For every great moment that happens at the Academy Awards, there are 15 terrible moments that follow them. That’s why when Argo won Best Picture in 2013, Ben Affleck was still snubbed a Best Director nomination. That’s why when Moonlight won Best Picture in 2017, it was robbed of its Oscar-winning moment when La La Land was accidentally announced the winner. And while Spotlight, The Revenant, andMad Max: Fury Road were all racking up Oscars left and right in 2016, black talent was still missing from all four of the best acting categories regardless. There were several awful moments the Academy Awards have brought us over the past several years. Here are 10 of the worst that happened this decade.
A new villain will quite literally conquer the Marvel Cinematic Universe in Ant-Man 3.
After Ant-Man and the Wasp opened to warm reception and solid box office numbers in 2018, Deadline just announced a surprise casting decision that may or may not shake the foundations of the MCU. Jonathan Majors will reportedly become the Marvel big baddie known as Kang the Conqueror in the upcoming bug-sized sequel.
This news is surprising for a few reasons. For one thing, this is the first major role that Jonathan Majors will be portraying. For the past few years, Jonathan has been cast in a variety of supporting roles for indie projects ranging from Hostiles in 2017 to White Boy Rick in 2018 to The Last Black Man in San Francisco last year. His most recognizable role is probably as Delroy Lindo’s son David in the Spike Lee Vietnam war epic Da 5 Bloods.
But what’s even more surprising is the role Majors will be portraying. First debuting in 1963, Kang the Conqueror is a time-traveling super villain who has frequently fought both the Avengers and Fantastic Four. Besides having the ability to travel through time, Kang can also project holograms, create force fields, and manipulate energy beams against his enemies. He’s a very powerful villain and easily one of the most intimidating foes the Marvel heroes have ever gone up against.
I’m excited to hear that Majors has been cast as Kang the Conqueror. Physically he fits the part to near perfection, and I’m excited to see how playing a villain may potentially catapult his career forward. My biggest problem with Kang isn’t with who’s portraying him: it’s who’s movie he’s debuting in. While Ant-Man and Kang have had a few skirmishes here or there in the comics, they’ve had nothing to the level where he warrants appearing as a key antagonist in his own movie. With his level of ability and raw power, his villainy fits better in an Avengers movie, or even in the “Loki” miniseries he was long rumored for. But how does he fit in with Ant-Man, exactly? Kang dwarfs Ant-Man in just about every way imaginable. You might as well make Thanos the villain for Ant-Man 3.
Granted, Loki was the main antagonist in Thor before he was cast as the big baddie in 2012’s The Avengers. But even Loki doesn’t compare to Kang’s intimidating presence. But at least Kang makes more sense in the “Loki” miniseries, because Loki would feel challenged by Kang’s skill and manipulation and ultimately grow as a result of that conflict. Plus with the time travel element, that would have worked well with reversing Loki’s death from Avengers: Infinity War (spoiler alert). But Ant-Man feels too, er, small for him. It feels like he might be wasting his potential rather than building up to something bigger and better in the MCU.
What do you think? Are you excited to see Kang conquer the quantum realm, or did you want him to save his evil plans for The Avengers 5 or “Loki”? Comment below, let me know.
A year ago, I visited the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York for the first time in my life. The experience, of course, was emotional for everybody inside that museum. Names and faces filled out the walls like memorials too small to fully encapsulate and appreciate the lives that were drastically cut short. Remnants of the attack were scattered around the museum as if it were ground zero. Harrowing video and audio clips looped over and over again, capturing the horror of the day in vivid, haunting detail. It was a powerful experience, and it stays with you long after you’ve left the museum.
Yet I had a different reaction from others at the museum. I could see veterans crying, visibly shaken by how this horrible event continues to haunt the country they love to this very day. I watched families mourn for the loved ones they missed on the walls, children confused by the sadness surrounding them.
Yet despite all of the grieving around me, I didn’t cry inside the museum. Not once. I was actually a little disturbed at myself, to be quite honest. Somebody even questioned me about my reaction, asking me why I wasn’t overcome with emotion like everyone else was around me?
I WAS overcome with emotion; just not in the outward, visible way others were. I have a tendency to internalize my feelings and thoughts, and while everyone was saddened and consumed by everything that we had lost, I was instead focused on what this catastrophic event has meant to us all these years and what it will mean to us going forward.
And every time I looked at the names, the faces, the clothes, the debris, and the videos, a heartbreaking thought crossed my mind that devastates me every time I think about it:
The terrorists won.
Before you react, let me clarify what I mean by that. Before and after the attack, Al-Qaeda clearly stated that their intentions were to weaken the United States for their actions against Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They aimed for targets that were symbolic and significant to our nation. The Pentagon for its strength. The Capitol Building for its democracy. The Twin Towers for its prosperity.
Sure, part of their goal was to hurt America deeply and profoundly; wound it so much to the point where it collapsed to the ground in loss and despair. But it wasn’t just that. After all, we are a formidable force to be reckoned with. Destroying the United States, therefore, was an unrealistic goal, despite how much they may have wanted to.
No, their goal was much more specific — much more intentional. What, you may ask? And the answer is simple: they wanted to cripple us, and they utilized the most potent tools at their disposal to do it. Those tools weren’t knives. They weren’t box cutters. They weren’t even the airplanes themselves.
No, their goal was to cripple us using fear. Using anger. Using hatred. These are potent weapons, because their effects last much longer after their use.
For a time, their attack failed and their cause was lost. America was united in its grief and came together stronger than ever, rebuilding our world and striving towards a better one tomorrow. But somewhere along the way, we lost that unity and that sense of respect and decency. We let fear takeover. Our anger festered and grew. And the seeds of hatred spread so deep that it tore away at our roots, weakening us much more than it ever had before.
The terrorists won.
And they’ve been winning ever since.
I’ve been replaying that moment in the museum over and over again in my head, strategizing how we may overcome our shortcomings and make sure our enemies lose, this time for good. A year later, I still don’t have the answers. I fear I will be old and gray before those solutions present themselves.
I know this much: we cannot win using the enemy’s weapons. Every time we give in to our primal instincts, we lessen ourselves as a country and weaken the foundations that made us so great in the first place.
Instead of fear, we should turn to understanding.
Instead of anger, we should turn to patience.
Instead of hatred, we should turn to love.
And instead of isolation, we should turn to unity in the founding principles that made this country great and rely on them like a bedrock. We need those foundations now more than ever.
It’s been three days now and I’m still not over the death of Chadwick Boseman. Like Heath Ledger in 2008 or Robin Williams in 2014, Chadwick’s death came from left field out of nowhere, surprising everyone with a colon cancer diagnosis he received even before his debut as Black Panther in the 2016 superhero epic Captain America: Civil War. Even today, the world feels lesser without him in it. I myself still struggle knowing that we’ll never see T’Challa again on the big screen, despite his triumphant return in last year’s Avengers: Endgame.
Out of all of the things 2020 has taken from us, I didn’t think Chadwick would be one of them. Yet, here we are. As we try to process this tragedy and work towards moving forward together, let’s reflect on the lessons that we’ve learned from Chadwick and what his example has grown to mean with comic book and movie fans everywhere.
The only thing that’s more forgotten than a soldier of war is a black soldier. Spike Lee’s Vietnam war epic Da 5 Bloods observes this truth with sobering reality and honesty, taking you through the plight of five black soldiers who went through hell in Vietnam only to trade it for another hell when they came back home to America. Several movies have been done about the Vietnam war now, from Apocalypse Now to Born on the Fourth of July. Yet I’ve never seen a movie quite like Da 5 Bloods.
In Da 5 Bloods, a group of veterans venture back to Vietnam to bury their fallen squad leader and recover treasure they left behind during the war. Their squad leader is Stormin’ Norman, powerfully portrayed by Chadick Boseman in his first major role since Black Panther. The rest of the Bloods include Otis (Clarke Peters), David (Jonathan Majors), Eddie (Norm Lewis), and Paul (Delroy Lindo), who is the most devastated and haunted by Stormin’ Norman’s demise in Vietnam.
One of the immediate things you’ll notice about Da 5 Bloods is its creative direction. While Spike Lee is no stranger to displaying style and pizzazz in his movies whether it’s BlacKkKlansman, Malcolm X, or Do The Right Thing, Da 5 Bloods is noticeably less flashy than his other major projects. While his other films place an emphasis on color, music, and production design that visually pops from the screen, Da 5 Bloods is more grim, bleak, and dark, not just in its storytelling, but also in its visual design. Whether its scenes take place in the 1960s or the present day, the shading is so unrefined and gritty that it doesn’t even feel like a movie: it feels like real life and you’re simply witnessing these men’s experiences play out in front of you.
The cinematography and editing are equally essential when it comes to further realizing the film’s sense of character. One creative detail Spike Lee utilizes is the method of filming the movie’s two different eras. In the present day, Lee and cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel capture the scenes on high-definition digital cameras, reflective of today’s technological achievements. But in 1960s Vietnam, Lee and Sigel switch to 16 mm film, making the picture frame smaller and more grainy. The result is a fuller, more immersive experience that vividly places you in the same period as the Bloods. Few films do this mesmerizing of a job with its cinematography, yet Spike and Sigel make it look serene, striking, and epic (although for some reason, Spike annoyingly decided not to de-age his 60-year-old actors in the Vietnam flashbacks).
The cast is just as exceptional as Spike’s sense of artistry. While John David Washington, Samuel Jackson, Don Cheadle, and Giancarlo Esposito were originally slated to portray the living Bloods, scheduling conflicts prevented them from joining the film, so Lee had to seek alternatives in Peters, Majors, Lewis, and Lindo. Scheduling conflicts may have been the best thing to happen to Spike for this movie, because this quartet feels organic and authentic in relationship to one another. It’s not often where a film brings together an ensemble cast and makes it feel this natural and fluid, yet these actors do such a great job at portraying their love and affection for one another that they can’t help but really feel like long-lost friends reuniting under tragic circumstances.
But of the four leads, Delroy Lindo easily shines the most. You’d recognize him as West Indian Archie from Lee’s Malcolm X. But unlike most of his other supporting roles, Lindo takes more of a leading presence in Da 5 Bloods, and he handles the pressure very well. There’s one moment in particular where he’s vividly expressing his pain, hurt, and anger, and he’s staring into the camera while he’s delivering a heart-wrenching monologue. In context, he’s obviously just talking to himself, but in the shot, it feels like he’s talking directly to you. “You” as in the white man. “You” as in the American. “You” who are unaffected by the issues that plague him and his loved ones every day. His passionate and convincing delivery feels so raw and honest that you can’t help but feel guilty by the time he delivers his last impactful line to the camera.
And of all of the elements that bind this beautifully-wrapped cinematic package together, the most essential is the themes Lee explores in his screenplay. While the script was originally written on spec by screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul De Meo, Spike rewrote it to include a black American perspective. The result is a spellbinding, rich, and dense narrative filled with many relevant themes to today’s society, including racism, police brutality, violence, war, mental health, poverty, generational wealth, greed, division: even Donald Trump’s election is provided with some commentary.
All of this leads to a grim reality we’re forced to face at the end of Da 5 Bloods: many of the battles Paul, Otis, David, Eddie, and Stormin’ Norman were a part of back then are still being fought to this day. We’ve entered five wars since Vietnam ended in 1975, one of which is still ongoing in Afghanistan. The Black Lives Matter movement is still fighting for the same civil rights that Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X died for in the 60s. Hell, there’s even been multiple teases to World War III in just this year alone. Yet in their misery and despair, Da 5 Bloods reminds us of another truth that perseveres: Bloods don’t die. They multiply. The Bloods never gave up fighting. Neither should we.
King T’Challa has moved on to join the rest of the Black Panthers in the afterlife.
As if 2020 hasn’t robbed enough from us already, Chadwick Boseman, the Screen Actor Award-winning star of Black Panther, was just pronounced dead a few moments ago. According to The Associated Press, Chadwick Boseman died from colon cancer earlier today at age 43. While he was diagnosed with the dreaded disease in 2016, he did not publicly disclose his illness and kept acting through several major productions, including Marshall, 21 Bridges, Da 5 Bloods, and of course, the last two Avengers entriesand Black Panther.
While many widely recognize Chadwick as the King of Wakanda in the record-breaking 2018 blockbuster, I first learned of Chadwick through one of his earliest roles as Jackie Robinson in the 2013 sports drama 42. Since then, I’ve gotten the privilege to see him move on to portray James Brown in Get On Up, Jacob King in Message From The King, and even Thoth in that dreadful Gods of Egypt movie. Seeing his career progress so quickly up until being cast as the Black Panther in that short of a time span was amazing to see, and I loved being able to watch him succeed in all of that.
Needless to say, I’m devastated to learn about his passing. Chadwick was one of the most promising rising stars of this generation, creating an impact with moviegoing audiences everywhere long before he was even cast as Black Panther. But despite how much his life was cut short or how much of his career was left unfulfilled, I am grateful I got to witness a part of his life and support him during his great journey.
Robert Pattinson isn’t the only one suiting up as the caped crusader next year.
DC Comics recently held its inaugural FanDome online, where they broke news, exclusive clips, and trailers regarding future DC projects. We got a new release date for the delayed Wonder Woman 1984. The full cast lineup was announced for James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad. Matt Reeves even released a new trailer for The Batman, in which Robert Pattinson looks simply stunning as the world’s greatest detective.
But interestingly enough, Pattinson won’t be the only Batman actor suiting up again next year. During a virtual panel for the upcoming Flash movie starring Ezra Miller and directed by Andy Muschietti (Mama, It), two actors are confirmed to reprise their roles as Batman. The first is Ben Affleck, who retired from the role shortly after vacating from directing The Batmanlast year. The second is much more interesting. After 30 years of taking on the Penguin and Catwoman in the Gotham sewers, Michael Keaton will be reprising the role of Batman as a significantly older variation of the character.
Although it was initially a rumor a month ago, the production essentially confirmed this with some new concept art showing of Barry Allen’s sleek new Flash suit, presumably designed by WayneTech industries. While it’s hard to make out, the Batman behind Flash clearly shows it’s an elder Bruce Wayne, and furthermore, his bat symbol has the yellow symbol – exactly like it is in the Tim Burton movies. This basically confirms that Keaton is involved with the production and he will be reprising his role as Batman, though whether it will specifically be the Batman from the Burton movies or another future variation entirely remains to be seen.
The fact that both Keaton and Affleck are reprising their Batman roles for The Flash confirms another long-rumored detail that the film is, in fact, an adaptation of the “Flashpoint” storyline, a comic miniseries that showed Barry running back in time to save his mother from the Reverse-Flash and accidentally create an alternate reality where everything went wrong.
Two interesting things to note about this premise. For one thing, in the original “Flashpoint” storyline, Batman is actually Bruce’s father Thomas Wayne, portrayed by Jeffrey Dean Morgan in Batman v Superman. The fact that both Ben Affleck and Michael Keaton are in the upcoming Flash movie implies that Bruce Wayne will be a prominent part of the storyline in both timelines, not Thomas, which already spells interesting possibilities on its own.
Second, when “Flashpoint” takes place in Flash’s storyline, he’s already a well-established character that has fought several supervillains such as Captain Cold, King Shark, and Grodd before he went back in time to save his mother. In other words, “Flashpoint” was not the introduction for the character; it was his climax. For Pete’s sake, it was the entire premise for the third season of the CW’s “Flash” TV series. Why oh why would you choose this as the starting point for Flash’s own movie series? I understand he’s already been introduced in the mediocre Justice League movie, but when it comes to his solo debut he has a chance to really shine on his own without being overshadowed by bigger characters like Superman or Batman. Why would you make his first solo outing a crossover event the likes of which has literally shifted the foundations of the DC universe? It makes absolutely no sense.
The “Flashpoint” movie also raises another interesting question: who’s going to portray Eobard Thawne? In “Flashpoint,” Eobard Thawne, a.k.a. Reverse-Flash was an essential part of that storyline, taunting Barry and teasing him with his own failure to the point where it drove him to go back in time and make a fateful mistake by attempting to right a wrong. That begs the question of who would play him? Some fans have thrown out names such as Kevin Bacon and Dan Stevens, but personally, I think Anthony Starr would be the best fit. His performance as Homelander in “The Boys” was smug, cocky, and high-strung; perfect for the full-of-himself character of Eobard Thawne. I only worry he may not be given enough space to really shine or stand out as a villain. After all, “Flashpoint” is already packed with a very large cast.
We’ll have to wait and see which bizarre and unexpected directions The Flash takes us in 2022. In the meantime, enjoy rewatching The Batman trailer all over again, because nobody can get enough of that.
There aren’t many good moments to pick from Academy Awards history. Whether it’s Seth McFarlane hosting the ceremony or Faye Dunaway flubbing up the Best Picture winner, the Oscars are filled with one maddening, cringe-worthy moment after another. That’s part of why the good moments are so endearing and memorable, despite also being so far and few in between. With the 93rd Academy Awards postponed to April 2021 (potentially even further with how the rest of 2020 is going), now is a great time to reflect on the 2010s and go over the 10 best Oscar wins of the decade. Spoiler alert: I’m not wearing pants while I’m making the list.
And here we were, thinking we wouldn’t get any more new movies this year.
Ever since the coronavirus ravaged the country in May, several movie releases were either delayed or entirely removed from the 2020 calendar. First the newest James Bond movie No Time To Die was delayed until November. Sequels like A Quiet Place Part II, meanwhile, were postponed until next year. Other movies like Christopher Nolan’s science-fiction thriller Tenet were removed from the release calendar altogether. It’s safe to say the movie industry is in complete disarray right now and with no end in sight thanks to the coronavirus.
Well, Walt Disney just confirmed that at least one movie will be released this year despite the mounting pandemic: Mulan, the live-action remake of the Walt Disney animated feature of the same name, will be released in homes through the Disney+ streaming service.
According to Deadline, the company confirmed that Mulan would be regularly released in countries where theaters are currently open like China and Italy, but would be streamed for a premium price of $30 on Disney+ for countries that are still fighting the pandemic like the United States.
I have mixed feelings about this development. On one hand, I’m excited that I’ll get to see Mulan as originally planned this year, just in a much smaller theater and with less pants. I’ll happily spend the $30 premium price to watch it, even though I completely understand if some families feel that’s a little too absurd and pricey.
On the other hand, I was really looking forward to watching Mulan in a big-screen experience and am afraid I may not get the chance to now. Disney has not announced whether or not it will re-release Mulan in theaters after the pandemic passes, but depending on how successful it is, anything is possible. After all, the three highest-grossing movies of all time Avengers: Endgame, Avatar, and Titanic all saw theatrical re-releases, even though none of them needed help at the box office.
There’s also the thought to consider of what impact this will have on movie theaters as a whole. With remakes like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, andThe Lion King all grossing well over a billion dollars, it’s obvious that live-action Walt Disney remakes are a hot commodity for the movie industry. But with Mulan moving online, that threatens to take all of movie theater’s potential earnings and pour them more directly into Disney’s pockets. This could potentially create a huge loss of business for movie theaters and further jeopardize the tough position they’re already in for a complicated market.
And while Walt Disney states that releasing Mulan straight to homes is “a one-off,” that once again can change depending on the kind of success it sees. Superhero movies like Marvel’s Black Widow can now potentially find new life on Disney+, while animated movies like Pixar’s upcoming Soul can possibly be seen by younger audiences much sooner. And don’t even get me started on the release hell that the horror movie The New Mutants has caught itself up in.
All in all, this is strange news for strange times. We’ll have to wait and see how these trends pan out and how they might change the movie industry going forward.
Poopsie-whoopsie! Why did you make a floopsie-doo-dooski?
It should be illegal to make movies as terrible as Jack and Jill. This isn’t the usual sort of terrible where the cast and crew are merely incompetent at making a good movie – it’s the sort of terrible where they fully understand how to make a bad movie and are aggressively committed to making it as asinine, annoying, and offensive on the senses as possible. Well if Jack and Jill’s goal was to make one of the worst movies ever made, then they succeeded. May they never succeed at anything ever again.
Jack and Jill stars Adam Sandler as identical twins Jack and Jill, with the latter sibling being portrayed with drag and a wig that’s so fake-looking that I’m wondering which mannequin he took it from. The story follows the dreadful duo on a series of absurd adventures, some of which include inviting homeless people to Thanksgiving dinner, appearing on a game show, crushing a helpless horse under Jill’s weight, going to a Lakers game, and being stalked by Al Pacino. And when I say that, no, I’m not saying that it’s a character played by Al Pacino: I mean the actual, real, Academy Award-winner Al Pacino is in love with Adam Sandler in drag and is stalking her/him.
I don’t know what’s more disturbing; watching Al Pacino sexually harass Adam Sandler or knowing that both men willingly agreed to this.
Where do I start with this movie? What’s the worst part? Do I start with the screenplay, which is so childish and immature that fifth graders would be offended? Do I start with the performances, all of which are so obnoxious and distasteful that it makes The Room look artful by comparison? Or do I elaborate on its technical failings, all of which are so basic and amateurish that it makes The Hallmark Channel seem watchable?
Let’s start with the premise itself, in which the idea to have Adam Sandler playing gender-swapping roles is gimmicky at best and downright repugnant at its worst. For some comedic actors, they’re able to successfully play both masculine and feminine characters with finesse and flair, among my favorites being Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot, Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, and Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire.
Adam Sandler is not one of those actors. Simply put, he doesn’t have the training or the ability to act much beyond his own generic self. That’s why when Jack puts on a dress later in the movie and pretends to be Jill, there’s literally no discernible difference between Jill and the disguised Jack. It’s the same God-awful performance either way.
And seeing Adam Sandler dressed as a woman is truly an unpleasant sight to suffer through. While other gender-swapping roles put its actors through extensive makeup and costuming to make them look believable as women, Sandler just slaps on whatever outfit he bought from GAP and the lipstick and eyelashes he got from Ulta Beauty and calls it a transformation. It’s easily one of the laziest makeup and costuming jobs I’ve ever seen, and I’ve suffered through White Chicks.
But it isn’t just how Adam Sandler looks: his dialogue is just as insufferable and grotesque as the rest of his appearance is. Jill is disgusting, foul, whiny, and loud-mouthed to the point where you need earplugs to even attempt to listen to her. Sandler’s voice as Jill is so high-pitched and screechy that I’m shocked no windows in the theater broke every time Jill talked. Why Sandler chose this particular voice for Jill I have no idea. All I know is that I had to check my ears at the end of the screening to make sure they weren’t bleeding from all of the grated squealing they suffered through.
This begs a question that I, unfortunately, do not have an answer to: why was this movie made? Who was this movie made for? What purpose does it serve other than to test my patience and sanity? I cannot rationalize this movie for any reason whatsoever under any spectrum of thought. If it was supposed to be funny, why didn’t I laugh? If it was supposed to be endearing, why was I enraged the entire time while watching it? If it was supposed to be heartfelt, why did I drive my hands into my skull every time one of the characters spoke? If it was supposed to be sincere, why did the film reek of contrivance and laziness? And if it was supposed to be entertaining, why did I spend all 90 minutes fantasizing about strangling every single person I saw in the film?
While he was once known for starring in cheeky and amusing comedies like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, and The Wedding Singer, Adam Sandler has been making one string of bad decisions after another, whether it’s with the cheap and juvenile Grown Ups or the dull and uninspired Just Go With It.Jack and Jill confirms his downward spiral of insanity. For his own safety and well-being, he needs to be checked into a psychological ward as soon as humanly possible, and then his unfortunate viewers should seek counseling to process Jack and Jill in a healthy way.
After watching a trailer where he’s promoting Dunkin’ Donuts’ new Dunkaccino (hardee-har-har), Al Pacino demands that Jack burn all copies of it, warning him “This must never be seen by anyone.” He should have warned Jack and Jill’s producers instead and saved us all from the embarrassment.