On Movies, and Civil War

[Sistrin]

The following represents an intellectual exercise undertaken in an attempt to keep my brain active. There exist a medically sound reason for that, but I won't go into it here. What is germane to this post is my life long love of Marvel Comics and characters, and how they are being displayed on the silver screen. To any who read this I thank you, and I invite you to respond.

On Movies, And Civil War

You can gleam much about a person based on what they write. I knew this truth prior to crafting my Star Trek reviews, posted in various locations elsewhere, that anyone who may read through them would come away not only knowing my opinions of various Trek episodes and Trek related topics, but about me as an individual. It is axiomatic. An author of any examination and review of any topic will invariably insert aspects of his own beliefs and biases into that examination. In context of my Trek threads I always attempted to do this knowingly, willfully, to allow readers to easily understand exactly how I felt.

The above maxim holds however for what people say, particularly when those speaking fail to be consciously aware their listeners may actually be listening. And may remember from one day to the next what was said. With their words people will often reveal an aspect of themselves, some hidden facet of their persona or personality they may not otherwise have wished to reveal. An example.

ESPN radio is host to the Dan Le Batard show. First, Le Batard is aptly named, for he is exactly what the enunciation of his last name implies. That aside, I was listening one afternoon when the topic of the movie “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was broached. Le Batard voiced his opinion as to how bad he thought that movie had been, calling it terrible. You could hear the derision dripping in his voice as he contemptuously dismissed the film. About two weeks later I was listening to his radio show again and the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” was cited as part of a discussion. Le Batard praised this movie as having been great, brilliant, so very good. When I contrasted these two comments in context of the movies in question, I found them quite revealing.

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was first and foremost, of course, a movie featuring Captain America. Think about that for a moment. Captain America is a character first created during a time in our history when the majority of the American population held and tended to adhere to a sense of true patriotism. He was a spawn of the Greatest Generation, those Americans who were willing to risk their lives to preserve an ideal based on freedom from oppression. Untold thousands of that generation either made the ultimate sacrifice, suffered horribly from the effects of physical and psychological wounds, lost loved ones, or otherwise had their lives irrevocably altered in pursuit of that goal. Then once the war was won those who survived asked nothing but the opportunity to return home and live their lives in peace. To them, and to the majority of their progeny, Captain America represented the embodiment of that philosophy, a character who understood the basic concepts of right and wrong and was willing to fight to preserve the greater good. In contrast, to most modern members of the liberal/progressive left Captain America represents a jingoistic throwback, a figure dedicated to a tradition and ideology both archaic and patriarchal. The complexities of an America First ideology combined with the simplicity of basic right and wrong, embodied by a white male figure which represents both, are anathema to most who hold and espouse liberal ideology.

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was a movie which dealt with complex, modern day issues. Government over-reach, data collection on private citizens, corruption in high places, and the slow, methodical means required to subvert the will of a people. In addition it told a compelling, conflict driven story wrapped around the concept of good versus evil, with good ultimately triumphing in the end. Yes, it contained violence, but not the typically favored “Saw” type violence. The violence served the story. The movie also featured some adult language, but nothing one couldn't hear in a typical episode of “The Simpsons.”

Conversely, “The Wolf of Wall Street” was a crude, vulgar, vile piece of crap. It contained scenes which, at least up through the 1980's, would have earned it an X rating. It was anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, promoted hedonism, and championed behavior one would typically associate with a crack infested house of prostitution. There was nothing redeeming, or of any actual social value, in the movie. Yet it received five Oscar nominations.

That Le Batard would hate one movie and love the other reveals an aspect of his character, one I am sure he never intended to reveal. To further that point I will employ an appropriate illustration. Forgive me, but... “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was a movie you could take your girlfriend's mother to see and not lose any points. “The Wolf of Wall Street” was a movie you could self-stimulate to, if you were so inclined. By putting two and two together anyone could determine which type of movie the ESPN commentator preferred.

The disdain for Captain America isn't limited to one vulgar idiot on ESPN. There exist a group which post videos on Youtube under the title of Cinema-Sins. Or maybe it is just one guy named Jeremy. I don't know. The essence of the videos is to review movies in regard to the mistakes found within. The review done by Cinema-Sins for “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was painstaking in its mindless ridicule. It was petty, childish, vapid, and smacked of Little Miss Safe Zone logic. Not to be outdone, Cinema-Sins released a review of the first preview for “Captain America: Civil War.” Seriously, they did a review of a preview for a movie. Lets all say that again. Cinema-Sins did a review of a preview for a movie. Why bother, other than to appease the uncontrollable desire to engage in histrionics over an object you detest? During this video the narrator, which I assume to be the listed Jeremy, goes apoplectic over the fact Civil War would feature the character of General Thunderbolt Ross. The F-Bombs fly as he reaches heights of hysteria wailing about the presence of Ross in the movie. Ok, simpleton jingoism fearing Little Miss Safe Zone Jeremy, this isn't hard to figure out.

Marvel has done an excellent job of utilizing its characters to weave the various movies released together into one flowing pattern, of connecting the stories to tell a grander tale. Those who have been paying attention know that the Hulk is slated to appear in the next Thor offering, “Thor: Ragnarok.” General Thunderbolt Ross was a character featured in the 2008 “The Incredible Hulk” movie. Thus, having him appear in Civil War was an obvious Easter-egg meant to connect one sub-plot of this movie to the overall story arc of future efforts. For those who saw the 2008 version of the Hulk, Ross' sole purpose was to track Bruce Banner down and confine him. His appearance in Civil War is also meant to imply he hasn't given up on that mission, and thus one logical reason for his promotion of the Sokovia Accords.

This is what good storytelling is all about, but apparently that fact is lost on many because, my goodness, we are talking about Captain America. I can feel the righteousness surging through my veins. But given in the case of Cinema Sins is it self-righteousness, release the hounds of ridicule! Against a movie trailer! Because Captain America! We, of course, have seen this tactic employed before in regard to a super-hero character. When was the last time Superman stood for Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Granted there are two ways to view this. Perhaps Cinema-Sins just doesn't like Marvel movies. Or in particular Captain America as a super-hero. Or perhaps they are pompous blowhards who hold to the theory America is inherently racist, the root of all evil in the world, and any symbol which hails from the bygone years of FDR through “Leave It To Beaver” actually represents a longing to reinstate the Democrat policies of Jim Crow, segregation, and slavery. Personally I lean toward the latter.

I won't post the video from Cinema-Sins, as I don't want to do them the favor. But it is easy enough to find. In addition by now I am sure their review of the actual movie has been posted. I don't need to watch it to know how Little Miss Safe-Zone Jeremy reacted.

There is depth to this issue, as it isn't limited to what people may write or say about a particular movie or movies in general which is revealing. It is also the movies themselves. I am a firm believer in Sturgeon's Law, which holds that ninety percent of everything is crap. Sturgeon was speaking in regard to Science Fiction as a genre, but his theory equally applies to Hollywood and the movies continually gushing from its maw. A few nights ago I saw a commercial for a soon to be released movie entitled “Bad Moms.” My reaction was they should have entitled it “Idiotic Movie We Have Released Ten Times This Year Already.” That people get paid to produce this crap is truly sad. Regardless, Hollywood as a rule is an entity mired in mediocrity. And that is being kind. There is little to nothing of note being produced, the majority either remakes of films gone by or direct steals of some other writers work. Last month I watched the “The Purge.” It was on, which is about all I can say for it. Of course what immediately stood out for me was the fact the central story of “The Purge” was nothing more than a direct steal from a first season Star Trek the Original Series episode entitled “The Return of the Archons.” I wrote a review of that episode, as I always thought the story it presented centered around a novel idea. At least at that time. Likewise both the book and the movie “The Green Mile” was nothing more than a direct steal from a third season Star Trek the Original Series episode entitled “The Empath.” For those who recall, in the TOS episode “The Return of the Archons” the populace of the civilization Kirk and company must interact with are preparing for an event known of as “Festival,” a twelve hour time period during which all laws are suspended and the people can be as wild as they wish. “The Empath” featured a woman who could touch any wounded or sick person, draw those sufferings into herself, and then release them into the void. Does any of this sound familiar? Speaking of familiar, how many times can Lucas and company get away with remaking the original Star Wars movie before a fan stands up and says “Hey! I think we have seen this before.” I won't hold my breath. But the point is well made. Hollywood is mired in counter-productivity. They either keep remaking the same movie repeatedly, steal some other writers prior work because they convince themselves no one will remember, produce agenda driven nonsense, or just repackage prior offerings.

In regard to the former postulate Adam Sandler comes to mind. For a brief time during his career Adam Sandler was funny. Those days are long gone. Yet every eighteen months or so another lame Sandler movie is foisted on the masses, each one almost an exact replica of the preceding offering. They are produced by formula, as opposed to inspiration. That creed applies to at least ninety percent of the movies released each year.

This has often prompted me to question what agenda was behind such formulaic methodology, and what message was being promoted via movies. Most would say the making of and the desire to make money. Fine, I grant that as an obvious factor. However I do not believe said agenda either begins or ends solely with that goal in mind. At the time of this writing the new “Ghostbusters” remake is available for On Demand. I haven't seen it and don't plan on making the effort, but here is my short and succinct review. The Progressive Insurance commercial featuring the ghost of Flo is, was, and will always be far better than the “Ghostbusters” movie itself. That aside, some controversy has surrounded this movie ever since its production was first announced, focused on the fact the producers decided to replace the four male leads with an all female cast. Personally I could care less, as stated I don't plan on watching this movie until it shows up on Stars, if then. However the question remains, why make this change? What point was meant to be made?

That women can be ghostbusters? That women can carry a movie? That women can star in a crappy remake? The real question to ask is why worry about any of this. Women have been starring in movies ever since they invented movies, and women have held leading roles as far back as the time of Theresa Harris. Look her up, you may be surprised. Yet we as the movie consumer are supposed to believe Hollywood was making some form of grand statement now by casting four women to play the leads in the “New and Improved Crappy Ghostbusters Remake.” And if we as movie consumers didn't like it, we were all sexist pigs. However, go to the IMDb page for “Ghostbusters” 2016 and you will find Chris Hemsworth gets top billing (at the time of this writing), while Leslie Jones gets ninth billing. Well, Hemsworth is Thor, which leads me to conclude he was cast in “Ghostbusters” as an offset. In the underbelly of the beast Hollywood producers concluded cash paying movie fans might go see the movie because Hensworth was in it, a summation which serves to defeat the purpose of casting four female stars. Personally I believe this to be true, that some Hollywood producer somewhere decided that in spite of the courageous, noble, and profound gesture of casting all four ghostbusters as women, the movie still required a male lead to carry it. Abundans cautela non nocet.

The true reveal of the “Ghostbusters” remake wasn't that some bold statement was being made by casting four females to star in it. The true reveal is how bereft of originality Hollywood truly is. Anyone who saw the first “Divergent” movie saw the second and third films before they were ever made. Anyone who saw “The Hunger Games” saw the first “Divergent” movie. And anyone who ever read “Romeo and Juliet” knew the underlying story of “The Hunger Games” before it was ever written. I am also an adherent to the adage there is nothing new under the sun. Hollywood proves that adage true year in and year out.

Of course movies fall into different categories. Returning to “The Purge” franchise for a moment, I recently watched “The Purge: Anarchy.” The question of why Hollywood produces a percentage of the movies they do is clearly addressed within the narrative of the second Purge installment. The underlying story is still the same, yet “The Purge: Anarchy” is littered with leftist ideals and characterizations. Evil rich white people pay to have medically ill black people brought to their homes so they can kill them during the purge. Other evil rich white people pay thugs to round up the poor and unfortunate and place them into a “The Running Man” type arena to be killed by yet other rich white people. The minority underground rises up, again in true “The Running Man” fashion, to fight back. The groundwork is laid for the ideal the Purge is nothing more than a legal means for the corporate and political elites to cull the minority population. The third installment of this movie series, “The Purge: Election Year,” was recently released. I haven't seen it but I predict it will feature some Donald Trump like character who will be exposed as promoting the purge in order to make money and sanction the deaths of all those poor and minorities he so desperately hates. And people will believe it, because they saw it in a movie.

Film history is riddled with examples of this phenomena, of life imitating art. It is also riddled with examples where portions of a populace form an opinion on some political or social hot topic based on what they saw in a Hollywood movie. The film “Bernie” serves as the perfect illustrator of that maxim.

Quoted from the IMDB page for the movie “Bernie,” here is how that film was described:

“In small-town Texas, an affable mortician strikes up a friendship with a wealthy widow, though when she starts to become controlling, he goes to great lengths to separate himself from her grasp.”

Sounds charming, doesn't it? A likable guy, falls in with the wrong woman, and works to extricate himself from the relationship. All without hurting anyone's feelings, of course. However...the film “Bernie” was based on the true-life namesake Bernie Tiede, an affable fellow who courted and then murdered 81 year old Marjorie Nugent in 1996 in order to gain access to her money. Nugent's body went undiscovered for nine months following the crime, because after Tiede shot her he wrapped her in a sheet and stuffed her in a freezer, covering her body with potpies and frozen vegetables. Convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, his story drew the eye of Hollywood and his case subsequently became the object of a feature film. The director chose to portray Tiede in a sympathetic light, and following the release of the film his case was actually reopened based on evidence as portrayed in the movie. For a time, Tiede went free.

And people want to claim pop culture has no influence on our actual culture.

That movies often promote agendas should be no surprise to anyone. Choose any social issue you desire and Hollywood either has made or will make a movie about it, typically in “China Syndrome” fashion. In addition Hollywood has a habit of assuming the stupidity of its movie audience, and sadly they often assume correctly. Anything which stars either Jim Carrey, Will Ferrel, or Seth Rogen is all the proof required to support that claim. “The Interview” was the ultimate embodiment of low-brow, low-class, crude, vulgar, and infantile humor. Using that movie alone as a benchmark, the question then becomes what spawn of Hollywood is truly worth the effort, and for us the cash paying consumer truly worth viewing.

Before I address this question I will define a number of movie categories derived with deference to and in context of Sturgeon's Law. Try this as an experiment. For those of you who have On Demand, or some other movie streaming service, pull up the list of free movies and just look around. Currently On Demand is carrying a few top tier movies in the free listings, movies such as “Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” “The Avengers,” “The Hunger Games,” and all the “Star Wars” movies. But the remainder comprise a true plethora of crap. One has to wonder how a movie such as “Cherry 2000” or “Hot Tub Time Machine” ever got made. But ignoring that question for the moment, movies can, in my opinion, be placed in one of the following categories. Genre movies, such as the “Star Wars” series, the “Star Trek” reboots, “World War Z” or the “Resident Evil” series, and the “Hunger Games-Divergent” series. Agenda movies, such as the previously cited “The Wolf of Wall Street,” and including but not limited to “The Witch,” “Avatar,” “Sinister,” “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” and “The Danish Girl.” Remakes such as “Tarzan,” “Ghostbusters,” and “Rogue One.” Crap movies for Those Who Don't Know Any Better such as “The Shallows,” “The Fifth Wave,” “Bad Moms,” and “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.” Kid's Movies, such as “Finding Dori,” and Never-Ending Sequel series such as “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.”

In context of these categories a few quick evaluations of recent movie fare. “Creed” was a decent movie, but “Spectre” mindless garbage. “Sicario” was intelligent but agenda driven. “Joy” was about...something. “The Last Witch Hunter,” “Pan,” and “The Man From UNCLE” were all abysmally horrid, nearly unwatchable, certainly instantly forgettable. “Black Mass” glorified an serial murderer. “Mockingjay” and “Jurassic World” as sequels were acceptable, but neither rising above the level of popcorn fare. “Gods of Egypt,” "Ben Hur," “The Huntsman: Winter's War,” and “Alice Through the Looking Glass” were all cosmic waste of money. Johnny Depp is done, its just that no one has the backbone to tell him. “Independence Day: Resurgence” could have been good, but suffered from a poorly written script while simultaneously taking itself far too seriously. In short only a scintilla of the totality of movies produced over the last two years have been truly noteworthy. The majority of them were and continue to be fundamentally and fatally flawed. In particular the later cited flaw of a movie taking itself too seriously would manifest itself in a number of other notable high-budget tent-pole movies of 2016.

Astute readers will realize there is one genre, one type of movie currently being produced I have omitted from the above discourse.

Super-hero movies, and in particular Marvel movies are, in my opinion, different. Yes, they are genre movies. They are also based on characters and concepts developed during the nineteen forties, fifties and sixties, therefore in that sense the stories told are not entirely new. But super-hero movies are new in the sense to effectively craft one Hollywood had to wait until technology developed sufficiently to render them believable. Anyone who knows the history of Marvel movies is aware of the truly disastrous attempts to make super-hero movies during the previous decades. The 1994 version of “The Fantastic Four” was so bad it was never released. The early attempts at Captain America and Thor were equally horrid. However the current crop of Marvel and DC based movies released and in development benefit from advances in computer technology which render them not only beautiful to watch but credible as entertainment. What appears on screen, with rare exception, tends to be so visually well crafted it becomes easy for the viewer to suspend disbelief. Movie goers can become so enthralled with how magnificent the characters and settings appear slight plot and narrative deficiencies are either overlooked, completely missed, or simply ignored. The same is true concerning plot nuance. I will address the former point first.

Consider the Marvel film “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” This movie was criticized, faulted, and nit-picked with typical elitist disdain by the usual suspects for this, that, and the other thing. That aside for the moment, visually “Avengers: Age of Ultron” was stunning. In particular the following scene was so brilliantly crafted it alone was worth the price of admission:

The visual standards set by “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” and likewise “Guardians of the Galaxy,” were so high no future super-hero movie could hope to prosper without at least an attempt to match them. Ok, I will delve more in depth concerning that comment later, as there are exceptions. But it is true in regard to super-hero movies none of this was possible even ten years ago. Marvel's latest fare, “Doctor Strange,” is now in theaters. Readers of the comic series know how colorful, literally, Strange and his mastery of the mystic arts were portrayed in print. If the film had not lived up to that visual standard it would probably have failed. To date "Doctor Strange" has taken in a world wide gross of over $365 million dollars, therefore one can surmise Marvel was successful once again in addressing the visual world necessary to create. But visual effects can not be the only reason for the success of either "Doctor Strange" or any CGI heavy movie, as of course films which try and rely solely on visual effects to carry them are doomed to fail. “Inception” featured many well crafted CGI scenes, but also benefited from a well crafted story line. “X-Men Apocalypse” featured a few well crafted CGI scenes, but suffered the doom of a horridly crafted plot combined with the fatal flaw of taking itself way too seriously. Which brings me back to “Avengers: Age of Ultron.”

A well crafted story is far more effective in carrying a movie than any visual effect. I mentioned an exception to the notion super-hero movies were all but required to achieve visual perfection. Although not a super-hero movies in the traditional sense, both “Kick Ass” and "Dred" told compelling stories inhabited by believable characters in a manner completely non-dependent upon CGI. But then neither “Kick Ass” nor "Dredd" were big budget tent-pole movies. To further the narrative of my point, however, stay with the previously mentioned “X-Men Apocalypse” compared to “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” The former at times looked good, but as a story was a complete disaster. It lacked any serious attempt at character development, was riddled with plot deficiencies supported with insipid logic, all centered around a story line based on the notion that more is better. The latter was brilliant on all counts. I disagree with the most vocalized criticism of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” that the film suffered from both story and plot deficiencies. In contrast to “X-Men Apocalypse,” the story and plot of the second Avengers installment was brilliantly crafted and wonderfully nuanced.

The majority of the criticism aimed at the “Avengers: Age of Ultron” tended to mirror the comments made by Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times, who called the movie “occasionally baffling.” Ruminate on that for a moment. A film critic is faulting a movie for being constructed in a manner which required viewers to apply thought in order to keep up. And that was the most vocalized criticism leveled against “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” that is was too cerebral. Talk about a reveal through speech. However for Marvel fans there was nothing baffling about it. For people who could pay attention and eat popcorn at the same time there was nothing baffling about it. What occurred with “Avengers: Age of Ultron” was the writers, of which Stan Lee was one, filled the movie with so much nuance, layering, and subtlety your average spoon-fed “The Hateful Eight” type viewer just couldn't keep up.

“Wha...wha...no one is cursing every third word. Wha...what is going on here? I am so confused!”

The character of Dr. Helen Cho serves as the perfect example to support this theorem.

When Ultron makes his first robotic appearance one of his newly-corrupted minions moves to kill Dr. Cho as she cowers behind a piano. Or something. But then very quickly you hear Ultron mutter “hmmm...”, and the robot leaves her breathing and moves on. If not paying attention to the previous scene in which Dr. Cho mended the wounds of Clint Barton, why Ultron let her live would not only escape the average viewer at that moment but also later in the film when Bruce Banner asked the musical question “Has anyone been in contact with Helen Cho?” Dr. Cho had already addressed why this question was important during the scene in which she mended Hawkeye's wounds. In addition the question as posed served as a reflection of character development and nuance of character, for who among the Avengers but perhaps Tony Stark would be able to make the connection between Dr. Cho's work and Ultron's actions based on the crap intelligence Nick Fury had to offer other than the genius Bruce Banner? Nuance is an admirable quality in regard to any created work. But sadly it is a quality squandered on a percentage of movie goers, particularly those who get all excited over a bathroom sex-scene in “Wolf of Wall-Street” or rail in self-righteous rage over a Captain America movie trailer. The plot of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” was profusely padded with references to past and future events, subtle character development, and interwoven story lines. It was a smart movie, as opposed to, say, “X-Men Apocalypse,” which was dull, plodding, and pedantic.

And I am not the only one who felt that way:

Yes, I know the X-Men franchise is currently licensed by Twentieth Century Fox, as is “The Fantastic Four.” I also realize Twentieth Century Fox knows little to nothing in regard to properly utilizing the Marvel characters they put up on screen. A statement which brings me to “Deadpool.”

Due to forum restrictions this post will be continued below.

 

[Sistrin]

I have a friend who posted on Facebook that she had gone to see “Deadpool” five times while it was playing in theaters. If she reads this, and indeed for any who read this, please know I am not criticizing her. She is a wonderful person whom both I and my wife hold in high regard. But even given that is true it is also true I saw “Deadpool” once, and had to force myself to complete the effort. What follows is perhaps the best manner in which I can articulate why. To date, the Marvel/Disney franchise movies have not been corrupted by the “Wolf of Wall Street” mentality of movie making. This is a reflection of the guardianship of Stan Lee, I believe. Yes, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” did delve into the political realm; but it did so subtlety, without beating the viewer over the head with an agenda as did “Norma Rae,” “Milk,” and “The Big Short.” The message of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” wasn't that Captain America and his team saved the world from domination by Hydra, but that Hydra was able to create a world in which it had the opportunity to exert dominance. Doctor Zola's exposition concerning that process was brilliantly articulated, and could have been written based on the history of the Patriot Act. Conversely, “Deadpool” amounted to nothing more than a series of crude one-liners. It was gross, at times vile, and gratuitous throughout. It was a film crafted to satisfy the the lowest common denominator. The difference between the two films is best defined as a correlation expressed by the effort required to fully appreciate them.

To fully appreciate the plot and message of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” the viewer was required to invest effort to analyze dialogue and exposition as presented and then draw the required parallels with the actual political and military history of the United States. Then the viewer could appreciate the metaphors being employed. Arnim Zola wasn't just a consciousness confined to a bank of computers in an abandoned SHIELD complex, he was a metaphor for the NSA. Alexander Pierce wasn't just the secret leader of Hydra, he was a metaphor for every corrupt politician grasping for illegitimate power the Western Democracies have ever known. Captain America wasn't just the good guy fighting to preserve freedom or save lives, he was We The People. To grasp these and other concepts presented in the film, the viewer was required to actively participate as the movie progressed. In contrast, to fully appreciate the plot and message of “Deadpool” the only requirement on the viewer was they had once spent time in the eighth grade.

Consider these examples of dialogue from both feature films. The first was spoken by Dr. Arnim Zola to Captain America as he and Black Widow stood inside the abandoned SHIELD computer complex, quote:

“The war taught us much. Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly.

A statement which could form the basis for a post-graduate dissertation.

The second was spoken by Deadpool during the high-way scene just before someone was decapitated:

“(Expletive deleted), did I leave the stove on?”

My point is this. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” epitomized the Stan Lee vision of Marvel comics and the conflicts their stable of heroes were forced to confront in intelligent, adult fashion. “Deadpool” epitomized the vision Hollywood holds of what super-hero movies should be, what they eventually want to transform the entire franchise into. More on why in a bit, but if you don't believe me, conduct a simple google search into future and proposed super-hero projects. Or watch on Youtube the clips from this years MTV Movie Awards. Or take in a few episodes of “Jessica Jones” on Netflix.

I found this on Vulture dot com, an editorial entitled:

“How Netflix's Super-hero Shows Distinguish Themselves From the Repetitive Marvel Cinematic Universe”

A quote central to the overall point being made:

“We're 13 movies deep into the so-called Marvel Cinematic Universe and, all too often, they blend into one another.”

Written by a moron who apparently is incapable of understanding that is and always was meant to be the point, that the Marvel franchise movies would blend into one another. But the gist of the article is to extol the virtues of the various Netflix super-hero series in that they are dark, street-gritty, and fleshed out with plenty of flesh. True, I like the Daredevil series. But Jessica Jones barely rises above the level of soft-core porn profusely inserted to provide cover for a weak story line centered on revenge. Or a diluted television version of “Deadpool.”

But “Deadpool” made money, and thus there will be a sequel. I can see the advertising for it already.

“Deadpool 2! With extended sex-scenes, twice the f-bombs, and three times the decapitations!”

Or “Saw” laced with puerile, infantile sarcasm.

I had a discussion once with a friend of mine concerning the HBO series “Game of Thrones” in regard to the inclusion of gay sex-scenes during various episodes. He is a good guy as well, so don't get me wrong. My point was as averse as I might be to watching gay sex in film or television, if such a scene advanced the story, made some point or addressed some issue integral and necessary to plot development, I had no problem with the inclusion. Or stated otherwise “abusus non tollit usum,” the misuse of some thing does not eliminate the possibility of its correct use. But when any such scene is included just because, in other words gratuitously, then its inclusion amounts to nothing more than either a deliberate slight against the sensibilities of particular target viewers or an opportunity seized upon to advance an agenda. Such it was with “Deadpool.” Much of the film was designed to advance an agenda, that agenda being to produce a film intentionally crafted to be as far a departure as possible from the standard previously established by Marvel Studios, and to send the message this is the ultimate form super-hero movies will eventually take. For those who did not look it up, during the MTV Movie Awards presentation Samuel L. Jackson is heard to say, following “Deadpool” receiving an award:

“That is how you make a (expletive deleted) super-hero movie.”

I find that disturbing. At their core movies are meant to be entertainment, and thus entertaining. This is the one positive attribute I grant the “Star Wars” franchise, that as poorly written as the story lines were they at least managed to be entertaining. But movies do not have to be steeped in cultural rot to be entertaining. They do not have to be seething with elitist disdain for the viewing audience, a la “Birdman,” to be entertaining. Torrid sex scenes are not required for a movie to be entertaining. Movies are also not required to feature a hero riddled with serious character flaws or tortured by personal demons and a relentless desire for revenge to be relevant. Both “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and “Avengers: Age of Ultron” featured none of the above yet were wildly entertaining. “Deadpool” featured all of the above, but was neither groundbreaking nor redeeming. It was a middle-school rendition of “Goodfellas” in tights.

Disappointing, to say the least.

At this point someone is probably screaming about the effective tradition of both literature and film in employing the anti-hero archetype. Michael Corleone of “The Godfather” fame or Jules Winnfield of “Pulp Fiction” instantly come to mind. Ok, a moment on this topic. In film or print fictional characters will be crafted to operate according to one of two ethical philosophies, either a sense of moral certitude or a sense of moral relativism. Their actions will be guided by one of these underlying ethical constructs. Most Marvel comic characters tend to operate from a sense of moral certitude, the guiding principal of which is a clearly defined sense of what was right and good as opposed to what wasn't. This can be appropriately illustrated via an exchange of dialogue between Captain America and Nick Fury from the Project Insight scene of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.” Fury has just shown Captain America the three next generation SHIELD Helicarriers, the form and function of which cause Cap to object. Fury responds:

“You know I read those SSR files. The Greatest Generation...you guys did some nasty stuff.”

Cap's response is grounded in a sense of moral certitude, a sense dominated by the underlying philosophy that at times acts can be justified if preformed in pursuit of a greater good:

“Yeah, we compromised, sometimes in ways which made us not sleep so well. But we did it so that people could be free.”

Captain America understood the basic nature of man, a lesson his fellow Avenger Thor would learn during the evolution of the plot in his first namesake film. Men are not evil by design, they chose to embrace evil, to become wicked. Consequently there are times when men of good nature must confront evil by employing equally merciless brutality. As a character Captain America understood this, and acted accordingly. Conversely Deadpool pursued his goals under no such moral constraint. Whatever means employed always justified the end, regardless of body count, and as willingly as one would swat a fly. In context of the metaethical question of moral philosophy as it applies to character development, construct, and action, one can judge the matter quite simply. Captain America would kill if he believed it to be necessary. Deadpool would kill because he wanted to, or because it wouldn't occur to him to consider an alternative.

Hollywood has been driving down this road for years, moving away from films and characters which exploit the traditional conflicts of man versus man or man versus his environment or man verses himself in context of the basic good verses evil construct. This construct is as old as the first recorded literature, the very essence of classics from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Odyssey to the Lord of the Rings. But in regard to most modern film and literature, good versus evil is not a story those who produce movies really want to tell. Instead the preference is to craft films steeped in moral relativism. “LA Confidential” is the perfect example of this theory in practice. I admit I thought “LA Confidential” a good movie, but when you conduct an examination of the characters you realize there were no true protagonist nor any true antagonist. Everyone was in pursuit of their own ends, and the story drove to a conclusion of whom would be the last man standing. The various “Star Wars” movies tended to be panned for just this reason, that the stories were constructed and the characters define based on traditional, well defined intent. They were either good or bad, and the viewing audience didn't have to wonder about who was who. But with “LA Confidential,” “Pulp Fiction,” “Sleepers,” and other movies of that genre, there was no good, no evil, just people doing whatever they were willing to do and suffering from or attempting to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Do not misunderstand my point here. I am not saying movies featuring the “last man standing” mechanic are inherently bad, or cannot be entertaining. I am simply illustrating the mechanic. As stated I thought “LA Confidential” an entertaining movie. But “LA Confidential” was not an agenda movie. “Pulp Fiction” was. A Bible quoting hit-man is an intentional dichotomy.

Movies can be entertaining, or nothing more than an insult to the general populace and movie goers in particular. Was there any actual point to “Fifty Shades of Grey?” Is there anyone in their right mind who would call that a love story? Consider its story admirable? Of course there is, just not all of them have a radio show on ESPN. But I digress. Movies are crafted for more than one purpose, in some cases the least of which is to make money. For those who may have ever seen the 1982 movie “Personal Best,” that wasn't a movie about aspiring Olympians. As stated prior writers and producers of Hollywood fare far too often assume both the ignorance and stupidity of their target audience. As a result much of what is produced amounts to nothing more, deliberately or otherwise, than an insult to the viewers intelligence. A subtle and not so subtle example.

During the assault scene of “Zero Dark Thirty” a Navy Seal nearest one of the entry points is seen to quickly tap the side of his head twice. This was a signal to those behind for the breacher, the guy with the explosive charges, to move to the gate and set the demolitions. Anyone with military experience knows this. But then almost immediately a voice is heard, obviously one of the Seals, saying “Breacher up!” Why was this included, given no Navy Seal would ever need to be told what that signal meant?

There are two answers to this question. One is because the writers knew the obvious, not everyone who would see this movie would be or had ever been a military special operator. But the more insidious reason is the writers naturally assumed the average movie viewer would be too stupid to make the connection between a guy tapping on his helmet and another guy immediately moving up to set demolition charges. I believe the latter to be the most accurate explanation, and serves as a subtle example of how stupid Hollywood writers naturally assume movie viewers are.

For the not so subtle example, in 2014 a movie was released entitled “Sabotage” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. I found it On Demand and decided to watch it because Arnold Schwarzenegger. I only made the first thirty minutes. This movie was so incredibly vulgar, crude, crass and indecent I could not believe, given the body of his previous work, Schwarzenegger had signed on to star in it. It was tactless to the point of being obscene, and that was only the first thirty minutes. All of which again begs a number of questions, only one of which is why do such movies get made. Do those who agree to star in such low-brow gutter crap have any dignity or self-respect? Do such people who either star in or produce such low-brow gutter crap delude themselves into believing they are manufacturing a product of some actual value? Or do they just want the money and whatever limited exposure such a vehicle provides?

A couple of years ago I conducted a tour of an historic site for a group of people from Hollywood. There was an actress with the group who was asked by someone else what movies she had appeared in. Part of her response was to state a couple of the Rob Zombie films. Considering that admission, I believe all of the above would apply. Additionally where the work and influence of Rob Zombie is concerned, there is another factor at work. But this is neither the time nor the place to broach that particular topic.

What can be stated, what I am stating, is Hollywood isn't just mired in mediocrity, it is mired in the production of agenda driven twaddle. Such appears to be the norm, as opposed to the exception.

Which finally brings me to “Captain America: Civil War.”

Conflict is the essence of drama. But for drama to be successful as an art form that conflict must be believable, understandable, and most importantly relatable to the target audience. For a film to truly be successful members of the audience either as a group or on an individual basis must be able to form some level of emotional attachment to the characters, and the actions those characters take, as displayed on the screen. They must be able to feel, or at least be able to understand and empathize with, what the characters are feeling and why they are preforming as they are. To achieve the preferred level of commiseration at some juncture an audience should experience a catharsis, a release or purification of emotion, in response to the action.

In regard to this consider the movie “No Country for Old Men.” While watching this film I, and most rational people who saw it, did not care what happened to any of the characters featured. They were all criminal in some form, running the gamut from low-life drug dealer to contract killer to corrupt corporate mogul. It was a horrid story about horrid people and the viewer just didn't care. In regard to “Captain America: Civil War,” viewers had to chose which character they most wanted to support, to be excited over, to root for. This is an inherently critical, fundamentally crucial factor of storytelling. Few people, at least, hopefully not too many people, can relate to a psychotic, sociopathic, murderous drug lord gunning down everyone who violates his warped code of sense and sensibilities. “Black Mass” cost over 53 million dollars to make and garnered a world wide total gross of just over 99 million dollars. In Hollywood terms, that is a bust. Why did it fail? One easy answer is, there was no one to cheer for.

Hollywood continually falls into this trap. “Bad Boys,” “Sleepers,” “American Psycho,” the aforementioned “No Country for Old Men,” and “The People Versus Larry Flint” all serve as relevant examples of this phenomena. When watching these movies the predominant responses are one either doesn't care what happens to the characters featured, or wishes them dead. Yes, hoping for the demise of a particular character and then having that end achieved in the story does provide catharsis, but how enjoyable can a movie truly be if your only response to it was satisfaction a particular character died.

It is also accurate to state no one can truly relate to being a super-hero. But that is the beauty and genius of Marvel movies. No one has to. The conflict is relatable, therefore the drama is effective. Marvel has prided itself on crafting movies grounded in proven, successful storytelling. “Iron Man” was an updated version of the original comic origin story, as was “The Hulk” and “The Amazing Spider-Man.” “Captain America the First Avenger” amounted to transferring the 1941 comic almost panel for panel to the big screen. And quite successfully so. But whereas no one can truly relate to flying around in a metal suit or being a chemically altered super-soldier, they can relate to the motivations of the heroes themselves.

Concluded below.

 

[Sistrin]

“Captain America: Civil War” is a dramatic movie the plot of which is based on the conflict of man versus self. It takes well established characters and pits them not against a secretive global crime cartel or a singular villain of exceptional power, but rather against themselves. The quandary forced upon the individual players involved, as represented by passage of the Sokovia Accords, manifest as an ideological split among the various members of the Avengers, one which will lead them to eventually suit up and battle each other. Regardless of the alien nature of super-powered beings, this is a story all movie patrons can relate to. It is part and parcel of the human existence to at times be at odds with ourselves, or those we call friend.

“I'm sorry Tony, but he's my friend.”

“So was I.”

Even the millennials can understand that.

My previous comment wasn't meant as an insult to millennials. Well, ok, maybe. But the true purpose is to illustrate the fact to date Marvel movies were and are not made specifically for the millennial generation. They are made for people like me, people who grew up reading Marvel comics and therefore not only have a personal attachment to the stories and characters, but enjoy emotional pleasure in seeing an important aspect of their childhood transferred to the big screen. When I took my sons to the theater to see “Captain America: Civil War” there were a number of people who actually cheered when the word “Queens” appeared on screen, because they knew it meant Spider-Man. I had much the same response with I first saw the post credit scene for “Iron Man 2.” The Hammer of Thor. For a Marvel comic fan, this is all quite thrilling stuff. On a gestalt level, we of my generation understand and empathize with this phenomena in a manner the majority of millennials never will.

Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times faulted “Captain America: Civil War” for being “exclusionary,” citing that unless viewers had seen all of which came before they would not be able to fully appreciate the nuance contained therein. I disagree. The true beauty and genius of “Captain America: Civil War” was not its status as an ambitious project or the fielding of numerous mega-stars playing diverse characters all under one tent pole. The true genius is the very exclusion for which Turan faulted it, the realization the film represented a culmination of effort. As with the comic series from which it spawned, “Captain America: Civil War” would not have been possible except for all which came before. Consequently for Marvel movie fans the enjoyment and appreciation of this film did not require the viewer to dedicate any effort toward understanding either the characters or their motivations, for that effort had previously been made. The movie was therefore free to simply be itself. For those who may not have seen all the previous films, “Captain America: Civil War” contained sufficient exposition to supply the base information required, as I will detail further below. For a movie which legitimately deserved such an esoteric fault, compare “Civil War” to the recently released DC film “Suicide Squad.”

Without the success of Marvel's “Guardians of the Galaxy” there would never have been a “Suicide Squad.” But regardless of DC's attempt to imitate and thus profit from Marvel's success, their effort failed due to one primary reason. The producers in fact did rely on the knowledge of the comic fan base to suffice as primary character development. If “Suicide Squad” had been a Marvel project, at least four independent films would have been produced prior to crafting the composite crowning effort. As you are all aware that is the exact process Marvel followed in building to “The Avengers.” Of course “Guardians of the Galaxy” benefited from no such treatment, but that represents yet another aspect of the brilliance of Marvel's Phase One program, in that it didn't need to. By the time “Guardians of the Galaxy” was released Marvel movie fans had been exposed to the quality in film Marvel's effort represented, and were only too willing to accept the premise Marvel's first foray into space-opera would rise to the same standard. Marvel placed the same wager on “Doctor Strange.” In light of this the dichotomy represented by the overall success of “Captain America: Civil War” and “Suicide Squad” becomes clear. Both films featured multiple characters interacting at multiple levels intertwined in a layered plot. However in the case of “Captain America: Civil War” the characters were well established, familiar, and deserving. In the case of “Suicide Squad” few people knew who the characters were and with the exception of Harley Quinn the movie made no effort to inform. Add to this “Suicide Squad” suffered from the same sin as did both “X-Men Apocalypse” and “Batman v. Superman,” in that it took itself far too seriously, and “Suicide Squad's” disappointing domestic gross is clearly understandable.

But at least the characters looked good:

In context another reason for the success of “Captain America: Civil War” was the prior evolution of the title character. “Captain America: The First Avenger” was not just a movie Marvel wanted to make because they thought it would make money, it was a movie which had to be made if there were ever to be “The Avengers.” As such I have always felt those involved in the production of Captain America's first film endeavor were operating under a unique set of conditions and expectations. The potential success of the movie Marvel and company actually wanted to make was at risk in the production and ultimate outcome of the origin story of a kid from Brooklyn turned super-soldier. Considered in that light “Captain America: The First Avenger” was a smashing success, regardless of how much money it made or what the critics thought. But to the point in his first theatrical outing the character of Captain America was placed in a situation involving clear cut choices, and thus his character development was easy. The Nazi's were bad, the Red Skull was bad, Hydra was bad, and as a the symbol of American courage, dedication, determination, and justice, Cap had to take them all down. An old story, but one well told. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” grew from that base, but diverged utilizing multiple literary devices in expanding the character. Steve Rodgers was now a man out of time, searching to find his place in a world largely alien in nature. The world he knew was gone, almost everyone he had ever known was dead. Consequently his work defined him, and then he was given cause to question even that commitment. Hydra once again reared its ugly head, the resulting conflict ultimately pitting him against his most cherished childhood friend in a battle of life or death. However in both films Captain America was fighting a clearly defined foe, the only consequential difference being in the first film that foe was obvious and in the second it arouse from the shadows. “Captain America: Civil War” effectively took all of this and molded into a reason for Steve Rodgers to question not his place in a world free of the obvious enemies, but the form of freedom that world was potentially to embrace.

An integral beauty of the plot for “Captain America: Civil War” was, within context of the dramatic action, that particular dilemma wouldn't just require resolution on the part of Steve Rodgers and Tony Stark, but all of the featured characters. Each would be forced to take a side, to make a choice based on emotion, reason, or loyalty. I thought this issue incredibly well addressed, another perfect illustration of plot nuance and character usage. At least, again, to those paying attention. Within the script as filmed each character was provided at minimum one line, one moment, which served to articulate why they adopted their ultimate position in regard to the Sokovia Accords. It is all there, explanations all articulated for both the dedicated fan and the casual movie goer.

Captain America chose to side against what he saw as governmental over-reach, of taking the power of the Avengers assembled and subverting it to the will of bureaucrats. Tony Stark chose to side with the politically mandated restrictions as a result of his emotional despondency. Sam Wilson, the Falcon, chose loyalty to Captain America, a man he had previously fought beside and was responsible for his inclusion into the Avengers. Clint Barton, or Hawkeye, was bored with a life of retirement and wanted back in the game. As a defiant loner and rebel at heart, he too chose to support Rodgers. Natasha Romanoff, the Black Widow, sided with Stark in order to stay in the game. Refusing to sign the accords would have meant forced retirement, a point emphatically made by General Thunderbolt Ross, and Romanoff's singular skill set would not have translated well to working for Goldman Sachs. James Rhodes, War Machine, was already an instrument of the government, thus his choice was predetermined. To Wanda Maximoff, the Scarlet Witch, the Accords meant nothing. Her rebellion was against the captivity Stark had placed her in. Scott Lang, the Ant-Man, was star-struck, in awe of the very fact Captain America would ask for his help. To Bucky Barnes, the Winter Soldier, the Accords also meant nothing. As a marked man he simply had no other option. Peter Parker was recruited, and would have done anything his new found mentor and benefactor asked of him. Sharon Carter crossed the line for love. Vision was loyal by design. Of all the combatants who would eventually square off, only T'Challa, the Black Panther, was ambivalent of and never to be actually bound by the accords. Revenge was his motivation, but revenge based on a sense of honorable and principled justice. And the guy was royalty, after all. These reveals were all interwoven into the plot, for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear, a fact which serves to illustrate what effective movie making should be about.

Action movies are action movies, some just more well crafted than others. Regardless of how well crafted the action sequences in “Captain America: Civil War” may have been, they weren't really the point. The point was the tale of two men, one perhaps stubborn and reticent but still endeavoring to do what he considered to be right and honorable, the other a victim of the realization doing what may be considered right and honorable far too often results in the death of innocents. This conflict of character, and thus the true brilliance of “Captain America: Civil War” as a movie, is perhaps best illustrated by two lines of dialogue from the film.

Following the battle with Crossbones, Steve Rodgers tells Wanda Maximoff:

“You try to save as many as you can. Sometimes that doesn't mean everybody.”

Later, Tony Stark tells the assembled members of the Avengers:

“We dropped a building on him while we were kicking ass.”

Both of these statements are grounded in moral certitude. The former recognizes the undeniable truth that at times achieving the greater good requires sacrifice. The latter recognizes the undeniable truth that such sacrifice comes with a price, and always has a face. If “Captain America: Civil War” had a message, I believe this was it.

What are movies? They are entertainment, they are politics, they are expressions of agendas. Ninety percent of them are crap. But what they should be, first and foremost, is worthy. “The Wolf of Wall Street” had a 100 million dollar production budget and garnered a world-wide gross of 392 million dollars. But that fact is irrelevant to its true value as a film. There was no dignity in that film, nothing to admire, nothing of character, thus rendering it unworthy of the time, effort, and money required to see it. If the story of a corrupt Wall Street broker really needed to be told, a documentary would have sufficed. “Captain America: Civil War” had a 250 million dollar production budget and garnered, to date, over 1.15 billion dollars. But that is not a true reflection of its value as a film. The true value of “Captain America: Civil War” is inherent in the fact once you left the theater, you were not sickened by what you had seen. You did not leave the theater disillusioned by the message delivered or angered over the agenda advanced. In contrast, you may have felt somewhere down in the recesses of your soul gratification over the innate knowledge that even though our little ball of dust is rampant with violence and conflict, conflict which even threatens to rip apart the most formidable of friendships, there still remained some good in the world. And someone willing to fight for it.

If nothing else, “Captain America: Civil War” was worthy. If only more movies could stand such a test.

Thanks for reading.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I pretty much agree. I've completely given up on "critics" and most moviegoers reactions. Like I always said "I am adrift in a sea of mediocrity"

But I saw The Accountant. Flippin' fantastic.

 

[Sistrin]

You read this already? I just finished posting it, I am impressed. As for "The Accountant," I haven't seen it yet. I will take your recommendation.

 

[John Hyperspace]

You read this already? I just finished posting it, I am impressed. As for "The Accountant," I haven't seen it yet. I will take your recommendation.

I read the first part and posted waiting for your next one to come up. I'm still actually reading the rest.

 

[John Hyperspace]

That was a huge rant, for sure. There is almost too much in which to respond. From my point of view, there are a lot of poor movies. But someone likes them. The thing is, what percentage of movies do you generally like? I'm willing to wager that whatever percentage that is, that's what percentage of people likeminded to you exist in the populace as a whole. You're rare, so movies aimed at you are rare. On the flip side, 95% of people don't like thinking, just want to shout "Yeehaw!" and watch things blow up and women in bikinis and such things. Therefore, 95% of movies are going to be that thing.

I do think the executives get too involved in playing it safe, and catering to moviegoers and changing things when they shouldn't; all for the sake of the cash. But in light of this you mentioned Deadpool saying “Deadpool” epitomized the vision Hollywood holds of what super-hero movies should be, what they eventually want to transform the entire franchise into. But from what I heard, Hollywood was saying no way to the movie for years. Ryan Reynolds actually had to get the internet involved by leaking, test footage, to get a kickstarter going, to twist the arm of the execs in order to even get it made. Then when the execs saw how much money it made, they lit up and now want to put that concept into the Xerox and copy, copy, copy... Most movies pander to lowest common denominator because most members of the populace function on that level. So it's no surprise it's copy, copy, copy... play it safe and target the percentages through percetages.

Some directors will come along and say "This is how I do it" and if they have a big enough fanbase, they can control what they do. Wes Anderson, Speilberg, Nolan comes to mind. These are where your "good" movies are going to come from because they can target specific percentages and know they're going to get a return by doing things they do. And, unfortunately you're going to have 95% of people (like Cinema Sins) trashing good movies because they're the 95%ers who can't follow a story, and are incompetent critics.

Also agree that what people like in movies will clearly show what the person reflects in their own self. Movies are like, a mirror to the soul, after all.

But here's what I'll say: the Marvel movies, are good. I liked most of them. They're nothing great, maybe Guardians and Winter Soldier were both elevated above; but for the most part, they're really somewhat middling to me. I like them because I like the genre, but they're nothing uniquely written, or, really tight and lean by way of script. They just are a simple story which often loses its way but maintains its entertainment.

However, Batman vs. Superman? One of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. Yeah, I said it. Suicide Squad was utter trash, but Vs. was really good. Especially the Ultimate Cut. You might say, it took itself seriously, and I'd say, maybe so but that's what it is. It was a serious look at, what if this really happened? What if Superman really showed up, what would be the result? How would people really react? It was a stark metaphor, and really well-written. I'm also really looking forward to Logan; and hope treatments like these can turn new ground, and offer something different by way of superhero movies. Not to say, let's get rid of the flashy movies, but, add something different to the mix.

You should also check out The Accountant. Really, really good. I don't want to set a bar too high, so don't take my praise too much to heart; but it's one of the very few movies I actually saw multiple times. Complete transformation of the action genre movie; really humanizing, uniquely told, and subverting the standard machine copier.

I probably missed responding to a lot of what you said but there is so much there. It's well thought-out and a good read, though.

 

[Sistrin]

I just stopped in to check this before going to bed. I appreciate your response and will offer a response sometime tomorrow. Thank you very much for your time and your comments.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

 

[BubbaJack]

Any opinions on horror movies? I'm sick of the jump scares, so obviously cheap. A good horror movie to me will have scenes that can stand alone in their ability to unnerve, even if the whole of the movie isn't that good.