I'm going to say something crazy here. We're seeing a similar story play out even now. In these populist times who can we consider Mr. Smith because it's not Joe Biden for sure? And we know who the other corrupt players are in the current drama and it could be anyone from the mainstream media to even "big tech".
Now that I talk about it, who wants to bet this all-American classic will be censored because it contradicts the new speak of the troublesome twenties.
[VIDEO] I've been somewhat comparing this speech from The American President with President Trump's speech at Mount Rushmore back in June. Two different speeches under two different circumstances, granted one was in a fictional reality and the other in a very history reality.
If you've never seen The American President it was written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Rob Reiner. It's a political movie with a romantic comedy subplot as the President in the above clip had to finally address his Republican rival for the presidency as there was a looming presidential election in this film.
Basically his romantic comedy subplot became an issue. President Andrew Shepherd played by Michael Douglas was taken by this beautiful environmental lobbyist in Sydney Ellen Wade played by Annette Benning. After a rather tough meeting where he somewhat intimidates her playfully he figured out how to ask her on a date. He wanted her as his date to the state dinner with the President of France - who was not at the time of the film's release in November 1995 Jacques Chirac.
So the public is taken with the idea that America's bachelor president who was also a single father is actually dating. People start taking positions as to whether or not a president should be having "relations" with a woman in the White House. The Republicans seize upon the president's girlfriends activist past. Hell there are newspaper clippings of her presiding over a flag burning.
So when Shepherd arrives in the White House Press Room he had lost Sydney and other aspects of his agenda is going up in smoke. Seemingly the Republicans have him on the ropes until he gives this briefing to the press resetting the agenda. For many years Shepherd was the Democratic president that I wished we had instead of President Bill Clinton who did have relations allegedly in the White House (and I don't know all the details but the name Lewinsky sadly will always be connected with him).
Allow me to post a video of President Trump's speech back in June at Mt. Rushmore [VIDEO]
[VIDEO] Remember Biff Tannen from the Back to the Future franchise? The bully of Marty McFly's father who as it turns out with the help of time travel became less of a bully towards his father?
The man who played Biff - Tom Wilson - has his own YouTube channel where he does "vlogs" about various aspects of his life and career. He starts off by making light of this pandemic noting his master plan. I have to get over the fact that he's aged since the mid to late 1980s. And starts off noting that he had dyed his hair gray so that he can play parts in commercials geared for the elderly.
Pretty funny stuff but he goes from that parody to going on set and later explaining that he hoped to have these videos for his descendents. Though I hope you were entertained by this episode.
[VIDEO] As a geek I wish I could do a far better job of following the news on genre films especially comic book movies. There is to be a new Batman movie next year featuring Twilight's Robert Pattinson as the titular character. It''s expected to be the reboot of the DCEU Batman franchise as Pattison is taking over the role from Ben Affleck.
I saw a lot of comments pouring over the music you will hear in the video above released two months ago. basically your going to hear the same notes repeat as this short clip comes to it's conclusion. The Batsuit looks like a suit of armor although the cinematic Batman for the most part always wears armour to protect himself from typical hazards such as bullets or knives. And to see Pattison in his costume is cool as it previews the movie ahead.
I have to admit I really liked Affleck's batsuit as in the comic cinematic world it's not often we see Batman in a cloth suit as opposed to heavily armored. It was a great change of pace although he portrayed a much older Batman who was worn down by his war on crime in Gotham. Pattison is expected to portray a young Batman at the start of his war on crime.
As stated earlier this is something of a reboot as the DCEU isn't as critically acclaimed or profitable as the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been. Or I should say the DCEU hasn't made as much money over time as the MCU. The movies unfortunately haven't been that great since Man of Steelthe first movie of that franchise was released in 2013.
I even saw the movie Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn
that came out earlier this year before the pandemic. It's set in the Batman universe and somewhat connects with the DCEU, and indeed the Harley Quinn of the title was first seen in the other DCEU installment Suicide Squad. Both were fun movies, however, the story was a bit of a mess and I left the movie ultimately unsatisfied. I didn't even wait to the end to see the last scene of the movie after the credits. Like a few of them with very few exceptions many of the DCEU movies could've been better.
Hopefully The Batman for next year will reinvigorate the DCEU. I hear it's production is delayed due to the pandemic, however, when theaters reopen later this year hopefully the public will get to see the 2017 Wonder Woman sequel Wonder Woman 1984.
BTW, having seen Joker last year I find myself wishing that universe (its actually not part of the DCEU franchise) could be expanded upon. It would be cool to see a Bruce Wayne/Batman develop in that universe with Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of the title character as an antagonist. In an interesting way they setup Batman's origin story. If you're sheltering in place, I suggest you check it out on your favorite streaming service.
Often when I see period pieces such as The Current War I will be surrounded by the elderly. They seem more interested in historic films such as this which is basically a story of the competition between Thomas Edison and his direct current vs. George Westinghouse and his alternating current.
It's amazing to know the history of how homes and businesses receive their electricity. While it's noted that Thomas Edison had invented the light bulb (most of us may remember this from school hopefully), it was essentially Westinghouse who may not be as well known aside from a company that bore his name who won this "current war" with his DC power.
And I was somewhat bothered by the three or so Black men in the movie. One was a reporter, another was portrayed a wealthy man, and the last one worked for Edison. Upon checking out the wiki page the Black man working for Edison is a Black inventor named Lewis Latimer. And somehow I believed he belonged there, the other two perhaps it was just Hollywood being very inclusive in a period movie where Blacks just weren't yet treated as equals.
I shouldn't forget the contribution of one Nicola Tesla. He was portrayed in this film as one odd character. I'm sure he was a genius who made the difference the competition between DC and AC. Sorry to know that he never profited from his contributions.
A Chicago connection in this film is Samuel Insull who worked for Edison who undeniable resembles Peter Parker as Spider-Man 😛. Insull had some holdings in a few Chicago-area utilities such as People's Gas and Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and he definitely had some local transportation interests that includes the South Shore interurban and a predecessor to the Chicago Transit Authority. Alas he was another who ultimately died penniless.
I remember seeing trailers for this film over two years ago and had little idea it got caught up in that scandal involving Harvey Weinstein. I'm glad another company picked this film up and redistributed it. I'm glad to have seen this film depicting one of the great achievements of the late 19th century. It was great to see how the world we we knew it a century later came to be. [VIDEO]
[VIDEO] Here are some Star Trek concepts you'll never see and why not. The first one would've been a tourist attraction in Las Vegas that didn't happen because Paramount Pictures who owned the Star Trek franchise was concerned about eventually waning interest in such an attraction.
And everything else is about future projects that never got off the ground.
For example Star Trek: Phase II, an Assignment Earth spinoff, and a prequel set during the Earth-Romulan War.
Some of those could've been great however Paramount wanted to maintain Star Trek as a more utopian future not a very dark one. I think I can agree with that but some of those projects would've been cool.
And as for that Vegas attraction, did it have to be permanent? It didn't have to be built to last, they could do to this realistic version of the Enterprise that the city has done to other casinos that went out of style.... [VIDEO]
[VIDEO] I saw the documentary Apollo 11 on Friday and it was great to see archival footage and even some modern graphics depict the mission that landed men on the moon. I can't believe it's been 50 years since that historic achievement in human technological history. The greatest engineering and technological challenge had been achieved and the names Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin will forever be part of human history.
It's fascinating to see the trip happen in just about real time, the trip to the moon from launch until lunar orbit was three days for Apollo 11. It was fascinating to see the Saturn V launcher being moved to it's launch pad, it was cool to see the preparations for this historic space voyage, it was amazing to see everyone there for the launch of this mission, and then all the footage in space. It was interesting to see the Apollo spacecraft probably filmed through a telescope of some sort get propelled towards the moon on their three day journey.
I can only imagine that the animations were with the voice overs were made by a public relations officer with NASA who described all the maneuvers the astronauts were expected to make. These maneuvers ensured that the astronauts will make their flight objectives. They get to their destination and they don't veer off course from getting to the moon and returning to earth safely.
I was almost reminded of the movie that was released last year with Ryan Gosling playing the Apollo 11 mission commander, Neil Armstrong - First Man. It's great to see the real story as it was shot back in 1969 shown to the public.
[VIDEO] Earlier this month I saw the masterpiece that is They Shall Not Grow Old. It's a documentary that features 100 year old footage from the first World Ward - one of two of the most deadly human conflicts fought in the 20th Century.
The beginnings shows men signing up and then being mustered into the armed services of the British Empire and then we get into the true artistic vision of the film. Footage from the battlefield remastered colorized and then set to modern speed as the many soldiers who fought on the western front during that war spoke to us about their experiences.
When I think of silent film often my mind is of people walking around like penguins. How the people move in those early films for my eyes aren't normal motion. Sometimes its the technology of the time also as when cinematographers shoot the moving pictures they're using a hand-cranked camera. Sometimes it might be faster or slower.
The director Peter Jackson - many of you may know him from Lord of the Rings - gives us a featurette at the end of the movie about the process of directing the film. It's absolutely fascinating how much work they did to make this movie. To integrate old interviews with the many soldiers who served on the western front with the century old footage.
It's not an academic look at the war - this is a history film for non-historians. Perhaps someone who saw this movie had relatives who fought in this conflict. My own family had their own connections to the conflict who went to Europe once America declared war on the German Empire. All the same the film allows those old vets who recorded their interviews during the course of the mid 20th century to share their thoughts about the war and why they served and their experiences.
We hear a lot of men say they had a job to do they were professionals and they did it. Some said they had nothing going on at home so they signed up. It wasn't uncommon also to be caught up in patriotic fervor. Some still admitted they were too young to serve but were accepted anyway for service.
What's strikingly familiar with these WW1 vets is that once they got home from the western front, most Brits were ready to turn the page from this conflict. They might have been happy that the vets in their family returned home, but they just seemed to want to forget about the war. I could say it might've been similar to the experience of Vietnam veterans once that conflict drew to a close.
As much as the British citizens were glad that the war was finally over it was all for naught. As history records the harsh treatment of the former German Empire which suffered a change in regime and other economic hardships as a result of a treaty that formally ended the war only lead to another world war. The supposed war to end all wars, didn't do the job unfortunately.
As the WWE's NXT UK brand has their first "TakeOver" program akin to the original NXT brand who normally have their "TakeOver" events before major WWE PPVs, I find this article about a biopic of Vince McMahon. McMahon is the founder of the WWE as we know it today and I never thought in a millennium that he would be the subject of a movie...
The article I found is about a rewrite to the script. Now I wonder who are the principals in the film Pandemonium. Now that I found out more info I wish Adam McKay from Vice could eventually do his own take. I just hope he's a wrestling fan but anything involving Vince McMahon should have a humorous tongue-in-cheek take.
And just for the hell of it, the pre-show for NXT UK TakeOver Blackpool. Alas I'll have to watch this event later on... [VIDEO]
I just had to share this review with you all. You might have seen me retweet this on my twitter page. Here's in the tweet you can click on it to see the review in Cosmopolitan. It's interesting that they typical readership of Cosmo would even be interested in a boxing film.
So, #Creed2 is enjoyable and all, but I finally had to come to terms with how the franchise - in particular, this film - enables toxic masculinity at the detriment of its female characters. My latest for @cosmopolitan: https://t.co/JD7h0MA8bF
I saw Creed 2 on Thanksgiving. And not to steal a schtick from the late critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel but I've give this film a thumbs up. The story of a man (Adonis Creed) who's about to fight the son (Viktor Drago) of a man (Ivan Drago) who took part in a fight that resulted in the death of that man's father (Apollo Creed). Basically we can call this sequal not only a sequel to Creed (2015) also for Rocky 4.
However the review for Cosmo that I just became aware of recently turns this film as an enabler for toxic masculinity.
It’s a boxing movie that we’re told has “heart,” a word coach Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) uses a lot in the film. "Listen to your heart," he keeps telling Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan), who’s determined to defend his championship from Viktor Drago (Florian Munteanu), whose father Ivan (Dolph Lundgren) defeated Adonis’ dad in the match that killed him back in 1985’s Rocky IV. Adonis has some seriously unresolved issues about how his father’s death permanently devastated him and his mom Mary Anne (Phylicia Rashad) and attempts to use this fight with Viktor to settle a score.
So right away, the two opponents—Adonis and Viktor—are established to have major daddy hang-ups. Viktor is also fighting to reclaim the title for the sake of his dad, whose own was stripped by Rocky himself in 1990’s Rocky V. This means everything that happens in Creed II is dependent on how these two male fighters choose to define their own machismo and protect their paternal legacies. Even Rocky talks about his estranged relationship with his son. These themes of masculinity are so oppressive that they relegate everything else that happens in the film—including the fact that Adonis and Bianca (Tessa Thompson) are expecting a baby—to the background.
I'm going to assume the "toxic masculinity" of the movie is bad for the women most affected here. Mother is concerned about her son and his wife is definitely concerned about her husband. Well the family drama is important, but then the other side of the movie is the drama that takes place for the boxers once they get into the ring.
I wonder if it's ever understood that a man feels as if he must handle his business. Sometimes a man might let something slide, however, in the case of boxing why should he stand down from a guy boasting that he won't lose. Perhaps Creed needed to get back into the ring and prove something. Somewhere out there and under different circumstances (and yes not exactly within the context of competitive sports) a man is facing similar situations.
What this writer might neglect is what I was able to deduce in this movie. Viktor Drago is with his father Ivan at a dinner to celebrate their boxing successes. It gets somewhat marred when an elegant blonda haired woman enter the dining room. As it turns out it's Viktor's mother and Ivan's ex wife. After the events of Rocky 4 (1985) Ivan's life unraveled and that woman played by Brigitte Nielsen in both films left Ivan and his son. So now I understand why Viktor seemed upset and let his father know what's up. And matter of fact Ivan tells him what happened Ivan lost!
I won't give too much away, but once the fight is over I began not to be surprised at what happens near the end of the movie. Especially with the background I gave you, although I've yet to really fully watch Rocky 4 which I concluded years ago was probably the beginning of the Rocky franchise jumping the shark.
All the same, this toxic masculinity, where is it here?
If you haven't seen it do so here's a trailer to get you excited. [VIDEO]
Movies seen over the summer that I liked and hope that you may either see in a theater near you or perhaps download or rent to watch at home.
BlackkKlansman
A Spike Lee joint features a real life story of Black police officer Ron Stallworth, who as a part of the Colorado Springs Police Dept is assigned to the intelligence unit. Stallworth is able to infiltrate a local chapter of the KKK and uses a fellow white officer to gather intelligence and play his role. This film makes a connection with the events last year in Charlottesville, Virginia.
This movie was very amusing with one scene where Stallworth played by John David Washington (Denzel's son actually) is on the phone with David Duke effectively lets him know his organization had been infiltrated by a Black police officer.
This is one movie I recommend especially to consider the issue of race in this nation. I'm not certain of why the connection with Charlottesville as sad as the one loss of life had been. If nothing else this film should be a reminder that hate exists and of course we shouldn't stoop to the level of hate that the Klan had historically represented in America
Operation Finale
Featuring Ben Kingsley as Adolph Eichmann this movie is a dramatization of the real life Israel operation in Argentina to bring to justice Eichmann who was one of the organizers of The Holocaust. It was a very suspenseful movie especially when they plan the operation to get Eichmann and then to smuggle him out of Argentina to put him on trial and eventually execute him.
I suppose you can say this movie is the polar opposite of BlackkKlansman. Again this is a film about hate in this case I can believe the Israelis who capture Eichmann really hated him as the Holocaust in Germany was a fresh memory for those who are on this operation. There was even a scene where once Eichmann is resigned to his fate he does attempt to get under the skin of one of the operatives who actually does take the time to really talk to him and not interrogate him.
Again this is a case of never stooping to the level of hate that the perpetrators engage in.
First Man
This film is about Neil Armstrong the first man (oh yeah that title was on purpose wasn't it?) to set foot on the moon. Another historic dramatization we get to know about the man who suffered his own tragedies and as he might have grieved inside for his daughter who died during the course of the movie kept his grief often bottled up. In recent years at least before his death, Armstrong had somewhat avoided the limelight although he was a crucial part of human history.
So we see the progression from the Gemini project to ultimately Apollo which sent astronauts to the moon. We see the many tragedies that had fallen the space program of the 1960s before Armstrong's historic 1969 Apollo 11 flight. And it underscores the fact that many of America's first astronauts during the 1960s had been civilian and military test pilots.
This film almost reminds me of Apollo 13 release in 1995 and is one of my favorite movies. I was heavily into Star Trek and it fit in to my interest in space at the time. It was a real life "trek" that proved to be almost disastrous but thanks to the work of the Apollo 13 crew and the people of NASA back on earth no one lost their life on that mission. Everyone came home safe.
In this case, we already know how First Man was going to end. Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were going to land on the moon successfully. They both secure their place in history as the first two people to land and set foot on the lunar surface. No disaster here it was a success however this film had one controversy.
There wasn't a scene where Armstrong and Aldrin planted the American flag on the moon. I know that Ryan Gosling who plays Armstong tried to say the story de-emphasized this as well this is a high mark for human history. Regardless there are those who see this as a high point in American history and was disappointed that we didn't see the American flag planted on the moon by the astronauts.
Venom
This really shouldn't be the only comic book film on this list as I had also seen the recent Ant Man sequel. The fascinating thing about these comic book movies is that more often than not I may discover storylines that I have to go back and research. If you're into comic books you may know all this, however, I'm not up on all the story lines so thus I can watch the movie and catch up on the story that had unfolded right in front of me.
I always thought of Venom as a villain and I learn has been portrayed as more of an anti-hero. Especially during the course of this movie as it goes into symbiosis with a washed up TV journalist who loses his job going rogue. In the long run venom saves the world form a megalomaniac businessman who engage in very unethical behavior under the guise of curing human diseases.
This movie was wild and since Venom in my mind is often portrayed as a foil for Spider-man - whom he will in the future also become into symbiosis with - now I have a better idea of this character. And this film shares the same universe with the Marvel Cinematic Universal perhaps Venom will encounter Spider-man in a future installment.
[VIDEO] I know there are other more pressing movie news. Equalizer 2 came out strong this month and then the new Mission: Impossible which I haven't seen yet. Meanwhile I've been sitting on this post with regards to future installments of Justice League.
I fell off on viewing anything from film vlogger John Campea. So earlier this month he discusses whether or not there will be a Justice League sequel. And goes through the reasons it may or may not happen.
I liked Justice League when it came out last November. Unfortunately it didn't meet financial projects, didn't even come close to the Avengers films. It was cool to see Batman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Flash, Aquaman, and Superman team up to face off against Steppenwolf. It was a great movie, but I recognize that the performance of other DCEU films - Wonder Woman excepted - only served to further depress excitement this team-up movie.
With that said I'd rather hope they don't reboot give this franchise some more time to develop. Aquaman will debut in his own filmduring the holiday season and hopefully that will be a movie that will draw people as Wonder Woman had. I still hear news about a standalone Batman film and it's about time even if Batman vs. Superman - which I also liked - was an uneven debut for the "Dark Knight" in the DCEU.
As far as a reboot - which I hope doesn't happen, yet - what if they did something similar to the Joker. That film is expected to be outside of the DCEU with no connection with Man of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman or Justice League. So that could be one direction to take it without dismantling the DCEU. Then again I had to say as of now, they shouldn't do it yet!
Finally, with the upheaval over who plays Batman - if Ben Affleck is expected to leave that role. Or as mentioned in this video Henry Cavill might be out as Superman, but Campea doesn't buy it so who knows where the news is on that.
All the same, when will be see a new Justice League movie. It's definitely not a matter of if, but when. The Avengers franchise - even if the latest installment leaves me unsettled in some respects - is doing as strong as ever so I could believe DC and Warner Bros would want to compete with that. The only other superhero team-up group is DC's Justice League!
[VIDEO] Last week, I saw Deadpool 2 in an early showing at about 7 PM. This was the first time I did so since seeing Justice League last year. I hadn't felt like going back home yet after getting off work earlier in the afternoon and just decided to go see this latest Marvel movie.
I had been surprised to find hours before buying a ticket that the early showings of Deadpool 2 hadn't sold out. It was my intention to see Avengers Infinity War early however no matter what theater those early showings from 7 PM onwards had been sold out. It's especially surprising since Deadpool came out two years ago and made some good money being a high grossing R-rated film. Though I can't say how the film did when it premiered in early showings. I do have to add there was a double feature at the theater I visited which was sold out that showed both the Deadpool films.
So anyway Deadpool 2 was a great movie. Deadpool is a mutant who is adept at causing mayhem and that's giving him a bit too much credit. You could say he's something of a ninja for hire with the ability to heal and generate after a severe injury. He goes around murdering bad guys and shows some heroic traits, however, he's not your typical superhero. You can say Deadpool is the ideal anti-hero. That is we can root for him, but he won't show the traits of other superheroes who the public identifies with such as Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Flash, Iron Man, Spiderman, Capt. America, Black Panther, etc.
We don't think of superheros as very sexual and clearly outside of the costume Deadpool is. Deadpool is a bit of a wiseass and often belts out four letter curses like candy - the cursing we don't attribute to superheroes. Deadpool sure likes to kill bad guys and that's definitely not the trait of a superhero although let's be honest some bad guys die at the hands of superheros. If it's not about killing them them someone a superhero is forced to kill a villain to save the day.
And besides to go to another superhero movie Batman Begins, was is right for Batman to leave Ras al Ghul to die in a crash of a monorail train? Batman said it himself he wasn't going to kill him, however, he doesn't have to save him and he didn't. I felt that was the most un Batman like thing even seen. Anyway....
A lot of unexpected moments in this movie and it was to be expected. A character I never expect to see on the big screen made his debut in this film, perhaps I should show the video well at the end. This time Deadpool attempts to save and redeem a young mutant who was being abused at an orphanage. Deadpool attempts to form a superhero team that largely doesn't survive. And again Deadpool fails to join the X-Men. LOL!
[VIDEO] On a whim I saw the film on Friday, and not long after writing yesterday's post about the SJWs complaining that the film didn't contain much representation of LGBT people. I will add my own thoughts about the film as we go along here, however Anthony Brian Logan shares some of his own thoughts in video above.
Now there were some SJW elements in the movie and he says they weren't overwhelming. There was a mention of ancestors who died in the ocean - he's talking about the Atlantic slave trade. There was a pro-Black message imo, however, this is still a superhero movie above all. So yes, we have a movie featuring a Black superhero who rules an African nation that is a modern technological marvel (no pun intended).
Some of what Logan discusses in this video was reports - probably through social media especially - was that there was a lot of "cosplay" (and I have no idea what that really means other than people dress up like their favorite comic book character). Logan reports that throughout the nation many dressed in some form of African garb. In some cases some walked around banging on bongo drums. I've seen African dancing in a theater on FB. When I went to a theater in downtown Chicago, this wasn't something I experienced although there were people who were about to see the movie that did sport some African garb.
Logan also addresses reports of harassment and while it's not entirely clear whom was doing the harassing and whom was being harassed I have little to say about other than this. It's a shame when people can't just enjoy a movie in peace. Knowing that Black Panther is a movie that is produced, directed, written, and acted by Blacks - though certainly it wasn't produced and distributed by a Black production company - one segment of the population aren't the only ones who enjoy the movie. And also it's also been reported that some harassment were proven false.
As far as my own thoughts, it was a great movie. Very action packed as comic book movies are and if most saw this as a reflection of African culture - or certainly the best of it - it did it's job. I'm tempted to write a post on my neighborhood/community oriented blogs with regards to how Black neighborhoods could be transformed into a Wakanda (the fictional African nation where the "Black Panther" rules). Sure there are some political messages of not being isolationist or protecting the borders. Certainly in having a hand helping the world solve its many issues.
Regardless if Black people were looking for another positive portrayal Black Panther is one. Though lets not forget that this is a comic book movie. Someone out there will see this movie and find an issue where Black Panther is a featured character (if not with his own comic book) and they'll want to be him. Perhaps they won't be king of an African nation though they'll always fight for what's right.
[VIDEO] As it seems to happen these days people like to find something to complain about. Just think no less than perhaps 20 or 30 years ago we wouldn't have heard a peep. Probably because it's not as acceptable as it would be now.
Marvel Studios’ upcoming blockbuster Black Panther has been criticized for its lack of LGBT representation, and the particular exclusion of a lesbian scene featured in the comic book on which the superhero film is based.
According to Pink News, “When the film was announced, fans were excited by the prospect of Okoye and Ayo, two of the title character’s bodyguards, getting together as Ayo and fellow female warrior Aneka do in the comics. And these hopes were encouraged by reports that an early screening of the film featured Walking Dead star Danai Gurira’s Okoye staring at Ayo flirtatiously as the two danced.”
However, when fans of the comics watched Black Panther during early screenings, they noticed an absence of lesbian romance, and immediately started a Twitter campaign under the hashtag #LetAyoHaveAGirlfriend, using terms such as “lesbian erasure.”
Wasn't Christopher Nolan's film Dunkirk criticized for not having a more diverse cast? That is to say even though European nations were fighting that battle - primarily the UK, France & Germany though we didn't actually see any Germans - that there needed to be a more diverse cast. A case could be made to note that Indians or Africans who may have been there on Dunkirk to have their presence noted in that film.
It's safe to say a filmmaker of a Hollywood release can't just make their movie according to their vision. Now they has to accede to the wishes of the mob.
Afrofuturism intersects science fiction, technology and ancient African mythologies.
"It's people of African descent looking at themselves in the future and what their society and their culture will look like ten years from now, twenty years from now, a thousand years from now," Fikayo Adeola, founder of arts and animation company Kugali, told CNN.
The term Afrofuturism was first coined by author Mark Dery in a 1993 essay "Black to the Future," but the ideas were around long before.
From the 1950s, American jazz musician Sun Ra -- who is considered one of the earliest proponents of Afrofuturism -- drew on ancient African influences as well as space imagery in his music and performances.
"This was in an era where African-Americans looked very much like second class citizens. Afrofuturism was a tool that they could use to imagine a better future, and the movement continued into the contemporary era," said Adeola.
Afrofuturism spanned literature too.
"Science fiction authors like Octavia Butler took it to the next level bringing in futuristic technology and interactions with aliens. The science fiction genre wasn't very inclusive of black people in the early days.
"It was very much up to these early African-American authors to say that actually 'no, there are other people in the future,'" Adeola explains.
Well while I'm not a Marvel fan this one movie that's worth seeing. Black Panther isn't the first Black superhero ever, however, with his first appearance in Captain America: Civil War he made an impression. An African king who doubles as a masked warrior to protect his people and his characterization is perfect for Marvel's universe. Just to explain I do see a difference between the Marvel Comic and the DC Comic universes.
[VIDEO] It allowed me to come to some conclusions especially with the term "fake news" flying around since Trump ran for President in 2016 and during the administration of President Trump currently. It depicts a battle - mainly legal battle - between the press and the government.
Basically some documents were smuggled from the Pentagon analyzing the war in Vietnam and those papers which have been publicly released shows a history of deception by the government as far as their Vietnam policy. The papers apparently start well before America became involved with the Vietnam War and it's escalation. There was a court case NY Times vs. U.S. which allowed the Times and the Washington Post to publish government documents without an reprisal by the government. In other words, the gov't can't censor you because they don't like the fact that you published some documents they didn't want you to see!
Allow me to share the big picture of the movie. We have a free press in this country, and resultantly free speech. With that said and I tweeted this out during the course of the movie - not during the movie of course.
There is no issue with me if President Trump pushed back against the press - or least the press he refers to as Fake News. Among conservatives I've seen that they believe the press has a bias against them. They believe the press or mainstream media trends liberal and in their coverage of Republicans or conservatives is colored with a liberal slant. Thus perhaps for many on the right - or perhaps "alt-right" - it's refreshing that the President isn't going along with that and is effectively punching back.
Our nation is supposed to have checks and balances between the President, Congress and judiciary. Who checks the press? We do need a strong press to check the government and it's three branches. A strong press is worthless if it's unwilling to check the government. As addressed in the movie, there were occasions - and perhaps they still ocurr - that newspaper publishers & editors or producers, reporters, journalists, etc. can be chummy with politicians on occasion. Thus it's possible to think that perhaps the press would cover for the politicians that they are chummy with when things are found out about them.
With that said when Trump takes on CNN or MSNBC or the NY Times it's entirely OK with me if her refers to those outlets as "fake news". We should consume news or information, we need not think that everything they say doesn't have a bias. We need not believe they don't have an agenda and perhaps it doesn't always benefit the people who consume the news & information they publish.
So it's OK with me if Trump calls the mainstream media "fake news". It's also OK with me if the media pushes back against Trump. What we're seeing is healthy. Who says the politicians shouldn't challenge the press - of course without suppressing them legally? Also who says the press shouldn't challenge the politicians?
BTW, if you check hashtag #ThePost on twitter you may see mostly negative views of The Post. Many have opted not to even watch the movie thanks to the liberal politics of Tom Hanks and Merryl Streep. Indeed another tweet I saw connected this movie with the Harvey Weinstein scandal. And I've learned that the film has only earned a half-million dollars when it was released New Year's weekend. Although when I saw the movie it was almost a full-house in my theater.
It's still a great movie and yes I can separate the politics or even complicity in some social context i.e. Weinstein from the work of art. Then again that's the beauty of America, we have the right to support or not support whatever we want for whatever reasons we have. Besides, I gave that dreadful Al Gore global warming sequel a chance even though I'm not likely to ever want to see it again!
[VIDEO] I'm going to let John Campea do more talking about this movie. If I had seen the above video before seeing the 6 PM show I'd know what he was mostly talking about.
Since the start of the DC extended universe in 2013 with Man of Steel it seems the new series of films had starts in fits and starts. Man of Steel was OK there were some parts of the movie that threw me and basically they killed off Zod from Kryton so early.
Now I liked Batman vs. Superman though the whole film wasn't that good. Batman to me stole the show though in reading other reviews many had a serious issue with Batman as a cold killer. The Dark Knight or Caped Crusader showed he was a bad man in facing down the hoodlums of Gotham and Superman. It was a bit goofy how using Martha - the name of both Clark's mother & Bruce Wayne's - stopped the epic fight between DC Comics two most iconic superheroes.
I also liked Suicide Squad also problem is they threw in the Joker. I recognize that they threw in the Joker because Harley Quinn was in it - because she's been introduced to the main DC universe and is no longer exclusive to the DC animated universe. The first part seemed to have been humming along, the second half well I didn't get it. And again we get a glimpse of Batman & The Flash with a special appearance by Bruce Wayne near the end seeking to provide Amanda Waller cover.
The next movie changed the direction of the DC extended universe, Wonder Woman. Using the Great War (The first World War) was a nice touch that worked and contrasted with the canonical second World War origins of the superheroine. She fought the German Empire as easily as she fought the Nazi's Third Reich. It was quite an introduction especially if her introduction into Batman v. Superman wasn't as satisfying.
Finally we have the long awaited Justice League. Ah the Easter eggs I want to talk about we seem some hints of other DC super heroes in this one though nothing from them yet - and yes there will be other movies about these other characters. It was great to see Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg interact with each other. At first there was some hostility, then eventually they came together to fight a common antagonist. We even see a certain superhero who died in Batman vs. Superman return to finish the fight.Yeah I know a bit of a spoiler but if you've been paying attention to the trailers you already know Superman is coming back.
Just like Wonder Woman, the audience applauded and I missed the scene after the credits. There was a mid-credits scene that I saw, however, since I was at the movies far later than usual it was time for me to go. I may go see this film one more time to see this final scene. Although they could've ended this with the mid-credits scene which was very satisfying...and the audience also applauded that!
BTW, DC extended universe films aren't known for these end credits scene are they stealing a trick out of the page of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? I could like without it though only provided if they advance the story of the DC universe.
Also, I've never caught a midnight show, however, I've noticed over the years that they have slowly fallen out of favor. Basically if a blockbuster is expected to come out on Friday - in general - you can be amongst the first to catch it starting at 6 PM on Thursday. Of course this depends upon the venue where you seek to watch the movie. All the same I enjoyed this experience although a long way from saying this is something to do again. Perhaps for the right movie - the right geeky movie!
Go see Justice League, it gets a thumbs up from me!
Sort of ironic at roughly the same time two movies about these two pivotal historical figures of American history. Lyndon Baines Johnson was the 36th POTUS from the State of Texas and sadly elevated to the Presidency after the assassination of the 35th POTUS John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. As for Thurgood Marshall, after a long legal career especially as chief counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, President Johnson appointed Marshal to the US Supreme Court in 1967.
The events of both movies take place roughly 20 years apart. Marshall takes place in 1940 when he takes up the case of a Black man accused of raping a woman whose household employed him as a driver. As portrayed in the film he was going from town to town defending Blacks accused of crimes they didn't commit and doing whatever he could to insure they got fair trials.
In LBJ we see President Johnson campaigning behind the scenes for the Presidency. It seemed he was hesitant to really announce for the Democratic nomination in 1960 and expected to swoop in and steal it from the Kennedy. Well he had already been a powerful US Senator as Democratic Majority Leader. That unfortunately never carried him through and we see ultimately Kennedy - perhaps over the objection of his inner circle especially his brother Bobby - ask Johnson to run with him as Vice President.
While Marshall takes place during the course of 1940, LBJ basically takes place during the years 1959 to about 1963-64. And yes the assassination in Dallas was part of the story and then of course the aftermath of the assassination with Johnson taking over the Presidency in the wake of JFK's untimely death.
I want to share with you this column from a nephew of Sam Friedman - who was one of the main characters in Marshall. The columnist Roger Friedman takes time to reminds us that many of these movies that are based on real life events are fictionalized. The fiction of the stories told to us - especially since some of us weren't around to experience them first hand - are used to advance the plot.
Perhaps everything depicted in LBJ aside from what we know from history isn't entirely true. The same could be said for Marshall say for example neither Marshall nor Friedman got assaulted thanks to their involvement in this racially charged rap case. Also perhaps the future justice Marshall didn't actually tell his partner Friedman twice - "F*ck you". Those who do screenplays for historical movies or period pieces have to make them interesting to us the audience.
In my opinion both films had and they both relate to a certain period of American history. I could say Marshall the events took place before the Civil Rights movement heated up by the 1950s - 60s. Thurgood Marshall was already fighting the good fight long before Martin Luther King Jr arrived on the scene.
Conversely the end of the movie LBJ concerned President Lyndon Johnson's drive to pass his predecessor's - John F. Kennedy - civil rights legislation. The movie portrays Johnson as being able to relate to his fellow Southern Democrats to get them on board - though he likely didn't get them all on board. If it wasn't for his conduct of the Vietnam War, Johnson would've been one of our greatest Presidents.
Unfortunately I didn't see either film when they first came out. I can only wonder how received they were at the time of release. I could easily see Marshall as a Black movie, but it had a far more diverse crowd which isn't a bad thing. It's great to know a film like Marshall could potentially have broad appeal even if it's possible the intended audience had no interest. Especially at a time where there is further concern over the American justice system and their treatment of minorities.
[VIDEO] Spider Man Homecoming is a movie I enjoyed seeing twice. The iconic Marvel Comics superhero is essentially part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Tony Stark featuring heavily as something of a mentor to this young teenage meta-human. And yes for the most part comic book fans already know his origin.
When you think about it, this isn't an origin film. Basically the movie starts after Spider Man's cameo appearance in Capt. America: Civil War facing off against needless to say Capt. America and his allies. Then back to NYC where Peter Parker is juggling adolescence, superhero business, school, etc.
Even weirder Spider Man's suit is the coolest suit ever seen and near the end he had it taken away from him. Parker had to rely only on his meta-human abilities and identity essentially concealed by a homemade customer consisting of sweatpants and a hoodie. The suit is made by Tony Stark and has all types of cool bells and whistles which for a brief time was also taken away from him.
BTW, this movie's version of Aunt Mae, I'd be trying to gain favor from her also. The youngest and most prettiest incarnation of her ever. Although for most of her portrayals she had little clue of Parker's double-life. Time may tell if future movies go with this, but it looks like now she knows!
How this film was portrayed? Well you're reading the blog of a man who used to be a fan of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I wanted to know martial arts like they did and wanted to be a hero. A kid likes to think about heroes and probably wishes they could be like Peter Parker with heart and the ability to beat bad guys.
I feel as if I gave away some plot points, but before that film leaves theaters near you go see it. Spider Man Homecoming essentially is the third superhero move of the summer. I was glad to see almost two months after a June release Wonder Woman is still going strong and having seen Guardians of the Galaxy which was also a good movie to see.
And I almost forgot about Logan which is a movie that rubbed me the wrong way. Main thing about that movie was that it ended on a depressing note and it was mostly a very dark feature. Although to be fair perhaps a fitting note to end Hugh Jackman's time as Logan/Wolverine.
