House of Saddam (HBO Miniseries)

So this was a miniseries that I had been interested in since it aired in 2008. I never came around to watch it and every time I would get access to HBO, I'd always see it and think to myself, Why haven't I watched that yet? There's nothing really special about the current world we live in or what's going on that this applies to, but I figured it might be a good time to finally watch House of Saddam and figure out what my personal fuss over the past 12 years has been.

It's a four part mini series. I will break the review into four sections where I talk about what each one covers and what I liked and didn't like about each, but for the most part, I'm viewing this sort of as a 4 hour movie that I am watching in pieces because despite what I thought going into quarantine, I don't have much interest in watching 3-4 hour long movies (even The Irishmen).

It should be noted that because I have a little bit of a nerdy history side, I was pairing my watching of this show with the Wikipedia of Saddam Hussein and the history of Iraq. It should be noted that the viewing did sort of need some context to understand the events of the show, especially if you're like me and you don't know the history of Iraq very well.

Part 1

House of Saddam begins in 1979. Saddam Hussein (played by Yigal Naor) is the Vice President of Iraq and in the first 10-15 minutes of the show forces the resignation of the current President and installs his own control over Iraq.

His seizure of power does not remain peaceful for long as he begins to execute those opposed to his Presidency and even those in favor of it to show his power.

This starts off the reign of Saddam Hussein and it is one of unchecked power and dictatorship. The first part covers the war in Iran in 1980 as well as the relationships between Hussein and his family and officials within his government. The relationships center around this power dynamic where Saddam is at the top and people come in and out of usefulness to him. 

For example, Said Taghmaoui plays Saddam's half brother Barzan Ibrahim and while he supports Saddam's rise to power, that relationship sours pretty quickly after Ibrahim is unable to carry out all of Saddam's wishes  to the letter. He is quickly replaced by Hussein Kamel (played by Amr Waked) who marries Saddam's daughter and starts a rivalry for Saddam's affections with his sons in the following parts. 

Another notable performances are that of Shohreh Aghdashloo who plays Saddam's first wife and she provides an interesting look into the political structure of Iraq all the way up to the 2000s where political appointments were really dependent on who you were related to. 

Part 2 and Part 3

As we move into the second part, it focuses on Hussein at his "peak" where he's been in power for a while and the he's deciding the foreign policy that essentially makes him a piraha on the national stage. Part three focuses on Hussein after the first Gulf War but actually hones more than ever on the relationships and betrayals happening within the "house of Saddam"

I do find the show to be interesting the fact that its presented as this sort of Macbethian/House of Cards style (although the American House of Cards had yet to air) to it, with multiple political factions forming within the people surrounding Saddam and reacting to his tyranical rule. Again, the role of who is in Saddam's depends on who says they will do his crazy wishes and full his unhinged nature. But the problem with that is that Hussein was known to be a delusional figure and his view of himself and Iraq were just that, delusions. The whole series can be broken down to a new figure each hour saying Saddam are you sure that crazy idea you have is a good idea? And Saddam saying, Of course it is, it is for the glory of Iraq or some nonsense. 

It should be clear that my issue with this show isn't so much about Yigal Naor's performance. He has a great voice and he plays the character really well. 

It's more that Saddam Hussein is not a very complicated character even though they try to make him one. The show is bound by historical accuracy and instead of making him a compelling character, it's bound by how history actually unfolded. 

The third part of this show was honestly the slowest episode even though it probably had some of the more interesting political intrigue. At this point Hussein Kamal has really fallen out of favor and he flees Iraq to help the CIA overthrow Saddam. But again, the show is handcuffed by historical events that a lot of the tension that is built up between characters is really lost because while Kamal has feuds with Saddam's unhinged son (played by Philip Arditti), it wasn't that son that ended up killing Kamal in the end. Maybe I shouldn't have had the wikipedia page up while I was watching the show because it kind of took the tension out of all of it when I knew that a lot of these people died when Coalition troops entered Iraq in 2003. 

Part 4

Part 4 mainly takes place after the 2003 invasion and Saddam is evading capture. I think this episode worked better because they start off with a disclaimer that not much is known about the time after the invasion but before his capture, so they are able to take a little more liberties with the details surrounding this time. 

Again, the episode feels very much the same because it's just him delusionally thinking that he's going to come back to power all the way up to the point where he's captured, but at least this episode had a change of setting and some suspense about when he was actually going to be pulled up from that iconic hole in the ground. 

I do think though that this episode could have been reformatted to be about the legal case against Saddam ending in his execution in 2006. The show largely skips that and ends with a text box that says he was executed. I don't know if it was a budgetary thing or if the show thought it would be more valuable to spend a lot of time with Saddam fishing with a random kid outside of his hideout, but hey that's why I don't make miniseries. 

It should be noted that this show is about 12 years old. While HBO had some good production value back then, House of Saddam feels very limited in the story its trying to tell and some of the intrigue it was supposed to provide. While action is clearly not the focus, it's pretty clunky when it happens and it feels like the whole show is kind of holding back some of the gruesome-ness for the sake of promoting the political intrigue, but the intrigue also feels held back by history and not taking too many liberties. 

Overall, I think there were parts of this that could have been cut and the whole thing probably could have been made into a 2 and a half or 3 hour long movie. While the episodes are only an hour long, they just crawl and I had a hard time getting through the whole thing. 

At the end of the day I'm glad I can say that I finished the miniseries, but I can't say I recommend it. There are a lot of political dramas out there and while House of Saddam does show that drama from the perspective of a middle eastern dictator, I can't say it's up there among the products that HBO has produced. 

But those are my thoughts on House of Saddam. What did you think? Has anybody else seen this show since 2008? 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!

Palm Springs

I'm always a little wary when I see a movie (or TV show) say that they're doing the whole Groundhogs Day time loop story. I'm not opposed to it, I've said it before and I'll say it again, Groundhogs Day doesn't have a patent on that kind of story and we continue to see it done well, but I need something new to be brought to the table. Although I do have to give props to the person who thought releasing this in the middle of a pandemic and a lot of people are self confining themselves to home and starting to feel like their lives are groundhogs days, well done.

Palm Springs follows the story Nyles and Sarah (played by Andy Sandberg and Cristin Milioti). Sarah is the maid of honor at her sisters wedding in Palm Beach and Nyles is the boyfriend of one of the bridesmaids. The two meet and hit it off pretty well. However things go awry when a mysterious man attacks Nyles and Sarah follows Nyles into a mysterious cave.

In Groundhogs Day, Edge of Tomorrow, and Russian Doll fashion, Sarah is sent to the start of that day and only her and Nyles are cognizant of the fact that they're in one of those "time loop situations you may have heard about". It does not matter what they do, how many times they die, every time the two of them fall asleep, they wake up the same morning on November 8th the morning of Sarah's sister's wedding.

So like I said, I'm not opposed to the time loop situation story being reused, but I want to see something new. For example, Edge of Tomorrow made the loop the result of an alien tactic in the middle of a science fiction futuristic war. Russian Doll took the premise into TV form and put an emphasis on death. Palm Springs is probably the closest to Groundhogs Day in premise but there are a few differences that make it stand apart.

It takes a little bit from Russian Doll by having two people in the loop instead of just one, but the difference is that one has been doing the loop for far longer than the other one. At the start of the movie, Nyles has been in the loop so long that he can't remember what he did for a job prior to going into the loop. He's gone through all the phases of the time loop situation where he's no longer trying to get out of it and has just accepted his fate.

Sarah instead is at the beginning of her journey. The movie even winks at the premise of Groundhogs Day by going straight to the point of the story where the characters try to do good deeds to get out of the loop and it falls back into their face. So the meat of the movie is actually at the point where Sarah sort of accepts where she's at at the two just kind of hang out. Which sounds boring but it does feed into the fact that this is much more of a romantic comedy than a comedy.

And this works because Cristin Milioti and Andy Sandberg play off one another pretty well. Some of the most fun was when these two are just having fun and getting to know one another really well.

There's also a really fun element of the character of Roy that is introduced early on.

JK Simmons plays Roy, another guy at the wedding who Nyles brings into the time loop after a night of partying and is an example of someone else at a different stage of that time loop personal journey, but instead periodically comes to Palm Spring to let out anger at the guy who put him in a time loop for the rest of his life.

He's not as involved in the story as I wish he was, but he does play an important part in giving the film a sort of realistic edge. There's a point where Nyles says the pain is real and while they always wake up being a bad person in a time loop still would have an effect on someone and it's something they have to carry with them. 

For as much as this movie is a comedy, and I found myself laughing a lot, it does find itself getting very serious at times and it took me off guard. 

The movie seems like it's pretty low budget and it relies a lot on the acting of Milioti and Sandberg.

Which again, I don't have a huge problem with, they're good actors and they work well together. But when you have a premise that starts off really silly, two actors that I've seen mostly in comedies doing some relatively serious acting, it definitely threw me off.

The movie's third act is good... ish. The second act is mainly them goofing off and having a good time together whereas the third act kind of devolves into stereotypical rom com formula. It's by no means bad, but there were a few conventions and characters hurdles that seemed a little just a little too conventional for a story that starts off no where near conventional.

If you have Hulu, it's definitely one to check out because its probably one of the better original movies I've seen in a little bit. Movies being released directly to streaming services is probably going to be a trend we're going to see more of with the pandemic still making theatrical releases less common and I imagine we'll start to see the quality start to improve. For this part, Palm Springs is a good movie that clips along, clocking at about 90 minutes. If a movie can be concise like this one can, I'm all for it.

But those are my thoughts on Palm Springs. What did you think? What has been your favorite original film thrown on a streaming service as of late? 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!

Space Force (Season 1)

I like most people was very excited for the release of Space Force on Netflix from the minute it was announced. Politics aside, the concept of making a 6th branch of the military focused on space has a lot of comedic elements to it that could be really funny if executed correctly. And I think we all thought that we were in good hands with Steve Carrell not only starring but producing it with his The Office partner Greg Daniels.

The end result is a pretty mixed bag...

Space Force follows the story of General Mark Naird (played by Steve Carrell). Upon receiving a long awaited promotion, he is tasked with heading the newest branch of the military Space Force.

The briefest summary would be that the show is a work place comedy set a year into his tenure as head of space force as he and his chief scientist Dr. Adrian Mallory (played by John Malkovich) strive to put "boots on the moon". Naird has to maneuver the unique cast of characters employed under him while also dealing with an unorthodox family situation with his teenage daughter (played by Diana Silvers) rebelling and his wife (played by Lisa Kudrow) in prison.

It would be an understatement to say that the show is ambitious and attempts to cover a lot of ground in what is seemingly just a workplace comedy. I think a lot of people thought, due to the ridiculousness of the plot, that this show would have a similar cynical humor to that of the Office. The main joke at the crux of this show is how ridiculous the idea of a space force is at this moment in history. By all accounts, this show is a ripe set up to be a parody with a lot of underhanded commentary about the current administration and the ridiculousness of the current administration.

And yet it's all pushed off balance by an unexpected attempt at sincerity to it all.

Everything from the colors, the over the top nature of everything going on in this show, and the cast scream of parody. Ben Schwartz playing the Space Force PR guy, John Malkovich and Carrell in their respective role, all of these characters seem more like caricatures, and yet there are sincere attempts to humanize them and get the audience invested in the personal lives of these people.

What's more, starting with the first episode the show tries to get the audience to see the scientific achievement and American-ness of exploration in space. And honestly a part of it is done effectively.

A lot of that is due to the solidness of the cast, even when they're utilized in counter productive ways.

I've been watching a lot of Steve Carrell lately these days and I do have to say that it doesn't matter what he's in, he is a solid actor as well as a solid comedic force. It is an understatement to say that he carries this show.

But the show is helped by the rest of the cast as well and the dynamics that are built throughout the show, even if they feel kind of hamfisted in there. A great example is the relationship between Dr. Mallory and General Naird. At first I was unsure if I was going to like the two but by the end I really did enjoy the contrast between the two.

While Ben Schwartz is just criminally underutilized in this show, he still manages to absolutely crush it later on in the season. Jimmy Yang, Tawny Newsome, Don Lake, all end up being really funny characters. That cast isn't the problem, it's how they're used.

The characters are overall pretty unevenly focused on throughout the show. There are also characters who you don't realize are going to be recurring characters because their exposure is so sporatic. You don't realize that these are recurring characters until you've seen them a couple times and realize that they're the same people from before.

Furthermore, it often feels like when they were writing the episodes they had all the characters on a cork board and determined how they were going to write the episode based on which characters hadn't had a pairing yet. Certain episodes feel like they just paired two characters together and said, "let's see what happens with these two".

And then you get to the weird situation that is General Naird's family.

I'll talk about the good first, but honestly there isn't a whole lot of good here.

When Lisa Kudrow is allowed to be Lisa Kudrow, she's hilarious...

End of good stuff...

That being said the whole subplot of her being in prison feels out of nowhere and just unnecessary. And they do the same thing with her that they do with the premise of the show. A ridiculous situation like a general's wife driven to commit an unknown crime that puts her in jail for 40+ years is a pretty ridiculous situation, so trying to humanize it and give us "touching" moments between her and Steve Carrell just feels weird and off putting.

Also, his daughter is by far the worst written character in the show. I have no qualms with Diana Silvers, I'm blaming the writers because they didn't give anything for this young actress to work with. Most of the time when she's on screen I am bored, and her character just comes off as pretentious. Of all the things this show tries to accomplish, an angsty teenage girl subplot feels very awkward.

I think the biggest problem with the show is that it aired without having a clear vision of what it wanted to be.

Is the show a commentary on current events? Is it a heartfelt comedy? Is it a comedy of errors? Is it awkward comedy? I honestly don't know and I don't think they do either.

I heard that the show was renewed for a second season and I'm kind of lukewarm on that idea.

I know that Carrell's awkward humor in the first season of The Office needed an episode to marinate and really figure out what it was going to be. Maybe that's what Space Force needs, it needed a mulligan season to get the ball rolling.

And I think this show could work. There were a lot of jokes that had me laughing pretty hard. I also found some of the military and political humor really unique (though there might be some who don't get it). I think the biggest problem is that it doesn't know what concept, character, or even joke to spend the right amount of time on. I've already spoken a little bit about the characters uneven utilization, but the jokes are kind of the crux of whether this show was going to land.

There's a lot of concepts that make really funny jokes in this show, for example a monkey that is in a satelite. It's a really funny idea, dipped in historical accuracy. Why not poke fun at a concept like space travel that hasn't had that much exploration from a creative stand point?

But when it gets extrapolated into an entire episode, it kind of loses the humor. Sometimes it comes back around because it gets so stupid its funny again, but most time its just kind of exhausting. And the same goes for a lot of the plotlines, character arcs, and even smaller jokes. There's just something off about the way a lot of these story elements were executed and instead of really enjoying watching Space Force, I was just tired.

There's just enough in there to make me come back when a second season drops on Netflix, but it will only be to see if the first season was just a fluke.

I think a lot of people wanted this show to be good. I know I did. I'm still holding out hope that it could be. The ingredients are all there, I think there just needs to be a reshuffle of how they're being utilized.

Overall, I have to agree with the prevailing opinion that Space Force leaves a lot to be desired. I can't say the entire experience was unenjoyable, but I can't recommend it right now. I really hope I come back in a review of the second season and say that it's good and you should give it a chance, but if you haven't watched it right now, maybe wait and see if the second season is able to avoid the failure to launch that Season 1 was. (I had to throw in one space joke...)

But those are my thoughts on Space Force Season 1. 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 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!

Da 5 Bloods

So I don't usually do reviews for documentaries, at least not yet. But I felt it was relevant (and really wanted to note) that I watched the 10 part docuseries by Ken Burns on the Vietnam War prior to watching this movie. I highly recommend that movie in order to get a really in depth look into the Vietnam War, and you'll also understand some of the historical references they make in this film.

Da 5 Bloods follows the story of a group of Vietnam veterans returning to Vietnam in the present day to search for the remains of their fallen squad leader (played by Chadwick Boseman).

But the group is also going to recover a trove of gold they had buried during their time there.

The group is made up of four older black men. There's Otis, the medic (played by Clarke Peters), Paul, a harsh conservative man with pretty bad PTSD (played by Delroy Lindo), and Eddie and Melvin (played by Norm Lewis and Isiah Witlock Jr respectively) honestly they're a little harder to describe. Along with them is also Paul's son David (played by Jonathan Majors) who has a troubled relationship with his father.

Along the way they meet a slew of characters including a woman who Otis fathered a child with back during Vietnam (played by Le Y Lan), the fixer they are looking to move the gold through (played by Jean Russo), as well as a group of young people in Vietnam removing mines from the jungle.

The story is driven by the relationship between the core cast and them not only processing what happened to them in Vietnam in relation with the treatment of people of color not only in and during Vietnam, but in America and since Vietnam. Most notably, Delroy Lindo delivers a dynamite performance as an unreliably intense member of the group. He had the closest relationship with their squad leader and wants his remains to be found, but there's also an aspect throughout the group of "gold sickness" that... sort of works...

The first thing to know about this movie is that it follows the same stylistic choices you might see in other Spike Lee films.In fact some of the same effects and camera manipulation that was used in BlackkkKlansman is used in Da 5 Bloods. But there's other things worth mentioning that are kind of interesting. The movie jumps back and forth (honestly kind of infrequently) between the present and the time the men had in Vietnam. But instead of deaging the men or recasting them as younger people, you instead see a bunch of old guys running around the jungle with Chadwick Boseman. Or late in the film there's a scene where Delroy Lindo talks straight to camera in a really awesome soliloquy.

Overall the stylistic choices a bit of a mixed bag. The sound track contributes, creating this seemingly epic backdrop for a really interesting story. At the same time, some of the stylistic choices lead to gaps in the story. There's actually a part where one of the characters is captured off screen after having a really touching moment and I had to rewind to make sure I didn't miss anything. I didn't, it was just a little disjointed at times and I'm not sure if all of it was stylistic.

Which is odd because the movie is probably about a half hour too long. Prior to watching it, I heard someone say pretty succinctly that Da 5 Bloods felt like Netflix gave Spike Lee a blank check to make a movie and Lee wrote and shot everything off his first draft. And I would agree with that.

The whole story seems overly fleshed out in some areas like the character of Paul and his relationship with David, or the group's remembrance of their fallen squad leader, which was really good, while also feeling too thin on other areas like Eddie and Melvin's characters, or the random deminers they find, or the dynamics of Jean Russo's organization, or the build up of the "gold sickness".

At a certain point in the movie, somebody warns Otis that gold makes people go crazy, and it puts it in the mind of the audience that these guys are going to get greedy over the gold, but it doesn't really build very well. Yeah they have disagreements about people's shares, but the "money is the root of all evil" discussion happens very randomly and kind of out of no where. Maybe I was too used to the reasonableness I saw in Longshot earlier yesterday, but the "gold sickness" felt very unnecessary, especially when they inject other forces to create barriers for these guys to get home with no problem.

The movie is also kind of hamstringed by Spike Lee throwing in unorganic history lesson tidbits seemingly out of nowhere. For a lot of the movie the dialogue is really organic and while some of the main characters aren't as fleshed out as others, the chemistry between these guys is really good. Then all of a sudden a character out of nowhere will add a piece of black history really out of nowhere accompanied by historical pictures and facts thrown on screen. Maybe it's because I just watched the Ken Burns documentary and knew a lot of the facts they throw up on screen, but it feels very exposition-y for being facts that don't fully contribute to the story of these guys directly. I remember Lee doing that in BlackkKlansman but I also remember it feeling a lot more organic, while this felt disjointed with what is a really unique and intriguing story.

I've said it a couple of times, the performances in this movie are really good but Delroy Lindo stands out immensely. Again, the "gold sickness" was odd, but I felt with Lindo's character, it was more than that and he was definitely the character who was most developed.

Jonathan Majors also stood out. I'm glad he's continuing to get work, especially after what I saw from him in The Last Black Man in San Francisco.

Overall, I think the things that really carry this movie is the story. Four black Vets going back to Vietnam to recover their fallen brother's remains and gold is a really unique and harrowing story. I think I just wish there had been a couple of refinements. It's Spike Lee so you have to expect some current political commentary but while BlackkKlansman seemed to be a direct response to Charlottesville, this movie was likely in the can before it could be directly targetted as a response to the killing of George Floyd. And I think the broad message of black empowerment that Lee has in his films would have worked, especially considering the unique historical backdrop of this story, but the references to Trump, BLM, and other current events felt more scattershot and unrefined in this movie.

Overall, I liked Da 5 Bloods. It never felt too long, it just felt unrefined both on run time and use of style. I really enjoyed the characters, I just would have liked to learn more about the ones surrounding Delroy Lindo and Jonathan Majors. The story and the performances carry this movie through a lot of my critiques and if you're looking for something pretty unique as well as want to learn some history (and don't want to spend a long time watching 10 hour and a half long episodes of Ken Burn's Vietnam War docuseries) I do recommend Da 5 Bloods.

But those are my thoughts on Da 5 Bloods. 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 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!

Longshot

We live in a pretty politically divisive time. So political romantic comedies are an interesting genre that has to be done with a lot of care or else it'll just fall flat. In the case of Longshot, it was kind of a mixed bag of formulaic romantic comedy tropes, mixed with some unique writing and storytelling, both of which both works and doesn't work.

Longshot follows the story of Fred Flarsky (played by Seth Rogen) a journalist who quits his job after the website he writes for is acquired by a big corporate conglomerate owned by a man named Parker Wembley (played very well by Andy Serkis that I didn't recognize him until half way through the movie and only when he was in a very well lit room).

On the other side of the movie, you have Secretary of State Charolette Fields (played by Charlize Theron), a rising star embarking on a run for President when the current President (played by Bob Odenkirk) reveals that he's not running for a second term.

As per usual in these romantic comedies, through a comedy of errors they run across one another and realize that they know each other from childhood. Fields hires Flarsky as a speech writer and as they get to know each other more and more, they begin an unlikely friendship that blossoms into an even unlikelier romantic relationship.

While the movie follows some of the same formulas of any generic romantic comedy, there were two things that really kept me engaged in this movie.

The first is the surprising chemistry between Rogen and Theron. Just like in real life, Theron is portrayed in this movie as this elegant goddess-like figure and rightfully juxtaposed to Rogen who is not an elegant figure on so many levels. And yet this relationship ends up working really well because not only do they vibe well together, they take the time to really build up the relationship. They don't fall right into the sack with one another, there's a pretty good montage of the two getting to know one another. It might not be as long of a period within the movie than I thought, but their transition from aquaintances to lovers is very smooth.

The other thing that works is that while there are a lot of formualic moments in this movie, the movie refuses to take on the annoying tropes you'd expect from a romantic comedy where the relationship needs to be kept secret.

Alexander Skarsgard plays the Prime Minister of Canada and is a pretty thinly veiled analogy to current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The media in the movie speculate that Skarsgard and Theron's characters are romantically invovled and in a paint by numbers script, he'd either be an anatagonist or someone that Rogen's character is jealous of.

But instead, the movie barely has an antagonist at all and everyone acts almost too reasonable for there to be a real conflict at a certain point. The movie trucks along pretty well without a real "villain" until the last third where Serkis's character is developed as a minor foil to the relationship.

The third act of the movie is really where the quality goes down a little bit. It's not horrible, but it does highlight the far fetched nature of the movie as a whole. And to be fair, I don't know a single romantic comedy that doesn't have the third act falling out routine. The thing I appreciate about this film is the reasonableness of everyone and understanding the reality that they live in, but at the same time in order for their to be a happy ending you kind of have to suspend any kind of disbelief that even the movie sort of sets up.

My one double edged critique of this film is the criminal underutilization of O'Shea Jackson Jr and frankly the supporting characters in general.

Jackson is a great example because he basically steals every scene he's in. I get that you need to focus these movies on the two leads, but Jackson, June Diane Raphael, and Andy Serkis were all phenomenal actors who were just under utilized in this film. I haven't seen Straight Outta Compton, but one big take away that I heard about it was that Jackson was phenomenal in it. This might not be the introduction that highlights his talents as much as it could, but he is exemplary of the fantastic cast this movie has, even if its not utilized to the greatest extent.

Longshot reminds me that I don't watch movies to find the perfect film but instead just to be entertained, examine the different kinds of films, and in a sense find some escapism.

The dialogue in the film can be pretty on the nose both in its character development and political "commentary" but this movie is by no means a hugely political movie. The political nature of the movie serves more as a backdrop for a pretty serviceable romantic comedy. If you're looking for an overly smart political movie, you're probably not going to find it here.

Charlize Theron is not only a goddess living among us, she's really funny, especially paired up with Seth Rogen. The movie made me laugh despite being pretty predictable, and every once in a while you need a feel good film.

So while Longshot is by no means a perfect movie, I'd say it's definitely worth checking out if you have the opportunity. It bucks some of the conventions of normal romantic comedies, and gives us pretty great performances from everyone involved.

But those are my thoughts on Longshot. 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 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!

Another DC Rant (Keaton Batman Returns)

So I know I'm a week or so late on this news. It registered with me when the news was all over social media, but I didn't really have the time to sit down and think about it last week. On top of that, there are some other things regarding the DCEU that are worth taking about.

In case you're unaware, there are reports out there that Michael Keaton will be reappearing as Batman in future DC projects, starting in Andy Muschetti's The Flash with an in theory release date of July 2022. Moving forward from that movie, Keaton will be the "in-universe" Batman of the DCEU, the first two Burton Batman movies will be canon in the , and Batfleck will be an odd memory reserved for a weird pocket universe of the Snyder films (and the Synder cut, which I'll talk about later).

It's worth talking about the current state of the DC cinematic universe or the lack of one.

It feels like decades ago, but Justice League and the films leading up to it (Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad, and Wonder Woman) had the intnetion of building a DC cinematic universe similar to the likes of the MCU. Justice League was supposed to be the jumping off point for shared movies and my guess, with the intention of building Darkseid up as the big Thanos-like badie of the universe.

But Justice League ended up being a mess that reshuffled a lot of the slotted films happening, or at least changed the trajectory it seemed like the film was going. On top of that, casting issues came up with Ben Affleck going from directing his own Batman standalone to essentially quitting the role, and DC having a weird falling out with Henry Cavil that put any future outings for him as the Man of Steel in question. But something weird happened after Justice League.

DC had a trio of movies that came out that were actually well received: Aquaman, Shazam, and Joker. Add onto that a sense of excitement for the upcoming sequel to Wonder Woman, the future of DC movies looked confusingly optimistic. Any plans for a follow up to Justice League were put on the back burner and the emphasis was instead put on standalone films that didn't have any call backs to the Snyder led films. Aquaman in his solo film is quite different than the one in Justice League, Shazam makes mention of Superman, but in a way that keeps it vague if it's Henry Cavill or not. And it's very clear that Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is its own thing that will likely never connect to the larger DCEU films. Two major changes occurred, the production schedule was reduced where there was only one live action DC film from 2018 onward, and the connections were really loose to a larger cinematic universe.

Even the Harley Quinn movie seemed to be in its own little world with no real connections to Jared Leto or the previous movies pre-Justice League.

The Keaton news is the first inkling of a shared universe since 2017 and I'm skeptically fascinated.

The Flash has been in production hell for quite a bit of time with consistently changing directors. I am continuing to be skeptical because there were some stories about Ezra Miller gettting into a pretty violent altercation in April so I think there are still a lot of production hurdles to jump through, on top of the background issues with COVID-19.

But, if you get through all of that, bringing Keaton in feels like a smart choice to breath some life into DC having a cinematic universe. Michael Keaton remains a fan favorite Batman to this day and it's not the fact he's not an award winning and critically recognized actor is gonna hurt a franchise. The reports claim that he'll be a sort of mentor/Nick Fury type of character so his role will be a supporting one and probably not very difficult for him to pull off, especially if WB is paying him enough.

And the truth is, there's a lot of opportunities with this move. While I personally liked Ben Affleck's Batman, I think you remove a controversial actor from your universe considerations, especially if it seems like he doesn't want to be involved anymore. You create an actual older Batman to serve as a mentor figure for other characters (like Batgirl allegedly), and you kind of let Batman take a break (sort of) by having him take on that secondary role. Also there's talk about multiverses, Batman Beyond, and throughout it all Keaton is the anchor.

I guess I just feel like I need to hear more.

For as much as I like Michael Keaton I would hope at a certain point the creative heads took a step back and asked, is this the best way we can tell an overarching story? Is there a plan for an overarching story or is it a way to keep things relevant?

I also wonder if this story is going to remain relevant and interesting all the way up to the supposed release in 2022.

A lot is going to happen between now and then. Robert Pattinson is heading his own Batman that I guess is going to be its own separate thing, but what if we really like it? What if Ezra Miller has to get recasted? What if we really like something in The Suicide Squad? There's also reports that Henry Cavill is going to have a role in future DC films as Superman again, what if they get their act together there and the need for Keaton doesn't feel as relevant? I have no doubt that Keaton will fall back into the role of Batman like a glove, but what if the Flash movie sucks because of how long its been in production hell?

Like I said, I'm skeptically optimistic. A part of this feels a little ploy-ish but has the potential to be something really great... if they do it right... I'm not getting too excited because DC's attempts at a shared universe have been rough to say the least and it doesn't matter how good Keaton is, if the thought, creativity, and of course just patience in general isn't put into the creation of this universe, it could fall apart really quickly.

There's a couple of other notes on recent DC news I wanted to talk about and how they connect to this news.

Apparently Henry Cavill is still playing Superman and will likely show up in future DC projects. There's not a whole lot here that I haven't already said. Someone needs to take on a Superman sequel and do it right. I don't wanna hear that people aren't into Superman right now, people need some freaking hope right now and there's nothing more hopeful than Superman. Give him a sequel where he's facing Brainiac or someone, I don't care, just do it.

I'm really late to this party, but apparently the Snyder cut is being released on HBO Max in 2021.

I have mixed feelings on this because on one hand, it's kind of a big deal. It's not like the Director's Cut of Batman v Superman where they add a couple of scenes here and there, there is apparently a whole slew of scenes that were cut out of the original cut of Justice League that will be produced to create close to a four hour long film.

There's still uncertainty on how it will be produced on HBO Max, where it will be released as a 4 hour cut or if it will be released episodically like the way that Netflix released the Director's cut of The Hateful Eight.

But on the other side of things, I have to do a pretty big eye roll at this whole endevour. This would never have happened if there wasn't a huge movement on social media for years calling for the release of the Snyder Cut of Justice League. I am by no means saying that the original cut is very good, but there is no indication that this version is going to be any better. Now I know that there is a sect on the internet who believe that Zack Snyder can do no wrong, that Batman v Superman is a perfect movie, and that Snyder deserves satisfaction for a movie that was stolen from him.

But I'm here to tell you that this four hour long movie could be really terrible. I have no qualms with WB releasing it. They have nothing to lose at this point because you better believe no matter how skeptical I am of this film, I am still going to see it. You're going to see a surge in HBO Max subscription the month that this comes out. They clearly see the financial benefit, especially in the middle of COVID to start work on producing this cut to something that is presentable. But regardless of the incentive, that doesn't mean it's going to be good.

The other element of this that ties it all into this whole look at the DC Cinematic Universe is that this could be one of those things that changes the playing field before The Flash film is supposed to be a launching point for some semblance of a shared universe.

Let's give the Snyder cut some credit that in my opinion has no reasonable evidence to support, let's say its good. Let's say this was really a cover up by WB to inhibit a master vision by Zack Snyder and everyone loses their mind over the Snyder Cut. What do you do then?

Do you continue the route you're headed with this Keaton driven universe? They already seem to be creating pocket universes with multiple Batmans so is there another one where Zack Snyder comes back and creates a dark and gritty universe that looks like the Injustice Universe and that coincides with the main universe?

And to give that possibility some credit, I might just be looking at this with MCU tinted glasses. Marvel is going to start delving into the multiverse here soon so why can't DC? Why does there have to be a main timeline and not multiple? Audiences are not dumb, it's not like we can't figure out that the Robert Pattinson Batman is different than the Keaton one. It would be kind of cool to have multiple universes that we get to check in on like an Injustice timeline where Superman is evil.

My concern would be the dilution of central character's developments that we see multiple times if they're appearing in multiple universes and experiencing different things. I think there is general consensus that we like Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa playing Wonder Woman and Aquaman respectively. Multiple timelines and universes stunts us from seeing that development across their sequels not only because we're checking in on different versions, but it fills up the production schedule that those movies are farther apart.

In my opinion, the reason that Justice League failed and the DCEU was stalled so much was because they put less emphasis on the characters that make up their pantheon of heroes and instead relied on your love of the character as a concept. They relied on that love the concept to bum rush their cinematic universe and get to their big team up movie to compete with Marvel without putting in the time to get to know anybody in that team.

Even the TV shows on the CW seem to understand that you can't get to these massive team up moments without doing years of set up. I don't think it's about tone, it's about development. Phase 1 of the MCU was four solo films that had very minimal cross over elements before jumping into their first big team up movie. The one that tried to do more crossovers with unknown characters (even relatively at the time small characters) like Nick Fury and Black Widow in Iron Man 2, led to one of the worst films of Phase 1 (arguably in the entire MCU).

The DCEU started with Man of Steel, which I think was a good start for character development with Superman, but then was followed by two team up movies and was only book ended by the other good film in their "phase 1" in Wonder Woman. Why? Because Man of Steel and Wonder Woman took time to get to know their characters and set up interesting development moving forward rather than doing the equivilent of taking your Batman and Superman toys and bashing them together like a 5 year old.

Now to give the guys at DC some credit, they have been doing more solo centric films and plan to continue that trend for the foreseeable future. Hell, even Birds of Prey for all its issues, was better than Suicide Squad because it focused more on Harley Quinn than the team dynamic of Suicide Squad. There is no plan for Justice League 2 any time soon.

The overall is that the Keaton news shows some revived interest in creating a shared universe, and considering the slate of films coming out in the future, the multiple universes that may or may not connect, and he fact that there is clearly an interest in these films, I just want DC to reapproach this with a new perspective rather than competing with Marvel.

We find ourselves in a post-Endgame world where the franchise/shared universe hype has died down a little bit and where others like Fox Studios X-men and the Dark Universe failed to reach that same kind of success that Marvel perfected, DC, while in a diminished capacity, probably still sees an opportunity to capitalize on the idea of Batman showing up in a Flash movie. And I would like to see this. While I have my issues with the Snyder swing at a DC shared universe, I still love the idea of these crossover movies, especially with DC characters who I prefer over Marvel.

I just want it to be done right, and I'm willing to wait to make sure they do it correctly.

But those are my thoughts on the recent DC news that came out in the last month or so. What are your thoughts? Where should DC head with their movies? Is it time to revitalize the DC cinematic shared universe? Comment and Discuss below! You can also share your thoughts with me on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films, TV shows, or topics I should cover 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!