Uncategorized

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice- It’s Really Not That Bad

April 11, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Sean Morris

Staff Writer

Here it is, A movie that has polarized critics and fans alike, with many people deeply divided about every aspect of the movie. Now I write my own opinion. While I didn’t think that it was as bad as many claim, and had several good qualities to it, it was by no means a perfect film.

Here’s what I liked: Numerous references to comic book fans like myself to appreciate from the plot lines, looks and even lines of dialogue. I thought the visuals were wonderful, and effectively showcased director Zack Snyder’s impressive ability for visuals. Like for example the opening credit scene is surprisingly memorable as it shows the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne (probably the millionth time these people get killed on the page or the screen) but in aid with Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL’s great score, makes it feel a bit more artistic and visually pleasing. The long awaited debut of Wonder Woman was a treat in and of itself, and Gal Gadot definitely stole every scene away from our boys in blue and black, even if she didn’t have that much to do. There’s was A LOT packed into this over 2 hour movie that seems to be mostly set up for the larger universe, so it can be forgiven that some plot elements might not move as smoothly.

Another positive: Ben Affleck surpassed my own and many others expectations and did a very good job as The Dark Knight. While he is able to give us an older, more experienced Batman and a more weary Bruce than we’ve seen before, I admit he doesn’t tread on much new ground, but is solid nevertheless. The supporting cast is all filled with solid, talented actors from Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Diane Lane, Scott McNairy, Tao Okamoto and more.

For those hoping that the movie would be 2 hours of Batman fighting Superman will be sorely disappointed. I knew from the start that would never happen, the actual fight is entertaining, but felt like there’s less motivations and comes to an unsatisfying end. The rest of the plot before and after fight takes some interesting questions and point of views that makes the film feel as grounded and realistic as one can with a superhero film. As seen in the trailers, they do bring in the creature Doomsday, but made him look significantly worse than his comic book compartment. Why they did that I do not know, but it was a visual that was noticeably worse in a film that was full of great ones. I even thought the costuming was great. Bruce wayne has never looked sharper in his three piece suits and pin collar shirts, wonder woman had some amazing dresses, Perry White had a good selection of vests and contrast collar shirts, and while typically more casually attired Lex Luthor did have some nice suits, shirts and a sharp trenchcoat.

About the polarizing portrayal of Lex Luthor- I admit that I myself am divided. I think Jesse Eisenberg did a solid job of portraying the character he was told to, and I appreciate renewing the character in a way that’s both modern and original. Rather than the chrome donned business suit wearing titian, Eisenberg is appropriately a Mark Zuckerberg, Silicon-Valley type of tech genius. However, while I appreciate the new way and design of the character, I am not sure it still fits comfortably with how I’ve viewed him until now, and he came off a little too “Joker” like when I typically think of the character as more level-headed. Although, after some discussion with a dear friend of mine he brought up some good points on how was more updated for a modern audience and how his character could grow and evolve in future movies. While he may not necessarily have been my favorite part of the film, he was definitely one of the ones that left the largest impression on me, so props to Eisenberg for making me think.

In the end, Batman and Superman does not have the polished theme park glow of a Marvel movie- it’s gloomy, it’s dark and it’s gritty, but it’s also more stylish, nuanced and brings in larger themes concerning religion, history, politics and human nature. While the plot suffers and goes into weird directions at times, it’s a movie that seems less focused on itself, than for being a starting point for its universe which will undoubtedly unfold in future films. I found it to be an overall enjoyable flick, and will probably be one of the movie’s I feel most conflicted about this year, but am excited to see what else the DC movie universe will bring.

What Can We Expect From the Phillies In 2016?

April 10, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

The 2016 Major League Baseball season opened on April 3rd, and now we are faced with seemingly endless exciting baseball story lines, none of which are focused on the Philadelphia Phillies. In 2015, the Philadelphia Phillies finished with a league worst 63-99 record. Through the first four games, the Phillies have lost each game on poor play in at least one dimension of the game. So what is an honest expectation for this season?

The Phillies’ first series of 2016 at Cincinnati was a brutal one. This series consisted of two games in particular where late leads were blown after good outings from starters Jeremy Hellickson and Aaron Nola. On opening day, Hellickson pitched six innings giving up no runs, while Nola pitched seven innings with only allowing one run. The leads were both at 2-1 late. On opening day, David Hernandez came in relief allowing three runs on one hit without recording an out. The next game, young stud Aaron Nola pitched seven spectacular innings and gave the Phillies a 2-1 lead with a Maikel Franco home run. Dalier Hinojosa, a veteran reliever came in to close the game. He allowed two runs that blew the game on a walk off hit from Scott Schebler.

This bullpen struggle comes at no surprise. The Phillies signed several bullpen arms, like Andrew Bailey, David Hernandez, James Russell among others. These are players who likely would not get many innings on contending teams, if they even make the team. Also, when the Phillies traded Ken Giles and prospect Jonathan Arauz for five prospects, they had to expect this. Giles was a young 25 year old flamethrower, now the setup man for the Houston Astros. The only thing the Phillies can do to aid this bullpen is let them pitch, as we shouldn’t expect anything like the Royals in red.

The starting rotation can also be classified as subpar. Consisting of Jeremy Hellickson, Aaron Nola, Jerad Eickhoff, Charlie Morton and Vincent Velasquez. Their combined lifetime earned run average is 3.97. This team had a competition for the fifth spot between Velasquez and Adam Morgan. Vincent Velasquez had won, and had a stellar first game. Unlike our bullpen this part of the Phillies has plenty of promise.

The offense also is a wash. The lineup probably has two hitters who could maybe start on another team. Maikel Franco is the face of this team. He is playing the hot corner and name really made it on the map after a hot spring training with 9 home runs. The other, Odubel Herrera, is a pleasant surprise after being the 9th pick in the Rule 5 Draft two year ago. The rest of the lineup has poor talent. The others have hopped between the minor leagues, like Darin Ruf and Andres Blanco. The others like Peter bourjos and Cedric Hunter, bounce from team to team. Then long term Phillies like Ryan Howard, Carlos Ruiz and Freddy Galvis have been sitting in limbo, where they play pointless games until this team’s young talent comes around.

The Phillies have a lot of future upside, with a supreme farm system loaded with talent. But for 2016, what can we truly expect. One avid fan, Micah Henry, stated that “The 2016 Phils will improve upon their horrendous 2015 season, but still have a long way to go before becoming a playoff contender. It all starts from finding a quality bullpen.” The bullpen is the bad apple in this bunch… but all we can be is hopeful for 2016. There’s some excitement on a few losing teams, we’re one of them. Some fans believe we can contend, and some find us as bottom feeders. I started a poll where you vote and see where fans view our team’s upside.

http://www.poll-maker.com/poll648732x69eC43c1-27

House of Cards Season 4: Bigger, Badder (in a good way) and Better than Ever

March 31, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Sean Morris

Staff Writer

*Warning there will be some minor spoilers

If you read my last review on Netflix’s giant “House of Cards” third season, you will know I was not overtly fond of where it was going.this season, however, I am happy to say exceeded my expectations and brought back the quality the show needed.

Picking up within a few weeks of where the show last left off, the new season begins with Frank Underwood up against his most formidable opponent- his own wife, Claire, who shockingly announced to frank that she was leaving him at the end of the last season. Despite this rivalry, they start to mend their relationship in order for Frank to win the presidency in the 2016 election against a media savvy republican candidate (played with a surprisingly thoroughly likeable charm from Joel Kinnaman) as well as a number of other challenges to their power.

The show takes place during the present day, with acknowledgement to an actual 2016 election in America. The difference is, however, is that on the surface the candidates presidented to their voters are much more electable than our actual candidates- and that is saying something. The Republican candidate in the show is young, a loving family man, humorous, likeable, and we even find he has some liberal views- which is in vast comparison to the likes of Trump and Cruz, who alienate members of their own party and even more so the Democrats. And Underwood seems as solid a candidate as others (ignoring his murderous tendencies for now). In the real world election, he could be even potentially been seen as the best choice for the Democrats when compared to Clinton and Sanders. Which begs the question as to just how far American Politics may have fallen if a show about the fictional backstabbing and murderous politicians seem better than our actual ones?

Acting wise, the Underwoods continue to hit their stride This season gives them both wonderful moments that show why Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright are some of the best actors and actresses out there. The show’s recurring characters remain strong like Michael Kelly as Doug Stamper, Nathan Darrow as Edward Meechum, Lars Mikkelsen as President Petrov, Paul Sparks as Thomas Yates,, Molly Parker as Jackie Sharp and more (as well as surprising returns) all hit their mark and do their job excellently. Some new faces include Neve Campbell as Claire’s aide, and a particularly memorable performance Ellen Burstyn as Claire’s mother.

While the season has a few plot points that make you question the “reality” of the show–like Claire’s path to power seems a little far fetched and illogical at times it’s still able to sell it convincingly enough to allow an audience to have its “suspension of disbelief” for the season. In my review of the last season I had mentioned that I expected it to be able to run for another 2 seasons, and after this season it definitely seems like they have one more, and possibly only one more. While I won’t give spoilers, the season ended on a note that seemed to be preluding to a finale for the next season- while this is not definite it would seem likely.

The season I found improved vastly from the slow burn of the previous season with its ability to take different twists and turns that were both surprising and editing. Additionally, the cinematography and direction was top notch. Like during a dream sequence Underwood was chasing a woman in a low lighted hallway and imagined blood dripping from a faucet were very well captured and that’s only a little bit of the whole season. Some of the best episodes of the season (including the one that had the shots I described) were directed by Claire Underwood herself- Robin Wright- who further goes to show that she is one of the most talented people in the business.

If you were not a fan of the last season as I was, this season remains a treat nevertheless and well worth a watch for any House of Cards fan. I look forward to what might be the final season when it comes back next year.

Madoff Madness: The Shakespearean Tragedy Transitioning to the Small Screen

February 29, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Sean Morris

Staff Writer

In 2008 the world was shocked and dumbfounded at the astronomical scheme respected investor Bernie Madoff when it turns out he had lost $65 BILLION from his investors. Madoff received 150 years in prison for his crimes- virtually ensuring that he would die in a cell- but soon, he suffered an even greater emotional crisis One of his sons committed suicide two years after his arrest, and his other son died of lymphoma two years later. Madoff also suffered a heart attack while in prison and currently is battling kidney cancer, and while he talks to his wife, it is only when he calls her- she never calls him.

These hardships are not to hide his crimes. His victims also suffered greatly- with some of them losing billions of dollars, and some woke up and found that they had lost their entire life savings. The monstrosity of Madoff and the downfall of his life make for compelling drama, as both ABC and HBO realize and are bringing the story to our television screens.

On ABC’s Madoff, Richard Dreyfuss as the titular fraudster. I found that the two part special was surprisingly enjoyable. I did not expect how much I began to feel sorry for Ruth Madoff in the story. Brought to life masterfully by Blythe Danner, she made Ruth a likeable and truly tragic character But I will also admit some pieces seemed rather dramatized as even ABC has admitted about it apparently to the point where Bernie Madoff himself was peeved about it enough from his cell to write an email about it.

While there is not much press yet about the upcoming HBO series “Wizard of Lies,” it brings a promising cast in the form of Michelle Pfeiffer as Ruth Madoff, Hank Azaria (The Simpsons), Nathan Darrow (House of Cards and Gotham) Alessandro Nivola (American Hustle), Lily Rabe (American Horror Story) and perhaps most impressive: Robert De Niro Himself and the infamous fraud. While a release date hasn’t been announced, the show is currently in production and is expected to appear later this year.

With two dramas about the Madoff like (three, if you count the movie “Blue Jasmine” which was inspired by it) it’s clear that not only does it make for good entertainment, but it also shows that as an audience people want to see more. Why is that? Do we enjoy seeing the rich and powerful kicked off their pedestals? Do we see an epitome of greed in a single person that we can hate rather than a faceless corporation? Is Madoff the ultimate warning of greed gone wrong?

Every person has their reasons, but for this writer I quite, for lack of a better word, enjoy the Shakespearean aspects of the drama. From the sheer magnitude of the scam that affected thousands of people- including celebrities like John Malkovich, Steven Spielberg, and Kevin Bacon — to the intimate, inner family drama of the Madoffs it is truly a sensational story.

I will also argue that, if we are to believe her, that Ruth Madoff is perhaps the greatest victim of Madoff’s crime. It is one thing for your investor to lie to you, but it is another to have the man who you’ve been with for most of your life and the father of your children to have lied to you about how your wealth has been made. Then, after so long of enjoying these comforts that she thought were well deserved to be suddenly stripped away to rightly help the victims of your love’s crimes while your family is, for better part, emotionally distant from you must be unbearable. To top it off, the whole world is has such vitriolic feelings to her family that she has little sympathy from many and has to worry about the rest of her family being sued by the victims and photographed at their lower points.

Ultimately, the crimes of Madoff shouldn’t be romanticized, but the story deserves to be told. The current perilous economic climate has many predators, but gain a name and a face in the form of Madoff and it’s effect on people needs to be told, at least for the sake of all the many victims whose lives he ruined. What we can hope is that these dramas show Bernie for the monster he was in the hopes that these actions will not be repeated, although is may already be too late. Harry Markopolos, the man who discovered Madoff’s fraud years before it was revealed and confirmed, recently warned of three new Ponzi schemes- one of which is supposedly even more massive than Madoff’s 65 billion scam. No names have been named yet to ensure it gets to the authorities but it further shows that the crimes Madoff committed and his legacy linger to today.

What the Flint is Going on Here?

February 25, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Staff Writer: Arielle Moore

In the last couple of months, there have been some incredibly disturbing images coming out of the city of Flint, Michigan. The orange particle-infested water has been all over the covers of magazines and newspapers. Due to this, there has been one question on people’s minds: Is that water really coming from people’s drains to drink and use?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. This issue has been a stain on the small city for close to 2 years now, when the decision to use untreated water from the Flint river was made in 2014. As a result, the water corroded the lead pipes of Michigan’s water system and therefore resulted in a toxic concoction flowing from the faucet.

Even now, citizens of Flint are still being taxed one of the highest rates in the United States for their poisonous water which many would agree is an undeniable crime. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver plans to execute her mission to replace the city’s corroded pipes in an attempt to produce clean water sometime next week. In the meantime, many people have contributed their time and resources in order to provide bottles and jugs of clean drinking water to the people suffering.

In a city within the United States you would think the lack of clean water would even be an issue, right? Exactly. You wouldn’t. People would argue that a “first-world country” shouldn’t be dealing with such a thing as this since we have access to the resources and more than enough exports for such necessities. This is true-to an extent. While the change managed to save Flint a considerable amount of money, it came with many harmful effects.

So, is this something we should be worried about in Philadelphia? Even though Flint citizens have visual proof of the contamination in the water, studies show that there is an undeniable amount of lead in our water supply. The reason being our aging pipes and our inability to replace them has had some noticeably dangerous outcomes that have been reflected in the blood tests taken by some Philadelphian citizens. The growing number of infected residents poses great threats to those who have no idea what is really in their water supply. It also causes people to demand stricter regulations on what comes from the tap.

What do you think? Do you think this issue could have been prevented? How should the government handle the situation?

Image source: http://www.dogonews.com/2016/1/20/the-water-crisis-in-flint-michigan