All posts by James Humphreys

Top Ten Favorite Epic Musical Themes

March 7, 2015 James Humphreys

For such a collaborative process, the quality of a movie usually boils down to the quality of the different people who make it. It’s not just the director that makes the movie worthwhile; his job is mainly to serve as the coach pushing his team across the finish line. A final product must also rely on an inventive cinematographer, creative production designers, fearless and professional actors, as well as an editor with a lot of patience. But, sometimes the person who may end up having the biggest impact on the final film is the person who puts on the finishing touches; the composer. It’s remarkable how much influence music can have on narrative. Done well, it can punctuate a moment and instantly make it memorable. If done poorly, such as an out-of-place music cue, and the emotion of the moment is spoiled. Sometimes filmmakers can even mold their films around a particular piece of music if it stands out well enough. Think of Rocky’s training montage without Bill Conti’s rousing theme or Jaws without the rising tension of John Williams’ two note beat. Music is the corner stone of great cinema, and is the marker of a completed production. What ends up happening with any particular film’s popularity is that it reflects back on the music too, and a film’s soundtrack has the extra benefit of being an extra source of revenue for the film studios that make them. Film composers as a result end up becoming some of the more recognizable crew members in the industry, and that’s a distinction that I believe is well earned.

I for one love the music of the movies. In particular, I am a big fan of rousing, epic musical themes. Epic music usually is big and bombastic and it often has it’s basis in the classical style, which I also love. If it’s backed by a full orchestra and is able to give my body goosebumps, than it’ll definitely end up on my favorite playlists. And given Hollywood’s great love for epic-scale cinema, there hasn’t been any shortage of great musical themes written over the years. The 1980’s and 90’s was a particularly strong Golden Age for film scores, with great composers like John Williams, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer, and James Horner among others coming into their own. My favorite pieces usually fall within this time period, but that’s also because these were the decades that I grew up in, so my choices are more or less tied to my childhood preferences. Even still, I do admire all the great music that Hollywood it’s entire history. Sometimes, even mediocre films can contribute a memorable tune that stays fresh in my memory for years to come. What follows is a top 10 list of my personal favorite epic musical themes from movies. I have also included audio/video tracks of each piece, to let you hear exactly what I’m referring to with each. Keep in mind, this list is made up of entirely orchestral themes from non-Musical films. Popular songs are left for another list entirely, and these picks are of one particular track of music, and not the whole score itself. For the most part, these represent the rousing, epic theme music that I continually listen to time and time again.

10.

“ESCAPING THE SMOKERS” from WATERWORLD (1995)

Composed by James Newton Howard

Waterworld, to be frank, is a pretty big mess of a movie. With a confused script that touches on larger environmental and societal issues but never fully commits and actors not quite knowing what they’re doing (except the great Dennis Hopper, who’s a blast to watch in his hammy performance as the villain), the movie is all ambition but no heart. Couple that with a bloated production that nearly sank the careers of all involved, and you’ve got one of Hollywood’s most notorious flops. But the one saving grace for this Kevin Costner-headlined movie is it’s musical score. Composed by James Newton Howard (one of the many composers of this Golden Age era), the music of Waterworld is effectively epic and no more so than this particular theme. This is probably the most recognizable piece from the whole movie and with good reason. Underscoring the climatic battle scene of the film’s finale, Escaping the Smokers is a perfect example of the music themes typical of the era. Bombastic, fast-paced and instantly memorable, this piece like many others of the 80’s and 90’s was meant to give it’s film an identity. The rousing repeated beat easily grabs a hold of you and helps you to identify this as uniquely a part of the Waterworld experience. The same holds true for many of the others on this list, but Escaping the Smokers makes it onto mine purely because I just like listening to it. It’s got an energy to it and it’s a great example where even a flawed and mediocre film can indeed be home to some great music.

“PARADE OF THE CHARIOTEERS” from BEN-HUR (1959)

Composed by Miklos Rozsa

Another remarkable era for film orchestration was in the 1950’s, when Hollywood was bingeing on elaborate historical and biblical epics. Though most of the scores of this period usually all sounded the same, there was no denying that the trend of this period leaned more in the big and grand direction. There were standouts, like young Elmer Bernstein’s breakthrough work in The Ten Commandments (1956), or Alex North’s contemporary influenced Spartacus (1960). But if there was an epic score that really defined the era, it would be the music of Ben-Hur, composed by Hollywood veteran Miklos Rozsa. Rozsa had built a stellar career in Hollywood, contributing scores to nearly 100 films for over four decades. Ben-Hur was by far his biggest project, and his exceptional and spiritually moving score easily won him a well deserved Oscar. There are plenty of tracks that are noteworthy in the movie, but the one that really stands out for me is this piece, the Parade of the Charioteers; used as the lead up music to the film’s iconic chariot race. There’s no way to know how processional music of the Roman Empire might’ve sounded in real life, but Rozsa’s melody sounds authentic enough to feel just right for this movie. I love the way that the marching beat keeps building in this, along with the trumpets that really helps to boost the grandness behind the march. In the movie, this music is played as the charioteers make their way around the arena before their race, and it’s a scene played almost dialogue free. It’s a beautiful example in the movie where the music helps to guide the moment, allowing it to take the spotlight. As far as classic Hollywood music goes, they don’t get more grand than this.

“PROMONTORY” from THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992)

Composed by Randy Edelman & Trevor Jones

Now a decidedly more modern sounding musical theme. Promontory is one of the more unusual themes to find it’s way into a historical epic, but that’s what makes it such a great piece of music as well. Befitting the tastes of director Michael Mann (not the most likely of names to be associated with a period drama), this piece of music has a very modern beat to it, with electronically enhanced rhythms. But, even still, it does feel right for the movie that Mann created. Based on the early American classic by James Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans is a gritty epic that delves deeply into the fractured relationship between English colonialists and the Native Americans with whom they are clashing. The piece of music itself actually compliments this dichotomy perfectly, with the Native American drumbeat mixed beautifully with the English strings. And the pulsing melody builds to an exhilarating conclusion; which in the movie plays out during the memorable and dialogue-free finale. The Daniel Day-Lewis headlined film marked a stark contrast with other epics of the time. While many of the epics of this period were more rousing and upbeat, with music that supported that style, The Last of the Mohicans was considerably darker and less glamorous. Promontory is a perfect representation of that melancholy mood. Michael Mann called upon two composers for his film, but the end result doesn’t feel disjointed. In fact, it’s a rare case where two minds managed to make the entire piece feel like a cohesive whole. Though the whole score of the movie is strong, Promontory is by far the standout, and probably the most haunting piece on this list. It’s also a good movie theme to have on your workout playlist, given the steady buildup of the score’s beat. It’s the kind of music that really helps to reve yourself up.

“OVERTURE” from ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES (1991)

Composed by Michael Kamen

Say what you will about Kevin Costner, but his movies seem to always deliver in the music department. And no more so than this beautiful piece by the late, great Michael Kamen. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is not exactly beloved by everyone. Some find it corny with an unsubtle screenplay and some fairly laughable performances (especially when Costner tries to feign an English accent). But the one thing that people can’t complain about with this movie is the musical score, and indeed the whole soundtrack may in fact be composer Kamen’s best work. The Overture is exactly what the name entails, which is the opening theme over the titles, shown over images of the famed Bayeaux Tapestry; a fitting mix of sound and visuals to open an epic adventure. It’s also a nice example of a contemporary composer writing something with a classical sound. This theme could have played perfectly well in any era of Hollywood epics, but it’s also not too out of place in our own time either. To be honest, I’m actually an unapologetic fan of this entire movie. I acknowledge that it’s cheesy, but that’s part of the charm for me. And a big reason why I love Prince of Thieves so much is because of how good the musical score is. Really the whole soundtrack is worth listening to. The rousing melody here perfectly invokes the meaning of the word “epic” and the Overture, which gives us the main recurring theme of the film, is easily the most recognizable and beloved part of the movie. It’s a piece of music that was widely reused in a lot of film trailers for many years, especially immediately after it’s premiere. And when other movie studios like you music so much they use it for their own marketing, that’s when you know you’ve got something great.

“BATMAN THEME” from BATMAN (1989)

Composed by Danny Elfman

Probably the best source for epic theme music today comes from super hero genre, given the recent boom in the market. And while many of them are stirring and sometimes memorable, there’s also the danger of having them sound too much alike as well, with composers playing more with what works rather than getting creative. John Williams definitely set the bar high when he created his iconic Superman theme for the 1978 Richard Donner film. But, if there was ever a piece of music that broke the rules of the Super Hero genre and did something so far removed from John Williams’ theme, it would be this equally iconic piece of music from Danny Elfman. Elfman is one of those rare film composers who has a distinctive sound that is all his own. A Danny Elfman tune is easily recognizable and it seems he always saves his best bits for his long time collaborator Tim Burton. I’m sure that both Burton and Elfman were seen as odd choices to bring the Caped Crusader to the big screen, but it turns out they were exactly the right men for the job. Much like the movie itself, Elfman’s music perfectly encapsulates what Batman is; dark, Gothic, menacing, with just a hint of melancholy and a tiny bit of weirdness. It’s a perfect melody to announce to the world that Batman has arrived. Hans Zimmer also wrote a memorable theme for Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, but even that doesn’t have the same kind of imprint on the character that this theme does. Nobody brought out the best in the Dark Knight more than Danny Elfman, and this is easily my favorite musical theme ever for a super hero.

“RIDERS OF DOOM” from CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982)

Composed by Basil Poledouris

Going from something moody to something just plain “BIG,” this piece of music is the very definition of the word epic. It’s a textbook example of how to pump up a cinematic moment with music. The relentless drum beat, the soaring strings, and the overwhelming vocal choir. Composer Basil Poledouris almost seems like he wants this to be the epic theme to end all other epic themes. Surprisingly in the movie, which was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first starring role, the music isn’t used for any epic moment though. You would think that it belongs with a huge battle scene or a climatic showdown between hero and villain. But, that actually isn’t the case. Instead it’s used to introduce the titular “riders” into the movie as they lay waste to a small village. Either director John Milius didn’t realize the gold that he had with this music, or Poledouris went above and beyond what he was called upon to do. Either way, this is an exceptional piece of music. It probably stands better to listen to this piece separated from the movie itself. Nintendo famously used this music to promote an upcoming release of their beloved Legend of Zelda series in a pre-lease trailer, which is befitting given the game’s medieval battle motif. Other film companies also have used the music for their movie trailers too, which shows once again how a popular piece of music can have a life of it’s own outside of the movie. I for one just love the energy of this piece. It’s the kind of music that gives the listener goosebumps, knowing that they are listening to something with power to it; something which all the best pieces of music can do.

“THE THRONE ROOM” from STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE (1977)

Composed by John Williams

Yeah, you knew Star Wars was going to end up on this list at some point. Widely considered the greatest film score of all time (and certified as such by the American Film Institute), Star Wars is a tour de force of cinematic music. John Williams, who became an instant legend with his work on this film, broke from the standard of 1970’s theme music (which favored quieter and more intimate orchestrations) and delivered a musical score steeped very much in the classical style. Inspired very heavily by the works of Igor Stravinsky, John Williams’ Star Wars score is big and assertive, and it perfectly matched the bold vision of George Lucas’ groundbreaking space opera. But, with a film score this iconic, which one of it’s melodies stands out as the best? It’s a tough choice because there is so many to choose from. The unforgettable Opening Theme, the dreamy Force theme, the oppressive Imperial March, or heck even the cheesy Cantina Theme. If I had to choose the best one, it would be the final piece at the end called The Throne Room. It’s a triumphant orchestration that really cements the score as a whole, leaving the audience with a strong reminder of the glorious thing they have just witnessed. The sound of the trumpets over the rest of the orchestra is what really sells the grandness of the piece. Seen as part of the movie, where it plays over the scene where Luke Skywalker and Han Solo are given medals for their service, the music perfectly establishes the epic feel of the moment. Had George Lucas not called upon John Williams to score his film, I don’t think the movie would have developed the following that it has today. His contribution is what ultimately helped to send this adventure beyond the stars.

“ARRIVAL AT AUDA’S CAMP” from LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)

Composed by Maurice Jarre

I’ve said it before, but again Lawrence of Arabia is my all time favorite film and the music is a big part of why I love it so, naturally it also earns a place on this list as well. The entire score, brilliantly composed by Maurice Jarre, is both epic and intimate. At some points it will blow you away with it’s grandiosity, and then in other moments it will slow down into a moody, contemplative tune. And it all perfectly matches the setting and the narrative of the story, showing the life of an English officer who helped to lead an Arab revolt against the Turks in WWI. It’s equal parts classical and modern, which underlies the theme of a changing world that’s entering the 20th Century. But, while I do like the moody, and very Arabic inspired melodies during the film’s quieter moments, my favorite parts are still when the score really hits it’s big moments. And the score’s high point would be this almost biblical scale piece called Arrival at Auda’s Camp. In the movie, Lawrence and his companions are invited by Sheik Auda abu Tayi (brilliantly played by Anthony Quinn) to come to his camp in the valley of Wadi Rum, which he jokingly refers to as a “poor place.” Of course, Wadi Rum is anything but poor, and the music perfectly underlines just how majestic the valley really is. Maurice Jarre’s music really celebrates the scale of the scene, giving the moment grandiosity but also establishing a jovial beat as well. Seen with the unbelievable visuals, the music is almost transcendent; very much underlining the epic scale of the whole production. Jarre deservedly won an Oscar for his work on the film, and no doubt this particular piece helped to earn the film it’s widespread acclaim.

“THE LIGHTING OF THE BEACONS” from THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

Composed by Howard Shore

Peter Jackson’s groundbreaking epic trilogy is still fondly remembered today for it’s grandiose music just as much as for it’s out-of-this-world visuals. What was surprising to some was the fact that the entire trilogy’s musical scores were composed by someone like Howard Shore. Shore came from the world of scoring zany comedies and oddball action thrillers. He even got his start in the business as a music director for Saturday Night Live. Not the kind of resume you would expect for someone tasked with bringing the music of Middle Earth to life. But not only did Howard Shore deliver the goods in this trilogy, he ran away with them as well, taking home three Oscars in the process. The whole trilogy is full of instantly recognizable themes, from the iconic “Fellowship” theme of the first movie to the haunting Rohan theme of the second. But Howard Shore saved his best for the finale as The Return of the King features two of probably the grandest musical arrangements ever brought to film. One is the glorious Charge of the Rohirrim, which is one of the greatest battle themes ever written. But even that amazing piece is overshadowed by what I think is the trilogy’s highest point. That of course is a piece called The Lighting of the Beacons. This arrangement is the epitome of “epic,” starting slow and then building up to a mighty crescendo that easily will raise anyone’s goosebumps. Peter Jackson clearly wanted to showcase Howard’s music in the movie, as this musical theme plays over a montage of epic visuals that perfectly matches the rising momentum of the melody; those visuals being flyovers of the landscape of Middle Earth as beacons are lit on the high mountaintops between the nations of Gondor and Rohan. Even with all the amazing work done up to that point in the trilogy, Shore still managed to deliver a knockout in the third film, and it clearly showed why he was the right person in the end to bring the music of Middle Earth to life.

“PARADE OF THE SLAVE CHILDREN” from INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984)

Composed by John Williams

Of course John Williams takes the top spot, but many of you may find this an odd choice for #1. Why this piece, out of all the amazing scores that Mr. Williams has written. Well it just comes down to personal preference. I’m a huge fan of Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom is my favorite film in the series, thanks in no small part to Williams’ score. But, beyond that, I also just believe that Temple of Doom is top to bottom John Williams’ strongest score in his entire career; even more so than Star Wars Episode IV. It is the master composer at his most epic and the whole score is filled with unbelievably rousing orchestral themes. Chief among them though is this piece titled Parade of the Slave Children. The music underscores the scene where Indiana Jones (a pitch perfect Harrison Ford) helps the enslaved children held captive by the Temple’s leaders escape. While the scene doesn’t call for anything truly epic or memorable, John Williams somehow saw potential in this moment and delivers what is probably his grandest theme yet; at least in my opinion. I love everything about this piece of music; the rising, slightly metallic downbeat, the big orchestral sweeps, and just the fact that it easily conjures up the feeling of adventure. While I do like the Indiana Jones March a lot too, this is still the melody that embodies the Indiana Jones movies the most for me. It’s Dr. Jones at his most epic. I always have this piece at the top of my playlists and it’s a great tune to reve myself up for anything, whether it’s working out or writing. It’s also the musical piece that best represents the idea of “epic” for me. While many of the others on this list are quintessentially epic as well, none manage to grab my attention more than Williams’ work in Temple of Doom, and that’s why I give it the highest spot on my list.

So, that’s my list of my favorite Epic musical themes from movies. While I’m sure that some of you can think of other musical pieces that stick with you more than these, my hope is that I still made a list that best represents the value of epic scale orchestrations in movies. Indeed, sometimes it’s the music that ultimately makes or breaks a final film. It all depends on how much effort the composer puts into his work. If he’s just cashing in a pay check, then it’s likely that the movie’s score will sound generic and uninspiring. But, if inspiration hits that same composer in unlikely ways, than something special can come out in their music. Usually it’s the composer who tries to experiment with new things that ends up leaving the biggest impact. And great trend setters like John Williams, Danny Elfman, and Hans Zimmer have easily earned their place as icons of the industry by continually pushing their limits and the movies they work on are the better for it. Hopefully, my list helps to highlight some really great pieces of music and has helped a few of you choose some new melodies to put on your playlists. Whether it’s big and bombastic or small and intimate, music is one of the most powerful tools in film-making and one that I hope continues to be used in creative and interesting new ways.

Tinseltown Throwdown

Tinseltown Throwdown – Pacific Rim vs. Transformers

February 28, 2015 James Humphreys

Finding a franchise that not only hits the jackpot once but many times is usually hard to find in Hollywood, let alone sustain. The subjects on which you can build these franchises can also be just as unpredictable. I’m sure Hollywood never believed that movies centered around giant robots would ever become a multi-billion dollar juggernaut in the worldwide box-office, but that’s what they found out when Michael Bay’s Transformers (2007) made it to the big screen. Transformers, for better or worse (mostly worse), has become one of the most successful franchises in recent memory, with three of the entries from the series making it past the billion dollar mark in worldwide grosses. But, even with all the success it has achieved, it has it’s fair share of detractors, who certainly have justifiable complaints about the bloated and insipid movies in the series. Though Transformers has it’s many faults, there’s no denying that they’ve made an impact on the industry, including opening the door for many other like minded action films. Most of them have been even more ridiculous knockoffs like Hasbro Studios Battleship (2012), which was nothing more than a $200 million game commercial. But among all the bad movies in Transformers wake, one that did stand out was Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim (2013). Like Transformers, Pacific Rim involves great battle set pieces set in our real world with giant robots. But, there was one thing that del Toro’s movie got that Bay’s film didn’t; critical praise. On the surface, these two films should be received almost exactly the same. So why is one more highly regarded than the other. In this article, I’m going to look at how the two movies shape up against one another, and see where this disparagement comes from.

To understand these movies, one also has to look at their influences, and how well they are used to back up both the action in each movie as well as the story. For the most part, the most obvious influences for both franchises comes from Japanese pop culture; particularly with regards to the embodiment of the samurai warrior and the mythologies around giant kaiju monsters. The Transformers we know now started off as a toy line in the early to mid eighties, which spawned a popular Saturday morning cartoon series which ran from 1984 to 1987 and culminated in a theatrical animated film. Though conceived and developed in America, most of the animation was completed in Japan and South Korea, and was always meant to appeal to audiences from both sides of the Pacific. Much of the Japanese influence comes out of the sense of duty from the Transformers themselves, not unlike the warriors code of the samurai, as well as with the aesthetic look of the characters themselves. One look at characters like Optimus Prime and Megatron, and you can see the influence of feudal Japanese armor in their design. This is coupled with the gigantic size of the characters and how their constant skirmishes wreck havoc in our world. That’s where the Kaiju influence comes about in the series, which is the same kind of inspiration that Guillermo del Toro draws from. Kaiju monsters have long been a part of Japanese literature and cinema; including the highly influential Godzilla series. With Pacific Rim, del Toro put his own fresh spin on the material, delivering a mash-up of all these different influences, but with a narrative that stands well enough on it’s own. And like Transformers, it takes these very culturally distinct aspects and makes them work towards a worldwide sensibility. In that sense, both do an equally fine job of presenting their influences well in their selective stories.

“Autobots, roll out.”

Where the two movies ultimately part ways, at least in the effectiveness of the story-telling, is in their executions. Primarily, it all has to do with the intents of their selective filmmakers. Michael Bay is very style oriented, choosing to highlight the camera work and visual effects of his movies above the plot and character development. Guillermo del Toro concerns himself with the opposite, devoting much of his movie to character interactions as well as building the world in which they live in. That’s not to say that del Toro’s movies are not without style either; it’s just that sometimes the plot moves along so briskly that you hardly even notice the creative designs that del Toro has added. But, if you look at the movies separated from their respective filmmakers, you would almost think that they were crafted by the same people. So, what makes Transformers so loathsome and Pacific Rim so enriching? The difference comes from the self-awareness that is found in each film. Guillermo fills his movie with cheesy dialogue and flat characterizations, but he did that by design. These are staples of many often unintentionally funny and campy sci-fi thrillers, and Guillermo is celebrating that aspect by making it an essential part of his own movie. Michael Bay’s film on the other hand uses the same kind of cheesy dialogue and stale characterizations, but it seems to be the result of neglect rather than intent. Because Bay spends so much time building the look of his movies, the things that matter most like plot and characters seem to be forgotten. Instead, plot convenience and character archetypes are in place instead of real, meaningful development. Not to mention a lot of pointless filler, like most of the stuff with the insufferable Witwicky parents.

The lack of development is one of the things that I have found most problematic with the Transformers franchise. The series seems to have no thrust behind it, because Michael Bay never tries to explore something new in each entry. Watching them all together (which I don’t recommend) it is astonishing how very little differences there are with the the plots. It’s just the same movie done over and over again. What’s even more infuriating is the fact that with every rehashed plot, they introduce brand new characters and then never address them ever again in the follow-up. Hence, why so many of the characters are superfluous in the Transformers series. But, to compare this aspect of the movies with Pacific Rim is a little unfair, mainly because Transformers has seen four releases in the franchise, compared to Pacific Rim’s one (though a sequel is on the way in 2017). So, let’s just compare how the story holds up in it’s initial outing; the original 2007 movie, which is by default the best one as well. What Michael Bay got right in his first film easily was the look of the movie; making a surprisingly gritty take on a Saturday morning cartoon work out beautifully. For a movie based around such a simple premise, he managed to set the world up effectively, making it believable that giant robots from space could find themselves at war on our planet. But, by minimizing the emotional development of the characters and the complexity of the plot, Transformers also feels remarkably minor in the grand scheme of things, and no amount of visual scale and scope can hide that. Pacific Rim on the other hand, presents the global ramifications of it’s world much more effectively. We see the destruction of the Kaiju and the toll it puts on our heroes; the ones who pilot the giant robot suits called Jaegers.

“Now we have a choice here; we either sit and wait, or we take these flare guns and do something really stupid.”

For the most part, Pacific Rim stands ahead of Transformers purely because it treats it audience intelligently, rather than pandering to them. Guillermo del Toro knows that if he puts conviction behind the silliness of his movie, the audience will feel rewarded for having witnessed a creative experience. Michael Bay just takes moves from his own playbook, and transplants that into anything he desires. Michael Bay is a talented director, but directing skills alone doesn’t make a movie watchable. Anyone can get good at shooting during “magic hour” or capturing different angles of a controlled explosion; but in the end that means little unless it elevates the story. Michael Bay seems to think that his style can carry any story along, regardless if it’s good or not. Now, to be fair to the man, it is a plan that has indeed paid off for him over the years. His movies are huge money-makers and that’s primarily because they are easy to digest action thrillers; simplistic and not challenging to follow. The casual viewer doesn’t mind what’s lacking in story, and indeed they’re the one’s who drive Bay’s films to huge box-office numbers. And, even though it’s a rough pill to swallow, Pacific Rim would not exist today if it weren’t for Transformers. That movie’s success is what got del Toro’s movie green-lit, so really it stands on the foundation that Bay cemented first. But, after seeing something that delivers the same kind of action, but with a degree of clever creativity behind it like Pacific Rim, we can clearly see that Guillermo del Toro is trying to cook us up a gourmet dinner while Michael Bay is serving us just more Happy Meals. Bay could honestly do better and has done so too. When given a better script to work with, he can actually deliver a worthwhile film, like 1996’s The Rock, 2005’s The Island, or even 2013’s Pain and Gain. Why he can’t put that kind of focus into what is arguably his biggest claim to fame is beyond me.

“At the end of this day, one shall stand, one shall fall.”

Focus is primarily what is lacking all the Transformers movies, even in the less problematic first film. What is most infuriating is the way that the movies actually push aside the characters that matter most, namely the Transformers themselves, in favor of characters that nobody likes. This should be problematic for any fans of the original cartoon series, seeing as how their beloved characters have been reduced to supporting characters. Michael Bay does deserve credit for preserving actor Peter Cullen as the voice of Optimus Prime (something which he’s done from the very beginning), but the fact that he’s sidelined so that we can have more scenes of douchebaggery from the series’ very unlikable protagonist Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is a big mark against the franchise. If Sam were a more likable and interesting character, there would be no issue, but given that his presence is so pervasive and in place of character development for the ACTUAL TRANSFORMERS, it’s just another sign of Michael Bay’s lack of focus and concern for what’s best for the series. Compare that to the characters in Pacific Rim. They are cliched and simplistic, but are given enough screen time to become sympathetic as well. Guillermo del Toro doesn’t try to force his characters into slap-sticky situations or have them deliver cocky, one-liners. Letting the characters breathe allows for those things to come through naturally. That’s why we cheer when Idris Elba’s Stacker Pentacost delivers his rousing speech, even though on paper it sounds ridiculous, as with the intentionally campy scientist characters played by Charlie Day and Burn Gorman. Devote attention to the characters in the end, and the audience will warm to them. Try to force characterizations like Transformers‘ Sam’s unwarranted cockiness, and you’ve got characters worthy of scorn.

Even the lack of focus on the visuals can hurt a movie, and with all the visual flair that Michael Bay can cook up, he still manages to undermine his movie with too much style. The first film in the Transformers series is a bit more focused than the others, but what I found to be problematic is the frenetic nature of the editing and camera work. Michael Bay loves to move the camera around, which is fine for a kinetically charged action scene, but problematic for everything else. The animation of the Transformers, in particular, is indeed impressive, with hundreds of individually moving parts. Unfortunately, any time the movie gets close to showing us all the intricacies of the CG artists hard work, Michael Bay chooses to hide it with some of his stylish film-making. I don’t understand why he keeps distracting the viewer when it’s not needed. Did he really not have the confidence in the visual effects team to give them the showcase they were calling for? It becomes more annoying in the later films, that remarkably feel even less focused despite their longer running times. Pacific Rim by contrast not only gives the visuals the screen time they deserve, but at times almost indulges us in how impressive they are. I especially like the way that Guillermo del Toro presents us with scenes devoted entirely to showing off the mighty Jaeger robots. Early on in the film, we get an almost step-by-step demonstration of the Jaegers in action, which even details how the pilots are able to make the giant contraptions move; grinding gears and all. It may seem indulgent, but plot wise it’s very worthwhile, because it presents us visually with all we need to know about how this whole world works. Del Toro also holds the camera still, allowing the audience to understand what is going on even in the big action sequences. That is ultimately why it’s important to have a focus on your visuals in any given movie.

“Fortune favors the brave, dude.”

Overall, it’s unusual to see two movies that follow many of the same visual cues and same cultural influences end up with such different outcomes. Transformers is a box office phenomenon that at the same time has been blasted by critics and audiences alike. With Pacific Rim, you have a critical darling that surprisingly had to fight to get barely above $100 million domestic. And yet, by looking at the two together, you can clearly see how intent and execution really comes to play with each of the different films. It’s clear that Guillermo del Toro crafted Pacific Rim out of love for the things that he’s parodying. By contrast, Michael Bay is just exploiting an already established franchise for his own gain. Not that Michael Bay doesn’t value what he’s creating for the series; he wouldn’t have stuck with it for so long if he wasn’t enjoying the end result. But, he’s the kind of filmmaker who would take that approach to any other established intellectual property, without regard for what has come before it. Transformers just so happened to be the franchise that caught his eye at the moment. And I’m sure it won’t be the last to get the Michael Bay make-over either. We already saw Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles become the next victim. It’s a financial situation that has worked out for Bay, but I think the lack of empathy for the direction of the series has unfortunately left a black mark on both the filmmaker and the Transformers brand. I’m sure the original creator of Optimus Prime and Megatron never expected to have their brand associated with racially insensitive stereotypes and up-skirt shots of the movie’s female leads. Transformers is a franchise in desperate need of a new vision, while Pacific Rim is one of infinite potential. Luckily del Toro’s movie has developed enough of a following to warrant a sequel, which I too am anticipating. In the end, even when it’s about giant monster fighting robots, substance still triumphs over style.

“Today we are cancelling the apocalypse!!”

Movie Previews

The 2015 Oscars – Picks and Thoughts

February 21, 2015 James Humphreys

It’s the Oscars once again, marking the high point of the cinematic year that was 2014. And once again, it’s a unique year that had a lot of people talking; in particular about who wasn’t nominated. A lot of complaints rose up this year about the racial make-up of the Oscar nominated field, and just how little to no nominations went to minority talent. While this led to cries of racism from some in the media, I honestly don’t believe that it was a decision made by design on the Academy’s part. It unfortunately end up as a result of poor Oscar-campaigning on behalf of actors and filmmakers of different races, as was the case with Paramount Pictures late start on campaigning for their Dr. Martin Luther King biopic, Selma. While Selma did manage to achieve a Best Picture nomination, it was all but forgotten in all other categories, including what would have been a historic nomination for it’s director, Ava Duvernay. But, even as this left many upset with the final field of nominees, it doesn’t mean that movies like Selma will be forgotten overall. The Oscars are a competition based around buzz and publicity. The movies that make the biggest splash in the marketplace or have the most publicity surrounding it will almost always be the ones that prevail. But, as I’ve stated before, this is just a yearly acknowledgement of what Hollywood values at the moment. Great movies will always be great, and a little golden statue is not always the greatest indicator of longevity, although there have been exceptions. But, even still, an Oscar win carries a lot of weight with it and this year’s field is full of many worthy, and maybe one not so worthy films up for the little golden man. What follows are my picks for the top Oscar categories, and who I think will win and who should win.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Nominees: American Sniper (Jason Hall), The Imitation Game (Graham Moore), Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson), The Theory of Everything (Anthony McCarten), and Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

I’m going to state this right away here because it will be a running theme throughout this article; The Theory of Everything is a horrible movie and I hope that it comes up empty handed at this year’s Oscar ceremony. Now, with that said, this is thankfully one category that it has no chance of succeeding in. As of right now, Writer’s Guild award winner The Imitation Game seems to be going into the race as the favorite. And despite some of the conventionality of the movie itself, I actually think that Imitation Game‘s script is still worthy enough of the award. Writer Graham Moore filled his screenplay with enough intrigue and witty dialogue to keep us engaged, and he managed to present a nice, complex picture of an unsung hero of the Second World War. But, is this movie also my own favorite in the category. If I had to choose, I would give this award to Whiplash‘s Director/Writer Damien Chazelle. Whiplash was one of the most exhilarating cinematic experiences of the year, and Chazelle’s fiery and explosive screenplay was a big part of that. I would award it just for J.K. Simmon’s lines alone. But, unfortunately for Chazelle, this was his first feature film, and that lack of a long body of work may end up costing him in the end. But, I dare you to find a debut screenplay as expertly crafted as Whiplash. A potential spoiler here could also be Jason Hall’s script for the controversial by expertly crafted American Sniper, which would also be a deserving choice. But, in the end, expect to see Imitation Game the winner.

WHO WILL WIN: Graham Moore, The Imitation Game

WHO SHOULD WIN: Damien Chazelle, Whiplash

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Boyhood (Richard Linklater), Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy), Foxcatcher (Dan Futterman and E. Max Frye), Birdman (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr., and Armando Bo), and The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness)

Another running theme you will find in this article is my love for the movie Birdman. It was my pick for the best of the year and I want it to win pretty much everything that it is nominated for. Now of course that won’t happen, but Birdman is still a strong contender in the race, and this is one category that it’s still very much a favorite it. Even despite having been worked on by a team of writers as opposed to one singular vision, Birdman‘s script is still one of the most emotionally moving and creative of the year. The film’s screenplay did earn a well deserved Golden Globe, but it’s loss at the WGA awards has shown that it’s not a lock either. The WGA winner The Grand Budapest Hotel seems to be the movie with the momentum right now. Giving the award to Wes Anderson here would probably be the consolation prize for his movie, which doesn’t look like a strong contender in any of the other races. And Anderson has had a strong body of work for many years, so he’s long overdue for recognition from the Academy. Though, that being said, The Grand Budapest Hotel didn’t quite grab me in the same way that Birdman did. I liked it well enough, but I also think that it’s not among my favorite Anderson films (that would be something like Fantastic Mr. Fox or Rushmore). But, if he wins it here, he’s not undeserving. I just wish that it wasn’t in competition with my favorite movie. With all that said, I would expect this to be Wes Anderson’s year, but this could also go to Birdman if the movie has a big night.

WHO WILL WIN: Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness, The Grand Budapest Hotel

WHO SHOULD WIN: Alejandro G. Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, and Armando Bo, Birdman

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Nominees: Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher), Edward Norton (Birdman), J. K. Simmons (Whiplash), Robert Duvall (The Judge), Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)

This is by far the easiest race to call. It’s J.K. Simmons, unquestionably. He was the favorite going into this race pretty much from the moment his performance in Whiplash was first seen by audiences. Thereafter, he has won every award there is. If he doesn’t walk away a winner at this year’s Oscar ceremony, then it will be the biggest upset in the history of the awards, which I highly doubt will happen. He is absolutely deserving of the honor as well. Not only did he deliver what I think is the performance of the year, as the music teacher from hell in Whiplash, but he also is one of the most highly regarded character actors in the business. He’s been a presence in Hollywood for many years, never quite headlining any particular film but still enriching any project with his workman-like approach to every role, making him one of the most reliable actors around. His performance in Whiplash would be more than just a legacy award however, because he is indeed the standout in this category. The only other competition he might have would be Edward Norton’s delightfully quirky turn in Birdman, but even that is a very distant second place. The others nominated are purely riding the coattails of the selected films, while Robert Duvall is nominated here purely because he’s Robert Duvall. This is an even money category, and I don’t expect anyone but J. K. Simmons to be up there on Oscar night. It might be the first award given out too, given that there’s no suspense behind it.

WHO WILL WIN: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

WHO SHOULD WIN: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Nominees: Patricia Arquette (Boyhood), Meryl Streep (Into the Woods), Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game), Laura Dern (Wild), Emma Stone (Birdman)

The strange thing about the last few weeks of this race has been the deflation of Richard Linklater’s Boyhood as the awards front-runner. It came into the race looking like the clear favorite, until it began to fall in the Guild races to Birdman. Now, it looks to be the runner up in many of the categories that it once appeared to be running away with. The only race that Boyhood has remained strong in throughout the whole race has been this one. Patricia Arquette has held onto her front-runner status this whole time, and still looks to be unchallenged going into the final stretch. And she’s not undeserving either. Considering the nearly 12 year stretch that the movie was in production and that she was able to maintain her focus on her character throughout that whole run (better than the rest of the cast I might add) is really quite an achievement, and is worthy of recognition. Arquette also has a solid body of work behind her, both on film and TV, so her win here is also a way of awarding her for a solid body of work in the industry. The remainder of the category is also strong, apart from the obligatory nomination for Meryl Streep in the mediocre Into the Woods. Emma Stone delivers the best performance of her still young career, and Keira Knightley did valiantly well with a character who could have easily been weak if not performed in the right way. Laura Dern was the surprise here, and I think her nomination is about as far as the accolades for her performance will go. But like J.K. Simmons in the Supporting Actor category, this is another race with a clear favorite, and one that I think deserves her place in the spotlight.

WHO WILL WIN: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

WHO SHOULD WIN: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

BEST ACTOR

Nominees: Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game), Michael Keaton (Birdman), Bradley Cooper (American Sniper), Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)

Now we come to what is probably the most contentious race this year, at least with the acting categories. It is also the race that pits my favorite movie of the year against one of my most hated. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I want Michael Keaton to win this award so badly. And yes, a part of that is because I’m a big fan of Batman, and Michael Keaton’s performance as the caped crusader is a big part of my fandom. It’s also part of the basis of his character in Birdman, which is another reason why I love that film so much. But, after looking at all the nominees here, I can’t help but think that Keaton’s performance was also the strongest as well. His performance as washed-up actor Riggan Thompson is captivating and heartfelt, and also hilarious. You also have to admire an actor who can hold his own in a film made up of long takes. Unfortunately, as the movie’s stock has gone up in the Oscar race, Keaton’s front-runner status has fallen. The one taking the lead now is Eddie Redmayne, for his portrayal of crippled Astro-physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything. Now, let me state that while I hate the movie itself, Redmayne’s performance is easily the best thing in it. I just wish his performance was placed in a better, less pandering film. What upsets me is that once again Hollywood is falling into the cliche of honoring an able bodied actor for playing a person with a disabilty (and a historical one as well) which is one of the most overused plays in the Oscar-bait textbook. Redmayne tries, but I still didn’t see his work as groundbreaking either. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s going to fool enough people to rob a veteran actor of his long overdue recognition.

WHO WILL WIN: Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

WHO SHOULD WIN: Michael Keaton, Birdman

BEST ACTRESS

Nominees: Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night), Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything), Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl), Reese Witherspoon (Wild), Julianne Moore (Still Alice)

This has been one of the more surprising categories of the year. Despite having appeared in a film that has generated little to no buzz this awards season, Julianne Moore has entered this race as the clear front-runner. Her performance in Still Alice is good, which is not surprising from the usually reliable actress, but is it really that noteworthy. Something about this race tells me that it didn’t matter what movie Julianne Moore appeared in last year, it just seems like it’s finally her time. This honor is more of a legacy award and less of an acknowledgement of her actual work in Still Alice, given that Julianne Moore has been a runner-up in so many other races leading up to this. Hollywood wants to make her a part of the club of Oscar-winners, and she’s not undeserving of that either. However, if I had to make a choice among the nominees in this category, it wouldn’t be Julianne Moore. Instead, I would pick Rosamund Pike for her outstanding, and gutsy performance in Gone Girl, a movie that was surprisingly overlooked in most other categories this year. Pike’s performance was a knockout, playing one of the most psychotic and devious characters I’ve seen on the big screen in a while. Pike has usually played supporting roles up to now, but she wowed in her first lead role and pretty much ran away with the movie, seeing as how she’s the only one involved who got a nomination. Perhaps the fact that Rosamund’s character is a little too dark for some audiences might be part of why she’s not gaining traction in this race, but even still, I wouldn’t mind seeing her spoil Julianne Moore’s seemingly unstoppable train to the top award.

WHO WILL WIN: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

WHO SHOULD WIN: Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl

BEST DIRECTOR

Nominees: Richard Linklater (Boyhood), Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game), Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel), Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman), and Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher)

Here is another too close to call race. It’s down to two visionary, independent filmmakers who delivered us movies based around very different cinematic gimmicks. One the one hand you have Richard Linklater, who devoted 12 years of his life to crafting Boyhood, which follows the life of a young boy as he grows up in real time over the progression of the movie. And on the other hand, you have Alejandro Inarritu who crafted a movie made up of long takes all stitched together to make the movie look like it was all done in one long shot. Both directors did a commendable job with these complex projects, but in the end, only one can take home the award. For a while, it looked like Linklater was going to be the runaway favorite, having picked up numerous critics awards, and the Golden Globe. But, when the Director’s Guild made their choice (one that usually almost always coincides with the eventual Oscar winner), the award went to Inarritu. Now, Inarritu is the one carrying the momentum into the Oscar race, which again makes me very pleased. Linklater is a talented filmmaker, but I quite frankly have never really gotten into his body of work. I don’t dislike his movies; most of them are actually really good, including Boyhood. But at the same time, his style has never wowed me as a viewer the same way Inarritu did with Birdman. Still, Linklater’s labor of love for over a decade is still hard to ignore. Although I see Inarritu deservedly winning out in the end, it wouldn’t upset me if Linklater came out on top either.

WHO WILL WIN: Alejandro G. Inarritu, Birdman

WHO SHOULD WIN: Alejandro G. Inarritu, Birdman

BEST PICTURE

Nominees: Boyhood, The Theory of Everything, Selma, The Imitation Game, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman, American Sniper, and Whiplash

Of course we now come to the big award of the night, and once again, it has become a race that’s too close to call. Conventional wisdom would have you believe that the sprawling, 3 hour long Boyhood would be the clear front-runner, and indeed it is still selected as a favorite in most of the polling. But, Birdman has been coming on strong in recent weeks, and I think that it has enough to topple Boyhood. Certainly it’s wins at the Guild awards have helped. But even with that momentum, Boyhood is still looking like the movie to beat, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Academy splits the top awards again like they did the year prior when 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture and Alfonso Cuaron winning Director. Overall, it basically comes down to these two competitors. The only potential spoilers could be either the quirky The Grand Budapest Hotel or the controversial American Sniper, and I highly doubt either has the weight behind them to match up to the top two. I, of course, want Birdman to win it all. It would be the first time since 2006 that my favorite movie of the year takes home the top award (that being Martin Scorsese’s The Departed). But, with a race this close it’s hard to say how it will turn out. If I had to make a guess right now, on the eve of the awards, I would say that Inarritu’s Birdman carries the entire night, picking up the most awards on it’s way to a Best Picture win, leaving Linklater and his film as the runners up. It’s hard to put down a movie that took 12 years to complete, but unfortunately, I felt that Boyhood was more interesting as a gimmick than it was as a movie. Birdman was everything I wanted it to be and more, and that’s why I’m rooting for it at the Oscars this year.

WHO WILL WIN: Birdman

WHO SHOULD WIN: Birdman

So, I’ve shared my thoughts on the big categories, but I think I’ll also quickly run through who I think will win all the other awards as well (of note, these are my picks and not necessarily my favorites, as I have yet to see each and every film nominated):

Animated Feature: How to Train Your Dragon 2; Cinematography: Birdman; Costume Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Documentary Feature: CitizenFour; Documentary Short: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1; Film Editing: Boyhood; Foreign Language Film: Leviathan; Makeup and Hairstyling: Guardians of the Galaxy; Original Score: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Song: “Everything is Awesome” from The Lego Movie; Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Animated Short: The Bigger Picture; Live Action Short: Butter Lamp; Sound Editing: American Sniper; Sound Mixing: Birdman; Visual Effects: Guardians of the Galaxy

It should end up being an interesting ceremony in the end. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, none of this will really matter. The Oscars are more of a reminder of how we viewed movies in the previous year, and not about how they will age in the years to come. Sometimes it is worthwhile to bestow an award to a movie that deserves the spotlight, especially when it’s a small movie that’s demanding to be seen, like Whiplash. But, great movies find their audiences no matter what and some of last year’s best films were not even spotlighted in this year’s show (The Lego Movie, Gone Girl, Snowpiercer just to name a couple). But even if it infuriates us every year, we still come back again and again and watch the Oscars religiously. It’s a part of our culture to celebrate the movies and the Oscars are a big part of that experience. If there’s one thing that the Academy has done right it’s to make us think that their Award matters, and in the short term it indeed can. Small movies get that much needed boost after the awards, and most films that come away from the ceremony a winner wear that as a badge of honor. Hopefully, this year, the awards go to the most deserving people and that the whole affair ends up being an entertaining show overall. And once it’s all done, it will again be time to start this cycle all over again. In the end, it gets us talking about movies and that’s what we love the most about Oscar season.

Evolution of Character

Evolution of Character – Romeo & Juliet

February 14, 2015 James Humphreys

Love stories can be found in even the unlikeliest of genres. Oftentimes, some of the best romances are remembered from movies that aren’t even classified as romances. Take Casablanca (1943) for example. It has one of the most famous and passionate love stories at it’s center, and yet today it is classified more as a war drama and less of a romance. It’s also a love story that leaves the two key players apart at the end, and it’s viewed as a noble sacrifice. Indeed, a great love story comes about as a by product of a great story, and whether or not the characters are left happily ever after is determined by what’s best for the story and not by what the audience desires. This often means that tragic love stories are the ones that stick with us the most. There’s a reason why Titanic (1997) became as big of a hit as it did, and it’s not because it’s two leads got a happy ending. Lost love leaves the biggest impact on an audience because it makes finding it all the more precious. A character’s strength can often hinge on how well they are able to overcome loosing the one they love; either they rise above it and are grateful for their brief time together, or they succumb to their grief and become lost as well. Perhaps the most famous of all the tragic romances came from legendary English playwright William Shakespeare when he crafted his own tragic romance titled The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.

First published and performed in Elizabethan England in 1597, the tale of Romeo and Juliet has gone on to become perhaps Shakespeare’s most popular piece of work; or at least the most often re-adapted. Depicting the doomed romance between Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet, the youngest children of two warring families in the fictional Italian city-state of Verona, Romeo and Juliet touches on many themes that have not only redefined the meaning of romance, but has also gone on to set the modern standard for all love stories to follow. Romeo and Juliet’s story involved themes about prejudice, generational differences, youthful rebellion, and even sacrifice. It’s a tale that speaks to many people who fall in love despite social expectations, whether it be someone from another race, religion, culture or sexual orientation. Basically, Shakespeare’s story is about unbound love, and pointing an accusatory finger at those who prevent it from happening; a theme that still remains relevant today. Because Shakespeare’s play continues to resonate with audiences, it’s only natural that there should be plenty of film adaptations to compare and contrast with one another. Since it’s Valentine’s Day, I will be looking at some of the most notable adaptations of Shakespeare’s classic romance, and see how well they defined the characters of both Romeo and Juliet, as well as how well they stuck close to the key themes of the play. And so with that all said, where for art thou Romeo?

LESLIE HOWARD AND NORMA SHEARER in ROMEO AND JULIET (1936)

There were many attempts to adapt the works of Shakespeare for the big screen ever since the inception of cinema. But once the era of talkies came around, it was finally possible to hear the unique Shakespearean iambic pentameter on the big screen. And the great thing about cinema is that it brought classics to the masses, allowing even the common man to experience the works of Shakespeare and others. Romeo and Juliet was one such play that was easily adapted for the screen many times, mostly in the silent era. However, it wasn’t until this lavish 1936 production that we finally got a major Hollywood adaptation of the play. Starring British actor Leslie Howard (of Gone With the Wind fame) and Oscar-winning actress Norma Shearer as the titular couple, this production does it’s best to be true to the original source material. The Shakespearean language is still there, albeit truncated to fit a cinematic run time, and the sets and costuming are all exquisitely crafted. There’s only one problematic thing with this version of the story, and that’s the miscasting of the two leads. The two actors are not at all convincing as Romeo and Juliet, mainly because they are far too old to play the teenage lovers. Norma Shearer was 34 during the making of this film, and Leslie Howard was 43. That is too much of an age difference to make their performances convincing. Truth be told, Howard fares a little better because of his classical training in London theater, but unfortunately Shearer is too Hollywood in her acting style to rise above this. Even still, the movie does try to capture some of the essence of Shakespeare’s play, with production values worthy of the material.

RICHARD BEYMER and NATALIE WOOD in WEST SIDE STORY (1961)

Other modest big screen adaptations came and went over the decades since Hollywood’s first attempt, but in the early sixties, the story made it’s way into our modern pop culture through a grand re-imagining. Dispensing of the Shakespearean text and transporting the story into a modern day setting (in this case the slums of New York City) and adding musical numbers, we were given a fresh new look to the classic story. While West Side Story may not have any of the classic Shakespearean touches, the themes and the emotion of the story remain intact. In fact, I don’t think there has ever been a better representation of the underlying themes of the play better than this musical version. Certainly, the themes of forbidden love and the prejudices that separate our tragic couple are presented vividly here, having the stand-ins of Tony and Maria separated by the street gang rivalries that exist within their lives. By presenting this in a modern day context, this version of the story helps to make these themes resonate even more for the casual viewer. The musical was a smash hit on Broadway, but it’s the movie version that really makes the story soar. Given the grand vision of director Robert Wise and the iconic choreography of Jerome Robbins (both of whom shared the Oscar for Directing that year), West Side Story is both intimate and epic, making it one of the most unforgettable love stories ever put on screen. Richard Beymer and Natalie Wood give very passionate performances as well as the tragic couple, and Wood’s final scene at the end is memorably heartbreaking. All together it is a grand scale retelling of a familiar story that I think would have been given the Bard’s seal of approval.

LEONARD WHITING and OLIVIA HUSSEY in ROMEO AND JULIET (1968)

Probably the greatest straightforward adaptation of Shakespeare’s original play, Italian director Franco Zeffirelli’s version presents the text as it is written with almost reverential treatment. Given lavish production values and a cast full of classically trained British actors, this version is by far the closest Hollywood has actually come to making a true, unedited version of the play. The best bit of casting though belongs to the main characters themselves, mainly because Zeffirelli actually cast teenage actors. Albeit, the actors playing Romeo and Juliet are just a tiny bit older than they are in the text; they had to be at a legal age in order for Zeffirelli to include brief moments of nudity in his film. But, even still, we buy the fact that these two characters are young and deeply in love. Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey are certainly the least experienced members of a veteran, stage bred cast, but they still manage to hold their own and carry the picture. Sometimes the lack of experience on their part does show up unfortunately, particularly at the climatic death scene, but the two of them do make it up with the earnestness of their performances. In particular, the two do manage to nail the pivotal balcony scene. Whatever shortcomings the actors may have, they are served well by Zeffirelli’s lavish direction. It wasn’t the director’s first adaptation of Shakespeare (he had made The Taming of the Shrew the year prior with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) nor was it his last (his 1991 adaptation of Hamlet, with Mel Gibson), but this version of Romeo and Juliet was perhaps his greatest work, and certainly the most authentic retelling the big screen has ever seen.

LEONARDO DICAPRIO and CLAIRE DANES in WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S ROMEO+JULIET (1996)

Probably the most notorious retelling of Shakespeare’s play, Australian director Baz Luhrmann’s version is a hyper-stylized take on the original text. Luhrmann keeps the Elizabethan language intact, but he sets the story in the modern day with the warring Montague and Capulet families depicted as street gangs terrorizing the fictional beachfront city of Verona, California. Trust me, West Side Story this is not. While Luhrmann’s style is unique and beautiful to look at, I am unfortunately of the opinion that it’s a bad fit for the material. All the eye candy and sporadic editing is just too distracting and takes away from some of the power of the text. Seeing all these modern clad actors spouting Shakespearean dialogue with editing and cinematography more at home in a music video makes the whole project feel more like style over substance. What ultimately saves this movie, however, is the cast and in particular, the two leads. This was a turning point film for the careers of both Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes; he would go on to super stardom the following year with the release of Titanic, and she would go on to become a multi-Emmy winner in groundbreaking TV shows like Homeland. Here, they deliver outstanding performances as the doomed lovers that feel more natural and assured than any version before, or really after. Again, they are older here than in the text (both in their 20’s) but the acting is so good, it really doesn’t matter in the end. Their performances are emotional and captivating, indicative of how talented they had become as performers. While the movie itself is jarring, the performances help to save it in the end, delivering probably the most heartrendingly raw and intimate versions of the characters we’ve ever seen.

JET LI and AALIYAH in ROMEO MUST DIE (2000)

Just to show the universality of awareness that Shakespeare’s play has on the culture at large, this thriller starring acrobatic and martial arts trained Chinese actor Jet Li and singer/actress Aaliyah shows how you can even implant the story into an action movie. The story is what you would expect from a film like this; Jet Li is an undercover cop investigating the murder of his brother, and while on the job, he ends up falling for the daughter of the very mob boss he’s trying to take down, leading to a forbidden romance that leaves all of them in danger. Now if you’re looking for an authentic retelling of Shakespeare’s play, this is not it. It’s just a silly action thriller with a love story at it’s center. It also has a happy ending, which is definitely not true to Shakespeare’s original intent. But even still, it is interesting to see how pervasive the story has become, where it can even appear as the basis for an action thriller. Certainly the filmmakers want to invoke the Shakespearean connection with a title like Romeo Must Die. But, that’s where the connection ends. Basically, the only link it has apart from that is the theme of forbidden love; although in this case, it is a love that prevails in the end. Jet Li is in fine form here, especially during the well-choreographed fight scenes, and Aaliyah (who’s short-lived career was tragically cut short the following year in a plane crash) is likable as well. In fact, the best thing you can say about the romance in this movie is that the two of them do indeed have chemistry, and you want to see them together in the end. That’s something that most other romantic movies wished they had. So, in the end, not a great adaptation of Shakespeare but a more than passable homage.

ANIMATED SEALS in ROMEO & JULIET: SEALED WITH A KISS (2006)

No joke people, this is a real thing. There is actually an animated, musical retelling of the story of Romeo and Juliet, with seals and other sea creatures starring in the roles. And if there was an adaptation that would rile up Shakespearean purists the most, it would be this one. It does everything cliched thing that sub-par animated movies do; replacing wit with slapstick and pop-culture references and taking short-cuts in storytelling in order to pander to a younger, G-rating audience. But, even with all these faults, the story still does keep many of the traits of the original story intact, like the iconic balcony scene (here depicted as a cliff-side overhang) and even Juliet poisoning herself in order to appeal to the warring factions to stop fighting and let her be with Romeo. Unfortunately, the end result feels more exploitative of the material rather than respectful. The film is actually more interesting as an example of independent film-making than as a movie itself. It was made by former Disney animator and director Phil Nibbelink (The Great Mouse Detective, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and An American Tail: Fivel Goes West to name a few credits), who crafted the film entirely by himself in his own home studio, using Flash animation software on his computer. With the knowledge that this movie was made by hand entirely by one person, you can’t help but be impressed with the final product. Even though it is far from Disney quality, the final film does have a very polished look, and you can tell that Nibbelink put his heart into it. The final result is admirable, but not a great representation of Shakespeare’s classic. The characters of Romeo and Juliet are especially not served well, as they are merely one-dimensional caricatures. A neat independent oddity, but no where near worthy of the legacy.

DOUGLAS BOOTH and HAILEE STEINFELD in ROMEO & JULIET (2013)

This marks the most recent iteration of the play, and it’s one that goes back to the basics. Set in it’s appropriate time period and with a lavish production and elite cast behind it, this one looks on the surface like a very commendable retelling of Shakespeare’s work. It even has a screenplay adaptation done by Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes. Unfortunately, this retelling has none of the passion found in Shakespeare’s writing, nor the wit of most of Fellowes’ scripts. Part of the problem with this production is the performances. Everyone in this production is either over-acting or under-acting, and the latter is especially true for the titular lovers. Douglas Booth is as vanilla a Romeo as we have ever seen, and Hailee Steinfeld shows none of the charisma here as Juliet that she showed so well in her Oscar-nominated performance in the Coen Brothers’ True Grit (2010). It’s clear that the movie is trying too hard to feel epic and grandiose, but in the end it just underwhelms Shakespeare’s text and like Baz Luhrmann’s version, favors style over substance. It’s pretty, but bland. Here, we get Shakespeare by way of Hollywood, and it’s clear by both the direction as well as the marketing behind this movie that the producers were trying to aim this movie version towards the Twilight fan base. Overall, it’s a waste of good talent and a shameless exploitation of a classic story that adds nothing to the overall text and merely just exists to pander to a niche audience.

So, even though Romeo and Juliet the play has had an up and down history on the big screen, it is clear that the characters have been well served by Hollywood, as they have risen to icon status over the years and continue to influence love connections in romances to this day. And it is amazing how even 400 years after it was first written, that it still remains a relevant story today. As long as there are struggles between warring classes across the world, there will always be those who choose to break from their tribes and build bridges through love. It’s an idea that probably was best brought to the screen in West Side Story, which is rightly regarded as an all time great film. But as far as adaptations of the original text go, you’ll probably find Zeffirelli’s to be the most faithful and engaging, although the best versions of the characters themselves may actually be the ones found in Baz Luhrmann’s erratic adaptation; and that’s solely because of the strength of the actors’ performances. But, these are only examples that stick closely to the original source itself. You can find shades of Romeo and Juliet in almost any modern love story; in particular, the ones involving couples who come from different walks of life. As long as forbidden love remains a relevant thing in our culture, the power behind Shakespeare’s original classic will live on. Interestingly enough, it’s not even considered Shakespeare’s greatest work by some of the Bard’s most dedicated fans, which could go to either Hamlet or King Lear, depending on who you talk to. The fact that Romeo and Juliet continues to be Shakespeare’s most widely popular and most-often adapted play is really a big testament to the power of love.

Editorials

The Bigger Screen – Game of Thrones in IMAX and Cinematic TV Coming of Age

February 7, 2015 James Humphreys

Ever since it’s beginnings in the early 50’s, televsion has been locked into battle with cinema for supremacy in the viewer market. Movie attendance dropped significantly once the first TV screens made their way into living rooms across the world, but that only inspired Hollywood to invest in new technologies that helped to push the medium into new and exciting territories, like the introduction of widescreen and surround sound, and in turn audiences came back in large numbers. Over the course of this new cinematic revolution, TV more or less became standardized, and in some ways reduced because it was still restricted by the still primitive technologies that made television broadcasts possible. There was just no way to compare the experiences of seeing Gilligan’s Island on the small screen with seeing Ben-Hur (1959) on the giant wide screen. Cinema was the mature artform, and television was just light entertainment. But, with recent advances in digital photography and high definition home presentations, television has now reached a maturity point where they can now once again compete with the cinematic experience. Noticeably in the last decade or so, we’ve seen television redefine the rules of storytelling and deliver some of the most groundbreaking and buzzworthy narratives ever seen in the medium. Sitcoms have have dropped the obviously fake canned laughter and instead gotten their laughs through the single camera format. Hour long dramas have likewise moved outside the soundstages and have taken us on journeys to the far reaches of the world, and even beyond. And now it’s even common to see a network show that has a substantial CGI effects budget. All of this, combined with some of the recent implosions in tent pole filmmaking, has led to an era where the best minds and talent in the industry are now looking to Televsion as their desired destination. And no TV series right now has challenged the cinematic experience more than HBO’s megahit, Game of Thrones.

Adapted from the novels by George R. R. Martin, and produced by creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, Game of Thrones is perhaps the most cinematic TV series made to date. It has generated a following of fans around the world, including yours truly, and has generated an enormous amount of revenue for the cable network. And now in it’s fifth year, the show has taken the unprecedented step of promoting itself on the largest screen possible, courtesy of the IMAX format. Airing a television series on a movie screen is not unheard of at this point. Fathom Events has done the same thing for several years now, playing classic episodes from popular TV series in the past in order to mark an anniversary or special date. There was also a special simulcast recently of the 50th anniversary event for the BBC series Doctor Who. But HBO’s choice to put Game Of Thrones in IMAX theaters is a major step towards showing how far television has come, and it really makes a statement about the kind of regard the network has for the show. By doing this, HBO effectively is saying that their show can indeed compete with the big dogs on the largest format possible and indeed even be more worthy than some of the other films that have been given the IMAX treatment. By making this statement, we are now seeing a true testament to the maturity level that television has reached, showing that it is no longer just a simple form of entertainment, but a place where real art can be created.

But, the real question is, did the presentation really do what it set out to accomplish. I was fortunate enough to take in the show at my local IMAX theater for this one week only engagement, which I saw as worth the ticket price even though I had already watched most of the show itself when it first aired. The showing was made up of the final two episodes of Season 4 (the most recently aired) and it included a teaser trailer at the end for the upcoming Season 5. The two episodes in question were called “The Watchers on the Wall” and the season finale titled “The Children.” Both are excellent edpisodes and they each featured some of my favorite moments from last season. But, what struck me most about the IMAX presentation is how it benefited one more than the other. While “The Children” has its epic moments, it was obviously the more subdued of the two episodes, relying on quieter character moments over spectacle. “The Watchers on the Wall,” however, was a bit of a revelation on the IMAX screen. When I first saw this episode on TV, I was a tiny bit underwhelmed by it. It never felt like it was big enough to match the moment that it was depicting. Now I understand why; my 42-inch TV screen wasn’t big enough to convey the moment effectively. When projected on the nearly 100 foot IMAX screen, the episode really came to life, and it gave me a much better appreciation for the episode. I immediately felt the difference when the screening showed that first wide angle shot over the show’s monumental Wall, as well as the first time you see a giant riding a wooly mammoth. It was clear from that point exactly why HBO made the choice to bring Game of Thrones to IMAX; a first for any TV series. It’s because no other TV series could do justice to the format.

Overall, the screening was an absolute success, and my hope is that it’s just the beginning. While I’m still a believer in the special experience of watching a movie in a theater, I am also aware of the fact that some of the best filmmaking happening right now is on TV. And Game of Thrones is just one of the many example of TV shows that have pushed the bar in recent years. Indeed, I believe that this is just the beginning for screenings in IMAX theaters. While I doubt you’ll see the likes of Mad Men in IMAX, I do see other epic scale productions like AMC’s The Walking Dead or BBC’ Doctor Who making their way to larger formats. But, it has to take a certain kind of show to make that transition. Most of the TV series of the past are unfortunately restrained by the limitations that they have had to work with. Even epic productions like Star Trek are still bound by their broadcast standard look. Really, only TV series crafted under the more cinematic standards of recent years could hold up on an IMAX screen, and even still, it has to have the right kind of vision behind it. It’s a very recent phenomena of TV series that are able to hold up visually with their big screen counterparts. HBO led the way for that transition with their visually spectacular shows of the past like The Sopranos, Deadwood and Rome and even they had to mature their looks over time. The TV shows of today are built on the shoulders of these groundbreakers and they continue to refine the look of modern TV, even pushing production quality into unexpected areas like video streaming. And with tent pole productions becoming increasingly less reliable as investments, it seems logical that theater chains would look to popular TV shows as a way to draw in the crowds.

For many years, it would have been seen as impossible for a TV show to match up against a big screen movie. But, the tide has changed considerably as TV shows have become the safe haven for creative freedom and experimentation while movie studios have largely tried to play it safe. Up until this time, the seperation was very different. TV shows just didn’t have the budgets to compete. They were only filmed on cheaper film stock and the idea of preserving them for longevity was seen as laughable. Even TV shows that managed to gain enough notoriety that they spawned a movie adaptation were also cast aside into a niche category. For many years, if there was a movie adaptation of a TV series, it was usually a comedy meant to mock the outdated conventions of the original show, like The Brady Bunch Movie (1995) or Starsky and Hutch (2004). The only films in that time that managed to make the trip to the big screen with any sliver of dignity and faithfulness to their original form were the films in the Star Trek franchise (some better than others) and 1993’s The Fugitive, which actually was honored with a Best Picture nomination. Nowadays, more and more TV shows are given respectful big screen translations; sometimes even shepparded there by their original creators like 1998’s The X-Files or 2005’s Serenity. Televsion has also benefited from even more film to TV translatisions, showing that some stories can even prosper in a longer story format. Big screen classics like Fargo, From Dusk Til Dawn, and even characters like Hannibal Lector have made it successfully to small screen and have shown that the medium can indeed support stories and characters that have already proven themselves on the big screen. All this has shown the increasingly blurred line that separates film quality from TV quality.

Another sign of this change is present in the fact that more and more talented people are choosing to steer their careers into TV broadcasting. Before, television work was looked down upon by A-listers in the industry. In the early days, you moved up from television work into and never looked back, unless your career was in a down turn and it was the last option left to you. And indeed, the early years of television production was a great incubator of the great filmmakers of tomorrow. Directors like Stanley Kramer, Arthur Penn and Steven Speilberg all got their start working on TV shows, as well as many future groundbreaking writers like Paddy Chayefsky or Charlie Kaufman. Now while many people who start in television still move on to movies today, there is also a growing trend among filmmakers who are going from the big screen to the little screen in order to satisfy their creative tastes. Case in point, David Fincher’s recent forays into TV production. Thanks to his clout as a director, he managed to get the hit series House of Cards onto the small screen, with award winning stars like Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright on board as well. Actors are also going back and forth between film and television, with none of the disdain they would have shown for the medium in the past. Game of Thrones in particular has an especially large number of cast members itself that balances their film careers with their work on the show. He stigma that television has had in the past is gone for most people in the industry, and now some will even look to it as a more desirable avenue to pursue than a film career. Imagine if the same had been true in the early years of television. Can you imagine seeing the “Duke” John Wayne headlining a weekly drama or Jerry Lewis producing a sitcom. This is certainly one of the biggest signs of television’s maturity as an entertainment art form.

But, the one big thing that still separates cinema and television is the level of production that it receives. Even with all the ambition that TV producers put into their shows, their budgets will still fall short of the big productions, and it sometimes shows in many of the visual effects. Even a show as highly budgeted as Game of Thrones has to make due with what HBO is able to allocate them. Sometimes they pull it off, while other times you can’t help but feel that a moment falls short. The Battle at the Wall seen in the IMAX showing of Thrones is a perfect example of this compromise that the show’s producers had to deal with. You can tell that they were trying their hardest to make it feel like a big moment, but even they had to cut corners and downplay the moment from how it originally appeared in the source novel. But what helps the show in the end is not how sharp or big it looks, but rather how they utilize their effects. And honestly, the makers of Game of Thrones us their visual effects with more care and effectiveness than most blockbusters. It’s giving the production the illusion of grandeur and making the production feel even stronger and more epic than its budget would have you believe. They do this by putting the emphasis in the performances and then storytelling, which in turn makes the imaginary world of Game of Thrones feel even more real to the viewer. And given that the show presents a continuing narrative in a serial format, it has actually made the show feel all the more epic. I was actually stunned by how small The Lord of the Rings trilogy felt the last time I saw it, because it’s 12 hour plot line now feels dwarfed by the nearly 40 hours we’ve spent in the world of Game of Thrones; and were not even at the halfway point yet. That is a testament to how well a TV series can overcome its budget limitations and even surpass its big screen competitors.

So, my hope in the future is that we see more of this mingling between television and cinema. Yes, some of the allure of cinematic filmmaking is being lost in the process, but that’s only because television has upped it’s game and has met the challenge. In some odd way, this is something that could save a fledgling movie market, at least from the vantage point of theater owners. Watching something epic in your own living room has advantages, but there is nothing quite as great as watching the same show on the biggest screen possible. And there’s nothing bigger than IMAX. Game of Thrones is the perfect test subject for this experiment, and I feel like the experiment was well worth it in the end. My hope is that HBO does the same thing next year, and that other networks with epic scale shows like AMC, FX, and Showtime follow suit. It of course has to be the right kind of shows as well; just like with the movies, you need spectacle on screen to justify the larger format. Another good idea would be to not have to wait for the whole run of the show to be over, and instead maybe consider simulcasting the broadcast of the show when it airs on the big screen. The complications of that could be troublesome for both theaters and the studios,mbut you never know especially if demand is high enough. I for one welcome the competition between cinema and television. Competition between the two mediums allows for a more diverse set of choices for the viewer and it allows for many production companies and producers to take chances. As of now, HBO and Game of Thrones are setting the standards high for Hollywood and it’s already leading the market to reevaluate how to present certain projects. But, no matter how you watch the show in the end, quality comes from a great story, and having the gumption to make it work. And as a result, any size screen will do.

Editorials

Hot Buttons – Controversial Movies and Whether or Not to Watch Them

January 31, 2015 James Humphreys

For as long as there have been movies there has been the desire to tell stories that depart from the norm and venture into sometimes dangerous new territory. And whenever we see a movie that intentionally means to provoke a response, that response will usually manifest itself as a backlash from those who don’t like it’s message or content. But whether or not the response the movie gets is positive or negative, the one thing that ‘s for sure when a film courts controversy is that it gets everyone talking about it. What is amazing today, in our social media driven culture is that controversy can now become a viable marketing tool for a movie to run on. Even if you have a movie that is drawing scorn from a large amount of people, it still boosts the exposure of the product, especially if it becomes controversial to the point of being headline worthy. But the question remains whether or not a movie demands to be seen once it becomes a hot button issue. Are we compelled to see what all the fuss is about or should we ignore the hype and stop feeding the beast? Like most things, it really comes down to the product itself, and whether or not it can stand on it’s own amid all the noise. But the fact that not only does controversy help put the spotlight on the film but actually helps it to gain much more success than it would have normally is really something interesting in the industry. One other interesting outcome of this is finding out whether the controversy is warranted in the first place. Sometimes a movie is just ahead of its time and looking back on past controversies can sometimes make them look ridiculous in hindsight. It’s a cycle played out all the time in Hollywood, and even though it happens often, we can still be surprised by the extent of a movie’s impact on our larger culture, or at least the established order it can shake up.

This is something that we are currently seeing played out in our cinemas now with Clint Eastwood’s new film American Sniper. In my review of this movie a couple weeks ago, I highlighted the fact that the film took a rather polarizing figure in our recent history of war and used him as a focal point for a larger examination of the life of a modern American soldier. Understandably, basing a movie on the life of a controversial figure like Chris Kyle was going to ruffle a few feathers in both our pop cultural and political world, and sure enough, the last month has been a firestorm of everyone putting in their own two cents about the movie. Interestingly enough, the critiques of the movie have run pretty much down party lines, albeit with a couple open-minded voices actually breaking from the predictable opinion. Since the movie’s release, we’ve seen critics attack this movie as being right-wing propaganda and racists to Muslims, while others on the opposite side view it as a strong endorsement of American military might. My own opinion is that neither extreme is true, and that the movie is an intriguing character study of a flawed but talented soldier in combat, and how that experience is indicative of many more like him trying to come back to a normal life at home. But, what I find the most interesting about the movie is how much the controversy has fueled it’s box office numbers. It broke all sorts of box office records for the month of January and is continuing to dominate headlines in both the entertainment and political world. In this case, I think that the movie accomplished something good by being controversial, because it’s gotten everyone talking about important issues like the responsibilities of war and how we treat our wounded soldiers. And it also offers up a picture of war that can’t be so easily defined by conservative or liberal talking points.

But, while American Sniper is the hot button issue of now, it’s not the first movie to stir up controversy, nor the first to have been the beneficiary of added exposure. Cinematic history is full of movies that pushed the boundaries of taste and socially acceptable behavior. In the early days of Hollywood, the standards of violence and sex had yet to be established, so for many years filmmakers were free to push boundaries all the time. Even studio made movies had openly frank movies about violence (1931’s Scarface) and sex (1933’s Baby Face), but that all came to an end with the establishment of the Hays Code, a restrictive set of guidelines set up by religious figures in conjunction with studio heads in order to “clean up” the loose morals of the movies. For the decades that followed, Hollywood would play it safe and movies became a lot more sanitized and morally righteous in the years after. Restrictions on depicting violence loosened during the war years, but even still, approval by committee had to be given. In the 50’s, the McCarthy trials also made the studio system weary of political messages in the films as well, which led to an unprecedented era of censorship in the realm of film-making. And naturally, when restrictions become too much of a burden, it inevitably leads to a backlash, and for many years Hollywood started to fall behind as necessary controversy existed outside of the industry, rather than being guided within. It wasn’t until the late 60’s, after the Hays Code and the Blacklist were abolished did we see an era where free expression and new ideas become a big part of the cinematic experience again, at least for a time.

During the tumultuous 60’s and 70’s, when Vietnam and Watergate dominated the headlines, Hollywood was finally embracing filmmakers who had ideas and stories that could shake up the world and even change it for the better. One thing that came about in this time was the creation of the Ratings system, conducted by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), a corporation set up for the specific purpose of determining the appropriate audience for any select film based on it’s content. Sort of a self governing body, the MPAA took the power out of the government and studios hands to determine if a movie should be seen or not based on it’s content and instead left that determination up to the customers, giving them the information based on the rating upon it’s release. In the beginning of this new system, Hollywood didn’t prejudge movies by their ratings, and instead celebrated the changing attitudes that were starting to become popular at this time. Even movies slapped with the highly restrictive X-rating (which banned any audience members under the age of 17 from seeing it) were celebrated; director John Schlesinger’s X-Rated Midnight Cowboy (1969) even won the Oscar for Best Picture that year. But, even though hot button movies were embraced in this time period, there was also an inevitable backlash as well. Religious groups organized to the point where they could put pressure on the studios once again, and the MPAA’s ratings system became less of a suggestion for audiences, and more of a standardized label that segregated movies away from each other. In the 80’s and 90’s, it began to matter a lot more whether you were saddled with a PG or R rating. And in this time, controversial movies began to stand out that much more.

But do filmmakers set out to make their movies controversial and do they really use that as a way to boost their production’s exposure? For many, I don’t think that filmmakers really want their movie to be seen as controversial. Provocative, yes; but I don’t think they have the intention to draw criticism onto themselves. For a lot of filmmakers, their choice of project is more about the story they want to tell and their belief that people will indeed want to hear it. Controversy will sometimes arise when the filmmaker runs into a wall of rejection when their tastes run contrary to a whole select of people, usually those who share different worldviews than the filmmaker. What may seem rational to one will seem radical to another, and the storm raised between one and another is what fuels the controversy around any given movie. This usually comes down to three certain areas of contention, which are politics, religion, and standards of violence. Probably the most effective way to really push a few buttons in Hollywood would be through tackling religious doctrine. The film industry is primarily secular, with a few religious camps present as sort of a niche market, but if a major filmmaker chooses to take on a religious subject head-on, it usually ends up drawing the ire of some. I’m of the belief that religious themed movies can be worthwhile if they have something interesting to say; which unfortunately very few of them do. But, when experimental filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Darren Aronofsky tackle biblical tales in unconventional ways, it suddenly makes their projects much more explosive, because of how their breaking from an established order of things in Hollywood, both spiritual and secular. Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) stands as one of the most controversial movies of all time, but that’s less because of it’s religious stance and more of because of how it affected different groups politically. Even still, controversy got it exposure it definitely wasn’t expecting.

Whether expected or not, once a movie becomes a topic of discussion, it drives more people to want to see it. Sometimes it happens because of the movie’s content, and sometimes it just happens out of nowhere. I’m sure that Seth Rogen and James Franco never thought that their silly buddy comedy The Interview would become so controversial that it would get pulled from the cinemas before release, but once you draw the ire of an international body intent on publicly shaming you just because you used them as your point of ridicule, you suddenly become on of the most controversial movies of all times. And usually it’s just the timing of the controversy that matters the most. Your movie may intend to push a few buttons, but unless it’s relevant to the times we live in, no one will really care. Some controversial movies of the past now feel tame, and that’s usually because of the loosening of social standards on violence and sex in the years since. Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece A Clockwork Orange (1971) was so controversial in it’s time, that it was banned in the United Kingdom for decades for having inspired rising gang violence in that country. Seen today, after all the violent movies that Hollywood puts out today, Clockwork Orange doesn’t have the same kind of shock factor, unless you count the unsettling eye torture that Malcolm McDowell’s Alex goes through later in the film. But it’s notoriety was definitely fueled by it’s early explosive reputation. And it’s button-pushing movies like this that have indeed moved society in a different direction that helps to make it’s content more acceptable.

Other controversial movies however loose their luster after their time has come and gone, especially if all that made them stand out in the first place was just their button-pushing content. Documentaries are especially notorious for brewing controversy and gaining exposure right away. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) became noteworthy for being the highest grossing documentary of all time, mainly due to being a scathing critique of a sitting President during an election year. It elevated Moore in the world of film and politics, believing that his movie would lead to the ousting of then President George W. Bush and would make history becoming the first documentary to be nominated for Best Picture. When neither happened, the aura around the movie diminished and Michael Moore has been increasingly marginalized as his kind of firebrand film-making has become less popular during the Obama administration years. And indeed, political documentaries are the ones who can gobble up awards and get the most exposure quickly, but they are usually forgotten much quicker. The documentaries that last longer are the ones with a compelling story like Shoah (1985) or Hoop Dreams (1994). But sometimes controversies drive movies not by design but by circumstance. For instance, the creation of Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra (1963) ran into controversy when both of it’s leading stars (Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) began a highly publicized affair on the set. In order to capitalize on the public awareness of the scandalous couple, Fox quickly streamlined the already troubled production and turned what was going to be a two-part series into one four hour long epic. It was seizing a moment they had to save their over-budget monster, even though it was not planned that way. Controversy is a double-edge sword sometimes. Either it can give your film production a lot of headaches, or it can be that lightning in a bottle to boost your movie into places unseen before.

American Sniper likewise is finding itself caught up in a flurry of controversy that is driving a wedge between different political factions, but at the same time is also boosting it’s box office to unprecedented levels. I for one believe that it’s a movie deserving of exposure in any way it can get it. I just hope that people also go into the movie with an open mind. The most interesting thing about controversial movies is the fact that they are unpredictable. Usually, we can tell a lot about ourselves and where we stand as a culture by which movies we end up making the most controversial. Sometimes they force us into confronting issues that need to be addressed, or it can force us to reevaluate or own standards of decency and acceptance. Many controversial movies have benefited us in the long run, while others diminish when they prove to just be a product of their time. But is it right to give into the hype surrounding a movie? Sometimes these movies only become controversial because we are the ones fueling the fire behind them. Even though a movie becomes a button-pushing issue, it should be stated at the same time that it’s also just a movie. The only power you give it is the effect that it has on you. You can choose to ignore it or you can participate in the frenzy and see what all the fuss is about. Sometimes, your opinion may actually surprise you once you’ve actually witnessed the movie yourself. But, there’s no mistaking the fact that these movies have a power over the industry, and are usually the ones that become the driving force behind what we see in the future. Hot Button movies are just as important to the industry as the tried and true formula pictures. In the end, it’s not a big deal if controversy and hype fuel the performance of a movie. Time will tell in the end if it was all worth it and whether or not a movie can stand on it’s own.

Focus on a Franchise

Focus on a Franchise – Die Hard

January 24, 2015 James Humphreys

If there’s one genre that has churned out countless spin-offs and unnecessary sequels, it would be the action film genre. And not just any kind of action films; usually the one that you’ll see countless iterations of year after year will be the cops versus criminals sub-genre. It’s an easy, go to plot-line to exploit for cinematic purposes, mainly because all the elements are so easily defined. Morals are clearly delineated, with no gray areas between the good and the bad. The good guys are clearly righteous and the villains are wholly despicable. And, as is often the case, the task of saving the day is left to one lone wolf who breaks all the rules in pursuit of justice. While this can fall prey to formula far too often, it doesn’t mean that crime based action movies aren’t without some bright spots. Last year brought us the Keanu Reeves headlined John Wick (2014), which was a surprisingly engaging movie with perfectly choreographed shootout scenes and an engaging revenge plot at it’s center. However, sometimes when one movie in this genre becomes a surprise hit, it ends up leading to a franchise that stretches the already thin premise of the first movie too much. Liam Neeson’s Taken (2008) is a perfect example, where the first reasonably entertaining film spawned two tedious and painfully bad sequels. Given the relatively easy production turnarounds that these action movies have, it’s easy to see why this happens so often. But, if there’s a franchise that has clearly defined the genre, and has been stood the test of time, it would be the Die Hard series.

Adapted from a 1979 Roderick Thorp novel called Nothing Lasts Forever, the first Die Hard was released in the summer of 1988 to wild acclaim and huge box office. While it still featured many of the same features typical of most 80’s action flicks, like the over-the-top pyrotechnics and the excessive gun-fire, it did break the mold from the genre with it’s characters. In particular, the character of Lieutenant John McClane. McClane was unlike any action hero seen on the big screen up until that point. He was snarky and pop-culture savvy, and unlike the Stallones and the Schwarzeneggars before him, he wasn’t left unscathed by his ordeal. Over the course of the movie, John McClane takes a beating, getting cut and bruised relentlessly, leading to a very weakened shell of the man just surviving off sheer adrenaline. By humanizing the hero, the movie managed to make the character more relatable to audiences of all types, and in turn made him an endearing icon of the genre. This is largely due to a very charismatic performance from Bruce Willis, who up until this point was more of a romantic lead on television, as one of the stars of the show Moonlighting. After Die Hard, Bruce Willis would become the model of the new, modern action hero and it would be a career path that he would continue for years after, as well as continuing in more Die Hard sequels that followed. In this article, I will be looking at each of the movies of the franchise; from the monumental first film to the awful and unnecessary final film. In addition, I will be looking at how well the movies moved the brand forward and how well they stuck to the formula overall. And with that, welcome to the party, pal.

DIE HARD (1988)

Directed by John McTiernan

Here is the one that started it all and launched a whole new era in action film-making. Seen today, Die Hard may seem cliched and too familiar to anyone coming to it fresh, but that’s only because most of the tropes we see in action movies today were done here first. Die Hard has become the go to Bible for how to make a solid action movie for many contemporary filmmakers, and that’s a strong testament to it’s legacy. The story actually was inspired by the classic Irwin Allen spectacular The Towering Inferno, about a group of characters trapped in a burning high-rise. Author Roderick Thorp took that idea and added a heist plot to the mix and this was the result. Bruce Willis, as stated before, is perfectly cast as John McClane; a tough as nails New York cop thrown completely out of his element while vacationing in Los Angeles. But Willis’ performance is even overshadowed in the film by his co-star Alan Rickman, who amazingly was making his feature film debut here. Rickman plays the central villain Han Gruber and he steals every scene he is in. His dry delivery bounces off of Willis’ manic performance perfectly , making it one of the best hero versus villain dynamics in movie history. Reginald VelJohnson of Family Matters fame also lends great support as the lone sensible cop on the scene and McClane’s sole contact to the outside world. In addition, the setting itself (the fictional Nakatomi Tower) becomes a character in the movie, proving to be just as perilous to John McClane as the bad guys who inhabit it. Overall, it’s easy to see why this movie has become the classic that it’s seen as today and thankfully it’s still a lot of fun to watch.

DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER (1990)

Directed by Renny Harlin

So, with the monumental success of the first movie, it was inevitable that a sequel would follow. And while Die Hard stands perfectly well on it’s own, there were more possibilities that could be explored with John’s story; like maybe showing him on the job on his home turf. Surprisingly that’s not what the filmmakers did with this sequel. What we got instead was John McClane going through the same kind of mayhem as before, only now it’s at an Airport. The story this time finds John McClane wrestling with an espionage plot where armed mercenaries (led by William Sadler’s Colonel Stuart) wreck havoc with the flight controls and cause disorder on the airport runways in order to smuggle out a criminal drug lord (played by Franco Nero). For some, this movie is probably a let down compared to the first, and it does indeed feel a little bit like a rehash at times. But, there is still a lot to like in this sequel. For one thing, Bruce Willis is still solid, making John McClane just as snarky and resilient as ever. The setting of the airport (Dulles International, to be exact) also gives the movie a fresh new feel as well. The movie amps up the comedic bits as well, without being too distracting. Some of the meta humor here really works, especially when John McClane keeps complaining about how this stuff keeps happening to him. The supporting cast is fine, particularly Dennis Franz as a fellow police officer, though the character dynamics don’t quite have the same effect as in the first film. If the movie has a major fault, it’s with the antagonists, who are nowhere near as memorable as Rickman’s Hans Gruber. But even still, with a solid lead performance by Willis and some wild action set pieces, like the famous ejector seat scene, this is a sequel that makes continuing the franchise worth it.

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE (1995)

Directed by John McTiernan

Now we finally see John McClane on his home turf. With John McTiernan returning to the directors’ chair, Die Hard With a Vengeance marked probably the biggest departure for the series. Instead of having the story confined to one singular location, the story instead takes John McClane on a wild goose chase all across New York City. Led by an ominous voice on the phone (supplied with outstanding menace by Jeremy Irons), John McClane is led up and down NYC solving puzzles and finding clues, all in the hope of averting another terrorist attack perpetrated by the unknown villain on the phone line. It’s great to see the series actually shift gears and try something different, and for the most part Die Hard With a Vengeance does a good job of that. Bruce Willis, looking a little gruffer this time around, still manages to make John McClane just as appealing as ever. Only this time around, the story brings in a new character for McClane to interact with; that being a civilian caught up in the mayhem named Zeus Carver (played by the always great Samuel L. Jackson). The movie is at it’s best when Willis and Jackson share the screen, mainly because they work so well off of each other. Unfortunately, the movie is only half a great film, because once the plot finally starts to unravel, it becomes less fun. It turns out that the terrorist on the phone is actually Simon Gruber, brother of Hans, which is a plot revelation that goes nowhere in the end and only ends up being a ham-fisted way to link this movie up with the original. In my opinion, the movie is better off without this detail, and some of the intrigue is lost once we finally put a face to our villain. Jeremy Irons is a great actor, and he’s alright in this movie, but his character becomes less menacing once we actually learn his true nature. Beyond that, the movie still has some impressive set pieces, like an escape from an aqueduct tunnel, and Willis gets a co-star that is able to match his charisma and help elevate it as well.

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (2007)

Directed by Len Wiseman

For about a decade, it looked like the Die Hard franchise would stand solely as a trilogy, and then suddenly news broke that another film was in the works, with Bruce Willis attached. The oddly titled Live Free or Die Hard (taking the phrase from the New Hampshire state motto) has an aged John McClane assigned to help bring an internet hacker (Justin Long) into custody after a few others are suddenly found murdered. While on his way to Washington D.C., where he’s going to leave the hacker with the Feds, McClane soon becomes the target of the same organization out to kill the hacker; a group of cyber-terrorist led by a former government IT expert (played by Timothy Olyphant). A lot of fans of the series saw this as a cash-in and an insult to the bombastic series that they grew up with. Probably the biggest complaint came from the fact that the movie was rated PG-13 as opposed to the R-rating that the other films received. Even John McClane’s “yippy ki-yay motherf***er” catchphrase was drowned out by a gunshot, making a lot of fans upset. Surprisingly, I’m one of the few that doesn’t have a problem with this movie. It’s nowhere near as good as the original, of course, but for what it is, I thought that it still kept the spirit of the series alive. For one thing, Bruce Willis still delivers a fine performance as John McClane. I still like how he’s able to still laugh at how crazy his life is and that he’s still able to toy with the bad guys by making snarky insults at them. Some of the action scenes do go over the top a bit, but it still kept me entertained and it was neat to see the formula play out in a newer, high tech world.

A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD (2013)

Directed by John Moore

Unfortunately the mild success of Live Free or Die Hard made film executives believe that they could get even more out of this series and the end result was this clunker. This is the one film in the series that absolutely no one likes, including me. Honestly, as someone who has grown to love this series over the years, as flawed as some of the entries may be, this sequel is one of the most depressing experiences that I’ve ever had watching a movie. None of the elements that made Die Hard a standout in the past are present here. This movie really doesn’t feel like it belongs in the franchise at all. It’s a poser and an undisputed cash-in. Here we find John McClane involved in a convoluted espionage plot involving nuclear scientists and the Russian mafia. The only reason McClane is in Russia in the first place is so he can find his grown up son, Jack (Jai Courtney). The plot is all over the place and there is no real reason for John McClane to be in it. He has no impact on what’s going on, as opposed to how he constantly threw a monkey wrench into the bad guys’ plans in the previous movies. There are no clear motivations by the villains or the heroes, and the plot instead relies on constant back-stabbings by the characters in order to motivate the story from one action set piece to another. It’s just a lazy movie all around, and it unfortunately drags the once mighty Die Hard brand down with it. Even Bruce Willis looks bored, and it’s clear that he’s just cashing in a paycheck here. There’s no glimmer of wit or surprise, and especially nothing of value in the bland performances. It’s a very sad end to a great franchise that turns something that was once extraordinary into just another wannabe.

Still, even given the downward trend of the franchise, it’s amazing to see the impact that the Die Hard franchise has had over the years. The way that filmmakers cast their action movies changed with the introduction of Bruce Willis as an action hero. You no longer had to be built like Schwarzenegger or Stallone in order to headline an action movie. What Bruce Willis’ John McClane brought was attitude and charisma into the action genre, showing that an action star could look and act like the every-man in all of us. It also revolutionized how violence could be shown on screen, making the bloodletting feel more realistic as opposed to being an obvious special effect. Witty banter has also become a staple of the genre ever since, with many movies trying to match the underlying humor that became such a big part of the series. And while many films have tried to recapture some of Die Hard’s charm, few have ever matched it. The original Die Hard is an icon for good reason. It broke the mold and did so by putting the emphasis on the characters. The characterizations may not be particularly deep, but they still leave an impact on you and that’s mainly due to the earnest efforts of the actors. Only recently has it begun to lose it’s luster, but thankfully it doesn’t reflect negatively on the original that made the most impact in the first place. After a quarter of a century, Die Hard is one of the action adventure genre’s best and it’s collection of sequels do a fairly commendable job of keeping John McClane’s iconic status going strong. Yippy ki-yay.

Movie Reviews

American Sniper – Review

January 17, 2015 James Humphreys

Biopics have often been an awards season favorite for many years. Considering that the motion picture Academy is made up mostly of veteran actors and actresses, it’s easy to see why they award so many of their peers when they take on a role of impersonating some great historical figure. Sometimes that actor or actress pulls off the role in convincing fashion (like Daniel Day-Lewis in 2012’s Lincoln) or it can come off as phony and cartoonish (Leonardo DiCaprio in 2011’s J. Edgar). Clint Eastwood has developed a reputation as a director for bringing simple yet elegant techniques into his often very quiet yet endearing films, and some of his recent movies have indeed tackled real life subjects. Some of his historical films have been interesting windows into both old and recent history, like 2006’s Letters From Iwo Jima and 2009’s Invictus. But his record with biopics hasn’t been quite as strong. His J. Edgar, for example, was a messy and convoluted take on the life of the notorious FBI founder, featuring Leonardo DiCaprio’s less than effective impersonation performed through some of the worst old-age make-up ever seen on film. Eastwood’s newest movie, American Sniper, again puts the director into the position of telling the story of a real life and controversial American icon, only this time, the end result is a much more assured and captivating story. Recounting the true life story of Chris Kyle, a navy seal sniper credited with the most confirmed kills of any American serviceman in military history, Clint Eastwood has managed to craft a compelling account of the life of a modern American soldier, and how his experience is indicative of the world that we live in today and how it will continue into the future.

What’s most interesting about the movie itself is not the quality of its filmmaking; we already know that Clint Eastwood is capable enough to tackle this kind of material. No, what’s really interesting is the subject himself. Chris Kyle isn’t particularly the kind of person that Hollywood usually lionizes as a hero. Kyle in real life was a staunch right-wing, gun loving and militaristic Christian conservative; someone Hollywood would usually cast as the villain in their stories. But Eastwood’s portrayal of the man is much more sympathetic towards the his life and is far more interested in showing the extraordinary things that he accomplished within and outside of combat. Some more liberal audience members may find this kind of portrayal too reverential and off-putting, but I would argue that American Sniper is not a whitewash of a controversial figure either. Though Easwood’s own personal politics do lean closer to Chris Kyle’s than to the rest of Hollywood, he still has been sharply critical of both Republican and Democratic administrations with regard to US policy in the Middle East, and some of that frustration comes out in a subtly drawn anti-war message behind this movie. For Eastwood, the film is less about the combat and more about the side effects, particularly with regard to the psychological consciousness of those fighting in it. And in this regard, Chris Kyle proves to be an ideal subject for examination and reflection of the cost of war.

Adapted from Chris Kyle’s own auto-biographical account of his war experiences, American Sniper covers nearly fifteen years of the man’s life; from his recruitment into the elite Navy Seals team to his post-war experience and his tragic assassination in 2013. Chris Kyle (an almost unrecognizable Bradley Cooper) is first shown as a rodeo cowboy who is sprung into signing up for military service after seeing the embassy bombings in Africa and Afghanistan in the late 90’s. Hoping to push himself harder and closer to the front lines, Kyle signs up for the Navy Seals, and proves very quickly to be a reliable marksman shooter; a distinction that earns him the position of combat sniper in his unit. In the middle of his grueling basic training, he meets Taya (Sienna Miller) the woman who would become the love of his life, whom he marries just before heading off to his first tour of duty in Iraq. While on tour, he quickly becomes a legend amongst his fellow soldiers, amassing a significant body count in his time there. Once back home, Kyle welcomes the birth of his children, but also reveals to his wife an uneasy amount of bottled up tension. Kyle, over time, becomes more and more obsessed with getting the job done over in the Middle East, which in turn causes him to feel more isolated and prone to erratic behavior, which puts both him and his units in far more precarious situations. After four tours, Chris Kyle ends his time in Iraq and tries to settle into a normal life back home, which he soon finds to be increasingly difficult. And part of that feeling of unease is built upon his belief that all his hard work still did not do enough, which then springs him into becoming an active voice for his fellow wounded soldiers, which in turn helps him to recover a bit of his own sanity.

Like I said before, Chris Kyle’s life is not one you would usually see given such a complex and compassionate treatment. If given to someone on either extreme on the political spectrum, American Sniper could have become a far less effective biography of an interesting individual. Either the movie could have been too reverential or too critical for its own good and Chris Kyle would have become more of a strawman for either side’s political agenda and less of a fully dimensional character. Thankfully Clint Eastwood doesn’t delve into politics with this story, and instead portrays the man as a multilayered individual, warts and all. Chris Kyle is shown to be an American hero, both on and off the field, and the movie honors the hard work that the man had accomplished in his life. But at the same time, it also shows Chris Kyle as a vain and stubborn individual, with instances where his arrogance sometimes causes disunity in both his combat units as well as in his marriage. While Kyle still remains a likable and resilient guy throughout, the movie rightfully avoids the trap of turning him into a saint The story works because of this complexity and it manages to accomplish what most great biopics should do, which is portray the man and not the legend. Because of this, we are able to put away any of our preconceived notions of who Chris Kyle was, and examine instead the conditions that made the person that he is. Overall, it gives the movie a remarkably introspective look into the psyche of an Amercican soldier and what goes through their mind as they face almost certain death during combat.

Mainly the reason why this works so well in the movie is because of Bradley Cooper’s standout performance. Cooper gained nearly 40 pounds of extra weight and muscle in order to play the physically imposing Chris Kyle, and the transformation is remarkable, especially when you compare the two side by side. Cooper was attached to this film at a very early state in production, even before Chris Kyle’s untimely death, which probably gave him a very deep insight into the mind of his character. You can see the hard work he put into the role throughout, not only in trying to look like him, but also getting his mannerisms and Texas drawl down perfectly. Even with the imitation perfected, Cooper still needed to make the character come alive and compel us throughout the entire movie, and he accomplishes that spectacularly well. His performance is actually at its best in the quieter moments, where he’s called upon to drop the swagger and show the inner turmoil under the surface. I especially like the way he shows Chris Kyle’s reserved isolation, as he tries his hardest not to show weakness in front of others, even though it’s taking it’s toll on his mental well-being. Sienna Miller also proves to be surprisingly effective in her role as Taya Kyle. She matches Cooper’s subtlty quite well in a part that could have easily been lost in lesser hands. She also hides her natural British accent very well and makes Taya just as much of a force in the story as Chris Kyle, acting as his anchor to reality. Eastwood’s always been good at getting subtle and effective performances out of his actors, and this movie continues that strong trend.

The movie is visually a very strong one as well. It’s remarkable that at the age of 84, Clint Eastwood is still making movies with this kind of scale and complexity. The battle scenes in particular are all really well staged, and show a side of the director that we haven’t seen before. War movies are nothing new to Clint Eastwood; he acted in quite a few (1970’s Kelly’s Heroes for example) and directed a couple as well (his Iwo Jima duo). But his direction here is far less about the bigger picture and much more intimate, putting us right in the middle of the action from Chris Kyle’s point of view. It gives the movie a much more visceral feel, much like how Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker (2009) got us up close to wartime combat. But, even still, this does feel like a Clint Eastwood movie, with the muted color palette and the workman-like approach to framing the shots. It’s distinctively his style, but it’s also neat to see the Hollywood legend flex his cinematic muscles a bit more in order to do what’s right for the scene. One particularly memorable set piece is a spectacular shootout in the middle of a sand storm, which is grandiose in all the right ways, but never distracts with anything too over the top. And again, this is a Octogenarian filmmaker coming up with this grand vision, showing that good filmmakers always stay strong even into their twilight years. Eastwood also makes good on the subtext behind the movie, showing the cost of war, without ever getting preachy or too one-sided. Given strong support from a production crew that he has collaborated with for many years now, all delivering some of their best work to date, American Sniper definitely stands well amongst Eastwood’s whole body of work.

I’m sure this will be one of the most hotly debated movies of this upcoming Awards season, as well it should be. Some may not like it’s politics, while others may view it to be much more complex than they first realized. I for one found it to be a very rewarding cinematic experience. Is it Clint Eastwood’s best movie? Probably not. I would have liked there to have been more time devoted to showing Chris Kyle’s pre and post-war lives, especially with regard to his work helping wounded veterans after he returned home; something that actually led up to his untimely death, as he was gunned down by a mentally disturbed veteran he was trying to help. That part of the movie felt rushed in the end, but it’s not something that spoils the rest of the story. It’s still a captivating experience and without a doubt the best biopic that Eastwood has ever directed. I am happy that the movie has already begun to get some Award season recognition, especially for Bradley Cooper’s transformative performance. It may not be the victor in the end, but it is neat to see that Hollywood still is able to honor challenging films like this with a nomination. If this movie had come out earlier, it may have ended up on my list for the best films of last year, but since it’s out now in wide release in early January, it’ll probably be the best option available to you right now at your local multiplex. It works as both an effective documentation of modern wartime combat, and as a multilayered character study, and is well worth exploring if you’re already a fan of Clint Eastwood’s work. And probably most effectively, it puts the spotlight on a group of individuals that should never be ignored, that being the soldiers returning home from war both emotionally and physically scarred. Even with an unconventional subject at its center like Chris Kyle, the message at the center of American Sniper will still ring true for all audiences.

Rating: 8.5/10

Editorials

Epic Length – When is a Movie Too Long or Too Short?

January 11, 2015 James Humphreys

With the market changing rapidly and Video on Demand becoming a new, profitable venue for film distribution, many have to wonder if there is any reason to go to the movie theater anymore. The way that Hollywood answers that question is to make movies that are more than just an afternoon diversion and instead turn them into all out events. It’s the reason why we still see movie productions with massive budgets nowadays, because the studios need their tent-poles in order to draw in the big crowds. While there are many standout epic productions made every year, very few of them live up to their potential, and in turn that has led to a lot of concerns about whether the studio system can sustain the rising costs of making “big” movies year after year. For most films, a substantial budget can certainly help, especially if there is a visionary director keeping things under control on the set, but sometimes it doesn’t matter how much the movie costs. Sometimes its the presentation that matters the most. The one thing that makes or breaks an epic film is how well it is paced and structured in the end. All the visual pastiche put on the screen won’t matter if there is no momentum to the story, or even if there’s too much. Epic scale is only effective if it is given the right amount of purpose behind it. Sometimes, if the story is able to support it, an epic movie can hold our attention for a very extended period of time, but if the foundation is flimsy, epic length can end up working against the film too. And in order to be profitable, movies of epic size have to be available for multiple screenings as well, so time restrictions can put pressure on a film’s production, and that may also end up compromising the movie’s overall effectiveness. There are many factors that may influence a film’s run-time, but in the end, you either end up with a small story that can feel enormous or a big story that can feel small, and how well that works in the movies favor is based solely on how well the filmmakers have used the time given to them.

When film-making first started to become a popular art-form, it was usually limited to simple productions that would run for a single reel at most (which is roughly 20 minutes of run-time). No one in the turn-of-the-20th Century thought to take cinematic storytelling into a longer format, because in that time, cinema was just seen as a sideshow act meant to entertain passers-bys with short, amusing vignettes of life. It wasn’t until the emergence of D.W. Griffith that we began to see the beginnings of feature length story-telling. And not only would Griffith show the world that you could tell a screen story in a lengthier format, but he would do so with what is widely considered the first Hollywood blockbuster; the epic scaled and controversial The Birth of a Nation (1915). Nation dwarfed every film that came before it, running at a staggering 3 hours in length. And yet, by pioneering the use of inter-cutting between multiple stories and defining the look of epic scale staging (particularly in the battle scenes), Griffith’s picture was able to sustain audience interest over that incredible length of time, and it’s influence is still felt today. Unfortunately, the film’s racist message mars it’s reception today, and it should be rightfully condemned, despite it’s importance. Griffith’s even more ambitious follow-up Intolerance (1916) continued to redefine the rules of cinema, cross-cutting between four different time periods connected by a common theme, and it still captivated audiences for over 3 hours of run-time. But, as Hollywood would define itself in the years after, film-making became more standardized, and studios imposed more restrictions on the length of their movies, choosing nice compact 90 minute crowd-pleasers, over the grandness of a Griffith epic.

In the peak years during the studio system, epic length became more specialized to certain productions. In those years, a big movie had to be an event, so as to stand out from the regular matinee fare. Producer David O. Selznick accomplished what he believed to be the epic to end all epics with his grand scale production of Margaret Mitchell’s epic novel, Gone With the Wind, making a movie that defined the genre as a whole. At nearly four hours in length, it is remarkable to see how well Gone With the Wind is able to sustain it’s size and scale. It never once looses audience interest, and that’s largely due to assured film-making that never wastes a single moment. For years afterwards, Wind would be the gold standard for all Hollywood epics, and it wasn’t until the mid 50’s that we would see another film that came close to it’s epic length. With the advent of television, Hollywood began to relax it’s tight restrictions on film length. A new practice began to emerge in these years, taking a cue from Selznick’s presentation of Gone With the Wind, which was called the Roadshow feature. This was a special kind of theater engagement where a film was presented much like a stage production would be; with specially written programs given out to audience members, and the movie would begin with an orchestrated Overture, as well as having an Intermission halfway through. The inclusion of an intermission was especially helpful for movies at this time, because it helped to justify the longer run-times of epic length movies, making the 50’s and 60’s a Golden Era for the 3 hour epic. In this period, we saw many of the best examples of epic length productions, like Ben-Hur (1959, 211 minutes), Spartacus (1960, 195 minutes), and Lawrence of Arabia (1962, 217 minutes); all unbound by time constraints and were all considered more than just a movie.

But, once the era of the Hollywood epic came to a close, mainly due to a rise in more intimate and smaller scale films from the New Hollywood of the 70’s, epic length became more about what was called for in the story. Epics still existed, but they were more exclusive and dictated more by what kind of story the filmmaker wanted to tell. Sometimes this would lead to some of the most unexpected of epics, including ones that took up a very short amount of screen-time. Robert Altman, for example, managed to redefine the meaning of epic by creating movies both large and small, but still always grand in ambition. Sometimes he could accomplish this with a modest sized film like M.A.S.H. (1970, 116 minutes) or a epic scale one like Nashville (1975, 160 minutes), both of which feel both big and intimate, largely due to out-sized performances by his large cast of actors. Francis Ford Coppola on the other hand, made some the eras grandest cinematic achievements, each with epic lengths to match that ambition like The Godfather (1972, 177 minutes) and Apocalypse Now (1979, 153 minutes), and yet he still managed to do so with the more intimate film techniques of that era. New Hollywood epics would largely come to define the rules of epic film-making that we still see in practice today, especially with the rise of the blockbuster film in this period. This included the end of the Roadshow presentation and the beginning of epic scale action flicks that could give the audiences the size and scope they wanted in only a fraction of the time. And in this blockbuster era, we see more and more examples of how a movies length can impact the effectiveness of it’s story.

The odd byproduct of the blockbuster era is that now we are seeing movies that never would have been given a large amount of screen-time in the past, but are now bloated up to epic size and length, mainly so that they can fulfill the expectations of a tent-pole release. Sometimes this can be a blessing for a film, but that’s only if the filmmakers use their time well. Other times, we end up with movies that run about 2 1/2 hours, but only feature about 90 minutes worth of story. Excess is a big problem with epic movies today, which comes from the mistaken belief that bigger always means better. Sometimes it ends up making what could have been a good film into an underwhelming one, because if the story doesn’t engage the audience all the way through, all the unnecessary action is just going to feel tedious. That’s often a case of adapting something from one medium to another. If you have a lot of story to tell, like with Gone With the Wind, than you’ll find it easier to fill every moment of your movie with interesting material. But, if you’re expanding beyond what’s already there, then you run the risk of wasting people’s time with things and ideas that don’t matter in the long run. There’s a reason why How the Grinch Stole Christmas works so much better at 30 minutes than at 2 hours in length. A movie’s length must consider what works best for the momentum of the story. Sometimes just using the essentials is the best method. But, if the director has enough good ideas and can execute them well enough over a lengthier period of time, then the opposite can also be true. This is primarily what separates the Christopher Nolans from the Michael Bays.

There are rare exceptions for movies that actually fall victim to the opposite idea, however. Sometimes we see too much story told in too short of a film. This is usually a problem found in most animated movies, which is a genre that strangely still is restricted by studio imposed time constraints. Now, there are many animated movies over the years that have managed to tell grand scale stories in a remarkably short amount of time and succeeded; 1959’s Sleeping Beauty for example tells a very epic scale story, but manages to pack it all into a very tightly paced 75 minutes. 1942’s Bambi even managed to tell a multi-generational story in just little over an hour. But, given the more sophisticated tools we have nowadays in animation, there should be fewer limits to the run-times of an animated movie. Sadly most studios like Disney and Dreamworks are still insistent on staying at or under the 90 minute mark. Now, if you’re movie is something modest like Lilo and Stitch (2002), than 90 minutes is plenty of time to tell a story. But when you try to make a movie that introduces a complex world with a cast of a dozen or so characters, like 1985’s The Black Cauldron or 2001’s Atlantis: The Lost Empire, than 90 minutes is nowhere near enough time to build momentum for your story. Atlantis in particular is probably one of the most clear examples of a movie stifled by an unforgiving time limit. It never gives us enough time to absorb the world that it’s trying to create nor does it give enough time for us to gain sympathy for the characters. The argument can be made here that if you’re going to make an epic than you should make an epic. Going halfway only makes the end product feel hollow and uninteresting. Pixar Animation thankfully bucked the trend by making animated movies that didn’t restrict themselves with time limits. The Incredibles (2004) ran at a solid 115 minutes, and never once lagged, showing that animation can indeed work in a longer format. It all shows that too little time can also work against a story’s pace, and that a film’s length must again factor in what’s best for the overall picture.

Hollywood, not one to miss opportunities, has found a way to please all sides whenever a film’s length comes into question. When a movie makes it to home video, we will oftentimes see multiple cuts made available for purchase, enabling the consumer to decide how much they want to see of a particular film. Sometimes it’s a decision made in collaboration with the director; Peter Jackson, in particular, has made longer cuts of his already lengthy Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies available on DVD and Blu-ray, some of which audiences prefer to the original theatrical cuts. And then there are extended cuts of the movies that are made available after the original versions left their creators unsatisfied with the results. These are usually called the Director’s Cut, which sometimes is a lengthier version of the film that includes scenes that the director wanted but had to cut due to time restrictions by the studio. Sometimes a director’s cut can drastically alter the experience, like with Ridley Scott’s 2005 epic, Kingdom of Heaven, which is vastly improved in it’s longer 3 hour version. Other times, a director’s cut changes nothing, like Oliver Stone’s multiple attempts to fix his 2004 epic Alexander, or Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now Redux, which showed that a shorter version left a better impact. Ridley Scott in particular has often had the most interesting experience with Director’s Cuts, since both Kingdom of Heaven and his beloved 1982 classic Blade Runner are so drastically altered in their extended cuts. Whether it adds a little, or a lot, or even subtracts from the original theatrical release, Director’s Cuts are an interesting example of how the usage of time can change the perception of a movie. It all depends on how strong the vision is behind the story, and whether or not time restrictions benefits the overall product or detracts from it.

Overall, we’ve seen many movies over the years that either felt too long or too short for their own good. Some audiences out there prefer movies that are quick and easy to watch, not wanting to have their whole day taken up watching just one movie. I personally don’t mind a film’s length if it runs over three hours or more. It all just depends on how well those three hours are used. My two favorite movies in fact are both over three hours long, in fact; David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia (217 minutes) and Akira Kurosawa’s 1954 classic Seven Samurai (208 minutes). Both are perfect examples of epic storytelling, not once wasting a single moment of screen-time on needless filler. Watching these two movies in particular makes me wish that more Hollywood movies would display more control over the content they put into their lengthier movies. When I think about movies that wasted their time, I usually think about bloated films like the 150 minute The Lone Ranger (2013) or any of the Transformers movies. Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) itself ran for 165 minutes, and yet I can’t even remember anything important that happened in the plot for all that running time. Other epic films also run the risk of bloating themselves up with self-aggrandizing character monologues, which unfortunately have become a cliche of the genre. Sometimes it works, like the pre-battle speeches in the 200 minute long The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), while other times it comes off flat like with Brad Pitt trying to sound inspirational in 163 minute Troy (2004). When it all comes down to it, it’s all about the pacing, and whether or not you’ve used the time you have effectively. Movies can feel big, even at a shorter length. But, if you’ve got enough story behind it, a longer length can prove to be better. A great movie can come in any shape or size, but a truly epic sized one really does become something special in the end, and proves why it is indeed a great experience watching a movie on the big screen.

Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Movies of 2014

January 4, 2015 James Humphreys

The past year has come and gone and we can now look back on the cinematic highs and lows of 2014. At a glance, 2014 proved to be a rather quiet year for Hollywood. There weren’t any mega hits this year (with one or two exceptions), but at the same time there weren’t any massive bombs either. Sure some movies disappointed (Exodus, Sin City, Godzilla), but at the same time, we didn’t see any flops on the level of last year’s The Lone Ranger, or 2012’s Battleship. 2014 actually represented a lot of trends being broken, best represented by a stronger than usual Spring season. Movies like The Lego Movie and Darren Aronofsky’s Noah proved that you could release a commercially viable film in the early part of the year and still be remembered by year’s end. Not only that, but the summer season also proved to be uncharacteristically strong. Sure, none of this summer’s many tent-poles were record-breaking at the box office, but a surprisingly high number of them won critical praise and have remained popular all the way up to the end of the year, appearing on many critics top ten list (including mine as you will see). Couple this with a remarkably underwhelming Oscar season in the fall, and you can see why 2014 became such an unusual year. Though, as unpredictable as it may have been, Hollywood should still feel confident that all the studios had a good if not spectacular year (unless you’re Sony Pictures, for which you’re probably wishing 2014 never happened). But, to show you how I observed the previous year in movies, it’s best that I share my picks for the overall 10 best of 2014, as well as the 5 worst. Keep in mind, even though I saw over 50-plus films this year, there were some that eluded me towards the finale. Unfortunately that includes some highly anticipated titles like American Sniper, Wild, and Selma. For this list, I’m strictly limiting it to the ones I saw in this calendar year.

Before I start my list, here are the movies that nearly made it, but had to be left off. They are, in no particular order, Boyhood, Calvary, John Wick, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Interstellar, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Fury, 22 Jump Street, Jersey Boys, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Noah, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Nightcrawler, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and The Interview. Now, lest’s get to the all important Top 10.

10.

THE IMITATION GAME

Directed by Morten Tyldum

Prestige pictures are pretty much a staple of this end of the year cycle at the movies. Films that try so hard to pluck at the heartstrings of the audience in order to appeal for the coveted Oscar gold. Most of these kinds of movies usually are so superficial that the attempt to garner an Oscar win often backfires. But every now and then, one movie ends up working the formula in it’s favor and actually achieves it’s goal. The Imitation Game is that kind of movie. Much like a similarly Oscar bait-y movie that succeeded years back, 2010’s The King’s Speech, this movie is elevated by two things: a sharp and witty screenplay and a standout performance by it’s lead. The Imitation Game manages to avoid the trap of trying to play things too sentimental, and actually keeps focus where it needs to be. The movie expertly displays the impact that mathematical genius Alan Turing made in ending WWII by deciphering the “unbreakable” Enigma code, and how his engineering skills led to the advancements we see today in modern computers. It also shows the disgraceful way that post-war society destroyed the man purely because of his homosexuality. But at the same time, the movie doesn’t turn Turing into a martyr, which greatly helps to make him a far more interesting and complex character, which star Benedict Cumberbatch brilliantly captures in a very nuanced performance. Sure, The Imitation Game may seem old-fashioned and formulaic, but sometimes following the recipe still yields a satisfying meal.

LOCKE

Directed by Steven Knight

This was one of 2014’s most interesting and unique cinematic experiments. This film centers around a Welsh construction foreman named Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) who spends the night driving from Manchester, England to central London, where he is going to witness the birth of a child he had with a mistress. On the way there, he has to keep all the other issues in his life under control, including the final preparations for an important construction phase in the morning as well as confessing the truth of his infidelity to his family. What makes this movie so remarkable is that the entirety of the film is played out inside of Ivan Locke’s car while he drives, with Tom Hardy being the only onscreen presence for the entire 85 minute run-time. All of Hardy’s co-stars are merely disembodied voices heard over the phone line during the character’s long drive. It may seem like a tedious experiment on paper, but thanks to Tom Hardy’s restrained and natural performance, you become completely engrossed into Locke’s harrowing night. It’s an amazing exercise in restraint and working within boundaries in order to create a true cinematic oddity. Tom Hardy proves once again with this picture that he’s an actor who can just disappear into a role and command a presence as just about anyone, even in something as intimate as this. Who knew that watching someone drive and take phone calls for an hour and a half could make for captivating cinema? It’s proof that are still some fresh ideas in cinematic experimentation out there.

GONE GIRL

Directed by David Fincher

I already talked a lot about this film in my review, but it’s worth restating just how much of an impact a director like David Fincher leaves on cinema in general. In less capable hands, Gone Girl could have turned into a soapy, ham-fisted murder mystery that we’ve seen done a million times already. What Fincher manages to do, however is to really delve into the larger themes that author Gillain Flynn intended to address in her best-selling novel, which is the tabloidization of news media, the competitiveness between genders, and really the darker side of human nature itself. With all the many twists and turns that this story takes, it’s clear to see why Fincher chose to tackle this rather unconventional story. There’s so much going on under the surface, and unraveling every thread is part of the fun of watching this movie. It also marks a career best performance from actor Ben Affleck, who perfectly captures the complex nature of a very flawed individual. However, his role is overshadowed even more by a breakthrough performance by actress Rosamund Pike as the titular missing person. This is one of the most talked about and widely debated movies of the year, and with good reason. With this film, David Fincher once again proves why he is one of the great artists and storytellers working in cinema today. Only he could have managed to get a great performance out of Tyler Perry for one thing. And if that’s not the mark of a master director, than I don’t know what is.

EDGE OF TOMORROW

Directed by Doug Liman

Proff positive that I’m not the greatest forecaster when it comes to movies. I highlighted this film as one of my “Movies to Skip” in my Movies of 2014 preview, based on what I saw as a really unremarkable and lousy ad campaign. But, once I saw the actual movie, my whole perception changed and I’m just as surprised as anyone to see it here on my top ten list. Essentially, I believe the pitch for this movie may have been ” could we take Groundhog’s Day and turn it into an action movie?” Well they did, and it is awesome. Director Doug Liman actually makes the outlandish premise behind this movie, about a military officer (Tom Cruise) forced to repeat the same losing battle in a war with an alien race hundreds of times until he finally succeeds, work remarkably well and with surprising creative finesse. Cruise once again proves that he can carry an action thriller with a charismatic but never false performance. Emily Blunt steals the film, however, playing the ultimate warrior in this seemingly un-winnable battle. Her chemistry with Cruise helps to elevate this story above most other action thrillers and it’s their combined energy that you’ll remember long after the movie is over. Also, the film is just a refreshing departure from most action fare, letting the gimmick of the movie flow naturally within the story, as opposed to overwhelming it. It’s just unfortunate that the movie was saddled with such a poor marketing campaign. It’s a movie that deserves a whole lot more and will hopefully get the recognition it’s due in the years ahead.

THE LEGO MOVIE

Directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller

A movie that came out so long ago, that you’d think it belonged on last year’s top ten. But, that just goes to show just how memorable this movie was in 2014. Directors Lord and Miller have proven themselves to be one of the best pairs of humorist in today’s media. Along with their live action effort, 22 Jump Street, they’ve achieved remarkable success making movies that should never have worked in the first place turn into bona fide classics. I’m sure that when most people learned there was going to be something called The Lego Movie, their first thought was that it was going to be nothing more than a self-aggrandizing 90 minute commercial for the LEGO company. Thankfully, what we got instead was an animated comedy that not only pleased audiences of all ages, but was also insightful and heart-wrenching as well. I loved what the movie had to say about creativity and how it defines us as individuals, and how society as a whole functions on everyone’s own creative contributions. I’m also sure many people were surprised by the fact something like The Lego Movie could even make them cry. But overall, it also proved to be the most consistently imaginative and hilarious movie of the year. Beautifully animated and filled with a cast of delightful characters from all corners of pop culture, The Lego Movie was much more than a commercial. It was a celebration of imagination, embodied perfectly on the shared experiences that we have had through different generations of playing with LEGO’s. And the movie also gave Batman a song, which was spectacular. Everything is awesome in this animated gem.

SNOWPIERCER

Directed by Bong Joon-Ho

In my list from last year, I named Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium as my worst movie of 2013. This was mainly due to the lack of originality in it’s presentation and the unsubtle and ham-fisted way that it delivered it’s social commentary. Korean director Bong Joon-Ho tackles similar themes in his action film Snowpiercer, but delivers it so much more effectively. Like Elysium, the story takes place in a not-too-distant future where mankind is forced to adapt to a changing and unforgiving world. But, instead of overpopulation, the scourge on the planet is climate change, and Earth has become unlivable for mankind after a deep freeze has covered the planet. The only survivors exist on a perpetually running train that circumnavigates the planet, and tensions over the years have risen due to the gap between the “haves” at the front of the train, and the “have nots” in the back of the train. Joon-Ho’s film clearly has a Socialistic bent to it, but’s it still is engaging to watch even if you don’t share it’s worldview. The characters are all complex in the right way, with the heroes not being entirely pure and trustworthy, and the villains not entirely evil. Joon-Ho works with an English-language cast for the first time here and he gets some truly outstanding performances out of stars like Chris Evans, John Hurt, and Tilda Swinton. Also, the production design of this movie is amazing, giving character to each new section of the train that we visit, leading us on a great journey as the characters make their way to the engine room. It’s proof that you can make social commentary work in science fiction again, and also make it transcend beyond it’s message.

INHERENT VICE

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

The always unpredictable P.T. Anderson delivers yet another quirky entry into his already impressive filmography. I should note that if you’re expecting something more dramatic and meditational like his last two films, 2012’s The Master and 2007’s There Will Be Blood, then you might come away from this movie disappointed. Inherent Vice marks a return to the quirkier side of Anderson’s style, probably best featured in his earlier dark comedy classic, 1997’s Boogie Nights. And it’s a return that I greatly welcome. Truth be told, I haven’t read the Thomas Pynchon novel that this movie was based on, but Anderson’s presentation leads me to believe that it’s a fairly faithful adaptation. Set in Los Angeles during the waning days of the counter-culture movement of the 60’s and 70’s, the movie follows the adventures of private detective Larry “Doc” Sportello (a stellar Joaquin Phoenix) as he tries to unravel the mysterious disappearance of a Southland real estate tycoon and how that connects with a shadowy organization called the Golden Fang. The plot meanders deliberately and doesn’t really resolve in the end, but that’s not really what P.T. Anderson intended for the film. This, more than any other movie on this list, is more about the journey than the destination, and I credit Anderson for making the journey a whole lot of fun. The overall vibe of the film is like a mixture of Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974) and the Coen Brothers’ The Big Lebowski (1998), and it includes the best of both worlds in that regard. It’s not a movie for everyone, but it certainly hit all the right notes for me and was an easy pick as one of the year’s best.

WHIPLASH

Directed by Damien Chazelle

Who knew that attending music school could be such a harrowing experience? This little indie surprise may not seem like much on the surface, but after seeing it, Whiplash proved to be one of the most intense movie experiences of the year. It follows the tumultuous story of aspiring drummer Andrew Nieman (Miles Teller) as he begins his training at the best music school in the country. His confidence is soon tested once he runs into the ruthless Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), who pushes his pupils to the brink of insanity in the pursuit of absolute perfection. Over the course of the movie, we see Andrew push himself harder than he is physically possible in order to win the approval of a truly heartless individual, even to the point of drumming until his fingers are bleeding. It’s a movie that is going to take you for a ride in the most unexpected ways and it absolutely took me by surprise when I first saw it. Miles Teller certainly cements his status as a rising star with his memorable turn here. But the movie mostly belongs to veteran character actor J.K. Simmons, who delivers the performance of a lifetime as the ruthless Fletcher; a terrifying presence so intense, that he makes R. Lee Ermy’s drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket (1987) seem humble by comparison. Simmons will almost certainly be in the running for the supporting actor Oscar this year, if not already standing as the clear front-runner. Overall, the experience of this movie is something you have to enjoy for yourself. It perfectly encapsulates the lengths some of us will go to become the best at something, even if it means compromising our own well-being in the process.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

Directed by James Gunn

The year’s big breakout hit, and it’s easy to see why. This is a movie that just has it all; humor, action, amazing characters, and the promise of greater things to come. What makes Guardians so remarkable however is that it comes from an unlikely source. The Marvel Comics it’s based on has a fan-base, but nowhere near as large as some of Marvel’s other titles. And yet, with an assured adaptation by director James Gunn, Guardians went from a C-grade comic brand into an A-lister overnight. It’s amazing to see how well this movie connected with audiences, and for the most part, I believe that it’s largely because of how well they brought the cast of characters to life in this movie. Star Lord charmed us, Gamora amazed us, Drax intimidated us, Rocket Raccoon made us all laugh, and Groot, well Groot just warmed our hearts. Overall, this movie had the best character dynamics of the year, even letting minor characters like Yondu and The Collector shine through as integral parts of the story. Overall, this movie just shows us how successful Marvel Studios has become at bringing their titles to the big screen, and Guardians may just be their crowning achievement; so far anyway. I would actually say that it’s the first space based adventure in a long time to actually capture some of the same magic that Star Wars did many years ago. Amazingly, Marvel has managed to create a viable franchise that can stand well on it’s own, even set apart from the larger cinematic universe, although I am excited to see how these characters will fit within the grander scheme of things. It’s the first time in a long while where the highest domestic gross of the year actually belonged to a movie that deserved it. The classic rock based soundtrack was also delightful byproduct of the film as well. I honestly can’t wait until the next adventure we get to have with this eccentric family of oddball characters.

Which leads us to…

BIRDMAN

Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Top honors belong to what is truly the most original and captivating cinematic experience that I had all year. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s career has largely been defined by dark, socially-conscious dramas, but Birdman marks a big departure for him because it’s his first full-on comedy, albeit a very dark one. I’ve already gushed about the remarkable cinematography, and it’s reliance on long unbroken takes, but there’s also a lot more to this movie that makes it a standout film. Michael Keaton delivers a career best performance as a down-and-out actor trying to make a comeback after years away from the spotlight and being synonymous with playing a big screen superhero; a somewhat auto-biographical role for the man who once donned the cape and cowl as Batman. There are also brilliant supporting performances from other heavyweights like Edward Norton, Naomi Watts and Emma Stone, all performing at their highest levels. The Broadway setting also is used remarkably well, making you want to leave and visit the city of New York in a heartbeat. But, with all the style and performances on display, Birdman stands out as 2014’s best film purely because there is nothing else that quite matches it. It takes the medium of film to places that we haven’t seen it go before, and that’s quite an impressive feat for something that was done on a relatively modest budget. Innaritu’s film also marks yet another outstanding entry from a Mexico-bred filmmaker. This along with Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim and Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (which was my #1 from last year) shows that these “three amigos” went 3 for 3 in this cinematic round, and hopefully the trio continues their hot streak in the years ahead. With groundbreaking cinematography, career-defining performances, and an almost dream-like flow to the narrative, Birdman is easily the best experience that I had at the movies this year.

So, with my choices for the best of 2014 laid out now, it’s now time to share my picks for the 5 worst movies of the year. These may not be the worst movies of all time (although one comes very close), but when compared with the rest of the year’s entries, these stood out as the movies that angered me the most, and represented the worst aspects of the film industry. So, let’s start counting down.

5. MALEFICENT

Despite a surprisingly strong performance by Angelina Jolie, this movie takes a legendary fairy tale and it’s classic adaptation by Disney, and deconstructs it into an insulting piece of fan fiction. It glorifies one iconic character to the detriment of the rest of the story, and it only makes you wish you were watching the original animated film instead. It’s strange to see a fairy tale feel so lacking in magic.

4. TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION

This one’s pretty obvious. What was promised as a revitalized reboot of the mega-hit franchise only proved to be more of the same. Once again, the Transformers are sidelined for most of the movie, with director Michael Bay filling the bloated 2 1/2 hour run-time with needless banter between the uninteresting human characters. Even removing Shia LeBeouf from the equation and replacing him with the more charismatic Mark Wahlberg did nothing to help. And the sad thing is, because of the international success of the movie, there’s still more over the horizon for this franchise.

3. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

Where The Imitation Game was a formulaic, Oscar-bait movie that actually succeeded, The Theory of Everything is an example of the exact opposite. Based on the life of genius astrophysicist Dr. Stephen Hawking, Theory unfortunately devolves into melodramatic tripe that teaches us nothing about Hawking’s impact on the world of science and instead focuses way too much on his disability brought on by Lou Gehrig’s disease. But probably most insulting are the obvious “Oscar moments” in the movie, and the fact that Hawking’s story gets overshadowed by that of his long suffering wife. Dr. Hawking deserves so much better than this pandering piece of garbage.

2. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2

One of Sony’s many headaches this year, Amazing Spiderman 2 marks a franchise low for the once mighty box office draw. With a ludicrous story-line and too many characters needlessly stuffed together with no real purpose (seriously, why did the Rhino need to be in this movie at all), this was effectively the Spiderman equivalent of Batman and Robin. Plans for future expansion of this franchise have been put on hold after the movie’s mediocre performance, and rumors suggest that Sony may indeed give the character back to Marvel Studios, which is where he belongs. This movie was a studio mandated mess and hopefully it marks the end of Sony’s run with the character.

And the absolute worst movie of 2014 is…

1. KIRK CAMERON’S SAVING CHRISTMAS

Shocking right? I mean it’s only the worst movie of all time according to IMDb’s Bottom 100. But, if there was ever a movie more deserving of that distinction, it’s this un-watchable film. I had to see it through a bootleg copy, because one I didn’t want to give Kirk Cameron any of my money, and two I needed to see just how bad it was. And boy is it bad. The movie seems to exist purely for Kirk Cameron to pontificate his already warped world view (which by the way doesn’t represent Christianity authentically in any way) and more shamefully, he tries to wrap his own beliefs into every Christmas tradition possible. Calling this a movie even does a disservice to cinema in general. It’s a propaganda piece and nothing more. The worst Christmas movie of all time, and easily the worst of 2014.

So, this is my breakdown of the year 2014 at the movies. It was quiet for the most part, but not one that put Hollywood in the red either. I’m certainly happy that so many big summer tent-poles actually delivered this year, showing that Hollywood is filling a demand for quality entertainment on a bigger scale and doing it better than in years past. The year ahead hopes to continue that trend further. What I find most interesting about 2015 is how the upcoming releases are mostly returns to old school franchises (particularly ones from the 80’s). We’re getting a new Terminator, another Mad Max, as well as a return to Jurassic World. Also ahead are not one but two films from animation power house Pixar (Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur) as well as the conclusion of Marvel Studios’ Phase 2 with Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man. 007 also makes his big return in Spectre. There are also big new films from high profile filmmakers like Robert Zemekis (The Walk), Quentin Tarantino (The Hateful Eight), Guillermo del Toro (Crimson Peak), and Brad Bird (Tomorrowland). And of course, probably the most anticipated new film of 2015 is the return to that galaxy far, far away with J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Overall, 2015 looks to be a spectacular year with many highly anticipated new films from some of Hollywood’s best talent. And I will most certainly do my best to keep up with it all and continue to share my thoughts with you over the following year.

CINERAMBLE

All posts by James Humphreys

Top Ten Favorite Epic Musical Themes

Tinseltown Throwdown – Pacific Rim vs. Transformers

The 2015 Oscars – Picks and Thoughts

Evolution of Character – Romeo & Juliet

The Bigger Screen – Game of Thrones in IMAX and Cinematic TV Coming of Age

Hot Buttons – Controversial Movies and Whether or Not to Watch Them

Focus on a Franchise – Die Hard

American Sniper – Review

Epic Length – When is a Movie Too Long or Too Short?

Top Ten Movies of 2014

This is….