G G

Both good and awful in this film: while paralleling the Toby Mcguire /Goblin effort in some ways (which is fine), the movie departs from traditional Spider-Man lore in a disturbing manner. Apparently, Peter only likes black girls now (Liz and MJ), and the Washington Monument was built by slaves (Factually incorrect: though the foundation was started in the mid-1800s, the actual monument was built well after the civil war.) These details are a part of a self-indulgent trend in modern media to distort and rewrite history and popular characters according to political agendas. (How would people respond to the Black Panther played by Tom Hanks?) Who cares? We should all be concerned about the warping of culture predicated on ulterior motives, historical inaccuracies , not to mention crass disregard for character backstories. Decent fx, a passable story, and a fair--albeit campy--performance by Holland, and a more measured one by Keaton, can't obscure inappropriate liberties taken by the filmmakers. Random and boorish "F" bombs are also dropped by Betty Brant and Aunt May, which I guess passes for high art with young audiences--but I'll leave commentary on this adjoining trend for another day.

I'm just getting into Season Two, and I have decided that the best performances thus far have been behind the scenes with those who have been handling the special effects. Star Trek: Discovery's stories and characters aren't really credible or engaging, and action and emotional crescendi come and go quickly without the sort of arcs that have made earlier incarnations of Star Trek endearing to many. Martin-Green is charasmatic, but her role as the "moral center of the universe" is laughable. Unlike Kirk, Spock, Janeway, Picard, Sisko, and Archer--all of whom had strengths and weaknesses--Michael Burnham is smarter, stronger, bolder and "better" than every character to date. Her only flaw is that she has been perpetually victimized--most blatantly by straight-white males--in spite of her obvious superiority. The moral backdrop of the series organizes most of the humanoids into a hierarchy of honor based upon race, gender, and sexual preference. By the end of the first season, the fates of the main players are sealed according to current Far-Left-Supremacist ideals as perceived by Hollywood execs (I worked in the business for roughly 20 years and endured their stupid biases and hypocrisy): Burnham rules over the Federation, flanked by a gay-white male, a white female, then (on the periphery) a less admirable Latino (Middle-Eastern?) male and the "classic" inscrutable Asian female. Finally, the last remaining straight-white male crewmember is roasted alive. If these fates were reareanged (the straight-white male rules the Federation, the black woman roasts alive, etc.), the Left would be screaming "racism." While I'm fine with the rise and fall of "good and bad guys," I've never seen a TV show that is so blatantly biased (and, yes, racist, sexist...). While many argue (correctly) that earlier Treks underrepresented minorities, these groups were usually treated respectfully, sometimes ambiguously, but no group was ever labeled as "bad." Now that Discovery is integrating iconic, classic straight-male Trek characters, I suspect that creators will have to settle for discrediting them in subtler ways so as not to alienate fans. Naturally, mullet-toting Burnham will continue to reign supreme. Dark, brooding, Discovery takes itself far too seriously and is devoid of humor. Turn your brain off if you watch, and don't pay close attention in order to maximize viewing pleasure.