Read This! - Black Science (Vol. 1)

For those of you who don't know me, I've been into comics for several years.  I enjoy the great stories and artwork that can be found in comics, and I'm always quick to talk about my favourite writers and artists.  So, in partnership with my local comic shop, The Gauntlet Comics and Games, I will be presenting occasional reviews of various graphic novels for those who might be interested.  For my first edition of Read This!, we'll be looking at Black Science, published by Image Comics.

The first thing I noticed about this book was the artwork, by Matteo Scalera and Dean White.  The sharp, bright colours against dark backgrounds draw you into a world that looks like some kind of nightmarish black-light poster.  Additionally, the sketchy panel outlines and light ink spatters reinforce the feeling of a world that's slowly disintegrating, which ties in excellently with Rick Remender's story.
The story follows the adventures of one Grant McKay, founder of a group of anarchist scientists who are working on interdimensional travel and exploration.  Unfortunately, as often happens in these kind of stories, something goes horribly wrong, and it's up to Grant and his team to get back home safely, and keep his children safe.  As the story progresses, they travel from world to world, encountering numerous dangers while also trying to uncover which member of the team sabotaged their mission.  Various flashbacks provide context of the relationships of the characters as well as possible clues to who the traitor is.
This comic uses some of the best elements of pulp sci-fi, while still keeping things original.  For instance, one of the worlds the team encounters early on is populated by German World War I soldiers in the middle of a battle with a technologically advanced tribe of Native Americans.  There are also all manner of futuristic equipment and strange life forms to feast your eyes on.
While Black Science draws on pulp influences, it isn't so clear-cut as far as good and evil.  Just about every character in this comic (minus the kids) has reasons for what they're doing.  It's entirely in the eye of the reader as to whose decisions are right or wrong.  The fact that each character is still three-dimensional and sympathetic even in such moral grey areas is a testament to the writing ability of Rick Remender.  Even when you think a character is making the worst decisions possible, you can understand them, or even identify with their logic.
I won't go into details of the ending, but I will only say it left me wanting more.  Black Science gives us a very interesting look at ideology and personal choice against an incredibly vibrant, endless canvas of sci-fi worlds.  If you're getting bored with typical good vs. evil superhero books, but still want a bit of fun in your comics, Black Science is a great place to start.

I Am Big Bird: The Caroll Spinney Story (2014)

I Am Big Bird is, in reality, two films in one.  It's as much the story of Big Bird as it is the story of Caroll Spinney, the man inside the bird.  This critically acclaimed documentary is a delight for those of us who grew up watching Sesame Street (which, really, could be just about anybody), and it fosters great respect for the hard work that goes into the production of the show.
Caroll Spinney has performed both Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch for over forty years, and this documentary shines some light on both the cultural impact of these characters as well as Spinney's personal journey.  Through interviews and archival footage, along with a few brief animations, we are told the story of how Caroll Spinney overcame an abusive childhood, a failed first marriage, and on-set tensions early in his career, to bring life to one of the best loved characters on Sesame Street.
One of the first things that we notice in this documentary is Caroll Spinney's personality.  Despite his troubled past, he is a kind-hearted, fun loving man with a very gentle spirit, much like Big Bird himself.
While detailing Spinney's life, we also are treated to a brief history of Big Bird, and to a lesser extent, Oscar the Grouch.  Though not as recognizable as, say, Mickey Mouse, there was definitely a time when Big Bird became a cultural phenomenon, at least in the world of children's TV.  In fact, Big Bird became so popular, it resulted in a trip to China with Bob Hope (and a subsequent TV movie), as well as his own feature film.  This popularity is explained by the fact that Big Bird is as relatable as he is recognizable.  The documentary examines the details, and we are shown how Big Bird is an emotionally intelligent character, which is something that resonates with both children and adults.  Arguably, Sesame Street would not be the icon it is today without Big Bird.
For those interested in puppetry, there are some eye-opening scenes that detail exactly how performing inside of the Big Bird suit works.  These scenes highlight how difficult this kind of performance is, and the kind of endurance that's necessary for the job.  I appreciated how this documentary didn't shy away from discussing the realities of Spinney's age as a performer, or even the shifts in popularity of other Muppets featured on Sesame Street.  While these facts were somewhat saddening, I found that they were presented with realism, and not played as being overly negative.
One small issue I had with the film is that there are no name labels for the people who were interviewed, aside from in the end credits.  So, unless you're a giant Henson nerd like me, you probably won't recognize performers such as the late Jerry Nelson, among many others.  While the real story is about Caroll Spinney, I find that this was a rather large oversight of this film, which doesn't give proper respect for these talented people.
It's only appropriate that the story of such an emotional character is told with equal emotion.  Some scenes, such as the footage of Big Bird's musical performance at Jim Henson's funeral, are incredibly moving.  Knowing Caroll Spinney's personal relationship with Henson makes an already emotional moment that much more meaningful to the audience.
Towards the end of this documentary, Caroll Spinney notes that while he will one day be gone from this Earth, Big Bird will live on.  It's a powerfully real statement from a man who overcame many hardships early in life, but never let his past define who he was.  As kids, many of us learned from Big Bird watching Sesame Street.  I find it only fitting that as adults, we can learn just as much from Caroll Spinney watching I Am Big Bird.  

Bridge of Spies (2015)

Imagine you're playing a game of chess.  Now, imagine all of the game pieces and all of the squares on the board are the same colour.  It's difficult, isn't it?  It's difficult to know whose pieces are whose, which moves are legal and which aren't.  Finally, imagine this is a high-stakes game, and the results determine life or death for someone else.  This is the world of Bridge of Spies.
Set during the Cold War, this Steven Spielberg film tells the true story of James Donovan (Tom Hanks), a New York insurance lawyer who is drafted to defend one Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) on multiple charges of Russian espionage.  Most people, including the judge, believe this is an open and shut case, and the trial is merely a show for the public.  Donovan doesn't see it that way, and is determined that Abel receives the fairest treatment possible, if only to demonstrate American values to the USSR.  Despite his best efforts, Abel is found guilty on all counts.
Meanwhile, Francis Powers, an American air force pilot, is shot down over Russia while flying a U2 spy plane.  He is captured and held in a Soviet prison, which offers an opportunity to Donovan.  An exchange of prisoners is offered between the USA and the USSR.  At the same time, in Germany, a young American student named Frederic Pryor is caught on the wrong side of the under-construction Berlin wall, and is held in prison.  Donovan then determines to negotiate with both parties in order to free both men in the exchange.
With the assistance of the CIA, James Donovan is sent to Berlin to perform the negotiations.  From here begins a strange game of misinformation, tricky negotiations, and secrecy.  Donovan succeeds against difficult odds, and the film concludes with an edge-of-your-seat exchange set on the Glienicke Bridge, where we discover if everyone is true to their word or not.
The script, by Matt Charman and the Coen Brothers, is superbly written.  Every line drips with hidden meaning, and the tension is consistent until the very end.  Unlike other films of its kind, Bridge of Spies chooses not to use any subtitles, despite numerous scenes with dialogue in German and Russian.  I find that not knowing the other languages serves to increase the mystery, as well as communicating Donovan's experience of being a stranger in foreign territory.  The audience never truly misses anything from the lack of subtitles, but I can't help but wonder if the film experience is different for people who are fluent in German or Russian.
The script is helped with an outstanding cast.  Tom Hanks gives a wonderfully convicted performance as James Donovan, a man who is well aware of the odds against him, but is determined to do whatever it takes to see justice done.  Equally good is Mark Rylance, as the always stoic Rudolf Abel, a performance which earned him an Academy Award.  Among the rest of the well-rounded cast, I especially enjoyed Mikhail Gorevoy as Ivan Schischkin.  His performance reminded me of the work of classic bad-guy actor Peter Lorre.
At its heart, Bridge of Spies is all about the concept of freedom.  It examines how we define freedom, as well as the effects of limiting freedom, or removing it outright.  To James Donovan, it was irrelevant whether Rudolf Abel was a spy or not.  What mattered was his being given a fair chance at living a life of freedom.  This film provides a very interesting look at history, and how extreme politics can affect a country's society.  Considering the political climate today, it's an important lesson to be reminded of.

Star Trek: Beyond (2016)

**Warning: mild spoilers ahead!**

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, thus it's appropriate that there is more talk of it in the media than ever before.  As well as the ongoing development of the new TV series, Star Trek: Discovery, we have Star Trek: Beyond, the latest in the J.J. Abrams produced Trek films.
The sequel to 2013's Into Darkness begins, interestingly enough, with an ending of sorts.  After investigating a seemingly normal distress call in an unknown part of space, the crew of the Enterprise is ambushed by a new and violent force that basically tears the ship to pieces.  With no choice but to abandon ship and crash land on the nearby planet, we follow the dangerous journey of the crew, who have now been separated, and are left to locate and each other on a hostile planet.  To make matters worse, they are also being hunted by the vicious alien warlord, Krall, who has captured Uhura and Sulu along with several other members of the Enterprise crew.  A daring rescue operation is orchestrated, which then turns into a chase that concludes in a climactic action scene on and around the space station Yorktown, where we witness the final battle of Krall and Kirk.
Unlike some other Star Trek films before it, this one leans much more toward action than philosophy.  In this sense, it is accessible for newcomers to the series, though people who are interested in more detail of the Star Trek universe might be better to check out the 2009 reboot before getting into this latest offering.  The film expects the audience to be up to speed more or less from the get-go, but the action is almost immediate, which leaves little room for explanations outside of some brief snippets of exposition in dialogue.
It is a very exciting movie experience, though there are some flaws.  In some scenes, there is simply so much action that it's difficult to make sense of what was happening on the screen.  In addition, the general darkness of many scenes as well as the constantly swaying, simulated gravity of the cinematography made some scenes a bit less satisfying than they could have been.  My wife and I didn't see this in 3-D, but I feel that's for the best, as the motion of some of the scenes made her feel a bit on the queasy side.
Apart from these minor complaints, Star Trek: Beyond is a very enjoyable film.  Prop and production design was top-notch, as it has been with the previous instalments of this series.  The makeup design in particular was exceptionally good.  Every alien looked properly organic and realistic within the world of the movie.  As well, the design of the makeups still allowed for a wide range of expression on the characters, Krall in particular.
The score, by Micheal Giacchino, recalls many classic moments of the original TV series, while still making room for some more original sounds.  In addition, a few tracks of modern music (I won't spoil the surprise of their purpose here) add some very interesting contrast to one of the final action scenes.
As this is an action heavy movie, it would be irresponsible of me not to mention the excellent fight choreography and stunt work.  There were a great amount of stunts done in this movie, and I have great respect for the individuals who helped make this movie so exciting to watch.
As important as these elements are, a film needs stars, and Beyond is packed with them.  Just about every member of the cast gets a moment to shine, all the while keeping a balanced amount of screen time.  No one actor seems to overshadow another, which can be a difficult thing to accomplish in a film with such a large cast.  If I had to pick any standouts, I would choose Simon Pegg (also a co-writer of the screenplay) as Scotty, who interacted wonderfully with Sofia Boutella as the scrappy alien survivalist Jaylah.  There's a clear kinship between them onscreen, and their scenes together are delightful to watch.  Acclaimed actor Idris Elba is chillingly ruthless as the warlord Krall.  His performance is all the more impressive for communicating such emotion through his elaborate makeup.  Finally, it's difficult not to give extra attention to Anton Yelchin as Chekov after his unfortunate death earlier this year.  His enthusiastic performance feels somewhat bittersweet in knowing that this was his last film.
Despite a few technical flaws, I came away from this movie excited, wondering what new adventures the crew of the Enterprise will be having in the next film.  As I mentioned at the beginning, this could have easily been a much different film, but Star Trek: Beyond clearly defines itself as fun!  It's this kind of attitude towards the franchise that will win new fans who have felt alienated by the pseudo-science and long, philosophical conversations of previous films and TV episodes.  Make no mistake, science and big ideas have always been the hallmark of Star Trek, but Beyond starts from the same place of excitement the original series did.  It makes playful jokes about itself, while still acting out moments that feel pulled straight from the original series.  It captures our sense of imagination and adventure, and from this jumping-off point, we can begin to explore the bigger ideas at work.  In this film, the great ideals of peace and unity stand out clear as day through the actions of the Enterprise crew.  As Gene Rodenberry intended with the original series, witnessing these heroic actions on the big screen inspires us to look beyond, and to aspire to become something greater than ourselves.  In times as worrying as these, it's a message I hope people will carry with them outside of the theatre.

Stranger Things (2016)

Set in the mid-1980s, Stranger Things follows the mystery of Will Byers, a boy who mysteriously goes missing, leaving his friends and family to deal with grief, strange supernatural happenings, a monster, and the lingering question of if Will is truly still alive.  I would explain more, but to do this would be a disservice to this fantastically made show.  If you're not at least a little interested by the end of this review, chances are it isn't for you.
The newest sensation on Netflix is a curiously familiar beast of a show, yet is completely original.  In large part, this familiarity is due to the setting of the show itself.  For people in my age bracket (I refuse to be labelled as a 'millenial'), it evokes feelings of the pre-internet age in a way that no show has done before.  Some cynics might say that this is simply a cash-in for the VHS-hipster crowd, but I am firmly on the opposite side of that argument.  While the show makes references liberally, nothing about it ever feels artificial.  Series creators the Duffer Brothers have paid very close attention to the details of production design on Stranger Things, and it proves that they have the same feelings of nostalgia we do as viewers.  In an increasingly digital world, Stranger Things helps to recall comforts we'd long forgotten.  Even the title sequence is packed full of details that instantly trigger buried memories of the past.  The intermittent fuzz of VHS grain reminds us of a time of video stores and recording shows from television.  The title font itself carries its own presence, perhaps reminding us of old Dungeons and Dragons manuals, or the teen horror novels of Christopher Pike and R.L. Stine.
The casting is phenomenal, and has some of the best kid actors (played by Finn Wolfhard, Millie Bobby Brown, Gaten Matazarro, and Caleb McLaughlin) I've seen since J.J Abrams' Super 8.  They play well against each other, and, more importantly, they look and act as you'd expect real 12 year olds to.  It's a very refreshing thing to see when many other programs have token kid actors who simply seem to read a script and look good on screen.  Stranger Things isn't afraid to have kids who don't look like they've stepped straight out of the Sears catalogue, and this is a huge part of the show's success.  These kids reminds me of kids I grew up with, and it makes me care for each one of them as if I knew them personally.
The adult cast is equally talented.  David Harbour is very good as the down-and out police chief Jim Hopper, but I was especially impressed with the performance of Winona Ryder as Joyce Byers, Will's grieving mother.  I normally don't care much for Winona Ryder, but I found her completely believable playing the slowly unravelling mother of a missing child.
The tone of the show varies by episode, but there is a current of nostalgia running throughout.  The show uses hints of various iconic TV shows and movies, all the while keeping an original and engaging story.  There are heavy references to John Carpenter's The Thing, The X-Files, Twin Peaks, and E.T., among others.  This mix of elements ensures that there's an even balance of nostalgia and terror.  This deliberate design for the show carries over to effects as well.  Where possible, the producers have used high quality physical creature effects over CGI, which lends a chillingly visceral feel to the horror elements of the show.  As well, in the tradition of the best horror films, these effects are used minimally.  You only ever get brief glimpses of things, leaving your imagination to craft the most horrific parts.
I'm hesitant to give away any details of the storyline, but suffice to say it contains realistic family drama, surprises upon surprises, and a deep reaching conspiracy.  As of this writing, I am roughly halfway through the eight episode run of the first season.  I have a few theories about what's truly going on, and I am looking forward to discovering what I got right and what I didn't know.
The beauty of Stranger Things is that it's made up of so many different parts, many people can watch and like it for completely different reasons, all of which are valid.  It also reminds us of a simpler time, and this enhances the horror when we're shocked out of our own nostalgia.  It's a fantastic show, and I hope it continues for years to come.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be in my blanket fort watching the late-night monster movie marathon.

Hello!

Greetings, readers!
As this is the first post of this blog, I wanted to take a brief moment to outline what this blog is and what it is not.
Firstly, I am a Christian.  As such, my choice to follow Jesus informs my decisions in life.  For the purposes of this blog, it simply means that there is some content I will choose not to review.  I want to review a large range of films and TV here, but there are certain cases where I will draw a boundary line.  To put it another way, I might review the occasional Christian film or documentary, but you're unlikely to find anything from people like Seth Rogen here.
Secondly, I will not be using a traditional ratings system, as I find them problematic in judging the true quality of a film.  The five-star system is flawed at best.  What is the criteria of a star?  What makes the difference between a 3.5 and a 4?  In my experience, I've gotten far more entertainment out of a three star movie than many that scored four or above.  The more binary thumbs-up/thumbs-down approach is one I respect, but again, I find it unsatisfactory.  It is difficult to call any given movie all good or all bad.  Most films have their good points and their bad points, thus I have chosen to simply state my opinions, and let you, the reader, decide your own opinions when you see it for yourself.
Finally, I urge you not to take anything you read here too seriously.  I am not by any means a professional film critic.  I'm just a regular guy who watches a lot of movies and TV shows.  A difference of opinion is healthy, as long as it's stated in a civil way, so feel free to comment if you disagree with any of my thoughts here.  After all, if everyone thought Johnny Depp was the greatest actor of all time, we would have precious little to talk about, right?
I hope my reviews and observations will provide you with good information, and perhaps open you up to new experiences in entertainment, as well as create a place to discuss the films we love.

Your cinematic advisor,
Dave