Comic Book Movie Marathon, Part 2
May 1, 2009
I sincerely apologize for the delay in this blog feature. In honor of the release of “Wolverine,” today I will take a look back at the the previous “X-Men” films.
“X-Men”- The first major Marvel comic adaptation. Although “Blade” technically came before it, “X-Men” gets more credit for launching the Marvel film universe and creating a special place for it in pop culture. As an action spectacle, “X-Men” is actually pretty weak, though. Exciting action set pieces are too few and far between. The film’s production design on the other hand is arresting and perfectly captures the spirit of the comic books. Even more impressive are the film’s charismatic, soulful performances. Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), James Marsden (Cyclops), and Patrick Stewart (Professor X) in particular breathe real life into their characters, thus evoking our sympathy. Director Bryan Singer (“The Usual Suspects”) also brings genuine human drama to this film which is refreshing because a film like “X-Men” could easily be just another cold, calculating, mindless summer action movie. Singer the racial themes regarding the mutant characters that made the comics so powerful and stays loyal to the main conflict and most important question of the comics: Why do mutants fight to protect people that hate them? Grade: B
“X2: X-Men United”- Singer brings the theme of prejudice to a new, incendiary level with this film (one of the few sequels that surpasses the original). The original X-Men comics (tales of mutants and the world that hated them) were an allegory for the turbulent 60s and Civil Rights Movement. Singer makes “X2″ relevant by turning it into a gay parable and using the conflicts the mutant characters encounter to comment on the treatment of homosexuals today. This is evident in the film’s most powerful scene involving a teenager revealing himself or “coming out” as a mutant . His parents simply say, “Have you ever tried not being a mutant?” The film then turns into an intelligent and provocative discussion of genetics vs. choice as it relates to a person’s identity, showing just how socially and politically aware “X-Men” stories are. Politically in the sense of the government official characters working to interfere in the protagonists’ rights and choices as mutants (Sound like Prop 8 to anyone else?) Viewers can peel away new layers of relevance each and every time they watch this film. Don’t worry, though, action fans, viewers can have fun too. Grade: A-
“X-Men: The Last Stand”- The plot device of the “mutant antidote” is interesting, but otherwise this is a very lousy film. With new, shallow direction from Brett Ratner (“Rush Hour”) and simple rehashing of the themes of the original films, this movie is an unfortunate waste of time. Grade: C
Coming Soon:
Reviews of— The “Spider-Man” films, “The Punisher,” and “Sin City.”
Comic Book Movie Marathon, Part 1
April 9, 2009
This decade seems to be the Age of Superheroes. Comic book movies are the craze right now and to celebrate, I thought I’d attempt to review every comic book movie ever made. Yes, every single one. Even the 1966 version of “Batman.” Maybe, just maybe, even “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.” Why am I doing this, you ask? Well, why not?
I’m going to start with the movie that started it all…
“Superman” (1978)- Although this was not the first superhero movie ever made, it set the standard for all superhero films to come and was arguably the first respectable film of the genre. With its rich, fully-realized characters and surprising poignancy, it inspired top flight directors to enter what was once seen as a disreputable genre. Director Sam Raimi cited this film as inspiration when he was working on the “Spider-Man” movies. It inspired him as well as the cast to bring real life to the characters and inject their otherwise cartoonish story with truth and respect.
Most memorable is Christopher Reeve’s portrayal of Superman. He brought vulnerability and humility to the character that allowed audiences to empathize with him. Superman is a perfect, surreal character in the comics that seems susceptible to all pain and anguish, making it difficult for audiences to relate to him. However, Reeve’s broke that barrier with his performance, making Superman more human than super.
Although it is not my personal favorite, “Superman” may very well be the best superhero movie ever made. If not the best, it is certainly the most influential. Those who said the comic book genre was dead until “The Dark Knight” emerged should really take a step back and look at this film. It’s movie magic at its very best.
“Superman,” Grade: A
I’d like to devote more time in this blog to the originals, so I’m going to just do a quick breakdown of the sequels…
“Superman II”- Decent sequel. Not nearly as magical and exciting as the original, but it has some interesting villains and plot twists (such as when Superman surrenders his powers and goes back to being plain old Clark Kent–not unlike Peter Parker’s actions in “Spider-Man 2″). However, the series should have stopped with this film because it only went downhill from here. Grade: B
“Superman III” Grade: D+- Even the hilarious Richard Pryor could not make this film more entertaining. It is simply horrible. This is “Superman” almost at its campy worst. Then, “Superman IV” came along…
“Superman IV: The Quest for Peace”- This movie is so bad that it is almost good. Key word: almost. In this campy outing, Superman not only seeks to rid the world of all nuclear weapons, but he also aims to destroy his evil clone created by Lex Luthor named Nuclear Man. Yes folks, Nuclear Man. This is the kind of superhero movie that makes people look down upon superhero movies. Grade: D-
“Superman Returns” (2006)- I must admit that this film reinvigorated the “Superman” franchise. It is certainly more sophisticated and entertaining than “Superman III” and “IV.” However, the problem with it lies in the portrayal of Superman. Played by Brandon Routh from director Bryan Singer’s screenplay, Superman is depicted as an alien, a Christ-like figure that struggles to relate to the very people he is trying to save. His behavior not only alienates them, but the audience as well. Thankfully, this film is saved by its stunning, flashy production design and camerawork that looks like panels ripped right out of the comic books. Grade: B-
Don’t worry– I didn’t forget about “Supergirl.” I just still have to watch that one. To be continued…
Where Film Criticism Belongs
April 3, 2009
People try too hard to attach a sense of purpose to film criticism. Coming from an aspiring film critic, this statement seems blasphemous, I know. Stick with me, though, I’ll explain.
For years, people have complained about film critics, calling them “film snobs” and overly negative people. First of all, the film critics that constantly criticize and rip every new movie to shreds should really get out of the business. Film critics should first and foremost demonstrate a love for film, not a craving to belittle movies as a form of art.
Secondly, and more importantly, film critics these days who think they are “important” are really kidding themselves. Blasphemous once again, I know. Don’t worry, stick with me. Yes, Roger Ebert’s always original views shaped film criticism and gave it a more respectable appearance. However, there are too few critics like him that actually contextualize movies and provoke rich, original discussion. Instead, there are critics like Peter Travers who simply string a bunch of flashy adjectives together and call it film criticism. Calling a movie a “pulse-pounding thrill ride” does not constitute real film criticism. Flashy statements like that do not provoke thought and therefore, have no value. Because of shallow, throwaway pieces of praise like this and critics like Travers, films critics are losing their relevance. Too few of them are actually working to earn that relevance.
Let me let you in on a little secret— Film critics don’t matter in the long run. People flock to certain movies no matter what critics say. People rarely listen to them. Maybe, just maybe, that is because film critics are not giving them enough insights that are worth listening to. Critics now need to emulate the old days, the days when Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael first started writing reviews, the days when film criticism actually meant something. Then, they will matter once again.
Film critics rarely if ever actually make a significant impact on any one film or filmmaker. People need to realize this. Like I was saying earlier, people try too hard to attach a sense of purpose to film criticism. Film criticism is not supposed to change or influence film. It’s not even really supposed to influence readers because it is not the critic’s job to market films. A lot of critics don’t realize this. Like Peter Travers, they think they are supposed to “sell” films to their readers. Film criticism should be viewed as simply another form of personal expression like poetry or painting. It is ideally meant to be an extremely personal, uncompromising, intimate form of art, yet many critics try too hard to form a relationship with their audience and take on a conversational stlye. They care too much about other people’s movie tastes and focus on what the audience may or may not like. They don’t own their opinion and these days, their reviews are not introspective enough.
Now, I’m not saying I hate film critics. They are my heroes. There are many I admire– Roger Ebert of course, Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly, Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson from the radio show, Filmspotting. However, they are the only critics that really say something with their reviews. They are the kinds of critics I can only dream of being. I worry though that with all these shallow critics around these days and their unfortunately pedestrian views, the field of work I dream of being involved in may be slowly fading away and losing the integrity it once had. So, I ask fellow movie fans to take a stand and fight for their dreams (as corny as that sounds), their dreams of a world where film criticism belongs and is alive and thriving.
Flicks for Kicks: ‘What Just Happened’
March 18, 2009
Sorry I have been inconsistent in updating this feature. For those of you who have forgotten, “Flicks for Kicks” is my weekly rant about recent movies I’ve seen. It gives me a chance to review new releases on DVD as well as older movies. This week’s flick for kicks is…(drum roll)…
“What Just Happened”
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Bruce Willis, John Turturro
Directed by Barry Levinson
Grade: B
Based on the memoir by Hollywood producer Art Linson, ”What Just Happened” is a highly enjoyable comedy about the movie industry. It is the episodic tale of a Hollywood producer (Robert DeNiro) at the end of his rope, struggling to deal with the bureaucratic absurdities of the business. The satire in the film is not as biting or revealing as it aims to be. Most of it tells you what you already know or at least suspect about the industry (Frantic, diva directors can obtain heavy drugs at the snap of their fingers, producers connive and manipulate to get their “happy ending” to a movie, and movies are always thought of as simply products to be sold.) However, “What Just Happened” is an effective comedy nonetheless. It works, surprisingly, in deeply engaging the audience in absurd, trivial conflicts.
One of the biggest conflicts in the movie regards Bruce Willis (playing himself) refusing to shave his “Grizzly Adams’ beard” for a new film and DeNiro’s character having to confront him about it. What a silly, stupid conflict, you tell yourself. However, DeNiro’s character is so charming and sympathetic that we totally buy into it. One of the tensest scenes, in fact, involves the cast and crew anxiously waiting outside Willis’s trailer to see if he comes out clean shaven.
After a slew of mediocre movies, DeNiro and director Barry Levinson (“Diner,” “Rain Man”) are back to form. There is a sophistication and intensity here that was lacking in their recent films. Welcome back, gentlemen.
Why So Serious? The Age of the Superhero and Other Shenanigans
March 16, 2009
These past few years have been the Age of the Supehero. “Watchmen,” “The Dark Knight,” “Spider-Man 2″–the list of rich, genre-defying comic book adaptations goes on. Why have these movies been so successful and more importantly, resonant? At first, I thought people responded to these movies so strongly out of craving for escapism during this difficult time of war and socio-economic unrest. Then, I realized that these movies aren’t really escapes at all. In fact, Gotham City looks eerily similar the world around us with its corrupt politicians and violent personality. Batman and The Joker are not mythical characters anymore, but real, raw, bleeding men. Like The Joker, I ask, “Why so serious?”
I’m curious why superhero movies these days are taking on such a gritty, hardhitting quality. Don’t get me wrong–I find this new, naturalistic approach to comic book adaptations refreshing and exciting. However, this sense of harsh realism is bleeding over into other genres from which I expect pure escapism and joyful entertainment. Spy movies are losing their sense of fun in films like “The Bourne Ultimatum” and “Casino Royale.” Comedies are also straying from the broad (“Austin Powers”) to the ordinary (“The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Knocked Up”). There is nothing necessarily wrong with this new wave of realistic cinema. However, my curiosity gets the better of me sometimes and I ask one more time, “Why so serious?”
Oscars Breakdown
February 25, 2009
I was not looking forward to this year’s Oscars ceremony. The winners seemed awfully predictable and after watching the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild Awards, Independent Spirit Awards, etc., I dreaded hearing the same speeches and seeing the same eyes tear up. However, I am pleased to say that I actually thoroughly enjoyed this year’s ceremony.
Host Hugh Jackman’s musical numbers were brimming with humor and energy. The format of the show was much more appealing than previous years as well with the technical categories being presented at a faster pace and past winners for acting elegantly discussing this year’s acting nominees. It was delightful to see Robert DeNiro, Michael Douglas, Christopher Walken, Nicole Kidman, and other powerhouses share the stage and speak directly to the nominees, commending their performances. Most powerful and poetic was Kevin Kline’s speech regarding Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight.” Here’s a taste for those who were not able to see it—
“In a year of striking film images, perhaps the most unforgettable was that of a man, his face smeared with clown make-up, gleefully sticking his head out of a speeding car, relishing the night wind and reveling in the chaos he has unleashed on the streets of Gotham City.”
I could not have said it better myself. Kline’s eloquent description of this scene in “The Dark Knight” literally sent chills down my spine. He went on to say–
“Menacing, mercurial, droll, and diabolical, Heath Ledger as The Joker kept us all on edge, anxious to see which appalling act of mischief he would commit next.”
This speech was, without a doubt, my favorite part of the Oscars ceremony.
As for the winners, I was not disappointed. Even though I find “Slumdog Millionaire” mediocre, I have “gotten over it.” I was not disappointed by Sean Penn winning Best Actor either. His victory does not lessen fellow nominee Mickey Rourke’s performance or the performances of any of the nominees for that matter. I’ve come to realize that it is pointless to get upset about The Oscars because it really does not matter who wins or loses. The films are still powerful and still speak for themselves.
Multimedia/Links »
Social Networking
Events in Carmel
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
Photo of the Day
Video
Photo Slideshow
Advertisement
Blogs
Parker Myers' Varsity Football BlogGrayson Harbour's Politics Blog
Rosemary and Tim's Fashion Blog