The Hunt For Red October: My Analysis of the 2015 Canadian Federal Election.

Today is October 20th 2015, the day after Canada has chosen to elect Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada a Majority government after a 9 year government held by the Harper Conservatives. What I wanted to do with this post was to effectively put a closer on all of the discussions, arguments, fights and online trolling I've been battling through during this election campaign, and give you my final thoughts on why what happened, happened. This is how I felt about this historic election, I've battled a lot with people on the internet getting some of this across, but I wanted to put it all in one place, before we move on from this to something else.

However I feel it would be dishonest of me, after such long and vocal voicing of my opinions to emit from you how I personally voted, and my biases, because we all have them. I voted NDP. Specifically because my riding had Megan Leslie, an amazingly effective politician and government critic who was very well liked, and because I thought it better to raise the corporate tax rate, rather than individual income tax. The liberal party was my second choice, and I will say it was a very close call and if I had been in a different riding I may have made a different call. I tell you this so you know where I stood in this election, and so you will not think me to be writing on behalf of those who do not share my opinions. I will also say that I did not vote blindly or impulsively and actually did read every party platform (conservatives included) and watched lengthy interviews with all the candidates (yes, even Stephen Harper, and yes even Elizabeth May) I know very well what everyone wanted to do with Canada, and I chose the option I thought best.

Majority governments are not easy to get from a political stand point, and to achieve one after a majority government of a different party on the opposite side of the political spectrum is rare. That's why I think it's important to look at this, because it says something about where we are as a country. From where I sat, intensely following the debates, social media, election coverage and public conversation, I think there are a couple major reasons why the Liberals were so widely voted into government this year. So, for better or worse, here's what I think went right and wrong for all the parties this election.

Voter Turn out:

68.9% of all eligible voters voted in this election, with some regions like Atlantic Canada having turnouts in the low seventy percents. That is the highest voter turn out since the early 90's. Whatever party you voted for, that high a voter turn out is excellent, it means people are actually engaged, and interested in their government. It also means that our democracy functions better because it is a more accurate representation of what a majority of Canadians want.

When the Conservative party was elected their majority in 2011 the voter turn out was 61%. A lot of people are saying that the vote went the way it did this time because young people actually showed up to vote this year, but, while young people generally do tend to skew more to the left on the political scale, this kind of turn out is too high to be just young voters (especially on the east coast where the population is mostly seniors). Clearly whatever the Liberals were saying it was connecting with people young and old far more than even when the Conservatives got their majority. I think it also speaks to just how much of Canada was unhappy with their current government, very unhappy. Now, obviously the conservatives have many supporters across the country, and did actually get enough seats to have a shot at a minority government if the vote was split more, but unfortunately for them the Liberals scooped up roughly 50-60% of the popular vote. In fact the conservatives had roughly the same share of the public vote as they did when they were elected the 2011 majority, (39% of public vote in 2011, Roughly 30% in 2015) which really speaks to how much a factor voter turn out is. The Cons basically didn't change their share of mind space in the public consciousnesses, they didn't get new voters over to their side, they didn't drive away that many of their former voters. The difference was that this time, the rest of the country also showed up to vote.

The other significant thing to notice is how the votes were distributed, because I think it paints a very clear picture of who Steven Harper's conservatives stood for and were most beneficial to while they were in government.

So, here to the left you can see this terrible picture I took with my phone amid all the drama of the election last night which shows a map of Canada with what ridings voted which way. As you may or may not be able to tell, the cons only had real success in two areas of Canada, the oil rich prairies, and southwestern Ontario minus major city centers. These are the areas that have done well under the conservatives. Harper's government focused heavily on investing in oil and cutting taxes for the upper and upper middle class, and effectively ignored the real issues the rest of the country has.

Issues like...

Infrastructure:

This is one of the biggest campaign promises to really strike a chord with a lot of Canadians outside the "blue zones." One of the biggest things that I've noticed since I moved out to Halifax from  Southern Ontario was the state of the infrastructure everywhere east of Montreal. Roads are constantly filled with pot holes, faults and inadequate patch jobs, when they're paved at all, most bridges are visibly rusting or decaying, there are almost no buried power or phone lines and what transit there is remains underfunded. The provinces and municipalities out here just simply can't keep up with the rate of decay which makes it even harder to make improvements. Many of my facebook friends who were conservative supporters seemed to think that infrastructure was something we didn't need, or at least didn't need enough to spend the kind of money the liberals were promising on, and I can understand why they'd think that. When I lived there I got to enjoy excellent infrastructure, and pretty much assumed the kind of quality of roads, powerlines and bridges would be similar across the country. But I am here to tell my Ontario friends that is not the case, even in rural areas or the Muskokas the infrastructure is better than it is in most of the east coast and other areas of the country. This is not some idea for improving people's luxury and comfort, it's about keeping our roads and communities safer and working better. It's the kind of thing a federal government should be helping with. The promise for more infrastructure was the kind of thing the east coast and many, many other parts of Canada have been asking the federal government for the last decade, which went completely ignored by the Harper Conservatives.
It's strange that he would refuse so much to engage at all with East Coast issues, standard logic would dictate, that as a region full of mostly seniors who traditionally lean right or centre right,the Maritimes should have been somewhere he focused his energies. But instead he ignored us, barely visited (6 hour surprise stop over in Amherst) and then called down the ideas of the candidates who were trying to help this region. That's just simply a bad strategic move.

The Economy and Tax Reform:

For the last decade Stephen Harper's economic action plan has worked pretty well for some people, but pretty poorly for others. Unsurprisingly, the division between who his plan has helped and hurt also corresponds to the colour map above. Here's what he did, just so we're all on the same page here:

1. He focused primarily on allowing international companies to extract our oil more easily, which created Jobs in the Prairies.
2. Lowered the GST to 5%
3. Cut taxes for the upper and very upper middle class, with the hope that they will create jobs
4. Cut the large corporate tax rate to a ludicrously low 14% (less than most individual tax rates)
5. Signed free trade agreements to make it cheaper to import/export goods

 I know that's all in the past but their plan in this election was simply to not change anything at all. The Conservatives I'm sure had good intentions, the idea that if you help rich people and large corporations make more money, they'll spend more money and create jobs and stimulate the economy is one that a lot of people are in favor of. But rarely works well on a national level, usually causes more harm than benefits, and the benefits they do cause are incredibly lopsided. The plan to focus on oil and foreign manufacturing only worked in Alberta and parts of Ontario, and failed in the rest of the country. It made our economy incredibly lop sided and while, at the beginning the national job creation rate went up, that came at the expense of more rural and isolated communities in Canada who didn't have oil or manufacturing. In addition to that, the Tories repeatedly lied about their job creation record during the election campaign, insisting that it was fine and good, and not, as it turns out, the lowest out of any Prime Minister since WWI. 

This was a bad plan, and Canadians saw that. Instead, latching onto the idea of raising taxes for the those Canadians who make 7 figure salaries or above to create revenue to make improvements. Something that has been shown to work.  People often forget that taxes are actually good provided the tax revenue is spent on social programs that help all kinds of Canadians, but especially those bellow the poverty line. No one likes paying taxes, but Canadians were smart enough to realize that under a liberal government 99% of people won't be paying more taxes.

The Campaign of Fear:

This, this is where Harper went the most wrong, having policies people disagree with will get some people not to vote for you, but running a campaign like he did will apparently get your government completely thrown out in Canada. Stephen Harper tried to run the Canadian election like an Alabama GOP primary, and unsurprisingly, people asked him to leave.

There was a 78 day campaign this year, the longest one in Canadian history and it may have seemed even longer given that the Tories have been running American style attack adds since before the 2011 election started. Attack adds have been run by the cons out of election season for the majority of the time they were in office, seemingly every time the publicity surged for the NDP or the Liberals. They started saying that Justin Trudeau "just wasn't ready" before he even won the leadership of the liberal party. Canadians, clearly were pretty tired of hearing them. Now I'm not saying that attack adds are terrible and parties shouldn't use them, nor am I trying to say the the leftist parties didn't use negative advertising, because they most certainly did. What I am saying is that the sheer amount and, frankly, ridiculous advertising used by the Harper team did not benefit them. I also feel as though it galvanized the pro-left/pro-liberal supporters to speak their minds more than they convinced people not to vote for Justin Trudeau (remember the cons got almost the same percentage of the public vote as last time, when the liberal's soared). All the political attack adds levied for so long got people's attention, but once they had it, the Tories just couldn't figure out what to do with that.

Then there's the fact that nobody actually knew what the Conservatives plans actually were. Their entire platform was effectively them saying "See what the other parties are doing, we won't do those things" and then no alternative plan for what they would do instead. There platform was an expansion of an already existing home renovation tax credit and.... to.... keep doing.... the things they're doing? Do you know what those are? No? Well that's too bad because you'll never hear a conservative party member actually tell you anything they want to do or change. Look over there! Justin Trudeau's young and has hair!

Even Stephen Harper, whenever asked a question about what he wants to do for Canada, would just talk about how foolish it would be for Canadians to vote for Justin Trudeau. This interview with Peter Mansbridge that Harper gave halfway through the campaign is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Again, it's fine to attack your opponents, that's politics, but you have to have more to say than just pointing at the guy next to you and saying he's not as experienced as you. We've heard that song, tell us something new. Except he didn't. He ignored so many of the major issues that the other parties were talking about that it became apparent that there wasn't much that his government actually stood for rather than stood against.

Then, what parts of their message that did get through the haze of  deflections and misdirection were ideas that clashed on a fundamental level with a vast majority of the country. First, the "home renovation tax credit" appealing to people who can afford putting large extensions onto their home, the credit would mean that you would pay less taxes on that. Okay, that's not a terrible idea, but when young families across the country are struggling more than ever to buy their first house, it's an inadequate response to the issues that most of the country is dealing with. Secondly, there was of course the Niqab/"barbaric cultural practice hotline" debacle, which was an obvious move by the cons to again direct attention away from their lack of actual platform by stoking the fire of the islamiphobia lying dormant in a vocal minority of Canadians. "Why was that an issue?" is the question that I heard asked by more people than any other question this election. Why? Because if we're talking about the Niqab, we're not talking about public broadcasting, bill-c51, the economy, or anyone of the dozens of important issues at play in this election.
Stephen Harper's conservatives campaigned to the exact same people they did last election, the same areas they did last election, with the same promises as the last election, with tactics that only made people more angry. And as one of the presenters during Global's election coverage last night said "When you P off enough people for long enough, it'll bite you in the ass." And it did.

The Cons ignored women's issues- Canadians elected more women to the house of commons then they had in the last 20 years.
The Cons actively fought against First Nations peoples- Canadians elected more First Nations MPs then we ever have in history.
They tried to make everyone talk about banning the Niqab, and to get everyone to give into islamiphobia- Canadians elected more Islamic MPs then we ever had before.

It's clear that they severely misunderstood what was important to Canadians in this election.

To put it quite plainly, the silent Majority who have been listening to everything that's been going on, all the hatred and dissension that the Conservatives stirred up during this campaign, and politely, but in no uncertain terms told them that it was not appreciated and that they should leave.

My (Biased) Conclusion:

To sum it up, Canadians decided to do something very rare and historically significant in this election. The sheer amount of people that turned out is astonishing, and what they decided on was equally astonishing. I'm not going to say Trudeau will be a great PM, we don't know if he'll be able to deliver on his promises, we never do about any politician, and I don't think Justin some uniquely pragmatic man. The next four years will have their share of challenges and curves for him and Canada as a whole.

Conservative supporters are talking about this as the worst possible outcome, they are fearful that then next four years will see Canada go down in a blaze of red flames. To them I say this; we're all worried about Canada's future, and the rest of us will tell you from experience, when the majority government has the opposite views you do, it's annoying.

But we just had four years of that.

Your turn.

#heavesteve

My Top Ten Movies of 2014

A new year is upon us, full of promise, and hope and as many, many painstakingly put together lists of the best things from the year before. Of course I am no exception, for as sparsely as I post in this blog nowadays  the golden allure of a "top list" click bait is, somehow, too much to resist. I know that I'll read just about anyone's "top list" for some reason, and I'm not alone. People love these things! For me, I think the appeal is getting to compare notes with whoever's made the list, to see what they liked from 2014, and more importantly, the order in which they liked them. To see if my favourite items are on that list, and if they are, where they stack up. Because all that information's going to tell you just a little bit more about the person making that list and the people all around you.

So, here's mine. Last year I did songs, this year films.

Why?

Because my body's righting cheques my ego can't cash.

Quick not before we start, these are all films that I actually saw this year. I don't go to the movies every week, nor do I watch everything, just the movies that already peak my interest. So, Nightcrawler, Cake, 22 Jump Street, Birdman and John Wick aren't on here, not because I hate them, I didn't see them, so I have no idea, and I'll try to keep it spoiler free.

X-men: Days of Future Past isn't on here because I didn't like it as much as these other movies. Put it at a solid #11.

#10:The Hobbit: The Battle Of Five Armies

Yep, you read that right, #10. I think a bunch of people in my life would have expected me to rank this one pretty high on my list, I am after all, a pretty huge fan of the original novel, The Lord Of The Rings (books and movies) and the first two hobbit movies. But, while I didn't hate it, The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies is easily my least favourite Peter Jackson Middle Earth movie. 

On the whole TH:TBOFA has a lot of great things going for it, amazing design, the best special effects I've seen this year, testosterone filled action scenes, a fantastic cast of actors and like 30 seconds of Benedict Cumberbatch. All of which are more than enough to make this a good movie. But what holds it back from being a great movie is the story, pacing and the sheer amount of filler crammed into this 3 hour Risk game of a movie. 

Look, I'm sure there's a ton of hardcore Tolkien fans that are stoked to see Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel, and Gandalf fight Sauron. People who want more Legolas or even who still want to see Evangeline Lily in movies, which is fine and good but this movie needed none of those things. The Wizards grind the movie to a painful halt every time they're on screen doing whatever it is that they're doing that isn't related to the plot of the movie at all. A problem I had with the first two movies but is even more aggravating in the third instalment of this trilogy. I just couldn't help from somehow feeling kind of bored. Not something that should happen in a movie that is almost all awesome fight scenes. Battle fatigue should only be felt by the characters in the movie, not the ones watching it.

The pacing is just so slow, because very little actually happens in this movie. Thorin finds gold, gets too greedy and doesn't want to give it to the guys who killed the dragon for him, but before they can adequately talk it out, more armies arrive wanting access to the kingdom, but before they can fight, orcs show up, so they all kill the orcs because, y'know, orcs. 

3 hours.

Also, Bilbo's there kind of. I'm aware that even in the book, Bilbo's role in the battle isn't big, but one of the problems I had with this movie and the last Hobbit one is the startling lack of hobbit. It's called The Hobbit how come Bilbo's entire character arc is finished by the end of the first movie in the trilogy? Sure we keep checking in with Bilbo, but he doesn't do anything, he doesn't grow or change at all past Unexpected Journey. Martin Freeman is an amazing actor and played a great Bilbo, but the last two hobbit movies have been taken away from him.

Come on, quit mining the appendices, adding filler and tell The Hobbit in two movies like you said you were going to, Peter Jackson, this isn't a video game. This movie makes my top ten, purely on the back of the positive things I mentioned above as well as Howard Shore's score, which is fantastic.

#9:Amazing Spiderman 2

I posted a review about this one on this very blog a few months ago so I won't go too into depth on this one. But, Amazing Spiderman, and it's sequel here, are both prime examples of how rebooting a franchise is supposed to work. They take something that was already great, and without ruining it, do it again, but learn from the original's mistakes. Where Spiderman 2 was a melodramatic mess with a lame ass payoff, Amazing 2 is a tighter more impact full story. The actors and director shine in this superhero sequel, creating characters we can care about, even though much of their screen time is spent in action scenes. While not the best superhero movie of the year, but it's an exciting flick that knows just how to turn from fun to tragedy without feeling too heavy handed, or betraying the source material. 

#8: Gone Girl

There aren't many movies these days that can actually surprise an audience with a plot twist, the audience has gotten too good at spotting them, and yet Gone Girl finds a way. While from first glance or from the trailer, Gone Girl appears to simply be the story of a man trying to find his wife who's gone missing but it becomes clear very quickly that all is not as it seems. Gone Girl's trail takes the audience on awesome and unexpected twists that keep them guessing all the way through. I like to think of myself as someone who understands basic film writing, and I can usually determine, within reason, the way that the film I'm watching will probably turn out. But not this one. I had no idea where the story would go next, and I loved that about Gone Girl. 

The acting is okay, nobody's going to be winning any oscars here, but I think Carrie Coon really shines as Margo Dunne, Ben Affleck's character Nick's fraternal twin sister. She's definitely a stand out as, surprisingly, is Tyler Perry, who plays Nick's lawyer. Ben Affleck is fine but pretty much what you'd expect performance wise and Roseamund Pike does a decent job too (Note: Since writing this, I've seen that she's actually been nominated for an Oscar for this performance. I didn't expect that and while it wasn't a terrible performance, I don't think she'll win. It seems like a really weird nom to me, but i guess the irony was too much for fate to resist). 

Overall though it's the storytelling of Gone Girl that makes it a must see for me, and for that the credit has to fully go to David Fincher, the film's director, who's done a knock out job on this complex story that really could have gotten tiresome in the wrong hands. The pacing is excellent and I'm a big fan of the choices he's made in putting this film together. 

7:The Lego Movie

The Lego Movie was such a pleasant surprise to me this year. As a huge fan of the original toy growing up, I was both excited and skeptical when I heard there was going to be a full length feature film dedicated to it. I mean I'd seen what happened to The Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in 2014, so a bad movie about one of my childhood toys didn't seem that far fetched to me.

Luckily, The Lego Movie is as fun to watch as Lego is to play with. Seriously, this movie is dripping with fun, it's so much fun that if you step on it you'll hurt your feet. I had so much fun watching this movie, the entire world that the film makers created is so rich and detailed yet feels true to fans of the toy, which is a difficult thing to do. The world of The Lego Movie is filled with tiny references to what it's like to play with lego. Like the way the characters sometimes argue over what piece they need to find next, instruction booklets, and unique pieces you recognize as a fan.

 That was enough to make me like it but The Lego Movie also tells a story. Chris Pratt plays Emmet, a simple lego construction movie, who despite his efforts to fit in can't find any friends, until that is he is thrust into an epic adventure where he finds friends and himself along the way. It's pretty standard story wise especially for a kids movie, but the characters are all very likeable mostly due to the all star cast. Elizabeth Banks, Morgan Freeman, Alison Brie, Will Ferrell, Will Arnett as Batman, Charlie Day are all in there along with cameos from Jonah Hill, and Will Forte. Those names, the characters they brought to life really made this movie something I dearly enjoyed.

6:Guardians of The Galaxy

Anyone who knows me probably knows about my love of comic books. I read them all the time and like to think of myself as someone who knows the ins and outs of the comic book world fairly well. But I have never in my life read a single issue of Guardians of the Galaxy. I also asked my fellow geeks when this movie was announced. None of them had either. Before this movie The Guardians of the Galaxy where probably even less recognizable to the public than the cast of Damage Control. So the fact that this movie not only got made, but was good, and made a bajillion dollars (technical term) is mind blowing to me. It solidifies my notion that Marvel Studios can do no wrong at the moment.

As for the actual movie though, it follows the adventures of Peter Quill, a human abducted off earth at a young age, who's search for fourtune and glory lands him in prison, where he meets a sentient talking racoon with attitude, a giant walking tree, and a couple alien warriors with vengeance on their minds. What follows next is one of the better action movies of the year. 

Guardians does what many other scifi movies have a hard time with, being unique without being obtuse. Everything in the film feels alien and spacey-wacey, but you can still always understand what's happening even without a deep understanding of the lore. This problem really plagues the earlier Star Trek movies, hard to understand if you didn't already know your Trek. Guardians though doesn't feel unnecessarily deep or complex, just creative and interesting.

The characters are a big part of that, it's pretty clear to the audience that 90% of the main cast are alien beings, but instead of trying to tell us why they're each unique and different, the film just shows us. This works so well in large part due to the actors performances. Zoe Saldana is on point here as a green alien instead of a blue one. Dave Bautista pulls of a great performance here as Draxx the Destroyer, a character as poignant as he is hilarious. Bradley Cooper's vocal performance for Rocket Raccoon is well done and Vin Diesel says "I am Groot" about 30 times, so there's that. But the one that ties it all together is Chris Pratt's Peter Quill who seems to be the rightful heir to the Han Solo throne of scruffy looking nerf herders.

In short Guardians of The Galaxy is a better Star Wars movie than all three prequels put together. 

5:Captain America: The Winter Soldier

This to me was the best superhero movie that came out this year, to me, as a geek, it perfectly executes what I love so much about what's happening with the Marvel movies right now; The shared universe. This movie may as well be called Black Widow: The Winter Soldier, SHEILD: The Winter Solider, or The Falcon: Captain America and it could have played out exactly the same. That's so cool to me. It felt every bit as much Black Widow or Nick Fury's movie as it did Steve Roger's, and yet it still feels intimately like Captain America's film. It all makes the movie feel extremely "comic book-y" which, as a comic book reader, I really appreciate. The idea that the effects of the events of this movie will be felt more widely than just the events of Captain America 3. That's cool.

Of course that's not the only reason why I liked this movie. The Russo Brothers have directed a fine film here, a Captain America movie that has all the action you'd expect but with massive "spy vs spy" elements added too. While the first Cap movie is more or less a straight up WWII movie, Winter Soldier feels more at home next to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy than it does Enemy at the Gates. It's an unexpected move for this franchise and a risky one to, one that I think they pulled off with aplomb.

The action is solid and for the most part feels very grounded and real, which is awesome (the fight on the highway in particular) and different to the more fantastical combat we saw in The Avengers. It's a welcome change of pace when held up against Guardians of The Galaxy or Thor: The Dark World, Marvel's other two recent films. It's also nice to see Steve Rogers superpowers emphasized much more in this movie, in The Avengers it's easy to forget that Cap is a super soldier much more powerful than your average man, especially during scenes like the assault on the heli-carrier. In Winter Soldier though, Cap feels very powerful, capable and dangerous, which is great to see again.

It's also worth saying how great the lead actors are in this film, I think Chris Evans is fantastic as Captain America, and his performance in this movie has a lot more depth than your average superhero lead (lookin' at you here, Hemsworth). Scarlet Johansen is also really good as Black Widow, this movie might just have the most of that character in it than any other Marvel flick so far, and it's really nice to see Natasha's character fleshed out a little more. As the two leads I think they far and away eclipse the rest of the cast, performance wise in this movie, and are just a joy to watch.

4:Wild

I gotta be honest here, this was a movie I was not expecting to like at all. Reese Witherspoon has never been a huge selling point for me in any movie. 9/10 times I think she turns in really average performances and Wild was billed as a film that is almost entirely Witherspoon acting on her own. But it just so happened that I did see it, and I've got to say, Wild turned out to be one of my favourite movies this year.

Based on a true story, Wild follows the journey of Cheryl Strayed along a 1100 mile solo hike across the wilderness to.... I think Portland? Honestly I forget where exactly it was that she ended up geographically.... Nebraska?..... Whatever, doesn't matter. Point is it's a long hike through the wilderness with Cheryl's objective being to find something within herself and deal with the tragic loss of her mother. 

Wild is not a complex movie plot wise, rather a quiet and thought provoking character study that feels at home next to this year's Boyhood (soon to appear on this list) in terms of tone and introspection. Reese Witherspoon is actually fantastic in this (the trailer really does not do her performance justice) and really connects with the audience perfectly. I don't have anything in common on the surface with her character, but to me Cheryl felt very real and familiar, and her search for something more is truly inspiring and identifiable.

I think the character's success comes from three major parts, the impeccable direction of Jean-Marc Vallée (Dallas Buyers Club), Withersoon's performance and an amazing script by Nick Hornby. It's a character that the audience is really prepared to ride or die with until the very end and feels connected to throughout. We feel her strength, but also her vulnerability constantly at odds with each other as she struggles to overcome the obstacles she has set before her.

It seems like a lot of critics are fairly lukewarm on this film for some reason, so I don't know how much buzz it will have come Oscar season or even if it will get any noms or deserve them. While I do like Wild I will freely admit that it is pretty intentionally targeted at getting some kind of nomination and may take itself a little too seriously in it's marketing, it's classic "Oscar Bait." But I do think Wild is brilliantly shot (albeit with a couple of strange editing choices) the vast harsh landscapes feel like a character all on their own in what is one of the most real portrayals of solitude in the wilderness I've seen in a while. I was so very surprised by how much I liked this film, and encourage you to check it out for yourself if you get the chance.

(Note: So It turns out Reese Witherspoon was nominated for an Oscar for this, I think she deserves the win, she's got Rosemund Pike beat for sure. Witherspoon really kills it with this character so I think she should get it.)

3: St. Vincent

Bill Murray. 

I mean I really could leave it at that and justify putting it this high on my list. I feel like the internet would pretty much agree with me on principle, but personally, I would like to talk about this movie a little. So long as that's alright with you.

I'm always a sucker for comedians in dramatic roles. I feel like far too often funny actors and performers can get typecast into the same roles over and over again, which is a real shame. Comedy is hard. It's really hard to do well and takes as much, if not more skill than drama and actors should be allowed the chance to succeed at both. St. Vincent features two famous comic actors doing something dramatic, Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy. Both of them truly excel in St. Vincent.

Don't get me wrong this isn't a super hardcore drama, there's a light heartedness mixed in here to give St. Vincent a unique and interesting appeal. It's a movie that will make you laugh as much as it makes you cry and that was a rare thing this year at the movies. St. Vincent follows a retiree named Vincent as he's roped into caring for Oliver, the child of the single mother next door. Along the way Vincent's relationship with the boy and his mother cause them all to look at just how much life can change from one moment to the next. An idea that really resinated with me a lot.

It's also a film about how sometimes a family can come from the most unexpected places. We see the bonding between Oliver and Vincent as they very naturally fall into a father/son dynamic that exemplifies how sometimes, you can't choose who you love, and you've got to take them as they are, and love them for it. Father/son theming seems to really be popular this year in the movies I saw, almost everyone of the movies on this list features that dynamic prominently (except for Wild, Gone Girl, and Captain America) none more so than...

2: Boyhood

Richard Linklater has been making Boyhood, a film about growing up, for the last 12 years. The film follows the life of a boy named Mason through all the trials and tribulations of growing up from ages 5 to 18. It's been filmed chronologically with the same actors so that all of them, over the course of the movie, actually age (Except for Ethan Hawke, I think he may be immortal). Told with typical Linklater style and pacing Boyhood paints one of the most accurate pictures of what it's like to grow up into a person I've ever seen. Sure Mason's exact circumstances (single mother, one sister, series of alcoholic stepfathers) weren't mine, but it's in the little moments that this movie hit me, and in my opinion absolutely shines. 

Linklater's best films are always the ones where he is allowed to take his time telling the story. He seems to love making the environment or idea he's examining be the real focus point of the film instead of more traditionally telling a straight foreword story. Dazed and Confused is a film that is about a very specific snapshot of time (last night of school 1976), Fast Food Nation is the industry of a single burger, Slacker, the slacker culture of 1990's Austin. All films that take their time examining an idea or moment through the characters that are a part of it.
Boyhood is no exception to this trend. As the title suggests, the film is very much about the idea of not just growing up, but what it means to grow up from a boy to a man. It's an idea that's been tackled in countless movies before, but the honesty and realness of Boyhood is what makes it stand out. Tons of movies have the "boy becomes a man" character arc featured as a prominent part of the film, but most of the time it's told with the assumption that a boy becomes a man as the result of one pivotal event; a first kiss, first fight, first beer, first achievement, first child etc. It's a good way to tell a simple story, but that's not how it works in the real world. Becoming "a man" is a long journey that begins and ends for all of us at different points for different reasons, it's a culmination of countless experiences and how our young minds form reactions to them. Boyhood understands this perfectly.

Through the eyes of Mason, Linklater takes the audience through the journey of cultivating those experiences, and shows us a character that literally becomes a person with feelings, ideas, a personality and world view over the course of one movie. It's downright fascinating in how true to life this movie is. Boyhood is probably the best character study I've seen put to film and a real masterpeice. Give Richard Linklater the best director Oscar right now for this unprecedented filmic achievement.

I was blown away by Boyhood. It was very nearly my favourite film this year. But there can only be one movie that I can put at number 1.

#1: Interstellar

First off, the fact that this movie, and it's director were totally ignored by The Academy Awards this year is a freaking travesty. The only things Interstellar is nominated for are it's score and special effects, and before I get too far into this let me first say that in my opinion, it should walk away with the Best Score category. Hanz Zimmer knocks this thing out of the park with a hauntingly beautifully simple and yet overwhelming sound that to me is the rock bed of this movie and puts goosebumps all over me when I hear it. Zimmer's score is such a massive part of this film and so expertly used by Christopher Nolan to pump each dramatic moment to absolutely ecstatic levels wonderment.

I have never seen a movie that felt. So. BIG.

I didn't even see it in IMAX, if I had... I think I probably would have needed to be escorted home in a pair of these. But I didn't need to see it like that for it to seem huge. It does a fine job on it's own.

Christopher Nolan's Interstellar feels to me to be the modern day sci-fi equivalent of a Jules Verne story. Just like Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, or Journey to the Center of the Earth, Interstellar taps in to the fundamental curiosity and determination of the human race with such vigour and intensity that I could not take my eyes away. 

Taking place in a future not so far removed from our very own, Interstellar paints us a picture of a version of the apocalypse without nuclear war, zombies or a robot uprising. A time where the human race simply cannot sustain themselves on a used up earth. The film follows the journey of a team of NASA astronauts as they journey out into an unknown galaxy to find a new home for the human race to immigrate to, so that they may survive. It starts as a quest to save mankind from extinction, but the harrowing meta-physical ride we are taken after that point is best experienced in person, I don't want to spoil too much about where this movie goes. The journey and the experience of the people on it are an absolute joy to watch.

With a at least one foot firmly planted within the realm of scientific possibility Interstellar is what I think might be one of the most realistic science fiction movies in recent memory. There's no aliens, or faster than light travel. There's no lasers, laser swords, or space pirates. The film's biggest sci-fi conceits are one wormhole that a spaceship can pass through, and exploring what might be on the other side of a black hole. That's it. The main characters are all actual astronauts, in space suits, who are all either scientists or engineers, just like most real astronauts. The robots aren't human looking silver androids, instead, black boxes with motors and simple limbs, even the spaceship looks strikingly similar to NASA's real life concept for an interstellar space craft. It's so cool to see those things and the ideas of what's actually believably possible be used to create such an amazing movie. It's what makes the peril more real, and the victories feel more elevated, because the danger is felt so much more. You can feel the tension behind every docking sequence or landing operation. The vulnerability of the crew on this journey is what makes this movie feel massive. They truly are the tiniest of fish in an endless black ocean, where a wrong move means certain, unpleasant, death. 

The actors are fabulous as well here, each one doing a great service to the material they've been given. Matthew McConaughy deserves another oscar nomination for this performance and shines in this role. I saw Dallas Buyers Club last year, but I honestly think that he may have done an even better job in Interstellar. Anne Hathaway is extremely likeable (not something I always attribute to her) and has some great performance moments. Micheal Caine and Jessica Chastain have great chemistry in all of their scenes together, and John Lithgow and Matt Damon play their respective parts with dignity and intensity. Even Topher Grace and Casey Affleck are good. It's a real testament to Nolan's ability to work well with his actors. 

I could go on about Interstellar all day. But it's an experience you really have to see for yourself. It's a crime this movie hasn't seen more recognition this year, and it's starting to get me thinking that the academy might feel the same way about Nolan as they do Leonardo DiCaprio. 

To put it simply, Interstellar is what happens when you mix The Dark Knight, with Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and Apollo 13 with a twist of 2001: A Space Odyssey thrown in for good measure. 

GO SEE THIS MOVIE!

One Year Later: The Girl, The Beard and The Unemployed

Almost exactly one year ago I arrived in Dartmouth Nova Scotia with 800 dollars, my parents, and flimsy at best hopes at any kind of sturdy, long term employment. It was a big move. Something that I wasn't sure would be the right one, something that made me incredibly nervous and it's something that's completely changed my life from what it was a year ago.

I haven't posted on this blog in a while, mostly because I've been busy with a new job, but also because I was kind of waiting until I got to this time of the year. Until my one year Hali-versary. It feels good to say. I've been here a whole year!

In that time I've gone through two beds, three jobs and sold most of my Movie collection. I've had amazing feasts, tried mussels and had to eat canned peaches for a day to survive. I've wrote, directed, edited, and finished a short film. I've grown out my hair, beard and gotten an amazing girlfriend.

It's been a real roller coaster of a year and I'm excited for what comes next. Last month I turned 22 and I told a few friends that I feel really good about 22. It's going to be a good year, I can feel it. I'm in a city I love, with a girl I love, with friends I couldn't get by without. Also having a job helps. A lot. Rent man, gotta pay it.

22 is going to be good, I feel so much closer to the person I want to be.

But for now, groceries.


Drive fast, take chances.

-Matt

The Superior Spider-Sequel: Raimi Vs Webb

This review contains spoilers for both The Amazing Spiderman 2 (2014) and Spiderman 2 (2004).

You have been notified.

     Spiderman. He's one of the most iconic and well know superheroes ever created. The character has appeared in comics, TV shows (both live action and animated), video games, and now, he's just appeared in his 5th feature film.

     The Amazing Spiderman 2 is the 5th Spiderman feature film to debut in the last 12 years. It's also the second second Spiderman film we've seen since Sam Raimi's Spiderman 2 10 years ago, which can be kind of confusing to talk about at times. Especially since neither era of Spiderman movies have ever had subtitles after the sequels names, opting instead for just a number, further adding to the confusion.

     However, aside from the name similarities Spiderman 2 and The Amazing Spiderman 2 couldn't be more different. There are of course the obvious differences, instead of Toby Maguire as the webslinging wonder we have Andrew Garfield, instead of Kirsten Dundst's Marry Jane as a love interest we have Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey. The Amazing Spiderman 2's special effects have the benefit of not being a decade old, and therefore, inarguably better, but they don't have Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus, instead the have Jamie Foxx's Electro. Harry Osborne appears in both films, played by James Franco in the 2004 film, and Dane Dehaan this year.

     But for a fan like myself, I can't just talk about The Amazing Spiderman 2 no, because for me and I'm thinking a lot of fans as well, my opinion of this latest second Spidey movie has to be framed by my opinion of the old second movie.

SO that's what I'm going to do. Sam Raimi's Spiderman 2 vs Marc Webb's The Amazing Spiderman 2

Sam Rami's Spiderman 2

        Now personally I've never been a massive fan of the Raimi films I liked the first one, hated the third and just couldn't get into the second one, which I know is not the most popular of opinions to have. Many fans I know adore Spiderman 2 and call it the Raimi Trilogy's high point. But I find Spiderman 2 to be, at times, a tough sit.

There are good points of course, Raimi really nails a lot of the comedy in the film, whenever he makes a joke it really lands well and his action scenes are extremely well constructed. Particularly the fight that takes place up the side of the building and the train sequence. Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is a great character and shines every time his story's given time to do so. J.K Simmons' J. Jonah Jameson has always been my favourite part of the Rami films, over the top and hilarious, I just always want more of him yelling for MORE PICTURES OF SPIDERMAN. Rosemary Harris's Aunt may is warm and wonderful and also brings a lot of light to the movie.
        But for me the weak points in Spiderman 2 is the drama and the casting of the lead characters. Toby Maguire's Peter Parker comes off extremely whiney, dough eyed and strangely apathetic. He appears to have no real drive to do anything of value. He tends to kind of just not say a lot and take whatever path offers him the least resistance.
        The best example of this is during the second act of the film. Peter Parker gives up being Spiderman (something that actually happens in both films) this causes New York's crime rate to soar, and allows Doc Ock to just saunter around the city committing whatever crimes he wants. Peter shakes his great responsibility entirely, why? Because he's too stressed out from missing a few of Mary Jane's plays and various other events. Raimi's Spiderman gives up because being a superhero was just too inconvenient. Not really a quality I want to see in my hero.
        That aside the "romance" between Peter and Kristen Dundst's Mary Jane takes up a lot of screen time in the this movie and there's not a strong chemistry between them. I don't really ever feel while watching that movie, that I want Peter and Mary Jane to work it all out, all I want is for both of them to move on, because they don't seem that right for each other or not, I have a hard time caring what happens to these two blank faced disjointed characters have to say at all.
         They never have a good time together, they don't have any inside jokes or funny memories together, they don't seem that attracted to each other, they're just kind of in love with each other? Sort of? Maybe at times? Because it's in the script?
        I don't know I just don't feel it, the main characters just don't show a lot of attractive qualities, instead they're melodramatic, melancholy and seem out of place in what should be a light hearted superhero adventure flick. Which then makes the brilliant comedic elements seem out of place and leaves the audience sitting through boring, melodramatic dialogue between characters they don't really care that much about, waiting for the action to begin.
         James Franco is cast as Harry Osborne and somehow is both over and under utilized to move the plot along. He's a pretty non-threatening quasi-villainous Harry Osborne who's opportunity for an interesting and engaging story is instead used purely for sequel bait. Franco does perhaps the best job of the three "best friends" with what he's given, but he ind of just pops in and our of the movie seemingly only to serve to explain a very specific plot point. Harry is the reason most of the plot of the movie even happens and yet somehow he has almost no character moments with either of our two main characters outside of when he shows up drunk that one time.

 On the whole, I feel like Raimi's Spiderman 2 is a film that has not aged well. To me it's a film with some fantastic action scenes that don't last long enough, with long stints of.....something... in between them. I think a lot of that rests on Maguire who doesn't really seem like he's over coming anything, instead being dragged from plot point to plot point and starring at people for way too long before leaving weird creepy sounding messages for people. He's not the loveable, lame witted, nerdy kid with a heart of gold spiderman should be. Instead he's just a guy who's constantly apologizing, starring and mumbling.

It all feels like a recycled and rehashed version of the first film, only replacing Peter's transformation into Spiderman with him... giving it up so he can just do it again. All the same tropes and plot points are present from the main villain being schizophrenic and killing himself in the end, to Marry Jane being with another guy for most of the movie only to end up kissing Peter in the end.

To me Spiderman 2 is not at all the masterpiece that a lot of the comic book community sees it to be, and it never really has been. I don't get why people seem to adore this movie so much. Is it just because it came out when many of us were kids? Is it because MJ finds out who he is? I don't know, I've never understood it's popularity.

The entire time watching it I'm constantly wanting to see a hero who has an actual personality. A hero who does everything he can do to help those in need. A hero that's actually just as entertaining to watch inside the suit as he is outside of it.


That's where we come to this.

Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman 2

When Sony announced that they were rebooting Spiderman. I like I'm sure many of you said "Really? we just finished a trilogy like 4 years ago!" As such I went into the first Amazing Spiderman movie highly skeptical and doubting I'd enjoy it. What I got instead was not a perfect movie but one that went in a completely new direction with the way all of the characters in the Spiderman universe were portrayed. I finally saw a Spiderman movie with people in it that acted like real people. Andrew Garfield's Spiderman does so much right that Toby Maguire's never did. Garfield's Peter Parker is awkward, but not in the stereotypical nerd kind of way, he's smart and quick but just doesn't know when to stop talking which often lands him into trouble. He and Emma Stone had great chemistry and while the villain seemed a little on the generic side, the efforts made to tie The Lizard into Peter's past is a good way to make him more interesting.

On the whole I really liked the first movie, much more than I thought I would and was expecting great things in the second film.

Amazing Spiderman 2 could have been a mess though. It's a story with two main villains, both of which have to have their origins explained. There was also the issue of Gwen and Peter's relationship which were it to continue defied a promise made in the end of the first film (The first film implies that they keep dating but leaves room for explanation otherwise). There was also the baggage of Peter's parents' story, which was left unfinished. It's a lot more baggage than Rami's film had going in, Spiderman wraps up everything in a nice neat little bow with only marginal character cliffhangers. Amazing Spiderman leaves much more untold.  So while I was hoping for the best, I was preparing myself for a cluttered, over-saturated spiderman movie (we have seen them before). What I got instead was a tight story that tells a lot, but still feels intimate and exciting.

The highlight to both Webb web movies is by far the interpersonal character drama, the exact opposite of the Raimi films. The chemistry Webb sets up in his first film between Gwen and Peter only seems stronger in this movie as their many scenes together become almost more entertaining than the action. Stone and Garfield play two unique sides of a young couple, madly in love dealing with the very real and intense guilt Peter feels for betraying Gwen's father's last request to stay away from each other. That plot point alone puts this romance head and shoulders above the awkward and cliche "will they, won't they" of the Rami films. Every minute Gwen and Peter are on screen together you can see, evidently, how these characters feel about each other and how exactly their relationship is in danger, but more than just that, you want it to work, because these two kids are meant for each other. But the brilliance in this relationship is that you also don't want them to be together, because you feel Peter's guilt for breaking his promise to Captain Stacey. It makes the audience wish that they could find a way to make it work, which is exactly what the characters are trying to do which is again why it works so well.  Their relationship really holds up the rest of the film, giving Peter motivation for doing the things he does, whether he's fighting actively to find a way to make it work, or trying to throw himself into investigating his father to try and forget about it. It's not just believable, but intensely relatable. Something we all really should expect from the director of 500 Days of Summer. 
      Gwen is clearly someone immensely important to Peter in this film, and the weight of their relationship drives them both to make the choices they do, including the choices that lead to her death in the end of the film. Which is heartbreaking for both the audience and Peter. This is what causes him to give up being spiderman. The death of Gwen, not just being late for things. It's understandably devastating to Peter, and makes his end decision to continue web slinging a gloriously triumphant moment. More so than it would have been any other way.

Peter continues to be a three dimensional character in Amazing Spiderman 2 showing huge swaths of humanity and compassion that Toby Maguire could never quite muster. In this film Peter continues to be very funny, ready with a response to anything. But Garfield's webhead is, in this film, not always right. He fails and makes mistakes, bad calls and often times doesn't know how to handle the situation, but always tries his utmost to do the right thing. This is shown very well in his relationship to Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborne.
       In this film, Harry is an old friend of Peter's from when they were small children, a friend Peter had at around the time of his own parents disappearance, but not for long after. This is why Peter seeks him out upon learning that Harry's father has passed away. Even though they haven't spoken in years, Peter returns to Harry like a friend paying back another friend's kindness. It's this familiar distance that makes the plot between them work nicely. Harry is a weird kid in this film, scheming and petulant, Harry is never painted as that good of a person, even at his best, which would make Peter and Harry's relationship strange if they had been best friends for years (this is what happened in the Raimi films). Peter instead, only really knew Harry as a kid and is trying to re-connect with him, which is why he doesn't notice anything off about Harry, instead assuming he's just upset over his father's passing and perhaps a different person to the one he knew years ago. Harry is also not, as was in the Raimi film, looking for revenge following the apparent murder of his father by Spiderman, which, from his point of view is pretty understandable if you think about it. Instead Harry comes to hate Spiderman for his own selfish reasons, the same reasons that lead to his mutation into the green goblin.
        The other nice thing is that Peter isn't fooled by Harry for too long, instead figuring out his intentions early. Then, upon seeing how destructive they could potentially be decides not to aide him as either Spiderman or Peter. In short, Webb's Peter Parker isn't a dough eyed idiot who refuses to see Harry Osborne for what he really is. Amazing Spiderman 2 has a much, much better dynamic and a better one in my opinion between these characters which makes both their shaky friendship and then animosity both more believable and real.

But that's not all the praise I have to give out for the character work in this movie, oh no.

The periferal characters all shine as well, from Jamie Foxx's obsessive and mentally unstable Electro to Sally Field's courageous and vulnerable Aunt May (who, thankfully, still hasn't been kidnapped). There's also great cameos by Paul Giamotti, Dennis Leary and of course Stan. Every character in this movie is a real person, with understandable challenges and struggles. The great victory of Amazing Spiderman 2 is that the audience can almost see themselves as any of the characters.

The plot is well paced, throws a lot at you, but gives each storyline it's due attention without feeling like it's frantically rushing from story to story (see Spiderman 3). The movie opens with an explanation into Peter's parents' backstory, which is resolved towards the end of the second act of the movie. Electro and The Green Goblin's origins are given enough time to tell their stories without stepping over each other, which I think is a huge win. This film has Electro's origin largely take place early on, until the he's imprisoned after a fight with spidey, and then broken out by Harry Osborne in the third act who's had the intervening time to have his own villainous origin (even though he gets his "powers" very, late in the film).  This neatly sidesteps the pitfalls a lot of these multi-villain stories fall into by not having the stories overlap, but instead logically intersect at the end. Which is extremely well done, action packed, fun, poetic and also heartbreaking, like any good spidey story should be.

There are occasionally moments in the story that do feel forced. Gwen's story revolves around her decision to go to school in england or stay home with Peter, which isn't exactly groundbreaking.  Also Peter seems to spend a lot of time in his room, which gets tiresome and I missed J. Jonah Jameson. But apart from those small gripes I absolutely adored this movie.

Amazing Spiderman 2, for me, delivers in every area that Spiderman 2 didn't and matches or exeeds it at it's good points. Amazing's overwhelming heart and serendipity are what make it a better movie. Webb is so much more at home dealing with real character drama than Raimi seems to be. Raimi's character moments always feel contrived and lack the same enthusiasm and style his action scenes have, whereas Webb keeps the audience equally engaged in both. It's not an easy task that Webb accomplished beautifully.  Webb's film takes a look at the heart of the hero and is a movie about the weight of promises. Raimi's is about responsibility and looks at what it means to live a double life. I don't think Raimi's film is a "bad" movie, it's watchable, and has some genuinely good moments, I just find the Webb's more moving, engaging, and entertaining.  And isn't that what movies are all about, being moved, enthralled and entertained?


In short, go see Marc Webb's webslinger in action in The Amazing Spiderman 2 it won't be something you regret.

Appreciating Beauty and the Sources Therin

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? 

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,

And summer's lease hath all too short a date: 

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,

And often is his gold complexion dimm'd; 

And every fair from fair sometime declines,

By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimm'd;

But thy eternal summer shall not fade

Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;

Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,

When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st; 

So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,

So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. 

The above is perhaps one of the most famous sonnets ever written. William Shakespeare, or as his friends call him, Bill Shakes, wrote that little bad boy in 1609, spurred on by what must have been one hell of a lady. Bill penned this, along with over a hundred other sonnets during his career, some sad, some happy, but none of which quite capture the feeling that this one does. The feeling you get in the presence of true, unadulterated beauty. In this case a woman (most likely, some scholars think good ole' Bill was, perhaps playing for more than one team if you catch my drift).

Bill talks here about how the beauty of the subject of his sonnet cannot ever be dimmed, about how it's beauty shines radiant light all over and affects the weather, and defies time and death.  Of course, these things are not literal, merely how Bill feels about how beautiful she is. But apart from those things Bill never really describes the subject of the sonnet. At least not physically. 

He doesn't even tell us that her beauty comes from her physical form. 

I mean, that's what we all picture, right? Some absolute bombshell, a cross between all the great beauties of all time, Someone who's a little Audrey Hepburn, a dash Kate Upton, a pinch of Marilyn Monroe and a smidgen of Leonardo DiCaprio. The perfect storm of human attractiveness. But he doesn't.

Bill doesn't say she was a buxom blonde, or that she has a body that can stop a train. He doesn't say her skin's clear, or that her waist is small. He doesn't say she's got good eye lashes, a nice caboose or that her lip gloss is poppin. He doesn't describe a thing about this girl other than the way he feels about her.

The greatest, most well known love poem on the planet doesn't mention things like a girl's body weight, her height, wrinkles, love handles or her cheekbones. 

Because that's not what's important. Not to Bill. 

Nah, my man Bill Shakes comes from a different viewpoint. One of true appreciation. Because Bill (no stranger to love himself) sees the world differently than how a lot of people do. Bill looks at the way this person makes the rest of the world feel like when they're around. How the world looks when she's near and how nothing in the world can ever take that away.

That's real beauty. Not something that can be sold in a box, packaged and marketed to appeal to insecurities.  Now I know I'm a little late to the party, International Women's day was a couple days ago now but I think this, if anything is the once sentiment I would want to convey to all the women in my life. The world will try anything to make you feel like you're not good enough. Like you don't matter, or that you're just not beautiful*. Marketing firms and makeup companies will try to convince you that you're always just one more product away from looking like Karen Gillian or Jennifer Lawrence.

Beauty can never be bought from a bottle or achieved through "victory" over some number on a scale. It comes from who you are inside. The complexities of a person are in themselves independently, mind bogglingly, beautiful. The fact that you made it to this life is statistically so insanely unlikely that your presence in the universe is like bolt of lighting in a dark cloudy storm. 

But it's when we allow ourselves (men and women) to forget that, that we loose touch with what beauty is. We place it all immediately on the easiest thing to see and too often forget the person underneath.

Now this is not about coming to terms with how one looks or that if one is, objectively a highly physically attractive individual that one has any less worth or beauty to them. All I'm saying is what Bill was saying. I think he went onto say it better than I ever could in his play Love Labours Lost when he said "Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye." 

Meaning that beauty truly only exists in the eye of the beholder. Everyone's definition of beauty is different. So never get hung up because you don't match someone else's. Because that kind of person, shouldn't match yours.

RIP William

-Matt

*[Not to say that this is the only trouble women face, that would be itself a belittlement. Not what I intend to convey at all. I'm merely speaking of the one thing that I have seen take it's toll most on the women I've had in my life over the years.]

The Eight Superhero Movies I Want to See Most

I love comics, and comic book superheroes. Some obscure, some pretty commonplace, and in an ideal world the DC and Marvel Universes would be fully cinematic, and feature every character that's cannon. But we're not there yet, in this day and age it's still surprisingly hard to get a movie made for anyone that isn't already an A-lister in the comics world (and even then it's still hard). I mean, things are a little easier on the Marvel side of the coin, but there's still some characters there I want to see get a film... and I guess that's as good a place to start as any on my list of the top 8 superhero movies I want to see the most!

#8 Ms. Marvel

Ms. Marvel is a great opportunity for Marvel to really tap into the female superhero concept with a character who's powerset rivals that of the mighty Thor. Instead of their current female cinematic lead, Black Widow, who's main power is 2 sigs and a skin tight "combat" suit. Ms. Marvel would also be easy to build into the expanding marvel universe that's getting ready to jump to full "Jack-Kirby-Space-verse" with the launch of Guardians of the Galaxy next year (Ms. Marvel's powers are the product of alien technology in the comics... most of the time).

As for which Ms. Marvel (there has been a lot), I think that it should either be Carol Danvers (the original Ms. Marvel) or Kamala Khan (The currently rebooted Ms. Marvel). Carol Danvers is a great character and it would show a lot of faith to the original comics produced in the 70's, But Kamala Khan is an opportunity to not only produce the first good female superhero movie, but the first good female Muslim superhero.
Which I think is really interesting. It provides so much to work with, from a character standpoint, but also I think it would show a much needed wave of diversity to the Marvel Cinematic universe, seriously, enough with the white dudes.

#7 Shazam! (Captain Marvel)

Shazam is a character I absolutely adore. I think it captures the purest essence of a comic book superhero. Billy Batson, an orphan boy is given magical powers by an all powerful wizard, every time he says the word "SHAZAM" (I don't know if it always has to be in all caps, but I feel like it should be). In the most recent incarnation of the character (written entirely by DC creative head Geoff Johns) Billy is in foster care and has a hilarious and heartfelt cast of supporting characters that keep his story fresh and energetic. I also think it might be a good idea to go with the Flashpoint version of the character, where it takes an entire group of kids to say the word together to transform into Captain Marvel (Although it's alternate universe so he's known as captain thunder, but whatever). I think it's the perfect blend of The Goonies and Man of Steel. It'd for sure be a great one for kids, who would also finally have someone to identify more directly with.

Plus the character's got a great look which I think would come across even better on screen and a giant talking tiger named Tawny. I mean, come on! Black Adam as a main villain is one of the strongest ones out there, and is a really easy baddie for kids to digest, while at the same time having a great amount of depth for the adults.


#6 Swamp Thing & Animal Man

I put these two together because I think this is, in a way, the best superhero "buddy-cop" DC could possibly spit out. With the two characters being so related (Swamp thing as the Avatar of all Plant Life, "The Green" Animal Man as an Avatar of all Animal life "The Red") it seems only fitting that their stories be told together. I mean, you don't have to call the movie "Swamp Thing and Animal Man" maybe just Swamp thing or Just Animal Man, but feature the other heavily. I think last year's crossover between the two of them (Rotworld) is the perfect example of how their story should take place both fighting The Rot separately, and in their own way, only to find that they need each other to finish the fight.

OH MAN! So cool!

But seriously, either of these characters would make for such a unique movie. Both are "Superheroes" but not at all in the traditional sense. Swamp thing, a monster by all appearances, fighting to preserve nature's place in the world, and Animal Man, a father and husband forced into the service of animal life, often at the cost of his family. Neither "fight crime" but that's okay. We see that in every other superhero film, this is a real chance for DC to build a fuller more complex and rounded cinematic universe.

#5 Spiderman 2099

Now, I'm going to get this out of the way, I don't know if this would technically be under Sony's Spiderman film rights, or Marvels, and I suspect neither to either of those companies, so the likelihood of this happening is slim. But I think It would be a supercool departure from the awkward, teenage spiderman we've all seen so much of recently. Spiderman 2099 is a geneticist by the name of Miguel O'Hara who accidentally turns himself into a Spiderman and fights crime with all the powers of Spiderman (and a couple small additions) in super corrupt future version of New York. As a sci-fi lover this concept jumps out at me as much as a Batman Beyond movie. Imagine Spiderman fighting giant future laser robots! Awesome!

But speaking of Batman Beyond...

#4 Batman Beyond

Created by the legendary duo of Paul Dini and Bruce Timm in the wake of Batman: TAS Batman Beyond was simple, and awesome concept. Taking place in a future version of Gotham City, Batman Beyond follows Terry McGinnis who, under the tutelage of an elderly Bruce Wayne become's Future Gotham's new Batman. The suit had such an iconic look and the character of Terry was so well written that fans have been begging for this movie for years.

Ironically, it actually almost did get made, in the early 2000's Paul Dini wrote a screenplay for the film while under a screenwriting contract with Warner Brothers during the long development process of Superman Returns. The studio passed on the script however, and that may be the closest we'll ever come to seeing Terry up on the big screen, which is really unfortunate.

#3  Aquaman

Yes, it seems my list is predominantly DC characters, but that's mostly because Marvel is doing such a great job of rolling out their characters on the big screen with plans in the works for most of the big hitters. DC on the other hand has so many of it's A-listers just waiting to be filmed, not least of all is Aquaman.

The thing about Aquaman that many people don't understand is that Aquaman (in the right hands) is one of the most interesting and badass superheroes on the entire Justice League and has been around for almost as long as Batman and Superman. Making him one of the oldest comic book characters currently still featured in his own book every month.

But let me lay it down for the casual fan. Aquaman is a warrior king, bearing Poseidon's trident that is his birthright, Arthur Curry fights to protect Atlantis from threats external and internal, as well as serving to protect the surface world. With not only the ability to command all sea life, Aquaman has super strength, heightened agility, extreme durability and the ability to survive indefinately on both land and in the water. Aquaman is not affraid to dole out his own brand of sea-justice on the criminals of the world. Geoff John's most recent arc with the character is a great example of how interesting and dynamic this character is, torn between his life on the surface and his kingship of Atlantis.

This is a movie Warner and DC desperately need to make to shift the reputation of this truly awesome character away from his comical misconceptions.

#2 Cyborg

With Green Arrow having a hit show and The Flash about to finally receive his due in his own, sister show, the next biggest gaping hole in cinematic representation on the Justice League has got to be Cyborg.

Cyborg, like Ms Marvel is a great opportunity to break from the predominantly white superheroes heading today's movies. But more than that, Cyborg is another very well written and identifiable character ripe material to turn into a movie. Victor Stone, a high school senior, is a star quarterback vying for his scientist father's attention when suddenly and unexpectedly he is seriously injured by alien technology. Seeing how dire the situation is his father attempts to heal Victor with experimental nano-technology which inadvertently combines with the residual alien particles in Victors body creating the first ever Cyborg. A hero whose highly adaptable body and mind form all kinds of cool weapons and tools to take down evil.

Cyborg was originally only a member of the Teen Titans, but DC has finally given Vic the promotion he deserves and he's now a fully fledged member of the Justice League. It's my opinion that they should continue elevating Cyborg in their universe with his own movie. Or at the very least an appearance in the surely upcoming Justice League movie.

#1 Zatanna Zatara

Magic. That's what's been missing from my superhero movies. Sure Thor gives us a little but they're very quick to liken the Asgaurdian technology to real science. I want bonafied magic. And I want That magic to come from the wand and words of Zatanna.

Zatanna is a stage magician, the best in the business, who blows every audience member away with her seemingly impossible illusions. But here's the catch; It's real magic. Zatanna is the daughter of Zatara, a famed magician himself who taught her all the ways of the Arcane arts which she uses to battle embodied evil across the astral and mortal planes. With flick of her wrist, a few backwards words, and a witty quip, Zatanna sends evil back to where it belongs both on her own and as leader of the magic focused Justice League Dark.

I think it's become clear in the course of this article that I really want there to be a greater amount of diversity among the cinematic heroes. But that's not the only reason any people on this list are on it. Least of all Zatanna. She's just the kind of character that I love to see on screen. Someone who can face very dark tragic themes with a sense of humour and the power to back it up. She's such a unique character as well, seeing as there's yet to be any superhero movie that has it's main character really rely on magic this much. Just think Hermione Granger meets Spiderman and that's what this movie could be, whimsical, magical, comical fun.








Honorable Mentions

There are a few characters I would have put down, but it looks like a movie featuring them is actually in the works, those being Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Ant-man and Doctor Strange. I would also love to see a Flash movie, but he;s getting a TV show so I can't be too greedy. Green Arrow would make a good movie, but I've been enjoying the heck out of Arrow on The CW so I think if anything they should just slot that character into the Movie universe.

I also would have said Daredevil, Luke Cage and Iron Fist, but they've all been confirmed to have shows in development for Netflix, so it looks like they're finally getting their due.

I'd like to see Supergirl and Nightwing, but those characters have such strong ties to their mentor characters that DC has to really universe build for a while before we'll see them, even though Nightwing is probably my favourite character mentioned in this article.


See you later, true believers!

-Matt