Homeland Season 1

Sometimes when I start watching a show, I will be on a roll, binge watching it tirelessly, and then one day I will just simply stop. Lots of times it will coincide with things in my real life that just take more time, or sometimes I will just want to move onto a different show. It happened twice with The Walking Dead, and it happened with Homeland the first time it. I finished the first season of Homeland very quickly and started the second season, but I just stopped midway through. Unfortunately, I never got around to writing the review for the first season and by the time I wanted to finish it, it had been so long I forgot the things I liked and the things I didn't like.

I did write a review of the pilot a long time ago, here was my initial thoughts.

If you're not a follower of my blog, you will know I spent a lot of time in High school watching the show 24. A pretty straight forward show about a federal agent who has 24 hours to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil. Every season it was pretty formulaic and eventually started using the same twists and turns so much that it got a little bit predictable. To this day though 24 is one of my favorite shows. So when I figured out that Homeland was a show about the CIA and some of the writers and producers of 24 were involved, i was on board.

Homeland centers around CIA agent Carrie Mathison (played by Claire Danes). At the start of the show, she is in Iraq and trying to get information out of a bomb maker who is set to be killed shortly. The last bit of information he gives her is that an American prisoner of war has been turned.

Ten months later, US Special forces are raiding an al-Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan and they come across an American POW. Sergeant Nicholas Brody (played by Damian Lewis) is rescued and brought home after being a Prisoner of War for 8 years. Remembering what her informant told her 10 months before, Carrie is immediately suspicious of Sergeant Brody and suspects him of being the prisoner of war that had been turned.

What follows is a cat and mouse game as Carrie uses all the methods available to her to investigate Sergeant Brody and his possible connections to al-Qaeda.

While the show does center on the intrigue of espionage and counter-terrorism, the show also has incredible social commentary on mental illness and the state of soldiers when they return home from being overseas.

Having been gone for 8 years, Brody's family has pretty much moved on and are actually very surprised when they realize that he was alive this entire time. Brody's wife Jessica (played by Morena Baccarin) has the difficult task of raising children who were very young when their father went off to war and now she has to deal with her husband coming back and not being able to understand the struggles he is going through.

This compliments the story incredibly well because while the show does give a great commentary on the state of soldiers coming home from being overseas, it also makes you question how much of that is Brody dealing with PTSD, and how much of it is him potentially being a terrorist and carrying out an evil plot.

On the other end of things, the show has a profound message and examination on mental disorders and relationships in general. Carrie is bi-polar and needs to keep it hidden from the CIA in order to keep her job.

Carrie is an incredibly interesting character and a strong lead for this show. Homeland is able to create characters that delve into the gray area of morality and while you like this character, there are elements of her that you definitely will not like. The show is able to make characters like this likable and more challenging at the same.

The last thing I think I saw Claire Danes in was a non-musical version of Les Miserables with Liam Neeson and I absolutely could not stand her. But in Homeland, regardless of whether or not you like her character or not, you have to admit that she gives a stellar performance and a challenging one as well. She represents one side of coin in the espionage element of this show and she pulls it off incredibly well.

The other side of that coin is Sergeant Brody and honestly I can't say which one I like more.

Sergeant Nicholas Brody is one of the most complicated characters I've ever seen in a television drama before. On one hand, he is a US Marine. I think as Americans we immediately jump to the conclusion that American soldiers are heroes and assume them to be the good guys. On top of that, regardless of whether or not Brody is a terrorist, you can definitely tell that some of the actions he takes are due to the sudden change of environment and clear signs of PTSD. This garners sympathy for his character.

However, because you are introduced to Carrie first and you see how insistent she is that Brody has been turned, you immediately are skeptical of him as a character and the things he does could either be signs of PTSD, or they could have more nefarious motivations behind them and be evidence towards him actually being turned against his country.

But Brody's story is only made more impactful when you see his relationship with his wife and his children who thought he was dead for 8 years.

I will admit, while these are some of the slowest moments of the show, Brody's relationship with his wife is quintessential to figure out the man that Brody was before he left, and the impact being gone for 8 years had on him and the impact it had on his family.

You find out very quickly that Jessica has moved on and is sleeping with someone else. This relationship is cut off very quickly, but it still remains subject to scrutiny and a point of drama in the film that I'm sure is probably real for military families, even ones where the service member is just gone on a deployment, not for 8 years as a prisoner of war.

I don't claim to be an expert on the military, I know enough to not be ignorant but I can't say I've had all the experiences others have had yet. Mainly, the tension and issues they face in this show feel realistic and they feel like they come from a legitimate place. I can't say for sure how true they are and I'm sure a lot of it is dependent on the service member themselves, but this show takes a hard look at those issues.

There are a lot of really great characters in this show, but the one other supporting character worth mentioning is Carrie's former boss and mentor, Saul Berenson (played by Mandy Patinkin).

I honestly cannot say I've seen Mandy Patinkin in a role I didn't think he was amazing in. Now to be fair, I can't say I've seen a lot of the films he has been in but the movies and TV that I have seen him in I just love him. The Princess Bride, Criminal Minds, and I've even seen clips of him performing in The Secret Garden on Broadway. The guy is a fantastic actor and of course in Homeland, he continues the same track record.

Saul is a little bit more of a traditional mentor character. There are a couple of episodes that have him in a story arc where we learn more about him, but while Carrie and Brody are two characters you might have conflicting feelings on, Saul is a good character through and through. He is the anchor to Carrie's thought process and he is always the rational thinker, especially when it comes to making decisions and moving forward with evidence to support her plans.

As calculated he is, you can definitely see that Saul cares for Carrie, especially in the later episodes of the season. And Mandy Patinkin gives a very caring emotional performance, even though he's not a complex character like the other people in the show.

If you take away anything about this show, you should recognize that it is an incredibly relevant show, especially in the times we live in today. The show has a lot to say about our intelligence agencies, terrorism, homegrown and lone wolf terrorism, and mental disabilities.

Now, are there things that don't especially work in Homeland, well definitely.

I have mentioned that the family relationships and drama, especially within the confines of the Brody household are where the show starts to take a bit of a slow turn. Even the times where they are trying to uncover this terrorist plot, the CIA is not the kind of agency that goes in guns blazing. A lot of the "action" in this show is more centered on the dialogue, interrogations, and mystery solving done by the CIA. Furthermore, a lot of the intrigue comes by trying to figure out what is going on with Brody. But overall, the show is kind of a slow burner.

While there are a lot of things this show says about mental disorders and those messages are important, sometimes the show can be a little bit overdramatic. Like I said before, these characters are not always going to do the right thing and you might get frustrated or think that they are overreacting. Part of it is leaning in with the narrative and the things these people are going through, but its also the show creating drama for the sake of an hour long episode of good television.

Also the kids...

I have seen a lot of good child actors and a lot of bad child actors. Luckily, I think we live in a world where studios are getting better at casting kids and giving them meaningful parts. This is not the case with the first season of Homeland. I can't stand Brody's kids. To me, they are distracting and annoying.

They do have a part of the show that affects one of the main characters, so they are important, but I can't say they were really written that well.

If you've read my blog in the past, you'll know that I have openly admitted to being a little bit of a television snob sometimes. I have a track record of ripping on shows on major networks and raving about shows that are on networks that have a little bit less restrictive measures on content. (Although I will have you know that I have been watching Designated Survivor and am looking forward to writing my full series review on that show). I don't watch a lot of ShowTime shows but they definitely killed it with Homeland. I'm hoping that I stay on top of watching the rest of the seasons of Homeland and stay tuned for future reviews of later seasons I finish watching.

But what do you think of Homeland? Have you gotten around to seeing it? What did you think? Are there any shows like Homeland worth checking out that I don't know about? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies and TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie and TV reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I had to be a little bit careful with the video I posted at the end as I, and I'm sure anybody who hasn't seen it, don't want spoilers. Here's Claire Danes talking about the strange opening credits to the show. Enjoy!

Superman (1978)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Superman is my favorite superhero of all time. I know he's a boy scout, I know he's a trump card, but I do think there are interesting stories to be told about a man who is invulnerable and can fly. And this was the first attempt at not only the story of Superman, but basically a comic book movie. 1978's Superman sets the standard for Superhero movies and without it, we might not have the quality films we have today. But does Superman The Movie hold up?

I'm gonna say right off the bat, the first hour of this movie is REALLY slow!

It all begins on the planet Krypton where Jor-El (played by Marlon Brando) warns of the destruction of Krypton to the deaf ears of the leaders of the planet. When they turn him down, he instead sends his son of Krypton before it is destroyed off to live on Earth because he knows the rays of the sun will make him strong. Young Kal-El is quickly adopted by the Kents, a nice old couple living in Kansas where they raise him as Clark Kent (played by Jeff East as a teenager). Having the powers of Superman is difficult of course growing up as a human and even super powers can't prevent the loss of Clark's adopted father (played by Glenn Ford). But eventually, Clark decides he must go and find out the origins of his powers and who he is.

Eventually he finds the Fortress of Solitude where a program of his father teaches him everything he needs to know to dawn the cape and become the Man of Steel, Superman.

When he's grown up, he's played by Christopher Reeves and he goes to Metropolis to start a new life as Clark Kent, working at the Daily Planet, but also to save the day as Superman.

At the Daily Planet he meets star reporter, Lois Lane (played by Margot Kidder) and when he is finally revealed, everyone wants to know who this flying man is and what he stands for.

All the while, an evil plot is being hatched by the criminal mastermind, Lex Luthor (played by Gene Hackman), and its up to Superman to foil his plan and save the world.

And here's the thing. Superman is such a quintessential 70's movie. I never really knew that until I watched it with a critical eye. I always thought that it was just Richard Donner trying to make a campy superhero film because it would still be a while until they superhero films would be taken seriously. And while that is also true, I've also realized that the dialogue, the visuals, and the costumes are all reminiscent of a different time.

But because of this, the movie has a very big camp factor. This movie is hokey, its ridiculous, and its kind of poking fun at itself. Its very obvious that this movie was a risk and Donner (and I'm guessing other people in the studio, etc) didn't want to go full comic book quite yet as they didn't know how profitable it could be. Limitations in technology and visual effects also held it back but you can tell this movie wasn't supposed to be taken too seriously.

That being said, there are a couple of moments that really work in this film and make it the iconic film that it is today. First off, the tag line in this movie was, you'll believe that a man can fly. While the visuals of Superman flying probably don't hold up today, you can still understand how this was innovative cinematography at the time and ground breaking, especially if you look at it in the historical context of superhero films.

One of the other moments that really work is the scene where Superman first reveals himself and saves Lois and the helicopter she was in.

This scene of course is only supplemented by the fantastic John Williams score that is unfortunately incredibly lacking in the new Superman movies.

Something I realized while watching that movie is that it wasn't the campy dialogue or the corny things Superman does that gave people hope, a lot of it had to do with hearing that music as he flies in the sky.

We live in a world where Brandon Routh can lift up a small continent, Henry Cavil can fight Doomsday and they can both fly at the speed of sound, breaking the sound barrier. But when Christopher Reeves flies up, grabs Lois and holds a helicopter up with one hand, when that music is playing, it still got me a little bit emotional.

And the other thing that really works in this movie is the cast.

I think for a while I didn't really like Christopher Reeve. The truth is, he was never really gonna win any awards with his acting. I didn't know him in anything else and with how campy this movie is, I didn't really think there was much else to him.

But watching this film with a critical eye has actually made me really like him in every single part of this movie. He's a bumbling fool as Clark Kent who just has a heart of gold but is so folksy that you'd never guess that he was the Man of Steel. Now as this movie has dated itself a little bit, some of his folksiness could not be interpreted as creepiness, but if you keep in mind that he's just the kind hearted goof ball from Kansas, you'll enjoy it a lot more.

And as Superman, he's charming, he's clever, he's witty, and while he doesn't have the stature of a Henry Cavil and a skin tight suit, he still has a commanding presence that makes you feel good about who is out in Metropolis saving people, and gives you hope.

Lois Lane is played by Margot Kidder and I gotta say, I like Amy Adam's Lois Lane better. While Kidder does give a spunky performance that I still think Adams had to live up to, Kidder is much more of a damsel in distress and she's just there as a girlfriend for Superman. Sure she's smart and a little witty, but her character did not age well, especially in the times we live in. Also Kidder's Lois Lane screams at EVERYTHING!

The other really great standout is Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.

Gene Hackman is so charismatic and suave in this movie that I can't imagine why they would ever portray Lex Luthor as anything else.

And yeah, if you look at the evil plot he has, its not exactly the worlds worst plot in the world. I mean how scary is an evil plot that is in reality just a real estate scam? And yeah, Lex Luthor is a little bit of a goof ball and probably is more of a cooky 70s Bond villain instead of a real super villain, but he's just so damn good at it that I understand why he goes down as one of the best super villains of all time.

Apparently, Hackman refused to shave his head for the role, even though Lex Luthor is the trade marketed bald character. But that comes down to movie trivia at the end of the day because you would never really know for how the story progresses.

Other characters are pretty small and not really worth mentioning. The only other person worth mentioning is of course Marlon Brando who looks bored out of his mind and was probably thinking he had better things to do than this hokey superhero film.

The thing about it though, Brando's Jor-El is still seen as really iconic. The man got top billing and was even used in the reboot of Superman Returns. It just shows you the caliber of Marlon Brando that even when he's phoning it in, he still does a really good job.

But let's be blunt.

There's a lot of things you can call this movie. You can call it campy, you can call it iconic, you can call it a trend setter, but one thing I think you also need to call it is a little bit boring. I tried my best to keep the judgement of this movie within the context of the time it was released, the technological limitations it faced, and the fact that its a lot different than the superhero films we see today.

But like a lot of things in this movie, the story does not really hold up. Like I said, the first hour of this movie is pretty boring and the rest of it is what you would expect from a Superhero movie with the budget and visual technology of the 70s.

Its not a bad movie, it just really has some boring parts for sure. As I said before, you have to look at this movie through a historical lens to really enjoy it. You've got some really enjoyable characters, some fun performances, and visuals that, while they didn't really hold up almost 40 years later, are still fun.

Superman stands as an example more for the character of Superman himself and saying that good Superman films can be done. Since all the old Superman films are now on Hulu, I'm hoping that I can watch them and watch this series go from good to bad very quickly.

But for now that's what I think of Superman. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Here's the Honest Trailer for Superman. Enjoy!

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

So I have never been a huge Harry Potter fan. But I grew up in a generation of kids that Harry Potter was one of the biggest franchises out there. I remember going to see the last movie and my friends balling because it was the end of an era for them. While I sat back and was interested, but not nearly invested.

But that was in 2011. I suppose I should've guessed that the Harry Potter universe wouldn't be gone forever. And not only is there this movie, there's apparently going to be a whole new franchise of these films. Believe me I will talk about that.

Fantastic Beasts takes place in 1926 New York, 70 years before the events of the first Harry Potter film. A wizard by the name of Newt Scamander (played by Eddie Redmayne) is studying magical beasts and he makes a stop in New York on his studious journey. Along the way he runs into a No-Maj (no magic individual) by the name of Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and they accidentally swap suit cases. One has Jacob's baked goods, the other one has all of Scamander's magical beasts. Jacob accidentally opens the case releasing a few beasts into New York. Newt, Jacob, and two witches, Tina Goldstein (played by Katherine Waterston) and her psychic sister Queenie (played by Alison Sudol) all go on a journey around an on edge New York worried about the existence of wizards and witches.

To foil them, Colin Farrell plays Percival Graves, an Auror who has a secret of his own, using the help of a young man by the name of Credence (played by Ezra Miller) he is doing his job as basically the police of the wizarding world, while also hiding a secret.

And that's the first big issue I have with this movie. I won't go into too many spoilers, but there is a bigger story that they are obviously building up towards to space this story out for four or five more films. And while the movie is a pretty self contained story and I appreciate that it wasn't force feeding me the idea that there's going to be more of these films, that doesn't really disguise the fact that this movie is nothing spectacular. It is fun for sure! Its cute! But if this keeps getting bigger and the stakes keep getting bigger, this movie is really going to be seen as just a launching off point. Its not a huge complaint because I did like the film, but I couldn't help but thinking that this was obviously building up to something bigger when I would have rather just started big. You know?

Its funny because when Eddie Redmayne was cast in the main role for this film, I immediately thought this was a brilliant idea. And the first trailer where you actually see him wave that wand around, he looks like he fits right in with the rest of the world.

Newt Scamander is a pretty quirky guy and he has a real gift for dealing with these animals of the magical world. Unfortunately, that's really the only thing you learn about Newt. He likes animals, he was expelled from Hogwarts, and he has a thing with someone in the LeStrange family which is a name Harry Potter fans will recognize. You don't really know anything about Newt and the movie really kind of keeps at a pace where you never really figure out much. I'm sure we'll learn more and Redmayne does do a good job making him likable despite not really knowing anything about him.

I had to look up who played Jacob Kowalski and I was surprised to figure out that its Dan Fogler. I've only known Fogler from movies like Fanboys and Balls of Fury where he's the gross fat guy. Kowalski couldn't be farther from that. He's sweet, he's a fun comic relief. You really enjoy the dynamic between him and Newt and I have to give Fogler credit for doing something totally different than I've seen him in before, so much that I didn't even recognize him.

You know how I mentioned that Eddie Redmayne felt like he was perfect for the world of Harry Potter? Well I think Colin Ferrell is a close second to fitting in perfectly because I absolutely loved Ferrell's character. In the Harry Potter books you always heard about Aurors and how they were basically the Jedi of the wizarding world. Colin Ferrell looks fantastic in this world and he's really good in this film. You spend the movie wondering, is he a bad guy, is he a good guy, is he just the authority figure who doesn't know the real truth, it's done really well.

I do have a big issue with where his character goes at the end of the film, but I can't say too much without giving spoilers away. But let's just say I wasn't really happy with the ending. Regardless, Colin Ferrell was definitely my favorite part of the movie. He definitely brings the intrigue and the fantastic parts of the wizarding world that couldn't really be explore in full in the Harry Potter films. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a second.

Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol were fine in this film. We probably could have done without Sudol's character but hey, Dan Fogler needed a romantic interest.

I thought Waterston was fine in this film. She didn't exactly stand out but she was a serviceable female lead. She is like the rest of this movie. Cute. She's a strong female lead but nothings really extraordinary about her. I'm not sure if she's coming back for one of the future films but she might need another film for me to consider her a strong character to help carry this franchise moving forward. She is a former Auror in the American magical world and that is something really fun to explore in this film.

All the Harry Potter films took place in the UK and there really wasn't any mention of the American wizarding community. This in my opinion was one of the stronger parts of the film and something that will be really fun to explore in future films.

I've tried my best not to compare this film to the Harry Potter films for two reasons. It only has a few connections to the original series, and it's only set in the same world where Magic is a thing. But something this movie does better and I think will do better in the future which actually makes me excited is seeing the magical world of Harry Potter outside the confines of a school. You get to see what wizards do in real life, their jobs their daily routine, which sounds boring but its actually really fascinating and creative. On top of that, seeing No-Maj (or Muggle) relations with the Wizarding world is the film that should have been made a long time ago. There's a really fun Cracked video where they talk about this exact scenario and I can only hope that's where this is headed.

The other really fun part about the movie is the magical world within the suit case of Newt Scamander.

I did think when I saw the last trailer for this film that it was really cool to see the inside of Newt's case and there's  almost a movie's worth of creative ideas that could come out of Newt's Mary Poppins bag. And that was just from the trailer of the film.

Seeing all of that and all the creative beasts is a lot of fun when you see it finally on screen. While I have been critical of JK Rowling for a number of reasons, one thing I cannot deny about her is that she is incredibly creative and really knows how to think outside the box to think up all these insane animals to put on screen. I have to get credit where it belongs.

Overall, the movie is fun. Its cute. But if the story they are inching towards in this new franchise is going to be as good and big as I hope it is based on what I've seen here, this movie is probably going to be the least favorite on a lot of people's list when all these movies come out down the road.

I thought the villain aspect of this movie was, while interesting, pretty shaky. Like I said, I don't like where certain things go in the end and overall, I thought the ending was a bit of a cop out in order to keep things at bay enough so they can really rev up in future films. Unfortunately the movie suffers a little bit because its being held back by future films.

Fantastic Beasts did its job. It was a fun movie that reintroduced people back into the world of Harry Potter. It introduced fun characters that I am interested in learning more about. And most importantly, it set up for at least one more film, but will definitely turn into 5 more films.

And honestly, I more excited about this franchise then I ever was about the Harry Potter films. I think this franchise has so much potential to really explore the world of Harry Potter and its got a really great cast to bring us fun wizarding films in the future.

But what did you think? Did you like Fantastic Beasts? What did you think about the potential for future films? Should I go and review all 8 Harry Potter films? ... that's a lot of Harry Potter... Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. A while back people decided it would be a funny idea to dub in South Park to scenes from Harry Potter. The result is amazing! Enjoy!

Avatar

So November has been the month of looking back at movies that I have given a lot of crap in the past but I felt like I needed to eventually come back to them and give an actual analysis of them and decide if they were actually movies I thought were bad. And by coincidence, two of the films I’ve looked back on have been James Cameron films, Titanic, and now Avatar.

When Avatar came out, it made all the money. It still holds the spot of highest grossing film of all time and much of the draw of this film was the visual innovation James Cameron was employing to make this movie happen. Avatar in many ways is a directors dream scenario because Cameron wrote the script a decade before the movie came out and he felt he needed to hold off on it until the technology caught up with his ambition.

And I’m going to say right here, the film is gorgeous. I always premise any comments on cinematography or visual effects with the disclaimer that those are the areas of film I need to expand my knowledge. I usually just base it off the idea of if something looks pretty, or well shot, I’ll comment on it. And Avatar looks pretty. I still don’t understand how complicated the filming was, but I recognize something state of the art when I see it. And on top of that, it’s an epically scaled movie. I think I might have forgotten this, but this movie is huge! The giant Hometree is gianormous in scale, the fight sequences are epic, and all of that is due to the visual spectacle we see in front of us. There is no dispute that Avatar is a visually state of the art film.

But the name of the Blog is Loving the Stories, not Loving the Visuals. I’ve given Avatar the acknowledgement that it deserves in the part of the film that was a visual spectacle. I’m mostly going to talk about the story, characters, and other important parts of the film and what I thought of it, watching this movie years later after the hype of 2009. But on top of that, I would like to talk about the cultural impact of Avatar and the future of the franchise.

Avatar takes place in 2154 where the resources of Earth have been depleted and humanity has expanded to planets across the galaxy mining for resources. There is a mining colony on a particular planet called Pandora. The planet is inhabited by 10 foot tall blue humanoids called The Na’vi.

In order to study the Na’vi, humanity has developed technology to insert a human’s consciousness into an avatar Na’vi and have them interact in the harsh environment of Pandora and the local population. Enter Jake Sully (played by Sam Worthington), a former Marine who lost the use of his legs during his service. After his identical twin brother dies, he volunteers to take his place in the avatar program due to the similarities between their DNA. He goes to Pandora and joins the scientific team headed up by Doctor Grace Augustine (played by Sigourney Weaver).

After an accident where Jake’s avatar is separated from Grace and the other research assistant (played by Joel David Moore), Jake stumbles upon a native Na’vi woman by the name of Neytiri (played by Zoe Saldana). Neytiri is the daughter of the leader of the local tribe of Na’vi and she brings Jake to them. The tribe of course is skeptical Jake but Neytiri’s mother Mo’at (played by C.C.H Pounder) insists that they initiate Jake into their tribe. Why they think this is a good idea, I still don’t totally understand, but hey, they needed a way to bring Jake into his Dances With Wolves Kevin Costner role, so just go with it.

When Jake lets the humans know his situation, the head of security Colonel Miles Quaritch (played by Stephen Lang), and the head of mining operations Parker Selfridge (played by Giovanni Ribisi) see this as an opportunity for Jake to get in close with the native population and persuade them to move out of their home which happens to be resting on top of a huge pile of the resource they are mining.

They give Jake three months to be initiated into the tribe. The meat of the movie is this initiation process where Jake becomes accustomed to the culture of the Na’vi, their love for nature, and their connection to the earth. And in case you’re scratching your head wondering where you have heard this plot before, I can name off a couple movies that fall into this same plot. Dances with Wolves, The Last Samuari, Pocahontas, Fern Gully, the list goes on. And if you’ve watched any of those movies, you’ll know that Jake goes in with one perspective and comes out of his time with a totally new one, becoming one with the indigenous population, falling in love with the unavailable native princess, and eventually turning against the institutions he was once for because of his changed perspective on the native population.

Avatar is incredibly predictable. From the minute that you realize that this is one of those stories, you know exactly how it’s going to go down and it goes down exactly how you expect it to. Nothing is really a surprise, there are no big twists or deaths that really catch you off guard, Avatar is just predictable.

Luckily, I was watching Avatar on TV and during the commercial breaks I was able to watch some of the behind the scenes features of the film and suddenly a lot of it makes sense when you realize that James Cameron wrote this script in the 90’s and had to wait 10 years to actually get it made. It is such a script out of the 90s and Cameron wrote it before all those other movies came out, but that still doesn’t really make it feel any more inspired.

But what about the characters? While the plot may be predictable, how are the characters?

Avatar was one of Sam Worthington’s first big breaks as an actor and he’s never really been the same. 2009 and 2010 were really the big years to try and make Sam Worthington a star and I don’t really know if it stuck. The guy gets work still and I’d say that’s better than where he was before Avatar, apparently living out of his car, but I can’t say I’ve seen a movie in the past 7 years since Avatar with Sam Worthington that I’ve been blown away by Worthington’s performance.

But that’s not the point, how was he in Avatar?

He was… okay. Looking back at this movie and really any performance of Sam Worthington’s, I can’t say that the man is a horrible actor. He’s just kind of vanilla. He’s the bland hero you see in a lot of action franchises that isn’t exactly interesting but is more of a vehicle in a broader epic. Worthington is definitely not the strongest part of the film, but he serves as a typical vanilla male hero. He has a part to play and he plays it.

And I’ll be honest, that’s pretty much the same with all the characters of the film. Everyone in this film follows some kind of formula and doesn’t seem to really be that interesting of a character. Sigourney Weaver is your academic who supports the hero once he proves himself to her. Joel David Moore plays the typical nerdy side kick character who gets a small chance to be skeptical and jealous of the main character before falling in line. Stephen Lang plays your stereotypical Army Colonel who cannot be reasoned with and only sees the natives as savages. Giovanni Ribsi plays the corporate greed stereotype where he can’t be reasoned with besides with money. Zoe Saldana plays your Pocahontas stereotype where she is in tune with nature and eventually falls in love with the bland hero. They are by the numbers characters and even up until their deaths they still play the same formula.

Best example: Sigourney Weaver gets shot and they take her to try and transfer her mind from her human body to a healthy Na’vi body. While she’s dying, they’re bringing her to the place where this is going to go down and she looks at the tree and says, “I should get some samples”. That’s not what a person who would be dying would say. That is just a stereotype speaking.

I honestly couldn’t remember what the names of Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribsi, and Signourney Weaver’s characters were until I looked them up. All I saw were these very talented actors and I would just associate the character trait with the actor, not the particular character. Absolutely nothing about these characters is new or even feels inspired.

This isn’t to say these characters are bad. Stephen Lang gives a fun performance as the stereotypical Army Colonel. Giovanni Ribisi gives a good performance as the Corporate greed figure head. Zoe Saldana gives a good performance as the Pocahontas character. You’re just not going to remember anything about the characters at the end of the film. You’ll remember Stephen Lang was fun, but you won’t remember his character at all. You’ll remember a stereotype.

Even Sam Worthington is a character we’ve seen again and again before. Jake Sully is a former soldier with a disability. He goes into the jungle, meets with the native population, he realizes he is larger than his disability and overcomes it, and then he goes and fights against his former life with the native population even falling in love with one of them because he has realized that that is where he belongs. That is exactly what happens to Tom Cruise’s character in The Last Samurai! Tom Cruise is a soldier who is a drunk. He goes into the jungle, meets with the native population, he realizes he is larger than his drunkenness and overcomes it, and then goes and fights against his former life with the native population, even falling in love with one of them because he has realized that that is where he belongs.

I do have to give Sam Worthington, and in a way James Cameron some credit because the movie did make me care about Jake Sully and I really did see his progression as he learns more about the ways of the Na’vi. The story of a paraplegic being able to walk and fight the way he used to is somewhat of a compelling story. But then I think about how the story is basically the same thing I’ve seen before in The Last Samurai and Dances with Wolves and I can’t help but feel like this movie perhaps didn’t deserve the amount of money it got during its time in the box office.

And before I move onto serious critiques of the movie, I do want to discuss a personal gripe I have had with this movie since the first time that I saw it.

There is no way that the Na’vi would have actually won the final battle. I called bullshit on it in the theaters, and I call bullshit on it 7 years later.

So the final battle of the film, the humans are bringing a bomb to the spiritual tree of the Na’vi. They’ve got a large carrier plane with the bomb, a big ass hovercraft with tons of guns on it with Stephen Lang in it, and a bunch of fighter helicopters. The Na’vi have a bunch of dragons they’re flying on and some ground forces on six legged horses. This scene is prefaced by Jake Sully going across the planet of Pandora and gathering all the tribes of Pandora to unite and fight against the humans. Even still, it doesn’t look good for the Na’vi.

Now I’ve drawn a lot of comparisons to The Last Samurai, and to be honest, that is because I haven’t seen Dances with Wolves all the way through. But the Last Samurai is a perfect example in this case because that movie actually does something I did not expect in these native realization movies. Tom Cruise and the Samurai lose. They straight up lose. There’s this epic battle where the Samurai are able to fend off the weapons of the Western armies and it seems like there might be a chance of Tom Cruise and his Samurai buddies winning this fight. But then the bad guys whip out the machine gun. The Samurai still charge in bravely, but the machine gun mows them down in one of the most intense and saddest scenes I’ve seen in a war epic.

Going back to Avatar, there’s a point in the film where the Na’vi seem to be where Tom Cruise and his Samurai are. Their friends are dying, the carrier is getting closer to the tree, its about to release the payload, and all looks lost… and then out of freaking nowhere nature just say, NOOOOOPE, Na’vi are going to win. A herd of rhinos goes and kills all the ground forces, a bunch of dragons open up a hole for Jake to go in and destroy the carrier, it all just comes together way too perfectly. I was not a fan of that. In my opinion, the Na’vi had no business winning that battle. The natural progression of the story would have ended with a Last Samurai ending, and instead, they pull the happy unrealistic ending.  

And then on top of it all, the Na’vi then are able to push the humans straight off Pandora.  Yeah, apparently the humans sent every single one of their soldiers out to destroy this one tree and they didn’t have anybody protecting their home base. It went from the humans being on total offense to them being on total defense.

The ending just came together perfectly with a pretty bow. While everything else in this movie was pretty formulaic, this was unexpected in a bad way. That’s not realistic, that’s not intriguing, that’s just working the plot to play out the way you want it to James Cameron. If you wanted to have the Na’vi win, don’t put them in such a vulnerable position and then magically put them at an advantage the next second. The Na’vi didn’t earn the win at the end, it didn’t feel like a lot was sacrificed, it was just handed to them by nature.

It also really puts aside the fact that 9 times out of 10, in any historical context, this isn’t how this happens. The Last Samurai had such a good ending because it stayed historically true and the historical truth of the Samurai is that they lost. (I feel like I have to go back and review The Last Samurai because I feel like I’m applauding it more than I should). The Na’vi winning doesn’t teach anybody a lesson, and it doesn’t point out the reality that at the moment, the people fighting for indigenous people and the environment are losing.

In case you couldn’t tell, I didn’t love the ending of Avatar.

But you know what, I think in a different world I would be okay with the ending of Avatar. I think after I saw it, I thought, I didn’t love that ending, I didn’t think the movie was incredibly inspired, but you know what, it was a good movie on its own. It was visually stunning, it had a good message. That’s fine. But that is not the world we live in.

Avatar in my mind is an uninspired mediocre film. It’s a visual spectacle but overall, an uninspired mediocre film. I’ve seen worse, but it’s nothing to write home about outside of the visuals.

But Avatar pisses me off. It pisses me off for two reasons.

1. Avatar made me lose faith in what the American public will go out and see.

I said it in Titanic and I’ll say it again here, I don’t think that James Cameron is an inspiring storyteller. He is a good director don’t get me wrong, he knows how to create a spectacle. But he does not create movies with compelling stories.

And that would be fine… if we weren’t rewarding him when he doles out this shit. And that shifts the blame to the American public. It makes me discouraged that people are more interested in spectacle than actual story. It reminds me that people will spend more money to go see Avatar or Transformers, than they will to go see the other great movies that came out that same year like The Hurt Locker, District 9, or any of the other really good movies that came out of 2009 or any other film that Avatar made more money than. Titanic I can understand, but Avatar I do not.

But the second reason I can’t stand Avatar is because it is so uninspired and yet…

2. James Cameron is putting all his creative initiative towards 4 more Avatar sequels.

I want you to think back to Halloween of 2010. I'll give it, it was nearly a year after Avatar premiered, but can you think of how many people dressed up like the Na'vi that Halloween? Probably a few. Now think about Halloweens 2011 and on, hell think of this past Halloween! How many people were dressed up like Na'vi? You can tell a lot about a movie's fandom by how many people think its a good idea to go as a character from that movie to Halloween, and nobody is doing Na'vi anymore. 

Now you may be saying, Connor, you can't base a fandom off of Halloween costumes. And you're right, but can you honestly tell me that people have been crying out to James Cameron to make sequels to Avatar? I can't think of a single person who has, and yet he thinks the world is crying out for us to return to the world of Pandora. So much that James Cameron thinks we should have 4 more sequels of Avatar and make a saga chronicling the lives of Jake Sully, Neyteri, and their Na'vi family on Pandora.  But I can't think of anybody who wants these sequels. 

And with my first gripe, I can say that it's not James Cameron's fault that we give him so much money when he does these technological spectacles. He's doing what he loves and as long as we keep giving him all the money for movies like Avatar and Titanic, he's still going to keep making visual spectacles with mediocre stories. 

But I will shift the blame to James Cameron when he's so cocky that he thinks that that money equals him spending all his creative energy on Avatar. Avatar's success means that we have to return to Pandora when nobody wanted to. 

James Cameron is not a storyteller, he is an event planner. Avatar was not a compelling story, it was an event. And because of that, it pisses me off. 

Now, does this mean that I won't be going to see Avatar 2? Well no. I will still go see it, especially if he ups the ante with his technological advancements. But what is more likely to happen is that James Cameron is going to spend a lot of his waning years on a concept that people are not excited about and by the third movie, I only hope people will catch on and unfortunately make all this creative energy Cameron's putting in be a waste.

Now, I hope I'm wrong. I don't want Cameron to build up something so much and have it be a big disappointment, I do want to see Avatar become more than just a spectacle. I really hope that I come out of Avatar 2 energized over a new and original concept set in a really cool and original world like Pandora is. There is no denying that he has put a lot of work into the world he's created, I just want it to be complimented by a good story. 

J.R.R Tolkien created a beautiful world in Middle Earth. It had its own languages, its own mythology. But it was also complimented by a fun, original, and innovative story in The Lord of the Rings. That's why those movies are both so visually stunning AND great stories. Right now, I only see Avatar as one half of that pie. Something can be visually stunning and still be a mediocre piece of garbage. 

So overall, what do I think of Avatar. Personally, I really don't like it. I think it represents everything wrong with the film world we live in and I don't like seeing James Cameron getting rewarded for a really well polished piece of mediocre garbage. However, on face value, it is a fine film. It's really not that horrible. The story is very predictable and the characters are more archetypes than they are characters, but the performances of those formulaic characters are good and it is a visually stunning movie. I personally don't like the ending, but that doesn't make it an objectively bad ending. The size and scale of this movie is impressive and the story is executed decently enough despite being a by the numbers environmental puff piece. 

If you're looking for a piece about the environment and indigenous peoples, there are better films out there. If you're looking for an original sci fi story, there are better films out there. If you're looking for a visual spectacle, Avatar is for you. 

But what do you think of Avatar? Do you think it deserved the 2.7 billion dollars we gave it? Are you excited for the sequels James Cameron has in the works? Am I totally off base in my criticism of this film? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog. 

I'll leave you with this. Thank you to whoever made this crossover of the Pocahontas trailer with clips from Avatar. This is actually done pretty well. Enjoy!

Finding Dory

You have to be living under a rock not to know the quality of films that come out of Pixar Studios. I will be honest, I haven't seen all of the sequels like Monsters University or Cars 2, but I have seen all the essentials and they are beloved classics in my mind. Somehow Pixar just keeps on cranking out new films that are just entertaining and tug at the heart strings.

But just because I haven't seen those films doesn't mean they don't exist. Eventually one day I should do a review of Monsters University or Cars 2 because they are films that have the Pixar name on them. It needs to be acknowledged. And that's where Finding Dory comes in.

Now to me, Finding Dory never felt like an unnecessary sequel. When I heard they were making it, I never thought that Pixar was doing this film just to make money. I didn't think we needed a sequel to Finding Nemo, but I thought if Pixar thought putting time and money into making a sequel to Finding Nemo was necessary, I had to believe them that this was a good idea.

Finding Dory takes place a year after the events of Finding Nemo. Dory (voiced by Ellen Degeneres) is just living with Marlin (voiced by Albert Brooks) and Nemo (voiced by Hayden Rolence). We're reminded of Dory's short term memory loss and that is definitely an important aspect of the film. The film actually does have an interesting message on people with disabilities. In fact this really could have been a great commentary on mental illness and sometimes it is. However, that message can be muddled a little bit with how kid friendly this movie is.

I mean look at this!

Isn't that the most adorable thing you've ever seen!?!? That and the freakin otters and this movie is just one big unison AWWWWWWWW.

But Dory is getting these flashbacks of her parents who she was separated from as a child. And because she has short term memory loss, she can't remember where they are or what their names are even sometimes.

But she starts to remember bits and pieces of her parents and she wants to go on an adventure to find her parents. And of course, Marlin and Nemo want to help. Now I'm not totally sure why Marlin lets Nemo come along, this is obviously a very dangerous journey and while we did go over how Marlin needs to let his son grow and have adventures, there's a difference between being a cool dad and having actual concerns for his safety.

But that's not really that important, the important part is that they find their way to California and Dory gets separated and they end up in SeaWorld basically. And that's the setting for the majority of the film. Dory must navigate through the different exhibits of the Marine Life Institute to find her parents. She is accompanied by an Octopus by the name of Hank (voiced by Ed O'Neil).

Along the way Dory meets a whole cast of characters like Destiny (voiced by Kaitlin Olsen) the near sighted whale shark, or the sea lion Fluke (voiced by Idris Elba). It really is a really fun cast of characters and they really do push Dory along her adventure through this park and all the way to discovering the mystery behind her parents.

Ellen Degeneres gives a really good performance again as Dory and while some people might think that its silly to do sequels based off of side characters, Dory is one of the exceptions in my mind. I think she pulled off being the hero pretty well and it was a lot of fun seeing all these familiar characters on the big screen again and seeing them have another adventure.

Now unfortunately I'm going to complain about Marlin and Nemo again because I'm not totally sure that they needed to have a huge role in this film. The most fun parts of this film come when Dory and Hank are going about their adventure in the park. Marlin and Nemo are just kind of floating around until its time for them to reconnect with Dory. And while they do have some fun parts in this film, I would have rather had all three of them going on the adventure, or just have this be a Dory standalone film with Marlin and Nemo having a very small role.

I was actually a little bit surprised on how strong of a character Dory was by herself. While having other people around her dealing with her short term memory loss does give a pretty good message on people with mental illness, like I said, this movie was more focused on making a fun adventure for the kids.

Now Pixar has always been in the business of making movies for kids, but in recent times, movies like Inside Out, Toy Story 3, have been able to be movies for both kids and adults.

Finding Dory was a step back, making it more of a pure kids film rather than having a lot of clever jokes for the adults. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it is a little bit different, especially when the last Pixar movie I saw was Inside Out (I didn't see The Good Dinosaur).

But while the kid friendly sequel should be considered a bad film, I do think that it does diminish the film the little bit from being a really great profound film about family like Finding Nemo was and

instead just becoming a cute film for kids. Pixar of course knows how to tug on the heart strings and they know how to make a grown man like myself cry, but at the same time I can't help but feel a lot of the choices made in this film were more just to sell cute toys and give something entertaining for young kids to enjoy.

I do have to give this movie credit or being able to knock out a pretty fun sequel 13 years later in a time where sequels after a long time like this have not been successful in the past.

I do wanna touch on Albert Brooks and Hayden Rolence because while I do think they either needed a bigger part in the film or barely a part at all, I do think they were a fun addition and great to see them come back. And props to Hayden Rolence. While I probably haven't seen Finding Nemo in a while, I didn't realize that they changed the voice of the kid who played Nemo (probably because the original kid got old after 13 years). But Albert Brooks is a great voice actor as well and the character of Marlin is a really lovable character.

At the end of the day, Finding Dory felt like an expansion pack, you know the kind that are almost a separate game on their own but still felt in the vein of the original game. I feel okay that I spent the time, or if we're following the video game analogy, the 50 bucks to by the DLC, but it just feels like an extra adventure. Not something I was necessarily calling for, but definitely cute and fulfilling enough to feel like I didn't waste my time.

I don't think we need another installation into these characters, it seems like all the stories involving Dory, Marlin, and Nemo are complete and I don't think we need any spinoffs of Hank or Destiny, let's just leave these Fish where they are, and let Pixar get onto more original ideas, or sequels that actually need to happen... like The Incredibles... yeah just The Incredibles...

Overall, I really liked Finding Dory. It won't go down as a legendary Pixar film, but it's still solid. It got me teary eyed and it had a lot of heart. I'm glad I saw Finding Dory, definitely check it out, especially if you're a Pixar fan and you enjoyed Finding Nemo.

But what did you think? How does Finding Dory compare with the other Pixar films? How does it compare with other Pixar sequels? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Here's the Honest Trailer, they have some good critique of this film. Enjoy!

Doctor Strange

If you’ve been keeping up with this blog, you might know that I have grown quite skeptical of Marvel’s superhero movies as of late. I can’t help but get the feeling that there is a formula being used over and over again and perhaps these movies are good, but they’re not memorable. For example, Ant-Man. I don’t remember half of what happened in Ant-man. I remember he shrunk himself, he fought Corey Stoll, and Michael Pena was funny, entertaining movie, but not entirely memorable. Even Captain America Civil War kind of fell into the same motions that Marvel movies have been falling into and while I really enjoyed it, it doesn’t have the lasting effect that The Winter Soldier had, or that the first Avengers had. I still think Marvel movies are the top of the line and better than superhero movies used to be, but I’m always expecting them to do something different, break the formula and do something unexpected.

Doctor Strange was unexpected.

It took me a while to actually go out and see Doctor Strange because Doctor Strange just never appealed to me like other superheroes did. If I wanted to see Sorcerers and wizards, I would have gone and watched a Harry Potter movie, or waited another week for Fantastic Beasts. But since its Marvel and I might as well write them a check right now for all the movie tickets to movies I’m going to see no matter what, I went and saw Doctor Strange. Now I had heard that Doctor Strange was something different than the rest of the Marvel movies and for some reason, a lot of people who said that made that sound like it was a bad thing. When in reality, something different is exactly what I’ve been waiting for when it comes to Marvel movies. But while some things are different, there are still a lot of things to unpack when talking about Doctor Strange.

Doctor Strange follows the story of Doctor Stephen Strange (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), an incredibly successful, but incredibly arrogant neurosurgeon who at the start of the film gets into a horrible car crash. This car crash badly damages his hands and makes it impossible for him to return

to his old life of being a neurosurgeon because his hands shake too much. While exploring all the Western practices and medicine he can to fix his hands, he runs across a man who was paralyzed beyond repair walking and playing basketball like nothing happened to him (played by Benjamin Bratt). From this guy, Strange follows a trail to Nepal where he finds the monastery of Karmar-Taj. There he finds The Ancient One (played by Tilda Swinton), a mystical being who promises Strange that he can unlock incredibly mystical powers if he studies at the monastery. Supported by fellow student Karl Mordo (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), this is Strange’s origin story to go from the broken neurosurgeon to Sorcerer Supreme. All the while, zealots and rogue sorcerers from the monastery, led by a former student of the Ancient One by the name of Kaecilius (played by Mads Mikkelsen), are on the war path to defeat the Ancient One, destroy the monasteries of the sorcerers around the world and bring darkness to the world.

And there is a lot to unpack from this movie. I guess the first thing worth mentioning is the fact that this is a gorgeously shot film. I don’t know if it should be nominated for Best Visual Effects, or Best Cinematography, or what, but give someone an award for the visuals in this movie. There’s a part where the Ancient One sends Stephen into the atrophysical realm and I don’t smoke weed but I can only imagine the fun times people are going to have while high and watching that sequence, it is a lot of fun.

And that really compliments the overall feel of the film. There are so many things in this film that are just different and not formulaic and I can’t tell you how refreshing that is, especially from a Marvel film. The visuals are something different, the story is something different (sort of, I’ll talk about that soon), and the story is driven by elements and action set pieces that just feel different and unique. Even the humor is a little bit different, drawing on the comedic work of Dan Harmon to give a bit of a Rick and Morty feeling to the film.

But where there are things different, you can’t help but notice the all too familiar Marvel-isms. I’ll start with the character of Stephen Strange.

Now don’t get me wrong, I liked Stephen Strange. And this was a surprise to me, I wasn’t sure how I was gonna like Benedict Cumberbatch despite everyone thinking he was a shoe in. I thought he was going to do the same Cumberbatch shtick we’ve seen before. The result was something I wasn’t exactly happy with but I still nonetheless begrudgingly enjoyed. Stephen Strange is a poor man’s Tony Stark with magic. There’s really no way around it. He’s cocky, he’s arrogant, he’s a little bit of an asshole, but at the same time he’s got a heart of gold and at the end of the day he really just wants to help people, but in the most quipping, snarky way possible. I guess they try and distinguish Stephen by giving him this analytical brain that he eventually needs to surrender to a spiritual belief, but even still, he just falls into the same quippy nonsense that Tony Stark does and this could have easily been another Iron Man movie. I think it’s better than any of the Iron Man movies, but the character is pretty much the same.

Like I said, I begrudgingly enjoyed this character because even though Marvel is formulaic, they know what is entertaining. They know that you are going to like a character like that. On top of that, Benedict Cumberbatch is a good actor. He does own the character and you do see the conflict he goes through throughout the film. I’m also really looking forward to him joining the Avengers in Infinity War as well as future Doctor Strange installments, and believe me, they hint at future installments in this film. I just wish that every time they introduce a new plane to fight evil on, whether it’s the Avengers fighting on Earth, The Guardians of the Galaxy fighting in the cosmos, or Doctor Strange fighting on the mystic plane, I wish they would stop introducing the first person in that group as a quippy arrogant asshole with a heart of gold. We have three of those now (Tony Stark, Starlord, and Doctor Strange) we don’t need anymore.

You can tell that the rest of the casting was pretty inspired and thought was actually put into it. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a fantastic Karl Mordo and he no doubt will have a great role in the next film. Strange and him make for a really good team in this movie. I think there is a good dynamic between the two that isn’t the center focus of the film but still pretty prevalent. I think I would have liked a little more flushing out of that relationship, but for what we were given, I am pretty happy with the future of the character and I want to see him in future installments.

Rachael McAdams has a smaller part as Christine Palmer, Strange’s… girlfriend? Friend? Fuck buddy? I don’t know that wasn’t really clear. I read something that said that she might have a larger part in the MCU in the future as The Night Nurse like Rosario Dawsom from the Netflix series, but for this movie, she is passable and it’s never a bad thing to put Rachael McAdams in stuff in my opinion. Her acting abilities and the fact she’s pretty easy on the eyes makes her role a welcome, though brief, addition.

And then we get to Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One. This had so many people’s panties in a bundle because the Ancient One, in the comics, is an Asian Man, now being played by a white woman. I

personally didn’t have that much of an issue with it, but as a white man, I don’t have the same perspective as a lot of other people who feel Asian actors are not properly represented in American films. My main outlook on the situation is, is the character the same if you change the race of the character, White to black, Black to white, Asian to white, etc. Does the character remain true to the values and personality of the character despite the change in skin color? For example, Luke Cage being a white guy wouldn’t make sense because everything about Luke Cage’s story, ESPECIALLY in the Netflix series, is so quintessential to Harlem and blackness. But then the question must be brought to the subject of The Ancient One. And honestly it depends on how important you see the Ancient Ones backstory. In the comics, he was a Chinese man from the Himalayas and a lot of his origin starts with being Sorcerer in his village of Kamar-Taj but there’s nothing quintessentially Asian about him. In fact part of the reasons Scott Derrickson thought it was necessary to change the ethnicity of the character was that he didn’t want the Ancient One to be a stereotypical Fu Man Chu Asian that would only be offensive to Asian groups. Instead he decided to change the Ancient One to a Celtic Woman. Though Derrickson has said since that he chose the “lesser of two evils, but still chose an evil”.

It’s funny because Doctor Strange came out and I really didn’t hear about the controversy anymore. Maybe it was dealt with a while back, maybe people saw the movie and thought that Swinton did a good job. I would hope it’s the latter because I really did enjoy her. She rides a really interesting line in this movie because like Swinton, who often plays her roles very androgynously, the character of The Ancient One is very androgynous with her motivations and her moral codes. But at the same time, when she appears, it’s like Yoda just showed up and its time to kick some ass.

And Benedict Wong is in this movie as the character Wong. Now doing some research into the character, I figured out that Wong in the comics was more of a stereotypical Asian sidekick to Doctor Strange. Sort of a Sancho Panza to Doctor Strange's Don Quixote. But again, Scott Derrickson was playing a fine line when dealing with the racial stereotypes within the source material of Doctor Strange. I really like what they do with Wong, making him more of a wise librarian type, and his deal is that he doesn't laugh. That is actually done really well and his character is a great wall of comedy that Strange's wit bounces off and it really is a hilarious character. 

But then you get into the villain. And once again, Marvel falls into the trap they have created so many times in the past where they develop their heroes so much and really don't develop their villain at all. On top of that, they usually put a critically acclaimed actor in that role and in a way it just feels like wasted talent.

But again, Doctor Strange was a little bit different.

The truth is, you're probably not going to remember Kaecilius. The truth is, he is probably going to go down as just another forgettable Marvel villain. But he is a little bit different in his motivations for being the bad guy. First off, he is seduced by the power and promise of immortality of a greater evil and he believes what he is doing is right. His men and he are called Zealots because they are the fanatics of the sorcerers. He's the extreme wing of this spiritual enclave. And that is an interesting idea. He also fits in well with the other characters, especially with his relationship to the Ancient One as he is a fallen student.

And to top it all off, you've got the incredibly talented Mads Mikkelsen, who really gives a good performance and isn't phoning it in, even though his character will probably be forgotten in a couple films. But I hope that he returns in some capacity and perhaps becomes a better villain. He still probably falls into the category of wasted talent in a Marvel film, but if they found a way to bring him back in a future film, maybe not even a Doctor Strange film, I would be very happy.

The overall story of Doctor Strange is executed very well. It has a strong likable, but fallible character in Stephen Strange who goes on a spiritual journey when the hard truths and facts of the Western world fail him. He joins a group of mystical protectors and becomes a better man, while fighting a looming evil set on destroying the world. I really can't wait to write my spoiler review because there is a lot to talk about when it comes to this movie and the future of the MCU, but for now I can say that I really enjoyed Doctor Strange. In a time where we are so sick of origin stories, Doctor Strange pulls one out and makes it new and fun again.

The last thing I can really appreciate with Doctor Strange is that it did a pretty good job at being a self contained film. While I'm sure there are a couple of Easter Eggs that I probably missed, there weren't Star Wars The Force Awakens level Easter eggs where the movie was pointing back to the other films in the MCU and beating us over the head with the reminders that this movie is in the MCU. With the exception of one of the post-credit scenes, which I have no issue with because that's not disrupting the flow of the movie to throw in a cameo (Like Ant-man did), there was maybe one big reference to the rest of the MCU and I really liked how Doctor Strange was its own movie and it didn't need to lean on the success of the rest of the MCU to get people to come and see it. And I think that might be one of the things that sets Doctor Strange apart. This could have been a standalone film with no connection to the rest of the MCU and it still would have been a solid movie. The fact that I get to see Doctor Strange in future movies, especially team up movies, is just a bonus. Above all, I just want to see a good film.

Overall, I had a lot of fun with Doctor Strange. If Marvel was falling into the same formula in this film where they threw in a couple characters with some heart, some quippy dialogue, and a lot of action, I would have enjoyed it and moved on like I did with movies like Thor: The Dark World, and Guardians of the Galaxy. But Doctor Strange feels like something different. I want to go back and watch it again, not only to see if I'm right on that conclusion, but also because its a really fun movie.

Whether it is a film that will stand out in the future as one of the better MCU films, or if its just a run of the mill MCU film with a lot of cool effects hiding that fact, I think time will tell. But for now, I suggest you go out and see Doctor Strange. I have no doubt you will enjoy it.

But those are my thoughts. I want to know where you think Doctor Strange ranks among the rest of the MCU films and are you excited to see him in the future? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me requests for future films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. This is kind of a fun promo they did for Doctor Strange where he talks about all the injuries that happen during Civil War. Enjoy!