Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Captain America: Civil War First Trailer

This is an excellent question; is the film going to posit both Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, and Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, evenly? Are they, in other words, both holding legitimate and equally valid positions, Rogers as being against "registration," and Stark being for "registration"? No. Captain America is the hero of this film, which is why it is called, Captain America: Civil War; this is Rogers' story. If Civil War were taking place in an Iron Man film, then Stark would be the hero and his position of registration would be upheld and championed, but that is not what we will be getting. Further, due to the events we saw in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, we know Stark makes mistakes (creating Ultron, for example) and is not a team player, willing to make decisions on his own which could endanger the lives of others, even millions of others, so Avengers 2 was setting the stage for Stark as a "pseudo-villain," not a villain like Ultron, but someone holding a viewpoint/belief that is not contingent with the rest of the heroes' views (which makes Black Widow, Black Panther, The Vision, etc., also "pseudo-villains in this film). "Sorry, Tony, I hate to do this, but he's my friend," "So was I." The polar oppositions between our emotions and our thoughts, the law and the human heart, as well as the easy way or the noble way will be the basis of this film and every single person in America is the intended audience.
Why would Captain America: Civil War release the first trailer for the highly anticipated film today? Because it wants to be the only thing you are talking about over the holiday!
"Your mom's name is Sarah. You used to wear newspapers in your shoes." Why would these two details be the ones which Bucky chooses to relate to Steve as proof of remembering him? The name "Sarah" invokes the wife of Abraham, the father of the people of Israel. "Sarah" means noble woman, or princess, because she was the mother of Isaac, the son born of the "free woman," whereas her slave woman, Hagar, was the mother of Ishmael, those born into slavery. So, Rogers' mother being the mother of those who are "free" and of "noble" birth, means that Rogers' is the leader of freedom and noble ideas. What about the newspapers in his shoes?
I imagine that Hawkeye, Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) is going to have a much more important role in the Civil War; we have met his family and they are going to be a serious reason he doesn't want to be "registered." That's the point of us having met his family in The Avengers 2: so we know how personal his stakes are. But because we met them, and we know he's on Rogers' side, we also know that adds to Rogers being right about not registering. What about Ant Man (perched on the right shoulder of Hawkeye)? If you haven't seen it, you need to (it comes out on December 8)? Towards the end of the film, we see him having dinner with his ex-wife's new husband who happens to be a cop, so this might have been cause to have Ant Man be more "government friendly," however, he has a criminal record for theft, so we'll have to see exactly how Ant Man is introduced. There is also Scarlet Witch, described as a wild card, and the all new Spider Man straight out of high school. This film has been years in the planning, so I know they have come up with a phenomenal story that will be the basis of the rest of the Marvel universe for films to come. 
We know that shoes symbolize the will, because our feet, upon which shoes are worn, take us places the way our will directs where we want to go in life. If Rogers was wearing newspaper in his shoes, it was because the shoes were too big for his slender and smaller frame, but he had a "big will." The newspapers also indicates that he was "informed" about issues and not just wanting to be famous or popular, but genuinely wanted to make a difference and save people. In other words, when Rogers asks Bucky, "Do you remember me?" Bucky replies by not just demonstrating he remembers Rogers, but knows who Rogers is on a most intimate scale and being: the woman (the "motherland" of America Sarah represents) and his will to be an important, helping person in the world. This is how we, too, should be viewing. What is going to happen in Civil War?
This is the whole purpose of everything happening in the Marvel Universe (that Stan Lee has control over). Thanos and his Infinity Gauntlet he's putting together is the ultimate power threatening the entire universe, and in order to meet with the threat, each of the heroes--from Captain America to whoever Chris Pratt plays in Guardians Of the Galaxy--must be at their very strongest and most pure so it will be easier for them to unite and put up a good front to ward off the absolute worst of the universe's incredible power going against them. The stakes just don't get any higher than this. 
"Sometimes I want to punch you in your perfect teeth," Stark tells Rogers, and those perfect teeth are indicators that, unlike Stark (please remember back to the first Iron Man and the playboy Stark was) Rogers has appetites that are only good appetites, not appetites that are destructive or can be manipulated (remember in Avengers 2, Scarlet Witch tries to use Peggy Carter against him, but Rogers overcomes the temptation to accept what has happened to him). When Stark, dressed in the Iron Man outfit, says to Rogers, "You seem a little on the defensive," and Rogers says, "It's been a long day," Stark has a black eye, which means that his ability to see and see properly has been "bruised" and wounded so the perspective which Stark has--that millions of Americans probably share without having properly thought through--is not valid, but false. The purpose, then, of Civil War is going to parallel the purpose of Thor: Ragnarok: every hero has to be mercilessly purged of even the slightest sin/fault so they will be as powerful as possible to unite and fight off Thanos.
A happy, blessed and joyous Thanksgiving to each and everyone of you!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Trailers: The Huntsman Winter's War & Now You See Me 2

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 was as revolutionary and inspiring as liberals would fear it could be against Obama and his tyranny. No wonder Jennifer Lawrence is hoping conservatives won't go and see it! It was quite good and I am thankful I saw Mockingjay Part 1 (part of a double feature special) before Part 2 as Part 2 immediately begins after Katniss has been brutally strangled by Peeta and the neck brace is being taken off, a important symbol and opening statement. Had I not just seen Part 1, I probably would have been lost. So, if you don't have it or haven't seen Part 1 in awhile, rent it on Amazon Instant or something because it will be worth your time and, trust me, this is the stuff that starts off revolutions. Not saying that this weekend, people are going to march on Washington--we should--but I am saying this is highly inspiring and very traditional in terms of American values of freedom and what that means. By the way, don't miss the previews waiting to get popcorn: Gods of Egypt plays very well on the big screen, as well as the first trailer for Now You See Me 2, which is Michael Caine's last film (so he says):
Yea, Isla Fisher isn't in this one due to her being pregnant. Anyway, the full trailer for The Huntsman: Winter's War is here:
Word has been released from the horse's mouth that the first X-Men Apocalypse trailer will be attached to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. We can also be expecting the first trailer for the newest Resident Evil: the Final Chapter soonish. Okay, I'm getting the Mockingjay post up because that should be quick, and then I am finishing Spectre if it kills me!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

TRAILERS: Gods Of Egypt, The Huntsman, The Finest Hour

Uh, yea, I am STILL working on the Spectre post. I am sorry, life happens. Thank you for your patience. I am going to see Mockingjay Part 2 tomorrow night, so I will get up the actual trailer for The Huntsman: Winter's War that debuts tomorrow along with my impression of Mockingjay Part 2. In the meantime, a teaser has been released, and, I have to tell you, the synopsis is quite confusing from what I have read so far thus. Ravenna, Charlize Theron, is going to be resurrected by her sister (Emily Blunt) through the power of the mirror; you may recall in Snow White and the Huntsman, The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) made the deal with Ravenna to go into the forbidden forest to hunt Snow White on the condition that Ravenna would bring back his wife from the dead (I am guessing this is Sara, played by Jessica Chastain); now, Ravenna's sister is going to bring Ravenna back for a war, from what I can understand. No, Kristen Stewart was finally not invited back; again, this is a teaser, the trailer comes tomorrow:
This new film for Gods Of Egypt, opening February 26, looks interesting for a number of reasons:
This is the official trailer number 2 for The Finest Hour with Chris Pine:
Just a note to let you know I am still working and working hard. AND BY THE WAY, The Man From UNCLE was released today on home video so you should definitely check it out if you haven't seen it and, I am guessing, you haven't seen it because like no one saw it. :( but I loved it.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, November 16, 2015

Penny Dreadful Season 3

The first image has been released for Season 3 of Penny Dreadful, ten episodes of which will air in 2016. Uh, yea, that's Patti LuPone holding Vanessa 's head in her lap; LuPone portrayed Joan Clayton, aka, "the Cut-Wife," aka, the abortionist, in Season 2 for an episode and was burned alive for being a witch, which she was. Returning as a regular member for Season 3, she is now playing Dr. Seward, an American psychologist employing an "unusual method" in helping Vanessa overcome that which she battles. Now, we know there is an actor who has been cast as Dr. Henry Jeckyll, yes, that Dr. Jeckyll of Robert Louis Stevenson fame. Why is that important? Duality. One character becoming two different people, like Jeckyll becoming Hyde, or Brona becoming Lily, or The Creature becoming John Clare, etc., means that we can still look at Dr. Seward as being a (literary) incarnation of the Cut-Wife, to whom Vanessa became quite close; but this is literary, not religiously, as the show is firmly rooted in the universe of Vanessa's Roman Catholicism, re-incarnation as some religions view it isn't going to be a metaphysical option, however, because the name "Vanessa" itself means "butterfly" in the Greek--which is part of the opening credits of the film with all the insects--as well as referring to a "brotherhood," which the group led by Sir Malcolm could certainly be described as being; but the English origin of "Vanessa" means "literary invention," so the film celebrates the literary inventions of all the authors of both penny dreadful novels and the great writers like Wilde and  Stevenson. So, Vanessa's head on Seward's/Joan's lap could be seen as an act of birth since Joan was an abortionist (she killed babies rather than being a mid-wife who helped with the delivery) and now, in this "literary incarnation" she is more the mid-wife. Note that Vanessa is in a fetal position. There are really only two colors in the image: white and black. Since both colors have a connotation of death, but their body language suggests birth, an "old" Vanessa is dying, and a new Vanessa is being born, or the weak parts of Vanessa have died and the virtues are being resurrected in an even stronger stage of her spiritual development. Fans of the series may recall that, when we last saw Vanessa, she burned the Crucifix and turned out all the lights in Grandage Place, slipping into darkness after looking out of her window. It's not so much that Vanessa is sending Jesus to the burning flames of Hell, rather, that's an expression of what Jesus Christ has just done to her, rather literally, as she confronted the devil and overcame her foe. But once a level of spiritual development has been completed, the next one awaits us. The darkness into which she slips isn't the darkness of hell, but it is the "dark night of the soul," however, we can and probably should expect that at least some rest will be granted to Vanessa, just as we first saw her peacefully walking through the snowy park at the start of Season 2 before encountering Helen McCrory's verbis diablo. There is more we could discuss with this image, but I have to finish Spectre, so enough of this for now. 
I am still working on Spectre. When there is a film this great, and this in-depth, it's overwhelming to try and get a post of this magnitude up, so I deeply apologize for the delay but I will get Spectre up, I will. I all ready have tickets to the Wednesday night double-feature of Mockingjay Part 1 and the debut of Mockingjay Part 2, so that will take at least a day for me to get up after I have seen it, but this will be worth the time to invest in it. I also saw The Peanuts Movie and it was perfectly enjoyable! I hated the little Scratosphere,.. propaganda thing at the start, but it was surprisingly deep and, as always for those of us who grew up with The Peanuts gang and the music, much needed nostalgia that was deeply appreciated on my part.  
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--Have you figured out yet why Blofeld/Oberhauser isn't wearing socks?

Friday, November 13, 2015

Emily Blunt, Daniel Craig, Jennifer Lawrence & Quentin Tarantino: Patterns From the Left

To begin with,
For all of our friends and readers in France, and those affected by the acts of terror, you are in our thoughts, prayers and hearts; may God bless you and keep you in this time of darkness, and may we all draw together, supporting one another in this time of such great sorrow.
When, Ms. Lawrence, did the Republican party keep you from getting food or water? When did the Republican party keep you from getting shelter? When did the Republican party prohibit you from getting a free, public education, or pursuing a higher education at the college level? When did the Republican party order you to quite acting? When did the Republican party take away your health insurance? When did the Republican party pass laws dictating what clothes you wear, or your hair styles? When has the Republican party forbidden you from speaking your mind? Ms. Lawrence needs to decide what she means by "basic rights," and then provide specific examples of when Republicans actually did this, and did this as a political platform instead of just making up reality like the eunuch and cross-dresser Bruce Jenner. It must be difficult when you are a multi-millionaire, Academy Award winner and white, to convince other liberals that you are a victim the way they are, but this is her lame attempt that has been wholly embraced by her fellow-victim-liberals.
Regrettably, or perhaps luckily, a pattern has emerged that is too much of a coincidence to be purely coincidental. In the last couple of days, Jennifer Lawrence has pulled an incredibly stupid stunt before the opening of, perhaps. the biggest film of her career (Mockingjay Part 2 being the conclusion to The Hunger Games films which made her famous) as Emily Blunt did with the critically acclaimed Sicario and Daniel Craig with Spectre. Lawrence, like Blunt, has not just criticized Republicans, but demeaned them as well, as if,... as if,... she doesn't want Republicans to go see her film. This would sound like a conspiracy theory, I know, but that the same happened with Emily Blunt, and both actresses are in films which support the politically conservative, rather than the Leftist Liberals, it's as if she would rather the film suffer massive financial loss than for the swelling numbers of American conservatives to see the conclusion to The Hunger Games because,... the film will support conservatives, not liberals, and liberals do not want conservatives to be championed or validated in any of their political views.
Let's consider the other examples.
Liberals stand a lot to lose from people seeing Spectre: it's all about the New World Order, on both an intimate scale, and the international scale. Sadly, the horrible bombings in Paris is calling to mind the very terror-planned activities in the film so people would be so scared, they would beg their governments to monitor every single thing they do and say or, in the words of the film, create Orwell's worst nightmare. A liberal like Craig would just need a call from another liberal like Jane Fonda saying, Look, do something or say something so people won't go see this film; you have a contract to play Bond again for so much money, you aren't going to suffer anything, but the goal of the New World Order could suffer if too many people see this film. It wouldn't even take a phone call, just Craig deciding to keep people from seeing it and millions of people would not have the slightest clue about an imperative message of what is happening to us right now, literally, as Paris demonstrates. 
People like to know that an actor enjoys portraying a hero, especially a hero whose films makes hundreds of millions  of dollars and a hero dearly loved by the populace. Imagine, if you will, if Chris Evans began cursing Steve Rogers and stating he would rather slit his wrists than play Captain America again. This is what Spectre star Daniel Craig did just days before the film's international release, and I know of more than one person who has avoided the film because of Craig's expressed attitude. Given that Spectre directly targets and battles the New World Order, which Republicans and conservatives in America fear is actually happening, a liberal like Craig might want to give people a reason not to see a film which articulates what they have feared all along. Why would Craig do this? With all these stars in this pattern, the financial loss is minimal because mostly, they have all ready been paid (they usually receive some percentage of the gross, but their big payday has all ready been cashed in) and it's more important to them that their liberal friends in Hollywood--who might have given them the idea to bad-mouth the film/their role anyway--still like them and will offer them roles because they have been "brave" in spitting in the face of the evil enemy, the middle-class American conservative.
The most important thing for liberals is to be a victim; that is the driving goal of liberals, to become a victim, hopefully, of a white heterosexual male, or a business, but to be a victim is the greatest achievement for liberals, because then and only then is their perverse distortion of reality  finding some kind of basis which they think solidifies their positions. Remember, in Man Of Steel, young Clark is in the school bus and it's sinking, and all the kids are going to die unless Clark saves them; then his dad, Kevin Costner, gets upset with him, and Clark says, What was I supposed to do, let them die (what any conservative would say)? And Mr. Kent responds, "Maybe," and then we see him stop Clark from saving him when the tornado comes and kills him, because liberals want to be victims, of Hurricane Katrina, of feces smeared on the wall of a college building, of being called a slut, of school shootings (which are done by liberals),... conservatives can't understand this because we are self-sufficient and we are accountable, we respect ourselves and we respect others; you can't say any of these things about liberals. If they are victims, they aren't responsible for what they do and if they aren't responsible, they can't be held accountable, this is why, in spite of the massive corruption of the Obamas and Clintons, people still support them, because they don't want to be accountable for their actions, either, and if you have corrupt people running the country, you can be corrupt, too! Liberals don't value life, which is why they support abortion, and they don't value life because they don't want to be human, they want to be animals. They don't want to have a soul, they want to be controlled by their appetites for food, sex, drugs. The civil war in the US today isn't about political parties or legislation, it's about the most basic and fundamental understanding of what is reality and what is a human being. Again, for Republicans to boycott their films provides a two-fold "advantage" for a liberal: first, they have publicly insulted the conservatives, so they are held in esteem by other liberals and, two, since they have been boycotted, they are not "victims" of the Republicans because the Republicans have victimized them by an act of boycott; no, it doesn't matter that it was their own fault, because liberals aren't responsible for anything they do, but by "hurting" liberals, the destruction of the Republican party--and its individual members--is validated because of all the cruelty Republicans inflict upon poor, defenseless liberals. 
With Emily Blunt, the case might even be more serious: having watched the Republican debate, and knowing Republican front-runner Donald Trump's view on immigration, and that her film Sicario provides ample ammunition for anti-amnesty politics, if enough people saw the film, the events in the narrative might bolster Trump's standing in the Presidential election even more and the Left certainly doesn't want that, do they? To conservatives, the position of slandering the very people who would, otherwise, financially support your film, doesn't make any sense, so why would liberals be engaging in it?
Supposedly, Tarantino said that he would only make eight films and then stop; so Hateful Eight is his last film. Why would he want police officers, and those who support police officers, to boycott his film? Self-righteous superiority. I will say this: Tarantino knows how to make films, he has a very high standard for himself and he understands movies; I won't say that he hasn't made his fair-share of bad films, however, he's a solid film maker. Unfortunately, he's using his films, like Django Unchained, to incite riots and the very activities which would unravel the culture which makes creating his art possible. This is part of the never-ending, self-destructive phase of liberalism: they want to destroy society and create some kind of utopia in its place, the problem is, the enemies they choose--middle-class Americans--are far better adjusted than they are and prove to have far more skills at self-preservation, so they win. Given the liberals most dangerous weapon is that of mocking anyone who disagrees with them, they reveal how dumb and uneducated they are, so those who might have stayed around to support them, end up jumping ship so as not to get dragged down with them. Again, Tarantino is delighted that police will boycott because now he, too, can claim that he has been a victim of "police brutality" like Trayvon Martin, and this makes him "one of the blacks" he hopes will identify with him, even though the men in the photograph have no more in common with Tarantino than Tarantino's black clothing makes him a black person. Tarantino's cult status as a victim is his own grandiose apotheosis as a revolutionary, and that means more to him than anymore millions of dollars he has all ready made. 
Film is art, and when there is an occupying force trying to subjugate a people into slavery and oblivion, one of the first acts the aggressors will take is that of destroying the culture's art because it holds their values and their identity, their art is what brings them together and defines them as a particular people and the rules of their society. By taking away our heroes, the Left has tried to make us forget what leadership is (Thor sacrificing himself to save his people is leadership, not a speech made beside a golf cart in Martha's Vineyard), or what white heterosexual men have contributed to our society rather than making them out to be the 1% of society's most evil power-holders (did the Left celebrate Charles Koch's coming out as a liberal? I didn't hear about people surrounding him and saying how "brave" he was for announcing that he's a Democrat). In short, there is a pattern of liberals who appear to be intentionally initiating boycotts of their films so as not to support the conservative outlook, and that suggests we should see the films in spite of such petty strategies because we will gain far more from the experience and be strengthened in our positions and beliefs, which is the last thing they want.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers Of Benghazi, London Has Fallen, Sherlock Teaser, Mystery Science Theater 3000 Revival

Thank you for your patience. I am nearly done with the Spectre post, there were a few tidbits floating around, so I wanted to get something fresh up for you to enjoy as you wait. I'm really looking forward to Creed, the Sylvester Stallone film about training Apollo Creed's son to box:
A second trailer for 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers Of Benghazi has been released, and I think this film is going to be huge, and I mean HUGE:
Additionally, the film makers have released a short yet potent featurette about working with the soldiers to make the film:
If you recall the surprising box office hit Olympus Has Fallen, this is the sequel:
What does Speaker of the House (Morgan Freeman) say? We will find you. We will destroy you,. He doesn't say, "We will degrade our enemies," why not? Because that's what liberals say. Americans go out and destroy their enemies, not degrade them like school yard sissies like Obama. A film like this is truly one more slap in his face about what real leadership is, and what Americans value in our culture. Liberals hate this. And I'm glad. Also, a new little teaser for Sherlock has been released, supposedly, when Sherlock and Dr Watson are meeting for the first time:
The surprises just keep rolling in with this "special," proving it is, indeed, special: it's going to be released simultaneously in the US and UK on Jan 1, as was all ready announced; additionally, however, it will be released in about 500 theaters in the US and UK Jan 5 and 6. So, when does something get its debut on TV first and then the theaters? Well, as long as they keep the episodes coming, let them do what they want. Last, but certainly not least,...
Cult classic TV show Mystery Science Theater 3000 is being revived. You may read the complete story here,but suffice to say, with Joel Hodgson on board helping, it will hopefully be a revival that is an "A," and not of "B" quality. New host, new bots, new mads, new B films to destroy and enjoy, that's what it's all about!
Again, after my aunt, my #1 priority is getting Spectre up, so I won't fail you.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, November 9, 2015


I am so sorry. My poor aunt broke her hip in February and she fell and broke it again. I had to take her to the hospital, delaying getting the post up. Please, if you will, remember Debbie and her recovery in your prayers. Her birthday is Wednesday, and it's terrible for her when she has to spend her birthday in the hospital. I have a couple of hours left to go on the Spectre post, but I will get this up! Thank you so much, as always, for your kind patience. 

Friday, November 6, 2015

SPECTRE Is Amazing

It was amazing.
I don't know how they kept those secrets so locked down for so long, but it was amazing. DO NOT read my post before you have seen the film. I am going to literally burn the midnight oil to get this post up, but please, do yourself a favor, go see it before reading what I have to say. Don't think too much about it--that's my job--but, there are two things you can look for, just keep them tucked away in the back  of your head:
1). Reference to a famous Steven Spielberg film
2). Why is Blofeld not wearing socks?
And by the way, we haven't really discussed it, but the new Charlie Brown film looks good and it is getting sold out quickly. If you are going to see either film this weekend, get your tickets in advance if you are picky about which show you want to see. Have a great time, movies this good don't happen often!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner