I'm Still Here

 My Wonderful Readers, 

    I am sorry for my unexpected absence as of late. Things have been taking a few strange turns, and they caught me off guard. 

    Rest assured, I will continue to provide content on this blog for as long as I can write. Some interesting stuff is coming up soon, and I hope you will find it all worth the wait. 

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

Blue Miracle - A Pleasant Underdog Story (or "underfish" in this case)

 

Stream it on Netflix. 

    The late Christopher Reeve once spoke about the power of film; how it can be used to raise awareness and inspire people from all walks of life. Sometimes, people tend to assume that accomplishing such goals with cinema means diminishing entertainment value because, by nature, people go to the movies to escape from real-world problems. I have always believed that you can make films that are both socially relevant and exhilaratingly entertaining (movies like District 9 and First Blood come to mind). Today's film, Blue Miracle, is a film that more or less succeeds in being socially important while still being a heart-warming work of inspiration. While I could have done without a few minor elements, I still had a great time with this movie. 

    Set in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, the story follows a man named Omar (Jimmy Gonzales), who runs a safe haven for orphaned boys called Casa Hogar. He and his wife find themselves in a pickle when they suddenly have to raise a large sum of money in thirty days, or they'll lose the building. By sheer happenstance, their town gets hit by a massive hurricane which spooks the participants of an annual fishing contest called Bisbee's Black & Blue Tournament: a competition to catch the biggest Blue Marlin possible for a chance at a massive cash prize. To maintain the event, the organizers decide to waive the entrance fee for local fishing captains. One such local fisherman, Captain Waid (Dennis Quaid), a down-on-his-luck two-time champion of the contest, desperately wants to sign up and recapture his former glory (along with some prize money). Now, he and Omar, along with some of the boys, who have never fished a day in their lives, must form a ragtag crew for the chance to catch a big one and save their home. Along the way, they might grow as a surrogate family and confront some past demons. 

    One of the fascinating aspects of the film is its use of color. The film boasts impressive cinematography by Santiago Benet Mari, who makes the colors pop in every frame, especially the color blue, which seems to dominate almost the entire color palette. Further impressive is the film's clever use of the color red (blues diametric opposite) to highlight the story's corrupt and destructive moments. It may come across as overly simplistic, but there is an elegance in simplicity often overlooked or needlessly criticized. 

    The cast is remarkable all around. Jimmy Gonzales has a natural charm about him that kept reminding me of Billy Zane: he's energetic, approachable, and genuinely makes you feel cared for. His performance is further enhanced by his decent chemistry with Dennis Quaid, who, while I admit, remains one of my favorite actors, I will also admit that he seems to be reaching that age where his own charisma is running low on fuel just a bit. He's not unwatchable; he's just kind of no longer the same guy you may remember from Undercover Blues, is what I mean. 

    While there may have been a few aspects of the film I could have done without (which I will expound upon further in the future), Blue Miracle is a wonderful film that is just the right amount of cheesy feel-good energy that everyone could use right now. 

    Give it a look. 

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

    

Retro Review - Superman: The Movie (1978)

 

Poster art by Matt Ferguson 

    With the unfortunate and untimely passing of legendary director Richard Donner (RIP), it seemed like the perfect time to share my thoughts and feelings on one of my all-time favorite superhero films, Superman: The Movie. 

    I should preface this particular review with an important statement: I love Superman! For as long as I have enjoyed superhero media and content, Superman remains one of my greatest inspirations. When I was a child, my mother would make all of my Halloween costumes, and my favorite was always the Superman costume. I wore it everywhere for quite a while. 

    Now that I've established my level of Superman fandom let's get on with the review. 

    This will be a bit of a departure from my typical retro review, or any review for that matter. Because of the history, accomplishments, and continued praise this movie gets (well deserved, I might add), it has been reviewed, discussed, analyzed, and deconstructed practically to death. Most people have observed the spectacular special effects, the superb casting of Christopher Reeve, the level of verisimilitude perpetrated by director Richard Donner, and even the unusual ideas offered by Marlon Brando, who played Superman's father, Jor-El. These points, among many others, are well documented and continue to be discussed with enthusiasm in many circles to this day, and I could not be happier for that. 

    Instead, what I would like to explore and discuss is a small & seemingly insignificant element of the film that, in my opinion, not only exemplifies Superman (as a character and a symbol as a whole) but also shows why Superman: The Movie remains, to this very day, the greatest and only (so far) perfect live-action presentation of Superman. While there have been a few animated incarnations of Superman that capture his essence and nature incredibly well (Superman Vs. The Elite and Superman: Man of Tomorrow come to mind), no other live-action presentation has ever come close to matching the dedicated level of understanding of Superman's nature as well as the Richard Donner film. More amazing, the film accomplishes this herculean feat in only two words of dialogue. 

    You see, what many people forget about Superman is, as a character, he's not meant to be as "relatible" as most modern audiences want him to be. I mean, he's an alien being from another long-dead planet with god-like capabilities; how can any of us relate to that? Even so, what does make him relatable is his appreciation for humanity. Superman represents the idealistic and optimistic side of humanity that is, sadly, more often than not, forgotten or tossed aside in favor of a misguided desire for something more "realistic." 

    Here's the thing, folks: when I hear someone say they want something to be more "realistic," what I'm hearing is this: "I want something that is just as cynical, angry, and helpless as I feel right now!" To me, being "realistic" is code for "giving up." Choosing to quit believing that things can get better through simple acts of kindness when they genuinely can. For all of the theories and examinations as to why Superman does what he does, it all boils down to one simple reason: because he can. That's it! He does good things simply because he can, and so can you. You don't need powers to be a helpful or kind force in the world. 

Page from All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison, Frank Quietly, and Jamie Grant. 

    This is perfectly demonstrated in both the comic panel above the two lines of dialogue I alluded to earlier. 

    About an hour into Superman: The Movie, our hero has learned of his heritage, realized his full capabilities, and sets out to fulfill his calling. We first see him in his full glory as he rescues his eventual love interest, Lois Lane, from a helicopter falling from a nearby skyscraper. 

    After returning both the helicopter and Lois to the roof of the building, Superman informs Lois how he hopes this experience hasn't turned her away from flying in the future. I mean, it is one of the safer ways to travel, statistically speaking. Anyway, just before Superman flies away to find more people to help, Lois cries out to him, simply asking, "Who are you?" Then, without hesitation and with genuine conviction, Superman replies with two simple words: 

    "A friend!" 

    At that moment, the film solidifies the real and relatable nature of Superman as a character and as a symbol. Superman represents our innate ability to do good simply because we can. He is the embodiment of full human potential in empathy and compassion through courageous action and kind words when they are needed. In that way, he is, despite what Zack Snyder would have you believe, more human than we may have thought. 

    We may not come from another planet, the sun may not be able to endow us with superhuman abilities, and we may not live in an ideal world. What we do have is the ability to recognize our own humanity in ourselves and in others. We all have the ability to be Superman; we're just looking for it in all the wrong places. 

    Superman: The Movie remains the only live-action Superman film to recognize, embrace, and advocate this very notion. Until we stop demanding that Superman conform to a misguided perspective on humanity, we will never see another live-action film that does him justice. 

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

Verisimilitude! 

Black Widow - Not Worth The Wait

 

Stream it on Disney+ (Premium access required through October 6). 

Also, now playing in theaters. 

    The MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) has reached something of an unusual nexus point. After a successful and entertaining ten-year build-up towards the epic and triumphant conclusion of the grand story (referred to as The Infinity Saga), many fans (including myself) started wondering where Marvel would go from here. After such a successful execution of an order as tall and massive as that, what else could Marvel really do to keep things fresh afterward? If Marvel had decided that it was time to call it a day and hang up the cape, I would have understood, as they have delivered some of my greatest movie experiences and fulfilled their promise of an emotionally resonating grand story. However, Marvel is not only successful in narrative and entertainment value; they are also financially successful. And in Hollywood, if something is guaranteed to make tons of money, potential expiration dates are entirely ignored. 

    I don't mean to give the impression that I dislike the MCU. I love most Marvel films and their related content, including their most recent shows, Falcon and The Winter Soldier (oh, wait, I'm sorry), Captain America and The Winter Soldier, and Loki. Marvel does appear to have a solid plan for more engaging stories even after their grand finale, which I am genuinely excited about; it's just a shame that their first major movie kicking it all off, Black Widow, isn't really up to the task of getting me excited for what comes next. It's not superhero fatigue, it's not a lack of enthusiasm on either side, and it's not due to a sudden and unexpected case of lackluster quality. If you ask me, it's all about bad timing and a story that should be significantly more interesting than it actually is. 

    For those who don't know or need a quick refresher, Natasha Romanoff, a.k.a. Black Widow, is a Russian trained spy & assassin who defected to the United States to work for S.H.I.E.L.D: think the NSA but with superheroes. Anyway, part of her backstory is that she was enrolled in a special training outfit for young girls (referred to as The Widow Program) to function as human weapons for Russian officials. Long story short, Natasha escaped and proved her new loyalty to S.H.I.E.L.D by taking down the director of The Widow Program. At least, she thought she did. 

    The story of the movie proper takes place sometime between the events of Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War. Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) is on the run from the government for her role in the events of Civil War. She finally seems to have successfully evaded the authorities and is prepared to hunker down for a while until something from her past reaches out to her. It turns out that Natasha's long-lost little sister Yelena (Florence Pugh), a fellow survivor of The Widow Program, is in trouble and needs her help. After a tough reunion, Yelena explains that the director of The Widow Program, a ruthless man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), is alive and well. Even worse, he's continuing his plan of taking in young girls to train as weapons for the state, but now he's implemented brainwashing technology to ensure absolute obedience and loyalty. Now, Natasha and her little sister must team up to confront their troubled past and takedown Dreykov once and for all. 

    FYI, there are a few other elements to the narrative that I'm intentionally skipping over. Both to keep the summary of the film's story as short as possible and for the sake of those who are not regular followers of the MCU. What I have described is more or less the bare bones of the main plot. 

    The main attraction for this film is that it is the long-anticipated and much-desired solo film for Black Widow: Marvel Studios' most prominent female character who has been involved with this grand project pretty much since the very early days of Phase One. The only reason it has taken this long for her own movie to get made is that all of the non-creative suits at Marvel's corporate headquarters are still under the delusion that "women don't sell action figures." Because, as we all know, half of the world's disposable income is just not all that important (he said sarcastically)! While this film is much appreciated for at least finally delivering part of what we (the fans) wanted, its impact is somewhat diminished by its terrible timing and not-so-impressive presentation. 

    For those who don't know, in the last Marvel film, Natasha Romanoff heroically sacrificed herself as part of the Avengers' last-ditch effort to save the world from a powerful threat. Despite the fantastical events that transpired afterward, she did not survive. So, while it is wonderful that she finally has her own movie, it's not quite as engaging as it really should have been because we already know what happens to her later down the timeline. Imagine starting the film E.T. with the ending scene of returning to his home planet before proceeding with the film. There's not much in the way of high steaks or emotional investment when we already know the eventual outcome of the character. 

    Also, this is one of those Marvel films that isn't bad per se; it's just sadly underwhelming and not on par with what they have delivered so well in the past. It feels like the movie wanted to do too many things at once. Some subplots are introduced and concluded within minutes (resulting in too much confusion), plot twists towards the end with no sufficient prior build-up or satisfactory execution, and a constant shift in the balance between action and character development occasionally makes the film feel unfocused. Even the post-credits teaser is nothing special as it doesn't clue us into anything that we don't already know. 

    Despite these issues with the film, there are some parts of it I genuinely love. David Harbour, as Natasha's father, is, as always, hilarious and entertaining as ever. His natural charisma and lovable antics increase the entertainment value of every scene he's in. Also, Florence Pugh, as Natasha's little sister, is incredible: both in looks and in capability. She brings an organic sense of levity with a sarcastic behavior that I find endearing. I look forward to seeing more of her in the future, both in the MCU and other projects. Plus, the overall theme of what makes family and the importance of free will are always appreciated. Despite the overall mess, there are some worthwhile parts of this film. 

    I cannot in good conscience recommend this film, even to fellow fans of the MCU, because it sadly doesn't add anything substantial or all that exciting like it really should have. I know it partially suffered from the constant changes in release dates due to the pandemic (along with other acts of corporate arrogance). Still, even so, both Natasha Romanoff and we (the fans) deserved better than this! Here's hoping that things can only go up from here. 

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

Together Together - A Side of Parenthood Often Not Explored

 

Rent it on Apple TV, Google Play, YouTube, and Amazon. 

    Parental surrogacy is one of those things that we're all aware of but tend not to think about a whole lot. Not because it's an awful thing (because it's not), but because we tend to associate it with only a handful of people and scenarios. Not helped by the conditioning and societal norms that, more often than not, don't conform with nature. Wanting to become a parent is a noble and wonderful thing in and of itself, so why, if it's something that any given person wants, does it matter so much how that person sets about becoming a parent? So long as the process remains consensual on both sides and each involved party gains their individual and/or mutual goals, it shouldn't really matter all that much. Such is the argument made in today's film, Together Together. A dramatic comedy presenting this very statement about parenthood and surrogacy while delivering an entertaining and thought-provoking story. This could very well be the one-up to Juno we have all been waiting for. 

    The story follows a middle-aged single man named Matt (Ed Helms) who has decided that he wants to be a father. To accomplish this goal, he enlists the help of a voluntary surrogate. He finds one in a woman in her late twenties named Anna (Patti Harrison), who wants to use the money offered by the surrogacy agency to pay for her college tuition. As the two strangers embark on their strange and uncertain journeys, they develop an unusual friendship that may or may not evolve into something else. How does it all turn out? You'll have to watch the movie. 

    This is one of those films where the less you know about the situation, the greater your experience. What I will say is that this film delivers a witty narrative with textured characters, well-timed jokes, and an ending that is both emotionally satisfying and narratively appropriate while subverting expectations. 

    Writer & director Nikole Beckwith delivers a compelling narrative that explores an often under-explored area of parenthood: that of a man desiring to become a single parent. More often than not, both in the movies and in real life, single mothers tend to get the bulk of the attention. While there is no denying that single mothers are, for lack of a better term, more common in the world, I am happy to see a story that reminds us that, while sadly rare, men can desire to become a parent as well. Speaking as a feminist, becoming a parent is not exclusively a feminine aspiration, nor should media of all kinds continue to portray it as such. 

    The acting is superb all throughout. The chemistry between the two main leads is entertaining and believable. Their relationship expands and develops in ways that are often not explored in other films of this nature. 

    The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous! Photographed by Frank Barrera, the images of the film are stunning and fantastic to behold. The colors are bright and vibrant, the lighting is elegant and almost whimsical, and it creates this warm and inviting feeling that makes you enjoy observing every frame. Even in some of the less entertaining moments, of which there are a few. 

    This is a nice segway into one of my few nitpicks of the film; it sometimes feels a bit slow. While the development of the friendship between the two leads and the anticipation of the eventual child are well presented and entertaining enough, there's really not much in the way of engaging conflict, aside from some moments of typical family drama. That's not to say that the movie is ever boring, just that it can sometimes feel as if it's dragging a bit with one too many scenes of people talking not doing much. Granted, given the nature of the story, that can be expected, and to the film's credit, it does a wonderful job focusing your attention on the characters and their fun antics, but there are a few times when it can feel a bit dull for a minute. Not enough to make the film uninteresting, mind you. 

    Together Together is a delightful film that reminds us of the universal joy of parenthood and how partnerships can come about in many different ways. It's got well-delivered commentary, excellent performances, and a heart-warming story guaranteed to make you feel good about life. 

    Absolutely check it out! 

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

The Serpent - Worst Film of 2021 (Yes, It's That Bad!)

 

"The crulest thing you can do to an artist is tell them that their work is brilliant when it isn't." 

      -Yahtzee, host of Zero Punctuation 

    Every once in a while, you come across a movie (like today's topic of discussion, The Serpent) that not only deserves harsh criticism but also causes you to ponder why it is deserved. Especially when the aforementioned movie is as boring, incompetent, and as unintentionally funny as this one. Because when a film as horrifically executed as The Serpent is brought to your attention, it's not enough to simply explain why it's so terrible; it requires a lesson. Both for the people who made it and some of the people who have previously "reviewed" it. 

    On the surface, and from the trailer, The Serpent looks and sounds like a decent action espionage thriller with an Angelina Jolie look-alike. Unfortunately, the trailer is the only thing tangentially related to this trainwreck of a film that is in any way decent. 

    For the first time on this blog, since I implemented my star-rating system, I have come across a film that is so incomprehensibly terrible, it doesn't even deserve a single star. Technically, this means that The Serpent is a worse film than Money Plane because, as awful as that film was, at least Money Plane had a coherent plot.

    There is a myriad of problems with the movie serving as a textbook example of how "not" to make a movie: what little plot there is to speak of is unclear and uninteresting, the script is sloppy and often feels as though written by an eight-year-old (complete with clunky and unnatural dialogue), the direction is non-existent, the cinematography is ugly with garish lighting (and at least one-quarter of the shots are completely out of focus), the acting from the whole cast is splinter-inducingly wooden, and on par with an original elementary school theater performance (especially from the leading heroine), the costumes and special-effects wouldn't look out of place in a parody of an action movie, and the editing (oh dear goodness the editing) is the absolute worst kind of quick-cutting choppy ADD fueled headache-inducing mess of an assembly of shots I have ever forced myself to sit through. Bohemian Rhapsody had better editing than this! 

    Not to mention the horrendous and painfully obvious dubbing of the protagonist. It's worse than Harrison Ford's voiceover in the theatrical cut of Blade Runner. 

    Of all the guilty people responsible for this dumpster fire, none are as much to blame as its writer, director, co-producer, and star, Gia Skova. This is where things take a bit of a strange turn. 

    Gia Skova is a Russian-born fashion model featured on Cover Girl, Vogue, and InStyle for those who don't know. According to an interview she gave on the YouTube show, The Fan Carpet Extra, she wants to be an artist and show how well she can handle making a movie independently. She says how much she's always loved action movies and how she intended her character to be a contributing symbol of female empowerment. All of which are good things in and of themselves. 

    At first glance, there is the temptation to give the movie a pass because, well, it's her very first movie, and she had noble intentions with making it. However, good intentions do not make a good movie! While it's true that no one actually sets out to intentionally make a bad movie, just because you have good intentions doesn't automatically result in a good product. 

    The only thing worse than giving a terrible movie a pass for its good intentions is allowing that mentality to affect your critique of said film. One "review" from ABC Entertainment, written by someone who claims to have been involved with the film's production (no actual name is attributed to the review's author), spends the first half of the article attempting to coddle the reader with kindergarten-level lectures on artistic integrity and how nothing is actually "bad" per se, just not on par with what you may prefer. The author goes on to argue about how art is subjective (which is true), how he/she had a wonderful experience working on set for The Serpent (which may be true), and then proceeds to sing the movie's praises, claiming that everything about it was excellent and flawless (which is, objectively, not true). 

    I should mention that this "critic" is most likely not from the actual ABC studio. The website is a WordPress page with tons of ads, and the style is attributed to one of the standard news templates found on afthemes.com. Meaning this is either an independent film critic or an underpaid intern hired by the film's producers to put out a puff piece in the hopes of increasing the movie's already low IMDb score (I'm inclined to suspect the latter). 

    While art is indeed subjective, competence is not! I do not intend to imply that fashion models cannot be artists. As was so eloquently illustrated in my favorite PIXAR film, Ratatouille, artists can come from anywhere. However, if you desire to become an artist, it is important to first gain a greater understanding of both the art form you wish to create and where your true strengths reside. Orson Welles was not a complete genius who spontaneously put out Citizen Kane; it resulted from Orson Welles surrounding himself with people far more talented than himself knowledgeable in the areas he himself was not while recognizing his own limits and understanding. Granted, Orson Welles' experiences were far more vast than others, but the point still stands. 

    The Serpent is nothing more than the unfortunate result of a likely wonderful person with too much hubris in all the wrong places. Being an artist requires significantly more than having a good idea; you must recognize your own abilities or lack thereof to bring it to life. Failing to do so only results in your own peril. 

    Do not bother with this unfortunate and poor excuse of a movie. 

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

    

The Tomorrow War - Court Martial this Film for Obscene Mediocrity

 

(Don't) Stream it on Amazon Prime 

    I watched this movie less than an hour ago as of this writing, and I'm still unbelievably irritated with how aggressively mediocre the whole affair turned out to be! This is a movie with a ton of talent and an awesome concept that I should technically love and enjoy with wild enthusiasm. Instead, I am left beyond disappointed and aggravatingly annoyed! Everyone involved in this movie deserved better and should have done better, given the resources and capabilities at their disposal. Even the people who made this awesome retro-style poster I'm using for this review deserved a better movie to make a poster for. This is the kind of absurdly generic, unbelievably stupid, and depressingly dull works of cinema that are genuinely and wholeheartedly inexcusable for a 2021 release. For a company as financially well off and as well-connected as Amazon, they have done nothing but completely disappoint audiences with their mediocre and pathetic excuses for entertainment! 

    The story (or rather what attempts to pass as a story) follows a middle-aged man named Dan Forester (Chris Pratt), a biologist with military experience. While happily married with a young daughter, he yearns to be part of something greater in the realm of science. Things take a sudden and life-changing turn for him, and indeed the whole world, when a group of soldiers bursts out of a mysterious celestial wormhole. Apparently, in the future, humanity engages in a war with a massive invasion of aggressive and hard-to-kill monsters called the White Spikes, and humanity is losing. The soldiers explain that they are from the future (28 years in the future, to be exact), and they need our help. 

    So, since the film establishes that the future people have invented time travel and can go back in time to decades before the alien invasion begins, what do they do? Do they bring back data and samples for the past scientists to examine and determine a useful biological weapon? Do they use the advanced knowledge and experience of the future soldiers to fortify their defenses? Do they put together the best team of researchers and detectives to figure out where and how the alien invasion will begin and prevent it from happening in the first place? 

    No! They institute an international draft and demand that everyone from the past come back to the future (see what I did there) and fight the monsters alongside them with practically no training or briefing on what they're actually up against. 

    I mean...WHAT!?! 

    Normally, I avoid writing words in all caps, but I seriously need to convey how utterly dumbfounded I felt upon realizing the level of terrible writing I was about to deal with while watching this slow trainwreck of a movie! Humanity is on the verge of extinction, they invent time travel as their last-ditch effort to end the war, and they waste this technological advancement for cannon fodder? I haven't seen a more ridiculous misuse of time-travel in a narrative since Terminator: Genisys. 

    While this may be the biggest problem with this movie, the rest of it doesn't fare well either. 

    For starters, Chris Pratt, while a talented and lovable actor, is horribly miscast in this film. Chris Pratt is best when he's playing goofball characters that only require a handful of moments for dramatic poise when needed. It's the reason he perfectly embodies Starlord in Guardians of the Galaxy. However, this role appears to demand fewer goofball antics and more dramatic nuance, which Pratt seems incapable of delivering. This kind of role is better suited for Tom Cruise or even Leonardo DiCaprio (the latter would have been my preferred choice). 

    Another issue found within the film's writing is the jokes, or rather failed attempts at jokes. Some side characters exhibit quirky antics that would feel less out of place if the film itself had a better sense of necessary levity, which it doesn't. 

    The alien monsters are probably the weakest aspect of the film. They only move lightning-quick; their scenes drag on for far too long, thereby diminishing their impact and horror factor, and they get incredibly annoying to watch after the first five minutes of seeing them run like rabid dogs and shriek like munchkin banshees. It hurts to watch scenes with these under-designed monsters. Plus, the special effects used to bring them to life aren't all that impressive. 

    There are few things in the world more frustrating than watching a film loaded with so many things you normally enjoy, only to watch it all crash and burn from misguided execution. The Tomorrow War does not do a single thing right, and what few things in the film I did like, such as parts of the cinematography and some of the cast, none of them were utilized properly enough to overlook the film's complete and utter awfulness. 

    If you want to watch a better movie with an alien invasion and clever use of time travel, watch Edge of Tomorrow, a.k.a, Live, Die, Repeat. It is a substantially better and far more entertaining execution of a similar concept with much better effects, superior writing, and nuanced performances. Even if you're not a fan of Tom Cruise, it's far more enjoyable than the incomprehensible mediocrity of The Tomorrow War. If you really, really, really don't like Tom Cruise, then watch Independence Day instead. 

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

Why So Serious? - An Observation on Dark & Gritty and its Misconceptions

     

    As a child of the 1990s, I grew up during the glory days of Super Nintendo, cheesy action-schlock cinema (mostly the ones with Sylvester Stallone), and the launch of NASA's Hubble Telescope, followed by everyone's roaring laughter when NASA realized they forgot to include a lens before launch. Comic book fans may also remember this time as the dark ages, both literally and thematically. It was a time when geek culture fell into a proverbial pit that it has struggled to escape from to this very day. It was the dawn of the great disillusion that being grim and gritty meant nuanced and mature. When, in actuality, it really wasn't, and still isn't. 

    To better illustrate what I mean, allow me to provide a little history. 

    In 1986-87, renowned comics writer Alan Moore, famous for writing many superhero storylines for DC Comics such as Batman and Swamp Thing, published what many people consider to be his magnum opus, Watchmen, a satirical observation of superheroes set in an alternate reality where ordinary people (mostly) decided to become actual superheroes. It wasn't so much a criticism of enjoying superheroes; it was a reminder of why they are better served as symbols of inspiration and aspiration. While in reality, superheroes have come to symbolize the better part of human nature and continue to inspire people (myself included), in the world of Watchmen, they became literal vigilantes who served as representations as to why they could not really function in the real world, due in no small part to the inherently flawed aspects of human nature. 

    At around the same time, another famous/infamous comics writer, Frank Miller, published his most famous story, The Dark Knight Returns, a grim and gritty interpretation of Batman as an aging psychopath tossing his moral compass out the window favoring brutality and murder. It was a story that would serve as the template for most Batman stories going forward and would inspire many other interpretations of aged heroes going over the edge. It would also serve as a time capsule for when Frank Miller was actually talented before losing his mind for partially unknown reasons. Long story short, he lived in New York during 9/11 and became something of a poster child for things like QAnon and Neo-Naziism in its wake. These toxic qualities are best showcased in his books Holy Terror and All-Star Batman & Robin: two disgusting and morally repugnant books that can best represent the pulsating mutation that is now the GOP. 

    These two comic series resonated with audiences in different ways. They were affirmations that comics about superheroes didn't have to be exclusively for children. They could be used to tell all kinds of grounded stories and play around with mature thematic elements. It seemed like it was the beginning of a proud and fantastic evolution for the world of superhero comics. 

    Sadly, that never happened, at least not for the first ten years or so. Most other popular comic book writers, artists, and publishers (particularly the likes of Rob Liefeld and Todd McFarlane of Image Comics), completely overlooked the deep & textured philosophical undertones of those stories and primarily focused on darkness, grittiness, and uber-masculine seriousness that, while present in those stories, were merely a small part of the whole. Well, less so for The Dark Knight Returns, admittedly. 

    This suddenly popular trend of emulating the darkness and bitterness found in Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns spawned a slew of comics that defined the 1990s, for better or worse. Comics like Youngblood, Savage Dragon, and of course Spawn all attempted to recapture the essence of what inspired them but without completely understanding or grasping what made them so memorable in the first place. These were shallow attempts at creating complex and deep characters that only showcased what little talent their creators possessed. Especially Rob Liefeld, whose only crowning achievement as a comics creator is delivering this monstrosity: 

    I apologize if that history lesson was a bit too long, but I needed to ensure that you, my wonderful readers, had the proper context for what this blog entry is all about. Because, despite the impression I may have given either here or in person in the past, I don't necessarily have an issue with dark and gritty stories or themes; I have a problem with the assumption that being dark and gritty, a.k.a "serious," somehow automatically makes a story "better" and "more adult." As if it was some kind of magic button that makes anything appear serious or complex. That is the real problem at play here! 

    Consider for a moment Disney's animated classic Mulan and its 2020 live-action remake. 

    The animated film from 1998 is a timeless and entertaining classic. It features witty writing, three-dimensional characters, a relatable story, and a protagonist who overcomes adversity to save those she cares about. Plus, it has a perfect balance between comedy and drama. While the animated film was intended for a family audience, it was also smart enough to remember and embrace its more mature narrative elements with care. Since an impending war was part of the original story, the film works in moments of serious and well-played drama to drive home one of the film's messages regarding the awfulness of senseless violence. Also, the film's overall light-hearted tone made the dramatic moments all the more impactful and memorable. 

    Compared to the live-action remake from 2020, there's no question about which one has a better sense of balance. Of the many things the live-action film does wrong, not the least of which is turning a relatable protagonist into a boring unrelatable super-powered Mary Sue, its biggest narrative issue is the lack of levity. The makers of this film appeared to be under the impression that being "adult" means being super-serious: as in no one is allowed to smile, levity is completely forbidden, and nothing is supposed to be fun. Oh, and let's not forget the hypocrisy of claiming that Mushu the Dragon was deemed "too unrealistic" for a film that has a Phoenix, the Eastern equivalent to Medi-Chlorians, and a magical Witch! 

    Also, this:

Yeah, not kidding! 

    Lately, I've been having some interesting and enlightening discussions with one of my friends about my take on dark & gritty movies. In particular, Logan and The Batman. When I initially complained about them being so dark & gritty, it occurred to me that I wasn't fully articulate about my position. I don't have a problem with stories that chose to be dark & gritty, especially when it's a tone that better fits a particular character such as Wolverine and Batman. 

    My real problem with dark & gritty is how many storytellers and artists to this day, especially many of those working in the comics and movie industry, appear to still be under the illusion that if you just put a dark and gritty coat of paint onto a property, it'll automatically be taken seriously as adult-oriented entertainment. Being dark & gritty is not the problem, but being dark & gritty for superficial reasons is. Most of the time, when someone says that their take on a film or story concept is going to be "darker," what I'm hearing is, "I'm going to do whatever crappy comics I read in the 90's did to appear more mature and nuanced than I actually am!" 

    Not to mention how many of these artists have tried to utilize the dark & gritty element with no moments of levity to balance it out. I'm not saying that stories with a dark & gritty tone need to have a random clown burst into frame every once in a while, but you cannot expect an audience to tolerate a constant sense of dread and despair for a whole runtime with no relief of any kind. It's one of the many reasons Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice is such a boring and terrible film! Because director Zack Snyder is likely one of the many people who grew up reading comics by Rob Liefeld and not realizing how shallow and arrogant they were, choosing to focus on how "cool" and "edgy" they thought they were. 

    Incidentally, the only reason the film adaptation of Watchmen was any good was that director Zack Snyder didn't realize the original book was intended to be a satire. 

    Now, in the case of films like Logan, when I mentioned to my friend that I didn't completely like it because it was dark & gritty, what I should have said was I didn't like that everyone was going to assume that the film was successful and well-received because it was dark & gritty, and not because it was a gorgeously photographed, superbly acted, masterfully directed, and thematically relevant film. My only real issue with the film is that Logan, the main character, is too much of a passive protagonist: as in, he doesn't do anything willingly and is only dragged from plot point to plot point because the story demands it. I understand that he's jaded and traumatized by his unique experience in this iteration of the character. Still, there are better ways to convey that while keeping your protagonist engaging outside of having him constantly scream, "I'm angry and I don't want to be here" every five minutes. 

    As for the upcoming new Batman film, I still intend to see it when it comes out, preferably in theaters. I have the utmost confidence in everyone involved in making it, especially director Matt Reeves. Not to mention, Robert Pattinson will be an excellent Batman, Colin Farrell will get to do his character-actor thing as The Penguin (he also looks amazing in the make-up), and the notion of making a film heavily modeled after the style of Batman from the 1970s does sound like fun to me. I just hope that if it turns out to be as good as it looks, then people will not fall back onto the "Well, it was dark and gritty, which is why it was good and there's nothing else to say about it!" mentality.  

    Having a dark & gritty tone and/or theme is alright if used for the right reasons and fits your chosen world and characters. Just don't assume that you have to be dark to be taken seriously or to be perceived as an adult. If you want to know how you can still have some fun while still being dark and gritty, watch Ronin. Or, if you want a superhero example, check out SHAZAM. Both are excellent films that succeed in balancing dark & gritty with relatable humanity. 

    Be as dark as you want; just remember to lighten up once in a while. 

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

The Ice Road - A Frozen Treat

 

Stream it on Netflix. 

    Let me ask you a strange question: what makes a good "brainless" movie? Most of the time, the term "brainless" describes movies that focus on action and simplistic narrative choices for pure entertainment value. This term is often attributed to things like Michael Bay's Transformers series. However, I have never believed that quality and entertainment value are mutually exclusive. The only thing that separates good "brainless" from bad "brainless" is putting it plainly, effort. 

    Compare Michael Bay's Transformers to Sylvester Stallone's 1993 action classic Demolition Man: The former is bad "brainless" because it is laser-focused on awesome visuals and various styles of explosions and completely ignores essential narrative elements for proper audience engagement, like sympathetic characters and emotionally resonating situations. On the other hand, Demolition Man has just as many action scenes and macho-man testosterone. And yet, it also has a clever narrative with three-dimensional characters and a witty commentary on society. All without compromising the "brainless" entertainment value. 

    Based on this comparison, good "brainless" movies retain a sense of visceral emotional truth that resonates with the viewer. In contrast, bad "brainless" movies don't care and arrogantly expect you to merely admire the spectacle. Regardless of what Michael Bay would have you believe, explosions don't mean anything unless we, the audience, care about what's exploding and why. 

    As you may have surmised, today's subject, The Ice Road, is a good kind of "brainless" movie. A film that provides simple yet visceral entertainment with sympathetic characters and decent commentary on corporate greed. What else could we really ask for?

    The story follows a truck driver named Mike (Liam Neeson) and his disabled brother Gurty (Marcus Thomas). Gurty is an Iraq war vet who suffered severe head trauma resulting in a bad case of aphasia: a condition causing the inability to properly express or understand speech due to brain damage. Mike has struggled to hold down a job for himself and his brother while acting as his primary caregiver. Things seem to be taking a turn for the worse until they learn about a rare but dangerous job opportunity. A mine up in Canada has suffered an unexpected methane gas explosion, causing a cave-in trapping over twenty miners. A special and incredibly massive item must evacuate the methane before any effort to rescue the miners can be made. The best way to deliver the item before the miner's oxygen runs out is to take the Ice Road: miles of frozen ocean used only for qualified big-rig drivers willing to take the risk. Little do our heroes know that there's a saboteur among them who will stop at nothing to ensure they never make it to the mines. Why? You'll just have to watch to find out. 

    There's plenty of stuff here to hook and maintain our attention and interest right off the bat: a brother duo struggling to make ends meet and understand each other, high-stakes in the form of relatable blue-color workers trapped in a life or death predicament, and brave people willing to take the risk (and the pay) to partake in the rescue effort. All the while providing engaging chase scenes, decent special effects, and enough macho machismo to put Chuck Norris memes to shame (more so than usual). Everything you could want out of a good "brainless" movie. 

    All of this awesome and engaging action comes to us courtesy of writer & director Jonathan Hensleigh, whose previous writing works include Die Hard: With a Vengence and 2004's The Punisher. While I would not put him on par with Taylor Sheridon, writer & director of Wind River (my best film of 2017), I can say that they both seem to share a talent for telling clever and engaging stories that feel grand and macho without feeling overbearing. I hope these two guys get to collaborate on something in the future. 

    The Ice Road is the kind of good "brainless" entertainment we need more of! Anyone can film a scene with a car wreck, but it takes effort to make you care about it. If you need something to give you a nice little jolt of energy, check this one out. It won't change your life, but it will make you feel alive. 

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