A Piece From The Collection: Batman (1989)

Alo Party Peoples.

The time has come again for me to talk about a movie in my DVD collection. This month's topic is, the first live-action Batman movie. Well, technically the Adam West show got a movie in 1966, but this is the earliest one that most people ever talk about.

If you were around in 1989, then you probably recognize that poster and I don't have to explain anything. This movie was a BIG deal. It got three sequels, and spawned a critically acclaimed and well remembered animated series, put Tim Burton on the map as a director, and has been praised for bringing the Caped Crusader into a serious light after the campy nonsense that was the Adam West show.

SIDE-NOTE- It might not have aged especially well, but the Adam West Batman show deserves some credit. This movie made the franchise a box office juggernaut, and the Nolan films gave it critical merit, but the Adam West show is what made it a household name.-END SIDE-NOTE

What do I think of it? I liked it, but I can't call it anything more than pretty decent. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. It is not a bad movie, at all, in fact I can think of many good things about the movie. Let's just get to the listing of points.

Story: Batman must stop the Joker from using cosmetic products to bring Gotham City to it's knees. It isn't terribly engaging, and that's my only serious problem, unfortunately it's kind of a big problem. Granted if I had seen this back in 1989 when it came out I might think more of it, but that is because the only thing I would have to compare it to would be Adam West show. I can't know how it felt to see this film back then anyway, because I did not yet exist.

Presentation: Tim Burton's signature aesthetic style is applied effectively, but it's only in play part of the time, and the dissonance between where it is and where it isn't really stands out. In fact, Burton himself has said that he wasn't satisfied with how the movie turned out, and only came back for Batman Returns in exchange for much greater creative control. The action scenes are serviceable, but there is no real stand out moment, and Micheal Keaton being unable to move in the Batsuit doesn't help. The sets look damn good, it is nice to see practical effects, and Danny Elfman's musical score is fantastic. Yeah, the Prince songs date the movie considerably, but I didn't mind them very much.

Cast: Micheal Keaton is the best Bruce Wayne/Batman combination*, even if the reaction to his casting wasn't unlike the controversy over Ben Affleck being cast in the same part for the Man of Steel sequel. Jack Nicholson as the Joker is a joy to watch, easily the best part of this movie. Those are the two major players, but everyone else does alright in their supporting roles.


In conclusion, it is a damn nice looking film, that just sort of drops the ball in terms of plot. If you haven't seen it, you don't need to rush out and do so, but if you want to, then know that it is a serviceable endeavor. As for the sequels, the only one I have seen is Batman Returns, and I have yet to finish it because I find it generally unpleasant.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Christian Bale does a better Bruce Wayne.

Archivis News Update 1-28-2014

Alo Party Peoples.

Here is some news.

WHOVIAN COSPLAYERS TAKE NOTE

I promised to talk about Series 8 of Doctor Who for the blog. That isn't coming out until August, but the BBC have released the first press image of Peter Capaldi's costume. I wouldn't have minded if he kept Matt Smith's purple costume sans bowtie from the second half of Series Seven, but this is a good look. Simple, and classy. Goodbye Raggedy Man indeed, this will be a serious Doctor.

CAN DC DO ANYTHING RIGHT IN REGARDS TO SUPERHEROES?

The as of yet untitled sequel to Internet punching bag, I mean DC superhero movie Man of Steel, which for the record I am pretty lukewarm on, has been pushed back to 2016. From previous news concerning this movie it looks more and more like this will be a bit of a train-wreck.

MY UPCOMING REVIEW SCHEDULE

Here is a list of films that I plan to cover this year. This list is susceptible to change depending on ticket prices, traffic, and my personal whim. In order of US release date...

• The LEGO Movie (February 7th)
• Pompeii (February 21st)
• Noah (March 28th)
• Captain America: The Winter Soldier (April 4th)
• Godzilla (May 16)
• X-Men: Days Of Future Past (May 23)
• The Fault In Our Stars (June 6th)
• Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (July 11th)
• Guardians Of The Galaxy (August 1st)
• The Giver (August 15th)
• The Hobbit: There And Back Again (December 17)

Is there anything in there that you are excited to see me talk about? Let me know in the comments.

That's all for now, next time... 

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight? I always ask that of all my prey.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Latin Report: The Story of Athena and Arachne (time immemorial)

Alo Party Peoples.

Back in September, I used this blog for my Latin class to do a report on Caligula. It was well received by my readers, and I got a good grade on it, so I decided to do this again. This time, I was asked to do a report on a Greek hero. Arachne isn't a hero exactly, but my teacher decided to add her in as because we needed some women in there. The moral being told is simple, don't anger the gods.

Speaking of deities. There is something that I believe requires explaining for those that aren't very familiar with Greco-Roman polytheism. Greek gods were very different from the idea of God that most of us are familiar with. Plurality aside, Greek gods were not perfect beings. They had the same vices and imperfections that we mortals have to deal with. Pride, lust, jealousy, vanity, conflict, these were not things that the Olympians were immune to. They were basically humans, just with the power of gods.

The Story

Arachne was a mortal woman from Lydia that was gifted in the art of weaving, not just that she made beautiful tapestries, but that the act of making them was a sight to behold. She was so gifted in fact, that some claimed that she MUST have been taught by Athena herself, the Greek goddess of the arts.

Athena, curious to see what could have possibly sparked such a claim, took on the form of an old woman and went down to Earth to talk with Arachne. While there, she told Arachne that while she was indeed talented, she was not above the gods. Arachne grew prideful, and claimed that she was indeed above the gods, she even challenged Athena to a weaving contest, Athena then revealed herself to Arachne and accepted the challenge.

When the contest began, Athena wove a tapestry of her contest with Poseidon over who would be the patron of Athens, Poseidon provided the city with a useless saltwater spring, while Athena provided them with the olive tree. Thus she won that contest and the city was named Athens to honor her. Her tapestry was marvelous, and it was a celebration of the Olympian's successes. Arachne however depicted the many times that the gods had abused mortals, or showed imperfection themselves. In particular, Zeus's many, many, MANY mistresses. Still her weaving was glorious, so glorious in fact that even Athena couldn't deny that Arachne's skill was superior to her own. As a result, she grew furious with Arachne and replaced her limitless confidence with a crushing guilt. For weeks she grew depressed, it got so bad that she eventually hung herself.

The goddess was shocked by this, she didn't mean to hurt her, just teach her a lesson. She had no idea that Arachne would react so dramatically. So she went to Arachne's corpse and brought her back from the dead, but she also turned her into the first spider. She and her descendants were to forever weave their beautiful work, but men will never recognize her talent and would tear it down forever more.

That's just one version of the story, some state that Athena forced Arachne to hang herself directly, others state that turning her into a spider was the first punishment. Either way the lesson about humility has been conveyed.

Later Influence

Arachne, as depicted in
The Heroes Of Olympus
book series by Rick Riordan. Illustration
by John Rocco

• The term "arachnophobia" is derived both from Arachne, and from Phobos, the Greek god of fear.
• The Latin word "araneae" is descended from Arachne, which in Greek simply means "spider", and they spell it "αράχνη". Thus many of the Romance languages got their word for spiders from that Latin root. For example: the French "araignée", the Spanish "araña", and the Portugese "aranha". English is not a Romance language, although it does get many words from Latin.
• In the "Percy Jackson & The Olympians" books by Rick Riordan, children of Athena have an irrational fear of spiders. The sequel series, "The Heroes Of Olympus" featured Arachne as a giant humanoid spider that gets stuck in a massive Chinese finger trap made from her own silk. Remind me to eventually talk about this series.

So, I hope that you have learned something from this, and like I said in my first post for the Latin class, go and research for yourself.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B


Sources were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne

http://www.greeka.com/greece-myths/arachne.htm

Google Translate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW3Bbav7w4A

Some Things About Autism

NOTE: I am not a psychologist, or a philosopher, or a physician. 

Alo Party Peoples.

Looking back now, I probably should have waited until I had a higher education before starting a blog. I will still continue the blog, but I feel that I have a lack of understanding of my topics because of my not having any formal higher education on the subjects of fiction, history, film history, or philosophy. Perhaps my condition makes me unable to get into the mindset of those that do have a background in these fields, but I can never know for sure.

Speaking of that condition. People with autism are rather stubborn folks, a lot of things that might be second nature to "normal" people are incomprehensible to us. When we find an idea or mode of thought that we DO understand, we tend to stick with it. It provides a sense of stability in what be a very confusing world. From the outside this can look like stubbornness, or perseveration, or perhaps willful ignorance, but if it does, I assure you that this is not our intent. At least in my experience, the problem is that the "neurotypical" mindset is SO different, so alien to us, that we just cannot wrap our heads around it. I am tempted to compare it to trying to understand a god, but that is probably too extreme. I don't think of you as gods.

Please allow me to mention some myths about autism, and explain my views about them.

-IT DOESN'T EXIST: Yes it does. There can be mis-diagnoses, and over-diagnoses, and under-diagnoses, but that happens for every condition. If everything were able to be understood immediately by everyone, then we wouldn't need doctors or teachers.

-IT'S THE VACCINES: No. That view is coming from just plain junk-science. Take some time out of your day and go watch this video here. It is from a liscenced pediatrician that treats kids with autism, and he is a smart guy. I don't think that the views of those that believe autism makes people somehow lesser are intentional malice, but are instead based in simple ignorance.

-THEY ARE JUST STUPID: No. For kids with autism, the world can be a very confusing place. It can seem overwhelming, we have problems with loud sounds, and to a lesser extent, at least for me, bright colors. Certain textures are uncomfortable to us, even unbearable, and our perception can make these things seem more intense. We have trouble with verbal communication and abstract language. It might seem like we are slow, or insubordinate. But on the high functioning end at least, we don't intend to seem that way.

-IT IS JUST AN EXCUSE FOR BAD BEHAVIOR: No. Autistic kids, hell autistic people, think in a fundamentally different way than "normal" people. We have trouble empathizing with others, we genuinely don't get what's wrong. That being said, when we DO realize that there is a problem, we feel terrible about it.

-THEY ARE SADISTS: Oh God no. Please let me share a personal story. Around eighth grade I had eaten my older sisters ice cream. She wanted me to pay her back so she took me to the bank to get money out of my savings account. I couldn't find my school ID with a photo of myself on it, so we grabbed one that was issued before photos were taken. We got to the bank and when we showed them the ID, they rejected it. After leaving, she started yelling at me about how I made her look like she was trying to steal money. I had no idea what she was talking about. Looking back now, I know what she meant and I am deeply regretful about this. If my older sister is reading this, I'm sorry.

We might be less expressive than "normal" people, but we still feel emotion. In fact, we might feel it more deeply than neurotypical people. If it looks like we are being manipulative, or scheming, or even condescending towards you, we are NOT trying to be that way.

I will close out with this. The world is a tough place to live in. For those that differ from the majority, it is even worse. This can lead to a feeling of inadequacy, especially if you don't have context for what's wrong. Hell, that was me for the longest time. I prayed, begging for God or whoever's in charge to "fix" me, make me "normal", make me "better".

.

Have a nice day, you lucky people.

Greg.B

The Giver To Be Adapted Into A Movie

Alo Party Peoples.



This is something I find cool, I have stated before my love of the movie Pleasantville, but what I haven't stated is how oddly similar it is to The Giver by Lois Lowry. Many people in my relative age bracket, at least in the United States, will have read that book in middle school. Both deal with the introduction of new ideas such as violence, race, sexuality, and color (as in visible light), to a society that has absolutely no context for those ideas. However, while The Giver was a Dystopia novel focused on the introduction of these ideas to one person, Pleasantville deals with an entire society being exposed to these things, and goes into much less detail.

That is probably because text works better for big idea driven plots than visual mediums like television and film. Hence I find it intruiging that a film adaptation of The Giver is being made, it is due to be released in 2014. This was apparently announced in 2012, but I just now heard about it. Here is a link confirming this.

I am curious to see how this turns out. It is being directed by one Phillip Noyce, who has mostly done short films and docudramas before this. Jeff Bridges is playing The Giver, let's see what happens, This is going into my schedule.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Let's Go Out To The Movies: Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit

Alo Party Peoples.

I know that I haven't done any movie reviews recently besides last months Matrix article. I just haven't been at the movies very much, and there have been no new releases that have caught my attention. So here is something that is in wide release that I decided was as good as anything else for a review. Enough talk from me, let's get to it, shall we.

Jack Ryan is a character that is the focus of a series of Cold War political-espionage-thriller novels, that began with The Hunt For Red October, written by the late Tom Clancy. I am not terribly familiar with this franchise, at all, but my father is and he has told me that they are intricately written, detailed and engaging books.

Before we get to the movie, I will attempt to explain the character. It is very complicated, short version: In the books, Jack is an economics student that becomes a marine, retires after a helicopter accident, and then becomes a stock broker that marries a medical student. He later gets a position with the CIA during a trip to London and the rest is history.

The character has been portrayed by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, and Ben Affleck in previous attempts to film the books. My father has also told me that the Ford versions are really good. I haven't seen any of those versions and I don't have time to do so. Because of this, I will not be comparing this newest film to any other version of the character, it will stand or fall on it's own merits.

Said latest effort, rather than adapt a specific book, positions itself as a prequel to a 21st' century version of the Jack Ryan lore. John Ryan, Jack is an alias in this version I think, it isn't terribly clear, is an economics student that decides to join the Marines after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the rest of the origin story is unchanged from the books except that he now joins the CIA because he notices an agent watching him at the rehab center. A decade after he joins, he uncovers a Russian billionaire's plot to topple the US dollar and issue in a second Great Depression. Really. 

This movie, is not very good. Sadly, it is the first time I have to give a negative review of a film on this blog. Now I don't think that anyone sets out to make a bad film, and it isn't abysmal, but this movie is a flat, un-engaging, bore that feels like it was conceived in the same way that The Amazing Spider-Man, which was not amazing, got green-lit in 2012. An attempt at taking a once successful but now relatively obscure franchise and giving it a movie to try and cash in on it's fan-base. It is therefore fitting that just like the Spider-Man reboot, which felt like it was trying to turn the Spider-Man franchise into a Twilight clone, this film feels like a weaker version of the Jason Bourne movies.

The new Jack is played by Chris Pine, who you might remember is playing Kirk in the J.J. Abrams Star Trek** reboot films. He, is not terrible, but his performance is flat* and he stutters quite a bit. Kevin Costner as the CIA agent that recruits Jack, is also unengaging. The rest of the cast, I didn't bother to look up their names it doesn't matter, are completely forgettable. On the way home from the theater, my father said something like this. "Come to think of it, why is Chris Pine even doing this part? Sony clearly wants to start a franchise with this movie, and he already has Star Trek for at least one more installment."

The only three real action moments, I hesitate to call them set-pieces, really make it sink in how badly this movie wants to be The Bourne Identity. The problem is that it is an unleavened version, poorly shot handheld cinematography, middle of the road, terrible editing, and uninspired choreography.

I have one more thing to say before we go. It is a common saying that the worst thing you can do as a storyteller is insult your audience, I disagree. In my opinion, the worst thing you can do is fail to engage your audience. An insult is not a good thing by any means, but you at least care about it.

In conclusion, this film is terrible, if Sony really thinks that Jack Ryan can be a franchise in a post-Bourne, and post-Skyfall world, then they have greatly miscalculated their odds. If this movie bombs, then I am not terribly hurt by that. Unfortunately, the only other material for action flicks right now is either The Legend Of Hercules, which I haven't seen but I have heard is abysmal, and Lone Survivor, which I also haven't seen but audiences seem really divided on. If you really need an action flick this weekend, save the money and just go rent The Bourne Identity.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Two uses of "flat" in the same area of text. Good buttery God I need to get a thesaurus.
**Hey look at that, another once mighty franchise that got a big budget movie rebirth.

A Piece From The Collection: Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1975)

NOTE: This article was originally put up on November 30th 2013. I have been organizing the blog's archive and accidentally put this up here. I would take it down, but I cannot do that and also put it back into it's original place. I apologize for this error.




Alo Party Peoples.

I Decree This Shalt Be A Recurring Segment.

Some of you might remember that a month ago I reviewed Pleasantville, a film from my DVD collection. I've decided to do so again, a film from the collection that is, not Pleasantville again.

On the last day of each month I will review a film from my DVD collection. The chosen film for November 2013 is: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Let's not waste text space and get to it.

Story: This spoof about the divine quest of Arthur, King of the Britons, to aquire the Holy Grail is hilarious. I can't explain why it is hilarious, as that would spoil the jokes, but I can say that much of the humor is quite wordy. It doesen't play out like one story as much as a collection of loosely connected skits, but a comedy doesen't have to make sense* so long as it is funny. I assure you that this film is very funny.

Visuals: Much of the humor is visual in nature, and the animated segments are uniqely bizzare, but much of it looks like it was done on the cheap. That isn't a critisim, just an observation, most comedies don't have very large budgets anyway, and the visual humor is quite funny.

Acting: I haven't seen the Monty Python comedy group in action before so I can't judge this in comparision to their other work, but the acting here is wonderfully tounge-in-cheek.

In conclusion, this film is great comedy, and it is a classic for a reason. Track it down.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Though making sense is always a bonus.

Archivis News Update, Again

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Agents Of SHIELD is instead taking another two week break before the next episode. To paraphrase fellow Internet personality MovieBob"Is Disney trying to make another Whedon one-season-wonder?"

Original post is as follows.

Alo Party Peoples.

Today is a sort of variety show with strange facts, movie gossip, and general opinions on some films.

Did you know that the term "superhero" is trademarked? It is co-owned by Marvel and DC. How do other people not get sued for using it? By not using "superhero" in the title, and at least in the US, you cannot copyright a concept, fact, or idea.

I have been streaming the 21st' century Battlestar Galactica on Netflix, I haven't gotten past the second season yet, but from what I have seen I can say that it is a well acted, generally well written, compelling military drama, and to a lesser extent political drama, with high production values, that just happens to take place in space.

There seems to be a rumor that Johnny Depp is under consideration to play Doctor Strange an upcoming Marvel movie. Don't know who Doctor Strange is? I explained that in this post here. Here is a source for this rumor. He does look the part---->, but being unfamiliar with the comics, I cannot say if he is right for the part. If they also ask Tim Burton to direct, I can see his aesthetic style either working pretty well for surreal fantasy like Doctor Strange, or being too dark to fit well within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Speaking of Marvel, Agents of SHIELD has been alright. That is all I can think of to say about it right now. It is certainly serviceable, and I haven't spotted any crippling flaw, but I can't really think of a reason to watch this show other than staying entirely up-to-date on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, next week Stan Lee is set to make an appearance, so perhaps that will improve it. It is a shame that they put said appearance in the preview though, usually his cameos are an Easter egg for people to look for, and announcing it now will rob hardcore Marvel fans of the satisfaction of spotting it.

That is all for now, next time will be a movie review, I promise you.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

More Things That I Have Thought.

Alo Party Peoples.

Here are some more thoughts.

Firefly was a damn good TV show, I even did a post on it, and had it gotten a proper run it probably would have been incredible. Serenity is certainly worthwhile, but you can tell that Joss had more planned that he wasn't able to fit into the movie. Fortunately, it is set to continue in comic form, and if I am able to acquire said comic, I will review it for you. For now here is a good mix of the shows soundtrack.

Another point in Welcome To Night Vale's favor, it is able to have a gay lead, and NOT make that the main focus of the podcast, it is at most a recurring detail that rarely has a major impact on the plot. Also, who bought Lot 37?

Related to that, I find that the term homophobia is slightly misleading. It is not fear of gay people so much as it is intense disgust and/or hatred of them. As I understand it.

Which of these would you enjoy me doing a piece on more? 47 Ronin, or Saving Mr. Banks?

Here is an announcement. When it comes back in August, I will be doing a review series for Series Eight of the revived Doctor Who.


I leave you with an image. If you can guess what company produced it, I will mention you in the next post. Here is a hint: the company is Canadian.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

TV Time: Doctor Who: The TV Movie (1996)

Alo Party Peoples.

Paul McGann as the Eighth Doctor (1996)

Recently I've been doing reviews of the 21st century Doctor Who, and most fans are aware that it is a continuation of the classic series, but it wasn't the first attempt to bring the show back. In 1996 there was a joint project between Fox and the BBC to make a TV movie as a backdoor pilot to a full series in the case of high ratings. While ratings held up well in the UK, in the US it was dead on arrival, and the show didn't come back until the BBC did it in house in 2005.

I was aware of the movie when I started watching the show, but I had never actually seen it until someone uploaded it in parts on YouTube, and no I am not providing a link, that would be illegal and I try to support official releases whenever possible. However, since the movie is not on Netflix at the time I write this, and I couldn't find a Region One copy of it, YouTube is where I turned.

Sidenote-Only pirate if you have no other options.

How is it? Well... let's take a look.

Setup: The Doctor is taking the remains of the Master to Gallifrey when said remains screw with the interior workings of the TARDIS, forcing an emergency landing in San Francisco on New Years Eve 1999. There he gets shot and dies on the operating table forcing a regeneration with the added disadvantage of amnesia. The Master has taken over a paramedic and plans to take the doctors remaining lives. The Doctor now must work with the surgeon that killed him to stop the Master from opening the Eye of Harmony and destroying the Earth.

Presentation: One of this films saving graces is it's production values. Sets show much craftsmanship, and the bigger budget means they can really show off the "bigger on the inside" aspect of the TARDIS, just take a look at this set. ===>

Effects wise, it is dated, but for the time, on a TV budget, I'm sure it looked good at the time.

Overall, lavish production values look nice.

Cast: Although he has portrayed the character several times for audio play company Big Finish, this was Paul McGann's only onscreen appearance as the Doctor... until the 50th anniversary when he did a mini-episode which I can provide a link to because the BBC released it via YouTube. You can watch it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U3jrS-uhuo

He does a good job, bringing a kind of gleeful energy that I can't say has been present in any other portrayal that I have seen. Nine was the Angry Doctor, Six was the Mean Doctor, Ten was the Remorseful Doctor, and Eight was the Happy Doctor.

Eric Roberts as the Master on the other hand... he isn't terrible, but I can't call it a good performance. The rest of the cast does alright. Daphne Ashbrook is done well as the Doctor's companion, Yee Jee Tso as a street tough that aids the Master is alright, and it was nice of Sylvester McCoy to turn up for a regeneration scene and pass the torch to McGann as the Doctor.

In conclusion, lavish production values and Paul's performance aside, I can't call it a good movie, but I do think it is worth watching.


I leave you now with a dancing Ood.

We are the legion of the beast. The legion shall be many; and the legion shall be free. He has woven himself in the fabric of your life since the dawn of time. 

Have a nice day.
Greg.B