Marvel Redenbacher's Gourmet Popping Corn

Howdy. I've been gone for a while, but fuck it, I never promised consistency. Now today I feel it is necessary that I stress the importance of this particular piece. I will be tackling some big social issues and it would only behoove you to read on. Thank you.

Alright I'm yanking your chain, I'm here to talk about superhero films. More specifically, comic book films (to hear my opinion on the distinction there, read my Spider Man 2 piece). More specifically still, Marvel's Cinematic Universe. Now in our day and age, I think we'd all be hard-pressed to find a person who has no idea what the MCU is. It is a ginormous shared universe consisting of dozens of beloved Marvel comic book characters and it just so happens to be generating BILLIONS of dollars worldwide for Disney, the current owner of Marvel and the MCU. Now I could go into a whole tirade discussing the potential consequences of Disney/Marvel's commitment to release two Marvel films each year from now until 2020, not to mention the existing and upcoming TV shows Marvel is producing, but that's the kind of rant you want to see me go on in person. It's quite a sight. As harrowing as it is entertaining.

Instead I'd like to talk about the approach Marvel's creative teams seem to be taking with their movies. Pretty consistently over the course of the past seven years (Yes Iron Man came out in 2008. No don't google it, it's not worth it, I'm right. Ugh you fucker, you're googling it. This relationship doesn't work without trust. Yeah, yeah I was right wasn't I? I bet you feel pretty stupid right about now. No it's ok, don't apologize, just...just don't let it happen again.) I've noticed a trend in the narrative structures of most Marvel films (I'll point out what film(s) may or may not break this trend in a hot sec). The stories may vary drastically depending on the personality/development of the featured hero, the identity and motivation of the villain, and the intended moral of the movie. Yet one thing remains a constant in these films. The stakes are always incredibly high.

Every climactic battle seems to come down to the hero fighting to save a city, the world, or even the universe. There's always some sort of mcguffin that the baddie needs to destroy some number of civilians or some amount of property, and it almost always concerns human beings on a global scale. Over the years, the grand end fight has only become grander, escalating with each and every venture onto the big screen, culminating in the action-packed spectacle that is The Avengers (1,2, 3 pt. I, 3 pt. II). Now I know what you're thinking. "It's Marvel. That's just what they do. Why is it a problem?"

Yeah well here's why.

We as an audience are becoming numb. With every Marvel film we get a little more wrinkly and calloused and cynical. Alright that's a minor overstatement, but I'm making a point. The explosions, the huge aerial battles over the city, the giant wormholes ripping through our air space, it's all becoming commonplace. We've come to expect this kind of chaos not only in epic ensemble films, but in solo movies as well. Just think about phase 2's roster of films and their endings. Iron Man 3: giant aerial battle concerning global terrorists with the power to blow shit up. Thor 2: giant red thingy shows up in England, threatens to fill the universe with eternal darkness. Captain America 2: giant airships in space ready to shoot millions of Americans nationwide on command. Guardians of the Galaxy: dude named Ronan has an infinity stone capable of destroying planets. Granted the Guardians of the Galaxy was a team film, not a solo one. Nevertheless the Guardians are a part of a larger universe, and by establishing that they themselves can handle a threat like Ronan and his infinity stone, you take away the necessity for them to collaborate with other members of that universe. The same goes for the other solo heroes. People are always complaining that the Avengers never call each other for help during their solo adventures, and as much as I hate that complaint, I see why it's made. The solution is so simple. Lower the stakes, and you eliminate the need for other heroes to even be involved. Better yet, make the story a small one, personal to the hero, hinged on their development and the learning of a certain lesson. In that way you show us not only is this movie's conflict manageable for the hero alone, but this story is unique to that character, and by bringing other heroes into the mix you would decrease the impact of the film's message.

Now you could argue that by making every Marvel film big and epic, you imply that Thanos (equipped with his gauntlet and all the stones) will be a force so formidable, all of the solo heroes and separate teams that have formed will have to band together to face him. That's a reasonable argument to make. But it doesn't change the fact that with modern technology, there really is nothing you can show us in the way of Thanos' might that we haven't seen before. Sure he'll probably kill off some beloved characters, thus demonstrating he's more powerful than any foe the Marvel heroes have ever faced individually, and thematically that would certainly imply his strength. But realistically speaking, the battle we are likely to see at the end of Infinity War will bear striking resemblance to MCU battles we've seen before. Instead of being blown away by the sheer scope of the battle we're watching go down, we will merely be satisfied on a base level (and perhaps even a little disappointed) knowing that we have yet again been given more of the same.

Now as I said before, not every Marvel property falls prey to this trend, and the most recent ones that have broken it are fast becoming two of my favorite entries into the MCU canon. The first is Daredevil, the Netflix show depicting the early stages of Matthew Murdock's journey to becoming the devil of Hell's Kitchen, and one of NYC's most effective protectors. The show sets up a dark and bloody tale of one man's struggle to do what is right, and keep the people who deserve his help safe from those who wish to prey on the weak. The sleek narrative builds to a finale (which I will not spoil) so personal to the character of Matthew, that you can't help but feel both excited and scared when the final episode's events play out. It becomes something intimate, and in that way the stakes feel more real than they ever did in the first Avengers film, or the second for that matter.

The second recent Marvel release that significantly shrunk the story down to a  very personal level was Ant-Man, a film I feel is grossly underrated even today. The characters were likable, the plot was easy to follow but complex enough to allow room for tackling Scott Lang's deeper issues, and the action sequences were extremely well-helmed. It also happens to feature my favorite theme song and score of any MCU film so far (note I said theme and score. Favorite soundtrack still goes to my main squeeze and favorite MCU film, Guardians of the Galaxy). But the film's best quality was that its writers recognized that Ant-Man's first foray into superheroing can't be a matter of global annihilation building to some humongous, explosive battle over a random US city. Ant-Man is an effective heist film, and for that reason focuses on the smaller stuff, as a film about a shrinking superhero ought to do. The end battle is one the audience can almost immediately plug into, infusing comedy brilliantly with the shrinking gimmick and some truly impressive fight choreography. It was a breath of fresh air, hearkening back to a time in the MCU (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Thor sort of) when a solo film could take time away from setting up future installments and making the audience feel small in comparison to an ever-expanding universe, and just show a character growing into themselves, and dealing with whatever human issues they needed to.

In summary, Marvel is killing it right now, and I'm happy with what we've been given so far. However there is always room to improve, and if they really wanted to, the head honchos in charge of making the MCU run the way it does could give us the superhero films we all deserve. Thanks for reading, and tune in next time when I talk about more useless movie shit...just kidding...this isn't useless...this shit gives me life.

Titanic: 2 Long, 2 Furious

Ok, I can already tell you feel some type of way about the title of this post, and that's ok. This is a place where you should feel free to be who you are, whoever that may be. But before you freak out, and call me a harsh, critical hack, I would like the opportunity to plead my case. I will be concise, I will be organized, and above all, I will be fair. I will leave any and all personal bias out of this piece, and look at the film from a purely objective, analytical stand point. Sound good? Great. Let's commence.


Part I: Issues With Length

Alright. FUCK THIS MOVIE IN ITS FACE. Fuck objectivity, and fuck being fair, this movie is a 3 hour 14 minute collection of played out tropes, stupid characters who do stupid things, and some truly, TRULY terrible dialogue. And no, I'm not joking, the movie really is 3 hours and 14 minutes long. I don't care who you are, unless your film takes place in Middle Earth, you don't get a fucking pass on telling the editing staff to take a holiday and leave the first cut of the movie as is. Ok, one thing at a time. The length.

This movie is really long and not because it needs to be. It's the sort of plodding, trudging, desperate for more attention long that movies tend to be when their directors lose any and all sense of pacing and prioritization. In film making, and in life, it is important to understand fully the concept of "compromise". Studios and advertisers and actors and producers are all clamoring and negotiating to get their way in the final cut of the movie you set out to make. And as frustrating as it may be to see your vision changed,  it is a necessary part of getting a movie made. Now when a director reaches a certain level of prestige, they are generally left alone by the studios, and trusted with the reigns in order to make their movie the way they see it being made. This can be a great thing for films, and those who make them. It can also be the kiss of death for directors hell-bent on bringing their self-indulgent nonsense to the screen. Now when I say "kiss of death" I of course don't mean financially. This movie made an actual ass-load of money. I mean "kiss of death" in the sense that I, personally, will hate the movie and rant about it every chance I get. Now before moving on to the next section of this piece, let me go ahead an answer three questions I'm sure you're asking.


1. No, I'm not actually an angry person in real life. I'm pretty level-headed, and traditionally I bottle my feelings and unpopular opinions, which is how I end up diverting years of unexpressed rage into movie rants such as this.

2. Therapy? No I haven't. I'll think about it.

3. No I don't think that looks infected, but you should really consult a doctor.

Part II: Validity

I understand that the Titanic was a real ship that really sank and that was tragic. I also understand that there are real life figures portrayed in Cameron's film that actually existed and were on the ship when it sank. That being said, I don't entirely understand why we need a fucking Nicholas Sparks novel as the film's emotional core. Making Jack and Rose's relationship the focus of the film implies that we need that romance there to feel anything during the film's last hour, which is the sinking. BUT THAT'S FALSE, BITCH. Sorry, you're not a bitch. I apologize, that was uncool, it won't happen again. My point here is that the film's last act is emotional, it's scary, and it's masterfully done. Had I not watched 2 hours of movie leading up to it, I would've been very complimentary of the movie as a whole based solely on the execution of the sinking sequence.

We don't need a love story in order to care about the ship going down. There were thousands of men, women and children on that boat. And most of them died. That's a horrible thing, and seeing it play out is absolutely enough to evoke strong emotions. bitch. And the craziest part is, if the romance wasn't forced, and stupid, and a complete tonal nightmare, taking the film from romance to rom com to the exact plot of Lady and the Tramp to disaster flick to...biopic?-then I wouldn't have minded seeing it play out. The actors were well-cast, and the setting was serviceable, I suppose. All you need is better execution, and a tighter script, and I would probably buy two people having a fling on a boat. What I refuse to sit through is 2 hours of "I'm rich, you're poor. We're from different worlds. It can't work. Oh wait it totally can. Do me in that car.".

Part III: Final Thoughts

I don't know, brah. This movie rubs me the wrong way. Like The Sound of Music, or Only God Forgives. Both well made films in their own right, but films that I must fault for being unnecessarily long as shit. The funny thing is, this movie existing really has no sway on the quality of my life. This movie being bad doesn't change anything. It doesn't hurt me, or anyone I know. It's not like anyone is forcing me to watch it. Hey, did I just make Titanic a metaphor for gay marriage? You betcha. There's just one key difference. I support gay marriage. Thanks for reading, And as always, stay thirsty my friends.

Spotted the word "bitch" somewhere in this article? Excellent. You are worthy. I myself will carry you to the gates of Valhalla.

Spider Man 2: The Quest For Peace

Hello Friends,

If you're reading this, it's because you care, and I appreciate that. So as anyone who watches my Snapchat stories would know, I spent the past half of my day watching Spider Man 2 and eating hot pockets. So that's where I'm at in my life right about now. I'd like to dive right in to discussing this absolute marvel of a film, but before I do, I feel it is my civic duty to inform you that this piece will include spoilers out the asshole, so please, proceed with caution. Let the record show that this film came out in 2004, and if you have neglected to see it for the past 11 years, you may want to rethink your life-living strategy moving forward. Just kidding, no judgement here, just kidding again, you are currently being judged, take a moment to close your eyes and feel my judgement.

SO THE MOVIE! Alright, let's summarize this bitch. To catch you up on the events of the first film (AGAIN, SPOILERS HERE) Peter Parker was bitten by a spider and became Spider Man. At around the same time, Norman Osbourne in a desperate attempt to salvage funding and investor interest in his company's latest product tested a dangerous serum on himself, transforming into a deranged, Willem Dafoe-like creature. The two battled it out, Norman accidentally killed himself, and now his son, Harry, blames Spider Man. Oh! And Peter Parker has resolved that he can no longer pursue a relationship with Mary Jane Watson due to the dangers being a superhero's "main squeeze" would pose. Fast-forward an indeterminate amount of time and now (In Spider Man 2) MJ is an actress on Broadway, Harry is the CEO of his father's multi-billion dollar company, and Peter Parker is still trying to juggle being a superhero with being a near-destitute college student whose aunt's home was just repossessed due to her own lack of money and a working spouse. Did I mention the Parkers are shit-poor? Yes, yes I did. I was being facetious.

fa·ce·tious

fəˈsēSHəs/

adjective

1. treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Ok I'm sorry, now I'm just being a dick. So Peter is struggling to juggle his personal issues including an inability to maintain the relationships he considers most important as well as his debilitating guilt over the murder of his uncle. OK SUMMARY OVER NOW.

This film has been hailed by critics and fans for ages now, but there seems to be some debate over what actually makes the movie so good. It's a familiar story in a lot of ways, chronicling a struggle we've seen in comics and even on screen (Superman II has a very similar plot). The action is well choreographed and the effects are well handled, but these are things we can find in modern Marvel properties consistently. So why was Spider Man 2 so revolutionary? Why is it so damn good? Simple. If you call Spider Man 2 a superhero movie, stop it. Stop it right now. You're not exactly wrong, but you're really only half right. Spider Man 2 is a COMIC BOOK film. It is. I promise. Now you're probably thinking, "That's the same thing as a superhero movie you dumb dumb. Why am I even reading this? This guy has no idea what he's talking about! And he's black!" Woah, woah. That took a turn. Come on, reader. It's 2015. You can't be thinking things like that.

The point at which I was arriving is this: Spider Man 2 is a true comic book film. And there is a HUGE distinction to be made here between "comic book film" and "superhero film". Any flick can feature a superhero, The Dark Knight is a superhero film. But is it a comic book movie? No. Allow me to elaborate. A movie doesn't have to go full Sin City in order to be considered a comic book film. Translating panels to the screen is one thing (See Watchmen film adaptation); however using story elements and smart cinematography in order to pay homage to the great comics of the past century, that's a different matter entirely. Raimi doesn't cite any one particular Spider Man comic as being the inspiration for SM2; yet, he evokes the feeling of turning a page and reading a collage of panels with every movement of the camera. tits. Characters monologue, at times exaggerating their performances, contorting their faces or raising their voices until the moving image you see play out on screen resembles a cartoon. And in theory, that should suck. A movie like Spider Man 2 has no right being as good as it is. And yet, I can't get enough of it.

Critics and jaded ass-hats will maintain that modern movie-goers seem obsessed with the dark and the gritty. This is why we get shows like Arrow, exercises in tedium, parading around as the next dark, violent, realistic "thing". This is no more than a common misconception, and a gross underestimation of the movie-going public. People seem to forget why movies like SM2 work. Audiences, at their core, want to be entertained. They want to have fun. There is a certain point at which seeing a leather clad vigilante breaking limbs to the tune of some forgettable 90's rock song actually does get boring. And that's when films like Raimi's Spider Man come along, to remind the public of why we picked up those comics as kids in the first place.

In addition, the film has some true strokes of brilliance. Moments or ideas so inspired, I can't help but squeal a little when I'm reminded of them. For starters, Tobey Maguire. Now look, let me preface this by saying I understand the vast majority of you prefer Andrew Garfield, and that's fine. We're all entitled to an opinion, even a shit one. But the fact remains that Tobey is the perfect Peter Parker for Raimi's films, as well as the perfect Spider Man. He's earnest, he's good-natured, and above all you feel for the guy. This film really drives home the point that being a superhero and being a functioning civilian are pretty much mutually exclusive feats. There is not one moment during Peter's journey where you doubt that he just wants to do the right thing.

Then there's Alfred Molina as Doc Ock. Listen, I feel like no more even needs to be said on this point. People have been praising this performance for over a decade now. Yes, he's perfect. He's absolutely perfect. If you disagree, you're wrong, and no one likes you.

The score is just UGHGHHHHHGGHHGTYDUFUHHJKYDHBKFYDFIG yeah it's great.

Guys, this movie is emotionally resonant, it's well acted, it's well written, and its special effects have withstood the test of time. Withstood? Withstanded? Withstooded? Hang on, give me a sec...

Ok, withstood. Jesus.

I don't know how many different ways I can say GO WATCH THE SHIT OUT OF THIS but here's at least one more. GO WATCH THIS MOVIE.

OH SHIT WAIT I FORGOT THE THING ABOUT FEMINISM. This is stream of consciousness in nature, in case you couldn't tell.

Ok so you're all aware of that classic trope where the hero (generally male) tells the love interest (generally female) "We can't be together, if my enemies found out who you were I couldn't forgive myself!". And that's all well and good, except fuck that noise. What a selfish, dick-headed thing to say. Think about it. YOU can't fathom life without me so now I (a woman who loves you, the superhero) have to accept this bullshit reason for not being with you? Was I (still speaking as the woman) ever going to be consulted on this? Or was this decision that clearly involves both of our emotional well-beings all up to you?

I'm going somewhere with this.

Spider Man 2 addresses this. Despite how you may feel about the character of of Mary Jane Watson, she pulls some progressive shit in SM2. Peter tries to explain that things can't work and that MJ is better off without him. MJ proceeds to then call him on his shit, asking him to "Respect me enough to let me make my own decisions". They then agree to be together and make out. It's really aggressive kissing, too. Like a little weird, they both get really into it. I mean am I the only one who watched this as a kid and freaked out a little? I can't be. They do this weird lip sandwich thing where Tobey's lip is like the bread and Kirsten Dunst's lips are like the meat AND the cheese. If that visual makes you uncomfortable, then good, I've illustrated how weird it looks. Ok I know you want me to move on but I actually won't, this is really bothering me. They must have done multiple takes of that kiss, right? Which means that no matter how many times they did that kiss, that final product that we see in the movie was the BEST ONE. Which means some editor had to sift through several clips of Tobey and Kirsten doing the fucking mouth macarena until (s)he found the least cringe-worthy version. Which just sounds like an unfair position to be put in. Anyways...

YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. This "comic book film" from 2004 is more forward-thinking than its Andrew Garfield reboot from 2012.

Well that's all I got. Stay tuned for more of these, unless this was so annoying and difficult to read you never want me to do it again. If that's the case, this was fun. In the event you want more of these, I'm open to suggestions for what film to do next. Holla at me.

P.S if you spotted the word "tits" somewhere in this piece, congratulations, your prize is nothing. You don't get a thing. I just thought it'd be funny. Hehe.