‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ keeps the Marvel movie train rolling full steam ahead

Captain America Winter Soldier shield

Captain America is back, and he’s better than ever. In just a few short days, audiences have rewarded Marvel’s latest effort with cash — lots of it.

The Hollywood Reporter tallied the numbers:

Continuing Marvel and Disney’s enviable winning streak, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is making history at the global box office, debuting to a record-breaking $96.2 million in North America for an early worldwide total of $303.3 million.

Reviewing ‘Captain America: The Winter Solider’ is tough to do without adding spoilers. How do you critique an espionage tale without giving away the best parts? I’ll give it a shot.

Long story short: Chris Evans (Captain America), Scarlett Johannson (Black Widow), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon) find themselves in a situation where it’s essentially them against the world as they try and unravel the mystery behind an attack on Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury. They handle the situation with wit, intelligence, strength, speed, and agility. The chemistry between each of them was great, and Marvel would be wise to continue keeping the three of them together moving forward.

At one point in the film, Cap manages to find a way to directly address agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. He wants them to disobey a direct order — one that may end up costing them their lives — and in doing so he tells the audience what the film is essentially about.

Attention all S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, this is Steve Rogers. You’ve heard a lot about me over the last few days. Some of you were even ordered to hunt me down. But I think it’s time you know the truth. S.H.I.E.L.D is not what we thought it was. … They almost have what they want: absolute control. … I know I’m asking a lot. The price of freedom is high. It always has been. That’s a price I’m willing to pay. And if I’m the only one, then so be it — but I’m willing to bet I’m not.

What is the price of freedom? If you’re a wise guy who enjoyed ‘Team America: World Police,’ you might say “freedom costs a buck-o-five.” If you’re a serious person, you might say that it’s a tough call because those in positions of power have to find a way to maximize both individual liberty and security.

Winter Soldier

How do you protect a nation when there are individuals and organizations tirelessly plotting ways to take down free societies? When you’re facing down enemies who see no difference between civilian and military targets — when you’re up against an opponent who has erased any notion of the traditional battlefield and replaced it with one where everything is fair game, how much power are you willing to grant your protectors? As Captain America says to S.H.I.E.L.D.’s agents: our leaders want “absolute control.” But then the question becomes: Who watches the watchmen? What happens when the ones who protect us lose their way?

Captain America

Director Joe Russo fills in the details during an interview with Mother Jones:

“[Marvel] said they wanted to make a political thriller. […] So we said if you want to make a political thriller, all the great political thrillers have very current issues in them that reflect the anxiety of the audience. … That gives it an immediacy, it makes it relevant. So [Anthony] and I just looked at the issues that were causing anxiety for us, because we read a lot and are politically inclined. And a lot of that stuff had to do with civil liberties issues, drone strikes, the president’s kill list, preemptive technology. [etc.]”

While I’m actually rather shocked that a Hollywood director had the guts to say that concerns over President Obama’s “Terror Tuesday Kill List” helped inspire a top-notch Marvel movie, on some level it’s no surprise given that the industry’s old-reliable when it comes to political thrillers is to blame America.

As I said in October when the first trailer came out:

The trailer for Captain America: Winter Soldier is finally here. The good news is that it looks like it has all the makings of solid espionage fare: Robert Redford? Check. Russian spies? Check. Shady spy agencies? Check.

The bad news? It has all the makings of a blame-America espionage flick. …

Mullah nuts in the Middle East who deny the Holocaust and call for pushing the Jews “into the sea”? Eh. Chinese Communist intelligence agencies who have never met a U.S. business or defense contractor they wouldn’t hack? Eh. Nebulous terrorist organizations that don’t fly under a flag, even as they plot and plan to kill military and civilian targets on a massive scale? Eh. CIA attempts to “connect the dots” and “neutralize” threats before thousands of Americans die on their way to work on a Tuesday morning? Now there’s a movie!

Is it annoying that Marvel went for the easy layup by once again putting America in the cross hairs? Yes, slightly. Was the movie entertaining? Of course. In fact, I highly recommend it. It’s just odd that critics of ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ would have a point if they said it would have been better off going with ‘Captain America: Disillusioned with America.’ The movie has an assassin with a big red Soviet star on his metallic arm but no one talks about Communism, except for a passing reference? If the next installment doesn’t get into KGB agents and the world-wide espionage perpetrated by the Evil Empire, then Marvel should just openly admit that its favorite movie bad guys are aliens and Americans.

At the end of the day, there isn’t much to really complain about regarding Cap’s second solo outing. If Marvel continues churning out quality products like this, then Phase II, III, IV and V should roll along quite nicely. If you get a chance to see ‘Winter Soldier’ in theaters, check it out. You’ll be glad you did.

The Grand Budapest Hotel: Wes Anderson makes another ‘invariably’ and ‘exceedingly lovely’ film

The Grand Budapest Hotel Wes Anderson

Wes Anderson films are like little cinematic snow globes. They’re intricate. They’re meticulously put together by someone who loves his craft. They’re truly unique little worlds that I wish I could jump inside and wander around in for hours at a time. With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Mr. Anderson adds yet another “snow globe” to a body of work that fans will treasure for years to come.

The story centers around Grand Budapest concierge Mr. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), his friendship with lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori), and the adventures that ensue when Gustave is framed for the murder of the incredibly wealthy Madame D. (Tilda Swinton). With a large inheritance at stake the “vipers” come out, as Gustave puts it, and it’s up to he and his friends (including Zero’s love interest Agatha, played by Saoirse Ronan) to set things right.

 

Grand Budapest

As with most Wes Anderson films, the thing I love about them is that so many of his characters are incredibly refined, yet they possess numerous idiosyncrasies that set them apart from one another. They’re all smart, but they don’t come across as clones because so much attention to detail has been paid to flesh out their histories, likes, dislikes and dispositions. If each character were compared to a color I would say that they are often similar shades, but that the pleasure comes from noting the subtle differences between them.

In between each shade of the same color are in fact infinite differences, and Wes Anderson’s appreciation for that is what resonates with this moviegoer.

Mr. Gustave is a man with whom, even if I were to disagree, I would not find him disagreeable. He harkens back to a day when strong differences in opinion were handled with class and dignity. It’s humorous for modern audiences — raised in the time and age in which the politics of personal destruction are the norm — to see on the big screen, but deep down we long for the world to breed more Gustaves:

M. Gustave: “Rudeness is merely the expression of fear. People fear they won’t get what they want. The most dreadful and unattractive person only needs to be loved, and they will open up like a flower. I’m reminded of a verse: ‘The painter’s brush touched the inchoate face with ends of nimble bristles.'”

Even when he’s vulgar, he has class:

Mr. Gustave: Oh, how the good die young. With any luck she’s left a few klubecks for your old friend, but one never knows until the ink is dry on the death certificate. She was fabulous in the sack, by the way.

Zero: She was 84, Mr. Gustave.

Mr. Gustave: I’ve had older. When you’re young it’s all fillet steak, but as the years go by you have to move on to the cheaper cuts, which is fine with me because I like those. More flavorful, or so they say.

He has standards. He lives by a set a principles and does his best to stick to them.

Mr. Gustave: “The beginning of the end of the end of the beginning has begun. The sad finale played off key on a broken down saloon piano in the outskirts of a forgotten ghost town. I’d rather not bear witness to such blasphemy. … The Grand Budapest has become a troops barracks. I shall never cross its threshold again in my lifetime.

And when facing Death’s door, he is stoic:

Mr. Gustave: If this to be the end, ‘Farewell!’ cried the wounded piper boy whist the muskets cracked and the yeoman cried “Hurrah!” and the ramparts fell. ‘Me thinks me breaths me last me fears,’ said he…”

We laugh at Gustave’s idealism, but we secretly wish we had 1/10 of his decency and decorum.

 

Grand Budapest Lobby Boy

There are two scenes which, in my mind, best sum up Gustave’s friendship with Zero. Because I don’t want to include spoilers, I will only refer to the exchange where Gustave asks if he can officiate Zero’s future wedding with Agatha:

Mr. Gustave: May I officiate, by the way — the ceremony?

Zero: With pleasure.

Mr. Gustave: I must say, I find that girl utterly delightful. Flat as a board, enormous birthmark the shape of Mexico over half her face. Sweating for hours on end in that sweltering kitchen  where Mendl — genius that he is — looms over her like a hulky guerrilla. Yet, without question, without fail, always and invariably she’s exceedingly lovely. Why? Because of her purity.

Zero: She admires you as well, Mr. Gustave.

Mr. Gustave: Does she?

Zero: Very much.

Mr. Gustave: That’s a good sign, you know. It means she gets it. That’s important.

Zero: Don’t flirt with her.

The audience knows that Gustave is at his core a good man, but like all of us he is deeply flawed. He wishes to officiate at his friend’s wedding, but both know that if given a chance he would sleep with Agatha. He admires her purity, but can not help himself for wanting to steal it. He strives to embody the best within him, yet regularly succumbs to his basest desires. He lives to serve others, yet often uses that service to fulfill his own selfish needs.

Like all of us, Mr. Gustave is a fusion of the decadent and the divine. With that said, he also aims to project that fusion in its most presentable package. Like the Mendl’s confectionery treats that play an important part of the film, The Grand Budapest Hotel shows us that beneath the pristine packaging and painstaking work we go to in order to appear a cut above the rest, our pomp and circumstance and cute little bow ties often belie our insides.

Mendls

Some might say that such a message is a hopeless one — we’re all rotten inside. I disagree. Like I said: we are a fusion of the depraved and the sublime. That is the service rendered for human flesh. The Grand Budapest Hotel’s message, to me, is that while we may not be pure, by striving to become a better version of ourselves we can more often than not be “invariably and exceedingly” lovely.

Agatha says at one point in the movie: “Whence came these two radiant celestial brothers united for an instant as they crossed the stratosphere or our starry window — one from the East and one from the West?”

Answer: the mind of Wes Anderson. Hopefully, he’ll be turning out “radiant celestial brothers” on screen for years to come.

Related: Moonrise Kingdom: The Young Person’s Guide to Great Movies

‘300: Rise of an Empire’ delivers: Themistokles isn’t Leonidas, but he’s a hero worth watching

300 Rise of an Empire

It’s hard to believe that Zack Snyder’s ‘300’ came out seven years ago. It was 2007 when King Leonidas and his Spartans met their “beautiful deaths” on the big screen, although for this moviegoer it felt like yesterday. Love or hate ‘300,’ it’s a movie that was unlike anything else around at the time, and it inspired a slew of imitators.

Due to the some of the lackluster derivatives of ‘300’ that have come out over the years, audiences could be forgiven for walking into ‘Rise of an Empire’ with a healthy dose of skepticism. Regardless, after having seen the film I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. A friend of mine put it nicely: bring on ‘300: End of an Empire’ with the Battle of Plataea.

Sullivan Stapleton plays Themistokles, the kind of politician-warrior the world has long forgotten. (Can you imagine Harry Reid at the Battle of Salamis? Western Civilization would be doomed!) Themistokles has seen battle — watched men die because of the decisions he has made — and so does not take the decision to go to war lightly. Like King Leonidas, however, he understands the danger of attempting to negotiate with the world’s “wolves.”

“Negotiate with tyranny? Give me one example of when that has ever profited a nation? My fellow countrymen, we can only judge the future from what we’ve suffered in the past. Now many of you here stood with me at Marathon. And for those of you who served with me and suffered the cut and thrust of battle, you know how true peace is forged. Xerxes, the son of Darius, is a wolf at our door. Right here, right now we must choose — do we stand and fight for Greece or not? … We must persevere as one nation or we will perish clinging on to our own self interests.” — Themistokles

Stapleton’s Themistokles could never live up to Leonidas, but director Noam Murro wisely doesn’t ask him to try. He’s very comfortable in his own skin. No one can match the awesomeness of the Spartans, but they could be the best Athenians they could be. It was actually satisfying to see men who weren’t born and bred to be soldiers charge into battle in defense of higher ideals.

The flip side of the coin is Eva Green’s Artemisia who, quite frankly, might be one of the best movie villains of all time. She’s got strength and intelligence mixed with pure evil and sexuality. Green delivered a hell of a performance; when she was on screen you couldn’t take your eyes off her — even when she was kissing a man she just decapitated.

Eva Green Artemisia

To understand how evil Artemisia was the audience just needs to have a sense of history. During ‘Rise of an Empire’ she meets with Themistokles and tells him that if he does not join her, then he will die simply because she has the numbers to overwhelm him. As it is with all dictators and despots, people are merely their pawns; the person with enough pieces to send to the slaughter “wins.”

Remember Ho Chi Min’s warning to the French? I do: “You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.” Human life means little to Communists in real life, and it meant little to Ms. Green’s Artemisia.

During the same scene she also promises Themistokles freedom “without consequences or responsibilities.” The Spartans and the Athenians knew that it is the fusion of freedom and liberty that is worth dying for, and not some definition of freedom that would require no concern for the man next to you. Strangely enough, when people talk about “freedom” today in America they are most often (sadly) using the term as Artemisia defines it.

Those who think “freedom” from consequences and responsibilities are what our founding fathers envisioned for the country have been mislead by individuals who are just as manipulative as Artemisia.

Finally, it would be a case of gross negligence to discuss ‘Rise of an Empire’ without talking about the blood spilled and the battles fought. Long story short, if you enjoyed the original ‘300’ then you will enjoy ‘Rise of an Empire.’ The movie is beautiful to watch, and director Noam Murro did a worthy job of displaying Themistokles’ strategic and tactical prowess. The movie messes with historical accuracy a bit, but then again it’s not vying for a prime time slot on History.

In short, if you miss Leonidas and the gang, then checkout Themistokles and his men. They’re not Spartans, but they’re pretty darn entertaining.

Editor’s note for regular readers: The book I’m working on references the Battle of Salamis, which was depicted in ‘Rise of an Empire.’ My characters need to get out of some dicey situations, and one in particular uses the strategies and tactics employed during some of the world’s most famous battles to do so. I’ll continue to keep you posted regarding the book’s progress.

Hollywood on ‘Son of God’ and ‘The Passion of the Christ’: If it has Jesus, we’ll find an excuse to hate it

Son of God among people

‘Son of God’ came out in theaters this past weekend, and you’ll be shocked (not really) to find out that critics hated it while most audiences walked away happy. The movie raked in well over $26 million dollars, coming in second to Liam Neeson’s ‘Non-stop,’ where the bad guy is a veteran who loves the Constitution. I saw ‘Son of God’ this weekend and am baffled (not really) how it could have possibly scored a “26% rotten” on Rotten Tomatoes. While it’s obvious that the movie was made by believers for believers (and those who may want to dip their toes into the pool of Christianity), it’s certainly not a “bad” film.

Perhaps critics were simply harsh because they feel it belongs on television instead of the big screen. That seems plausible. Given that, I decided to revisit another movie about Jesus, Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ It turns out the critics didn’t like that one too much either.

Son of God critics versus viewersHere is what I found: Rotten Tomatoes doled out a 49% “rotten” score for ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ while audiences overwhelmingly liked what they saw. Maybe if it made an extra $100 million over its already-impressive global haul it would have matched Rotten Tomatoes’ score for Neeson’s evil constitution-loving veterans flick…

Passion of the Christ rotten tomatoes‘The Passion of the Christ’ was a “film” by a “filmmaker.” Whether you like Mel Gibson as a person or not, the guy has talent. Audiences recognized it as well, and rewarded ‘The Passion of the Christ’ to the tune of $370 million at the box office in 2004. If I take my “Catholic hat” off and look at both movies from the point of view of someone who doesn’t particularly care for Christians, ‘Son of God’ would get the 49% “rotten” score and ‘Passion of the Christ’ would get a 65% “fresh” rating — but I’d shake my fist at Mel as I did it. There is really no way to read some of the critic’s reviews without coming to the conclusion that they simply don’t want Jesus on the big screen.

Son of God with child

Probably one of the best reviews I’ve seen on the movie comes from YouTube critic Jeremy Jahns:

I was really skeptical about this movie. Going into it I was like: “All right, it’s part of a mini-series. It’s going to feel like it’s made for TV.” And it does for the most part, but there there were a couple of things about this movie that I did like what they did with it. Going into this movie first and foremost I was hoping they would touch on the fact as to why people felt this Jesus had to die. Seriously, a lot of these Jesus movies gloss over that. They’re like “Hey it was Jesus and he died because he had to, it’s salvation and stuff. It’s magic.”

But I’m always left with that feeling, “No, like politically speaking why did they feel they had to kill this guy and why was it just such a big deal and what went into it? And this movie — actually to my surprise — touched on that very thing. …

This movie is one of two things: it’s either a really impressive made-for-TV movie or it’s a not-as-impressive theatrically released movie. … ‘Son of God’ engaged me where I wanted to be engaged. And it played the angle I was actually hoping it would play that I didn’t think it would play. It still feels like a made-for-TV movie for sure, especially in some scenes. However, I’ll still say ‘Son of God’ is a good time…”

There’s more to it, but you get the point. It’s a fair review. Head on over to Rotten Tomatoes if you want to see a slew of people who seemed to be looking for things to criticize from the first moment Diogo Morgado — who did a commendable job as Jesus — appeared on screen.

Son of God 1

The other thing that ‘Son of God’ did a good job with was showing the relationship Jesus had with his disciples. Think about it: Peter, the “rock” of the Church, denied Christ three times. Matthew was a tax collector. Judas betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus called imperfect people to Him. He took in misfits. He loved the unloved and forgave those who society said were unforgivable. While ‘Son of God’ does skip a lot of important parts of the Bible, those it did show were handled with care. It’s a solid movie to watch if there is someone in your life who has ever essentially asked, “What’s the big deal with this guy? Tell me about Him.”

With that said, for those who already believe in Christ I’d have to go with Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ as a must-see Jesus film. If you watched ten movies with Jesus in them and someone asked “Which one was directed by a Catholic?” there would be no question (which to this Irish-Catholic is a good thing).

Passion of the Christ

While ‘Son of God’ says, “Hey, there’s this guy and his name was Jesus and you should look into him,” Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ says: “Listen buddy, this guy went through some serious s**t — grueling gut-wrenching pain that you can not even fathom as you curl into bed at night with your XBox in 2014 — so check it out and appreciate what this man did for you.”

Jesus cross

When I read reviews by critics who obviously have a thing against religious people I can’t help but think of the Romans laughing, kicking, spitting and punching Christ as he carried his own cross to the place of his execution. Whether one believes Jesus was the Son of God or not, no serious person argues that He wasn’t a real man who was put to a gruesome death for what He preached. That is why guys like Jeremy Jahns ask: “Why was it just such a big deal [to kill Him] and what went into it?” Most people do not know the story aside from the watered-down version they might get as a kid, or (sadly) the jokes that are told about Christ on television sitcoms.

Jesus on cross

In short, if you’re curious about Christianity, then check out ‘Son of God.’ If you want to get a taste of the very real pain Jesus went through before his death, check out Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ.’ In both cases, if you go into each movie with an open mind, then you’ll walk away and realize that the critics at Rotten Tomatoes hold openly Christian films to an unfair standard.

‘Lone Survivor’: A part of Marcus Luttrell died so that we can see how to live

Lone Survivor Never Out of the Fight

“Winning here is a conscious decision. Make up your mind whether you want to pass — or choose to fail.” … “Just prove to your bodies through your mind that you can push yourself further than you thought possible.” … “Whatever you have to do — just find an excuse to win. Keep going.”

And so begins ‘Lone Survivor,’ the true story of former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell’s fight to survive in the mountains of Afghanistan with his band of brothers of Seal Team 10. Director Peter Berg wisely uses real footage of potential SEALs undergoing Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training (BUD/S) during the opening credits to set the stage. These are men who believe winning — on the battlefield, in the business world or life in general — is a conscious decision. Men who willingly submit themselves to instructors of the “I’m going to introduce you to something called ‘not being able to breath,'” variety are, quite obviously, of a different breed. They are special on many levels. From a cinematic point of view, it also lets the audience know that death is about the only thing that can prevent a SEAL from his quest to “keep going.”

By this time in history, most people know the general details of Operation Redwing. In 2005, Luttrell and his team were sent to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to take out a high-value target who was responsible for killing scores of Marines. Their mission was compromised, and they were put in an impossible situation: Do you kill a small group of people who you believe are likely allied with the enemy — even though they are unarmed and could end up being innocent civilians — or do you let them go, knowing that if you are wrong it will unleash endless waves of Taliban soldiers on your position? The SEALs chose to let their captives go. The rest is history.

Given that so many people know how the story ends, it really comes down to whether or not Peter Berg, Mark Wahlberg and the cast and crew did it justice. Without reservation, the answer is “yes.” Peter Berg seemingly moved mountains in Hollywood to get the film made, Wahlbeg and the cast immersed themselves in their roles, and the realism of the violence is both gut-wrenching and satisfying — “satisfying” in the sense that viewers know it could have been given the “Hollywood” treatment, replete with unbelievable explosions that break the laws of physics.

Perhaps Berg’s greatest feat is his treatment of the mountain. As a “character,” the mountain is paradoxically vast and expansive while being claustrophobic and limiting. When you run out of real estate on a mountain from which to fight there’s only one way to go — down. And that’s exactly what happens. Fate dealt the SEALs the worst hand possible on that mission; even the mountain terrain seemed to be against them. It was chilling to watch it mete out punishment on their bodies as they attempted to find cover and concealment.

“There’s a storm inside of us. I’ve heard many team guys speak of this. A burning. A river. A drive. An unrelenting driver to push yourself further than anyone could ever think possible. Pushing ourselves into those cold dark corners where the bad things live. Where the bad things fight. We wanted that fight at the highest volume. A loud fight. The loudest, coldest, darkest, most unpleasant of the unpleasant fights.” — Mark Wahlberg as former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, ‘Lone Survivor.’

Critics of the film will respond to the SEAL desire for a fight with the “live by the sword, die by the sword” rejoinder, which is a fair argument. However, fans of the film are also spot-on by acknowledging a.) that evil exists, and b.) there is something truly special about a man who will go to the “coldest, darkest, most unpleasant” corners of the earth to stamp it out. In service to their nation these men say “Send me. Send me to the dangerous places that no one else wants to go to so that I may ensure that they never need to.” For that, we should be eternally grateful. For the cast and crew’s efforts to bring ‘Lone Survivor’ to the big screen, we should also give thanks.

“Brave men fought and died building a proud tradition and fear of reputation that I am bound to uphold. I died up on that mountain. There is no question that a part of me will forever be upon that mountain dead as my brothers died. There is a part of me that lived because of my brothers. Because of them I am still alive, and I can never forget that no matter how much it hurts, how dark it gets or how far you fall — you are never out of the fight.” — Mark Wahlberg as former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, ‘Lone Survivor.’

Why did Marcus Luttrell live while his brothers died? Perhaps so he could tell the tale. Perhaps so one day someone in a life-or-death situation will think back upon Marcus’ survival and remember that they too are “never out of the fight.” How many young kids will see ‘Lone Survivor’ and begin a path that will end with them in position to save others? Probably quite a few.

If you get a chance to see ‘Lone Survivor,’ do so. It’s an important film that is educational as well as entertaining.

Related: Marcus Luttrell: The humbling tale of an American hero who calls himself a ‘coward’

Related: American Sniper: Chris Kyle, Guardian Angel who doesn’t know it

Kevin Smith: I’ll make ‘Christzilla’ — but my courage ends at Muhammad vs. Mothra

Kevin Smith Mothra

Remember when Kevin Smith’s Westboro Baptist Church-inspired horror flick ‘Red State’ barely cracked $1 million dollars? Since portraying roughly half the nation as potential religious whack jobs worked out so well for him, he’s decided to up the ante by pitting humanity and Satan against a giant raging “Christzilla” figure. As usual, the “daring” filmmaker failed to disclose any plans to ridicule Islam.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Smith shared details about that project and updates on other movies in the works, and also revealed how he’s going to approach his film career going forward, in an extensive Facebook post on Monday.

The filmmaker wrote that he’ll soon start writing a movie about mankind teaming up with Hell to fight a rapturing giant Jesus.

Here’s what Smith said on his Facebook page:

“[R]ight now, the aim is to shoot CLERKS III this May — so this HELENA HANDBAG picture would still be a ways off anyway. But why sit around commenting on other people’s lives and art on the internet when I can try to make some NEW art instead? As for the title: If you heard the podcast, you know Scott suggested CHRISTZILLA in place of HOLY CHRIST! – the title of the fake movie in the original podcast. I asked the audience to offer up their suggestions at #BeatChristzilla and they were all really fun! But I’m going with the title HELENA HANDBAG – which comes directly from the plot of the flick (it’s kind of a nod to David Lynch’s unproduced ONE SALIVA BUBBLE screenplay, too — which was also about the end of the world and also carried a title that didn’t really prepare you for what the movie was about). So I’m off to write HELENA HANDBAG.

“Clerks III” followed by another attempt to get under the skin of religious folks? Perhaps in a few years “Clerks IV: Dante’s Inferno” can fuse Kevin Smith’s two primary go-to career options. Jay and Silent Bob can travel to the depths of Hell to save Brian O’Halloran.

For younger moviegoers, it is hard to explain how time has exposed Smith’s incredibly limited range as a writer and director. 1994’s “Clerks” was a truly inspired effort, and “Chasing Amy” solidified his reputation at the time as a witty guy with his finger firmly planted on the pulse of American pop-culture. People started copying his style, and instead of searching out new intellectual landscapes to explore he stayed in the same arena of thought with the usual creative teams. With each iteration, the “Kevin Smith” brand became more stale. Smith, however, doesn’t quite see it that way:

JERSEY GIRL, ZACK & MIRI, COP OUT – while I love them all, these are movies anybody could make. Like ’em or hate ’em, nobody else but me could’ve (or would’ve) ever made CLERKS. Or CHASING AMY. Or DOGMA. Or RED STATE. Or CLERKS II. Or MALLRATS. Or JAY & SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK.

  • Mall Rats — a funny movie about slackers. No one but Smith would have done that? The 90s would disagree.
  • Chasing Amy — a sharply written romantic comedy involving Lesbians? No one but Smith would make that? The growing Netflix section on gay and lesbian movies says otherwise.
  • Dogma — a critique on the Catholic Church. No one but Smith would make that? Okay.
  • Red State — a horror flick that blasts fundamentalist Christians. No one but Smith would make that? Gotcha.

Does Kevin Smith use the caps lock button to convince himself that his assertions are true, or does he think that talking loudly convinces the rest of us of the veracity of his claims? Will the sequel to “Helena Handbag” be called “Islamabad Burka”? Don’t count on it.

If Kevin Smith wants a movie that no one else would make, perhaps he could write a film that pits Giant Muhammed against Mothra. Giant Muhammed could also have a harem of topless women the size of The Sacred Mosque Al-Masjid Al-Haram. But Smith won’t go there because it’s easier to needle Christians with “Christzilla” than it is to make a film that lands on the radar of the world’s nuttiest Islamic clerics. Just ask Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims.” He’s the guy the Obama administration couldn’t act fast enough to pull out of his home for a perp walk. Crime? Daring to criticize Islam.

Kevin Smith is an intelligent guy with some good instincts. He was way ahead of the game when it came to podcasting and the format plays to his strengths. However, his role as screenwriter and filmmaker has suffered from years of staying inside his comfort zone. Worse, he still thinks that making jokes at the expense of devout followers of Jesus is edgy. It’s not. It’s just sad and, on some level, cowardly considering many of the real threats to the creative freedoms he enjoys as a citizen of the United States.

Kevin Smith doesn't want to end up like Mark Basseley Youssef (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of "Innocence of Muslims," so he sticks to mocking Christians.
Kevin Smith doesn’t want to end up like Mark Basseley Youssef (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims,” so he sticks to mocking Christians.

Related: Red State’s Kevin Smith Plays Silent Bob on Radical Islam

Related: Red State Teaser Trailer Hits Christians because Teasing Muslims Terrifies Kevin Smith

Christopher Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ teaser: Escape the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God

Intersteller AstronautUpdate: My review of Interstellar is up: ‘Christopher Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ hits the mark: We ignore the stars to ‘worry about our place in the dirt’

If there is such a thing as a flawless teaser trailer, the finished product for Christopher Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ can count itself a member of the exclusive club. The narration, the gravel in Matthew McConaughey’s voice, the historical images that flash before the screen, and the score all combine to form what can only be described as something “stirring.” It says to the audience: “This is going to be a movie that seeks to tap into something deep inside you — if you’re willing to see just how much humanity is capable and just how often you sell yourself short.”

Here is what IMDB says of ‘Interstellar’:

A group of explorers make use of a newly discovered wormhole to surpass the limitations on human space travel and conquer the vast distances involved in an interstellar voyage.

And here is Matthew McConaughey’s dialogue from the teaser:

“We’ve always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible. And we count these moments — these moments when we dare to aim hirer — to break barriers. To reach for the stars. To make the unknown, known. We count these moments as our proudest achievements, but we’ve lost all that. And perhaps we’ve just forgotten that we are still pioneers, that we’ve barely begun, and that our greatest accomplishments can not be behind us because our destiny lies above us.

Amazing stuff. I couldn’t agree more.

Douglas Ernst Twitter space

Anyone who has left loved ones behind in search of “bigger and better” things has a pioneer in them. Anyone who has walked away from a stable job for a chance to do what they really love has an explorer in them. Anyone who has taken great financial risk to back a cause they really believe in has an astronaut in them. These days, the pioneering spirit is squashed in its infancy. Public policy is often pushed on the population that locks people in place and prevents them from exercising their entrepreneurial spirit, and as a result it atrophies — we forget that we were meant to reach for the stars.

The teaser for ‘Interstellar’ first seeks to remind us what we’re capable of if we put our minds to it.

We can make infertile land bear fruit.

Intersteller Dust Bowl

We can fly.

Intersteller flight

We can, to quote Ronald Reagan, slip the “surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.”

Interstellar rocket

We can make the impossible possible because there are always men and women who swallow hard, leave loved ones behind, and find the grit in their spit needed to navigate uncharted waters.

Intersteller earth

The pioneers leave the comfort of family and friends behind, despite the pain and anguish it causes, because there is something deep within that compels them forward.

Intersteller Matthew M

We shed tears in the pursuit of our dreams because a love of the safety and security of “home” pits us against our desire to explore new horizons, blaze our own path and create something unique and special that we can call our own. And when we succeed, we give thanks to the family and friends who encouraged us to take that leap of faith and who promised to catch us if we fell.

Intersteller holding hands

Predication: Christopher Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ is going to be epic. The man makes smart movies that work on multiple levels. Those who just want to watch characters navigate worm holes for a few hours will be entertained, and those who like movies with more layers than an onion will go home happy. That is the nature of Christopher Nolan’s films, and for that I am thankful.

Christopher Nolan “gets it.” It’s a joy to watch his work and hopefully he’ll be at it for many years to come.

Related: Christopher Nolan creates more jobs than Obama

Related: Inception and Liberalism: America Awakes

Related: The Dark Knight Rises: A conservative review

Marcus Luttrell: The humbling tale of an American hero who calls himself a ‘coward’

Marcus Lutrell

Years ago I read ‘Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of Seal Team 10.’ It’s the story of a 2005 mission along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that was compromised and ultimately the battle for Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell to stay alive long enough to tell the tale.

Years ago I said that if Hollywood was smart, the studios would make it into a movie. ‘Lone Survivor’ has been made into a movie, directed by Peter Berg and starring Mark Walhberg, but Hollywood made Mr. Berg do some serious heavy lifting to get it done. I guess we can say that Peter Berg is a smart guy… Regardless, it will be out in January, 2014.

For those who want to really get a taste of what these guys volunteer for, I suggest watching Anderson Cooper’s recent ’60 Minutes’ interview with Luttrell. Although I’m very familiar with the ‘Lone Survivor’ tale, I still had a hard time watching the full interview without tearing up. To know that there are men like Marcus Luttrell, who are willing to lay their lives on the line for the rest of us, is incredibly humbling. It’s nearly impossible to hear his tale without wondering how you would react in the same situation. More often than not, my mind tells me that I’d fall far short of the bravery and heroism he displayed.

What must it be like to be Marcus Luttrell? The vast majority of Americans call him a hero — and yet a part of him believes he is a coward. I can only pray that one day he accepts that his self-evaluation is harsh and unfair, and that he might find the peace that will come along with that realization.

Here is how Luttrell recounts the final moment’s of Lt. Mike Murphy’s life, who sacrificed himself so that the rest of his team might have a chance to live.

Luttrell: Mikey was up and pushed out onto this boulder out in the middle of the draw in this wide open — no cover, nothing — He was on our satellite phone.

Anderson Cooper: Luttrell saw his lieutenant make the call. A call Mike Murphy knew would likely cost him his life.

Luttrell: He took two rounds to the chest because it spun like a top and it dropped him. And I tried to make my way up to him. He was my best friend, and I already lost Danny and I knew that Ax was dying and I didn’t want to lose him. That’s all I wanted him to do, was to come down to me. That’s all I wanted him to do, was come down to me. I heard his gun go off and a lot of gunfire in his area. I was trying with everything I had to get to him. He started screaming my name. Hey was like, ‘Marcus man, you gotta help me! I need help, Marcus!’ It got so intense that I actually put my weapon down and covered my ears because I couldn’t stand to hear him die. All I wanted him to do was stop screaming my name. And they killed him. And I put my weapon down in a gunfight while my best friend was getting killed — so that pretty much makes me a coward.

Anderson Cooper: How can you say that? …

Luttrell: Because that is a cowardice act, if you put you weapon down in a gunfight. They say every man has his breaking point. I never thought I’d find mine. The only way to break a Navy Seal is you have to kill us. But I broke right there. I quit right there.

Marcus was later blown off the side of the mountain he was fighting on, but managed to crawl his way to a source of water — with a broken back. It was there that he met the man who would save his life.

Luttrell: When I got to that waterfall and got those two sips out of there I was actually looking around thinking, ‘you know, this is a pretty good place to lay down and die.’

Cooper: You were ready to die.

Luttrell: I wasn’t ready to die. I just knew I was dying.

Anderson Cooper: That’s when an Afghan man appeared. Luttrell later learned his name was Mohammed Gulab.

Luttrell: He came up over this rock ledge and started screaming at me. ‘American! American!’ and I swung around on him. I had my finger on the trigger with the safety off. He started walking at me. He was like “Okay, okay.” He lifted up his shirt to show me he didn’t have a weapon. He was like: “Okay. Okay. Okay.” I lowered my weapon and I pulled the grenade and pulled the pin and said, ‘I’ll kill all of us.’

Anderson Cooper: You were prepared to blow yourself up along with everyone else.

Marcus Luttrell: Yes. I wasn’t going to get taken.

Ander Cooper: Why do you think you didn’t kill him?

Luttrell: I can’t tell you. I don’t know why.

Anderson Cooper (narration): Luckily, for Luttrell, Mohammed Gulab, who lived in a nearby village, was not a member of the Taliban.

Luttrell: He gave me water. I was bleeding real bad. Three other guys plus him picked me up and carried me down to his village.

Without Mr. Gulab’s help, who protected Luttrell at great risk to his tribe, the soldier would have died. Like Luttrell, Mr. Gulab’s story is worthy of its own movie: An Afghan tribal leader stands up to death threats from the Taliban to protect a severely wounded American, shuttling him from house to house (and ultimately a cave) to keep him safe, just long enough for a rescue team to extract him from the area. After the American leaves, the threats to his Mr. Gulab’s family and friends are far from over.

If you have time, seriously consider watching the full ’60 Minutes’ interview.

Editor’s note: A friend mine who was a Ranger let me know this morning that his buddy — who was part of the extraction team sent to find Luttrell — has just published a book: ‘Lest We Forget: An Army Ranger Medic’s Story,’ by Leo Jenkins. If Mr. Jenkins is anything like my friend it’s bound to be a very frank and honest book.

Related: ‘Lone Survivor’: A part of Marcus Luttrell died so that we can see how to live

Related: American Sniper: Chris Kyle, Guardian Angel who doesn’t know it

Related: Lt. Cmdr. Rorke Denver’s ‘Damn Few’ is damn awesome

Ben Affleck to Republican Batman fans: I ‘probably’ don’t like you — but I want your money

Ben Affleck fans

In August I said that the thing that would hurt Ben Affleck the most as he attempted to become Batman was his outspoken politics: “If I were a betting man, I’d say that Mr. Affleck will continue saying and doing things in public that will make it harder for roughly half the nation to lose themselves in his version of “Batman” on opening night.”

Now, in an interview with Playboy, he proves me right.

Affleck: People now know me as a Democrat, and that will always be the case to some extent.

Playboy: Does that polarize viewers?

Affleck: It does, and you can bifurcate your audience. When I watch a guy I know is a big Republican, part of me thinks, I probably wouldn’t like this person if I met him, or we would have different opinions. That shit fogs the mind when you should be paying attention and be swept into the illusion.

Playboy: Still, won’t that happen whether you take positions on candidates or causes?

Affleck: I have misgivings about it, counterbalanced with the larger things I care about. I don’t blindly do this stuff when it makes it harder to do my own job. And there’s an awful lot of gross money-raising going on that has made me want to pull back a bit from pure electoral politics. […]

Yes Ben, if the guy you’re watching on screen is a Republican and you’re a Democrat, it’s safe to say that you’ll have “different opinions.” Your powers of deduction are not quite at Bruce Wayne’s level at the moment, but you are correct.

Here’s the part that is somewhat bizarre for the future Batman to disclose: “I probably wouldn’t like this person…”

There are a lot of things I think about Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and most of Hollywood’s liberal activists, but I only tend to think “I wouldn’t like them” when they come across as elitist jerks. How someone comports themselves dictates how I feel about them as a person — a political party affiliation alone does not. Does Ben Affleck have zero Republican relatives? He must not, or he wouldn’t say such ridiculous things.

I love my fellow Americans. I want to like all of them and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard when guys like Ben Affleck and President Obama keep dividing people.

He’s what President Obama said to Univision in 2010:

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

Here’s what Slate’s John Cook said in his maybe-sorta-kinda piece of satire (but not) titled ‘Thanksgiving Tips: How to pick a fight with your relatives this Thanksgiving.’ It was written just in time to coincide with the White House’s push to get family members to discuss Obamacare over the holidays:

First off, you should wait until everyone’s seated at the table before you try to get things started. That way you have a captive audience that has to watch the fireworks, and everyone is settled in for a nice long time. Getting the topic of conversation to politics shouldn’t be too hard. Stick to short, sarcastic, tendentious remarks to get things going. “I’m thankful for all that free stuff Obama gave me.” Once you’ve engaged the enemy, it won’t take much effort to pivot to whatever particular subject you feel most comfortable with.

Yes, according to the president and his most ardent disciples, your fellow Americans are “enemies.” Does anyone else find it weird that the president won’t call any number of thug-nations around the globe an enemy of America, but he will refer to his political opponents as such? But I digress…

Instead of just admitting that activist actors “fog the mind” of the audience with all sorts of extraneous junk, Ben Affleck lets us all know that an ‘R’ next to your name makes him immediately think that he “probably” doesn’t like you — even though he wants your money.

Why should I cough up my money for ‘Superman vs. Batman (vs. Wonder Woman?)’ when one of the lead actors openly conveys his disgust for me as a person? Because of my love of free markets, limited government, traditional American values and a strong national defense, Ben Affleck “probably” wouldn’t like me? It’s weird.

Yes Ben, it is possible to disagree with someone without being disagreeable. I know it’s hard for someone who lives in a Hollywood bubble, where everyone thinks along the same lines and tells each other how smart they are at cocktail parties (“Pass me the gruyère, will you?”) — but in the real world some of us get along with our politically-diverse family and friends just fine.

If Zack Snyder is smart, he’ll sit down privately with Ben and tell him to shut up with the political commentary until ‘Superman vs. Batman’ comes out. There are a lot of people who aren’t thrilled with the idea of Ben Affleck as the Dark Knight, and alienating roughly half the viewing audience out the gate is probably not a good PR move.

Hat tip to douglasernstblog.com reader PersonIsPerson for the story.

Related: Ben Affleck’s outspoken politics hurt his Batman more than his box office bombs

Related: Snyder’s ‘Man of Steel’ hits audiences with big ideas, soars over small-minded critics

Related: Man of Steel Trailer: Harbinger of an epic film

Related: David Goyer is right: The ‘Superman doesn’t kill’ rule hurts the character

Related: ‘Soldier of Steel’ campaign: Gym Jones shows what real men are made of

‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’: Come for the story, stay to laugh at the special effects?

When trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man came out a few years ago, I was generally impressed with the product. While I felt there was absolutely no need to reboot the franchise after the supreme letdown that was ‘Spider-Man 3’ (aside from Sony’s desire to keep the rights from falling into Marvel’s hands), the trailer did pique my interest. Notably, in two-and-a-half minutes there were very little special effects — aside from the first-person point of view shots that begin at 1:43. With ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’ there are plenty of special effects teasers, and they’re pretty cringe-worthy. Will I go for the story, which does look interesting, but stay to laugh at the special effects? We shall see.

Before delving into the special effects, one first needs to discuss the “villain” concern. There are three of them — and everyone knows that packing a movie with too many villains is a dangerous endeavor. Director Marc Webb seems like a nice guy — but can he juggle? That’s the big question. When it comes to creativity, that’s up for debate.

Take, for instance, his reasoning behind the “Rhino” armor:

Marc Webb: One of the tricky things to translating characters from the comics that work in illustrations into the three-dimensional reality on a New York street — and often things that work quite well as a drawing — [is that they] don’t make sense in the physical world. And so, we wanted to make Rhino into something as powerful he is in the comics, and as sort of simple minded and direct as he is in the comics but with a suit that felt of this world. There’s certain hints about its creation. It’s only teased in the movie. It’s not really a big part of the film. I wanted something to create something that felt majestic and quite powerful but something Aleksei could have put together himself.

On some level, he makes sense. On another, it’s a complete cop-out. The trailer highlights quite clearly that they went with all sorts ideas that “don’t make sense in the physical world.” The challenge for the director is to figure out a way to make it work. Correction: In this case it’s up to the director and Sony Imageworks to figure it out. If they didn’t have the budget or the time to do Rhino properly, maybe they shouldn’t have done him at all.

Rhino Amazing Spider Man 2

As it stands, the walking tank outfit looks bad. Oscorp is genetically engineering everyone in the film accept the guy who calls himself “Rhino”? One would think that Oscorp would be keen on developing technology that would allow soldiers to coat themselves in Rhino-like skin. Get in bed with the government and the Department of Defense and it’s even harder to bring you down, right? I guess not.

Amazing Spider Man 2 Rhino fight

The images released for the trailer look like something straight from a Playstation or XBox game, and in some cases they look worse.

Amazing Spider Man 2 web swing

Do the special effects make Spidey look like The Amazing Rubber-Man, or am I just getting old, picky and spoiled? It’s hard to complain about Spider-Man movies when you’re old enough to remember a time when they didn’t exist… Maybe I should just count my blessings and focus on the positive — namely, the story.

As it pertains to creating intrigue, Mr. Webb gets high marks:

Marc Webb: I don’t want to reveal to much of the plot but Peter learns things about his past, and at one point his future, provocative ways.

“Secrets have a cost, but the truth does to.’ I think there’s a line that Aunt May said in the first move, which was: “Secrets have a cost, Peter.” We recap that line and re-imagine it a little bit. She said ‘I once told you that secrets have a cost, but the truth does too,’which means that any way you cut it there’s going to be challenges ahead.

The big prominent villain in the film is Electro, but there are many adversaries Spider-Man is going to have to face. But the evil empire — the consistent thing between them all — is the evil empire known as Oscorp, or what’s becoming this evil empire. And I think that’s something that may inform people’s viewing of the trailer. Questions will be answered. … I wouldn’t say it’s a dark movie, but there is very powerful forces at work that are emanating from Oscorp. Oscorp is the place from which all nasty things emerge in this movie, and Spider-Man is going to have to confront that.

The Amazing Spider-Man trailer is awkward, because every time there are real actors on the screen a sense of mystery is there. Dane DeHaan has the “it” factor. He really seems like an intelligent kid with a dark, dark side to him. Dare I say it? They should have dumped Electro and just went straight to the Green Goblin.

Dane DeHaan Harry Osborn

Aunt May’s “secrets have a cost” line works well as shots of Peter’s ‘A Beautiful Mind’/John Nash-ish room and Richard Parker’s subterranean lair flash across the screen.

Andrew Garfield Amazing Spider Man 2

Who is that guy in the shadows with the hat walking by The Vulture’s and Doctor Octopus’ gear? The kid in me is begging my adult side to run to the ATM.

Amazing Spider Man 2 Vulture Doctor Octopus

Sadly, for every moment worth getting excited about there are two or three cheesy special effects that induce a wince. Electro (or was that Superman Blue?) looks silly, and the Goblin costume looks like it was put together by someone with a do-it-yourself goblin kit. If ‘Captain America’ could pull off Red Skull, there’s really no excuse why Sony couldn’t make the Green Goblin respectable. It would be a shame if because of self-imposed tight shooting schedules and release dates that fans get half-baked villains for one of America’s coolest superheroes.

At the end of the day, the trailer for ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’ is a mixed bag. Will Jamie Foxx turn out a performance of ‘Django Unchained’ caliber, or … ‘Booty Call’? Will the special effects sink the film, or is Spider-Man popular enough around the world at this point in time that it’s almost impossible for his movies not to at least break even? Perhaps the second trailer will make its box office potential clearer.

Watch the trailer below if you haven’t seen it and let me know what you think.

Related: Will ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ be the must-see blame America movie of the summer?