Batman and Batgirl was a Bad Idea

As a preface, this whole editorial is in relation to the recently-released Batman: The Killing Joke animated film. I haven't seen the film in full, but I am familiar with the graphic novel which it is based upon. I'm aware of the characters that play into the story and their importance within the Batman mythos, and I understand fully why there are arguments for and against the topic with which I'm about to discuss. Everybody up to speed? Good; spoilers for both the film and the graphic novel will follow.

For a graphic novel that's barely 50 pages long, any attempt to adapt such a short narrative for the purpose of creating a feature-length film was a challenge enough already. Factor in the fact that this graphic novel is one of both the artistic and tonal standards for any Batman story, and renowned creators Bruce Timm and Brian Azzarello, both of whom are wholly familiar with the DC icon (the former animated for the renowned, emmy-winning series, the latter writing for the character in comic book form throughout the 21st century) had taken on a task nearly as difficult as adapting another beloved, Alan Moore-written project, Watchmen. The graphic novel, which was written in 1988, was renowned for its interesting approach to identify the origin of the Joker character, as well as explain in little ways the psychology of the character. The book won the Eisner Award for 'Best Graphic Novel' the year after it was produced. This book has a legacy as  not only providing what many fans consider the origin story of the Joker, but a change in the tide for the Batman world by paralyzing the long-time, fan-favorite character Batgirl and tormenting her father, Commissioner Gordon, with the reality that his daughter's normal life has been ripped from her.

What's funny (pun intended) is that the original graphic novel doesn't truly focus on Batman; not in the traditional manner, anyways. While there is certainly a particular perspective that fans share, the goal of writer Alan Moore was to leave the story, ending, and everything in between open to reader interpretation. For example, as I read this book, I saw this tale mirror the 1987 four-issue Batman arc written by comic legend Frank Miller: Batman: Year One. The focus of the narrative isn't necessarily supposed to chronicle the efforts of the Dark Knight like every other one of his stories, but rather shine a spotlight on the characters that traditionally support Batman's narratives. The focus of the story, the objective, is to torment Commissioner Gordon past the point of insanity, with the Joker leading the charge on the endeavor by crippling his daughter. In the eyes of the book's main character, the Joker, Batman is only meant to really watch the tale unfold as it happens. Joker's typical methodical planning and quest for anarchy have already been completed by the time Batman finds him.

But it's with this mindset that I have to control myself before I criticize Timm and Azzarello for running with an idea that held the similar tenant of which I believe the book to be based upon. The opening of the film, unlike the book, begins when Batgirl is still active, serving dutifully alongside the defender of Gotham. In the midst of a case more dangerous than in the past, Batman decides to put Batgirl on the bench instead of out on the town. Now, throughout this prologue, we're introduced to this idea that Barbara Gordon, a.k.a. Batgirl, is having some frustrations with Batman beyond serving his every whim in the suit. Barbara herself is infatuated with the Dark Knight; this central theme is where my frustrations rest in the story. Considering this is coming from the creative minds of Bruce Timm, I'm not necessarily surprised that this Batgirl feels this way about Batman. In Batman: The Animated Series, the Barbara Gordon/Batgirl of that interpretation displayed hints of such an infatuation to the caped crusader as well. In the show, from what I can remember, the creators always had Batman awkwardly play off such advances and essentially leaving that kind of plot in the background. By the time Batman: Beyond was up and running, again created with the assistance of Bruce Timm, dialogue once again hinted at a possible intimate relationship between Barbara Gordon and Bruce Wayne. Now, that's the creators' choice to use the character in such a way, but I feel as though it's a detriment to the character.

See, Barbara has a certain path to follow after her demise as Batgirl. Still resilient, committed, and determined to help how she can, her intellect is put to use as Batman's careful and calculating guide, Oracle. By this point in Babs' life, she's sought out by not only Batman and his Bat-family for assistance in advancing their equipment and utilizing her impressive technological skills, but even members of the Justice League like Superman and Martian Manhunter have asked for her assistance on occasion. This girl is just as intelligent as Batman, maybe even more so, but she's got a light inside of her that Batman doesn't. Barbara is able to keep her father positive in the darker times in Gotham, she's a consul to her fellow crime-fighters, and there's even an argument to be made that Barbara is one of the only people in the world that can help to humanize Bruce Wayne in the best way. To have her reduced to an impatient student who favors Batman in such a manner, while theoretically understandable, goes against the general understanding of the character.

But I understand this perspective of the Batgirl character. This is a girl who was raised without a mother in an incredibly male-dominated, law-abiding environment. Her father was controlling (as far as my Commissioner Gordon knowledge goes), and Barbara wasn't allowed to have much identity outside of her academic prowess when it came to her relationship with her dad. Not only that, but being police commissioner (of Gotham City, no less) meant Barbara was on her own for most of the time. Figuring out who the Batman is validated her intelligence to herself and gave her the confidence to join his crusade. The crusade itself allowed her to rebel against the institutions of society, like every teenager dabbles in every now and then. And the Batman himself, who is always depicted as being the peak of the male physical form and one of the most intelligent men in the world, could very well be a distraction to any person, especially to those who knew him well. By the time Barbara became of age, it's amazing these two characters wouldn't have advanced at all.

But it's a bad move to go down what could be seen as a clearly-obvious path. This relationship has so much baggage packaged with it already: Barbara is the daughter of the Commissioner, one of the last good cops left in the police department, and Batman is a mentor as well as a consul to Barbara throughout their years of working together. Bruce Wayne saw this youthful girl with promise grow into her own, and the fact that their professional work in the field culminated in them consummating their feelings towards one another (in this particular story, anyways) paints Batman as a man who can abuse his influence on an especially impressionable woman, a woman who is for all intents and purposes under his particular protection. This is different from Catwoman, from Vicki Vale, from Talia al Ghul, because those women don't have the history that Batgirl does with Batman. It's almost the same thing as if a father had a friend who happened to be a good friend, and happened to be male, who spent a lot of time around the family, watched the father's daughter grow up from middle school to becoming an adult, and then the father found out that the daughter and his friend had sex. Sure, the daughter's a woman, she can make her own decisions, and the anger for the event isn't necessarily directed towards her, but rather to the older male friend. The male friend, one way or another, abused the fact that in that particular dynamic, he had some power over her in the relationship, and exploited the fact. That is the issue with all of this. Batman has all the power in the dynamic between him and Batgirl, and he used it all the wrong ways. The fact that he's not only resisted the advances of women before but was able to send them away forever and did not use these specific skills in this instance is just creepy, at the very least.

My interpretation of Barbara Gordon has never been based in the reality that she has incredibly powerful, romantic infatuations with Batman. I understand where one may think that such feelings could appear, but I think that the character always works better when she's the epitome of individualism and confidence. Barbara works hard to become the hero she knows she can be, despite her father's reservations over the actions of vigilantes. She becomes a solid figure in the Batman mythos that not only Batman can rely on, but that characters like Nightwing, Red Hood, Red Robin, and more seek guidance and advice from, and even a figure that Gotham City can rally behind more than Batman. Because Batgirl is personal, she's quirky, she's headstrong, she's confident, she's kind, she's daring. She's everything that 1970's DC comics wrote into one character: adventurous and fun. She's not a sexually-challenged lackey that Batman keeps behind his cape. At least, that's never how I saw her.

DC's Legends of Tomorrow SEASON 1 Review

With the CW supposedly on a roll with their DC shows, the next logical step would be to introduce a second spin-off, formed by fan favorites of both Arrow and The Flash. When a network decides to throw together a show with a TV budget that would most commonly be saved for the HBO-produced series, a premise that throws these different heroes and villains all throughout time, and plenty of fan service for those who have been DC fans for years, what can go wrong? Well, a lack of rules within the world, less-than-stellar character use, and a central plot that drones on in an unsatisfying manner, what could have been a fun time-travel team-up show becomes an effort to give fan service without accommodating for tight story and interesting character development.

But if you're a hardcore DC fan, you should find enough to enjoy here. The "diverse" cast, compiled of The Atom (Brandon Routh), White Canary (Caity Lotz), Firestorm (Franz Drameh), Professor Stein (Victor Garber), Rip Hunter (Arthur Davill), Heatwave (Dominic Purcell), Captain Cold (Wentworth Miller), Hawkgirl (Ciara Renee), and Hawkman (Falk Hentschel) all bring their own baggage and unique perspectives to the time-traveling table. Rip Hunter, a Time Master from 2166, travels back in time to recruit these different individuals to help him stop the immortal madman Vandal Savage (Casper Crump). Their efforts to locate him throughout time take the team to the 1970s, the distant future, and even to the Wild West. But I'll discuss the story later, and instead begin with the obvious focus of the show: the characters.

In short, most of these characters are terrible. They're all selfish regularly, and apparently do not care about the consequences of their actions. Professor Stein saves a boy from a disease that is easily cured in the future, but doesn't care to prevent the antibiotic from being held out of the wrong hands and inadvertently disrupt the timeline. Firestorm displays his powers to people who haven't even begun to understand the concept of superheroes yet. White Canary wants to interact with an organization that she won't meet for another 60 years, and drops hints about how to change the course of events. This is what bugs me about the show: while seeing these heroes interact with one another, they're so poorly mishandled. It's clear from the fourth episode in that these characters were specifically chosen because they were likable enough on the sides, but not important enough to keep in either The Flash or Arrow. As a matter of fact, the little character development that does take place here isn't anywhere near as engaging or interesting as it has been on the other two shows. Story-lines are copied and pasted, motivations are contradictory at best, and anything new that's tried with these characters (for the most part) seemed like it was just an attempt to fill time.

Now, I understand the struggles of a show on a network like the CW: it wants to be a blockbuster, but is also ham-stringed by budget constraints. It wants to be zany and weird, but  needs to keep themes central. This struggle doesn't excuse what ended up being (for me) an attempt to throw characters at the wall and see who audiences liked and who audiences didn't like. And I'll be honest: I don't like many of them now. Seeing these characters both preach about using their power for good but not respecting the power they have seemed like such a juvenile trait for these powerful warriors. They certainly weren't making the irrational choices here on Legends in their previous appearances.

And I also understand that because it's a superhero TV show, I shouldn't be so petty about it. But these are characters that I did enjoy in previous iterations. This was a concept I was enthralled by. What I got out of it, however, was a 16-episode season where style and action replaced character growth and story. And in my mind, that is something that no TV show is allowed to do. Game of Thrones boasts some of the best production value and special effects TV has ever seen, but you never hear people talking about the locations they filmed at or the dragons, do you? The dominant trait of Game of Thrones conversation always revolves around what Danerys is up to, or how Tyrion will try to stop Cersi. Character moves the story forward, and character makes the world come alive. When someone sets out to tell a long-form narrative in the form of a television show, where audiences will be asked to commit at least one hour out of every week to continue the adventure of several players, the storytellers need to engage the audience on a further level than massive explosions or cool fight sequences. As a TV show, that should have been the prime directive,

By the end of the season, I was burned out. Some cool character moments aside, DC's Legends of Tomorrow gave me the time-traveling shenanigans I was promised, but little else. I might be harder on this show than most, but it's because I loved these characters when I had previously seen them. To see them here, thrust into stories that didn't engage many of them in meaningful or interesting ways, coupled with a story that became blander and blander as the season progressed, absolutely turned me from a fan to a critic. And while the season 1 cliffhanger promises many more exciting things to follow, that's the same promise this show made to me the first time around. If you're not a DC fan, don't waste your time here. If you are a DC fan, I'm surprised you stuck around. I only did it because I don't have a lot of TV to watch.

Rating: 4.0 / 10

Fandom and the Entertainment Industry: Where to Divide the Line Between Fun and Fury

I remember distinctly when I first considered the insidious nature of consumerism. At 13 years old, a teacher had laid out before my eyes the simple notion that a company’s main goal is to sell, sell, sell. I was dumbfounded. I asked myself, how could the creators behind Star Wars, behind Batman, behind Super Mario Bros., only be concerned with making money? Why don’t they focus on making fans happy by providing them with the best product? As I’ve grown older, I’ve accepted that the entertainment industry is just that: an industry. I’ve come to terms with the fact that every single decision gets made based on the likelihood a profit will arise from it; if a product or deeper message comes out of this endeavor, that’s merely a secondary bonus. But as someone who continues to consume this content and finds less consistent quality, I find myself wondering if complaining about quality is even worth the effort.

It’s the responsibility of the consumer to support the quality products put out by the entertainment industry. If you enjoy Marvel’s consistently entertaining, well-made films, you need to support them with the billions they expect to see in order to ensure more films will follow. If you love the superhero TV shows on the CW, you need to tune in every night and let the network know that you’re willing to sit through all the advertisements for the sake of watching the action. These companies that produce this programming can’t do what they do without the support of your time and dollar. That’s all they care about. But they also know that they need to keep people returning in order to ensure consistent profit and revenue. This is what incentivizes the production team to make good content. This is all information any fan should be aware of by now.

This system, unfortunately, is an inherent conflict of interest. Artists tend to choose a life of having the opportunity to hold a mirror up to contemporary society and ask the question, “How can you do better?” They weave stories of horrible characters waging social, political, and economic conflicts that will often mirror what real people have done, or are doing. These stories are the face-value sales pitch, though. The real depth comes from the characters trapped in these conflicts. The characters are often the strength of the story, and the stronger the character, the better the whole idea. So, what does one do when a character acts differently to how they should in real life? While suspension of disbelief needs to be a procured skill when experiencing these stories, how far should the audience member be willing to allow it? When a piece of programming offers eye-dazzling special effects or stunning choreographed fight sequences, it’s easy for the viewer to be whisked away into a world beyond their own. Seeing the characters engage in such a fantasy sells the story as being just as fantastical, thus allowing my personal suspension of disbelief. To keep my interest, you need to keep the rules of your story within the boundaries of which you have set.

When the entertainment begins to break those rules – whether with the suspension of disbelief, with character motivation, with the actual storytelling – the analyst and the cynic inside me rears his ugly head, spilling profanities over freaking stories. Underneath all of the rage stems the reasoning: whatever I’m investing my time in, whatever I’m taking the effort to spend on, I’d like to have a return on that. I’d like the story to be engrossing, the gameplay to be challenging but fair, the characters to be enjoyable to watch. When I don’t get that, I get cranky. I get pouty. I get upset. And why shouldn’t I? Artistically, it’s the responsibility of these creators to keep a story coherent, a character realistic within the rules of the world, and offer the overall product (if possible) the ability to have the audience connect the conflicts within the story to the conflicts the world around them faces.

So, why is it that I don’t have the right to be complaining? Well, for starters, it’s a fantasy: it’s not worth the effort or the attention. These costumed heroes, these human legends, these characters are all no different than the gods of the old world that symbolize life lessons humans carry with them. Perhaps it’s because these characters have had so much more depth and development than those old fables that we treat them so much more seriously. And perhaps it’s because we expect more as an audience that we end up getting disappointed so seriously. After all, Arrow is only a TV show, why get so worked up about it? X-Men: The Last Stand is only a dumb action movie, why do you care if it’s good or not? I’d argue that, if you’re going to make something dumb, you need to at least make character motivations either consistent or believable. X-Men suffers when current-Mystique is always a human, despite what the previous 5 movies of her “proud mutant” stand suggest. Arrow’s Thea can learn to be a competent fighter in one summer, despite Oliver having to train 5 years in severe, stressful environments, to be competent enough to take on mercenaries and militia of all kinds. In my opinion, fans can allow much to slip through the cracks, so long as those cracks aren’t so wide as to contradict what came before.

I don’t like to be analytical when it comes to my films, my TV, and my video games. These forms of entertainment give me joy because they offer ways for me to escape the mundane, everyday life that I live. I have a blast traveling to a post-Apocalyptic world, shooting down radiation monsters. I’m entranced by the tale of an introvert as he begins to experience the woes of true claustrophobia. I’m engrossed by a man’s journey to do good by others with the gifts that he has, despite having suffered great losses. But as one spends so much considerable time in these worlds, the stories they tell and the conflicts that arise begin to overlap one another. And as someone who likes to experience different ways of escape, that sucks. Maybe all I need to do is expand my horizons. Maybe all I need to do is accept the reality and change myself based on it. Maybe what I need to do is adjust my expectations for entertainment. For 18 years, I never had to do that, because quality entertainment was consistent, and I didn’t know that things could be better. But now I do. And I hate it.

Jessica Jones SEASON 1 Review (NO SPOILERS)

Better late than never.

For those of you unfamiliar with the property, Marvel's Jessica Jones is a Netflix-exclusive series featuring heroine Jessica Jones and her fight against the evil mind-controlling Kilgrave. Jessica was born with the gift of superhuman strength; she's stronger than Captain America in many respects. The 13-episode season covers the origins of this damaged woman and her ploy to both keep defeat her rival while making peace with those she loves. Along with her for the journey is her adopted sister Trish, former covert ops agent Simpson, and dangerous lover Luke Cage. Together, these people share their experiences and are intertwined courtesy of Kilgrave.

Not all heroes wear capes

That's the basic synopsis. For those of you familiar to the Netflix formula, and even more so if you saw the excellent Marvel's Daredevil Season 1 on Netflix, you'll be familiar with what to expect on this show: dark themes encapsulated by engrossing characters and a conflict that keeps you on the edge of your seat asking "what comes next?" However, unlike Marvel's Daredevil, where the objective was to portray the physical brutality of Matt Murdock's world, Marvel's Jessica Jones is presenting the unsettling nature of her world through mental brutality. Jessica Jones has dealt with the villainous Kilgrave before, as he made her do things she was unable to say no to. This is the story of a rape victim and her struggle to maintain her sanity after the fact. She turns to booze, she steers clear of others, she disconnects herself from the world at large. The only reason Jessica goes public in this show like she does is because Kilgrave is once again on the prowl, and he's using other innocent people to get to Jessica.

Immediately, this conflict has multiple layers that are intriguing on their own even before you meet the characters. Firstly, how is Jessica, with all of her strength, supposed to overpower someone who can make people do whatever he says? From a superhero perspective, this is a conflict that is immediately intriguing to watch progress throughout the 13 episodes. From a narrative perspective, we meet Jessica Jones as she is recovering from a seriously abusive period in her life, and the commentary on the abuse women have received, and still receive, was both bold but respectful, intense and at the same time intellectual, mature and honest, all at once. It's some of the boldest, most grounded, most human storytelling I've ever seen on a television platform, and I was intrigued by every bit of it. These writers certainly aren't lazy; while dead periods certainly exist in the form of a filler episode, or sub-plots that get in the way of Jessica's story, they weren't so boring that I got immediately turned off from them. This show is ultimately a story about the survivors of abuse, and of not just one kind of abuse. The characters have depth, and their stories are human. I loved the writing of this show.

What do you do when you try to start over?

And as for the characters, there's a plethora to enjoy. Jessica Jones is an unlikable introvert at the start of the show, but as you journey through the episodes, you empathize more and more with her. She's on her own, and you don't judge her for being so as you watch. She's headstrong but calculating, and there's a strong presence that she has to her - Krysten Ritter did a great job with the material. Mike Colter's Luke Cage takes the overly-dark tone of the show and brings in just the slimmest light; inherently, Luke Cage is a good man who tries to do the right thing, an area where other characters of this show actually struggle with consistently. Seeing Cage weed through the darkness and emerge just as endearing is wonderful to see happen. And like Vincent D'Onofrio before him, David Tennant makes for a terrifying villain - but in a different way. Where D'Onofrio terrorized through barely-controlled rage and an uncanny control of the Hell's Kitchen gang scene, Tennant is an unbridled bundle of self-deprivation and excess: using his powers, he abuses anyone who he views gets in his way. But also like D'Onofrio, there's more to the villain Kilgrave than first meets the eye. And what makes it great is that Tennant himself flexes his acting muscles by explaining why  he is the way he is, rather than through flashback. This trio forms a great cast, and the supporting roles were confident and strong as well, particularly in Rachel Taylor's Trish Walker, Jessica's adoptive sister and best friend. She provides a different outlook on the show by being open to others and supportive of Jessica, but being equally strong in her own right. These characters are great, but there are weaker ones in the show (which I won't be getting into right now).

Keep your ears covered when you're around him

When it comes to television, you can't do much better than this. If you're a fan of Marvel's Daredevil and want to venture back into Hell's Kitchen, Marvel's Jessica Jones is definitely for you. Be warned, however: in many ways, this program is some of the most adult content Marvel has ever done. This story is very much a psychological thriller, one that will either engage you to the maximum or make you need to take intense breaks between episodes. The show isn't flawless, and one or two episodes focus less on narrative progression and more on filler, but if you've enjoyed Netflix's programming thus far, you won't be disappointed here.

Rating: 9.0 / 10

Captain America: Civil War Review (NO SPOILERS)

Ultron is defeated. The Avengers have a new lineup. Friends are gone, new friends have been made. What does the world look like after 11 super-powered incidents on Earth? This is the kind of question Captain America: Civil War hopes to give answers to, but it's not the only question that's being asked in this film. And it's because of these character-defining, world-changing questions that I enjoy this movie so thoroughly.

This movie picks up some time after the events of the latest Marvel movie, Ant-Man, where we find the Avengers yet again causing chaos in their attempts to save the world at large. After one particular incident, the United Nations have voted on a superhero control act, known as the Sokovia Accords, which converts the Avengers from being their private hero organization to a collective controlled by the United Nations. Tony Stark, paralyzed by fear and regret due to his actions as Iron Man, leads the collective that believes restrictions at the behest of world leaders is necessary, while Steve Rodgers holds onto the belief that heroes need to retain their rights to save as they feel the need to. What follows in the wake of this disagreement is a serious clash between ideologies, partly mirroring contemporary society, partly being the climax of the first 8 years of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I'd first like to discuss the storytelling in this movie: it's some of the best storytelling that Marvel has ever written. This is a logic-tight movie, with character motivations making sense and sequences of events correctly following one another in a realistic manner. For myself, I usually turn my brain off when I'm watching a movie, so plot holes actually aren't an issue for me as long as the overall film is entertaining. I made myself a mandate to examine this film and keep an eye out for any inconsistencies or other logic holes, and I found nothing. Even my mother, who is the more analytical type when it comes to film, didn't see any gaping logic. Props to Marvel on that!

But even more so impressive is the character development we see. With just about 12 superheroes and about five narrative-important  characters featured, not only are the performances great, but each character gets a moment to shine. Did you like Paul Bettany as the Vision, but wish you saw more of him in Avengers: Age of Ultron? Don't worry, he's got plenty to do here! Excited to see Paul Rudd as Ant-Man again after his debut last summer? You should be, because he's just as entertaining now as he was then! Even a character like Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, who often plays second-fiddle to his teammates, had some great interactions and quips in this movie. Another highlight comes from the interplay between Anthony Mackie's Falcon and Sebastian Stan's Winter Soldier, who bust heads with one another and provide some surprising levity throughout the film. Don Cheadle's War Machine doesn't have as much of a presence in this movie like he did in Iron Man 3, but he's nonetheless reliable as Tony's partner. Scarlett Johansson has some interesting, character-growing development in this movie, which will for sure push for her solo movie even more after the close of this film. For myself, the remaining five featured heroes stood out to me the most, and they deserve their own paragraphs for that.

Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch was one of my most anticipated characters to see going into Avengers: Age of Ultron; as we now know, she didn't have a great lot to do in that movie, but she was cool nonetheless. Here, she's given more depth and importance. Being arguably the most powerful Avenger, as well as being the youngest, the dynamic of Scarlet Witch, coupled with the characters' view of both herself and her affect on the world, was intriguing to see onscreen. For being such a damaged individual, there's a lot of emotion in her. Additionally, the interplay between her and Vision was cute to see, especially if the filmmakers are hinting at a future with the two characters, a la the comics.

Newcomer Black Panther, being portrayed by Chadwick Boseman, was the most anticipated feature for myself: I love the character, his power-set, his determination, his persona, his presence. In Civil War, we don't really dig too deep into what he is in the comics. We only get a taste of who he is, and what he means to the world. This is fine, as the movie itself isn't primarily focused around one character. I just was hoping to have more is all.

But I got way more than I would've first asked for in the premiere of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Spider-Man. Guys, they nailed it. They freaking nailed it! Casting a younger kid, giving him the right attitude of fun but heroic, and teasing fans with a future as an Avenger all added up to quite possibly the best interpretation of the character. Every time he was on screen, I was smiling and laughing.


But the real standouts in terms of character are Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. Captain America is at the top of his game, being both a leader but a supporter of the Avengers. His ideals this time aren't necessarily American-centric, but more along the lines of western ideology. It makes him more relatable to those who aren't American, and even more to the rest of us living today. He's no longer a simple American soldier, he's a good man that everyone wants to root for. Chris Evans continues to delight as Captain America, and his interactions with Bucky/Winter Soldier shows that while this character is good, there are flaws in him as well. For Robert Downey, Jr. I was floored by his performance in this movie. This is the best, most conflicted Iron Man we've ever seen, and it makes both the stakes and the character all the more exciting to watch. From the turmoil of a divided Avengers team to the conflict with the government to his heartbreak over the loss of his friends, Tony Stark has never been a better character to watch.

The same can be said for the action and special effects. Without the mess of a mindless army at the Avengers' throats, you really get a better sense of each hero's individual abilities. Ant-Man looks great as he's going after Iron Man, the clash between the Winter Soldier and Falcon versus Spider-Man was a joy to watch, and the brawl between Cap and Black Panther was a masterpiece. The airport scene you see in all of the trailers is definitely a stand-out  not only in this movie, but in all 12 movies that the MCU has produced. Special effects mixed with real, authentic shots and fighting sequences are a thrill to watch unfold; that being said, I felt in the first hour that the directors really wanted to use the shaky-cam to the fullest extent. And while we're on the topic of flaws, I originally didn't have much negativity to say about Daniel Bruehl's Zemo, but as I write this review, I don't have much opinion on him compared to everything else that happened in the film. I liked his portrayal in the movie, and the character was interesting enough, but he's definitely not the focus or interest.

With all of that being said, Captain America: Civil War is filled with all of the action and giggles Marvel fans have come to expect, but they've added new complexities to the characters we've come to know and love these past eight years. This movie changes the landscape for Marvel films going forward, something fans have been clammoring for for a while now.  If you're looking for the right way to start off the summer blockbuster season, a movie to make up for the disappointment of past superhero films, or just a great character film. Captain America: Civil War is the movie to see.

Rating: 9.0 / 10

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Review (No Spoilers)

Let's get ready to rumble!

This review comes late for a number of reasons. One, during my first viewing of the film, I was ecstatic: as a DC fan through and through, I was ready to love this movie no matter what. That first showing gave me a plethora of DC love, and I ate up every minute of it. I was in a state of ecstasy, a mindset where I was just pleased to finally see the two titans of comics in the same frame on the big screen. After the second showing, one where my emotions were suppressed and my critical side was prominent, I can still say with satisfaction that this movie is enjoyable.

That doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

In terms of character, those notably returning from Man of Steel include Superman, Lois Lane, Martha Kent/Ma Kent, and Perry White; each character is portrayed by Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, and Lawrence Fischburne respectively. While Ma Kent and Perry are reliable characters without being given much to work with, it’s Lois and Clark that get the time to shine. There isn’t much growth from either of them, however. Lois opens the movie discussing with Clark her fears over if he can be her love and Superman at the same time, but that specific dilemma is never again addressed. Lois is simply there to interact with the heroes and villains as a means of explaining the current motivations of the characters, which is a shame considering the film has Amy Adams to work with. The character is wasted, and Adams’ talent fails to shine because of it. 

The hope from Krypton returns to bring the pain.

Superman faces a similar dilemma, but at least he’s used more. With a majority of the plot (and an entertaining montage covering the ethics of Superman) surrounding whether or not Superman has a place in our complex world, there’s little indication that Clark is going through a difficult time. He mopes, going from person to person for a different perspective on how he should act, but he ultimately doesn’t do anything different from what he was doing in the beginning of the movie. And to a further extent, Cavill becomes quite wooden when he suits up. As Clark, he’s great, he’s human, he’s relatable. When he goes super, it’s like he loses that humanity. I don’t know if that was a direction given to him, but I do remember that in Man of Steel, there weren’t as many sequences where not Clark’s, but Superman’s dialogue was delivered in such a stilted fashion. It was so noticeable that it can’t be ignored or shoved under the carpet.

The Dark Knight returns with a vengeance.

But this movie isn’t for our old friends, it’s a showcase for DC newcomers as well! Batman/Bruce Wayne, Alfred the Butler, Wonder Woman/Diana Prince, and Lex Luthor all make their debuts in this movie to begin expanding based on the DC lexicon. The star of this movie really is Batman, portrayed by Ben Affleck, and for the first two-thirds of the film you begin to feel like the movie is more about Batman himself than his rivalry with Superman. Some may be able to forgive the movie of this, especially since we need to re-establish Batman for this interpretation of the world. Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons (who plays Alfred) are a joy to see on-screen together. You can tell they enjoy each other’s company, and they have some good banter to exchange. It makes it all the more disappointing that you don’t see more of their interactions. That’s okay, though, because the Batman sequences are AMAZING. For anyone who’s ever played a Batman videogame, especially a modern one, this will feel very familiar. Batman’s tough, fast, resourceful and merciless with the criminals of Gotham’s underbelly, and his action sequences are a complete joy to watch. They’re much more entertaining than Christian Bale’s stilted fight scenes, I’ll say that much. The other newcomers haven’t been so well-received, but I enjoyed them for what they were. Many were disappointed in Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex Luthor, as he’s a more wiry interpretation of the character. This Lex is a scattered genius, somewhat timid, but nonetheless convicted in his goals. His ticks and twitches make him unnerving to watch, and I couldn’t imagine being in the same room with the man. Most people won’t like that Lex isn’t as cool or calculating as previous iterations have been, but I found his erratic nature to be a nice compliment to the stonefaced heroes we see in this movie. 

You WISH you were this badass.

Speaking of heroes, Wonder Woman makes her first big-screen debut in this movie, and she isn’t disappointing. Granted, Gal Gadot, the former model who was cast in the role, doesn’t do anything groundbreaking with the role, but she doesn’t completely botch the job either. There are a couple sequences where Gadot interacts with Affleck, and they’re pretty entertaining scenes. Again, however, when she puts on the warrior garb, she begins to go stale. The personality and the mystique of Diana Prince disappears when she becomes Wonder Woman. Again, it’s nothing major, as she has maybe 4 lines as Wonder Woman, but I have to imagine a much more trained actress could have delivered the lines better.

Imagine if Mark Zuckerberg was Lex Luthor.

Many of the film’s issues lie in the fact that the story is stilted. The script could probably be divided into five different aspects: introducing Batman, having the world conflicted over Superman, having Lex be angry with the government and Superman, having Batman want to fight Superman (and vice versa), and setting up the formation of the super-team, the Justice League. There is no single plotline that dominates, with the script instead seemingly dividing these ideas equally. This results in a sloppy delivery of essentially a prequel to the Justice League rather than a cohesive dialogue between Batman and Superman about the morality of being a superhero, which is the plot that the movie was selling to viewers. The issue with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is the issue with Iron Man 2, is the issue with Avengers: Age of Ultron: much of the plot important to the movie at hand is sacrificed to make way for things to come. This isn’t dissimilar to how an actual comic book would tell a story, but a comic book also doesn’t demand two and a half hours of your attention, along with somewhere around $7-15 of your hard-earned cash. By the end of the film, you realize that the movie is more Dawn of Justice and less Batman V Superman.

Many of the shots in the movie look as great as this photo.

But there are many moments that can entertain you, regardless of plot. Director Zack Snyder is a master of cinematography, able to craft and create amazing sequences with past films such as 300, Watchmen, and even the previously-stated Man of Steel. Batman V Superman is no different, with the Batman sequences being exhilarating to watch, Batman and Superman fighting being a nail-biting (and surprisingly aggressive) experience, and Wonder Woman’s technique dazzling when she joins the fray. The special effects are top-notch, and Snyder shoots each sequence as if it were something you would read in your weekly issue of that comic series you love. This movie was made by a comic book fan to express his love of these characters in the way he thought best to: by bringing them directly off the page, and onto the screen. And cynic or not, these scenes dazzle.

At the end of the day, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is an incredibly flawed film, especially considering the stacks it was up against: there was so much potential that could have been reached, so much excitement to live up to, and a standard set and unmatched by its contemporaries over at Marvel Studios. While this movie doesn’t come close to the likes of The Avengers, there is still enjoyment to be had here if you want to find it. Not everyone will be able to, though. And even though I, a self-proclaimed DC fanboy, admit to its faults, that doesn’t mean I still didn’t enjoy what it gave me, or what is to come down the line. I just wish it had given me more, here and now.

Rating: 6.75/10

Why are people hating the new Ghostbusters?

I really don't understand it.

And I should mention before I delve into my thoughts that I am not a Ghostbusters fan. I don't have some childlike, nostalgia-fueled love for the franchise. In fact, I just saw the original film for the first time about two months ago, and I didn't find it to hold up like other older films. That isn't a critique on the special effects, premise, or acting; it just didn't grab me like it apparently grabbed kids 30 years ago.

And maybe that's where the differentiation comes in to play. The original Ghostbusters was never meant to play out and be the franchise it is today. It wasn't meant to span a long-running cartoon series, video games, a sequel film, even LEGO. Back then, the Ghostbusters was just a chance for some old Saturday Night Live cast mates and friends to get together and make a movie with a fun premise. Their energy and camaraderie is what made it so entertaining to watch on the big screen. Kids ate up the mythology and the characters, adults loved the jokes, and the film became a hit. The fact that the franchise has been as inactive these past few years is nothing short of unbelievable. 

Now, director Paul Feig of Bridesmaids fame is back to bring Ghostbusters to a 21st-century audience, complete with a cast of women to represent the modernity of both the acting industry and the world at large. He brings with him women he's worked with before, in the form of the impeccable Kristen Wiig and the surprisingly-talented Melissa McCarthy. Newcomers Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones round out the group, each bringing their comedic sensibilities to the table as well. Kristen, Leslie, and Kate all started SNL fame, so they've got the ability to do comedy well. Melissa McCarthy has recently had films like St. Vincent and Spy to change up her "Melissa McCarthy formula" of acting into something more diverse and enjoyable. The story, while clearly looking like a revisiting of the original, seems to be enticing enough to watch more people bust some ghosts. My personal favorite thing to see was the special effects, which look absolutely amazing. The ghosts look vibrant and lively; pardon the irony. The proton packs and the neutrino wands project dazzling light shows that will most likely culminate in an impressive third act. So I'm left flabbergasted as to why the people are so upset.

The move is definitely looking goofy and lighthearted for something generally considered to be king of the horror-comedies, but I really don't think that this initial look should detract people from enjoying a world that they love so much. As an outsider looking in, I'd recommend to keep your mind open about what's to come. I mean, it can't be worse than Ghostbusters II, can it?

The answer is no. It can't. Just like Star Wars  needed The Force Awakens to be great for its fans, so too does Ghostbusters need to be good. Have faith that director Paul Feig is doing everything in his power to deliver an entertaining entry into the Ghostbusters mythos. And if this doesn't work out, maybe the Ghostbusters franchise needs to be left alone.