) is brought into the live action films and confirmed there to be (redacted)".
Last night at the first showing of Solo, seeing it with Codename: Dot Matrix and being haunted afterward until the sun arose wondering what this sweet and lovely lass must have thought when her friend went into full-tilt wacko Star Wars existential crisis upon seeing THAT particular character on the screen, big as life and twice as ugly (wait, was that a double or even triple entendre?)...
Dear Dave Filoni and Star Wars Story Group head honcho Pablo Hidalgo: well played, boys. Well played indeed. I suppose now I really will have to watch aaalllll of those seasons of Rebels and The Clone Wars. Expect fat bonuses from Disney for this particular stunt as sales of Blu-ray season sets and digital downloads will crash through the ceiling after this weekend.
So here it is. Solo: A Star Wars Story. The film that some were scrying would be as bad or worse than Batman & Robin. That movie was Detroit sewage on the Ross Ice Shelf and two decades later some of us still can't expunge its cinematic reek out of our nostrils. But certainly a Star Wars movie couldn't be that bad... right? RIGHT?!?
The odds were against it. Solo's production history has been the most beleaguered of any Star Wars movie to date. Leaked stories about how much of a mess the script was, Alden Ehrenreich's alleged lack of sufficient acting talent for the role of Han Solo, the dismissal well into filming of co-directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller necessitating bringing on Ron Howard to take over... all signs pointed to this being a disaster. And then there was plain and simple matter of "Do we really need or even want this movie? Is the story of young Han Solo something that merits being told?"
Friends, Romans, countrymen, fellow geeks and nerds and dweebs, lend me your auditory organs! You can be of good cheer: Ron Howard and his crew have indeed turned in a fine and enjoyable addition to the Star Wars mythology. And it gets this Star Wars uberfan's hearty Seal of Approval™.
But there are some things that I feel obligated to address about Solo: A Star Wars Story in writing a review:
There have been an astonishing four Star Wars films released over the course of the past two and a half years. And of that quartet, Solo is by far the most light-hearted and least cerebral. And maybe it's not the Star Wars movie we "needed" per se, but as a one-shot side tale complementing the heavier drama of this franchise it's a terrific lil' ride. Solo is not necessarily a movie that a fan must see over and over again during its theatrical run, but it's certainly worth catching at least once. Many have projected this to be the least-earning to date of any of the Star Wars movies. I can understand why that would be, but that wouldn't and shouldn't be a reflection on the quality of the film itself. Solo is a summer popcorn movie. The kind you see with friends and family and you can unplug yourselves for a few hours and just throw your hands in the air and holler and laugh and throw yourselves into the moment. Y'know, like what A New Hope must have been forty-one Mays ago today. Before The Empire Strikes Back cranked up the gravitas and pegged the needle three years later.
Solo: A Star Wars Story isn't required viewing to keep up with the saga. But it certainly is a fun one. Whether you see it in the theater now or some months from now on Blu-ray or whatever at home, preferably with those aforementioned friends and family.
It's not without some due criticism though. After a rollickin' desperate ordeal for our hero in the first part or so the film tends to slow down, though the pace does pick up again. Maybe too much too fast though. The rumors of script problems were not without a threat of truth: some of Solo is hard to follow. Confusing even. It reminded me of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. The betrayals, backstabbing and conniving in that movie made it genuinely difficult to follow for too much of its running time. Solo isn't quite that bad, but the Kasdan Boys could have tightened this script up and made it a tad more cohesive. And something I've read mentioned by others since the film opened last night: Solo is dark. Not "it's a very dark story" but that it could have been more brightly lit in terms of cinematography. At first I thought it might have merely been the particular screen that Codename: Dot Matrix and I saw it on, but others are likewise reporting it at their own locations.
That being said, hey... it's a fun film. It's a Star Wars movie for a Memorial Day weekend, though let us not forget the real reason for this holiday. To honor and remember those who gave all so that the rest of us can have movies and everything else that this land has been abundantly blessed with. To be thankful for that. I hope that we can be.
Alden Ehrenreich's portrayal of young Han Solo was spot-on perfect. He brings the smile and swagger that we recognize and cherish later on in the saga. But if even perfection can be eclipsed, it certainly is done so by Donald Glover's portrayal of Lando Calrissian. Every moment of Glover as Lando is a whole heap o' hootworthy delight. Glover doesn’t just "get" Lando, he IS Lando. I had been quietly hoping for a "works every time" homage to Billy Dee Williams but alas! Not this time. And speaking of Glover as Lando: he is not a "social justice pansexual" despite what co-writer Jonathan Kasdan said a few days ago. I thought Lando in Solo was definitely a lady's man. Though it should be duly noted that Lando doesn't care WHAT form the lady comes in, be it human or alien or droid. If that's pansexual, then just think of Donald Glover's Lando as a supercharged James T. Kirk from the original Star Trek and your conscience can be comforted. It certainly shouldn't be enough to dissuade parents from taking their small children to see Solo. And I hope it never becomes that for any Star Wars film, but I addressed that issue a few blog posts earlier.
Joonas Suotamo, successor to Peter Mayhew as the one in the Chewbacca costume, does great honor to the man who brought everyone's favorite fuzzball to life on the screen in 1977 and so many times since. Woody Harrelson can now proudly boast a Star Wars notch on his belt: his Tobias Beckett is a strong figure in the life of Han Solo. Very much a Long John Silver type, and that was intended apparently. Emilia Clarke as Han's now grown-up childhood friend Qi-ra had depth. Perhaps not as much as seven or eight seasons worth of Daenerys on Game of Thrones can afford, but she turns in a good performance that portends we may see more of her in the role. I did want to see more of Thandie Newton though. She has become a powerhouse presence on HBO's Westworld as the rogue host Maeve and seeing her in a Star Wars film was something I had increasingly been looking forward to. Paul Bettany, as crime lord Dryden Vos, reminded me of Al Capone as Robert De Niro played him in The Untouchables, though Dryden doesn't wield a baseball bat (he uses something much more wicked). Lando's droid L3-37 quickly endeared itself to the audience, much as K-2SO did in Rogue One a year and a half ago. It would be wonderful if L3's presence could be asserted again in a future Star Wars film, because Phoebe Waller-Bridge was obviously enjoying herself waaaaay much and it paid off. And be listening for Linda Hunt as Lady Proxima early in the movie. I've long been a fan of her, especially when she was the voice of Management in Carnivale. And now Linda Hunt gets to make her mark on the Star Wars saga, which makes Solo all the better.
Solo may not be requisite material for a Star Wars exam, but there's plenty of extra credit to study up on. We finally get to see Han's homeworld of Corellia. The "expanded universe" of Star Wars literature may be kaput but it's yielding up a LOT of juicy material getting folded into the new canon. Teräs Käsi is now a legitimate Star Wars martial art and attentive fans' ears will perk up at the mention of Carida and the Maw (wait... did this movie just have references to Kevin J. Anderson’s Star Wars work?! What the...?!? Is the Apocalypse looming over us or what?). And then, yeah... that cameo. The one that overturned my own personal table of Star Wars lore. It's not a gimmick anymore and I can accept it. I think most likewise hesitant fans will too. I'm now curious to see if Lucasfilm and Disney are "grooming" that character into becoming a future threat down the line, as happened with Thanos in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Perhaps for the rumored Obi-Wan movie or the just-announced Boba Fett film. Time will tell.
Meta-wise, I couldn't help but think that Ron Howard was injecting some of the spirit of American Graffiti into Solo. Especially that first scene on the mean streets of Corellia. Ron's brother Clint, long a beloved presence in the Howard movie stable, gets some screentime (but if he was drinking any tranya, I must have missed it). I was somewhat disappointed that the brothers' father Rance Howard, who recently passed away, didn't get an appearance. Perhaps circumstances didn't allow for it. And this, the second Star Wars film to not be scored by the legendary John Williams (although he contributed a few pieces) adds another excellent work of composition to the catalog of soundtracks. John Powell's score has just enough of the familiar themes without being derivative at all. A Star Wars movie should be a unique vision of its particular filmmaker, its music no less so. I think Powell's will prove to be an excellent set of tracks to listen to, especially while driving. Y'know, like how some of us back in the day got speeding tickets from playing "Duel of the Fates" (and that's definitely a double entendre).
Solo: A Star Wars Story isn't the best film of the franchise, but it's not an Attack Of The Clones either. Its its own animal altogether: a fun-filled romp through the galaxy far, far away that doesn't care as much for dramatic weight as it does for "Faster! More intense!" thrills that Lucas was screaming from the director's chair thirty years ago.
And if nothing else has persuaded you to check it out, consider this: Solo finally addresses that ridiculous "Kessell Run in less than twelve parsecs" boast that armchair physicists and professional astronomers have been fanwaking themselves about for the past forty-one years. It now makes sense, even. If that's not worth twenty bucks for tickets and a minimum of outrageously overpriced confectionary, I don't know what is.
It was a Friday afternoon in the spring of 2008. A friend was running for state office in North Carolina and I had been serving as his campaign treasurer. And at a rally in Chapel Hill he had been given the hearty endorsement of then-presidential candidate Ron Paul. Meeting Dr. Paul was a great honor and I was feeling pretty good about things. So en route back home, just on a whim I decided to take in a movie that was just released that same day.
Ten years later, dozens of movies and many television spinoffs later (and maybe someday we'll see those intersect with the main films... I mean how hard is it to get Peter Parker into the offices of Nelson and Murdock for legal advice?!) and what seems to me like two or three other lifetimes, the grand experiment that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe has come to this: Avengers: Infinity War. And if you had told me when Iron Man was coming out that this would be the result of an unprecedented concerted effort across a full decade, I would have said "Not possible. It's never going to work."
It worked. And when the final credits began to roll at the premiere screening last night here at a local cinema somewhere in North America...
There was no applause. There was no cheering. There was no praise. There was no laughter. There was no crying. There was nothing at all. Except collective shell shock. It was an audience reaction I had never seen during a lifetime of watching movies at at theater. To be honest everyone looked drained. Like seeing Joker at the end of Full Metal Jacket: that "thousand yard stare". It was like all of us had the same thought: "did that just happen? Did that REALLY just happen? What was that? NOW what?!"
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been pure orchestrated cinema magic. And Avengers: Infinity War is the massive conflagration that it has all been building up to. EVERYTHING that has come previously ties into this film, even the bits and pieces that seemed so inconsequential. Now we know: nothing has been inconsequential in this saga. As with all the best magic tricks, when it's happening before your eyes and you don't even realize it, and then you whomp yourself upside the head stunned by the sheer genius of it...
Everyone who has contributed to this over the past ten years deserves utmost appreciation. And the Brothers Russo - Anthony and Joe - are going to see their work on this film the subject of study in storytelling for many years to come. Avengers: Infinity War is a perfect ensemble film. With a cast of zillions it would seem nigh on impossible for everyone to have a chance to show their virtues. And yet, there is not a character you've come to love (or hate) across the MCU that doesn't get their moment to shine. They play their parts in a tapestry stretching across the cosmos, the stakes couldn't be higher. And the Russos pulled off a dance most elegant with them all.
If you've been following every iota of the MCU material, you will be rewarded immensely with this movie. And even if you haven't (memo to self: need to watch Black Panther) you are most likely still going to have no problem following along with Avengers: Infinity War. I still haven't seen Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 but found it no trouble at all to accept Mantis with the barest minimum of exposition. Again, more of the beauty of this franchise at work.
It's been a long time since I've reviewed anything on this blog. And maybe I'm just out of practice. But more likely it's because Avengers: Infinity War shatters the superhero movie oeuvre wide open, that I find myself inadequate to write more about it without risking tipping a hand about the details of the film. And this movie merits more than any other in recent memory going in cold. If you've seen it already, heed the hashtag campaign of #ThanosDemandsYourSilence and be considerate of those who haven't the opportunity yet.
However, I will remark on something and if this doesn't whet your appetite then I don't know what will. For the better part of ten years we've been seeing Thanos teased on screen, either as silent cameo or in fleeting "stingers" mid-ending credits. And apart from the Marvel comics themselves Thanos has remained a pretty obscure figure in pop culture. Most people outside of the comics fan base have been seeing Thanos and probably asking "Who's he? Why should we care about this corrugated-chinned purple guy?"
After this opening weekend of Avengers: Infinity War, they will care. Thanos has just shot up the charts to the top of the Greatest Film Villains Ever. And somewhere Mike Friedrich and Jim Starlin must be wielding massive grins on their faces. That the character they created forty-five years ago has come out of left field to threaten all of creation. Bookstores this weekend are going to be selling out of 1991's The Infinity Gauntlet trade paperback. And if there is any sanity left at the Academy, then Josh Brolin will get a Best Actor nomination. There has never been a cinematic bad guy like Thanos before: someone with this kind of complex character and motive and power to manipulate. Brolin breathed an all-too rare depth into Thanos and he's set a platinum standard for all movie nemeses to come.
If Star Wars Episode 9 is even half as good as Avengers: Infinity War, then we are gladly going to forgive every mis-step that saga has made. Even Jar Jar Binks. Yeah, I said it. I went there. THAT is how mind-blowingly awesome Avengers: Infinity War is.
I gotta give Avengers: Infinity War my highest possible accolade for a comic book-based film. Go see it as soon as you can. And remember: DO NOT DISCUSS SPOILERS AND AVOID SPOILERS HOWEVER YOU CAN! Because Thanos wouldn't like that. Don't make Thanos angry.
(By the way... and you should know this by now... stick around for the end of the credits.)
Okay, it's not a "perfect" movie. I for one would have appreciated more of Ultron's legendary Oedipus complex between himself and his "father" (who in the Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity is Tony Stark). But those little problems aside, Avengers: Age of Ultron is a gob-smockingly powerhouse of a ride comin' at ya, and in this viewer's opinion it's more than the ideal movie to kick off a summer season.
So we caught it last night during its preview showings (it officially opens today). "We" being longtime friend/artistic collaborator Melody Hallman Daniel who's been visiting here for the past week, her service dog Sasha, and Yours Truly. After what seemed like a dozen trailers (alas! the Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer was not one of them, and if it had been I was going to stand up wave my hands frantically while screaming "YES YES YES!!"). The film starts with our heroes taking out a Hydra installation in Eastern Europe, the prize possession of which is that pesky scepter that Loki has been using in previous entries of the franchise. The team brings it back to Avengers headquarters, where Tony Stark asks for some time to examine it. And so he begins to mess with things beyond even his understanding and which should not be tampered with. Of course, this can't end well.
Avengers: Age of Ultron, I thought, was much like the story of Frankenstein. About a new creature brought about either by design or accident that grows beyond the control of its creator. In this case, said creature is determined to become God by wiping out all humanity, to say nothing of evolving itself. And so it falls to the Avengers to stop him/it.
I thought that in some ways this was a stronger ensemble film than The Avengers was in 2012. In this movie, everyone gets their chance to shine (especially Hawkeye, who has been holding out on some things from his teammates). There is a greater sense of depth here among our heroes. If only there had been more screen time to devote to that... but for a comic book film, it's still fine.
I enjoyed it immensely. So did Melody. And so did Sasha. Yes, Sasha watched it and she communicated to Melody that she thought it was good, but also that she didn't like the bad guy. Which from a dog's perspective means that she thought that Ultron (played with brilliant menace by James Spader) was a great bad guy. Maybe Sasha should have her own blog reviewing movies: according to Melody she seems to have a great sense for this sort of thing.
Anyhoo, if you want a great popcorn flick to take your mind off of the even crazier stuff happening all around us, as well as a solid new entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you'd be doing yourself a heaping disfavor if you didn't catch Avengers: Age of Ultron at least once during its theatrical run. I give it two thumbs up. Melody gives it two thumbs up. Sasha gives it a high five and a tail wag.
By the way, it goes without saying with this sort of thing: don't leave the theater when the credits begin to roll. There is one more surprise left that seems to be playing into the larger game that Marvel and Disney are taking this franchise.
I can't decide if Warm Bodies is a zombie movie with romance and comedy or if it's a romantic comedy with zombies. Either way, I enjoyed it.
(Yeah I'm making two posts in a row about zombies. I'll refrain from overkill by stating here that we also saw the trailer for World War Z and it looked much better than that ad that ran during the Super Bowl"big game".)
Warm Bodies is something I haven't been familiar with before: a zombie movie from the zombie's point of view. R (played by Nicholas Hoult) is a recently undead who wanders around the ruined shell of an airport. The shambling corpses are split into two varieties: the "regular" zombies who continue to shuffle along in mimicry of the patterns of their former lives. And then there are "bonies": those zombies whose decomposition has brought them too far gone to be helped. And all the while we're getting a running commentary of monologue from R courtesy of voice-over. Sorta like the flip-side of the Zombieland coin.
R's "life" is in the shadow of an armed enclave of normal humans (led and controlled with an iron hand by John Malkovich) which sends scouting parties out on a regular basis to find food, medicine and ammo. Unfortunately one one such mission a party is attacked and R encounters Julie (Teresa Palmer), the bossman's daughter.
What ensues is like a classic age-old tale of star-crossed lovers. Except she's young and smart and beautiful and he's... dead.
I know. It sounds like twelve degrees of total hokey. And to be honest I wasn't too crazy about Warm Bodies when I heard about its premise. But having seen it, I cannot but confess that it was a cute little movie and quite worth spending an afternoon watching (especially with a girlfriend). In a genre that has become stretched thin and tired and oh so terribly anemic, Warm Bodies is a refreshing breeze that succeeds admirably.
And the zombie genre could learn something from it, too!
