Turn It Off: Polls and more Polls

The other night, my wife received a phone call that was supposed to be a poll.  It quickly became clear that this was no carefully worded, unbiased poll.  It was a political poll that would eventually lead the person being polled to give the answer the pollster wanted.  It was clear that the poll was a from an anti-abortion group looking for statistics that would back up their position.  I've had similar polls hit us before.  They have a specific design to elicit a specific response.

This brings me to another poll about attitudes.  This a poll about shifting attitudes in the partisan divide.  Did you know at one time most people were able to sit down and talk out differences without calling the other person name.  "Steadfast Conservatives" and "Steadfast Liberals" in this survey actually see the other side as a "threat to the nation's well-being." These two sides  represent the extremes in both groups.  They will not change their minds, and they will not listen to what others say.  The fact is that the two parties often go after the more fanatical and ignore the vast majority which fits most of us.  Given how wide the point of views vary on the conservative side, the extreme right tends to be much more fringe than the extreme left.  And this brings me to another reason why you need to turn off all the follows and biased sites.  It's the base. 

It stands to reason that the most vocal groups, the loudest and least likely to care about the facts, are the fringe groups.  They are the ones that post the memes, troll the opposite group's social and media pages, and wouldn't listen to facts if they had them tattooed on their arms in easy to read type.  Original and critical thought is not their strong suit. They are the ones who refuse to see the science behind climate change as a reality on the right and the science about GMO's being safe on the left.  They both tend to point to one debunked study as the touch stone of their beliefs and ignore the mounting evidence to the contrary.  It's like that group of people who have stopped immunizing their kids because a single, debunked and now with-drawn study from the 90's said there might be a link.  To date, not a single study has shown any link between autism and immunizations.  Still though with the facts staring them in the face, they believe the connection to be true, and all the while, once controlled and nearly wiped out diseases like whooping cough are on the rise.  So with the minuscule odds vs. the very real odds of catching a disease, they have blindly chose minuscule over a real danger.  The same is said for any extreme view.  Again and again we are daily bombarded by the faithful on the right and the left with misinformation that has not been verified in the least.

Take for example a new anti-gun control meme coming off the Right Wing News page about the "largest school shooting in American history" was not Sandy Hook, but when the evil government killed 290 Native American women and children.  The problem with the entire meme is that the only massacre of that size by the government in 1890 was Wounded Knee.  A simple Google search discredits the whole thing, and it is also what leads us to the account of Wounded Knee.  It was the culminating and most horrific event of the "Indian Wars." Yes the majority of those who died were women and children.  The problem is that historians do not agree on the number who were killed.  It was perhaps as high as 290 and perhaps lower at, according to the History Channel, 149.  Wounded Knee was not a school.  It is not a school shooting and the Natives were not unarmed.  In fact, the reason the calvary attacked was to disarm several Lakota Sioux.  Between 25 to 29, again the number varies, U.S. Calvary soldiers were killed.  If the friend who posted this piece had turned off the feed to this tripe, that friend would have never been influenced to post this horrifically misinformed meme.  It would simply circulate among the extreme fringe who are protected in tin foil anyway.

Not to be out done, another meme making its way from a left wing page shows two ears of corn.  The hand labeled pictures, which shows barely eaten ear of corn labeled "GMO" and a stripped ear of corn, labeled "Organic" makes the comment that even squirrels know the difference. The problem is, of course, we don't know if either ear of corn is actually what it says it is or that squirrels even ate them. In a taste test I saw on TV, people could not tell the difference between organic and factory farm bananas but would announce when told that one piece was organic that it tasted better.  The problem was that both sections of banana they were given to taste came from the same banana.  One piece was labeled organic.  The other problem is that if squirrels, and other rodents actually had such a discerning pallet, then the exterminator's poisoned feed pellets would fail miserably.  Again, if  the friend had turned off this feed or simply refused to pass on this meme, it would eventually fade from view.

Hate begets hate and stupidity begets stupidity. Far too often, we have been trained on the instant nature of the internet to react quickly and immediately.  Too many people simply don't check it before passing it on.  We have all been caught.  I now refuse to post any meme of scientific or political nature without checking first.  If we continue to allow the hate and fear to bombard us, we will only see the partisan divide grow.  A page that calls itself Right Wing America or Democrats for America is not going to be a middle of the road page.  They will pander to the extreme base.  They will do their best to push us further apart.  If you want Republicans and Democrats to move back to the middle, where  most of us are, then they need to know that the biggest demographic they need to reach is no longer listening to the pandering and hate. We are moving these extremists  back to the corner to scream at nothing and carry their sandwich sign that says "the end is nigh" while wearing their tin foil hat.   If we do this then the end is near...for them.

Unlike, don't visit, unsubscribe, ignore...just

TURN IT OFF.

Turn It Off: Getting rid of those who divide us.

 Stop please....just stop.  I have a challenge for you. I am begging you.  I bet you can't do it.  I DARE YOU.  In other words, whatever it takes to challenge you, your friends, your friends' friends to turn off the feed and daily procession to stupidity, I dare you to unlike, not visit, unsubscribe, mute, and in general get all your information from as reasonably unbiased news outlet as you can find.

I dare you if you're on the left to unlike and quit visiting or watching MSNBC, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, Egberto Willies, and a host of other sites.  Dislike leftwing personalities like Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Jessica Valenti, Paul Krugmann, Arrianna Huffington or the host of left wing radio and TV mouth pieces. I must admit that I do read articles on the Huffington Post, but its editorial and political reporting, I look at very carefully. If you are on the right then I dare you to unlike and quit visiting or watching FoxNews, Red State, Tea Party, World Net Daily, Tea Party Patriots, Breitbart, Drudge Report, and a host of other sights.  Dislike right wing personalities like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Cavuto, Geroge Will, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the host of right wing radio and tv mouth pieces. Long ago, I would watch Fox New when it really was, I thought, trying to be fair and balanced.  It has dropped all pretense of fair and balanced long ago.

If you cannot drop these folks then I have a different challenge: If you like one liberal then you must also like one conservative.  I am not including politicians whom you follow.  Politics is their job.  A pundit and a news station and a Facebook page, however, is not in existence but for his or her or its own selfish purpose and propaganda. We all know very well when it comes to Facebook or live news they have one thing they consider first: making money. To that end, far too many news organizations have committed themselves to entertainment. A part of that is keeping the conflict going because great controversy, real or imagined, puts up rating numbers, and rating numbers determine how much money these networks and pundits can charge.  Noble news reporters and honest political commentary are about ratings and not an informed public.  Meet the Press, which once actually had reporters asking leaders tough questions, has become let's have an interview with conflicting view points.  Facts are not relevant.  Rating points are. Just ask David Gregory.

I know what you're thinking about right now is "why should we do this?"


Did you know Politifact keeps track of the accuracy of not just pundits, but of entire networks?   Did you know that the network that receives the most  "mostly false, false and pants on fire" is Fox News? Number two is MSNBC. Fox News is at 58% while MSNBC is at 48% in the political arena of how often they are inaccurate.  Now it is true that this rating is based only on the items that Politifact checks. They don't fact check everything. News networks like CBS, who doesn't have a political network like NBC has MSNBC, does not get fact checked as often.  It is also true that if an MSNBC pundit goes on CNN and doles out misinformation, CNN takes the hit for the inaccuracy.  Politifact also includes NBC's rating with MSNBC's rating, which is I think a bit unfair.  CNN's rating is at only 22% inaccurate.

You can also fact check pundits like Glen Beck whose fact check card rate at "mostly false, false or pants on fire" is 61% of the time.  Rachel Maddow has a 51% inaccuracy rating.  Her equal in rating is Bill O'Reilly.  Good old Rush Limbaugh has an inaccuracy rating of 82% of the time and has never once received a true rating and only mostly true 7% of the time.  Did you know, for example, Fox News  edits public speeches by the President to change the speeches' meanings or they will cut away during a live speech for a pundit's remarks? Both MSNBC and Fox regularly use loaded language and hyperbole.


You may also notice that I did not include well-known liberals like Jon Stewart.  He is liberal yes, but pretty much anyone and everyone are his targets.  And believe it or not, political comedians like Stewart, Bill Maher and John Oliver are doing a different job by pointing at the foibles of politics.  I do admit though that Maher may be crossing the line on occasion, but then again even he says that is what he has always done.  I enjoy the stupidity these humorist points to.  It's kind of in their job description.  Political satirists from the likes of Johnathan Swift and Voltaire to Mark Twain and Will Rogers have been with us for a very long time. It's just that Stewart and the folks at Saturday Night Live have a more visible platform.

So let's get this strait once and for all: these pundits and political networks have a job and they are relying on you to never check their veracity.   In other words, if you don't check, you are the perfect, low information voter that you've heard about.  You are being led around by the nose and spreading all kinds of misleading information every time you post one of those Facebook memes or misleading stories you heard on Al Shapton or Sean Hannity. To follow these people makes about as much sense as failing to vote because you  think your vote won't count.  Now whom do you suppose would want you to think that?  An irate, ill informed voter is so much better for those who would divide us than voters who talk to each other and call out the lies and misinformation.  Quit saying you don't like congress and then sending your same, old, bought and paid for representative back to doing nothing.





Facebook pages of political persuasion are also there for the same reason.  Often created and ran by extreme groups, I suspect they are also even created and supported by the so called dark money. They have strong extremist agendas that don't really care about whether it is true or not.  Take for example one Tea Party page I was reading announced a few weeks back that Mike Ditka "annihilated" the left wing talking points about the name of the Washington football team, the Redskins. Ditka did not annihilate a talking point or group.  He simply stated his opinion in defending the use of the name.  A defense, I might add, that was also once used to defend almost every other ethnic slur ever used.  It's not a good defense.

Fox News Nation another site for the "Fox Community" announced that Attorney General Eric Holder's wife is part owner in an abortion clinic.  A "fact" that I saw reported on a friend's status.  The fact though is more complicated than that.  Eric Holder's wife, Sharon, and her sister own a building through a family trust that has, depending on what articles you read, an abortion clinic or a controversial abortion clinic, or a clinic that does abortions in the building. A doctor in that clinic was convicted of a scheme to defraud the government into paying for abortions.  A family trust to which Sharon Holder, who is a doctor and OB/GYN, is a member, has a women's clinic in it is what the news actually is.  She does not "own an abortion clinic." A family trust has purchased a building that rents to clinic.  For those of you counting propaganda techniques, by the way, this one is called "guilt by association."

Other political pundits were outraged a couple of weeks ago by Obama wearing a tan suit.  They were upset by a TAN SUIT.  I could not believe it.  A TAN SUIT was a part of the national dialog.  Meanwhile, a report that shows on the  jobs, growth and investing front Obama has been more successful than any president in recent history including Democrat hero Bill Clinton and Republican god, Ronald Reagan has gone unnoticed.  I wonder who else has worn this horrible blight of something other than a dark colored suit. A TAN SUIT...honestly...

It is time to turn it off. Join me as I go through my likes and bookmarks and unlike a few. Let's tell them that we won't be used anymore. Like your local newspaper. Follow Time and Forbes and The Washington Post. Follow CNN and NPR and Reuters and maybe even Wikinews.

Become informed.  Not just a good Republican or Democrat.  It is far too easy to become involved in the glut of misinformation.  SHUT IT DOWN.  TURN IT OFF.

Where Was the Outrage?

If you haven't been on the web or seen the news or read any headline in the past few days - in short you've been living in a cave and scrounging for berries - you probably haven't heard about the 100's of personal pictures stolen from the personal accounts of celebrities. These pictures and a few videos are extremely personal. This is not a scandal. This is theft. These people did nothing wrong even if you question the idea of storing such things in the cloud. Unwise decisions are not a crime. If it was, I know more than a few folks who would be forbidden to go anywhere near a computer.  Breaking into a private account and stealing things from that account is a crime. There is no scandal except the fact that the press seems intent on using the term instead of crime.


But this brings me to something even more insidious about the entire situation, and it is the outrage that followed. Not that we shouldn't be outraged by this act, but because we were not particularly outraged when it was done before. There is only one reason for this, and it is that one of the most universally loved stars was hurt and embarrassed. Don't believe me. Go ahead and type in the search box for news about the leaked photos, and you will see one picture appear in every article. The picture of Jennifer "JLaw" Lawrence. We've all known that Jennifer is unabashedly without filters as David Letterman observed following an interview. It is this why we love her. She is who she is and there seems to be no carefully laid image or press spin.  We will continue to support her even after the theft of her personal pictures.

This outrage about the theft got me thinking about where was the outrage when this happened before? Where was my outrage? I am not talking about the invasion of privacy by the paparazzi taking pictures of private moments.  That's another issue that sadly we have few if any laws to protect people from.  No, I am talking about would we be as outraged if it were just a couple of stars or someone who was not as loved as Lawrence?

Where was the massive disgust with the guy who leaked Pamela Anderson's tapes?  Well, it was Pamela Anderson. Right? She had been in Playboy. I guess that means she doesn't get a private and personal life. What about when Vanessa Hudgens had it done? How about when Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba, Blake Lively, Paris Hilton, Chris Brown, Kesha, Kanye West, Heather Morris, Olivia Munn, Christina Hendricks, Christina Aguilera, Annalynne McCord, CoCo, Adrianne Curry, Tawny Kitaen or Tonya Harding had their pictures and videos stolen and posted? This is just a short list of leaked photos.  Some were stolen and some were released by bitter ex's. Where is the outrage for these folks even if you have never heard of some of them or don't like some of them? Admittedly there are a few folks that have tweeted their own doom.  There have even been a few that it is widely believed leaked the material themselves as a part of shameless self-promotion.  Those are not the ones I am talking about.

There was very little coverage of the guy who stole Scarlett Johansson's pictures being convicted and sentenced to ten years.  Perhaps if there had been more coverage, then what is happening this week could have been avoided.  It's doubtful though.  I mean most criminals don't think they will be caught.  Shoot, Pam Anderoson's and Paris Hilton's videos were even sold as porn tapes.  No the outrage that should have been there for thefts and leaks, going back years, comes too late. What is more, tell me where the prison sentences and outrage are for those stolen and revenge pics of those who aren't famous?  You think there was little coverage of the guy who was convicted of hacking Johansson's pictures, there is no one, not FBI or local law going after the guys and girls posting revenge pics.  There are, in fact, entire websites dedicated to revenge photos.


So if you're less than pleased, disgusted, or outraged by the leaks this week, then maybe we need to stay that way for everyone and not just our favorite stars.  We all need to be angered by the new invasion into privacy.  But the fact is we should have been angered by it long ago. This includes me.  We cannot just say, "Oh well, it's the internet." We have to let folks who are spying on us and hacking us know that we are mad as hell, and we're not taking it any more.

Sin City: A Dame for the Kill Doesn't Kill

Sin City: A Dame for the Kill is a prequel coming in the middle of the two main storylines of the first movie Sin City.  It is based on Frank Miller's truly graphic, graphic novels by the same name.  We are again brought into the world of Sin City and Old Town where crime and life are dark, edgy and eventually the city will devour its residents.  Many of the same characters from the first movie including Powers Boothe as the evil Senator Roark, Mickey Rourke as the brutal but loving killer Marv, Jessica Alba as the mistreated Nancy and Bruce Willis as Hartigan.  And yes you're right many of those characters died in the first movie.

A Dame for a Kill is actually built around two stories.  The first is the settling of  scores from the original movie between primarily Nancy and Senator Roark.  The second story is a new one following the beast and seductress plot staring Eva Green and Josh Brolin as Ava and Dwight. Both stories are joined together a character that became a favorite in the first movie, Marv.  

That said, the new addition is just an okay movie.  Where the first movie had a dark edge and dark humor that permeated from most of the stories, A Dame for the Kill, while still having some of those moments, is often just violent.  Where the first movie had stilted language and over-the-top delivery, A Dame for the Kill has the same stylized deliver but too often the dialog was not just stilted but incredibly trite.

The second movie also seems to contain plot lines that serve only weak purpose.  It is not tight storytelling. I don't really get the point of the storyline involving the Senator and Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). There was also a  story of the seduced cop (Christopher Meloni) and Ava (Eva Green), which seems to have only the purpose of showing how cruel Ava the film's femme fatale.  Another storyline with little connection to the two main stories was the killing of evil "frat boys" by Marv. I kept feeling there was a link missing.  Perhaps they were relying on the audience member's knowledge of the graphic novels.  Unfortunately, I don't really have the knowledge.


There is nothing really new about the stylized special effects photography that was the one of the big attractions of the original.  There are even a few places that it is even over-done.   I suppose the biggest problem is that we have seen this movie before.  There is nothing really new.   It is also well deserved of its "R rating." It is violent and has no shortage of nudity.  Overall, Sin City: A Dame for a Kill is only okay.  Nothing really new to see.  

Memories from The Giver

I have never read the book The Giver. I should.  It looks like it wouldn't take very long.  At any rate, my wife who has read the book assures me the book and the movie are equal in preachy theme and the movie is a pretty good adaptation. That said, I enjoyed the movie despite its highly overstated themes.

Jeff Bridges is perfect as the Giver and Brenton Thwaites is good as the Receiver, Jonas. The cast is actually pretty exceptional when you consider that Jonas' pseudo parents are played by Alexander Skarsgård and Katie Holmes and the antagonist of the movie, the Chief Elder is the inestimable Meryl Streep.  It is also the film debut of Taylor Swift.  It is indeed a strong cast.  Bridges seems to grow as an actor with everything he does and the more I see of him the more I am impressed with his skills.

Bridges was also one of the producers of the film, and for him, it is a labor of love.  He has been trying to bring the movie to the big screen for several years.  Originally he had envisioned that his father Lloyd would play the Giver, but alas too many road blocks and by the time the book was finally produced by the Weinstein Company, Lloyd had passed on and Jeff was now old enough the role.


I liked the simpleness of the movie.  I know other reviewers have complained that they have aged the characters from the book.  In the book, Jonas is 12.  Others have complained about how quickly they jump into the giving of memories, but it's a movie.  They only have so much time to set the plot.  The movie revels in the ideas of what is good in us must come with the bad and without passion there is only existence.


Is it a deep movie.  No, but I gather the book really isn't that deep.  The only thing that bothered me was that while The Giver was written well before Divergent, as far as adolescent dystopic movies, there is a real easy comparison to be made between the two.  The Giver, however, is better acted and has far fewer plot holes than Divergent.  Is it one of the great films of the summer? No, but I liked and became emotionally involved in it.  The movie is rated PG13 for some violence.  I don't regret having spent the money on a ticket.

Freedom of Speech and Consequence?

A week or two ago a picture went viral of a guy named Thomas Mcguinness who was pointing a gun at a cat as apparently a crude joke. He was located and the animal involved was verified as okay.  What caught my eye was not the continued outrage at this twisted joke but was one of the comments about free speech. "Freedom of speech. Yeah, the guy has a twisted sense of humor, but if they now know he hasn't harmed any animals, then the judgmentalism (sic) needs to be put away" wrote one of the commentators. You can look him up on the link.

Then came the passing of Robin Williams.  Most of us were hit hard by the loss of such a legendary talent.  I say most because a few nationally known talking heads actually decided to use the death as sick and twisted talking political points or to demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of the devastating disease that is clinically severe depression.  It is not something that anyone would choose.  I am planning a more detailed blog about these fools later. No, what I wanted to point out was that trolls decided it would be "fun" to send Robin Williams' daughter, Zelda, some sick pics and twisted tweets.  The result is that she is leaving the on-line community perhaps for good.  It took the unexpected death that shook up many a person and the terrible treatment of his family to get Twitter to finally look at its "Use Policy."

I am sure that those accounts that were suspended had much the same reaction as the guy in comments about the photo.  "Hey, it's freedom of speech." Perhaps other social networks whether it is Tumblr or Instagram or Facebook will also start patrolling the trolls. Understand that when an account is suspended for hate trolling, it is not limiting freedom of speech.  It is the folks in the room announcing they do not have to listen to this malarkey, and they are showing that person where the exit is.  We also have freedom not to put up with hate or stupidity.  It is the equivalent of changing the channel.

I wrote about trolls a few weeks back.  I don't think that many trolls even know they are trolls.  They think they are witty and clever.   The point is though that we need to remember that the person on the other end is not an digital entity, but a real flesh and blood.  It is high time that social sites began to monitor the trolls and make their accounts disappear.  Yes, it will be an unending task, but it really needs to be done.


You see it all goes back to that "freedom of speech" statement.  Freedom does not mean without consequence.  With freedom comes responsibility, and far too often, it seems, folks on the extreme have forgotten this.  You are actually free to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one.  The fact is that you will face the consequence for such an action.  Whether it's carrying a gun or expressing your opinion or practicing your religion, these freedoms have consequence.  They have weight.  They are not just something floating around without effect in the digital ether.  Occasionally we need to remind ourselves that with any freedom we have consequences.  So the next time you fire up that profanity filled rant or personal attack on someone remember that there are consequences.

To blatantly steal and paraphrase: With great Freedoms comes great Responsibility.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Marvel's Black Sheep

What has always attracted me to certain heroes in the comic book world is that some of the best are broken. They can lose.  They can die.  They hide their pain behind quick wit, vengeful pride, or a host of other psychological shields.  Yes I know I am mixing my comics, but perhaps the most broken of them was Batman.  While I love movies like Thor and even an occasional Supeman movie, it is the ones like Batman, Ironman, Spider-Man and Captain America that attract me.  They are humans.  Okay two are genetically modified humans, but both are human and in the comics both have died and been replaced by another.  If you didn't know when Captain America, Steve Rogers, died in the comics his replacement was the Winter Soldier. There is also Wolverine, and even if he is nearly indestructible, he is also truly broken.

For me it was always a struggle to buy into the Superman universe because the comics had to come up with such elaborate ways to even make it seem like he was in danger. Thor is...well he is a Norse god and in the earlier comics more than a little egotistical.  

It is the broken, the damaged and often something of an antihero that makes for me a really good comic book or comic book movie. In the movies, the writers and directors occasionally forget this. It is not how cool the effects are or how many villains the hero must face.  It is how he or she overcomes this damage.  And so it is with Marvel Studio's newest band of broken misfits, Guardians of the Galaxy.

Guardians of the Galaxy is one of those comics I had never really heard of until the multitude of geek sites I follow started to buzz about the movie a couple of years ago.  So you know up front, I have no history with this series.  I have no idea how the movie relates to the comic book storyline.  I do know that Guardians is not one of Marvel's more mainstream lines and that the movie has been called the black sheep of the Marvel franchises.  Its placement in tail end of the summer movie season should give us an idea that hopes were not as high for this franchise as it was for Winter Soldier or X-Men Days of Future Past.  With it actually having the third largest opening this summer, it is a definite hit and the sequel has already been confirmed.

The characters of the movie are not only broken, but also, unlike the Marvel mainstream movies, Guardians has more of a kindred spirit with, as one friend put it, the original Star Wars.  While I don't think it has the same impact the first Star Wars had, its has that same feel.  The characters are living in a world that they don't want to be in, but they don't fit into the world they would like to live in.  They are sly and witty and fun.  While the characters are two dimensional at most, they are classic forms of science fiction heroes.  For Marvel Studios, Guardians is really their first venture into a true scifi space movie.

There are more Guardians to be perhaps added in the future, but the central five of this movie are Star-Lord or Peter Quill played by Chris Pratt, Gamora played by Zoe Saldana, Drax the Destroyer played by Dave Batista, Rocket who is a genetically engineered racoon voiced by Bradly Cooper, and Groot who is a tree being voiced by Vin Diesel.  Each is broken in his own way.  Peter Quill hides behind wit and a Walkman while Gamora was tortured by the future villain of the Avenger series, Thanos, into becoming a living weapon.  Rocket knows deep down that he is not what he is supposed to be, and Drax is driven by vengeance and honor while missing the more subtle nature of life.  Last is the simple and loyal Groot.  He has, with only one notable change, the ability to only say, "I am Groot," which often communicates more emotion than other parts of the movie.

Together these five unlikely heroes must fight the evil Ronan played Lee Pace.  He seeks to control one of the infinity stones, and it is in this movie that we actually get the first real explanation of the six infinity stones that are actually a standard part of the Marvel universe.  For those of you who have not read the comics, you have been introduced to two other stones in the movies.  The first was contained in the Tesseract (the space stone) in Captain America.  The next was in the Aether (the reality stone) from Thor: The Dark World.  The third (the power stone), contained in the Orb, makes its appearance in Guardians.  There are three more stones in the Marvel universe to be introduced.  They are all sought after by Thanos (Josh Brolin), a Titan, who has allied himself with Ronan in Guardians and Loki in Avengers.  Through the entire movie we watch as our heroes try to become a cohesive unit. They have always been wanted felons, and now they must become the Guardians of the Galaxy.


The movie works.  It is fun, and I cared about the characters and understood why they are who they are. As the black sheep of the more mainstream family of Marvel Studios, the humor that only makes occasional appearance in the other movies is on full display in Guardians.  Just as I became involved in the adventure of the story, I laughed out loud as well.  It is a clever and entertaining with plenty of Easter eggs for comic book fans. As I loved the darker side of Winter Soldier, I love the feel and look of this movie.  It is worth the watch and so is the cost to see it in 3D.  I will buy the Blu-ray.