A Study in Super Heroes: Part One -- Batman vs Superman (review)

Yeah, so, fine, I'm a bit late with this, but I've been busy and only just now got around to seeing it. That's kind of okay, though, because it moved to the cheap theater last week, and I got to go see it for $3.50, about all it's worth. However, it was actually worth that, unlike the last Superman movie or, say, the Green Lantern movie (I saw Green Lantern for free and still felt ripped off).

I'm not going to go through the movie the way I usually do with these things. Let's just say the story was... flimsy. Like a balsa wood airplane, the kind you get at the supermarket for... I was going to say for $0.99, but I bet those planes cost more than that, now. They're great for the first half a dozen or so throws, then things start falling off, then they start refusing to go back into their assigned places, right before they start splintering. Basically, you get one good afternoon of play with one before it goes into the trash. This movie is like that, good for one afternoon of play before the plot falls apart and you begin to wonder what actually happened.

Of course, what actually happened was a contrived scenario to get Batman and Superman to fight. Um... yeah... That's all I'm going to say about that.

Let's do this:

The Good:
Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne. In fact, you could say that was the awesome. Definitely the best part of the movie. Affleck should have always been Batman. Or, I should say, Bruce. He's great as Batman, too, but, face it, that's the easy part. The part every previous star of the Batman movies since Burton's Batman came out has failed at has been portraying a convincing Bruce Wayne. [Okay, well, Clooney was a good Wayne, but the Batman fail in that one was so epic (no fault of Clooney's (seriously? nipples on the suit?)) that it has discolored everything about it.]

The Bad:
The opening sequence giving Batman's origin. Again.
The dream sequence Batman has of the future where Superman has taken over the world. It was long and added nothing to the movie. I get that they were trying to... I don't know... incorporate more of Miller's Dark Knight, but that sequence was gratuitous and pointless.
Wayne as an alcoholic. No, it's not stated, but it's certainly implicit. And dumb.

The Good:
Surprisingly, Henry Cavill as Superman. I don't think much of Cavill just on a general basis. I thought he was adequate in Man of Steel and horrible in The Man from U.N.C.L.E., although, to be fair, it was a pretty awful movie, so it may not have been his fault. However, he pulled off a fairly convincing portrayal of a brooding Superman, unsure of himself and his place in the world.

The Bad:
Basically everything to do with Lois Lane.
Look, I like Amy Adams. I think she's a great actress. But Lois is supposed to be a strong, forceful personality, and Adams doesn't bring that to the table. She's just too tentative. Plus, in this, she's often Lois ex machina, showing up at opportune moments to deliver vital information. Or whatever.

The Good:
Jesse Eisenberg as the Joker. Oh, wait, he wasn't the Joker? Well, he gave a great performance as whoever it was he was supposed to be.

The Bad:
Lex Luthor. Or Alexander Luthor, Jr. The character played by Eisenberg. The character is completely inexplicable. He's a perfect example of how DC or Warner Brothers or whoever has written themselves into a hole they can't get out of because they continue to do everything from a pantsing standpoint. They killed Lex and they killed the Joker, so they just make up a new character with the same name as the villain they want to use and tack a Jr. onto it. Lame.

The Good:
Gal Godot as Wonder Woman. I don't really understand all the fanboy rage over Godot in this role. She looked good as Wonder Woman and pulled off the character more than adequately.

The Bad:
Wonder Woman. Why is she even in this film? It would have been just as plausible and, possibly, more believable, if she'd just shown up for the fight sequence. That's really the only believable moment for her being in the movie, anyway. They just need her in the movie because she's part of the Holy Trinity of super heroes and, if Warner Brothers wants to pull off a Justice League movie, they have to center it around all three of those heroes: Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman.

The Bad:
Perry White. There are no words for how poorly they have translated White into this movie, and Fishburne does nothing to help the character out.
Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
Doomsday. Everything about Doomsday. There's nothing about the character or his origin in the movie that rises above stupid. Mostly, it's moronic.

So...
It's not a horrible movie. That's really the best thing that can be said about it. And I'd rather watch it again than to ever think about seeing, say, The Revenant again. Or Green Lantern. It's probably even worth it to see it on the big screen. But it's not a good movie. It's not even brain candy. At best, it's a piece of that hard candy your grandmother kept in a dish on the end table under the lamp, but it's all melted together, and you can't get any of it out without getting a knife or something and, then, once you have the broken piece you finally pry out of the reef-like structure, you can't tell what it's supposed to taste like, because you have parts of three or four different pieces of candy all stuck together. You try to suck on it but you end spitting it out into the metal trashcan next to the table where it sticks to the bottom and you try in vain to pretend that it wasn't you who spit it in there. [Not based on any actual event that ever happened to me.]

Tomorrowland (a movie review post)

It's always disappointing to me to see a movie getting panned before it's even been released. I don't mean people saying things like, "Based on the trailer, it doesn't look very good," or, "That doesn't look like something I would like to see." No, I'm talking about full on bashing before a thing has even been released. Some examples come to mind, all movies which under-performed due to extreme negative backlash prior to release: Waterworld, Daredevil, John Carter. Of course, then there's always a movie like (the most recent) The Lone Ranger to give proof to some of that pre-release backlash. [Maybe I shouldn't say that, though, since I still haven't managed to force myself to sit down and watch The Lone Ranger.]

It's rather unfortunate that it looks like Tomorrowland is going to suffer the same kind of fate, because it's quite a fun movie. The worst thing that can be said about it is that it's a movie with a message, but it's not overbearing with its message, not like Happy Feet which picks up some dead fish at the end and slaps you around a bit until you feel like you've been abused. No, Tomorrowland is a choice, a choice you get to make. And it's a fun ride to get there.

The other thing worth noting is that, all things considered, George Clooney is probably the weak link of the film. However, when you're talking about weak links, Clooney is one you'd probably want to have. The problem is that he's really only in the movie to be George Clooney but, then, he's in the movie to be George Clooney. I have to say, I don't think there's anyone better at being George Clooney than George Clooney, so that was a pretty good casting choice, all things considered.

Britt Robertson is great as Casey. She's spunky, headstrong, and equal parts amazed and freaked out by what's going on around her. I'm unfamiliar with her as an actress, though, so I don't know if this was just a role that fit her or if she did a good job in the part. Either way, she was good, and I'll be checking out more from her to see which is which.

Raffey Cassidy was also great. Great enough that you can figure out the thing about her from her acting before you're told the thing about her.

And Hugh Laurie was really good as Nix. I know (now) that he's the famed Dr. House, but I never watched that, so this was really my first experience with him, and I liked him. I'm not saying I'm going to watch House, but I am now interested.

Thomas Robinson was perfectly cast as young Frank. He's just all kid and optimism, and he was fun to watch.

There are a few logic holes in the movie (like Casey watching her future self do something in order to figure out how to do it (a thing I always hate)), but they are few and, really, not very big. Basically, you can explain them away (though you shouldn't have to explain them away, if you know what I mean).

All said, it's a solid movie and a lot of fun to watch. Actually, I think the biggest issue with the movie is not the movie at all; it's the trailer. The trailer doesn't really give you a good idea of what the movie is about, and what it's about is much better than what the trailer leads you to believe. It's certainly not a movie to pass up for no other reason than the bad hype it's getting., and it's a good theater movie.

Gravity: a Metaphor

The first thing to say about Gravity is that it's a beautiful movie.

It's beautiful in the same way that Life of Pi is, just spectacular to look at. What's even more impressive about that is that it's nearly all digital. It's pretty amazing. In fact, the movie, much in the way of the Star Wars prequels, was delayed due to waiting for the technology to get to a place where the environment could be made to look realistic. Well, I've never been to space, but it looked amazing. I'm not actually sure it's Oscar material, but I won't be surprised if it gets a nomination for best visual effects.

The next thing that has to be said is Sandra Bullock was amazing. Even more so when you consider that she's the only character through much of the movie. The only other thing like this that I've really seen was the under-appreciated Moon with Sam Rockwell (seriously, you should see this movie). Most of acting is, in a sense, reacting, the interplay of characters (and actors) with each other. It's much more difficult when it's just... you. Nothing and no one to play off of. The dependency on monologues in Hamlet is one of the reasons it has long been considered to be the measure of success for actors. If you can pull off Hamlet (the character) believably, you can pretty much do anything. I think Bullock could pull off Hamlet. She carried the movie as if it was weightless. And, if it doesn't get nominated for anything else, Bullock certainly deserves a best actress nomination for this.

However, I do have to say how very disappointed I am with Cuaron that Bullock was, basically, a default choice, because they couldn't get anyone else to take the park. The anyone elses, other than Angelina Jolie, all being "young, hot" actresses that, well, can't much act. Most of them. Basically, they wanted a pretty face for the role (a role which would require the actor to carry the movie), not someone who has proven she can do the job. That is... just disappointing. But I digress...

The only negative I've seen about the movie has to do with Clooney and how Kowalski is such a flat character. As such, Clooney didn't do much acting. And that's true. Clooney was pretty affect-less, but I think that was intentional. He's not a real character; he's a representation of the person Dr. Stone sees him as. He's the strong leader that takes charge and isn't flustered by anything; at least, that's what he is to her, so that's, also, how we see him. So, yeah, the part didn't require much of Clooney, but I think it was perfect for the movie. He's so flat that we don't get attached to him, and that's required, because we, as the audience, are supposed to be focused completely on Dr. Stone.

Here there be dragons... um, I mean spoilers... Here there be spoilers. You have been warned!

As great as the movie is on the surface (and it is great just taken as what it is, a disaster movie in space), I think it's its deeper, metaphorical meaning that gives the movie greatness. After the disaster occurs, Kowalski needs to get Stone talking so as to distract her and calm her down, so he started asking her questions about home. We find out that, really, Stone has been leaving in space for a long time, since the death of her daughter through an unfortunate playground accident. The woman has no life. She goes to work, presumably doing something that relates to saving the lives of kids who have had similar accidents, although we never find that out, and, then, drives. Just drives. In silence. She has put herself as close as she can into a vacuum. Into a suicide-less death.

The death of Kowalski puts the loss of her daughter into perspective. Stone is trying desperately to hold onto him, but he can see that her persistence is going to kill them both, so he entreats her to let go, just let go. And it's here that we can see the flatness of Kowalski best. He's stoically heroic. There is no clinging to life on his part, just pragmatism. "You have to let me go or we'll both die." He is the sacrificing hero as seen through her eyes. "You have to let go."

Of course, this has a deeper meaning that applies more to the fact that she is still clinging to her daughter than it does to him.

After that, she enters the space station and strips out of her space suit, and there is a lingering image of her curled, fetus-like, in front of a round window looking out at space. It is the exact image of the womb and of her entering into a state of rebirth.

But it's not really that easy, because birth, as easy as it seems (to us in the USA, anyway) in this 21st century world, is not easy. And she almost gives up a little while later but has a lack-of-oxygen induced hallucination of Kowalski telling her that she has to make a decision: She has to decide to live. If she's not going to decide to live, she needs to quit living the lifeless life she's living and just get it over with. She switches the oxygen back on and chooses to live. Finally, she lets go of her daughter and says goodbye.

The final scene of her crashing down and escaping the capsule as it floods and sinks, the scene of her climbing out of the water is the very metaphor of birth. She stands there on shaky legs (after being in a zero G environment) like a newborn colt and faces a new day. A day with the hope of life, not one that clings to death.

Ninja Killer

I'm gonna come right out and say it: I'm not a big fan of ninjas.
Yeah, you heard me. In the whole Pirates vs Ninjas thing, I'm totally for the pirates. Not that I like pirates all the much either, but, you know, at least a pirate is honest about what he is. A scurvy dog, right?

But the ninja? No, the ninja has spent centuries developing this idea about themselves that just isn't true. That they're these awesome fighters and all of that. It reached a peak in the 80's, and, I have to say, I was as sucked in as the next guy. I loved the show The Master, for instance, although I may have been the only one considering how quickly it went away. Huh, I didn't remember Demi Moore being in that. Weird. Of course, it has been nearly 30 years since I've seen it. Heck, even the original Transformers animated series had a ninja robot in it built by humans! And I can't even get started on G. I. Joe. I have only one thing to say about that: Snake Eyes! In the 80's, ninjas were cool.

Then I learned about them. Not on purpose, mind you, because, like I said, I was as sucked in as everyone else, but, as I've mentioned before, I went to nerd school, and my world history teacher gave us some actual ninja learning. That was my introduction to the web of lies that ninjas have built around themselves. But, then, it does serve their purposes, because, what they want, is not to fight. If everyone thinks ninjas are all badass, which they're not, people will run away from them, and they don't have to do any real fighting. See how that works?

No, a ninja's real job is to be a sneaky killer. They don't do direct confrontation. They're the guys that sneak around and poison food or kill you in your sleep or sneak up behind you. Anything not to be seen, kill their target, and get away, again, without being seen.

My favorite ninja story?
This ninja needed to kill this guy, and, to do it, he hid in an outhouse. But not just in the outhouse, in the outhouse. As in under the seat down in all the urine and feces. He brought supplies so that he could camp out down there, which he did for three days. Three days! Three days in a toilet making no noise while people did their business on him. After three days, his target finally showed up. The guy sat down to do his business, the ninja took his spear and, while the guy was reading the equivalent of the Tokyo Times, the ninja shoved his spear right up the guy's bum. What a way to go.

See, if I was a ninja, and I was willing to go to that kind of length to kill someone (which I'm not), I would totally own it. I would own that... um... forget that next word... um... stuff! I would own that stuff! And, then, I would respect the ninja. But, then, I guess the whole lying thing is just a part of what they are in order to do their job.

The thing is, though, in a straight up fight of pirates vs ninjas, the ninjas would all run away. Of course, there's always waiting for the pirates to get drunk and fall asleep, which is what the ninjas would do.

Anyway... all I'm saying is that if ninjas were honest about who and what they are, I'd be okay with them.

But all of that is not really what all of this is about, now is it? Because this is the

Question the first:
What does Alex look like?
Alex looks like George Clooney with a guitar. Probably not as well dressed. I imagine him walking down railroad tracks with the guitar slung over his back.

Question the second:
Who could play Alex in a documentary?
Well, of course, George Clooney. Or, maybe, Ben Affleck playing George Clooney, because, as Kevin Smith says, "Affleck could be the shark."

Question the third:
Who does Alex remind me of?
At this point, how can I not say George Clooney? I can't not say that, so I will: George Clooney.

Flash Fiction (bah! I mostly dislike flash fiction):
George Cavanaugh was making his way down the tracks one day with his guitar slung over his shoulder. Cavanaugh had stolen the plans for an IWSG from a secret government installation, but he'd found that no one paid any attention to hobos with guitars, so it was his MO to sneak away in this particular guise. Besides, if he needed to be inconspicuous, he could always stop and play on a street corner, because even fewer people paid any attention to those guys other than tossing some bills into his case, which would mean he wouldn't have to pay for supper, either, so, really, it was a win-win. However, a ninja had tracked him and was, at that very moment, sneaking up behind him, sword drawn. Cavanaugh knew all about the ninja, though, and was just luring him out. At the last moment before the ninja struck, Cavanaugh spun while drawing his cosbolt and shot the ninja right in the eye slit. "New pajamas," Cavanaugh thought, as he stripped the body.

Bonus Points?
Wait, who said anything about points? This is an arbitrary thing, right? Besides, I've used up all my words. I'll just keep it short: Thanks for sharing!