Multimedia

Sean Morris

Staff Writer

First let me talk off some of the high points of this film, because there are several.

First and best of all was James Spader in the role of the titular villain. Able to bring humor, terror and exuding a sense of power through impressive CGI and harrowing voice work has brought a villain for the ages. For all the faults in this film I’m so glad he didn’t disappoint, rather he excited my expectations. Not to take away anything from the rest of the stellar cast- including Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Cobie Smulders and Samuel L. Jackson, new cast members like Aaron Taylor Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Andy Serkis, Thomas Kretschmann and, while I think it might have been over-done, cameos from actors like Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, and of course Stan Lee (who might have had his best one yet) were still enjoyable.

However. As I sat in the theater on friday afternoon watching this film — which was certain to make an incredible amount of money — i felt perplexed by  the sheer number of plates in they had in the air. I seriously think that Joss Whedon was given WAAAY too much creative control for his own good. The plotline introduced new characters that weren’t given enough time to expand before losing them. Their presence  could have been more fine-tuned to an individual movie an odd love interest subplot. Despite some very nice high points, their presence doesn’t make this the superior to the first, and leaves me a bit worried what the rest of not only the marvel movies will be going, but superhero movies in general.

My main problem for the plot stems from the sheer number of characters they had already and were expanding upon and giving them content that could have better explored in a separate film, bringing in new interesting characters but lacking to do more with them and making it all cohesive. Its a weird divide I have upon appreciating using and having all of these characters and on the other wonder if it’s a bit excessive, especially when the next films (the Infinity Wars part I and II) will very likely be doing the same thing.

I also wasn’t overly fond of the Black Widow/ Hulk romance sub storyline, especially as I felt that she and Hawkeye has much better chemistry and history. Speaking of which, I found his particularly character development odd with so much being given away about his life that it wasn’t done in a separate film focusing on his, or even better yet black widow’s character, especially as there is a big want for it.

And while his motivations seemed in a flux, Ultron’s ultimate plan did provide for an EPIC battle with the horde of his drones fighting the avengers in a very entertaining sequence, particularly when Ultron himself addressed the crowd and we can see the various drones transmitting his words. Although I will say, without spoiling too much, the stakes were the entire human race and in their time sensitive predicament it felt a pretty weird that it seemed like the immediate concern was that the general population made it to safety. While I can understand the “movie logic” behind it- keeping the heroes as heroic as possible, I feel as though it pandered a bit too much to the audience, and even the younger viewers a bit when realistically if between a city of a few thousand and the entire HUMAN POPULATION it didn’t make sense. And I realize I’m talking in terms of realism and sense in a movie where a Norse god and a guy with arrows are fighting an army of robots. But suspension of disbelief can only go so far.

I would still recommend going to see the film, its reviews are so varied you could very easily like certain parts as much as I didn’t It’ll probably be the summer’s biggest blockbuster and one of the year’s biggest moneymaker (until the behemoth of Star Wars comes in December). In fact because I have so many mixed feeling I may end wanting to see it again, all the plot might have caught me off for a first time viewing, so perhaps a second will clarify things up a bit.

Sean Morris

Staff Writer

A few weeks ago, HBO’s gay-themed television series was officially canceled by HBO, but are creating a movie to be made to finish up the character’s stories. This news disappointed me greatly.

Before I go any further- for anyone unfamiliar with its content its essentially about 3 gay men living in modern San Francisco going through their various professional and (mostly) personal turmoils.

The show was wonderfully filmed with strong actors in their parts. Laura Weedman, in particular, shines as one of the central character’s loud-mouthed long time friend. The storylines that didn’t cover the same grounds that most shows do with their gay characters. These ones didn’t have a massive coming out storyline, or faced any massive kind of oppression for being gay. Instead they were just normal people with normal problems who also just happened to be gay. But being gay itself certainly wasn’t missed, with characters engaging in gay culture with things like the Folsom Street Fair, pros and cons of Prep and noticeably a character with HIV.

Ah, now lets talk about Eddy the Bear, the cheeky HIV- positive… well Bear of who was able to be the life of every scene he flirted into while having this terrible disease. It also showed him developing a relationship with one of the shows leads and is overall can even be considered a role model for those suffering through it. Representation cannot, cannot, cannot be underestimated and showing such a happy joyful character in what is typically considered a horrible circumstance can be unbelievably good.

So why is it being cancelled?

While HBO hasn’t gone in depth about it what has been gathered from various media sources that it was due to the programming its low ratings, despite a loyal fan base. And while yes it has been true I feel as though that with that loyal fan base, and HBO’s reputation for breaking the molds of “typical TV” all should have factored more into their decision, especially when there are so many factors to work in Looking’s defense.

First of all the show can’t be that expensive to make- its pretty much about 5 gay men in modern- day san francisco- I mean the 5 hours they put into this show must cost less than 5 minutes of dragons, or any 5 minutes in Game of Thrones for that matter. Additionally for all the revenue they bring in from Game of Thrones alone- from dvds to merchandise to new subscriptions and more- they should be able to keep several smaller shows afloat. Particularly one that’s writing has grown better and has many representations needed in television now. And while the show wasn’t perfect it was something strong that was definitely improving and something I felt we hadn’t even seen its best moments yet, and it already had some strong ones.

While HBO is allowing for a movie to be made to finish up the character’s storylines it still creates the gap from allowing to see characters expand, grow and more on their own rather than what might turn out to be a rushed conclusion and prevents from more expansion to be made to the show to further improve it. In Looking’s gap, I hope that there will still be able to be gay-themed dramas to fill its void. I’ve recently been alerted of some new gay themed dramas from Russell T. Davis like Cucumber and Banana that will hopefully help and create new stories to be told, but I’d also like to see some American networks try to take on these stories like HBO did.

I feel as though what should be brought onto the small screen is the leading gay “anti- hero”. The past decade or so a slew of shows (most of which have been very popular) have been lead by an “anti-hero”, a character who tiptoes on the moral line of things but who we might ultimately route for, such as Walter White (Breaking Bad) Don Draper (Mad Men) Francis Underwood (House of Cards) Nucky Thompson (Boardwalk Empire), and in that field many minorities have reached the “Anti-hero” level like Patty Hewes (Damages) most of the Lyon Family (Empire) James St. Patrick “Ghost” (Power) Annalise Keating (How to Get Away With Murder) and even Olivia Pope (Scandal).  But yet I find that gay characters are lacking on this front. Some of the better examples I can think of include Omar Little (The Wire) and Cyrus Beene (Scandal) but are at the end, supporting characters so I think the “Leading Gay Anti- Hero” is the next and best place to move forward.

I think also that gay themed showed don’t necessarily need money makers like game of thrones to help them, but it mostly depends on their content. In Looking’s case I think it did need the money maker like Game of Thrones because of its low ratings and perhaps slower moving storyline. But thats not to say a gay- centered show cannot hold on its own and perhaps be a moneymaker in its own right. I think that what will ultimately make that show, like any show is its writing capability and way its run. But hopefully we will be able to see a slew of gay- themed or centered dramas that are rich and satisfying enough on their own.

Sean Morris

Staff Writer

*Warning: There will be some spoilers up ahead*

When I started watching this  season, I was expecting for it to be the last. With the previous seasons being about the Underwood’s ruthless, and bloody, path to the coveted White House, once they achieved their goal, where else to go but down and let their House of Cards tumble? That’s what they did in the original British version of the series, so why wouldn’t it be the same here?

Turns out that not only was not the case, but by the end of season 3, I can see the show being  around for another two seasons. What I don’t know is if this is for better or worse.

Taking place a few months after season 2 ended,the new president Francis Underwood is a failure and seemingly can’t get anything done but turns his presidency around when he announces he isn’t running for re-election in 2016. His stated reason is so he can focus on his time in office, specifically on his new jobs- creating- program America Works, or Works for short. While this is an obvious ploy, his efforts suffers derailment from the Republicans in congress and an opponent in his eventual run for presidency- the strong willed Heather Dunbar. This season, Francis (whose hair shows clear graying throughout the season- a nice little detail) also deals with disputes on an international front along with the new United States ambassador to the United Nations, who is Claire Underwood, his own wife. They deal with the chaotic Middle East region of the Jordan valley and with the formidable Russian president (played wonderfully by Sherlock’s Lars Mikkelsen).

One of the choices that polarized fans  was the expanded role the new season  gave Doug Stamper, who was presumed dead by many (including myself) at the end of the last season. While he had some good moments,ultimately I felt his character was at worst unneeded and at best poorly used in the season. The main problem was a story arc (the disappearance of Rachel Zane and the hunt for her) that felt, like much of Doug’s storyline, could have been condensed immensely by like half of the season. It also bothered me how a big part of Doug’s storyline was used in the season premiere, which really should have been spent more on the principal characters.

Speaking of which, I also found some of the characterizations of the Underwoods themselves a bit off this season. It seems unusual that someone of franchises ruthlessness would allow his presidency to become such a failure as it was at the beginning. I also missed his talking to the camera as he’s done before especially with long pauses on him alone without say anything to us. He gets some of his best and most quoted moments from these gems. I will say, though, that I enjoyed the expanded role Mrs. Underwood had this season with becoming the Ambassador to the united nations. However, I felt that some of her decisions, especially the BIG one at the very end of the season, felt out of character with her wants and goals. She describes them as being tired of a mutual dependency on Francis, yet with her position and placement the option she seems to take would only serve to hurt her, rather than advance her more.

I’m not the only one who has had decisive thoughts about Season 3. Senior Nikki Adeli felt there were more drastic and dramatic moments in Season 2 then compared to season 3. And that it was only the later ones that seemed truly important. And she also agreed that Doug’s storyline was drawn out and commented that the foreign policy seemed a bit unrealistic. Several critics also had some more polarizing thoughts concerning the season as well.
In the end, the season had both highs and lows, but more of the latter than the former. Like I said in the title, it seems the show is going to be expanded because of its monstrous success. Obviously Netflix wouldn’t want to lose such a big property because of the revenue and acclaim it brings, but at what cost for its quality? It currently has such a number of unresolved storylines that I would feel cheated if they ended the show with the next season (depending on time gaps and whatnot) but I hope they can improve on their proven writing capabilities.