Holy whips and chains, Batman!

NOTE: THIS POST IS ONLY ABOUT THE MOVIE (NOT ANY OF THE REAL LIFE MADNESS/ SADNESS THAT UNFOLDED AROUND THE MOVIE). 

The movie has been out for a while now. It probably would have been more timely to publish this a week ago. By now, though, more people have seen the movie. I try to make jokes that would be funny if you haven't seen the movie.

BUT THERE ARE SPOILERS. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING GIVEN AWAY.

SETTING THE STAGE: EXPOSITION THAT LASTS FOREVER

Before things really happen... the makers of this lay the groundwork for thirteen different story-lines.  

When the movie starts, Batman hasn't been seen for 8 years and Bruce Wayne has become a emo recluse. He limps around the manor in his pajamas practicing archery in the attic. For serious. He is super pathetic looking and has an awful sad looking goatee.

Meanwhile, everyone is super psyched that Gotham is at peace. There is peace everywhere! They are silly with it. Soon we won't need police-men because there is so much peace!!!

The first twenty minutes of dialogue are basically citizens of Gotham asking how things could possibly go wrong!!?

We've SEEN the trailer. We KNOW things are going to go wrong. Its kind of why we are here. Rather than be bludgeoned to death with foreshadowing- how about some more fight scenes, or cool gadgets, or Morgan Freeman, or Morgan Freeman doing a fight scene. No? Everyone gets an emo monologue instead? Cool.

Anyway, Catwoman steals some pearls from Batman.

This act of of petty thievery makes Bruce Wayne shave off his stank ass goatee (THANK YOU, CATWOMAN) and explore the city (which is peaceful!). 

He finds that his selfish pining has landed his company in the toilet and orphans are living in sewers because of him. 

Also, everyone he loves is still dead.

STUFF HAPPENS 

The plot is driven forward once again by Catwoman doing awesome things.

She dazzles everyone with her sneaky schemey brain and kicks everyone who stands in her way in the face. Awesome.

While Bruce Wayne is being a useless feeb- Catwoman is kicking so much ass. About 94% of the badassitude in this movie is provided by Anne Hathaway. It should be called Catwoman: A Tale of Awesome Air-Kicks.

At one point, she and Batman are both fighting Bane's thugs. Randomly during the fight, Batman knocks the gun out of Catwoman's hands and chastises her for using it. I'm pretty sure it is supposed to be a nod to Batman's history of being anti-gun in the comics but it carries significantly less weight in the movie when all of Bruce Wayne's vehicles come equipped with CANNONS. 

ALSO- Catwoman has an awesome lesbian subtext (AND NO ONE CAN TELL ME OTHERWISE). When Catwoman isn't being a brilliant adorable ninja- she is in the company of some nameless urchin she has taken under her wing. She is protective of random urchin and lives with her in her little hovel. GAY!

BATMAN: "Wait...... what?"

THERE IS THIS RANDOM WOMAN...

Some woman keeps popping up trying to get Bruce Wayne to support her clean energy project. The woman is played by Marion Cottilliard so she is PROBABLY significant in the future (even though Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are in this movie and are completely pointless). But, I guess, whatever for now....

BANE

Bane lives in the sewers with his occupy Gotham posse. Bane is made of muscles and only wears leather and kevlar and wears a mask you would normally only see in a nightmare. The screenwriters, however, really want to drive home that he is a bad guy so he murders some people at random to establish his villainy. (WE GET IT!)

There is so much peace that the new police strategy in new Peaceful Gotham is to not chase bad guys. All they do is hop down the sewers and they escape. Gordon is a renegade and plays by his own rules (i.e. actual police rules) and finds out there are a crap-ton of people living in the sewers with guns.

Also, Bane sounds like a bad Sean Connery impression. 

BATMAN RETURNS?

Meanwhile, Bruce Wayne is still trying to solve the mystery of who Bane is... and what he wants. He doesn't figure much out. Alfred, however, is like some sort of super-villain wikipedia and looks up everything there is to know about him.

"All I need to fight crime is my batsuit and my serious face"

Bane seems bad and emo Bruce Wayne sighs deeply and decides to be the Batman again. Alfred rightly points out that you need muscles to be Batman but Bruce Wayne is all like, "Whatever, Alfred. I've done this before, I think I know what I'm doing!"

You listen to Alfred, whippersnapper!

Anyway- cue Batman's badass return to the scene. He's out to stop Bane from doing... something. 

(Bruce Wayne isn't awesome at solving mysteries in this movie).

Bane shoots up the exchange and Wall Street people and despite earlier established villainy-- EVERYONE IS TOTALLY ROOTING FOR HIM. Like, he just shoots some people point blank in the face and as far as I can tell and no one in the audience cared. The Wall Street Suits are later used as HUMAN SHIELDS and people still don't care. The police don't even care. They are chasing after Batman. Even Batman makes almost NO effort to save them.

RANDOM WOMAN BECOMES RELEVANT!

Random woman (Marion Cottilliard) takes over Bruce Wayne's fusion reactor which can power all of Gotham with clean free sustainable energy (but can also be weaponized) so he didn't turn it on. 

BANE MAKES HIS MOVE

Bane shows up at the Wayne Enterprises board meeting and steals the reactor and uses it to give Gotham free sustainable energy. 

JK- he totally uses it for evil.

Also, that shoot out at the stock exchange, stealing all of Bruce Wayne's money, and a couple of random scenes with Catwoman-- that was all to gain access to the fusion reactor. With Bruce Wayne gone, Bane could replace him with his people. I like how Bane is a violent terrorist and just shoots and kills people to get what he wants but in order to get a fusion reactor- it is imperative that he gain majority access on the shareholder's board. 

BATMAN FIGHTS BANE AND LOSES SO HARD

It is hard to watch.

They have a pity party over who had a tougher childhood. 

I'm guessing the guy who has to wear a mask in order to breathe.

Batman is then banished to the Middle east to learn how to be less of a pussy.

The Middle East.

Bane blows up a football field (and the mayor) and lays siege to the city. He can basically do all of this because he trapped the entire police force underground. 

JUST TO REVIEW...

So, just to review: Batman is in the middle east, the people of Gotham are just being assholes, the entire police force is just chilling underground, and the outside world is completely useless. 

And it is like this for a LONG TIME.

Winter happens.

CUT TO THE MIDDLE EAST

So Bruce is in the  Middle East to re-learn how to be a badass and it takes him FOREVER. He is in a giant pit with other forgotten rabble. It isn't really guarded- it is just impossible to escape. Getting out of the pit requries an impossible jump that no one has ever made-- oh, except a child did it this once.

Bruce Wayne's time in the middle east is basically a montage of him doing sit-ups and pull-ups while he is told the story of this little child who made the jump. Two magical arabs tell him the story.

The reason the child made the jump is that their life was filled with pain and hatred. Growing up in the pit, the child was surrounded by darkness, sickness, and the worst parts of man. The child had nothing to loose. Bruce Wayne lost both his parents as a child and fell down a well once so he figures that is practically the same thing.

Bruce Wayne makes the climb. 

(*Also, for someone only eating gruel, he certainly bulked up during his time in the pit.)

When he emerges, he negligently tosses a rope down into the pit. Did that free everyone from the pit? It is unclear!

Also unclear- how the FUCK Bruce got back to Gotham city from the friggin Middle East.

Sooooo... Batman's major action sequence is climbing out of a giant well.

THERE IS A BOMB THREAT BECOMES RELEVANT STARTING.... NOW!

Suddenly, the bomb is a threat. Like, it was a threat before now but now it is even more of a threat.

A SERIES OF EPIC FIGHTS

For anyone who thought this movie was going to be pro-occupy, they would be seriously dissapointed. Bane uses the same rhetoric as the Occupy Movement does and is against pretty much the same things but he is a violent psychopath. His vision for Gotham is one of chaos and violence.

This is actually a candid shot.

The movie doesn't really paint cops in a great light- but the people who stand up to Bane are the cops and in the end it feels very pro-cop.

Bane fights Batman. Batman tries to redeem himself but it is Catwoman who dispatches Bane (with an effing CANNON).

EVACUATING GOTHAM

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is tasked with evacuating Gotham which is no easy task since Gotham is a metropolis. 

First place Levitt goes to is the boys home to rush the orphans to the bus and then he goes to the NOWHERE ELSE.

He pulls four orphans aside and tasks them wtih knocking on as many doors as you can in 15 minutes within a two block radius of the bus.

THAT is his EVACUATION PLAN.

If you are in the other 98% of the city, you don't even get a heads up.

And if you do happen to be in that 2 block radius- your warning is a street urchin hollering at you to go to the bridge because Batman said so.

Surprisingly, no one listens to them and the 13 orphans are the only ones to leave on the freedom bus.

You guys, The city is under siege! 

I wouldn't open the door for Batman.

So... super ineffective evacuation plan.

GETTING RID OF THE BOMB

For what is supposedly a mega-unstable substance, it actually seems to be the most durable device ever. While attempting to manuever that reactor out of the city, it gets flung against the ground, shaken up in a bus, and smashed against several walls before it is airborne. It explodes off the coast having no effect on life at all.

Batman sacrifices his life for the city.

And thus the movie ends not with a bang but with a whimper.

SO IN THE END...

Wrong is righted? 

The movie manages to be anti-establishment, anti-rich, and anti-rabble. 

If you are ever in trouble, don't count on the cops or the government or your neighbors or even your local super-hero (he might be to busy pining over his dead girlfriend).

Was the lesson that everyone is awful and pointless?

Also- renewable energy is bad because it can be weaponized (which someone rightfully pointed out is becoming a disturbing theme in movies...).

The only thing that seems to be good are orphans and sexy ninja thieves.

...And I was already on Team Hathaway.

I am awesome.

Mitt Romney: An Explanation

No one should want to be President. So I think we can all agree that anyone running for president is a stone-cold weirdo.

That being said- this year gave us an exceptional batch of psychos vying for that coveted office. Let us remember fondly, the republican candidates of 2012: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich. These were candidates who casually suggested that we colonize the moon, who didn't know the legal voting age, and who wanted to ban contraception.

And let us never forget my favorite: Herman Cain. What a marvelous man. This is the man who quoted the oft-forgotten "poet" (Pokémon/Donna Summers) at a Republican debate. Cain could tell how manly you were by what pizza toppings you ordered. He argued that "knowing things" wasn't an essential qualification for President. 

Herman Cain, you will be missed.

But ultimately Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination. But as the real race for the presidency begins, even his Romney supporters admit the man is off to a shaky start.

People running for office have to deal with an intense level of scrutiny. There are bound to be some gaffes/missteps. Romney, however, seems to be constantly striking out.

It would be one thing if his gaffes were the result of "gotcha journalism"or if he were tricked into ridiculous situations... but, alas...

Romney prefers to stage his blunders at his own painstakingly choreographed publicity events: a picnic with regular folk and an american flag in the foreground. Difficulty level: CHILD'S PLAY. Unfortunately, no one thought to remind him: "Don't insult the food people put in front of you-- especially when that food comes from a beloved local bakery." OY!

So, why is Romney is so insanely out of touch with reality?

I have thought about it and there are three explanations that I can think of to explain Mitt Romney.

1) MITT ROMNEY IS THE MONOPOLY MAN COME TO LIFE!

It sounds crazy-- but bear with me.

Remember when you would play (1/8th of) a Monopoly game and you'd start waving around $8,875 dollars around like it WEREN'T NO THANG? It was special sort of psychosis known as Monopoly madness. It didn't matter that the bills that you were holding were pink and blue- you were rich.

And you owned a railroad.

That is Mitt Romney's LIFE.

The man is rich.

Not just rich-- but, like, stupid rich.

Who else but Uncle Pennybags would consider $10,000 a gentleman's bet?

Why watch NASCAR when you can own a NASCAR team?

That is the point of the game, right?

So--yes, Mitt can seem a bit out of touch with normal mortal beings-- but that is just because he thinks we are all playing the same game.

So of COURSE student loans shouldn't be a problem. Massive debt can be solved by careful planning and saving.

I mean, COME ON-- they just GIVE you $200 every time you pass GO!

2) MITT ROMNEY IS A TIME TRAVELER

We need to demand to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate.

Not to determine where he was born-- but when!

(NOTE: He has already released his birth certificate but clearly it is okay to ignore that concrete factual information...)

When he begins sentences with "boy!" and "gosh!" it is adorable (you can't tell me otherwise)! But when Mitt Romney speaks, it sounds like dialogue lifted directly from "Leave It To Beaver."

While his old-timey vernacular would undoubtedly be a constant source of amusement for me, I can't help but think that if he was confronted with a legitimate military situation, he would probably propose that, "we engage them with some light cavalry."

"Tally-ho!"

3) MITT ROMNEY IS AN ALIEN

I don't mean an illegal immigrant.

I mean extra-terrestrial.

How else do you explain this clip?



He doesn't know what a DOUGHNUT is.

Really, Mitt? REALLY?

I'm Here To Bring the Good News

GZA (from Wu-Tang Clan) is planning on putting out an album about science. 

How awesome is that?

Answer: MEGA-awesome.

A rap/hip-hop album about science.

Be still my nerd heart.

GZA is a hugely respected rapper and lyricist. His albums don't rely solely on slick hooks and they aren't auto-tuned to death. This isn't a slam against auto-tuned songs. They are awesome for clubs and dancing. GZA, however, seems to focus his efforts on writing lyrics. He has things to say. So this album won't just be catchy tracks with science-y buzzwords in it. It is going to have substance.

GZA is calling in Neil deGrasse Tyson in to consult-- because if you are going to do science-- do it right, because Tyson is not afraid to call you out (three separate links). Neil deGrasse Tyson, which the commentator rightly describes as, "the fusion of astronomy and awesome in the shape of a man," is basically the Carl Sagan of our day. He is bringing science to the masses.

So I'm glad these two geniuses are coming together.

I'm excited to see what comes of it.

GZA and Neil deGrasse Tyson. A meeting of the minds.

one last note on the above tweet...
(**ICP stands for "Insane Clown Posse." They put out a song in 2009 called "Miracles" which was later (perfectly) parodied on SNL. The lyrics (sNSFW) are here, and they are amazing. The lyrics have all the depth you'd expect from two grown-ass men in clown make-up. The line that stands out the most to me is, "I see miracles all around me... f#$%ing magnets, how do they work?"

Magnets are blowing these guys minds.

Magnets.

If information found in a Highlights magazine unravels "the mysteries of the universe", I don't think ICP will be able to handle a GZA/Tyson collaboration.)

An Important PSA

Found on Buzzfeed.com

"Law enforcement officials, cat counselors, and state legislators agree—catnip (called “Nip” on the streets) is tearing apart families and destroying lives. Please take a second to read these important catnip PSAs and share them with your cats or kittens. Nip: Not even once"

Click here to see more PSAs

Quote of the day

“The problem, often not discovered until late in life, is that when you look for things in life like love, meaning, motivation, it implies they are sitting behind a tree or under a rock. The most successful people in life recognize, that in life they create their own love, they manufacture their own meaning, they generate their own motivation. For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And lessen the suffering of others. You’d be surprised how far that gets you.”

—	Neil deGrasse Tyson

My Review On the Reviews On HBO's "Girls"

HBO’s Girls debuted on April 15^th. It stars Lena Dunham (director/writer/star of "Tiny Furniture"). Director/writer/producer Judd Apatow took notice of Dunham and worked with her to create Girls. Shortly thereafter, writers/critics/bloggers went bananas.

The show’s homepage says Girls is: “a comic look at the assorted humiliations and rare triumphs of a group of girls in their early 20s.” Very succinct. The first episode follows Hannah (Dunham) who recently graduated college and has just been cut off financially by her parents.

At this point, only two shows have aired. Is that enough to form an opinion on the whole season?

YES!

I would love to have a divisive and incendiary opinion on the show- but, alas, I don't have HBO.

That is okay, because the reviews on Girls are insanely entertaining. 

Everyone has an opinion on the new HBO show Girls. Most of the reviews were written before the second show aired.

Those opinions seem to be that it is either "a staggering work of genius" or "offensive fail of a show." There is very little middle ground.

(**Also- you are required to use the word “zeitgeist” at least once in your review.)

In order to enter this arena, you need only have an opinion (based on one episode) that you defend to the death.

It Doesn't Represent Me

Ugh. I don't want television shows to represent me. That would be the worst show ever. I don’t even know how you would dramatize marathon naps, epic tumblr sessions, and doing stand-up about muffins. I need escapism.

But I get it. There are so few women in TV (and even fewer female leads) that a lot of hopes and ideas are riding on the few that make it to leading lady status. When the L-Word came out, so many people complained that it was an inaccurate portrayal of lesbians and unless you were a hot (white) lady who was rich and had her shit together, it was. BUT since it was, you know, the ONLY SHOW EVER to be about lesbians, I think it would be fair to say that there was a lot of ground to cover.

Women have always been under-represented in TV. For years, television's portrayal of women have typically either been insipid or just grossly inaccurate (I’m looking at you “Flying Nun.”) If only Twitter existed earlier, then people would have had a forum to voice their outrage ("I am not a nun NOR do I have the powers of flight. How could I possibly be expected to relate to this! #OFFENSIVE")

Some argued (vehemently) that the ideas and beliefs espoused in the show aren't representative of women/the times. People seem to acknowledge that women are varied and nuanced but (IN THE SAME ARTICLE) complain that one female character doesn't represent all women everywhere.

Like when the internet lashed out at my girl Liz Lemon (and Tina Fey herself) for not being a good/accurate representation of women. (*those are 8 different links)

An article in GOOD points out "This is only a problem because there are so few shows starring complicated, authentic young female characters. Girls ends up having to stand in for everybody. Dunham is painfully aware of this pressure. "I was given a role I never said I could handle" she told Salon." Poor girl.

She is one lady. She isn’t going to represent womankind.

Clearly we have cast Beyonce in that role. 

"Girls" and "Sex in the City"

People were quick to wonder how "Girls" would compare to that other show about women. 

Is it "Sex in the City" for a new generation? Is is the anti-"Sex in the City"? Is it "Sex in the City" with poor people?

I doubt any of the massive generalizations above would accurately describe the show. At least I hope not (but I do hope they go to Dubai in the second season).

Girls Can Be Shitheads Too!

After Bridesmaids, people seem to concede (most of them) that woman can be funny. So now the new frontier woman have to conquer is “the female slacker.” These battles are becoming more and more aggravating. 

Can women be slackers? Some say “yes” and this is apparently BLOWING PEOPLE’S MINDS!!

The slacker dude is a pretty established archetype: Kenny Powers, Jeff Winger, and every stoner comedy ever. They are can range from morally neutral to completely amoral but we always end up finding them charming.

People aren't finding slacker ladies so charming. It doesn't look good on them. Their lack of direction in life is irritating and their life of privilege is offensive. 

Keep reaching for that star, ladies.


I'm certainly doing my part to make the female slacker more visible.

SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX

Every single article mentions sex.

Every.

Single. 

One.

It shouldn't be that sensational. It isn't as if this show is airing on a cable network. It is on HBO. There is sex on EVERY SINGLE SHOW but Girls is the one to drawing the most criticism/attention. It seems kind of crazy that people are going bananas over the sex in Girls when there is rape and insect on the show after it.

Boring and awkward sex is apparently more controversial.

When people offer up critiques, it isn’t that the scenes are bawdy, rather, it is that it’s boring or (my favorite) not funny (you know, because if I see a woman having sex, I better be fully aroused or shaking with laughter!).

My favorite is one writer (seemingly horrified) wondering “is sex always as unfun or awkward as it is on the show?” Does "real sex" equate to "bad sex"??! (she only has awesome sex so she wouldn't know),

The article is from (my favorite) Slate and titled "Why is the sex on the HBO show Girls such a drag?" They claims that “the show’s skittishness about sex is just old-fashioned moralism."  Because sex in Girls is strange and uncomfortable (and makes her feel sad feels) that it is the show's way of saying, "promiscuity is punished by HPV, abortions, and sad sex."


But the show doesn't seem that “skittish” about sex. It isn't pushed to the side. There is a lot of it and people talk a lot about it.


"It" meaning sex (didn't want to appear skittish).

Also, sadly even if you are having awesome sex, you can still get HPV and babies.

Oh My GOD! Did We Mention She Isn't Pretty??

People are tripping over themselves to mention Dunham's appearance.

Even though Dunham herself talks about how she deliberately chose for her character not to be glamorous, when other people comment, it just doesn’t feel nice.

Some people mention it and then "defend"/"praise" her for being "so real."

Which seems like it should be a compliment but it reads like "you are so brave for showing your horribly plain face on television."

THIS IS WHAT PROGRESS FOR WOMEN LOOKS LIKE!

Enough About "Girls." Ima Talk About Me For A While.

There were some articles where the writers just started talking about themselves.

Fascinating.

My favorite article was basically a journal entry complaining that he doesn't have a show. After he remarks that Dunham's sucess can be attributed soley to nepotism, he spends two paragraphs claiming how he is more deserving of a show.

WHO ARE YOU??!

In what other article would that be appropriate?

Op-Ed = Gospel Truth.

Again, I haven't seen the show. I'm not trying to defend the show or attack people who don't like the show. My issue is when huge generalizations are made about a show based on one episode.


Sure there hasn't been any character development  but that critique would hold a lot more weight after you watched the entire season. Most characters don't experience much character development after one episode. Maybe there is a story arc that reveals complexities and insights. Perhaps people's views change. WHO KNOWS!


Also, pundits and bloggers have really worked to blur the line between opinion and reporting. Opinions aren't facts. 


A lot of negative articles could be summarized thusly: "I did not like it- therefore it has failed as a show."

I don't like Entourage or Grey's Anatomy.

My solution?

Not to watch them. 

I could construct arguments about specific ideas and constructs within the show (The actions of "character" are misogynistic because of A, B, and C). But I can't just insist that it is bad (or good) because of my feelings. You can't argue that your opinion is correct.

De gustibus non est disputandum: you can’t dispute matters of taste.

BAM!

Latin.

Latin automatically makes everything in this article is authoritative and scholarly.

(also... zeitgeist)