Superheroes: deep or dumb?

Superheroes are something that we have been interested in writing about for quite a long time. And especially now that it seems that cinemas have really nothing much else to offer. We have already pointed out (in our Wonder Woman vs Spiderman review) that whenever we see anything superhero, we compare them to this somewhat obscure 90's anime Trigun. Because they share surprising similarities both structurally and thematically. The protagonist possesses superhuman abilities resulting from a genetic mutation, rigorous training, technological advances or simply not being human. They have outfits that signify something important and they stand behind some kind of ideology. They all attempt to depict the consequences when the protagonists use their powers to protect others/save humanity. In our heads, Trigun is what all of the superhero genre aspire to be, even though we're sure most of the creators of superheroes have never even heard of it. Now, to be clear, we do not think superhero movies are the worst thing in entertainment and they're fun to go watch. But when they are nearly the only product on offer in cinema and they do not deliver the way they could, we do tend to get a little frustrated. We believe there is value in analyzing pop culture and we don't really get the argument that we shouldn't hold popular movies to a high standard (and this includes B-movies as well). Most people reading this are familiar with the superhero genre and have seen at least some of the recent movies/tv-shows. But we'd estimate that not that many know Trigun. It is our favourite show not including miniseries (otherwise it'd be a tie). In order for us to contrast properly, we will have to spoil quite a bit of the show, so we would urge you to watch it (and please, for the love of god, watch the Japanese dub). If you haven't seen it and don't want spoilers, go watch it now (it's only 26 episodes, each lasting less than 30 minutes) or skip the next segment. We might cut corners when summarizing and you may not even agree with our assessment of the series, since in first viewing it feels like it takes 12 episodes for the idea to even start. In other words, this show requires patience and capacity for subtlety. The beginning especially can be quite off-putting if you're not used to anime humour and the show purposely makes you think that the main character is nothing but a goofy idiot and an outrageous pervert.

Brief summary of Trigun - Basically it is about two humanoid brothers with opposing ideologies. The main character, Vash, is a pacifist who has vowed never to kill anyone under any circumstances and avoids violent confrontation by any means. His brother, Knives, is continually trying to break Vash's conviction since Knives thinks humans are nothing but parasites and wants them all dead. There's also a priest, Wolfwood, who becomes Vash's best friend but also believes that killing is necessary to protect others. The show is kind of this constant struggle between the two ideologies - whether killing can ever be justified or not. Amazingly both of the female characters are adults and never sexualized (if you've seen anime at all, that is indeed a fucking miracle) and the women (Meryl and Milly) are also part of the dilemma of the show's ideologies and have to come to terms with and determine what they actually believe. Meryl especially has a great character arc. The "past woman" refreshingly isn't a dead lover but a mother figure (Rem) for both brothers and she taught them everything Vash believes in. The last really important character is Legato, Knives' nihilistic #1 henchman and the series culmination is Legato forcing Vash to kill him. The show's last episodes are Vash's struggle to face the ramifications of him betraying his values and realizing that he wants to save his brother instead of having to kill him. The show ends with Vash throwing away his gun and abandoning violence altogether. 

As we wrote earlier, Western superhero entertainment shares similarities and differences with Trigun, so we have divided this entry in two: structure and themes. We won't compare the source materials (manga and comics) since we aren't really interested in them and we wanted to stick with moving pictures. So, let's start with structure. Characters are an important part of a story's structure, especially for us who are very character focused. Female characters and villains have in recent years gotten the short end of the stick in many superhero films. That really should be a cause for concern, since women should be actual characters and afforded complexity just as much as male characters. Women in superhero movies mostly still serve as the love interest without a motivation of their own or if they happen to be main characters they are randomly overpowered (like Captain Marvel, who is basically the female equivalent of Superman), die (like Gamora or Black Widow) and have no character arc of their own (like Wonder Woman). And don't get us started on the sexy miniskirts/bloomers and leather outfits that women wear in these movies. You do not really ever get to see things from these female characters' perspective. That is another weird thing about Trigun - though the series is male centric, it devotes quite a lot of time to the female characters' inner thoughts and feelings. And the women, again, surprisingly, get character arcs in this male centric show. The Marvel TV-shows, to their credit, have managed to handle some of their female characters better than their movies. 

Same goes for the villains in these films - they are completely disposable and interchangeable nor do they really challenge the heroes in any meaningful way. The villains are there to be disposed of without any time devoted to them or making them interesting or intimidating. The villains are there purely as a physical deterrence. Now, some might say that Nolan's Batman trilogy does not do this and that his villains have some ideological purpose - that may be true, but Batman, the character Nolan has created, is not very consistent and that reflects poorly on his villains. This makes the villains ultimately just physical opposition and not moral challengers. Then again, we have never thought of Nolan to be particularly good at depicting any kind of internal moral struggles. This is why, to this day, our favourite superhero movie is Batman Returns (which we realize is no one's favourite). The anti-hero actually challenges the main character and he has to question his own identity and conviction, though even in Batman Returns, he wants to save the anti-hero because he loves her. In Trigun, Legato's will is to die by Vash's hand and it is his only goal. And Legato is an enemy that Vash feels nothing but hatred and resentment for, yet he still does not want to kill him. Knives' endgame is to get Vash on his side or make Vash lose his conviction and suffer for all time. These villains have an actual moral purpose in the story instead of just serving as fodder to the hero. Again, some of the Marvel shows have done a better job with their villains (especially Kilgrave, who is by far the most interesting character to come out of anything Marvel and Daredevil's second season with the Punisher actually challenging the main character's beliefs). High stakes are something we have come to detest in a lot of superhero films - either a whole country, the world, or hell, the fucking universe is in danger of imminent destruction. That, for us, often takes the focus away from characters and shifts it to the plot. Trigun, although it has all that threat of extinction looming in the horizon, wisely focuses on the intimate struggle of the characters and so the concept and characters always stay in sync.    

     

One thing that is for us discernibly better in Trigun than in most superhero movies is how they have succeeded in keeping their story and characters cohesive. Marvel in particular have prided themselves with "universe building" but when these movies are taken apart and analyzed more closely, we often notice that there isn't much internal logic even when they're telling the story of the same character. There are three things that we see especially Marvel falling short of (but other superhero movies to a lesser extent, too). First is recycling character arcs and often for the same character (we're looking at you, Iron Man 2). Second, characters changing drastically without explanation between one movie and the next (see Spiderman especially in Avengers: Endgame - suddenly he has no qualms about killing and it's treated as a joke). Third, character arcs are not often fully realized or left to halfway (far too many examples but first in mind for us would be the Black Panther with both the villain and the hero). But we guess that is the price you pay, when you have different directors and writers for most movies in your franchise and whether the movie will have a sequel depends on how much money it makes. Since Trigun was planned to only have 26 episodes, everything in it builds up to the last few episodes and pretty much all four characters have some kind of development. The characters stay consistent throughout the series and changes in them happen gradually and through a natural process of something drastic happening that greatly affects their lives, leaves a lasting effect and makes them re-evaluate their beliefs.   

    

In superhero films, no matter what you pick, they will never stray too far away from accepted masculine behaviour in their superheroing. They will win by using violence and maybe refrain from violence ONLY if the villain is their family member or a close friend. Even Daredevil, who is the most consistent with the not-killing, is a very violent character and violence is part of his life, which the show, to its credit, acknowledges. So, looking at Trigun, we're frankly amazed that a male character like Vash ever saw the light of day really anywhere. There will never come a day that you would see a Western superhero act the same way Vash does to avoid killing or even using violence. Vash will utterly humiliate himself to save anybody's life (and yes, that includes his enemies), even to the point of stripping naked and groveling on the ground. He will beg for the life of a fucking rapist and a murderer and in the process lets the victim's father beat the shit out of him. And he knows neither of these men. Now, if he wanted, he could pretty much decimate all of the people in his way. But he doesn't. Instead, he relies much more into actually being a ridiculous idiot so that people will leave him alone and thus won't get hurt, instead of the usual one-liners that superheroes mete out while kicking ass. It takes at least five episodes before we even see him use a gun for the first time. There is no way that Western superheroes would ever stoop so low and engage in similar degrading behaviour that Vash does because let's face it, it would utterly destroy any masculine image they have cultivated. Your hero groveling on the ground naked to save other people probably wouldn't sell all that well, now would it? But we absolutely love it, because it diverges so greatly from the ultra-masculine superhero behaviour and becomes more of a universal humanist principle that every life, good or bad, has value. 

Western superheroes are rarely also made helpless and ultimately they will be victorious. Even if they lose a few people on the way to that victory, those victims will either be used as a plot device for an argument between superheroes and then completely discarded for the rest of the movie (like in Captain America: Civil War) or then, if a hero dies, they're glorified for that one movie that comes after (like in Spiderman: Far from Home). Though Vash is superhuman, he cannot save everyone, and being the kind of character he is, every single death is a devastating loss to him that will haunt him forever. He is not the randomly overpowered Superman who can just save everyone but then in the end his girlfriend is more important to save than anyone else. Vash doesn't think in those terms - if he has failed to save one life, he has failed to save everyone. It is no wonder though, that in Western superhero films ordinary victims are used as faceless props and heroes hailed as individual saviours of society. The US, where all these characters are created, is after all a highly individualized country, with little talk of communal tradition (which they do have), so it's no surprise that their heroes also stand alone, separate and distant from the people they protect and people they care about. This separation and in some cases, concealment of their identity, is by choice - a duty that these heroes have taken upon themselves. Again, Vash could not be more different. The power he has is useless to him and instead of becoming this shining beacon of righteousness or the lone sheriff keeping the town safe, he wants to be part of humanity. He does not want to set himself apart, he is not special or amazing in his own mind, nor is saving people any kind of duty to him. He wants to live as a human being among other humans, in a world where humans can live and work together in peace and where violence is never necessary. Incredibly naive, we know, but we find it a much more compelling vision than the often authoritarian ideas that many Western superhero movies offer. The beauty of the show is as well, though, that it actually challenges this naive belief of the main character and makes the viewer also question their views.      

Trigun has this idea of not only just not killing anyone, but also wanting to save everyone so that not a single person will lose their lives. It is about stopping people from dying and getting killed. This is not a theme in superhero movies or even their shows, really. You might have heroes who won't kill, but since the movies don't focus on that aspect, it might as well be an afterthought. In Batman's case, the Burton's Batman movies at least make pretty clear that this guy is a fucked up individual haunted by his parents' death and he's pretty much walking on the edge unlike the Nolan films, where they have clearly tried to build some kind of hero mythos for Batman. He won't kill, sure, but he will totally let people die. Trigun does not only focus on the main character's pledge not to kill, which is a pacifist principle, but the show also goes further by asking is it possible to save others without violence in a violent and dystopian world, even if you do not kill anyone. This is something that many pacifists, including us, have to ask ourselves. And since bad guys are pretty much dehumanized most of the time in superhero films, their deaths are also completely inconsequential. In Trigun, it makes no difference to Vash whether it's an enemy, a friend or a complete stranger, he will want to save their lives. It could be an innocent baby or fucking Hitler, and he would do everything he can to save both their lives. Hell, his opponents do not even have to be human and he would still refuse to harm them. Now, whether he is right or not is beside the point and is up for the viewer to decide. The show makes no judgement on Vash's beliefs but neither does it make a case that he's right. Another novelty is that the show has an open ending, so whether Knives can be turned from his hatred of humans and whether Vash abandoning violence was the right choice, is left for the viewer to interpret. Imagine that, something is actually left for the viewer's imagination instead of Nolanizing it and explaining everything.  

All in all, the show is wonderfully humanist in its principles, and through its main character's pacifist beliefs dehumanizes absolutely nobody, no matter how insignificant they are to the story or how grotesquely monstrous they can be. So, when a life is taken in the show, it makes a bigger impact also on the viewer, since the main character cares way too much about everything living. And that is simply something you do not see in the modern offerings of the superhero genre. There is no time when a Western superhero has had to betray the deepest of their moral core and what they thought defined them as a person. The Western Superheroes aren't ever really truly challenged - they are presented with these challenges that they ultimately solve without profound realization or change. And that, for us, we are sorry to say, squander these movies' potential and makes a lot of them quite boring and repetitive. When diversity of ideas is missing from your supposedly "diverse" set of superheroes, it is kinda pointless for us to pretend that your movies are saying anything deep. Trigun, for us, is proof that superhero type - entertainment can be both highly entertaining as well as deeply thought-provoking.  

Ditzy and fun

These are our favourite airheads. People who are a bit shallow and maybe a little self-centred but without any malice. You'll notice that most are women because there's little to no representation of shallow men (unless they're villains).

1. Susan from Bringing up Baby. Not only is she our favourite airhead, but she's our favourite character from any comedy. We wish she was real so that she could be our friend.

2. Hauru from Howl's Moving Castle. He has to be #2 because he's probably the only one here with a substantive character arc. He starts out as a coward who only cares for outer appearances. Not to mention he's a huge drama queen.

3. Maggie from Extras. She's most likely the kindest and most level-headed of this bunch. However, she is still occasionally quite superficial. 

4. Cher from Clueless. Obviously. She's a rich teenager from L.A. Duh!

 

5. David from Sabrina. He's as frivolous as they can get. And as the character himself said, he's not too bright.

6. Lorraine from Back to the Future. Perhaps we ought not to like this character as much as we do... We can't help it though. She's too enjoyably ditzy. 

7. Ariel from The Little Mermaid. We know that a lot of people have problems with her and this movie, but we can't hate her. Ariel's type of people make the best kind of friends.

8. Tracy from Hairspray. "I watch The Corny Collins show and do absolutely nothing else." Pretty much sums her up.

9. Harriet from Emma. She's so indecisive and easily led it's almost unbelievable. She's a kind person, though.

10. Flora from Little Dorrit. She's mainly the comic relief but she's got a lot of heart too.

11. Prince Edward from Enchanted. He's our favourite part of the entire film. The gif we've chosen really sums it all up nicely.

 

Robin Hood x5

As a benchmark for our blog's five-year anniversary, we decided to introduce a new concept, in which we will compare numerous film versions with the same story. We limited our scope to classical re-tellings of a specific story; meaning that the expectation would be for them to be somewhat faithful to the original story. Hence, we decided against including Men in Tights here, as it is a satire. However, it came as a shock to us that the satire is still a better version of Robin Hood than two of the most recent versions. So, why Robin Hood, you might ask? First of all, this is one of our favourite folktales (and Jonna's absolute favourite) and admittedly the story hits home for us ideologically, although ideology itself rarely makes a story good or interesting for us. We have to say that there is something about a class traitor stealing from his "own kind" to give to the poor that really resonates with us. (In the most famous versions he was a noble, and we know that in the earliest versions Robin Hood was a commoner, but as a child that was never the version you were told.) We'll discuss why we love the original story more in depth when we talk about the different versions. We're going from worst to best, and obviously it is our personal preferences that determine the outcome.


Robin Hood (2010)

Characters

Robin: By a mile and a half, the most god-awful Robin we've witnessed on screen. Even if one was to disregard Crowe's complete miscasting, this character would be atrocious. He's boring as hell to watch because you're never given any tangible motives for his actions. In order to subvert the known story, they have managed to create an unrecognisable Robin Hood. We think the film-makers didn't realise that if they subvert his character, all of his original motives will disappear and they would have needed to replace them with just anything else. Alas, they did not, and for the viewer it's confusing to follow when your main character is running around like a headless chicken.    
Marian: As we have stated before, this Marian belongs to "the strong independent woman" cliché club. It's the classic "I can take care of myself", but in the end it's all "ooooh, save me!" And they have the misconception that making a female character take part in fighting somehow magically gives them personality. Physical power has never made any character, be they male or female, interesting. 
Merry Men: They ain't merry and are barely in the movie.
Villains: Waste of Oscar Isaac as Prince John. During the film, he's not even a villain and the Sheriff of Nottingham is like an afterthought. The real villains of the film are the French, a foreign enemy. This is what pisses us off the most and goes against every other version of Robin Hood in existence. Robin Hood has always been a story about domestic issues. Even when the Crusades were put in, they only served as a backdrop for domestic usurpers to seize power. 

Story

Convoluted as fuck. We have now seen it twice (the last time was literally last week), and we could not tell you what was happening. We might be able to tell you 'the what' but not 'the why'. Because we're convinced that there is no 'why', or at least a consciously made 'why', we hope. Jonna watched a few interviews where the film-makers talked about their desire to subvert everything about the original folklore (and they clearly only know the Errol Flynn one). But by subverting everything and not replacing it with something else that they have purposefully designed instead, the ideology has turned into something truly disgusting. Instead of criticising the rich and greedy assholes who are prospering because they are financially oppressing the peasants, the moral of the story has morphed into "look, our oppressors will unite even with us peasants to fight against our common enemy: the foreigners." Any class consciousness has been erased. We're generally not concerned whether a movie aligns with our ideologies or morals (after all, we like plenty of Clint Eastwood's films), but when a movie's characters are this bad (and characters are always the reason we like something) and the ideology is this repulsive, there's really no saving it from our disdain. A word on the so called love story - ugh! It made us feel second-hand embarrassment to hear supposedly mature adults delivering lines that made them sound like they were in a Twilight - novel. 

Misc./Technical aspects

It's Ridley Scott, so editing and other technical aspects are competent and might function very well, if the story and characters were any good. Like in most modern blockbusters, the colours are muted and the music sucks. The runtime is absurdly long. Clearly, Scott wanted to make another Gladiator. 


Robin Hood (2018)

Characters

Robin: Way to ruin perfect casting, people. We guess Aladdin (the remake) took advice from this one, with the "no character introductions for the main two characters". We never get to know who this guy is. Granted, they at least gave him some kind of a motive. It sucks, 'cause it's basically "gotta get my girl back", but it's a motive. He's a bland character that you'll forget immediately once the movie's over, and the same goes for the rest.
Marian: Just read above. She is assigned one motive but unfortunately it does nothing to give her personality. She's simply a blank slate. 
Merry Men: At least Little John has some semblance of a backstory or something. The rest of them...utterly forgettable. What a waste of Tim Minchin.
Villains: How many times does Ben Mendelsohn have to play the villain?!?!? He's basically just recycling his role from Rogue One. Our main problem with any of the characters is excruciatingly bad writing. 

Story

What the movie wants to be is a Marvel/superhero - film. The "modernising" made it painfully obvious that the studio wanted a superhero franchise, not a stand-alone great movie. The sad thing is that the original story would work seamlessly in a modern context. Billionaires and megacorporations reaping benefits by economically oppressing the already impoverished? Sign us up for that movie! There's no story because they wanted to mesh all the existing movie versions into one. At least the enemy's domestic in this one, so it's not a hot mess like Scott's Hood. The love story stinks, it's just not as soul-crushingly embarrassing like the previous one, but it's still as lifeless as a corpse that's been floating in the Atlantic for two years.   

Misc./Technical aspects

There's one semi-decent action scene. The rest of the time you just wish it was already over. Fortunately the runtime isn't as painfully long as the 2010's one. It has the same dull colour scheme and wannabe Hans Zimmer music, though. We'd pick this one over Scott's version, and this is complete shit. And we would not recommend this to anyone. That's how bad the previous one is.


Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Characters

Robin: Kevin Costner was even more miscast than Russell Crowe. Literally any actor of any nationality would have worked better. The character's better written than Crowe's, but that's about it. 
Marian: She's actually okay. At least she attempts an English accent. She has some personality, even though we still sneer at the whole "damsel in distress" - ending. Love her character design.
Merry Men: Morgan Freeman works always. The rest of them are there as well at least and have some connection to the main character and even Christian Slater is more believable than Kevin Costner.
Villains: Alan Rickman is 100% the best thing about this movie.

Story

The story's surprisingly not half-bad. It has some internal logic, they've bothered to create a backstory, give discernible character arcs and create actual relationships. Even Costner's miscasting couldn't destroy all of that. You still don't see Robin really defy the authorities because the film focuses so much on the action. The magic shit definitely doesn't belong in Robin Hood (it's not King Arthur) and sticks out like a sore thumb, but we prefer the theatrical cut anyway, where they had deleted most of the magic stuff. There's not much else to say - if it wasn't for Costner, this would be a guilty pleasure for us.

Misc./Technical aspects

Most of the action sequences are super entertaining. Music is a guilty pleasure of ours, it has a clear colour palette, even though most people are dressed in rags (can't say that about the previous ones). We'd pick this one over them any day. And when Prince of Thieves does something better than your movie, you know you're in deep shit.


Robin Hood (1973)

Characters

Robin: The only English (voice) actor in these five films. And he's fucking great. The first and only crush Jonna has ever had. He's cheeky but sincere. 
Marian: She's much more of a minor character here and she's maybe less active. But we still like her. She has her moments and the fact that she keeps Robin's wanted poster on her wardrobe's door is pretty funny.
Merry Men: It's more of a bromance between Robin and Little John, since the others are in much more minor roles. The bromance is awesomely fun, though.
Villains: Prince John's the main attraction, and dear god, does he play his part to perfection. There hasn't been a more enjoyable whiner in all of Disney's history. Hiss and the Sheriff work as great henchmen.  

Story

It's surprising how well they captured the essence of Robin Hood in such a short runtime. The film's climax is Robin freeing the villagers from debtor's prison and robbing Prince John blind. When a 70's Disney animation is more true to Robin Hood's origin than anything that has come after, it's a very sad state of affairs indeed. This is perfect family entertainment.

Misc./Technical aspects

The animation clearly does not match the studio's work from when it has been doing well. But it's not awful, you can just see that the budget was limited. We still love all the character designs and only the one and true Robin Hood film has more stunning colours. Love, love, love the music - in particular Roger Miller's songs. 


The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)


 


     




 Characters

Robin: The embodiment of who Robin Hood is to us. Flynn's joviality, the deep care he has for the downtrodden and the iron moral backbone have always been what defined Robin Hood to us. He hasn't a single selfish bone in his body, but he's not without fault. He can be impetuous and impulsive to the point of stupidity. 
Marian: Holy shit. If there is something amiss in modern film-making, it's the fact that a female character from 1938 is still the best version of this character. De Havilland's Marian is amazing, especially by today's standards. She's the only one in the film who has a transformative character arc, and how often can you say that about modern male-led or even some female-led, movies?!? And the fact that she doesn't do any fighting simply makes her character better, because she has to survive just with her wits. To this day, de Havilland's Marian is the only one to have saved Robin. And although she doesn't fight, she ain't a goddamn "damsel in distress" either. She faces certain death with absolute composure while voicing her contempt for the tyrants who would hang her. It's no wonder that the characters of Robin and Marian have never been done better, because they are utter perfection here. 
Merry Men: They're all here and they have great rapport with Robin and each other. The scenes that summarise Robin's attitude and equal camaraderie with the group are Robin's joyful response "I love a man that can best me!" to Little John after their fight and when he consults the men what to do with the ransom gold they've stolen. 
Villains: Claude Rains, man. It's like The Holy Trinity of villains. Prince John is the driving force with the main motive, Guy of Gisborne is his right-hand man with a creepy crush on Marian and the Sheriff is a bumbling idiot with impeccable comedic timing. 

Story

It's perfection and we couldn't think of a single improvement. It's an unattainable balance of adventure, fun, romance and even drama. In comparison to other Robin Hood versions, this movie highlights quite adeptly that othering a group of people is an acceptable way of normalising oppression, and this oppression always includes economic aspects. 

Misc./Technical aspects

The colours are sublime, and this was one of the first ever Technicolor - movies. It's still miles better than anything else we've reviewed here, how is that even possible?!??! This has the musical score for Robin Hood. Other technical aspects are beyond brilliant as well. It's incredible that this movie is 81 years old and the industry has made such strides and yet we could not suggest a single change to improve anything in this masterpiece. We even love the fucking tights and bent swords. In addition, the film literally saved lives.

Aladdin vs. Rocketman

Unlike the rest of the world, we have decided not to compare Rocketman to Bohemian Rhapsody. Because literally everyone has already done it. To be perfectly honest, we found Rocketman to be a much better movie than Bohemian Rhapsody because it attempts to use the medium of film to its fullest. If you want true to life, make a documentary. Films are by definition fiction. Both Aladdin and Rocketman are musicals and we find it more enjoyable to compare within a genre. In addition, we went to see Aladdin and Rocketman in the same week.

Aladdin

Pros: The cast had potential, they seemed to have good chemistry. With a better script and direction the cast alone could have made it work. Some of the comedy bits were actually functional. The costume design was eye-catching.

Cons: Musicals are really not Guy Ritchie's forte, or epic storytelling for that matter (see the disaster that is King Arthur). He's much better at the tongue-in-cheek comedy. Talking of musicals, why did it have to be a musical? Repeating something that has already been done is not inspiring. It's exactly the same complaint we have of the Beauty & the Beast remake. The beginning immediately threw us off. There are no character introductions. If you're making a stand-alone film, it doesn't matter if it's a re-telling or based on previously known source material, you need character introductions. You cannot go in with the assumption that the audience already knows these people. It's a cardinal sin in storytelling. That is unforgivably lazy writing/directing. The film is quite cluttered. Pretty much every frame is full of something, even when it needn't be. So your eyes never get a moment of rest and that makes it difficult for you to tell what to focus in on the screen. Oh, and good job making Jafar incredibly boring. The animated Jafar is one of Disney's most enjoyable villains. 

The original narrative theme (of being trapped) wasn't there and they hadn't bothered to replace it with something else. The scene where Aladdin was even more of an asshole than in the animation (the one where he fights with Genie), and then suddenly without any internal or external prompting changes his mind is just lazy. That scene epitomizes the languidness of this film. Furthermore, we're not big on the arrangements of the songs.  A Whole New World in particular was quite dreadful. All in all, the movie's pretty lackluster and unremarkable. And that in itself is a disadvantage. This remake is a basic example of current film trends. Everything needs to be explained and the message must be hammered in, because obviously the audience would never get it otherwise. Why bother using visual means, when you can simply say it?

Rocketman

 Disclaimer: We might be a bit biased, because we fucking love Elton John.



 Pros:  Casting was even better than we imagined. We forgive Bryce Dallas Howard's accent since she at least plays the character convincingly. Storytelling happens mainly through visual means. They have given new meanings to the songs by presenting a different context, hence the songs actually function as musical pieces that further the story or tell you something about the characters. The story's not all over the place, it focuses on the few themes chosen for the movie. We do love an unreliable narrator, which Elton basically is. The costume design is downright divinely inspired. They made surprisingly good and competent arrangements of the songs. 

Visually much more balanced than Aladdin. When the frames were cluttered, that was purposeful to express something storytelling wise. Even when the frame was full, you knew where your focus should be drawn.We didn't want a documentary, so we were happy to see a film that used the medium as intended and created a fantasy that might as well be an Elton John song itself. We like personal, intimate and character driven stories. So obviously that's  a pro for us.

Cons: A few cheesy moments here and there. Between the climax and I'm Still Standing the ending felt a little drawn out. On a couple occasions it might sound like someone singing Elton John in a karaoke (when it's not the lead actor). 

General: It's pretty obvious that we think there is no contest on which was a better movie. Essentially, Aladdin feels like the Disney cash grab and is perfectly mediocre to boot. Rocketman is super accessible and commercial (despite the useless R rating, it was rated 12 in Finland). Yet it has passion for the craft, a little artistic flair and creativity that is now almost extinct in commercial mainstream films.

Disney, retrospectively

Tarzan (1999)

Tarzan is one of our guilty pleasure movies. Mainly because of Phil Collins' 90's cheesiness. This will be our last retrospectively, since this is the very last Disney film we saw as kids and also, the first Disney film we ever saw in theatres. This is one of the few Disney films where both the original dub and the Finnish dub work for us. 

   



















Characters

Tarzan: He's much more engaging when he's a kid. Once he turns into an adult he becomes kinda boring. There's not much focus on Tarzan's character arc, which can make the character less interesting. 
Jane: The best thing about this whole movie. She is one of the funniest Disney women ever (and better yet, funny on purpose). Much like Meg, her character arc is ultimately about the guy - though like in Meg's case, where one could argue that her character arc was to learn to trust people again, Jane's arc could also be interpreted differently. It could be seen that Jane has to make a decision between being part of a community where she could be authentically herself (and devote herself to science in practice) or choosing conventional life in "civilized society".  
Kala: The most important minor character in Tarzan's life. She is kind and understanding of her son and pretty much a classic good mother figure. She does have some personality since she defies her mate and leader of the pack, but is also afraid of the humans and their weapons.
Terk & Tantor: Once again, we have a great comedic duo and they are, with Jane, our favourite part of the film. 
Minor characters: Jane's dad is great. Especially his moustache. Kerchak is an okay sort-of-antagonist-who-turns-into-a-father-figure. Clayton is not the best villain (but better than Ratcliffe, because let's face it, anybody's more menacing than that doofus). His death scene is pretty impressive, though.  

 









Story

Pretty mediocre. It's simple and doesn't try to be too ambitious. Many elements are lifted from Disney's other Africa film, The Lion King. This movie also handles the environmentalism vs. industrialism issue better than Pocahontas. It is less sappy in its preachiness and you actually like the characters involved. Choosing to live as part of nature instead of destroying or exploiting it, is a more coherent message than whatever Pocahontas was trying to push.

Miscellaneous

The animation is absolutely gorgeous. Tarzan is one of the best looking Disney films we've seen. The colours are sharp and the background lush. That Phil Collins, though. The songs are incredibly vague and tell you nothing about the characters, but at least they do further the story (which is something that is largely lost in modern Disney films). We shamefully admit, one of the songs is a total guilty pleasure as well. The score is nothing special, but unlike in (most) modern Disney outings, it does use the songs as a basis for the instrumentals.  

     

Pick of the month

Notorious (1946, Alfred Hitchcock)

This is one of the best Hitchcock movies we've seen. It became our favourite Hollywood production from Hitchcock, even surpassing Rear Window. Mainly because the female character is so fucking awesome. It has everything that one would expect from a Hitchcock film - edge-of-your-seat suspense, thrilling crime and mystery, great chemistry between the lead actors and of course, some good old-fashioned sexism (you really can't have a Hitchcock film without that one). It's shot superbly, every frame knows what its doing, the lighting is great and both characters have meaningful character arcs. This is a great example of the phenomenon where an older film has a much more complex, interesting and thusly more independent female character than a lot of modern cinema's women. And it's from Hitchcock, the arch-sexist, for crying out loud!  Also, this  movie completely convinced us that Cary Grant can do so much more than just comedy. We thoroughly recommend this for anyone who loves cinema and appreciates good film-making.

The bitches are back

A while ago we did a list of men who defy some traditions of masculinity. So, obviously we wanted to write a counterpart. Why use the term "bitch"? Because a lot of these women would be called that (and whore or a slut). Plus, we are owning that word. If they used that kind of a vulgar term in our religion, that's definitely what we'd be. Same rules apply, the less traditionally feminine traits a character has coupled with how much we like the character, the higher they'll be. Again, just like we wrote in the other post, we consider gendered characteristics to be arbitrarily assigned. We are humanists, first and foremost, and that is how we look at gender as well. Though unlike in the men's list where every character was sympathetic and a good guy, you will notice that here many of these women can be quite assholish (we still love 'em though!). It is apparently harder for the entertainment industry to create sympathetic females who buck the traditional norms of gender than it is for male characters. Nothing new under the sun, we guess.


1. Mildred from 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. First of all, her look - those overalls and that scarf on her head that makes her look like a gang member. She looks more like a factory worker than some shop clerk. She's rude, straightforward and incredibly foul-mouthed. The only make-up she has is film make-up that every actor has to have on a movie. She's definitely not your everyday loving mother - she clearly loves her kids, but is not portrayed as some paragon of motherhood. Like male characters of her kind, she's afforded sympathy, though you might not condone her actions. 

      













2. Dee from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. She is the funniest woman on TV we've ever seen. She is just as gross, vile and awful as the rest of the gang. Sometimes, even more so. A lot of the credit goes to the actor, who clearly has developed Dee's character into something awesome. She was pretty much given free reign to come up with crazy shit for her character.  Dee is no beacon of virtue or the straight shooter or the nagger that the female characters in these kinds of shows are often relegated to. The best about her is that she pretends to have all this feminine charm, but knows that she possesses none of it. 

3. Major General Armstrong from Fullmetal Alchemist. She is here because we couldn't have Èowyn or Kushana on this list as they were intended. This would be a natural male character - a badass soldier, utterly loyal to her troops and completely ruthless. She will mow down anyone who gets in her way. She commands the absolute loyalty and trust of her men. She is also cold as a fucking stone and incredibly ambitious. Is it any wonder that she was our favourite character from the entire show? (Maybe we should write about our shameful anime past at some point...) 

  










4. Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind. The best thing about this mess of a story (which we still like) is Scarlett and her cold, selfish heart. We've talked about her on a previous list so we don't feel the need to expand her character here much more. The reason we consider her to be so unfeminine is because she is so calculating and uncaring. She can kill a guy in cold-blood without batting an eye. These qualities would make Scarlett in any other story a femme fatale. Instead as the female lead she's portrayed as a very sympathetic person, warts and all. 

5. Stella Gibson from The Fall. Okay, she's definitely someone one would not normally see as a lead in a series (not to mention making her a female character). She's very absorbed by her work, is in charge of the investigation, and is interestingly quite openly sexual character (many would call her a slut probably, but would you if it was a guy who acted the exact same way?) without the show either condemning her or revelling in the sexual imagery. Her appearance is quite feminine, which can be said about many of the women on this list, but her personality and characteristics depart very much from perceived "womanly behaviour".

   











6. Meryl from Trigun. Her appearance is deceiving. She has quite a lot in common with Leia - they both are naturally very reserved people when it comes to emotions or feelings, but have no problems voicing their opinion. If there is the opposite of irrational, then Meryl is that. She will think things through before acting and never does anything on a whim. She is also a complete workaholic. Men are often portrayed as driven when they're shown as workaholics whereas women who are workaholics or career-driven are often villainous (Fatal Attraction, anyone?) Meryl is incredibly sympathetic and one of the few female characters we've seen who manages to break some of these feminine stereotypes, yet remains kind and unselfish.

7. LaVona from I, Tonya. This is our only character who is in any way based on reality. But she was just so outrageously horrible a mother that we had to take her. She's the closest we have for someone who is cruel. Out of all on this list, she is the one you would probably have the least any kind of warm feelings for. She isn't really portrayed in a sympathetic light either, so that could count for the utter hideousness of her character.  We greatly enjoyed it, though. It is rare to see a woman who just revels in her horribleness and who thinks her being an awful person is totally fine and justified.

   











8. Furiosa from Mad Max: Fury Road. All that engine oil on her face (and the metal arm) placed her here. She's a great sharpshooter as well, and unlike a lot of female characters in action movies she gets just as dirty, bloody and wounded as the dudes while fighting (at points even more so). She really rocks that buzzcut too.

  

9. Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke. You knew it, at least one Miyazaki had to make it here. She's pretty awesome. Calm, collected and capable. Even the fucking emperor comes to beg for her aid. She keeps a cool head in any kind of confrontation and things rarely slip out of her control. Her being a leader of the town's men and actually going to war with them is impressive in its own right. Women don't go to war - that's men's turf. 

  










10. Selena from 28 Days Later. Another one we've had on a previous list (the same we had Scarlett on, so check that one out). Her only thought in the beginning of the movie is survival, which makes her uncaring and ruthless. She has a great character arc though - realizing that there is more to life than pure survivalism and that caring about other people is not a weakness. 

11. Jordan from Scrubs.  This woman is thoroughly cold and selfish. It's great. She (and her not-husband) is by far the best thing about this show. She avoids any kind of emotional vulnerability or listening to anyone else's feelings. Otherwise she uses the traditionally seen "feminine viles" to get what she wants, but her being emotionally stunted is commonly noted as a masculine trait. (Here we took a pic with text, because the text describes her pretty perfectly).

  














12. Kate from East of Eden. She was on our mothers - list, but why she's here, is because she didn't wanna be a mother in the first place. She also abandoned her kids and that's a big no no, especially for a female character. She isn't particularly sympathetic but it is possible to understand her, even if the film doesn't show her in a good light.