The Peanut Butter Falcon

The Peanut Butter Falcon falls into that small categories of small low budget films every year that I happen to catch the trailer for while perusing through Youtube and actually end up seeing. I think I was like a lot of people that were charmed by the concept of the movie and when it showed up in the menu of the plane I was on, it seemed like a decent choice after seeing all the big budget films I've really been interested this year.

The Peanut Butter Falcon focuses on a young man with down syndrome named Zak (played by Zack Gottsagen). Zak lives in an assisted living home and is looked after by a social worker named Eleanor (played by Dakota Johnson) and dreams of becoming a professional wrestler as he watches old video tapes of his hero, Salt Water Redneck (played by Thomas Haden Church).

After escaping from the assisted living home, Zak finds an unemployed drifter down on his luck named Tyler (played by Shia LaBeouf). After some initial hesitation, the two actually connect really well and form a friendship in the fact that they're both sort of on the run.

Tyler agrees to take Zak to the training camp run by Salt Water Redneck, and the two start this Mark Twain-esc odyssey. Meanwhile, Eleanor is out looking for Zak, intending to take him back to the nursing home.

The main appeal of this movie is how kind spirited it is. You do feel the genuine friendship between Zak and Tyler and there is a really great philosophy imparted on how people treat the mentally challenged. The highlight is Tyler's viewpoint on treating Zak like a regular person and the contrast with others who at best treat him with kids gloves like Eleanor does, or treat him with contempt like others.

The great thing about the film is the environment. The two main characters have to avoid using traditional means of transportation, so they travel through cornfields and by makeshift boats. The result is that the audience is exposed to a lot of beautiful landscapes in North Carolina. I'm not very familiar with the area, but the movie portrays a southern culture that I don't think gets portrayed enough. If you've ever seen the show Bloodline, I would say that is the closest thing to the environment being portrayed in The Peanut Butter Falcon and I like it when new aesthetics can be utilized effectively like they do in The Peanut Butter Falcon.

One last thing that was really enjoyable about the film was the performances from the three characters with the most screen time. Zack Gottsagen actually has down syndrome, but he provides a really great performance, especially opposite Shia LaBeouf. The dynamic between the two only works if these two do a good job and they did. Dakota Johnson is also really good in it. I think Dakota Johnson is probably going to be the most accessible character for most people because while she is a very good character, she is the one that probably sees the most change from the start of the movie to the end. She eventually becomes a little bit more than an observer and arm candy for Shia LaBeouf, but I still enjoyed her performance, even if her character wasn't fleshed out as clearly as I would have hoped.

Now I think there are a couple of missteps with the film but nothing that absolutely ruins it. The movie clocks in just over 90 minutes and while I'm always for movies that are concise, I think I would have personally liked a little more. There's kind of a funny scene where Zak and Tyler run into a blind man who baptizes them pretty randomly. It's a funny odyssey-like interaction, one that doesn't really tie into the main story besides providing them transportation, but I wouldn't have minded more random encounters like this because I like these characters. I wouldn't have minded seeing them do more.

The other aspect of the film is kind of a criticism, but its more unnecessarily inserting rationalism into a film. There's an interesting exchange between Tyler and Eleanor where Tyler basically tells her that they're going to continue this journey no matter what. And because we've spent so much time with Tyler and Zak, we don't want their journey to end so we're supposed to side with Tyler. But if you didn't have that background, like Eleanor didn't have, all she'd see was a creepy dude that keeps on hitting hanging out with a half naked mentally challenged patient of hers. This is kind of part of why Eleanor isn't as strong of a character as I wish she would have been because we're supposed to just write her off as a naive college educated woman instead of a professional who is responding rationally to a weird situation. And then she falls for the gruff drifter because this is a movie.

Again, it doesn't destroy the quality of the film because I know that it's a movie there's supposed to be a suspension of disbelief in situations like that, but it is strange.

The movie also ends kind of strangely. Its kind of spoiler but they do make their way to the wrestling school and interact with Thomas Hayden Church's character.

It includes some odd characters, some kind of ridiculous moments, and a really rushed ending.

Again, it's not terrible, but the first act of this movie is a lot more polished than the third act because where the first and second act did a good job establishing the characters, their relationships, and saying something about the treatment of mentally challenged people, the third act kind of stumbles through it where it introduces the mean spirited people but in a very clunky and rushed way. So much that the movie just ends and it seemed like there was more but the movie ran out of money and just sped its way to an ending.

It's tough because I do like the movie and overall approach and message its trying to deliver. LaBeouf, Gottsagen, and Johnson give a great performance, and the movie is heart warming. But I feel like it could have been 15 minutes to a half hour longer and it would have fleshed out the movie out just a little more.

As it stands, The Peanut Butter Falcon is gonna make you feel good and sometimes that's all you need. Something about the trailer and some of the moments and content of the film makes it feel like it should be more than that in my opinion. I think there are a few things that could be improved to make the film more memorable, but again, you're not going to have a bad time at all if you watch this film.

Check it out if you get the chance and I challenge you to watch it without breaking a smile.

But those are my thoughts on The Peanut Butter Falcon. Are there films from 2019 I missed and should be prioritizing for 2020. 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 for Reading!

The Witcher (season 1)

So for the sake of being upfront, I haven't played through any of The Witcher games, nor have I read any of the books. I started The Witcher 3 on PS4, but I didn't feel like I had enough time to really delve in the way I wanted to. This is its own whole fantasy universe that needs an attention span that I only have from time to time. Unfortunately, that attention span is really needed in this show, otherwise its just going to come off as a mess.

The Witcher follows the story of a mutant monster hunter named Geralt of Rivias (played by Henry Cavill). Geralt is a solitary guy wishing to hunt monsters for payment, hang out with his horse Roach, and be left alone.

But all around him, there are happenings going on in this high fantasy world. The politics of kings, queens, princesses, wizards, mages, and other high fantasy elements you can think of.

The season is split among three story lines. The first is obviously The Witcher, Geralt, crossing the continent, looking for work and dealing with people's prejudice of Witchers as mutated freaks. I didn't realize until I started getting caught up on The Mandalorian yesterday that Geralt's story is not too different from The Mandalorian, as a stoic merc for hire, who begrudgingly takes on the help of others and his soft side is revealed.

The other story lines include that of Ciri, Princess of Cintra (played by Freya Allen). A series of events in the first episode sends her on a journey of her own that honestly is the more boring parts of the show.

And then there's the mage Yennefer (played by Anya Chalotra) who potentially has the most interesting story arc throughout the show. She starts in really humble and throughout the show finds her way through this fantasy world, creating her own destiny and finding her own challenges.

The main problem with this show is that it doesn't have a concise handle on the passage of time. Because almost all of these characters have magical abilities, they don't age the same way normal people do, therefore there's no way to tell how much time has passed between episodes and even when they say, "Boy its been decades hasn't it?" It doesn't feel like that much time has passed because each story almost seems like its on its own timeline that travels at a different pace.

This is also paired with the fact that the show doesn't take much time to really explain the rules or background of this world. Now there is an element of that that I like with this show, and I'll talk about that in a little bit. But the downside first is that unless you've played the games or read the books, you have to be paying really close attention to the explanations of whats going on in this world and why certain things are important. Also, especially in the first few episodes, the timeline is not totally clear, so you're trying to figure out the history of this world while some characters are at a point where something has happened and others are not. There's a part of me that wants to go back and watch the first few episodes to see if they make more sense, but I shouldn't have to do that.

I also started watching this about the same time I was watching The Mandalorian and I saw a lot of similarities between the two shows.

The difference is that The Mandalorian has 9+ movies that shape the world around the show so its cool that we can go off on some random dude doing his own thing.

The Witcher doesn't have that foundation.

Now, I do think the Witcher sets itself apart in going for the same type of show as The Mandalorian rather than just trying to be Game of Thrones. The Witcher is part of a push from Netflix to capitalize on the gap Game of Thrones left of having a high fantasy show. Instead of just copying Game of Thrones, The Witcher almost does the opposite, leaving the political factions very vague and having the main characters play tertiary roles and definitely not the kings and queens of the political game of thrones. I think in the long run that will be really helpful to this show whereas other Fantasy shows will try to recreate that political environment. I just think the show would do itself a favor by taking a beat, explaining the world a little bit more, and letting audience understand the world we're living in a little bit more.

But while we're talking about the good things. The three main actors do a pretty good job keeping us engaged and in the story. I feel like if Henry Cavill wasn't good at what he does, I would have said "thanks but no thanks" after the first episode. Instead he takes the character of Geralt, who I've found in the past to be kind of bland, and make him interesting and complex.

As mentioned before, Anya Chalotra stands out as Yennefer, but probably because she has the most unique and complicated role.

The show has already been renewed for a second season (which is not surprising to anybody, I think Netflix is banking on this show being a cornerstone of their programming in the future), and I imagine I will re-watch the season once season two comes out. Luckily the episodes are pretty easily digestible. Maybe it was just the Christmas break, but I wiped through those episodes pretty quickly. They're pretty fast paced, even when they're just explaining things.

Also, the fight sequences are really well done.

When you look at Henry Cavill, you don't think he's a guy that can move all that fast, but he does the fight choreography almost seamlessly and its a lot of fun. And it's not just Cavill that does a great job keeping the action fast paced and bad ass.

On a side note, I'm just gonna put another word out there for my guy Henry Cavill. He's already been done dirty by DC for not having him come back as Superman, it's good to see he's being properly utilized.

When I first saw Cavill as Geralt, with no real conception of who Geralt was, I thought he looked kind of silly with the white haired wig. And while I still have moments where I know that's clearly a wig, it still works because he creates a good character that was really cool to watch.

Overall, I think there is a lot to like about The Witcher Season 1. It's not perfect by any means and it's a little rough, especially in the first three episodes as you are bum rushed through character and world introductions. But it is definitely a show I want to have a second season. I want it to have the time to flesh out the world a little more, help me understand it the way I'm sure people who played the games do, and it feels different enough for it to not be a total Game of Thrones rip off, even though that's its business purpose on the Netflix docket.

To be clear, it's not even close to the first season of Game of Thrones, but I think the thing that will benefit it in the future is that it isn't trying to recreate Game of Thrones. It is its own thing, and us fantasy nerds are probably gonna end up eating it up.

Again, there's enough here to make a second season interesting and I don't think Netflix is going to let this show be bad. There's a lot of change that is happening in the streaming worlds and Netflix needs a hit like The Witcher.

Is it going to be that hit? It remains to be seen. I like it so far, even though its a little rough getting off the ground. I hope they correct the mistakes of the first season in the second and we have a good fantasy show on all the big streaming services because I don't see that as competition, I see that wins all around.

But those are my thoughts on The Witcher. 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 future films or 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 for reading!

But those are my thoughts on The Witcher.

The Mandalorian (Season 1)

And here it is folks, the main reason a lot of people subscribed to Disney Plus and after today why a lot of people are going to unsubscribe until Season 2 comes out.

A little bit of commentary on Disney Plus before I start up this review. I do think it is interesting that besides this show, Disney Plus's whole strategy of selling its streaming service is nostalgia based. Sure, there are a couple of other "originals" out there, but none of them had as much clout as The Mandalorian. I mean I don't think anybody is going to get the service for the sole purpose of watching the High School Musical Series or the Live Action Lady and the Tramp movie. Those people are in for the Disney Nostalgia trip. But some people will get the streaming service for the Mandalorian. And yes, I know its not even an original, but there is something about this show that feels a little bit different. I do get the feeling the streaming service might lose some subscribers after today (the final episode) and only get them back when something as unique comes out, because this show, while based on the Star Wars property, feels new.

One other disclaimer, I haven't been reviewing Star Wars movies or any other property (except maybe the Clone Wars series) on this blog because I have been a Star Wars fan since I was a child. I've really loved everything Star Wars related and I have yet to find something I really have hated, and that includes The Christmas Special. My opinion might be a little bias, but I'm hoping to insert my opinions on Star Wars more... because we all know that's what we need right? But seriously, I think this show for sure warrants some critical thought.

The Mandalorian takes place after the original trilogy (New Hope, Empire, and Return of the Jedi). The timeline is a little fuzzy but honestly it doesn't matter. People have been guessing about 5 or so years after Return of the Jedi, but honestly it doesn't matter much.

It follows a bounty hunter many refer to as The Mandalorian. He has a name but honestly, I think it's a little cooler when he's just the man with no name who never takes his helmet off because it is the Mandalorian "way".

There is a little bit of backstory to this guy, but for the most part, the show centers on him collecting bounties and being an all together badass.

The one snag though is that in the first episode, he comes across a unique bounty that sets the course of the series in motion.

The Mandalorian picks up a bounty from an Imperial Warlord (played by Werner Herzgog).

The thing that I like about this character worth noting is that they appear to be hiding in the aftermath of the fall of the Empire in Return of the Jedi.

It gives the feeling that the Empire has been fractured and now there are warlords trying to keep the Empire alive, which in the Legends cannon is a really interesting dynamic that Disney would be wise to look into in the future because it is interesting.

But back to the main story, Mando goes on this bounty mission and finds the target. It is an unexpected target to say the least. Now this might be considered a spoiler, but A) Its revealed in the first episode so you're not missing much if this gets revealed, and B) its been all over the internet, its hard to miss.

It's Baby Freaking Yoda.

Of course it can't be Yoda because Yoda died in Return of the Jedi, but its a species like Yoda and it doesn't really have a name so obviously we called it Baby Yoda.

On a side note, this character had the possibility of being annoying, pandering, or just not well done at all, but there is a reason he's gained so much popularity. Besides the fact that he's just really darn cute, he's just used well as a bit of a mcguffin, but also just a plot mystery. Every time you see him, after you're done saying AWWW, you wonder what he could be, who he could be, and it fuels the drive to keep watching.

The rest of the show is very much the Mandalorian surviving the remnant of the empire, other bounty hunters, and other threats all with this little adorable puppet hanging out with him.

And the result is kind of amazing.

At first it was a little hard to put my finger on exactly why this show worked so well, but after a couple of episodes (the first few episodes in my opinion are the weakest and that's not saying much because they're still really good) I started to realize that this is the first Star Wars property that doesn't rely on really anything from the original trilogy to sustain itself.

Obviously the aesthetics, the costumes, Empire, Yoda's species remain the same, but there are no known characters in this series. It's not like Lando pops up and says hi to everyone, these are all new characters living and breathing in a universe we've become very familiar with by this point, and this is the first time Disney seems to be having some fun with it.

The majority of the show takes place on the out rim and it follows the criminal underworld of the Star Wars universe. None of this is shaping the course of the movies and it doesn't need to. It's just a single bounty hunter, doing bounty hunter jobs, and making his way in the galaxy.

And somehow, this works perfectly to use some pretty good talent for small but important roles. Gina Carano, Carl Weathers, Werner Herzgog, Bill Burr, Giancarlo Esposito, Nick Nolte, the voice of Taikia Waititi, the list goes on. But it never feels forced or distracting. They all feel like fleshed out characters in the Star Wars Universe and I love every minute of it.

The other really great thing about this show is that it plays out like a video game. The Mandalorian is your faceless hero that fights through the bad guys with almost god-like abilities, then, at least in the first few episodes, comes back to his home base and uses the money from his jobs to buy better equipment and better armor. The episodes also feel very episodic, like Mando is in an open world just doing side missions until the player is ready to continue the main quest.

And furthermore, it seems to expand the Star Wars mythology. Instead of saying, "Oh this is why this happened in the movie" The Mandalorian points to how huge the Star Wars mythology could be. This is where my inner nerd comes out because this show is rife with easter eggs, allusions to stories nerds weren't sure were cannon or not, and at the end of the day, it just does Star Wars right.

The episodes are not only video game like, they're reminiscent of old westerns or samurai films with the lone gunman or swordsman who holds himself to a code wanders alone.

My criticisms might be what this show might feel like to those not totally familiar with Star Wars beyond the movies. I think it's accessible, but I wonder if I am drawn to it because I know the Star Wars mythology so well. I'll be talking more about this in my next review, but I could potentially see this show being confusing if you don't know the rules of Star Wars or know the backstory. But at the same time, I haven't talked to enough non-Star Wars fans who picked this up randomly to see if its accessible or not.

I appreciate that the episodes are only 30-45 minutes long but I wouldn't have minded longer ones. I think the way the format is looking is that the episodes can be as long as the director wants them to be (within reason). In the future we could see 30 minute episodes, but also see hour to hour and 15 minute long episodes. Some of them really don't need to be longer than 30 minutes, other might need some more time.

I could also see the video game simplicity be limiting on how deep you could get with these characters. I think it works right now with introducing everyone and getting the feel for the show, but I could see the simplicity limiting the show, especially as it expands into more seasons, which its most definitely will.

I feel like I kept this review vague because I do think it's a show everyone should at least check out. There's a lot to like for a lot of people and it gives me a lot of hope for the future of Star Wars properties on Disney plus, but only if they keep expanding the lore, not restricting it.

I highly recommend it.

I'm probably going to do a commentary on the Star Wars films under Disney here before the end of the year, and there is a lot to talk about, but The Mandalorian is really high up there when it comes to the positives of Disney's 2015 acquisition of the Star Wars property.

Please, if you are not a huge Star Wars fan and you checked this show out, let me know what you thought. Was it accessible? Do you want to continue to watch this and other Star Wars shows because of it? Even if you are a fan of Star Wars, let me know what you thought! 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 for reading!

Ad Astra

I am liking this trend we're starting to see that one time a year we have a pretty unique science fiction film that defies the conventions of the mainstream science fiction films we get too often. These are not movies that are going to have a franchise or really make a whole lot of money, but they do go down as the more cerebral and under appreciated films of the year. Previous films in this category have included Annihilation, Ex Machina, Interstellar, Edge of Tomorrow, Snowpiercer, and others. This year, I think the underappreciated science fiction film award is probably going to go to Ad Astra.

The movie takes place in a "near future" where space travel is becoming more and more common and humanity is making its way across the solar system. It doesn't go too far with flying cars, or other science fiction tropes but instead creates a seemingly realistic future where technology is expanding and space travel is a huge part of that.

The movie focuses on Major Roy McBride (played by Brad Pitt), an officer in the United States Space Command. Roy is a pretty accomplished officer living in the shadow of his father Clifford McBride who led a team into deep space exploration of the solar system for signs of intelligent life, and never came back. Roy and the rest of Space Command believes that Clifford McBride is dead until a series of solar flares reach Earth and start causing major damage to space infrastructure and these flares seem to be originating from Clifford McBride's original exploration vessel.

Roy is recruited to travel to Mars and reach out to his father in an attempt to save humanity from these reoccurring solar flares. The mission is top secret, and takes Roy through a maze of futuristic intrigue and adventure to try and save his father.

So the truth is, this movie has a lot of ups and a lot of downs. The downs aren't movie ruining, but they are noticeable enough to talk about in a venue like this. I'll talk about the good things first.

I really like Brad Pitt in this movie. I think its easy to point to Brad Pitt as just another big name actor but its movies like this that remind us why he's there. Since he is the constant of the film and the movie centers on him, he carries it and keeps the film interesting, even if its just him hanging out by himself in a space shuttle for around 10 minutes.

When its not Brad Pitt monologing, which I will get to, the movie is a pretty interesting odyssey through space.

The really interesting thing about this film is the world that it creates around the characters. It's establishing a world where humanity is figuring out space travel, how the world might react if living on the moon was available, and kind of the politics of it all with a serious space force that is applicable to the world created.

The movie also takes a page from movies like Gravity and The Martian as it tells a story in a hyper-realistic scientifically accurate space. Imagine if Matt Damon and Sandra Bullock had to deal with space pirates or political agents. The movie by no means a huge action film, but it keeps the action pretty intriguing.

Also, Tommy Lee Jones actually seems to care in this movie.

Tommy Lee Jones is a good example of an actor who was really prominent in the 80's and 90's, earned his accolades, and only appears in films if they really want to, or Disney, or some other studio writes him a huge check for a quick appearance in Captain America: The First Avenger.

I haven't seen Tommy Lee Jones really bring it in a while and its good to see him actually give a little bit of a crap in this movie.

They do some de-aging with some scenes that take place in the past and its done really well. And I loved how the movie portrays Clifford McBride as this young guy in archive footage and it builds up to him.

Overall, the movie has some really great father-son themes that always seem to hit me right in the feels so I will never turn down a movie like that if its done well. Ad Astra does it well for the most part.

One issue I had with the film is that no matter how great Pitt is in the movie, it does not really negate the fact that its a movie about a single dude going on a journey by himself through space with accurate gravity physics.

The movie has moments that feel really drawn out moments that go on for a little bit longer than I would have preferred. It also doesn't really give us enough time to get to know the characters outside of Brad Pitt and Tommy Lee Jones. And I get it, its not really about Donald Sutherland's character, but if you're going to draw the movie out to almost three hours, I wouldn't have minded knowing a little bit more of the interesting world we're living in, the characters in it, or at least the characters that seem to mean the most to Brad Pitt, like his ex-wife played by Liv Tyler.

The movie also has Brat Pitt doing some inner monologues and its kind of weird. They eventually explain why he's doing it... sorta. But it feels weird sometimes that they insert these monologues.

I like how the movie feels very cerebral, but there might be some moments that just feel very drawn out.

Overall, I don't think I'd put Ad Astra above some of the other unique science fiction films I mentioned before, I like movies like Annihilation and Ex Machina more, but I like it enough to carry on this trend that I really like. I do recommend you checking it out if you haven't already.

But those are my thoughts on Ad Astra. What did you think of Ad Astra? How does it compare to the other unique science fiction films that have been coming out over the last few years? 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 send in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for Reading!

Alita: Battle Angel

So I think I was like a lot of people in the world that really had no interest in seeing Alita: Battle Angel in theaters, or at all really. It's not that it really looked bad, it just wasn't anything I was interested in putting any money towards at all. So I ended up watching it on a plane and while there might some benefit to seeing it on an HD screen, I am okay with the fact that I didn't spend any money on this movie.

A quick disclaimer, I know that its a manga and no, I have not read it.

Alita takes place centuries from now in 2500 something and the world has been ravaged by war. The elites live in a floating awesome city that everybody wants to go to while everyone else lives in a crappy city down below, lazily called Iron City.

There a mechanic by the name of Dr. Dyson Ido (played by Christoph Waltz) finds the remains of a cyborg girl an builds a new cyborg body for her. When she wakes up, she has no memory of her previous life and Ido calls her Alita (played by Rosa Salazar).

The majority of the movie is her trying to figure out who she is, discovering the environment she's living in, and unearthing the corruptness of villains in Iron City, mostly in the entrepreneur Vector (played by Mahershala Ali) and Dr. Chiren (played by Jennifer Connelly).

The number one thing I appreciate about this movie is how ham it goes. This movie did not do well at the box office so that adds a level of intrigue to this movie, but I think they thought this was going to be the next big Avatar film and you can tell in the effort they put into it.

Some of it works. The visuals are great and everyone really seems to be committing to their character no matter how small or big the role is.

But the plot is so absurd and it commits so hard that its a little hard to really be invested by the end of the movie because its just so ridiculous and ends up border lining melodrama.

I think a part of it is due to the fact that the movie is adapting a manga. Again, I haven't read the manga, or a lot of manga in general, but I do know that because of the medium, it is allowed to go a couple levels above realism just for the sake of being awesome.

Because of this, the action sequences were really cool. There is an element of this movie that definitely thought they were going to get a sequel, so I don't think it reaches the levels of amazing it could go or wanted to go, but even for this level, its pretty cool in how unique and brutal it can get, especially since the majority of the characters are cyborgs.

The other reason this works so well is because the environment seems lived in and really unique from a lot of other movie universes out there. When I say I haven't read the manga, I don't mean that in a bad way, in fact I wouldn't turn down the opportunity to actually read this manga if I ever found it.

It's a pretty interesting world with its own rules, or systems, and I think I understand why people were so bummed it probably won't get a sequel.

2019 was just a weird year for movies in general. Sure you have movies like Endgame and Rise of Skywalker that everyone is going to see. But I can't think of too many movies that people came out saying I know you haven't heard of this property before, but you have to go see this one.

The top thing about Alita was its uniqueness and just different style in an environment where everything feels very similar and people aren't taking risks. I don't think Alita is a very good movie, but I do like risks like this to be rewarded and bummed when it doesn't. So I have a confusing feeling towards this movie. It's ridiculous and has a lot of issues, but at the same time the ridiculousness paired with the uniqueness is really intriguing and while its not my cup of tea, I would have liked to see where this movie could have gone.

And I think the fact that this review is pretty short says something about how much was actually memorable about this film. I remember cool costumes, cool fight scenes, and how seriously it took itself. Everything else was kind of meh. It was definitely trying, but it just didn't turn that corner to make it really memorable.

But those are my thoughts on Alita: Battle Angel. What did you think? Is there something I'm missing that was super important from the manga or something? 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 for reading!

Gotham (Season 1)

So I've been on a bit of a Batman kick lately and it has caused me to grit my teeth, and finally work my way through at least the first season of Gotham for... reasons. There are clearly other Batman properties I could be reviewing but for some reason, there was an element about Gotham that intrigued me, even though past attempts to watch this show have ended with me rolling my eyes and stopping after the first or second episode.

I don't know exactly when the show started to kick in for me, hopefully I'll find out by the end of this review, but the truth is, it took at least 5 to 8 episodes before I was actually half enjoying the show. I don't know if it was because I had become numb to it, or if there was an actual plot change, but it is definitely a show you have to ride out a little because there are some pretty dumb aspects of it. If you want to get hooked on a show right away, Gotham might not be the one for your up front. But I do think there are some redeeming qualities of this show that are worth talking about.

Gotham takes place in the iconic DC comics hometown of Batman, however the show begins right as Bruce Wayne and his parents are taking that faithful walk home from the theater and the Waynes are brutally gunned down.

At the same time, James "Jim" Gordon (played by Ben McKenzie) is a newly minted, go getter detective with the Gotham Police Department, paired with Harvey Bullock (played by Donal Logue), a lazy, jaded veteran detective with an all too friendly relationship with the criminal underbelly of Gotham.

The two are assigned to investigate the death of the Waynes and this sets off an episodic criminal procedural set in the well known criminal town as Gordon proves himself as an incorruptible cop in the most corrupt city in the world. All the while, the show provides origin stories for many of the iconic members of the Batman rogue gallery like Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin (played by Robin Lord Taylor), Edward Nygma/The Riddler (played by Cory Michael Smith), Selina Kyle/Catwoman  (played by Camren Bicondova), Harvey Dent/Two-Face (played by Nicholas D'Agosto), and others.

A quick note on this because this is a common blunder the show finds itself in. Too many times, the show centers an episode on the fact that these are characters that will eventually turn into the Batman villain, but they have a long time to get there. Even if the show wasn't counting on having multiple seasons (its on its 5th and final season), 22 episodes is still a long time to just have Edward Nygma hang out as a forensics expert in the GCPD, or randomly show the Scarecrow for an episode.

Those actually aren't the worst examples, but after you are over the initial fun easter egg recognition, you do wonder what the point of these characters are besides making the viewer go, "OH THERE'S POISON IVY! She's not doing anything and she's just a kid with no powers... BUT THAT'S POISON IVY!" (better example).

The first few episodes for sure, it just feels like a name recognition show than actually progressing a real story where these people feel like actual characters.

There are a couple of strings and plot lines this show goes down so it is worth talking about general arcs rather than individual episodes, because we could be here all day if I examined every episode.

The first obvious thread is that of Jim Gordon himself and I didn't realize until this show that Jim Gordon is a complicated character to adapt, especially if he's the main character.

Jim Gordon was always a supporting character to Batman. He's the good cop in a bad city. While they clearly have made 5 seasons on that, they don't really know what to do with him besides have him be the stereotypical lawful good white dude and he's pretty milk toast.

It's also difficult that they set up such a stark contrast between him and the rest of the city that it wouldn't make sense for him to stay in Gotham after the second episode. In the first episode, it just seems that even he's under the boot of the system and that's what makes the first few episode feel very handcuffed. They make it very clear that Gotham needs to be cleaned up and until Batman can come do it, Gordon is the one who needs to do it, but he's just impotent in the first few episodes to do anything meaningful because he's beholden to a corrupt system. Not only is it boring, it doesn't feel true to Gordon as a character, no matter how simple he's been in previous films.

This is exacerbated by the dynamic he has with Harvey because they are so polar opposites and its only the plot that keeps them together. If the plot made sense, Gordon would have arrested Harvey in episode 3 and Harvey would have killed Gordon in episode 1.

The dynamic only starts to work when there is some give on Harvey's character as a lazy corrupt cop and Gordon starts to make him want to change. The dynamic no longer becomes two people that are incompatible, it becomes two people that are polar opposites, play well off each other, but are working towards the same goal, and like the rest of this show, that takes a while for the dynamic to get there. When it gets there, there are some good moments like the fact that Gordon is a bit of a dork for being so upright and Harvey calls him out on it, but they still feel like they're on the same page.

Gordon's romantic relationships in the show are fascinating because for the most part (minus the final episode, which I will talk about) the women in his life are just supportive of him no matter what. Erin Richards and Morena Baccarin do a really good job in the show, there's just not really any conflict unless its external, and while you are glad a good character like Gordon has some comfort in his loved ones, its kind of milk toast. Again, worth giving some credit because it paints Gordon as a dork with an excellent moral compass, making him relatable as opposed to this incorruptible paragon, but still not very interesting.

The most interesting part about Gordon is almost where this show could have gone. The first half of this show keeps things, for the most part, grounded in reality. It feels like the show was going for a Nolan Batman feel and everything was so dark and gritty. And while that is the half of the season I didn't like, I do think it could have worked if they had changed one pairing. Instead of pairing Gordon with a lazy cop like Harvey, pair him with another paragon (albeit a flawed one) in Harvey Dent.

So the actor they chose to play Harvey Dent was the wrong choice and the inkling that he's going to turn into Two-Face just didn't work in the few episodes he shows up.

However, I was telling myself throughout the season that this show should have been Law and Order with Batman serial killers and villains. Gordon goes around catching the criminals and Dent prosecutes them. A friendship would build throughout the season (or seasons), and while Gorodn would only get more incorruptible, Harvey would start to slip towards the darker side of himself.

Totally a hypothetical, but I think I would have preferred that... if the show wanted to stay in the realistic world, and especially by the end, it is clear that the show is moving away from a Nolan Gotham and more towards a Schumacher Gotham... and I kind of dig it.

While Gordon represents the law in Gotham and the problems that lie in that realm, there is a whole other side of the show that portrays the criminal underground of Gotham. There are a couple of characters, but a consistent on is Oswald Cobblepot.

Now Robin Taylor Lord is not a great actor and represents how this show took a page from the CW and casted these unique characters with standard sexy models. However, you do have to kind of respect the arc he's given where he goes from absolutely nothing to being just one of the cookiest characters in the show. Lord is clearly having fun with the role and I'd prefer him and his journey in the show over that of Fish Mooney...

So Fish Mooney is by far the worst character in the show and part of that is due to the weird choices made by Jada Pickett Smith... however...

Smith really seemed to be the only one who knew what this show was from the beginning. Again, the context of the show really changes after the last episode of the season where it takes a right turn and goes bananas, but from the beginning Fish Mooney was always this over-the-top character that could have been pulled out of one of the Schumacher Batman films and fit right in.

But she also shows the tonal conflict this show has throughout and it all depends on what Batman movie you're trying to recreate. There are moments at the beginning that feel like they're trying to create the Gotham from the Dark Knight Trilogy, and in that case, while she does have moments where she could be an intriguing political figure in the organized crime political world, her mellow drama just feels weird.

But then she goes on this side quest, which was ultimately pointless, but she comes back and suddenly she feels right at home in this new Gotham that feels more like the animated series or Batman Forever.

But furthermore, even if you didn't know the Batman mythos that well, you could probably guess that this was a character that was created exclusively for the show because she just feels out of place, especially in the beginning.

I don't like crapping on Smith's performance too much because again, I think she had the foresight to know where this show is probably going in season 2, but she fell victim to a script that was confused on the tone, didn't really know what to do with her, and her parts are very clearly the slowest.

One thing that really surprised me was how much I liked Bruce Wayne in this show. When the show initially started, I thought Bruce Wayne would be in the first episode or so and then disappear, because why would you dedicate a good portion of the show to a kid and his butler?

But then they dig into it a little more and suddenly this kid and his butler investigating the death of his parents while trusting but not fully believing that Gordon (or the system) can help him, he turns to his own investigation work that smell of the origins of an iconic caped crusader? Suddenly Bruce Wayne (played by David Mazouz) and Alfred (played by Sean Pertwee) became a really interesting part of the show.

I'm discovering more and more that I love the relationship between Bruce Wayne and Alfred Pennyworth and this show has some pretty great moments, in no small credit due to Mazouz and Pertwee.

This is a very minute detail but one small thing I'll mention is that I loved it how Alfred calls Bruce "Master Bruce", but I really didn't like it when he called him "Master B". I think it only happens once so I'll forgive it, but it felt weird at the time.

They also dive into Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle's early relationship and I'll admit that while I didn't initially love Bicondova and how she was inserted throughout the show, I did think that she had an interesting connection to Bruce Wayne, to Gordon, even to Fish Mooney and the organized crime war occurring in Gotham, so I think they did a surprisingly good job with her as well.

Is the show perfect? Absolutely not. It doesn't even get perfect by the end. It's uneven, the actors are far too attractive for these complicated and often grotesque characters, and Jada Pickett Smith isn't the only one who gives weird melodramatic performances for no reason. However, the show does have some really interesting takes on a world we've seemed to have seen a billion times over, and like most adaptations, the show really only works when it doesn't try to be the Nolan Gotham, or even the Schumacher Gotham, but just when it tries to be its own Gotham.

Again, even the individualistic version of Gotham has some weird kinks to it. But its clear someone said half way through this season that they were just gonna start throwing caution to the wind and have some fun with this universe.

I won't go too much into spoilers because I do believe half of the fun is the build up to this episode, but while all 20 episodes prior to this episode had their wacky moments, they always felt a little reserved, somewhat able to reconcile what was happening with a sense of realism.

Not in the last episode. Gordon's gunning down gangsters like Chow Yung Fat in Hard Boiled, people are losing their minds, and all the wacky elements of the show just come to a climax that is so entertaining, it doesn't matter that a lot of the beats in it are kind of stupid. The show suspends all reality and just starts feeling more like a comic book, but while a lot of live action shows can manufacture that feeling, this feels like Silver Age Batman and I really dug it.

Now I would say, if you were looking for a Nolan type Gotham show with gritty realism, keep looking cause this ain't it. This almost feels like Adam West Batman at times and despite all its flaws, it feels different. And that's what excites me to continue watching. I have no illusions that the show is going to be good or any kind of high art. But if its anything like that last episode, I don't think the show sees itself that way anyways.

Overall, Gotham is a hot mess. There's not really a rational reason why I enjoyed this show and hopefully I can figure that out in Season 2, but it's an entertaining bad that has inklings of hope... if they execute correctly. As long as the show stops trying to be previous iterations of Batman and tries to be its own thing, warts and all, I can accept it as an alternate take of Batman. But that also requires the viewer to disregard previous preconceived notions of the Gotham universe you prefer. It's its own thing and might be able to pull it off... maybe.

But those are my thoughts on Gotham. I hope it gets better in later seasons. Without spoilers, do it? Should I keep watching? What do you think? 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 for reading!

Dark Phoenix

So I am willing to admit when I'm wrong. Last year, I think I said on multiple occasions that I doubted this movie was actually going to happen. It was supposed to come out around this time last year, then it was supposed to come out in February, and then it was further delayed to June. It was delayed so much and it was coming out around the same time as the Fox/Disney merger that I just assumed that Disney would just scrap it. And I was wrong. Should Disney have just scrapped this one? Yeah probably.

Dark Phoenix is the final installation of the X-men franchise under the Fox Studios name. The Disney/Fox merger has brought all these characters back under the direct control of Marvel and while it has not been formally announced, it is likely the last time these characters will be played by the actors who have been playing these roles since 2011. As someone who actually really liked this franchise, it bums me out that it ultimately went out this way and the X-men Franchise is really looked down upon. I'll talk a little bit more about that near the end, but while this movie is not nearly as bad as some people might say it is, it is not the ending that the Fox Studios run of the X-men really deserved.

The first problem with this movie is that it takes some liberties with the paths these characters were all on at the end of X-men Apocalypse. Its not the worst application of the X-men team, it just felt kind of disjointed from the ending we just saw, as if Apocalypse didn't really happen. But Apocalypse wasn't very good so that's okay.

At the start of this movie, the X-men are a full fledged superhero team. They are well received by the general public, Charles Xavier (played again by James McEvoy) has a direct line to the White House, and they are a fully fledged team the way they really haven't been I'd argue since the original trilogy.

Every other installation in the rebooted timeline (First Class on) always feels like they're getting the gang together, or they're getting the gang back together. This one, they're wearing matching outfits, they're going on missions, it's all very formal like it hasn't been since the original trilogy, which I don't mind. It's cheesy and its quite a jump from the events of Days of Future Past and Apocalypse where mutants have been tearing down landmarks and attacking Presidents, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.

The team is led by Mystique or Raven (played by Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (played by Nicholas Hoult), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Quicksilver (played by Evan Peters), Storm (played by Alexandra Shipp), Nightcrawler (played by Kodi Smit-McPhee), and Jean Grey (played by Sophie Turner).

In the first sequence, something goes wrong, and Jean is mysteriously affected by a solar flare that was threatening some astronauts they go into space to save. It's not until later that she starts to realize that she is growing in power and nobody, not even Charles Xavier knows how to help her.

And honestly, the entire movie is asking the question of "what do we do about Jean?" There's Charles who believes she can still be saved, then there's Eric/Magneto (played by Michael Fassbender) who believes the best way to deal with that immense power is to kill Jean. There's also this other weird faction with Jessica Chastain's character who have their own agenda.

And while I think I sort of understand what Simon Kinberg was trying to go for as writer and coming into his directorial debut, I have to say its a pretty sloppy mess all around. I actually think there is a lot more possibility in this movie than people give it credit for and with some changes and a bigger budget, it could have been really good, but as it is, it's trying to cram the Dark Phoenix Saga into a two hour movie with a rushed background leading up to a disappointing ending.

I have to be honest, I am not as familiar with the Dark Phoenix Saga comic book run, but I have a general idea that it is about Jean Grey, a beloved character in the franchise, developing immense power from some means and driving the X-men into a cerebral battle of multiple personalities, and creating a splinter in the group around this beloved character.

Even if I'm not hitting the right points in that story, it is clear that the live action movies have not done nearly enough set up to bring Jean Grey in as a character that would see her corruption fracture the team the way it could. Even if that's not the point from the comics, that's clearly what they were trying to do with this movie and it doesn't make sense because we just haven't had enough time to get invested in Sophie Turner's Jean Grey.

Aside from all the workers that got laid off from the Disney/Fox merger, Sophie Turner was probably the actor that got screwed the most because she got a great opportunity to play an iconic character but the two movies she's in, she's either a side character that isn't given the time she needs for us to invest in Apocalypse (and the movie is bad), or she stars in a rushed story where the script is bad and everyone else really wants out (also the movie is bad too).

She's not a bad actress, she just isn't given much as far as the script goes and comparatively to McEvoy and Fassbender who know their characters well and are veteran actors who know how to still give a good performance, Sophie Turner didn't really know what to do with this.

And that's the other thing, the Dark Phoenix story was such a weird way to end a rebooted franchise that mostly centered on the friendship between Charles and Eric. Those two end up being supporting characters in their own franchise, and while they give a good performance, they aren't the focus.

An example of how this movie had some initially good ideas was taking the character of Charles Xavier and reminding us that, at least the McEvoy version, he is a bit arrogant. He's enjoying the spotlight and there's a decent scene where he says he would take the world seeing them as heroes over being seen as monsters. I had a flashback to the Charles Xavier from First Class who was trying to bed women after chugging a boot of beer. I like what they at least tried to do with Charles and McEvoy has played him pretty consistently this entire franchise.

And then there's Fassbender.

It does not matter that bringing Magneto back never really makes sense. It doesn't matter that Eric is a confirmed survivor of the Holocaust and this movie takes place in the 90's making him about 70 when he looks, at worst, in his fifties. He just continues to bring it every time he's on screen and it's entertaining as hell.

Again, they kind of forget a lot of the actions of the last two films, hit the reset button, and put Eric on an island so he can live peacefully with mutants, but even that seems like a much more interesting movie than this movie ended up being. I'd love to see that. I think that might be a reference to some kind of story line in the X-men comics, but I'd watch a whole Disney plus show of Michael Fassbender's Magneto hanging out on a commune mutant island just because he sells it.

Even Jennifer Lawrence, who has been checked out of these movies probably since Days of Future Past, still manages to make me understand what they tried to do in this movie.

Raven is presented as a maternal figure to the new class of X-men who are growing into their roles as the main team and this pairs well with Charles's vanity. Does it go very far? No, but again, I have to wonder what this movie would have been like without some of the external factors. One of them being, Jennifer Lawrence was just waiting for the moment she gets axed off in this movie. I know that's a spoiler, but the trailer made it kind of clear and we all kind of knew it was gonna happen.

It's a credit to Lawrence as an actress that I was still somewhat interested in this character who has been in the franchise for a while, but there are still the choices that clearly were made because Lawrence is a big name actress who didn't want to get into blue make up a second longer than she had to.

And that kind of goes along with a lot of other choices. It's the same reason Magneto is in this film and continues to have sympathetic stories written for him. It's for the money shots and the draw to the theaters.

For example, right at the beginning, there's a scene where they're getting into a jet to go into space to save some astronauts. Why are they taking a jet in the 90's to go into space? Eh who cares, it looks cool. I even asked, you've got the team I listed above, why are all they going? What is Beast or Mystique gonna do in space? They use Nightcrawler, Quicksilver, Jean, and even Cyclops to use a cool little cannon, but why is Storm there? Eh, who cares, it looks cool.

On a side note, don't think that Storm, Nightcrawler, and even Quicksilver are in this movie because they're interesting characters. They're just there to fill out the team. Even Cyclops feels a little ham fisted in there even though they half heartedly try to develop the relationship between him and Jean. 

And that's the overall theme of this movie. There is a lot more I could talk about like the pointlessness of the Jessica Chastain character, the fact this movie looks like the budget was slashed about a billion times, the fact that the writing is bad, it doesn't matter because the movie is boring, and none of it felt earned. Everyone, no matter how good of actors they are feel like they're going through the motions because the script is being rewritten every day and the scuttlebutt is that Disney is buying Fox and none of this matters.

The really sad thing is, there's still just enough in there to make me sad that this movie didn't get more people who care about it. I remember the trailer being somewhat interesting but it just felt doomed because it was in the midst of the merger details.

I remember the performances given by McEvoy, Fassbender, and Lawrence (in First Class and Days of Future Past), and I remember how good this franchise could be. And I think about how this studio already had the blue prints of a bad Phoenix movie and they found another way to make it bad again.

I do take issue with the argument that the Fox/Disney merger is a good thing for fans of X-men because it throws the control of the franchise into the hands of Disney and Kevin Fiege. But I'm disappointed, because even in the bad times, I knew when an X-men movie came out, it was going to be different.

Taking the totality of the X-men franchise, I think Fox did a pretty good job with the franchise. Are there bad movies and missteps? Yes. But even if you don't count Logan and the Deadpool movies (which I do personally), this franchise is still full of pretty good, and if not good memorable movies. X-men, X2, First Class (my personal underrated favorite), Days of Future Past, and The Wolverine (? I think?), were all critically praised films.

Were there bad movies? Absolutely. I would say though that the bad X-men movies were at worst boring. Apocalypse, Origins, and The Wolverine? were forgettable. And even their worst like The Last Stand still had entertaining moments pieced with "its so bad its good" retrospect. And if you count Logan and the Deadpool movies, you still have a franchise that had more good than bad.

So while others say that they're excited for the X-men to join the MCU, I'm bummed that X-men will likely conform to the manufactured Disney standard of Superhero films when it is clear from other super hero films that different it becoming more and more profitable. X-men could be entertaining with the MCU, but I worry it will have the same feel under Disney as the other Marvel properties when I'd rather a franchise be flawed but interesting than standardized good.

But Phoenix also disappoints because there was enough potential there for me to still have thoughts, even though it seems Fox and Disney just want it all to be over as soon as possible.

I saw Dark Phoenix on a plane and I think that was the best way to see it. Free. Don't spend money on it, and I would hardly recommending spending time on it, but I do think there are enough redeeming qualities to make it at least a little interesting as the disappointing end of an era.

But those are my thoughts on Dark Phoenix. What did you think? Did you wait six months to see it like I did? Have you still not seen it? What are your thoughts on the X-men franchise as a whole? 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 for reading!