rolee-1

At minute 13:00 in the movie, Captain America, the character, and Captain America, the movie, do something that is unforgivably awful. They fail to neutralize a hostile. I am not an expert in warfare, nor do I play one on TV, but the one absolute that must always, always, always happen in a combat situation is that you completely neutralize your target--you make it ineffective. So many movies and TV shows transgress this obvious rule that for media the rule should usually be the opposite--leave hostile forces hanging around, fully capable of wreaking mayhem.

But just because it's transgressed in media doesn't make the tactic forgivable much less laudable when it's done. It just speaks of poor writing. If the character needs to escape, write it in the script that he/she escaped some other way. Don't spend ten minutes showing how tactically advanced your troops are, just to have them idiotically leave a hostile ready to catch the troops unaware. That makes it look like they have stupid soldiers despite years and millions of dollars of training and advanced weaponry.

To add insult to injury, Captain America, the self-righteous, just after the 13:00 minute mark, goes on to tell Black Widow that she has jeopardized the mission despite his blunder that will, within a matter of seconds, almost cost both of them their lives.

At the moment, I can no more rate the entire movie than predict the end of the world because I haven't seen it. I have watched up to 13:23 because I had to get up in disgust and walk away from it. I have given it a neutral 5 because I suppose it will redeem itself somewhat later.

One possibility that the writers are really trying to say is that Captain America, the character is stupid, that he's an arrogant moron, a big fat loser, a washed-up has-been blow-hard. If that is the case, and I'm not betting that it is at this point, then kudos to the writers for nailing him to the wall. It's a effective way to make him look stupid and arrogant. It certainly works with the character Tony Stark in Iron Man. The character's hubris and flaws are served up for him to be knocked down and humiliated. Maybe Captain America needs it as well. I'll find out. If I can convince myself to keep watching.

It's official: the sixties ended in 1983 when "The Greatest American Hero" went off the air. At times it's not clear whether creator Stephen Cannell is skewering or celebrating the foolish idealism of the 60s. A lot of the groovy-speak and idealistic rants of the characters, usually but not always, Hinkley, is so over the top that it seems it's a satire. But the protest music from the 60s and the lessons learned at the end often point to a true belief in at least the ideal of the ideals--helping our fellow human beings--if not some of the more specific forms that those ideals often take, for instance non-violence in the face of extreme violence.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Bill Maxwell embodies the narrower and usually less thoughtful version ideals of law and order. Maxwell's character is so grating that it's obvious Cannell doesn't think much of his personality or his tactics. But Maxwell does seem to have his heart in the right place--helping our fellow man--and his willingness to risk his life despite being without the protection of a special suit. He is presented as a slightly skewed version of our notions of justice and humanity that has always existed as a counterpoint to the naïve idealism that Hinkley represents.

What was it that brought this show into being? A reaction to the mercenary idealism of the Reagan years? Perhaps. Whatever the reason, it's interesting that Cannell trots out the naïve, goofy idealism that represented the counter-culture of a decade earlier. Perhaps it was such an iconic and easily identified (and spoofed) pattern that it was just easy pickin's. Overall the show is enjoyable but occasionally heavy-handed with the idealistic romps.