[Roundy]

Saw The Flash. Obviously it's impossible to watch a movie like this this late in the game and not have formed some preconceived notions of what to expect. That can be a good thing sometimes, and it was with this movie. Based on some of what I've seen about it, I was expecting trash, or at least mediocrity. It was not. And I may have enjoyed it more having expected trash, if that makes sense.

I'm not the biggest fan of how the character is written in the franchise. He just doesn't come across as awkward (borderline autismal) in the comics as he does here. On the other hand, the Barry Allen version of this character was always kind of boring, and Ezra Miller does a great job playing with what he's given.

I thought the CGI was phenomenal. It's kind of fashionable these days to criticize a movie for its CGI, and I guess with the stylized way it's done this was an easy target. But I loved it. This was the best depiction in live action I've ever seen of Barry's powers in action. The scenes where he's traveling back in time are particularly stunning.

It was a good story. I almost want to criticize it for being too dark in keeping in line with the worst of DCEU past, but in this case it's justified because it's true to the source material. Which admittedly they play very loose with but the bare bones had to be there for the story to have its emotional thrust. And there are plenty of lighter elements to balance it out.

This was Ben Affleck's best appearance as Batman. The opening set piece was exciting, he had a cool little conversation with Barry about the potential consequences of trying to change the past as Bruce, and he's gone. It was a good sendoff for Batfleck.

The Michael Keaton Batman stuff came off as overly fanservice-y. They even seem to wink at this with young Barry's overenthusiastic reaction to being in the Batcave. But he served the story well and it was one of many fun nods to past realities presented in the movie. The best, of course, was a glimpse at the Nicholas Cage Superman movie that never came to be, complete with giant robot spider.

I'm still trying to process how I feel about the movie's big reveal that the being that forced Barry out of the Chronobowl was actually a much older young Barry still trying to fix things. I have trouble with it because it creates a loop that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and even points that out like it's not supposed to be a big deal. I was also lost on Batman suddenly being George Clooney after Barry fixes things. Another nod to an old continuity obviously but was it necessary? This obviously isn't the actual reboot of the DCU that I was expecting it to be with that twist in play. But maybe it was setting it up by showing that different realities have different looking people. To me it just seemed silly but maybe that's all they were going for too.

On the other hand the idea presented early on that when you change something in the timeline it creates a ripple effect going both ways was really cool and a novel concept to me.

Overall I think this was one of the better DCEU movies. I enjoyed it and would recommend it. 3.5/5 stars.

[JosefGrendyy]

I love superhero movies, especially the MCU. When I was a kid, my favorite superhero was Spider-Man. Now it's Iron Man. I must have watched all the movies about him 10 times.

[honk]

I've watched Blue Beetle. It's decent. Xolo Maridueña is charismatic and likable as Jaime, and his family are endearing - there's a dumb running gag about his grandmother that gets old very fast in the latter half of the movie, but that's my only complaint there. The action scenes are nice and creative, as they should be for a capeshitter like this. I really like the setting, which does what so many previous DC movies refused to do and takes advantage of the fact that this is an entirely fictional city to give it a unique sense of character. Palmera City is bright, glittering, and enticing, a seemingly idyllic paradise for the wealthy and well-connected...and an unattainable dream for impoverished families like the Reyes, who live in a humble working-class neighborhood on the city's outskirts and are treated with disdain by its more fortunate residents. And on a related note, there's some very nice and topical social commentary about what living in America means for a Hispanic family nowadays, and the male members of the family promote a wholesome and non-toxic sense of masculinity, which I don't think we see a lot of in pop culture nowadays.

There are, unfortunately, some downsides to the movie. Susan Sarandon as the main villain gives a very weird, very campy, almost deliberately unnaturalistic performance. I don't know what the idea behind it was, but it doesn't work well. Bruna Marquezine isn't a bad actress, but she's miscast as Jaime's love interest, a character who's supposed to be a privileged, wealthy socialite whose compassion stands in contrast to her aunt's callousness, and yet is initially received with hostility by the Reyes family because of her elite status. Marquezine's ethnicity and very strong Brazilian accent work against these dynamics. I'm not saying there aren't any rich Brazilians; only that in this movie, in this setting, I really think they would have been better off casting a white or white-passing American actress. It's not like this movie is suffering from a lack of diversity. Oh, and it really drives me nuts how while Jaime explicitly makes a point of never killing anyone, his family and love interest in the final act kill lots and lots of people. Very directly killing people, too, as in by pointing guns at them and shooting them dead. It really undermines the strength of whatever no-killing moral they were trying to go for.

The biggest problem with the movie, though, is that it all feels a bit too generic and familiar. We've met all these characters before, seen these tropes before, heard this dialogue before, and so on. It's hard to give specific examples of this - the two I could most easily point to are that the working-class family dynamic feels like it's already been covered by the Shazam! movies, and the idea of Jaime inheriting a legacy from an older, tech-savvy hero who bolsters him with his technology feels like it comes from the MCU spoder. It's just a general feeling I get that so much of this movie is running over tired, well-worn ground. Is it fair to judge a movie based on what other movies have done before? Well, to a degree, yes. Given the current glut of capeshit, movies have to work harder to stand out from the crowd now. This lack of originality may be a big part of why so many capeshit movies are flopping at the box office when ten years or so ago most of them did very well.

Oh, and this is a minor point, but I don't care for this movie's in-name-only adaptation of OMAC. It reminds me of the in-name-only version of "Intergang" from Black Adam. I would really rather that movies not bother using the names of characters and organizations from the source material if they bear no actual resemblance to the source material. No adaptation is better than an in-name-only adaptation.

Also, we finally have a trailer for the last DCEU film until Gunn's Superman movie:



Right off the bat, this trailer hits us with a voiceover warning us of what I can already guarantee will be a major flaw in the movie, just like it was in the previous one - Momoa's sheer inability to move out of his comfort zone of playing a chill dudebro. Maybe the people I've argued with about this before have a point in that I shouldn't say he "plays himself," but if it simplifies things, I'll just say that Momoa apparently can't do drama. He can deliver a joke, he can handle an action scene, and he can be a very likable and charismatic screen presence, but he can't effectively portray a lead character that goes through the ups and downs, the peaks and valleys of a conventional movie and emerges from the end of it as a different person. Changing his tone of voice from line to line in this voiceover is the least he could do, the very least, and he doesn't do it. Maybe he can't do it, or maybe he refuses to do it because he thinks it'll hurt his brand, like how Dwayne Johnson refuses to ever lose a fight in a movie because he thinks it would hurt his brand. No ill will towards Momoa; I'm sure he's a great guy in real life, but I've grown tired of his stock "chillax, bro, let's get wasted tonight!" performance.

The rest of the trailer looks okay for the most part. It's probably a good idea to keep building on the characters from the first movie rather than introducing a bunch of new ones. Check out how they're basically pretending Amber Heard isn't even in this movie - and compare it to how everyone at the studio fell over themselves going to bat for Ezra Miller after their spree of violent crimes. Hmm. The CGI unfortunately looks poor once again, although nothing jumps out as being as terrible as it was in The Flash. I guess there's nothing we can do about that as long as Marvel continues to overwhelm the VFX industry and work them ragged with their current oversaturation of content. Finally, check out another article basically predicting that this is going to be a disaster:

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/aquaman-2-jason-momoa-drunk-claims-amber-heard-cut-scenes-elon-musk-letter-1235747775/

[Dual1ty]

Right off the bat, this trailer hits us with a voiceover warning us of what I can already guarantee will be a major flaw in the movie, just like it was in the previous one - Momoa's sheer inability to move out of his comfort zone of playing a chill dudebro. Maybe the people I've argued with about this before have a point in that I shouldn't say he "plays himself," but if it simplifies things, I'll just say that Momoa apparently can't do drama. He can deliver a joke, he can handle an action scene, and he can be a very likable and charismatic screen presence, but he can't effectively portray a lead character that goes through the ups and downs, the peaks and valleys of a conventional movie and emerges from the end of it as a different person. Changing his tone of voice from line to line in this voiceover is the least he could do, the very least, and he doesn't do it. Maybe he can't do it, or maybe he refuses to do it because he thinks it'll hurt his brand, like how Dwayne Johnson refuses to ever lose a fight in a movie because he thinks it would hurt his brand. No ill will towards Momoa; I'm sure he's a great guy in real life, but I've grown tired of his stock "chillax, bro, let's get wasted tonight!" performance.

I guess there's a short supply of roided up 6'5" freaks that can act well for your entertainment.

Is this your biggest issue in life?

[honk]

No, there are other large actors who can act well, or at least considerably better than Momoa. But then again, I don't think Aquaman needed to be played by an enormous guy to begin with. I'm pretty sure that Momoa was mostly cast because of his history of playing fierce badass characters, and they wanted to preemptively push back against people making jokes about how lame Aquaman is. Personally, I think that worrying so much about people making jokes on the Internet is a poor priority for a film studio, but, alas, Hollywood has yet to take advice from me.

And yes, capeshit is my biggest issue in life, as it should be for everyone.

[Roundy]

No, there are other large actors who can act well, or at least considerably better than Momoa. But then again, I don't think Aquaman needed to be played by an enormous guy to begin with. I'm pretty sure that Momoa was mostly cast because of his history of playing fierce badass characters, and they wanted to pre-emptively push back against people making jokes about how lame Aquaman is. Personally, I think that worrying so much about people making jokes on the Internet is a poor priority for a film studio, but, alas, Hollywood has yet to take advice from me.

I'm gonna disagree, because there have been versions of Aquaman that leaned into the badass burly trope in the comics and they tend to be the best iterations of the character. He's not usually such a himbo though.

In other news Loki is the best thing yet produced by the MCU. The ending (assuming it is over) was fantastic.

[Rushy]

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fonly-one-crime-v0-vo2rc6wcd97c1.png%3Fs%3Dce8e3cfb7e8edbfcb11772824ef14cf29641fd89

[honk]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/aquaman_and_the_lost_kingdom

lol

Also, while I don't mean to pick on Snyder too much while he's not even directing capeshit movies, there was an interesting profile of him the other day in The Atlantic that I felt was worth sharing. It's a good read, but there are a couple of details here that I couldn't help raising an eyebrow at:

In fact, he’s one reason so many blockbusters look and sound the way they do: Snyder helped establish the template for comic-book movies as they evolved from summertime popcorn fare into ubiquitous year-round spectacles.

Uh, did he really? Snyder only directed one particularly successful blockbuster in the previous cinematic era, which was 300. That one movie is kind of a slim basis to be giving him this much credit.

“There’s no superhero science-fiction film coming out these days where I don’t see some influence of Zack,” Christopher Nolan, the Oppenheimer director who has worked with Snyder as a producer, told me. “When you watch a Zack Snyder film, you see and feel his love for the potential of cinema. The potential of it to be fantastical, to be heightened in its reality, but to move you and to excite you.”

Wait, what? What the actual fuck is he talking about? Every single capeshit movie nowadays is influenced by Snyder? I honestly can't think of even one capeshit movie that's been influenced by Snyder. I will say that there's no doubt that BvS was a huge negative influence on the genre in much the same way that Batman and Robin was all those years ago, but somehow I doubt that's what Nolan is referring to. I get that Nolan and Snyder are close friends and of course he's going to want to say something nice about his bro, but why would he say something so weirdly specific and so blatantly, obviously untrue?

[Crudblud]

I get that Nolan and Snyder are close friends and of course he's going to want to say something nice about his bro, but why would he say something so weirdly specific and so blatantly, obviously untrue?

Chris is a hack.

[honk]

Snyder is once more in the news, due to a recent interview with fellow chucklehead Joe Rogan:

Snyder said that he “tends to get in trouble” with comic book fans “because I do take a deconstructivist point of view. Because I care, I want to take [superheroes] apart.”

“People are always like, ‘Batman can’t kill.’ So Batman can’t kill is canon. And I’m like, ‘Okay, well, the first thing I want to do when you say that is I want to see what happens,'” Snyder continued. “And they go, ‘Well, don’t put him in a situation where he has to kill someone.’ I’m like, ‘Well, that’s just like you’re protecting your God in a weird way, right? You’re making your God irrelevant.'”

Snyder found it much more interesting to put Batman in a situation where he has to kill, taking inspiration from Frank Miller’s comic book “The Dark Knight Returns.” He said fans often don’t want to see their hero in a “no win situation because we don’t want to see him lose,” but that’s not story he wants to bring to the screen. Snyder isn’t interested in a superhero who “has to maintain this godlike status.”

As I said some posts back, I don't think that Snyder actually knows what deconstruction is. Simply ignoring the fact that Batman canonically doesn't kill (because Snyder thinks that the idea of a superhero who doesn't kill is childish and overly idealistic) and instead portraying him as a killer is not deconstructive of anything, at least not in and of itself. It's literally just doing something different. To put it in Snyder's terms, if he wants Batman to kill so that we can "see what happens," then we do in fact need to see what happens. There's nothing textually, visually, or thematically significant about the fact that Batman is a killer in BvS. He simply uses guns and kills people in the same way that a standard action hero in a standard action movie would use guns and kill people. Further proof that Batman being a killer wasn't meant to be deconstructive can be seen in the big Batman fight scene near the end of the movie. Despite the fact that this scene takes place after Batman's confrontation with Superman and the completion of his arc, Batman still kills a number of his enemies. The fact is that Batman's arc was never about not killing in general; it was specifically about not killing Superman, and to a lesser extent not branding criminals, although the fact that it was Lex who arranged for the branded criminals to be killed muddles the issue of why exactly Batman branding criminals is treated by this movie as being so deeply wrong, especially when compared to all the other things he does.

And like I said years ago, Batman does not kill in TDKR. There is one ambiguous scene in the comic, which I'm pretty sure was meant to be a fake-out to make the reader think that maybe Batman really did kill someone, only to be reassured later on by comments from both Batman and the police pointing out that he actually hasn't killed anyone. TDKR is full of little fake-outs like that to make us think that Batman is about to go too far, like Batman producing a rifle which fires a grappling hook and the Batmobile opening fire on a bunch of gangsters with non-lethal rounds. Snyder was clearly far more interested in TDKR's imagery and occasional snatches of dialogue than he was in its actual story. To be fair, though, Snyder is far from the only Batman fan who apparently interpreted TDKR as a straightforward story about Batman being awesome rather than a deconstruction - an actual deconstruction, not Snyder's incorrect idea of one. It's not as egregious a misunderstanding of the text as it for Watchmen.

Anyway, I've watched Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, the final film in the DCEU before Gunn's new Superman movie presumably soft-reboots the whole thing. It's neither great nor a complete disaster. I guess the first thing I should say is that I was wrong about my "guarantee" of Momoa's performance being a major flaw in the movie. He still isn't what I'd call a good actor, but I'll credit him with putting a lot more effort into emoting and playing his role as more than just a chill dudebro than he has in previous films. Amber Heard has a much smaller role in this movie compared to the first one, and while I think she got a raw deal in the Depp trial and the discourse surrounding it (don't @ me), I can't really blame the filmmakers for not wanting to wade into the controversy surrounding her by giving her a big role again. She's never been a particularly good actress, anyway, lending their decision a bit more artistic credibility. So I wouldn't find this situation to be quite as unjust as, say, how Kelly Marie Tran was only given about a minute of screen time in TRoS to cater to the toxic vocal minority who hated her in TLJ.

The main problem with this movie is that it seems to be cramming two unrelated plots together for its main story. One is that Black Manta from the first movie is back and determined to exact his revenge on Aquaman, and the other is an absolutely shameless ripoff of LotR, complete with an underwater Sauron, an underwater Mordor, and an underwater One Ring in the form of a trident. I actually enjoyed how audacious the movie is in cribbing from LotR both visually and thematically, and I assure you that I'm not just reading too much into it or anything. Just one look at this underwater Sauron will show that there is zero chance this was unintentional. The issue is that none of it is necessary and just takes focus away from what should have been the movie's main conflict. Black Manta already hates Aquaman, and he's already dangerous enough to pose a serious threat to him. He doesn't need to be corrupted or mind-controlled, nor does he need an ancient evil weapon or an army of monsters to attack Atlantis. He's a successful pirate and treasure hunter, so presumably he's already got a gang, and it's not a stretch to suppose that he could have some new technology that Aquaman isn't familiar with. This doesn't need to be explained or justified within the movie. In fact, by keeping the threat that Black Manta poses as being entirely the product of human civilization, it could add a new dimension to the relationship between Aquaman and Orm, because Orm might consider it to be vindication for his plan to wipe out humanity in the previous movie.

The highlight of this movie is the return of Patrick Wilson as Orm. Like an absolute champ, Wilson refuses to let the fact that he's in a stupid and ridiculous movie hamper his acting, and he gives every scene absolutely everything he has. He delivers goofy exposition with a straight face that Adam West would approve of, he has great comic timing, and he makes Aquaman feel like more of a rounded character by playing the straight man to Momoa's wild exuberance. Speaking of the dynamic between those two, I've got to say I didn't like a brief gag where Aquaman sarcastically calls Orm "Loki." He's not making a reference to Norse mythology. It's very clearly a shout-out to the MCU, and it's very clearly for the benefit of the audience so they can see the inspiration. And it's so unnecessary! The MCU did not invent the idea of two brothers fighting over who would get to inherit the throne! It's unnecessary self-deprecation, like the filmmakers felt the need to sheepishly shrug and say, "Yeah, we're ripping off the MCU, so let's pay tribute to them in a weird bit of dialogue aimed at the audience," when it really isn't a ripoff of the MCU and no tribute was needed or owed. I know this is a nitpick, but something about that line really rubbed me the wrong way.

One thing that definitely is a ripoff from the MCU is the ending, where - look, I'm just going to say it, because this really isn't giving anything away about the story, and that's kind of the problem - Aquaman reveals the existence of Atlantis to the rest of the world. Yes, Black Panther had a similar ending, but in that movie, it was the result of the movie's actual themes and story. It was a logical and satisfying ending. In this movie, Atlantis being hidden from the rest of the world has fuck all to do with the themes or story. It's literally just there because Black Panther.

Here's my updated ranking of the entire DCEU:

1. The Suicide Squad
2. Wonder Woman
3. Shazam!
4. Birds of Prey (A-tier, genuinely good movies)
5. Blue Beetle
6. Aquaman
7. Wonder Woman 84 (B-tier, enjoyable despite their flaws)
8. Zack Snyder's Justice League
9. Shazam! Fury of the Gods
10. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom
11. Black Adam
12. Man of Steel
13. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (C-tier, bad movies with some redeeming elements)
14. The Flash
15. Justice League
16. Suicide Squad (D-tier, utter shit)

[honk]

I don't mean to keep picking on Momoa like I have it out for the guy or anything, but he gave an interview before the release of Lost Kingdom where he talked about a couple of interesting subjects. I know that directors sometimes offer actors roles that they didn't audition for, but Momoa's account of how he auditioned for Batman and didn't think much of it until he was inexplicably offered the role of Aquaman makes me even more sure that Snyder cast Momoa more for PR reasons than artistic ones. Bear in mind that this was all long before Momoa became a star in his own right and developed his onscreen chill-dudebro persona. Back then, he was best known for playing fierce, intimidating characters, and most famously Khal Drogo on GoT. It's true that Aquaman has been portrayed in the comics as a brawny badass type as well, like Roundy pointed out, but that's hardly conditional on the actor cast in the role, is it? Very few lead actors in capeshit movies are already known for being especially big or tough beforehand. No, I'm pretty sure that Snyder was worried that people would mock Aquaman for being lame long before they ever saw him on screen, and so he prioritized casting someone he thought would nip those jokes in the bud. To me, that's a very silly and overly defensive attitude to take, but hey, I'm not the in-demand blockbuster auteur who continues to receive huge budgets and full creative freedom to deliver dud after dud, Snyder is. What do I know?

Momoa also talks about Lobo, and I think at this point we can pretty much say it's confirmed he'll be playing him at some point in the new universe. This is not how actors respond when asked about mere rumors. Anyway, as was mentioned in this thread earlier, Momoa would actually be perfect as Lobo. He looks the part without needing to be turned into a CGI monster, and he wouldn't need to leave his laid-back comfort zone of acting. My main concern is that with Momoa in the role, they'll very likely try to turn Lobo into the hero of the movie who has to save the day, blah blah blah, and that's just not his character. I could see Lobo as the protagonist of an irreverent, low-stakes MAX series where he travels around the galaxy and gets into hijinks, but for a big mainstream AAA movie, Lobo should absolutely be a supporting character, not a hero. Put him in a Superman or Green Lantern movie where he's a wild card who complicates the plot - maybe the villain hires him to take out the hero, and they get into a few fights, but at the end of the movie Lobo respects the hero enough to show up and help him defeat the villain. Something like that, as opposed to a movie like Lobo: Dawn of Capeshit.

Also, the teaser for Joker: Folie à Deux dropped a few days ago. I'm already exhausted by the discourse around it, just like I was for the first Joker. It's not even the movie itself that I dislike so much as it is its most enthusiastic fans; the people who praise it endlessly for simply going through the motions of being a serious movie and focusing on psychology and character rather than action and explosions. I'm not saying that anyone who liked the movie is dumb or easily impressed, but I think I can say with some confidence that anyone who truly thinks that Joker was brilliant and revolutionary probably never watches movies that aren't blockbusters. Like one infamous Letterboxd review said:



Anyway, here's the new teaser:



I actually think this looks way more intriguing than the first one. I think they did a much better job at translating the costume and makeup for Harley into a gritty, grounded setting than they did for Joker himself. The idea that this is going to be a musical is easily the most interesting thing going on here, but I have to say that I won't be fully convinced that this will really be a proper the-characters-sing musical until I see footage of the characters actually singing. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical, but producers and directors lie about upcoming movies a lot as a general rule, and they never face any consequences for it. I think it's very possible that this movie might just have a lot of songs that play in the background, or music itself will simply be a big theme in the movie, and then the people who claimed that this would be a musical will shrug and say "Yeah, that's what we meant by a musical." I'm not saying that's what I think will happen, just that it's a possibility that I think a lot of people aren't even taking into account. Also, because this franchise is this franchise and has the fans it has, I just can't get over the people creaming themselves at the closing shot of Arthur smiling through the lipstick on the glass. It's neat, sure, but it's nowhere near as ingenious as people are making it out to be. (Check the comments and I guarantee you'll see at least a few people raving about it.) It's not even original. This is obviously where they got the idea:



I have no problem believing that virtually all of Joker's most devoted fans have never seen Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy (and if they had, I strongly suspect that they'd be far less enthusiastic about Joker), but is The Dark Knight, of all movies, really outside of their reference pools? This poster was everywhere when the movie came out. Maybe Joker's biggest fans aren't old enough to remember TDK's release. It would actually explain a lot if the bulk of the movie's fanbase were teenagers.

[Rushy]

It would actually explain a lot if the bulk of the movie's fanbase were teenagers.

Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.

[Roundy]

This just in: most of Paw Patrol's audience is young children!

[honk]

Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.

You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.

This just in: most of Paw Patrol's audience is young children!

You're a teenager for liking Joker.

[Roundy]

Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.

You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.

In what way is this interesting?

Also Taxi Driver is overrated trash, Joker is a better movie, and there's nothing inherently wrong with a movie's creator wearing his influences on his sleeve. Controversial opinions?

[Rushy]

You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.

Joker's particular brand of edgy emo behavior is mental cocaine to teens and tweens alike. His "that feel when no gf",  "world is so mean to me for no reason" and "my job sucks" whining during the movie really hits it off with younger audiences. While, yes, there are deeper narratives in the film, those are the sorts of concepts younger audiences will identify with in the movie. It's a simple "he's literally me" movie for a lot of them. Especially since the end result is him rebelling against authority figures and lashing out.