Trump v. Rachel Maddow et. al.

What if Trump Proved to the Critics That He’s Rambo

The New York Post did something interesting in its Monday publication. After the Mueller summary was released on the Trump-Russia collusion case, the report found that no member of Trump’s campaign did any collusion with any Russia official even after Russia tried to coerce them to do so, they didn’t take the bait. Since no collusion was found after two years of investigation, the New York Post created an NCAA type basketball bracket of news organizations, cable outlets, media personalities, etc. who kept the barrage of reporting on this story and how they were WRONG! 

Mueller Madness: The media pundits who got it most wrong
Special counsel Robert Mueller has definitively put to rest the collusion theory of President Trump's election. That's…nypost.com

This also got me to wonder, what if President Trump had a valid case to go after them for giving him unrelenting hell during those two years? Here is what it may look like should he be so inclined to do so:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Donald John Trump

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Rachel Maddow,

Ana Navarro, 

Donny Deutsch,

Joe Scarborough,

Mika Brzezinski,

Don Lemon,

CNN,

William “Bill” Kristol,

The New York Times,

The Washington Post,

Buzzfeed,

Brian Ross,

MSNBC,

Christopher Cuomo,

Defendants,

Civil Action No. XXX-XX-XXXX

COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION

Plaintiff, Donald John Trump (“Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint for defamation against Rachel Maddow, Ann Navarro, Donny Deutsch, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Don Lemon, CNN, Bill Kristol, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Buzzfeed, and Brian Ross (“Defendants”) and states the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.  § 1332(a)(1) because the Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

2. This Court enjoys personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because the false and defamatory statements made by Defendants were published in the District of Columbia, and the Plaintiff-target of the defamatory statements was and remains a resident of the District of Columbia.

3. This Court enjoys venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because all or a substantial portion of the events that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims transpired in the District of Columbia, including the publication or republication of the defamatory falsehoods and the damage to Plaintiff’s reputation.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Donald John Trump, is the 45th President of The United States and author of several books and articles published by reputable publishing houses. Donald John Trump currently resides in the District of Columbia.

5. The defendant, Rachel Anne Maddow, is an American television host and liberal political commentator. Maddow hosts The Rachel Maddow Show, a nightly television show on MSNBC, and serves as the cable network’s special event co-anchor.

6. The defendant, Ana Violeta Navarro-Cárdenas, is a Nicaraguan-born American Republican strategist and political commentator for various news outlets, including CNN, CNN en Español, ABC News, Telemundo, and The View.

7. The defendant, Donald Jay Deutsch, is an American advertising executive and television personality. He was the host of the CNBC talk show, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch.

8. The defendant, Charles Joseph Scarborough, is American cable news and talk radio host. He is currently the co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC with Mika Brzezinski, his wife. He previously hosted Scarborough Country on the same network.

9. The defendant, Mika Emilie Leonia Brzezinski Scarborough, is an American journalist, talk show host, liberal political commentator, and author who currently co-hosts MSNBC’s weekday morning broadcast show Morning Joe and wife of Joe Scarborough.

10. The defendant, Don Carlton Lemon, is an American journalist and author. He is an award-winning news anchor for CNN based in New York City and hosts CNN Tonight.

11. The defendant, Cable News Network, is an American news-based pay television channel owned by WarnerMedia News & Sports, a division of AT&T’s WarnerMedia. CNN was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel.

12. The defendant, William “Bill” Kristol, is an American neoconservative political analyst. He is the founder and former editor-at-large of the defunct political magazine The Weekly Standard and a political commentator on several networks.

13. The defendant, The New York Times, is an American newspaper based in New York City with worldwide influence and readership. Founded in 1851, the paper has won 125 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper. The Times is ranked 17th in the world by circulation and 2nd in the U.S.

14. The defendant, The Washington Post, is a major American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C., with a particular emphasis on national politics and the federal government. It has the largest circulation in the Washington metropolitan area. Its slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness” began appearing on its masthead in 2017.

15. The defendant, BuzzFeed, Inc., is an American Internet media, news, and entertainment company with a focus on digital media; it is based in New York City. BuzzFeed was founded in 2006 by Jonah Peretti and John S. Johnson III, to focus on tracking viral content.

16. The defendant, Brian Elliot Ross, is an American investigative journalist who served as the Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC News until 2018. He reported for ABC World News Tonight with David Muir, Nightline, Good Morning America, 20/20, and ABC News Radio. Ross joined ABC News in July 1994 and left in 2018.

17. The defendant, MSNBC, is an American pay television network that provides news coverage and political commentary from NBC News on current events. MSNBC is owned by the NBCUniversal News Group, a unit of the NBCUniversal Television Group division of NBCUniversal.

18. The defendant, Christopher Charles Cuomo, is an American television journalist who currently works at CNN, where he presents Cuomo Prime Time, a regular weeknight CNN show.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

19. In early January 2017, President-elect Trump and President Barack Obama were separately briefed about the Russian interference in the election and on the existence of the Steele dossier by the chiefs of several U.S. intelligence agencies.

20. On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess “compromising personal and financial information” about Trump. CNN stated that it would not publish specific details on the memos because it had not “independently corroborated the specific allegations.”

21. Following the CNN report, BuzzFeed published a 35-page dossier that it said was the basis of the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected “embarrassing material” involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. It was not known who provided the dossier to BuzzFeed.

22. According to Adam Schiff, a major portion of the dossier’s content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations “turned out to be true” is a false narrative.

23. Trump and Putin have repeatedly denied the allegations, and Trump has labeled the dossier “discredited”, “debunked”, “fictitious”, and “fake news”. David A. Graham, staff writer for The Atlantic, has noted that in spite of Trump’s “mantra that ‘there was no collusion’… it is clear that the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia and to keep that secret” is a false narrative.

24. The following is part and parcel of some of the false narrative alleging cultivation, cooperation, and conspiracy with the Trump campaign:

- That “Russian authorities” had cultivated Trump “for at least 5 years”, and that the operation was “supported and directed” by Putin.

- That Trump was a “divisive” and “anti-Establishment” candidate, as well as “a pragmatist with whom they could do business”. That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected.

- That a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was “to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country.

- That Trump had “so far declined various sweetener real estate business deals”, but had “accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin,” notably on his political rivals.

- That there was “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership,” with information willingly exchanged in both directions. That this co-operation was “sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US.” That the Trump campaign used “moles within DNC and hackers in the US as well as outside in Russia.”

- That Trump associate had established “an intelligence exchange [with the Kremlin] for at least 8 years.” That Trump and his team had delivered “intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs and their families”, as requested by Putin.

- That there was a “Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON”.

- That Trump was susceptible to blackmail due to paying bribes and the existence of “embarrassing material” due to engagement in “perverted sexual acts” and “unorthodox behavior” in Russia, “enough embarrassing material…to be able to blackmail him if they so wished.”

25. Rachel Maddow, a journalist and political commentator, host The Rachel Maddow Show, where the topic of Trump-Russian Collusion has been discussed on her show in the past two years has dominated her broadcast as she has leveled spurious and slanderous allegations against Plaintiff by convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and exposes Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

26. Ana Navarro, a journalist and political commentator, discussed on CNN alleged misconduct of criminal activities during the 2016 election against Plaintiff and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

27. Donny Deutsch, a New York City ad executive and political commentator, discussed on MSNBC various slanderous allegations regarding starting a civil war, obstruction of justice and collusion against the Plaintiff and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

28. Joe Scarborough, a journalist, and host of MSNBC Morning Joe discussed Trump-Russia collusion and insinuated that Plaintiff had been lying and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and exposes Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

29. Mika Brzezinski, a journalist, and host of MSNBC Morning Joe discussed Trump-Russia collusion and insinuated that Plaintiff was a Russian agent and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and exposes Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

30. Don Lemon, a journalist, and host for CNN continued the false narrative by spreading misinformation of implicating the Plaintiff with the Trump-Russian collusion and conspiracy angle and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

31. Brian Ross, a journalist for ABC News, erroneously reported misinformation about the Plaintiff instructing an underling to perform illegal activities by having that under-ling meet with alleged Russian officials as part of the Trump-Russian collusion false narrative and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

32. The New York Times, a venerable newspaper organization, printed falsehoods in its paper in a libelous manner that Plaintiff had prompted an F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Plaintiff Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia implying that Plaintiff was UN-American and a danger to Plaintiff’s country and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and exposes Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

33. The Washington Post, a venerable newspaper organization, continued the falsehoods of misinformation alluding to the narrative that alludes to speculation that the Plaintiff was a conspirator in the Trump-Russia collusion without providing a counter-argument throughout the duration of the allegation and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and exposes Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy.

34. Buzzfeed, an online media outlet, published the Steele dossier, a fabricated misinformation of non-vetted material of inaccurate facts that initiated the conspiracy theory and led to the creation of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and exposes Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and obloquy.

35. MSNBC, a cable media outlet, allowed many of its journalist to continue to narrative of a Trump-Russia collusion that caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff in performing the duties Plaintiff was elected to do but had to devote a number of hours to answer questions from reporters who were relentless is asking questions on false accusations against the Plaintiff and thus convicting him in the court of public opinion as these allegations are false and defamatory and exposes Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and obloquy.

36. The Statements individually and collectively are false and were false when made. The Statements are defamatory falsehoods, which Defendants knew or should have known were false when made.

37. Defendants made the Statements with actual malice and wrongful and willful intent to injure Plaintiff. The Statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity or with knowledge of their falsity and with wanton and willful disregard of the reputation and rights of the Plaintiff.

38. Defendants lacked reasonable grounds for making the Statements and have not offered any retractions for any errors and omissions and apologies to Plaintiff. 

COUNT I- DEFAMATION PER SE

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in paragraphs 1–38 appearing in this Complaint.

40. The publication and republication of the Statements proximately caused general and special damages to Plaintiff. Defendants knew, anticipated, foresaw, and intended that the Statements would be read by persons throughout the United States and the world and would damage the reputation of the Plaintiff. The Statements have adversely affected Plaintiff’s scholarly credibility, speaking, writing, and publishing opportunities, book sales, and caused psychological and emotional trauma and suffering.

COUNT II-DEFAMATION PER SE

41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in paragraphs 1–40 of this Complaint.

41. The Statements, individually and collectively, referred to herein have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiff to suffer an injury to his professional standing, to his reputation and good name; and, they have held and will continue to hold Plaintiff up to public scandal and ridicule. The Statements were calculated to, and do, expose Plaintiff to public scorn, hatred, and ridicule. By such published Statements, Defendants did injure the Plaintiff’s reputation within his professional circles and in the community at large. The publication of the Statements proximately caused general and special damages to the Plaintiff. The Statements have adversely impacted the Plaintiff’s scholarly credibility, and opportunities for writing, teaching, speaking, and book sales. The Statements have damaged Plaintiff’s professional standing in the academic community. The Statements have proximately caused Plaintiff emotional and psychological trauma and suffering which is continuing.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

42. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: (i) for compensatory damages in the amount of $2 million ($2,000,000) on Count I and $2 million ($2,000,000) on Count II; (ii) punitive damages in the amount of $2 million ($2,000,000) on Count I and $2 million ($2,000,000) on Count II; (iii) both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on both Counts; and, (iv) such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.

JURY TRIAL

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants, and each of them, for:

1. Compensatory damages according to proof;

2. Punitive damages;

3. Interest as allowed by law;

4. Costs of suit; and

5. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

________________________________

Donald J. Trump

This is Not — Us

A Movie Review of Jordan Peele’s Us

Lupita Nyong’o  …  Adelaide Wilson / Red

Winston Duke  …  Gabe Wilson / Abraham

Elisabeth Moss  …  Kitty Tyler / Dahlia

Tim Heidecker  …  Josh Tyler / Tex

Shahadi Wright Joseph  …  Zora Wilson / Umbrae

Evan Alex  …  Jason Wilson / Pluto

Back in 2013, there was a film that came out called Coherence. It starred actors Nicholas Brendan from Buffy The Vampire fame, Emily Baldoni, Maury Sterling, and Elizabeth Gracen, once linked to President Bill Clinton during his more turbulent times of sexual misconduct. But this film was not about that. It is a film more aligned with Jordan Peele’s film in that it’s about doppelgangers. In this film, four couples are having dinner at the host’s home while a comet is passing over the earth and is noticed from the ground. As it journeys across the sky, a blackout occurs and as darkness envelops the area, the dinner couples notice one house in the neighborhood has lights on. Curious, they investigate and discover that the house is the same house they are in and that they have doppelgangers. This film drew you in effectively and you became intrigued by the intimacy of the dinner arrangement as it was mostly shot with interior settings.

I had no expectations going in as I watched Us, the latest incarnation and sophomore work from writer/director Jordan Peele. This was classified as a horror film but I didn’t see it that way. I saw it as more of a psychological yarn and I had to watch it a second time because I nodded out the first time. The antagonist hasn't enhanced beings with some sort of unique power, they didn’t possess superhuman strength or mind manipulation, they were just doppelgangers. So, let’s take a look at how this whole thing got started.

We open up to a carnival scene and a little girl, Adelaide, is with her parents as the father attempts to win a prize for his little girl at a game of chance. He wins a T-shirt and moves off to another game. The mother has to leave and instruct the father to keep an eye on the little girl. He assures her that he will as he becomes too involved with the game, Whack-A-Mole. He falls into a tired trope of the inattentive father which leads to the second overused trope, the kid who wanders off from the parent.

When she does this, she wanders off pretty far. You begin to ask yourself, where is she going? She also seems to know where she is going as if she’s done this with some familiarity. The kid seems old enough to know not to go too far but this is not the case. Wasn’t this the 80’s where parents were diligent in telling their kids not to wander off or talk to strangers and not wind up on a milk carton? So we have to ignore this premise for the sake of the film. She goes down steps and dark passages and winds up in an underground facility. It is there she discovers her doppelganger wearing the same clothes as her. Without any explanation, where did the doppelganger get the same clothes as her counterpart?

We jump to current times. The little girl has grown up, she, Lupita Nyong’o, is married to Abraham Wilson (Winston Duke) with two kids, a boy, Jason, and a girl, Zora, played by Evan Alex and Shahadi Wright Joseph respectively and they are traveling to her hometown for a vacation destination. They settle into their vacation home and soon the wife starts to have second thoughts about going to the beach. She’s starting to recall the trauma she had experienced. The father, quite frankly, discounts her feelings when she reveals what happened to her as a child as they forge ahead with their plans. Once at the beach they run into their married friends as they settle into the normal chit-chat. At the beach, you start to get the feel that Peele’s vision is more of a tip to the hat to Alfred Hitchcock when you see this huge flock of seagulls on the beach diving for scraps of food while the boy is running along the shore. He wanders off and that action scares the mother who comes running to him as she expressed her concerns for him becoming lost or kidnapped by someone.

Back at the vacation home, night has fallen. When nighttime comes, that’s when all the bad comes out. What comes next is some uninvited guest, the doppelgangers, much to the surprise of the Wilson clan. Dressed in red jumpsuits, nothing is given as to why the doppelgangers showed up. Where have they been living all this time? How have they been surviving? Who was feeding them? Were they abandoned? One of the who, what, when, where and why are ever explored. The “Tethered” as they are called, are the homicidal organism with no regards to human life.

The doppelgangers barge into Wilson’s home as the shock is registered on the Wilson clan faces. Adelaide’s doppelganger, Red, gives reasons as to why in a haltering solo as she is the only one who can speak. The doppelgangers systematically begin to torture to the Wilson family with death but they rally and survive the attempted murders. They escape their home and head to the friend’s home Kitty (Elisabeth Moss) and Josh (Tim Heidecker) but they are experiencing their own doppelgangers who quickly kill them and their twin daughters. The Wilson’s arrive just seconds after they are killed. The Wilson’s have unwittingly become soldiers in a fight they didn’t sign up for. They get the upper hand on their friend’s doppelgangers and dispatch them fairly quickly. As I think about it, how did these doppelgangers get into their friend’s home so easily? They don’t appear to be too sophisticated since we are to assume that they’ve been living underground these many years so how did they get through a two-story home with a security system? They moved through the house like ninjas.

There is some filler like one of them is where Jason is captured by Red.  Maybe she caught him because he was still wearing that stupid mask that seems to be glued to his head. Man, I was so sick of seeing that mask stuck on his head. It was so annoying and kept taking me out of the picture.  We move to the climatic third act that’s not so climatic. It’s a fight scene between Adelaide and Red. It’s no Kill Bill fight scene and it’s quite surreal as Adelaide appears to get cut numerous times with the scissors. And by the way, how did they get so many scissors? Adelaide kills Red and in the most strange response, Adelaide comforts the mortally wounded Red and cradles Red’s face in her hands. You just battled to the death with your opponent and now you want to comfort her. Odd. She and Jason hobble back to her remaining family at an ambulance and they leave the location in said vehicle while the rest of the “Tethered” have joined hands as there are hundreds perhaps thousands of them and they are stretched across the city but you don’t know if they are blocking the roads cause this is the end of the movie. Adelaide looks at her son as she remembers the past and we get the reveal that Adelaide was actually Red in the beginning but at this point, do we really care?

Ratings: C

Does Captain Marvel’s Success = Failure?

The Possible Fallout for Those Who Aided and Abetted The Marvel Franchise

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is breathing a collective sigh of relief as their latest offspring, Captain Marvel, brought in an estimated $155 million domestic dollars in its opening weekend. It’s an impressive number considering the fact that the film was embracing a strong backlash stemming from controversial comments made by its star, Brie Larson, about 40-year-old white dudes. Disney, the company that owns Marvel, is no stranger to controversy as it sat back very quietly and watched this scenario play out online. After the initial release of the first trailer, the public reaction was not as enthusiastic Disney had envisioned. Brie Larson’s controversial comments began to circulate the rounds on the Internet and the fire was beginning to spread exponentially. Certain poll numbers and financial forecasts were beginning to tumble. So what is a media empire going to do? Well, things were done but at what price?

There have been speculations as to what caused Captain Marvel to turn around from the onset and proliferation of bad press. Every day there was a new online video that showcased Brie Larson as being arrogant and derisive and unapologetic. True or not, Disney was not about to see its investment and franchise go up in flames by the careless outspokenness of its star lead, even if they may have been partially responsible for some of the fallout.

While the Internet was ramping up the vitriol with Brie Larson, the film aggregate website, Rotten Tomatoes, was also caught up in the Captain Marvel controversy. Its polling feature, People Interested versus People Not Interested, was showing numbers never before seen for a Marvel picture and not in a good way. The percentage of People Interested in seeing Captain Marvel had reached a new low of just only 27% and an unofficial recording of 26%. What happened next was unprecedented for a website in business to give data on the film industry, good, bad or indifferent. For the first time in Rotten Tomatoes existence, the 27% figure surreptitiously was removed from public viewing. 

There was an immediate response from users and not in a good way. People who participated in the polling data were accused of being trolls because they left, in Rotten Tomatoes opinion, were called trolls, a disparaging term for merely leaving comments as to why they weren’t interested in seeing this movie.

This too became a point of contention on social media as battle lines were being drawn for calling users trolls, manbabies, misogynists, etc. just for posting negative comments about Captain Marvel. These users became under attack by other media website without any of these media sites offering up any proof that these users fit into any category of being called a troll, etc. Slandering users has now become blood-sport as more and more reputable sites started attacking the users. When Brie Larson made those comments about the white dude, an interesting thing happen, she got backlash from the white dudes and some white chicks and just about everyone from all corners. But why now? Perhaps it was a slow burn and tipping point of the constant berating of the straight white male for just merely existing on this planet. All of the problems of the world is not the direct result of them causing it. As much as Brie Larson had a problem with white males dominating the film critics arena, they weren’t stopping any women from being film critics and there are currently film critics who are women. In their mind, that speech she had given was an unwarranted unjustified attack on them.

The conspiracy merry-go-round started with rumors catching on as to what prompted Rotten Tomatoes to alter their format in such a dramatic and quick manner. Those rumors fell on Disney and Fandango working in concert with one another because Rotten Tomatoes is controlled by Fandango. The person who runs Fandango, Paul Yanover, was a former Disney executive. For some, this connection didn’t pass the smell test and if ever there were a Mueller type investigation, there would be a cause to suspect collusion with Disney and Fandango. But the numbers didn’t just stop there with Rotten Tomatoes.  YouTube changed its algorithm on Brie Larson by manipulating her name to be associated with news event rather than just a generic lookup that connected her name to unfavorable posts attributed to her.

After the film hit the theaters, Rotten Tomatoes return back to their data collection with the lifting of the embargo. The users were free to resume posting but this time the audience score had something similar happen to it again. Over 50,000 users saw their score and comment deleted based on what was considered negative. The audience score was at 31%. By eliminating the 50,000 plus users, the audience score stood at 35%. Why were the users' comments deleted? Who was behind this tactic for a second time. Why was Captain Marvel the film that needed to be saved? Did it really make $155 million on its own or were there outside agents salting the box office just to make this film appear to be doing well?

How did Disney turn this around so fast? One of the things Disney had to do was to reel in their miscast star, Brie Larson. Soon she was giving more interview while methodically sidestepping the controversy that got her on the bad side of fanboys. It was interesting to see that she was being interviewed by a lot of white dudes as the release date got closer and closer. It is also interesting that the very group that she railed against were the ones who made up most of the money for her film. According to Deadline, 61% of males were the ones who made up the bulk of the audience. None of the media outlets who attacked the users by calling them trolls and manbabies are reporting this. And what of the women who weren’t in lockstep agreement with Brie Larson? Do the access media put them down with such vitriol? Why are the stars, directors, studios, media outlets attacking the fan base? Do they think that the fans should accept whatever they give them? Captain Marvel is not a good film. It’s more forgettable than memorable and also the plot-holes are enormous and the comic book purists have issues with so many canon violations.

So, what are we to believe with Captain Marvel? Can we trust Rotten Tomatoes aggregates? Have Rotten Tomatoes been damaged by going along with the Disney narrative? Is free speech under siege where you get punished for having an opinion that some corporation may not like?  What about the critics? Some have admitted to shilling for Disney because they enjoy the perks from Disney and other studios that comes with being a critic. Has the game changed so much so that social media now dictates what is acceptable and what is Star Wars? Gone are the days of snail mail and bags of envelopes. At the end of the day, Captain Marvel is just a movie and its impact on the social fabric of this country and elsewhere will be as forgettable as the movie.

Captain Marvel Film Review

Separating The Actress from The Controversial Rhetoric

I had been contemplating whether or not I should review the latest film release from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel, starring Brie Larson. For those who may not know, Brie Larson has been attributed in making some inflammatory comments in the buildup to the debut of Captain Marvel. Those comments sparked a growing backlash online that brought about discussions from all corners of the globe. The uproar that followed had to be quelled as projected ticket sales began to plummet and the interest in seeing Captain Marvel also began to plummet so much so that it forced the film aggregate website, Rotten Tomatoes, to suspend its scoring method and forced them to respond in a way that was questioned by many. Still, the movie made its debut in the United States and here is the review.

If you are fortunate while making a film, the cinematography can either make your project look like a winner or look like an also-ran. In the case of Captain Marvel, the verdict is an also-ran. One of the things I look for in a film is how the film looks to the eye. Depending on the film, it should give off those hues and mid-range tones that convey the film going experience. In the first half of this 2 hour and 4 minutes production, we are introduced to the Kree civilization like we already should know what that is. Unless you are a follower of Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel from the comic books, you’re stuck with the premise that you should already know who they are. That is just one of several things that is problematic with Captain Marvel.

Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck who both wrote the screenplay along with Geneva Robertson Dworet and others, the film comes off as a frenetic kinetic Frankenstein circus that seems to reflect each individual writer’s contribution but without the cohesiveness. We are involved with a Kree and Skrull conflict without the benefit of why. We must figure out for ourselves as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. There is a battle scene that’s fought in the cover of dark tones. I hate dark tones. It’s a common technique that allows the filmmakers to cheat of action sequences and special FX but at the same time, robs to film going community of a quality viewing experience. The spaceships going into hyperspace looks cheaply done. This entire sequence wasn’t as engaging enough then perhaps they had thought. Once the fighting scenes were over, it was a forgettable moment.

In fact, the whole movie was a forgettable moment. This film was brought on as a bridge between Avengers Infinity War and Avengers Endgame. Disney spent $150 million on Captain Marvel just to justify an end credit scene tying Captain Marvel with Avengers Endgame.

As this movie kept going, we get the perfunctory hand-to-hand battle scenes on a metro-rail that is totally by the numbers. The laws of physics are ignored as the fight on top of the metro-rail. If train A is going at 50 miles an hour while two bodies are on the outside fighting on top, what forces are applied to said bodies? When will filmmakers take into consideration that these action sequences are not realistic and the audience is not stupid and yet, they still persist in this hackneyed troupe?

There were many troupes that were dragged out with this film. One troupe that always bothered me was the scenes where Caral Danvers was in the aircraft without wearing the breathers. I know why she wasn’t wearing one and that was because it would obscure the face and the dialogue but it’s totally wrong. You are flying through the stratosphere and into space and you’re not wearing a breather. This just doesn’t hold true and defy all aeronautic properties and conventions.

A lot of this film has dialogue that is cringe-worthy. “Noble warrior heroes” shows how arrogant you are and how self-important you hold yourself. The interaction between Nick Fury and Carol Danvers is strange in that they become too familiar with each other in such a short time that it defies logic in their first meeting. The filmmakers want to accept this premise without question. What is strange about this film is that in nowhere in this film does anyone refer to Carol Danvers by the title name as Captain Marvel.

This film is supposed to be an origin story. What we get is a hodgepodge of snips and cuts from a past life, some feminism troupes, some worn out troupes of outdated behavior of men that’s from the ’60s, and a severely miscast Brie Larson in the title role. Not helping this film is an uneven direction. This is supposed to be a Marvel film. Marvel films are supposed to be big in nature. Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck are from the Independent small film community. Nowhere on their film resume is there any signs of having done any science fiction or fantasy film on a large scale. That lack of experience shows heavily with this film. There isn’t anything special about this film. It’s not a return visit film. It’s a film that you can quickly discard.

Film rating: D