"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014)

When you think about it, good and bad are extremely abstract concepts. What does it mean to be good or evil? Unless we’re talking about stereotypically evil, people always believe they are doing the right thing. We always say that we are the good guys and anyone who opposes us is evil. 

For example, as destructive as the Nazis were, they felt they were doing the right thing for the betterment of mankind. 

Right and wrong are ideas that change wildly depending on who you ask. If you fight for something, like freedom for all people, you are going to make some enemies. Because others will fight for their beliefs. In the end, who is really the good guy?

This is the point of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” as the famous patriot fights for the same values he has always believed in, only to find that the world has changed, and so has its beliefs. 

Captain America (Chris Evans) has now joined S.H.I.E.L.D. as a full-time agent as a way to protect the innocent. But after learning of the new Hellicarriers they have been developing, Cap begins to question who he should be working for. Things change when Director Nic Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) is targeted for assassination by a mysterious soldier with a mechanical arm. 

I should probably mention that, since this is a sequel, I particularly enjoyed “Captain America: The First Avenger.” It was a warmhearted and well-appreciated film about a man would fight for his belief that all men are created equal. It was brief and kept its dialogue and scenes to minimum, much like Captain America himself. Only speaking when he absolutely has to and only saying what needs to be said. I respect the film for that.

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” does not try to emulate its predecessor at all. While the first film was a war movie, this one is more of a political thriller and how values, much like the world, have changed wildly over time.

Some of the better scenes in the film come when Cap is taking a tour of the Smithsonian and finds the hall dedicated to him and his companions. We see the work of Captain America is appreciated and respected, but how it is now a relic. Something that is no longer of use and belongs in a museum. 

It is really a testament to Chris Evans’ acting, as he observes everything he did, and gets so much emotion across without saying a word. Perhaps he sees himself as another relic, as only an artifact of the past, in both time and beliefs.

I find it difficult to discuss other plot points in this film without spoiling it. Many of the emotional moments hinge on the plot twists and where characters true alliances are. 

A big point in this film is to not trust anyone, which Nic Fury advocates to Cap with a speech about his grandfather liking people, but never believing in them.

This was a smart move on Marvel’s part, because it adds another dimension to the one-note character of Captain America. Don’t get me wrong, I think Cap is a great superhero who will always for the right thing. But what if he didn’t fight for that? In a world full of corruption and distrust, can there really be a right thing?

Not even Captain America is sure of that.

Overall, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” was a fun, smart, sophisticated approach to a classic superhero and made his role more ambiguous in the world. The action sequences were well choreographed, the acting was good all around, the comedy was consistent and it kept me enthralled from the first action sequences to the standard Marvel credit sequence. 

Final Grade: A-

The Coen Brothers and their problems

This is something I’ve briefly talked about in the past, but I find the Coen Brothers films to be extremely mixed. Some of their films are magnificent and timeless, like “Fargo” and “No Country For Old Men.” While others leave a bad taste in my mouth and ultimately feel like nothing was accomplished, like “Miller’s Crossing” and “Inside Llewyn Davis.” 

I feel there is a common thread amongst the Coen Brothers goods films and their bad ones: The presence of good and strength in an otherwise cruel and unforgiving world. 

There is a phrase from that has stuck out to come for quite some time. “You are alone in this world, and the world does not care.” I feel that the Coens’ films follow this to a tee. Their films are about, more or less, solitary struggles to survive in a world that is uncaring, unsympathetic and will probably take a shot at you for good measure. The characters work independently and are often afraid of outside contact, in fear that they will turn on them as well. 

My problem with this type of philosophy though is that it doesn’t necessarily reflect real life. We are not alone. There are always those who care and appreciate others. If someone has ever reached out to help you in any way, shape or form, that is proof that you matter to someone. Because humans are compassionate and understanding creatures, among other things. 

However, that does not mean we should be blind to the cruel aspects of life as well. The world can be harsh and dark, thus making the journey difficult. We’ve all had instances in life where things didn’t go the way we wanted it to or have had tragedy befall us. The power of life and its twists and turns comes from your ability to come back from these hardships and learn from them. To be able to pick yourself up, realize what happened, admit your mistake and make your life better because of it. 

This is the backbone of the good Coen Brothers movies. In “Fargo,” you have Marge Gunderson, a cop who sees the terrible acts of selfishness and greed that people commit. She is the best cop around, easily outsmarting her fellow cops and is able to find out information in minutes that other officers couldn’t find out all morning. Yet, she has the most pleasant attitude and demeanor to all of it, always going in with a smile and seeing the best in people. Even better, she is seven months pregnant and has a caring husband who is always there for Marge, even willing to get out of bed at four in the morning to make her some breakfast. 

Marge and her husband, Norm, are what make “Fargo” the masterpiece that it is. If they were removed from the film, it would just be a dark comedy about a group of incompetent losers who can’t figure out how to handle a proper kidnapping. When you add in Marge and Norm, you see that, amongst the pathetic people in the world, there is solace. These two have their lives figured out. They may not have the most extravagant lives, but they are content with where they are and happy to have someone who cares for them. They don’t need money or objects to tell them that they’re doing good, they have each other for that. 

I find that Marge is comparable to Atticus Finch of “To Kill A Mockingbird” in this respect. Both of them live in a world that is cruel and selfish, yet they only wish to see the good in the world. They don’t want wealth, just happiness and an equal world for all. They are both people far ahead of their time and represent the best of humanity. 

In a not-so-similar way, you have Llewelyn Moss from “No Country For Old Men.” While he may not be morally up there with Marge, he does sit higher than most other people in the film. Some people are so confused and angry at the world that they are unsure what to do once danger comes and then there’s the danger itself, Anton, who is clever but only interested in killing. Unmerciful, crazy and dedicated to the craft of death that even he doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing. 

Llewelyn finds a large case of money and intends to use it so he and his wife can live peacefully. It isn’t until he is hunted down for the money that he takes action. He doesn’t seek it out, it comes to him. He does not fight back for a selfish reason, but for his wife and their happiness. He is strong, incorruptible and, most importantly, confident. 

These are the characters and traits that make the Coens’ films so appealing to me. Its not just the dialogue, the worlds they create or the smart blend of comedy and dark elements, but the ability to find strength and kindness in the world when there is none anywhere else. To take the time to enjoy the smaller aspects of life, such as your husband bringing you a bag of night crawlers for fishing or sharing a beer with your wife. 

When these elements are not present, suddenly the film is only about the cruelness of life and how unforgiving it can be. Films like “Barton Fink” or “Blood Simple” offer only the unpleasant elements of life and give us very little reason to care about the outcomes. As a result, these films stick out far less than “Fargo” or “No Country For Old Men.”

The reason I hated “Inside Llewyn Davis” as much as I did was not because the main character was insufferable and the pacing was atrocious. I could forgive those elements, if it weren’t for the film constantly insulting its characters and being pessimistic about every little detail. To me, that is not fun to watch. If there is no hope or gleam of light, a sign that things are not as bad as they seem, then why should I care about the outcome? 

There is certainly a place for those kinds of stories, but they will always leave a rotten taste. Which is why I think the Coen Brothers are so hit-or-miss. When they focus on merely the nasty elements of life, then you get a dark comedy. When they bring in thoughts of strength into a feeble world, then they get a masterpiece. 

A New Direction and New Interest

After much consideration, it is with a heavy heart that I must discontinue my blog posts. It has been a good run, but all good things must come to an end. 

The film landscape just isn’t doing anything for me anymore and I feel like my time can be spent on bigger and better things. Which is why I’m happy to announce my new interest and passion in life. 

I’ve always believed that one must find the passion and love in their life. Something that you could cherish for all of your life, never get tired of and always have an interest in, and then make that the focus of your life. I once believed this passion was for movies, but now I understand myself a bit better. 

Which is why, effective tomorrow, my blog will be renamed “Light Up My Life” and focus on the many lanterns and light sources within society. I’ve always been fascinated by the ever constant glow of a lantern and how it can cast a whole new shade of light on a situation. That with just a sheet of colored paper, the mood and atmosphere of a room can change. 

China has been perfecting their designs for years, and I feel like that are getting very close to nailing it. With any luck, we’ll hear something out of there in the coming years and we can have a perfect light source which would remain constant and luminous for decades. 

My absolute favorite find of lantern is one with a set pattern cut out of it, like stars or even animals. To see the light construct these bodies makes it feel like you can create whatever you want. It gives me a feeling of order in the universe and one that I always get a rush out of.

Heck, lanterns are so important in society that they even got their own superhero, the Green Lantern. When combined the human will power, a lantern becomes the most powerful weapon in the galaxy. You know there is strength in a light source when it could take down someone like Batman.

I feel there is much to discuss on lanterns, which is why I decided to do this switch. If you liked my movie thoughts and reviews, I apologize, but I feel there isn’t much that can be done about that. 

All I can say is follow your heart and interests, please don’t hate others for their differences and...

Oh wait...this article is coming out after midnight my time, which would make it April 2. It’s not April Fools' Day anymore. Then, that means....

Movie Review: "The Grand Budapest Hotel" (2014)

Wes Anderson often leaves a weird taste in my mouth, but I find this a good thing. You can immediately tell when you’re watching a Wes Anderson film just by the framing of the shot or the incredibly dry humor. He has a style of his own that may not always leave the best impression on an audience, but he is fully dedicated to it.

Most of his films feel like we are watching a play from inside of a doll house. The camera is always set up so that the actors are right in the middle of the shot, yet we still see the entirety of the room they are in, with much blank space. The actors also do no move unless they absolutely have to and often have blank or vague expressions on their face, much like a doll. 

Yet this style of filmmaking works when given the right set of actors and atmosphere. Anderson has found just the right actors to make this work, which includes Bill Murray, Edward Norton and the Wilson brothers, Owen and Luke. Anderson takes full advantage of their delivery and comedic presence, which makes even the most vague expressions a laugh riot. 

Anderson’s newest film, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is exactly what we’ve expected from him in the past and delivers exactly what it promised: An ensemble cast, with that deadpan delivery that leaves you either laughing or intrigued. 

Our tale is told from a flashback within a flashback, as a famous author (Jude Law) recollects a tale that the owner (F. Murray Abraham) of the once famous Grand Budapest Hotel told him and how this establishment came into his possession. This takes us to the 1930s, when Monsieur Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes) was in charge of the hotel and took on a young lobby boy, Zero (Tony Revolori), as his apprentice. When one of Gustave’s many love interests passes away under mysterious circumstances and leaves a priceless painting to him in her will, suddenly her son Dmitri (Adrien Brody) wants Gustave dead and will do anything to stop him.

If there’s one thing that blew me away about “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” it was its ability to move so fast with deadpan humor. Most of the humor in this film comes from the expressions and reactions rather than the dialogue or actions themselves. Watching Jason Schwartzman simply raise an eyebrow and let out a quiet “Shit” as a costumer chokes on food can go a long way in this film.

I’ve always associated deadpan humor with how slow yet empty it can be. That they’ll eventually get to the joke, just don’t expect much. Yet “The Grand Budapest Hotel” keeps the style but moves at lightning fast speeds. Once a joke is made, the film quickly moves on to the next gag or plot point. 

For example, Jeff Goldblum plays an attorney for the deceased old woman but is eventually hunted down by the family’s bodyguard, played by Willem Dafoe. They have an extended chase sequence through a museum and almost every shot is used to convey the intensity or the comical reactions of Goldblum being chased down. 

The discussions between Gustave and Zero move at a brisk pace, which makes both of them seem intelligent and quick-thinking. This helps to set up the pacing once they are chased by Dafoe, Brody and the police, led by Edward Norton. These two are, as described by the writer, the last bastion of hope and sanity in a world that has become dark and cruel. 

Everyone else in the movie is either caught up in greed and pride or devoted so much to their job that they can’t see it harming others. Yet Gustave and Zero are sophisticated, charming and caring. They always manage to find the bright side in a dark situation, even being trapped in prison. 

The chemistry between Fiennes and Revolori is the highlight of “The Grand Budapest Hotel” as the experienced yet vague master of the hotel trains the willing and able assistant. He does not do it because he has to, but because he sees kindness in Zero. Perhaps, even a bit of himself. 

Final Grade: B-

Why do we watch Superhero movies?

If you look at the highest grossing films of the year since 2008, you’ll notice a reoccurring trend. Movies like “The Dark Knight,” “The Avengers” and “Man Of Steel” keep showing up. I also would not be surprised if one of the four Marvel movies being released in 2014 tops the charts as well. Because of this, it is safe to say that superhero movies are some of the most popular films to see right now. 

This is a more recent trend, as before Marvel’s filmic universe began with “Iron Man” in 2008 and before Christopher Nolan directed “Batman Begins,” most superhero movies were not taken seriously and received either lukewarm success at the box office or terrible reviews with the critics. You look at films like the “Fantastic Four” saga, “Daredevil,” “Electkra,” “Catwoman” or any Batman film not helmed by Tim Burton, and you will see that superhero films had become a laughing stock of their former selves. 

The superhero film genre gained its status with the creation of Richard Donner’s “Superman” and Tim Burton’s “Batman” in the late 1980s. Both films featured stellar casting, wonderful effects and visuals and were able to please the general audience as well as diehard comic fans. It taught film studios that there was a viable market for superheroes, and were even more pleased when looking at the box office returns. 

What probably caused the fallout of superheroes in the late 1990s and early 200s is not that audiences got bored or uninterested in these characters, but that film studios were poorly treating the characters they were creating. A good example of this would be the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, “Batman Forever” and “Batman & Robin.” Instead of telling the story of the caped crusader that would fight to make sure no seven-year old boy has to go through what he experienced, we get the tales of the campy and over the top Adam West Batman. 

So this begs the question of what separates current superhero movies from these terrible ones? Why do we watch movies like “The Dark Knight” but are drawn away from others like “Steel”? Why are we so drawn to the idea of superheroes?

To look at this, we have go back to ancient Greek gods. The tales of Hercules, Zeus and Poseidon. These characters hoisted feats of incredible strength and power, but still honored virtues of humanity. A willingness to help out others and fight for the good of man kind. Some were tragic tales, like Icarus, who was prideful and it cost him is life. While others are dark or disturbing, like Hades, the ruler of the underworld and must oversee the dead. 

In a way, super heroes are the modern day equivalent of these classic Greek characters. Many have tragic backstories, like Batman or Spider-Man, who had to overcome the death of their loved ones but use the values they instilled to inspire greatness in others and themselves. Others, like Superman and Wonder Woman, are tales of those who wish to share their strengths with the world and protect it from those who wish to do harm. You even have villains like Lex Luthor or the Joker, meant to antagonize and create chaos in the world, because they believe they are better than others.  

It is interesting to see the differences in characters between the two main comic book companies, Marvel and DC, and their philosophies. Marvel will usually focus on characters that an audience can relate to, like many of the X-Men, Iron Man or Captain America. They will give these characters flaws that are all too common in society, which makes us root for them. 

DC, on the other hand, focuses on characters that an audience could look up to, like Superman, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Batman. Instead of giving their characters flaws, they make uphold strengths in society that anyone in the world could adhere to. This makes their characters more of role models than anything else. 

There are of course instances were both Marvel and DC will reverse this stance, but this is usually the norm. It is this kind of attitude that has kept both of their companies alive for so many years. Not owning iconic characters, but how they write their characters to make the audience either want to understand these heroes or aspire to be like them.

Perhaps this is why superheroes have thrived as of late. Filmmakers have begun to understand why heroes were appealing first and making that the focal point of their movies. Tony Stark might be a sarcastic, ego-inflated douche at times, but he never lets that get in the way of what we feels is right for the world and is willing to fight to protect it. 

If superhero movies continue to get made in the same manner as “The Dark Knight” or “The Avengers” then not only will they continue to have success at the box office, but they will please audiences long after their time in the theater. 

"South Park" - "Screw you guys, I'ma going home!"

“South Park” is one of those intriguing phenomenon of television. It is one of the few television shows I can think that had a dramatic shift in storytelling, attitude towards others and characters, yet still managed to draw people in by the droves. Thousands of anticipated people would watch the stop-motion-esque animated show to find out who they would talk about next.

Yet, I find myself unable to get invested in the show anymore.

Let’s start at the beginning. While I did not watch “South Park” from the very beginning, I did catch it on Comedy Central from time to time. I saw these four little boys go on adventures in a town full of unique yet captivating characters. Each character had some redeemable characteristics, with Stan being the voice of reason, Kyle being the blunt yet straight to the point one, Kenny the quiet one who always died in horrific ways and Cartman was the troublemaker. 

These personalities were not too exaggerated in the early seasons, which made it much easier to connect with their journeys. It was the towns people who were weird and over the top. To look at the first few seasons of “South Park” from the perspective of our four main characters, is to see the world from the point of view of child. Stan and Kyle believe they are the sane ones in a world of crazy and sometimes stupid people. That they are the ones who are always right. As flawed as that may be, it is something that most children can relate to. 

It is for these reasons that I felt the first eight seasons or so of “South Park” were well handled, funny and treated its audience with maturity and dignity. 

Yet around the start of the ninth season, something changed. The tales of “South Park” became more about what was currently in the news. Not so much about what was going on in South Park, but more about the world and its state of affairs. 

Instead of episodes about the local police officer learning to read so that he could figure out what a ransom note says, we would get an episode about how the paparazzi has made Britney Spears go crazy and want to kill herself. Instead of Cartman buying an amusement park only for himself, we get Cartman pretending that he has Tourette Syndrome so that he can say whatever he wants and get away with it.

My problem with this change in perspective is not that they are talking about what is currently in the news, but how they are treating it. For example, in the Britney Spears episode, they show her attempting suicide many times and treat the paparazzi like a secret cult. 

This stops being funny because it is only the negative, only the rotten parts of our society. What they are doing is a biased perspective on the world that only intends to point out how much our world sucks. There is hardly ever a positive light on something, or even given a fair balance of positive and negative. 

This brings me to my next point on their main source of comedy: Insult comedy. Whether we like it or not, around season nine, “South Park” switched to from suburban comedy, like “The Simpsons,” to insult comedy. 

There is an incredibly thin line in insult comedy, between “funny” and “distasteful.” If you go overboard with the insults, odds are it will stop being funny and feel more like a direct attack on whoever the insults are directed at. 

The key to insult comedy is respect. Admiration for all human beings and the willingness to forgive when others admit mistakes, yet still willing to criticize. To be willing to point out the positives as much as the negatives, if only to give a fair and balanced portrayal. 

One of my favorite comedic television shows of all time is “Mystery Science Theater 3000.” In that show, the main characters are forced to watch the worst movies ever made and, to survive, they rip the movie apart, cracking jokes at the absurd situations, bad acting and poor filmmaking choices. 

The reason this show works so well for me is because the creators’ respect flies off the screen. Even if they make fun of a bad movie, they still respect the movie and understand how hard it is to make a film. That a movie getting finished is a bit of a miracle, and they don’t want to fully ruin that miracle. Their jabs are always directed at the movie, never the people who made the movie. They have the utmost respect, even if they don’t like the movie. 

The same cannot be said for “South Park.”

Most of the comedy comes across as hateful or unnecessary, like an episode where all of South Park loses internet connection and suddenly the families turn into a parody of the Joads from “The Grapes Of Wrath.” As if the episode is saying this is what we turn into with our precious internet. A group of dimwitted, single-minded buffoons who can’t function without computers or access to social media. 

As simple as the early seasons of “South Park” were, at the very least they weren’t trying to call people out. They were not attempting to insult others. Just merely tell the tales of four boys as they grow up in an absurd place. 

It almost comes across like the creators of the show, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, look to see that someone is on a higher pedestal than themselves and wish to either knock those people off their pedestal or put themselves on a higher pedestal. To me, that is disrespectful and tasteless. 

If you want to do insult comedy and talk about celebrities, the government or trends in society, that’s fine. But you should also be willing to give a fair and honest portrayal of whoever you are insulting. Don’t just talk about how much they suck, but also what they’ve given to the world or how they’ve affected it. 

At the very least, be willing to show that you don’t think you are above these people. Crack a joke at yourself, or be willing to admit to your own flaws. To my recollection, this is something “South Park” does not do, so they are guilty of that as well. 

Above all else, show that you respect and care about those around you. Treat them like you want to be treated and not simply as joke material. If you don’t do that, then it makes you look an asshole. If that’s the case, why should I care about what you have to say?

Reality Television - Is it any good?

Television, much like film, is about playing to your audience. Outside of news broadcasts and talk shows, television shows are an illusion. If the show does something out of place, odd, inconsistent with the everything else or just plain stupid, then the audience is going to notice this, thus breaking the illusion. 

It is much like a magic trick. A good magician will make you believe that he just sawed a woman in half, while a bad magician will never draw you in from the beginning. The audience is intelligent enough to know it isn’t real, but a good enough magician can make the audience forget that. 

Television and film works in a similar manner. Too many inconsistencies or flaws, and the audience will lose interest. 

This is possibly why reality television saw a gigantic rise in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but also, for that very same reason, why it has declined in recent years. 

When reality television began, it was simple, straight forward to spoke directly to its core audience: Young adults and teens. Shows like “The Real World,” “Big Brother” and “Survivor” were the first to begin this trend. 

The people, especially in “The Real World” broke away from the standard norm of other shows and tried to tell the story of every day people. There were no tricks or flashy effects, just normal people who have a camera following them around. You got to see the insides and outs of their lives and people adored it. 

“Survivor” thrived due to its attempt to say “these people are literally stranded on an island and must outthink, outwit and outlast everyone else to survive.” For the first few seasons, this idea was the focus of the show, people living in inhospitable environments to see who is the toughest. Simple yet captivating. 

It was because of shows like these that caused a gigantic boom of reality television shows. They were the most basic magic trick that television could pull and it was working wonderfully. 

Perhaps because the trick was too basic is why we no longer see this genre work as well as it did. There are certainly reality shows still around, but they’ve either been pushed to the far corners of television, like any show on MTV or VH1, or have become the butt of many jokes, like Juan Pablo of the most recent season of “The Bachelor.”

Ugh. 

Shows like “Survivor” worked because they kept its core idea to a minimum and focused on that. When you try to expound upon that and make it something far more than that, the illusion of it being “reality” is broken.

These are no longer the stories of real people. They have been removed from reality and have become scripted. Real life has no script, no planning or even much of a point. Now if you watch any show attempting to be like “The Bachelor” or “The Bachelorette” you’ll see artificial challenges added in or people changing their attitudes and personalities for the sake of the show.

Even shows that once were the basis of all reality shows has lost their edge, specifically “Survivor.” I said that the first few seasons maintained the point that these contestants had to survive on their own with no help from any one else. That is true, if you look at some of the screenshots of contestants from earlier seasons, you’ll see they’ve been reduced to practically a skeleton by the end of the season. 

Now, that’s not the case. They look just as healthy and fit by the end as they do from the beginning. That is because the crew now keeps the contestants well fed, bathed and taken care of when they aren’t filming. They are not surviving on their own, but are being treated like actors. It removes the whole point of being a “reality” show. 

In a way, reality television has simply become another way for people to get their fifteen-minutes of fame. To glorify themselves on camera for the world to see. 

So does this mean there are any good reality shows still on television? To me, there are still a few. 

The first which comes to mind is “The Amazing Race.” When it started, it felt like an imitation of “Survivor.” As the latter deteriorated, the former stuck to its roots and kept the show focused on the competition and the personalities of the contestants. The show has necessarily changed since it started, but it didn’t need to. 

Another would be “Pawn Stars.” This one is more in line with “The Real World,” as it is about the lives of these gentlemen who own a pawn store. That’s it, there is no gimmick or anything added in by a producer. These are their lives and we watch, learn and laugh with them. 

To me, that is what reality television should be. It is unmanipulated, uninterrupted and unaltered life. It is an attempt to get as close as possible to the insane randomness of life. We don’t seek it for intriguing plots or wonderfully written characters, but because this is who we are and why we do what we do.