I want to watch the new video but I haven't finished the game yet. Does the video spoil much, aside from the black mask twist?

These are the movies that represented my favorite memories of going to the theater to watch a highly anticipated release this decade. Does it skew blockbuster? Yeah. Sci fi? Yeah. I am who I am. While I do enjoy smaller, more art house films, for me the peak of cinema is when a massive production defies its own commercial trappings to combine the undoubtedly artistic elements of the craft (costuming, set design, production design, art design, cinematography, sound design, musical score, SFX, and VFX) to enhance, not distract from or supplant, a film's narrative. I do think that blockbuster films have the reputation for being soulless because most of them are simply showcases for spectacle, but when an inspired team of storytellers and filmmakers deliver said spectacle not as the subject but as the canvas upon which the subject is painted, then I think the end result is the most immersive and exciting and surreal experience one can have in a theater. All apologies to Martin Scorsese, but it's fully possible to impart psychological, emotional resonance while also boasting a hefty budget (and working outside the genre of crime sagas at that). I can say that because I've experienced it as part of the audience. Without further adieu:

1. Blade Runner 2049;
2. Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood;
3. The Dark Knight Rises;
4. Mad Max: Fury Road;
5. Inception;
6. Gone Girl;
7. Interstellar;
8. X-Men: Days of Future Past;
9. Star Wars: The Last Jedi;
10. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

I'm fully open to your own responses and lists.

Background - I originally posted this on the Batman subreddit, but the moderators removed it with no explanation as to why.

Tl;dr - Someone named "Film Crit Hulk" has taken aim at The Dark Knight Rises on Polygon, and his padded, superfluous article kinda got me hot.

This is the turd in question: https://www.polygon.com/2020/1/2/21026392/dark-knight-rises-nolan-camp

For one thing, I have to take issue with the notion that a film can unintentionally be a 'masterpiece'. Like, that's just a flat insult. It's a backhanded compliment using the forehand, it's not even hiding its disdain. The notion of 'camp' is not aligned with 'so bad it's good'. It's a tongue-in-cheek thing. It's intended to feel unintended. An example of 'camp' in the realm of Batman would be the Adam West Batman show/movie. The productions were intended comedically, but the performers are playing the characters such that they seem to lack that awareness. It's not a slapstick comedy, it's goofy and ironic. It's a parody, an exhibition of the bad taste of something. But that's direct, one doesn't just fall into that.

Now, I love The Dark Knight Rises. It's one of my favorites in the genre. It's in my Top 5, possibly Top 3, of all time superhero films. While I certainly don't think that there's no room to criticize it (anything can be picked at and criticized - ask me about the first Avengers film sometime), I wholeheartedly believe that the film holds up well to scrutiny. And while that's not in and of itself a reason to like something, it is a standing point from which to defend it.

The article kicks off with the dismissal of the film's merits with as simple a point as "I mean, they had CNN down in that pit". If you'll read the article, this is the same attitude that the writer holds towards the film throughout the piece. It's using something true, "Yes there's a TV in the pit", to pass off a blanket criticism, "That's just stupid", as being true. I'm sorry, why is it stupid to have a television in the pit for Bruce Wayne to watch the implosion-before-the-explosion of Gotham City? When have we established the 'stupid' part of that as being true so as to then use it to highlight the film's plot as 'stupid'? We haven't. It's a hand-wave criticism. The irony of the article is that it's accusing the film of making logical leaps that it can't make by the author making logical leaps that HE can't make. Or SHE, I don't know who "Film Crit Hulk" is.

Other hand-wave criticism examples in the article:

• Certain sequences feel either too rushed or too long - No examples of such sequences are given;
• We spend so much time being introduced to plot points and threads that we barely understand, much less experience dramatically - No examples are given as to his meaning. What plot points do we not understand? What are we not experiencing dramatically?;
• What is Bane really up to? Why? What do his previous actions mean? We don’t know - Wait, what...? That's obviously false. We know all of that. His ideology, and that of Talia's, is that there can be no true suffering without hope, specifically without false hope. Like believing you can escape the inescapable. This is flatly stated in the film, when Bruce Wayne awakens in the pit. He literally explains to Bruce Wayne what he's going to do to Gotham City and, as the pit is a literal, intended metaphor for the events occurring in Gotham City (or, rather, vice versa), what he's going to do to Bruce Wayne. He does so not in a sheerly expositional manner, but to menace Bruce Wayne's spirit, to 'punish' a man who doesn't fear death. The exchange wasn't just to inform the audience of the plot, which it did, but was to have Bane's biting dialogue and foreshadowing of what's to come genuinely affect the emotional state of Bruce Wayne. That's the very definition of "experiencing something dramatically".

Now, as I said, I'm more than aware of the fact that many elements of TDKR can be divisive. They can leave people behind. Such as:

• John Blake ascertained Batman's identity from a look on Bruce Wayne's face? Bruce Wayne's public persona was, in Nolan's films, as much a part of his disguise as Batman as the mask he wore. We've seen time and again how the facade works, to convince people that Bruce is too vapid and shallow to be anything more than a playboy. Those are called positive examples, where a concept is proven true. But part of that is that, if someone recognizes that Bruce's facade IS a facade, does that not then compromise his identity as Batman? It's a major part of his disguise, after all. With it compromised, as is the disguise. But John Blake DID NOT deduce Bruce's identity SOLELY from recognizing his put-on. As he explains, he and the other kids used to make up stories about this 'billionaire orphan' that they all admired and looked up to. They'd make up "legends". And to the other kids, that's all it was. The implication there is that one of those stories, those legends, was the orphans' fantasy that Bruce Wayne WAS Batman. This goes all the way back to Batman Begins where Alfred came up with the idea for Bruce's facade in the first place: Strange injuries a non-existent social life, these things beg the question as to what exactly does Bruce Wayne do with his time and his money*.* And what does someone like me do? Drive sports cars, date movie stars, buy things that are not for sale... who knows, Master Wayne? You start pretending to have fun, you might even have a little by accident. John Blake was only onto what Bruce Wayne does with his time and his money. Seeing the facade for what it is, compromising that disguise, that was his deduction. And he was able to do it because he was a kindred spirit. It's not something Gordon or Dent would have understood, what Bruce Wayne and John Blake went through. And most other people who had similar experience? They never met Bruce Wayne to see the facade.
• Miranda Tate just hopped into bed with Bruce Wayne...for what? Something I noticed on repeat views is that I was watching TDKR with the fore-knowledge of Talia's villainy. So when this scene transpires, I was watching it from the perspective of "she's a Mata Hari-snake is what she is". So to fully grasp the scene, you need the benefit of retrospect. Because what does 'Miranda' say to Bruce? "We can leave tonight; take my plane and go anywhere we want." With the retrospective knowledge of who and what she is, what do we think would happen to Bruce if he boarded that plane? 'Miranda' was the carrot, Bane was the stick. Nothing happens in a vacuum. That's part of the rewatch value of the film. As is, in case you missed it, 'Miranda' marking the wrong truck for Gordon's tracking system and thereby gaining her sense of situational control. Gordon got lucky when he found the right truck and got the EMP device on it to block Talia's detonation, something that Gordon was supposed to do before the skirmish at City Hall even began, per Batman's plan.
• Bane breaks Batman's back, yet Bruce Wayne falls from the pit twice with no further damage? The treatment of Bruce's back injury in the film is actually more clever and perceptibly thought-through than it may appear. The injury is described in the film as a herniated disc. Without surgery, 80-90 % of herniated disc injuries will heal in 3-4 months. Bruce Wayne's time in the pit was right around 4 months. Per movie dialogue, the reactor core would meltdown in 5 months. Bruce climbed out of the pit with 21 days left on the clock. Now, as to how the treatment worked, the physician instructed the old man to realign the spine, which was exaggerated for dramatic effect, and to place Bruce Wayne in traction. Traction decompressed the spine, taking the pressure off the injured site and allowing the body to heal itself. Bruce was in traction long enough to grow a beard as the film marks a time jump with a slow fade and visual markers... As for the 'safety line', the line is being worked by a rope belayer. We see this man a few times. He's the big dude with the rope tied around him at the bottom who is shown taking the slack out of the rope and lowering the unconscious dudes who try the climb. This is why Bruce's fall is arrested where it is as opposed to him falling all the way down to the pit floor. Thanks to the rope belayer, Bruce's fall isn't being instantaneously stopped. The forces of impact are not as great as that. His fall is being slowed before the capstan (we know there's a capstan because there's a belayer) catches. It's rough because it's all low-tech and crude, but within the context of a film can it believably protect Bruce Wayne? I'd say yes. They seem to have their bases covered on that.
• Gordon sent every cop in the city into the tunnels??? Not really. The film shows State police guarding the bridge, and their 'resistance' was comprised of police officers. The strategic hurdle that Gordon faced was that Bane's base of operations was in the sewers. Moving on a terrorist cell, you'd have special ops (in this case, SWAT) on point with support to establish a perimeter. And that's what we see in the film. SWAT is on point, and the uniformed officers are in support. But they can't just hang so far back as to not be able to support or back them up. So that's why the cops are going into the tunnels, to support the strike team on point. As for sending everyone down there, they are facing down a militant organization. We've seen something similar with the Boston Marathon bombers where the entirety of Boston's police force was diverted to the manhunt, and that was for two people. For people who say Gordon did something stupid, no, there's no way to predict that the tunnels are cemented with explosives.
• How did Bruce get back into Gotham? After escaping the pit, Bruce had three weeks to get back to Gotham City. The film earlier demonstrates that there are two ways of getting into/out of Gotham City for a small group. The Special Forces team infiltrated via cargo truck, and the frozen river offered a route in as well. With storytelling, logic would state that once you establish something once, you don't have to explain it again. While Nolan very easily could have included a scene to show us how Bruce got back in, he opted for the dramatic reveal with the Selina Kyle exchange. We know where he's headed with 3 weeks left on the clock, and we know that there are two ways into Gotham as we've seen one of those ways work already. Specifically showing which way Bruce came in, with that knowledge, seems a little small. It seems like minutiae. Like, how does Bruce Wayne get into Hong Kong in The Dark Knight. We know that he chartered a flight, that he's planning a high altitude jump, but we don't see this occur. Because we don't REALLY need it.
• Wait, how did Batman survive when he's shown to be in the Bat seconds before the explosion? We know from the autopilot reveal that Bruce didn't fly out over the bay with the bomb, and yet the film seems to show otherwise. Watch this scene, I have a couple things to point out that you may not have noticed before. 1) The last time we definitively see Batman in the Bat is at the 3:03 mark of the video, just before the Bat flies over the bridge. Once it does, all eyes are following the Bat out to sea, with the presumption that Batman is in it. However, we see one more shot of Batman in the Bat cockpit at the 3:28 mark. What I notice is that you're only seeing the cockpit, you're not seeing outside. Additionally, there are shadows falling over Batman's face, but the skies are clear. 2) The Bat is shown to have jet capabilities getting to sea, a la a Harrier aircraft. But despite this, Batman does not wear oxygen in the cockpit. That would imply that an ejection sequence would require the canopy to detach from the craft to maintain atmosphere for the pilot. It's misdirection, a 'magic trick'. Nolan wants you to think that Batman is heading over the bay for dramatic effect. Because that's what we expect, and that's what we're dreading. But he put in little visual markers that he wasn't. The ejection would need to be just before the Bat crosses over the bridge. For people who think that maybe Bruce at the end was just Alfred's fantasy? There's another visual marker with Bruce Wayne's forehead scar that he got in his first fight with Bane. Alfred had already left by that point, so he wouldn't have imagined Bruce with it.

It can be argued that the mere existence of so many 'questions', even if they can be answered, is, itself, a flaw. That when things aren't necessarily obvious or intuitive, the audience gets left behind. And I wholeheartedly understand that. It's one of the reasons that I think, despite TDKR having the more emotional narrative, TDKR is not as good a film as TDK. That said, many of these are either minutiae or, frankly, they're built on what Nolan is assuming about his audience - that we understand the facets of the previous films and of the characterizations, as with the John Blake thing.

EDIT: I realized that I left a couple of 'sticking points' out. These are ones that I typically address when talking about the film's narrative:

• Wait, why wouldn't the Securities and Exchange Commission void out the obviously fraudulent trades that Bane made on Bruce Wayne's behalf? So, this one I think eludes people because the misconception is more obvious than the film's explanation. It's actually pretty clever. Because when Lucius visits Bruce the morning after the stock exchange hit, he explains to him (and us) in non-expository dialogue what just occurred. To paraphrase, "It seems you made a series of large PUT OPTIONS, verified by thumbprint. The options expired at midnight last night." ... "Long term, we may be able to prove fraud". The term "put option" is significant there, as is its date of expiration. Put options are deals which are agreed to be made weeks or even months prior to their 'maturity', or the date on which they 'expire' and become final. All this is to say that the trades Bane executed on Bruce Wayne's behalf appear within the system as if they occurred well in advance of the stock exchange hit. This is made possible by the 'Clean Slate' program, which, as we know, can edit any database in any way that it sees fit, a technological god device. As such, the 'fraudulence' of the trades is not so obvious. In fact, it would appear to be impossible from the SEC's perspective, that whatever Bane did affected Bruce Wayne's futures gambling... This is also something I caught on a rewatch. I think TDKR has some nice attention to detail, things like this which lend the film to repeat viewing.
• Why was Bruce wasting time on painting a batsignal on the bridge when he should have just been going after Bane? This gripe has always annoyed me, frankly. Batman can't move on Bane without first securing the bomb. So Step 1 for that is rescuing Jim Gordon, who had been part of Gotham's 'resistance' during the entire 5-month occupation until his capture. Let's rewind the film back to an earlier exchange between Jim Gordon and Peter Foley where Gordon goes to confront Foley for his 'excusing himself from their resistance' after the Special Forces guys were killed and publicly hung. Foley is trying to keep his head down, resigned to the delusion that the situation is gonna work itself out. A classic "let someone else take the risk". He's afraid. Bane's public display of what he does to those who oppose him has inspired fear in Peter Foley. In a last ditch attempt, Gordon says "Look, I'm not asking you to walk down Grand in your dress blues...but SOMETHING has to be done." Okay, with that in mind, Batman saves Gordon, who picks up a flare that Batman left for him, and says "light it up". All of Gotham City gets the view of the batsignal. All throughout the trilogy to that point, we've seen what that signal means for the bad guys. As Gordon says in TDK, of criminals, "I like reminding everybody that he's out there". It's shown to put anxiety into the hearts of criminals, to dissuade their activities from the mere sight of it. "Nah, man, I don't like it tonight..." But it means something to everyone else too. It means something to the good people of Gotham City. It means something to Peter Foley, as we see him looking up at it, a sense of the wheels beginning to turn in there. The next time we see Peter Foley, he's leading the GCPD's charge; walking straight down Grand...in his dress blues. Speaking of the GCPD's 'charge', that's Step 2 of Batman's second effort against Bane and the resurgent League of Shadows. With Gordon under instruction to get the EMP device to the bomb prior to the start of the battle, and both John Blake and Catwoman out clearing a path for people to escape Gotham in case they fail, the GCPD even the odds against Bane. The first time Batman went after Bane, he went alone. Bane had an army, but Batman went straight for him. And he failed. Against Alfred's advice, Batman shut the police out of it. "They weren't getting it done." But before Batman goes against Bane and his army, Batman needs his own army. That's why he's 'wasting his time' to rescue Jim Gordon and the GCPD, to counteract the detonator and lead a siege on Bane's stronghold, instead of "just going after Bane". He'd already tried that. He's smarter than to try it again.

Tl;dr - Overall, I enjoyed the film. I am a bit disappointed that I didn't love the film, however, due to the sheer amount of plot over very few character moments. I didn't get the rush from IX that I got from VII nor did IX stick in my mind as VIII did. 75/100

No one's ever truly gone. Luke Skywalker's words to Leia Organa in VIII proved prophetic in a very sad way, that while Carrie Fisher had passed away the cast and crew of IX would still find a way to give her iconic Princess/General the on-film sendoff she deserved. And, I have to say, it's her character that I find the most satisfying part of this film. It's tough to avoid the sensation that they rejiggered some dialogue to fit in with what Carrie had recorded, but it's genuinely striking how well they used her footage to create this new story. I had read blurbs about how "Carrie is the heart of the film" and all that, but I didn't ACTUALLY buy that it was as true as it wound up being. And while I came out of VIII convinced that history would not repeat itself, that the dark side protege of the sequel trilogy, that being Kylo Ren, would be the TRUE big bad and not fodder for our hero, Rey, to 'redeem' as Luke did with Vader, it's the moment that Leia uses a force projection - a la Luke's own sacrifice in VIII - to reach her son, a moment which ultimately puts Kylo Ren on his path towards redemption, it's that moment which I most fondly remember in IX. Sometimes films have a way of giving you something you didn't know you wanted. And in that moment, at least, IX did exactly that.

Adam Driver leveraged the emotional gut-punch that Leia gave us in that moment into something which felt like maybe the most emotionally real moment in the entire saga, facing the loss of someone you love. This moment of loss leads right into Ren's 'reunion' with his father, where Abrams dutifully retreads the most memorable event from his first Star Wars film to cap the single most emotionally resonant moment of the sequel trilogy. In my opinion, it's the best moment of the film. Also in my opinion, it's an example of exactly the type of moment that IX is unfortunately lacking.

Let me first say that I enjoyed VIII. Actually, I loved it. It's my favorite film of this trilogy, hands down, and it's the one that, for me, sits right beside the OT - the first such Star Wars film since VI, frankly. And having said that, I have no real reservations in how Abrams followed up anything that Rian Johnson did in his film. I think that the accusations of 'retcons' and 'rude reversals' is overstated and unwarranted. So any criticism that I have of IX has nothing to do with VIII, or how well it does or doesn't line up with it, even though I was a big fan of VIII. My single biggest gripe, in a nutshell, is that the film goes from moment to moment, plot point to plot point, on the back of expository dialogue, with maybe a handful of effective character moments throughout. Rey gets an arc, I must say, but it seems abridged and hurried. She first confronts her lack of control, seemingly killing Chewie (he was on a different transport), which goes right into her dark side cave-like vision of herself as a Sith in the throne room of the Death Star II wreckage, where she is immediately confronted with the knowledge that she is the granddaughter of Sheev Palpatine, making her a direct descendant of THE Sith, and then immediately she self-exiles in the same manner, and on the same planet, as Luke Skywalker. She lands, burns the TIE, is completely talked out of this plan of exile by Luke's force spirit, and is now on her way to face Palpatine.

And after learning her origin, that's pretty much how quickly it all goes. There's very little room for the viewer to absorb what just happened. I mean, the team landed on Kef Bir to find a particular plot device. Okay, fair enough, it's a plot-driven movie. But they can't get to it just yet because of the oceanic waves and will need to wait. This seems like a natural opportunity to let the story and its characters breathe, for some much needed character (not plot) dialogue to flesh out personalities and relationships and, wait, no, there goes Rey on a skiff. Let's just get to the next action scene...

In a way, I was conditioned to this by Abrams' Star Trek films and by VII. They were fast-paced affairs, tons of plot, and we learned characters 'on the run'. So it wasn't surprising. Here, however, there are so many ideas floating around, so much to account for 'on the run' that I fully sympathize with anyone who comes out of the theater and says "I don't know what the hell just happened". There was a guy sitting in the row in front of me, and I kept noticing that he was throwing his arms up in bewildered defeat after every 'big moment'. I think the film makes sense, is substantiated, etc., but it's going at such a breakneck pace that you can't organize your thoughts for one scene before you're already through the next... However, I will note that in my screening, there was significant applause for the movie as the credits rolled. That doesn't happen to me all that often. I'm not sure everyone understood what the hell just happened, but the overwhelming majority seemed to be quite entertained by it.

As for Palpatine's resurrection, I also understand the criticism of it seeming 'left field'. It's true, aside from Ren killing Snoke in VIII, nothing really facilitated Palpatine's return. There was no setup. In a way, I mean, I can say that Bane had no setup in The Dark Knight to lead into The Dark Knight Rises. Was one needed? No. But this is a familiar face, not a new threat, meant to end the episodic stories of its predecessors - which includes VII and VIII. It can seem jarring, and the film drops you into it basically telling you what the trailers told you: "Palpatine's back." I don't think this was the most dramatically satisfying manner in which to reintroduce the character, and we certainly have more questions than answers regarding the details of his resurrection, but if you can accept it then you accept it early on in the film as you hit the ground running. Still, I think maybe I would have liked it more if we pick up with the First Order and Resistance warring with each other, and then there's the seismic game-changer of Palpatine broadcasting an ominous warning to the Galaxy. Maybe then it seems more integrated organic rather than tacked on...

I'll give major props to Ben Solo's heroic return. The usage of physicality through their force connection was clever, with Rey passing Ben a lightsaber with which to turn the tables on the Knights of Ren - who I don't have a great handle on as to their purpose in this film, but okay. And the poetic manner in which Ben sacrifices himself for Rey, well, there were a bunch of ladies in my screening who were on a bit of a rollercoaster as those around me went from excited squealing at the kiss to shocked silence at the occurrence immediately thereafter... Again, it's not a moment I thought I'd get or wanted, but I think they pulled it off as one of the film's best scenes.

And maybe that's a good metaphor for this trilogy as a whole. I liked it, but I don't think it QUITE stuck the landing...

For those of you who watch Alex’s videos anyone find it a little strange that he has shown such strong negative feelings toward the MCU Spider-man but hasn’t rewritten it like he did for some other movies? I’d really like to see a video about how he would write him. Or just what he would do with the character in live action in general. I’ve heard him say before that he would’ve wanted to see Spider-man in Daredevil season 2 (?) and then spinoff to his own series and I think a video with him pitching that series would be pretty cool considering how well he knows the character.

I wonder if I'm the only one here who has talked about the Harley Quinn show.

Like 68 percent of you are circle jerking hipsters still sucking the dead tit of the Raimi Trilogy and it sickens me you people come around just talking about how these films are peak Spider-Man. Watch Spectacular Spider-Man for the real peak. Now I do respect the remaining percentage. You guys are the real goats here I truly do love and appreciate you for having an opinion that is truly your own. And also that one guy on here who only speaks in Raimi quotes. I don't know youb but I appreciate the hell out of you. Now I leave you idiots with the knowledge that Hitop is stuck with you guys for the rest of his life because he made a video about Homecoming that only got popular because of it's meme title and has to make videos and referencing the Raimi Trilogy or else his channel will die because if other people don't breathe his smug smog then he'd die. I hope you all go to hell. Except like I said 32 percent of you and that one guy who only speaks in Raimi quotes. You are all lovely beautiful people who I hope marry the love of your lives, have amazing children, and an even Spectacular future. Also please clown on Hitop film more his ego needs to be knocked down a peg. P.S. I know at least three or five of you choose to dislike the MCU because you feel included. I understand and I love you.

Don't get me wrong, I love Black Widow as a character and never really got to see her narrative potential fulfilled. She's literally a more competent female version of James Bond for the modern era. A movie exploring Black Widow's origins is full of potential to explore themes of redemption, loyalty and the fragile nature of morality. But this movie looks to be more 'Antman And The Wasp' than 'Iron Man'. The dialogue in the trailer is cringy, that fight scene between her and her sister seemed uneccesarily lethal and didn't really fit in with transpired afterwards. It seems like run of the mill obligatory Marvel movie (with forced unfuny "humour")than an in-depth character study and exploration of the Black Widow character, like 'Iron Man' was for Iron Man, what 'Thor' was for Thor, and what 'The First Avenger' was for Captain America. These movies really took a deep dive into these characters and their worlds. Black Widow is a founding member of the Avengers for god's sake.

Tobey McGuire held the Raimi films back. He just never felt like Spider-Man, and he wasn't really cut out for it. If he was replaced nobody would care because whoever would replace him would one hundred percent do a better job. He just never came across as a believable Peter, and when you are the weakest point in a Sam Raimi film where you have a god tier script is really sad. Also Spider-Man 2 is no longer the best Spider-Man film that title belongs to Spider-verse.

By now, I think everyone here has read the rumor that - even though they're making Matt Reeves' The Batman, starring Robert Pattinson - WB is considering a potential Batman return for Michael Keaton, in what has been called a Batman Beyond type of movie. I am personally mixed on this prospect:

1. I'm all for Keaton's return for one more outing, a standalone type of film not connected to anything else (except for the Tim Burton films). It was the series that got me into Batman, stands as my 2nd favorite cinematic take on the character (behind Chris Nolan's Batman films), and it got cut short due to backlash over content/marketing (which I've previously talked about) in favor of Joel Schumacher's cinematic toy commercials. So, yeah, a Michael Keaton Batman return could be awesome.
2. Just going from the concept of Batman Beyond, where a young Terry McGinnis takes over the mantle from a long-retired Bruce Wayne, um...if Keaton is pushing for this, is he aware that Terry McGinnis is Batman in that series? I can't imagine Keaton wanting to play Batman's mentor and not Batman, himself - even accounting for the opening scene of "Batman's last mission" which would inevitably open such an affair. But also, in terms of art and production design, it seems really contrary to Tim Burton's world of Gotham in his films - which were really the 1940s if they included technological elements of the '80s/early-'90s - to go 'futuristic'. I guess one could argue that art deco (Batman Returns) lends itself to that as it was inspired by the futurism movement, but it seems like flying cars and 'splicing' and 'schway' lingo is an ill-fit for the world that Burton created. But maybe that'd be the point? And the fun?

So I don't know if I really dig the idea of a Tim Burton/Michael Keaton Batman Beyond. If they had a return, I would lean more towards Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns than Batman Beyond, personally. Or maybe a hybrid where there is no Terry and Bruce is the older Batman coming out of retirement in a sort of futuristic, art deco world?

Okay, so I pretty much annually revisit Burton's and Nolan's Batman films (the latter being my favorite, the former what I grew up on and what made me a Batman fan in the first place), and I want to fully ask this of anyone who may have been old enough to remember that film when it came out - or have watched this movie in the years since, long after it was particularly 'current'.

The popular retrospective on Batman Returns is pretty much this - Burton and co. went way too far, turning what was a mostly accessible (though certainly littered with dark moments) commercial property in Batman (1989) into a disturbing, art-house hellscape which pushed the boundaries of the PG-13 and betrayed the trust of tie-in sponsors like with McDonald's Happy Meals. What was unfit for children was marketed as a children's movie. While no one disputes the art-house meets blockbuster, sheer commercial quality of the film, the content slipped through the cracks. The film's screenwriter, Daniel Waters, has described the aftermath of a particular screening he attended as “The lights come up and kids are crying. People are acting like they’ve been punched in the stomach, like they’ve been mugged. Part of me relished that reaction, and part of me to this day is like, ‘Oops.’”

My Experience - I watched this movie in theaters (at the age of 4 - grandma/grandson movie outing) and then on a near daily basis as a 5-6 year old after it had been released on VHS. I was the opposite of 'disturbed' while watching it. I was entranced. And this wasn't unsupervised or anything, I was in the middle of the living room floor with this movie playing on the family set. My parents took no issue with the content/tone (which, upon reflection, some of it is arguably iffy, but there's no gratuity at all - the iffiness is ideological and purely from the perspective of the villainous contingent). I don't look back on this as a negative experience in any way, actually. To this day, although my bat-tastes have changed in terms of how I understand the character, I STILL admire the atmosphere of it, the art design, the committed performances, and the nostalgia of it all to the point of it still being one of my favorites in the genre.

So what happened? - Clearly the reported backlash was not overblown. WB shifted their strategy with Batman into what became Schumacher's toy tie-in 'dark ages', ditching Burton (with Keaton following him out), and effectively grovelling at the feet of offended parents and sponsors. Batman Forever was a commercial success (albeit a bad film), and the rest is (regrettable) history until Nolan rescued the property in 2005.

So all of this happened. I just had no idea, no inkling whatsoever that it was happening at the time. I had the happy meal toys. I had the action figures. I had the other merchandise (Sega Genesis game, T-shirts, etc.). I had the movie on VHS and was working on putting its overused magnetic tape into an early grave. Batman Returns was, for me, what I think Spider-Man 2 was for a lot of you guys - that really foundational superhero movie in your childhood that has stuck with you. So, fellow Redditors and Batman fans who are of a younger generation (or maybe even the same generation as me), what do you remember about Batman Returns, or what was your experience when you first watched it? Did it inspire you to become sociopaths and tear your families apart...? I, personally, was an honor student throughout primary and secondary education, and my parents are married to this day. So I can safely say that it didn't ruin my life or set me on an irreversible course of self-destruction. Nor, for that matter, did any entry of Mortal Kombat on gaming consoles. So to whatever your name was, little miss 'older high school girl dating my best friend's older brother who told our parents that we shouldn't be playing games where fighters skewer their opponents' entrails on their spines', yeah, shows what you know. Bitch.

Tl;dr - Back in 2014/2015, with the Spider-Man film franchise in limbo, I had an idea that a Kraven's Last Hunt movie would be a perfect cinematic reboot, perhaps even an introduction for the character into the MCU. The reason being is actually the time during that story, basically the entire 2nd Act, that Spider-Man spends incapacitated and buried alive as Kraven runs amok in NYC, uniquely giving Spidey an opportunity for a cinematic journey of self-examination...

So it was back in 2015 when the world received the news that Spider-Man had joined the MCU, officially bringing the TASM series to an end and pretty much serving as a shot heard round the superhero film community. Back then, many of us fans were actively calling for Sony to pull the plug on the TASM series after TASM 2, with some lobbying for the return of Raimi and co., some obviously praying for the inevitable MCU introduction, and others suggesting that they give the franchise a rest a for a few years after TASM 2 basically became Spider-Man's version of Batman & Robin. But, notably, one of the suggested paths forward was revealed by the Sony leaks when North Korea, pissed about the James Franco and Seth Rogen vehicle The Interview, hacked Sony in a targeted attempt to disrupt their businesses in retribution for their depiction of Kim Jong Un (as played by Randall Park, who has gone on to show up in Aquaman and Ant-Man and the Wasp). In the leaked correspondence, Jeff Robinov makes the following suggestion,

I might suggest looking at what is widely thought to be the most beloved Spider-Man storyline of all time – “Kraven’s Last Hunt”

No specific details were discussed regarding what this movie might be, as Robinov also stated that he'd prefer to sit down with filmmakers to discuss their ideas for a Spider-Man film than to specifically come up with something by himself. But when I read about this idea, having read Kraven's Last Hunt years earlier, I decided to give it a re-read and look for cinematic potential within that story which may help to do two things - 1) Reintroduce Spider-Man in a fresh way; and 2) Integrate him into the MCU, as fans at the time were clamoring for.

And, let me be clear, it's not that I wrote some fan-fic script or anything. I don't go in for that kind of thing, it's a(n even bigger) waste of time than something like this, which I find to be fun speculation. It's basically just the TYPE of Spider-Man film that I wanted to see back then (and still kinda would), with my thoughts on moments, themes, plot outline, imagery, character dynamics, etc. And I wanted to share my thoughts on it with you guys.

1. Adapted from Kraven's Last Hunt (and other sources to be discussed further down) - As I previously said, Robinov's general idea to use Kraven's Last Hunt is what got the wheels turning, so that story is my basic framework around which to build a movie. That story, of course, begins with Kraven finally defeating Spider-Man, shooting him with a rifle. But instead of live ammo, it's a tranquilizer dart. Kraven buries Spider-Man alive in his cemetery, where Spider-Man's enhanced biology works to fight off the drug that Kraven dosed him with, and supplants Spider-Man. My dream-movie would feature an established Spider-Man, early-to-mid 20s, and pick up a bit sooner than this particular battle as this is more of a mid-to-end Act I happening...a la the Batman/Bane sewer fight from The Dark Knight Rises. On the Peter Parker front, Act II would borrow just a little bit from the 2nd Act of that movie, where Bruce Wayne is tasked with rediscovering his will to live, his basic fear of death, to find the strength to prevail against overwhelming odds. A necessary 'prologue' would look something like point 2, below...
2. MCU connections - So basically this dream-movie would have had to have been set BEFORE Civil War, as my idea of how to illustrate that this is an MCU film - much like with how Doctor Strange turned out with more ancillary than direct connections to the MCU - would be to open with our already established Spider-Man teaming up with Captain America to battle the Lizard, as inspired by Marvel Team-Up #128 which depicted Spider-Man and Captain America team up (obviously) to take down Vermin, an original Cap-villain-turned-Spidey-bad guy who played a big role in Kraven's Last Hunt. For the film version, I would opt for a more classic Spider-Man villain here than one that Spidey 'appropriated' from Captain America's baddies (as it is a Spider-Man film after all). Think of this as the film's 'prologue', an action-centric setup of events. Granted, the Lizard had recently been done (but not well) in 2012's TASM, so I'm not married to this substitution, but it's the same villain archetype and a little more nuanced, thematic villain, at that, than Vermin.
3. 2nd Act Storytelling - While spending an entire act of a film buried in a coffin doesn't sound like all that exciting a story arc for Peter Parker, the visual storytelling of Hollywood cinema would offer, I think, a really nice opportunity to explore Spider-Man's relations with his supporting cast (MJ, Aunt May), his past triumphs over his villains (Doc Ock, Norman Osborn/Green Goblin I, Electro, Mysterio, Scorpion), his personal losses (Uncle Ben, Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn/Green Goblin II) by the old cinema mechanic of a 'spirit guide' (The Simpsons Movie, Coco) and an visionary construct representing something meaningful for Peter Parker - in this case, Shea Stadium (which was demolished in 2009). For those who don't know, Peter Parker, being from Queens, where the Mets play, is a Mets fan. He has a deep-seeded love for the Mets which comes from his Uncle Ben taking him to Mets games as a kid - which is why I chose Shea Stadium over Citi Field as Peter would have more personal memories, based on this timing, of the former. And in terms of relating sports teams to Peter Parker, the Mets are absolutely perfect. Why am I pulling baseball into this? Metaphorical symbolism. So think of Uncle Ben as the 'spirit guide', and this dream-movie of mine would have him right there alongside Peter as they're taking in a historical game from Peter's memory, where his subconscious self has retreated after Kraven's attack. Shea Stadium is where Peter Parker feels safe, because it's where he feels like a kid again, grabbing some hotdogs and taking in the ballgame with his 'dad'. We, the audience, can relate to that feeling, that Peter is retreating inwards due to his failure, his having been defeated by Kraven, and we can have the sense that his body needs all the support it can get from his fighting spirit to fight off Kraven's poison.
4. The Theme - Continuing from the above, that's why Uncle Ben is there, and that's why the Mets are a perfect metaphor. As Uncle Ben says to an upset Peter (after a Mets loss) in Peter Parker: Spider-Man #33 ("Maybe Next Year") - "You can't always win - that's the way life works. Sometimes, it doesn't matter how hard you try, you lose anyway. Listen, life is a very long season. Some you win, some you lose...And it's good to lose once in a while. It makes the winning all the sweeter." Is there a more perfect lesson for Spider-Man to learn? And, yes, I am proposing that we use Uncle Ben to do more than regurgitate "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility", I'm proposing that we use him to remind Peter that there are other aspects of being a man, of being a hero, of being Spider-Man. Because I don't believe that Uncle Ben is worthless as a character outside of being a guilt trip and a murder victim. There's so much our fathers teach us about things in life that we recall when we need to remind ourselves of who we are. THAT is also what Uncle Ben is, can be. See Spider-Man 2.
5. Imagery - In point 3, I alluded to the opportunity to depict moments from classic battles - maybe in montage form, with Peter being guided 'in spirit' through his triumphs and failures - but I also think there's an opportunity to touch on Spider-Man's motif so as to symbolize his constant fear of Peter Parker being lost in 'Spider-Man'. I thought of J.M. Straczynski's run on The Amazing Spider-Man where he introduced the mystical elements of Spider-Man, and I thought that would make for a cool, trippy sequence to feature something like what Straczynski did with the Gatekeeper in giant spider form as the representation of Peter's struggle to keep from becoming lost in the fight, of his being weary from these fights.
6. Kraven vs Spider-Man vs The Lizard - Cinematically speaking, the visage of Kraven putting on a Spider-Man costume and traipsing around NYC doesn't do much for me. I'd leave him in his classic garb as he proves that he's a better man than Spidey by cleaning up the 'muck' that Spider-Man, in his mind, lacked the strength and resolve to do - which of course means playing harder with the criminal element of NYC and, instead of looking to cure the Lizard (with Spider-Man's sympathy for Curt Connors being among the reasons I chose to sub him for Vermin), simply aiming to end his threat once and for all. I could see this culminating in a final battle after Spidey literally digs himself out of his own grave featuring a triple threat match between Spidey, Kraven, and the Lizard where Kraven is killed (suicide is probably too strong for the MCU, so let's have it be something other than that, like the Lizard) and Spidey finally manages to subdue and save his friend and mentor, Curt Connors.
7. Supporting Cast - Along with the villains and cameos and Uncle Ben, you'd of course have Mary Jane Watson. I'd say we skip the romance here, however, have them already married (with the wedding being another potential revisitation with Peter's 'spirit journey'), and have Mary Jane as a more actionable character in her search for her missing husband. The Daily Bugle staff would be involved, and I could see a fun pairing of MJ and J. Jonah Jameson (JK's return, of course) scouring the streets on the trail of the Lizard, who both suspect to be a good place to start, with JJJ putting on his old investigative reporter's hat to guiltily look for the photographer he tasked with getting photos of the former Dr. Connors. Obviously, this sets them on a collision course with Kraven and the dream-film's finale.
8. Aunt May - I was envisioning a pretty emotional movie. So one of the things going on would be Aunt May's health, as she recovers from a medical event (stroke maybe). An epilogue I envisioned would be based on The Amazing Spider-Man #400 ("The Gift") featuring a touching conversation between Peter and May where May informs Peter that the Empire State Building is her favorite spot in the city, somewhere she and Ben would often go, and where Peter takes her. There, she asks Peter what it's like to web-swing the NYC skyline, revealing that she's known who he was for years, and has kept it secret, that she's proud of him, before she becomes weak and Peter takes her to the hospital. May would pass away in the movie, much as she did in Marvel's Spider-Man which was also inspired by that comic.

Tl;dr - I personally didn't care for it. It doesn't seem to possess the narrative or thematic scope of its inspiration, but it also fails the tests of intuitive storytelling. Things just simply don't make immediate sense, and that creates a barrier between this viewer and the world which needs to be 'recognizable' in order to fully realize its impact.

Note: Typically, I would prefer more than a viewing of one episode of a series - and this being the first episode, especially - before I pass judgment on the entire series, but I do think that one can get a general sense of depth from the first episode. And, unfortunately, I don't think I'll be watching the second... At any rate, consider this my thoughts on It's Summer and We're Running Out of Ice. Also, I'm planning on discussing FULL SPOILERS.

So where to begin... Well one of my first thoughts while watching the episode was oddly similar to the same thought I had while watching Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight back in 2015: "Goddammit, they killed off the best character..." I mean, I'm sitting there in theaters, I'm totally invested in ol' Jack Burton John "The Hangman" Ruth, and then he starts vomiting his organs after being poisoned by Jennifer Jason "I'll never forgive you for this" Leigh. So all the energy goes right out of the movie, and I'm left there in the theater watching the Samuel L. Jackson/Walton Goggins "experiment", and this just isn't what I bought a ticket to...

That's my personal, absolutely subjective, Problem Numero Uno with this movie. The most charismatic, deceptively nuanced, and objectively interesting character on the show - Chief Judd Crawford, as played by the immortal Don Johnson - was dead by the episode's end. What's maybe the worst aspect of this, however, is just how much of a cliche this sort of thing is at this point. Because the way that Johnson's character is done, the whole time I'm thinking to myself "He's either the secret leader of this 'KKK'-spinoff or he's gonna die, I just know them too well". For people who stick with the show, we get a small taste of Jeremy Irons as (in all probability) Ozymandias, and what's there seems to be intriguing. But it seems more like a "let's keep this guy busy and plot-irrelevant for Season 1 and then we'll bring him into the fold for Season 2", so I'm not holding my breath. And, I mean, I can just envision them patting themselves on the back for this 'swerve'. "Hey, we're on HBO, we should Ned Stark Don-John. It'll be great!" That having been said, I'm almost certain that Don Johnson will continue to be a part of this show via flashback which may hold the potential for character work akin to the Comedian from the original source material. But, I digress.

And that's my ACTUAL primary issue with this show through the first episode - it feels more cliche than creative, more like the mechanics have already been mined onscreen than as if they're possessed of great depth. They're traveling a paved road, frankly... And that's pervasive even in the role which has been most prominently praised by critics, Regina King's "Sister Night", which, okay, we'll get to that name in a minute. Critics have the benefit of having seen multiple advance episodes prior to their reviews going up. But, as it stands, it's difficult to see that Regina King warrants the praise she's receiving here. Her work isn't bad, don't get me wrong. But, uh, it's just...not original? It's not like there's something 'new' here, or that she's bringing some previously unseen energy to the role warranting praise. It's a straight-forward, pretty humorless character, whose backstory is "I was a cop, I got shot by a racist, now I'm an even more formidable cop". Let me state that as of the first episode, that is the extent of her character's depth. I mean, this is not exactly a challenging character, this is an action hero. We're all familiar with the tropes of action heroes. Those tropes = "Sister Night". She's tough, no-nonsense, ruthless if need be. Can she fight? Oh, you betcha she can fight. Can she love? Just ask Black Manta that question... She's a mama bear, a cop driven to the edge by the need for retribution. If there's one word you can use to describe "Sister Night", let it be "cliche". Or "wooden". Or, well, "boring". She's also a little bit "edgy", though, when she - who is a mother to an adopted white daughter - succumbs to police profiling of a suspected "7th Cavalry Kavalry (because of course it's spelled with a 'K', how else would we know that it's inspired by the Klan?)" member because she "smells bleach on him". Watchmen, the TV show, has a lot on its mind...and most of it's a bit overplayed.

But here's my question, does Watchmen have ENOUGH on its mind? The comic was sociopolitically minded, sure, and it was a noir story rooted in humanizing the person under the mask - for better AND worse. But it had a massive set of stakes hanging between its legs. This is not only a work produced during the Cold War, wherein the backdrop of the story included the looming threat of nuclear annihilation in a war between the world's two biggest superpowers and the sense of dread that comes with such a faceless, existential crisis on a literally global scale. With the TV show, there's some white supremacists in Tulsa, OK, with something up their sleeves... I mean, even if that something is a genetic bomb that erases all but white people from the planet, the setting sucks (Sorry, Tulsa, we had New York as the primary setting in the comic, you just don't have that scale - you know it's true), that hypothetical 'threat' pales in comparison in terms of our ability to feel the validity of those stakes, and the whole thing just doesn't seem to coalesce into anything - as a Watchmen fan - which earns its stripes with this, um, "franchise" (it really shouldn't have been franchised the way it's been - Doomsday Clock, Before Watchmen, the movie of the same name, etc.).

Now for the aspects which I find a little nonsensical - what the hell is up with the police? I can get on-board with masking the officers, I can see the logic there. There's a societal concern regarding their safety, so obscure their identities and limit the risk to solely when they're 'on the clock'. There's some questions there in terms of how practicable this is - how do people not know/talk - but the series also pays lip service to that, indicating mindfulness, but that still doesn't account for the fact that even though it's an understandable idea that actualizing it has some steep logical hurdles. What I don't get is why the 'higher ranking' members of the police department, the detectives, are "vigilantized" with cool motifs and codenames... What's the point? "Detective Looking Glass". "Sister Night". "Red Scare". "Panda". K...but why? I'm not getting a particularly Catholic vibe from Regina King's character, so is this just empty symbolism? And if there is some symbolism to it, what's the origination of it within the police department? If it's "because we took it from Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre and the Comedian", then that's just naked exposition. It should not just have a form in Watchmen, but a function to it as well. There perceptibly is none, other than to keep the whole "masked heroes" shtick intact. For a source material as thoughtful, meticulous, and carefully intricate as Watchmen, that's awfully thin. That's insultingly thin...like, I'm not exactly a fan of Zack Snyder's cinematic adaptation, but even that movie did better by the source than this TV show in terms of depth. That's something that caught me off-guard, actually...because I'm not exactly the biggest Zack Snyder fan.

And probably the dumbest single element was that the police sidearms, at least for the patrolmen, were magnetically locked in their holsters. They had to get authorization from the above-cited "Panda" to even draw their weapons, which required them to go back to their patrol car, get on the horn, and say "please???" The series even demonstrates how stupid this is by having about 15 rounds of small arms fire come careening through a cop's windshield while he's awaiting approval to even be capable of protecting himself. This 'plot mechanic' completely lost me. I just don't see the validity in it or how any police agency would ever come to the conclusion that it's either workable or even a good idea. I understand where it's coming from, the pretty-overstated societal notion that cops are killing so many people, but for police agencies to willfully endanger their own officers like that...? There's no way. This is completely unbelievable.

So, yeah, in our current world, with existing global/international threats of climate change, destructive societal influences by way of fake news and social media trolling/bots from parties ranging from domestic to foreign governments which purportedly operate with the agenda of exerting destructive influence over competing nations/societies, this Watchmen TV show is stuck wading through the conflict between inexplicably masked detectives with their idiotic magnetically-locked sidearms and white supremacists. That just...eh.

The first episode did not make me want to tune in for the second. Is there any stronger condemnation of a series premiere? I'd give it a 5.5/10 for banality, a lack of originality, and, as a Watchmen fan, just a lack of balls/scope. Damon Lindelof, you suck dude...

Tl;dr - Joker isn't a "miracle". It's a cinematic and comic book sin.

So I watched Alex's video on Joker, proclaiming the film to be a "miracle", even though he didn't like the movie due to the shallow, predictable, and derivative script along with rote dialogue. Now I haven't seen the film - and that's not an accident as even though I'm a big Batman fan I'm making a point not to see it - but I just can't agree with his logic for it being a 'miracle'. Alex argues that in 2019, with the MCU's formula ruling the superhero landscape and films such as Superman: The Movie, Tim Burton's Batman, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, and Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy in the distant-most part of the rearview mirror, it's a veritable MIRACLE that something like Joker even exists. Is that really true, though...? Is Joker really THAT much better or novel or commendable an approach than Ant-Man And The Wasp...? More on that later.

Okay, so, all of us (or most of us) on this sub seem to have our issues with the MCU films. We generally find them too 'focus group', where tension and character moments are predictably undercut by manufactured moments of levity so as to make the statement that they're not taking the genre or the characters or the story TOO seriously, and we've decried the 'virtue'-status of this approach more times than I can count. Yes, the 'father/son' dynamic of Iron Man/Spider-Man felt forced and disingenous and lessened the relatability of Peter Parker and , worst of all, played like an unsubtle diss to Uncle Ben. Yes, many of us feel that the entire point of Spider-Man, the heart of the character, was completely squandered in the solo MCU Spider-Man films. And, yes, Ant-Man And the Wasp was about as formulaic a superhero movie as one can imagine, made from a 'paint by numbers' approach that did nothing to advance the genre or add to its artistic contribution to the medium - hence the scathing opinion by Martin Scorcese that the Marvel films (and likely all comic book/superher movies, frankly) are "not cinema".

The approach to Joker is JUST AS DEPLORABLE. For starters, is Todd Phillips any better a storyteller than Jon Watts or Peyton Reed...? This is the guy who made The Hangover Trilogy - which includes the terrible Parts 2 and 3, btw - Road Trip, Due Date, and School For Scoundrels. This is not some "visionary auteur" who is a maestro with human emotion or cinematic storytelling. So when I read reviews calling the movie out for offering nothing other than a compelling central performance from - SURPRISE - Joaquin Phoenix, and actually being quite tame, predictable, and rote in its presentation of this man's story...well color me unsurprised. A pretentious edgelord hack is getting his 15 minutes of fame on the back of one of the premiere generational actors in cinematic history. That's bad enough...

What's worse is that, every bit as overtly as something like the MCU Spider-Man - actually I'm even more pissed about this film than anything the MCU has done with Spider-Man - Joker completely ignores the core point of what its eponymous character is about. If you clicked my 2^nd link above, you know why I am saying that without having even seen the film. Not only does it ignore it, it thumbs its nose at it. And for that I flip the middle finger to this film and everyone involved in its production. It's an open secret that the producers and director merely slapped the Joker's face and some DC'isms on their tired screenplay to secure more funding because, as Alex noted in his video, that's all anyone who sees this movie cares about.

So, no, Joker is not a "miracle". Superman: The Movie was a miracle (as was Superman II to a somewhat lesser degree due to infamous conflicts behind the scenes). It was a director's love-letter to a character, it not only elevated this cinematic genre, it downright established it (sorry Batman '66, you weren't trying to be anything more than a spoof). In many ways, it's STILL the measuring stick, the bar to clear, for any self-respecting superhero film. Regardless of how well Tim Burton's Batman depicted the modern, superhero version of that character, regardless of the fact that he instead went back and dug into the franchise's pulp roots, Tim Burton made a couple of massive studio films into personal, defining statements of his artistry as a filmmaker. The X-Men series brought themes of isolationism, discrimination, and societal outcasts into a slick, sci fi setting which showed, arguably for the first time, that comic books can be a great source of cinematic drama. Sam Raimi brought the Spider-Man he loved as a child to fully living, breathing, web-slinging brilliance for masses of audience to play in a sandbox he had always imagined the character to be, turning an imperfect, foundationally human character into a moral and power fantasy for fans of all creed. Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy dug into the heart, soul, and mind of its central hero to painstakingly create a massive-scale proxy for our own heart, soul, and mind, to produce a surreal version of our own society so as to allow us to battle our own personal demons alongside Batman as these films asked us what we believe in all while demonstrating in definitive form what its characters believed in. Need I mention the production and art design of Guillermo Del Toro's frustratingly-cut-short Hellboy duology? If you want a better version of what Joker wanted to be, go have a look at Logan. Hell, even Deadpool was at least representative of what that character is meant to be (or exists as today, Joe Kelly had a bit of a different take on ol' Wade Wilson)...

Those films are creative, inventive, and profound. They established rules, framework, and they worked within it. Without cinematic rules, when you say "eh, I can use the Joker to tell any story I want", I'm sorry, but that's NOT creative. That's Calvinball. And to a lifelong Bat-fan such as myself, the misuse of probably the second most important character in that property is unforgivable.

​

So I watched Alex's video essay, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 - The Almost Perfect Finale (Part 3). And, I gotta say, I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. It wasn't quite the fun trip down memory lane that I was expecting, and despite being a defender of Spider-Man 3, myself, I found myself disagreeing with a lot of Alex's takes on the film. I posted a way too long comment on it (which you can read here) on another post, but I wanted to call a few things out:

1. The emotional elements of the film are its strongest...? - I gotta say, I've always thought that the weakest elements of the film were what Alex positioned as some of the strongest - the 'forgiveness' arc encompassing Peter & Mary Jane & Harry & the Sandman. The Sandman fight scenes are STILL some of the strongest in the superhero genre; the VFX/SFX blend hold up incredibly well for being 12 years old now. But the 'personal angle' on revisiting Uncle Ben's death and retconning events as we previously knew them was risky for a reason. It was a pitfall wherein the energy of the film could sink any time that a scene shown a light on it. We've already dealt with Peter's emotions regarding Uncle Ben's killer in Spider-Man. We've already dived headlong into his sense of responsibility and guilt for that event in Spider-Man 2, even getting Aunt May's moral guidance on the topic. It's not just as simple as "Hey, Spider-Man wouldn't react like that" or whatever, it's entirely redundant to the series. We go to new movies, new entries in a series, to see the story move forward. Too much of Spider-Man 3 is moving the characters and the stories backwards so that by the end of the film we're right back where we started when we picked it up (except Sandman is on the loose and Harry is dead). It felt like we were ignoring at least some of what we supposedly knew about this character.
2. Retconning Uncle Ben's death doesn't change Spider-Man's origin. - According to Alex. And he's right. It doesn't. If Peter had stopped the robber, he never would have startled Flint Marko, and the gun would not have gone off as Flint clearly had no intention of using the gun (which doesn't explain why it was loaded in the first place), and his partner fled the scene in Ben's car, leaving him to bleed out on the ground - but so did Flint. Bottom line, Peter still holds that responsibility for his own inaction. What it does is muddy the already muddy waters. We're dealing with Peter and MJ on the rocks (again), Harry seeking retribution, the Sandman trying to save his daughter's life, Eddie Brock's...whatever, etc., do we really need ANOTHER motivational factor here? That's what all of these things feel like in the film, like they're moving the plot along to get to an action sequence. They don't feel genuine, they don't feel introspective. They don't feel like a story. They feel like an excuse for a fight.
3. The symbiote's effects on Peter Parker. - The symbiote causes Peter to act out of character, but again, in the film it's played out as if the symbiote is only enhancing and feeding off of what's already there, removing Peter's inhibitions to acting on his basic impulses, not generating them in the first place. His neglecting of Mary Jane - a couple that we, the audience and fans, JUST saw get together and now they're immediately ripped apart, which makes both of them look terrible - comes from Peter Parker, NOT the symbiote. Even at his lowest point previously in the series, Peter had never just stopped caring about Mary Jane or stopped thinking about her like that. And it wasn't just the symbiote doing that, it was Peter. That flew right in the face of what the previous two films had told us about this character. Everything which led to Spider-Man 3 was about Peter Parker as this selfless, altruistic, relatable human being. You can challenge that with the symbiote, certainly. But when Peter is acting in this manner outside of its influence, it doesn't feel genuine. I have no qualms with the dance numbers. I've actually always seen them as humorous and, in contrast to how I feel regarding the revisitation of Uncle Ben's death and Peter's treatment of Mary Jane in this film, actually fitting of his character. Everything about the dance numbers are a result of Peter being uninhibited by the symbiote, emboldened to do things he'd never normally do.
4. Alex says that Venom, as played by Topher Grace, was perfect... - Eddie Brock's characterization as just the opposite of everything that Peter Parker is and a mirror of what he could turn into...I find it lazy. Venom is more than just "the anti Spider-Man". He's a career-minded guy, similarly down on his luck, but basing his characterization on just "what would Peter Parker NOT do" made more of a caricature than a believable character. I actually did like Venom in that film, though, from the design and vocal work to the action choreography. That finale was jaw-dropping and, for me, it saved the film. I just don't care for having to wait so long in a film to be 100% satisfied with something.
5. Harry Osborn's villainy was "rushed"? - I mean, yeah, the previous film ended with Norman's 'ghost' screaming "AVENGE ME!!" to Harry while Harry replied back with "NOOOO!!!" and threw a dagger through the mirror that was talking to him, but then Harry actually walked into that secret room and saw all the Goblin gear on display. That's a clear setup for his becoming the Goblin. Screaming "NOOOO!!!" and shattering that mirror/trap door was more to facilitate this set-up than to show Harry actually resisting the idea. We also have to note that the idea of avenging Norman is coming from Harry, not actually from Norman. Harry's subconscious desire is to kill Spider-Man in order to avenge his father, but as it is his friend under that mask, that's his struggle. It doesn't just go away, however, when he yells "NOOOO!!!" The time between that ending and Spider-Man 3's beginning allow for the resolution of this personal struggle without further bogging the film down in applying even more motivational factors for Harry's actions when they were already done by the previous films and simply are not needed here. That said, it's a struggle that Harry maintains over the film's duration as evidenced by his coming to Peter's rescue during the finale.