Panthers, Tigers and Bears and Mowgli too...

Disney's new "live" action The Jungle Book, produced and directed by Jon Favreau, is clearly a work of love. It is a live action only in the sense that Mowgli played by newcomer Neel Sethi is the only non-CGI character in the movie. It is an amazing film that while maintaining all the charm of the 1967 movie intensifies the plot and characters with incredible details.

All, well most of the songs, you may have loved in the original are there.  You haven't heard anything until you've heard Christopher Walken sing "I Wanna Be Like You" as King Loui.  There are some small or large changes depending on what kind of purist you are.  Kaa, the snake, is truly creepy and the animals are incredibly real, if not a bit over-sized.  Just don't go in expecting to see elephants marching in a line under the gaze of a British colonel with a riding crop. They are instead majestic and noble creatures who have become a part of the creation myth of the jungle animals. 

As I said, the animals are CGI and if there is one flaw, they are huge.  They dwarf Mowgli on the screen.  I don't know the actual size of jungle animals well enough but Loui, for example, could hold Mowgli in the palm of his hand.  Even the baby elephant towers above the man-cub.  Kaa's length is larger than any snake you've ever seen in a Hollywood horror movie.  Symbolic? Perhaps.  For the animals are strong and glorious but even Shere Khan knows of the dangers of what could happen when the man-cub becomes a man.

Our one encounter with "man" is when Mowgli seeks

fire.  It is clear that man is not in tune with nature.  They build a fire in their village that is far larger than it needs to be.  Perhaps it is a view of man from the animals or perhaps an indication of how little men understand the natural world surrounding them. The scene is disturbing as the only "men" we see are mostly in silhouette.  The only other man we see is Mowgli's dad who once made his way into the jungle where all creatures learn to defend their "people" which is how he dies, defending Mowgli against Shere Khan.


The voice acting is, for the most part, well done.  I have to admit, of all the characters the one I still remain least enamoured of is that of Bill Murray as Baloo the bear.  Don't get me wrong, I love Bill Murray and the actor he has become.  I understand why he was cast as the charming con-bear.  There was just something that occasionally didn't quite fit.  The only other issue I noticed was Idris Elba's gritty British street accent did creep through a bit at the end as Mowgli faced Elba's Shere Khan.

Overall, The Jungle Book is intense and moving and wonderfully done.  The oddest thing in the movie was the strange "thank you for coming to see the movie" from Jon Favreau before the movie. The young actor Neel Sethi held his own as Mowgli in what would have been a tough role even for a seasoned veteran FX movie actor.  I liked the movie. It is perhaps a bit intense for younger viewers, but it is well worth your time.  Even the end credits were entertaining.  

Dark Musings for Nerds

A friend posted an article on losing Superman as an icon because of the more recent Batman v Superman and Man of Steel.  The author of the article bemoaned the loss of clean cut superhero played by Christopher Reeves in the late 70's mentioning that he saw the movie when he was four. He even mentioned that Superman Returns with Brandon Routh had more of that clean-cut, wonderful feeling of the 70's movie than the much darker Batman v Superman.  He's right the recent incarnation of Superman is darker, but it is not the death of an American icon.  That ship sailed with the comic book Death of Superman series.  There is also now the multi-verse which has every kind of Superman.  The waking nightmare that Batman has in Batman v Superman is a set up that has nothing to do with the movie and was inspired by one of those universes.  Batman fears Superman so that enters his dream, but he also gives us a glimpse of the arrival of Darkseid the ultimate villain. Batman comes awake to see the time traveling Flash.  It is a confusing sequence, but one of the issues the movie has and why it probably seems so disjointed is simply the impossible was asked.  In one movie, Christopher Nolan, who has been given the reins of the DC Universe, was supposed to set up the entire slate of movies Warner Brothers intends to make over the next several years.  Mistakes were made.

I don't actually intend to defend Batman v Superman. It clearly has its problems.  What the discussion by the article and the comments on my friend's post did was start me to thinking.  Is Zack Snyder, as one commentator put it, lazy and a bad storyteller and is Batman v Superman and Man of Steel just a culmination of DC and Warner Brother's dark vision.  I don't actually believe that Nolan or Snyder hate Superman as the article states.  I think there is more here.  Maybe, we just don't want to see our heroes through rose-colored lenses with a dash of Pollyanna anymore.  The fact is that action movies, including comic book movies, are getting darker as are the comics themselves.

I for one was thrilled when Tim Burton returned the dark to the Dark Knight. Batman the movie was the first video I ever bought.  It's not that I don't wax nostalgic when I see or hear about the Adam West Batman, but the fact is the Batman TV series of the flower power days was silly, over-the-top goofiness but not really even close to the original comic book Batman who uses a gun, by the way.  You see Batman in the comics and Batman in films and TV is actually pretty complicated and so is Superman, who used not fly but jump in his original appearance and was a little less discerning about who he killed until the 1950's.  (BTW Reeves killed Zod in Superman II.)The idea of them not killing or using guns was not really a "let's give our superheroes as a squeaky clean image or a call to nobility." Actually, it was more of  "how do we bring back popular villains if we let our heroes kill them off?" moment. It's not that Batman, Superman, Daredevil, or others haven't killed or will kill; it's that it is more convenient if they don't.

Horror movies and action movies have been darker and getting darker really since the late 60's or early 70's.  The Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars, Freddie, Jason, even Zombies were far darker than killer ants or gigantic women affected by atomic radiation. I remind you that The Werewolf with Lon Chaney Jr. is a different movie from the dark comic overtones of American Werewolf in London.   Bella Lugosi's Dracula was not nearly as dark as was Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman. Movies are darker, even edgier in many a case.

We also have another issue that faces movies, the anticipation factor.  We know more about an upcoming movie and rumors about upcoming movies than we ever did before.  There was outrage when Ben Affleck was cast as Batman.  Imagine what it would've been like on Facebook if Star Wars: A New Hope had been made today.  We do have The Force Awakens, though. We got every rumor, every detail of these two movies, every injury, every casting idea and theory from "Jar Jar is a Sith Lord" to "Sad Batman memes."

The anticipation of movies, especially in the nerd realm, is, I think, devastating at times.  Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Star Trek, have all had to survive the pre-judgement, theories and second-guesses of every nerd site, nerd with a basic knowledge and nerd without taste on the internet.  All I know is that Michael Keaton was the only thing we discussed when he was cast as Batman, and we may have spent all of 15 minutes worrying about it and reading the one or two articles in fan magazines.  Over-anticipation of any film is not a good thing.  I was disappointed by E.T. the Extraterrestrial not because it was a bad film, but all I had heard about and read about it was how wonderful it was. It had been out a while by the time I got to see it, and all I could see was a boy and his dog story with Eliot and the alien.  Imagine how difficult the secret would be to keep these days if everyone knew Bruce Willis was dead in the Sixth Sense or Rosebud was a sled in Citizen Kane. I honestly wonder how some movies survive Twitter and Facebook.  Batman v Superman has had a heap of hate put on it and not because of the problems it has but for problems the critics had.  It was getting bad reviews before it had actually opened and there is little doubt that some of those "reviews" were by people who hadn't seen the movie.

Think I am wrong? Imagine movies like Dead Pool being made even 10 or 15 years ago. There was the adaptation of Blade in 1998, but R-rated movies just weren't discussed much in comic book world.  Now with Dead Pool, there will be R-rated Wolverine III and an R-rated director's cut of Batman V. Superman. Even Star Wars: The Force Awakens is PG-13 and if Star Wars: A New Hope had the PG-13 available, it would still be barely a PG movie today.

Unlike the person who wrote the article that started all this, I didn't see Superman in 1978 when I was four. I saw it when I was 21, so my point-of-view about the clean cut Christopher Reeves movie is not as a child but as someone who grew up reading the grittier comics of the 60's like Savage Sword of Conan and Luke Cage, Hero for Higher and Silver Surfer.  I found the chemistry between Reeves and Kidder as frequently awkward.  Don't believe me? Watch this scene. I trust you'll see what I mean immediately.  I didn't read Superman or Batman because how hokey and silly they'd become in the "feel good, I'm okay, you're okay" 60's and 70's.  I wanted harder and troubled hero's.  I was thrilled as those harder edged comic book writers came of age in the 80's and  90's.  Really, if the rumor is to be believed, the whole Death of Superman was actually an attempt to reboot the Man of Steel to someone who wasn't quite so completely indestructible.

My point is that to expect movies to do the television, comic book or movie we saw when we were younger is both unrealistic and unfair to the modern filmmakers.  I believe movies or movie series stand on their own merit and that is why I may seem more forgiving.  I am not a Marvel v DC guy. I look at movies or movie series as they are.  To compare Ben Affleck with George Clooney as the Knight, would be wrong as wrong as not giving Affleck a chance because he played in oh say Dare Devil or blaming Ryan Reynolds for Green Lantern and missing that he is the quintessential Dead Pool even if he was stuck doing Dead Pool in Wolverine Origins. Moviemakers make decisions. Actors make decisions. Studios make decisions. Scriptwriters make decisions. Producers make decisions. Directors make decisions. Not all of them are good. Not all of them are bad.  Movies grow and change according to what sells and vision.

Batman v Superman: A Dark Tale of Power

If you read that Batman v Superman lacks the uplifting heroes and storylines of a movie like The Avengers, then two things are true: 1. What was written in that statement is true and 2. Comparing DC to Marvel is plain wrong.  DC comics and media has worked hard to build a darker world than that of Marvel comics and media.  Even television shows like The Flash are darker.  There is actually only one fluff DC show out right now and that is Supergirl. So if you go and see Batman v Superman expecting the wit of an Ironman or nobility of Captain America, you are in for disappointment.  DC left that Batman and Superman in the sixties and early seventies.  They returned to the darker edge even in the 80's with Batman and have sought a darker edge, particularly in that series since that time.

THERE BE SPOILERS HERE.

I wanted to love Batman v. Superman, but that just didn't happen.  I liked the movie.  I liked it a lot, but it was at times a bit muddled and perhaps overly long coming in at just over two and a half hours.

There are two things that I think may cause this problem.  One is the inclusion of "nightmares" and the other is trying to join two of the greatest storylines. One is from Batman's mythology and the other from Superman's while trying to ensure that the movie is the introduction to the beginnings of the Justice League.  The Batman story comes from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns which gives us the older and much grimmer Bruce Wayne/Batman. The other story is from Superman's Doomsday series which, if you know what happened to the Man of Steel in the comic book story from the mid-90's you will also understand the reset that came for Superman from the kinder gentler one of the 70's too.  If you don't know what happened in Doomsday, I will just say that its final issue in the series became the best-selling Superman comic of all time. 

Batman v Superman is first and foremost a Christopher Nolan film.  Nolan who directed the Christian Bale's stint as the Dark Knight and is executive producer of Batman v Superman is well-known for his dark tales and often complex storylines.  Zach Snyder who directed this movie and The Man of Steel is also no stranger to edgier works which also includes 300 and The Watchmen.  Expecting some happy spiritual movie is just not in the cards. 

 Its theme is a reminder of ideas about power and vengeance.  We meet an older Batman, who has defeated most criminal geniuses who have come his way.  He is driven still by vengeance and knows that he too as a self-described vigilante is a criminal.  His brand of justice is not some grand vision of heroism, but a necessary evil.  Ben Affleck finds redemption from his round as Dare Devil in taking on the Batman mantle.  He is strong and unassuming as the older Wayne.  Henry Cavill returns to his Man of Steel role and is a capable Superman.  He is filling the role as Christopher Reeves once did.  As I said earlier, that kinder Superman is gone.  In its place is a hero who can destroy the world should he decide to do so.  It is the conflict between these two ideas that sets up the conflict between these two iconic heroes.  Superman sees only sees the vigilante justice of Batman. Batman fears the corruption of absolute power.  Both feel he must stop the other.  Both badly misjudge.  

Enter into this mix a psychopath named Alexander Luthor. "Lex" Luthor is not the Lex who was Superman's nemesis in comic books, but the son of that Lex Luthor.  We are not sure if this lunatic version hates Superman because he caused the downfall of his father or he just hates anything he cannot control.  Luthor, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is one of the weaker problems in the movie.  Like the Joker, he is someone who just likes to watch the world burn. Luthor is more lunatic and less super-villain. Eisenberg's typical repetitive and overly speedy delivery of lines also doesn't really make him a unique villain.  It is hard to believe that any corporate board would leave such an obvious madman in charge of a huge company like Lexcorp.  

Besides the nightmare sequences of Batman which illustrates his fear of Superman's rising power, we also have a secondary storyline of Senator Finch played by Holly Hunter.  The plotline loosely accomplishes two things. First, it causes Superman to question his dream of a hero of hope which he already seems to be questioning, and second, it gives Luther something evil to do until he creates Doomsday from General Zod's corpse.  It is these elements that tend to muddle the movie.

Remembering that the title of this movie is actually Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice, we are also introduced to Wonder Woman played by Gal Godot.  We are hastily told a brief backstory of the Amazon warrior but little else is revealed except that she shows up to help fight Doomsday. If you are expecting much more than a quick introduction of other Justice League members, you are going to be sadly disappointed.  Much has been made on comic book movie sites and nerd world of the appearances of the Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg in this movie, but that is all the audience will get is literally a brief appearance of these members of The League.  You are going to have to wait for more in future movies if you want more.  

With all that said, I do like the movie. I have always liked the darker tones of the DC world.  The action sequences are intense.  Gone is the silly fake voice of Bale's Batman and in its place is the older and more cynical Affleck's Batman.  Superman is not some infallible hero but an alien in a world where he must tread as a man but could easily become a god.  He loves and is troubled by the consequences of his actions. He is still learning what his future might hold and what sacrifice he must make to become the hero of hope dreamt of by a Kansas farm boy.  While the plot is muddled and it's villain far from "super," the movie has strong enough performances and characters to keep the audience's interest.  It is intense and the PG13 rating is well placed. For a comic book fan, it is a good entry into the comic book movie realm.  Is it the best one? No.  I am glad I saw it and will buy the DVD.  

Let's Play Politics or Know Your History

Antonin Scalia

With the passing of Antonin Scalia, many a thing has been put forward but history was not one of them.  Suddenly there were rules that never existed. There is the Constitution.  There is no such thing as the Thurmond rule.

Before the death had barely been announced, it was stated, tweeted, announced and put in a debate that President Obama should not nominate a successor and that the Republican-led Senate would not and should not consider any nominee.  This instantly means that the President is only President for three years and no one, no matter how qualified, will be considered. I also would point out that some of the harsher statements were walked back.

Benjamin Cardoza

There are the statements that no president has in at least the last 80 years nominated a justice in the last year of their presidency.  I have one thing to say: know your history.  The 80 year one referenced as the only one for nomination and approval took place in 1932.  Hoover's nominee, Justice Benjamin Cardozo took all of seven days to be nominated and confirmed. The average is now 70 days.

Abe Fortas

In fact, there have been several nominations in an election year in the modern era. Only one failed due to filibuster by cloture.  The last successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee was in 1968 when President Johnson nominated an Associate Justice, Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice.  Johnson then had to also withdraw Homer Thornbury who he had nominated to replace Fortas when Fortas was blocked. There were 22 hearings for Thornbury and Fortas.  The longest time a court appointment confirmation took was 125 days.  There are over 300 days left in Obama's term.

Robert Bork

The other statements that I love are that Obama voted for a filibuster by cloture in 2006 -not an election year- and that it is karma.  Obama admitted that the filibuster thing was not a wise choice. The cloture failed. By the way, the Justice involved, Samuel Alito, was approved.  The actual filibuster movement was not led by Obama.  The other "it's payback" was the blocking of Robert Bork in the 80's.   I would  like to point out that Bork was not filibustered and was not blocked without a hearing.  The senate acted exactly as the Constitution's "advise and consent" clause is supposed to work. Six republicans in the 58 total voted not to confirm  Bork. The next Reagan nominee, who had not supported Jim Crow laws and a number of other contentious decisions, Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 97 zip.  The Bork battle did change the nomination process, but it did not stop it.

Alexander Polk

Bork was not the only nominee to not be approved by the senate.   The court did sit with an empty seat for 27 months just before the Civil War.  President Polk who replaced Tyler after his death held the record for rejected or withdrawn nominees at eight. This is the longest example I could find. There is no time in history I could find that the Senate has announced that it would not even consider a nominee.

There must also be irony in that the call for blocking any appointee by Obama because it is an election year.  Ironic because Scalia believed the Constitution should be interpreted literally.  He abhorred people who tried to re-interpret the Constitution by trying to put a context around it. Even conservative and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Conner has stated flatly, "I don't agree (with Republicans)," O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, said in an interview with Phoenix-based Fox affiliate KSAZ. "We need somebody in there to do the job and just get on with it."

To announce that no nominee will receive even a hearing or a vote is actually the only part of this mess that is unprecedented.  Playing politics is not new when it comes to nominations. Even  if we put the whole thing down as this is payback for Bork or Obama voting for cloture in 2006, I am still reminded of one thing: This is the Supreme Court of the United States whose members appointments are controlled not by an amendment but the Constitution.  It says very clearly the President shall nominate and the Senate will use "advise and consent" on the nomination.  The Constitution does not say that a group of politicians shall stand and claim that they are getting even for past actions like eight-year-olds on the playground.

I have one more comment about the arguments that this is payback or an election year choice and "elections have consequences":

If what was done was wrong in the past, does doing it wrong in the present make it right? Does the election we had in 2012 not count in its consequence? One cannot ignore the election of the past because you have an election in the future.


I am not a Constitutional expert but I see nothing about Presidents losing power to nominate in an election year. I also see nothing about the Senate refusing or delaying its "advice and consent" because it is an election year.  This is what it says in The Constitution, "he (The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

Two wrongs still do not make a right.

Gentleman's Guide Laugh-Out-Loud Funny

The Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder is a hard one to explain. There may be some spoilers in this review, but little that is not in the program or the opening numbers. The music is complex and not something you will find yourself humming for hours after or running out to buy the cast album.  It is also perfect for the show. It has a wonderful set that combines projections and lighting that is both subtle and fantastical.  I would also hate to be the prop master for this show because, like most bawdy farces, it is prop after prop after prop.  More than anything else it is one of the funniest pieces of  visual musical comedy that I've seen hit the stage in some time.  It is a true gem.

So let me try to explain to you what I can.  Meet  Lord Montague "Monty" D'Ysquith Navarro, Ninth Earl of Highhurst, whose mother died penniless because she had been disowned by the wealthy and powerful D'Ysquith family for running off and marrying a Spanish musician.  Monty did not know he was a D'Ysquith and when he discovers this, he attempts to reunite with his estranged and strange family.  They treat him as they did his mother: horribly.  So in order for Monty to claim his inheritance and eventually become the Ninth Earl of Highhurst, Monty must eliminate all those in between including the Eighth Earl.  That number would be eight extremely odd human, and I use the term loosely,  beings.

And so it begins that Monty creatively begins to kill off his cousins.  In the show, Monty's D'Ysquith cousins are all played by the same actor.  I always worry when I see a show that involves one actor playing several roles that the show will become like a bad Jerry Lewis movie.  Let me allay your fears.  The same actor playing all the cousins makes the show wonderful because John Rapson is amazing as is the entire cast. Kevin Massey who plays Monty is a wonderful serial killer too. (You may recognize Rapson and Massey at the two guys who sung The Star Spangled Banner at the Bronco's overtime win against the Patriots.) The wonder of this show is that the audience is rooting for Monty despite the fact that he has a married mistress and is also married to his cousin, the only D'Ysquith he doesn't need to kill.
 
The musical is based on 1907 novel Israel Rank: The Autobiography of a Criminal by Roy Horniman. The novel also inspired the 1949 black comedy movie Kind Hearts and Coronets. The eight roles played by Rapson were also played by one actor, Sir Alec Guinness. The family name in the movie is D'Ascoyne. The musical is based on the novel since the writers did not have rights to the 1949 movie.

The show is marked not only by a spectacular set but also wonderful music that often breaks into counterpoints involving trios and duets.  The blending of music and voice is mesmerizing and the show from physical and classic farce-style acting to the songs and dialog are all tremendously funny. By the time the curtain call rolls around you will find yourself standing there grinning like a foolish D'Ysquith.

See it.

It's the Little Things

First, I started writing this before Christmas, so please forgive me if it's not as topical as it was then. It is, however, still applicable.  People are still calling each other names over absolutely trivial things and acting like these little things matter.

You know there is a boatload of things that people are upset, outraged, indignant, angry, perturbed, dismayed, bothered, ruffled by.  I have one thing to say about it: most of it does not matter and get a sense of humor. When did we become so many spoiled junior high adolescents?  This is not a new rant, but the whole "we did this because so and so did it" is getting old.

Before Christmas came the infamous red cup of Starbucks.  Was there a huge outcry about the lack of decorations celebrating the season? Actually, no.  There was an infinitesimally small group of extreme something or others that were outraged by the fictional war on Christmas that posted something on social media. It went viral.  The news reported it like it was a big deal and voila outrage over a red paper cup.  I mean you would've thought Starbucks had put a menorah on the cup or put out a rainbow colored cup in honor of the anniversary of the release of the Wizard of Oz.  That is why you would have a rainbow cup, right?

There was also the usual blizzard of those horrible stores wishing everyone a "happy holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas." After all, why would any retailer or any person who has a friend that isn't of their belief system want to wish them good days during the holidays?

Then came the outcry by one or two people who had their humorous bone (actually spelled humerus in your Grey's Anatomy) removed about a tee-shirt which said, "I have OCD: Obsessive Christmas Disorder." Again it was reported and made important by going only slightly less viral than red cups.  Apparently, no one among the angry denizens of "Ihatemylifeandeveryoneelsestoo" land has not seen the multitude of other tees that include: "just add alcohol; I have CDO which is like OCD except in the right order"; and or a host of other potentially offensive tee shirts. Humor apparently does not reside in their layer of the stratosphere.

Look, I was in education and there are more than a few teacher jokes out there.  Some are actually pretty funny. I am not immune to the more slanderous ones, but I am not going on a viral tear about the humor someone's attempt at humor.  Besides the vast majority of us get that it is a joke.  Contrary to what the average sit-com or TV show would have us believe, all men are not idiots, all teenagers do not all suffer from angst, all blondes are not dumb or bimbos, and not all overweight people are funny.  It still remains true if you want to know the best lawyer jokes, ask a lawyer.

Let's face it, people have always been upset over things that do not matter, but to make a big deal over which is better: Coke or Pepsi or that some movie star or singer have endorsed something or someone is just ridiculous.  First, I no longer drink cola but if I did, it would be a ginger ale or a root beer. I've met many a celebrity and please believe me when I say this, I wouldn't trust their educated opinion any more than I would trust a mirror not to reflect.  For the most part, they have done as much research as someone who post articles and memes from partisan Facebook pages.  They don't.


So before it goes viral, give this a shot.  Don't comment. Don't repost.  Let news organizations know they might want to try to report real news. I just want to go back to arguing over whether the dress is gold or blue.