Thoughts on 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse'.

When it comes to 'super hero' movies and the 'super hero' genre in general, I'm not necessarily that big of a fan. Even though I try to check the latest films in the genre at some point, I don't usually get too excited about most of these movies that get released.

The only real exception to this rule has been Marvel's 'Spider-Man' movies. Especially when it comes to the first Sam Raimi films, I ended up liking them quite a bit (the first two movies, not the third one or the abysmal reboots).

So when I noticed that there was a new Spider-Man film ('Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse') out there, there was a kind of a reason for me to be excited. I had liked the character before and the critics had given the film solid reviews too.

Yet, the biggest reason that I was sceptical about the movie was because lately the franchise had gone completely south. The rebooted films with Andrew Garfield had been atrocious and were nothing more than cynical cash grabs.

Furthermore, it didn't help that the trailer for the film didn't seem to be that good. The animation style for 'Into the Spider-Verse' looked rather weird and I didn't get why there where so many different 'Spider-Man' protagonists in the film either.

Nevertheless, having now seen the film with my friend last week, it has to be said that I'm glad that we gave it a chance. 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse' turned out to be much better than what I had thought based on its rather messy and unfocused trailer.

One of the reasons that the movie works so well (unlike the reboots and like the first ones) is that it has a likable and a down to earth approach. The characters in it are relatable and you can't help but to feel at ease while watching them.

The good thing about the movie is that right from the get go it makes you care about the protagonist(s). The African-American student kid who becomes our main hero (gets bitten by a robotic spider) is shown in situations that will you make you care (struggles and all).

When it comes to the film's story and its multiple protagonists, the appearance of so many Spider-Man protagonists didn't seem plausible at first. Based on the film's confusing trailer, I just didn't understand what the point really was there.

Thankfully, this character/story vehicle is actually explained rather well in the movie and makes sense within the film's universe. They're in the same world, because the villain of the movie (Kingpin) has brought them together with his parallel universe machine.

So not surprisingly, over the course of the film, the main objective of the characters (that even includes a pig called Spider-Ham) is to get things back to normal. They do their best so that the world wouldn't end and that they would get back to their normal worlds.

This, of course, is easier said than done and requires the characters to work together. They have to give their best so that they could beat the bad guys in the film, which eventually leads to them learning more about themselves and their responsibilities as heroes.

So in hindsight, when I think of the movie as a whole, I have to say that the film was a positive surprise for me. I didn't really expect that there would be as many positive aspects to it and that it would put me on a good mood (with some minor exceptions).

After all, among other things, 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse' has a solid story and is also surprisingly funny. It has tons of jokes and background stuff (like the Seth Rogen 'Hold Your Horses') that you can pick up later if you give the film a second viewing.

The only real problem with film was that it was a bit too long and that it didn't always manage keep my attention. There were so many quick cuts and flashy action scenes in it that - at least in my case - it was a bit too exhausting to watch the movie.

Still, even though there were some minor problems with 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse', these minor flaws didn't matter that much in the end. It's clear that the positive aspects of in the story outweighed some of the minor negative aspects in it.

In that sense, if you're one of those that liked the first two Sam Raimi 'Spider-Man' films, it's likely that 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse' might be for you. It's more than likely that you'll end up enjoying it quite a bit like I did.

After all, even though the trailer for the film wasn't that good, the movie actually is. The movie is solid and shows that just because the franchise hasn't been doing well lately, all is not lost and that there's still hope for our beloved Spidey in today's cynical world.

'Leaving Neverland' documentary is a hoax.

So when it comes to those 'child sex abuse' and 'pedophilia' charges against the late Michael Jackson, I thought that we were more or less done with them. I thought that the matter had been settled and that we wouldn't have to hear from these cases anymore.

Unfortunately, even though Jackson was found not guilty against these charges in the 2005 'Arvizo' trial, that hasn't stopped the media from going after him. They still think that he was a terrible person and that his reputation needs to be buried at any cost.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to this latest hit piece, in 'Leaving Neverland', the filmmakers aren't even pretending to be fair anymore. They don't care whether the accusations (by Wade Robson & James Safechuck) are even remotely true or have merit.

So below I managed to compile the biggest lies, omissions and contradictions that have to do with 'Leaving Neverland'. I picked them up from the 4 hour documentary, the 1 hour Oprah interview and other interviews with the 'cast' and the director.

Claims vs. Reality (The Director)

*In an interview promoting the documentary, the director of the film (Dan Reed) claims the neither Wade Robson or James Safechuck have anything to gain from this documentary. Since neither got paid from starring in the film, they have no reason to lie.

In reality though, the duo Robson & Safechuck has a 1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson's estate. They have tried unsuccessfully to sue the estate since 2013 (two cases have been thrown out, third one is on appeal currently). 

*The director also claims that Robson and Safechuck didn't talk with each other before or during the making of the film (so that they could coordinate their stories). The first time they met was during the film's premiere at Sundance festival.

In reality though, even Wade Robson admits that he spent time with Safechuck (an undisclosed amount of time) between 2013-2014. Both of them are represented by the same law firm, which makes it obvious that they're working as a team.

Claims vs. Reality (Wade Robson)

*In the film Robson claims that he was raped by Jackson hundreds of times over the course of several years (circa 1989 to 1995). The sexual assaults allegedly started the very first day that he to managed get in touch with him.

In reality though, Wade Robson's mother says they met Jackson at Neverland ranch only 4 times over the years. Robson also has no recollection of these early meetings with Jackson (revealed in the court ordered emails that he sent to his mother).

*Robson, (like Safechuck) claims that when they hit their puberty as kids, they both were replaced by Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes as sex slaves. Jackson simply dumped them (R & S) and found new victims that he would start abusing.

In reality though, both Culkin and Barnes are adamant that nothing improper ever happened to them. Even though they both slept in the same bed with Jackson dozens of times, Jackson never abused them (Culkin's 2005 trial testimony, Barnes' twitter feed 2019).

In the Oprah interview, Robson has two obvious 'tells' when it comes to his body language. The moment he says he's telling the truth, he covers his mouth (a sign of lying) and when asked whether it's all about money, he touches his nose (another sign of lying).

Let's not forget that Robson publicly denied these allegations at least a half a of dozen times since 1993 (including the Jimmy Kimmel interview). He testified in the 2005 trial on behalf of Jackson, which included a cross-examination by the prosecution.

Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned that Robson filed a lawsuit in 2012 almost right away after he ran into financial troubles and had a mental breakdown. (in his court ordered diary he writes that 'he's a master of deception')

Claims vs. Reality (James Safechuck & family)

*In the film, James Safechuck claims that from late 1988 to early 1992, Jackson raped him dozens of times, starting during the Bad tour in France. He includes a specific claim about being raped after the 1989 Grammy awards where Jackson performed.

However, 1) during the Chandler investigation in 1993 James Safechuck (at age 15) gave a declaration under oath that he had never been sexually abused by Jackson. 2) Contrary to what Safechuck claims, Jackson didn't even go to the Grammy's in 1989.

*In the documentary film, Safechuck's mother tells how she celebrated Jackson's death in  2009. When she saw the news after waking up, she jumped in joy and danced knowing that Jackson wouldn't be able to sexually abuse her son anymore.

However, in the same documentary James Safechuck tells that he didn't tell anyone that he was sexually abused until 2013. Unless Safechuck's mother used a time machine, she's clearly lying and is part of a conspiracy).

*In the documentary, James Safechuck makes the claim that during the late stages of the 'Arvizo' trial (in 2005), Jackson called him and demanded him to testify in the trial. Safechuck would have to testify or else he would be in trouble and go to jail.

In reality though, the reason that this claim is impossible because the judge in the trial had already decided that Safechuck would not testify. He was declared 'a non entity', so Jackson had no reason to call him since it would have made no difference.

*It also needs to be said that like in the case with Robson, the accusations started immediately after the Safechuck family ran into financial troubles in 2013. (They were sued for conspiracy, which led to them losing their business in 2016).

Conclusions about the case

In the end, when it all is said and done, if you're one those who watched 'Leaving Neverland' and thought that the documentary was compelling, I can't really blame you. If you didn't know about the case before, you're almost bound to think that it's based on facts.

After all, especially when it comes to the film's gruelingly long length (4 hours or so), the graphic descriptions of these alleged acts and the fact that the accusers' wives make Robson & Safechuck seem relatable and believable, you might get fooled.

At the same time, when it comes to the actual truth in the case, for someone who has researched these allegations over the years, it's clear that the film is not truthful. It's clear that those involved with the documentary are lying and trying to pull off a hoax here.

In that sense, we can only hope that in the near future the surviving Jackson family members will come up with their own documentary. We can only hope that they have the energy, the will power and the means to challenge this film.

After all, even though Michael Jackson wasn't a perfect person, he clearly deserves better than this. He deserves better than a film that doesn't care about the truth and that lets every lie, omission and contradiction go completely unchecked and unchallenged in it.

Review: 'Red Dead Redemption 2' (PS4).

Yesterday, I finally managed to finish Rockstar Games' highly anticipated game 'Red Dead Redemption 2' on my PlayStation 4.  I managed to finish the game after spending almost two months playing it (60 gaming hours or so in total) on my console.  

So below are some thoughts about the game that received universal praise from the critics. Even though I'm not saying that 'Red Dead Redemption 2' was bad, it's pretty obvious that it could have been a better game than it turned out to be. 

The Good:

🔼 Might be the best looking game ever.

Probably the best thing about 'Red Dead Redemption 2' is that it might be the best looking game that I've played (massive open world map). It manages to be even better than 'Uncharted 4', a game that took interactive graphics (terrain, objects etc.) to a whole new level.

In practice, during the gameplay, it was simply a joy to look at the environment and the attention to detail. Especially when it came to the 'Caribbean island map', I absolutely loved how warm and vibrant everything in the game looked. 

🔼 Tons of things to discover in the game.

There are a lot of things to do in 'Red Dead Redemption 2' besides the story-mode. Things like side quests and activities (hunting, fishing, bounties, crafting, gathering, gambling etc.) increase the replay value rather substantially.

In my case, now that I've finished the story-mode I'm going to try some of those activities that I didn't try the first time around. Among other things,  I'm going to hunt down the big bear, catch some of those 'wanted' guys and help the photographer guy in the forest too. 

🔼 Excellent voice acting, sound effects & music.

When it comes to the voice acting in the game, I genuinely enjoyed pretty much every moment that included the characters talking. The characters felt real and it was obvious that those behind the voices really gave their best to make everything sound authentic.

This attention to detail was also apparent when it came to music and sound effects. The soundtrack in the game is wonderful and the sound effects (guns, horses, trains, animals, environment, rain, wind etc.) are also first rate. 

The Bad:

🔽 The game is simply too slow.

Someone estimated that of the 60 hours that it takes to finish the story mode, at least 25+ hours of the gameplay consists of riding your horse from place A to B. This is just too much and makes playing the game seem too much like work.

In retrospect, had the game provided things like a good 'fast travel' option, the flow would have been at least a little bit better. In that case playing the story would have been a more entertaining and a more enjoyable experience.   

🔽Shooting & moving mechanics leave a lot to be desired.

Controlling your character - as unfortunate as it is - turned out to be pretty difficult. The way your character moves, runs or jumps at least in my opinion isn't very intuitive and doesn't feel particularly natural for some reason.

What's worse, targeting and shooting tends to be even more difficult (in many cases bugged). Especially when you get to the final phase in the story, there are enemy mobs that you won't be able to hit no matter how accurately you target them.

The Ugly:

🔽 A passive main character hurts the story.

One of the weakest aspects of the story is that your main character Arthur Morgan is incredibly passive from start to finish. He doesn't know what he wants and more or less always does what the other 'villain' characters tell him to do.

As a result, the only thing that supposedly pushes the story forward is the quest to get more money for the gang (so that they could supposedly escape). This doesn't really work that well and gets old pretty fast as the quests keep repeating themselves.

🔽 Story structure in the game is pretty bad.

Finally, even though the main story wasn't completely bad, it's pretty unfortunate how the story was structured. It made no sense that you had to switch from one protagonist to another during the game's story-mode (your protagonist dies at 70%).

In the end, all this cheap shot (every person I know hated it) did was that it turned off players from liking the game. It made you think that the writers didn't know what they were doing and that they just took the easiest way out to 'wrap' the story.