i think i like the movie version of this scene better

Columbine Songs
Eminem
Columbine Songs

Eminem and Columbine


I am an Eminem Fan for years now and when I started to get more and more into True Crime I was surprised to find a lot of his Lyrics mentioning Columbine which I never really realised before. Of course he also mentioned other murderers or events, like Ted Bundy and the Aurora theater shooting but I wanted to start with the Columbine lyrics because there’s a lot of material. So let’s start:


The Way I Am, 2000
0:00-0:16
When a dude’s getting bullied and shoots up his school
And they blame it on Marilyn and the heroin
Where were the parents at? And look where it’s at!
Middle America, now it’s a tragedy
Now it’s so sad to see, an upper-class city
Havin’ this happening

Marshall states that he thinks that he thinks that not music is the reason for the shooting but bullying and the parents. But as we all know Marilyn Manson was partly blamed for Columbine by the media.
Em is also making fun of the fact that Columbine was the first shooting that people cared this much about although there have been a lot of shootings but now it happened at a “nice” school.

There is an alternative version of this song featuring Marilyn Manson (x)
He performed it live with Manson (x and x)
Manson also appeared in the official video (x)

Remember me, 2000
0:17-0:30
Came home and somebody musta broke in the back window
And stole two loaded machine guns and both of my trenchcoats
Sick, sick dreams of picnic scenes
Two kids, sixteen, with M-16’s and ten clips each
And them shits reach through six kids each

Em is making fun of the idea that musicians like him are a bad influence because he is not the one who gives these kids their weapons.

And as we all know, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both wore a Trenchcoat when the attack started, that’s why „both of my Trenchcoats“ were stolen. And so he thinks that they were stolen to start another Columbine.
And when you have these „two kids“ with guns that, when you shoot them, „reach through six kids each“ you have 12 dead kids. And as we all know, during the Columbine massacre died 12 kids (and one adult).

By the way, Eminem needed two months to write his whole verse on this song while Sticky Fingaz wrote his verse in one day. 


I’m Back, 2000
0:30-0:41
I take seven [kids] from [Columbine]
Stand ‘em all in line, add an AK-47, a revolver, a 9
A MAC-11 and it oughta solve the problem of mine
And that’s a whole school of bullies shot up all at one time

This is probably the most well known Columbine reference made by Eminem.
This album came out one year after the massacre so it was still an sensitive subject. Therefore his label censored these two words (Kids and Columbine), even on the explicit version of the album.
I don’t think I have to explain what exactly this lyric means, it’s pretty clear.
In his book he states this:


“ I was getting shit about the Columbine reference on “I’m Back” and the label was telling me that I wasn’t gonna be able to say it. My whole thing was, what is the big fucking deal? That shit happens all the time. Why is that topic so touchy as opposed to, say a four-year-old kid drowning? Why isn’t that considered a huge tragedy? People die in the city all the time. People get shot, people get stabbed, raped, mugged, killed and all kinds of shit. What the fuck is the big deal with Columbine that makes it separate from any other tragedy in America?”

In 2015 a 15 year-old boy was arrested. He posted these lyrics on Instagram and added “Cause I’m just like shady and just as crazy as the world was over that whole Y2K thing”
The origiginal lyrics are “ ‘Cause (I'mmmm) Shady, they call me as crazy
As the world was over this whole Y2K thing”

When authorities searched the boy’s home they found weaponry and eventually arrested him. He denied any knowledge of the weapons and said he didn’t post this text on Instagram.


White America, 2002
0:42-0:48
White America, I could be one of your kids
White America, little Eric looks just like this

In this song it’s not only about the Lyrics but also about the music video.
With “little Eric” he mentioned Eric Harris but it was also meant as an example for a typical white kid. He is from middle america because his name is in the middle of amERICa.
The interesting part is, as I said, the video. Where you can see news of an school shooting during “I could be one of your kids”
And during “little Eric looks just like this” you can see one of those typical yearbook pictures and the house of the school shooter. The house looks a bit like the one the Harrises had.

When these lines get repeated you can see a boy full of (probably) blood stepping out of the map of america. On his shirt is written “I am Eric”.


Rap God, 2013
0:49-0:54
I’ll take seven kids from Columbine
Put ‘em all in a line, add an AK-47, a revolver and a 9

This was the first time we could hear the Columbine Line uncensored. Eminem didn’t rap all of the “I’m back” lines because he just wanted to
“See if I get away with it now that I ain’t as big as I was”
As you can hear, he got away with it.





Eminem is one of the few people who openly give their sympathy for the two shooters.
He admitted to be interested in serial killers in this statement:
“I did find myself watching a lot of documentaries on serial killers, I mean, I always had a thing for them. I’ve always been intrigued by them and I found that watching movies about killers sparked something in me.The way a serial killer’s mind works, just the psychology of them is pretty fucking crazy. I was definitely inspired by that, but most of the album’s imagery came from my own mind.”

But Marshall Mathers seems to have an very personal realationship with the whole Columbine Issue.
He himself was bullied on a daily basis during his childhood, often for his race and for always being the new kid. When he was nine years old he got beaten up so bad he was in an coma for several days. I think he is one of the people who is trying to understand what Harris and Klebold were going through.
But I think it is important to mention, that he is the living proof that even when your life is is shitty right now because of some people who have nothing in their life but to terrorize you, that you can still have a better life. And you beat them best when you keep on living.

“That Columbine shit is so fucking touchy. As much sympathy as we give the Columbine shootings, nobody ever looked at it from the fuckin’ point of view of the kids who were bullied—I mean, they took their own fucking life! And it was because they were pushed so far to the fucking edge that they were fucking so mad. I’ve been that mad.

-Marshall Mathers

The 1 Element Your Flawed Character MUST HAVE

If you’re a reader, you’ve probably experienced this before: you pick up a book, it seems pretty interesting, you nonchalantly decide to read it – “whatever, might be good” – and then … 

A paperback explodes life as you know it.  

Encountering a book like this can give life sudden clarity, it can change the way you look at the world, it can help you overcome something and grow, it can give you new purpose, it can inspire you to change your life, it can transform your future. By the time you’ve finished that book, it has become a part of your life – and will probably remain that way forever. (*Holds up my battered copy of Narnia as evidence*)

This magical experience is pretty much the ultimate goal for a reader. But if you’re a reader AND a writer, the fulfilling moment is inevitably marred by one depressing thought:  

“I’ll never write anything that good.”  

To which I say:

I beg to differ, little discouraging voice. With dedication and persistence, anyone can write a story that will be deeply meaningful to a reader. 

The trick? It needs to be deeply meaningful to the writer first. 

If a writer is going to give a reader a life-altering piece of knowledge, that means the writer already has that knowledge to give. We have all experienced things worthy of a story. We are all characters, journeying through arc after arc, becoming better or worse. From living these stories, we learn and see things more clearly, just as protagonists do. Which means we have something to say, something to write about, something to give. 

But to do so, we have to shoot for art.

The word art seems terribly vague, unattainable, and intimidating. But I don’t think it has to be. By “art” I’m going by the definitions given in two of my favorites quotes about writing (writing is art, so these apply): 

“Art is born when the temporary touches the eternal.” – G K  Chesterton

and

“…It is an art. It is the best of all possible art, a finite picture of the infinite.” – N D Wilson  

Both quotes state the same thing, in different ways. Art is about depicting and communicating something true, something universal, something everlasting about life and humanity, through something tangibly created. A definition which sounds an awful lot like the definition of metaphor: “a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.” Which sounds a lot like storytelling, because story IS metaphor. It’s life, condensed and magnified, all of its components there for a specific reason – to represent and convey some deeper meaning. So storytelling is naturally suited to being art. Which is good news for writers.

But it can also mean trouble. Storytelling is proven to be one of the most powerful teaching methods there is; a story actually has the power to get into someone’s head and heart and change everything, because to a reader’s mind the events on the page are actually happening. They’re living another life, a life that seeks to prove whatever the author wants to say. So writers have a responsibility to make sure the meaning of their story is true, morally and logically. 

BUT HOW DOES THIS ALL RELATE TO THE MAIN CHARACTER?!

Your main character is flawed, both in ways that only hurt themselves, and in ways that hurt others. These flaws are causing them to ruin their own lives. If they don’t awaken to this unwelcome truth about themselves, they will be lost. What happens to them over the course of the story, as they go after their singular goal, is going to apply pressure to these flaws until someone new – and most of the time, better – is made. The journey will teach them something, and that knowledge will enable them to overcome their weaknesses and forge a better life. 

And I bet you can guess what that story will teach them. That thing that is deeply meaningful for you, so meaningful you want to share it with readers? Yup, that’s what your main character is going to learn.

It’s going to be the SOLUTION to their inner problems. When it comes to characters, the meaning can be wrestled into three parts, adding up into one concise sentence. 

1) To achieve *a better state of being*

2) One must *moral and mental requirement*

3) Or else *the inner stakes*

To see how this works, let’s look at a fairy tale, the most straightforward example of this concept: 

Let’s see Cinderella (the live-action 2015 version). 

The meaning of the movie is summed up in this scene, and the story seeks to prove it throughout: 

“Have courage and be kind… It has power, more than you know. And magic.”

The story revolves around this notion, and everything seeks to represent it and prove it, in true Fairy Tale fashion.  

So in one line, that Ella’s arc proves: To achieve victory over abusers, one must hold onto their courage, kindness, and goodness no matter what – or else succumb and turn into someone like them. 

Exemplified in her last words to her stepmother, that truly defeat her forevermore:

So! Constructing these sentences can help give our flawed characters a destination to motor towards. Which makes writing their arcs much easier. And maybe we can construct a character arc and story that will become one of those magical reading experiences for a reader. And then, maybe one day, we’ll get letters from our reader, telling us exactly what our stories gave them and how it has saved their life in some small way (or maybe not so small way.) 

If finding a book like this is ultimate goal of a reader, I think getting a letter like that is the ultimate goal for a writer. 

Well, there’s my motivation. Time to go figure out what the heck I want my book to say. 

anonymous asked:

It seems Tyler Hoechlin is your favorite live-action Superman, but can you rank the actors from worst to best as you see it (of the current actors, I'm not sold on Hoechlin yet, but I think it has more to do with my dislike of his costume—particularly how the cape attaches—that it distracts me from the character, while Cavill seems to physically look perfect for the part and certainly is capable of the acting and charm, but the script he has to work with is lacking)?

Leaving out Kirk Alyn, John Haymes Newton and Gerard Christopher, since I’m not familiar with their performances:

7. Tom Welling

I feel kind of bad about this one. I grew up watching Smallville, y’know? And in terms of sheer man-hours devoted to the role, Welling has more of a claim to being Superman than anyone other than Bud Collyer. But he…wasn’t great, in retrospect. I suspect it was largely a matter of the material he was given; he did well whenever he actually had something to do, whether as dorky reporter Clark Kent intermittently throughout the final season, or various cases of amnesia/mind control/body-swapping/Red Kryptonite exposure. But outside maybe a sweet spot after he’d grown into the role and before he visibly started to get tired of it, and occasionally when getting to spar with (better) actors like Durance, Rosenbaum, and Glover, he had a weird stiffness when playing regular Clark Kent that for the most part didn’t translate into charm once he couldn’t bank on teen awkwardness anymore, and while that frankly made him a pretty honest depiction of the increasingly dicey version of the character he was written as, it didn’t make for a great take on Superman.

6. Henry Cavill

Cavill’s been more let down by the material than anything else - the unfortunate unifying factor of the bottom three here. When the movies let him be great, he really is great, whether promising Martha that he isn’t going anywhere even after learning the truth about Krypton or fighting for the stories he believes in against Perry White. For the most part though he just seems to be called on to look varying degrees of sad and solemn, asked to call on none of the charm he showed in, say, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Granted his Superman has a lot to be down about, but there’s no range on display here; I don’t doubt he’s got a great take on the character in him, but for now it’s being kept under wraps.

5. Brandon Routh

Of all the reasons Superman Returns was such a damn shame, maybe the biggest was that it buried any chance of seeing the performance out of Brandon Routh that he so clearly had to offer. He’s a great dorky Clark, a charming Superman, and when the stars line up just right, he really manages to capture the idea of Superman as a melancholy figure - his take doesn’t just seem to be bearing the weight of the world in the philosophical abstract, but much more palpably feels an entire planet crying out for him, knowing he can never save them all but always trying anyway out of unconditional love, very much in line with Garth Ennis and John McCrea’s take on him in Hitman. Unfortunately all that takes up maybe 10-15 minutes of runtime, spending the rest of the movie stalking his ex with a neutral expression until he gets shived by Kevin Spacey and regurgitates Brando at his secret kid. Superman Returns was weird, ya’ll.

4. Dean Cain

I was honestly surprised with myself when I decided Cain won out as the best of the rest outside the big three - I thought for sure it’d be Routh. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that while Routh’s take is definitely closer to the version of Superman I had in my head, it’s compromised in a way the Superman of Lois & Clark never was: like the take or not, this is a perfect realization of the Superman the creators of the show clearly had in mind. His Clark’s funny, clever, warm, and vulnerable, and while it feels weird for him to be acting that way in the glasses these were the Byrne years, so as an expression of his ‘real’ self it’s pretty on-point. His Superman’s the weaker end, stilted even given it’s supposed to be him putting on a performance in-universe, but there’s such an unironic earnestness there that it typically slid back into charming.

3. George Reeves

I thought for awhile about 2 and 3, ultimately concluding that what was asked of George Reeves was a fair deal simpler. He didn’t much differentiate between Superman and Clark, and his booming radio announcer voice made clear we weren’t supposed to be measuring his performance in terms of whether or not he seemed like a real person. What he was called on to show though, and what he had out the wazoo, was raw charisma. When Jimmy asks him why he burst through a wall rather than using a door and Superman replies with a grin “Well, this seemed a little more spectacular,” you’re 100% willing to buy into that explanation, because yeah, it was spectacular, because Superman’s fantastic. And he could more than hold his own with the best of them when asked to work with more serious material, whether wandering through an amnesic fog in Panic In The Sky with only his instinctive decency to guide him, or here, in the final scene of The Dog Who Knew Superman, where Clark has to deal with a dog not only adoring him, but recognizing him in both identities:

2. Christopher Reeve

I gave Tom Welling his well-earned due earlier, but if you really want to talk about a guy with a solid claim to being Superman, Christopher Reeve didn’t just embed himself on the psyche of a generation, but is still held up today as the unequivocal standard by which the role is set. In all likelihood he’ll always be ‘the’ Superman, in the same way as Sean Connery will always be James Bond, and Bela Lugosi will always be Dracula. He shone like the sun in the costume, he was believably such a wimpy klutz out of it that no one would guess they were the same even when it was staring them in the face, and if anyone has any lingering suspicions that he just had the easy task of playing two extremely arch roles to the hilt, they might be forgetting this bit:

Was it perfect? I don’t know about that - if nothing else there were one or two awkward line readings, and the identity division is so sharp that it’s hard to tell when you’re getting a glimpse of the real guy underneath all the identities. But while I definitely question how much of a positive impact on Superman those movies themselves really had in the long run, Reeve’s performance on its own was an undeniable revelation, everything he did reverberating with such a sincere and powerful sense of decency and love for his fellow man that it not only brought Superman to the life, but frankly changed him forever for the better.

1. Tyler Hoechlin

I expected nothing out of this guy. Not that I by any means thought he’d be bad, but when I heard some dude from Teen Wolf was gonna appear on an episode or two of Supergirl, my reaction was about as intense as…well, what you’d expect upon hearing that some dude from Teen Wolf was showing up on Supergirl, even given who he was playing (granted I’ve never seen Teen Wolf and don’t actually especially know what Teen Wolf is, beyond that it’s based on that werewolf-playing-basketball 80s movie written by…wait, Jeph Loeb?!). Looked fine - and it became clear he actually really did look the part once behind-the-scenes pictures started to come out, rather than that godawful original promo picture - and I figured he’d belt out his best Reeve/Animated Series/Cartoon-on-the-side-of-a-cereal-box brand Generic Superman Performance to cheer Kara on before vanishing into the sunset forever outside of the opening credits. I was plenty interested in the potential long-term ramifications of Superman being allowed on TV again in any capacity for the first time since the 90s, given the influence that suggested Geoff Johns had as the new DC President and what that could mean in terms of other characters showing up down the line, but I wasn’t inclined to think of this as anything other than a stepping stone, only notable in its own right because it meant someone would be wearing the s-shield.

Then we actually saw him.

Where the hell has this guy been all these years? Was he grown in a goddamn laboratory for the part? How did the best Superman ever end up in a minor recurring guest spot on the CW Supergirl show?

It would be so, so easy to leap to the idea that he simply works as a jack-of-all-trades: he’s almost as charming as Reeve, just about as confident as Reeves, nearly as vulnerable as Cain. But that would be selling what he’s doing short - especially given that he probably hasn’t had the opportunity to stretch as far as he could in any of those directions, as his role so far has very much been as Supergirl’s backup dancer. What it comes down to is his general demeanor and how he incorporates those aspects into a whole that feels more fully-realized than any portrayal before him. His Superman and Kent are not only distinctive to the point that within the heightened reality the show occupies you can buy that people think of them as different people, but you can see threads from both of them connecting back to the real Clark you see around Kara. He’s open and warm and authentic in a way none of his predecessors quite were, and he’s able to turn on a dime into steely determination or outright fury while remaining recognizable. He’s above everyone’s heads and vaguely alien at times without ever seeming detached or less than entirely loving of the people around him, able to admit his fears and failings while staying strong and capable of changing for the better, utterly and palpably good without ever sliding into naivete or cartoonishness. In short he has range and nuance, and thanks to that along with the air of laid-back friendliness he brings with him, he more than anyone else to put on the suit feels like a real person. And somehow, that real person feels as much as anyone ever has like Superman. And that’s a hell of an achievement. So someone give him his own goddamn show already.

On Fury Road and the value of non-threatening male heroes

So I’ve been re-watching Fury Road and something struck me;

Tom Hardy’s Max is just really non-threatening. Now, that’s weird on a surface level because in story he’s presented as very dangerous. But here’s the thing about the kind of men we’re used to seeing in action movie; They are threatening in their masculinity.

The capitol A Action hero is a fixture in our cultural awareness. Almost without fail this hero is a man (if you have a woman in the role of action hero, it’s almost always proceeded by her gender. She can’t just be the action hero, she is very clearly cast as a FEMALE action hero.) So our male Action hero  is a badass. He’s dangerous, he’s brooding, he’s tough as nails. Sometimes he’s sarcastic and witty, sometimes he’s a moody stud. Point is, despite cultural changes that we see with our Action heroes as different pop culture trends change the flavoring, these men are all pretty much cut from the same mold. And here’s the thing about your typical Action hero; They have this underlying current of threatening masculinity. To put it bluntly, your typical Action hero is really all about cock. They’re intimidating to both their male peers and the women who are cast opposite them. They are toxic masculinity distilled onto our screens.

Now, in recent years we’ve been seeing more varity in our Action heroes. More emotion. Of course, there have always been exceptions (Luke Skywalker is one of the most note worthy male heroes to break this mold, and I think it’s worth noting that he’s often called whiny. Hell, when I was a little kid I loved him, but as a young teenager I thought he was lame. Now I realize that this might well have been because he wasn’t acting like your typical male hero. Maybe that scared me on some level) Anyway, let’s get back to Hardy’s Max. In story he  starts out as frightening, but he is never threatening in the way of your usual Action hero. He’s feral, dangerous, and unpredictable at the start of our story, but he doesn’t have any of that toxic masculinity.  So, we have a mad Max who is dangerous, and seems mad, as it were.  But there’s none of that hyper male Action hero posturing.

Hardy’s Max is a flawed man whose past has almost driven him past the point of no return. To the other characters in the movies he initially seems to be  feral (they don’t have the benefit of hearing his inner thoughts) Max is a frightening, but he’s not a masculine he-man. In fact, the characters in the movie who fall close to what we’re used to seeing in Action heroes are the warboys and their leader. The culture espoused by Immortan Joe is hyper masculine and toxic. The young men who idolize him seem like extreme versions of what we’re used to with our heroes. They’re brainwashed into a society built on toxic masculinity and objectification, and the heroes of the story are the ones fighting against this idea. Interestingly, Furiosa has a lot of traits of your traditional Action hero, but it’s coupled with compassion and self reflection, not because she’s a woman, but because  she’s  a person. Like Max, she is fighting to regain her humanity through helping a group of young women fight for their freedom from a world of toxic masculinity.

So, again back to Max himself. As the movie goes on he regains his sense of self. A big theme int he movie is the objectification and commodification of human life. We see this with Immortan Joe’s ‘wives” as well as with the brainwashed warboys and the use living humans as ‘bloodbags’ and ‘milkers’ Max starts the movie literally strapped to the hood of a car as a hood ornament/living blood bag.  Max is reluctant to help Furiosa and the ‘wives’ at first, but we see him change in a brief period of time. He  regains his humanity through helping others and coming to terms with his own demons. Hardy’s Max is dangerous, but he’s also vulnerable, undeniably so. We see his fear, we see what haunts him, and we see him struggle to survive, and then struggle to come to terms with his past in order to help others have a future. This sets him apart from Mel Gibson’s Max, and in my opinion makes him the better of the two. By the time Max starts really showing his human side, we see a man who is compassionate and half broken, a man who relearns himself by helping others.

Another notable aspect of Max is his relationship with Furiosa. Usually when your typical Action hero is paired with a STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN in a movie, there’s this ongoing dynamic of ‘but you’re a girlllllll’ There isn’t respect, because the heroes of the story are acting out the deeply felt internalized misogyny of our own society. They can’t interact as equals because in our cultural minds they are inherently unequal. They are defined by their rigid gender rules, and they act this out like they’re children on a playground crying about cooties. And of course, there’s usually the sexual element, with the heroes constantly griping at/disrespecting one another while it’s played off as repressed attraction all along.Fury Road never once does this. Max and Furiosa are two flawed and broken people trying to survive. There isn’t a split second where Max stops to wonder how a GIRL can be so tough. Once they’re established as allies, they immediately move into a working relationship built on mutual respect and trust. Two scenes come to mind. Firstly, the initial canon chase when Max first shows himself as an ally. There’s one notable moment where Furiosa is standing up out of the roof and Max hands her a gun. That doesn’t seem important, but there’s something about that gesture that’s very c cinematically important. It shows us that they’re a team now, and it shows us that they trust each other. The second notable scene is the “Don’t breathe” moment in the night bog. Max has previously seen that Furiosa is a good shot. He knows that she is the one to trust with this task, so he hands her the gun and lets her use him as a rifle stand. It’s a moment with no dialogue that speaks volumes.

All of this goes to Max as a nonthreatening hero. He never objectifies, disrespects, or distrusts his counterpart. He’s never an alpha male. He’s part of a story that he doesn’t need to dominate with his manly male maleness. Hardy’s Max is a dangerous, vulnerable, and quietly compassionate man who gives respect and trust where it’s due. He has no need to parade and prove his masculinity. In fact, the people doing that are the villains, and isn’t that telling?

High☆Speed Free! Starting Days Event Report

The High☆Speed Free! Starting Days event was held at the Ryogoku Kokukigan Sumo Wrestling arena, the exact same location where the Free! Eternal Summer event two years ago was held. The biggest announcements of the event were the three planned Free! continuation movies:

1) Free! Timeless Medley ~絆 Bonds~
This will be a compilation of scenes from Free! Eternal Summer as well as new scenes relating to Makoto, Haruka, Rei, and Nagisa

2) Free! Timeless Medley ~約束 Promises~
This will be a compilation of scenes from Free! Eternal Summer as well as new scenes relating to Sousuke and Rin’s promise to him

3) Free! Take Your Marks
This will be a completely new full-length feature film following Haruka after he graduates from High School

For those interested in what happened during the Afternoon event, here’s a detailed report, so enjoy~

Keep reading

Spider-Man was fucking DOPE!

Man, I haven’t seen a Spider-Man movie so good for a very long time. I disliked Garfield’s version and I wasn’t really expecting much from Tom Holland, but after Civil War, my hope actually did skyrocket. And Spider-Man: Homecoming has not disappointed me. Though, it had one small minus.

Spoilers ahead, obviously.

Here’s my list of things I totally loved:

  • Bear papa Tony Stark. Seriously. A++++ character development. Tony is nothing but a sweet angel, I promise. He doesn’t steal the show either.
  • HAPPY HOGAN HONESTLY I WAS SO HAPPY TO SEE YOU!!!!!
  • They chose not to follow the boring-to-death Mary Jane/Gwen Stacy bullshit, instead they chose a NORMAL high school-like hardcore crushing/relationship. Not the big, eternal love at the age of 15. Yes, Peter was clearly having strong feelings for Liz, but it wasn’t all unnecessarily too much. They kept it totally natural and realistic. I will love them forever for that.
  • Biracial relationship, biracial marriage. Nice.
  • Many POC characters.
  • Ned is basically me the entire movie, honestly
  • Did I mention they kept it all REAL? Peter cried more than once, because he was in danger, because he was confused, because he is still a kid. Yes, he is tough, he is smart, he is strong and brave, but he is also only 15 and he is allowed to be weak and to learn out of that. I think it was really, really awesome.
  • Zero plot holes. Like, literally, none. They packed it all up nicely, addressed issues from CA:CW and Avengers both 1 and 2. I wish all the other movies and TV-show makers would do the same with their stories.
  • Karen, the suit lady and her instant-kill mode. Yup.
  • The Bank of Queen’s scene, with criminals wearing Avengers’ masks, so a casual viewier would get the “they’re seen as cirminals now” vibe. Small thing, done mostly for fun, but I like it anyways.
  • PAPA BEAR TONY STARK SERIOUSLY I WILL NOT SHUT UP ABOUT IT
  • Also, Happy mentioned the plain contained “materials for Cap’s new shield”. I think I had an orgasm just by hearing that.
  • Oh and about Cap: I can’t even imagine the amount of fun Chris Evans had by jumping into his old Captain America costume just to film those lame educational movie clips
  • Also, the amount of trolling in the post-credit scene is strong. Very strong.
  • Assholes. Seriously. And Chris Evans’ shit-eating grin when Cap said “patience” was the worst. Fuck you, sir.


Things I did not like:

- Peppers Potts. What the even fuck. Like why? Where did she pop out from? Seriously? Just ????????


EDIT:

Ok guys, I feel like I need to clarify what I meant with Pepper.

It’s not that I don’t like Pepperony, or Pepper Potts herself. I freaking love Pepper Potts (as an individual character and not a part of Pepperony ship) and if Tony can’t be with Steve, then Pepper is honestly the best choice for him. (reason I’m saying Steve would be better is because Steve is much more understanding and delicate when it comes to Tony and that’s something Tony desperately needs)(but Stony can happen only if Stucky cannot tho. Stucky #1, always).

Anyway, all I’m saying is just that she popped out of the blue and it looked like nothing happened? Judging by Tony’s face in CA:CW when he said Pepper “needed a break”, it looked like she dumped him permanently, because she disliked his lifestyle and/or was too stressed herself (and that’s totally understandable, tho). It was probably the big drama effect that was meant to contribute to Tony’s general stress, frustration, and the feeling of not being in control of his life (again). I get it now after watching Spider-Man, it actually makes sense.

I just don’t like the way they put Pepper back in the story. Like nothing happened, like Tony was never heartbroken, and they’ve been happily together since 2008. Even though I love to see Tony happy and and head over heels in love, I wish they would save it to the Avengers movie and explain what actually happened between them and how did they resolve the conflict.

Pepper Potts is a strong and smart woman, she’s definitely the Stark Industry boss material, and of course she is a human being that’s constantly put into stressful situations thanks to Tony and his identity as Iron Man. I am not saying that she should block her own feelings just to make Tony happier, but if his lifestyle is too stressful for her and she cannot accept it, maybe it would be better if they weren’t together. Not because they’re not in love, but because Tony needs someone who will stay with him no matter what. He needs this psychological and emotional stability, and I don’t think it does him any good if Pepper constantly changes her mind whether to be or not to be with him. Either she stays and accepts him, and Tony of course does everything to soothe her stress, or they split. I just don’t like the emotional roller coaster Tony is constantly put through: he deserves cuddles, soft kisses and patience. Pepper deserves psychological stability, too.

That’s why I disliked the way they put them back together: I simply cannot know how they resolved the conflict. I miss it, because I wanted to see if they’re actually doing it properly this time. If they did, then I’m totally happy for Pepper’s return too.

Reasons Logan should replace The Dark Knight as the gold standard for superhero films
  • Hugh Jackman‘s final performance as Wolverine: Yes, Bale is really good so long as you get past the “WHERE ARE THEY?!“ voice, but Hugh is on a whole other level. This is his swan song and he gave it everything he has. It’s the best lead performance in any superhero film, as far as I’m concerned.
  • The feels: Remember how Rachel died in that film and the reaction from most of us was ‘oh shit, that happened‘. It was more shock than sadness, lbh. Meanwhile, this film packs so much emotional punch. And it’s the full range emotions as well. There are some surprisingly funny moments. But when it gets sad, it does not hold back.
  • It’s proud to be a comic book movie: While Nolan’s Batman films, TDK included, repress any hint of anything that would compromise his realistic version of Batman, Logan embraces the fact that it’s a comic book movie. A very different kind of comic book movie, but still a comic book movie. Complete with a kid killing grown men with claws, clones, and cyborg hands.
  • Dafne Keen as Laura Kinney aka X-23: Seriously, there is not a single film in existence that could not be improved by Laura Kinney.
  • Diversity: OK, the diversity in Logan is not, say, Moonlight levels. But of the three central characters, one is disabled physically and mentally, the other is Mexican. Plus, the story explores the themes of prejudice and racism that have always been a part of X-Men with mutants being referred to as ‘objects‘ and made to be ‘controlled.‘ The Dark Knight has one person of color. And he gets the least attention of the side characters. Everyone forgets that because Morgan Freeman can make five minutes feel as satisfying as a 30 minute scene.
  • A tightly put together story: I honestly can’t think of a single plot hole in Logan. Sure, the timeline was up in the air, but I was never questioning the characters decision making, or how the logistics of this post apocalyptic future worked. Meanwhile, the Dark Knight has a few plot holes. Like how did Bruce Wayne swim onto a plane from a boat filled with models without any of them saying anything to the news? How is Lau’s arrest even remotely legal? The Joker’s plan hinges a lot on coincidence and people acting and reacting exactly the way Joker wants. And the ending. Why did Batman have to take the blame? Blame the Joker. It is technically his fault, since he pushed Harvey over the edge. And if he says ‘Harvey did it‘, who the hell’s going to believe him?

There’s other little stuff as well. The action scenes are better overall, it never feels too long, it looks better. But most importantly, Logan was a step forward. The Dark Knight was a step forward as well, don’t get me wrong. But it came out 9 years ago. The superhero genre has made leaps and bounds in the time since then. And I want to see a sign that we’re moving forward with the genre, and not clinging to 2008.

It doesn’t even have to be Logan that gets to be the new benchmark of the genre. It could be another film that made a similar or larger impact on the genre (The Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man, Superman) or a film that’s just as good as The Dark Knight if not better. (Winter Soldier, Civil War, First Class, Days of Future Past, Spider-Man 2). Hell, I’ll take Deadpool or a DCEU movie. Just some indication that we’ve moved on from a film that’s actual impact has overshadowed the film itself.

I am by no means saying that Dark Knight is anything below great. But it’s been 9 years. We’ve had several other great superhero films since then. Some even better than The Dark Knight. Can we please just move on? Nolan has. The actors have. The genre has. DC… is getting there. Why can’t we?

We finally have a movie that seems destined to be the new gold standard for the rest of the genre. Let’s take this as an opportunity to move on and let the genre step out of the shadows of the Dark Knight.

ithinkihopr  asked:

So in movies I've seen sword clashes where they will just try and use brute force to take out the other person until one succeeds or backs out. Is there a reliable other way to get out of that clash or is that actually how it happens?

So, Matt Easton over on his Scholagladitoria channel talked about how this was stupid in one of his videos, and we linked it in one of our asks, but I can’t find it now. The answer is when you’re looking at sword duels, those movie sword clashes are dumb. They’re an excuse for these protracted monologues which should end before they begin with someone being socked in the jaw.

See, that’s the thing. You can use other parts of your body. You disengage, they come forward, and you hit them with your fist.

Swords aren’t brute force weapons, and it’s actually fairly difficult to lock them together. This situation wouldn’t be occurring if both actors weren’t choosing to participate in this specific way. It doesn’t work like this because one of the key factors in basic hand to hand combat also applies to swords. This is that if you have two people shoving at each other, both applying equal force in an attempt to push the other back, one can simply let go. With no force to push against, the other person becomes unbalanced and they fall.

Strength isn’t the only way to win. In fact, it’s a fairly bad one to bet all your chips on. With movies, these scenes are supposed to be a symbolic expression of strength and combat ability. The winner shows his dominance over the loser. It’s the sort of stupid Alpha dog shit that will get you killed in real life because strength, at least the way most people think of it, means a lot less than it seems to. Combat and defense aren’t built on physical resistance all the time, they’re mutable, and shifting. Sometimes, you just let go and end up in a better position than the one you started in.

Say someone has you by the arm and their pulling you, but you don’t want to go with them. You can resist by planting your feet and drawing back in the opposite direction which is what they expect or you can go with them. By go with them, I mean physically throw yourself at them. They give you a nice hard yank and you use that as a launch pad, use it against them, and hit them so you both topple to the ground.

The logic of combat is conservation of energy. You only have so much to work with and are constantly expending it, so you want to win as fast as possible. Endurance training will expand your pool, martial training gives you more resources to work with, but the pool itself is always finite.

Pushing against another human who is applying equal force to you takes more energy than letting go. You use up that finite pool faster, wear out your muscles with constant tensing. It’s a bad position, one you don’t want to be in. With a sword, when you lose out you get stabbed. Unless you’re specifically of the mindset where you’re chasing death, you want to win.

The Hollywood version of the sword clash is there to give the actors a breather and spout their dialogue, which is the kind of talking you usually can’t get off in a tense fight anyway. You need that air to breathe so the oxygen goes back into your blood, and your attention on keeping the other person from killing you. Witticism is for when things aren’t serious.

-Michi

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Carmilla Movie Theory

You’ve asked me to tell you a story, to weave you a theory. My inbox sings with your requests to try and jumble everything together. You ask. I’ll deliver. 

Originally posted by loveisweakness-clexa4life

I’ll give it my best shot because there’s nothing I like more than a challenge. We’re sticking to the usual plan of trying to make the most ridiculous but still kinda plausible theory possible. To start us off, here’s what canon information I have to work with.

  1. The Existing Carmilla Mythos - So we naturally have everything from the 3 seasons to work with. You’ve seen the web series. You know.
  2. The Original Trailer - This is the one on the beach that announced the movie. Frankly, I’m curious as to how much of this will actually apply because from my understanding it was put together before they had a script. As a scene, it’s probably cut.  I’m treating the information as canon because I don’t have enough material to be cutting ANY of it.
  3. The New Cast Information - Literally yesterday, we received the names of three new cast members. Seeing as I’m going to make the case that these are all literary references (stay tuned) just their names alone give me info. They are:
    1. Emily Bronte
    2. Charlotte Bronte
    3. The Woman In Black

Now we do our magical conjecture and fun fact building to try and whip it all together into a coherent story. Basically, I’m going to write you a movie because I’m a novelist at heart and a story structure buff. We’re going to try and figure out what we can expect when the movie releases in the fall (?). Buckle up, creampuffs.

 This is going to get 7k words worth of messy from parents to exes to fish gods to old school novellas. 

Keep reading

(A table of contents will become available at the end of the series. Recent additions can be found in the meantime in either the posts by pear or the relationships tags. This series will remain open for additional posts and the table of contents up-to-date as new posts are added.)

Part Twenty: Conversations with Antagonists

Sooner or later, your characters are going to meet up with your antagonist for a conflict. Maybe it’s only during the climax, maybe there are meetings peppered throughout; whatever your structural choice for your narrative might be, we’re all facing one inevitable fact: Our antagonists will speak. Those lines of dialogue, those conversations your protagonist has with them may be the most difficult to nail and nail well. There are so many factors at play–style, character, goals, narrative needs, not to mention the pressure you’ve been building up about this person throughout the entire story!–that writing the dialogue well when it comes time is one of the most daunting tasks.

Avoid constant vague and/or ominous lines, including one-liners:

Let me make myself clear from the start: It’s not that you can’t have any vague, ominous, and/or one-liners, but that you should use them sparingly and judiciously. Constantly being vague, ominous, or quippy leads to a fundamental problem with the antagonist: melodrama. In fact, melodrama is exactly what your antagonist opening their mouth, ever, must vigilantly steer away from. They are the one character who has the uncanny ability to come pre-packaged in melodrama.

Last summer, we spent some time talking about handling characters’ emotions, and part of that is wrapped up in melodrama. I suggest checking out the post to find out more about spotting the beginnings of melodrama in your writing.

The allure of vague, ominous, and witty one-liners is clear: We want our antagonists to seem threatening, to feel as though they have knowledge the protagonist doesn’t have or doesn’t want them to have, to appear smart, smarter or at least more wily and cunning and 100% capable of either having or gaining the upper hand against the protagonist. After all, isn’t that the point of an antagonist?

If an antagonist only speaks in quippy one-liners, they are only ever responding to your protagonist, never initiating the action themselves. If an antagonist is only vague, they are only ever talk, never action. If an antagonist is only ominous, that sense of doom and dread becomes normal, the protagonist acclimates, and it becomes ineffective.

For your dialogue between your antagonist and protagonist to feel genuine, to feel as though they are real people rather than cardboard cut-outs, it sometimes helps to stop thinking about the interactions as having such high stakes. I know that when I’m trying to write these moments, I often find that I get too wrapped up in what the scene/conversation has to do for the story, what things I have to reveal, how much or how little should be unveiled now vs. later, further cement the antagonist as an unlikable person and the protagonist as right and virtuous. I lose sight of the characters in the midst of plot and devices.

Try to bring your thinking out of the mire of plot and back into these characters, who they are, how they speak, what their agenda within the conversation is. They’re just people, trying to do something within the scene. If this were another person who happened to be in their way (a construction worker whose ladder is in the way, or who can’t let them into a room while they’re putting in the carpet, whatever), how would your characters react? Without the knowledge that this is their Big Bad, their #1 Enemy, their Most Hated Rival, how would they navigate the scene? Distancing the characters a little bit from their archetypal story purposes may help you focus better on writing good dialogue and maintaining your characters rather than shoe-horning in the information just for the sake of it.

Avoid extreme emotional reactions:

If you’re one of those writers who can more or less see your story animated like a movie in your mind, you may have experienced the moment where a character says, does, or reveals something, and that ominous beat of music plays–ba-doom!–and the scene cuts to black. Something big, something revolutionary, something the audience needs time to process just happened and a commercial break just played in the metaphorical episode of your tale. Moments like that are great in TV and movies, but the only version of that available in story-telling is to start a new chapter. If all of your major moments and reveals require a new chapter, you’re going to wind up with a very choppy book. Many of us recognize that and turn to other options to cue the audience in to the intensity and importance of what’s been said or done. One of those tactics is, of course, using our protagonist’s and other characters’ reactions.

The classic responses include:

  • “No!”
  • “I won’t let you!”
  • “That’s murder!”
  • “You can’t do that!”
  • general crying,
  • screaming/yelling,
  • a general outpouring of emotion

Among the problems with all of these go-to reaction tendencies is melodrama, certainly. It throws characterization out the window in favor of emphasizing the plot/actions that have occurred, all while under the guise of maintaining and furthering characterization. That’s what makes these reactions so popular: They seem as though they are reinforcing the protagonist’s goal and mission against the antagonist, reinforcing their character. Instead what they do is insult the intelligence of your audience.

If you’ve written your protagonist well, these lines and emotions toward the actions of the antagonist become redundant and don’t necessarily further or develop new facets about your characters. Your audience knows they don’t want the antagonist to do The Thing™, that’s the whole point! That’s what you’ve been building to this entire time! So of course they’re not going to let the antagonist do That; of course they’re upset about it.

It may also be an out-of-character reaction, worse of all. If your protagonist hasn’t been prone to emotional outbursts throughout the story but instead handles things going wrong with snark, outward calm, and a sense of just-get-things-done-cry-about-it-later, then an emotional breakdown at this moment doesn’t follow in line with what you’ve established about the character. “But it’s showing the stress they’re under and the heightened sense of impending danger! Their goals are in jeopardy!” you say. True, but it’s also probably not what your character would do.

We feel strapped in to these reactions because they’re what happens in movies, TV, and a thousand other books. These are the reactions that must happen in order for things to be “right” and fulfilling. In truth, they’re archetypes of emotion that come hand-in-hand with the antagonist/protagonist relationship. It’s time to break away and write real reactions from our characters, ones they would really make.

Next up: Close relationships!

anonymous asked:

FUCK FINALLY I've been waiting for you to watch Wonder Woman, I L I V E for your reviews.

i watched the film in a subpar environment that consisted of an uncomfortable seat, people talking and using their BRIGHT AS FUCK PHONES JESSICA YOUR PHONE HAS A BRIGHTNESS OPTION, an unfortunate happestance of me sitting next to three tourists who obviously came out here to watch a film to “experience local culture” instead of being DC junkies like yours truly, and finally a broken popcorn machine that could be heard all the way inside the screening because fuck me, i guess

however, all that pales next to my spiritual awakening that happens to one after laying eyes upon diana prince. spoilers do follow

  • the new DC intro gave me an emotional boner of unknown dimensions. i created my own motherbox from my sheer love for the justice league. i distorted spacetime to such an extreme length, i’m now typing from the fifth dimension, hanging with McConaughey
  • they made such an absolutely immense point to make sure the integrity, originality and overall appearance of the amazons was correct. the accents, the emotional strength, the doubts and the defiance in the face of family, the culture you can see from barely any scenes of straightforward interactions in such a way. the unapologetic stance towards who the amazons are and the fact we, the viewers, don’t get a say in shaping them
  • similarly, young diana,
  • no that’s it
  • young diana
  • i absolutely love how this version of the amazons know every language from man’s land. in many iterations (the most recent one too), diana doesn’t speak or understand english because her studies have been limited to all things concerning anything but man’s world. many times in the comics, the amazons themselves don’t have any knowledge of our language or culture, and those who do, have made sure to hide it. the fact diana speaks every language there is both makes the period of translation/learning quicker (a move that directly benefits the film’s pacing), and it showcases an amazon’s education in a concise but absolutely succesful way
  • they gave steve trevor a better and more canon characterization than he sometimes gets in the comics. from his goofiness around diana because hearteyes motherfucker, to his sense of duty both when it comes to knowing he can help and when he knows he can’t, to the way he explains just that to diana, how people can and can’t change, that things are never as simple as one bad guy controlling the war
  • i mean one bad guy was controlling the war but that’s not the point
  • fuck you, ares
  • i knew ludendorff wasn’t ares, if i wasn’t aware of the casting already, the fact they pointedly made him constantly appear superhumanly strong was a dead giveaway, so when david thewlis popped up like “sup the world’s lame i have daddy issues lmao”, it wasn’t a surprise… but my god no amount of cgi will ever make his speech and partial fight as nothing but a mortal man more powerful than it did before he went full transformer. the amount of power he exerted just by acting was phenomenal
  • what a wonderful twist for long-time fans who expected diana’s origins to go one way or another (clay baby or god baby, no inbetween), and getting one version just to have it turned around by the end of the movie. a clever move i wasn’t expecting
  • I MEAN SHE’S THE GODKILLER? NOT THE COOL AS FUCK SWORD??
  • this movie’s purpose was to explain why diana has abstained from helping us for so long. why she thinks humanity needs to fuck off for a bit, rethink our lives, maybe not try to start wars every other friday. and it did just that. this diana has rose-colored glasses, thinking everything fits in black and white boxes. ares is bad; humanity is good. ares influences humanity; humanity goes bad. only logical conclusion: humanity can be mended by ending ares. by the end of the film and with the help of steve, she learns things are nothing like that, and even by killing ares, the world isn’t ultimately mended
  • a++, 10/10 humor and accompanying characters that helped provide the circumstances without forcing it. the entire cast was astonishing
  • i sure am glad steve trevor is alive :-)

every little detail, from the colors, the way the lasso worked, the animations from diana’s mythology book in the beginning melding reality with art (both ancient greek/roman paintings and comics), to the music that made me want to punch someone from all the adrenaline… what an absolutely fantastic and, above all else, canonical movie. it gives us so many possibilities about diana’s future involvement with the rest of the olympian gods. can’t wait for the upcoming DCEU films

Go Go ‘Power Rangers’ (2017 Review)

Is this good? Is this bad? Will my inner-child allow me to judge this appropriately?

“Power Rangers” is a reboot of the classic 1990s action-packed children’s show “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers,” which in turn is based on the Japanese tokusatsu “Super Sentai Series.” It’s directed by Dean Israelite and stars a cast of young actors, as well as Bryan Cranston, Bill Hader and Elizabeth Banks. The film is set in the small, fictional town of Angel Grove, where local high school students Jason Scott, Kimberly Hart and Billy Cranston (Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott and RJ Cyler, respectively) are all caught up in detention. Through a series of shenanigans, they come across Trini and Zack (Becky G and Ludi Lin, respectively) as they all discover an ancient, otherworldly construct. It’s there where they meet Zordon (Cranston) and his robot assistant Alpha 5 (voiced by Hader), and attain the responsibility of becoming a powerful team known as the Power Rangers, and to stop the destruction of an ancient, powerful witch known as Rita Repulsa (Banks). 

This is the absolute perfect “what if” movie. The answer to “what if they remade ‘Power Rangers’ for adults” question. This is the film we asked for, albeit cautiously. We really owe it to franchises such as the “Transformers” series, because without them, this film would be seen as an impossible reach.

Being a millennial, I was very much a child when “Power Rangers” had its long television run, and I stayed true through each incarnation, from “Mighty Morphin” to “Lightspeed Rescue,” and considered myself a retired fan after “Dino Thunder” (I was already in middle school at the time). So yes, shameful as it is, I know my shit. As you can see, I want this to be good. But was it?

Yes. Surprisingly, it was pretty good. It’s not shockingly “I thought this was going to be shit but it ended up being amazingly amazing” good. It’s just good.

Here’s one thing that the film does better than the TV show: the acting. In a great departure from the “Saved by the Bell” mood that the 90s actors gave us, we now have grounded, realistic, rebellious teenagers. These new actors fit the “teenagers with attitude” description way better than the 90s actors ever did. You have Montgomery as Jason, playing the rebel who ends up having to deal with the most responsibility. Scott plays Kimberly, the girl who does a good job of not just being the obligatory female casting, or the fighting damsel-in-distress, unlike the original. The dialogue between these two is usually filled with charm, whether its casual banter or a proclamation of their contempt for Angel Grove. 

But they do something different with the rest of the cast, which helps to modernize them. Cyler as Billy provides the humor and keeps the grittiness from ever getting lower and lower. Of the five teenagers, he is the one with the most charisma But he also serves to represent autistic teens everywhere. Yes, unlike the television counterpart, they made the Blue Ranger autistic, which is a pretty bold and commendable step for something based off a children’s property.

To keep the ball rolling, they then make Becky G’s Trini represent lesbians and confused, oppressed teenagers everywhere. Okay, this film had me at shedding light on autism, but encouraging more LGBT representation? Hats off to you, Lionsgate and Saban. Despite this, I found Becky G’s performance to be slightly annoying until about halfway through the movie, when they developed her much more, and gave her a more integral role in the plot. 

While I praised the rest of the cast, I’d have to drop the axe on Ludi Lin as Zack, the Black Ranger.  Compared to all these convincing performances, Lin’s is absolutely haphazard. The way he is introduced is to set up how much of a cocky outsider he is, so naturally he’s by himself. He then starts speaking to himself, which is one of my absolute biggest pet peeves in a movie. I despise movie moments where normal-functioning people start speaking or quipping to themselves, the only sensible reason being that the writers assume the audience is too dumb to know what the character is thinking. I get it if a character has schizophrenia or another mental illness, or if the words are limited to comedic inner-banter, but not in this case. He’s someone with decent social-competence and no reason to quarrel with himself, other than provide exposition to the audience.

But like Trini, I did find him to be much less annoying when he opened up. They gave him a pretty touching backstory with his own troubles, and they make his motivations really apparent. And just to keep the ball rolling, he’s also the most foreign one of the group, being bilingual, unlike the original black ranger. Now that I think about it, many of the Power Ranger series’ casts don’t feature any overtly foreign characters, apart from maybe of an alien race. 

That is precisely why this casting works. Whether or not you find these characters annoying, you can’t doubt that they’re there for a good reason, and you might even warm up to them as the movie progresses. They also help to introduce bouts of political correctness, but they aren’t preachy or condescending about it (which is really the only good way to go about political correctness). They represent people of various colors, mental states and social capabilities, showing (but not telling) that everyone is capable of extraordinary things as long as they have camaraderie.

I can’t say much about Cranston as Zordon. It’s a great homage, seeing as how Cranston has actually been a part of “Power Rangers” since the original television show, where he voiced many of the villains they face. I do love his voice-work here, and while it took some getting used to, I ended up really liking how they presented him. Rather than a chubby, floating head in a tube, they made him manifest into a wall, kind of like one of those pinpression toys. Not to mention they could have easily made him a one-dimensional character. But they went above and beyond to give him his own arc, his own set of feelings and doubts, and a world of lore behind him.

If you thought Alpha 5 was annoying in the television show, then you can rest your worries because Bill Hader fixed him up good. The original’s voice was so high-pitched and screechy; basically in typical 90s fashion (or how the 90s thought Aliens would sound like). This time, he just kind of does the same thing he did as Fear from “Inside Out,” except less screaming. His design had me slightly worried but I got used to it.

Now, Elizabeth Banks as Rita Repulsa has me split down the middle. On the one hand, I do like that at least ONE person in this entire film is trying to recall the absurdity and campiness of the original series. At the same time, I found her to be over-the-top, and incredibly outlandish compared to the rest of the grounded cast. She is guilty of overacting here, which is both a blessing and a curse. The prosthetics on her are amazing though, from both start to finish. She starts out as an outright horror character, which is something I didn’t expect to see even in the gritty version of a children’s property. 

If you kept up with me for this long, you know that a recurring theme here is that this film takes several risks that are rather uncharacteristic of a children’s property. Sure, there are hints of silliness to try and match the youthful appeal of the original, but they also throw in more mature bits of humor, about things such as drug tests and jacking off a cow (no joke). Me personally, I welcome these jokes. If anything, this is much more of a film for the adults who grew up watching “Power Rangers,” rather than children. The maturity really shines through in the form of character development and chemistry.

I must say that if you are bringing a child to watch this, keep in mind there will be mild swearing, and several mature jokes.

A common criticism (ad nauseam, pretty much) is that this film is a forced collision between two different movies. Two thirds of the movie is essentially the origin story, which focuses mainly on character development. At the same time, this is the section that appeals to the audience the most, whether you’re fans of the original or not. No one comes into anything titled “Power Rangers” and expects to feel for the characters. But through one particular scene where all the characters develop a kinship, we develop a peculiar attachment to each of them. It was at this moment that I’m glad these people are the ones I’m spending five more movies with (Yup, that’s right).

But when it sticks to the original, it definitely sticks, and that’s where the last third of the movie comes in. If you’re looking for cool looking suits fighting monsters with martial arts and gymnastics, you will get it. If you’re looking for giant robot dinosaurs battling another giant monster, you will get it. And MOST OF ALL, if you want to, at least once, hear the iconic theme song, you will get it. In all it’s pure, epic goodness.

But this is where I have to defend my appreciation for this movie, because many people will come in accusing me of being “blinded by nostalgia.” Despite having these borrowed features from the original show, there is really nothing nostalgic about it. The action here is far better than most of the show’s episodes. There is no silliness to be had apart from what would be silly by realistic standards (as opposed to having two obligatory bully characters).

Even some elements taken from the show are vastly different. Case in point: Rita, who in this film is actually getting shit done by herself rather than sitting up in some moon tower yelling at everyone.

Even the formula of the show is broken up here. Back then, everything was so fast-paced to where every time a new series was brought in, the new team of Power Rangers would unrealistically form intimate familial connection and extraordinary abilities within 20 minutes. This film actually shows you that the Power Rangers had to train for this, both physically and mentally. They didn’t just have these abilities bestowed upon them as a result of the plot rushing it together. You see them work for it, which is something I really appreciated about it.

I had to bring that up because many of the people who didn’t like this film will be quick to see reactions like mine and guilt me for “nostalgia.” But that “tone difference” that they’re faulting this for is the reason why you can’t pin nostalgia on this. All that means is that everything I liked about this film has been on its own merits, maybe (at most) perpetuated by quick little homages to the original. 

I suppose before I wrap this up I should mention one more thing. Not really a problem, but more like something I wish happened: I wish they played the theme song more. It was wonderful hearing the iconic theme song, perfectly borrowed from the 1995 film, and at the height of its “Power Ranger-ness.” But I felt that if they really were gonna throw it in there, they should have totally owned it and at least left it playing for a bit longer. If not that, then at least make an instrumental cover to play in the background during the climax, rather than GODDAMN KANYE.

This is a film that has fans and critics alike split down the middle, but it’s pretty clear that everyone who hates it is hating it for the same two reasons: (1) It has a massive tone-clash towards the end, and (2) It caters way too much toward product promotion for Krispy Kreme donuts. I do agree with the latter, make no mistake. But when I hear people complain about this tone-clash, it reminds me of people who complained about the “slow parts” of every other superhero film, whether it’s “Captain America: Civil War,” or “Batman v Superman.” Apart from being a “Power Rangers” movie, this is also an origin story film. And for something as ridiculous as “Power Rangers,” it definitely requires a slow initiation process. To get us going on a six-movie deal, the creators will have to help casual viewers acclimate to the premise, because chances are the naysayers are the ones who skipped out on this franchise as children, and therefore missed their window of opportunity. Ironic how a movie based on a children’s property requires a mature level of patience from the audience.

As I said before, if you came into this wanting to see colored suits, martial arts, explosions and giant robots, you will get it. If you’re dragged into this film but appreciate elements like character development and chemistry, you will get that too. As someone who enjoys both, I actually would go so far as to say I loved this movie. I don’t care if I’m alone on this, but I can comfortably say that I loved the “Power Rangers” movie.

Why I like Beauty and the Beast 2017 better than the 1991 animated version (Spoilers)


1. Belle has even more backbone in this version. When Belle had Beast come into the light so she could see his face, she forced him to do so in the new movie. In the original Disney, she was more passive. I also loved that she flat out told Gaston “no” when he proposed. In the original, she told him “I just don’t deserve you.” Gag. In addition, she was orchestrating her own escape from the palace up until the Beast was injured, not just lying about accepting her fate. 

2. The Beast could read, which I think is more believable than him being illiterate. Really, it would have been more realistic in the original if Belle were the illiterate one (being just a village girl) and the prince, with his expensive education and need to write up documents when he became king, would have been taught to read. In addition, having already read probably all of the books Belle has, he can give honest opinions about them and they can have actual discussions. 

3. Belle is from Paris!! I loved getting to know more about how she came to live in the village. Knowing what happened to her mother was a nice addition, though I admit it wasn’t a burning question I needed answered. Honestly, I thought she was going to want to see Italy in that scene because it is where Romeo and Juliet takes place. 

4. It’s more French! The style of dress and extravagance (what some might even call gaudy/tacky) of the ball scene at the beginning of the movie is a good reminder that the movie is set in a time when the balance between royalty and peasantry was way off. The town beggar woman only accentuates this as she serves as a stark contract to the prince at the beginning of the movie. 

5. They showed more of the Beast’s asshole, spoiled prince side. I thought that helped portray the deeply rooted character flaw that inspired the curse to begin with better than the original did. A couple of other ways he acts like even more of a spoiled prince and one day future king in this is when he gives ultimatums, or when it’s obvious he doesn’t think there is anything special about all of his possessions (the library & his grounds, for instance) until he begins to see them through Belle’s eyes. 

6. I liked what they did with Maurice. In the original he was a sweet, kooky inventor who (you have to admit) bordered on the ridiculous. If you think about it, his constantly failing inventions probably only made trouble for Belle. In this version, he is more of a tinkerer and seems more mature and capable of taking care of himself instead of having to be taken care of by his daughter every time one of his experiments went awry. 

7. I thought this version better explained the curse. I liked that the entire village was actually cursed with memory loss and that the transformed servants had family members there who had forgotten they even existed. I also liked that the servants were gradually losing their humanity (it would have been cool though if the Beast followed suite) and that the palace fell apart a little more every time a petal fell. 

8. We were able to see more of the servants as people than just as servants. With the exception of Mrs. Potts & Chip, the original did little to show how heartbreaking the curse must have been more the servants. The Maestro and Madame Garderobe, Lumiere and Plumette, Mrs. Potts and Mr. Potts - all of these people had relationships that were affected by the curse. The new version gave what were bare bones before flesh. 

Epic Movie (Re)Watch #94 - The Book of Life

Spoilers below.

Have I seen it before: Yes.

Did I like it then: Yes.

Do I remember it: Yes.

Did I see it in theaters: Yes.

Was it a movie I saw since August 22nd, 2009: Yes. #325.

Format: Blu-ray.

1) I watched this about a week ago - on the actual Day of the Dead - but didn’t have time to write it because I live in Chicago and the Cubs won their first World Series in 108 years. So my priorities were a little different than usual.

2) Anyone here a fan of “El Tigre”?

Originally posted by fire-miracle

Well the creator of that show - Jorge R. Gutierrez - was the writer/director of this film! Some El Tigre characters even cameo in the film’s opening, but you have to REALLY look for them.

Originally posted by oescafandronasociedade

3) The framing device of this film (a bunch of kids at a museum being told a story) is a classic fairytale/magical realism device that can be found in films such as Big Fish. It also gives the film a plot driven reason for it’s unique animation style (the characters looking like wooden figures).

Originally posted by -bawsten

4) This film has some really great humor.

Vendor Boy: “Churros! Churros! (A bird poops on the churros.) Frosted churros!”

5) I will talk about La Muerte and Xibalba as individual characters in just a second, but for now I want to focus on their relationship.

Originally posted by gifsbyrosie

I’m not overly familiar with Day of the Dead lore outside of this film, but I think the idea of having the ruler of The Land of the Remembered (La Muerte, everything good and wonderful in the world) and the ruler of the Land of the Forgotten (Xibalba, everything that is negative in the world) be lovers is a great idea. Their relationship is tense, volatile, and can be filled with conflict, but never is it abusive. Never is it hateful. You always get a great sense of love between these two and that’s what makes it work.

6) Ron Perlman as Xibalba.

Originally posted by clusterstruck

These two wouldn’t work so well together if they couldn’t stand on their own as characters. And the work so well in that field because of equal parts writing, character design, and voice over work. Ron Perlman is a regular collaborator of Guillermo Del Toro’s, the executive producer on this film, and has worked in a number of animated project before (including VP Lancer in “Danny Phantom” and Clayface in “Batman: The Animated Series”). Perlman brings a roguish charm to all his characters, even when it’s just his voice. He’s interesting, rough, and just likable! And he makes Xibalba all those things. You’re never particularly rooting against him, even though he’s technically the villain. You’re just entranced whenever he’s on screen.

7) Kate del Castillo as La Muerte.

Originally posted by beanarie

American audiences are not as familiar with Kate del Castillo as they are with Ron Perlman, although she is one of Mexico’s most acclaimed popular actresses. As Perlman does with Xibalba, Castillo brings genuine charm, likability, and charisma to La Muerte. As well as an added fierceness that lets you know this undead ruler can keep her own when head-to-head with her darker lover. You definitely get the vibe that La Muerte is the more dangerous of these two but also the kinder, and so much of that relies on Castillo’s performance.

8) Manolo, Maria, and Joaquin.

Originally posted by br0ken-5tring5

We first meet these characters and get a sense of their relationship as children, and it’s great. Yes Manolo and Joaquin both love Maria, but they’re friends first. ALL of them are friends! Later in the film Joaquin and Manolo remain friends even when vying for Maria’s affections, and they are friends with Maria before they are lovers. And I think it’s driven home by this statement from Maria as a child:

Maria [after Manolo and Joaquin fight over who’s she is]: “I belong to no one!”

They don’t belong to each other, they chose to be friends. They chose to be with together because they genuinely like each other. I love that.

9) A huge theme of this film is also seen in Maria’s, “I belong to no one!” line and that is the theme of being true to yourself.

Both Joaquin and Manolo have huge shadows they live in (a line which is actually uttered by Joaquin later): Joaquin’s dead father was a great war hero and Manolo’s father pushes him to be a bullfighter like all the men in their family have been. It makes for a unique conflict and a great message to kids of all ages: be yourself.

10) Maria as a character.

Originally posted by maria-magnolia2

You get a real sense of Maria as a character when we first meet her. Not only does she have the wonderful line, “I belong to no one!” but she also shows her placement of morality over societal values by freeing animals slated for slaughter. Her father sends her off to a convent to become, “a proper lady,” but…it doesn’t really work. At least, she doesn’t become his definition of proper. She is loving, kind, sweet, but fiercely independent and someone who follows her heart above all else. Zoe Saldana voices Maria, and breathes such wonderful life into the character you forget she’s acting. Everything about Maria just feel so real it’s amazing.

Originally posted by zoeesaldanaa

11) The decision to compose the film’s soundtrack from popular music recorded specifically for the movie (the mariachi version of “I Will Wait For You” being the earliest example) as well as original songs composed by Paul Williams is a great one. The copyrighted songs never feel out of place and don’t distract from the plot, instead playing perfectly into the emotion of the scene. And the original songs are made for the moments which are purely story and pure character, so they could not possibly be represented by something which was already written because this story hasn’t existed before.

12) Manolo!

Originally posted by annika-renina

All the characters in this film are written with such life and depth that lead character Manolo couldn’t POSSIBLY be an exception. He has skills as a bullfighter, but is deeply conflicted by his duty to his family and his duty to his heart. But it’s all guided by love, something with is illustrated by the inscription on his guitar (a gift from Maria, nonetheless): “Always play from the heart.” It is Manolo’s defining characteristic and defining struggle: that he wants to be himself, not his father or anyone else.

Diego Luna just…ugh! So I’ve seen Luna in small roles before (The Terminal, Elysium) but this film makes me a HUGE fan of his! I’m really looking forward to his role in Rogue One BECAUSE I loved his performance in this film so much. Manolo sings more than any other character in the film, and Luna infuses each song with such sincerity and warmth it is nearly impossible not to fall in love with his performance as Manolo. And he treats each line of dialogue the same. Like Saldana as Maria, you don’t feel like you’re listening to an actor. You’re listening to Manolo.

Originally posted by luna-diego

13) Grandma is hysterical.

Grandma Sanchez [after Manolo refuses to kill a bull]: “Kids today, with their long hair and no killing stuff.”

Grandma Sanchez [after Manolo’s father says everyone in their family was a great bullfighter]:

Originally posted by grumblepie

“A BEAST!”

She doesn’t have many lines but very nicely embodies the film’s wonderful characters and humor.

14) Manolo’s Father, Carlos.

I have seriously MIXED feelings about Carlos, and I think you’re supposed to. He shows a genuine desire to do the best for his son, he just doesn’t actually KNOW what’s best for his son. He pressures him into being a bull fighter because it’s the Sanchez way, and when Manolo expresses dissatisfaction with this his father shames him into doing it.

Carlos [to convince Manolo to be a bullfighter]: “Don’t you LOVE your family?”

(GIF source unknown [if this is your GIF please let me know].)

(PS, I find this line to be the sign of an abusive relationship but maybe that’s just me.)

BUT Carlos has genuine moments of love with his son. He encourages him to tell Maria how he feels, he comforts him when he’s missing his dead mother, he actually LOVES Manolo. Hector Elizondo’s performance and the writing gets this across in a great way, and I think the film is better for it.

15) Channing Tatum as Joaquin.

Originally posted by fwankcastles

I do have to say of the trio of friends, Channing Tatum’s Joaquin is probably the weakest link. BUT that’s like calling one of The Lord of the Rings movies the worst in the trilogy: it was still nominated for best picture! I think it’s definitely because you know Joaquin is the third wheel, you know that Maria loves Manolo, and so it’s hard to get behind it. And you just can see that although they’re great as friends they wouldn’t make a good couple (despite Joaquin’s hopes to the contrary).

It would’ve been easy to write Joaquin as a jerk. And although he can be a bit pig headed here and there, you understand that he’s a genuinely good friend who truly cares for Maria (even though they’re not a great fit). Tatum brings a lot of this to the role, and even though I believe he’s the only non-Hispanic actor playing a decidedly Hispanic character (Ron Perlman gets a pass because Xibalba is an otherworldly creature) he has the same warmth and sincerity as Luna and Saldana have. It’s a nice way to round out the trio of friends.

Originally posted by jumpstmovies

16) I can’t tell if this joke is stupid or hysterical.

Pepe [when he and his brothers are in danger]: “I’m allergic to dying!”

Pancho: “Especially in the face!”

Originally posted by idiot-eden

17) Joaquin’s biggest failing is probably that he buys too much into societal values, and his society’s values are…sexist. He is surprised that Maria reads, expects her to be a doting housewife (as all the high up men do), and that’s not what his heart wants it’s what he thinks should be.

18) “I Love You Too Much”.

Originally posted by odazais

This is the song Manolo sings to express his feelings for Maria, and it’s beautiful. Paul Williams has crafted a quiet, loving melody which pulls at your heartstrings and is sung beautifully by Diego Luna. I think it’s my favorite song in the film and one of the best love songs I’ve ever heard.

19) Maria is awesome, if that hasn’t been made clear already.

Maria [stopping a kiss after Manolo’s song]: “Did you think it was going to be that easy?”

She’s not the girl who falls head over heels for someone just because they sang to hear. It’s appreciated, but there needs to be more than that. I love it!

20) This film never subscribes to storied cliches. It’s not like Manolo can’t be an idiot too, as noted when he and Joaquin start to fight over Maria (which she has shown to never truly appreciate).

Originally posted by lolitajohnadams

Maria: “You two are acting like fools.”

Manolo: “Wait, me too?”

You mean me, the nice guy romantic lead, is actually making a mistake? What kind of movie is this? (Hint: a great one.)

21) How long must it have taken to put out all those candles?

Originally posted by mariaymanolo

It shows devotion on Manolo’s part. As will the rest of the film, honestly.

22) One of the conflicts in this movie that gets me going the most is how unfair everyone is to Manolo. When they were children he stopped a wild boar from hurting people, but Joaquin got credit because he saved the mayor. As adults he’s ready to fight off bandits without a magic medal, but Joaquin gets credit because he does fight them off WITH a magic medal which protects him from harm. And when Maria dies from a snake bite everyone blames him. He’s not the snake! He didn’t bite her! So bug off!

23) My brother and I laughed so hard after we heard this line:

Student [after Manolo dies]: “What is it with Mexicans and death!?”

The only reason that line isn’t racist is because it was written by a Mexican in a film directed by a Mexican which is produced by a Mexican. So it’s okay to laugh.

24) The Land of the Remembered!

Originally posted by lolitajohnadams

Originally posted by lolitajohnadams

The Land of the Remembered is when this film’s visual style really takes off. Gutierrez’s imagination and the animation department’s skill bleeds through every scene in this wonderful place and it really pulls you into it’s world magnificently.

25) I mentioned in my Nightmare Before Christmas recap that Burton and company did a good job of establishing minor character with small introductions, and The Book of Life (although not Burton) follows in that tradition when we meet Manolo’s family.

Each family member - from the brutish Carmelo (voiced by the film’s director) to grandpa Luis (voiced by Danny Trejo) - is given a unique character with just a few seconds of screen time and dialogue which carries through until the end of the film. It works wonderfully.

Originally posted by lamuertes

26) This freaking line, after Jorge is established as wanting to have been a singer.

Originally posted by dukespook

Manolo [after the two laugh about it]: “They crushed our dreams. Hilarious!”

Originally posted by yourreactiongifs

27) Manolo’s Mother.

(GIF originally posted by @lamuertes)

Immediately there is a difference in what is expected from Carmen Sanchez (his mom) and what there is.

Manolo: “And I became a bullfighter, just like you wanted.”

Carmen: “Me? Are you crazy?”

It turns out Manolo’s father saying his mother wanted that was…uh…wrong, to put it mildly. It’s a nice juxtaposition which establishes her as a character and not just a plot device.

28) Dude, I love this dialogue.

Xibalba [after Luis says La Muerte would never hand over her kingdom]: “She lost a bet.”

Luis: “Oh. She would do that.”

29) You get a lot of Manolo’s tender side and playing from the heart, but it’s easy to forget that he’s still a headstrong Sanchez boy. He still has the fierceness of a bull fighter, even if that’s not what he wants to do. And we see this particularly when Manolo threatens to expose Xibalba. That may not be the smartest move, but it is fierce.

30) Did I mention this dialogue and humor is awesome?

Luis [after his body is knocked away from his head]: “Hey, my arthritis is gone!”

31) The Candlemaker

Originally posted by thenugu

The Candlemaker rounds out the trio of immortals here, and falls in the middle. He is not about the Land of the Remembered or the Land of the Forgotten, he creates the candles (each candle representing a life). He is this big ball of happy childlike energy which is just fun to watch. And who’d they get to place this super upbeat and positive guy with hope and optimism dripping from him?

Originally posted by hiphop-community

It’s a nice change of pace from Ice Cube’s more hardboiled characters to see him play such a wonder filled creature, and to do it so well too! His voice work stands up there with the rest of the cast in that you never think you’re listening to Ice Cube, you’re just watching the Candlemaker. It’s great.

32) ALL THE LADIES IN THIS FILM ARE FIERCE AS HELL!

  • Maria’s fierceness has been established above.
  • La Muerte getting pissed when she finds out Xibalba cheated on the beat is fierce!
  • MANOLO’S MOTHER SLAPS XIBALBA AFTER SHE REALIZES HE KILLED HER SON!!!

Originally posted by jeunetrentenaire

It’s a lot of fun to watch.

33) The final fight before Manolo can return to the land of the living is born from a wager he makes with Xibalba (he’ll face whatever challenge is thrown his way and win).

Xibalba: “What, do tell, is your worst fear?”

And then we get this:

Originally posted by littlechinesedoll

But it turns out his greatest fear isn’t killing the bull, it’s being true to himself. This ties into what I mentioned earlier: Manolo’s defining characteristic and his struggle are the same in that he wants to be himself. And we get a wonderful song to tie it up, of the same quality as “I Love You Too Much” and it is simply called “The Apology Song”. (Manolo’s father, who’s dead at this point, said that a Sanchez never apologies but after the fight is incredibly proud of his son.) It’s a nice character climax for Manolo before we get the final fight of the film.

34) When you have no idea this is coming, it’s the funniest line in the film.

Originally posted by museelo

(GIFs originally posted by @museelo)

35) I give massive credit to the filmmakers for the way they handled Joaquin. He and Maria are set to be married now that Manolo is dead, and he knows Maria doesn’t want it so he’s about to talk to her about it before the town is attacked by bandits. Joaquin could have easily been some Gaston type but instead we got a sincere, honest character who deepens the conflict of the film.

36) This freaking movie…

Originally posted by stevenscrivello

(GIF originally posted by @stevenscrivello)

37) The entire final fight of the film is wildly fun to watch.

Originally posted by kathon

It’s well paced, well choreographed, brings in all the characters we’ve met so far (living and dead), gives us a nice “dance” with Manolo and Maria, is filled with nice character moments, good humor, and has Joaquin decide he’s going to be his own man and try to sacrifice himself for his friends (it doesn’t work, he survives). It’s a great climax to the film.

38) “No Matter Where You Are”, the final song in the film, is a great ball of energy and love. But more than that, it let me know something I didn’t before…

Zoe Saldana can REALLY sing!

Originally posted by lghtmgnt

Just thought I’d share.

39) The final reveal, that Christina Applegate’s tour guide and the security guard are really La Muerte and Xibalba, is in classic tradition of magical realism and fairytale stories. It’s a nice ending to the film.

Originally posted by good-goodbye


The Book of Life is great, and truly under appreciated. It’s representation of Mexican culture is unique in the animated film landscape, and gives the film a unique visual and musical style. The acting is topnotch, and you can feel through the writing/directing/character animation that it is truly a labor of love for all those involved. A great film which everyone should see.

Up next: Alice in Wonderland (1951)

Thoughts on “Logan” (Spoilers Ahead!!)

  • Logan is a lot of things: a western, another sequel, a comic-book film, and just a downright great film in general. I can’t think of any other way to say goodbye to both Hugh Jackman and his version of Wolverine than this. The story, script, acting, cinematography, and score all perfectly blend together to help the film transcend above most others in the comic-book/superhero genre. Logan is also the best X-Men or Wolverine film hands down, and that’s including X2 and Deadpool.
  • Both Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart give fantastic final performances as their characters, bringing a sense of the pair truly becoming like father and son. The way their characters have changed since the very first X-Men is astounding, and they should both feel very proud for the work they put into this film and all the other films before it. (Well, maybe not Origins.)
  • Dafne Keen, the young actress who portrays Laura, is so perfectly cast it’s unreal! Not only is she capable of holding her own against greats like Jackman and Stewart, she can do it all without even speaking a single word for 2/3 of the movie! Her body language and facial expressions perfectly convey everything her character is thinking or feeling, you don’t need for her to speak to know what’s going on with her. Also, she’s a surprise but welcome Lantix and Spanish representation!
  • The film is rated R for a reason people! Do not take your children to see this film unless they are of age, I don’t care how much they like Wolverine! The film is possibly even more violent than Deadpool was, with it’s more grounded approach having more of a traumatic impact than Deadpool’s tongue-in-cheek humor influencing it’s violence. There’s a lot of limbs being sliced off in this movie, and even a disturbing scene where a family of nice farmers is murdered by a younger clone of Logan shortly after they offer him, Charles, and Laura a place to stay. (Like, it’s pretty fucking horrifying.)
  • The story is also much darker and tragic than the previous X-Men films, tackling themes of growing old and mortality that are very much a reflection of what so many of us go through with our loved ones. I won’t sugar-coat it guys, it’s extremely hard taking care of someone with Alzheimer’s or Dementia. It’s very difficult and draining both physically and emotionally for us and the person suffering. Logan taking care of Charles in the film is a perfect example of this.
  • Quite possibly the most tragic thing about Logan is that we learn the X-Men are dead because Xavier kills them. It’s an accident of course, his degenerative brain disease causing him to have seizures that also produces deadly psychic shockwaves, but it’s still sad and horrible nonetheless.
  • Also when you think about it, Logan actually takes place in the new timeline Logan helped create in Days of Future Past. That means all that effort to save mutantkind was pretty much wasted.. Logan can’t catch a fucking break can he?
  • The main villain of the film, Dr. Zander Rice, is the only part of the film I disliked. The secondary antagonists like Donald Pierce and X-24 held much more weight and were definitely more impactful than Rice, one being the leader of a cyborg security squad and the other literally serving as a physical representation of Logan’s animalistic “Wolverine” side.
  • “Family” and “Legacy” play a huge part in Logan’s plot, specifically when it comes to the character’s relationship with Laura. She is the product of his DNA being used to essentially recreate him to create the perfect soldier, but this also makes her his biological daughter and as such she offers him something he’s never truly had before. This comes full circle in Logan’s final moments before his death, where he tells her that even though she’s like him that she shouldn’t be what they made her to be. Though she is like him in so many ways, Logan wants her to live as a better person than he could have ever been.
  • His final words, “So this is what it feels like..,” can be interpreted as both him finally being able to experience death or as him finally being able to see some part of him become something good.

Logan gets a 10/10

lostuntothisworld  asked:

a while back you recommended the movie Autopsy of Jane Doe and it was fantastic! Do you have any more horror movie recs that are psychological like that (with minimal jump scares preferably?)

omg yesssssssss, i sure as heck do. i looooooove recommending horror movies. kay, here we go, pychological, disturbing, and minimal jump scares: 

1. Get Out (2017) - this is a newer movie, and I’m sure you’ve heard about it (and maybe even seen it already). I finally got to see it in theaters and it was marvelous. Very tense horror, minimal jump scares. Definitely recommend it if you haven’t seen it yet. 

2. The Thing (1982) - this is probably my favorite horror movie, and one I will always, always recommend to people. It’s more sci-fi/horror, but horror none the less. This is a movie that feeds on uncertainty and tension, fueled by distrust and paranoia between the characters. (There was also a prequel to this movie made in 2011, and I certainly enjoyed that one as well, but it still couldn’t quite deliver the same chills and fear the 1982 version did.) 

3. They Look Like People (2015) - this is another one that I just watched recently. Probably one of the best that fits the category of psychological horror. It’s a bit slow to start, but develops into a story that will leave you tense, unsure, and unsettled. Plus, it’s probably the only horror movie I have ever seen that manages to highlight mental illness without demonizing it. 

4. As Above So Below (2014) - this is a movie that honestly, I was very skeptical about seeing. It’s a found footage movie (which I typically hate), and it got very poor reviews, but I wound up watching it on a whim one day and found myself enjoying it a lot more than I expected. It honestly is more of a adventure/horror film rather than a strict horror film - and the reviews might have been better, I think, if its marketing hadn’t painted it as a strict horror film. There are a few jump scares in there, but not a whole lot. Much the movie relies on claustrophobia, confusion, and mystery. It’s really an interesting look at a journey into hell. I greatly enjoy it, though your mileage may vary. 

5. Event Horizon (1997) - another sci-fi/horror film. A nightmarish movie about salvage/rescue crew that goes out to salvage a ship that vanished on its maiden voyage and reappeared 7 years later missing its entire crew. This movie deals well in suspense, fear, and our ultimate terror of what evils could lie beyond the unknown. 

6. The Descent (2005) - yet another movie I recommend to everyone. Set underground in an unknown cave system, and led by an all female cast, this movie is just full of anxiety, paranoia, claustrophobia, and unease. It’ll certainly make you never want to go caving. 

7. The Strangers (2008) - a great take on the classic home invasion/slasher film. It boasts a really creepy atmosphere, an isolated setting, and has moments of genuine, realistic anxiety and terror (even the small things, like trying to find somewhere to hide and realizing you can’t fit, etc…) I saw this movie with my best friend back when it first came out, and it’s still one of my favorites.

8. The Others (2001) - this is not your typical ghost story. Honestly this one is hard to describe because I don’t want to give too much away about the plot. In the last few days of World War II, a woman and her two children wait in isolation, after the mysterious disappearance of their servants, for her husband/their father to return from the war. It’s only in the isolation of the house that they begin to realize the house might not be as empty as they thought it was. Very, very unique take on a ghost story. The case is wonderful, and the pacing and setting of this movie creates wonderfully creepy, unsettling fear. 

9. The Witch (2016) - slow-burn horror and very setting specific, this one’s focus is on religious fear and the sexual stigmatization of girls and women. It’s slow-paced, but really great at building up a sense of unease and dread, and even the small things in it, like small rabbits in the wild, can make you feel unsettled. 

10. Black Swan (2010) - not strictly a horror movie, this one is heavily psychological, and I almost want to cast it as a thriller more than anything, but some of it truly does fall into the realm of psychological horror. Paranoia, obsession, and tension, this movie is chock-full of it. 

11. Funny Games (2007) - this one is actually a remake of a 1997 movie of the same name. I feel kind of bad, but I actually haven’t seen the original, but from what I hear, the two movies don’t differ much. This one is particularly unsettling because of its constant underlying feeling of authenticity. Much like The Strangers, this feels real, like it could happen to anyone, like its psychopaths could be anybody, any well-to-do strangers. It’s a long, sometimes unbearably frustrating game of physical and psychological torture; and the few moments of well-timed 4th wall breaking really up the frustration and distress. 

12. 1408 (2007) - based on a Stephen King story, this film heavily relies on psychological and anxiety-building elements to create its tension. Every thing that happens in this room makes you question what it will do next, what trick will it pull, what hopes will it dash. There’s not much else to say about this one exept that… “It’s an evil fucking room.” 

13. El Orfanato/The Orphanage (2007) - man this one is definitely a favorite of mine. Very unnerving and deeply emotional at the same time, this one is a very well-crafted and clever take on the haunted house/orphanage trope. It’s spooky, chilling, has some moments that will genuinely crawl under your skin (the 1-2-3 toca la pared scene always does it for me…), and features a wildly emotional ending. 

14. The Babadook (2014) - this one doesn’t rely on cheap scares at all, but still features some truly creepy and unnerving moments that left me on edge. But in addition to that, this movie is about so much more than a boogeyman lurking in the shadows. Heavily psychological, this movie delves deeply into how we process loss and deal with all-consuming grief. 

15. 28 Days Later (2002) - I probably don’t need to say much about this one. It’s a movie that most people have either seen or have at least heard of. But there’s a reason it’s consistently named one of the best zombie movies around. It deals with not only the horror of the zombies (and they certainly make that aspect scary on its own), but also the darkest aspects of the fall of society. We’re given a frighteningly grim look at the degradation of humanity and the darkest aspects of human nature as society falls apart. 

15 seems like enough! And hopefully you’ll like some of those!! :D 

(also, for those reading this, please watch Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) cause it’s amazing)

“There’s a scene, late in the movie, with Kate McKinnon, that made me feel like I’ve never felt at a movie before. (No, it wasn’t the vibrating chair talking, this was real.) I should confess: Some of this is personal. My favorite character, in any big action-ensemble movie, is always the demolitions guy: the mad scientist, the weapons expert, the damage-dealer, the one who just wants to see stuff blow up. I say “demolitions guy” because he’s always a guy; they never cast the mad scientist or gun nut as a woman. But in this movie, he’s Kate McKinnon.

So she gets the scene these guys always get, in a movie like this. She has a wonderful new toy. The film slows down. She starts moving, and sure enough, she just starts unleashing raw havoc everywhere.

Something in my chest opened up. This is it, I realized. This is the thing I never got to see before. The scene where the demolitions guy is a girl. I was right: It actually does feel different when it’s a girl. This must be how guys feel every time they watch one of these movies. This is it, the version that’s for me, the scene I always wanted, and it’s here.

I don’t know what that feeling was, or how to describe it. But here’s the best way I can: For all the talk about “childhoods,” I got exactly 30 seconds in that movie where I felt like I was 8 years old again. Except that it was better than being 8 years old. It was like being 8 years old would have been, if the world had been fair.

I didn’t realize the political implications until I was out of the theater. I didn’t realize that this was also an openly queer actress, playing a more-or-less openly queer character (and we could do with more “more” and less “less,” Sony), that it might have hit other people in the audience even harder than it hit me, and for that reason. I didn’t think about anything, except that a woman was getting the same big slo-mo blowing-shit-up scene a million guys have gotten, and that scene is awesome. I’ve always loved that scene. Women aren’t treated as a big boundary-breaking historic symbol of progress and equality, in this movie. They’re treated like people.

And then you go out into the real world, where thousands of people are trying to hurt Leslie Jones on Twitter, and everyone hates Ghostbusters again. The same world you went into Ghostbusters to escape. But you can escape it, for a little while, in that theater. There’s a reason we need movies like these, after all.”

– Sady Doyle, These Times

Little Kylux things I get emotional about at night

Hux and Kylo are rivals, and although I love their hatefuck-proneness as much as the next guy, rewatching the movie again (and again, and again) I became obsessed with the thought that their resentment might be pretty fucking recent, and that despite everything, Kylo trusts the shit out of Hux. Emotinal and biased meta under the cut.

Keep reading