A Futile and Stupid Gesture

So I'm going to be honest, the only reason I got interested in this movie in the first place was because I'm a fan of Joel Mchale and I know a lot about the behind the scenes rivalry between him and Chevy Chase on my favorite show Community. So I was really looking forward to seeing him play Chevy in this movie. I ended up with a decent movie watching experience about a topic I really didn't know too much about, National Lampoon.

So I might be showing my age, but I didn't grow up watching The National Lampoon movies or the movies of Doug Kinney. I have seen both Animal House and Caddy Shack but any movie with the National Lampoon title on it, I have not seen. To be honest, I wasn't wild about Animal House of Caddy Shack so I don't think that many of the other Lampoon movies are going to really be my cup of tea, but this movie has made me at least a little bit interested in checking out the brand, if not taking a second look at Caddy Shack. But this review is about A Futile and Stupid Gesture.

A Futile and Stupid Gesture is a biopic about the life of Doug Kinney (played by Will Forte). I didn't know a whole lot about Kinney and if you don't either, I suggest you come into this movie with as little information as possible. The movie makes no illusions about accuracy. It even has a scene where the narrator points out how the actors used in this movie don't exactly look like who they're portraying and how certain plot points in the movie were put in to make the movie flow better, it fit for dramatic effect, or just because they felt like it. If you saw this movie with all the information, feel free to let me know what that experience was like and if the movie suffered because of it.

The story centers around Doug Kinney as he goes to Harvard and meets Henry Beard (played by Domhnall Gleason). The two write for the Harvard Lampoon, a comedy magazine and instead of going off and getting real jobs after college, they continue writing the raunchy juvenile magazine that soon became a hit throughout the 70s and eventually ballooned into a company that created radio shows, movies, and competed with the comedy of legends like Saturday Night Live.

And while I said that I didn't know a whole lot about Doug Kinney, I do know a little bit (and by a little bit I mean I recognize their names and some stuff they've been in) about the famous people mentioned in this movie like John Bellusi (played by John Gemberling), Bill Murray (played by Jon Daly), Gilda Radner (Jackie Tohn), Harold Ramis (played by Rick Glassman), Lorne Michaels (played Armen Weitzman), and Chevy Chase (played by Joel McHale). These are just the big names, there are a lot of people who I had no idea who they were and they did a pretty good job filling me in.

Together, this group of comedians who just pushed every limit and didn't care who hated them were able to create a hugely popular magazine and comedy empire.

This movie probably has the same problem that the Ashton Kutcher Steve Jobs movie had that so much was in the film that you could have made multiple films on individual parts of Kinney's life.

There's a whole scene where he gets pissed off that all his talent is being vultured by Saturday Night Live and I'm sure that could be an entire movie right there... unless that wasn't a big thing I don't know.

My point is that there was a lot going on in this movie and it spanned over the course of about 20 or 30 years in a 101 minute movie.

I think the main appeal of this movie is the cast and the great performances you get out of them. And while you have Domhnall Gleason being Academy Award winning films, and Star Wars, you have comedic actors like Will Forte and Joel McHale actually giving pretty decent performances that are also really funny.

The movie is really all over the place and it probably could have been a little bit more focused, but I don't think enough people have seen this movie. I think if they did you'd get a lot of people enjoying it a lot.

But this is kind of where there's a little bit of a problem with A Futile and Stupid Gesture and why I have a hard time recommending it (even though I ultimately will). The movie is very cavalier about facts. And that wouldn't be a huge deal if these guys weren't being portrayed as flawed visionaries who were bucking the system. I think you definitely need to keep things in perspective when watching this movie.

I will admit that National Lampoon did seem to create a vital counter culture in a time where America needed a counter culture. I don't know how wide reaching National Lampoon actually was but the movie makes it seem like it was pretty far. And unfortunately this becomes an issue with the environment that the movie even admits (in a note that you need to pause to actually read) that things were pretty racist and sexist, more than what is actually portrayed.

Now this delves into another issue about humor of the past in a politically correct world and I just don't have time to get into that, but National Lampoon is an example of that change in humor, where in the past something was funny and now it's not. I'm of the philosophy that we shouldn't get up too up in arms over something someone did in the past that was politically incorrect. I also think we should be able to discern the shitty parts from the good parts but that is difficult to do, especially if the subject is not seen as acceptable or correct anymore, and National Lampoon is a good example of that.

The movie paints Lorne Michaels as a bit of a vulture, picking off Kinney's talent, but in reality SNL was able to capitalize on that humor and make it transcend the decade. I think it comes down to legacy, and the fact that Van Wilder became the modern face of National Lampoon in the new century points towards National Lampoon just not having the same quality it (arguably) had.

I might be totally wrong on this and I intend to do more research into National Lampoon so undoubtedly you'll probably see a couple of National Lampoon movies (especially the Vacation ones) being reviewed in the near future, but while National Lampoon has an interesting history, it's kind of in a predicament like that of The Greatest Showman where the main character or his magazine were not really filled with good people, so how do you portray that in a biopic?

I don't really know the answer to that question.

All that being said, this is a pretty interesting movie with some good character performances. You just can't think too hard about it on both its historical facts and the legacy of the subject.

I really want Netflix to succeed with their original movies. This is a task that I'm not totally sure they are doing because while I think they're on the right track, there's always something pulling them back. They definitely put in the effort, but they haven't been able to knock any really great movies out of the park except for maybe Beasts of No Nation. I think you will probably enjoy A Futile and Stupid Gesture due to the cast and the wacky style this biopic takes, but I wouldn't put it at the top of your list. It's decent, not a movie you absolutely need to see right away.

But what did you think? Do you think I'm judging National Lampoon too harshly? Let me know. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks, I'll see you next time.

Merlin (1998 Miniseries)

This might be one of my more obscure reviews. Unless you caught this mini series airing in 1998, or, if you're like me and you caught this on SyFy when it used to play on repeat over and over again, you probably haven't heard of this incarnation of the Arthurian legend. But I remembered this miniseries pretty vividly from my childhood and when I realized it was on Amazon Prime, I knew it was going to be something I rewatched sooner or later.

I've always loved the Arthurian legend. I've also really loved the story of Merlin because he has evolved tremendously. There are some of the more traditional stories that portray him as mysterious vizier to Arthur, others that portray him as a bumbling fool like in Disney's The Sword in the Stone. But I think the Merlin I like the most is the one they do in this series. They also do it in a book series I grew up with called The Lost Years of Merlin. Both the book series and this mini series takes the character of Merlin and makes him a more central character. Instead of being the Alec Guinness Obi-Wan Kenobi who is just a wise old mentor, they take him in a more Ewan Mcgregor Kenobi role where he either is, or will be the mentor to Arthur, but he is the central character and he has to overcome his own trials in order to become the great wizard of legend. Then there's the BBC Merlin television show that I haven't gotten around to checking out. If you've seen it feel free to let me know how that is.

Out of all these incarnations there are good incarnations and bad incarnations and I want to take a look at this mini series and see if Sam Neil's incarnation of the famous wizard is one that should be more recognized than I think it is right now.

The Merlin miniseries follows the rise and fall of King Arthur as well as the almost prequel stories that occur before Arthur is born. But all of these stories, whether it includes Arthur or not, all center on the character of Merlin (played by Sam Neil from Jurassic Park). The movie starts at his birth in a time of conflict and change in the medieval era.

Christianity is coming to Europe and "the old ways" are being forgotten. This concerns a powerful sorceress by the name of Queen Mab (played by Miranda Richardson). Her and her shape shifting gnome henchman, Frick (played by Martin Short, btw sometimes he plays some characters that wouldn't fly as politically correct these days, just a warning), create a child who Mab believes will bring back the old ways with magic and make people believe again.

Before going on, I should mention how interesting it is that Christianity and actual European history takes a role in this movie. The movie tries to take a somewhat realistic approach as it portrays the medieval era as rife with conflict and wars between various factions vying for power. It feels less like a fantasy and more like an early draft of historic Game of Thrones. So when its juxtaposed with the fantasy elements, it's actually kind of effective.

Now another thing worth mentioning is that if you watch this mini series, you should know that it was 1998 and visual effects and CGI were still progressing. So yeah, the CGI and visual effects are horrendous in this film. They look like garbage.

The first episode focuses on Merlin and his tutelage under Mab and Frick. However, when he becomes disillusioned with Mab and believes her to be manipulating him, he swears off magic. The first episode also centers on Merlin's love for a lord's daughter named Nimue (played by Isabella Rossellini). This relationship is introduced really clumsily in probably the cheesiest fantasy way possible. They meet and instantly fall in love. This is exemplary of the rest of the show, but I will get more into that later.

The second episode brings Merlin into the political world as he starts advising Kings, especially Vortigen (played by Rutger Hauer) and Uther Pendragon (played by Mark Jax). He gets caught up in a Game of Thrones... ish play for the throne and he himself plays into the politics a little bit. There is a bit of a change between episodes as Merlin's motivation is no longer looking to defeat Mab, but instead to instill a good man as King.

Now, I think there was a lot they could have done with this because I think the series does play into the greek legend aspect of the Arthurian legend in a way that I don't think fantasy really did again until Game of Thrones. It's this idea that heroes can do evil things. In greek legends, "Heroes" weren't actually good people or doing things to be a good person, they did it for glory, or to extend their power. Especially in one scene where Merlin gives Uther Pendragon a disguise to go and seduce a married woman is kind of a sketchy thing. And it could have been played up more as Merlin doing whatever he needs to do to get a good man as the king.

Now there are a lot of parts of this series that are made up to add more intrigue. Queen Mab is a totally made up character. Merlin's backstory needed to be embellished a little bit and I think they really did try and make an interesting backstory. The places where the series falters is when it feels too bound to the source material and doesn't take any risks. You see motivations that could be good, but they change in order to put Merlin at the place where he needs to be by the third episode that mainly focuses on his relationship with Arthur (played by Paul Curran).

Now the relationship between this Merlin and this Arthur is really good and it's what I remember the most from the series as a kid. This was always my favorite part of the Arthurian Legend. Unfortunately, watching it now, I still love it but there is not nearly enough of it. The other unfortunate part is that this is where you see the tension between the Merlin character they were trying to make unique in this series and the Merlin of the original source material and it's not exactly smooth.

However, this is the most entertaining episode because there is a lot going on. You've got Arthur pulling Excalibur, you've got Morgan Le Fay (played by Helena Bohnam Carter) and her whole devious plot facilitated by Mab. You've got Lena Headey playing a super quiet and super docile Guinevere when compared with how she plays Cersi in Game of Thrones years later is wildly entertaining. You've got the rise of Mordred (played by Jason Done) and his weird choice in playing Mordred as a devilish man child. They had a lot of fun with this last episode and it kind of makes the entire series worth it.

Oh and you have Martin Short and Helena Bohnam Carter falling in love and making out in a love connection nobody really asked for, but I think everyone needed it.

Yeah... it's weird.

Overall, the theme that I find throughout this entire series was that it felt completely rushed. I'm sure the fact they only had three episodes to pack in a lot of the Arthurian legend as well as their own liberties that actually were really interesting and unique, but not enough time was dedicated to this story. Not enough time was dedicated to Merlin and Nimue, they are just in love. Not enough time is dedicated to Uther Pendragon so when he suddenly turns out to be a bastard, its really sudden and weird. Not enough time is dedicated to even developing who Arthur is, we're just supposed to assume he's the Arthur of legend. Not enough time is put into the ending where there's a whole thing where Merlin was supposed to bring back a child instead of his father Lancelot (played by Jeremy Sheffield) and then at the end he off handedly says that this kid comes to Camelot with the Holy Grail but we never see that even though that is a big deal. It's very strange.

I think there are a lot of elements about this series that are really good. The main one is the cast.

Sam Neil's Merlin is absolutely excellent. I came out of this series wondering why Sam Neil never became a bigger name because he is just damn entertaining every time I see him. Maybe I'm missing his boring work, but I've always loved his work.

This is early pre Burton and Depp Helena Bohnam Carter and it definitely shows. While her character is a little bit weird, I think she's pretty good in this series if not under utilized. The character of Morgan Le Fay is a complex character and they could have done a lot with her that unfortunately they obviously just didn't have the time for. And as weird as the relationship with Carter and Martin Short is, Martin Short gives a pretty good performance as well.

Paul Curran does a decent job as Arthur and like I said, Lena Headey's character, though kind of boring, is super entertaining with the context of Cersei Lannister in mind.

Miranda Richardson does a good job but I always thought she was strange because she was perpetually whispering. Her character also wasn't really helped by the 1998 visual effects.

I think overall, Merlin is a great representation of where live action fantasy movies and TV shows were in a pre-Lord of the Rings world. Before Lord of the Rings, the most prominent fantasy film that was the most successful was probably David Bowie's Labyrinth in 1986.

 I've never watched Labyrinth all the way through, but I've seen enough to recognize the influences it had one different live action fantasy properties leading up to the 2000s. Labyrinth was the gold standard in an industry that was not popular or profitable and if there was going to be any fantasy movies, miniseries, or shows, they were going to have to be strange like Labyrinth was.

Now, Merlin may be strange but it's not nearly as strange as Labyrinth, but the visual effects and costume design is definitely reminiscent of fantasy like it.

I'm really going to try and watch Labyrinth at some point soon because I am interested in it's influence on fantasy stories in a pre-Lord of the Rings world. If I'm missing another fantasy milestone movie in between Labyrinth and Merlin, let me know because that is going on the list too.

There is also a sequel series to Merlin called Merlin's Apprentice that I'm interested in checking out. Not only because its following this series which I personally really like but understand its not very good, but also because it came out in 2006, 3 years after The Lord of the Rings series completed. I'm interested to see if the influences of Lord of the Rings bleed off into the sequel series. You might see a review for that soon.

But overall, Merlin is a strange miniseries. I think it's trying to tell too much story in too little of time. If this had been a limited series or just a few more episodes, I think they really could have done some really great things, especially with the cast and some really great sets and action sequences. But at the end of the day, its just not that strong of a series.

Over the course of writing this review, I read a couple of articles about this fabled Merlin Saga that Disney is trying to get off the ground based on the TA Barron books I mentioned at the front of the review. The last news I could find was that they were looking for Ridley Scott to direct the franchise. But for now I can't say it'll happen anytime soon. But I hope it does, Merlin is a fascinating character and probably deserves better than a rushed three episode miniseries in 1998.

But what did you think? Have you seen Merlin? Did you see the series play constantly on SyFy like I did or was that just me? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films and TV series 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.

Thanks and I'll see you next time.

Avengers: Infinity War (Spoilers)

I think it says something about the quality of film between Marvel and DC right now. I am still a DC fan to the death and will defend the DC cinematic universe, but it does say something that I can knock out an Avengers spoilers review in no time but a Justice League spoilers review still alludes me for a lot of reasons. Reasons I won't get into here.

That being said, this is going to be difficult. Not because there's nothing to say. There is A LOT to say. And that's the problem.

This spoiler review will give me an opportunity to delve a little deeper into the structure of the story and give full thoughts on a movie that I really liked, but know that there are flaws in.

The entire movies plot centers around Thanos getting the infinity stones to put into the infinity gauntlet with the purpose of exterminating half the life in the galaxy. The great part about this plan is that Thanos isn't doing it just because, he sees himself as the good guy and he sees his cause as noble. At first I thought this wasn't going to work, but boy does it.

I don't know if I was as sold on Thanos as a sympathetic villain as other people are. However, I do think Josh Brolin does give a great performance and he's definitely one of the more complex villains in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The movie starts where Thor Ragnarok ends as Thanos and his minions kill the remaining Asgardians looking for the Tesaract that holds the blue Infinity Stone, the Space stone. Thanos kills Loki and Heimdall, played by two actors that you could really see the relief in their eyes when they realized their contract was up and they didn't have to contractually obligated anymore to show up in these roles they both became a little too famous for. These deaths were expected and not really surprising.

From that point, the movie divides into four main storylines. The first is Thor. Thor knows the only

way to kill Thanos is to reforge a weapon like his lost hammer. He meets with the Guardians for a little bit but then takes Rocket and Groot to go meet Peter Dinklage and reforge an axe called Stormbreaker.

This doesn't get a whole lot of attention as Thor kind of falls back into his pre-Ragnarok style and isn't really as interesting. His riffing with Peter Quill in the beginning is fun, but besides the fact that Peter Dinklage showed up and everyone was surprised, this will probably end up being the slower part of the movie upon a second watch. The dialogue between Rocket and Thor is pretty good and they try and recreate the same bond that Rocket had with Yondu in Guardians 2. I don't know, for some reason Thor probably had the biggest motivation to want to kill Thanos and while he's able to get a huge blow on him at the end, it never feels really complete or compelling enough. I guess Taika Waititi is the only one who can write Thor as an intriguing character.

Side note... Where happened to Valkyrie?

Yeah, she was on the ship with Thor right before it got attacked by Thanos. I'm pretty sure there's a woman laying around the bodies as Thanos and his henchmen ask Thor and Loki for the teseract... I'm pretty sure Valkryie died...

But she's also a really popular female character from Thor Ragnarok so... good luck selling that one.

 Iron Man and Spider-man pursue the minions who capture Doctor Strange, trying to extract the time stone from him. Eventually the Guardians meet up with them after a misguided attempt at trying to kill Thanos just as he gets the reality stone, a sequence that is pretty awesome.

I will talk more about the Guardians later, especially Gamora, but overall this storyline is a lot of fun. You've got Peter in between Tony and Doctor Strange and their clash of egos. Then you throw in Starlord and a show down with Thanos that was really, REALLY awesome and depressing at the same time.

I personally think they downplayed Doctor Strange in this movie. In his origin movie they make him seem like he's the most powerful being in the entire Avengers crew and while I really liked Benedict Cumberbatch in this movie, Doctor Strange left a lot to be desired as far as ass kicking.

The other issue I have comes from Doctor Strange as a character.

It's made clear from the beginning that Strange's motivation comes from his mission to defend the time stone from forces exactly like Thanos. He even says early on that if he has to choose between Tony and Peter or the stone, he'll choose the stone. But then at the end it looks like Thanos is about to kill Tony and Strange gives him the time stone. I mean the whole reason they can't get it in the first place is because he puts a curse on it and he says, it's very hard to lift a dead man's curse. So Strange's sudden turn to wanting to save the life of Tony feels very odd. The two never really develop a friendship or anything. They don't really develop any kind of bond that would suggest Strange would give up his only mission to save him. It was just strange. In fact, this happens throughout the film with other characters and the only person who really understands the severity of Thanos getting these stones is Scarlet Witch. But I'll get to that.

The third story follows Vision and Scarlet Witch. They are together now suddenly and want to ditch everything and just be happy together. But Vision has the mind stone and of course Thanos wants it. The third story follows these two, getting support from the rest of the Avengers like Captain America, Black Widow, Bruce Banner having a weird inability to summon Hulk which is never really explained in this movie, and Black Panther, in order to remove the stone from Visions head without killing him and destroying the stone.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that some characters don't get as much attention as you think they would. Captain America kind of has a supporting role in this movie. Black Panther is a supporting character, Bruce Banner is very much a supporting character (especially since he inexplicably can't turn into Hulk the entire movie).

I was surprised how much attention and yet how much attention they didn't give to Scarlet Witch. In essence the second story is very much about her. And again, it comes down to sharing screen time. While Captain America was a supporting role, they still had to give him his badass scenes and Scarlet Witch, though she's more important in this movie, she never really gets the chance to develop as much as she could have.

Don't get me wrong, the final battle scene in Wakanda was great but it had a little bit of a Battle of Five Armies vibe. Characters that should have gotten more character development just have cool fight scene moments that make you say, "that was badass" but it doesn't build a character.

I think they really had an opportunity to build on Scarlet Witch and Vision, a relationship I had a little bit of a glimpse into, to create really great character development. I think Scarlet Witch is the only one who really understands the threat of Thanos and the infinity stones because she's the only one who actually goes all the way to prevent Thanos from obtaining the stone by killing Vision. The problem is their relationship just felt like the audience needed to fill in the blanks based on what we know happens in the comics.

I'm not saying it's bad, it just following the same stuff Marvel has been getting away with for years.

The point where the movie somewhat redeems itself in this category is the development of the character of Thanos. Especially in his relationship with Gamora.

Like I said in my non-spoiler review. The Guardians get a lot more attention in this movie than I originally thought they would have and a lot of that attention goes to Gamora.

Early on she is capture by Thanos because she knows where the Soul Stone is. Again, another example of people not totally understanding that if Thanos gets the Infinity Stones, bad things will happen. Thanos uses Nebula to get Gamora to tell him where it is and that leads to one of the best cameos in the entire movie.

Red Skull pops up! I don't have a lot of moments that I say, OH SHIT, out loud in a theater, but that was one of them. Unfortunately, it's not Hugo Weaving, but they did a great job at fooling me until the previous morning.

And then Thanos kills Gamora to obtain the Soul Stone and this becomes a real focal point to why Thanos is a great villain because you sympathize with him. He does care about Gamora, he does appear as a man trying to do the right thing. However, his motivations are warped and evil. He becomes one of the most ruthless villains out there. I have to re-watch Black Panther because right now its between Killmonger and Thanos and it's a difficult toss up.

And that brings us to the climax of the film, where Thanos gets all the Infinity Stones. And this is where the movie really sets itself apart because it finally feels like the franchise is at a point where it can start killing off people and boy do they kill off people.

In the end. Thanos wins. He snaps his fingers and half of the universe's population disappears into ash. Bucky, Gone. Black Panther, Gone, Spider-man, Gone. Scarlet Witch, Gone. Drax, Gone. Groot, Gone. Falcon, Gone. Starlord, Gone. Even at the end, Maria Hill, Gone. Nick Fury, Gone.

It is a powerful scene and its tough seeing all these loved characters disappear from existence. And at the end of it all, Thanos sits down, bruised and battered, but victorious...

Until the next movie that is.

And that's the part of this movie that I can't help but putting an asterisk on. I will give credit to this movie that there are some big characters that died that I don't think are coming back. Loki, Gamora, potentially Vision, I don't think these characters are going to come back because unlike the rest of the characters, they actually were killed. The others just disappeared into ash. And it was sad, but at the same time I couldn't help but have the thought in the back of my mind, especially at the end of the movie that all these characters are probably coming back. Put aside the business aspect of it and the fact that Tom Holland is expected to come back for another Spider-man sequel. Put aside the fact that Black Panther made Marvel a crap ton of money earlier this year and it would be financial suicide to kill of a beloved character right after he made them gang buster money last February.

The real reason these characters don't feel dead is because it was not built up correctly or gave them any kind of finality.

And that's the downfall of screen writing. For some mediums like Game of Thrones, you can kill a character suddenly and they probably didn't get any kind of finality, but it feels in line with the story. Other mediums require a build up to justify a death but it can be telegraphed early on thus losing the shock value.

Unfortunately, the Avengers falls into this second category. While you may say that death is sudden and there's not finality all the time in real life, the fact is, that doesn't apply to movie logic, especially in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The reason I think Loki, Gamora and Vision are dead is because their deaths meant something and could be seen as closure of their character. The people who disappeared into ash didn't feel final. I wanted them to, but they just didn't. On top of that all that the ending, while phenomenal, does not feel like the Avengers are done avenging their fallen comrades, makes me think that there is going to be some mumbo jumbo that they're able to finagle to bring back all the characters that still have movies and profits to be made for Marvel.

And that's the downside of nerd culture in the movie world. You get into the weeds with contracts and franchise building. I know they're planning a Black Panther sequel or Spider-man sequel because the internet is a vast and dark place and as much as you want to avoid spoilers, and as much as studios are trying to avoid spoilers by putting in scenes with Hulk that were not in the film, it's just something we live with in this day and age.

Now, I would love to be wrong. I would applaud Marvel if the next Avengers movie comes out this time next year and the movie ends and those characters who disappeared never come back. But that is not going to happen. Marvel doesn't have the stones!

The promising aspect of this movie is that it does suggest that Marvel is sunsetting some contracts and on top of killing off some important people in this movie, they probably will kill off some important people next time.

It's not a coincidence that of all the people that survived the dust apocalypse Thanos puts out, the core Avengers cast is all still alive. Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hulk, and Hawkeye (if he decides to show up for the next film), are all still alive and it will provide for a pretty awesome closing act for these characters.

I have no doubt that main characters that were set off to the side in this movie like Captain America, Black Widow, and Hulk will get bigger roles in the next film, probably to give them that finality that was lacking in this film to open up the opportunity for the new phase of the Avengers when they're gone.

And that's good. This franchise needs some change. I don't know what the next phase of Marvel looks like and I will probably end up doing another one of those State of Marvel posts sometime soon to do predictions, but this movie had a pretty great post credit scene to allude to the future.

I really hope Brie Larson just nails it as Captain Marvel and there can be a new face of The Avengers. That transition is hard to do because these are characters we've come to know and love. While the new phase of Avengers films will have great talent a lot of which will probably be resurrected from the dead sometime soon, the classic Avengers that debuted in 2010 will be very hard to top.

But as it stands right now, Avengers: Infinity War is a solid culminating chapter. It's not the final by any means, but it does provide a lay up for a solid conclusion. Is it a perfect movie? No, but I've taken a good retrospective on the MCU and I don't think they're perfect movies. What movie is? My issue comes with the factory built feeling of these movies and how they don't exactly create an environment for creative thought innovative ideas. They're great entertaining films, but they all feel like Marvel films. It's a brand at this point. Even Black Panther, as much as that movie is great, it feels like a Marvel movie.

And I think Marvel has seen that as a necessary evil for creating a franchise that people love. It doesn't exactly make me happy, but I guess you have to ask yourself, would you rather have a good movie that is shaped into a brand, or a bad movie that at least got creative liberty to do the movie they wanted to. I go back and forth.

Those are my in depth thoughts on Avenger: Infinity War. What did you think? This is the place for spoilers as I waited a couple of days to release this one so people had the chance to see the movie. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks and I'll see you next time.

Avengers: Infinity War (No Spoilers)

So this is going to be a very difficult movie to review. While I've been having some difficulty lately writing spoiler reviews for superhero movies lately, this is a movie where that is absolutely necessary. I'm going to try and maneuver through reviewing this movie without giving anything away and because of that I'll air on the side of caution and be pretty vague. I'd rather do that than give something away. Because of that, this might be a pretty short post.

Avengers: Infinity War is the culminating episode in the Marvel cinematic universe saga. It follows the aftermath of a lot of movies like Captain America: Civil War, Thor Ragnarok, and Black Panther (sort of) to find the Avengers disassembled and scattered not only across the world, but across the universe.

Now there are a lot of characters in this movie. You've got Iron Man (played by Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (played by Chris Evans), Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johannasson), Spider-Man (played by Tom Holland), the Guardians of the Galaxy (played by Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Pom Klementieff, and the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel playing Starlord, Gamora, Drax, Mantis, Rocket, and Groot respectively), Doctor Strange (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), Vision (played by Paul Bettany), Scarlet Witch (played by Elizabeth Olsen), Black Panther (played by Chadwick Boseman), and a lot of other characters. If I listed them all I'd be here all day.

They all come together throughout the movie to address a looming threat that we've been waiting for since the end credit scene of the first Avengers movie, Thanos (played by Josh Brolin).

This guy man... Up until this point Marvel villains have been running jokes, that they are too one noted, or they aren't as interesting as the hero, or in the few cases that they are, they are either killed or put in a position where they can't come back again.

So it is a breath of fresh air to get a character like Thanos who is by far the most interesting character in this movie. I'll talk a little bit more about this later, but the movie has so many characters that they don't exactly build a lot of room for individual character development with few minor exceptions, so if you have a particular favorite character in the Avengers, they probably won't get the amount of screen time you want them to have. They'll get a moment or two of being a badass, but they have to share screen time with about a billion other characters, as well as Thanos who they really build as a phenomenal villain.

And I have to applaud everyone involved. I have to applaud Marvel for not disappointing us with a villain they've been building up for years, I have to applaud Josh Brolin for giving a phenomenal performance as a complex and almost sympathetic, but also ruthless and brutal villain. Just a round of applause all around.

Without giving too much away, the movie is basically divided into groups of Avengers/Guardians and their individual quest. Thanos is trying to obtain the Infinity Stones that have been alluded to in previous films to carry out his evil plot. This movie also moves around a lot and there is A LOT to cover. Luckily, they have about 2 and a half hours to do that in a movie that really feels like it's three hours long.

I don't think the length felt as long for me because I was invested with this movie from start to finish due to this being the culminating chapter, but if I was someone going into this movie for the first time, I would have maybe felt this movie was really long and drawn out. It's a weird circumstance because on one hand, in order to have all these characters together, it needs to be long, but it DEFINITELY feels its run time to both its credit and its downfall. I don't think the time is going to break this movie, but it is an issue.

But this movie definitely focuses on certain characters and other are just there. The Guardians actually get a lot more exposure in this movie than I thought they were going to get. Which is what I was kind of alluding to earlier, there are definitely characters that get a lot of screen time and a lot of attention, and then you have characters that aren't as important when you feel that maybe they should be.

The upside of this is that the movie felt a lot like a comic book. It was relying on the fact that you've probably seen the previous films and they don't need to introduce these characters. They can jump from character to character in the same way the comic book "Infinity War" might.

I almost imagined some of the jumps from scene to scene of having the subtitle, MEANWHILE IN WAKANDA or MEANWHILE IN SPACE!

I actually went with a friend of mine who has only watched a couple of the MCU movies. He wasn't as into the MCU prior to this and he just said, screw it, I don't care, I'll check it out. This provided a fun exercise for me throughout the movie as I tried to imagine what he was thinking and if this movie was making any sense to him.

Like I said, the movie is really relying on the fact that you've probably seen previous movies so there are some things that were carry overs from previous films, or character development that were "resolved" from previous conflicts (not many). But the movie is also smart because you really don't have to have seen the previous movies, you just have to know who the characters are at this point and that is something Marvel has earned over years of really good movies, but just marketing the crap out of these characters. People know who Iron Man, Spider-man, Captain America, etc, are that my friend can go into a movie like Infinity War, pretty much blind, and come out thinking that movie was awesome.

Now I will say that the fact that it's a lot of action and relies on previous knowledge, it does lose points on being just a good movie the same way DC gets shit for relying on the fans just knowing who these characters are. The difference is Marvel has been doing it for years and earned that assumption, where DC really hasn't, especially in a movie like Suicide Squad. It doesn't make for an incredibly complex Avengers movie, but that's never really been the point, this movie isn't going to be winning Oscars anytime soon, but it's still well made.

This is definitely a movie where the spoilers need to be talked about. I'm probably gonna try and get that out by Monday at the latest because the spoilers kind of set this movie apart from the previous Marvel movies. The last thing I'll say is that this is a dark movie. There's your normal Marvel humor and its good, no doubt about it. But it's dark. I think this movie's critical success should really be owed to Josh Brolin and his portrayal of Thanos, but I will talk about that and more in my spoilers review.

Overall, Avengers Infinity War is a lot of spectacle. There's a lot of great action, lots of interesting stories, and probably one of the best comic book villains to date. There are a couple issues with the time of the movie, the amount of characters and their screen time, and the fact that this movie is almost too much spectacle and not enough substance, but overall, go see this movie. Even if you're not a Marvel fan, go see this movie.

Comment and Discuss your thoughts on Avengers: Infinity War. I must say that this review is coming out on opening day and there are probably some people who are waiting till tonight to see it. Do not spoil anything for people, your comment will be deleted. But send me your thoughts on here or on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.


Thanks and see you next time.

Parks and Recreation

So when it comes to sitcoms like Parks and Recreation, or the Office, or How I Met Your Mother, I don't usually do season reviews. I figured out a while ago that while there are 9 seasons of Scrubs and while most of those seasons were good (I'm looking at you 9th season), the different seasons of these shows are very much the same. And if you're watching them casually like I am, the only way you get an inkling that you're moving onto another season is if something huge happens in an episode and/or characters are moving to a new season-long story arc.

The same thing happened with Parks and Recreation. So in order to do this review in a fashion that won't cost you hours to read, I will not be dissecting every single season, I will be more talking about the series as a whole and maybe highlight the things that I really liked and the things that I thought were kind of weird.

Since the beginning of time, NBC has always looked for ways to remain relevant and popular. In 2005, they found a popular way to do that by releasing The Office, a recreation of a British mockumentary style show about a bunch of people in an office dealing with their idiot boss. The show in America was a huge success. In 2009, they thought, why don't we try and catch that lightning in a bottle once again and do the exact same thing but this time in government. Hence the first season of Parks and Recreation.

And yeah, the first season of Parks and Recreation is basically The Office set in the Parks and Recreation agency of a local city government. Pawnee was just the new Scranton. Leslie Knope (played by Amy Poehler) was just your new Michael Scott. Ann Perkins (played by Rashida Jones) was kind of your new Pam Beasely. Tom Haverford (played by Aziz Ansari) was your crossover between Kelly and Ryan. Mark Brandanawitz (played by Paul Schneider, yeah he was a thing in this show) was your crossover of Jim, Ryan, and a little bit of Roy. April Ludgate (played by Aubrey Plaza) was your weird mixture of Dwight, Stanley, and a little bit of Creed. Andy Dwyer (played by Chris Pratt) was your mixture of Phyllis, and Michael Scott. And Ron... well Ron I think was kind of his own character but he wasn't truly developed.

You get the point. And with the mockumentary single camera style, the first season of Parks and Rec really isn't that funny. It feels like a weird Office knock off and nobody really felt like they were their own character. There's even that really awkward silence humor in the first season that really only works with Steve Carrell and even The Office moved away from that after a while, probably before the season they were on in 2009 when this show came out.

Then there was a shift. I don't know what happened. I don't know if there were different writers, or if NBC decided to let the writers actually write Parks and Rec instead of The Office episodes, but slowly but surely Parks and Rec started to get really good.

I find this happened with not just me but everyone I run into who has watched the show in its entirety. My girlfriend was having difficulty getting past the first season and the minute the second season picked up, she was hooked and finished the series in a couple weeks. It's not like the show gets better from one season to another right away but slowly you start to get funnier jokes, funnier situations, and more importantly, it doesn't feel like the characters are ripping off other ones.

I mean that's always going to happen. There are always your character archetypes that show up in every comedy. But the best example of this is in Amy Poehler's interpretation of Leslie Knope.

Leslie Knope becomes more of a strong willed, competent worker. She is wickedly smart, she's hard working, she's still a little bit of an oddball, but her workers respect her and owe a lot to her. In fact a lot of the show only happens because people say they owe Leslie so much. When Leslie became Leslie Knope and not Michael Scott is when the show got really good.

And they got rid of Mark Brandanowizc (I have no idea how to spell his name)

I'm not saying Paul Schneider pulled the show down but I've read that he didn't even know what his character's motivations were. It's kind of odd because he is actually a pretty big part of the first two seasons and then he leaves and he is never heard of again. I don't know what they could have done, I feel like that would have been an interesting episode if he had come back, but nope. He leaves and is never heard from ever again.

But it's a good thing because then these two came in. 

The show definitely got better after the first season but if you didn't like it after the third then this is probably not your show. 

Ben Wyatt (played by Adam Scott) and Chris Traeger (played by Rob Lowe) are two characters that really elevated the show. They definitely didn't do it single handedly and the credit does go to Amy Poehler, Nick Offerman, and the others in the original cast that finally got their characters on track, but these two fit in the cast like a glove and really elevated what the audience was looking for all along.

The part that I really liked about the show was that it promoted as sense of purpose and faith in the government that you just don't see in media today. That's not to say that this show is super pro-government. There are definitely parts where they show the bureaucracy and inefficiency of government. But the heart of this show really comes with the striving from the characters to do the right thing no matter what and I think that's one of the main draws of Parks and Rec. It's just kind of a feel good show.

I think what sets this show apart from other shows about politics or government was that Parks and Rec didn't set out to be overly critical of the government, it didn't set out to be in the same league as VEEP or other largely political shows. It focused on characters first and commentary was more of a side thought or theme. The show wasn't used as a platform, but it still got the message out, and effectively.

And I really cant stress the characters enough.

Nick Offerman is a great example because he created a character that is now a meme. There are compilation videos of the best phrases about libertarianism from Ron Swanson. He's great. But what's more is that they were able to create a non-sexual relationship with him and Leslie that worked absolutely perfectly.

This actually becomes a focal point for the last season. I'll talk about that more but its a great example of how, when they were allowed to develop their characters correctly in their natural progression, it became obvious that these two were a great duo to create a lot of comedy and a lot of heart off of. And that's kind of what a lot of the character's relationships become, examples of two extremes coming into conflict but maintaining that heart. In the example of Leslie and Ron, Leslie believes in the good government can do while Ron believes in limiting the government as much as possible. Leslie is upbeat and expresses her feelings, Ron is solemn and closed off. 

Andy and April are a great example of that as well.

Andy is this dumb but happy go lucky guy who loves everything and everybody. April is this weird goth-like teenager-like woman who doesn't like anybody, and yet the chemistry these two have is really well done.

Also, props to Chris Pratt. There's a definite point in the show where you know he was gearing up for Guardians of the Galaxy. He started the show as this chubby guy and he becomes Starlord. All the same, while there is a little bit less of him in the show near the end, I never really felt like he didn't stay through till the end. He seemed very committed to the show up to its end and I have to give him props for that.

I don't really know what I can say about the show in general without getting too into the nitty gritty which is something I want to avoid. I will say if you decide to watch this show (it is on Netflix) that you get through the first season as fast as you can. The second season gets better and if you don't like it by the third season, you're not going to like the rest of it. But that third through sixth season really is some great sitcom, primetime comedic gold.

But I do want to talk about the seventh season.

So at the end of the 6th season, Leslie is looking forward to the future and things look really bright for her. They actually fast forward 3 years later in 2017 and show how things have kind of really worked out for them, but it's only a snippet.

Now the 6th season didn't exactly provide a lot of closure, but had it this would have been a really great way to end the show. I don't think a lot of people would have complained with the ending of the 6th season being the closing scene... but then there's a 7th season that continues from that 3 years on scene.

The show aired in 2014, so it jumped 3 years to 2017. And with it, the show jumps into this very strange and ridiculous alternate reality of 2017. It might just be because I think we had a more cheery vision of 2017 in 2014 than I did when I watched this show actually in 2017, but even if I had watched in 2014, I still feel as though it would have been strange to see this very weird futuristic atmosphere in a show that never seemed this weird before. While Parks and Rec was always a ridiculous show, the seventh season took it in a whole new level of ridiculousness that didn't really fit with the atmosphere of the show in the past 6 seasons.

I don't know if other people had an issue with it, but for me it, the moments that would have usually felt really genuine felt a little bit manufactured.

The show does a lot better of a job closing out the series than the 9th season of Scrubs, and I don't know the backstory of the last season the way I know the backstory of the last season of Scrubs, but I wouldn't be surprised if they never planned to do that seventh season but instead were forced to because the studio wanted to milk one more season of a very profitable show out of them. If I was a writer on that show, I'd pull out all the stops and use this as an opportunity to just try out all the wacky ideas I've been keeping back because I needed to have a job after a season. But when a season comes to an end, why not go off the rails a little bit.

It's not horrible, and I still recommend watching every single season of Parks and Recreation, I just want to warn you that the last season is strange. It does give almost a complete episode for each character to give them a good send off, so that is something to consider when looking for a show that creates the closure for the audience that have spent hours wth these fictional characters and developed a relationship with them.

Overall, I highly recommend Parks and Recreation. I'm sure a lot of people have seen it and I'm just preaching to the choir at this point, but if you haven't, I'm recommending a show with a feel good vibe and a well performed comedy.

But what do you think? Have you watched all of Parks and Recreation? How does it stack up against other sitcoms? What did you think of that last season? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films and TV shows 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.

Thanks, I'll see you next time. 

Logan Lucky

I think today was just the day I check out some of the more underrated films of 2017.

Similar to Colossal, I heard some movie critics talk great things about Logan Lucky but it was definitely a movie that went under a lot of people's radar. That being said I'm taking a look at the movies that came out last August and... the pickings were pretty slim anyways. I don't know, let me know if you saw this one and what you thought, but I really liked it.

Logan Lucky was directed by Steven Soderbergh. If that name sounds familiar, you may know it from him directing the Ocean's 11 trilogy. And if you liked that, then you're in luck because Logan Lucky is basically Oceans 11 if the heist was carried out by a bunch of West Virginia rednecks.

Logan Lucky follows the story of Jimmy Logan (played by Channing Tatum). He is a former high school football star who, with his brother Clyde (played by Adam Driver) and his sister Mellie (played by Riley Keough), seem to just have perpetual bad luck. Clyde is convinced there is a curse on their family but Jimmy is determined to change his fate.

Early on, he recruits his brother and another local guy by the name of John Bang (played by Daniel Craig) to pull off a heist of a NASCAR Speedway. 

And like I said, this is very much the red neck, slightly less expensive version of Oceans 11 because it has a lot of the same unique characters lining up to either be apart of the heist or be victims of the heist. All the while, the main character Jimmy is not only doing this for the money, but for some kind of validity from his loved ones, even though they don't know he's actually pulling off the heist. Very similar to Danny Ocean from Oceans 11.

The really entertaining part about this movie is just the combination of characters and their interactions with one another. Channing Tatum plays your straight man while Adam Driver plays this super quirky brother who only has one hand (and don't tell him he has only one arm). Driver actually steals this show and while I won't say I want to go back and watch all of Girls because of this show, I really think he has a very bright career in front of him and a lot of that is due to Star Wars.

Daniel Craig gives a performance that is night and day from his performance in Spectre. He actually looks like he's having fun in this role and he's really entertaining as the member of the team who is in prison and from his appearance and demeanor you can probably guess he belongs there.

There's a lot of star power in this cast that comes in for small roles. Seth MacFarlane and Sebastian Stan have really funny roles in the movie that add some humor. Now this does work against the film as Hillary Swank and Katherine Waterston play really small roles that don't really amount to a whole lot.

 I think the fun thing about this movie is just how much of a small gem it is. You don't really expect much from it and I don't think it's really going to make that big of an impression, but when you do watch it, it will impress you and give you a good ride.

I don't think I really want an Ocean's 11 style trilogy for Logan Lucky and I would be totally happy if they kept it at just one solid film, but at the same time it's a film that I think could be fun with a sequel with these guys who are not very smart criminals. In many ways they are the antithesis of Danny Ocean and the crew from Ocean's 11 but they bring a lot of the same charm and humor.

Logan Lucky falls into a very similar category that Colossal did where it is a very solid film. It's not the greatest thing I've ever seen but it is a hidden gem that I think a lot of people unfortunately missed. If you have Amazon Prime, check it out. Other than that I don't know if I would spend money to go see this movie but finding it on streaming service or a cheap rental is definitely worth your time.

But those are my thoughts on Logan Lucky. What did you think? Do you think they should make a Logan Lucky trilogy in the same vein as Ocean's 11? What would you think about an Ocean's 11 and Logan Lucky crossover... I'd watch that. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks, I'll see you next time.

Colossal

In case you haven't noticed recently, I've been on a little bit of a dry spell of watching movies. I can give the same excuses I always give that I'm working or I've got other things I'm focused on and while some of those excuses are valid, I think I'm going through a slump. Maybe its the movie choices I'm making, maybe its just whats out recently. I won't say I didn't watch good movies, I definitely did. But I wouldn't mind going back and taking a collective look at the quality and long lasting-ness of the movies I watched last year. I think it might be telling that I didn't watch any of the movies that were nominated for Best Picture. I'm of the belief that you don't have to watch Oscar films to enjoy cinema (this movie is a good example of that) but when you just watch the big blockbusters, I could understand why I'm in a slump. I'll take a look and see if that observation is correct, but in the mean time I want to talk about Colossal.

Colossal was a movie that was released in early 2017. Pretty limited release and I think the exposure its really gotten has come from streaming services. I mean that's how I came across it. I had heard good things about this film, that it was a film that really slipped under the radar for a lot of people, and I have to say, it's a sleeper and a lot more people should check it out.

Colossal follows the story of Gloria (played by Anne Hathaway). Gloria is a broke, unemployed party girl who is dumped by her boyfriend (played by Dan Stevens) in the first five minutes of the movie. She recognizes that she has a bit of a drinking problem and she moves back to her home town to figure her shit out. She meets up with a friend from her childhood named Oscar (played by Jason Sudeikis) and he offers her a job as a waitress at his bar in town.

Around this same time, the news reports that a giant monster has started to appear in Seoul, South Korea.

Now if you'r thinking to yourself, wait a second. Gloria's dealing with a drinking problem, there's other stuff that could come from her moving back to her hometown, especially her relationship with Oscar... and there's a monster in Seoul?

Yeah, this movie is that weird.

I don't want to get too much into giving away plot points of this movie because if you haven't seen it yet you should really check it out, but there is a connection between the two stories and it is actually really clever.

But the overall impression you are going to get of this movie is strange.

The movie is a black comedy so a lot of the scenes are tailored in a way that something really dramatic is happening but at the same time it is juxtaposed with something really funny. I think one of the funnier scenes is actually near the climax and kind of messed up in reality.

I'm actually really surprised on how low budget or indie this movie seems and the big name actors they were able to get for it. Hathaway, Sudeikis, and Stevens are all pretty big names and they don't phone in this movie, they really do a good job.

I've read a couple of articles that point towards a universal hate towards Anne Hathaway. I think it partly has to do with the fact that she gives off the air of the high school theater girl everyone kind of rolled their eyes at, except she's thirty now. Now I personally have never really hated Hathaway and I don't think the hate for her is justified, but I have had a little bit of an aversion to her for one reason or another.

It's hard to explain but I'm sure that works into the universal hate other people have. When its on the internet, it can't just be a dislike or a preference, it is either full on love or full on hate. Well I'm here to say, I have nothing against Anne Hathaway, I enjoy her when she's good. And in this movie she is really good.

I think it's partly because her character is written in a way that you want to root for her and you want her to triumph in the end. There's a lot of internal struggle she goes through but at the same time she's flawed and she does some things that aren't exactly responsible in this movie.

And her character, along with the rest of the characters follow the same theme of the entire movie, strange. For Hathaway's character, it works. I think it works for other characters but there are times where I am wondering what a character is doing and why there is a sudden turn in a character that didn't seem exactly warranted.

I'm tempted to do a spoilers review of this movie because I really want to talk about specifics but I doubt that'll happen. A good example is another character played by Tim Blake Nelson. He's an interesting character, kind of a tertiary character but interesting. But suddenly he's secretly taking drugs and his character doesn't go a whole lot of anywhere.

The main story intrigue comes from Jason Sudeikis and Anne Hathaway and while this movie is set up like a romantic comedy, it does not go the way you expect it to go and it has a pretty clear message that is pretty poignant and well done.

There are a lot of really great things to say about Colossal and you'll probably end up liking something about the movie. There's a science fiction/monster movie element about the film, there's some really great dramatic performances from Hathaway and Sudeikis in this movie, there's a lot of comedic elements that had me laughing really hard.

Sure there are parts of the movie that aren't exactly polished all the way, but I don't think there's any glaring issues in the film, at least none that would have me tell you not to go check it out. It's on Hulu, but even if you don't have Hulu I do highly recommend you check it out.

But have you seen it? What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for movies 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.

Thanks, and see you next time!