On my world, it means hope.

Because the combat in this movie bugs the hell out of me. As "realistic" as they tried to make the movie, the combat breaks the suspension of disbelief multiple times.

(Disclaimer 1: My knowledge of combat is limited to common sense and archaic swordfighting. If anyone wants to correct me, you're welcome to do so.)

(Disclaimer 2: I didn't hate the movie.)

- Cap vs. Batroc: Cinemasins makes a good point in that Steve is supposed to be physically superior to the "average" person, so why is Batroc suddenly a match for him just because he knows...savate?

- Nick Fury car chase: Cinemasins also makes a good point in that Bucky could've ended the chase a lot earlier if he'd just used his grenade launcher (?) a lot earlier. But seriously, shooting at a car in broad daylight in the middle of a busy DC street? How did Hydra not cause mass panic? (And nothing says "stealthy legendary assassin" better than "Let me stand in the middle of the street with a facemask and goggles and a really big gun and blow up a car.")

- Bucky vs. Natasha and Steve: OH BOY, HERE WE GO.

• Because nothing says "stealthy legendary assassin" better than shooting up a DC freeway in broad daylight, probably killing loads of civilians in the process, and also blowing up half the city, amirite???


• No, seriously, you really can't tell me the Winter Soldier is blah blah most deadly assassin in the world blah blah and then show him doing things like this. I get that you wanted a visually spectacular action scene, but this doesn't any make sense.


• Not only does it not make any sense in terms of attracting attention, but it's also just a really bad choice because cars and panicked citizens are just going to get in the way.


• Also, how did Bucky and Hydra track down Natasha, Steve, and Sam in a moving car again? That's ludicrously more difficult than finding them while they're stationary and not in a car.


• Once again, Cinemasins makes a good point that Bucky could've just dropped a ball bomb into the car with Sam, Natasha, and Steve. Boom. Problem solved.


• I thought Steve's shield was made out of vibranium and therefore absorbed the impact of bullets or whatever. In Cap 1, when Peggy shoots at his shield, the bullets fall to the ground after hitting the shield. But suddenly Steve can use the shield to deflect bullets into other people now?


• I'm going to assume that Bucky shot Natasha's shoulder because he didn't have a clear aim because of all the fleeing people. If he had a clear shot, he certainly would've killed her. (Remember he used to be a sniper?)


• Don't get me wrong, I really liked the Bucky vs. Steve fight scene, but it also was really conveniently choreographed to stretch out to be as long as possible. For example: Bucky is choking Steve, and then just throws him to the ground...because strangling someone with a metal hand never kills them, right? Then when Bucky kicks Steve against the van, he uses this really wide overhead swing with his knife--conveniently to give Steve time to respond. (Also, was he planning to knife Steve in the head? There are easier, cleaner ways to kill someone with a knife...)


• The dramatic stare: yes, it was probably necessary. No, it still doesn't really make sense that Bucky would just stop mid-fight to give Steve a Dramatic Stare for the Big Reveal.

- When Bucky's trying to get to the helicarrier, he absolutely destroys all the SHIELD agents. He's nowhere near this efficient when fighting a named character.

- Bucky vs. Steve, round two

• Bucky's aim with a gun is spectacularly bad after he wakes up from being choked unconscious. And no, sorry, I don't buy the idea that he's just giving "warning shots." FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, THIS GUY WAS TRAINED AS A SNIPER. AND HE'S GIVEN NO INDICATION THAT HE HAS ANY MOTIVATIONS IN THIS MOVIE OTHER THAN "FINISH THE MISSION" (as long as his memory isn't on the fritz).

Thor

I have so many feels about this movie, argh.

After a lot of thinking, I've come to the conclusion that there are two major ways to interpret this movie.


(1) The more common interpretation, I believe. This is heavily reliant on the audience's expectation that Loki is the villain (whether through prior exposure to the comics, or through stereotyping/conditioning—the slight, quiet, introverted, thoughtful, effete character will usually end up being the antagonist to the outgoing, traditionally masculine/macho protagonist).

Loki has always been jealous of Thor and that's why he's the Bad Guy. He says he loves his brother, but every time he says that, it's a lie and a cover-up for his resentment. The Warriors Four are right to distrust him. He lets the jötnar into Asgard during Thor's ceremony out of spite, he manipulates Thor into going to Jötunheim to get Thor into trouble (though perhaps not expecting that Thor would be banished as a result). On Jötunheim, he begins to suspect he is actually a jötunn, which is confirmed later in his confrontation with Odin. Whatever else his faults are, his distress in that scene is genuine, and the fact that his internalized racism is now turned on himself is sincerely tragic. His jealous nature turns him paranoid, however, as he refuses to accept Odin's sincere declaration that he had always loved Loki. Under unclear and perhaps suspicious circumstances, Loki ends up with the throne and starts scheming to commit genocide on the jötnar, which is Wrong and Evil. His decision to lie to Thor to keep him on Earth is simply cruel manipulation. His decision to forbid the Warriors Four from going after Thor and later to send the Destroyer after Thor is a result of his jealousy culminating into wanting to get rid of Thor permanently. By the time Thor confronts Loki in Asgard, there's simply no hope left for Loki. His story may be tragic, but his actions have made him irredeemably evil.


(2) The interpretation that strips away the assumption that Loki must be evil by viewing him as a neutral/sympathetic figure at the start. This interpretation also takes into account the deleted scenes.

Even before he learns he is a jötunn, Loki has been "othered" throughout his life in Asgard. He is slight, quiet, introverted, thoughtful, and reliant on magic—the opposite of the Asgardian ideal as embodied by Thor. It's a bit unclear as to what he himself thinks of all this, but clearly he must have felt it: the Warriors Four readily distrust him for no apparent reason (to the point at which even when he's the official, temporary king regnant, they flagrantly disobey his orders), and even servants snicker at him when his magic is described as "tricks."

He does genuinely love Thor—he and Thor have a relaxed relationship filled with brotherly teasing ("Nice feathers," "You don't really want to start this again, do you, cow?", "Now give us a kiss"), support ("I won't let my brother ride into Jötunheim alone"), and moments of heartfelt emotion ("You're my brother, and my friend. Sometimes I'm envious, but never doubt that I love you.") He also knows how to diffuse/calm Thor's temper with wry humor ("Who said I was wise?"). Thor loves Loki in return, as they've done everything together since childhood ("You're not going to let my brother and me take all the glory, are you?").

At the same time, there are troubling undercurrents in the Odin family. Thor has consistently belittled Loki's magical talents as "tricks," and he has no difficulty in telling Loki to "know [his] place," openly viewing Loki as in a lesser position. Loki, in turn, is used to being spoken over by Thor and Odin, to the point where he will instantly shut up and be cowed if Thor or Odin yells at him. [Extrapolating from later films] Loki and Thor also regularly get into physical confrontations that are hardly evenly matched. So, the family relationships are not the model of health.

Loki has a penchant for causing chaos and mischief without necessarily evil intent. He let jötnar into Asgard on the day of Thor's ceremony for literally "a bit of fun" (and most likely expected those jötnar to end up dead by the end of the day). He possibly manipulated Thor into going to Jötunheim, but knowing his views of Frost Giants he also sounded pretty sincere about agreeing with Thor. But he doesn't particularly expect Thor to get into that much trouble, he does his best to get them out of trouble when it's clear they're in over their head vis-à-vis Laufey, and he is stunned when Thor ends up being banished to Earth.

He's also troubled by this point because he suspects that he's a jötunn. This leads him to speak a bit frankly to the Warriors Four and criticize Thor (an opinion he honestly holds, even if he doesn't speak it often). When he confronts Odin, he knows (correctly) that Odin had an ulterior purpose for taking him in, and in a height of emotion he openly speaks what he has long felt, but never voiced—that Odin never favored him the same way he favored Thor.

Loki doesn't expect it, but he ends up with the throne, and then sets into motion a plan that will wipe out the jötnar and (in his mind) prove his worthiness to Odin, while (semiconsciously?) also trying to negate his own jötunn heritage. To do this, to finally have his own time in the limelight, he has to make sure Thor doesn't come back, at least not for a while. The Warriors Four disobey him, which is why he's forced to send the Destroyer to Earth.

At the end, Loki's in complete emotional disarray, finding himself vilified for doing the exact same thing his beloved father and older brother have attempted before him, and being unable to work through his identity crisis with Thor because Thor has no idea what's going on with him. And when Odin denies his attempt to make him proud, Loki figures either there's nothing worth living for anymore or there's no hope for his family to love him, so he falls into space.

This is not to say that his actions weren't bad, because they were, but had things turned out differently, Loki wouldn't have ended up in the position of villain.


In my opinion, the second interpretation works better in terms of incorporating deleted material and interpreting some of Loki's motives and actions. However, there isn't anything that definitively disproves the first interpretation. I believe a lot of arguments in the fandom come down to an inability to reconcile these two very different interpretations of the movie and ensuing debate about Loki's villainy; it's not hard to believe that people might find themselves forced to view Loki and Thor's relationship as one-sided and insincere if they believe Loki must be the villain, because the emotional dissonance of describing Loki as an irredeemable villain in Interpretation #2 is pretty tremendous.

Ugh. So many Lokifeels. ;_;

I actually wrote this some time ago, but forgot to post it here. So here it is:

Silver Linings Playbook is a romantic comedy that brings up a lot of interesting issues, most notably that of mental illness, but ultimately glosses over them in favor of focusing on the feel-good romance story.

It’s not often that you have a movie that features characters’ struggles with mental illness, and one could argue that the fact that the audience is asked to sympathize with a protagonist who has bipolar might help to alleviate the social stigma of having mental illness. However, the film itself does not address the problem of stigma. It’s alluded to a few times in the film, but never explored in any meaningful way. Mental illness stigma is a huge problem in our society, and the film’s lack of awareness of this important issue is pretty disappointing.

I’ve seen reviews of the movie that wondered whether the film was ultimately propagating a “love (not medication or therapy) conquers depression” message, and other reviews that pointed out the protagonist was taking medication in one scene (but whether he did so throughout the rest of the film is not shown). Just the fact that there is confusion on this point is problematic, as a common misconception about depression is that if people “try harder”/meet the right person/whatever, they can “get over” it, which can be a harmful assumption.

While the romance is sweet, I’ve seen the point brought up that it implies that only people with mental illnesses can understand each other (as the two leads are both bipolar, I think, and actually bond over their shared experiences), and I think that’s a valid concern.

I’m not at all an expert on mental illnesses (what experience I have is related to depression), but I wonder whether bipolar was sensationalized in the film. The protagonist, Pat, is shown to be somewhat violent on two accounts. I can’t say whether people with bipolar are never violent, and to be fair the audience effectively “forgives” Pat’s outbursts because he’s the protagonist, but I worry that these depictions reinforce common assumptions that people with mental illnesses are violent and dangerous. Also, the way Tiffany Maxwell (Jennifer Lawrence’s character) apparently slept with everyone in her office while depressed because of her husband’s death struck me as somewhat…odd, to say the least.

In terms of other issues, the film is not terrible with female characters, but certainly not great. There are far fewer female than male characters in the main cast, and only one of them (Tiffany Maxwell) gets any significant screen time. There’s also the fact that while protagonist Pat idolizes his (ex-)wife Nikki, she’s the direct cause of his mental breakdown and subsequent institutionalization for 8 months due to infidelity, and Tiffany is indirectly the cause of her husband’s death by car accident when she stopped wanting to have sex with him. I’m not really a fan of the implications here.

Ah, Transformers.

Where to even start?

I have a soft spot for giant robots, especially giant robots that turn into cars via gorgeous CGI. And really, the Transformers films are only worth watching for the Transformers themselves and the epic battles between them, because the scripts generally suck. A lot.

I mean, even without getting into the intersectional issues, the humor is awkward and forced and usually just not very funny, any moment that could've led to emotional depth is flattened, and the characterization is very, very stock. Probably worst of all is that for movies that are supposed to be about the Autobots, oftentimes 1/3 or less of the movie is actually about the Autobots and Decepticons, and most of it focuses on the humans' rather boring lives and romantic problems.

I mean, it's not as though there aren't good ideas in the films. In my opinion, the second one was beyond saving, but the first had a pretty good plot structure and the third had a great setup (about halfway into the film). It's just that any potential there was is squandered by the horrible writing of the script.

Add to that the gender and race issues, and boy, the movies seriously suck.

First up, gender.

These movies are textbook in Male Gaze camera views. In the first and second films, the camera pans up and down Mikaela's body, blatantly objectifying her. In the third movie, Carly is introduced in her underwear with the camera focusing on her legs and behind before we even see her face. Whoo boy. And please don't get me started on how Carly is never depicted in anything other than high heels and designer clothes...even when she's running through a freaking warzone.

And then there's the way the script itself treats the female leads. There are sexual innuendos (first movie: Sam to Mikaela: "I want to ride you...I mean, give you a ride home") and sexist jabs made by other characters to the women (first movie: Simmons to Mikaela: "You, in the training bra" and "She's a criminal. Criminals are hot"). There was that weird bit in the third movie about how it almost seemed like there was a thing going on between Carly and her boss, when Dylan is describing the "curves" of a car and the camera is panning over Carly's body. Also in the third movie, there was the part where Carly gives Sam a big jug of licorice when she visits him at work, for no reason other than so she can bite a piece in a sexually suggestive way in front of Sam's boss. And the list goes on.

I find Carly's depiction the more obnoxious one, as she's a completely stock character with basically no personality (except to hinder Sam in his quest to help the Autobots by insisting that he's addicted to danger) or reason for Sam to love her so much, and she serves as a complete Damsel in Distress in the movie. Even though Mikaela was subjected to all the problems I mentioned above, I actually liked her a bit because she was a mechanic (which is a stereotypically male-coded profession in fiction and worked great in the setting with cars and Autobots) and she wasn't Damselified to nearly the same degree that Carly was.

Apart from the female leads/Designated Love Interests, there are only a few other female characters. The first movie, interestingly, had a female analyst working for the government. She was pretty cool, although she doesn't actually accomplish much other than suggest ideas (that turn out to be right, but no one believes her). There's also Sam's mom, who across the three movies is there solely for comic relief, as she's shown to be a ditz and an airhead. In the second movie, there's the Decepticon who's disguised as a female college student named "Alice" who is depicted as a femme fatale and is sexually objectified. In the third movie, we have the high-ranking intelligence officer lady, who is depicted negatively again. She refuses the title "Ma'am" (and doesn't reply when Carly says "Aren't you a woman?"--I have no idea what to take away from that exchange) and she hinders Sam's efforts to help the Autobots and is hostile to the obviously heroic Autobots.

Speaking of the Autobots, in the second movie we have the "Arcee twins" as female Autobots, but I don't remember them playing a significant role. The Autobots generally are sorely lacking in female members. According to Wikipedia (source to come), someone decided there "wasn't enough time to explain the presence of a female Autobot" in the first movie, which of course is just blatantly sexist; what's there to "explain" about it?

Okay, I think that's all for gender. Now for race.

Yeah, the movies are kind of racist. There is Epps, one of the soldiers who winds up helping the Autobot cause, and another super minor PoC soldier in the third movie, but I think they're the only unquestionably positive person of color (PoC) characters in the films. The first movie had the PoC owner of the car dealer where Sam "buys" Bumblebee, who's nothing but a caricature. There's also Glen, the PoC computer genius, yet he's played up as a comic relief as much as a hero. And there was the throwaway line about how Iranian scientists "weren't smart enough" to design the code that the Pentagon analysts were trying to hack. The second movie had the Autobot ice cream truck twins, whom I've read are racist caricatures, but I don't remember the movie well enough to comment myself. And the third movie had the horrible "Latina meltdown" comment and the pretty awful portrayal of minor character Jerry Wang, which also made jokes about homosexuality.

Yeah. Saying these movies are riddled with problematic material is an understatement.

WARNING: Extremely UNpopular opinion below. You have been warned!

*puts up giant flame shield*


The Dark Knight Rises

I didn't make it a secret that I've been waiting for this movie for a while. I've loved Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Inception, so I was thrilled to see the final installment in the Dark Knight trilogy.

( Cut for spoilers )

My sister and I have been trying to keep up with the recent wave of superhero movies, and so we finally got our hands on Captain America yesterday.


( Cut for minor spoilers )

Ahhh I so badly want to go and buy yarn. I really want to use Malabrigo Rios (Azules) for a seafoam stitch scarf, though I was also wondering if Manos del Uruguay's Silk Blend (in Bluejay) would be enough for a scarf as well. And then I saw an awesome hat pattern that doesn't require circular needles (well, half of it doesn't, and I'm hoping I can get by on straight needles for the rest of it...), and I really want to make one using Malabrigo Twist...in Stonechat, maybe?

Anyways, I've been spending this winter break so far playing catch-up with the many movies released this year. Yesterday, my sister and I watched Thor.

The movie was entertaining enough, even if the story was kind of meh, Norse mythology got butchered, and the humans were pretty useless. But Loki has got to be one of the best villains so far in a superhero movie, and the actor did an outstanding job. It was my first time seeing Chris Hemsworth on screen, and I have to say, every time he smiled, I felt like smiling with him.

I was talking with my sister afterward about how in Western movies, it seems like the buff, muscular guy is the hero and the thin, scrawny guy is the villain most of the time. I mean, I think Loki is far from ugly, but thin build + pale skin + dark hair = the face of evil, apparently.

[Error: unknown template qotd]
The Dark Knight.

No, seriously.

Of the movies I've watched, I can't think of another one that deals with human nature as explicitly as The Dark Knight does. The movie proves that humans are capable of immense destruction and selfishness. It proves that people can be swayed, tragically, from good to bad causes. Yet it also proves that when push comes to shove, humans tend to do what's right, and that individuals are also capable of extraordinary dedication and feats of heroism.

Saw the film today, after an entire break of wanting to see it but not being able to.

I liked it. :) I was hoping that Dawn Treader would be better than Prince Caspian was, and I wasn't disappointed. Dawn Treader brought back the sense of wonder in the first film that was missing in the second, and it was also more lighthearted than Prince Caspian. Edmund and Lucy were pretty awesome (after watching Prince Caspian, I hated Peter and Susan--sorry guys). So was Caspian, which was nice, since he was treated like The Scrappy in the previous movie. I did find it funny, though, that he dropped the Spanish accent. XD

When I was watching Prince Caspian, I remembered what had happened in the book, so I was constantly comparing what happened in the film to the book ("What? There's an extra invasion scene here? What? Caspian's being treated like dirt?!"). That wasn't the case with Dawn Treader, because I more or less completely forgot what happened in the book, so I couldn't comment on whether it was more violent than the original. I did think, without comparing it to the book, that it wasn't as unnecessarily violent and dark as Prince Caspian was.

I was also interested in the moral aspect of the movie. I'm pretty sure (though not 100% certain) that Lucy and Edmund (& Caspian, to a lesser degree) weren't battling against their temptations in the book, but the addition of that to the film added much more character depth and empathy. (The inclusion of a semi-explicit reference to Christianity at the end was also pretty interesting.) I do have a feeling, though, that the star (whose name I forgot...) and her father had a larger role in the book than they do in the film (heck, the star girl's father doesn't even appear).

One thing I'm a little iffy about is the fact that Eustace is kind of treated as the emotional center of the story, given that we hear excerpts narrated from his diary and stuff. While those excerpts were pretty hilarious and gave us a window into his mind, I thought the movie seemed a little bit stretched when it came to character focus. It tried to focus on Caspian, Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace all at once; in the end, I felt that a tiny bit more could have been done with Edmund (or maybe I'm just bitter because Edmund is my favorite character, but he never really gets the spotlight after the first film. Heheh).

So, yeah, my faith in the Narnia film franchise has been restored with Dawn Treader. Also, the credits song, "There's a Place For Us," is amazing. :)

Edit: After Wiki'ing the plot of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (novel), I think I actually like the movie better.

( Spoilers for the movie/book )

So I talked to some people and read our school newspaper's review of it, and I was kind of surprised that people thought the movie was really confusing.

...I really don't want to sound snobbish, but...people, it's called using your heads!

Admittedly, it took me a little while and some conversations with my sister for me to fully appreciate Inception, because, unlike some other movies, Inception assumes the viewers are intelligent rather than dumb. But in terms of plot and themes, it's not disorganized, it's complex. And in terms of the ending...I thought it was a stroke of genius. No?

(In any case, was the plot really that hard to follow?)