Widows - Well intended but wrong headed

Back in 2011, there was an action drama titled Sucker Punch. It was a film co-written and directed by Zach Snyder about a group of wrongfully imprisoned women plotting an escape from a mental institution. There's too much other stuff involved in that movie to explain in full here, but the main reason I bring it up is that it shares a significant and fundamental flaw with Widows. Both films are under the impression that they are empowering to women by placing them in uber masculine situations performing tasks that short-sighted jackass men could never allow them to be in. All the while portraying all of the woman characters as victims and all of the male characters as misogynistic thugs. While I do not deny that, even today, there is a severely outdated perception of women as inferior, and that really needs to change, movies like this are not the way to go about accomplishing that. They are just going to make everyone even angrier, and less likely believe that change is possible. 

Based on the mini-series of the same title created by Lynda La Plante, and loosely based on the TV movie Perfect Gentlemen directed by Jackie Cooper, the story follows a group or women from different backgrounds whos husbands, as it turns out, were all part of the same group of professional thieves. After a failed heist where they stole a large sum of money from a former drug dealer now turned politician and consequently got killed for it, the women are forced to take on their husbands debts and pay it back in one month. Against all the odds, the women take it upon themselves to find and steal the money back so they can shake off the misdeeds of their lost husbands and start a new life for themselves. 

This film is probably the most frustrating one I have had to review this year. On the one hand, I really appreciate what it's trying to do. It has a relevant story, timely commentary about the false perceptions of women, and offers the whole cast the opportunity to shine through and show off their "A" material, which they all deliver in spades. However, I can't help but feel that all of that good stuff is rendered moot by the film's overall execution. Sure, the film is competently shot, the dialogue has music to it, and the overall message of not treating women like crap is always appreciated, but none of that ever really hits the mark. 

The biggest problem with this movie is that it has no likable characters. Yes, we can sympathize and even empathize with the women in their troubling situations, but aside from that, none of them really have anything resembling a likable personality. They're either angry all the time or are continually being victimized in one way or another. Not that they don't have any right be mad about their unfortunate circumstances, but we can only look at everyone's scowling face for so long. Every single character in this movie is either so vile that we don't want to be around them or so one note that we lose any interest in latching on to them. It is yet another case of mistaking bleakness for seriousness. 

I genuinely wanted to like this movie, and I honestly hoped it would be a shining ray of hope for women in cinema. Sadly, that is not the case here. What may have started out as an earnest attempt to elevate women in cinema has somehow mutated into an underwhelming and ugly mess. It is a sad waste of great talent, and I hope that everyone involved has better projects on the horizon. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

No 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

No 

Why? 

It is a perfect idea for a story that is trampled on by too much aggressive bleakness mistaken for greatness. In other words, this year's Logan. Skip it. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

Ralph Breaks The Internet - A fun if forgettable break from the mundane

If you have not yet seen the first Wreck-It Ralph, I would highly encourage you to do so. It was one of the best films of 2012. It is heartwarming, wonderfully written, perfectly animated, featured some of the best performances from John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman, and provided a valuable lesson about the power of self-acceptance. It is also, at the present moment, the only genuinely good movie about video games, both as a cultural phenomenon and as an art form. It is a film that has real heart and soul, and it is one of my favorites. It's sequel, Ralph Breaks The Internet, is not as good or as emotionally resonating as the first movie, but it is still a mostly fun ride with two genuinely lovable characters. To be honest, that's really all I ever expected from this sequel. 

Taking place a few years after the events of the first movie, Ralph (John C. Reilly) and Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) have remained best friends. When they're not performing their day jobs as characters in their respective video games at the arcade, they're spending as much of their free time together goofing off, laughing, and exploring. Ralph seems entirely content with how things are, but Vanellope starts feeling like she wants something different out of life. As much as she loves Ralph's friendship and his company, she just wants a change from the ordinary. Vanellope gets her wish (sort of) when her game console is accidentally broken and is at risk of getting shut down permanently. To save Vanellope's game, she and Ralph will venture into the internet in search of a replacement piece to repair the console. All the while dealing with the struggles of their friendship growing and changing in ways they could never have expected. 

This is actually a bit of an odd film for me to review. On the one hand, it's an unfortunately hollow story with very little in the way of stakes, conflict or tension. What little of it is there doesn't have enough weight to maintain investment in the story, and what it lacks in substance it tries to compensate with an overabundance of jokes, both about the internet and Disney, which, even so, are mostly pretty funny. In fact, there's an entire bit about Disney Princesses that seems like yet another attempt at self-parody. Which, while appreciated, is actually starting to get a little old. However, just like the first movie, Ralph and Vanellope have remarkable chemistry and are perpetually entertaining to watch. Even when they are put into contrived moments of forced drama, they are still adorable and engaging. Mostly because of how genuine their friendship feels and because of how incredibly funny they are together. Just like the first film, they are the heart. Also, regarding movies poking fun at the internet and pop culture, this is significantly better than The Emoji Movie. Which I realize is not really a high standard, but my point still stands. 

Aside from still getting a ton of enjoyment out of watching Ralph and Vanellope do their thing for ninety minutes there really isn't much else to this film. There is a new bad-ass character played by Gal Gadot who does become a welcome addition to Vanellope's entourage and does play a significant role in helping our heroes achieve their goal. However, aside from that, the rest of the movie is really just a mish-mash of internet jokes, some of which are a little outdated, and a lesson about friendship that, while appreciated and relevant, isn't as compelling as it really should have been. The main attraction is the funny and adorable antics between Ralph and Vanellope, and if that's enough for you as it was for me, then you might have a decent time. If anything else, it'll be a great and fun little reminder of why the first movie was so amazing. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Maybe 

Why? 

While I personally had fun with it, I cannot guarantee that you will as well. Ralph and Vanellope make it worth checking out but it's not going to have the same impact as the first movie did, and if that's what you're looking for, then just watch the first film again. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

Creed II - Yo Adrian, this is pretty good.

The first Creed movie released back in 2015 was an absolute marvel in every sense of the word. It was a familiar setting with brand new characters, a few we hadn't seen in a long time, and a story that was on par with the likes of great classics of human drama. It cemented both its star Michael B. Jordon and writer/director Ryan Coogler (both of whom would go on to create Black Panther), as genuine talents that can handle just about anything. It was a small miracle of a film that I still enjoy to this day. So when it was announced that it would be getting a sequel, I was not entirely sure how to feel about it. To be honest, everything about it felt less like a continuation of the first story and more like a hostile takeover. Even so, I was not about to judge the film until I had seen it. Now, having done so, I am happy to report that, while it is not as impactful or as memorable as the first movie, it is still entertaining and satisfying in its own way. My time did not feel wasted with this one. 

The story takes place a few years after the first Creed film. Adonis "Creed" Johnson (Michael B. Jordon), son of the late Apollo Creed, has just won the heavyweight championship. He celebrates his victory by proposing to his girlfriend and, shortly after that, discovers that he is about to become a father. It seems that life is throwing him all the right punches. That is until a new challenger comes knocking at his door looking for a challenge by the name of Victor Drago (Florian Munteanu), as in the son of Ivan Drago, whom some of you may remember as the Russian boxer who killed Apollo Creed in the ring from Rocky IV. Having been shammed and abandoned by his family and his community for his loss to Rocky over thirty years ago, Ivan has returned with his son to seek revenge. All the while Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) must now decide if he is willing to face down an old enemy by training Apollo's son. It is a battle of generations and the showdown of a lifetime. Will Adonis take down Russia as Rocky had done before, or will he be broken? 

When I said this movie seemed more like a hostile takeover, I genuinely meant it. The main thing about Creed that made it such a powerful film was that it was set inside the all too familiar Rocky universe, complete with Sylvester Stallone as Rocky and Phylicia Rashad as Apollo's widow (who by the way is still a remarkable screen presence), but it felt like its own thing entirely. It had a new story with its own themes of personal identity and the value of self-worth, and it pulled them off gloriously. Its sequel, Creed II, feels more like a traditional Rocky movie, complete with the expected training montages, themes of overcoming demons and rising to the occasion after learning the right lessons. It also can't help but come off as yet another symptom of Hollywoods story crisis where they're just making as many sequels, remakes and reboots as they can banking on name recognition because they can't trust too much originality. Which, to be fair, the first movie is kind of guilty of this as well, but at least the first film didn't make that its primary attraction sort of speak.

This is not to imply that Creed II is in any way predictable or dull. Despite being more of a sequel to Rocky IV than a continuation of the first story, this movie still succeeds in delivering well-rounded characters, a compelling narrative, and emotional punch (no pun intended). The story of old enemies squaring off again with the next generation as their weapons only to for both sides to learn a valuable lesson about life before its too late is a welcome story to enjoy. Also, as you might have expected, Michael B. Jordon is still a remarkable talent to behold and his chemistry with the rest of the case, including Stallone, makes the film worth it all. Not to mention the incredibly talented and beautiful Tessa Thompson as Adonis's wife. She is the proud recipient of my MVP award.

While it does not contain the same emotional and creative spark as its predecessor, it still has a great deal of its own entertainment value and emotional residence. It's like a well-made extension of an already correctly built table. You don't really need it, but it's nice to have it.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Yes

Why?
It is an experience guaranteed to scratch your nostalgia itch and might even draw a tear or two. I drew some from me.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.

The ink of a character - Why tattoos are great for movies

"Show me a man with a tattoo, and I'll show you a man with an interesting past." 

-Jack London 

As a self-trained filmmaker and enthusiastic storyteller, I have discovered and determined some my most essential artistic preferences over the years. Ranging from how I as a cinematographer prefer to light my scenes to how I as a writer would like to have my characters textured and rounded. One of the things I have grown to appreciate, both in storytelling and in my personal life, is the art of the tattoo. One of the oldest and most versatile art forms in human history. 

For as long as I can remember, I have always been fascinated with tattoos. As a kid, I would purchase temporary tattoos from a coin machine at our local Pizza joint upon every visit. It is only in recent years that I finally built up the courage to get myself a few actual ones. A painful process to be sure, but ultimately well worth it. Even so, a common question or statement I hear from family and friends, who don't have any tattoos, is "why would you put yourself through that?" or "I just don't get it." So, if you have a minute, I'd like to share with you my thoughts on what makes tattoos well worth the experience, and in doing so, explore why they are perfect for movies and storytelling.

First, a little history.

Tattoos have been utilized by humans pretty much since the dawn of existence. No one really knows how it got started, but there is at least one theory which I think is the most likely and the coolest. Early cavemen would apply charcoal dust to their wounds after a hunt and would leave black marks where the injury had been. Some historians hypothesize that this had evolved into a means of marking one's accomplishments and status. The one piece of evidence to support this theory is the remains of a long-dead caveman dubbed Ötiz. This early man was discovered in the frozen mountains located between Austria and Italy. Perfectly preserved in the ice since 3300 BCE (Before Common Era) his body was also found to contain several tattoos.

Of course, Ötiz is not the only part of tattoos historical significance. The Japanese have a captivating and beautiful story of the artform. In the 18th century, it was decreed that only the royal and wealthy families were permitted to wear Kimonos (traditional Japenese garments) with gorgeous and elaborate patterns and designs, while the commoners were forbidden from wearing such garments. As a form of rebellion, some people chose to get tattoos that would create the appearance of a royally designed Kimono. This practice would later be adopted by the Japanese mafia known as The Yakuza, serving as a badge of honor and commitment to the clan.

Another excellent example of fantastical tattooing is in the Polynesian culture. Throughout the Pacific Islands, especially New Zealand, tribes have used tattoos for various occasions. They mark rites of passage, sexual maturity, and accomplishments in battle. Some tribal members, usually the leaders and/or shamans, would have unique tattoo patterns on their faces. Which not only served as a means of establishing their place in the tribe but also acted as their signature. Upon signing written agreements like trade papers or the like, they would sign with their facial tattoo pattern. 

Today, tattoos have become a common practice all over the world. While it didn't really pick up steam here in the west until the 1940s (arguably), once it did it slowly became an accepted and even welcomed artform. There was a time when having or getting a tattoo here in the west was looked down upon. Seen as a sign of untrustworthiness or danger. Not helped by the fact that most of the people who are likely to get tattoos, at least perceivably, were the kind of people who would cause harm just by looking at them wrong. Thankfully, that perception has changed over the years. Because of good people with tattoos, kind-hearted artists, and even movies and TV shows, tattoos have become more than just a status symbol. They have become marks of personal and even spiritual commitment. Be it for a great cause or a personal revelation, getting a tattoo is one of the many great ways to grow as a person. Speaking personally, one of the reasons I got tattooed was to help overcome my fear of needles. Since then, not only have I no longer fretted getting a shot from the doctors, but I have also been a proud and regular blood donor ever since. 

So, having explored all of that, how is it that tattoos can truly benefit storytellers? Well, aside from giving the make-up artist something fun to do with the characters, assuming the actor in question doesn't already have something that could fit the role they're playing, tattoos can quickly inform the personality of a character, their past, and their inherent likability. Not just from what the tattoo is but also where it is on the character's body. Also, given the fact that film is a visual medium, where the golden rule is "show, don't tell," tattoos can serve as a perfect visual representation of the characters inner qualities and desires. Plus, they just look so damn cool. 

One example I like to point out is the film The American starring George Clooney. While it is not one of my favorite movies for reasons I will explain momentarily, it is a perfect example of using tattoos for storytelling. Said story is of an American named Jack living in Europe whom we eventually discover works as a weapons builder for assassins. Designing and crafting specialized weapons to later be used by the respected client. Jack's backstory is never really explained and aside from seeing him in action as he escapes a mysterious pursuer, we never really get a sense of who he is as a person. That is until we see a quick scene of him in his room exercising with his shirt off revealing a few tattoos. On his back is the image of a Butterfly and on his shoulder is what appears to be a custom design of a military-style sword. 

The movie itself is not really all that good, at least in my opinion. Aside from featuring gorgeous cinematography of the Italian countryside, the film doesn't really have much life to it. Preferring to be a series of quiet moments occasionally interrupted by bursts of action. It also loses many points for being yet another story that tries to make the audience sympathize with an assassin. Granted, one could argue that Jack is technically not really an assassin since he isn't the one performing the killings. Except, that argument is rendered pointless when you remember that, even though he is not the one pulling the trigger, he still built the weapon for the assassination in question. Also, Jack does murder people in this story indeed. He even goes so far as to murder a woman he was in a relationship with for no other reason than to ensure that he won't be found again by whoever was chasing him at the time. As far as I'm concerned the only movie that has successfully told a compelling story about an assassin was Leon: The Professional. Purely because the story makes it very clear that the main character is too evil to sympathize with, and prefers that you emotionally attach yourself to the young girl in his company, as she has a better justification for your sympathy. But I digress. 

Setting aside my personal criticisms of the movie, it is still a prime example of using tattoos for storytelling. Because we have not yet had the opportunity to explore Jack as a character, this scene with his tattoos on display gives the audience a good starting point for an examination. Upon looking at the symbols on Jack's body we get the impression that he was likely in the military, has an interest in Butterflies (a stark contrast of beauty with darkness), and sees the beautiful winged insects as a kind of guardian angel. As if it is always watching his back. Also, despite his dark occupation, and his bad habits (for want of a better phrase), he is still seeking love in some capacity. I'll explain in a moment. 

Furthermore, the Butterfly on his back symbolizes and reinforces the film's theme of death and short lives. Butterflies tend to live very short lives, as do most of the people who do what Jack does for a living. Not only does he work in death, but he also fears it and runs away from it every time it comes knocking on his door. It's almost as though Jack relates to Butterflies better than he does to other people. This is likely an attempt on the writers part to make the audience sympathize with Jack, which under any other circumstances would likely work, but just doesn't really work here for reasons I've already explained. 

As I mentioned earlier, part of Jack's tattoos gives the impression that he desires love, or at least to be loved in some way. Underneath the sword on his shoulder are the words "Da Mihi Basia Mille," which roughly translates to "Give me a thousand kisses." This is a direct reference to a famous poem written by an ancient Roman poet named Catullus. The poem itself is about encouraging lovers to ignore the scorn of others and live only for themselves. This is further demonstrated in the film through Jack's desire to quit his dark profession and live a happy life with someone he seems to care about. I say "seems to care" because the person in question happens to a prostitute and it's never really made clear if either of them actually has a spark of any kind. I think the story wants there to be something between the two of them, but I digress again. 

Despite my personal misgivings with this film, and how much it failed to make me sympathize with the protagonist, I still stand by my conclusion that it is a perfect example of utilizing tattoos in storytelling. Even though you as an audience won't likely care about this character, you did get a good idea as to what kind of a person he was and what he was seeking in life. All while following the golden rule of cinema: Show, don't tell. 

There you have it. Tattoos are not only a beautiful means of self-expression and personal achievement, but they can also serve as excellent visuals for characters in storytelling. So the next time you're writing a script for a project, and you need something to visually convey the nature of your character, try thinking about what kind of tattoo that person would likely have. It will help you achieve character exploration and offer a cool visual to boot. 

You know, while I was conducting my research for this article, I came across something I never knew even existed. I was a feature film about a man covered in tattoos, based on a book by Ray Bradbury, and starred one of the greatest actors ever, Rod Steiger. I can't remember what it was called, but I know that I absolutely want to find it and watch it sometime soon. It sounds like it would be fascinating to see...and just might make an interesting topic of discussion for another time. 

Oh yeah, that was it! 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

What exactly is "Adulting" - A response to Bill Maher

Less than two weeks ago as of this writing, Stan Lee, co-creator of some of the most iconic superheroes in pop-culture (most notably Spider-Man), founder of Marvel Comics & Marvel Studios, and a proud advocate for education and literacy through the arts, sadly passed away at the age of 95. Many of his fans, as well as casual admirers, mourned his passing and celebrated his incredible life in their own ways. Some people created artworks commemorating his legacy, some people donated money and books (especially comic books) towards his foundation (more on that in a moment), and some people chose to insult his impact on pop-culture and humanity while also insulting the intelligence of his fans and admirers. I am of course referring to the comments made by Bill Maher on his blog. Which, as you may have guessed, struck a nerve with me that made me want to discuss it here on my own blog. 

For those of you who may not know, Bill Maher is a comedian and political commentator. He is the host of the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher, a show that is sort of like The Daily Show with Trevor Noah but a little more assertive in its politics. Speaking personally, while I tend to agree with Mr. Maher on specific social and political issues (most of the time) I have never appreciated his attitude towards those he criticizes. Bill Maher carries himself with a kind of smug and arrogant tone. As if to say "I'm smarter than you so shut up!". This is best showcased in his documentary film, Religulous, in which he observes and comments on the idiocracies of religion. This is a discussion for another time, so all I will say about it here is that while I agree with the point behind the film, I don't appreciate the attitude of the film. 

Anyway, not long after Stan Lee's passing, Mr. Maher posted a brief article on his blog, where he blatantly and distastefully insulted and undermined the importance of Stan Lee's legacy. Even worse, Mr. Maher went on to directly insult the intelligence of those who admired Stan Lee and enjoy his comic books. Going so far as to claim that the adult people who still enjoy comic books and/or superheroes (or anything else of that nature) were the kind of ignorant and stupid people who caused Trump to become President. Needless to say, I took some issue with that remark. 

You can find a link to Bill Maher's blog titled "Adulting" right here. 

Now, before I go any further, I would like to acknowledge that while I don't agree or appreciate Mr. Maher's comments, I understand where they are coming from. It goes without saying that there are sects of nerd culture that is populated by people who are, to put it mildly, less-than-civil. People who fit the stereotype of the troglodyte living in their mother's basement playing video games all day and engaging in Twitter wars over ridiculous and irrelevant things. The kind of people that could best be described as "man-children," as in people who refuse to take on the responsibilities of the real world preferring to remain isolated in their own reality. It is sad and unfortunate, and I pity those who are such people. 

Having said that, this stereotype does not, and should not, reflect the entire comic book culture, or indeed any aspect of nerd culture. 

Mr. Maher's main argument seems to be that comic books are strictly for children and that adults have no business continuing to enjoy them. Furthermore, he seems to think that the only impact that Stan Lee had on people as a whole was to encourage them to watch dumb movies. Okay, he didn't actually use the word "dumb" in his blog, but that's the feeling I got from it. This impression is incredibly wrong for many reasons. Starting with the nature of comic books (also knowns as graphic novels). While they did indeed start out as entertainment for children, and remain such to an extent, they are no longer "only" for children. Like any art form, comics have evolved into a universally appreciated medium. Comic books are no longer limited to superhero adventures (although those have grown as well). They can be about real-world events, aspects of the human condition, and profound philosophical undertakings. 

One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is the graphic novel series Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. This comic book series is an autobiography of a young girl's upbringing in a liberal household in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. It chroniclals her experiences in rather harsh times, the impact her family had on her growing up, and her struggles to become an independent woman in a civilization that frowns upon the very notion. It is one of my favorites graphic novels of all time. Another prime example is a little comic book titled Pride of Bhagdad. The story of a pride of Lions who escape the Bhagdad Zoo during the bombing of 2003. It is a story told from the perspective of the animals, but it reflects anxieties and fears of the people at the time. It is a book that is not afraid to show the horrors of war and the high price for the loss of innocence. Again, one of my favorite books ever made. I'm still waiting for the movie adaptation. 

Then there is Mr. Maher's perception of Stan Lee's impact on people as a whole. I don't know how much Mr. Maher followed Stan Lee's life (if at all), but if he had done his research before posting his blog, he would have seen that Stan Lee was more than a creator of mass entertainment. As I mentioned at the start of this blog, Stan Lee was an advocate for education. One of the reasons he enjoyed making comic books was because it allowed children the opportunity for literacy. He eventually started The Stan Lee Foundation which is a non-profit organization dedicated to education and literacy across the nation.

Furthermore, many of his creations, especially his superheroes, went on to inspire many people all over the world. Superheroes are more than just entertainment for children. They are embodiments of the best aspects of human nature. They encourage and inspire people of all walks of life to do better and to be better. Speaking personally, I can remember a time in my childhood when it was superheroes that played a vital role in shaping me into the person I am today. 

As a kid, I was bullied. I had a hard time fitting in, and I found it difficult to make friends. Days at school felt like punishment for something I didn't realize I had done. While my family was always there for me, and I am ever grateful for their continued love and support, it was the way of the superhero that ultimately prevented me from a dark path. At some point in my bullied existence, I was tempted to fight back. I wanted to make the ones who hated me for no reason at all pay for their unwarranted insolence. I was gearing up to take matters into my own hands and deliver what I thought would have been justice. Until I remembered a valuable lesson that I had learned from admiring superheroes. That lesson is as follows: 

Sometimes the ones you believe to be your enemy are only acting as such because they are not as fortunate as you. They may not have the love you possess or are unable to confront their own insecurities, and need to make others feel as awful as they do themselves. Reacting to these people with unprovoked violence is, ultimately, self-defeating. Destroying those who trouble you for seemingly no reason will not end your suffering, nor will it stop the pain of the ones who do you wrong. The best way to confront these peoblems is not by ignoring them or wishing them ill, but by obtaining a different perspective. Looking at the situation from another angle thereby gaining a better understanding. Knowledge brings power, and with great power comes great responsibility.

Were it not for the philosophical underlining of superheroes, there might not have been much to stop me from doing something I might have deeply regretted later on in life. It is this very aspect of superheroes that makes them so appealing to both children and adults. It is why superheroes have evolved with the times, grown as characters, inspired countless people to be better versions of themselves, and I am proud to call myself a superhero fan. 

The truth is that Stan Lee was so much more than a comic book writer. He was an icon for good. A man who inspired the best and brightest in all of us. His legacy is not just of superheroes but of what they represent. Being a fan of comic books well into your adult life does not mean that you refuse to grow up. The real world is not always a pleasant place, yet we face it and deal with it all the time. We all need a means of escape from it once in a while, and comic books are just one of the many ways to do so. Comics are not just entertainment, they are only one of the many ways in which people may enrich their lives. This is the real legacy of Stan Lee. 

Now, on the off chance that Bill Maher himself is reading this blog right now, I would like to talk to him directly for a moment: 

Mr. Maher, you seem like a smart person. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you sound like an incredibly intelligent person. However, I get the impression that you are using your intelligence in the wrong way. To paraphrase a character from a movie you likely have not seen, intelligence is a privilege that should be used for the betterment of humankind. By making those blatant and arrogant comments about Stan Lee and his fan base on your blog, thereby insulting the real legacy of a genuinely great human being, you have effectively abused that privilege. I would highly encourage you to re-evaluate your current stance on comic book culture and indeed nerd culture as a whole. I would also ask that you spend a little more time researching something you want to comment on before you blog about it. Because publishing an opinion about something without fully understanding it is what Trump does every day, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to be associated with the likes of him. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Excelsior! 

Art by Sam Ding

Overlord - Zombie Nazis getting clobbered, enough said.

This movie is the perfect embodiment of everything that is good and loveable about films and the art of making movies. Now, given that this statement is being made about a story with Zombie Nazis, it may sound a little overzealous or even unusual. However, that is precisely what makes this movie so charming. While the sub-genre of Zombie Nazis is not a brand new concept and this films abundant but tasteful use of violence and gore may turn some audiences away, there is no denying that amidst it all, this movie features a profound story, three dimensional & sympathetic characters, satisfactory action, and lots of good-for-nothing Nazis getting their butts handed to them. In these troubled times, this is precisely the kind of symbolic payback that we need. Made all the more enjoyable by the notion that the filmmakers took this simple truth to heart: Just because you don't "need" to do a good job, doesn't mean you shouldn't. 

The story takes place the day before D-Day during World War II as a team of paratroopers are dropped into France on a mission to take down a radio tower to allow air support for the invasion. Once on the ground, the team meets up in the nearby village and tries to put together a plan of attack. However, things get complicated when the team discovers that the Nazis are hiding something beneath their headquarters. Something that they have found and weaponized allowing them to create an endless army of nightmare-inducing undead soldiers. Now the Americans must find a means of infiltrating the base so they might put an end to the Nazis inhumanity. 

If this sounds like a ridiculous premise, well, that's because it is, and that's absolutely fine. The movie, rather enthusiastically, embraces the B-Movie nature of its plot and chooses to have fun with it. It's almost like a high-end exploitation movie but with a lot of polish in all the right places. Plus, they're taking down Nazis, what is there not to like about that? 

Everyone in the cast does a remarkable job. Especially from the two leads Jovan Adepo and Wyatt Russel (the son of Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn). Their chemistry is what sells the movie. A truly dynamic duo if ever there was one. Though, speaking personally, my favorite performance is from the leading lady, Mathilde Ollivier as Chloe. I loved her character, she was strong and independent without being overly assertive about it, she's intelligent, and she plays a significant role in taking down the bad guys. Her performance and her character are, unquestionably, worthy of the MVP award. 

The film was directed by Julius Avery, a recently discovered director with mostly a few shorts to his name so far. While I would not go so far as to declare him my new favorite director, I am confident in saying that I very much look forward to whatever he has in store for us next. He has a good sense of proper storytelling, he has a keen eye for composition, and he knows how to do long takes well. Even better, he knows how to shoot adequate action scenes. In an age when action is shot with shaky cam and rapid fire editing (making it impossible to follow anything on the screen), Avery keeps his camera stable and controls his editing to fully feel the action. While these aspects of shooting action scenes are also influenced by the cinematographer and the editor, they still need direction from someone who knows what he's doing. Julius Avery is, at least for the moment, on the right path to establishing himself as a man with genuine talent. I hope he continues to get work. 

Overlord is the kind of movie that we need more of. An entertaining, intelligent, silly, no-holds-bar thrill ride that could not have come at a better time in cinema history. It may not change your life, but if you don't mind the gore and the violence (both of which are indeed important to the plot and are used as tastefully as possible) then, by all means, go have fun. It may be a while before we get to see something like this again, so enjoy it while it lasts. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Yes 

Why? 

It's an edge-of-your-seat, over the top, fireworks show that you don't want to miss. It will have an effect on you the likes of which few movies in recent history have had. Don't miss it. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

The Girl in the Spider's Web - Tangled and lost potential

Back in 2011, fellow film critic MovieBob, then publishing for The Escapist online magazine, concluded his review of the teen-angst driven sci-fi action film I Am Number Four with these words: "I can't say it's good, but I also can't say I didn't like it." This phrase best describes my experience with today's movie The Girl in the Spider's Web. While the general concept of the story, the main character, and the villain, are very intriguing and appealing to me personally, it is, unfortunately, not enough for me to overlook the film's central flaws, which I will elaborate on in a moment. 

Based on the novel by David Lagercrantz (which itself is based on characters created initially by Steig Larsson) the story follows Lisbeth Salander (Claire Foy), a professional hacker and avenging angel of abused women. Her life seems balanced enough until she is hired by Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) to "take back" a super secret computer program he designed which can allow open access to the worlds arsenal of nuclear weapons. Upon retrieving the program, Lisbeth is immediately attacked by a mysterious and evil syndicate, known as The Spiders, who want the program for themselves. They succeed in extracting the package but cannot access it without the proper code sequence. Which, as it turns out, is somehow linked to Balder's young son. Complicating matters even further is the leader of The Spiders, who turns out to be Lisbeth's long lost sister. Now the race is on to save the boy and the world. 

This particular book series, known as the Millenium series, has been adapted before. The first book titled The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was adapted in Sweeden and starred Noomi Rapace. A few years later, director David Fincher did his own take on the story with Rooney Mara in the lead role. Regardless of which film you have seen or prefer (speaking personally I have seen both and very much prefer the Sweedish version) it goes without saying that this series has become something of a cultural phenomenon. Even though the central theme of "over the top bad-ass woman duking it out against misogynistic violence towards women" is, at least in this particular iteration, a little too extreme for me personally, but still appreciated nonetheless. That same theme carries over to this story (the fourth book in the series) and is very much welcome as always. It's just a shame that the movie as a whole doesn't really give its theme the same amount of respect and attention that it deserves. 

The biggest problem with this movie is its sense of rhythm. To use a music analogy, every scene in this movie plays out at the very same measure of beats with no variation. As a result, the film feels incredibly stale and almost motionless. Sure, characters progress from one thing to another, but it mysteriously never really feels like it. It's like that famous shot in the movie The Graduate where Dustin Hoffman is running like crazy, but because of the choice of lens and camera placement, it looks like he's not even really moving at all. This issue is further exacerbated by the pace of the film. This movie is in such a hurry to get through everything that it wants to do, that it rarely offers any moments to allow the audience to just let it all sink it. It's similar to the issue I had with David Fincher's version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, where the fast-paced editing made it almost impossible to absorb any emotional weight the story was meant to have. I understand that the intent is to recreate the fast-paced thought process of the main character, but there has to be a better way to showcase it than this. 

Another problem I had with the film is its dialogue. It suffers from the same problem as The Last Airbender, where it had a lot of backstory and texture to the story that it needed to inform and catch up the audience on, so about 85% of everyone's dialogue is just exposition. I can't tell if this is because the writers just didn't know how to weave exposition into the narrative more naturally (like they're supposed to) or if it's because this story is the fourth book in the series and Sony didn't bother to adapt the other books first. In any case, it's amaturish writing that does not belong in such an expensive looking movie. 

The final issue I have with this movie is the treatment of its main villain. As a character, Camilla Salander (Sylvia Hoeks), is otherwise excellent. She is performed well, she has a sympathetic backstory and motivation, and she serves as a compelling opposite to the protagonist. Or at least she would be if the movie spent more time with her. You see, the film tries to treat the sudden reveal of the villain, as Lisbeth's believed-to-be-dead sister, as an incredible twist that the audience would otherwise not expect. However, because of the movies very first scene, the fact that the dialogue told us of her demise off-screen, and the truth of her identity was not entirely hidden away in most of the advertising (at least not to my knowledge) not only is this not indeed a twist, but it's a twist that doesn't mean anything. After the opening scene, Camilla is totally absent from the first hour and a half of the film only to suddenly return all evil and scarry looking like a third rate Bond villian. You either spend the first half of the movie thinking to yourself "I know who the bad guy is" or you've forgotten about her entirely. If the filmmakers really wanted this to have a stronger impact, they should have given her more screentime, balanced it out and go back and forth between the two to further cement their connection. There was a lot of popential there which, sadly, never saw the light of day. Although, given who directed this movie, I am not entirely surprised. 

The film was directed by Fede Alvarez, who is slowly becoming my least favorite filmmaker. Having previously helmed the Evil Dead remake (which was actually okay), only to then follow it up with Don't Breath (disappointingly awful), only to now return to the screen with The Girl in the Spider's Web, is causing me to lose faith in Mr. Alvarez as a storyteller. He seems to have a bad habit of overlooking, rather too quickly, aspects in his movies that could have been handled better, were easy to spot and fix before shooting, or just simply, makes no sense. Combine that with is usually sickness inducing visual palette (which is, fortunately, absent from this film) and I can only wonder how it is that this guy keeps getting work. Not at all helped by the notion that Don't Breath is apparently getting a sequel. Can't imagine why. 

On the plus side, the cinematography is lovely, the music is appropriate for the tone of the film, and the performances from the whole cast, especially the leading lady Claire Foy, are well crafted and show a definite amount of conviction from the cast. Every other aspect of this film clearly had a lot of commitment and passion put into it, so it's really a shame that everything else just boggs it all down. This is becomming an unfortionate, and far too often repeated, trend in Hollywood. 

The Girl in the Spider's Web is a movie that, under better circumstances, might have been a real gem. As it is now, it's a directionless slog that puts an unwarrented stain on the future of movies with strong and three dimentional female leads. I can only hope that, as bad as this movie is, that it still makes the right amount of money at the box office to not discourage producers from making more movies with lead herions. Goodness knows, we could use a lot more of them right now. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

No 

Why? 

It squanders its own potential and offers nothing we haven't already seen before in better movies. If you are still even the least bit curious about this one, I suggest waiting for video. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

First Man - The most boring space ride ever

Human kinds travel to the Moon is one of the greatest achievements in American history that deserves a better movie than this. A fantastical and awe-inspiring story about what humanity is capable of has been aggressively bogged down by wrong-headed creative choices, pretentious technical aspects, and a leading man who has mysteriously chosen to suppress his greater emotional range in favor of constant robotic scowling. The Moon landing is an extraordinary story of human achievement that needs to be told to all future generations so they may always remember that we are indeed capable of great things, and this movie had the opportunity to be that very spark of inspiration for this generation. Instead, it's a dull and depressing slog of a film prevented from being this year's worst movie solely by the release Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom this past Summer. 

The story follows the late Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) on his journey that would eventually lead to him becoming the first man to walk on the Moon, and that's just about all there is to say about the story. While the efforts of NASA to beat the Russians to the Moon is the main plot that drives the narrative, the film can't decide how much time it wants to spend on that. The film gives the impression that it wants to be more of a character study on Neil Armstrong as it spends most of the runtime with him and his family, including an almost forgotten subplot about the death of his young daughter, but nothing in the script gives the characters or the audience any amount of texture to work with. I understand the idea was likely to want to explore what kind of a man Mr. Armstrong was before he landed on the Moon, but there isn't anything in the film to make his identity engaging. He's just a bland, robotic avatar to move the plot along. 

One of the more baffling creative choices this film makes is with its cinematography. Specifically, its decisions in camera angles and aspect ratio. About 90% of the movie is in close up and extreme close-ups mostly of people's faces. The camera is shaky, has no sense of composition, and every shot feels like it's being improvised. This is an attempt to make the scene feel more "real," but all it does is make everything painful to watch. This style of shooting is made further difficult to tolerate by the film's choice of aspect ratio. For those of you who don't know, aspect ratio refers to the black bars you see on the top and bottom of the frame. Most Hollywood movies are shot in a ratio of 2.35, which is broad, narrow and rectangular, while other films are shot in a ratio of 1.85, with is taller and more open. Take a look at the image below for a visual representation. 

When shooting a large number of close-ups, especially on human faces, it is usually best to use the 1.85 aspect ratio, as that feels more natural and allows the performer ample space to play around in. First Man chooses to shoot the entire movie in close-ups (which by the way are all incredibly shaky and jittery) in the 2.35 aspect ratio. As a result, the whole film is just painful to look at and impossible to comprehend. While the lighting is decent and actually pretty in some spots, which is about the only positive thing I can say about the cinematography, it is overshadowed by every other unwise choice made. I am aware that the ratio changes in the films IMAX presentation for some of the scenes, but I did not see this film in IMAX and thus cannot comment on it. 

Then there's the non-existent performance from Ryan Gosling. I should make it clear that I actually like Mr. Gosling as an actor. He has talent and is capable of portraying a decent amount of range, as demonstrated in the well made comedy Crazy Stupid Love. However, recently Mr. Gosling seems to have chosen to stick with a performance style that is just too robotic, too monotone, and actually scary in places where it really shouldn't be. It's like Mr. Gosling never turned off his performance from the movie Drive. 

First Man is not a movie. I'm not sure what it is, but I am confident that it is not really cinema. The best way I can describe it is a collection of poorly shot home movies from NASA strung together by a teenager which was then shoved into theaters hoping to gain high prestige based on the recognition of its subject matter alone. Needless to say, it didn't' work. Stay as far away from this movie as possible, and if it gets nominated for any Oscars this year (which is highly likely), I will be rooting for this movie take home absolutely nothing. Because that is, quite literally, all it left me with. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

No. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It's dull, lifeless, poorly executed, and has no real dramatic or narrative impact of any kind. Skip this one and go see Halloween instead. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.