Review: "The Suicide Squad"

I've never been completely in support of Auteur Theory, but James Gunn's soft reboot/sequel "The Suicide Squad" might be the best argument against it in years. And while that particular attitude towards film has its positive outcomes in the works of Stanley Kubrik, Quentin Tarantino and Bernardo Bertolucci, Gunn ain't none of those guys.

What he is, however, is a gifted mimic who has fooled a lot of people into thinking he has a personal style. If you've seen his 2010 small budgeted takedown of the superhero genre "Super," you know what I mean. It's a good movie but it apes other directors' styles to the point of absurdity. 

People also forget that the first "Guardians of the Galaxy" movie was originally written by Nicole Perlman. Short memories aside, she was the one being praised for the screenplay when that film was released. Flash forward less than a decade and all anyone remembers is James Gunn. 

I was not among those praising Perlman's screenplay. I thought it was mediocre, dull and filled with terrible attempts at humor. Although, I wonder how much of the latter came from Gunn's work on the script. That brings us to "The Suicide Squad," a God-awful, unfunny, needlessly gory, thinly plotted pile of steaming crud from the "mind" of a man whose hackery really upsets me when I think about how he shares a name with one of my writing mentors.

The previous "Suicide Squad" film fell victim to what all DC Comics movies were dealing with in those not-so-long-ago days: Studio interference from imbeciles who had no concept of what they were doing. Thus director David Ayers, a far more gifted filmmaker than Gunn ("Training Day" alone cements that claim) saw his film sliced to ribbons. Despite this, it is still superior to Gunn's follow-up

With only four returning cast members from the first one, Gunn decides to populate his film with all the worst, stupidest DC villains in that company's history, because killing them off is funny to him. So, we get an entire opening sequence of disposable, useless idiots who die horribly so the so-called A-Team can emerge from the water to handle the mission. Who are they?

A big stupid bi-pedal shark played by a totally wasted Sylvester Stallone because Gunn can't seem to make an ensemble film without a bug dumb character that makes no sense. But this Shark is no Groot, who is at least a likable character with a soul. King Shark spends his time making idiotic comments like a slow-witted child, none of which are even remotely amusing. It's sad when the CW version of a character was vastly superior. 

Then there's Bloodsport portrayed by Idris Elba, who appears to have not gotten a good night's sleep in about eight years. He brings zero weight to this role, shuffling through like a zombie except when he's screaming "Fuck you!" over and over at his child.

Margot Robbie is back as Harley Quinn, the ubiquitous eye-candy psycho who really needs to be retired from comics for about a decade. Even she must feel this way based on her uninspired performance this time around. Her sub-plot involving a Central American dictator contains some of the worst writing and acting I have seen this side of "It: Chapter 2." 

There are newer characters as well, including John Cena as Peacemaker, a character Gunn single-handedly ruined by turning him into a joke. Cena has the comic timing of a clogged drain, and nowhere is this more evident than when he and Elba indulge in high wit by discussing eating a beach full of dicks.

This is seriously the kind of Middle School-level dumbshittery that Gunn thinks is comedy!

In addition to the three heavyhitters mentioned above, there's the character of Ratcatcher 2 portrayed by Daniella Melchior. She is, without a doubt, a terrible actor and in possession of one of the most annoying voices. Her line readings sound just like what they are: Someone without talent reading their lines. There is a scene on a bus involving her sob story and some unconvincing graphics that is, ironically, the best scene in the movie. Then I realized it was because it ripped off the bar scene in the first one!

But I saved the "best" for last" The disservice Gunn does the great actor Viola Davis and the character of Amanda Waller actually tows the line of casual racism. Gone is the cool, calculating Waller of the first film and the comics. In her place stands a stereotypical angry, hysterical black woman who doesn't seem to know what the hell she's doing and is easily manipulated by her staff and the Suicide Squad. This is the same woman who stared down Batman and told him to watch his ass?

What can I say about the supposed plot and story elements? Gunn clearly knows nothing about his missions work. He has no grasp of Third World politics. Shit, he doesn't even know the difference between a nightclub and a strip club! 

By the time the Big Reveal takes place, one any comics fan already saw coming in the first reel, all it does it serve as a reminder that this guy doesn't get DC and should stay as far away from it as possible.

Who Knows What Hackery Ruins Great Characters? James Patterson Knows.

 

This disgusts me. Not only because of the so-called "author" who purchased the rights to arguably the greatest pulp era character in literary history, but also because Patterson doesn't even write the material bearing his ubiquitous name.

Oh, you didn't know that? It's surprising to me how many don't, including some librarians I have worked with in the past. That's right, kids. James Patterson is a brand name under which hungry writers toil  so he can appear as if he is the most prolific author of all time. Click here if you doubt me.

There are other authors whose names appear on books on a monthly basis. Nora Roberts a.k.a "J.D. Robb", Debbie Macomber, and Laura Snelling come to mind. There are also authors who haven't let a pesky little obstacle such as death keep them from cranking out book after book. Agatha Christie ain't goin' out like that and neither is V.C. Andrews, both of whom have been dead for a long time and still meet their, ahem, deadlines.

The quasi-con of publishing dead authors who didn't actually write the material being published has been going on for a long time. Unfortunately, so has the one involving writers who only wrote a few of their own books before hiring a virtual sweatshop of aspiring writers to do all the work under that person's pen name. Mack Bolan author Don Pendleton did it. So did Oprah's least favorite author/franchise  runner James Frey. So, Patterson certainly isn't an original in this regard. Actually, he's not an original in any sense.

For those unfamiliar with the Shadow character and its history, he is, quite simply, the superhero archetype. As a pulp era hero, he dealt with more grounded situations such as murderers, spies and the occasional misguided scientist. The radio dramas were hugely successful and, in my opinion, the ones where the character was portrayed by Orson Welles were among the best spoken word drama ever made. Without the shadow, there would be no Batman. 

The Shadow's two most famous sayings, "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men? The Shadow knows" and "The weed of crime bears bitter fruit" could be seen as templates for nearly every costumed hero's philosophy over the past nearly one-hundred years. He is a character firmly rooted in the Depression era, steeped in noir-ish grandeur and filled with the charm of a more innocent but still very dangerous time. 

A brief perusal of the plot of this Patterson-endorsed Shadow reveals a ridiculously insipid tale of time travel and a character with super powers that were never in his box of tricks. The publisher disagrees with that, of course, as evidenced by this gem of a quote:

“James Patterson is the all-time master of the American thriller genre,” said Markus Grindel, Managing Director, Global Brand Licensing, Condé Nast. “The origins of that genre began with The Shadow stories of New York’s golden age. There’s a natural creative match at work here along with a significant through-line.”

If you want quality Shadow storytelling, look no further than the graphic novels published by Dynamite Entertainment. The writers over there understand the character and aren't trying to shoehorn him into idiocy for the sake of their own egos.

Latest Blog Post and it Isn't Here!

For the first time in over a year, the T&C blog has sprung back to life with a rousing debate on whether or not the Watchmen TV series is worth watching!

Check it out right'cheer!

Avengers: Endgame, a Response in List Form.

It has now been four months since I sat in a darkened theater with a fellow comic fan and watched the film both of us had been eagerly and giddily anticipating for a year. Having both become equally obsessed with the previous "Avengers: Infinity War," a movie we both watched over and over in anticipation of an epic conclusion, our excitement could not have reached a higher fever pitch.

The film, clocking in at just over three hours, set out to bring an open-ended conclusion to eleven years worth of interconnected storytelling in one massive, never-before-done cinematic achievement. When it was over, we left the theater in silence, walking past a long line of moviegoers who had come for the next showing. It wasn't until we got in the car that I spoke first.

Sighing, I said, "Y'know. I don't know that I liked it."

"Me neither," he said.

And with that dual admission, I felt my soul sink into a strange sadness that did not let up for two months.

I won't go into my feelings too much in this post but I will admit to feeling incredibly letdown. Predictably, the early reactions to the film were glowing and positive, but once the "feels" wore off, more people started sounding like me. And, of course, they were attacked for it. It was "The Dark Knight" all over again, except perhaps a bit less psychotic. I touched on that portion here.

My movie buddy, who has not seen the movie a second time, has settled into a bit of spin doctoring, where he insists the movie was always expected to be what we saw. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it should have been. That doesn't mean we should excuse lazy writing and arrogant presumption on the part of the filmmakers and, in particular, the screenwriters.

That's why, now that I have what I feel is sufficient emotional distance, I can now list my issues with the film in detail based on my criteria for successful drama.

TONE: One would have to be insane or utterly clueless to expect this movie to maintain the tone of "Infinity War." This is a film about the aftermath of its predecessor's events. The tone should be more somber, more serious and, sadly, less entertaining. That last point isn't a fault of the filmmakers, it's a necessity based on the story. So, the tone of the film is appropriate and mostly effective.

PLOT: Not to be confused with the next point, the movie's plot is a bit of a mess. That would be okay with a stronger story, but in this case there are far too many contrivances and very little realized potential. To start, the idea that the events of the previous movie aren't easily repaired sound great until you realize the plot involves the heroes easily repairing the events of the previous movie. Once the initial, relatively interesting world-building takes place, the film's plot merely dumps the viewer from one uninspired set to another all so it can end with a big battle sequence. The various character sub-plots such as "Fat Thor" and his PTSD (Marvel really seems to think trauma is good for a few laughs) and Professor Hulk definitely have their negative aspects but they don't ruin the overall plot.

STORY: The filmmakers had one job: Maintain the quality of "Infinity War" while telling a different kind of story in the sequel. Due to several questionable story element choices, they failed. How did they fail? For one thing, they got lazy. Time travel to the past is just about the most tiresome trope in science fiction these days and this film embraces it like a lost lover. Of all the alternative solutions to the problem our heroes faced (I came up with five without even thinking hard) time travel was what the writers settled on? I say "settled on" because I want to believe they're smart enough to have considered other options before using one any first semester hack could have come up with. As mentioned in the "Plot" section, "Endgame" moves from one lackluster location to another because the story dictates time hopping. And since the easiest way to get people to like you these days appears to involve turning up the nostalgia meter to eleven, the second hour of the film involves one previously seen location or scene after another until it feels as if this is not so much a sequel as a greatest hits collection. The earlier promising setup of a trip into the Quantum Realm heralded by Antman's return thanks to a rat is abandoned in favor of one of the most interminable hours in MCU history.  That brings me to the next point,

PACING: Oy vey. Sluggish in places, "Endgame" was never supposed to be the pulse-pounding actioner that "Infinity War" was. But the pace never seems to pick up even when the big battle is happening. The part where present-day Thanos is found is over before it starts, plunging the remainder of the film into sloth-like discussion scenes and supposedly touching moments such as Tony Stark's experience in 1970. Unlike "Infinity War," this movie feels like every single one of its 180 minutes.

ACTING: The MCU actors know their roles and play them well. If they seem less present this time, it feels more like an editing issue than a performance one. Although I'd be lying if I didn't admit that Downey seems tired and ready to move on. Interestingly, Paul Rudd's performance is the most dynamic this time, maybe because they gave me him more to do. Josh Brolin, who turned in a phenomenal performance last time around, seems lethargic and bored now.

DIRECTION/EDITING: The Russo Brothers are hit and miss for me. They seem to observe the so-called "Star Trek" rule where every other film is good. This time around they do a fine job but nothing stands out. The editing, however, is where my friend I agreed the major issues with "Endgame" are to be found. Scenes that should be shorter are far too long and scenes that needed to be longer are over much too quickly.

ACTION: Well, there isn't much. Most of the film consists of long stretches of would-be witty dialogue and discussing the plot as if we the viewers forgot it after five minutes. Action gives way to suspense in this installment, which is perfectly fine. There was no way they were going to top what was done in "Infinity War." The problem is, the only real suspense takes place in small pockets rather than a continuing thread and by the time the movie really decides to become full-on suspenseful, it gives way to the required big battle scene. And that scene, which is admittedly well-staged and executed, feels old hat after the less choreographed scenes in the previous film. It still thrills but there was a sense of "Okay, let's get this part over with" when I watched it.

DIALOGUE: "Infinity War" is so quotable. So were the first two Avengers films. But other than a couple lines of dialogue here and there, "Endgame's" dialogue is rather run of the mill. Even the one-liners for which the MCU has unfortunately become synonymous are pretty stale and lame this time around. One longs for Joss Whedon's self-indulgent yet witty dialogue writing.

I know this all sounds like I hated the movie. I didn't. It was entertaining. Had it been a stand-alone film I might have enjoyed it more, but it wasn't and it had a lot more to live up to than that. The filmmakers played it far too safe with the writing aspect. Killing off some beloved characters who aren't coming back in real life is not a substitute for risk-taking. And the strength of the overall story arc makes even a misstep like this, much like the stunningly  mediocre "Captain Marvel" still worth watching.

But I have learned to not let near perfection cause me to assume the follow-up will be just as good but in a different way, 'Nuff said.

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.

Latest Other Blog Post.

I've been remiss in my link-providing duties because I'm not used to having a second blog anymore. It's been several years and that other blog is no longer fit for public consumption. However, the new one is up and running. The most recent post is our take on the Bill Maher/Stand Lee/Comics non-troversey. We focus on who Maher is and why he seems so content with being a shriveled up little douche-nugget rather than getting deeply into what is already a proven quality medium.

Read it here, Comment there!

The Best Comment I've Seen About Bill Maher so far

This one came from an comment on social media but it perfectly puts into perspective how comics fans should regard Bill Maher's insipid comments about the form:

"He's a pot head drug addict who bangs strippers looking down on people who find entertainment, comfort...escape...in ways that don't harm themselves or others"

Without Further Ado, I Present the Blog that the World Doesn't Know it's Been Waiting For!!!

There was a delay but things seem to be moving forward in a relatively positive direction now, so the first post on the new blog is up and ready for your evisceration!

We wound up not starting with the Spider-Man animated film so don't be too disappointed!

Click here to immerse yourselves in the gooey goodness!

Two Pop Culture Things that are Annoying me at the Moment

Every so often, something occurs in the genre sub-culture that reminds me I work way too hard for way too little. This week, thanks to finally watching a TV series on DVD that premiered a year ago, I wound up with two things rightly pissing me off instead of just one, which is my weekly average.

I'll start with the less offensive one because even though it's moronic and awful, it lacks the personal connection I require to really throw up in my mouth.

I'm not what one would consider a Trekkie. My mom was one of the original ones, but I grew up on "Star Wars," which basically became the blueprint for my life along with comic books. It wasn't until the first "Star Trek" movie was released that I realized this old, cheesy-looking show had more going on than I'd thought. I loved the movies and became much more appreciative of the original series because of them. I also enjoyed "The Next Generation" despite creator Gene Roddenberry's bizarre, L Ron Hubbard-esque approach to the franchise. Watch the documentary Chaos on the Bridge to find out just how batshit crazy he'd gone. Still, the show got better and I enjoyed the films it spawned as well.

Then "Deep Space Nine" turned out to be a giant turd and no series after it was watchable to me. Besides, the vastly superior "Babylon 5" had shown what a laughably naive vision Roddenberry's was. The franchise went into hibernation after the abortion called "Enterprise" went off the air a year earlier. I felt it was time for it to die but JJ Abrams revived it with his enjoyable alternate timeline films. Now there is another series that supposedly takes place in the original timeline and it is, quite possibly, the worst one yet.

The acting makes the early TNG days look Oscar worthy. The so-called "Klingons" speak phonetically as if being fed lines. The main character is an arrogant, unlikable Mary Sue who is also somehow inept. The effects work looks like a bad early 2000s video game and once again everything looks too advanced to be taking place prior to the Kirk and Spock years. This article goes into greater detail than I think the show deserves.

Bottom line: Aside from the "Kelvin Timeline," the Star Trek franchise has nothing left to say and needs to go back to sleep. It's become a shameless parody of itself.

If that sounded angry, you either don't know me or you should probably avoid this next part. I can't promise there won't be swears a'plenty!

First off, take a look at this:

That's right. Much like the STD that refuses to be cured, Rob "What's Human Anatomy" Liefeld has once again decided to spray his venom all over the Marvel Universe. It isn't bad enough that he gave us the most annoying character in comics history, namely Deadpool. It isn't enough that he didn't even create the definitive version of that crappy character yet takes credit in the noble tradition of Bob Kane of Batman fame.  Easily one of the most hated comic artists in, well, ever, Liefeld's total disregard for practical physics and anatomy under the hilarious pretense of stylistic choice is the reason most people despise him. Well, that and his cocky, self-entitled attitude.

As a writer, however, I despise him because he thinks he can write and he sucks as a visual artist. Entire pages have been devoted to his lack of talent. For example, click here and here.

Here is Liefeld's description of the character and his origin:

“When we were coming up with the team, I said look, back in 1991 I was jamming with two guys: Jim Lee on X-Men and Whilce Portacio on Uncanny X-Men. We were the three engines running that office in the early ‘90s when all the launches happened,” Liefeld says. “So I just reached out and said Whilce, I’m having a party, it’s called Major X, could you join? I sent him the plot, and we got him for a key chapter in the story. I’m a giant Whilce Portacio fan, fans were jamming on him and the stuff he was doing on Uncanny in the ’90s, and when he sent the pages, I could not be more thrilled. It’s 1991 again, I’m jamming with Whilce, we’re making X-Men comics. It’s myself, Brent Peeples, and Whilce. We are handling the art. I’m the bookends, and then Brent and Whilce are the middle chapters. There’s a pride of ownership when you go this is my team, we’re gonna introduce Major X and these new concepts. Marvel gave me six issues to tell the story, and I’ve seen three so far. It’s explosive, it’s jam-packed.”

Leaving the aside the ridiculous hipster-laden speech pattern, what really grinds my nuts is Liefeld's obvious total lack of growth. This guy had over two decades to mature and improve and all he could come up with is a thinly conceived character that's an obvious mish mash of Cable and Bishop with alternate universe theory switched out for time travel? And the character looks like the abandoned love-child of Boba Fett and Deadpool. Naturally, he has the requisite square-barreled handguns that probably never need to be reloaded and the samurai sword because...who the hell knows?

Then there's the ridiculous concept that sounds like an early draft of the New Universe character Justice. An entire universe of nothing but mutants? Seriously? What the fuckety fuck!? Does he not realize that they're no longer mutants if they're the only thing that exists? And where the hell is the dramatic tension? Why would we care if he wants to bring his universe back to life? And what is with that goddam sword on his back!?

ARGH! 

This is the kind of hackery that gets rewarded. Liefeld was just about the highest paid comic artist at one time yet almost no one can say why. Even Todd MacFarlane realized he needed to concede his writing duties to someone more qualified.

Someone very important to me recently said I needed to lower my standards so I would be delighted when I saw things. Well, I am delighted when I see things: GOOD things. They do exist. For every Liefeld, there's a Brian Michael Bendis or Geoff Johns. But I have to work way too hard just to get the small opportunities I get to sit back with lowered standards while marginally talented assclowns keep puking their half-digested horseshit into the mainstream.

Okay, rants over.

Gonna go lie down now.

Brief Hiatus.

Come down off the ceiling, dear readers. The above post title is not in reference to this blog. It's in reference to the new one which can be viewed by clicking here.

Due to personal issues that would cause a lesser man to curl up in a ball in the corner of his bedroom and weep while singing a sad Irish ballad, my co-blogger is unable to fulfill his duties as snarky pop culture commentator...for the moment.

Rest assured all the crap with which he is dealing will be resolved soon and the page will be up and running.

Until then, here's a picture of a guy who loves himself a little too much for your entertainment pleasure:

The Something I Warned You About

 A few days ago, I mentioned something new coming in 2019. Well, click here to see it in all its anticlimactic glory!

Who knows if it will last? Who know if anyone will care? Who knows if we have the attention spans to sustain it? Only time will tell.


(And yes, Tim, guest reviews will be included at some point)

Bill Maher's Predictible Reaction.

Last week, I posted my thoughts on Bill Maher's response to the way people were reacting to the death of the beloved face of Marvel Comics and movies, Stan Lee. In that piece I discussed how any hostile response to what he wrote would only fuel Maher's resolve that he was indeed correct about comics being useless, disposable kiddie fare. Well, never one to disappoint when it comes to showing his ass in the most misguided manner possible, Maher did what Maher does and dug in.

In an interview with Larry King, who I thought was long gone from the airwaves, he said,
"...I don’t read comic books. I didn’t even read them when I was a child. What I was saying is: A culture that thinks that comic books and comic book movies are profound meditations on the human condition is a dumb fucking culture. And for people to, like, get mad at that just proves my point.”

As I mentioned in my previous post, Maher believes intellectualism has a narrow definition. And apparently inconsistencies are irrelevant.

For instance, Maher clearly wrote in his post that pissed off the world, “Now, I have nothing against comic books — I read them now and then when I was a kid and I was all out of Hardy Boys,” he explained. “But the assumption everyone had back then, both the adults and the kids, was that comics were for kids, and when you grew up you moved on to big-boy books without the pictures.” 

The second half of his point is well-taken; until the Eighties, comics were mostly for kids and teens. However, the first part of his point jumps out because he contradicts it in his comments to Larry King when he says he didn't read comics as a child. Clearly Maher is more interested in making a point than in being accurate, so let's move on to that point.

As I wrote before, somewhere buried in his dismissive claptrap is a salient point. You can read or reread that post for more details on what I mean. Still, Maher is hopelessly stuck in the past when it comes to comics. He has no idea what has been done with them in the modern era and, in typical Maher fashion, he doesn't really give a rat's ass. He is right because he is right because he is Bill Maher.

Instead of being a true intellectual and saying to himself, "Wow. Even setting aside the less well-thought out, angry reactions, an awful lot of intelligent people made some rather impassioned and reasoned points. Maybe I should look into this further." Sadly, that would entail the ability to admit one is wrong and to learn new things that challenge the old things we thought we knew.

I suppose that's where the real disappointment lies. Maher was once an entertaining, albeit arrogant comedian and TV host who encouraged open discussion of issues. His snarky jokes were often biting and incisive. Somewhere along the way, he became too full of himself and decided to be the self-appointed guardian of intellectualism, a job for which he is not at all qualified. This could have been his moment. Bill Maher could have actually stepped out of his own ass for once and admitted he was narrow-minded. Even if he'd still mostly stood by what he said, Maher still could have made room for other ways of thinking. By not doing so, he reveals himself to be no better than the conservatives he criticizes on a weekly basis.

Or, y'know, maybe I just proved his point, too.

For Those Who Think So-Called "Social Justice Warrior" Fiction is Something New.

May I present an entry from Stan Lee's column written in the late 1960s? Can you see you're on the wrong side of history yet? If not, here's a not-so-subtle hint: Stan is responding to people like you.

On Bill Maher and his Comments about Comics.

As with all things Internet, even the death of beloved Marvel Comics legend Stan Lee has resulted in at least two inappropriate and presumably well-meaning responses from celebrities. First came actor Armie Hammer's diss of any and every celebrity posting a photo of themselves with Lee because he felt they were making the story about themselves instead of the man who had died. Hammer has since retracted  his comments and referred to himself as an "asshat" in the process.

It's unlikely talk show host and all-around wise-ass Bill Maher will be issuing a similar statement anytime soon, if at all. Maher's comments were of the broader variety, criticizing the medium Lee represented as childish and the readers of the books as harboring delusions of reading great literature instead of escapist pop culture silliness. He makes his point by employing the old adage about putting away childish things once one becomes an adult. It's a dated outlook, a fact he hammers home when he writes, "...the assumption everyone had [when I was young], both the adults and the kids, was that comics were for kids, and when you grew up you moved on to big-boy books without the pictures.”

The error Maher makes in his assessment is the same one superficial thinkers have been making for over three decades, namely that comic books are, by and large, juvenile fantasies incapable of transcending their medium. The very idea that a comic book or graphic novel could do more than stimulate the adolescent portions of the male brain is laughable in their estimation. In order to become an adult, they insist, one must delve deeply into "serious literature," for which there is an oppressively narrow definition.

A couple years ago, I wrote about a middle school principal in Great Britain whose views on fantastic literature drew the ire of many a keyboard warrior. My take was slightly different. I felt he had a point, one that was well-reasoned on its surface but did not hold up to intense scrutiny. Instead of discussing how readers are often focusing on the wrong aspects of fantasy, he felt the entire genre was an enormous waste with no redeeming value. Plus, his views seemed steeped in Anglo-Christian dogma.

Maher supposedly suffers from no such handicap. He is a self-avowed atheist, having gone as far as making a wonderfully entertaining documentary about the fact. Thus we can conclude that his views are based on a humanist desire to pigeonhole intellectualism. He is of the Old World mentality that all worthy intellectual pursuits must be done the same way, reading the same books in the same formats (although digital might be allowable) and eschewing the same "inferior" forms of expression.

It's all a huge bore, frankly, compounded by Maher's constant need to piss off the squares while at the same time seeking their approval. Shock comedy is as juvenile as any comic book, yet there he sits, proclaiming his importance to those still willing to listen. if we're not careful, we all become dinosaurs eventually and Bill Maher is certainly not immune.

A commenter on Facebook made a valid point about Maher shortly after his comments went viral. To paraphrase: Of course Bill Maher would make the point that he shunned comics once he got older. When he was a child, comics were indeed childish fare. In fact, Maher grew up in arguably the worst time in the history of comics. The industry had been gutted by moral outrage thanks to the infamous book "Seduction of the Innocent," which had single-handedly caused a ripple effect resulting in publishers cowering. The comics companies intentionally made their work more juvenile in order to avoid the encroaching specter of further censorship. By the time Maher was in single digits, he was aging out of the Marvel Revolution. He was also likely extremely self-important and saw no value in the new pop culture's embracing of comic books.

Again, Maher likes to upset the apple cart. It's what he's done for years and he used to be really good at it. Lately he seems to be either trying too hard (possible) or succumbing to his own sense of bitterness (likelier). Maher's a control freak. Casual viewing of his show makes that obvious. And if there's one thing control freaks don't like, it's losing control. Smug male elitists have always dictated how we're supposed to view intellectualism, but now people aren't as concerned with their views anymore. Sadly, negative reactions to Maher will fuel his self-righteous attitude and convince him he's more right than ever. So, let's try this instead:

To say he has no valid point at all would be as ludicrous as Maher's blanket dismissal. Much like the British principal, the core of his argument is sound. We cannot ignore the inherent juvenalia of the most visible comic genre, namely costumed crime-fighting superheroes. And despite the fact that even those tales have "grown up" over the past three decades, they are still adolescent wish fulfillment given form. What Maher either fails or neglects to take into account are all the more adult-themed, philosophical comics out there such as "Fun Home" and "My Friend Dahmer." To acknowledge these works would be to invite the possibility of being wrong or, at least, narrow-minded in his conclusion. That's not how Bill Maher rolls.

Ultimately, Maher is a master manipulator who can often make events about him. Neil Gaimain put it best:

"Maher’s just trolling, and lots of people are rising to the troll. (Julie Burchill did it better 30 years ago with her “There aren’t any adult comics because adults don’t read comics” line. ) More people cared about Stan Lee’s death than care about Bill Maher alive."

'Nuff said~

Thoughts on the Late Stan Lee.

We all knew it was going to happen. Most of us kept telling ourselves it wouldn't anytime soon but Stan "The Man" Lee was old when many of us were young and each year he remained on this Earth was a gift to fanboys and fangirls alike.

Nobody could deny his infectious enthusiasm for the comics medium and all it has accomplished and still can. To say he became the face of comics is a given. Was it really his fault that those who were not in the know failed to grasp the contributions of so many others to his and Marvel Comics' success? How many people notice the producers and bandmembers behind the frontman/woman when they idolize a singer? Who pays attention to the names in the end credits when the movie is over? Does anyone ask for the name of the anesthesiologist after the operation?

Obviously some people do, and if you're reading this, you're probably one of them. But for those who don't, Jack Kirby's contributions have gone largely unnoticed and unacknowledged. The man defined the look of Marvel for decades to come and the argument has been made (by him as well) that he did most of the work while Lee added words here and there. Further, one could make the argument that Lee refined Kirby's work in ways the artist lacked the skill to do, a claim that becomes more credible when looking at Kirby's early 1970s work for DC.

There's also the claims of Steve Ditko, the recently deceased artist behind Spiderman's look and aesthetic. Lee has never denied that the famous artist designed Spidey's look and contributed greatly to the overall concept. We do know Kirby took a shot at the character first but Lee didn't care for what he came up with.

To be honest, I spent years having issues with Stan Lee. They grew in intensity during the 2000s when I realized younger generations had no idea about the controversy surrounding the credit he'd been given and, going strictly by his generally wonderful cameos in the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, had assumed he was the sole creator behind it all. To see their faces when they found out he had nothing to do with the creation of Captain America was truly a sight to behold. I wonder how they'd feel knowing Thanos was created after Lee had become little more than a figurehead in his own organization?

It seems as if those of us that fall in the middle, Gen-X'ers mainly, had the biggest gripe with Lee's rampant glory hogging. We were alive when the Old School genuineness such as Kirby and Ditko were still vibrant and vocal enough to make their points clear. We were there when a new generation of artists broke away from Marvel and formed Image Comics, a creator-owned concept that has somehow reinvented itself and remained relevant. And even though Image wasn't formed as a "screw you" to Lee directly, it was his tendency towards not speaking up when undue credit was thrown his way in the supposed name of advancing the brand that created the environment in which those artists found themselves.

Unlike "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry, there didn't seem to be an arrogance or maliciousness to Lee's credit-taking. In fact, he seemed rather non-plussed by Kirby's apparent rage and Ditko's disgust. If he can be accused of anything, it's most likely good-natured obliviousness. Unlike William Shatner whose ego was off the charts, Lee meant well. You could tell by the sentiments expressed in his "Stan's Soapbox" column. And despite how disappointed I was to learn he was no longer writing the column bearing his name in the Seventies, the early, Lee penned pieces are a look inside what made the man who he was.

With the coming of the MCU, Lee rose to a prominence perhaps greater than what he'd experienced in the Sixties and Seventies. He was once again a household name and his ubiquitous mug was showing up all over the place. His cameos became an expected part of the Marvel movie experience. Lee had officially graduated from hip representative of the Mod Comics Scene to Grandmaster and Elder statesman who made all of this possible. He also, in his advancing years, started giving credit to his collaborators. It doesn't take a cynic to see why Disney would be more comfortable letting the credit rest with a single, identifiable person rather than worrying about having to split the royalties with several others.

Stan Lee became that beloved cool grandpa many of us never had, the old dude who never acted old and who got us. The extra added benefit of him actually helping to create the things that shaped our lives made him even cooler. The messages embedded in his work, social justice, anti-bullying, anti-racism, taking women seriously as individuals, and always the little guy, will survive him.

My relationship with Stan Lee was a complicated one but, in the end, it was a loving and respectful one and that, I think, is that.

'Nuff said~

Reader Review.

A rather intelligent review of the Thuggish Itch: Via Las Vegas anthology that features, among others, my short story, "The Last Big Gamble."

The reader wisely chose to review the themed anthology as a whole while pointing out what he liked about the stories in relation to that overall theme. I love when readers grasp what they're reading and are able to articulate it so effectively.

Read the review here.

The Greatest Compliment.

Any positive review of my work is appreciated, of course. When you're a relative unknown, most of the comments you receive come from readers as opposed to critics. It's rare that a reader will take the time to review something they read, especially when it isn't a famous work. And while many of the reactions I've received have been favorable, I don't think there is a greater compliment than this.

"Insightful

Rating the 2017 Releases: (Updated)

The following is a list of films released in 2017 that I have actually seen. Some were seen theatrically, others using the magic of borrowed library DVDs:

Hidden Figures- This is one of those wonderfully acted and written Oscar-bound  based on a true story movies that the cynic in me wants to cast aspersions on. But that would do a disservice to a wonderful film filled with incredible performances. This was easily one of the better movies of this year and it came out during the first few weeks.

I am Not Your Negro- I learned more about James Baldwin than I ever knew before and I came away considering him a national treasure and an incredible human being. There isn’t a dull, plodding moment in this documentary.

John Wick: Chapter Two- Action movie sequels are an iffy proposition. Sometimes you get a quality production such as “Lethal Weapon 2” but usually you get a mediocre followup such as “Taken 2” which makes you reconsider the flawed original film in negative ways. Fortunately, that’s not the case with this one. The mythology surrounding the title character it rich, fascinating and compelling and this sequel throws the audience right back into it with delightful abandon.

The Lego Batman Movie- The trailers made this movie look unfunny and rather stupid. To my surprise, it was neither. Simply put, this was the funniest movie I’ve seen in a while. Featuring fully realized characters, an actual plot and a plethora of successful gags, this one actually outshines “The Lego Movie” with its brilliance.

The Great Wall- Reports of supposed whitewashing with this movie were greatly overblown. Matt Damon’s character was not the hero nor did he save the day in any way, shape or form. Instead, this was a very enjoyable period fantasy with solid acting, good direction and great action.

Logan- A contender for best movie I’ve seen all year, this was the Wolverine film fans of the comics and movies were waiting for. The changes that were made to the “Old Man Logan” story actually improved on the concept. Instead of a bunch of jarring inclusions of Marvel characters, the focus is kept narrowed to Logan and Professor Xavier. The acting is top notch as is the story. I have only been able to see it once so far because the emotions were too much.

Kong: Skull Island- I unapologetically LOVED this movie. I went in with modest expectations and wound up seeing it two more times. Talk about pitch perfect kaiju movie making. I’ve always been critical of Western attempts to make watchable movies about giant monsters; what the Japanese make look effortless generally failed in American hands. But King Kong is ours and even the Japanese didn’t do him justice with their attempts in the 1960s and 1970s. This was the film that should have started the shared universe rather than that pathetically morose “Godzilla” movie from 2014. Kong got everything right from tone to plot to characterization and action. It even made me re-watch Gareth Edwards’ version of Godzilla to catch the connections.

Beauty and the Beast- Anyone who knows me knows I consider Disney to be pure evil. If you don’t, you’re either blissfully unaware or not paying enough attention. So their live-action remakes of their own animated movies which are, in turn, adaptations of the work of others, seem rather self-serving, cynical and manipulative to me. And even though the Cinderella live-action turned out to relatively good, such was not the case with “Beauty and the Beast.” Based on one of the more annoying films of the so-called “Disney Renaissance Era,” this version seems hell-bent on replicating what made the first abomination marketable rather than following the Cinderella example of doing something different. Same stupid songs sung by worse singers and the ugliest CGI versions of the non-human characters conceivable made this so unpleasant and obnoxious I couldn’t even finish watching it.

Ghost in the Shell- Once more the reports of whitewashing were greatly exaggerated. The main protaganist isn't Asian. She was, but the artificial body she currently inhabits was not. The original anime and its even better sequel are two of my favorite films, so my expectations weren't exactly high for this Western live-action version. I was pleasantly surprised that what resulted was an enjoyable, thoughtful film with good performances and an intelligent script. It's nowhere near as good as the anime but it's still good.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2- I'm on record as not being too fond of the jokey, uneven tone of the first film in this series, so when I realized I was enjoying myself watching the second go-round, nobody was more surprised than I. In fact, I loved this movie. Everything I found fault with in the first movie was present in the sequel, but it was balanced well and integrated into the plot. Instead of another uneven mess with some appealing moments, this was a wonderful ride with more fully realized characters and a better story.

The Mummy- People were poised to hate this one before it was even released. Tom Cruise has become a popular target of late in spite of a consistent high quality output over the past decade or more. Then there are those who actually think the Stephen Sommers films were somehow definitive versions of the mummy story. So even though the movie was entertaining and a mostly decent start to a shared universe franchise that is now dead in the water, it barely survived at he box office.

Spider-Man: Homecoming- This one falls under the "Liked it, Wanted to Love it, didn't" category. It was a good effort by Marvel Studios, but considering how long it took them to reacquire the rights to their own character from Sony's recent butcherings, I was hoping for something more. The approach basically boils down to John Hughes movie meets the back-end of the Marvel Universe while a man-child learns a valuable life lesson. Lots of good acting and funny moments don't overshadow the lack of compelling action and adventure. Even the boat scene pales by comparison to the train sequence in "Spider-Man 2."

War for the Planet of the Apes- I left the theater with tears in my eyes. This was an incredibly somber, fatalistic film that could have only ended one way. Kudos to Matt Reeves for making the journey getting there so compelling and tragic. 

The Dark Tower- I read all eight of Stephen King's Dark tower novels and I still don't know what the hell this was. I know the idea was to make a sequel to the novels (if you've read them, you know how that could work) but what we got was a skeletal, superficial outline of a greater tale. Idris Alba is one of the most overrated actors working in film and his wooden performance is stiff to the point of hilarity. The 90-minute running time didn't help matters much. What a waste.

It- What more can I say about this terrible piece of garbage? I hated it too much to offer much in the way of coherent criticism except to say this: Worst movie I saw all year.

Blade Runner 2049- Remember what I wrote about "It?" Well, the opposite applies to this film. A sublime masterpiece.

Get Out- Wait, maybe "It" wasn't the worst movie I saw this year. It was definitely the worst one I saw theatrically, but Jordan Peele's mind-numbingly awful attempt at social criticism through blatantly ripping off "The Stepford Wives" gives it a run for its money. As uneven as the tone of "It" was, at least it had more than one. "Get Out" has one long, boring, unchanging tone that tries to mix things up during a ludicrous, asinine climax. For a brilliant comedian like Peele to create such sub-standard, pretentious rubbish, there is hope for all writers.

American Made- Say what you will about Scientology's Favorite Son, Tom Cruse's output has been of remarkably high quality for a very long time now. It's difficult to remember the last time he made a bad movie and this latest Doug Liman film about an actual CIA pilot who also worked for Colombian drug cartels is at once funny, engaging and brilliant.

Wonder Woman- A lot of people consider this the best superhero film of the year and Warner Bros.' best DC film yet. It's hard to disagree and I'm certainly not going to try. "Logan" has a more emotional connection for me because I've invested in that franchise for seventeen years but "Wonder Woman" is an incredibly well-made film that should have finally shut the DC detractors the hell up.

Thor: Ranganork- I'm not going to say this is probably the best Marvel film since "Winter Soldier" but I just did so I'm sticking with it. The self-deprecation works here because the hero us supposedly untouchable and perfect. The action is great, the acting is, too and all the elements of a solid superhero film are present.

Murder on the Orient Express- I'm always amazed when I meet someone who doesn't know the answer to the mystery of this classic story, but they exist and there are enough of them to warrant a remake. This time it's under the gifted guidance of Kenneth Branagh, whose eye for detail and insistence on strong performances pays off handsomely with this riveting period piece. All of t he actors are wonderful as is the direction and the cinematography. This time around, the filmmakers wisely focus on Agatha Cristie's genius detective's views on how life should  work and the moral dilemma he faces when it doesn't fit his narrative. 

Justice League- I'd been waiting all my life for this damn movie and I wasn't disappointed. The actors are well-cast, the action feels new in places, and the marriage of Zack Snyder's dark imagery and Joss Whedon's character-driven writing are an excellent one. This is easily my favorite team superhero movie to date.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi- Easily the most divisive Star Wars movie since the first two prequels, Rian Johnson's film is a wonderful addition to the canon that angers all the right people. The franchise had fallen into a comfortable malaise with Disney's acquisition and it's good to see buttons being pushed and fan-imposed boundaries being torn down. I enjoy having my expectations upended. I like my comfort zone being disturbed. This installment does that and more, adding a dimensionality to the tale that has been missing since "Revenge of the Sith" rolled end credits. 

I Rate the MCU: Phase Two

All of you waiting with bated breath after my Phase One list was posted can now relax those nether regions as I launch right into reviewing the Marvel Cinematic Universe's second phase of awesomeness!
(You will see that this is where I start to diverge from the Fanboy Legion)


Iron Man 3- It's weird to put the words "Controversial" and "guy wearing a super-powered suit of armor" in the same sentence, but that's the best way to describe this one. From its darker tone to its portrayal of Tony Stark's PTSD after almost dying in "Avengers," fans had a lot of shit to say about what is actually one of the stronger post-Phase One films. Writer/Director Shane Black reinvents the format here by portraying an even more troubled Tony Stark than the one we saw in the second sequel as he deals with real-world problems. Frankly, if by the third film we aren't seeing more of the alter-ego than the masked hero, it's probably not a good sign, hence the invalidation of the "Tony Stark has a bigger part than Iron Man" criticisms. Even Black's clever sleight of hand with a fake Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) is entertaining and suits the film.

Thor: The Dark World- Another one that gets unfairly dissed, the Thor sequel is one of the stronger entries in the series. Yes, the plot is a tad typical but that's only because there have already been several movies at this point and world-ending threats have become the norm. But these movies are about our connection with the characters and desire to see them persevere.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier- Simply put, this is probably the best movie in the MCU's list of releases so far. Combining the feel of a late Seventies suspense thriller with incredible fight scenes and character moments, the Russo Bros. strike a perfect balance between Marvel's tendency to be too jokey and an edgier, more real-world feel. This is why I wrote previously that the first film is overshadowed. This one is literally as good as the MCU gets...at least so far.

Guardians of the Galaxy. Vol. One- And here it is. The movie that practically caused fanboys and girls alike to have screaming orgasms in the aisles because it was so hip, so cool, so freaking funny! To paraphrase Montgomery Burns, in case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. I had numerous issues with this movie, from its obnoxious characters to its low stakes plot and tendency to shit all over decent drama with bad jokes. When I saw this one theatrically, there was a woman in the theater who literally laughed the entire time the movie ran. That was when I realized this film was an example of pre-programming. That alone doesn't necessitate a bad movie, however, and while GOTG certainly doesn't match the classic definition of a bad movie, I found it to be a series of misfires and a blatant attempt to combine Marvel with a Disney sensibility.

Avengers: Age of Ultron- Another film in the series fans love to hate, there is an admittedly compromised feel to the film, but that's not Joss Whedon's fault. Disney/Marvel is to blame. Despite that, this installment is quite a feat. Despite the changes to Ultron's origins and some quirky character reveals (Hawkeye has a wife and kids? Black Widow has it for Bruce Banner?) or perhaps because of them, this film, along with Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3, genuinely feel like sincere efforts to move the franchise into a more adult direction. In many ways, it's a stronger film than its predecessor, especially because the actors know their characters so well at this point, but there's an unfortunate "Been there" feel to the proceedings.

Ant Man- The stories of behind-the-camera turmoil regarding this comparatively small film didn't diminish its success at the box office or as a film. It's a welcome break from all the world-threatening mayhem films, keeping its plot relatively small and the drama more personal. Unlike the more bloated GOTG, the humor works beautifully here and I actually cared about the characters and what was happening.

Next up...Phase Three Finds Amazing New Ways to Disappoint Me...

I Rate the MCU: Phase One

And now for something you really don’t care about! Many on Facebook have endured my occasional bitching about the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its glaring shortcomings. While I still enjoy them overall and will continue to see them at least through the “Infinity War” storyline, as a writer and a fan, I am allowed to have my gripes. And if you’ve read my open letter to Marvel, (hardly anyone did so probably not. Oops! Here’s a hyperlink!) you will probably note the consistency in my criticisms as well as my praise because, yes, there is praise as well.

Let’s start the feel-good cavalcade, shall we?

 

Iron Man- An awesome beginning to a potential movie franchise, this unlikely starting point places an arrogant Tony Stark brilliantly portrayed by Robert Downey, Jr. into an international weapons dealing conspiracy and a superhero’s origin story. The performances are top notch, the action is superb and the writing is genuinely compelling. The final line of dialogue still gives me shivers.

The Incredible Hulk- A highly underrated sideways sequel to a forgettable first attempt, Edward Norton is perfectly cast as Bruce Banner and the storyline advances the character and the universe even more effectively than Iron Man did.

Iron Man 2- The only thing that hampers this obviously fast-tracked sequel is the rushed, sub-plot crowded feel of a blatant attempt to set up the next few movies in the franchise. Downey still shines as a now more emotionally troubled Stark and Gwyneth Paltrow is given more to do and be this time around. Also, we get out first glimpse of the Black Widow in action and Thor’s hammer!

Thor- Still one of my favorite first movies in the MCU, Thor mixes Greek-level tragedy with Shakespearean emoting, opulent set designs and good old fish out of water humor. Chris Hemsworth makes an excellent Thor and Natalie Portman, who always seems to think she’s slumming in genre films, is charming and funny in her role as his love interest and helper. The Earth sequences have been criticized for feeling claustrophic but that’s because the big stuff was being saves for later.

Captain America: The First Avenger- Joe Johnston is the best director for WWII era superhero stories, as is evidenced by this film and “The Rocketeer.” I can’t say enough about this film or its vastly superior sequel. This one has it all. A likable lead, the ultimate in high stakes, great dialogue and wonderful character beats. It doesn’t get the respect it deserves, I think, because “Winter Soldier” overshadowed it.

The Avengers- As of this writing, this is Joss Whedon’s magnum opus. Everything he learned working on those TV shows of varying quality and his years writing for Marvel paid off beautifully. This is an almost perfect superhero movie from start to finish from the sets to the action to the music to the dialogue and the performances.

 

Next up: Phase Two Gets a Little Shaky…