Trailer Thoughs: The Mummy (2017)

If you're a big monster movie nerd like I am, then you've probably heard that Universal Studios is trying to make a shared universe mega-franchise using modern day remakes of their classic monster series.  The new 2017 film 'The Mummy' is going to be the first film in the series.  Now, the reaction of most people when they hear this is something like: 'Oh, they're just trying to be Marvel.  Just like everybody else is.'  And there is definitely some truth in that.  Pretty much everybody IS trying to be Marvel right now.  But if anyone has a right to try and be Marvel it's the Universal Monsters.  They did it first.  1943's 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman' was one of the first ever film crossovers, and then Universal brought Dracula into the fold with 1944's 'House of Frankenstein' and 1945's 'House of Dracula'.  There's a longstanding tradition for Monsters meeting up and fighting each other.

 Universal made headlines when they announced that the new Mummy was going to be female.  'First ever female Mummy!'  Somehow the news spun that as Universal is a champion for women's roles in Hollywood?  Like we didn't think women could play monsters before, or something?  (I feel like there's a Mother-in-law joke in there somewhere).  The thing is: Anyone who REALLY KNOWS MUMMIES should know that this isn't true.  One of the earliest and most influential mummy stories is Bram Stoker's 1903 novel 'The Jewel of the Seven Stars' which featured the vengeful queen Tera who was a FEMALE MUMMY.  Later installments in Universal's original series such as 'The Mummy's Ghost' and 'The Mummy's Curse' had Princess Ananaka, ANOTHER FEMALE MUMMY.

One thing to note is that this movie, and I assume the other movies in the series will be as well, is set in the modern day.  It'll be interesting to see how they pull this off.  So much of what makes Mummies in particular work is the backdrop of superstition and mysticism of an early 20th century setting.  All that 'Curse of the Pharaoh's' can come off as Saturday Morning Cartoon stuff so many years after the discovery of King Tut's Tomb. 

Let's talk about the latest trailer.  Looks like it could be promising.  We've got a variety of locations, a look at Russell Crowe's Dr. Jekyll - who appears to have a wise-yet-judgemental 'How dare you unleash the ultimate evil on humanity?' role, a few glimpses of the action (That awesome flooded tomb!) and a look at Princess Ahmanet's powers.  I gotta say, the way she flips and scurries up that chain like a spider is awesome!  I'm a little concerned about her ability to make a giant flying head appear in the sky though.  That's the signature move of Imhotep from Stephen Sommers' 1999 Mummy series.  There are enough fans wondering why this movie stars Tom Cruise instead of Brendan Fraser as it is.  Personally I think this movie would do better if it avoids comparison to a popular film series that a lot of people grew up with.

That said, let's talk about the title, huh?  The 1932 Mummy, the 1959 Mummy, the 1999 Mummy and this new film are all simply called 'The Mummy'.  That gets a little confusing, doesn't it?  Maybe they should take a page from 'Kong: Skull Island's' book and give us a new title to go with our new mummy.

-Geekboy.

The Unknowable Future

Over the past few years there have been some major changes in my family dynamic.  And there are more changes coming down the pipe in the near future.  It's inevitable at this point.  Maybe it's because of all these changes, but I've been thinking a lot about these two songs lately.  They both deal with family life and how it changes with time.

The first song is called 'Boats & Birds' by 'Gregory and the Hawk'.  My interpretation of the song is that it's about empty nest syndrome.  A mother is singing to her child about how she knows that they will have to grow up and someday and the child will live his or her own life.  'You can skyrocket away from me - And never come back if you find another Galaxy - Far from here where there's more room to fly - But leave me your stardust to remember you by.'  The song is about coping with the fact that sometimes you have to let go of the people you care about.

The other song is 'House of Gold' by 'Twenty One Pilots'.  It has sort of the same premise, but the roles are flipped.  This one is about a son who wants to have the means to provide for his mother in her later years.  She's provided for him after all, and it's only fair that he return the favor.  'She asked me, son, when I grow old - Will you buy me a house of gold - And when your father turns to stone - Will you take care of me?'  The son wants to care for his mom in the event of his father's death.  He worries that he won't be able to provide for her needs financially.  My favorite line in the song is 'And since we know that dreams are dead - And life turns plans upon there heads - I will plan to be a bum - So I just might become someone!'  This drives home for me the point that the future is unknowable.  We can't control it.

And what are our biggest fears?  The unknown.  And if the future is both unknown and unknowable it stands to reason that the future and the change it brings can be one of our biggest sources of anxiety.  And fear can be such an isolating emotion.  Fear of the unknown future is not something we have to face alone however.  Because the unknown future and the fear it brings are universal.  Everyone has experienced it or will experience it.  Everyone you come in contact with should be able to empathize with your worries.  That makes everyone you meet a potential part of your support group.  Or, if talking to other people about your worries is too scary, you can have you fears quelled vicariously through songs like 'Boats and Birds' or 'House of Gold'.  Songs help because they remind us that we aren't so alone.

-Geekboy.

Thoughts On: Shrek (2001)

'What did you do this weekend, Geekboy?'  Well, I watched the Dreamworks animated film 'Shrek' with my family.  Because about the only other thing I could muster up the energy to do was watch sword-fighting clips from Errol Flynn swashbucklers on Youtube.  That's right.  The party never stops when I'm around.

'Shrek' is pretty much beloved by kids and adults across the board.  Why is that?  What makes it tick?  Why is 'Shrek' hailed as the perfect modern fairy-tale for the 21st century?

Is it because there's enough princess stuff for the young girls, enough action and gross-out humor for young boys, and a nostalgic pop soundtrack for the grown-ups?  I think appealing to so many demographics is definitely part of the success.  As a kid I really dug the actions scenes with the suspension bridge over the pit of lava and the dragon chase through the castle (and still do as an adult).  My Dad liked 'Shrek' primarily for the jukebox soundtrack and Donkey's wacky antics.

But jokes and catchy music only go so far.  What is it about the story and the characters that resonates with all ages?  I think it's because it's a story about oddballs.  And let's face it, we're a society of oddballs.  Few things are more compelling than three individuals who come together, learn to see past their differences (or differences that are actually similarities in disguise) and become buds.

Let's take a look at the title character Shrek.  He's a loner who takes the whole introversion think very seriously.  As an introvert I can identify with this character right away.  But as the story goes on we learn that a big part of the reason Shrek hates being around people is that people hated being around him first.  They started it.

Then we have Donkey.  When he crosses paths with Shrek he has that whole 'We oddballs must stick together!' thing going.  Shrek, who is so used to being alone, is incredibly annoyed by this.  We identify with Shrek here because we all know what unwanted company is like.  We introverts will find all living beings to be annoying at some point in our lives.  Our family, our friends...no we don't ACTUALLY hate everybody, we just need a little space right now.  And the ability to hear ourselves think.  But on the flip side of this we also identify with Donkey.  Because we all go through that awkward stage where we desperately want someone - ANYONE - to like us.  Often this awkward stage is called puberty.  And as much as Shrek doesn't really want Donkey around, Donkey does slowly begin to draw Shrek out of his shell.

And to complete this trio we have Princess Fiona.  She's trying her hardest to behave the way a perfect Princess should act, because that's the role in society that she's expected to play.  But let's face it - that's just not her.  In addition to this she has an embarrassing secret: That whole 'turning into an ogre when the sun sets' thing.  This resonates with the 'Oh, nobody would like me if they knew about (fill in the blank) ' that most socially awkward people have going.  So, Fiona is basically pretending she's something that she isn't - twice over - in order to fit in.

These characters are all basically three sides of the same socially awkward coin.  So the narrative of these three people who don't fit in anywhere become friends - or in Shrek and Fiona's case fall in love - is the sort of story we oddballs need to hear.  Because deep down we know that there's nothing so wrong with us that we can't have friends or fall in love, but sometimes we need a reminder.

That may not be why Shrek resonates with everyone - I don't know what you extroverts get out of it - but I think it's why it resonates with me.  Leave a comment about why Shrek resonates with you.

-Geekboy.

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Here we go again.  Last installment of the Seven Samurai vs Magnificent Seven series.

The 2016 version makes a few subtle changes to the story we should be pretty familiar with by now.  Rather than bandits stealing grain we have an evil robber baron 'Bartholomew Bogue' out to steal the farmers land and the valuable mineral rights that go with it.  The seed for this idea of 'Thar be gold in those hills!' was planted in the 60's version with Harry Luck's obsessive notion that the bandits must be after buried treasure rather than grain.

Rather than turn to the local wise old man for advice the townsfolk meet in the Church to figure out how to deal with this.  Bartholomew crashes this little party, and burns down the Church building.  All this is to show us just how evil he is.  As if this isn't bad enough Bartholomew's men quite literally kick the Pastor while he's down.  The husband of our female lead, Emma, rushes to the Pastor's aid and is shot in cold blood.

We now switch to our heroes.  Or at least one of them.  There are seven of these guys after all.  Specifically we switch to Sam Chisolm, who is quick to remind you that he's a 'Warrant Officer' rather than a bounty hunter (but he's basically a bounty hunter).  We're given clues to his character arc and motivation through the sort of bounties he collects.  He's after a man who has murdered fathers, sons, and raped wives.  You don't mess with families around Sam Chisolm.

Chisolm is approached by Emma.  Unlike Seven Samurai and the '60s Magnificent Seven, Chisolm doesn't agree to help simply because it's the right thing to do.  His interest isn't peaked until he hears the name Bogue.  He's got history with Bartholomew.  He asks Emma if she's out for revenge.  Her response?  'I seek righteousness, as should we all.  But I'll take revenge.'

Now that our heroic leader is on-board we go about the recruitment process.  To save time Chisolm already knows most of the men he recruits.  And the ones he doesn't have history with are all like, 'Hey, I have a buddy who's an expert knife thrower!  Can they come too?'  So, that's a subtle difference between versions.  Another is Chisolm's recruitment methods.  They occasionally border on blackmail.  For example, he buys the horse Joshua Faraday lost in a dice game and is all 'My horse now.  If you want it back you have to do a job for me.'  And then there's Vasquez, an outlaw he promises not to turn in, but only if he joins the suicide mission.

So.  On one hand this updated version feels a little cynical to me.  The storytellers decided to give most of the characters motivations to fight other than 'Yay!  Sticking up for the underdogs!  It's the right thing to do!'  Chisolm in particular feels a little jaded to me as we learn he's out for revenge on Bogue himself.  As leader of the seven he's the one you want to feel the LEAST jaded.  At times I feel like they were trying to make a Clint Eastwood western rather than a Magnificent Seven remake.

On the other hand we have themes of joining a common cause in spite of personal differences.  This message is downright humanitarian!  We have the Mexican outlaw Vasquez and Goodnight Robicheaux, whose grandfathers fought on opposite sides in the Battle of the Alamo, and we also have ex-Indian fighter Jack Horne and Comanche warrior Red Harvest fighting side by side.

The choice of the name Red Harvest - and this may be a bit of a stretch - seems like a clever Easter Egg to me.  Film Historians speculate that Dashiell Hammett's prohibition era mystery novel 'Red Harvest' may have inspired Akira Kurosawa's film 'Yojimbo' which in turn inspired the Spaghetti Western film 'For a Fistful of Dollars.'  And who directed 'Seven Samurai,' the film upon which 'Magnificent Seven' is based?  Also Akira Kurosawa.

Speaking of 'Seven Samurai,' the 2016 adaption doesn't seem to have a stand in for the Kikuchiyo character.  Not among the Seven at least.  I honestly think the closest equivalent is Emma.  She spends a good deal of the story trying to convince Chisolm to let her join the fight,  but not in a cheesy 'girl power' type way.  She doesn't have anything to prove, but feels as if they need every good shot they have, and wants an active part in bringing her husband's killer to justice.

I feel like Emma/Kikuchiyo parallel is particularly evident in the climax of the movie.  In a desperate attempt to escape from Chisolm's wrath, Bogue runs to the Church for sanctuary.  You know, that same Church that he burned down in the beginning of the picture.  Chisolm has him cornered, but like all dishonorable bad guys Bogue pulls out the backup weapon he had stashed on his person.  He's about to pull the trigger, and we hear a gunshot.  Not his gunshot, but Emma's.  She's avenging her husband's death and - like Kikuchiyo - becoming a full fledged warrior in the process.

And that's it for my Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven series.  Hope you enjoyed, and if you haven't already, check out at least one of these movies - if not all three.  Each one has its own merits and I think it's worth studying the differences and similarities between adaptions.

-Geekboy.

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Welcome to spot the differences...Magnificent Seven addition!  Now, the most obvious difference between 'Seven Samurai' and the The Magnificent Seven' is that 'The Magnificent Seven' is 'Seven Samurai' but with COWBOYS!

Okay.  That's it for this post.  Lets see, what should I review next?

What, you were expecting a more in-depth compare and contrast?

>Sigh<  Fine.

Remember when I said one of the major themes in Seven Samurai is the class differences between the farmers and the Samurai?  That's not really the case here.  The Gunslingers pretty much treat the farmers as equals.  This is a story about sticking up for the underdog and fighting for a cause because it's the right thing to do, rather than for personal gain.  Seven Samurai is also about fighting for a cause because it's the right thing to do, but it's more about personal honor and less about underdogs.

The film starts in a small Mexican village in a similar manner to Seven Samurai, only this time around there is actual interaction between the farmers and the bandits.  When one of the farmers tries to fight back he is gunned down.  So the villagers consult the old man and he tells them to scrape together everything of value they have so they can buy guns to fight off the bandits.

So they head north to find guns.  As we're cutting out all of that class difference stuff, we're also cutting back on the process of finding honorable Samurai who don't treat the farmers as if they're the dirt beneath their shoes.  The first thing the farmers witness when they arrive in town is two gunslingers risking their lives to give a dead American Indian a proper burial.  These gunslingers are Chris (played by Yul Brynner) who will be your Sensei Kambei for the evening, and Vin (played by Steve McQueen).  At first glance Vin seems to fill the role of Katsushirō, except there is no mentor/student dynamic between Chris and Vin.  Again, they are treated as equals.

The act of heroism is also witnessed by a young Mexican wannabe Gunslinger named Chico (played by Horst Buchholz).  Chico seems to be Katsushirō and Kikuchiyo combined.  He has Katsushirō's youthful naivety, insecurity, and romantic subplot.  He has Kikuchiyo's pride, blustery goofball nature, and also plays the role as moderator between gunslingers and farmers.  Chris describes Chico as 'Young and proud.  And the graveyards are filled with young and proud gunslingers'.

So the farmers ask Chris to help them buy guns.  Chris advises them to hire gunslingers instead as 'Men are cheaper than guns'.  ...That's not cynical at all...  So they offer him all the money they could scrape together.  To which he responds: 'I've been offered a lot for my work...but never everything.'  Is that profound or what?

So after that Chris goes about hiring gunmen.  This section is more or less identical to Seven Samurai.  One think about Seven Samurai though, is after the main introduction of each of the seven only the three main characters get a lot of development.  In 'The Magnificent Seven' more of the gunslingers have defining characteristics.  We have Harry, the soldier of fortune, Lee, army deserter who caves under pressure, and Bernardo, who has a soft spot children in spite of his gruff persona.  Of course as we're spending more time with the gunslingers we're also spending less time with the villagers and the social commentary from the original.

One interesting difference between 'Seven Samurai' and 'The Magnificent Seven' comes in the form of 'Show Don't Tell'.  Seven Samurai has Kambei studying maps and surveying the land to determine the best way to defend the village.  Magnificent Seven merely shows us the gunslingers overseeing construction of stone walls and the placement of nets.  'Magnificent Seven' saves time in this manor, but 'Seven Samurai' shows us that Kambei to be a brilliant strategist.  Also in 'Magnificent Seven' Petra tells Chico through exposition that the fathers feared for the safety of their daughters and made them go into hiding.  She also tells Chico that her father will punish her for spending so much time with him.  In 'Seven Samurai' Shino's father forcibly cuts her hair so she'll look like a boy, and later gives her a beating after catching her with Katsushirō.  I don't know if Petra's exposition info-dump is to save time or because of the MPAA's stance on depictions of violence towards women at the time.

In general 'Magnificent Seven' is a lighter movie than 'Seven Samurai'.  For example, there's a scene where the gunslingers try to convince the wise old man to move into the village as they can't defend his home.  The old man refuses to leave.  In 'Seven Samurai' the houses on the other side of the river are burned to the ground and everyone but a small child is killed by the bandits.  In 'Magnificent Seven' the old man shows up again after the climax without a scratch.

Although the first half of 'Magnificent Seven' follows 'Seven Samurai' pretty faithfully, the second half starts to diverge.  Rather than sneaking off into the enemy camp to steal superior weaponry, Chico infiltrates the bandits to spy.  And instead of negative consequences for his reckless action, he is praised as a hero.  However, some of the farmers get cold feet after the initial skirmish and betray the gunslingers by letting the bandits into the village.

The bandit leader allows the gunslingers to live, but only taking there guns and force marching them out of town.  The seven decide to return to the town in spite of this betrayal, as they were paid for a job and that job is unfinished.  It's a combination of personal pride and sense of duty.

So they have a heroic last stand which many of the gunslingers die.  The most tragic is Bernardo, who dies protecting the three young boys who've adopted him.  Chico - and this is what I consider to be the biggest difference between the two versions - survives.  I was actually pretty disappointed about this the first time I watched 'Magnificent Seven'.  I hadn't seen yet 'Seven Samurai', but I knew from the anime series 'Samurai 7' that Kikuchiyo dies in the end and is buried with honor alongside his fallen comrades as a true Samurai.  Having Chico survive and stay with Petra to start a life as a farmer felt like the opposite of a character arc to me.

Watching it again, the change works pretty well.  The other gunslingers are predicting that Chico will die in battle because of his impetuous nature since the beginning of the movie, so it's kind of a plot twist when he doesn't.  Also part of what makes Kikuchiyo's death so effective is that he's atoning for his past mistake of deserting his post and getting people killed.  Also, Chico is a combination of Kikuchiyo and Katsushirō, and given the more optimistic tone of 'Magnificent Seven' it makes sense that Chico gets Katsushirō's happy ending.

Bottom line: 'Seven Samurai' and 'The Magnificent Seven' have a lot of similarities, but enough differences to keep things interesting.  If you watch one it is definitely worth your time to watch the other.

-Geekboy

Seven Samurai (1954)

I just recently watched Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece.  What's that?  All of Kurosawa's films are considered masterpieces?  I shall be more specific then.  I just recently watched Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece 'Seven Samurai'.  Seven Samurai is probably the closest of Kurosawa's films to being a household name in the USA, even among people who aren't film geeks.  There are so many adaptions and remakes that even if you haven't watched the original you've probably seen something that was at least heavily inspired by Seven Samurai.

The reason I finally knuckled and watched this is because I'd just seen the 2016 'Magnificent Seven' with friends.  I'd also seen the 1960 Magnificent Seven, the 2004 anime series 'Samurai 7' and the 1980 Roger Corman B-movie 'Battle Beyond the Stars'.  I wanted to talk about some of the differences between adaptions, and figured I had to go back to the original source to do that right.

So, why HADN'T I watched Seven Samurai all this time?  Other than 'Foreign films are expensive,' which isn't a good reason, because I had seen it available for free at my local public library and just didn't get it out.  My big reasons where A: The run-time is about 3 and a half hours, and B: That's 3 and a half hours worth of subtitles and I'm not really a fast reader.  My concerns were insignificant.  There's an intermission and the 2 hour mark, so you can easily watch the movie over two nights.  The intermission is a pretty good stopping place, particularly if you're already a little familiar with the story.  As for the subtitles, well, most of the Kurosawa movies that I've seen are pretty minimalist when it comes to dialog.  There were about two places where I had to rewind and hit 'pause' to finish reading the subtitle, but for the most part I was able to keep up pretty well.

Once upon a time in Feudal Japan a group of bandits ride up to a small farming village with the intent of pillaging and plundering and putting big hickeys on all the fair damsels (Ray Stevens: Erik the Awful.  Look it up).  They decide to hold off their attack until after the harvest.  The bandits are overheard by one of the farmers, who warns all the other villagers of the oncoming attack.

The impoverished farmers are distraught.  There's no way they'll survive the year without the harvest.  After consulting the village elders they decide to hire Samurai to ward off the attack.  As they have nothing to offer the Samurai other than rice they are advised to find 'Hungry Samurai'.

So a group of volunteers go into the city to find Samurai.  Just throwing this out there, one of the major themes in this movie is class differences.  I don't fully understand the social system of Feudal Japan, but it's made pretty clear that protecting the lowly farmer is not worth the time of the mighty warrior class.  The farmers are treated like dirt by all of the Samurai that they meet.  They're just about ready to give up and go home when they witness a Samurai performing a selfless act.  A bandit has taken a young farm boy hostage and is hiding out in the barn.  The Samurai we'll come to know as Kambei shaves off his topknot and disguises himself as a monk taking food to the boy, and quickly takes out the thief.

The village people (No, not THOSE village people) decide that they want THIS Samurai to defend their village, so they hurry after him.  But before they can approach him another individual beats them to the punch.  Enter Katsushirō, a young Samurai who wants to be the Luke Skywalker to Kambei's Obi Wan Kenobi.  Kambei is all 'Aw, guys, this is to much,' to about all this attention.  He's nothing special.  He's reluctant to train Katsushirō, but agrees to let the youth travel with him.  He's also reluctant to help the farmers, not because he's not sympathetic to their plight, but because he's never been on the winning side of a war.

Kambei is eventually convinced to help, and after hearing the lay-out of the village decides it would take at least seven samurai to defend.  So they go about recruiting Samurai.  They eventually scrounge together six, plus a loud and clumsy town drunk with a Katana who goes by the name of Kikuchiyo.  He's a real Samurai, just like the rest of these guys, and he has a family tree to prove it!  Kambei isn't convinced, but he's unable to keep Kikuchiyo from tagging along.  And so, they become the Six Samurai + This Guy!

 The seven arrive in the village and...discover it's basically deserted.  All of the villages have gone into hiding, completely terrified of the warriors they've hired to protect them.  Kikuchiyo gets the idea to sound the alarm and all the villagers come running, thinking the bandits have arrived.  Kikuchiyo ridicules the townsfolk for begging the Samurai that they're terrified of to save them from the imaginary attackers.  The six decide that Kikuchiyo is useful after all as a moderator between the farmers and Samurai.  They have now truly become...the Six Samurai + This Guy!  Wait, what?  They even make a battle flag with six circles and a triangle, just to show that they're the Six Samurai + This Guy!

 Some of the farmers begin to develop private reasons to resent the Samurai.  One, fearing for the safety of his daughter, forces her to cut her hair and disguise herself as a boy.  Several of the villagers live on the opposite side of a bridge that Kambei intends to destroy to help fortify the town.  Odds are good they'll lose their homes in the coming attack.  And then there's the fact that, because of the class difference the Samurai are allowed to treat the farmers like dirt.  Interestingly, even with the class difference, the Samurai treat the village elders with the utmost respect.

Katsushirō discovers the disguised Shino, and the fact that she's a girl, and the two fall in love behind her father's back.  The seven train the villagers for the upcoming attack, and Kambei is busy with strategy and fortifications.  We learn that Kikuchiyo was actually raised as a farmer, and that's why he's such a good moderator between the villagers and warriors.

After a few skirmishes, the bandits attack for real.  Thanks to Kambei's strategy they're able to pick off the bandits a few at a time.  Unfortunately, the bandits have the Samurai outmatched in firepower.  One of the Samurai, Kyūzō, sneaks into the enemy's camp to steal on of their matchlock guns.  Katsushirō gets a bad case of hero-worship over Kyūzō's bravery, and Kikuchiyo gets it in his head that if HE gets another gun then maybe the others would start to respect him.  So he leaves his guard duty in the hands of one of the villagers and sneaks off to steal a gun.  Unfortunately this plan backfires.  Some of the bandits break into the camp because Kikuchiyo shirked his duties.  One of the Samurai is killed in the attack, and of course Kikuchiyo blames himself.

Having picked off a good number of the bandits, the Samurai prepare for a final battle.  They plan to allow all of the remaining bandits to break through there defenses and then trap them in the village to finish them off.  Unfortunately the bandit leader breaks away from the others, and finds his way into the hut where the women and children have barricaded themselves.  He has a matchlock, and he starts picking off the Samurai one by one.  In a scene that mirror's Kambei's introduction, Kikuchiyo fights his way into the hut and takes out the bandit leader, but at the cost of his own life.

Kikuchiyo is buried with the other Samurai.  The completion of his story arc is that he's finally shown the honor that he craved the for the entire movie.  He fought and died and was buried with his comrades.  This is the part of the story that really resonates with me, and it's a part of the story that most remakes, with the exception of the anime series Samurai 7, fail to capture.  And that's why you should watch the original Seven Samurai.  I've enjoyed both the 1960 and the 2016 versions of 'The Magnificent Seven,' but each version strays further and further from the source material.

If you want to get into Akira Kurosawa movies and don't know which one to start with I'd recommend starting with Seven Samurai.  I personally found it more accessible than the others I've seen - 'Rashomon' and 'The Hidden Fortress' - because I was already familiar with the story.

I'd like to follow this up with some thoughts on the remakes, but we all know how good I am at finishing series of posts that I start.  See you next time.

-Geekboy.

On the 'No Kill' Superhero policy...

A hot button topic in modern superhero movies - particularly DC movies directed by Zack Snyder - is the 'No kill' policy: that idea that certain characters draw a moral line in the sand that they will never under any circumstances cross.

In general I prefer stories in which the protagonist isn't a cold blooded killer.  That said, I enjoy mindless action pictures like James Bond and Indiana Jones.  That type of movie tends to have a high body count.  So I don't tend to loose my mind if an action movie has a bit of carnage and the protagonist is the one responsible.

The 2013 film 'Man of Steel' is quite controversial largely due to the fact that Superman - all American boy-scout - is shown to take a life.  And from hearing disillusioned fans talk about it, they made it sound like a straight up act of murder.  Superman taking out General Zod the way he did is an inexcusable act.  But when I saw the movie for myself I had to ask: did I even watch the same movie as these fans?  Yes, Supes snapped Zod's neck like it was a twig.  He did it to save a bunch of kids.  No, it wasn't a decision he was happy with.  Yes, it was the only option in that scenario, other than to 'just let people die' when there was something he could do to prevent it.

Fast-forward to 2016.  'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is in theaters, and audience response is mixed at best.  One significant complaint is that Zack Snyder's interpretation of Batman doesn't have a no kill policy.  In the months since the movie's release this has become one of the first things to come up when people state there reasons for hating the movie.  Personally, I didn't even notice that Batman killed anyone.  It wasn't until watching compilation videos such as this one that it became evident to me that, yeah, Batman is responsible for a good bit of carnage in downtown Metropolis.  However, I'm not quite sure why this is the one thing fans fixated on?

Granted, Batman's no kill policy in the comics is pretty much the only reason Joker is still alive.  There are fans who think that it's inconsistent to have Joker - who has murdered one of the Robins in this continuity - running around Gotham and have Batman be ready and willing to take out Superman 'If there's even a 1% chance' that he's a threat.  There's much more than a 1% chance that Joker is a threat.

However, the 'Batman never kills rule' has never been a set rule in the movies.  Particularly not in the Tim Burton movies.  Even in the climax of Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' there's that bit between Batman and Ra's al Ghul - 'I won't kill you...But I don't have to save you!'  Morally speaking having the ability to save an individual's life, but standing back and allowing them to die...well at the very least it's obeying the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

But lets take a look at the MCU for a sec.  The fun loving kid friendly Marvel movies.  In the context of the movies, does it make sense for The Avengers to have a no kill policy?  ...Not really?  And they don't seem to.  Let's take a look at Captain America.  He is by definition a Super-Soldier.  From WW2.  He's seen action.  In 'The First Avenger' you see him chuck a live grenade down the open hatch of an occupied tank.  He also casually tosses Hydra agents out of an airplane.  Cap doesn't seem to have a no kill policy, and in the context of a soldier in an action movie, he probably shouldn't.

Thor.  Thor is basically Conan the Barbarian, but with a bigger vocabulary.  He's a mighty warrior.  True, usually when he does battle it's with Frost Giants or some other mythic entity, but these are still sentient beings, right?

Iron Man.  Let's see,  Tony Stark starts out his heroic journey as the head of a weapons manufacturing company.  Series villains Obadiah Stain, Whiplash, and Aldrich Killian all fail to live through the climaxes of their respective movies.


Black Widow.  She's an ex-assassin and a super-spy.  Need I say more?

Back to BvS:  It looks like most of the times Batman 'kills' it's usually more public endangerment and property damage rather than intentional homicide.  A car chase in a James Bond movie would have the same type of body count.  Ol' Bats should probably have his drivers license revoked.  The other main 'Batman is a murderer!' scene is the one where Batman is beating up Lex Luthor's thugs in a warehouse.  And while this fight scene is rather brutal, how is it different than Captain America or Thor on the battlefield?

It's fine with me if you don't like Batman v Superman.  I jut wish people would either say that they don't like it because they just don't like it, or give a better thought out reason than 'Batman doesn't kill people!'  I feel like the superhero 'no kill policy' is an odd thing to fixate on in a summer blockbuster style action movie.

One of the best on-screen adaptions of the superhero no kill policy is the Netflix Daredevil series.  And the reason it works is that the no kill policy is highlighted and shown to be a big deal.  It's a major issue that Matt Murdock is wrestling with.  It's a line that he comes dangerously close to crossing multiple times over the course of the first season.  Because of this the last couple of episodes are really intense because you are aware that Matt is capable of killing and at this point you really really don't want him to.  And this is the way it should be done.  If you are going to bother with a no kill policy you should have something to say with it.  Otherwise what's the point? 

The no kill policy isn't something that is addressed in most of the Marvel movies because that's not the story they're trying to tell.  I personally don't think it's the story Zack Snyder was trying to tell in BvS either.

-Geekboy.