Music Man (2003)

The really funny thing is, I remember this coming out on TV as a kid and I remember watching it. I remember, probably unfairly, comparing it to the 1962 version, and at the end of it all, it really just disappeared from my memory until recently. The entire movie is available on Youtube so I thought since I was on this Music Man kick, I thought I'd do a review and, again probably unfairly, compare it to the 1962 version.

I'm going to try and give this movie as fair of a shake on its own merits as I can. I do think it's unfair to watch this immediately after watching the 1962 version like I did because the only thing one can do naturally is to compare the two. But like I said in my review of the 1962 movie, I watched that movie so many times that it was impossible not to compare the two, even if I hadn't watched it one after the other.

I hope this review is going to be a little short due to the fact that I reviewed the majority of the plot in the other review and there is little to no difference between the two, storywise. There's also very few photos on Google Image from this movie so, I'll work with what I have and try to keep it brief.

So the TV movie of The Music Man that aired on ABC in 2003 follows the familiar story. Traveling salesman/conman Harold Hill finds his way into River City spouting the promise of a boys band to the stubborn midwest down.

Along the way he goes toe to toe with the city librarian, Marian who is skeptical of his motives, and he brings song and dance to a sleepy town stuck in its old ways.

The main difference this time around is the cast. And I have to say, this is a weird cast and probably the biggest issue I have with the show.

Getting right in to it, I don't understand the choice of Matthew Broderick playing Harold Hill. Now I know its going to be hard for anybody to play Harold Hill, especially in the shadow of Robert Preston. This movie and the 1962 version are the only feature length films I've seen because I get the feeling people just aren't interested in being compared with someone who was able to absolutely own that role the way Preston did. But someone has to explain the rationale for Matthew Broderick.

 I mean I sort of understand, I guess the late 90's/early 2000's were like the hayday for Matthew Broderick and he was in a lot of things as well as flexing a Broadway charm he had been developing with The Producers. But there is a huge difference between Leo Bloom and Harold Hill. I can imagine anybody would have a difficult time making the role their own, but Broderick just felt like a weird choice in 2003 and feels weird now.

The face to the left is the face he makes THE ENTIRE movie and he never really loses that pipsqueak voice and emotionless face he's pulled out in multiple films. Broderick is one of multiple actors in this show that makes me think that Disney just thought, we need to get this TV movie cast, lets fill it with people who have performed on Broadway, regardless of who they are or if they fit with the role.

Not to compare too much, but with the 1962 version, everyone felt perfectly set with the role and it worked perfectly. Not all movies are going to be cast perfectly, but this one had a lot more awkward choices than good ones.

Victor Garber and Molly Shannon play the Mayor and his wife which I guess in theory makes sense, especially Molly Shannon. Mrs. Shinn is a funny character and Molly Shannon is funny and musically talented. And in the 2000s any musical that Disney put in automatically had Victor Garber in it.

The truth is, these two aren't terrible, but they aren't great either. They're just kind of there. Molly Shannon has some okay moments but Victor Garber just didn't really pull off the comedic moments that I think you could get from Mayor Shin. To be fair to both of them, I think it's difficult to make these characters funny. They can be, but it's not gonna break the show if they're not.

The rest of the cast was fine and probably wouldn't have been looked too closely at by me if Broderick wasn't such a huge miscast. Mrs. Paroo is played by Debra Monk which was probably another, "she's on Broadway, cast her" decision. She kind of loses her accent from time to time.

The couple that play Tommy Djias and Zineta Shin (Clyde Alves and Cameron Adams) did an okay job but they did make me laugh when I'm supposed to believe that these two are in high school and no in their late twenties.

A really small but kind of funny piece of trivia is that the kid who plays Winthrop is Cameron Monaghan who you might recognize from Shameless or Gotham. He does a fine job, I just thought that was funny when I looked it up.

The one thing this movie did one hundred percent right is cast Kristin Chenoweth as Marian

Keep in mind this is 2003, the same year Wicked premiered. Kristin Chenoweth was a pretty big name on Broadway with You're a Good Man Charlie Brown but this was actually before Wicked that she did this show and she was pretty much an unknown for most people.

Regardless, she is acting circles around everyone in this show and she actually looks like she's giving it one hundred percent her all. Chenoweth just has a better voice than everyone in the show and every time she sang I was in. This movie is a little bit cringe worthy in a lot of places, but boy was Chenoweth hands down the best part of the show.

The last casting I'll talk about I think blends well into the awkward feel of this show and that's the barbershop quartet.

This is the only good photo I can get of them and in case you can't tell, they're just 4 of the most generic white dudes I've ever seen. There's nothing distinct about any of them and if you asked me to pick one out as a distinct character or from the other out in a crowd, I couldn't do it.

They sing fine, but there's nothing memorable about it and it feels like they were just cast at random haphazardly.

That sentiment as well as the limited photos I've found from this show really encapsulate the vibe I got overall from this show. It was quickly put together, everybody seemed to rush through it as fast as they could, and there's no soul to it.

I realized this when I was watching a community production my buddy was in that the dialogue in the show is very quippy. It has a lot of jokes that I never picked up on as a kid but fully picked up on as an adult and during a stage show, you can pause for the audience to laugh. Movie versions don't have that laugh track or pause, it's not diagetic. So they have to adapt to make the show work. While the 1962 doesn't totally nail it, this one breezes past these moments without really understanding why certain lines are funny. It seems like they saw this show as a romantic musical, not a comedy, and to me that's a shame.

But nothing about this show felt heart felt or like anybody (with the exception of Chenoweth) was really putting their all into it. While it looks cleaner and like it had a larger production value, everything feels like it was done on a small set and like it was a community theater production they'd all move on from after it was done. Everyone seemed to push their lines as fast as they could, and nobody thought to say, "Hey Matthew, Maybe you should do another take on that line".

To be fair, I don't know how difficult it is to make a movie. I'm sure people gave a shit and I don't wanna trash people's livelihood. But I think you can tell when someone is really invested and loves the source material and when something is being made because Disney thought it'd be good to produce a TV movie musical with a bunch of Broadway actors.

This wasn't the first or the last time this happened, especially with Disney, but I think it's fascinating that there really are only two movie adaptations of this story. I think I find it interesting that the 1962 version came out only a year after the huge Broadway style classic West Side Story. Spielberg is actually coming out with a remake of that in the next year or so and Hugh Jackman is doing The Music Man on Broadway. I'm not one who's really good at reading tea leaves, but depending on the success of West Side Story, maybe there could be a new revitalization of this story in a few years.

Overall, I'm glad this movie was free on Youtube. It's a TV movie with probably a deadline they needed to meet in order for it to air. I don't know what the budget was but I can't imagine it was less than the 1962 version. The dancing is and music is fine. They choreograph it pretty well and got innovative with a different medium. The casting is the big hurdle for me. Matthew Broderick not only doesn't live up to Robert Preston's gravitas, but he was just horribly miscast from the get go. Kristin Chenoweth is really good and almost saves the movie, but overall it's a dud that you don't need to check out unless you wanna laugh at the unfair comparison.

But those are my thoughts on The Music Man (2003), did you see it? What'd you think? How does it compare? 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!

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

I'm sure I've probably mentioned this before, but I never had a huge emotional attachment to Harry Potter. I enjoyed the books I read and I enjoyed the movies but it's not at the top of my list of favorite franchises.

When Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them came out, I found myself surprisingly entranced by the expansion of a really cool world. Say what you will about J.K.Rowling (which in my opinion shouldn't really be anything bad for whatever reason, she's living her best life, leave her alone!) but she did create a really interesting world and she now has the opportunity to expand on it in movies. We should be happy that there's this opportunity to continue to get stories from the Wizarding World.

However, after some time of reflection, besides the world building, I honestly don't remember a whole lot about the plot of the first Fantastic Beasts movie and I haven't had an inkling to go back to that movie. I was excited for the Crimes of Grindelwald until I heard from some people that the movie wasn't that good, and since I don't have that big of a connection to the Wizarding World franchise, I was okay skipping this one in theaters... Boy was that the right choice.

The Crimes of Grindelwald takes place 6 or so months after the first film and Grindelwald (played unfortunately by Johnny Depp) escapes his custody, kind of making the the end of the first movie kind of pointless, but whatever.

The Ministry of Magic is trying to find him and stop him from exposing the wizarding world and perpetuating a war between the Magic World and the Non-Magic World.

Albus Dumbledore (played by Jude Law), tries to recruit Newt Scamander (played by Eddie Redmayne) to find to do... something? Find Credence (played again by Ezra Miller) or go after Grindelwald, or something. To be honest, I'm not totally clear on Dumbledore's whole role in this movie but I'll explain why later. Aside from a really unclear motivation for Dumbledore that hopefully will be reconciled in the next film, this was actually the more interesting part of the movie. Aurors trying to find Grindelwald and weighing the question of whether or not Magic users should just live in the shadows to Muggles is actually an interesting dilemma...

Too bad they already established Newt Scamander as the main character...

Newt says no to Dumbledore's vague mission to go to Paris but ends up going exactly where Dumbledore wants him to go when his American friends Queenie and Jacob (played by Alison Sudol and Dan Fogler) come to visit him. Queenie goes off on her own to find Tina (played again by Katherine Waterson) who is looking for Credence in Paris so even though Newt wasn't going to leave the country, he does... for a girl?

And I don't even want to go into the bullshit relationship stuff that they bring up in this movie because it's forced. It's contrived. And it takes away from what could have been an epic as fuck movie.

Meanwhile, Credence from the first movie is back and he's hanging out in a circus trying to figure out who he is. He just kind of meanders around the whole movie with the same stupid expression on his face and people thought it was relevant the entire movie because A: The movie said it was, and B: he was hanging out with a character named Nagini (played by Claudia Kim) that if you're a fan of the books, you know is the snake that hangs out with Voldemort in the regular movies.

Overall, the movie is Newt and his friends, and the good guys looking for Credence while Grindelwald is doing the same thing and there's an underlying tension being built up for a finale. If it was a good movie I'd be excited, but this is such a stumble that I'm not sure how I feel by the end of the film.

 Credence could be an interesting character. Again, him "dying" in the first movie was made really insignificant but by the end of this movie there is an inkling that they could be doing something cool here.

Nagini on the other hand had no purpose in this movie whatsoever. The sole reason she is in this movie is for fan girls to gasp that they recognize a name from the books or movies.

This is one of the biggest problems with this movie. There are a lot of issues with this movie, but this movie goes out of its way to tie itself to the original Harry Potter movies and I'm not totally sure why. It's pretty obvious that the two worlds are connected, people are not confused. There was no reason for Nicholas Flammel to be in this movie and he literally shows up out of no where. He adds nothing to the movie.

But I think the worst is when the movie stops dead in its tracks to tell the story of a character who only is significant because she has the LeStrange last name. Zoe Kravitz plays Leta LeStrange and there is a scene where they spend a good chunk of the movie delving into her backstory and her family tree for no good reason.

A rivalries among wizard brothers vying for the affection of a girl with a troubled history could have been the entire movie. If JK really thought it was important to throw in this detour on the LeStrange family, why didn't she just make the movie about that? It's interesting stuff, don't get me wrong, but remember we have the actual Crimes of Grindelwald to focus on, we don't have time to detour into the backstory of Zoe Kravitz's character who, minor spoilers, won't have an impact on future films in this franchise.

And that's another problem with this movie. It's all over the place. There's so many characters and they all have kind of interesting stories. I already mentioned the rivalry between Newt and his brother Theseus (played by Callum Turner) but honestly, that subplot is right in the middle between most boring and most interesting plot lines. On the boring end you've got Queenie and Jacob working their way through a world that doesn't accept their love. You also have the paper thin romance between Tina and Newt. You have Newt's creatures that while interesting, don't add a whole lot to a movie called Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

But the major story line that everyone is missing out on in this movie is Albus Freaking Dumbledore.

You have beloved actor Jude Law playing a beloved character, Albus Dumbledore and he's barely in the film! What a waste! Sure they bring up some interesting things like him as a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, his relationship with Grindelwald, his position as one of the most powerful wizards  alive and yet being on the outs with the mainstream wizarding government. There's so many ways they could have gone with this, and they don't do anything with it!

I get it, we've created the character of Newt Scamander, he needs to be the center, we're down that road already. And to give some more credit to this film, it does give Newt a little more development. We learn about his family, more about how he was as a kid and what drives him as a character not totally taking sides until he absolutely needs to. That's great... BUT.

In comparison with Albus Dumbledore, he's super boring. Compared to Dumbledore, a character who already has so much context, everyone else in this movie seems super dull. On top of that, Newt doesn't feel like he should be in this movie.

The reality is, the first movie wrapped up in an okay manner. Any plot lines were tied up pretty easily and in order to bring everyone together again in the sequel, the script needs to explain why they're returning from that wrapped up ending from the first film. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the way Newt, and Tina, and Queenie, and Jacob all come together feels really forced and awkward.

This story seems like it's more about Dumbledore, and Leta LeStrange... sorta, and Credence, and Grindelwald, and Newt is literally in the background because if you apply logic, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense why he's there in the first place. Again, I get it, people like Newt, he's a unique character because he's not the chosen one or the strongest, but that needs to be incorporated into the story organically or it feels awkward.

Now there are a lot of issues I have with this film but the bottom line truth is, there were elements of it that I did like. Despite this movie having too many characters, I still do like Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob. They're not utilized or written smoothly in this film but the care that I had for them in the first movie kind of did carry forward.

While the flashbacks in this movie are long, I did like them a lot. And I'll say this with a huge caveat, but I liked Johnny Depp's Grindelwald.

If this movie was better I would for sure do a spoilers review because there is a lot that doesn't work about this character that would spoil the movie. However, there were aspects of the character of Grindelwald that I thought were interesting. He's not the worst villain in the world and I'd be lying if I said he wasn't one of the more interesting parts of the movie.

However, there are two caveats with that. The first is that his character is poorly written and a lot of things just happen because the plot requires or because there are inconsistencies. But the other caveat is that I really wish it wasn't Johnny Depp playing this role. I still think back to the first film and I remember Colin Farrell and I still think I would have liked him just as much if not more. It's unfortunate that someone's personal bad choices can sully a performance, especially one that's really not that bad in comparison with Depp's recent roles. But I just think Warner Brothers made a mistake to double down on this character when they could have easily thrown some white dye in Colin Farrell's hair and gone with that choice instead.

And at the end of the day, despite all this movie's issues, I am actually kind of excited for the sequel and how this movie hopefully wraps up.

The take away from both Fantastic Beast movies is that people are interested in an extended Harry Potter Universe, it just has to be done well. The reality is that both movies have been building up to the fight between Dumbledore and Grindelwald which was mentioned in The Deathly Hallows and was supposed to be super epic. The problem is that it is taking 3 movies for us to get there, and the focus isn't on the characters it needs to be on. They're expanding what amounts to a chapter in a book into three movies. I'd say that's as bad as pushing out a book like The Hobbit into three movies but at least that was a book, not a chapter and a fictional encyclopedia.

I've noticed a lot of videos and commentary on this movie is pretty critical of J.K. Rowling and some of her world building choices in the past decade. I didn't really want to incorporate that into this review because the truth is, as funny as it is, she can do whatever the hell she wants. If she wants to put out a trivia question that Wizards used to just shit where they stood and make their shit disappear, she can do that. It's weird, but it's not something I'm going to get worked up over.

My only hope would be that J.K. is making big changes to her world and characters to make herself happy, not her fans. I get the feeling when she wrote the Harry Potter books that she just wanted to write a story about Wizards and Witches. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them seems like she's trying to write a story that she thinks the fans are going to want but they just seem to be stumbling. J.K. seems to do her best work when she's writing for herself, not to please fans, and especially not to please her Social Justice minded fans. Every retcon saying that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had a hardcore sexual relationship without putting that explicitly in the movie seems half hearted and crowd pleasing.

But whatever, live your life JK. You do you.

But those are my thoughts on Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. What did you think? Are you excited for the sequel? 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!

Music Man (1962)

So I'll put a little bit of a disclaimer on this movie before I start the review. I probably watched this movie about a kajillion times as a kid. I think I used to be able to quote this movie line for line as a kid and even as an adult I can pick up on every beat and line like I watched this film yesterday. I haven't seen the film in quite a few years but I do still think there is a bias towards it. I just wanted that to be kept in mind for this review and the one to follow.

The Music Man follows the story of a traveling salesman by the name of Harold Hill (played by Robert Preston). In 1912, he finds himself in the small town of River City, Iowa. Through catch music and a silver tongue, he works to convince the town that he can sell the town a boys band and that he will teach the kids of the towns to play music. He is helped by a local former salesman by the name of Marcellus Washburn (played by Buddy Hackett) to convince the town that the children of River City are in trouble unless they organize a boys band.

Of course, not everyone in the town is cast under the spell of Professor Harold Hill and the town Librarian, Marian Paroo (played by Shirley Jones) is very skeptical of the traveling salesman. The story mainly consists of Harold gas lighting a town and trying to seduce Marian the librarian while he gathers the money and plans to leave town.

Now I realize that is kind of nefarious way of describing the plot, but I'll be honest, I've never described the plot of the music man before. It's worth noting that while he's deceiving the small Iowa town, his promises of bringing music to the stubborn River City starts to bring enthusiasm for life to the town and people begin singing and dancing and just being happier because of his plot.

However the plot is a really good example of how this story has aged in the modern day. Back in the 50's when Meredith Wilson wrote the musical, it was to highlight the culture of middle america. However, multiple aspects of that 1950's image of 1912 America doesn't exactly translate to today.

I love the music, but it's very much your American feel good music rather than anything really epic that you might expect from musicals of today. Don't get me wrong, the songs are really good. Especially rewatching it years later, I've come to appreciate more songs that I ever did as a kid, it might not hit you until later.

A good example is that there is a barbershop quartet in the film. As a kid I just saw that group as some extra flavor but now I see that group as almost stealing the show because their quartet renditions are so good. A famous Barbershop Quartet called The Buffalo Bills play the characters who make up the quartet in the show and they're fantastic. However, if you're not a fan of Barbershop Quartet music, you might not be drawn to The Music Man.

There are also some moments in the movie where I had my mouth open in awe that I never realized how dated this story is. There's a club in the town that is essentially culturally appropriating native american culture that would never fly today. Also the whole relationship between Harold Hill and Marian is a little stalkery at times, and more representative of male dominant practices when it came to dating and relationships. While I like the character of Marian and I'm pretty sure Shirley Jones was my first childhood crush, she's probably not a great role model for young girls.

I was actually amazed at the dynamic between her and her mother in the show (played by Pert Kelton) that her mother is almost spending the entire movie giving her shit that she's not married and that she has too high of standards of men. Like Harold shows up, harasses her on her way home, and when Marian tells her mom a man followed her home, her mom says, "Did you say anything?". Again, it was a different time for when this musical was written but it's weird in today's context.

 The supporting cast of this show is just so great. Buddy Hacket is phenomenal despite not being the most musically or dancing talented. Paul Ford plays the Mayor of the town and I haven't seen anybody beat him. Hermonine Gingold plays the Mayor's wife and she's hilarious. Most of the actors besides Robert Preston, Shirley Jones, and Buddy Hacket probably don't ring any bells for most people but I can't think of one character that is out of place in this movie. Everyone's doing such a good job and they make an impact that you kind of forget that some characters have relatively small roles or only show up for a scene and then never really have another line in the film. I'll talk more about this in the next review, but even years later I remember these performances fondly because it just fits together so well.

And of course, the glue that keeps it all together is Robert Preston as Harold Hill.

As great as everyone in this movie is, this movie, especially today, would never work without the character of Harold Hill and good lord, Robert Preston owns this role. The man is so smooth and so confident that he made his performance so unique and hard to top. I know that this show is going to be redone. It was done in 2003 (I'll get to that) and Hugh Jackman is apparently doing it on Broadway, but in one way or another, Robert Preston was able to absolutely nail the role. Every time he's on screen he's hamming it up and just creating something so memorable and unique. He is the reason this movie succeeded and he's the reason it is still the gold standard for how this show is executed.

The main reason I watched this movie was because I had a buddy who played Harold Hill in a community theater production. This was the first time in a long time that I had seen the show on stage and not the 1962 film version. I think I became so interested in analyzing this story because of how funny I realized this show is. I already mentioned how there are songs that I didn't think too much of as a kid that I can't get out of my head, but there are jokes in the dialogue that I never picked up at a young age. There are implications and subtext that I totally missed out on as a kid and I'm seeing the show in a whole new light. The dialogue is almost Shakespearean in that the humor is so deep seeded that if you're not careful you'll miss it. And especially in a movie where there isn't a pause for laughter, it was very easy to miss as a kid.

Yes, a lot of elements of the show don't fit the culture we live in today, especially what counts as acceptable and what doesn't, but even that's interesting to analyze. I think I would love to see the Hugh Jackman production of this in 2019 because I imagine it would be very different.

 The last thing I'll mention is the amazing choreography. If you've the 1961 version of West Side Story, you know that musicals back in the 60 created these giant stage sets for huge dance numbers and to a certain extent, I think this movie meets if not exceeds some of the dance numbers from West Side Story. I think only big theater nerds like myself would notice that, but it is pretty amazing the amount of time and effort that for sure went into the song and dance numbers in this show.

Overall, this movie is an underrated classic. Everyone I know who has seen it absolutely loves it but I can't say this is a movie I've heard a lot of people have watched. If you haven't seen it, treat yourself and check it out, with the huge caveat that some elements of the show have not aged well. But if you can appreciate it for the music and dance numbers as well as the dynamite performance from Robert Preston and a great cast, you'll have a great movie watching experience on your hands.

But those are my thoughts on The Music Man (1962). Have you seen it? What did you think? Have you seen the 2003 version? Should I review that one too? Too late, I'm going to. But leave your comments 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!

Captain Marvel Spoilers

So a part of me wants to go and see Captain Marvel again, but based on my experience and my reflection on the film, I can’t say with full confidence that I want to spend money on re-watching this movie. It might be a redbox rental in a couple of months, but I went and saw it in theaters once and I’m happy about that.

That being said, with the surprise release of the Avengers Endgame trailer a couple days ago, I thought it’d be relevant to delve into those spoilers and give my uncensored thoughts on Captain Marvel now that I’ve been able to sit with it for a little bit. Who knows, maybe I’ll throw in some thoughts on the new trailer and how much I’m hyped for April 26^th.

Just a warning, this review is a lot more of a train of thought as I'm remembering parts of the film I couldn't talk about in the main review. In case you haven't noticed its becoming less and less convenient to talk about spoilers so I'm more trying to get to the point and relate it to the larger analysis of the movie. 

I started the non-spoiler review with what I liked so I’m going to start the spoiler review with the things that I didn’t like and that is relevant because the main things I didn’t like were the shameless tie ins to the larger MCU universe that felt really unnecessary.

Now I like the idea of Captain Marvel being a period piece setting up the origin of Carol Danvers before she appears in Avengers Endgame. I talked about how the marketing of this film wrote a lot of lessons from movies like Black Panther and Wonder Woman and taking a page out of Wonder Woman’s period piece origin story was a good choice for Captain Marvel. My issue is with haphazard retconning and poor utilization of greater Marvel property with the exception of Nick Fury. Agent Coulson looked like the rubber Tim Allen robot from The Santa Claus 2 and really didn’t contribute anything to the movie besides a gratuitous cameo. If you’re gonna use the delightful Clark Gregg, use him!

Including Ronan the Accuser was a bad idea. Not only was he a gratuitous cameo as well, but his cameo only served to remind the audience that this movie exists in the MCU, something we already knew, and vaguely hint at a sequel that may or may not happen. This all feels like Phase 1 Marvel and I was starting to feel like we had moved on from that childish nonsense.

Including the tesseract was confusing. The more I think about the tesseract in this film, the more it validates complaints that the plot is convoluted and choppy. The source of Mar Vell’s light speed engine could have been anything, it could have alluded to a new power that we’ll see in Phase 4, it could just be a pointless mcguffin. But because it was needlessly the tesseract, suddenly there’s a bunch of questions about continuity. Did Howard Stark find the tesseract then give it to Dr. Lawson/Mar Vell? I think we all just assumed it went from Howard Stark to SHIELD, why add the extra step?

While we’re on SHIELD, Captain Marvel messes with the SHIELD timeline because in Iron Man, Coulson says that SHIELD is still working on its name. I get that SHIELD has been working covertly for quite a while, but suddenly it has its name and logo all set up by the 90s so Nick Fury can just throw a hat at Carol and say, we’re SHIELD?

And while we’re on Nick Fury, you’re telling me that when he was saying that the last time he trusted somebody he lost an eye, he was talking about Goose the cat? Seriously?

And while we’re on Goose the Cat, they never really explain where he came from. They never explain why Mar Vell had an alien monster cat.

A lot of these things are nit picking. The fact that Nick Fury lost his eye to a cat did not break the movie for me. The fact that they didn’t follow continuity with the naming and organization of SHIELD or the movement of the tesseract, doesn’t ruin the film for me. It’s just the overt connection to the MCU that bothers me and took away from the new parts of the film I really liked. Not only were these things distracting, they rewrote canon, making it just annoying.

Really small thing, everybody seemed way too cool
with sacrificing the scientist Skrull on the right... RIP

But I’ll talk about the new things I liked. I liked the Skrulls. I think one of the most clever things about this film was making Ben Mendelsohn the main skrull, giving him the illusion that he was the bad guy and then turning it around and saying that he’s actually a good guy. I think Marvel was being smart with Ben Mendelsohn’s reputation as the pompus bad guy and turned that on its head.  I also think the idea of the skrull returning is super fascinating. You have a race of aliens that can shape shift into anybody, and despite the fact they’re portrayed as victims in this movie, they could easily say another sect of the Skrull are evil and try to invade Earth with a… “secret Invasion”.

Having Jude Law and the Kree be the bad guy was kind of predictable. I mentioned in my non-spoilers review that I was confused on why it felt like I was being tested on obscure political points from Guardians of the Galaxy, because I couldn’t quite remember who the Kree were and that they were essentially bad in Guardians of the Galaxy. Why would that be different in this film? They do a halfway decent job at trying to convince you otherwise but they could have done better. I think Jude Law unfortunately will go down as another mediocre bad guy, which I find really unfortunate and a waste of a talent like his. Again, it kind of feels like parts of Captain Marvel were a step back.

I think the other reason I’m disappointed with how they didn’t play up the shifting alliances enough was the way they executed Carol’s change of heart. For me, it felt more black and white than a situation like this warranted. She’s very quick to just abandon the people who had been her family and friends for the past 6 years because green Ben Mendelsohn said otherwise. I would have been more pleased if they had played off the nuance of that long lasting war, underlined the bad decisions of the skrull and weighing the two evils against each other. That or really play up the idea of Skrulls messing with her mind. Jude Law suggests that they messed with her head and there is a period of time that some mind shenanigans could have gone down, I think they could have played up the uncertainty of which side to support more than they did.

I do have to give Jude Law’s character credit. He sees a woman who pointed a gun at him get blasted a ray of energy and says, let’s take her back with us and try and convert her to our side. That’s actually kind of impressive. But something I don’t think enough people have noticed is that there really isn’t a bad guy in this film, or not really a main one. The closest thing to a main villain is a three way tie between Jude Law’s character, who ends up being more of a lackey, the Supreme Intelligence who is barely in the movie, and Ronan, who again is barely in the movie. I won’t say this is a bad thing. I actually found it kind of unique.

I loved the homages to Stan Lee. Those were pretty special. I don't know if its the best Stan Lee Cameo but it is for sure the most heartfelt, especially in the wake of his passing. 

I don’t have a huge issue with Nick Fury naming the Avengers after her nick name, I think I would have just liked to hear someone actually say that nick name as opposed to it just being a nick name on a plane.

The post credit scenes were fine. I’ve definitely seen better. The mid credit scene is probably a scene directly from End Game so it’s not really a very unique credit scene. I do think it underlines something I really liked from this film which was the relationship between Carol and Nick Fury. I hope they don’t go down a romantic angle with those two, but I actually liked the plutonic chemistry between the two and it made sense why Fury would call her just as he’s starting to disappear.

If you want to get really nitpicky, you can ask the question of why Fury was just now calling Captain Marvel. They have been other instances where Captain Marvel would have been helpful… like the invasion of earth, whether by chitari or Ultron robots. The obvious reason is that the writers didn’t know Captain Marvel was an entity somewhere out there and fans like me are looking too into it. However, I do see the start of an issue that Marvel might find themselves in when it comes to a post-Endgame MCU.  

Captain Marvel being galaxies away is one thing, but what happens when Kevin Fiege needs to explain how there have been mutants around, or a Fantastic Four around since the beginning and we’re just discovering them now in the movies? The funny thing is that there is probably a guy at Marvel who this is his sole job. He needs to track the continuity of the films and make sure it all makes sense. And now it’s even more convoluted because he’s tracking the Sony Spider-man/Venom universe as well as the incoming Fox X-Men and Fantastic Four factors. Sounds like he has some work cut out for him.

Overall, I'm gonna try and not be too dramatic about Captain Marvel's role in future movies, namely Avengers Endgame. If you've seen the new trailer, besides not gathering a whole lot about what the story is gonna be about (which I love), you know that she's in the trailer... and its confirmed she exists in this next movie... which we already assumed. 

While I wasn't really wild about Brie Larson's performance in Captain Marvel, I'm not really worried about it for two reasons. 

The first one is that she is not the first superhero to have a so-so first outing and then shine in later movies. Captain America in the First Avenger was only okay and now he's everyone's favorite. I know Brie Larson is a good actress so I'm looking forward to her in these future movies. 

Secondly, and I don't wanna shit on the directors of Captain Marvel too much because I don't know their work that well, but I have more confidence in the Russos than the directors of Captain Marvel to give better direction to Brie Larson. That's something people aren't talking about, the fact that the Russos are in charge now and they've proven themselves. 

Also another note on that, the Russos are gonna do what the Russos are gonna do. They had a plan for Captain Marvel in parallel with the release of her standalone and they're gonna integrate her nicely. 

I'm amazed that people are already saying that it was a miscast when it's one movie. I think the consensus is that this is probably not Marvel's best outing, but I'm not ready to say that Brie Larson was miscast yet. 

By the way, can we talk about that Endgame trailer. Oh boy that's a good trailer. Mainly because there's not a whole lot to talk about in it because I still have no idea what the plot is gonna be. I know it's gonna be three hours long, I'm okay with that. I know they're dealing with the snap and trying to find a way to either kill Thanos in revenge or save their friends but I have no idea how. And I know that Hawkeye's (and probably Ant-Man's too) family probably got snapped. The first 15 minutes are probably going to break me because we're going to see a lot of people dealing with the snap and because these are such great characters, we're going to feel every bit of it. 

The one thing I noticed after a billion watches and something that will probably play into it is that I think there is going to be a skip in time at some point. I noticed that there are scenes where Black Widow has short white hair like the hair she had in Infinity War and then there are other scenes where her hair is longer and going back to red. Also Hawkeyes hair that I only hope evolves into a Rufio from Hook hairdo. 

There's probably going to be progression of time, and a coming together to do... something... 

There's not one hint of Thanos in this trailer and everyone's wondering why. I just think this has the potential to be a fantastic movie and the only people right now who have the ability to show that little and yet get me this psyched is Marvel. 

This is without a doubt going to be the culmination of 21 movies coming to this point and I could not be psyched enough for it. I think there is a conversation to be had about what happens after, what the Avengers and frankly MCU movies will look like moving forward, as well as where Captain Marvel is going to fit in with all of that, but I think I'll get to that in another post, this one is getting a little long. 

But what were your thoughts on the spoilers of Captain Marvel? What'd you think of the Avengers Endgame that dropped yesterday? Most importantly, is Hawkeyes hair going to turn into a full on Rufio in Avengers 5, because I will be disappointed if it doesn't. 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!

Captain Marvel

So this is complicated movie to talk about because I have more thoughts on the lead up and fan reaction to this movie even before it came out. However, I want to get to the meat of the review first before I delve into that stuff. I think this movie deserves a proper review because there is a lot to talk about but it has been overshadowed by the dumb fan boyisms around it. I will talk about the culture war around the movie near the end, but let’s get right into it.

Captain Marvel is in an intriguing spot in the MCU for me.

Allusions to new movies in the post credit scenes of Marvel movies is as old as the franchise itself. These allusions have been pretty successful for Marvel because they are at the end and allude to an exciting new adventure. But with Captain Marvel, the stakes seemed to be raised. Not only were there allusions to her at the end of Infinity war, there was something about that ending that suggested

Captain Marvel is going to be the key to defeating Thanos. This wasn’t just a hammer sticking out of the sand, or the camera panning out to show the black panther statute to say that these movies are happening, the end credit scene in Infinity War seemed to be saying, not only is there another movie, but this hero is the key to resolve the pain and suffering you just experienced.

Now we could be blowing this out of proportion. That scene could have just been a clever way to allude to Captain Marvel and bring her into the fold for End Game, we’ll figure out in May. But it felt like there was a lot riding on Captain Marvel. Not only is this movie Marvel’s first female driven superhero film, not only is she another superhero in a franchise with pretty high standards, Captain Marvel is hyped up to be one of the only people who can stop Thanos. What could go wrong?

Captain Marvel centers on an amnesiac Kree warrior named Vers (played by Brie Larson). She is a part of an elite warrior team of Kree led by Yon-Rogg (played by Jude Law, and I’m just gonna refer to him as Jude Law because I’ll be honest, I never caught his name in the movie). They’re mission is to combat an invasive species called the Skrulls who invade planets with their shapeshifting ability to take on other people’s form.

After a mission to find one of their leaders named Talos (played by Ben Mendelsohn) goes wrong, Vers ends up stranded on earth in the 90s. Without giving too much of the plot away, she ends up teaming up with a young Nick Fury (played by Samuel L Jackson with, in my opinion, an impressive de-aging CGI look) to stop the Skrull plot on earth.

This is definitely a movie I’m gonna have to do another post in order to go into spoilers because there is a lot of stuff I want to talk about with this film. But as a whole, I did really like this film. I think like a lot of Marvel movies, it’s hard for me to rank where it stands right after I see it. Lots of the time, I really enjoy a Marvel film right after I see it but I like giving it time to marinate and the illusion kind of diminishes a little. That being said there are some things I know I loved and things I wasn’t as wild about this with film.

Let’s start with the things I liked.

The number one thing I liked was the science fiction feel of the movie overall. There was a feeling of unabashed science fiction melodrama and cheesy that they really lean into. The idea or image of the Skrulls could easily be reshaped to feel more realistic or gritty, but the MCU is at a point where they’re just embracing the weirdness and vibe of their properties without restricting it at all. I love how I got an original star trek vibe to the whole thing while still having a typical Marvel blast with this movie. The same way Thor Ragnorak embraced the weird neon 80s adventure vibe, Captain Marvel embraced campy science fiction serials while injecting that 90s nostalgia we all love.

And while a lot of it felt like flash Gordon sci fi cheese, the fact that she can’t remember her past was really interesting. I feel like I would have liked to see some more memory manipulation tropes to keep me guessing on what her backstory actually is or make me think that I’m getting played this entire time, but overall I felt like what they did with her past and unfolding that piece by piece was really good.

I liked the buddy cop feel of the movie between Vers and Nick Fury. I think there were some genuine friendship moments in this movie and as odd as it sounds, Nick Fury and Captain Marvel have chemistry. Not in a way that I want them to end up together in a romantic way, but I liked their back and forth and they seemed to really be invested in each other throughout the whole film.

I like Nick Fury in this movie. Nick Fury has always been a character that has been good but kind of on the periphery. This gave him a little more of personality. There are some aspects that I’ll talk about in my spoilers review that I wasn’t that wild about, but at least one thing in particular, while annoying, doesn’t break the movie, it was just kind of dumb.

I liked Ben Mendelsohn in this movie as the main skrull. I think when you think of Ben Mendelsohn of the pompous villain and while there’s some of that in there, it was a little bit different underlining the fact that he’s a really good actor. Talos is a good character and I think they did well with him as the villain without it being too typical Ben Mendelsohn typecast.

This will make for a good transition to the stuff that I didn’t like as much, but overall I did like Brie Larson as Captain Marvel. I’m looking forward to seeing more from her and bringing her into the modern day with the Avengers. I’m looking forward to seeing where she goes from here. I say that with the caveat that I didn’t love their approach to her character in this one.

Vers is a weird character. On one hand, she’s a warrior Kree and they apparently purge emotions. They remind me of Vulcans. But because she’s a little different, she’s snarky and a little more of a smartass. The reason she’s a little stoic in the trailers is because she’s an alien coming to earth with a little bit of a fish out of water story going for her. So I get what they were going for overall, but if I’m going to give any criticism of the trailer credit, it is that Brie Larson is a little wooden in the majority of her performance. Which is weird because I’ve seen Brie Larson performances in the past, she’s a good actress, she’s good at emoting, she’s good at showing emotion. This isn’t about her not smiling, because she definitely does in this movie, there’s just a weird juxtaposition to the moments where she’s showing emotion, having a good time, and being snarky, to when she’s being Captain Marvel and being heroic. I think they kind of stumbled at firmly establishing a consistent personality for Vers/Carol Danvers so a lot of the times she looks uncomfortable and out of place. Again, I want to see her again as Captain Marvel because I think it’s a good role and I get where they’re trying to go, I just want them to flesh her out more and get her more comfortable. A lot of it felt very wooden and inconsistent for me and could be done better in the future.

But that’s not even the biggest issue I had with the film. The biggest issue I had was that a lot of this movie felt like a step back for Marvel because it returned to a lot of the tropes were starting to get annoying about Marvel up until recently when they didn’t do it as often. Movies like Thor Ragnorak, Black Panther, and pretty much any MCU film from the Russos were starting to divert away from the typical and predictable Marvel formula and this movie felt like a step back.

It’s kind of hard to explain fully, but I didn’t feel like Captain Marvel was unique enough of a project to stand out like Ragnarok and Black Panther did. While there were some allusions to it being campy science fiction homage, it still felt very formulaic Marvel, very similar to the way Ant-man is a heist film, but not a very distinct heist film and more a Marvelized heist film. Furthermore, Captain Marvel seemed to be a step back in the sense that it integrated a lot of bathos (inserting unnecessary comedy in the middle of dramatic, emotional, or serious moments), or flooding the film with call backs to previous films in the franchise. This was the first MCU film that I was distracted by forced comedy, or felt the movie pause just to refer back to a previous movie or allude to a future sequel. The reason Thor Ragnorak, Black Panther, and Infinity War were some of the strongest MCU films is because they were mostly contained to their own stories and any allusions to future films or them being self aware that this is a shared universe were contained to the end of the film in more of a teaser for a future film. Again, the overall formulaic feeling of a MCU film is hard to really quantify, but it’s like the difference between experiencing a unique superhero film or one that feels like it was produced from a canned committee on what Kevin Fiege assumes audiences want in a superhero film.

On a quick note about unnecessary throw backs, I thought there were a lot of tie ins that were oddly dependent on seeing the other Marvel movies. I’ll talk more about it in my spoiler review but a good example is that I felt like there were some references in this movie to obscure political plot points from Guardians of the Galaxy that had me a little confused and which I felt were very unnecessary. Overall, this movie could have stood on its own and I think could have been better if it had thrown out almost every reference to previous MCU film with the exception of Nick Fury.

Last few notes, I liked the cast. I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on Brie Larson, Samuel L Jackson, and Ben Mendelsohn, but I thought everyone else was really good too. Jude Law was entertaining if not lacking in some areas, he has a supporting role but he’s definitely not the focus. I liked Annette Benning in this film. Lashana Lynch plays a pilot who is connected to Vers past in one way or another. One character I was actually kind of disappointed in was Clark Gregg returning as Phil Coulson. Maybe this is a spoiler, but he’s barely in the movie. When he is in the film they have deaging CGI and I wouldn’t be surprised if they focused all their work on Samuel L Jackson and half assed him because he looks terrible.

There are a few retcon decisions. I’ll talk about them more in my spoiler review but if you’re at the same point as me and a lot of people who watch MCU films, there are some continuity errors that don’t fully track. I find it interesting because I went with my friend who is pretty new to the MCU and doesn’t have that same connection that I do. He obviously didn’t find much issue with them but I had a little bit of a pause a couple times due to some things that don’t totally track.

And honestly, those are the main points I wanted to discuss in my non-spoiler review. Overall, I like Captain Marvel. I would probably put it in the mid range to lower end of the Marvel films but it’s worth mentioning two things with that. First off, just because it’s on the lower end of the MCU film ranking doesn’t mean it’s bad, just that there have been better MCU films. But also, with few exceptions like Iron Man 2, even a lower end MCU film is usually an above average superhero film. Even the movies that feel formulaic tend to still be wickedly entertaining and that’s what Captain Marvel was.

Now usually, before a super hero movie, or any movie for that matter, comes out, there are thoughts people have, based on the trailer. They can have thoughts on the stories of production or the early reviews before the movie comes out. But something felt different about Captain Marvel. 

Sure, there was the fact that Captain Marvel was set up as a very important character for Avengers: End Game, but something felt different about the movie in the past few weeks, even before all the trailers and all the man hate for this movie, which don't you worry, I will discuss. This movie felt different in what it was building up to. I think it started when Marvel announced that they were going to be coming out with a new slate of movies and essentially showed all the movies that would be coming out all the way up to Infinity War part 1 and 2 (remember when that was t thing?). This was quite a while ago and that slate has since change (it included the inhumans), but I remember the monumental feeling that Marvel was going to finally start to shift their focus towards the less obvious heroes and focus on superheroes of color and who were women, most notably in Black Panther and Captain Marvel. 

And Marvel wasn't the only one doing it, DC gave special attention to a movie like Wonder Woman and prided it on the fact that it was the first big budget female driven super hero film. I don't remember the original release schedule for Captain Marvel, but I do remember thinking that while DC was capitalizing on the first female led super hero film and would be focusing on a super hero of color later (Cyborg), Marvel was doing the opposite, focusing on Black Panther and going into Captain Marvel later. And the result was both were majorly successful. 

But from the get go, regardless of the release date, Captain Marvel wasn't just another Marvel movie release like Thor 3 was, it was a cultural event movie. And after the success of Black Panther and Wonder Woman, it made sense financially for Marvel to approach the movie in that cultural event way. It makes so much sense that Brie Larson came out and said Captain Marvel was going to be a "big feminist movie". Not only is there nothing wrong with that statement, but I'm glad that's the approach Marvel took with this film. I know there are people who are afraid of the word feminist. There are people that have been whining for weeks that this movie is promoting some Social Justice Agenda, or that Brie Larson said something they misconstrued as hating on men, but honest I don't care. If I'm Kevin Fiege and I've looked at the relevant films taht have focused on empowering women, or not white men, it makes total sense to empower women in my movie about a female superhero. Also, we should be celebrating women! I don't understand why this is construed as a bad thing, Brie Larson never said we should castrate men and make a society of women, she wants to show a strong women for an example for boys and girls. Why is this a bad thing?

Is the movie perfect? No! Does it have messaging in it? You bet your ass it does. But the movie isn't bad because of those things. Frankly its a little arrogant of me to say that because they focused on those things that somehow took away from the content because I don't see how you can validly make that argument. The movie can be only less than perfect but still have a good message about a female role model. 

I'm going on this rant because I'm trying to understand how we got to this point where so many can shit on a movie long before they've seen it. And if it was only based on the trailers, I would understand. It happens all the time, a trailer doesn't express the story well. And I could maybe see that for this film because this film does have some twists that they probably didn't want to give away. 

But if your gripe is that the trailer emphasizes the word her in hero, or shows Brie Larson standing in an empowering way, or if you're issue is that Brie Larson isn't smiling enough, I'm tending to think you're shitting on this movie because it's not marketed to you, rather than you don't think it looks good. It's a movie. Calm down. God forbid an actress gets excited about her work and wants to empower women. 

Okay, rant over. 

But what did you think of Captain Marvel? I'm hoping I'll come out with a spoiler review here in the near future because there are some things worth chatting about on that and I promise I'll leave out any more comments on the dumb twitter wars going on. Comment and Discuss below! About either the movie, the lead up to the film, whatever. I'm always open to dialogue about this as long as its respectful. 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!

House of Cards Season 5

First and foremost, Kevin Spacey is a creep.

It should be stated that regardless of if I enjoyed Spacey's performance and contribution to this season and the previous seasons before it, it doesn't negate the fact that he's not a great human being and should pay his proper punishment for the things he's done. At the end of the day, I'm commenting on a performance not a person, and even that has its own asterisk  to it because I was watching a performance knowing what I know now.

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about season 5 of House of Cards. Spoilers ahead.

Now it had been a hot second since I had watched Season 4 so I'll be honest, it took an episode or two and some recapping to remember every plot point and boy is there a lot to remember.

Francis and Claire are in the middle of an election where they are both sides of the ticket. They have started down a road of conflated fear mongering with an ISIS-like terrorist organization on American soil and there are investigations swirling around them in an attempt to undermine their administration.

The season is broken into two halves. In my opinion, these two halves make the season feel a little bit uneven at times and feel like they could've been condensed into the latter half of the 4th season or the beginning half of the 5th/6th season. The first half focused on the last few weeks before the general election where Frank is going toe to toe with William Conway, his Republican electoral rival. Overall, I found the election really interesting but a little dragged out by the end of it because of what I mentioned before, it could have been more condensed.

I do want to talk about the Conways because similarly to Season 4, they were really entertaining. I like Joel Kinnaman and Dominique McElligott. I think I just wanted a little more fight out of their camp. At the end of season 4, you got the feeling that this was a somewhat even match and maybe the Underwoods were in danger (as long as you were like me and tried to forget that Season 5 had it wouldn't make sense to have the Underwoods lose).

But in the fifth season you just see this team circling the drain and going crazy due to the Underwood's better navigation of the dirty political system. I also get a weird feeling that they only had Joel Kinnaman for a certain number of episodes and tried to diminish his role and impact, especially near the end of the election story line. Again, there's a lot I liked, but at the same time there was a lot I didn't like and it felt a little scattered overall.

I think a really great theme throughout the season was the struggle between something new and unorthodox and the status quo. It was apparent with the Conways and their struggle with the Underwoods, it was prevalent in the up and coming progressive Congressman Alex Romero (played by James Martinez), who I realize now if they had been able to wait a few more years, definitely would have been played by an actress resembling Alexandria Occasio Cortez and it would have been hilarious. But it was also really apparent in the internal working of the Underwood White House.

They've really been alluding to some kind of reckoning with Doug Stamper, one way or another, especially with the inclusion of Mark Usher (played by Campbell Scott) and I absolutely love Michael Kelly and everything he does. But the weird thing was that even characters who felt relatively new felt in danger to new up and coming people of power. Neve Campbell's character even after a season started to feel like she was on the verge of replacement, especially when they introduced Patricia Clarkson's character. Seth Grayson gets booted out by the end of the season.

It is worth noting that there were some parts and characters in the season overall that didn't do everything they could for me. Part of it was some random relationships. The forced "romance" between Doug and Leeann was random, the return of the civil war actor for an odd relationship with Francis was a little random and didn't go anywhere I thought it was gonna go.

But a larger strange part was how this season both felt like it was the precursor to a 6th season Spacey made unable to fully actualize, but how it also felt like this could have been the final season. Tom Hammerschmidt at the end of the 4th season seemed like he was on the cusp of bringing Underwood down in this season and yet he didn't add a whole lot to the fifth season.

The same thing happened with the Conways, Tom Yates, different characters throughout the show, it all seemed like the end was nigh. And yet there was a whole other season still laying in wait, it could be argued that they jumped the shark too early for an ultimate conclusion in season 6.

Everyone seems expendable in this season and I thought that was a really interesting angle to go with this show, especially with the characters who have survived this long around.

Even Frank has a sense unintentional mortality, which made this season very interesting to watch having known that they kill him off in the 6th season. I wish that was some kind of spoiler but especially with how this season ended, I think it was a necessary choice and it actually makes me really excited for season 6.

One fascinating thing watching season 5 was trying to predict how this show would have gone if Spacey hadn't been a creep. Its also interesting putting myself in the shoes of the writers and asking how I would continue after the Spacey news came out and how I would stick the landing.

I haven't watched the 6th season so I don't know if they stick the landing, but I can kind of see where the show was headed and what their strategy could be moving into season 6. Oddly enough, with the limited knowledge I have, there are elements about season 5 that almost foreshadow Frank Underwood dying and the power going all to Claire and how that would look. I think they set up Claire's rise to power really great and I don't think they were left totally unprepared for a need to change plans. However, there was an element that felt a little out of place.

Near the end, Frank is talking about resigning and going into the private sector where he can buy influence to run the country, especially with Claire running the White House. He states that this was the plan all along and that they'd still have their power dynamic, just not in a way that Claire originally thought they would, and I took exception to this notion that this was all planned, because I don't think all of it was.

That's why the last two episodes were kind of difficult for me to swallow. I have a hard time believing that Frank's plan from the beginning was to sneak his way into office, only to hand over the reigns to Claire just as he's reaching the height of his power.

What's more probable and what I thought they were going for was to underline the fact that Frank falls victim to the very system he thought he knew so well. Again, I think I get where the show was going and how it would have concluded if Spacey wasn't a creep, but there's also a scenario where I could have seen this season be the final season. This season could have easily ended with Frank Underwood being drug off to jail as Claire takes the reigns and maps her own destiny. That's what so interesting about this show is that I could see multiple ways in which it could have ended and continued, and then ended again because at the end of the day, it's a really interesting show.

It is crazy to think that it's been already 6 years since the start of House of Cards. It doesn't feel that long, especially when you're watching it because the show feels like a long movie. Kate Mara hasn't been on the show for 5 years but Zoe Barnes is still a presence in this show. It's also been fascinating how this show is at the forefront of how political television is being produced these days.

Gone are the Aaron Sorkin days where politics is hopeful and makes you excited about the world we live in. Gone are the days where you can watch a show like Scandal and not look at it through a different lens because it's a Hollywood version of Michael Cohen's day to day. I think political story telling in TV and movies is getting more pessimistic because of the environment that we find ourselves in today. I read an article when season 5 came out that argued that in today's political climate, House of Cards isn't fun anymore. The show has a weird way of forecasting a lot of political crises before they even happened and it's eerie. Voter suppression, Congressional investigations, leaks, or a chaotic White House, it's weird to think that this show isn't a mirrored representation of our political system today.

HOWEVER, I do want to throw a huge bucket of cold water on that pessimistic viewpoint because the fact is, it's wrong. House of Cards is built off the idea that our political system is flawed and there are ways to take advantage of it, but the world being portrayed is a dystopian universe that, as someone with a little bit of faith in humanity, I refuse to believe that there is no humanity whatsoever at the highest levels of our government.

I think in the same way the bleeding red white and blue show 24 prospered in the George W Bush era and the nuanced intrigue show Homeland prospered in the Obama era, I think House of Cards will be a forefront to a pessimistic view of politics in the Trump era. Look at political shows like Madam Secretary, the Newsroom, or Scandal that started in the Obama era, they are quite different than House of Cards. I have to applaud the writers of the show for creating something a little bit a head of its time. Now you look at a show like VEEP that is able to have a satirical look at how dysfunctional the political process can be. I think there is more to come and I think that would have been done with or without Kevin Spacey at the helm of this show.

Kevin Spacey has a long filmography to back up the claim that he's a good actor. But that clearly doesn't make him a good person or worthy of this show. And I think the show is bigger than him. I've heard mixed reviews of season 6, but I've avoided in depth reviews because I want to judge it for myself. However, while Frank Underwood is an entertaining part of the show, something I found myself enjoying a lot more because I was aware of the situation was the ancillary parts. Robin Wright as Claire Underwood, Michael Kelly, Neve Campbell, Patricia Clarkson, Jayne Atkinson, the list goes on. Honestly, this might be the first time I go directly from one season of House of Cards to the next because I am excited to see where this goes.

Stay tuned.

But those are my thoughts on House of Cards Season 5. 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 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 for reading.