If You Listen to the Critics, you Might Miss Out On Good Movies Like "X-Men: Apocalypse"

It is your choice alone to sit in the movie theater

Last night I finally got around to seeing "X-Men: Apocalypse". As you all know by now, I am a big X-Men fan. They are my favorite group of superheroes, Wolverine is the best superhero all time and I pretty much like all the mutants that make up the X-Men. I think their stories are the most unique and the coolest, by far. I have liked all the X-Men movies, with the exception being "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". It pains me to say that because of my love for Wolverine, but it is a bad movie. I almost put "X-Men 3" as the other bad movie because that ending is an abomination, but the first 3/4 of that movie is very interesting and kind of cool. The ending is just so, so terrible.

I put off seeing "X-Men: Apocalypse" for so long before the reviews were luke warm at best. The critics said that it was a waste of a good cast and the actors played cliché characters. They were hardest on Oscar Issac, who played Apocalypse, but I thought he did just fine. In fact, I enjoyed this movie.

My blog today is not a review, but more so an indictment of critics. But, I will give a short review. "X-Men: Apocalypse" is not even close to the same level as some other movies in the X-Men universe. "X-Men 2", "X-Men", "X-Men: First Class" and "X-Men: Days of Future Past" are all better movies than "Apocalypse". But,as I said, I enjoyed all 2 and a half hours. I was never bored, the story was interesting and I really liked the acting. Michael Fassbender, James McCavoy, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicolaus Hoult and the kid that played Havoc were all just fine reprising their roles. And the new people, the girl from "Game of Thrones" as young Jean Grey, the kid that played young Cyclops, the young Nightcrawler and young Storm, Psylock and Oscar Issac, I thought they all did a good job. I felt that "Apocalypse" was a fine addition to the X-Men pantheon. It was a good popcorn movie and I think most people would enjoy it if they watched it.

This all leads me to my main point. After the movie, I checked back on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and IMDB and other sites like that to see if I misread the reviews. Well, I did not misread anything. The movie scored a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes, hovered right around a 5/10 on Metacritic and IMDB and seemed to be considered a flop by most websites that compile critics reviews. I read most of the consensus' on each site, and they all said virtually the same thing. They said the movie was "overwrought with action and clichéd characters that take away from a compelling story and good actors".

I could not disagree more. First off, overwrought with action? It is a god damn superhero movie. Superhero movies are supposed to be filled with action because they have superheroes in them. The same critics did not say this about movies like "Captain America: Civil War" or any other X-Men movie, and I feel like all those had way more action scenes than "Apocalypse". "Civil War" was basically all action, and critics loved that movie. I think it is a better movie too, but it is not that much better than "Apocalypse". And all the other X-Men movies that these same critics loved, like "Days of Future Past" for instance, they loved the action scenes and said they added so much to the story. I love the scene where Magneto destroys that baseball field in "Days of Future Past", but there was also a very similar scene in "Apocalypse", and the critics claimed it was "overwrought with action sequences". That is totally baffling to me.

Then, to call the characters cliché, what were they expecting? These characters are already in the ether. They have all been established a long, long time ago by the creators of the X-Men comic books. They cannot be any more clichéd than the characters in the comic books that I'm sure these critics read and loved. That is such a blanketed, ill-conceived criticism, in my opinion. I understand when they say that about a movie that does not have established characters, but saying it about a superhero movie is asinine. If these characters are clichéd, so is Captain America, Iron Man, Dr. Strange, basically any superhero, that these critics gave wonderful, glowing reviews, they are all clichéd. They are all the same character that they are in the comic books, so they are clichéd versions of their comic book characters. I'm sorry critics, but you cannot have it both ways. If the people that made these movies started to add new characters themselves, rabid fans would demolish them on social media, and I guarantee that you critics would chastise the people writing these movies for adding new, unnecessary people in an established universe.

I just do not understand the hatred for "Apocalypse" coming from so many well-known critics. I feel like they need to bad mouth some movies sometimes just because. they have no real reason, they just want to dislike something, so they choose the new superhero movie coming out with big expectations, and that is the one that they are going to crush on their websites and papers. This may be the same thing that happened with "Batman V Superman", but that movie had a director with a known track record of being mediocre. The X-Men movies have a well established, albeit a creepy dude, directing these movies, and for the most part, they have gotten glowing reviews.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is, do not trust critics, me included. If you want to see, read or listen to something, do it. Do not base your decision on what these people say. I wish I hadn't waited so long to see "Apocalypse", but I read, and trusted these critics, and it was the wrong choice. I try not to listen to critics, but I made a mistake. I really enjoyed "Apocalypse", and I think most fans of superhero and X-Men movies will enjoy it too. Check it out, if you want.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He has not been kind to the movie critics this year. Hear him talk about it all on a classic X Millennial Man Podcast that is all about the Oscars.

Comedian Kyle Kinane Tried Out Some New Live Material and it Was Great

The Second most important tool for good stand up comedy.

Last night I saw comedian Kyle Kinane at the Ready Room in Saint Louis and he was great. I've been a fan of his for awhile now and last night was the first time I've seen him live. I've watched his specials, I enjoy his bit role on the highly underrated and very funny television show, "Those Who Can't" and I like his many podcast appearances, so I was predestined to like his stand up.

Kinane controlled the stage for his almost 90 minute set. Headliners usually do about 45 minutes to an hour, for fear of getting stale, but Kinane's 90 minute set never once felt boring or slow. Kinane was working on new material, he has another special coming up, and I love hearing all new material. He says that he didn't want to repeat anything from his last live show in Saint Louis, and talking to some people who saw him last time, it was all, for the most part, new. That's great. His material is always a bit blue, but he wasn't as blue as I was expecting last night. He did make a joke about a guy wearing a shirt with a very dirty saying on it, but that was about as dirty as he got. Kinane looks so comfortable on stage, even though he made many references to how uncomfortable and how weird his job is. He is a comic and he makes money doing that. It's weird, but when you are as good as Kinane, you deserve to make a living doing that. He bounced around a lot during his set, but there was always a through line or segue that made everything make sense. His bit about getting gout and then getting a physical was dynamite. It was thoughtful, reflective and hilarious. When he talks about the doctor being so smooth when doing the physical, I was in tears laughing. His freaky Friday bit was great as well. He imagined what it would be like to switch places with a semi truck driver during rush hour and a Benihana chef. Both were great. I could picture someone freaking out in both scenarios and he brought that to life excellently, especially the Benihana chef. When he talked about flipping the shrimp in his hat, once again, tears from laughing.

His very new material was equally as good, even when he didn't think so. At one point he said a joke, it didn't land great, he acknowledged that and completely saved it with a great tag. When he said he had some weird jokes, I found them more funny than weird. He covered a lot of different topics throughout the night. I mentioned the freaky Friday and the doctor, but he also talked history, self diagnosing, touring the Midwest during tornado season, living in LA, still wearing skater shoes, even though they have orthopedic inserts, among many other things.

Kinane was on stage for an hour and a half, but it never felt long or boring. It was straight up funny. Kyle Kinane is a very good stand up that puts on a very good live show. He's funny, engaging, a good writer and appeals to young and old alike. I went with my father and he laughed as much as I did. This was a very good show. I'm glad I bought the tickets and I now get to check another comedian off my bucket list. Go see Kyle Kinane if he comes to your town. I guarantee you will enjoy yourself and have a very good laugh.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Are you a band that does comedy or a comedian that does music, or the other way around, contact us and Ty will check out your show. Ty has his very own twitter, go follow him @tykulik.

We Need to Talk About Superman

I don't want to know how he feels about leaping tall buildings, I just want to watch the man fly

A few nights ago I saw Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and left the theater kind of frustrated. I did not hate the movie like the gang of obsolete film critics so desired, I actually thought the movie was mostly enjoyable. What was so frustrating was the way actor Henry Cavill and director Zack Snyder treated the Man of Steel. There was no humor, very little humility, and no awe to the last son of Krypton. These problems were in Man of Steel and they were present once again in Batman v Superman (I will not keep writing the full title, you know what movie I am talking about). Once I took a few days to think about the movie, and tell my closest friends all about it, I started to realize that Cavill and Snyder were not ruining my love for a big screen Superman, the actual Man of Steel is what is wrong.

I adore Superman. He is far and away my favorite comic book hero. As a member of Generation X I grew up with the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. I even remember seeing the third and fourth films, and not hating film forever (they are horrible movies, do not see them). I was willing to give anything Superman a pass. By the time the "Death of Superman" comic series came out I was too old to be buying comics, but I bought those stories. I watched Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and played the horrid N 64 game. While many of my peers were moving on to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I was watching Smallville.  In more recent years I have started to seek out Superman comics again. I am very fond of graphic novels like Red Son, Kingdom Come, and All Star Superman. Anything related to Superman and I was interested. I was especially interested in any movies that would feature the boy in blue with a red cape.

In 2006, almost twenty years after Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, we finally got a new big screen adventure for the Man of Steel. Superman Returns hit the theaters a year after Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale redeemed the film version of the Dark Knight with Batman Begins. Many people, myself included, were hoping that director Bryan Singer and actor Brandon Routh could bring the big blue boyscout into the 21st century. Unfortunately Superman Returns was a fairly boring rehash of the Richard Donner / Christopher Reeve vision for the last son of Krypton. The only new power given to the Man of Steel was the ability to be a deadbeat dad to a very confused child. Superman Returns was not considered a critical or box office success. The 20th century version of Kal-El was not ready for 21st century audiences.

In order to create a Superman for the modern movie goer, Warner Brothers tapped The Dark Knight Trilogy's Christopher Nolan to produce and Watchmen's Zack Snyder to direct the latest reboot. Relative unknown Henry Cavill was tasked with bringing to life a modern look at Clark Kent / Superman. Man of Steel opened in the summer of 2013 to tepid reviews and fairly good box office. Many of the critics disliked the movie because of it's lack of humor and the overall darkness that surrounds one of America's earliest comic book heroes. The final destructive battle between Superman, General Zod, and the other Kryptonians is often held up as the biggest failure to Man of Steel. How many people died in Metropolis? Why did Superman not take Zod to the moon and fight? Why did Superman kill Zod? I was part of the chorus of people asking these questions. I was blaming Nolan, Snyder, and Cavill for smearing the good name of my favorite superhero.

This brings me back to Batman v Superman and my overall frustration. Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder, and Henry Cavill once again presented us with a violent and dour Superman. Even Clark Kent is humorless and jerky. I found myself getting bored and annoyed whenever Superman, and his friends like Lois Lane and Perry White were on the screen. Whenever I saw Batman/Bruce Wayne, or Wonder Woman/Diana Prince, or Alfred, I was enjoying a great movie. I personally loved Ben Affleck's performance as a violent and unhinged Dark Knight. Jeremy Irons is now my favorite Alfred ever. The little bit of time Gal Gadot gets as Diana Prince, and the criminally less amount of time she gets as Wonder Woman, are incredible. My only real problems with Batman v Superman were the parts with the Man of Steel. That was frustrating because Superman is my favorite of all the heroes. He is the best of the Super Friends, the greatest of the Justice League, and the comic book hero all others should be judged by. Why can I not get a good Superman on my big screen?

The week before I went out to see Batman v Superman, I watched Man of Steel again. I really enjoyed the movie. It had been a couple of years since I first saw it in the theater, but I feel like time has been good to that movie. The opening scenes on Krypton are awesome. Russell Crowe's Jor-El and Michael Shannon's Zod are great takes on classic characters. The action scenes are easy to follow, and quite exciting. The plot is well executed and the character motivations make perfect sense. I really enjoyed Man of Steel, I just did not care that much for Superman. Then I figured it all out. It is not Bryan Singer, Brandon Routh, Zack Snyder, or Henry Cavill that are ruining Superman. It is the character of Superman that is ruining these movies.

In the comics Superman is all powerful (most of the time) and all good (again most of the time). The Christopher Reeve films focus on Clark Kent and how he fits in a world he barely understands. The best characters in Superman I and II were Clark Kent and Lois Lane. A show like Lois and Clark was more like the 1960's Adam West Batman. The best character was Lois Lane. Smallville focused heavily on the characters around Clark Kent and explored what Superman meant to them. The best character was Lex Luthor. Superman Returns focused on nothing new and interesting and every character was worthless. Do not waste your time on this movie. Many of the great Superman comics looked at what it meant to be the Man of Steel, not who the man actually is. Red Son imagines the last son of Krypton as someone who represents truth, justice, and the Soviet way. The best characters are Lois Lane, Wonder Woman, and Batman. Kingdom Come shows us an older and bitter Superman who is ineffectual because he is out of touch, a Superman who needs his friends. The best characters are Wonder Woman, Batman, and Magog. All Star Superman has the Man of Steel facing imminent death, and it is a joyful and celebratory journey. The best characters are Lois Lane and Lex Luthor. Superman stories work best as a light hearted affair, or one of philosophical ruminations. The greatest stories about Superman focus on the people around him (mostly Lois and Lex), they focus on how Superman effects them personally.

I am not frustrated with the people bringing Superman to the big screen, I am frustrated that these people keep trying to make movies with Superman as a main character. The last son of Krypton is more interesting because of what he is to others, not because of who he is personally. Superman is super because of his unmatched power, and unmatched humanity. That does not make for a very interesting protagonist. Why does Batman distrust someone like Superman? That is an interesting tale. How does Lois Lane deal with being in love and having a relationship with someone like the Man of Steel? That is a story worth telling. How does the existence of Superman effect genius sociopaths like Lex Luthor? I would leap tall buildings to see that particular film. The people who are directly impacted by the Superman have the more interesting stories to tell. They should be the main characters in any film concerning the big blue boyscout.

We need to accept the fact that there will never be a good stand alone Superman movie. The character is too much a part of our cultural identity. When producers like Christopher Nolan, and directors like Zack Snyder try to give the Man of Steel some depth, we end up with a dour film and have a Metropolis leveled. Batman v Superman was a great film when Superman was not the focus. The final climatic battle saw the Man of Steel working with the Dark Knight and Princess Diana of Themyscira, and it was glorious. We could see Superman's awesome powers being complimented by the two other heroes. Superman is my favorite comic book hero ever because of what he means to everyone else. His purity does not need to be tinkered with. DC can own the superhero world by focusing on everyone else. We will always know that Superman is in the back ground to help out. The world of superhero movies is better off with the Man of Steel backing up all of the World's finest.

RD

RD is the Head editor at SeedSing. He will keep seeing Superman movies, and he will keep reading Superman comics, because Superman is the best. Do have a better superhero? Well let us know.

Marvel v DC part 2: I disagree with Ty

This is a rebuttal to Ty's article from yesterday where he talks about the greatness of Marvel heroes over DC

Well Ty thinks the current new hot Marvel heroes are better than the dependable characters established in DC.  The word wrong is not strong enough to express my thoughts on Ty's opinions.  Let us begin to take apart is non-reasoned argument.

Marvel may be hot and sexy right now, but it is just a passing fad.  Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, the Fantastic 4, the X-men - they are all just flashes in the pan compared to the influence and excitement of the DC pantheon.  Superman is supreme.  His list of powers is so extensive that the weakest ones would bring any middle of the road Marvel hero (super ventriloquism could easily knock out most of S.H.E.I.L.D).  Superman is not only powerful, he has the most heroic soul.  The idea of goodness, along with greatness, separates Superman from all other comic book heroes. The truth that Superman can own anyone, and still chooses to be the protector of humanity, is unique to his story alone. Look at a book like Red Son or read the story from the Injustice video game. When Superman wants to take control, it takes all the heroes (plus some luck) to take big blue down. In terms of secret identities, Clark Kent is the best (I will admit that Peter Parker is a close second).

Moving away from power and heroism, and transitioning to straight up badassitude, DC has Batman.  I personally enjoy Superman stories more, but Batman is the granddaddy of all modern superhero stories.  He has the best outfit, vehicles, and bad guys.  In addition to the richness of Batman's world, he is a non super powered being.  Marvel has many Batman clones, but none of them could beat up Superman.  Batman can, and has done it.  There is very little emo feelings on why Batman put on the costume, he is just pissed.

Marvel has some ok women super heroes, but they have nothing on Wonder Woman. She is the equal third part of the DC holy trinity.  Wonder Woman does not cry out for help when she is in trouble, she is the trouble.  Take a look at the graphic novel Kingdom Come. Batman and Superman spend most of the book in a petty macho argument while Wonder Women whips everyone into shape and takes on the conflict like a boss.  There is no woman (or many men) in the Marvel universe that can compete with Wonder Woman's independence or toughness.

Looking at the lesser DC heroes, I believe you still find them to be better than their Marvel counterparts. The Flash and Green Arrow have great outfits, and tend to lighter in tone than the big time heroes. The teen titans created incredible characters who can easily carry on their fore bearers adventures. The world of Green Lantern reflects a cosmic scale more interesting than that of Marvel's Thanos and Galactus. Hawkman, Nightwing, Power Girl, and more add to a world more robust and interesting than the one Marvel has cultivated.

The one area people say Marvel is better than DC is film, I do not agree. The Marvel movies are fun and a nice diversion, the DC movies change cinema. The Avengers  was cool, The Dark Knight was the greatest comic book movie ever.  Casting a Marvel hero makes a little news, casting a DC hero dominates the news cycle. Marvel actors get some praise, DC actors win Academy Awards. On television DC is far outrunning Marvel. Arrow and The Flash are critically acclaimed and create cool worlds for lesser properties. Marvel has a couple of shows a few people watch because ABC owns the property.  Batman the Animated Series is listed as one of the greatest cartoons ever, Marvel has cartoons that are mocked in their own comic books.

Ty did not talk about villains.  Good thing because DC has the best ones, outside of classic Darth Vader of course.

Do you choose to disagree? Bring it.

Thanks to Cracked.com for the knowledge of Super Ventriloquism and Marvel comics making fun of Marvel cartoons.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head editor for Seed Sing. While he does not agree with Ty, he knows Superman defends all peoples right to be wrong. He did see Man of Steel and choose to keep its name out of his DC defense.

Marvel v DC: Ty has his favorite

I'm by no means an expert when it comes to comic books and super heroes.

My knowledge has recently been expanded since I've met and married my wife. Our three year old son has only made me more knowledgeable. So, I've had a good nine year crash course in all things super heroes. I'm here to tell you today why Marvel super heroes are so much better than DC super heroes. They each have some great heroes, but, when it comes down to it, Marvel is leap years ahead. Sure, you have what many people consider to be the best and strongest hero on team DC in Superman. Superman is cool, but compared to any one of the Avengers, I don't think he stacks up all that well. I mean, first you have Ironman. He's a super smart, rich inventor that creates all of his own gear. He created a suit that flies and shoots repulsor blasts. How awesome is that. I'd take that over X Ray vision any day. Next, we have Thor, who's a God. He's the only one that can lift his mighty hammer, save for Vision, and he's an awesome fighter. Superman may be an alien, but a God he's not. Then there's Captain America. He was created in a lab to be a super soldier and his shield is made of the strongest medal in the world, vibranium. He's also the greatest team player of all time and the world's best leader. He may be, for all intents and purposes, as strong as Superman. The final, main Avenger, just happens to be the best, in my opinion, the Incredible Hulk. This is a guy that, when he gets angry, turns into a huge, "hulk" of a man that can beat the hell out of almost anybody. He's super strong and the Avengers count on him to take on their toughest competition. He is stronger than Superman and he looks way cooler. Like I said, Superman is cool, but compared to the four main Avengers, it's not even close.

I like Batman a lot. I love all the movies, except for the horrible "Batman and Robin", and think he's really cool. But, when I want dark, dangerous superheroes, give me the X Men and, especially, Wolverine. Wolverine is just as dark, if not darker than Batman. Where Batman is a rich orphan who creates his own equipment, Wolverine is a mutant that can heal himself and never dies. He also has claws made of adamantium. Claws that, literally retract from his hands when a fight is about to happen. I will take Wolverine 100 times out of 100 if the question is, Would you rather be Batman or Wolverine? I'd even go as far to ask if it's a rhetorical question. That's how much more I like Wolverine.

Even when you get to the lower, some might say lamer, super heroes, Marvel is so much better than DC. DC has the Flash, Aquaman and Robin. The Flash can run really fast, pretty boring if you ask me. Aquaman lives in the sea and fights from the water. Yawn. And Robin, he's just a sidekick to Batman that's kind of good at karate. Big deal. Marvel on the other hand has the Fantastic Four. They may not be as cool as the Avengers or X Men, but they are much cooler than the three DC characters I just named. You have Mr. Incredible who can stretch his body to help save victims that may be falling or can't get out of a bad situation. He's a super genius too. Sue Richards, aka the Invisible Women, can turn invisible and also makes force fields. That's pretty dope. The Human Torch's body turns to fire when his powers are activated and the fire power also helps him to fly. Pretty cool, right? Then there's The Thing, a huge man made out of rock that can destroy the bad guys, while also protecting your everyday citizen. He's almost as cool as the Hulk. Almost.

There are many more super heroes in both the DC and Marvel world's, but I wanted to focus on the most popular, in my opinion, ones out there right now. There's also some pretty cool bad guys on both sides, but I say again, I only wanted to focus on the good guys and why I like Marvel more than DC. Please, let me know why, in your opinion's, that I'm wrong in the comment section, but Marvel is so much cooler.

I'm sorry, but it's true

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing.  The head editor strongly disagrees with this post and will send a rebuttal soon. Follow him on twitter @tykulik