“THE IDES OF MARCH” (2011) Review

514892_640

“THE IDES OF MARCH” (2011) Review

During my recent re-watch of George Clooney’s 2011 political thriller, “THE IDES OF MARCH”, it occurred to me that a good number of years have passed since I last watched a movie about politicians . . . inside a movie theater. It also led me to wonder if Hollywood has become increasingly reluctant to make movies about politicians. It would be a shame if that were truth. Because I believe the studios need to release more movies about them. 

I am certainly grateful to Clooney for directing, co-producing and co-writing “THE IDES OF MARCH”, an adaptation of co-writer Beau Willimon’s 2008 play called “FARRAGUT NORTH”. The movie is about Stephen Meyers, an idealistic junior campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate, Governor Mike Morris of Pennsylvania, and his crash course on the brutal realities of politics on the campaign trail in Southern Ohio. His life and role in Governor Morris’ presidential campaign is threatened when Tom Duffy, the senior campaign manager of Governor Morris’ Democratic rival, Arkansas Senator Ted Pullman, offers him a job. Unfortunately for Meyers, his boss, Governor Morris’ senior campaign manager, Paul Zara learns about the job offer. Complicating Meyers’ situation is his romance with one of the campaign interns and daughter of the Democratic National Committee chairman, Molly Stearns, leads him to discover about her one night liaison with Governor Morris and her eventual pregnancy.

On paper, “THE IDES OF MARCH” looks and reads like a lurid melodrama with political overtones. But I believe the movie revealed to be a lot more. This is just a theory, but I believe that “THE IDES OF MARCH” served as a warning for those who tend to look toward politicians as saviors or leaders who can solve the problems of society. At the beginning of “THE IDES OF MARCH”, Stephen Meyers is a sharp and canny political campaigner. He has seen enough of the world to be somewhat jaded. But he is still young enough at age thirty to believe that one man can change his world for the better. And in his mind, that man is Michael Morris. But his own ambitions for a career as a political adviser and the revelation of Morris’ brief affair with Molly Stearns forces Meyers to grow up . . . in a most painful way. Considering the methods that he used in an effort to save his career, one might view Stearns’ loss of idealism with a negative eye. Or one might now. Personally, I believe that loss turned out to be a mixture of good and bad for Stearns.

“THE IDES OF MARCH” received a good deal of positive reviews from many of the media’s critics. Did the movie deserve the positive word-of-mouth? I believe so. I really enjoyed the story. And I believe that Clooney, Willimon and the third co-writer, Grant Heslov, did an excellent job of conveying Stephen Meyers’ final loss of innocence with plenty of melodrama (oh, that word!), tight pacing, political wheeling-dealing and plot twists. What is interesting about this movie is that all of the characters involved in the story are Democrats. There is no Republican or hard line conservative in sight. And I have to hand it to Clooney, Willimon and Heslov for being willing to show that in their own way, Democratic politicians and political wheeler-dealers could be just as dirty and manipulative as their Republican counterparts. Personally, I believe that this is a good lesson to learn that when it comes to the world of politics – and the media, for that matter – you cannot trust anyone, regardless of political suasion.

Clooney managed to gather a fine collection of actors and actresses for his movie. I do have one minor quibble about this . . . and it involves actress Jennifer Ehle, who portrayed Governor Morris’ wife, Cindy Morris. I had no problem with her performance. But aside from a brief scene with Clooney in which the two discussed his future in the White House, she seemed wasted in this film. I almost found myself thinking the same about Jeffrey Wright, who portrayed a North Carolina senator, whose support both Democratic candidates sought. He only had brief scenes in the movie. But he made the most of it by portraying Senator Thompson as an egotistical power seeker with great relish. Max Minghella gave a decent performance as Meyers’ assistant who harbored ambitions to achieve the latter’s position. Marisa Tomei gave a witty performance as a snarky New York Times reporter, whose attitude toward Meyers changes drastically by the end of the movie. The year 2011 had been a busy year for Evan Rachel Wood. The young intern Molly Stearns proved to be her third major role that year. Wood did an excellent job portraying Molly as a sexy and outgoing woman, who also proved to be vulnerable and scared by the consequences of her brief affair with Governor Morris. Her description of Morris’ seduction of Molly at an Iowa hotel left my skin crawling.

Both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti gave powerhouse performances as the two rival senior campaign managers, Paul Zara and Tom Duffy. Watching these two manipulate and trip up Meyers was like watching two war horses showing the world how to give colorful performances. George Clooney’s portrayal of Governor Mike Morris was a lot more restrained than those given by Hoffman and Giamatti. But I found him equally memorable as Democratic candidate, Michael Morris. Superficially, Clooney invested a great deal of subtle charm and idealism into the character. But I liked the way he slowly revealed the ambition and corruption behind the Mr. Smith persona. If anything, Clooney’s Governor Morris reminded me of the numerous so-called ideally liberal politicians, who are revealed to be not only corrupt, but disappointing.

Despite the powerhouse appearances of veterans like Clooney, Giamatti, Hoffman, Wright and Tomei, the real star of “THE IDES OF MARCH”turned out to be Ryan Gosling. The ironic thing is that his portrayal of political campaign manager Stephen Meyers made Clooney’s restrained performance look absolutely subtle. Yet, along with Clooney’s direction, Gosling more or less managed to carry the movie. I am not saying this because Gosling is the star of the movie. In his quiet way, he managed to carry a film featured with more colorful performances from an older cast. More importantly, Gosling did an excellent job in quietly conveying Stephen Meyers’s development from a savy, yet idealistic junior campaign manager to a harder and wiser politico who is willing to embrace corruption in order to save his career. I thought he gave a very impressive performance.

In the end, “THE IDES OF MARCH” was able to earn an accolades during the movie awards season, including an Academy Awards nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.  Well, I believe the film deserved its accolades.  Thanks to George Clooney’s direction, the script and a talented cast led by Ryan Gosling, I was very impressed by it.

 

“SPIDER-MAN” HOMECOMING” (2017) Review

image

 

“SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” (2017) Review

Although the 2017 movie, “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING”, marked the first solo Spider-man film within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) franhise, it also marked the second appearance of the Peter Parker/Spider-Man in a MCU film. The character made its first appearance in 2016’s “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”.  In an odd way, this film could be seen as a sequel to the 2016 movie. .

Before the 2016 movie, the character of Peter Parker aka Spider-Man had been featured in five films released through Columbia (later Sony) Pictures – three of them directed by Sam Rami between 2002-2007 and two of them directed by Marc Webb between 2012-2014. Instead of allowing Webb to round out his own trilogy, Sony Pictures made a deal with Disney and Marvel Films to allow the Spider-Man character to appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), while Sony retained final creative control over over any of the character’s solo films and appearances in other MCU movies. In the end, both Sony and Disney hired British actor Tom Holland to be the new Peter Parker aka Spider-Man. The character made his first MCU appearance in the second half of “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR” when he was recruited by Tony Stark aka Iron Man to help track down and arrest Steve Rogers aka Captain America and other rogue Avengers who had refused to sign the Sokovia Accords in Berlin, Germany.

However, the first ten to fifteen minutes of “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” began in the past . . . a few days following the Battle of New York in 2012’s “THE AVENGERS”. Adrian Toomes, the owner of a salvage company, has been contracted by the city government to clean up the mess from the Chitauri invasion. However, their operation is taken over by the Department of Damage Control (D.O.D.C.), a partnership between Tony and the U.S. government. Angered at being driven out of business, Toomes and his employees decide to keep the Chitauri technology they have already scavenged and use it to create and sell advanced weapons. After Peter participates in the Avenges’ battle at the Berlin airport, he returns to New York and resumes his studies at the Midtown School of Science and Technology. Tony informs Peter that he is not ready to become an Avenger, yet allows the web slinger to keep an A.I. Spider-Man suit that he had created. A few months later, Peter quits his school’s academic decathlon team in order to spend more time focusing on his crime-fighting activities as Spider-Man. The latter also becomes aware of Spider-Man and utilizes a suit with mechanical wings forged from Chitauri technology to become the criminal known as “Vulture”. However, his operation attracts the attention of Spider-Man, when the latter prevents a criminals from robbing an ATM with his advanced weapons.

“SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” became the second highest-grossing film of the Summer of 2017, following “GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 2” . . . so far. To be honest, I had expected it to become the highest grossing summer film of the year and a lot sooner. Nor did I expect it to become the second-highest grossing film within a span of two months. That seemed a bit long to me for a movie with such high expectations. A part of me cannot help but wonder why it took so long for “HOMECOMING” to achieve this position in the first place. I thought “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” was one of the more down-to-earth MCU films I have seen since 2015’s “ANT-MAN”. But the latter had the distinction of being something rare in a comic book film genre . . . a heist film. “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING”proved to be a more conventional film in which the protagonist takes on a group of local arms dealers, selling their wares to local criminals. Like I said . . . down to earth. The movie also did a solid job in portraying Peter’s development as a costumed hero. I say solid, because audiences were first introduced to the MCU’s Spider-Man a few months after he had acquired his powers and become a vigilante. So, movie audiences never really saw how this Peter Parker became Spider-Man. But if I must be honest, I did not regard this as a major problem. Somewhat. The movie also did a pretty good job in conveying how Peter’s Spider-Man activities interfered with his private life.

The movie also featured what I believed were a few memorable scenes – both dramatic and action. I enjoyed the sequence in which Spider-Man was forced to rescue his classmates from an elevator mishap inside the Washington Monument. Well, most of the sequence. I had one complaint about it, which I will point out later. The ferryboat sequence that featured Spider-Man’s attempt to arrest the Vulture provided a good number of tension and great cinematography. The movie’s ending proved to be very memorable to me. In this final scene, May Parker, Peter’s aunt, walked into his bedroom and found him changing out of his Spider-Man costume. Her reaction to this revelation proved to be the funniest and most original scene in the entire movie. But my favorite moment proved to be when Adrian Toomes discovered Peter’s identity as Spider-Man. It happened, in all places, inside Toomes’ car as he drove his daughter Liz Allan and Peter to their school’s Homecoming dance. From the moment that Liz Allan unintentionally revealed Peter’s constant absences, Toomes knew that Peter was the costumed vigilante who had been causing trouble for him and his men.

“SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” also benefited from a first-rate cast. Tom Holland became the fourth actor I have seen portray Spider-Man . . . and the third to do so on the silver screen. He is probably the youngest to portray the role. Many critics and moviegoers regarded his age as the reason why he might be the best Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I cannot say that I agree with assessment. Mind you, he did a great job in the role. But if I must be honest, I was equally impressed with Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield’s interpretations. Another first-rate performance came from Michael Keaton, who portrayed the movie’s main antagonist, Adrian Toomes aka the Vulture. In fact, the Toomes character, along with Keaton’s portrayal; seemed indicative of the film’s down-to-earth style. I do not regard Adrian Toomes as one of the best villains that have appeared in the MCU franchise. But . . . I must admit that Keaton gave one of the best performances I have seen within the franchise for a while. Thanks to his skillful and subtle performance, Keaton elevated a character that otherwise did not strike me as particularly interesting.

There were a few other performances that I also found enjoyable. One of them came from Marisa Tomei, who portrayed Peter’s widowed aunt and sole guardian, May Parker. And thanks to Tomei’s skills as a comedic actress, she provided one of the most memorable endings in a MCU film. Jon Favreau continued his portrayal of Tony Stark’s right-hand man, Harold “Happy” Hogan. I thought he did an excellent job of portraying Happy’s never-ending disregard for any of Tony’s fellow costumed vigilantes. Tony Revolori gave a rather entertaining performance as Peter’s high school tormentor, Flash Thompson. What I found interesting about Revolori’s performance is that unlike the previous versions of this character, his Flash utilize more verbal methods of bullying Peter, due to being the self-indulged son of a wealthy man and slight in figure. The movie also featured solid performances from Laura Harrier, Zendaya, Bokeem Woodbine, Jacob Batalon, Hannibal Buress, Logan Marshall-Greene, Garcelle Beauvais, Tyne Daly, Kenneth Choi; along with Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow as Tony Stark and Pepper Potts.

However, “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” has its flaws. Unfortunately, I feel that it has more flaws than virtues. I have so many problems with this film that I believe it would take a separate essay to discuss all of them. The best I can do is mention those I can remember at the moment – like the Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline. What in the hell happened? Talk about a massive screw up. In “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”, Vision had pointed out that Tony Stark had revealed himself to the world as Iron Man eight years earlier. This movie began a few days after the events of “THE AVENGERS”. Then the movie jumped eight years to its main narrative, beginning with Spider-Man’s experiences with the Berlin Airport fight in “CIVIL WAR”. Following that event, the movie jumped a few months later. Does this mean that both “IRON MAN” and “THE AVENGERS” were set during the same year? The entire Phase One of the MCU – aside from most of “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER”? I doubt it very much, considering that according to Nick Fury, the events of “IRON MAN 2”“THOR” and “THE INCREDIBLE HULK” had occurred at least a year before “THE AVENGERS”. It is all so fucking confusing that I do not want to discuss this any further.

Another problem I had with “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” was the presence of Tony Stark in the film and that damn Artificial Intelligence Spider-Man suit he had created for Peter. I realize that Iron Man was the Marvel character that had kick-started the MCU, but . . . c’mon! It was bad enough that the character had nearly hijacked a Captain America film. Now we had to see Robert Downey Jr.’s mug in this film? And he has proven to be one of the worst mentors I have seen on-screen. Tony’s idea of being a mentor was to plant a tracking device in Peter’s new Spider-Man suit and order Happy to keep tabs on the kid. You know, long distance mentoring? What the damn hell? It was bad enough that he had dragged Peter all the way to Germany (and without May’s knowledge) to help him battle the rogue Avengers. Then upon their return to New York, he advises Peter to stick with capturing local criminals. And then he leaves New York to monitor Peter from a distance. What the hell? I hate to say this, but the actor has really outstayed his welcome in the MCU . . . at least as far as I am concerned.

Speaking of Tony Stark, the movie revealed that he had resumed his romance with his former Girl Friday, Pepper Potts. In fact, they had become engaged. Only this revelation was made near the end of the film . . . in a quickie scene that served as comic relief. Great! Between “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR” and this film, Marvel revealed how incompetent it has become in portraying on-screen romances – even between established couples. Audiences were told in “CIVIL WAR” that Tony and Pepper had broken up. And we were told in a brief scene in this film that they had not only reconciled, but had also become engaged. The MCU’s screenwriters utilized the old “tell but not show” adage in the franchise’s portrayal of the Tony/Pepper romance. How sloppy. I never thought I would say this, but I was not that particularly thrilled by the presence of Captain America in this film. Why? Because he was featured in a series of taped Public Service Announcement (P.S.A.) video clips shown to the students at Midtown High. Normally, I would not have a problem with this. And even the final P.S.A. shown in a post-credit scene struck me as rather humorous. But . . . Steve Rogers aka Captain America had been a fugitive for a few months. Why would any school show a P.S.A. featuring a wanted fugitive? The New York City School District had a few months to tape a new P.S.A. Or . . . I could have simply done without this little and unnecessary addition to the film in the first place. I thought it was a waste of my time.

As for the A.I. suit, I hated it. I really hated that damn suit. I hated it. It merely robbed Peter from most of the abilities and nuance that made him Spider-Man – especially his spider senses. Worse, it kept interfering with Peter’s vigilante activities. When Spider-Man finally defeated the Vulture without the use of that damn suit, I sighed with relief. Unfortunately . . . the movie ended with Tony giving back that suit to him. Ugh! Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and the comic book versions of the character managed to survive and develop without Stark’s tech additions. But apparently, Tom Holland’s Spider-Man cannot. Why? Because he is now a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. UGH!

When I heard that actress/singer Zendaya had been cast as one of Peter’s classmates – M.J., I cheered. She would be a new kind of Mary Jane Watson. Only, I had no idea how different Zendaya’s M.J. would prove to be. One, her initials did not stand for Mary Jane. They stood for Michelle Jones. They changed the name, but kept the initials? What the fuck for? And like Peter, she proved to be a science-oriented student. Apparently, Marvel felt that the only kind of love interest – present or future – worthy of someone like Peter Parker, is one who is science-oriented like him. Which is why both Liz Allan and M.J. are science-oriented. Worse, the screenwriter completely changed her personality. This M.J. is an introverted and sardonic person in compare to the more extroverted M.J. from the comics. A romance between the introverted Peter and the introverted M.J.? Sounds like a great snooze fest. Come to think of it, the relationship between Peter and Liz Allan struck me as equally dull. I hate to say this but Tom Holland and Laura Harrier lacked screen chemistry. Honestly, she seemed a bit too much for the likes of him . . . on-screen and off.

Speaking of introverts, I found the movie’s portrayal of Peter Parker rather confusing. Peter has always been an introvert – even before he became Spider-Man. Only when wearing the Spider-Man suit did he display an extroverted persona. Well, Holland’s Spider-Man was extroverted. I had no problems with that. I had a problem with his Peter Parker persona. The only times Holland’s Peter displayed any signs of an introverted nature was when he had to deal with classmates like the bullying Flash Thompson. Otherwise, his Peter was unusually extroverted. And he never had to pay the consequences for his activities as Spider-Man. Not really. I thought it would have been more dramatic if his academic decathlon team had suffered a loss at their competition in Washington D.C. because he was busy being Spider-Man. Only they did not.

And the story lost an excuse for Peter to suffer any consequences for being Spider-Man. Also, near the end of the film, Tony offered him a position as a member of the Avengers. He brought Peter all the way to the Avengers facility in upstate New York and had a room waiting for the 15 year-old. Gee! All of this . . . without May’s permission? After all, Peter was underage. Was Tony really planning to let Peter drop out of school and leave Queens in order to join the Avengers . . . without May’s permission and knowledge? After the shit he had pulled with dragging Peter to Germany in “CIVIL WAR”, I guess so. What the hell Marvel?

I realized that director Jon Watts and the five screenwriters who had co-written the screenplay with him thought they were being clever by not starting the movie with Peter’s origin story. In a way, how could they? Especially since Peter had been Spider-Man for several months before the events of “CIVIL WAR”. But dammit! Watts and the other writers could have utilized a flashback or two to reveal the events of that momentous occasion. More importantly, the movie’s screenplay could have mentioned Ben Parker’s name and how he had died. They did not even bother to do that. Instead, Peter merely mentioned to his friend Ned that his aunt May had managed to recover from a traumatic event. Peter’s uncle went from “Uncle Ben Parker” to “a traumatic event”. Gee. How nice.

I also had a problem with Adrian Toomes aka the Vulture. As I had stated earlier, I really enjoyed Michael Keaton’s portrayal of the character, despite the latter being an underwhelming villain. But I had a problem with the villain’s actions and goals. Let me get this straight. He was about to lose his business, because he lost the contract with the city to clean up the mess from the Chitauri invasion? Really? You mean to say that Toomes’ salvaging company lacked any business before the events of “THE AVENGERS”? And how did the D.O.D.C. failed to confiscate the Chitauri technology that Toomes had already collected before losing his contract? When the Chitauri tech threatened to run out two-thirds into the film, Toomes’ company was in danger . . . again? This guy could not operate a salvage company without depending upon alien technology? I also found Toomes’ reason for stealing and selling Chitauri tech and weapons to many of New York City’s criminals struck me as somewhat problematic and shallow. Yes, Toomes had spent money to ensure that his salvaging company would collect the Chitauri weapons from the latter’s invasion. But after the Federal government had taken over the task, Toomes should have demanded a refund for the money he had already spent. Even if the City or the Feds had been reluctant to do so, Toomes could have easily recovered his money via a lawsuit . . . instead of turning to crime. This made his reason for becoming a villain and his goal irrelevant to me. Hell, this made the plot irrelevant, as well. I guess the movie’s screenwriters could not do better.

And could someone explain why Marvel had decided to make Liz Allan and the Vulture daughter and father? Yes, both characters are a part of the Spider-Man mythos. But they had nothing to do with each other. And in this film, both had different surnames. What was the point in making Liz the daughter of the Vulture in the first place?

I do not know what else to say about “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING”. Well, despite some first-rate acting from the likes of Tom Holland and Michael Keaton and a few solid action and dramatic sequences directed by Jon Watts, I guess so. Unfortunately, the movie’s virtues seemed to be rather few. And if I must be honest, Watts’ direction struck me as okay, but not really that impressive, considering that I was only impressed by a few scenes. But there were too many aspects in this film that either rubbed me the wrong way or seemed badly written to me. In the end, I found “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING” rather disappointing. It is probably my least favorite Spider-Man film.

 

“Irrelevant Bashing”

 

“IRRELEVANT BASHING”

I am another moviegoer who is getting sick and tired of the regarding Marvel/Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films and Warner Brothers/D.C. Comics’ D.C. Extended Universe (DCEU) films. I have come across articles in which fans of both movie universes have accused the other of excessive bashing. 

I never understood this rivalry between Marvel and DC Comics movie franchises. To be honest, I find it unnecessary. And I believe today’s audiences are getting too caught up in this so-called rivalry, thanks to the media, the studios and the two comic book conglomerates. I have seen both DC Comics and Marvel since “SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE” first came out in 1978. Why do certain films from one comic book company need to be better than those from another one? I have seen films from both that I found very impressive. And I have seen films from both that left me feeling disappointed. For me to decide whether the Marvel films or the DC films are better strikes me as ridiculous.

Some fans have claimed that since the MCU films perform better at the box office, they are without a doubt, the superior series of films. One major problem with this reasoning was the box office performance of the five major comic book movies released in 2016. Marvel’s “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE CIVIL WAR” proved to be the second (or third) biggest box office success of that year. Yet, D.C. Comics’ “BATMAN v. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” proved to be that year’s fifth biggest box office success. Although both the DCEU’s “SUICIDE SQUAD” and the MCU’s “DOCTOR STRANGE” never reached those heights in terms of box office, both were successful and ironically, the DCEU movie proved to be a bit more successful.

However, I believe that box office performance is not a true reflection of a movie’s worth. No one knows the true reason behind the critics’ current and more positive reaction to the Marvel films. Not really. True, some film critics might honestly believe they are better. Then again, it is possible that some film critics were bribed to praise the Marvel films to the sky and/or bash the D.C. Comics movies. Personally, I had stopped regarding their opinion as fact a long time ago. After all, their opinions are dictated by personal tastes, or . . . other means, just as the opinions of moviegoers are dictated by personal tastes. – Yes, there might be more people who believe that the current Marvel films are better. But I have encountered a great number of opinions that favor the current DC Comic movies. And I cannot help but wonder if the MCU fans are simply the loudest. Also, judging a film based upon box office success or the number of fans for a certain franchise strikes me as irrelevant. There are a lot of fans of the “TRANSFORMER” films. A lot. Which is why those movies generated a good deal of money. In the end, it is all subjective.

I am fans of both the MCU and the DCEU. I have been aware of some bashing of the MCU films by certain DCEU fans. However, their bashing seemed to be minor in compare to the consistent and excessive stream of criticism and bashing directed toward the DCEU films … and I believe this bashing is getting out of control.

Sometimes, I get the feeling that a lot of Marvel fans (or perhaps I should say the Marvel/Disney company is threatened by the three movies released by DC Comics between 2013 and 2016. These three movies signaled the end of the Marvel/Disney’s monopoly on a series of comic book movies based upon a collection of titles. The bashing for the DCEU has become utter ridiculous and excessive. I am also beginning to wonder if those who had accused Disney/Marvel of paying off the critics to bad mouth ALL THREE DCEU movies that have been released so far … had been right after all. Because this criticism has become over the top. It has now extended to both “WONDER WOMAN” and “JUSTICE LEAGUE” and they have yet to be released. Has bashing the DCEU movies become the “in” thing to do? Just as bashing the “STAR WARS” Prequel films is still a popular past time? I hope not. For I had almost bought it myself.

When “MAN OF STEEL”“BATMAN v. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” and “SUICIDE SQUAD” first hit the theaters, I was reluctant to see all three, because I had stupidly accepted the bad opinions about them. Yet, I overcame my reluctance and went to see them, anyway. And when I finally saw those three movies, I enjoyed them. All of them. Very much. In fact, I regard “BATMAN v. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” as one of the best comic book hero movies I have ever seen. And that was when I finally realized that a film critic’s opinion was worth dog shit. No more. I am simply going to form my own opinion of any movie I am interested in seeing. And I refuse to be some mindless drone and accept the views of others simply because it is the in-thing to do.

The idea that we are supposed to be accept that the Marvel or MCU films are better than the DCEU films, because many film critics or movie fans say so is irrelevant. It is irrelevant, because their views are matters of opinion. Preference. I do not accept this view “numbers matter” regarding the artistic quality of a film, because I do not share it. I have watched a lot of comic book movies in my time. From my perspective, only my opinion of an individual movie count. I do not care whether any those movies are based upon the titles of Marvel, DC Comics or any other comic book company that exists. And considering that art and entertainment are subjective in the end, what is the point in declaring that MCU films are better or that DCEU movies are better? It seems like a waste of time to me. I think we all should focus on which individual movies that appeals to us and not bother on which company makes the better films.

Warner Bros./DCEU is scheduled to release two movies in 2017. Disney/MCU has scheduled three to be released. I plan to see all five movies this year. And I will be damned if I pay attention to any film critics or moviegoer . . . until after I have seen these movies. Regardless of who performs better at the box office, I am the one who will decide which films I want to see and which ones I want to buy, regardless of whether they came from DC Comics or Marvel.

Ranking of Movies Seen During Summer 2017

Usually I would list my ten favorite summer movies of any particular year. However, since I had only watched ten new releases during the summer of 2017. Due to the limited number, I decided to rank the films that I saw:

 

RANKING OF MOVIES SEEN DURING SUMMER 2017

1.  “Dunkirk” – Christopher Nolan wrote and directed this acclaimed look at the British Expeditionary Force’s evacuation from Dunkirk, France in 1940.  Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance starred.

 

 

2.  “Wonder Woman” – Gal Gadot starred in this movie about the D.C. Comics’ heroine Wonder Woman and her experiences during World War I.  Patty Jenkins directed.

 

 

3.  “Detroit” – Kathryn Biegelow directed this harrowing look at the Algiers Motel incident during Detroit’s 1967 12th Street Riot.  John Boyega, Will Poulter, Algee Smith and Anthony Mackie starred.

 

 

4.  “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” – Johnny Depp returned as Jack Sparrow in this fifth entry in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise.  Directed by Espen Sanberg and Joachim Rønning, the movie co-starred Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario.

 

 

5.  “Baby Driver” – Edgar Wright wrote and directed this tale about a young Atlanta getaway driver and music lover who is forced to work for a kingpin in order to settle a debt.  Ansel Elgort, Lily James and Kevin Spacey starred.

 

 

6.  “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” – Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson starred in this comedy action-thriller about a bodyguard who hired to protect a hitman who has to testify at the International Criminal Court.  Patrick Hughes directed.

 

 

7.  “King Arthur and the Legend of the Sword” – Guy Ritchie directed this new spin on the King Arthur legend and the monarch’s conflict against his treasonous uncle.  Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law starred.

 

 

8.  “Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets” –   Luc Besson wrote and directed this adaptation of Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mézières’ science fiction comics series “Valérian and Laureline”.  The movie starred Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne.

 

 

9.  “Spider-Man:  Homecoming” – Tom Holland starred as Spider-Man aka Peter Parker in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)’s first solo film featuring the web slinger.   Jon Watts directed.

 

 

10. “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2″ – James Gunn wrote and directed this followup to the 2014 hit “Guardians of the Galaxy” for the MCU.  Chris Pratt, Zoë Saldana and Kurt Russell starred.