Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Dawn of the Dead

  After the success of Night of the Living Dead,  director George A. Romero tried to move in a different direction, directing five movies in the early 70's, which were mostly horror, with one drama (There Will Always Be Vanilla). However, none of them were as critically or financially successful as Night of the Living Dead. Then, in 1974, when exploring the Monroeville Mall in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, (east of Pittsburg), his host showed him several secret rooms, and commented that someone could survive an emergency in the mall using these passages. Inspired, Romero wrote a film around people holed up in a shopping mall during a zombie apocolypse. However, Romero had difficulty raising funds for this new project. News of a Living Dead spiritual sequel in the works reached Italian horror filmmaker Dario Argento, who had been a strong critical advocate of the first film. Argento secured funding for the project, in exchange for international distribution rights, and even invited Romero to Rome to write the screenplay. Argento's brother, Claudio became one of the producers, and Dario helped scored the film. Filming commenced at the Monroeville Mall from November 13th, 1977 to February, 1978. Tom Savini, who had declined to do the effects for Night of the Living Dead after getting drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, was the special effects director, which would start a distinguished career as a horror make-up artist and special effects director. Due to the violence of the picture, the MPAA demanded an X-rating, unless cuts were made. Romero refused to cut the film, and released the film unrated. The film was released under the name Dawn of the Dead in the United States and most English-speaking countries, but in Italy, and most non-English speaking nations, where Argento had the distribution rights, it was called Zombi (with some subtitle at the end). The massive financial and critical success of this film convinced Romero to continue making zombie movies, and it would become a major pop culture touchstone for generations to come.

     The film opens at the television station WGON in Pennsylvania, where the news crew is dealing with the current zombie epidemic terrorizing the nation. While the station is airing a discussion on the crisis, staff members Francine Parker (Gaylen Ross) and Stephen Andrews (David Emge, who looks a little like Hugh Laurie) decide to flee using the traffic helicopter. At the same time, Roger DeMarco (Scott Reiniger) and his SWAT team are trying to evict tenants at a housing project, who refuse to give them their dead, despite needing to hand them over to the government. Sure enough, the SWAT team encounters zombies in the projects. After clearing them out, they find that the tenants have placed all their reanimated death in a single pile. While in the basement of the project, he meets fellow SWAT team member, Peter Washington (Ken Foree), who tells him that he could get Roger a seat on Andrew's helicopter. Together, the four attempt to flee Pennsylvania. However, after an attack during a stop for fuel, the four decide to stop at a local shopping mall. There, while they find it teeming with Zombies, they find a secret compartment away from the store, and block it from the zombie epidemic. While Peter and Roger gain supplies, Francine admits her pregnancy to Stephen. After fighting off the hordes, and gaining supplies, they decide to lie low in the mall for a bit. In the rather desperate situation, they actually do have some enjoyment for a bit. However, this is only temporary, and soon, they will found their sanctuary threatened.

       This film does its tension very well. The threat of the zombies is very ever present, and our protagonists have to deal with the seeming collapse of civilization, as seen with the lack of any television broadcasts. (How the power is kept on for that long.... I have no idea). At the same time, there are moments of fun and relaxation to deflate that tension, reaching an effective balance,The make-up and pracical effects in this film look fantastic, very realistic and gruesome. The zombies look inhuman, but they aren't as exaggerated as they are on the Walking Dead.  The scenes where the zombies consume flesh are very unsettling to watch, because of the visceral special effects. The image of zombies moving like regular patrons in a mall is very amusing (and true to life, if you've ever been in a mall.). Finally, the writing is very good, with smart character, who actually think about their situation, and act reasonable and intelligently.

     That said about the writing, the acting isn't that great. Most of the actors give somewhat subdued performances and awkward line readings. The only exception is Gaylen Ross, who gives a decent performance as the female lead, strong and a participant to the action. Other than her, none of the actors are particularly good in their roles. The pacing is, like Living Dead,  somewhat stalls slightly in the middle, and doesn't pick up until rhe end. Thus the middle portion, while not boring, is lackluster compared to the beginning and end.

    I admit, when I did my short review of Night of the Living Dead on my Facebook a few years ago, I was a bit harsh on it. Over time, I've come to see its genius, and its effeciveness as horror. I'll say this, though. This is the better movie. The shopping mall is a more interesting setting than the home, and the action flows better. If you liked Night of the Living Dead or just enjoy zombie movies in general, and want to see a classic, check this one out.

    Next week, we take this film, and do a 180 on it. Shaun of the Dead.

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- Halloween III: Season of the Witch

         After the success of Halloween II, producers Irwin Yablans and  Moustapha Akkad wanted to create yet another entry in the franchise to cash. However, screenwriters John Carpenter and Debra Hill were reluctant to commit to a third film. They had intended the franchise to a Twilight Zone style anthology, each entry simply revolving around the theme of Halloween. While Halloween II didn't follow up on this, they decided, with Michael Myer's death in the second one, to go through with this plan, and agreed to produce a third one, on the condition that Michael Myers not appear in it. (Actually, he tchnically does... in a commercial for the first film briefly seen on a television) Originally set to direct was Joe Dante (who would later come to more prominence as the director of Gremlins and Explorers), who approached British science fiction screenwriter Nigel Kneale, creator of the Quatermass series (which Carpenter had admired), to write a screenplay. Kneale turned in a comic screenplay, focusing on psychological horror than visceral one. Kneale blamed the producers for rewriting the script, though apparently, most of plot remained the same (then again, Kneale, by at least accounts I've read, seems like a jerk, so I suspect his outrage is merely him being difficult and rude, because it wasn't precisely his screenplay). Still, Kneale requested that his name be taken off, due to the violence and gore of the finished film. Given credit as the writer was the eventual director Tommy Lee Wallace (brought in after Dante left the project),  a frequent Carpenter collaborator, who worked with him since Dark Star. (Carpenter himself did some uncredited rewrites). The subtle came from the 1972 George A. Romero film Season of the Witch, (one of the films he made between Night of the Living Dead  and Dawn of the Dead, and is not a zombie movie). Wallace took some inspiration from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, including setting it in a town called Santa Mira, (the setting of the latter film.) Wallace wasn't the only regular Carpenter collaborator on hand. Jamie Lee Curtis,Nancy Kye (who played Anne Brackett in the original two Halloweens),  and Dick Warlock (Michael Myers in the second one) all play minor roles. Tom Adkins (who worked with Carpenter on The Fog and Escape from New York) plays the lead. One non-Carpenter collaborator was veteran Irish actor Dan O'Herily (who was nominated for an Academy Award for The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe in 1954), who plays the central antagonist. Filmed around Loleta, California, the film was released to disappointing box office, and harsh critical reviews. Ultimately, the anthology idea didn't pan out, and the producers returned Michael Myers in 1988's Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (and before you ask, I will not cover this or any of the direct sequels. I might do the Rob Zombie remake and its sequel at some point, though).Even to this day, it is the black sheep of the franchise, primarily due to the lack of Michael Myers. But does it deserve its reputation? Let's take a look.

     Once again set around Halloween, the film opens on the 23rd of October (presumably 1982, when the film came out), with  Harry Grimbridge (Al Berry) fleeing from a mysterious assailant (Dick Warlock) wearing a business suit. He manages to survive an encounter with the assailant and flees to a gas station attended by Walter Jones (Essex Smith), who takes him to the hospital.Meanwhile, Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Adkins) is visiting his ex-wife, Linda (Nancy Kye) and his children. His children are wearing the Halloween masks produced by the Silver Shamrock Corporation, and are watching a commercial for the mask with an inane (but admittedly somewhat catchy) jingle, encouraging them to watch a commercial set on Halloween Day. He  is forced to cut short the visit  to attend to Grimbridge. Grimbridge omniously warns that "They're going to kill us all", while holding one of those same masks. While Challis was on break, the same suited assassin comes in, and kills Grimbridge, before setting himself on fire. Challis notes the strangeness of the incident, especially since nobody could have entered the complex. Grimbridge's daughter Ellie (Stacy Nelkin) comes to identify the body, and after noting how she had been looking at the various places that he had been, decided to investigate his death. Challis joins her. Together, they learn he had gone to the town of Santa Mira, headquaters of the Silver Shamrock Corporation, to get some new stock of their masks for his shop. Given he was clutching one of those masks, they decide to head to Santa Mira. There, they meet other shop owners Marge Guttman ( Garn Stephens), and the Kupfler family (Ralph Strait, Jadeen Barbor, and Bradley Schacter, as well as the strange motel manager (Michael Currie), who praises the head of the Silver Shamrock Corporation, Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herily) for his work in the town. While investigating during night, Challis briefly meets a homeless man (Jonathan Terry), who warns him of the company. The homeless man was promptly killed by the same men in business suits. Meanwhile, Marge briefly examines one of the seals of the masks, and is electrocuted. From her fried corpse, some insects come out. Cochran actually comes out to greet the guests, while Marge's body is being exhumed. The next day, they take a tour of the factory, and Ellie finds her father's car in one of the facilities. While Challis attempts to call his coroner friend Teddy (Wendy Wassberg), Ellie is kidnapped by the men in suits. Challis goes into the factory, and uncovers a sinister plot by Cochran to return Halloween to its roots.

      First off, the plot is pretty good. Despite a couple of plot holes, (I'll give an example in the flaws paragraph), it builds on itself, the mystery is compelling, and the pay-off is pretty interesting. It is very creepy. Not necessarily scary, but creepy in the way the first two Halloweens were, and what the masks actually do to the wearer is pretty distrubing, especially in one gruesome scene in the climax. The pacing problems of the second film are fixed, and it flows seamless. The acting is very good across the board, with Dan O'Herily as a standout, bringing in a charismatic, but creepy performance as the main antagonist. I also notice several interesting themes in this film, about the commercialization of Halloween, consumerism in general, and capitalism. A lot of these themes Carpenter would explore in greater detail in They Live. They Live is a better film than this, but nevertheless, the plot of the villain is interesting to think about in a socio-political context. Finally, it's always good to hear a score by Carpenter himself.

    Like I said, despite the main plot being generally good, it does have plot holes. We never actually get to know how Grimbridge found out about the plot. I suppose you infer that he stumbled upon it while in Santa Mira, but it's not specifically mentioned. A much bigger one is the villain motivation. I won't spoil the peculiars of the villains plot, but I'll say that it centers around its origins as Samhain, a Gaelic fall festival. While O'Herily is Irish, we never know why exactly he wants to honor Samhain. Perhaps he just has a fascination with the occult. Another half spoiler, but the plot also involves small children. I admit, I get a bit antsy when small children are involved in harm in movies, and this film was uncomfortable for me towards the end. Still, it wasn't exploitative of that aspect. It easily could've applied to adults, and would've been as impactful. While it was creepy, a lot of scenes meant to be outright scary didn't really work for me. It is more interesting than it is actually scary.

     I agree with Tommy Lee Wallace on this. Had this just been called Season of the Witch, it would've been received decently, because, aside from its lack of connection with the Halloween series, it is still a decent standalone film. Hell, if they wanted to make it an anthology, they should've made this the second one. That way, the Halloween  series wouldn't be so associated with Michael Myers. Overall, this is not really associated with the Halloween franchise, so I don't know if those who liked the first two will like this. I'd say it's a good watch at least once for fans of thematic horror, or more thriller based horror. It's not a great film, but it's good, and it's underappreciated for it does right.

  Tomorrow, we look at George A. Romero's follow-up to his most famous movie, Dawn of the Dead.

   

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Clash of the Titans

     Last time, we discussed Ray Harryhausen, legendary stop motion/special effects director. He had the market on fantastic adventures featuring stop motion monsters. However, by the late 70's, that market was dwindling, in the wake of higher quality special effects films like Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Harryhausen made what would be his final film in 1981, returning to the old well of Greek mythology, this time adaptating the legend of Perseus and Medusa.  He teamed up with producer Charles Scheer and screenwriter Beverly Cross (two people I forgot to mention in Jason). Cross got the idea for a film about Perseus and Medusa during a vacation near the island of Seriphos, where the legend took place. The story was expanded to include other monsters for Harryhausen to animate. Cross' then-wife Maggie Smith came aboard, and convinced her friend Laurence Olivier to join the cast. This being the period when Olivier did many roles for money, the most notable being as Douglas MacArthur in the Unification Church produced film Inchon. Another relationship on set was between stars Harry Hamlin and Ursula Andress (who played Aphrodite. I mention that, because she has no bearing the plot). There were a number of disagreements between star Hamlim and  the producers, particularly over the scene where Medusa was beheaded (getting beheaded by a thrown shield Captain America-style, over the original method in the original myth. The movie uses the latter, because Hamlin refused to leave his trailer until it was changed). As mentioned, this was Harryhausen's last film. To capitalize on the success of Star Wars, a mechanical owl was added as comic relief. After some modifications, the British film classification board placed an A rating (not recommended for those under 14) There was a sequel planned called "Force of the Trojans" (presumably adapting the Iliad), but that never came into fruition. However, some of you might be aware of the 2010 remake, and its sequel. I'll probably never cover or watch those, but we're talking about the original, so let's go.

      The film follows the story of Perseus (Harry Hamlin), a son of the king of gods Zeus (Laurence Olivier) and Danaë (Vida Taylor), who is the daughter of King Acrisius of Argos (Donald Houston) . For reasons I'm sure are explained at some point, but I didn't catch, Arcisius puts his daughter and grandson in a wooden coffin, and casts them out to sea. In vengeance, Zeus has the Kraken (a creature from Norwegian maritime myth, but we'll ignore that), destroys Acrisius and Argos, and ensures that Danae and Perseus are safely on the island of Seriphos, where Perseus grows up. The gods decide that Perseus was destined to achieve a certain mission, he is placed in an abadoned stadium with an elderly poet named Ammon (Burgess Meredith). Perseus learns that his mission is to free Princess Andromeda (Judi Bowker), daughter of Queen Cassiopeia (Siân Phillips) ruler of the city of Joppa, from a curse by her ex-fiance Calibos (Neil McCarthy), who was mutated by Zeus to a horrific Satyr creature, by solving a riddle. After the gods grift him with several mystical weapons, and gaining Pegasus (who was formed by the blood of Medusa in the myth, but whatever), Perseus follows the apparition of Andromeda to Calibos' realm. He battles Calibos, and figures out the riddle pertains to the ring on Calibos' hand. He cuts off the hand, but keep Calibos alive. He presents the hand, breaking Andromeda's curse, and making Perseus the main suitor for Andromeda. However, Thetis (Maggie Smith) is enraged by this, and Cassiopeia's statement that Andromeda was comparable to her beauty. In statue form, she demands that Andromeda be sacrificed to the Kraken, or the Kraken will destroy Joppa. Perseus seeks the guidance of the gods. Zeus commands Athena (Susan Fleetwood) to give her owl Bubo, but instead sends a replacement produced by Hephaestus (Pat Roach). Bubo guides Perseus and his small entourage assembled to assist him to the  the Stygian Witches (Flora Robson, Anna Manahan, and Freda Jackson). He takes their eye hostage in exchange for information on how to defeat the Kraken. He learns he must cut the head off of Medusa, which could turn the Kraken into stone. Now, Perseus must get Medusa's head, and get to Joppa, before Andromeda can be sacrificed.

   Once, the special effects are the main stars of this film. Medusa and the Kraken are particular standouts, with unique designs, and much more fluid motion than in Jason and the Argonauts. And the integration between the actors and the effects looks even better. Especially with Pegasus and Calibos, both of whom are portrayed in both stop-motion and physical forms (horse and actor, respectively). While obvious where the stop motion ends and the live action begins, it still is seamless enough that it isn't very bothersome. The acting is mostly fine. I kept hearing how Olivier was "over-the-top" and "clearly not caring". Honestly, that's not the impression I got. He did fine in the film. He seemed a bit tired, but given he was sick on set, it is understandable. Once again, since this is a classic of Greek mythology, I find it hard to criticize the story. Sure, it deviates from the original, but these stories have been changed all the time over the centuries. The pacing is better in this film, possibly because the film is longer, allowing equal time for both the story and the action scenes

     Once again, it was hard at time to figure out what was going on. I understood generally what happening in the story, but specific details confused me. I had to look up later that Arisius was jealous of Dinae's beauty, and that's why she was cast out. Perhaps it was explained in dialogue, but the dialogue is pretty grading, so I zoned out of parts of it. Perhaps it's my fault for not paying attention, but it got confusing. The characterization isn't very nuanced, but mythological films are more about archetypes than characters, so that gets a soft pass.

    This is basically as good as Jason and the Argonauts. It has the same good elements and most of the same flaws. It just has higher quality cinematography, and it was a good end to a career like Harryhausen's, especially how the ending describes how the heroes are preserved in the constellations. If you like Greek mythology or stop-motion monsters, or liked Jason and the Argonauts, you'll like this.

   I might revisit Harryhausen in one of his monster movies later on, but next we look at an actual horror movie, Halloween III: Season of the Witch.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Jason and the Argonauts

      It's that time of year again, folks! Time for me to once again go through film history, and personally look through what are considered  classics in the horror genre. The scariest, the cheesiest, the most powerful. And, in honor of a recent trip to Greece, I decided to tackle two of the most well known films on Greek mythology, which also feature monsters (because I have to maintain the facade that this is a series about horror and monster movies) as the first two films. And starting that off is Jason and the Argonauts. 

     The account of the Argonauts that most modern iterations draw from was the epic poem Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes, in the 3rd Century BCE. Since then, Jason and the Argonauts has been adapted by a number of other authors, and Jason himself has made appearances, including a cameo in Dante Aligheri's 12th century poem Inferno. In the 20th century, there were many filmed adaptations, including an appearance in 1958's Hercules, starring Steve Reeves. However, the real hero of this particular film was its special effects director and associate producer Ray Harryhausen. The mastermind behind the stop motion effects for films like Mighty Joe Young, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, and Earth vs. Flying Saucers, Harryhausen wanted to distance himself from B-movie monster antics, which led him to produce The 7th Voyage of Sinbad in 1958. After the success of that, there was originally going to be a sequel, where Sinbad (despite being from the 11th century) teams up with the Argonauts. This was scrapped, and a stand alone feature for Jason was instead made. Harryhausen teamed up with Don Cheffey, and composer Bernard Herrmann (most known for composing the score for Psycho). It was originally called Jason and the Golden Fleece, but a similarly named Italian feature lead the producers to change the name. It was filmed primarily in Italy.  The effects took much longer to produce and film, with the ending skeleton scene having been shoot over for months. After release, the film garnered financial success, and influenced an entire generation of filmmakers. Tom Hanks, speaking at Harryhausen's Special Oscar award in 1992, remarked, "

Some people say Casablanca or Citizen Kane. I say Jason and the Argonauts is the greatest film ever made". But does it live up to the hype? Let's take a look.


The film begins with Pileas (Douglas Wilmer) getting a prophecy from the god Zeus (Niall McGinnis), that he will overthrow King Aristo, of Thassaly, and take over the Kingdom. During said coup, he kills Aristo's daughter, Briseis (Davina Taylor), while she prays to the goddess Athena (Honor Blackman, who some may remember as the Bond Girl from Goldfinger) . Athena, enraged, warns Pileas of a man with one sandal, and vows to protect Aristo's infant son, Jason. Years later, Jason (Todd Armstrong), raised by one of the soldiers from the palace, saves Pileas from drowning, unaware of who he is. Jason seeks to regain his throne, by gaining the legendary Golden Fleece. Pileas decides to support this effort in a bid to destroy Jason, having his son Acastus (Gary Raymond) tag along. Jason briefly discusses this with Zeus and Athena. Athena tells Jason that she will only help him five times during his journey. Athena also directs Jason to the location of the Fleece in Colchis. Jason assembles a crew, including ship builder Argus (Laurence Naismith), and crew Hercules (Nigel Green) and Hyla (John Cairny). Naming the ship Argo, they set sail for Colchis, with Athena's help. With many fantasic obstacles in their way (large bronze statues that come to life, demons, crusing cliffs, skeletons), can they get the Golden Fleece?

    The main aspect of this film that is most talked about is the stop motion effects, and they deserve all the praise they get. The special effects in this film are incredible, even in this day, with the most advanced CGI around in movies. The way the effects and actors are integrated, while crude, does give some credibility to the action happening. The famed skeleton scene at the end is especially notable, for the amount of detail that Harryhausen put in, during the fight. The acting is serviceable, standout performances comung  from Honor Blackman and Nigel Green. The story, while mundane, is still a classic Greek adventure, and seeing all those colorful creatures from mythology come to life was great.
   This movie has inconsistent pacing. The story set-up is done very quickly, causing you to miss parts of the story. For instance, it jumps 20 years between Pileas' coup and Jason's reemergence, but I couldn't tell until later on. This is a recurring problem, and I got confused sometimes when characters would appear out of nowhere. (Also, them being muscle bound cacausian men made them hard to tell apart, aside from Jason and Argus). Other times, the pacing would slow down, such as when they were journeying or fighting. The dialogue is stilted, and also causes confusion at points, since they explain events too late. The characterization, especially of Jason himself, leaves much to be desired.

    I could see why  this film is so beloved, despite its flaws. The effects are very impressive, and it does have that classic epic adventure atmosphere that is lacking now. However, it is imperfect, muddling in narrative elements. Still, if you're into Greek mythology, classic monster movies, stop motion animation, or want to see the myth that inspired Percy Jackson:Sea of Monsters,  check this one out.

   Next time, the other Harryhausen Greek mythology movie, the original Clash of the Titans.

A Boat by Any Other Name: Why "Boaty McBoatface" Matters

   So, in case you haven't been following this particular story, in March of 2016, the National Environmental Research Center in the UK launched an online poll to name a new polar research vessel currently in development. It was meant to, in the words of Britain's Science Minister Jo Johnson, to give the average Brit "the opportunity to feel part of this exciting project and the untold discoveries it will unearth." The vessel, costing $287 million, will study the effects of climate change in Antarctica, and will launch around 2019.

      This being the internet, the most popular name voted ended up being "Boaty McBoatface", as suggested by former BBC Radio Jockey James Hand (Hand apparently now regrets the decision, and particularly the attention it got). Despite it being the most popular name out of all suggested, NERC and the British Science would have none of it. Very recently, they announced the vessel would be named after Sir David Attenborough, famed naturalist and TV presenter most famous for the "Life" series on the BBC. This was despite Attenborough being only the fourth highest entry, behind Boaty, "Poppy-Mai" after a dying, cancer stricken 16 month old girl, and "Henry Worsley”, after a British Army officer who died attempting the first ever solo trek through Antarctica. However, it's not all bad for the Boaty Camp. The name would be bestowed on a small remote operated submarine, which collects data for the research team. 

   So, why am I talking about this? Well this was all prompted by this comment on the NPR coverage of the story (Link in the sources), by a fellow named "No One": 

It's not that they didn't want to use the results, it's just that the results have to be reasonable.
I'm sure people will participate in future polls in large numbers, despite this. The only ones who wouldn't are the same childish fools who voted for a ridiculous name; and I doubt those people know or care what the research vessel is for in the first place.

     But would they? Even you weren't particularly inclined to vote for this name, (like I was),after the NERC decides to disregard what the public wanted for the name, would you choose to vote again, knowing that they could disregard whatever was most popular name, whether it be silly or dignified?That herein lies the main issue with the whole ordeal. Even if the name was absurd (and admittedly David Attenborough is a more appropriate name and tribute to a fantastic nature documentarian), it was the name that the public did chose, and if the NERC didn't like the name, and intended to use a different one, why even engage with the poll? It discourages people from taking part in scientific research, however small the role, and even people who don't like the name might not like the idea of voting. To address the second part of Mr. Nemo's comments up there, Yes, the people who voted for the name may not have known what the vessel was for, but bestowing upon it a name like that may help popularize the vessel, get people engaged in what research the ship is engaged with. Hell, the controversy increased the visibility of the ship. I probably wouldn't have heard of the vessel, unless it was mentioned in a National Geographic article. Yes, the people voting may not have known or cared, but having a popular name on the ship may have gotten them to care. And it has gotten people to care about this ship, because the common refrain on the ship is "It'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me."

    I'm not upset about the name. I don't find the name particularly appealing, and like I said, "David Attenborough" is far more appropriate name. What does concern me is the fact that the public was invited to participate in very important research, and they were disregarded. This highlights a growing rift between the public and the scientific community. The average person regards most research as esoteric and incomprehensible, thus the rampancy of scientific illiteracy amongst the public. John Oliver did an excellent piece on his HBO program "Last Week Tonight", on the simplification of scientific research in popular media (and I suggest you look at that). And in recent years, the scientific community has begun outreaching to the general public, with popular science books being published and science documentaries becoming popular. However, when incidents like this occur, it tells the average layman that science is an incredibly closed process, and participation is cut off to them. This could not be further from the truth, but this perception opens up a whole litany of problems, from minority representation in science, to funding for the sciences to the aforementioned scientific illiteracy. Especially the latter. Remember, the ship was meant to survey Antarctica to study climate change. Since this controversy, perhaps people will be more invested in research, and they might realize that just because it snows in Minneapolis in December, that does not mean that climate change isn't real. If people have more participation in science, they could be more invested in it, and they could more easily understand how process of research works, and perhaps encourage them to be more invested in research.

Sources:

Boaty McBoatface, explained- Tara Goldshan| Vox

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/8/11606554/nerc-rrs-david-attenborough-boaty-mcboatface-explained

Boaty McBoatface to Bear David Attenborough's Name, and the Web Puts - Hannah Olivennes|The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/world/europe/boaty-mcboatface-sir-david-attenborough.html?_r=0

Entries- Most Loved| Name Our Ship

https://nameourship.nerc.ac.uk/entries.html

Boaty By Another Name: 'Sir David Attenborough' Is Chosen For British Research Ship, by Bill Chappell| NPR

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/06/477010650/boaty-by-another-name-sir-david-attenborough-is-chosen-for-british-research-ship

Movie review: Captain America: Civil War

       I would be lying if I said that I didn't understand the fatigue with superhero films. There are a lot of them, and the massive corporations that create them do market them excessively. There are a lot more planned in the future too. Then again, trends like westerns or slasher film had similar runs in the 50's and 80's respectively. But, you know what irritates me more? People complaining about superhero movies. Seriously, it seems every day I see a comment or a think piece about superhero movies are too much, and how they are distracting from  films that are"true art" or some cockamamie like that.  It is just so... hipster, for lack of a better term. Pretending to be some sort of intellectual insight by disparaging popular forms of media. You ever hear the phrase "Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good?" Well, these people apparently take that to mean that "It's popular, ergo it's bad, and it's popularity indicates the fall of cultural tastes," and I wrote a whole piece on that a month or so ago, so go read that. Again, I understand if people are tired of superhero movies. I was admittedly starting to grow tired of them as well after Age of Ultron. Even the surprisingly good Ant-Man wasn't spectacular, and didn't help me appreciate the genre. Batman v. Superman was so dull, I thought perhaps the experience watching that may dull my experience watching Captain America: Civil War, because it indicated my fatigue with superhero films. Actually, watching Batman v. Superman actually enhanced the experience of this film, because I realized what that film did wrong, and what this film did right. It also reminded me of why Marvel movies are so well-regarded. They do put more effort into the scripts and acting, and they actually know what the fans of these films want. So, with that introduction out of the way,...

    Based around the Marvel comics character created by Joe Simon and "Jolly" Jack Kirby, Captain America: Civil War once again follows the adventures of Steve Rogers, Captain America ( Chris Evans). The new Avengers assembled at the end of Age of Ultron (Scarlet Wtich (Elizabeth Olson, who I learned is the younger sister of the Olsen twins), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Falcon (Anthony Mackie)) are on a mission in Lagos, where they try to stop the assassin Crossbones (Frank Grillo) from attaining a biological weapon. When Crossbones detonates a bomb on his person, while Cap is interrogating him, the Scarlet Witch contains the explosion, but releases it at a nearby building, killing several workers from the small East African nation of Wakanda. International condemnation ensues, and Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) tells the Avengers that due to the number of incidents where they were involved, and people were killed, the UN wants to institute the "Slokovia Accords", which would place them under a UN mandate. Tony Stark, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) supports this measure, along with Black Widow and War Machine (Don Cheadle), but Cap is skeptical. Cap learns of the death of his former girlfriend Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), and attends the funeral. There, he meets her niece Sharon (Emily VanCamp), a CIA operative in Germany. At the signing of the Accords in Vienna, a bomb goes off, killing the Wakandan King T'Chaka (John Kani). The blame is quickly placed on the Winter Soldier, aka "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Cap's best friends turned HYDRA assassin. T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), the prince of Wakanda, swears vengeance, and adopts the "Black Panther" moniker, one which has gone down generations of Wakandan warriors.Cap knows that Barnes has been framed, and Barnes professes as much when Cap confronts him. When Cap and Falcon try to protect Barnes from government agents, they find themselves enemies of the government, and Stark. Can they prove Bucky innocent, and get into a conspiracy to split the Avengers?

      This is much more serious than any of the previous Marvel movies, going off the darker tone of  The Winter Soldier. There are less jokes or very funny moments. Unlike  Batman v. Superman,  however, it works to the film's advantage, underscoring how intense and serious some of the moments in the film are. There are several scene, which are legitimately shocking to see. The events also have more weight and consequence to them, unlike Batman v. Superman. I feel more invested in the events happening. The action is very good, as usual, and I feel more excited watching it. As always, the cast is absolutely great. A particular stand out is Tom Holland as Spider Man (who appears later in the film, so I didn't mention him in the synopsis), who manages to do a good job trying to separate himself from Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield. I also liked Spider-Man's costume, which resembles the iconic Steve Ditko look of the 60's. Chadwick Boseman does a very good job as the Black Panther, and I'm very excited for his solo film (I'm a fan of that particular character).  While not using the comic's "Superhuman Registration Act", it does provide some interesting questions on whether the Avengers should intervene with supervision, and the conflict within the Avengers feels real, and builds on the characterization of team since their inception back in the original film. A recurring theme is the idea of revenge and hatred, which causes some characters to overreact and make some poor decisions.

     Like I said, I liked Spider-Man, but honestly, he could be cut out of this film. I wish he played a larger role, just so that his presence is justified a little more than "We would like to introduce the MCU Spider-Man, before we put him in a movie". Also, the motivation of the villain is less than satisfying. Given the wide scope of the conspiracy, I thought that there would be more, but no, the reason the villain (not spoiling who it is) is doing this is very simple. Given the scope of the events, it is very disappointing. The inclusion of the other Avengers, while necessary, sometimes distracts from Cap and the Winter Soldiers, who are supposed to be the main focus. Finally, while the title is appropriate, they should have incorporated more elements from the comic version. It could've justified the title.

    This was far better than Age of Ultron, and it restored my faith in Marvel. If you want a good superhero film after Batman v. Superman, or you enjoyed most of the previous Marvel films, this is the film for you. If you don't like Superhero movies, I don't think this will change your mind, but I'd say give it a chance, because there are elements of spy films in this. Overall, very exciting and very fun. A rare quality in today's blockbusters.

Film Review: The Jungle Book

      A very common complaint about the modern film industry is that everything is derivative. Most of the big blockbusters are either adaptations of popular superhero comics, young adult novels, novels in general, or are outright remakes. Whilst not necessarily invalid, this doesn't mean that any of these films are bad by any measure. Most of the Marvel films have garnered mostly critical acclaim, for instance. And the recent crop of Disney live-action reimaginings have seen some positive reviews. Given Disney's recent live action offerings (John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland), perhaps that's a bit of relief to the House of the Mouse. Especially the critical and financial success of today's subject, The Jungle Book. The success of this, and other recent live action remakes, has ensured that other Disney animated films are remade. Relatively recent ones too, like Mulan or Aladdin. But, is this truly as good as the critics say. Let's take a look.

    A remake of the 1967 Disney animated film (which is, in turn, very loosely based off the first three in the 1894 collection of stories of the same name by Rudyard Kipling), The Jungle Book revolves around Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a feral child raised in the jungles of India by a pack of wolves, led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o). During the dry season, a "Peace Rock" is revealed in a dried river, which is an indication of a truce amongst the animals. Basically, during this period, carnivores can't eat herbivores. However, during this truce, the ruthless tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), learns of Mowgli's existence. Given his hatred of humans, Shere Khan demands that Mowgli be turned over to him, or else. Mowgli decides, in order to protect the wolves, to leave, and his mentor, the black panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) accompanies him to the man village. Mowgli is reluctant to go to the man village, given his upbringing by wolves. However, Shere Khan ambushes Mowgli, and separates him from Bagheera. Mowgli wanders the jungle, encountering colorful characters, the sloth bear Baloo (Bill Murray) (who doesn't at all look like a sloth bear, a very small thing that bothered me through the film), the Gigantopithecus King Louie (Christopher Walken), and the python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson). Can Mowgli evade Shere Khan, or can he control the power of man's red flower (and apologizes if that song's stuck in your head for the next week) to defeat Shere Khan.

       First, the film looks very impressive. Very distinct and colorful. The talking animals feel real, not just computer constructs. The jungle also looks very lively, and very real. While I do often complain about the use of 3-D in films, I did think this looked very impressive in 3-D, and if you wanted to watch it, I do recommend watching it in 3-D, because it does enhance the look of the film. Most of the actors do fine. Neel Sethi wasn't great, but I'll give him a pass, because he's only ten, and I'd feel like a jerk for criticizing his performance. Ben Kingsley and Idris Elba do fine in their respective roles (Kingsley sounding very similar to Bagheera's original voice actor) . Bill Murray was perfect casting as Baloo, and he is, of course, very entertaining to watch. And Christopher Walken as King Louie was hilarious. He's supposed to menacing, but with Walken's signature voice, and him randomly breaking into the chorus and second verse of  "I Wanna Be Like You", it was frankly hard to take him seriously (also, insert Donald Trump joke here). He's not bad, by any means, and when he chases after Mowgli at the end of the scene. I just cracked up during his appearance. It was entertaining to watch.

     A few odd, superfluous choices bothered me through this film. Like I said, Baloo is supposed to be a sloth bear, as he was in the novel and the film. However, this is what he looked like in the film:

Source: http://morungexpress.com/the-jungle-book-trailer-mowgli-is-back-with-his-army-of-wild/

And here's what a sloth bear actually looks like:

Source:http://wildlifesos.org/indian-sloth-bears/

  That relatively minor thing bothered me. King Louie being a Gigantopithecus also was unnecessary. India and Sumatra are not that far away, You could just had an Orangutan wash up there after a storm or something like that. Having him be a prehistoric ape seems excessive. Also, he and Kaa were just devices to explain important plot points. Otherwise, they serve no real purpose in the story. The rendition of "I Wanna Be Like You", like I said, comes out of nowhere. They sing "Bear Necessities", of course, but it made more sense in the scene it was in. While they are trying to take the animated version, and make a more serious version, they also bring in elements from the Kipling stories. The Wolves play a larger role, as they did in the story, the Law of the Jungle poem is recited, the monkeys are called "Bandar-Logs"(and they butcher the pronunciation of it) and several minor characters from the book make cameos. This doesn't come off as a way to balance the two, since most of the rest of the film is derived from the 1967 film. If you're going to remake the 1967 film, you could just take elements from that. Don't randomly place stuff from the novel, and do nothing with those, because none of those additions really add to film. Finally, the ending completely misses the point of the story, both the book and the Disney film. I won't spoil it, but you've seen or read any variation of this story, you get the general message of it. However, the ending just completely botches it, and misses the whole point.

    If you were looking for a film version, which is very close to the Kipling stories, like I was, you will sadly be disappoint. Just for some recommendations in that case, animator Chuck Jones (who was a very prominent animator in the Golden Age Looney Tunes shorts, and later directed How the Grinch Stole Christmas) did an animated TV special based on Mowgli's Brothers in 1976, which is considered one of the closest adaptation of the story ever made (Sadly, he was never able to adapt the other two stories.) If you enjoyed the Disney version, it isn't a musical, and it is more intense, so you might not enjoy it as much, though you might like the Bear Necessities rendition. Some might enjoy just the visual and the action sequences, so I'd recommend it. Overall, this was okay. Can't really muster any strong emotions about it. It wasn't nearly as good as the original. In fact, just watch the original. It has all the classic songs, and the decent animation. Yeah, it hasn't held up particularly well, but it is much better than this. However, this wasn't bad. Just, not really interesting or new. Hopefully, the Warner Bros version coming out next year will provide a more interesting retelling of this story.