2014: The Year in Review

This was a good year for film. It wasn't really spectacular, but it had enough good movies to round off the year as a success for us, the viewers. there were the big blockbusters and comic book movies in the form of X-men: Days of Future Past, and Guardians of the Galaxy, but we also had the lighter fare that was great as well, my favorite of those being Chef. Chef was really pounded by a lot of people and I must confess, I didn't expect much from it, but it delivered, with it's charming, and heartfelt story about the bond between father and son, as well about picking yourself up when you are put down.

It seems to me that as time goes by, we get fewer and fewer original works. Almost all of the major movies this year were either sequels or adaptations of some sort. Don't get me wrong, they were very good, just not as original. As i write, I'm looking at a list of all releases of 2014, We have things like like 22 Jump Street, Godzilla, The Fault in Our Stars, The Purge: Anarchy, Hercules, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Giver, Big Hero 6, Horrible Bosses 2, The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies,Exodus: Gods and Kings, Annie, just to name twelve, averaging at least one remake, sequel, or adaptation per month. I don't mean to say that these were bad movies, or even that they approached it in an un-creative manner. I thought Hercules was a very creative way of telling the legend that hadn't been tried before.

I hope Next year we will get more creativity and boldness from movie studios as I, for one, would like to see new material. But let's get serious, that's wishful thinking. If there's one thing that Hollywood has proven, is that they are more than willing to redo something that has already been done, in fact, they prefer it. Let's not expect Hollywood to actually use their brains please. Who knows what monster they will create for us next?

A Look Back At...

Bewitched

     This is not a great movie, not by a long shot. It's cheesy and lame on so many levels and as a remake it tarnishes the memory of the beloved series in countless ways. But, it's not a remake, by any means, and in that, we find redemption. It is, rather, a parody in some ways, and a tribute in others, and in that, they succeed. When i first saw this movie, I was angry and so very disappointed. I just found it plain dumb. But over the years I have found that it grows on you, at least it did on me. My first reaction to Bewitched was basically the same one Family Guy's Stewie Griffin  had upon viewing said movie, shown below.

The reason, I think, it wasn't that funny, was because we were expecting it to be funny for the same reasons the series was funny, but like I said, this isn't a remake of the series, it is a tribute. Had we seen this movie without the title of Bewitched, everyone would've found it funny enough not to hate it. The title raised our expectations to unreasonable levels.

     I found the story to be a very creative means of bringing back interest to the series and also a terrific job of ending it, and not making it with the purpose of actually rebooting the entire series. It is a standalone movie playing on nostalgia and nothing else, resulting in a touching tribute that does its job of reminding us of what we grew up with, without actually tarnishing the characters we love. Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell do not play Samantha and Darrin, they play actors filming a remake of Bewitched. It is a clever twist and while it is tempting to say they just played it safe by providing themselves a way to capitalize on the fame of the original without actually remaking it, I would love to see more reboots take a similar route. 

     What I also enjoyed about this movie was the casting. It was near perfection. Nicole Kidman as the Ding Dong blonde worked perfectly, Will Ferrell's bumbling idiot, yet jerk movie star has-been was fun and hilarious, and Michael Cain and Shirley McClaine round off the supporting cast brilliantly. Not too mention Steve Carell's Uncle Arthur, while brief, was a brilliant choice. "Hey, is it Porsche, or Porsha?" (Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur)

     I think this movie works well for what it was intended to be, and if we were to watch it as such, then I think we all would've enjoyed it more. I am not innocent in hating the movie upon first viewing it, and I'm sure there are many others who shared my initial reaction. However, as a standalone movie, I find it to be well written, superbly cast, and yes, even funny. Except the Clippers joke, which as Stewie points out, is not. 

Movie Quote Mondays

Today's quote is from 2009's Paul Blart: Mall Cop, by Jamal Mixon, playing Leon.

"I was just wondering, were you serious about that Happy Meal? It isn't coming, is it?"

(And of course, Vince's face is priceless!)

Six Degrees Saturday

You know the drill: connect Kevin Bacon to the selected actor in six degrees or less. Each movie in between is one degree. Today is:

John Travolta: Four degrees.

Last week's solution: Kevin Bacon- Hollowman- Elisabeth Shue- The Saint- Val Kilmer- Bataman Forever- Chris O'Donnell

A Look Back At...

Santa Claus: The Movie

     This is a movie that for some reason, no one really talks about, but I'm sure everybody's seen. It's on every Christmas on the major channels, yet no one looks at it other than to merely acknowledge its existence and let it fall under the category of popcorn flicks to watch on a Christmas afternoon when you maybe have nothing to do. That's a shame, because Santa Claus: The Movie, is actually a great film. There have been many origin stories for Santa Claus, but this one is the best, and as for the embodiment of old Saint Nick himself, David Huddleston does it perfectly. He's got the look, voice, and feel of Santa Claus and plays the role of Santa as a person to near perfection. The supporting cast is also just superb. Dudley Moore as the eccentric forward thinking elf is just the best, and John Lithgow as the greedy conniving toy maker is hilarious, evil, and fun to watch onscreen. As far as origin stories go, this might even be one of the best ever, bringing a new look at the legend of Santa Claus while perfectly capturing what we already think of Santa Claus.

     Aside from the origin aspect, the movie does a wonderful job of moving the narrative along centuries to our modern-day times(or at least modern in the eighties). This is not merely a simplistic children's movie, there is plenty to take from as serious movie and should never be dismissed for simplicity. The movie explains wonderfully why Saint Nick became Santa Claus by introducing a prophecy among the elves that a childless toy-maker would love all the children of the world and would become known as Santa Claus. It gives you something to think about the character of Santa Claus, who has always longed for children, but could never have any, and seems to satisfied being just a symbol of hope and joy to all the children everywhere. It adds to the depth of the character as the narrative moves along and shows us how deep down, even after all these centuries, he thinks about what it would be like to be a father, and he finds a son figure in the form of the orphan boy named Joe.

     The movie also does not merely stay in the point of telling Santa Claus' origin. There is the struggle of Santa having to come around to not giving presents to naughty children, and as would be expected of someone who is a Saint, he is resistant to the notion. We also see the battle of trying to maintain the Christmas spirit and the struggle to embrace modernism. At one stage of the film we find Santa questioning whether or not there is even a point to Christmas at all, noting to his wife (who plays a more integral part of the story than in perhaps any other film) how people have lost the feeling of giving presents just to see the look in their friends' eyes. It's a touching and heartbreaking scene, and one that summarizes our society, more now than it did 30 years ago, perfectly.

     If you've never seen Santa Claus: The Movie, you are truly missing out on one of the best Christmas gems out there. This is a movie to be enjoyed by all. It is not a laugh-out-loud comedy, but neither does it take itself too seriously. There is fantasy and magic, but it is also grounded and believable and does a rare terrific job of staying with the confines it makes for itself. This is a movie to be enjoyed, whether your looking for a look at the legend or just want to have a good time. Watch it for the story, or at the very least watch it for the second half if for no other reason than John Lithgow's unforgettable performance as B.Z, the toy-maker. There is plenty of Christmas cheer to be found as well as deep meaning. It's a movie that will leave you with joy and a better appreciation of the Christmas season, and the purpose and need of Santa Claus.

Movie Quote Mondays

Today's quote comes from Dennis Farina From 1995's Get Shorty:


"They say the f***ing smog is the f***ing reason you have such beautiful f***ing sunsets."
(Dennis Farina as Ray "Bones" Barboni)

Original vs. Remake: The Shop Around the Corner/ You've Got Mail

     Never before has a remake missed its mark so much as to totally miss the entire purpose of the original. It's not that You've Got Mail is a bad film, far from it, it's actually quite good as romantic comedies go and by today's standards, very well written compared to its competition. But it seems to me that it kind of missed the whole point of the story. The story remains, in both the original and remake, about coincidences, and loving that which you thought you hated. However, if you look at You've Got Mail a little closer, you'll see that they never really hated each other at all. Their personalities, as well as just about anything else about them, EXCEPT for the fact that they were competitors. I don't know about you, but to me, that borders formulaic in the romantic comedy context. In The Shop Around the Corner, they worked together, all day, everyday, and they knew quite enough about each other to have real rage about one another and have a genuine hate towards each other.

     What I hate the most about You've Got Mail is the way they took the story and tried to turn it into some sort of social commentary, big business versus small business, rich versus poor and all that. It's not that I hate the message, I just don't think it does anything to help in telling the story, in fact, it added to making it cliche. Another enjoyable feature in The Shop Around the Corner is the fact that it is set during Christmas, but it is only a Christmas movie if you want it to be, meaning that it can hold it's own anytime of the year, but still be watched around the holidays and give you that Christmas feel.

     The original also has so much more going for it in terms of storytelling. They didn't just make it a romance, but they made it a story about the entire store. The movie is just as much about the owner, Mr. Matuschek (wonderfully portrayed by Frank Morgan, of The Wizard of Oz) as it is is about the love/hate relationship between James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan. Mr. Matuscheck's suspicions of his wife cheating on him with James Stewart also adds to the complexity, not only of the story, but the struggles of Frank Morgan's character. You actually care about everyone inside the store, not just the main characters, and you want to know how it turns out for everyone involved. I think one of the most heart-felt moment in the story is when a lonely Mr. Matsuchek, after just leaving his wife and is alone for Christmas asks everyone if they would like to have dinner with him, and the only one available is the new delivery boy whom he had just met. It is a very touching scene and a fitting closure in the movie for Frank Morgan's character.  

     There are few remakes that manage to break the original and while this one comes close, very close, it just misses, but only for the fact that it kills the point of the movie that they don't have a day-to-day relationship with each other and don't know who the other is. The question explored in the original was "how well do we know the people we see every day?", while the remake merely asks"how well do we know those on the internet?" It is a valid question, but I think the shock value is greater in the old one, just because they knew each other very well and had valid reasons to hate one another. In the remake it was their personal prejudices that prevented them from bonding outside their secret relationship and even then, until she knew he was her competitor, they still seemed like they would have hit it right off.

Six Degrees Saturday

Six degrees to Kevin Bacon. This week's challenge:

Chris O'Donnell - 3 Degrees



Last week's Solution: Kevin Bacon- A Few Good Men- Jack Nicholson- Something's Gotta Give- Diane Keaton.

Spaceballs: The Perfect Spoof

These days, movie spoofs go in the direction of just basically re-filming the movie with comedic commentary. They bring nothing new, nor original to the movie they are attempting to spoof. I guess there is only so much you can do when you are spoofing, as the whole purpose is not tell your own story, but rather mock something else. However, if we look at the Mel Brooks spoofs, they did not so much as tackle a specific movie, but a genre in general, using individual movies as references and not necessarily the story. This led to an original movie that felt nothing like the original and with only sort of nostalgic connection. Take for instance, a difference between Blazing Saddles and Scary Movie. While Scary Movie went so far as to make the villain basically a retarded clone of the Scream ghost, Blazing Saddles' Hedley Lamarr is a throwback to western outlaws in general, making it very hard to associate him with any one other movie, and making him an original character. Scary Movie felt like Scream with guest elements from other horror films while Blazing Saddles actually felt like its own movie made by a fan of westerns and comedy.

This Brings us to Mel Brooks' Spaceballs, which in my opinion, is the best, most perfectly executed spoof, not just comedy, ever. What makes Spaceballs so good, is that it actually manages to blend both styles of spoofs, and that is why it is the best! It takes from the style of Scary Movie and more modern spoofs by taking a specific movie to tackle, but seamlessly blends the events and characters of the several different movies of the genre, but does not go as far as calling them the same characters. For instance, Lord Helmet is obviously a spoof of Darth Vader, but in no way is he supposed to be Darth Vader, he's just supposed to remind you of him. He's not actually a cyborg, and he's definitely not Lone Starr's father. Whereas, Scary Movie, takes the characters directly from the movies they are spoofing and simply have them act stupid, with no room for originality on the part of the actors. compare, for instance, Scary Movie 3's Charlie Sheen character Tom, a spoof of Mel Gibson's Signs Character, to Spaceballs' Lord Helmet. Helmet is an original and totally new character with throwbacks that are meant to remind you of Vader, and Tom is just a dumber version of Mel Gibson's character.

Going back to how Spaceballs takes from both styles, we need look no further than the character of Lone Starr. Here, Mel Brooks did something brilliant in merging the two heroes of Star Wars, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, into one complete hero. He has the loner, and selfish mentality of Han Solo, coupled with the heroism (and the Force/Schwartz) that is Luke Skywalker. To another extent, albeit less extreme, Brooks also merged the C-3PO and R2-D2 to create Dot Matrix. Not too much is made into the final product from R2-D2, except for maybe the wheels, but you get the general idea of blending characters.

All in all, Spaceballs is just hilarious, and i think perfect in the sense that it is the spoof that manages to combine everything we love about spoofs like no other has ever before.Blazing Saddles will forever be remembered as the better film, but I think Spaceballs is the better spoof. Blazing Saddles failed to give a specific movie to feel the nostalgia, and while I think it may be for the better in making it funnier, not so in succeeding to spoof something. While we're on the subject, I would like to point out why I failed mention two other Mel Brooks Spoofs that are equally funny, Dracula: Dead and Loving It, and Young Frankenstein. that is because they fall under the extreme of spoofing just their respective movies, and Young Frankenstein, while it is more original, it gives us a new story not to retell it, but in the form of a sequel, which works just fine for me. I don't want to take away from these two great films, but I think that in the end, if you want a perfectly executed spoof, not just a comedy, you need look no further than Spaceballs, because for what it was meant to be, it's just perfect.

The Best Chrismas Movie

There is a debate as to what the best Christmas movie and everyone has their own idea and personal favorite. At the end of the day, the consensus seems to be either one of two that everyone always defends as the best one: Miracle on 34th Street, and It's a Wonderful Life. It's a Wonderful Life is a great film, in fact spectacular! It's well directed, acted, written, has a brilliant cast, and has a deep, touching, heartfelt message about life. Here's where I have a problem though in calling it the best Christmas movie: it's not really about Christmas at all, is it? Stop and Think about it for a second. The story would work at any time and place the writers would have wanted it too. Its plot and occurrences have little to do with Christmas and the fact that it is set during Christmas does very little to move the plot along, nor does it have any effect on the characters other than to maybe add another level of sympathy because of the season. This is not to cast a dark cloud on the film. It truly is a masterpiece, Frank Capra at his best,  but it is a masterpiece that can easily be enjoyed year round and would do very little to remind you of Christmas were you to watch it, say in April. I'm sure you can guess where I come down on the debate of best Christmas movie. It is, without a doubt, Miracle on 34th Street. Miracle on 34th Street is the best Christmas movie not because it involves Santa Claus, but because it involves everything that Christmas is supposed to be about: helping others, selflessness, faith in our fellow men, hope for the future, and at its heart, a movie about love, in all its forms. Granted, it does not go into the true meaning of Christmas, which is, at the end of the day, the birth of the Savior Jesus Christ, but in all honesty, there is no film out there that manages to capture that spirit, and is also a great film overall, so I'm sticking with my choice. It at least accomplishes the spirit of Christmas like no other film, for the reasons aforementioned.

What makes Miracle on 34th Street so special? Why do we watch it, again and again year after year? I think that it's not only because it is such a heartfelt story, but because it is, despite all, a great film. It is funny, heartwarming, dramatic, and just entertaining. The cast is impeccable, and the story, while being about Santa Claus, is grounded and believable. Not only that, it is thought provoking in the funnest of ways. Was he really Santa Claus? Was it all just an amazing coincidence, or was there something more? I'm for the latter, but anyone who's seen the movie will tell you, while there is strong evidence and implications that he was who he claimed to be, it is not definitively proved, and that's what makes the movie special. I hate remakes in general because they fail to capture the spirit and purpose of the original, and Miracle on 34th Street is no exception. The remake seems to kill all that is magical about the original. It just failed to capture the magic and spirit of Christmas, removing all doubt about Santa Claus, completely missing the point of why it was a miracle. Miracles are by nature mysterious, and when you take away that mystery, it ceases to be a miracle.

Another interesting thing that I love about this movie, is that as a courtroom film, it has basically everything going for it. While it is true that the courtroom drama only consists of about 20-25 minutes from the start to finish of the procedure, it has all of the elements of a complex Law & Order episode. It has the legal maneuvering of Kringle's lawyer, the politics involved on the part of the judge who wants to do his duty, but is constantly reminded by his adviser of the political dangers involved in the case, and the relentlessness of the district attorney, who doesn't necessarily believe Kringle should be put in an asylum, but is dedicated to do his job, even if it will end up costing him his job. What I love the most about the court procedures, is that we know everybody's motives, and it's funny to see that if they had had an open discussion, the entire process could have been avoided. The DA wanted out, the judge was lost and caught in the middle of something he had no control over, and Kringle's lawyer is trying desperately to win over two people who deep down want him to win, but are bound by conflicting interests that prohibit them from doing so. In the end, the only "bad guy" is the psychologist Mr. Sawyer, and he gets what he deserves.

The miracle, in the end, is that no one really acted completely selflessly, in that they all had other motives, and Kris Kringle is declared to be Santa Claus anyway. Kris' lawyer had his personal motive to not see his friend be locked up and trying to convince Maureen O'hara's character and her daughter to believe in something more (not to mention the romantic relationship he hoped to establish with her from the beginning). The postal workers who just wanted to get rid of some mail taking up precious storage space in their office. Mr. Macy who knew the backlash he would receive for calling Kris a fraud after all Kris had done for his store, and then there are the selfish motives of the DA and the judge, both who knew they had bitten off more than they should have, and were only too happy it was over, and in a sense, relieved that they lost. That in the end is the miracle: in the end, good triumphs.

I love Miracle on 34th Street because it reminds us about miracles, and hope, and magic. I believe that Kris Kringle is Santa Claus, but that is all it is, a belief, I'll never know for sure, and I'm all right with that. Not all mysteries in the world are meant to be solved. Some are just miracles, there to make our lives better, and to keep hope alive, like Santa Claus.

New Pages

Hey, check out my pages frequently as I will be adding more guides in the future. Last week I posted a guide to understanding genres and I think you will find it both useful and enlightening. Check it out and pass it on!

Movie Quote Mondays

Every Monday, I will post a favorite movie quote of mine. Share with friends and send me your own if you want to see it on the a future post.

Today's quote brought to you courtesy of Mel Gibson, from 1990's Air America:

"You know, that would make a great TV commercial? 'Excuse me, is that an Uzi?' 'Why, yes it is. Hey, self-defense is no laughing matter! That's why when I want number one I pack an Uzi... accept no substitutes." (Gene Ryack, played by Mel Gibson)

Six Degrees Saturday

Every Saturday, I will post a new actor for Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon. If you are unfamiliar with this game, it's quite simple. The theory is that you can connect anybody in Hollywood to Kevin Bacon in six steps. I only use actors and not directors, producers etc. So for example, connecting Kevin Bacon to Robert Downey Jr. works like this. Kevin Bacon- Flatliners- Julia Roberts- Conspiracy Theory- Mel Gibson- Air America- Robert Downey Jr. Every movie in-between the two actors is a degree, so from Kevin Bacon to RDJ is 3 degrees. There are always multiple solutions, and though I will list the degrees, keep in mind you might find a shorter route. Enjoy!!!

This week:

Diane Keaton- 2 degrees

A Christmas Story: A Child's Point of View

     I heard someone on the radio a couple of years ago saying they hated the movie A Christmas Story because they didn't find it heartwarming. They said it was stupid because there was no emotion on the part of the father until the one scene where (SPOILER ALERT!) Ralphie opens his secret present and finds the Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle he's been asking for all year and previously met by comments from his mother, teacher, and even Santa with the now famous rebuttal "You'll shoot your eye out!" It's sad that someone can sit through this entire movie and be so cynical as to not recognize the heartwarming message behind it, and laughable that they totally missed the purpose of the whole movie. This film is not presented in the form of facts or from an objective point of view, but rather perceptions, or rather, the perception of life through the eyes of a child. We see the world through Ralphie's eyes, and the narrator is not exactly what we call dependable, as he is subject to the whims that all children are subject to. For instance, in the beginning of the film, he imagines his mother as a sort of witch for not wanting him to have a rifle, but after she covers for him with his father after he gets in a fight with a bully, he begins to understand her a little better, and gains a greater respect for her. Call me sentimental, but I find it to be a very heartwarming scene. When you look at A Christmas Story in this way, it makes a little more sense, am in all honesty, if you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself, because it is pretty self explanatory that that is the point of the entire film. But let's play a little devil's advocate and pretend that the critics of the film are right and that is nothing touching in the film until the end,that for me would be enough. We go through the entire movie with Ralphie's perception of how mean his father can be; Ralphie's little brother even fears their father will kill his brother, and nothing is shown in the movie that the father takes any interest in his children. However, when he buys Ralphie the gun, you come to realize that it was all Ralphie's perception of his father, and that his father was thinking of him all along, he just didn't know, because let's face it, as kids, how many times were we actually so sure our parents would buy us the gits we wanted? Isn't that why we wrote to Santa Claus in the first place? A Christmas Story is the perfect movie in telling a story through a child's eyes. If you imagine yourself as a eight year old, the movie will make sense and will be an enjoyable experience, if for no other reason than personal nostalgia.

Is Star Wars Science Fiction?

What is Star Wars? What specific genre does it really fall under? It is listed as both science fiction and fantasy, but which one is it really? It all depends on how you want to look at the series as a whole. Do you want to look at it as one, or individual movies? I consider a movie to be Science Fiction when there is a new scientific breakthrough in the story relative to the universe to which it is set. This breakthrough can be a technological advancement or otherwise, but it must be new in the setting and it must be central to the story in the terms of how the characters deal with it. Under this definition, the only one of the six films in the series that can be considered science fiction is the first one, these days known as Episode IV: A New Hope. The reason for this is the Death Star. The Central conflict in A New Hope is the creation of the giant space station with the capabilities to annihilate an entire planet. This is a new technology being introduced that forces the characters in the universe to deal with, an unprecedented weapon that could change the balance of power in the galaxy. At first glance, it would appear that we could list Episode II: Attack of the Clones as science fiction, but if we remember, cloning already existed in the universe, so it was no advancement, and I wouldn't consider the "cloners" being able to finally speed up aging as an advancement that would greatly contribute to the plot. Whether it is ten or twenty years to grow the clones, it has no effect on the story. That Being said, we must consider the Star Wars saga as a whole to be fantasy and not science fiction. Could it change? Sure, but that depends on the direction that Disney takes the series, but even from the first entry, it was dominantly fantasy, with the Death Star being the only element of science fiction in the movie. everything else, while new to us, was already established in the universe of which it was based. Science fiction is not about how new something is to us, but rather to the setting of the story. A movie about the invention of something as primitive as the bow and arrow or the discovery that the the Earth orbits the Sun is just as valid as science fiction as a story about the advancement of robotics. It is the discovery of the new and unknown, but from the point of view of the characters, not us. Now, I know some who will read this will be screaming and saying "what about Star Trek?" Well, unlike Star Wars, Star Trek has always been about new discoveries. The first one had the unknown alien entity, Wrath of Khan had the Genesis device, and so on. So, sorry Fan Boys, but the Trekkies win this one. I have always been a fan of both series, but of the two, Star Trek is the only one that is truly science fiction. You can debate the merits of the films all you want, but Star Wars cannot claim to be science fiction just fantasy. But it's still, FULLY AWESOME!!!!!!!!! 

He Who Laughs Last Laughs Longest

For some time now, DC Comics has been criticized and laughed at for taking so long to start their Justice League cinematic franchise. Many were saying that they were fools for just standing by and watching Marvel capitalize on their indisputably successful avengers franchise. Well, in all honesty, from a business perspective, they couldn't have done better. As soon as Iron Man, the first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, hit theaters, Marvel was unstoppable. Had DC started their Justice League series then, it would have been a disaster. We would have had both companies competing and trying to outdo the other. Phase One of the Marvel films enjoyed so much success because they had nothing to worry about but telling the story and making it good, trying to outdo no one but themselves. Now Phase One is over, and Phase Two is nearly done as well. DC knows this. They also know the obvious, that we will never view the new phase of Marvel with its new line-up the way we do Phase One. Think of it like Star Wars. We who grew up with the original will never like the new ones as much. Granted, I don't think Marvel will screw up Phase Three the way Lucas did with the prequels, but you get the general idea. Now it's DC's turn. Part of the interest that came to Marvel's Phase One and Two from the perspective of the comic book illiterate (myself included), is that they took the well known characters to tackle first. This generated the interest needed to fuel their multi-billion dollar success. While I couldn't be more excited about Phase Three, I must confess I don't know anything about these new heroes. I do, on the other hand, know very well about the characters involved in the Justice League movies. Batman, Superman, Flash, Wonder Woman, these are the top of their universe much like Phase One was the top of Marvel's. Top of the universe at least from the perspective of the average moviegoer, those of us who don't read the comics. At the end of the day, the Justice League franchise will be just as successful as Phase One and Two and I believe will surpass the coming Phase Three, set to start after Avengers 2: Age of Ultron. The average moviegoer doesn't know the more obscure characters that will inevitably need to be brought in to future Marvel phases but they are very familiar with the ones in the first phase of Justice League. The DC characters have the advantage of being more traditionally present on the big screen, albeit not as successful as Marvel has been the last few years. We all grew up with Richard Donner's Superman and Tim Burton's Batman, while Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is a modern masterpiece and already considered by many a classic, as well as an international box office phenomenon. Marvel has had a great run bringing their favorites to the big screen and have enjoyed a healthy paycheck for it. But now it's DC's turn, and they may have just what they need to come out on top when all is said and done. They let Marvel make their splash and make everyone love superhero movies again and now they're just gonna ride the waves all the way to box office success.

Do People Really Not Know Who Star Wars is About?

The other day I saw an article online stating ten reasons why Star Wars is dumb. It brought up some interesting points and I guess I can agree with some of them. However, I find it hard to take serious the opinion of a person that clearly does not even understand the movie he is criticizing. Number 8 on his list is that Luke Skywalker is not an interesting enough character, being that “the six films are collectively about him coming to terms with daddy issues.” Well, I got some news for everybody that feels that way. If there was one thing the prequels did a good job at (and it's probably really just this one thing), it was establishing that the story was never about Luke, but about his father, Anakin/Darth Vader. Anakin, for all the annoyances that were the prequels’ screenplays and Hayden Christensen’s performance, is a very intriguing and interesting character overall. It is easy to assume that the chosen one was actually Luke, especially given Yoda’s statement in Episode III about the prophecy perhaps being misinterpreted, but it is Anakin that destroys the Emperor, not Luke, so he was the chosen one all along, he just got lost somewhere along the way. Star Wars Episodes I-VI were not about Luke’s “daddy issues”, but about Anakin’s journey to fulfill his destiny of bringing balance to the force. It actually makes a lot of sense that he would destroy the Jedi in the process so that all could start anew. In Episode II, it is mentioned how the Jedi’s ability to use the Force had dwindled. They had lost their purpose. Balance could not be attained through them, and the entire system had become corrupt. Now, about Anakin as a character, that is very interesting indeed, especially as Darth Vader. Even in the original trilogy, while he has been viewed as perhaps the greatest villain of all time, you can see his struggle. When the Emperor expresses concern about Luke becoming a Jedi Knight, Vader’s first reaction is not to destroy him, but to turn him to his cause so that the Emperor will spare his life. Vader actually goes through great pains to spare Luke from death (coming soon will be an article covering this extensively so check back), and in the end, it is this conflict within him that allows him to fulfill his destiny of destroying the Emperor and bringing balance to the force. The hierarchy of the Jedi Order is done away with, as is the corruption that all power must inevitably bring, and the Sith are destroyed, once and for all and balance and peace once again come to the galaxy. At least until the sequels are made........