10 "Perfect" Movies (and why)

No preamble needed. See the list below:

1.  Raiders of the Lost Ark- Easily Spielberg's finest hour, this is the perfect marriage of he and Lucas. The plot is compelling, the main protagonist is an instant legend, and the shooting style feels very old school with its use of shadows and slow tracking shots. The action is also unmatched and catapulted adventure films onto a whole new level.
2. Casablanca- Movies that are written by more than two people have no right to be watchable let alone arguably the greatest movie ever made. But the changes to the script for "Casablanca" did nothing but make it better with each iteration. Inspired casting, direction, music and acting make this is a film without a single wasted moment.
3. Top Gun: Maverick- I'm not sure who decided sequels are automatically inferior to the originals but they were wrong and this film is why. There's never been a more pitch perfect sequel to a movie nobody expected to ever get one. There's reverence for the original without the plot descending into a by-the-numbers retread and the emotional stakes are off the scale. Another film without a wasted moment.
4. The Empire Strikes Back- Here's another one for sequel haters. No film before this one had ever taken a relatively skeletal first installment and developed it so beautifully in all areas. The characters are better fleshed out, the fight feels more urgent, the acting is stellar and the many reveals feel organic to the world Lucas created. 
5. Blazing Saddles- Few comedies age as beautifully as this one has. The jokes still work, the message is still as poignant as ever, and there's a real story being told with characters who seem like actual people despite the absurd goings-on around them. Also, Mel Brooks was born to direct westerns.
6. Captain America: The Winter Soldier- Paying attention, sequel haters? A brilliant sequel that shows how easily superhero stories can be adapted into other genres such as political suspense thrillers. 
7. Beverly Hills Cop- Proof that a script can sometimes serve as a framework for the ideas of a brilliant young comic at the height of his creativity, this is another movie that shouldn't have worked. If you don't believe me, take a look at "Cobra" starring Sylvester Stallone which was based on the same screenplay. That movie was ass. "Cop" was a perfect blend of comedy, gritty realism and social commentary.
8. Django Unchained- Although it's my second favorite Tarantino film, it's the one with the best execution. The acting, the setting, the action are all top notch and this is maybe the only filmmaker who could make you root for the hero to kill unarmed people.
9. Dark City- A true forgotten gem, Alex Proyas' film tells the story of a man who awakens with no memory of who or where he is. The mystery deepens until the Big Reveal which is about a shocking as it gets.
10. American Beauty- This one get maligned a lot nowadays because it's become fashionable to say it was overrated. It's not. It's a perfect snapshot of late Nineties ennui and the acting and direction are as good as it gets.

Next up: Imperfect Movies that are Still Great

The Literal-Mindedness of Evangelicalism

 

"Why pay for movies when you can pay me?"

You would think someone who operates exclusively on faith would be able to grasp abstract concepts in lieu of being suffocatingly literal-minded. And while that is, perhaps, true of some true believers out there, it's not true of your typical Evangelical Christian. They don't view anything they believe as metaphorical or representative of some greater, impossible to define truth. They take it all at face value and, even worse, they project that mentality onto the rest of us.

Especially those of us who dare write fiction.

Recently, I saw a video clip of an Evangelical preacher admonishing people for watching horror movies. His bone of contention was that the films somehow convince us that the entities they feature are more powerful than they actually are when all one really needs is Christian faith to essentially stomp these beings into the ground for Jesus. This preacher went on to decry all horror films as an attempt to deceive people from the truth of the Gospel. That's all well and good. He can believe whatever he wants, but what he can't do is speak as an authority on something he clearly knows nothing about.

This certainly wasn't the first time a preacher arrogantly proclaimed his knowledge about the so-called "secular world" and it sadly isn't anywhere near to being the last. It's yet another in a long line of misconceptions uttered by someone who entire existence is informed by magical thinking. It's a fascinating contradiction to be both literal-minded and entirely lacking in logic, but when one's false sense of righteousness is backed up by the bubble they operate within, it is unavoidable. 

"We're lookin' for the guy that called us weak and defeated."

First off, horror is so much more than movies featuring demonic entities of the Judeo-Christian variety. There are several sub-genres, some of which don't include the supernatural at all. Secondly, the preacher's assertion that demons are defeated beings living under our feet is a provincial one at best. Not everyone believes that and not every culture's demons are former uppity angels who got their comeuppance. In some belief systems, angels are indeed equal to their counterparts. Thirdly, the preacher's woeful ignorance of the genre and its history is on full display because he has no idea what traditions are being drawn from. You think he knows about Lovecraft's Ancient Ones or Clive Barker's pleasure/torture vision of Hell? 

Most importantly, he misunderstands (whether intentionally or unintentionally) the entire point of horror, which is to provide much-needed catharsis for the audience watching it. Fear is only a bad thing if it's given more power than it deserves. By proclaiming all fictional horror part of some greater conspiracy to perpetrate a lie about Christian-centric demons, he stands revealed as little more than a peddler of ignorance desperately trying to understand a word that makes little sense to him otherwise. The sad part is there are millions of Americans are not only willing but also happy to follow along.

I can't think of anything more horrifying that that.

10 Beloved Movies I Hated & 10 Hated Movies I Loved(and Why)

 I often find myself at the crossroads of the cultural zeitgeist. It's not a place I planned to wind up, nor one I thought I existed in until the Internet and its fanboy chatter made its presence known. Until then, I assumed that most genre fans generally agreed with me and, more to the point, I agreed with them.

For instance, I thought everybody enjoyed "Attack of the Clones" as much as I did and considered it an improvement over "The Phantom Menace," which I also enjoyed. It wasn't that there weren't popular things I disliked, but most of the ones I was aware of were genre films that crossed over into mainstream popularity. It's much easier to dismiss something as idiocy when the masses embrace it, despite the opposing view regarding large amounts of people liking things. 

So, the double lesson I have learned is as follows: I am not at home with my so-called fellow geeks because I don't agree with them on things they love or things they hate. Below are two lists based on my experiences with these groups:

Movies I Hate (and why)

The Matrix- I've only seen the first one, but I found the film pretentious, derivative, poorly acted, and over the top. When the only riveting scene involves a character wanting to go back to sleep, it probably means that's what I wanted to do also.

Deadpool- To be fair, I hate the character with a purple, unbridled passion. I consider him one of those Nineties creations that damn near ruined the comic book industry. And I hate the character so much that it has made me hate the actor portraying him. He isn't funny and he isn't cool or interesting. The character either.

Jurassic Park- My mother was obsessed with Michael Crichton's novel, so of course I had to take her to see it when her health started declining. The book she had talked up resulted in what for me was the first dull special effects blockbuster ever. Flat characters, by-the-numbers "suspense," and SFX that failed to impress. I never once cared what was happening.

The Dark Knight- A friend of mine was so convinced I would consider this the greatest comic book movie of all time, his normally cheap ass paid for my ticket. He was disappointed and angry when I told him how awful I thought the whole thing was. Bale's Batman was unconvincing, Ledger's Joker was too silly to be effective, the Two-Face subplot was lacking, and the supposed "real world" approach made the entire affair feel forced and interminable.

Joker- Much has been made of Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of mental illness in this film, and on that level alone, it is something to see. Sadly, the movie itself does not justify his performance no matter how much money it made. Todd Phillips, director  of the increasingly unfunny "Hangover" films, decided to go all serious with this one. Unfortunately, he doesn't have an original idea in his head. "Joker" is four movies in one: Those movies are "Taxi Driver," "King of Comedy," "Falling Down" and "Fight Club," three of which were vastly superior.

The Hunger Games- Again, I only suffered through the first one, but that was one too many as far as I was concerned. I'm not fan of YA Lit as it is, so this one would have been a hard sell for me. Sadly, the one thing I demand from any type of drama was entirely absent from this film. I never cared about what was happening on screen. Also, the concept was well-intentioned but stretched the bounds of credibility even within its own internal logic.

It: Chapter One- Its sequel did not receive the acclaim its predecessor did, presumably because it was awful to the point of unintentional hilarity. Chapter One was awful as well, but in a not-at-all amusing way. Director Andres Muschietti turned an epic novel about childhood trauma and overcoming our fears as adults into a jump scare cliché fest replete with bad child actor performances and none of King's trademark dialogue. It's rare that I've actually been angry at the end of a movie. 

Get Out- This is the film that competed in my mind with "It" for worst movie of 2017.  It's a message movie, and that message is an important one. Sadly, the execution is absolute junk. Jordan Peele's comedy chops are well-established and I have tons of respect for him as an artist. This was not a film that worked for me. The acting was uneven, the pacing was agonizingly slow, the Big Reveal was laughable and not once did I care about anyone in the film. Worst thing that can said about a horror movie: It was boring.

Skyfall- When Pierce Brosnan was let go as James Bon 007, I was not exactly enthusiastic about the less suave and good-looking Daniel Craig taking over the role. I was also growing weary of "back to the beginning" reboots. Happily, "Casino Royale" put my fears to rest and gave us one of the best Bond films ever. But this isn't about that movie. This is about the uneven, poorly scripted disappointment that was "Skyfall," a movie that felt as if four separate teams of screenwriters all wrote portions of it without ever actually meeting. Why Roger Moore thought this was the best Bond ever made instead of "Casino Royale" is beyond me.

Godzilla 2014- I won't go into how much the character of Godzilla has meant to me since I sat in a theater at the age of five or six and watched a double feature. And while I've always questioned the Western ability to really understand kaiju eiga without defaulting to disaster movie mode, which is exactly what happened with the 1998 film, I held out hope for a superior American version. When I saw previews for the 2014 reboot, it felt as if it was over-compensating for the 1998 film's tone by taking itself too seriously and becoming a somber, listless affair. I turned out to be right. It's one of the few movies I nearly walked out on. Happily, the Monsterverse sequels have redeemed this film and made it slightly more watchable.

Movies I Love(and Why)

Thor: The Dark World- That's right, I included this one. I loved this film and its detractors don't make sense to me. There's nothing about this MCU installment that renders it inferior to the others. Is it the best film in the franchise? Of course not. But it continues Thor's and Jane's stories very well, it shows a different side of Loki, and the visuals are nothing less than stunning.

Ishtar- Much maligned at the time of its release, most of the harsh criticism seemed to focus on the then ungodly budget of $50 million. But shooting on location with two huge stars is costly. The result, however, is pure entertainment. Playing against type, Hoffman and Beatty have an incredible chemistry and the terrible songs they created for the movie are brilliant in their catchy awfulness. 

Ghost Rider- The sequel was a mess, but the first Ghost Rider is a lot of fun. Nic Cage is at his scenery chewing best, the effects mostly impress, and the bad guy works. Also, Peter Fonda plays the Devil and Sam Elliot is the Old West Ghost Rider! What more do you people want, a plot???

Star Trek Into Darkness- I'm not a Trekkie, or "Trekker" as some prefer to be called. My mother was one of the originals, however, and I have a healthy respect for the franchise. JJ Abrams' films injected a much needed electric eel enema into a stagnating franchise. Sure, this one suffers from sequel bloat and too much action, but the sets, performances and stakes are outstanding.

Jupiter Ascending- I've never been a big fan of the Wachoskis. I enjoyed some of their films and hated others. This one intrigued me because it was a throwback to the days of pulp space opera but with unique twists that felt original. It was a breath of fresh air that is only made more special by the lack of a sequel.

Cloud Atlas- Despite what I wrote about the Wachoskis in the previous section, they nailed this adaptation of what I consider one of the greatest novels of modern times. If I may channel my inner hipster for a moment, most people who disliked this movie didn't understand it. And that's okay. It's not an easily digested piece of fluff entertainment, nor is it a dime store philosophy diatribe like their more successful "The Matrix." 

Hudson Hawk- When Bruce Willis was at his hottest and it was still inconceivable that he would become a for-the-paycheck punchline, this vanity project was released to near universal disdain. Willis is clearly more in love with himself than the film at this stage in his career, and that just makes it more enjoyable. He mugs, he is still capable of being funny, and the "plot" is so far off the rails one can't help but watch to see what happens next. 

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane- I know, I know. I don't distance myself from my Andrew Dice Clay fandom back in the day. But even if I hadn't been one, the movie about "Mr. Rock 'n Roll Detective" is a fun romp through the music industry and one of the most quotable comedies of all time. Dice could actually act, as he'd already proved on the NBC series, "Crime Story," making this film that rare combination of a comedian's on-stage persona and genuine moments of gravitas.

The Village- This movie had the unique distinction of being released when it became a recreational activity to attack M. Knight Shyamalan. To be fair, he wasn't helping matters by hinging every film on a Big Reveal. He got away with it several times, so it was inevitable that he would eventually be called out on his gimmick. This was not the movie to do it, though. That movie was "The Happening." This one actually works because it immerses the audience into a world it thinks it understands only to pull the proverbial rug out from under us. 

Daredevil- While the Netflix series is vastly superior in every measurable way, that doesn't mean the movie is terrible. In fact, it's pretty damn good, especially the director's cut that restores an entire excised subplot. Ben Affleck is a comics fan and he gets this character. Read his foreword to Kevin Smith's Daredevil graphic novel if you doubt me. My only real issue was the casting of Elektra, which should have gone to someone different.

Movies I couldn't include in the "Hate" category because I've discovered many people who don't like them, too:

Avatar
The Amazing Spider-Man
Van Helsing
Titanic
Forrest Gump
The Suicide Squad

On Being Told What to Write

 

So, here we are again entering the horrifying world of Prior Review and Content Control. I swear this topic comes up every so often as a matter of course these days, and nowhere is it more prevalent outside of politics than in the world of genre fandom. This particular incident was pretty extreme, reminding me of a certain Batman movie's devoted, fanatical base about twelve years ago whose ire and outrage resulted in several attacks when I posted a link to my review on the now defunct Yahoo! Message Boards.

This time was different, however. Not only did it take place on Facebook, but it also resulted in a volley of personal and professional attacks. The fanboy Battalion has mutated since those days of simply telling a person they were wrong and sending threatening emails to professional film critics for not liking a movie they adored. 

I wouldn't have even known about this if not for the fact that a Facebook friend had posted her views on James Gunn's "The Suicide Squad" by referring to it as basically a stupid failure. I concurred, posting my blog post/review to show her just how much. You can read that here. I saw a dissenting comment from a guy whose name shall remain undisclosed (I'll refer to him as "Soy" based on a comment another friend made) which I read and immediately forgot all about. However, at some point between me not being online for a while and finally going back on, my Facebook friend had unfriended and blocked this individual for comments she found obnoxious.

Like any juicy scandal-loving 'Murican, I decided to look him up. To my delight, I found that he had reposted the above review and written a disdainful commentary about it. This was so his like-minded, sycophantic followers could start making insulting comments about the review itself, the writing of it, and the various word choices they deemed pretentious. The post was public, so it was easy for me to jump in, first by thanking Soy for the repost and then responding to some of the comments about the review. I found it interesting how Soy kept trying to make it seem as if me seeing negative comments about something I wrote was some sort of turnabout is fair play situation instead of an expected part of being a writer...Almost as if he was some uber-nerd twit who didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

This suspicion was compounded by the fact that he seemed hellbent on telling me what I should have written, and how I should have written it. The review, in his opinion, lacked "nuance," a word he seemed to have just learned sometime this week and couldn't  wait to use over and over until he sounded like a special needs parrot. I began to wonder: What exactly had him so upset and offended? My dislike of the material, the way I presented it, or the fact that I didn't gently take him by the hand and explain every sentence and word choice so he didn't soil his diaper? I suspect it was all three.

In the midst of Soy's kiss-ass geek patrol calling my writing terrible and saying how much it sucked, he kept telling me how I should have written my review. Oh, and he used the word "nuance."

A lot.

I've dealt with guys like this before. They represent both cheeks on the political butt. Extreme righties tend to indulge the behavior more often, but extreme lefties do it, too. The tactic is to lure the person onto their page, insult them and then let their friends attack them from all angles while appearing to be the reasonable one "just trying to make a point." It is a tactic employed by both bully and bullied alike. It hasn't ever worked on me when dealing with people who were much better at it, and it sure as shit didn't work on me this time.

The intellectual lightweights on Soy's page were barely a distraction, but they definitely brought the entertainment value. Yet despite the constant back-and-forth with such gems as "I want to kill your high school English teacher 'cause you suck" and other award-winning zingers of the highest level, Soy was still telling me what and how to write.

Deciding I'd had enough fun with the dingleberries, I focused instead on the post's originator and his repeated insistence that my post lacked...sigh...NUANCE. 

At this point, I'd already had a relatively decent back-and-forth with the one person not necessarily following Soy's orders who had expressed an interest in knowing what my opinion of the movie might be now that the initial hostility had faded. And to be fair, I did give Soy one point: The review was not a *GROAN* nuanced take on the film. It wasn't intended to be; it was written as an extension of my Facebook live posting. Soy even admitted my views on the handling of Viola Davis' character were pretty accurate.

The conversation could have, and probably should have, ended there. We had found a point on which we agreed and did not agree on the rest because Soy had issues with the way it was presented. Fair enough. I've stopped reading many a novel for similar reasons. The difference is, I didn't contact the author and tell them how they should have written the novel. I moved on. It's what grownups do. Soy, on the other hand, chose this as a hill to die on, a cause he could not relinquish. He was, in essence, the fanboy cliché nobody can stand; a know-it-all expert on all things with no foundation in any of them who thinks he has the right to police content. 

I owe no one who isn't paying me for my work anything. The mere fact that he was ignorant of the difference between a journal-like blog post and a professional film review shows that he proceeded from a false assumption. I certainly don't feel obligated to some random shit-starter on social networking to accommodate him with my writing, nor am I fazed by a bunch of followers of this person to feel that I need to alter my writing style. Awards, positive reviews and over thirty published stories speak for themselves. Besides, anyone who gets that angry over someone's opinions about a silly movie has more emotional issues than I am qualified to deal with.

I will thank Soy and his too-cool friends for the blog post material. It's difficult to not write about someone who accuses me of getting upset about a post when the post I am responding to is literally the result of the person getting upset about a post, throwing a tantrum, and trying to gain validation. Pointing out a person's lack of self-awareness doesn't usually go well, and I wound up blocked for my efforts. 

However, in the interest of helping people get past their soft, squishy ego problems, may I submit for their use...

Oh, I almost forgot:

NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE

HIgh Praise from a Former Editor

The quarantine has been a time of rediscovery both in the physical world and the online one. I have found several older short stories and nearly completed novels while cleaning up a long neglected room in my house, but I have also found interesting things in my email history while searching for newer unpublished stories to submit to publishers. One such forgotten treasure comes from the sad conclusion of my film journalism days in the form of a recommendation letter below:

To Whom It May Concern,

I had the pleasure of editing Christopher’s work from August 2014 thru January 2015.

Christopher is a very talented and dependable writer. His work was of the highest quality and always represented  his passion for film journalism. Christopher exuded professionalism. He was committed to surpassing my very high standards and rigid deadlines.

Unfortunately, for economic reasons not related to Christopher’s performance, we were forced to eliminate his position as well as most of his co-workers. I would gladly rehire him if the opportunity were to present itself.

I hold Christoper in the highest regard and would gladly leverage my reputation for his benefit. I encourage you to offer Christopher a position in your company. He will surely surpass your expectations.

Please feel free to contact me personally with any further questions.

Sincerely,

Joel Renzenbrink

Managing Editor

The Movie Network

Review: Rian Johnson's "Knives Out"

If Rian Johnson's intention was to make a movie for the middle aged to elderly white female demographic, then boy howdy did he succeed. Sadly, I'm not in that prized demographic, so my response to the film was not the same as theirs. What I expected and what I got were definitely not the same thing.

Perhaps I can place the blame for my misperception on whoever put the trailer together. Or perhaps it was my own prejudice regarding mysteries, particularly of the Big Ol' House Full of Obnoxious Eccentrics variety. Clearly I'm not a fan of the genre so this is going to be a grain of salt review if ever there was one.

To be honest, I was expecting a satire. The tone of the trailer certainly gave me that impression, although I've asked around and not everyone felt that way. That leads me to conclude that my own dislike of the mystery genre makes it difficult for me to see these movies as anything except humorous. However, instead of a twenty-first century version of  "Clue" or the absolutely brilliant "Murder by Death," Johnson's film seems to take itself somewhat seriously. Fair enough. There are millions of people who actually live for movies set in spooky old houses where murder most foul has occurred and everybody is a suspect.

But even taking that into account, the mystery behind "Knives Out" is serviceable at best. As he showed us with the much maligned (unfairly, in my opinion) "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," Johnson lives to subvert expectations. He doesn't always succeed any more than M. Knight Shyamalan always pulls off a shocking surprise ending, but nobody can say he doesn't give it his all. Unfortunately, his all in this case results in a bit of a mess that doesn't really accomplish much.

*SPOILER ALERT*




For one thing, the murder that isn't really a murder but a cover-up that isn't really covered up reeks of screenwriter invention. There's nothing organic about it, thus is feels artificial, like a workshopped idea rather than anything even remotely approximating ingeniousness. Also, the characters are so broadly drawn that they should have been played for laughs, but the laughs come few and far between and don't last long. The movie never settles on a tone, but not in the Tarantino way where that works as an effective element to keep the audience off-balance.

The actors are very good. Much like the criminally overrated "Joker," they are the ones carrying a lackluster screenplay. But what "Knives Out" lacks is a charismatic lead. Daniel Craig gives it his best but his drawling private detective wears out his welcome after about an hour.  Ana de Armas is also very good but her impossibly virtuous nurse feels more like an over-compensation than an actual person. Even Chris Evans' supposedly attention-grabbing performance only garners attention because nobody else except Christopher Plummer is very interesting .

"Knives Out" is also way too long. With its superficial conceit and hamfisted atmospheric tone, it should have been over by 100 minutes, not 230. Hell, by the ninety minute mark my attention began wandering and, frankly, that's when the film went from mildly diverting to flirting with abject stupidity. That third act reveal should have never made it past the brainstorming stage. Mysteries in general tend to be hopelessly contrived but whenever they include someone sneaking in after the "murder" and coming up with some grand plan, it becomes beyond ridiculous. None of this would have been a problem is Johnson had made a comedy instead of whatever the hell this movie was.

I guess my disappointment is evident. I was so looking forward to this movie and truly regretted not seeing it in theaters. Thank God I never did, because this review would be far harsher if I'd paid to see it.

I guess what I'm trying nicely to say is this movie is so far up its own ass it could probably vomit itself back onto the screen for further self-indulgence.

Idiotic Comments I've had to Correct on Yahoo News Article Comment Sections.

I have no idea why, but I still deign to look at and comment on Yahoo! news articles. It's a fascinating glimpse into the miasmic anus that is the human condition.  Morons feel empowered pre-2006 style to write some of the most hateful, reactionary crap because it is still anonymous. But it isn't just a repository for stupid points of view, it's also where knowledge and facts go to die. It's where I've come to believe the mentality that says facts are the same as opinions was born.

For instance, some windsock level intellect commenting on filmmaker/comic geek Kevin Smith's effusive praise of "Avengers: Endgame" wrote, "Maybe that’s why he doesn’t make movies anymore.. to busy watching other people’s Marvel movies." 

Never mind that he wrote "to busy," he also neglected to do a quick search of Smith's filmography to find out about the movie he just released a few months ago. 

Assumptions reign supreme, however. On another article about the "Star Wars" comic book that one guy took issue with, he wrote, "Millennials writing Star Wars is as bad as the remake movies that BOMB every year."
Never mind that the only Star Wars film that was considered a major disappointment was "Solo." There's also the fact that a quick glance at the comic writer's bio reveals he is 45, hardly a millennial. 

Perhaps my favorite and subjectively speaking the best in recent memory is the brain stem-challenged twit whose criticism of a commentary article amounted to, "So this article's headline..... questions whether the movie flopped.... yet the article comes to the conclusion it clearly did. Gotcha."
To that one, I merely replied, "Yes, that's how analysis...works."

All of this brings me to my good buddy, Phil, possibly the biggest idiot I've encountered since a certain would-be children's book author/podcaster who ran screaming on Facebook several years ago when I caught him using biased sources and manipulating his interviews.  Phil is a real piece of work, a lump of coal in a diamond mine, and he didn't go easy into the stupid night. 

It all started when he misinterpreted someone's point on an article about the upcoming controversial film, "The Hunt." I won't spend time synopsizing the film here, but you can read the article by clicking here.

When I dared mention Phil-baby's lack of comprehension, he replied, " don't care what he said. The movie is inciting violence and hatred. What happens when one of you ANTIFA whackos act out what is on screen? Take your masks off and show your face, don't hide behind masks and hidden meanings in movies."

I replied, "Wait, now I'm a member of ANTIFA because I pointed out your lack of comprehension? Shall I call you a Nazi because you don't listen to logic? Rather not." (This was me still attempting to be reasonable and hopefully show him how he'd allowed his misplaced passion to cause an unjust value judgment.)

He instantly became enlightened and contrite, replying, "well you can't teach stupid, so you are free to babble all you want. If you defend this movie, you are promoting violence and hate."

He was right, of course. My objective attempt to point out that he didn't even understand what the original meant was clearly an incitement of violence. Clarification=ANTIFA, after all. 

I must have really gotten to him, though, because he followed up by writing, "then why are you here? My position is clear, the movie promotes violence. You proceeded to attempt (poorly) to insult me. So what is your goal troll? Either you disagree w my opinion, which means you support the movie, or you are just a worthless troll. Which one?"

At this point, I felt like we'd bonded to the level where I could extend a compassionate voice to him. So, I naturally replied, "Phil Wow, you really are a moron. Just because your position is clear doesn't make it less idiotic. Just means you're clearly stupid and unable to grasp simple concepts. That's why I'm here. Because you're so incredibly unintelligent, it drew my attention like a moth to flame. Movies don't promote violence, they tell stories. Many of them are poorly made, but the purpose of art is to challenge social norms and make us question. You can't do that. I get it. You're a MAGA drone, which is far worse than a troll."

And he lovingly wrote, "ok if that is your view, you are ignorant. This movie isn't "challenging social norms", it is dangerously promoting violence against those w differing political views. This is an extremely dangerous message in these times, and if you support and think its ok, you are just as ridiculous as you sound here. I'm more educated than you could ever dream, so keep up your Yahoo trolling career."

Now, nobody besmirches my Yahoo trolling career. I make good money doing...Wait.

Anyway! I wrote back, "Phil being educated and being intelligent are not always the same thing and it would seem that you are living proof of that. So, you can bandy about your Internet University credentials all you want. The simple fact is you are woefully ignorant of how art works and therefore more dangerous to society than a stupid, gimmicky movie because somebody thought it was a good idea that you be allowed to vote."

I then follered up with, "Also, educated people don't make insane leaps of logic based on anecdotal observations. Ex. Calling someone a member of ANTIFA because they clarify another person's point."

He replied, "ok you are exhausting and really gonna hurt yourself w big words. If you choose to glorify violence as "art", then you can own the consequences of supporting such as ridiculous film."

And my final reply, "Phil I'm sorry, does the poor educated genius struggle with my so-called "big words"? If you're exhausted, go take a nap lil'' fella and the big folks can keep talking."

That was the last thing posted. I feel like I really made a difference. I just know Phil reformed his ways and stopped being a judgmental asshair. He embraced the ability to analyze objectively and is even now spreading what he learned to others of his kind in an attempt to guide humanity into a new era of enlightenment unseen since the lost continent of Atlantis hit a dinosaur and sank into the Louisiana Bayou!

GREATEST. NON-PROFESSIONAL MOVIE REVIEW. EVER.

"Absolutely awful, Steven Seagal needs to stop making movies so idiots like me cant watch them."

Best & worst Movies of the Last Ten Years- Updated as of 12/1/19!

Below is my list of what I considered to be the worst and best films of 2009-2019. Keep in mind this list is based solely on movies I have actually seen:

2009
Best: Inglorious Basterds
Worst: Avatar
Honorable Mention for Best: Watchmen & Star Trek
Most Overrated: The Hurt Locker


2010
Best: Inception
Worst: Hot Tub Time Machine & Jonah Hex
Honorable Mention for Best: True Grit & Kick-Ass
Honorable Mention for Worst: Skyline







2011
Best: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol & X-Men: First Class  
Worst: The Hangover Part II
Honorable Mention for Best: Another Earth
Honorable Mention for Worst: Hobo With a Shotgun
Most Overrated:  Super 8 (Still a good movie, though)

2012- This was a tough year for choosing one Worst!
Best: The Avengers
Worst: The Hunger Games
Honorable Mention for Worst: Skyfall
Honorable Mention for Best:  Looper

2013- The Year of Absolute Shit
Best: 12 Years a Slave
Worst: Frozen
Honorable Mention for Worst: Identity Thief & A Good Day to Die Hard & This is the End

2014
Best: X-Men Days of Future Past  & Captain America The Winter Soldier
Worst: Transformers: Age of Extinction
Honorable Mention For Best: Birdman 
Honorable Mention for Worst: Big Hero 6
Most Overrated: Guardians of the Galaxy

2015
Best: Stars Wars the Force Awakens
Worst: Fantastic Four
Honorable Mention for Best: Straight Outta Compton & The Martian
Most Overrated: Mad Max: Fury Road

2016
Best: Arrival & Shin Godzilla
Worst: Deadpool
Honorable Mention for Best: The Nice Guys
Most Overrated: Captain America: Civil War & Rogue One

2017 
Best: Logan
Worst: It
Honorable Mention  for Worst: Get Out (Also Most Overrated)

2018
Best: Avengers: Infinity War
Worst: No Movie Met the Criteria
Honorable Mention for Best: Annihilation & Bohemian Rhapsody
Most Overrated: Black Panther (A good but flawed movie)

2019
Best: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Worst: (SH)It: Chapter 2
Most Overrated: Captain Marvel 
Honorable Mention  for Worst: Avengers: Endgame (Didn't hate it but it was a huge disappointment on all levels

Things That Make you go "Aww!"

When I see the below pic of the new "Charlie's Angels," my first reaction is to say, "Aww." They look like children playing big people games. Infantilization is swiftly making it difficult to take actors seriously in certain roles because they still look and act very much like pre-teens and teenagers.  No wonder it's a flop.

Never mind that it's already been remade once or that there's only one pretty one (the one in the middle) or that Elizabeth Banks has clearly lost her mind, that still says it all!

And people wonder why I express almost zero interest in seeing my work adapted by Hollywood!

Seeing Sequels to Movies I Hated

I know I've written about this before but feel it needs reiterating: The idea that there are people who see movies, feel underwhelmed, and then say, "But you know the sequel is gonna be really good," is  beyond idiotic to me. It isn't that they needed to love a movie in order to see its sequel. It isn't even that they found a way to become invested enough in the story or characters or both to return. The idiotic part comes from the assumption that the first movie is often underwhelming but just wait for that next one, man!

Seriously? Have we become so addled by mediocrity and cynical marketing that we accept our own stupidity as justification for why our entertainment fails to work?

What bothers me even more, however, is when the people who act this way treat me as if I'm the crazy one when I say there is no way in hell I'm seeing a sequel to a movie I hated. Why would I? Why would anyone? That's anywhere from ninety minutes to over three hours of my life I'll never get back. Why the hell would I want to subject myself to that again? And more importantly, if I'm not invested after the first movie, why should I care what happens in the second one?

For years, a friend of mine has been doing this level best to convince me to see the sequels to a movie I absolutely despised because he sincerely believes I will say the second one was the one the filmmakers should have started with. When I reply that that would just piss me off because I spent time watching the first one, he seems baffled by my response.

That film series, along with the rest, is listed below in where I have compiled several examples of movies I saw whose sequels I do not ever plan to watch even for free:

The Matrix Reloaded: I found the first movie derivative, trite and poorly acted.

It: Chapter 2: Worst movie I saw in 2017. A total rape of the source material by a hack filmmaker and a terrible cast of bad actors.

The Second Pirates of the Caribbean: Come on! Have we met?

Frozen 2: (See Pirates reply)

The Hobbit 2: Not saying Jackson lost his mojo but it was nowhere on display in the first Hobbit film.


You'll notice some of these films are more than a few years old and only one hasn't yet been released. There are others but these are good examples. There have also been films whose sequels I swore I'd never see but did because of my investment in the character(s) via other interpretations, but even then I feel dirty and was pretty disappointed.

I was recently asked if I was going to wait to see the second "It" when it was released on DVD and I merely shook my head. At some point, with the exception of this post, I came to the conclusion that there really is nothing else to be said~

RECOMMENDATIONS- 3 MOVIES, 2 BOOKS

Since I don't have any new publication info to share, I thought I'd use this space to discuss the quality work of others. I am, after all, an admirer of good writing. I also like to recognize it in various formats, my feelings regarding the inherent superiority of the printed medium notwithstanding, one would have to be a fool to not recognize the brilliance often found on film.

So, I'll start with two movies I absolutely loved and one good one that should have been even better:

• Brightburn- A movie written by filmmaker James Gunn's brothers Brian and Mark, this is the anti-superhero movie I've been waiting for. Basically taking the Superman origin story and turning it on its head, this film reminds us how helpless we would be if a nearly all-powerful alien who looked like us arrived on Earth without heroic impulses. The movie is relatively small, prviding an intimate portrayal of its subject, and the payoff is disturbing and thought-provoking with the promise of more to come.

• Fast Color- Another stripped-down superhero story, this one deals with a lineage of African-American women (although the main protagonist is bi-racial) who have concealed their amazing powers from the world for centuries. Unfortunately, the world is running out of water and desperation had led a team of government-backed scientists to pursue any means necessary to fix what the human race has broken. This includes a woman named Ruth, portrayed by the distractingly beautiful Gugu Mbatha-Raw. A movie that it once a subtle Apocalyptic tale, a rumination of race and family and love, it is a slow-mover but well worth it. 

• Batman: Hush- This is the one I can't fully recommend. I'm not sure if I made the mistake of reading the source material first or if having done so was a good move, because the drop-off in quality is significant. Don't get me wrong. The movie is well-made. Warner Bros.' DC movies still have the best voice acting around and director Sam Liu has become quite good at getting consistent performances and suspense in these newer films. However, the treatment of the vastly superior graphic novel is spotty and the new twist simply does not work. One issue some of these newer animated films has is their tendency to take deeper storylines and given them a superficial makeover. Ultimately a good movie but should have been one of the best.

Books:

• Master and Apprentice- As big a "Star Wars" fan as I am, it's often difficult for me to complete the novels. However, once in a while one comes along I simply cannot put down and this was one of those. Focusing on a pivotal moment between Jedi Master Qui Gon Jinn and Padawan Obi-Wan Kenobi, Claudia Gray spins an interesting tale that is just big enough to warrant not two but three Jedi Knights but small enough to not over-shadow the movies. Definitely worth a read.

• Becoming Superman: My Journey from Poverty to Hollywood- J. Michael Straczynski has long been one of my writing heroes. "Babylon 5" came along just as I was jumping off the Trekkie train and swiftly became my favorite science fiction series of all time. I have also followed his work in the comics medium and movies as well as his stint with one of "Twilight Zone" reboots. But I never knew what a horrible, abusive, traumatic childhood he'd led. I'm not even finished with this one yet and I'm already recommending it! 

The Sequel to Top Gun: Playing Devil's Advocate.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who is more excited about the "Top Gun" sequel than me. I still remember sitting alone in that theater surrounded by an enthusiastic audience, watching what would become one of the defining movies of my generation. Obviously, I loved it. Still do. I even bought the soundtrack, I rented the VHS, and I re-watched it often. In fact, it was probably my most watched non-science fiction film until I saw Oliver Stone's "Platoon," which I consider the defining film of my generation.

But "Platoon" wasn't fun or cool. Okay, it was kind of cool to teenagers because we knew next to nothing about Vietnam, but overall it was tragic and emotionally draining, as were"Hamburger Hill" and, for those who liked it, "Full Metal Jacket." "Top Gun," on the other hand, was fun.

Described by its director as rock 'n roll in the air and by one of its producers as "Star Wars on Earth," the Tom Cruse star vehicle captured the Reagan era zeitgeist better than any other film of the time. And while I recognize that isn't necessarily a good thing in retrospect, it was nearly impossible to not get caught up in some part of it if you were there. Was it a masterpiece? I suppose that depends on how one defines the word in relation to moviemaking but, for what it was and what it was designed to do, I would say yes.

It was.

This may seem like a specious comparison, but in many ways the film reminds me of "Casablanca." Not because of its story or plot but because of its cultural relevance and inherent re-watchability. The two movies couldn't be more different regarding subject matter but they both feature two conflicted male protaganists struggling against external and internal forces and a strong female protagonist whose love both complicates and compliments his struggle.

It's also about a guy who has to make an all-important choice at a critical moment and makes the right one in the end when it counts. Imagine if Rick hadn't decided to help Ilsa escape Casablanca or if Maverick (Cruse) wasn't able to overcome his PTSD during the aerial combat scene at the end and Iceman had been left to fend for himself. They would have been two very different, possibly more realistic movies that probably would only be remembered by cinephiles. However, Rick and Maverick both do what's right when it needs to be done. Despite all my cynicism and desire to write darker-themed stories, I still recognize the need for the occasional crowd-pleasing moment.

Then there's the love story. Normally, I am turned off by love stories in movies because the vast majorty of them feel tacked on, mere audience manipulation based on market research. The love

story in "Top Gun" is integral to the plot. It's part of what helps Maverick grow up and realize there is more to life than just his "need for speed." It also feels like a genuine attraction between two people who were destined to meet but not necessarily destined to stay together. Respectively, the audience never truly knows if Rick and Ilsa ever reunite after the war, nor whether or not Maverick and Charlie (Kelly MCGillis) truly get back together at the end or simply spend a little time together before once more going their separate ways.

In a time when movies were usually designed to tell one story and then end, sometimes ambiguously, this was not a setup for a sequel but rather an ending designed to create speculation and discussion. And that is the magic of a single movie with no follow-ups. When the elements of a film come together beautifully, it's rare that a sequel is able to recapture the magic.

And that's why "Top Gun: Maverick" has a bit of a steep hill to climb. What made the first movie great was its ambiguous ending. Life went on, Maverick was in a better place emotionally, but whether or not he remained a Top Gun instructor or "got the girl" was left up to the viewer to decide. With this sequel coming out next year, we now know he did not do either of those things. We don't know why yet but does it really matter?

The glorious, up-in-the-air, Casablancaesque ending will now be replaced with a new story that may or may not exceed or equal the first one. And since it is a sequel, it will most likely feature a relatively definitive ending, especially considering how many years have passed between films. 

Again, I'm mostly excited to see it. In fact, I can't stop watching the trailer. A part of me always wanted to know what happened to Maverick even though the final minutes of the film appeared to make that pretty clear. Perhaps I'm a little upset because what I inferred from the original film is no longer true. All the decades of assumption and comfort are now gone, maybe even rendered pointless. 

Even writers need to be reminded that that's how art works. I get emotionally invested in things, too.  The idea of a "Casablanca" sequel is loathsome, even when thinking about it happening when the actors were still alive. This is in spite of a damn good novel by Michael Walsh that proved it was indeed possible! So there is a small part of me when it comes to "Top Gun" that says, "You nailed it on your first go-round. Why tempt fate?"

Still, I'll be helping them do exactly that next year when the film is released so it must not bother me that much~

New Other Blog Post About "Avengers Endgame"

Now that I have fixed the many, many formatting issues with the post, I will share a link to it. This one was written by me and me only, so save any ire or crappy diatribes for me and not my blog partner.

Read the post here.