And What I Saw There: ALICE-THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS (2016)

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER
I've been away for a moment, not written since my rant about Spider-Kid, and I have somehow managed to watch two films over the weekend, the first of which we speak of now.

TITLE: Alice: Through the Looking Glass


SUMMARY: 

Alice returns to the whimsical world of Wonderland and travels back in time to save the Mad Hatter.

PERSONAL CRITIQUE:

There now, that doesn't sound so bad does it? Alice returns to Wonderland and must travel back in time to save the Hatter...see, makes perfect sense. Wait- no, it doesn't really. For starters, for a movie that proclaims nothing is impossible, Ms. Kingsleigh is certainly faced with several impossible features of Underland. Why saving the Hatter from madness? It is the very essence of his being, the whole plot of the movie is that the Hatter is becoming...sane...due to depression, or something, over the supposed loss of his dead of family...or their survival...whatever! So Alice must travel back in time to save the Hatter's family, despite constant assurances by Time himself that you cannot change the past (though you might learn something from it).

There was something off, disappointingly, about our center-piece, the good Hatter, Depp's character. It was...odd, his voice seemed force and the character shifts that should have been rampant seemed almost methodical. Alice is still Alice though, and for that matter most of the characters seem their natural selves, except Hatter, which I suppose is fitting as he is the key character who is changing.

There are also questions about scripting of the two movies that are called out, such as the idea in the first movie that Alice had been to Underland before, yet in Through the Looking Glass everyone proclaims that Alice had not been in Wonderland's past, so there was no danger of her running into herself...yes, I suppose that theoretically there was no reason for her to encounter herself at those specific points, but to say that she had not been there in the past was just plain wrong! 

Still, the movie ignites a certain childish delight, while illustrating its points with Burton's dark handiwork, so I'd have to find it at least somewhat agreeable in it's art style and overarching "She's gone mad!" feeling.

RATING:

Nine out of Ten mad hatters would give this movie Two Paper Hats, out of Five.

Spider-Kid: CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR (2016)

NEW MOVIE!!!
Is it time to talk about a new movie again? Not really, just a new character.

TITLE: Captain America: Civil War


SUMMARY:

Political interference in the Avengers' activities causes a rift between former allies Captain America and Iron Man.

PERSONAL CRITIQUE:

Who cares?! This one isn't a review of the movie, I just saw a character that I did not care for, and everyone else seems to love him! Who was it? Spider-Kid.

So, no, not Spider-Kid, that might be an entity somewhere in the Marvel-verse, Spider-Man, the Marvel Cinematic Universe character. This character:

 Thanks geek.com

So I guess I should start with saying what I envision Peter Parker as, right? So, in his humble beginnings Peter Parker, the Spider-Man, is a nerdy science club attending high schooler struggling to make ends meet for his elderly Aunt May after the murder of his Uncle Ben. Peter builds his own gadgets relying on a mixture of his own genius and the science club's equipment (which is sometimes replaced and sometimes...less so). How does he make ends meet? Selling photos of himself being a superhero to the Daily Bugle.

Great, so that's what Parker starts out as. So, let's jump right to our "new Parker." Peter Parker as introduced by Marvel in the Civil War movies is a kid (he's probably supposed to be 16, but shall we compare him to the comic book?)

Good ol' classic comic books, with their high-quality, life-like artwork. I don't know what it is about him, he's no taller than Maguire, but he just seems too young. 

Speaking of comparing to the comic book/every source used so far, why is Aunt May:

Portrayed by Marisa Tomei like this:

All of that's beside the point right? I ought to focus on characterization instead of casting (never mind the fact that these actors are paid tons of money to act and look like the characters they're portraying). 

So, Spider-Kid is pretty jovial, makes a few jokes throughout the movie, even giving a shout-out to Empire Strikes Back as he goes all Snowspeeder on Ant-Man. But, he doesn't just quip, he legit fanboys throughout the entire fight, obsessing over every little detail thrown his way, the character claims he wears goggles with his old suit in order to maintain his focus, because the heightened spider senses are distracting, and he's very narrow-minded.

For starters, the guy freaks out when he meets every single character, and everything he sees throughout the only fight he's featured in cranks his chatterbox up to 11. Occasionally quipping to throw his enemies off is great, freaking out because someone has a mechanical arm when you rode into battle with two men in battle suits...stupid. 

Second point, doesn't need a lot of explaining, Parker doesn't have ADD, and the Spider-Sense/enhanced spider senses do not slow down his processing or distract him, the whole point in these enhanced senses is that the body adapts to allow for them and take advantage of them. Also, the Spider-Sense is weird, and happily they weren't referring directly to that. Then there's the whole argument with Captain America. 

Peter fancies himself a champion of the little man, a superhero, and a good guy. So...why is it that when Captain America says Peter doesn't understand, Peter says "Stark said you would say that." Come on, Peter Parker of all people doesn't look up to Tony Stark as such a perfect being that he would just brush off everything anyone else tells him. 

Remember that whole struggling to make ends meet thing? Well he seems to live in a pretty nice apartment, with a flat screen TV, a super-model aunt and...a computer he salvaged from dumpster-diving...wait what? Okay, setting aside the fact that he should not have to scrounge up equipment with the way his house is arranged, Peter Parker's not a dumpster diver, he borrows equipment from school. 

Finally, last but not least, without further ado, I present the origin argument. Captain America: Civil War draws it's name and premise from a series of comic books tied together with the neat little title/subtitle "Civil War," in this series of comics Peter Parker is not a twelve year old who was recently bit by a spider, no...he's like 22 or older, and he's working for Tony Stark. That's where the new suit comes from. That's why Peter initially takes Tony's side. Oh, speaking of new suit...not this:

But this:

Even if this is a different universe in which Spider-Man is 16 and Stark is only just now meeting him, does it not seem in Stark's nature to build a suit with his preferred color scheme, and to trick it out as much as possible?

Anyway, that's my rant. I don't like the new Spider-Kid and I'm hoping the Homecoming movie somehow changes that opinion, but I'm doubting it.

May the Fourth Be With You: STAR WARS

GENERIC POST
Today's International Star Wars Day (and the paper's running that across the top of the front page) so we're doing a little generic post today! Not even entirely themed around cinema, because anyone who knows me knows that since Disney bought LucasArts I've been looking for one particular movie trilogy, and it was not a sequel to the original.



Because COME ON! He's like the granddaddy of all Sith Lords (screw you Revan, you don't count.)

 Actually, this trailer...

Y'know what? Instead of some generic story about how great one of the greatest film franchises of all time is, I think I will make this one about a single cinematic idea. That one!

That's the trilogy we deserve, and the one we need. A story that's not rife with overdone with characters, extrapolated nonsense and derivative useless villains. I'm not one to say a Star Wars movie sucks, I'll generally admit that I like all seven, I'll pick favorites and choose sides just like most anyone else, but generally they're all pretty good movies. At the same time, why not take a new approach, from an old legend, and give a true Sith the lime light.



As simply fantastic as a continuing existence of the Sith is, as they are the Tails of the Force coin, the inevitable Yin to the Jedi's Yang, it's kind of a given, we don't need another movie to say "Oh, by the way, Luke failed." Although, realistically, he didn't. If the entire purpose of the Skywalker line was bring to balance to the force, and Ben Solo turned all evil and became a Sith lord, and left the light side with one master, who would seek out an apprentice, and the dark side with one master and apprentice, their goal is achieved. Balance would exist in the force. If anything, when Anakin went all monster-baby-killer in Episode III he was fulfilling the prophecy.

But, all of that aside, Kylo Ren is just a terrible Sith. Sure, he has the "being emotional" thing down, but...if being emotional was what it took to be a good Sith, he wouldn't lose so terribly. He's a child, he fights like a child, he thinks like a child and he throws tantrums like a child. As much as we want Kylo Ren to be this epitome of evil, he's only a toddler with a lightsaber. The Sith can't just be emotional, otherwise they lose almost everything they have. Sidious succeeded in all of the Sith's goals (except eliminating the Jedi, but if Vader weren't so useless that wouldn't have been a problem, just KILL PADME!) not by being an emotional little brat, but by being cunning, calm and in control. That didn't prevent him from having anger or expressing hatred, but he knew how and when to do it, and he harnessed that preparedness for the future. Sounds like someone else...

 Didn't watch this video...just liked the image.

Darth Bane, the originator of the modern Rule of Two (if I recall Revan first thought up the idea, but hey, he couldn't choose between the Jedi and the Sith, so whatever,) is perhaps the epitome of the Sith (until his final days, where he kind of screws things up due to the very basis of his ideology,) introducing the system of power purification that would eventually lead to the (near) destruction of the Jedi, the fall of the Galactic Republic, and the establishment of a new Galactic Empire (for a couple decades.)

Bane represents all that the Dark Side ought to: cunning, power and treachery. With a will and desire to grow, no matter the cost, and a vision that spans centuries (see: Sidious' Galactic Empire.)

 Zannah and the Sith Code

So yeah, that first video I linked to, that Darth Bane Trilogy Movie Trailer. Why is Disney not doing this?! Sure, that trailer wasn't the most enthusing thing on youtube, amateur trailers seldom are, but it was darn decent for an amateur trailer, and the very idea of a Darth Bane movie makes my hair stand on end!

  Come on Disney...Do it!

That's it really, I guess, I just really like the Star Wars franchise and REALLY REALLY hope we get this movie some day. Although apparently that won't happen for at least another four years or something. Money grubbing Disney...refusing to do new things just because "Han Solo" and "Rogue Squadron" are so friggin' popular...

Thanks for joining me on this ranting dribble! Peace out!