The good news about Iron Man 3 is that it’s a sharply written, well-directed movie. The bad news is that while some of the messages it conveys to the audience hold incredible truth (e.g., “we create our own demons”), it might just be the conspiracy-theorist must-see blockbuster of the summer.

Do you have any friends who think 9/11 was “an inside job”? Iron Man 3 is the movie for them. (You might want to consider getting new friends if that’s the case, but in the mean time you could still enjoy a solid movie.) Do you have any friends who refer to the “military industrial complex” at parties so they sound smarter than they really are? Iron Man 3 is the movie for them. Do you have friends who hate “Big Oil” and “fat cats”? Iron Man 3 is the movie for them. Director Shane Black ingeniously — or perhaps devilishly? — devised a film that is drenched in anti-Americanism in a way that will leave many Americans exiting the theater not even knowing they’re all wet. At the showing I went to in Tyson’s Corner, Va., many people even burst out clapping twice during the film. On many levels, Mr. Black deserves kudos. That’s not easy to do.

Because so much of the movie focuses on Robert Downey Jr. and the “demons” his actions have brought into his life (his enemies literally breathe fire), and because he owns the role, one could forgive friends and relatives if they don’t leave the theater angry. The “truth” about the Mandarin alone, which I will refrain from disclosing here, is one that will play very well in Muslim nations that actually allow Western movies to be screened — for reasons that have nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with conspiracy theories that run rampant in those parts of the world. Given the fact that the writers and producers created entirely new scenes for the Chinese release, it’s not hard to believe that the endeavor was specifically crafted to maximize both foreign and domestic sales. Again, it is rather awe-inspiring what Mr. Black has pulled off.

Strangely enough, perhaps the group of moviegoers who will be most disappointed in Iron Man 3 will be long time fans of the Iron Man comic book. As already mentioned, the “truth” about the Madarin is something that will drive fans of the character up a wall. They will be livid, and rightly so. However, the average person who knows nothing about the character’s history will not care because within the context of the film, the changes work and that’s all that really matters to people who count box office receipts. It’s sad, but that’s the truth.

Moving forward, it will be hard for figure out how an Iron Man 4 would take shape. Robert Downey Jr’s shtick is enjoyable, but even the great and powerful RDJ gets annoying. It was a wise move to knock the chip off his shoulder in the third installment by stripping everything away from him. He needed to be taken down a notch. He needed the smile wiped off his face. He needed to look lost and confused and panicked because sometimes the rich billionaire guy who mocks everyone and everything just comes across as a jerk. Downey had an incredible balancing act to play between being that witty sarcastic smartass with a smile, and being the vulnerable guy who just recently learned their are forces in the universe that are beyond human comprehension — and he did it almost perfectly.

Perhaps my feelings on Iron Man 3 can be best summed up in response to something the Madarin says midway through the movie. The character, played by Ben Kingsley, says that America is “like a fortune cookie — hollow, and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”

Iron Man 3 is definitely not hollow. There are many, many layers to it. The acting, writing, directing and special effects are all top-notch. Iron Man 3 does, however, leave a bitter aftertaste. Shane Black could have written a movie that did not blatantly appeal to large swathes of moviegoers who love nothing more than to blame America for the world’s ills, but he did not. Marvel signed off on it. Disney signed off on it, and so did Robert Downey Jr. And for that, while I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it is not one that I will ever purchase for myself.

Regardless, I’m looking forward to seeing Iron Man fly again when The Avengers 2 hits theaters. See you there.

The new ‘Man of Steel’ trailer is out, and it looks mighty good. And, truthfully, it couldn’t come at a better time.

Jor El says of his son: “You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.”

The problem with ideals is that once you establish them, the people who “stumble” will be on full display for all the world to see. The smart stumblers don’t like that. And so, over the years the purveyors of popular culture have sought to do away with ideals, hoping to hide their fallibility in the process.

The easy wrong is always more popular than the hard right, and millions of Americans are seeing that over time too many easy wrongs only lead to heartache and despair. The United States as a whole is culturally lost, and a well-made Superman film just might get a few people to look for ways to right the ship.

Regardless, when trying to make sense of a world where lunatics detonate bombs amongst throngs of innocent civilians watching a marathon, we need not go to the movie theater to find a hero. They’re all around us if we’re willing to look.

Bill Iffrig, 78, lies on the ground as police officers react to a second explosion at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in Boston, Monday, April 15, 2013. Iffrig, of Lake Stevens, Wash., was running his third Boston Marathon and near the finish line when he was knocked down by one of two bomb blasts. (AP Photo/The Boston Globe, John Tlumacki)

On Monday, April 15, The Associated Press’ Jonh Tlumacki responded to the Boston Marathon terror attack not by running for his life, but by freezing; he then captured the men and women who spring into action when disaster strikes. It’s an amazing photo, one that shows just how instinctual it is for some individuals to protect and defend their fellow citizens during a time of crisis.

There are always those who run away from danger — and those who run towards it. Those who run toward the flames aren’t inherently better people than those seeking safety, but at the same time a healthy civil society holds its law enforcement personnel in high esteem.

It’s sad that even in the initial moments of such a gruesome event that there were newscasters who chose to speculate in divisive and sick ways. Only seriously warped minds would watch a bomb blast that left three people dead and scores wounded, only to wonder how the political calculus of it all would play out.

Regardless, if you see a cop, a fireman or and EMS working in the near future you might want to stop them and say “thanks” just like you would a soldier returning home from overseas. Given that modern day terrorism has erased the traditional definition of a battlefield, it’s increasingly likely that local authorities will find themselves caught up in the fog of war. Luckily, we have men like Mr. Tlumacki who are willing to chronicle the heroics.

What happens in China when you want to put out an album that questions the government? You get your album censored and edited until everything you wanted to say is an ambiguous lyrical mish-mash that poses no discernible threat to those who wield power.

Not to long ago I wrote about the strange situation that is Iron Man 3, whereas we find ourselves living in a world where The Mandarin of all characters can no longer be Chinese because cultural sensitivity — to an oppressive Communist regime — and a desire to make a few million more bucks dictates Hollywood’s behavior. And Shane Black’s “ultimate terrorist” is an American or British intelligent agent gone rogue. How original.

Given that America has a level of political and economic freedom that has historically been head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world, I find it odd that the “ultimate terrorist” would originate from one of the 50 states. Mr. Black is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else, but it would be refreshing if more directors were like Shaun Jefford, who actually has the courage to show the truth about our Communist “friends” on the other side of the globe.

Beijing Punk is a documentary about freedom. Period. It’s about the human spirit, which yearns to be free. It’s about individuals who are censored and oppressed and constrained by the government, but who inherently know that they are being robbed of the ability to fully pursue their hopes and dreams. Individuals can be poor and uneducated, and yet still make a stirring case for individual liberty because no amount of censorship or state-approved rhetoric can hide ideological shackles. Those who wear them will always scream out in defiance — in this case it’s through punk music.

Jefford’s film centers around a few Chinese punk bands who play at D-22, the CBGB’s on Beijing. Owner Michael Pettis and booking agent Nevin Domer are superb choices to include in the film, and equally articulate spokesmen for the importance of what D-22 is trying to achieve.

First, Pettis on the music.

“I speak to a lot of critics from the U.S. and from Europe who when they came here are always astonished by the freshness of the scene. And there was an English critic who said, ‘You know, in England there is nothing you can do that doesn’t have a huge history behind it. Whatever you do, someone has already done it. What ever you think, someone has thought it, and that becomes a huge weight on top of everything.’ And in China you don’t feel that at all. So you’ll have kids who are discovering Phil Ochs and Stravinsky and Velvet Underground at the same time. And so it’s like opening this enormous toy store to all these kids and rushing and and everything is interesting and everything is exciting.”

Population control — in more ways than one. Now smile for this advertisement like we put a Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy helmet on your head or we’ll make your life a living hell.

Next we have Nevin Domer on Chinese censorship:

Nevin Domer: The General is deciding they don’t like the lyrics [to the new Demerit album] and they’re deciding they don’t want to publish it. Both of these albums should have been printed last week in order to be done for the release show. Tonight was the night that we really needed to go to press. We won’t go into what all of these songs talk about. And Demerit, some of their lyrics are slightly risqué. I’d rather not talk too much about what the lyrics mean on film. The more ambiguous we can be with government officials the safer it is. I guess I just thought we could get away with pushing through whatever we want. We put through ‘Car Sick Cars’ and they have songs about cocaine and mushrooms. That’s all I want to say about that album for now.” …

Sound mixer: We have translations quite clear, quite clean. The General has cancelled some words. We still have some problems because of the Olympics. Everything is more controlled.

Nevin Domer: Can we do it today?

Sound mixer: Don’t worry about that.

Nevin Domer: It’s always like this.

Sound mixer: In China, it’s always some surprise.

It turns out that Mr. Domer said a little too much (his home was raided multiple times after Beijing Punk came out). Or maybe simply agreeing to take part in the film is what set the authorities off. Who knows. The point is, he had the audacity to think for himself.

As Lei Jun of the band Mi San Dao explains, free speech isn’t a right that is honored in China:

Lei Jun: You don’t have too much freedom because the government will say, ‘You do this, you don’t do this. Don’t speak this, you speak this.’ Yeah. It’s dangerous to talk. For them you can’t speak punk on the TV. Also you can’t speak skinhead. Also you can’t speak government bad and about the Olympics or too much building. Nothing. You just speak, ‘Oh, we have a good day, every day. We love China. We love the Olympics.’ … It’s different because in China the Chairman say something, all the people need to agree. It’s not like America. He can do what he want. He’s like the animal king. The animals are not like people. For like a monkey? A lot of monkeys, the monkey can do everything.

Shaun Jefford: So you honestly just said the Chairman job is a lot like a monkey king?

Lei Jun: Yeah. Yeah. Maybe…

Lie Jun then provides an interesting anecdote that Hollywood directors like Shane Black could appreciate; China is a lot like a Stanley Kubrick film:

“If you take the hash or weed in your pocket and the police see you, you’re going to the Chinese special name place. It’s like a hospital, but it’s not a hospital. It’s more bad than jail.  … A lot of young men, more students, they drink too much codeine syrup and maybe two died.  So the government they make the new special operation. The doctors from the Army, the put the boy on the bed and after you take off, you take a lot of things from the brain. After you will never drink codeine syrup. They take off your memory about this. Not memory. For example you like drink beer? They take this, after afterwards, you don’t like beer. They can change your hobby. Yeah. I think it’s like a Clockwork Orange, you know? The first time I saw it I said:”It’s a true Clockwork Orange in China!” (Lei Jun).

Let’s assume Lei was misinformed about the “special” jails and the strange operations. Let’s assume he is the victim of a rumor mill on overdrive. Can you blame him? He lives in an oppressive police state. (Sadly, it takes blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng and other fearless individuals to show gullible Americans the truth.)

Perhaps most striking about Beijing Punk is that each band shies away from giving itself any sort of political label, and instead ops to say it is merely on the side of “freedom.” It doesn’t take a college education to know the difference between the invisible hand of free market economics — guiding individuals through countless voluntary and mutually beneficial transactions each day — and the invisible fist of a fear society pounding your psyche and your soul into the ground.

Observe the following exchange between Jefford and Li Yang of Demerit on China’s “one child” policy:

Li Yang: We are not political. Just about freedom.

Shaun Jefford: But freedom is political.

Li Yang: We think in a different place. Just from … [W]e don’t know the deeper meaning of politics …

As I said before, here in America political parties have disappointed us. And when you boil it down, it’s all about freedom vs. tyranny.

Which side are you on? Beijing Punk is clearly on the side of freedom. Check it out if you get the chance.

There are free societies and there are fear societies. Shaun Jefford’s ‘Beijing Punk’ uses the trials and tribulations of Chinese musicians to artfully expose a fear society.

]]> http://douglasernstblog.com/2013/03/15/beijing-punk-exposes-the-invisible-fist-of-fear-societies/feed/ 6 dougernst Demerit Beijing Punk China Population Control Chinese Army http://douglasernstblog.com/2013/03/06/iron-man-3s-ultimate-terrorist-created-by-america-shane-black-provides-liberalism-on-stark-display/ http://douglasernstblog.com/2013/03/06/iron-man-3s-ultimate-terrorist-created-by-america-shane-black-provides-liberalism-on-stark-display/#comments Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:39:58 +0000 Douglas Ernst http://douglasernstblog.com/?p=5360 ]]>

If you had to bet on who was responsible for creating ‘The Mandarin’ in ‘Iron Man 3,’ who would it be? If you guessed the U.S. government, congratulations. However, it doesn’t take a billionaire-genius philanthropist to predict Hollywood plot lines. It just takes intellectual honesty. (Image: YouTube)

The new Iron Man 3 trailer is out, and it looks amazing. But looks can be deceiving, can’t they? What appears to be one hell of a movie might also be incredibly maddening, when one realizes that once again the bad guy — the “ultimate terrorist” to quote writer/director Shane Black — is really a creation of the U.S. government.

Iron Man started out so well, but ultimately the question becomes: “Where is he going?” In Hollywood, it’s only a matter of time before the star character goes to a place where America, at its root, is the creator of the evil it seeks to destroy.

Robert Downy Jr. sets the stage via Superhero Hype:

Q: We’ve seen Tony Stark go through a lot in “The Avengers.” How did the events of that movie wind up helping him change for this one?

Downey: Well, we had to do something, you know? I thought, “Isn’t it odd that he had this experience? And why was he suddenly just in New York for one summer?” We know why he was there. Stark Tower. But what he was doing there was really building an architect for a third act set piece. I wanted him back home and I thought, “What if that happened to any of us? Wouldn’t we be a little tripped out? You’d be watching your back.” Then I thought about this 21st century reality and kind of oddball zeitgeist of America and terrorism and all the weirdo stuff that this country seems to generate and co-create. So I thought he should be a little freaked out.

Hmm. The United States “generates” and “co-creates” terrorism? How so, Robert? If he’s saying evil must exist because good does, then I understand what he’s saying. If he’s saying that good men like Tony Stark create wonderful technology, but because of the warped timber of man others will use that technology for nefarious purposes, I get it. But if Robert is pandering to the “blame America first” crowd, then I just lost a lot of respect for him because it’s expected of Hollywood at this point.

As I wrote in October, Shane Black is a great writer and seems to understand that Tony Stark needs to be grounded this time around. But I also warned of exactly what appears to have happened:

[I]f the U.S. government is somehow culpable for the espionage that destroys Tony’s life, the movie will instantly lose credibility. If the message ends up being some sort of social commentary on how “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” I  probably won’t be seeing Iron Man 4 in the theaters.

As it turns out, RDJ was much more Joesph Conrad than Loazi. Disappointing. Incredibly disappointing. Read Shane Black’s inspiration for The Mandarin:

We use as the example Colonel Kurtz from “Apocalypse Now,” this guy who may have been an American, may have been a British National, someone who is out there doing field work, supervising atrocities for the intelligence community who went nuts in the field and became this sort of devotee of war tactics, and now has surrounded himself with a group of people over which he presides, and the only thing that unifies them is this hatred of America. So he’s the ultimate terrorist, but he’s also savvy. He’s been in the intelligence world. He knows how to use the media. And taking it to a real world level like that was a lot fun for us.

Screw you, Shane Black, Kevin Feige, Robert Downey Jr. and Marvel. Screw everyone else associated with the product who thinks that the “ultimate terrorist” is, for the 10,000th time, a Western intelligence agent who was the product of his own country’s dark side. Besides, I just watched another iteration of this plot a couple months ago; it was called Skyfall.

Have we reached the point where a movie with a villain named The Mandarin can’t be a Communist revolutionary from China? Given that the recent Red Dawn remake changed the villains from Chinese Communists to North Koreans to placate the guys who are gobbling up the nation’s debt, I guess so.

At this point, I’ll probably see Iron Man 3 just to tease out whatever ‘Heart of Darkness’ themes Shane Black didn’t get a chance to discuss in promotional interviews, but no matter how stellar the movie is I won’t be able to shake the disgust over another “creative” team that turned to the “America is its own worst enemy” well when it was thirsty for ideas.

Behold: Liberalism on stark display.

Related: Lone Avenger: Robert Downey Jr. soars above his liberal critics
Related: Robert Downey Jr.’s politics: A lesson for liberal Hulks

Stallone’s ‘Bullet to the Head’ was a decent action flick, but it was hard not to smile given his latest comments on gun control. His character Bobo is also adept at killing men with knives. Someone should ask Sly about his thoughts on knife control.

As regular readers know, I’m a long-time fan of Stallone. I love his movies. I love his dedication to fitness. I love that after everyone said his career was down for the count he found a way to get back up and show the world there was still a lot of fight left inside him; The Expendables and its sequel were both worthy additions to the man’s body of work.

And so, it pains me to have to take him to task for making his call for stricter gun control measures the very same weekend that ‘Bullet to the Head’ hits theaters.

Sylvester Stallone says that despite his “Rambo” image and new shoot-em-up film “Bullet to the Head,” he’s in favor of new national gun control legislation.

Stallone supported the 1994 “Brady bill” that included a now-expired ban on assault weapons, and hopes that ban can be reinstated.

“I know people get (upset) and go, ‘They’re going to take away the assault weapon.’ Who … needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you’re carrying out an assault. … You can’t hunt with it. … Who’s going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?”

The 66-year-old actor, writer and director said he also hopes for an additional focus on mental health to prevent future mass shootings.

“It’s unbelievably horrible, what’s happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It’s that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are friggin’ crazy.

Remember when Stallone was killing guys in ‘The Expendables’ with a Single Action Army? I do. Should we ban those? But I digress.

During the course of ‘Bullet to the Head‘ I counted 28 dead bodies by the time all was said and done. I may be off by one or two, but it was difficult to tell with so many of them hitting the ground.

The point is, a guy who made his career and his millions on ultra-violent fare — and who continues to do so — might as well embrace the Second Amendment and possibly learn a few things in the process.

For instance, the question “Who’s going to attack your house, a f***king Army?” is interesting. One might be inclined to reply: “I don’t know Sly — perhaps we should  ask the Japanese Americans who wound up in internment camps only decades ago.” And given that Stallone has fans all around the world, maybe some who escaped tyrannical regimes might want to write him a kind letter regarding the very real armies that knock on doors in the middle of the night — particularly when the population has been disarmed.

Another question for Sly might be: “How do you define ‘assault weapon’?” In ‘Bullet to the Head,’ Stallone’s character, a hit man named Bobo, demonstrates on a cop how he can kill a target … with an apple. In the climax, two men go after each other with axes. Are there times when an apple can be an “assault apple” or an ax can be an “assault ax”? We don’t know, because most interviews don’t continue to probe complex issues once the “right” (i.e., politically correct) answer is given.

Stallone’s comments aside, I did my best to focus solely on the movie.

In short, ‘Bullet to the Head’ is a mindless action flick that is worth checking out with a buddy. A by-the-books cop, Kwon, played by Sung Kang, and hit man Bobo both had their partners killed by the same criminal. Each man seeks to mete out their own form of justice before the credits roll. Along the way they need to survive crooked cops (the kind you might need a weapon to protect yourself from), armed thugs (the kind you might need a weapon to protect yourself from) and the prospect that powerful — but corrupt — politicians might also put a price out on their heads.

The biggest weakness with ‘Bullet to the Head’ is the villain “Keegen,” played by Jason Momoa. He’s soft. And he doesn’t particularly exude evil. He just looks like a beefy model and not a killer (which is probably another reason why almost no one saw his remake of ‘Conan the Barbarian’).

Compare “Keegen” in Bullet with Brian Thompson’s “Night Slasher” in “Cobra.” One guy is so evil he spits all over the place when he blurts out “PIG!” He uncontrollably salivates at the chance to kill the hero. The other guy is simply supposed to look menacing when he comes out of the water. He causally asks, “Are we going to do this?” (i.e., “I guess there has to be a to-the-death battle between us, huh?”)

Compare ‘Cobra’s’ ending, in which Stallone impales a serial killer and casts him into a hellish inferno, with ‘Bullet’s’ … which I won’t ruin for you other than to say it doesn’t measure up to 1986 Stallone.

Go see a Sunday matinee showing of ‘Bullet to the Head’ if you have some time on your hands this weekend. Just be aware that while it’s enjoyable, you’ll feel like you were wearing a bulletproof vest.

“Keegen” vs. “Night Slasher” is no contest. Stallone’s ‘Cobra’ wins by a landslide.

And now I give you ‘Angel of the City’ just for good measure. So cheesy. So bad. But so good.

Jessica Chastain does a magnificent job as Maya in ‘Zero Dark Thirty’. She manages to embody the hopes, fears, determination and frustration of not just the CIA, but of the entire country. (Image: YouTube)

Not since Paul Greengrass’ United 93 has there been a movie related to 9/11 that has impressed me as much as Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty. Fittingly, the film begins with 911 calls on September 11th from a helpless victim inside the World Trade Center. A woman says to the dispatcher: “I’m going to die, aren’t I? I’m going to die,” before the line cuts out. It was a wise move on Bigelow’s part. Sitting in the theater I was transported to that day and from there on out I was emotionally invested. By the final credits it was her directorial chops that kept me glued to my seat, despite the predictable ending.

The problem with reviewing a movie like Zero Dark Thirty is that everyone wants to talk about the torture scenes. And how could they not? Anyone who has seen Django Unchained will recall the “hot boxes” Broomhilda is thrown in when “the box” Zero’s recalcitrant detainees must face makes its debut, before thinking: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” And the dog collar used in Zero alludes to Lynndie England’s Abu Ghraib leash photo, Bigelow’s way of saying the problem was much more systemic than previously thought. Perhaps in a parallel universe Quentin Tarintino will direct a jihad revenge fantasy titled Mohammed Unchained? Who knows.

The point is, there is much more to this movie than water boarding and sleep deprivation. And that is: there are very smart, very evil people out there who are plotting and planning — every moment of every day — ways to attack Western Civilization and kill its people. They are hardened. They are crafty. They are true believers in their cause, and “solving” the problem is no easy task. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why former Navy SEAL Mark Owen (his real name withheld here) titled his book on the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden No Easy Day.

During an explosive scene, one of the CIA big shots slams his hand on a desk in front of his team and says: “Do your fucking jobs! Bring me people to kill!” Well, that isn’t his job. His job is not to simply kill people — but when your own countrymen are dying, when your team members are dying (i.e., the Khost terror attack, in which a double-agent took out seven CIA members in a suicide bombing), and you can’t find the world’s most wanted terrorist after having spent billions of dollars and countless man hours — it becomes easy to unravel. The urge to substitute drone-bombing for a cohesive counter-terrorism strategy is tempting, but it only masks more difficult tasks; left unattended, they still fester and grow.

The star of Zero Dark Thirty is Maya, a CIA analyst played fabulously by Jessica Chastain. Maya is apparently a composite character, but she seems mostly based on an analyst mentioned in Owen’s No Easy Day. The trials and tribulations she displays during her quest to capture and kill Osama bin Laden are shared by the audience. Her frustrations are our frustrations. Her dilemmas are our dilemmas. And her triumph is the nation’s triumph.

I teared up during Zero Dark Thirty because this was the kind of movie the subject matter deserved years ago. I found myself thinking about my friends who were deployed overseas in a post 9/11 world, and one in particular who didn’t come back alive. I found myself thinking about my friends in the intelligence community or my sister, who lived in downtown Manhattan on 9/11 and watched the second plane fly by her window. It was gratifying to see onscreen just how messy and complex and difficult the subject of Islamic terrorism is. Knowing that millions of self-righteous know-it-alls will walk into the theater and leave enraged or confused means that Bigelow did the right thing.

Zero Dark Thirty ends with a pilot asking Maya where she wants to go. With Osama bin Laden dead, there is a cathartic release on her face — but she has no answer. I would argue that her expression is almost as classic as Dustin Hoffman’s and Katharine Ross’ in The Graduate. Regardless, the nation has its own soul-searching to do, and we should all thank Kathryn Bigelow for prompting an adult conversation on the subject when she could have created a polemic. Now somebody just needs to ask Hollywood: What took you so long?

This review of Tekkonkinkreet comes far too long after the movie came out — 2006 — so all I have to say for myself is: better late than never.

Most of my friends are either really into anime, or not at all. And that’s a shame, because Michael Arias directed something special when he took Taiyo Matsumoto’s manga to the big screen. Tekkonkinkreet is anime that transcends anime. It’s a complex movie that is sad and touching and one of those rare pieces of art that I appreciate more with each viewing.

The movie begins with “Gramps” asking his grandchildren, “Black” and “White,” the following question as White strikes a match:

What is it about the fire, so calm and peaceful, but inside all power and destruction? It’s hiding something, just like people do.
Sometimes, you have to get close to find out what’s inside. Sometimes, you need to get burned to see the truth.

From there, Tekkonkinkreet is out the gates and never lets up (the two young boys, orphans, seemingly fly over city during the title sequence).

The central premise of the film as that these two brothers (“stray cats”), must survive and adapt in a changing city. They’re tough kids — the rulers of Treasure Town — and they’re willing to fight anyone who seeks to impose a new vision on their home. Black and White’s story is about the importance of familial bonds, good vs. evil, free will vs. destiny, the loss of innocence and the search for inner peace. It’s a fantasy film that in many ways feels real. Some of that is due to camera techniques and art direction, but primarily it’s because of the care that went into crafting the characters. Like the first five minutes of Pixar’s Up, Arias’ Tekkonkinkreet is an animated film that just might bring a tear or two to your eyes.

One of my favorite moments comes when White describes his relationship with Black to a cop, Sawada:

White is missing lots of screws. I need screws for my heart. God made me broken.
Black, too. He’s broken. He’s missing screws too — for his heart. But I got all the screws Black needs. I got every one. I got every one.

We’re all broken. We’re imperfect. We’re fallible. If we’re being honest, we all know that we’re missing some screws. But there is someone out there — a husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, brother, sister, or another loved one — who has the missing parts we need to keep us from falling apart. Some of us need that other half to keep us from visiting the darker parts of our nature. We think we’re in charge, but in reality it is that other person who has all the power because they bring out the best in us and temper our less desirable traits.

If you’ve never seen Tekkonkinkreet before, I highly suggest checking it out. Try and figure out who the “Black” or “White” is in your life, and then share it with them. Hopefully, you’ll both enjoy it as much as I did.

Black and White have one of the best brotherly bonds ever portrayed on the big screen. Period.

Sameul L. Jackson believes that we don’t teach people the “value of life” today. Oddly enough, he’s also the guy who would freak out if conservatives started talking about social issues. (Image: Marvel)

It wasn’t too long ago that Samuel L. Jackson was telling American voters to “wake the f**k up.” Do you know who can’t wake up, Samuel? Dead people. More specifically, dead people whose lives were extinguished because a mentally deranged person riddled their bodies with bullets. And so, it doesn’t surprise me that with Django Unchained about to open you’re doing everything within your power to direct attention away from this fact: You’ve made millions of dollars due to depictions of graphic violence on the big screen.

“I don’t think it’s about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life … I don’t think movies or video games have anything to do with it. … We need to stop deranged people from getting access to guns,” (Samuel L. Jackson).

Where are people taught about life, Samuel? Parents. The family. The local community. Religious institutions. Those are all places where it is imperative that individuals be instilled with the kinds of values most likely to produce upstanding citizens. But the mosaic of influences at work on the individual psyche includes another part: popular culture.

Who determines what’s “cool,” Samuel? Where do our young people turn at a time when their minds are like little sponges, soaking up the values that will stay with them the rest of their lives? The answer: Hollywood. And while I think the impact is negligible when an individual comes from a loving attentive family, the same can’t be said for the kids who come home from school every day to an empty household. (Mom and Dad both work.) Or maybe there is no mom. Maybe there is no dad. Maybe there is a mom and dad, but other factors (e.g., alcohol, drugs) leave their parenting skills in shambles. The point is this: The entertainment industry cannot escape culpability if liberals are going to frame any conversation about shooting rampages on a “gun culture.”

Question, Samuel: Wouldn’t respecting the “value of life” begin by not calling the extermination of millions of children “choice”? Shouldn’t respecting the value of life begin with the most innocent and helpless among us? If we chased the falling public policy dominoes back to the first one tipped over, do you think it might begin with abortion? Just wondering. Maybe instead of talking about a “gun culture” we should talk about the “abortion culture.”

Does the “Hand of Hope” story tie in with gun violence? I believe it does, perhaps more than we’d like to admit. (Image: Fox News)

It’s hard to look at the 21-week old hand of a “fetus” and really believe it’s “just a fetus.” To stick with the dominoes analogy, it’s a human life that has been set in motion. It’s not just some random collection of cells. It’s not just a mistake or “punishment”. It’s life. And if actors like Samuel L. Jackson want to talk about valuing life, then it would be nice if they weighed in on abortion more often. But they won’t, because a guy like Mr. Jackson — who admits he only voted for President Obama because of the color of his skin — is never asked tough questions. With the right letter after your name you are rarely thrust into embarrassing Q&A sessions. Nobody asks you if God would prefer if babies conceived during rape were dead. Nobody asks if that little hand of Samuel Armas clutching the doctor’s finger stirs something inside you that screams: “This is so much more than I was led to believe! This is real. This is a human being and someone needs to stand up for its right to life.”

As a conservative, I’m repeatedly told not to talk about social issues. And then there is a mass shooting and guys like Samuel L. Jackson say that it’s because we “aren’t taught the value of life.” Well, whether you want to talk about abortion or not, the statement essentially demands that social issues come up. So which is it, Samuel? Should the crazy conservative shut up and not talk about social issues, or are you going to try and say with a straight face that “the value of life” can be talked about without broaching subjects along the lines of faith, family and religion?

The new Man of Steel trailer is amazing. It is flat out awesome. Every aspect of what has been teased over the last few months indicates that Zack Snyder has directed something that aims for epic and in all likelihood will succeed. Snyder proved that he could handle a cynical take on Superman (i.e., Dr. Manhattan in the underrated Watchman), and all the early indicators are that he will deliver with the real deal.

First, let’s look at Jonathan Kent:

Pa Kent: You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Whoever that man is, he’s going to change the world.

Pa Kent (Teaser Trailer 2): You’re not just anyone. One day you’re going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is — good character or bad — he’s going to change the world.

Bravo. Good and Evil exist — and not only do we have the power to choose the person we become, but we must choose. Moral clarity out of the gates is reassuring. The world is clearly a messy place (e.g., Should Clark have let children die to protect his secret?), but deep down we know what is right and just and what must be done.

Growing up, I was never a huge fan of Superman and I never could quite pinpoint why. He was just “boring.” I didn’t realize it for quite some time, but Jor El explains the situation clearly:

Jor El (Teaser Trailer 1): You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

Superman is the ideal we all strive for, but will never attain. He sets the bar for all other superheroes. He has nearly-unlimited power, but he chooses to serve others. He is so much more than the humans he walks among, and yet he loves and protects and cares for them. And perhaps the truth is I didn’t dislike Superman because he is actually boring; I disliked him because he reminded me of just how flawed I was. And am. And always will be. Superman is that moment in time when after months of denying something you know to be true you look in the mirror and it’s there — there’s no escaping it — and the truth just stares you in the eye and forces you to confront the issue or fight that much harder to live in denial. Zack Snyder gets it, and he wisely made sure to include it in the script:

Clark Kent: My father believed that if the world found out who I realize was, they’d reject me. He was convinced that the world wasn’t ready. What do you think?

When I first saw an image of Superman in cuffs and flanked by U.S. servicemen my instinct was to become skeptical. Would Snyder go the route of so many other Hollywood directors and portray the U.S. government as the “bad” guy for a good portion of the flick? I thought about it, and decided not to write on the issue because everything I’ve seen from him suggests he’s smarter than that. There had to be a better angle. After having viewed the trailer, I’m glad I held off.

The truth is, the world would reject Superman. And in his love for humanity he would offer himself up to them. No matter how strong and powerful he was and no matter how much he tried to convince humanity that he loved it they would fear and, ultimately, seek to destroy him. A world in which Superman exists would thrust a moral weight upon the shoulders of its citizens that would be too uncomfortable to bear for millions (possibly billions) of people, and they would seek to find ways to cast off such a burden by banishing him from earth, discrediting or destroying him all together.

If Zack Synder plays his cards right he will have a hit movie on his hands that millions of its critics will hate for reasons they won’t be able to comprehend until years after the fact, if at all.

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen isn’t a fan of Daniel Craig’s muscular Bond. He’d prefer a more bookish version of 007. Since Skyfall quotes Tennyson, it’s only fitting to remind the author: “How dull it is to pause, to make an end, to rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use!” (Image: YouTube.)

In 2010 I brought up the sad truth that there are a lot of men who wish Alan Alda and George Clooney could have a baby that looked like Matt Damon, but with beta-male genes empowered by gamma radiation. They want to see The Hulk, but instead of getting really angry they want him to cross his legs and purse his lips with incredible strength. The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen’s latest piece, ‘James Bond and the new sex appeal,’ demonstrates quite nicely that he is one of those men:

This Bond ripples with muscles. Craig is 44, but neither gravity nor age has done its evil work on him. Nothing about him looks natural, relaxed — a man in the prime of his life and enjoying it. Instead, I see a man chasing youth on a treadmill, performing sets and reps, a clean and press, a weighted knee raise, an incline pushup and, finally, something called an incline pec fly (don’t ask). I take these terms from the Daniel Craig Workout, which you can do, too, if your agent and publicist so insist. Otherwise, I recommend a book. …

“Skyfall” is a lot of fun — don’t get me wrong — but it still says something about our culture that, in the autumn of my years, I do not like. To appreciate what I mean, contrast this new Bond to Roger O. Thornhill, the charmingly hapless advertising man played by Cary Grant in “North by Northwest.” Like Bond, Thornhill pulls off some amazing physical feats — his mad frantic escape from the crop duster, the traverse of Mount Rushmore — and like Bond he wears an expensive suit. Unlike Bond, though, when he takes it off we do not see some marbleized man, an ersatz creation of some trainer, but a fit man, effortlessly athletic and just as effortlessly sophisticated. Of course, he knows his martinis, but he also knows how to send out a suit for swift hotel cleaning. He is a man of the world. …

Every rippling muscle is a book not read, a movie not seen or a conversation not held. That’s why Sean Connery was my kind of Bond. He was 53 when he made his last Bond film, “Never Say Never Again.” Women loved him because he was sophisticated and he could handle a maitre d’ as well as a commie assassin. Western civilization was saved not on account of his pecs but on account of his cleverness and experience.

I know the movie market skews young and kids want action, and I take it as a good thing that Daniel Craig’s Bond is older, world weary, and, in sports lingo, has slowed a step. But he still triumphs physically, not cleverly.

Speak for yourself, Richard. Some of us make time to do our reps and read books. We discipline our bodies and our minds. Daniel Craig’s 007 is superior because he brings strength and intelligence to the table — a deadly combination that strikes fear into wannabe George Clooneys because a “marbleized man” reminds them of very real soldiers (Navy SEALs, perhaps?) who can kill you with wits, fists, or marksmanship.

Richard Cohen may read a lot of books, but apparently many of them haven’t been historical in nature or he’d realize that Western Civilization owes plenty to men with “pecs.” And he claims to watch a lot of movies, but he seems to have fallen asleep during Skyfall because Bond is, in fact, very clever.

Who has to be more clever — the Bond who depends on exploding pens, or the Bond who must ultimately save the day with a hunting rifle and a knife? Who is more clever — the Bond who depends on ejector seats in his car, or the Bond who depends on his ability to recall — in a split second — the name of a decades-old metro stop in order to decrypt a digital map of subterranean London?

The insecurity masquerading as confidence displayed by men like Cohen is summed up perfectly in a conversation that 007 has with Q:

Q: Well, I’ll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.
James Bond: Oh, so why do you need me?
Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.
James Bond: Or not pulled. It’s hard to know which in your pajamas, Q.

Mr. Cohen pines for the Bonds of yore because it allows him to pretend he, in a pair of designer Gucci frames, could play the part. Cohen would love to believe that it’s possible to regularly dine out at Komi and Minibar, drink Macallan Scotch, and still manage to save the day. “Clever” men with “first class temperaments” cling to the belief that it is their brainpower that can save Western Civilization (a “reset” with Russia here, an endorsement of the Muslim Brotherhood there), because deep down they know that the men who live in the shadows, pulling triggers, must work to keep their peak physical performance if they want to stay alive in the field.

I highly suggest seeing Skyfall if you haven’t already. It’s a great movie. I just wish M quoted more of Tennyson’s Ulysses; Mr. Cohen might have understood Craig’s 007 better if she had:

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use!
As tho’ to breathe were life! Life piled on life …

We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Here’s a photo of yours truly to demonstrate that I practice what I preach.