Fury (2014)

Directed by: David Ayer, writer of Training Day, End of Watch, and The Fast and The Furious

Starring: Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Jon Bernthal, Micheal Peña

“Ideals are peaceful, history is violent.”

This line forms the grim background of Brad Pitt’s 2014 foray into a serious World War II film, dramatized by the ideals of the Allies brought into violent being by the titular tank. It’s also the throughline of the main plot involving Pitt mentoring young rookie Norman - an ideal can have all the good intentions in the world, but historically and tragically, many ideals have been implemented with violence, which puts us all in trouble. 

It’s a message that endures over time, since while we‘ve gained many means to avoid violence in the present day, the truth is we’re closer to it on than we’d like to be. The massive unrest across sections of the country right now is a good example, since it’s bringing out countless moments where people and institutions choose between non-violence and violence in moments of crisis.

Brad Pitt’s “Wardaddy” mentors unprepared rookie Norman (Logan Lerman)

Brad Pitt brings a classic Bradformance in this, his "manly but vulnerable" look on full display. The rest of the cast is all-star, too, filling the runtime with their dialogue and antics. The film really feels like a slice-of-life film interspersed with death-dealing murder bombs, not unlike actual wartime experiences. I poked around online for reception, and apparently U.S. tank crewmen have sung this film’s praises as a version of their own experiences. It also takes a stab at portraying war trauma, since the premise is that the crew is getting more and more haggard the longer they go on, and it hits that sweet spot that some films do where the heroes aren’t agonizing over whether the war is justified, but they DO agonize over having to go out and risk their lives again. One of the more erudite quotes I’ve heard about war is that once it’s over, the guys on the ground actually fighting it don’t feel like dancing, they just wanna get the heck out of there; and it’s nice to see a war film that actually feels that human, instead of being either apologetic, outlandish, or straight-up propaganda.

Overall, this film gets 3.5 out of 5. I’m not gonna lie, it isn’t perfect; the script feels like it’s lacking some parts, and you WILL feel that when certain moments come, but I feel like it's what it was TRYING to be, and that wasn’t terrible. So 3.5 out of 5. It’s also quite violent, as to be expected, and there’s a lot of swearing. There’s no sex scenes, although there’s a scene where they make you worry for a second, but it’s just them faking you out, so stay strong.

If you’re trying to break your kid in with a violent picture of what World War II was, I'd save this for the 16+ crowd in its entirety, but shorter scenes are worth sharing in an educational context.

Since I just mentioned it, here are some of the WWII movies I’d recommend:

- Saving Private Ryan
- Das Boot
- Downfall (German with English subtitles)
- Fury
- Patton

And if you’re trying to understand just how messed-up and wrong the Holocaust was, I’d recommend:

- Schindler’s List
- Life is Beautiful
- And basically any documentary about it; this is worth going straight to the facts for, guys. 

Macbeth (2015)

 

Directed by: Justin Kurzel

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, David Thewlis, Sean Harris. 

        Or, Magneto, the lady from Inception, Remus Lupin, and the bad guy from Mission Impossible. 

So good. Disclaimer ‘cause there’s violence and some sex stuff at two points, but aside from that it’s excellent. 

The premise is the same - Macbeth, a lord of Scotland, is told he’ll be king by three witches and finds himself compelled to murder first his king, and then the people who oppose him as he inherits the throne and begins his rule. He loses, and eventually falls. End show. 

It’s one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, so it’s not obscure or anything. What the production team decided to do with this is make the setting historically accurate! This got nominated for some of the most prestigious awards in all of film, so they did this right. 

Costumes from the film on display.

 L-R: Macbeth’s armor, the garb of the king, and Lady Macbeth’s coronation dress

Macbeth (2015) accurately portrays the real historical era down to accents, clothing, and weapons to give us something Shakespeare never planned, but that works very well for his purpose; creating a world where Macbeth goes mad. Recreating the era - and more importantly, the poverty and violence of that era - dramatizes better than ever, how a man like Macbeth would go mad. 

Michael Fassbender is made for this role, 'cause he's good at two things - being unrealistically good-looking, and crying. He makes sadness look as intimate and majestic as it could be. His supporting cast is great as well. veteran theater actors filling the story with film-friendly, theatre-loyal performances. The drums-and-wails soundtrack is great, and the Scottish Highlands have never looked so magnificently haunting. While there are a few changes made for screen's sake, the film comes across as a unique, powerful, and hard-hitting telling of the tale that doesn't sacrifice text for screen or vice-versa. 

Recommend. It's rated R for violence, and there are two moments where Macbeth and Lady Macbeth get sexy while clothed, but do so in such an unnerving way that you might just want to skip it like I did. I wouldn't recommend watching it with your kids, but I would recommend watching it. It's available for free on Amazon Prime, and for rent for $4 everywhere else. 

Uncharted 4: A Thief's End

I'll be tentatively reviewing videogames, but not very often, since I don't buy them that often, and I don't like them as much. But I do like them. My brother and I grew up playing the original Uncharted games, and the multiplayer is still our go-to when we have a few hours. I've still replayed them in my spare time because they're so darn fun, and finally getting to play the fourth entry instead of watching a walkthrough is a fun experience. 

--

The best way to look at this game is like a Netflix series. Most games try to make their campaigns last about twenty hours. Subtract minutiae and gameplay and you probably end up with about twelve hours, so we're really just looking at a miniseries that you can play through. Play it in maybe two-hour chunks over the course of a couple weeks, and you're recreating the process of watching a show. 

So, in the spirt of that, what is this show?

Notorious explorer Nathan Drake has retired from treasure-hunting with his wife Elena, but when his thought-dead brother Sam shows up with a sword over his head and a need to find a pirate hoard, Nate jumps back into action to save his family. From Italy to Madagascar, the brothers fight their way through their shady world to seek out the treasure that'll save Sam's life, and start to put together the pieces of their own crooked history.  

It's a pretty good show. Naughty Dog's kind of in a league of its own when it comes to this thing, and they have the signature banter, gunfights, and characters that populate their games. The puzzles are fun, the action is stellar, the graphics are setting the bar, and the characters are all likable. They throw in a new twist - Nathan Drake has a brother! - without it feeling too sudden and retconned, and they use it to make some pretty interesting stories. The reveals of Nathan's childhood, which we had seen only briefly in flashbacks before, casts a whole new light on this Indiana Jones adventure franchise, and it comes to a satisfying conclusion without feeling the need to go grimdark or off-book. It's a fun game, great on a gameplay and technical level, and gets a nine out of ten. 

On a story level, there are some qualms. You could argue the story is a little cliché, and takes too long or does too little to innovate on its formula. The smaller number of locations in comparison to 2 or 3 feels a little disappointing, like they didn't want to travel too much. And while the new, semi-open-world situation most levels have is exciting, it almost feels like it's distracting from the core story. I want to get right into the action, and driving for ten minutes doesn't feel very action-packed. The set-pieces feel underdone in comparison to 3's non-stop action (the Yemen chase, the sinking cruiser, the convoy chase, the airplane fight), although this is a quibble. But considering this was the creators' first title all on the PS4, it's forgivable. Most of the magic is in the graphics, when they let the characters breathe and show you how a-mazing the people and environments look. Giving you space to appreciate the setting is the other thing that makes it like a TV show. 

So, overall, very good. Nine out of ten, if not a nine-point-five, and it's available for $20 or less on everything. Recommend

Retrospective - Thor (2011)

 

This movie is so good, guys. There are so many ways this could've not been great. It could've been all right. It could've been Fast and Furious. It could've been Dungeons and Dragons. It could've been Star Trek. It could've been Excalibur. It could've been Prince of Persia. It could've hit so many tones where it either appealed so much to the comics base that it didn't appeal to widespread audiences, or it could've appealed to widespread audiences by watering down the comics but alienated the comic fans in the process.

 And yet they crafted a coherent, widely appealing, perfectly written, visually distinct tale in less than two hours. 

--

A lot of the things we take for granted - and that, in part can now be written off as Marvel having it down to an art - were done for the first time here -

• Well-paced characters with genuine pathos in their stories
• Nailing a different genre while still fitting the tone of its peers
• Awesome costuming that hits the right balance of looking cool while updating it to look semi-practical
• Great CGI to make this fantasy world both real and lived-in
• Well-done action scenes that aren't complicated but aren't stupid
• Using relatively low-key actors as the lead roles but hiring veteran favorites as supporting to buff up the cast
• Springing for a soundtrack that's genuinely great so it sticks in the head right 
• Writing in a way that genuinely lets actors stretch their muscles instead of giving them nothing to work with (as opposed to say, the Star Wars prequels)
• And - this is especially noticeable with the more fantastic Thor - using the wide-lens, fixed-camera style that imitates the comics' panel style so beautifully. 

I'm of the opinion that there's plenty of stories left to be told on the big screen by the vast pool of talent my generation has, and all we lack is a suitably gripping story that gets people interested. Marvel is a great example of a story that does do that, and this movie - which hews much closer to the classic Thor comics than the last few - reminds me that even with the thirty-something great comic book movies released, how much there's still left to plumb. If we get an adaptation of even a fifth of the great writing comic books have (I'm gonna do a list at the bottom), then we would be dancing in the streets for the coolness of the stories we were getting. 

And we will, I'm convinced. But it's not happening yet. But it will be. 

And won't that be great.

—

For the sake of auteurs, the non-DC/Marvel properties go first 

• Irredeemable
• Incorruptible
• The Wake
• Miracleman
• Three
• American Vampire
• B.P.R.D.

Now, the superhero properties:

Batman: Zero Year

"           " My Own Worst Enemy

"           "The First Ally

Journey Into Mystery (2013)

Annihilation (2006)

Superman Unchained

Thor (the Walt Simonson-written ones)

Daredevil (2011)

Deadpool (2013)

I could go on. There's a lot of stuff, guys. 

Humor - Trying to Describe Lupita Nyong'o's Voice in Us (2019)

Lupita Nyong'o sounds like she taped nails to a rake and scraped it across a chalk mine.

Lupita Nyongo sounds like she strips varnish off boats by whispering at it.

Lupita Nyongo sounds like cockroaches crawling through your home at night.

Lupita Nyong'o sounds like a kid playing violin for the first time.

Lupita Nyong'o sounds like a mannequin that's been given life and hates existence.

Lupita Nyong'o sounds like she's never cried in her life and saved all her sadness for this moment.

Lupita Nyongo sounds like the exact opposite of what she looks like in the second gif.

Lupita Nyong'o sounds like existential fears about your own failures given flesh.

 Lupita Nyongo sounds like a demon scraping hatred out of her vocal cords.

In conclusion, she sounds scary, y'all. Yikes.

Why Terminator Is So Quotable

Alternatively, this could be titled Schwarzenegger and The Spartan Way.

I wrote this because my roommates and I watched Terminator 2 last week, and it was such a good film that it made me go on a Schwarzenegger binge, for lack of a better word. Dude's an inspiration; won the equivalent of World's Best Bodybuilder SEVEN times, then started a few successful construction and mail-order businesses with his winnings, and only THEN got into acting in his mid-30's, where he became one of the most successful and iconic actors ever. And then he became governor of California. I don't know how great he was at that, but he apparently wasn't the worst. And now he's back in acting, not because he needs the money (he hasn't needed the money since the '70's) but because he likes it. This from the son of some random Austrian army officer who never got attention and just really wanted to be Mr. Teen Austria. Something else. 

But moving on to the subject of this paper ... 

Arnold Schwarzenegger has said his iconic phrase "I'll be back," at least twenty times in public venues, from public speeches, to TV appearances to variations in eleven of his solo films (this is not counting his Terminator films). It's apparently one of his go-to phrases when interacting with the public, and has become an iconic part of both his public character, his career, and all of cinema.

Why is that? 

To expand on this, what is it that makes that phrase so memorable? More importantly, why are so many of the phrases in Terminator so memorable? There are six one-liners* from the Terminator franchise that have been repeated in near-every film and become embedded in the cultural lexicon. Most of them are three or four words. Most were said by Micheal Biehn's character in the first one, but Arnold has been the one to say them in most subsequent films. 

The quality of these films has been infamously variable throughout the years, but Arnold has said that he is still always happy to be in them and make them. Why? Why are these lines memorable? Why are they the way that they are? Why are they so essential to the Terminator franchise? And why does Arnold Schwarzenegger like saying them and using them in public life so much? And why do we love them too? 

The answer has something do with laconic phrases. 

In ancient Sparta, the country famous for stressing combat skill to a ridiculous extent, there was the development of what is now called laconic phrases, named after the region Sparta was based in, Laconia. The theory was that a Spartan should be terse and to the point with what he said. It was the height of manliness and action to be short, direct, and useful. Thus, the development of a lot of famously short phrases. King Philip of Macedonia (Alexander the Great's father) said that if he invaded, he would raze Sparta. The king at the time sent back a one-word answer: "If." The Spartans at Thermopylae were told to give up their weapons. They responded, "come and take them." Most epically, some Spartans were told that enemies' arrows would block out the sun. Their god-level response? "Then we shall fight in the shade." 

You can't make this stuff up. Except, oh wait, you can. 

Arnold Schwarzenegger has always been a proponent of the short-stated trash talk. As a life-long competitor, he's always known the power of a powerful comeback. A rival body-builder talks about milk's benefits. "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer." Manly, locking the opponent out, and beefing yourself up. Devastating. That's why he won and the other guy didn't. As a life-long championship bodybuilder, specifically, he's always valued the power of self-discipline, strength, and toughness, and so much of that can be expressed with a good one-liner.  

Enter Terminator. 

The first Terminator was essentially a horror movie, where the titular robot could never be stopped until the very end. Ahnuld did it so well because he's so big and stoic he can convince us he's an emotionless robot. Anything he ever said was just a prelude to him kicking someone's butt. He was the picture of the unstoppable fighter - relentless, massive, and unfeeling. 

Then came the sequel. Arnie's a good guy now. Now he gets to say most of the iconic one-liners.** An update to the old formula. This is where most of the classic lines come from.

Beyond the element of the movie one-liner or the meme fodder value, the heart of the matter is that these lines are classic laconic logic. Short, to the point, and useful, but all the more memorable and dangerous for being so. And like the Spartans (and to a lesser extent the Terminator), Arnold believes in endless self-discipline and mastery. He is an avatar of the Spartan ideal as held in the modern day. He has worked and struggled to degrees that most people never do. And that's why playing the Terminator is special to him. It's what he truly is on some level. When he comes up against an obstacle, he can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until it is done. 

He'll be back. 

--

*Here's the list for clarity's sake.

• "I'll be back"
• "Come with me if you want to live."
• "Get out."
• Hasta la vista baby."
• "I cannot self-terminate."
• "Get down." 

Four of these in the first one, all of them in the second, and variations (most of them said by Arnie specifically) in the rest of the movies. 

**To get at the more mundane part of this; these lines are also popular because they're good memes - memes work best when they're short, powerful and easily shared. These lines are short and unique enough that they're easily spread, and of course, they have a powerful origin point to spread them out. This all makes sense. 

I Figured Out How To Make a Fantastic Four Movie Interesting

Period piece!! (see below)

There are two big problems we face in adapting Fantastic Four into the MCU. 

One, the original character dynamics don't map very well to the big screen - the Fantastic Four are essentially a scientist too busy to pay attention to his wife, a wife who only gets attention when her husband's latest invention tries to kill them, and a brother-in-law and BFF that are crashing at their married friends' home way past the get-out date. Lots of people have pointed this out over the years. From the outside, they come off as a maladaptive family more than they come across as relatable yet funny everymen. In order to adapt this all into a movie as marketable as the MCU is, you'd have to radically alter most of these dynamics. And even then you'd run into problem two...

The most powerful set-up for a healthy FF is "ragtag found family explores the cosmos together" ... but Guardians of the Galaxy has already filled that niche in film way too well! Making the FF into a super-team in the present will feel like a weaker, less interesting, less exciting rehash of them without the music and edginess. Not working. 

But after watching an episode of the 2006 animated FF series on Disney+ (shout-out to that) I figured it out. 

Make it a a period piece! In the 60's! 

The first issue of Fantastic Four, 1961

Let me finish! 

FF debuted in the '60's - it was the very first super-property Marvel debuted; part of why it's so iconic. Setting it there makes it an homage. Their origin story (manning a spacecraft to beat the Russians to space and getting caught in a cosmic radiation storm) is also deeply immersed in the '60's space travel zeitgeist. And most importantly, being set in the '60's is going to justify all the weird character dynamics that feel out of place! The Flintstones, The Brady Bunch, The Addams Family - the sixties were all about relatable families figuring out their social dynamics! Add in The Jetsons, Thunderbirds, Lost in Space - all shows about families, but ones with sci-fi level science around them(!), and you have the blueprints for an excellent, unique, visually catching, socially savvy, and wholly original story! 

The closest I could find to a '60's get-up

Let me give you an example. What do you remember about the original film Reed Richards? Probably nothing. He's tall, he has dark hair, he does science. The problem with the original movies (and the 2015 reboot) is that they weren't total stand-outs, at least in comparison to the MCU standard. The clothes aren't distinctive, the settings are barely noticeable, and the characters feel like they're from soap operas; always whining about how the latest event affects their character dynamics with someone else. That's cool for TV, or even comics, but boring for movies. Put some information in the frame! Take advantage of the budget! 

So, instead imagine this. Instead of Reed as a strait-laced intellectual who PLOT TWIST is actually competent and adult - a trope we've already been thoroughly inundated with in the present and can't think of as an underdog anymore - we have an intellectual in the '60's, where nerds legitimately did get less respect, and it was less common to think of them branching out to actual cool avenues. Instead of some dude in a sweater vest, it's a guy wearing what you wear back then! The visual look is preserved, but justified, and retro instead of generic! Add in the other characters as visual archetypes (Sue = Grace Kelly, Ben = Aldrin by way of Brando, Johnny = Steve McQueen), and you have a compelling group of leads and - written with a bit of modernity - a genuinely compelling social dynamic, with threads of intellectualism, the space race, gender dynamics, generational ambitions, class tension and the future of America! From there, you can fill out the plot-line with set-pieces unique to the era (a lá Days of Future Past or WW84), and justify yet another attention-grabbing Big Bad with the excuse that he's in an era we missed, so he's not going to dominate the present day too much.

Acknowledging the past works! 

You can make continuity tight enough that it doesn't contradict any previous canon (maybe they were rendered inert long before the '90's and thus weren't worth mentioning) and you can potentially link them to the modern-day movies by having them enter any of the many alternate dimensions they visit in the comics and getting time-shifted (or non-lethally frozen, or suspended or whatever) so they suddenly appear in the present in time for a future installment! The initial setting in the '60's will have given them the initial burst of originality and popularity they would need to be sympathetic and exciting, and this could then tie in easily into the modern-day events of the MCU and whatever long-term plan (Skrull relocation? Annihilus Wave?) they're building up to in post-Infinity Saga MCU. 

I'm not so foolish as to think that Marvel doesn't already have a plan. The events of WandaVision, CA&WS, Loki, and Black Widow will irrevocably alter the fabric of their universe and lead up to whatever events they have planned for. I'm personally of the opinion that Marvel is deliberately scaling down their operations a bit in theaters so it can give people a cool-down. BUT their announced line-up makes it seem like they're not slowing down, and if they're gonna keep going, they might as well make the best stuff possible. 

I've watched the Fantastic Four films and read the comics and guidebooks since I was a little kid. This comes from a place of deep affection. But the reality is that the FF comics don't adapt well one-to-one. The MCU has thrived because it's been so deeply original and creative with the characters it chose to adapt. It didn't take the excuse that the comics had done all the work for them; it worked hard to make the characters relatable and exciting. And it can do that with FF too. I just hope it can do it well. For your consideration, I've given my pitch. If you're someone from Marvel reading this, email me. I'm at ephraim.belnap@yahoo.com

--

Like all my online pitches, this is said half in jest, half in seriousness. The reality is that I'm just some dude writing his thoughts online. But I like to think I'm a dedicated nerd writer. And I've grown up with enough time to analyze the MCU bit by bit as it came out. And while I'm no pro, I've successfully guessed what it was going to do before. This time, I'd like to get inside of the beast a little bit. 

Us (2019)

If you've ever wanted to get the be-jeesus scared out of you by Lupita Nyong'o, this is the movie for you. 

Directed by; Jordan Peele, the director of Get Out, which will inevitably figure in this conversation

Starring; Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Elizabeth Moss, Tim Heidecker

Premise - A young family on vacation finds themselves in a world of hurt when mysterious doubles of themselves start attacking. The matriarch Adelaide finds herself mysteriously connected to these doppelgängers, and as their struggle for survival unfolds, the source of this connection comes to light.

This film is unsettling as heck. Every moment a double (referred to as a Tethered) is onscreen is unbalancing and scary. They fully exploit the power of the Uncanny Valley (tl;dr - looking mostly but not quite human) for all it's worth. In a regular horror film, I always wonder why the heroes don't jump the bad guy. But in this, I know why - they’re weird as heck! Do you even know if they’ll react like a human? Lupita Nyong'o is especially scary, because we're used to seeing her as a smiling cover girl; seeing her as a harsh, rasping, bug-eyed ghost is the exact opposite of what we want. The direction involved in these performances is commendable and great. 

But the downsides - this film doesn't really have a message at all. Just an average level twist at the very end, which makes it about as good as 90% of poorly-written student films. It's frustrating, 'cause you can see ways the plot could have been very good if they'd simply added a few more things. Instead, the film feels stubbornly, determinedly one-note, almost deliberately not being anything complex. It' almost as if Peele is trying to give himself a "break" after the complexity and social commentary of his last film. But the result is a film that almost feels like it did too little on the writing side. On the acting level, it's one of the most brilliantly crafted horror films I've ever seen. But on a plot level, it's frustratingly meh. So, just keep that in mind when you go in to watch it. 

It's a bit long (an hour and fifty-five), but it's ... decently interesting, a masterclass in unsettling the audience, and of course, comes from Jordan Peele, who is a hot property right now. If you're a horror fan, a Peele fan, or a film fan, you'll probably like it. Maybe check the parental rating, though. It is rated R, mostly for violence and a bit of swearing, and there is a moment that surprised me in the story, so maybe look that up if you think you might be squeamish. 

Les Miserables, Musicals, and In The Heights Fears

Directed by: Tom Hooper, director of Cats

Starring: Basically every famous person. 

Four stars for effort, I guess. If you have to watch a musical with your family, I guess this is in the top ten. But if everyone's old enough that they don't need action to be occupied, you're better off watching one of the Anniversary concert performances, since they're better in virtually every way except that. 

Basically, this got made 'cause Tom Hooper got nominated for twelve Oscars for The King's Speech (an excellent historical retelling film) and got license to do whatever he wanted, which is why he chose this. They cast a million famous people (it's easier to note who isn't a huge star - Eponine's actress) and pumped out this bad boy. And it got nominated for ten Oscars, so clearly the creative team are doing something well. But it wasn't actually that good. Beyond casting issues like Russell Crowe or Sacha Baron Cohen; beyond its weird decision to sing everything in the musical with no dialogue; beyond things like randomly writing an extra song so it could be nominated for best Original Song; beyond all that - the film just doesn't have the sense of flair it ought to.

This is a famously thorny issue. Musical theater fans are always divisive about the film versions. Most of the time it just has to do with casting (hiring inexperienced celebrities over great Broadway talents, for example), but sometimes it's other things, and this is one of those. 

Musicals are meant to be larger than life, sweeping, and elegant. Most musicals are either set in the past (most of them), wildly romanticizing the setting of the present (Rent, In The Heights), or changing something so it's obviously not realistic (Avenue Q's puppets, Next to Normal's intentional over-acting). Musicals aren’t realistic - they dramatize so the emotions hit harder. That’s what singing does in the first place. That's why they're so good. But instead, Les Mis 2012 feels like it's trying to be a documentary recreation of the era ... that just happens to have singing. It’s rejecting the drama of the setting. 

To give another example of how this works - rock concerts aren't just the band coming on and singing; there's lights and smoke and fireworks and giant screens, all done to heighten the emotional engagement with what's happening. Similarly, a film version of Les Miserables ought to be a show, with lights and drama, and meticulously painted frames. Instead, it goes for a more photorealistic look, with grey streets and grey rooms, and grey light. This works great when Tom Hooper's directing biopics - those are supposed to look photorealistic. It'd look weird if Prince Albert was in some lurid shot when the film's all about meticulously recreating grim reality. But musicals aren't about reality, so he should be comfortable abandoning it! 

Look at the same scene on screen and on stage. 

Hugh Jackman shuffles around a barricade. This guy says a prayer under a spotlight. Which is catching your attention? The one you can actually see! That paints a clear, vivid subject! The Jackman one stays close to him; five or six tracking shots with that view the whole time. His face dominates the whole scene; a bunch of facial dialogue. The stage one, in contrast, illuminates the scene, highlights the color, then uses a mix of long shots and close-ups to highlight both this powerful solitary image and then the actor's facial performance. This also lets the music take, ahem, center stage. 

Musicals aren't meant to be realistic. If we wanted them to be realistic, we would just make a movie where everyone sings because they're performers in the story. Like Coco. The same way superhero movies aren't meant to be realistic. If we wanted them to be realistic, they wouldn't really be superhero stories. You have to let them go, and let them be a little bigger and grander than reality. Rock concerts aren't anything like a normal setting. But that's how you blow people's minds. 

This is my main nerd concern about the In The Heights movie. I'm worried they're gonna think "authenticity of the neighborhood" is gonna be what draws people in, when it's the energy and excitement of the musical (which is about the neighborhood) that draws people in. But y'know what, I shouldn't be worried about that, because I just looked it up, and the director is Jon M. Chu, who directed two of the later Step Up movies, which means he is a god of heightening reality. Concern ceased. 

Overall, this isn’t meant to be a huge deal, it’s just that I wish more creators knew and understood this principle. There’s power in dramatizing that makes the movie better; not more dislikable. The truth is that Les Miserables is probably gonna get remade in another ten years; it's one of those properties that's always gonna be being adapted. But the 2012 film invoked so much attention and prestige and celebrity power that it's gonna be hard to dislodge it from the top of the popularity scale; and it would've been nice if it had decided to be the great adaptation I know it could've been, so someone else doesn't have a harder time adapting it later. 

Birds of Prey

Black Mask threatens Harley Quinn

Directed by: Cathy Yan

Starring: Margot Robbie, Ewan McGregor, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollet-Bell, Chris Messina

This is rated R for swearing and violence, with a handful of f-bombs and a few "ooh, that's gotta hurt"-level moments of injury or death. Its major problem, really, is that it doesn't go far enough with its R content to justify it, so all the rating did was make it harder to market. I've seen some voices joke that it didn't do well because it was about girls, but there's a million girl films that do well. It's just that the film wasn't that great, and locked out a major chunk of its audience by being rated R. That said, I'd still give it a three out of five, and recommend it to anyone who's a Harley Quinn or comic book fan. 

The premise - After announcing her break-up with the Joker, Harley Quinn finds herself at the center of a maelstorm of violence as disgruntled criminals come calling. At the same time, a young thief steals a diamond lusted after by criminal boss Black Mask, and the resulting chaos brings a swirl of unlikely partners together - the Birds of Prey. 

So, the pluses - they make the action fun and frequent. They're creative with the characters without straying too far from the comic roots (with one notable exception). The villain, played by Ewan McGregor, is excellently done, coming across as a pastiche of metrosexual '70's icons like Andy Warhol and Elton John. The film has a colorful style that feels retro without feeling obsolete. And the actors all do a good job, clearly enjoying the work. All great superhero films just paste themselves into another genre, and this felt like a Tarantino-style pulp adventure, full of quirky violence and shout-outs and casual criminality. 

The problem is, the film doesn't go far enough with that last part. It feels one rewrite short of greatness. The characters never get to act act, the script is a little one-note, and the crux of the whole story feels frustratingly flat. It feels 80% finished, not 100%. If you're a comic fan, you'll be glad to just to see your faves onscreen, but if you're not, you might be constantly confused by the switching around and mix of characters. There are moments that work great - the Black Canary singing was a great piece of art - but most of it is frustratingly less-than-stellar. That said, it's still all right, and I don't regret spending money to see it. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. That's all 

The Notebook (2004)

Directed by: Nick Cassavetes

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams, James Marsden

Since this is now on Netflix it's a good time to review it, but I actually watched this on a plane ride about a year ago with my little sister. It's all right. 

--

This films gets a lot of low-level trash talked about it by guys like me, but it's honestly not that bad. A lot of the things you trash-talk about aren't when you examine them properly. I think it gets mockery because it's about girls' idea of romance, and boys have a vested interest in keeping that manageable lol. 

I heard a lot about this before seeing it, so trash-talk aside, I thought it wouldn't even live up to its hype. But it did! It's really got the bones of a good story, and most of the complaints made about it aren't really relevant. 

Premise - one summer in 1940's South Carolina, a young boy named Noah meets a well-to-do girl named Allie, and the two begin a steady romance. Sadly, her parents think he's below her social station, and the two have an abrupt separation that keeps them from properly staying together. What follows is a quiet tale of sadness, desperation, and romance, as the two pine for each other across the miles and try to get back together again. 

The '40's setting makes it very attractive, 'cause it's close enough to the present that all the "going out" stuff is the same, but the World War II threat and so on make it very romantic, in the "unrealistically sweet-seeming" meaning of the word. It's worth keeping in mind, for example, that if Noah's character was black, they'd have a whole 'nother set of problems. But Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams give two great performances, and the plot legit does have enough interesting commentary about class division and marriage (for white people) that it actually makes a point. Instead of a "Romeo and Juliet" message about dying for your lover - which I think is quite easy to judge this stuff as being - it really feels like a story about having chemistry and a special connection with someone, and how valuable that connection can be. 

I'm not gonna say it's perfect. If you're Mormon or whatever, I wouldn't recommend it for Young Women's Movie Night, 'cause it's got some contradictory messages about the law of chastity. But if you're a person looking for a movie to watch with your coed friend/significant other, this isn't a terrible option. 

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny

Directed by: Yuen Woo-ping, one of the greatest martial arts directors alive

Starring: Michelle Yeoh, Donnie Yen, Harry Shum Jr., Natashu Liu Bordizzo

This isn't the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that swept the Oscars in 2000, made record-breaking amounts of money, and showed American audiences the power of the historical kung fu epic WuXia genre for the first time. 

This is the direct-to-DVD-quality sequel that was released on Netflix with one character from the first film and a bunch of hasty reshuffles to make a new setting. It lacks the scale, the authenticity, and the erudite quality that made the first one so obviously great, and basically just feels like a cash grab. 

But it is pretty good. 

Honestly, I like it better than the first one. Maybe I'm just out of touch, but the pacing and the story and half the characters in the original just didn't land with me. This one isn't perfect, but it's got a good sense of action, likable characters, and a final battle with some legit twists. It retcons the first one a little, but honestly in a way that creates a happier ending, so I don't really mind. 

This film is an hour and forty minutes, it's originally English (with dubs in Mandarin) so you feel more at home, and it doesn't have any of the gratuitous blood or violence that a lot of direct-to-DVD films have. It's not gonna win any Oscars, but it's a decent bit of action that'll be cool to watch. The Old Guard was the kind of direct-to-DVD film that I'd have liked as a kid 'cause I didn't know better, but this is a direct-to-DVD film that I'd have liked 'cause it had genuinely good stuff in it. Recommend

Spectacular Spider-Man (Episodes 1-3)

⭐

Created by: Greg Weisman, a god among men, and Victor Cook

Starring: Josh Keaton, Lacey Chabert, James Arnold Taylor, a bunch of great animators

 I was thinking of this show after reviewing Daredevil Season 1 and was reminded how genuinely good this show was! I just looked it up, and there are seven Spider-Man shows available on Disney+ now, but none of them have the writing and action that made this show. In honesty, I'm writing this review because if you've ever wanted to read the actual Spider-Man comics and never had the time, this is the best distillation of the classics you'll ever get. It combines the high school plot-lines of the original Stan Lee/Steve Ditko stories with the sensibilities of the movies. With the extended run-time of TV, it ends up feeling like the movies that we never got to see, and does a great job at fleshing out every member of Spider-Man's cast and making a great story out of it. 

The fact that it's animated helps a lot. There's an energy and creativity to the fight scenes that simply can't be matched by most TV's usual budget, and there are all sorts of death-defying spider-stunts that can't really be filmed in live-action. The fact that each season is thirteen twenty-three minute episodes (not unlike Avatar's twenty-three minute episodes) means it's long enough to fit lots of plots, but never so long that they're invoking filler. It's also surprisingly continuity-heavy, with the events of episode two affecting episode three and so on. And that continues as the show goes on, which makes starting at the beginning especially rewarding. 

It also avoids the melodrama of most super-shows, never hitting the boring drama of little kid shows ("who stole my diorama!??") but also avoiding the soap opera of CW shows ("my girlfriend is actually my sister???"). Everyone reacts, but there's not enough runtime that they need to drag it out for six episodes. The end result is one of the more reasonable high school ensembles on TV, where sometimes they make dumb decisions, but ones expected for people their age. 

It's not for the littlest kids - I'd recommend it to seven year olds and up - but once you get past that, it's good for everyone. Like I've said, its greatest strength isn't in its ability to entertain one audience, its strength is that it can entertain people of all ages.

So far as watching it, you can buy a few episodes on Amazon or YouTube to see if you like it, and from there you can buy a whole season for $22. It's a notable investment (sadly, it's not available for free anywhere), but if your kids like Avatar or any of the Spider-Man movies or comics, they're probably gonna like this. Recommend