All posts by James Humphreys

The Wolf of Wall Street – Review

December 28, 2013 James Humphreys

Martin Scorsese has rightfully positioned himself as one of the definitive film directors of this or any era, and it’s not hard to see why. Movies like Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980), and Goodfellas (1990) are considered masterpieces to audiences and critics alike. But what I like about Scorsese the most is his enthusiasm for the art of film-making as a whole. Over the years, he has strongly supported the efforts of film preservation and has shepherded the careers of rising stars in the cinematic community, as well as being a strong defender of creative freedom for all filmmakers. And while he has done a lot for the film community at large, I still am happy to see him take chances with his own projects. Scorsese may have branded himself early by making gritty crime thrillers like Goodfellas, but his filmography shows that he’s capable of making a mark in other genres as well; such as biblical epics like The Last Temptation of Christ (1986), or historical biopics like The Aviator (2004), or even a family friendly film like 2011’s Hugo. That’s why I respect Scorsese so much as a director, because he refuses to rest on his laurels and churn out the same kind of movie over and over again. At the same time, while his films may be diverse, you can still see a distinctive style that’s trademark Scorsese in each one of them, and that’s something that you will find in abundance in his newest film, The Wolf of Wall Street.

Wolf of Wall Street arrives in theaters this week with a whopping 179 minute run-time, the longest film in Scorsese’s career. That may be off-putting for some people who dislike watching anything over 2 hours long in a movie theater, but believe me, this is not some overblown, contemplative epic yarn. This may very well be the nuttiest and most demented three hour experience I have ever had watching a movie in a theater, and I got to say, I kind of loved it because of that. The film is adapted from the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a Wall Street hot shot who ultimately went to jail for illegal trading, and the movie doesn’t shy away from every deprave moment of this man’s life. To give you a good idea of what I’m talking about, no more than five minutes into the movie, you will see star Leonardo DiCaprio snorting cocaine out of the butt hole of a stripper. That’s the kind of movie that you are in for and it just gets crazier from there. I for one loved just how ridiculous this movie gets and I’m sure that’s what Scorsese intended for this movie as well. We’re supposed to infer a lesson from this film, which is seeing the culture of Wall Street and what kind of sick and twisted people we’ve had in charge of our economy over the last 20-30 years. The best thing that Scorsese does is to not turn this film into a moralistic cautionary tale. Here he’s mocking those who should be mocked and he treats this whole series of events like the circus that it is.

The story begins in the mid-80’s where a fresh out of college Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) starts a career as a stock broker in a bustling Wall Street brokerage firm. While there, he learns the true shady nature of the business from the head broker, played by Matthew McConaughey in a hilarious cameo. When Jordan loses his job after the crash of Black Monday, he starts anew, trading penny stocks in an accounting office which he soon turns into his own brokerage firm in no time. Soon he adds another shady salesman to his team named Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), who also introduces Jordan to the world of heavy drugs. With the combined tenacity of Jordan and his team, they soon create the firm of Stratton Oakmont Inc., which has no meaning other than they needed a name that sounded professional. For the remainder of the film, we see what lies behind the professional exterior of Wall Street and, as portrayed by Scorsese here, it is a place where a fight or an orgy could break out at any minute. We also see the depths that people go to when they have unlimited wealth, which seems to be only limited to the imagination of the people perpetrating them. There’s soon shown a constant stream of hookers, booze, drugs, and even dwarf tossing. And the most outrageous thing is that not a single character in the movie is ashamed of any of this. The only character that has any moral center in the movie is a federal agent played by Kyle Chandler, whose dogged investigation leads to the eventual denouement that these characters are ultimately headed towards.

Scorsese doesn’t shy away from any of the more twisted moments in these people’s lives and I do give him credit for not taking the easy narrative angles that could have been taken in the film’s adaptation. With the help of screenwriter Terrence Winter (Boardwalk Empire), The Wolf of Wall Street gets it’s point across without implanting any obvious moral subtext underneath. The movie is less about who these people are and more about what they are doing, which is what the filmmakers wants us to focus on. Given the rough state of our economy, many of us wonder where it all went wrong and this movie gives us one possible answer. It’s not any one person that brought ruin to the economy, but rather a culture built around doing whatever it takes to become rich, even if it’s illegal. What Scorsese wanted to do with this movie was to strip back the facade of professionalism and class that Wall Street tries to present itself as, and show us that in reality it’s all just one big frat party. And to Scorsese’s credit, he manages to make this showcase entertaining without ever making it feel like it’s exploitation. I’m surprised that of all things that this film would end up being, it ended up a comedy, but upon reflection, how could it be anything else. The only other time Scorsese made a black comedy, it was the very underrated The King of Comedy (1983), and Wolf of Wall Street is very much in that same vein.

One thing that really helps to shape the tone of this film is the performances of the actors, and in particular, Leonardo DiCaprio. This is probably the loosest performance that I have seen from Leo in his entire career, and that helps to make him so memorable in this film. He’s cocky, in-your-face (literally, since the film often has him break the fourth wall and speak directly to the audience) and is constantly reveling in his bad behavior, all of which DiCaprio delivers perfectly. Honestly, it’s hard to believe that this is the same guy who headlined Titanic (1997), because the performances couldn’t be more different. This is one of the most unashamedly, morally depraved characters I have seen at the center of a movie, and it just looks like Leo is having a blast playing him. This is DiCaprio’s fifth collaboration with Scorsese, and I think that it’s been a partnership that has really enriched the careers of both men. Apart from a sleep-inducing performance by DiCaprio in Gangs of New York (2002), he has gotten better through each role in Scorsese’s movies and this is the best one he’s done to date. I love the fact that Leo is willing to take on an un-glamourous role like this which really challenges him as an actor. This is especially helpful when you have to play a character that’s both charming and hate-able at the same time.

The rest of the cast also helps to make the film worthwhile. Jonah Hill manages to create a character that just feels like he was always meant to be in this kind of shady business. His performance could have easily turned into ugly caricature if done wrong, but Jonah finds just that right balance between funny and sleazy, which helps to put him in the same league as DiCaprio. In fact, many of the best scenes in the film are the ones where the two actors are working off of each other. One in particular is an extended fight scene between the two characters after they are both incapacitated from excessive consumption of quaaludes, which leads to some hilarious back and forth exchanges. The remainder of the cast is full of many recognizable faces, all of whom add flavor to the film as a whole. Rob Reiner delivers a nice fiery performance as Jordan’s accountant father, as does Jon Favreau as his legal consultant. The aforementioned McConaughey delivers some great moments in his early scenes. Australian newcomer Margot Robbie is also a standout as Jordan’s disgruntled second wife Naomi, and she manages to leave an impression among all these other heavy hitters. It’s an all around solid supporting cast which Scorsese is famous for assembling in many of his movies.

One thing that you’ll also find apparent in the film is the distinctive Scorsese style. This, probably more than any movie that he’s made since 1995’s Casino, feels like a Scorsese film. Whether it’s the first person narration, the use of period details and music, or the unflinching excess of violence and debauchery on screen, these are things that have come to define the look and feel of a Scorsese movie. The Wolf of Wall Street has all of that and feels very close in tone and style to something like Casino or Goodfellas. Only this time, instead of the mafia, he’s depicting a whole different set of criminals. I’m really impressed with how Scorsese is still able to make movies with this kind of energy and style after so many years. You would swear that a movie like this was made by some fresh maverick director and not a seasoned veteran, but that’s a testament to how daring a filmmaker he is. And the fact that he has made this a three hour long comedy is another sign of how confident he is in his abilities to make a film. For any one who likes the Scorsese style, this movie will surely be a welcome treat.

One thing that I especially like in Scorsese’s movies is the different ways that he plays around with the formats of his film. Apart for the aforementioned breaking of the fourth wall narration in the movie, Scorsese also plays around with cinematic styles. The film actually breaks away from the narrative at points and showcases things like a commercial break for the Stratton Oakmont company that’s depicted in the movie, or showing us a full-length infomercial for Jordan Belfort’s seminar, which ends hilariously with his arrest by the feds while the video camera is still rolling. It’s clever little injections like these that help to make Scorsese’s movies feel alive and visually interesting. I especially like how the commercials themselves just reek of eighties nostalgia. It reminded me of when the movie Casino suddenly introduces the “Aces High” TV show, mainly as a part of the narrative but also to parody shows of that time period in a tongue in cheek way. Also, Scorsese also has a lot of fun with slow motion photography and extended hand-held shots in the movie. It’s a clear sign of someone using all the tricks in the filmmakers handbooks to make their film feel alive through every single moment. This has been a trademark of all of Scorsese’s movies and here he makes the most out of everything he’s learned as a filmmaker.

One thing I will say is that while I enjoyed the film immensely, it certainly is not for everyone. I know many people will be turned off by the 3 hour run-time, but a good many more people will believe that the film is too indulgent as well. Scorsese does run the risk of having this film look like an endorsement for this kind of lifestyle, but that’s only because it’s being told from the first person account of someone who is unashamed of what he has done. I don’t believe that Scorsese’s intent was to ever exploit the excesses of these people’s lives for our entertainment. In the end, he’s asking us to actually look deeper, behind the facade, and see these people for who they really are and not what they say they are. In that regard, I believe that The Wolf of Wall Street is a brilliantly crafted film. It’s visually exciting, brilliantly acted, and it feels right at home with all of Scorsese’s other movies. This film may generally gets a mixed reaction from audiences, and truthfully I don’t blame some of them if they say that they found the whole thing disgusting. It’s a challenging movie to sit through, but in the end, I found it incredibly rewarding. Mostly, I just admire the fact that the film goes to places that you would never expect a 3 hour film to go, and it does it fearlessly and with a great amount of confidence. Of course, what else would you expect from a master filmmaker like Martin Scorsese.

Rating: 9/10

Evolution of Character

Evolution of Character – Ebenezer Scrooge

December 21, 2013 James Humphreys

Hollywood has run into the habit of reusing ideas and stories over and over again, which has led many people to believe that the industry is devoid of original ideas. While some films can feel flat and unoriginal, it is still understandable why Hollywood continues to recycle old properties. And whenever something original does appear in the film market, it will likely spawn it’s own franchise and continue the cycle once again. Many filmmakers often look to works of literature or historical documents for inspiration and they usually make an adaptation of something that has already been attempted by someone else. The most interesting thing about multiple adaptations are the different variants that we do see portrayed in the characters of the story, and how they both define and redefine the stories through the multiple versions. That is why I am starting this new series of articles where I look at characters that have made it to the silver screen multiple times through different interpretations, and examine how well they have stayed true to their roots and/or how they’ve been redefined over time.

Because we are now days away from Christmas, I thought that a worthy candidate to examine in this article would be Mr. Humbug himself, Ebenezer Scrooge. Scrooge, the main protagonist from Charles Dickens’ perrenial classic, A Christmas Carol, has been one of the most widely reused characters in cinema history. It seems like there are hundreds of cinematic versions of A Christmas Carol, all with Scrooge at the forefront, as well as many Christmas themed films that feature some Scrooge-esque character in some fashion. No matter where he turns up, Ebenezer Scrooge has almost become as recognizable a Christmas icon as Santa himself. And it’s not hard to see why. The story of a cynical, uncaring old man who hates Christmas until he is visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve and is shown the true purpose of the holiday is a heartwarming story for anyone to enjoy at this time of year. The narrative is less about the Christmas season, and more about how we treat our fellow man; a lesson that Scrooge is in desperate need of learning. Dickens wrote the story to highlight class inequality in his time, but unlike many of his other stories, Christmas Carol has a more optimistic outlook. It’s Scrooge’s redemption that we find so inspirational and it’s no wonder why so many filmmakers have wanted to tackle this story over the years. I have chosen a few of the more notable adaptations of the character to look at and see how they have come to define the person that is Ebenezer Scrooge.

ALASTAIR SIM from A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1951)

While A Christmas Carol has been adapted many times in cinema before this 1951 British production, this was the one that really left a mark and has gone on to become a universally beloved classic. The film itself is well done and treats the source material with the respect that it deserves, but what makes it particularly memorable is the performance of actor Alastair Sim as Scrooge. Talk about someone making the role all his own. Sim’s performance is exactly what you want to bring old Ebenezer to life. He’s intimidating and cruel during his harsher earlier moments in his office, but vulnerable and sympathetic when he takes his overnight journey with the ghosts. Sim balances out both of these aspects perfectly, and always takes the role seriously. While the acting style may seem old-fashioned to today’s audiences, it still comes across as charming, and is very much a representation of the old, classic Hollywood style. No one can be sure if this is the way Charles Dickens wanted the character to be portrayed (he may have taken issue with some of the softening of the story’s darker themes), but Sim’s performance just feels right. His work in this film has been the measuring stick for every version of Scrooge that has come after, and it’s easy to see why. His version of Scrooge may not be the most interesting, or the most intense, but it is a version that probably defines the essentials of the character most clearly.

ALBERT FINNEY from SCROOGE (1970)

In between the Alastair Sim version of the character and this one, there were very few cinematic adaptations of the story. The only noteworthy adaptation in between was an animated version where Scrooge was played by Mr. Magoo. But in 1970, British filmmaker Ronald Neame took upon a lavish, musical version of Dickens classic story and cast Albert Finney in the iconic role. Now, while the film features some beautiful set pieces and portrays it’s time period very well, the movie still does have a lot of flaws that keeps it from becoming a true classic. One of the problems that I think hurts the film the most is the portrayal of Scrooge himself. Albert Finney is a fine actor, and I don’t fault him for trying here, but his performance just doesn’t feel right for the character. He portrays Scrooge more like a caricature of an old man rather than as fully-fledged human being. In Dickens novel, we come to understand that much of Scrooge’s miserliness has come from a lifetime of hardship and disappointment, which has made him cold and uncaring. Finney just boils that down to a permanent scowl and an aching back in his portrayal. While the film looks nice, it feels hollow and I think that’s the fault of the filmmakers missing the point of the story. You can make the film work with a more light-hearted tone, but it helps more when your main character feels authentic and less cartoony.

SCROOGE MCDUCK from MICKEY’S CHRISTMAS CAROL (1983)

Speaking of cartoons, Disney Animation tackled Dickens story as well with their stable of classic characters filling all the roles. Eternally optimistic Mickey Mouse was naturally cast as eternally optimistic Bob Cratchit; Goofy portrayed Scrooge’s deceased partner Jacob Marley; Jiminy Cricket stepped in as one of the Ghosts, as did Willie the Giant. But, of course the role of Scrooge had to belong to Donald Duck’s wealthy uncle, who naturally was inspired originally by the classic character. Scrooge McDuck was created by artist Carl Barks for the Donald Duck series of comic books in 1947, and surprising it took him this long to make it to the big screen. The long wait proved to be worth it, as Scrooge McDuck fills the role perfectly. Voiced by actor Alan Young, Scrooge is definitely the star of this adaptation and is even able to steal the spotlight away from the likes of Mickey Mouse himself. It’s very likely that for anyone who grew up in the last 30 years (myself included), this was the version of the classic that we first became familiar with. And that’s not a bad thing either. It is a remarkable feat by the Disney company to tell the entire story in only a 25 minute run-time, and still get the essence of the story right. I think that mainly has to do with having a Scrooge at the center that we can care about, which Scrooge McDuck indeed is. His presence here was so effective in fact that McDuck was given his own TV series, Duck Tales, which has made him one of Disney’s more popular characters in recent years.

GEORGE C. SCOTT from A CHRISTMAS CAROL (TV MOVIE) (1984)

George C. Scott is an actor known for his intensity, which he brings to every role of his whether it requires it or not. So, when this made for TV movie cast him in the role, you would think that Scott would have portrayed a very rough around the edges Scrooge. But what is surprising about his performance here is actually his restraint, which as a result is a great benefit for the adaptation as a whole. Like I mentioned before, Scrooge is a man who has gone through a lot of heartbreak and disappointment in order to get where he is, and that’s what has turned him into a miserable person. George C. Scott captures that aspect of the character much better than Albert Finney did, and for that matter, even Alastair Sim. This Scrooge proves to be the deepest and most interesting to date, because the production and the actor portraying him pull back the layers to show the man behind the rough facade. This version of the story focus a lot more on who Scrooge really is and how every moment of his life has shaped he is today, and how that knowledge can help him to change. Again, Scott treats the character with respect and dignity, which makes him all the more fascinating. It’s unusual to find a film made for television that actually has this kind of depth to it, but that’s the result of having a quality performer at it’s center. Scott could have gone over the top, but by showing restraint, he helped to redefine the way we see the character.

BILL MURRAY in SCROOGED (1988)

The great thing about adaptations is that if the story is strong enough in it’s overall themes, you can re-imagine it in any time period or setting that you want, as long as it stays true to the heart of the original intent. With the 1988 comedy Scrooged, we find the classic tale depicted in a contemporary setting, with Ebenezer Scrooge re-imagined as a callous and self-absorbed TV executive named Frank Cross, played by the always brilliant Bill Murray. Murray may not be the crotchety old man that we always associate with Scrooge, but he does perfectly capture the sharp cynicism of the character, in some very hilarious ways. The film, directed by Richard Donner, is surprisingly dark for a comedy, and is definitely not geared towards a family audience like the other films I highlighted. But thanks to Bill Murray’s excellent performance, we still get the essentials of A Christmas Carol here, particularly in the portrayal of Frank Cross’ redemption. The particular highlight of the film is Bill Murray’s long winded monologue at the end, where he interrupts his own adaptation of the classic story, which is being broadcast live on TV, to show the lesson he has learned about the holiday spirit. It’s silly and over-the-top, but man does Murray deliver it well, and the holiday spirit it inspires is infectious. This scene in particular is why the film has become a beloved holiday classic on its own, and it shows that even Scrooges in our present day can still capture the imaginations of their audience.

MICHAEL CAINE from THE MUPPETS CHRISTMAS CAROL (1992)

Charles Dickens meets the Muppets. Not a match that you would ever think would work, and I would be lying if I didn’t say that it doesn’t entirely come together perfectly here. But, The Muppets Christmas Carol does have a lot of charm and actually manages to do a little-hearted take on the source novel that still retains much of the story’s core darkness. And where I think the movie succeeds the most is in the casting of actor Michael Caine in the role of Ebenezer Scrooge. Caine’s performance manages to be as light-hearted as Albert Finney’s, but retains the restraint of George C. Scott performance. And it’s a balance that makes him a perfect fit for this sort of film. I mean c’mon; his co-stars are all Muppets. The fact that he’s able to look at these characters like they were real human beings and make it believable is just a testament to just how good of an actor he is. At the same time, Michael Caine’s performance helps to ground the production as a whole, making the film work as a worthy adaptation of Dickens’ story, for the most part. The film only suffers when it tries to inject some unnecessary modern jokes and gags into the narrative, but these are thankfully very minor. Like with Mickey’s Christmas Carol, this is a version of the story that I’m sure many people were introduced to as kids, and thanks to Caine’s stirring performance, it a version that helps to helps to stay true to the character of Ebenezer Scrooge.

JIM CARREY from A CHRISTMAS CAROL (2009)

The most recent incarnation of the story-line brought Dickens’ classic into the digital age through motion capture technology. Directed by Robert Zemekis, this film looks nice and portrays the classic Dickensian setting on a grand scale, but the motion capture technology used on the characters proves to be problematic. While it is neat to see an actors physical performance translated into a digital character like it does here, it has the unfortunate effect of making the characters look plastic and hollow. There comes a point where the characters reach what is known as the “Uncanny Valley,” where audiences sees something that looks real but they know it’s not, and as a result are repulsed by it. That’s the unfortunate problem with films like this one, but the character that works surprisingly well in this movie is Scrooge himself. It’s probably because he is being played by Jim Carrey, an actor known for his physical comedic styles, and he helps to make the character feel much more alive as a result. Jim Carrey’s performance is a welcome standout in this problematic film and hopefully it will not be forgotten even after people loose interest in the motion capture mode of film-making over time.

As you can see, there are many different ways in which you can bring a character to the big screen through multiple adaptations, and what helps them stand out from one another shows us all the many layers you can add to the same individual. Ebenezer Scrooge is fascinating not just as a Christmas icon, but also as an individual person. We all like stories about redemption, even when it’s aided by something as unlikely as visits from the supernatural, and this has been the appeal behind the story all these years. Even when you do the flipside of the story, like in It’s a Wonderful Life where a good man has to learn about his own value in order to be redeemed on Christmas Eve, we can still see the impact that this classic story has had, even when it’s not readily apparent. Thankfully there have been some great Scrooges brought to the big screen over the years. While I have a special attachment to the Scrooge McDuck version from my childhood, I nevertheless value George C. Scott’s multi-layered portrayal and Alastair Sim’s classic version of the character. And who doesn’t love it when Bill Murray lets loose in his version. Most likely we’ll be seeing old Ebenezer again on the big screen; probably sooner than later. But, for this Christmas season, I’m sure that some of these versions will definitely be on many of your holiday playlists.

Movie Reviews

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug – Review

December 15, 2013 James Humphreys

Who would have ever believed that adapting J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit to the big screen would be a more daunting task than adapting The Lord of the Rings. After all, Rings is grander in scope and breadth, tackling heavier themes and showcasing intricately detailed cultures that exist solely within the world of Middle Earth. The Hobbit by comparison was a simple standalone story geared more towards younger readers. And yet, when director Peter Jackson was tasked with bringing Tolkien’s original classic to life on film, he somehow managed to make this short story into a three part behemoth that amazingly was a more complex production than his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Now, trying to expand a simple 300 page book into a trilogy of nearly three hour long movies was going to be problematic to some, and I acknowledge that there are some hiccups in this translation too, but I still admire Jackson’s attempt to actually make it work. The pressure that Peter Jackson must be under as a filmmaker has to be overwhelming. His adaptation of The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a rare phenomenon in film history. Fantasy films generally never escape their genre confines, and yet Rings somehow found a huge diverse fanbase, and the third film in the series, The Return of the King (2003), became the first fantasy film to ever win the Oscar for Best Picture.

Given the enormous popularity of Rings, it was inevitable that The Hobbit would also be given the big screen treatment. But The Hobbit is not the ideal way to follow-up something like The Lord of the Rings. Rings was intended as the sequel to the original novel, and Tolkien used his three volume tome to not only build upon The Hobbit, but to create an entire historical and cultural tapestry that enveloped both stories. Because the Rings films came first, Peter Jackson had put himself in the difficult position of having to meet those higher expectations. If Jackson had filmed the book as it was written, he may have alienated the Rings fanbase who wanted something bigger; and if he made it too big, and too much like Lord of the Rings, he might have upset some Tolkien purists. Hence, this is why I admire Jackson’s determination to tackle the challenge. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He started production expecting it to be a two-parter spread across a two year release schedule, but after having shot so much footage during filming, Jackson made the controversial decision to split The Hobbit into a trilogy. The first film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) premiered a year ago to a lot of fanfare and some generally mixed reactions. Still, it did well enough to make people excited for this year’s follow-up; a movie that no body expected would ever exist, The Desolation of Smaug.

While some people were disappointed in the first film in the series, An Unexpected Journey, and I can completely understand why they would be upset, I was however generally pleased with the movie. I admired the fact that Peter Jackson managed to recapture some of that Lord of the Rings magic, nearly a whole decade after the fact. It wasn’t as successful as the Rings films story-wise, mainly because of the stretched out length and the slower pacing, but I still loved the fact that we were revisiting Middle Earth once again and exploring the corners yet unseen, while at the same time revisiting some of the highlights from The Lord of the Rings. I placed An Unexpected Journey on my Top Ten from last year, so I was eagerly anticipating this follow-up film, and as it turns out, I loved it just as much as the first; but for very different reasons. Much like the Lord of the Rings films were to each other, the two Hobbit movies are very different in tone. An Unexpected Journey was more leisurely and light-hearted, while Desolation of Smaug is darker and more action-oriented. While many moments are still played for laughs, this film does raise the stakes significantly, and hints at even heavier elements left to be seen in the third installment. Also, like Journey, Smaug encounters some adaptation problems that can’t be ignored, particularly in the ways that Peter Jackson has stretched the story out. But, even so, I found myself thoroughly entertained by this installment.

The story picks up right where An Unexpected Journey left off, with Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the company of dwarves still on the road to Erabor, the Lonely Mountain, the ancient seat of power of the Dwarf kingdom. After finding themselves lost and delirious in the diseased forest of Mirkwood, the Dwarves are captured by the woodland Elves and taken to their forest sanctuary as prisoners. There they meet the Elven king Thranduil (Lee Pace), his son Legolas (Orlando Bloom, returning to the character he played in the Rings trilogy) and a female elf named Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) who is more sympathetic to the dwarves plight. Bilbo manages to help his companions escape by hiding them in barrels and sending them down a river. Soon they find themselves in Lake Town, a settlement founded by the survivors of the destruction of the City of Dale, a place destroyed by the dragon Smaug. They are helped out by a noble smuggler named Bard (Luke Evans) and soon leave for their fateful confrontation with the titular dragon, hoping to reclaim their ancestral home, and the treasure it contains, once again.

Anyone who’s read the book knows the story very well, and where it’s all ultimately leading. The dilemma that Desolation of Smaug faces is the fact that it’s the middle chapter of a trilogy. It has no beginning and no end (quite literally in this case). But like with The Two Towers in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson took upon the task of making the middle chapter work on it’s own, and surprisingly came up with something very unique. The Two Towers and Desolation of Smaug are films that feel freer in form than movies that surround them. For one thing, they don’t need to spend a whole lot of time setting up characters and plot, because the first film has already done that work for them. And it doesn’t have to wrap everything neatly in the end like a final chapter does, so that way it can leave more room for ambiguity. That’s why I really admire these kinds of movies, particularly in Peter Jackson’s adaptations. Desolation of Smaug succeeds because it has less of a burden put on it’s shoulders and feels more at ease in it’s storytelling. An Unexpected Journey’s laborious exposition is probably what turned off a lot of people last year, but that’s something that you will not be able to find in this film.

If the movie has a fault, it’s in the extra bits that have been added that weren’t present in the original book. Most of these additions I didn’t have a problem with in the movie, and for the most part, I think they enriched the movie’s narrative as a whole. What I didn’t like though were some story elements that didn’t add anything to the film other than to pad the run-time. This occurs mostly in the Lake Town sequences. In these scenes, Peter Jackson injects a little political subtext and commentary into the story-line; particularly with a character called the Master of Lake Town (played by Stephen Fry). Now, I greatly admire Mr. Fry both as an actor and as a human being, but his portrayal of the Master is really disappointing, and a waste of his actual talent. I chalk this up more to the way that the character is written, which is very one-dimensionally, than to Fry’s performance, which could have been great if given better material. Not only that, but the inhabitants of Lake Town are also very thinly drawn out, apart from Luke Evan’s Bard. There’s even a servant character to the Master named Alfrid (Ryan Gage) who just comes off like a poor man’s Grima Wormtougne. Also problematic is a love triangle that forms between Legolas, Tauriel, and the dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner); you heard that right. Neither story element ruins the movie at all, and I kind of found the love story angle intriguing at times, but the movie works best when it moves away from these plot diversions and back to the story proper; which is Bilbo’s journey.

For me, there was a lot more to like in this story than to dislike, and of course the thing that most people will take away from this movie will no doubt be the titular dragon himself; Smaug. Smaug has to be one of the most amazing creations in these films to date. If you thought the creatures in The Lord of the Rings trilogy were massive, you’ll be blown away by the scale of this character. Smaug really is the culmination of all the things that the effects wizards at Weta Digital have learned over the years they’ve worked with Peter Jackson. The sense of scale is astounding; you really get a sense of how massive the character is through both his movement and how he interacts with his environment. Of all the great cinematic dragons, including Malificent’s dragon form from Sleeping Beauty (1959) to the fearsome beasts in Dragonslayer (1981), to the charming Toothless in How to Train Your Dragon (2010), Smaug definitely ranks high among them, if not being the grandest of them all. A lot of credit for the character should go to actor Benedict Cumberbatch, who not only gives the character a chillingly sinister voice, but also provided the motion-capture movements on which to base the character’s on-screen presence. All of this helps to make Smaug the film’s greatest achievement. To be honest, Smaug is a character that I have long wanted to see brought to life, ever since the first Lord of the Rings film was in theaters, and man did he not disappoint. I’m very grateful that when it came to making this character a reality, Peter Jackson went above and beyond my expectations.

I should also say that the film does a very good job of building up the story-line without loosing its focus. Apart from the troublesome parts that I already mentioned, the movie does hold together very well. I actually think this is most briskly paced film in the series overall, Lord of the Rings included. The movie keeps the tempo up from the very beginning and doesn’t let up even to the final shot. It still clocks in at a lengthy 161 minutes, but that time will fly by quickly. Even when the film reaches it’s finale (with the most cliff-hangery moment ever in one of these movies), you’ll be left hungry for more. I found this pace amazing, despite the fact that the movie does have its indulgent moments. One scene in particular, the dwarves escape in wine barrels, goes on for so long and is so needlessly indulgent, that you would think it would hurt the film, but instead it actually is the best action scene in the movie. With cases like this, we see where it worked better for Peter Jackson to add tension to a scene where there was none in the book. In the original story, the dwarves escape down the river unopposed, but here they are chased by elves and the evil Orcs for a solid ten minute action scene. It’s indulgent, but also a hell of a lot of fun and full of creative moments. The audience I saw the movie with broke out in a cheer once the scene ended, and I certainly agree that it was a definite highlight. But it also demonstrates how pacing has changed between the first and second movies. Whenever Unexpected Journey was indulgent, it slowed the pacing down, whereas here it actually amps it up.

I also like the fact that the characters are also finding their footing as the story progresses. The Dwarves are more fleshed out now, especially Thorin (Richard Armitage) who’s showing a lot more internal conflict in this film than he had in the first movie. Here he’s a more fully dimensional character, showing moments of genuine nobility followed by soul-crushing greed in the next. Martin Freeman continues to shine as Biblo, although in this film, he’s somewhat sidelined; more the fault of the lengthened story than how the character is used. Freeman does have one excellent acting moment in the movie after Bilbo savagely slays a Mirkwood spider in order to reclaim his “magical ring.” Without saying a word, Freeman perfectly conveys the negative toll that this ring is already having on Bilbo’s character in that moment. Orlando Bloom returns to good form as Legolas, and the character gets some very bad-ass moments throughout the film. Evangeline Lilly manages to make Tauriel an interesting new addition to the story (she’s an entirely original character) and carries the weight of being the only central female presence in the whole trilogy perfectly. Also, the look of the film is still astounding. More so than the first film, we are exploring parts of Middle Earth that we haven’t yet seen, and they are spectacularly realized. While I thought some of the Lake Town scenes were dull, the look of the place is outstanding; like if you mixed Venice with some Dickensian slums. The look of Smaug’s lair is also a remarkable sight; with jaw-dropping mountains of gold. The set and costume design, as well as the Howard Shore score, also succeed at meeting the high standards that the series has set.

What I find interesting is how the film’s reception may actually play out. When it came to An Unexpected Journey, general audiences were bored by the more leisurely tone and heavy exposition, while Tolkien purists were pleased by how closely it adhered to the original book’s tone. This time around, I’m finding that more Tolkien purists are disliking Desolation of Smaug because of the liberties it has taken, while general audiences are enjoying the return to action-paced thrills in the series. I actually sympathize with the complaints made by both sides, but the way I look at these movies is not by how action packed they are or by how well it accurately they adapt the book, but by how they work as movies in their own right. That’s why I like both of these Hobbit movies about equally. They still don’t quite measure up to The Lord of the Rings in overall quality, but damn it if I don’t admire them for trying. Like I said, there was enormous pressure on Peter Jackson to get these movies right, and I admire the fact that he’s done as well as he has. I am particularly happy that Smaug turned out as well as he has, and I also liked the fact that Desolation of Smaug has a story that stands well enough on it’s own, and as part of an over-arching story. The film’s abrupt ending may irk a lot of people, but I commend Jackson for having the balls to leave his audience hanging. It certainly makes me excited to see the final chapter of the trilogy, There and Back Again, which comes out December 2014. But in the meantime, it’s well worth taking this continuing adventure into the world of Middle Earth.

Rating: 8.5/10

Editorials

Tis the Season – Why Some Films Become Holiday Perennials

December 7, 2013 James Humphreys

We’ve reached the end of another calendar year and of course that can only mean that it’s Holiday season once again. Whether we are celebrating Christmas, or Hanukkah, or whatever, it’s a time of the year where we all gather together and honor family, tradition, and the gift of giving. What’s interesting about Christmastime, however, is just how much the holiday tradition is actually influenced and centered around Holiday themed movies. A Holiday film can pretty much be considered a genre all it’s own, since so many of them exist out there, and are created specifically to invoke the holiday spirit. Not only that, but they are movies that we continually return to every year around this same time, like it’s part of our holiday ritual. This doesn’t happen with every Christmas themed movie, however, since many of them try to hard to hit their mark and fail spectacularly. And yet, we see small films that no one thought much of at first grow into these perennial classics over time, and in some cases add to the overall Christmas mythos that defines the season. But, how do we as an audience discern the classics from all the rest? What really separates a Miracle on 34th Street from a Jingle all the Way? Quite simply, like with most other movies, it’s all determined by what we bring from our own experiences in life when we watch a movie.

The emergence of perennial holiday classics is nothing new in pop culture and actually predates the beginning of cinema by a good many years. Literature has contributed holiday themed stories in both short form and novels for the last couple hundred years, helping to both shape and reinvent Christmas traditions in a very secular fashion. Our modern day physical interpretation of Santa Claus can in fact be contributed to his appearance in “Twas the Night Before Christmas,” the 1823 poem by American author Clement Clarke Moore. Moore’s nearly 200 year poem is still being recited today and it shows just how much tradition plays a role in keeping a perennial classic alive in the public’s eye. Around the same time, acclaimed British novelist Charles Dickens wrote the story of A Christmas Carol, chronicling the tale of Ebenezer Scrooge and his visits by three ghosts on Christmas Eve. Since it’s original printing in 1843, A Christmas Carol has gone on to be one of the most re-adapted story-lines in history. Perhaps nearly a quarter of all holiday classics can claim to have been influenced by Dickens’ classic tale, where a dreary old cynic has his heart warmed by the holiday spirit. Dickens meant for his novel to be a meditation on greed and class inequality, but I have no doubt that he purposefully meant for Christmas traditions to be the healing influence in Scrooge’s reawakening. These stories continue to stand strong so many years later and it shows just how far back our culture began to value Christmas stories and songs as a part of the holiday tradition.

Even from the very outset of cinematic history we saw films carry on holiday themes. Both Twas the Night Before Christmas and A Christmas Carol provided inspiration for movie-makers many times, given their already beloved appeal, but some people in Hollywood also saw opportunities to add their own original holiday themed stories into the mix. When the studio system emerged, they were very well aware of the marketability of a holiday themes. After all, people usually visited movie theaters frequently during the cold winters, so why not play up the festive mood that everyone was already in. For the most part, movies celebrated Christmas more frequently in short segments than in full length story-lines in these early years; whether it was capitalizing on a new popular Christmas song in a lavish musical segment, or by portraying a Christmas celebration as part of larger arching narrative. Many people forget that one of the most popular Christmas tunes ever written, “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas,” wasn’t even from a Christmas themed movie; rather it came from the 1944 musical Meet Me in St. Louis. But eventually the Christmas season became such an influential part of our modern cultural tradition, that it would inspire films devoted entirely to the holiday spirit.

So, in the years since, we have seen Holiday films become standard practice in Hollywood. Every year, it’s inevitable to see a Christmas movie released in time for the holidays. Unfortunately, for most of them, Christmas movies very rarely achieve classic status. For every one that audiences grow an attachment to, there will be about a dozen more that will likely be forgotten by next December. Evidently, it seems like Hollywood’s approach to the holiday season is less carefully planned out than any other part of the year. Their approach seems to be throwing whatever has Christmas in the title up against the wall and seeing what sticks. Unfortunately, this has led to Christmas being more synonymous with bad movies than good. Some are well meaning films that fall short of their goal like the Vince Vaughn film Fred Claus (2007) or the odd but charming Santa Clause: The Movie (1985). And then there are ugly, shallow and distasteful films like Deck the Halls (2006), the Ben Affleck disaster Surviving Christmas (2004), or the deeply disturbing Michael Keaton film Jack Frost (1998), with the creepy as hell CG snowman. And the less said about the horrible 2000 How the Grinch Stole Christmas remake the better. Overall, it is very hard to make an honestly cherished holiday classic in Hollywood, and that’s mainly because the business just tries too hard. If you look closely, you’ll actually find that a beloved holiday classic may come from the unlikeliest of places.

This was definitely the case with what has become not just one of the best loved Christmas movies, but one of the best movies period; that film being Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). Capra’s movie tells the story of George Bailey (a flawless Jimmy Stewart), a man who has given so much back to his hometown and has gotten so little in return, reaching the verge of suicide due to his depression. Through the intervention of a guardian angel on Christmas Eve, George is shown what his life would have been like if he never lived and he rediscovers his value and purpose and as it turns out is finally rewarded by those whom he’s helped all his life on the following Christmas Day. The film is very uplifting and perfectly illustrates the true impact that the Christmas season has in our lives. With a theme like that, you would think that the movie was a smash hit when it was first released, but instead the movie was a colossal bomb. It bankrupted the company that made it and ruined Frank Capra’s directing career from then on. The focus on George Bailey’s increasing depression was probably too hard for audiences to take at the time, given that many soldiers were returning home after the end of WWII. Despite it’s initial failure, It’s a Wonderful Life managed to survive through TV airings which happened on, naturally, Christmas Eve and the film not only found it’s audience but it became a seasonal standard. To this day, It’s a Wonderful Life is still aired on network TV (the only classic era movie that still is), and audiences from every generation still embraces it warmly, no matter how old fashioned it may be. Pretty good legacy for a film that started off as a failure.

A holiday classic can come from an unlikely place like It’s a Wonderful Life, but for many, what is considered a classic is usually determined by their own tastes. That’s why some people find romantic comedies set around Christmastime to be considered a holiday classic. Case in point, the movie Love, Actually (2003) has grown into a beloved holiday classic, even though the themes in the movie are less about Christmas and more about the intertwining relationships between the characters. By standing out as a strong romantic film with a Christmas setting, it stands to see this film as being an example of two types of genres working together. Cult movie fans even have holiday classics that they cherish, like the weird campy film Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964), which can hold the distinction of being one of the worst movies ever made, and incredibly entertaining at the same time. And some people can even claim that Die Hard (1989) counts as a Christmas movie, because of it’s holiday setting. Pretty much it’s whatever we bring with us from our own experiences to the movies that determines what we consider to be entertaining. Like with how most people gravitate towards a movie based on their own interests, so too do we see that with Holiday films as well. Hollywood has in some cases picked up on this and has catered to select audiences at Christmastime with genre specific movies. Usually, it will take a consensus of a large audience to determine which ones will stand out as the undisputed classics.

I think where Hollywood hits it mark most often is when it comes to making a successful holiday film that appeals to the memories of our own experiences of Christmas. The film that I think hit a perfect bulls-eye in this regard, and stands as a true masterpiece of Christmas themed film-making, is the 1983 classic A Christmas Story. Directed by Bob Clark, and inspired by the auto-biographical stories of novelist Jean Shepherd, A Christmas Story perfectly captures the highs and lows of a young boy’s experience during the holiday season. Ralphie (Peter Billingsley) is a character who was relatable to any young boy growing up in small town America, myself included, and seeing how he tries so hard to manipulate his parents into getting him his dream present is something every child will identify with. Couple that with the hilarious performance of Darren McGavin as the Old Man and the iconic Leg Lamp, and you’ve got the very definition of a holiday classic. But, just like how A Christmas Story highlights good Christmas memories, we see classic films that also center around a disastrous Christmas experience as well. The best example of this would be the very funny and endlessly quotable National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989). We’ve had just as many Christmases like the Griswold family as we have like the Parker family from A Christmas Story, and Christmas Vacation just perfectly encapsulates all the bad things that happen at Christmas time, without ever losing the holiday spirit underneath. Not to mention its the last time we ever saw a funny performance out of Chevy Chase.

So, despite the low success rate, we as an audience still seem to find a classic seasonal favorite every in every generation. But how does Hollywood keep making bad Christmas movies every year despite the demanding tastes of the movie-going public rejecting all the junk they put out. I think it’s because the season itself is such an overwhelming cultural force, that most filmmakers don’t really care about the product they’re making, as long as it’s holiday themed and ready to capitalize on the mood of the period. When it comes down to it, a great holiday classic is not determined by how soaked up in the holiday spirit it is, but rather by how strong it story works. We keep watching It’s a Wonderful Life every year because of how inspirational George Bailey’s life story is, and not because of the Christmastime finale that has come to define it. In fact, the movie is not really about Christmas at all; it’s about the life of one man and his value to the world. Other Christmas movies usually become classics just because of a wintry setting, where the holiday is not even mentioned. And even films that subvert Christmas traditions, like 2003’s Bad Santa, have become genuine holiday classics to some people.

I, myself, love a good Christmas movie, and because I’m such an ardent appreciator of movies in general, these films have certainly become a part of my holiday tradition. I return to It’s a Wonderful Life and A Christmas Story every year and never get tired of them. And not a year will go by when I don’t at least drop one quotable line from Christmas Vacation during this season. I hope every generation gets their own perennial classic that will last for years to come. Just please; no more remakes or sequels. We all saw the backlash that an announcement of a sequel to It’s a Wonderful Life got recently. I only wish The Grinch and A Christmas Story had been spared the same fate. Like too much Christmas dinner, there can always be too much of a good thing when it comes to Christmas movies.

Movie Reviews

Frozen – Review

December 1, 2013 James Humphreys

Sometimes Disney Animation has found itself to be it’s own worst enemy. By this I mean that when they have a hugely successful film at one point in time, it will put a lot more constrictive pressure on whatever they have coming up next. And when you’re in the business of making animated films that take 3-4 years to create, it’s very hard for a company like them to correct course in order to do repeat business. For the most part, Disney has had better luck than most, but there has been a pattern in Disney’s history of some of their most ambitious films failing to meet expectations, while audiences gravitate to the less ambitious but entirely groundbreaking follow-ups. This started back when Fantasia (1940), a film that Walt Disney put so much of his own effort into, flopped at the box office; and in the following year,1941, modestly budgeted and slapped-together Dumbo became a huge success. The same thing happen again to Disney with the costly Sleeping Beauty (1959) and it’s follow-up 101 Dalmatians (1961), and once again with The Black Cauldron (1985) followed by The Great Mouse Detective (1986). The trend actually reversed in the 90’s with the disappointing Pocahontas (1995) following-up The Lion King (1994); Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001) following The Emperor’s New Groove (2000); and finally with Treasure Planet (2002) following Lilo & Stitch (2002). Suffice to say, both trends have been common in Disney’s history.

So, when trends tend to dictate the success rate of your output, it’s understandable why Disney has stuck so closely to the genre that has given them the most success; the fairy tale. In the last five years, we have seen no less than three fairy tale adaptations from the Disney company; 2009’s The Princess and the Frog, 2010’s Tangled, and this year’s new release, Frozen. It’s clear that they are aware of their tradition and are very intent on carrying it on generation after generation. But following formula does have it’s risks, and that sometimes comes about when breaking from tradition has actually paid off for the company. As I illustrated earlier, sometimes a project that looks like a sure winner will fail to perform either when a new trend will appear or when people lose interest in the formula. Frozen comes to theaters with a lot of expectations on it’s shoulders, which can be both a benefit and a curse to it’s prospects. Last year, Disney found success with the very well made Wreck-it Ralph (2012), which was a huge departure from the Disney formula that paid off in a big way. This only puts Frozen in an even more difficult situation of following this success up by returning to it’s traditional roots. This is the knowledge that I brought with me when I saw the movie, and while Frozen does a fine job of making a beautiful and engaging animated film that I’m sure will please audiences worldwide, I can’t help but feel that some of that tradition did have a negative effect in the end.

Frozen is the 8th fairy tale adaptation from Disney, and the second taken from a story by Hans Christian Anderson. Based, loosely, off of the story of The Snow Queen, the film follows the lives and adventures of two princess sisters in a fictional Scandinavian kingdom called Arrendale. The eldest sister, Elsa, has been cursed from birth with the power to magically create ice and snow, which her family tries to conceal from the world and even from the younger sister, Anna. After their parents are killed at sea, Elsa is soon crowned Queen and forced into facing the kingdom that she has been shuttered away from all her life, all the while struggling to control her powers as they become more powerful and erratic. After an argument at her coronation ceremony with Anna, Elsa accidentally reveals her sorcery to the public, which leads her to flee into the mountains in exile. Anna, hoping to reconcile with her sister, follows after her and leaves her fiancee Hans in charge of the kingdom. While on her journey, she gets help from an ice gatherer named Kristoff, his reindeer Sven, and an enchanted snowman named Olaf. Unfortunately for Anna and Elsa, the lack of control over the Queen’s powers has left the kingdom clouded in an eternal winter, and the bond between them is not so easily mended.

One of the things that I can say that the movie does very well is it’s story-line. I’d say that this is the most competently put together fairy tale adaptation that Disney has done since Beauty and the Beast (1992). While I did like aspects of both The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, I do feel that they had something lacking in the story department. And let’s not forget the complete mess that was Pixar’s disappointing Brave (2012). With Frozen, it is clear that the filmmakers actually put in the effort to make the story as compelling and consistent as it possibly could be. I especially like the fact that this movie is a little self-aware of its Disney and fairy tale tradition, and at times finds funny ways to poke fun at it. At one point in the movie, Anna falls deeply in love with Hans, a very Prince Charming-type character, and they agree to marry, even though they only met that same morning. Elsa rightly points out that love at first sight is not true love, and I’m sure that many people have been wanting to hear someone say that in a Disney movie for years. Despite these few meta moments in the film, the story actually does work well within the familiar fairy tale tropes and overall feels very much in line with some of the best Disney fairy tales.

One of the other things that worked very well for Frozen was the voice cast. I’m glad that Disney chose not to cast any big celebrity names in this film, and instead went for the people who were the best match for the characters. Certainly the casting of Elsa and Anna were important, and here they cast Broadway actress Idina Menzel (Wicked) and TV actress Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars, Forgetting Sarah Marshall) in the respective roles. Idina in particular delivers an exceptional vocal performance as Elsa, and helps to make her one of the most compelling Disney characters that I’ve seen in quite a while. Kristen Bell is charming as Anna, and while the character is a little too perky at times, Bell manages to get the finer parts of the character right. Another Broadway vet, Josh Gad (The Book of Mormon), shows surprising restraint as the comic relief character Olaf, who would have come across as obnoxious if played by the wrong actor. Instead, Olaf’s comical hi-jinks actually compliments the film very well, and Gad’s performance has a lot to do with that. Also, actor Jonathan Groff (TV’s Glee) gives a nice eccentric performance as Kristoff, helping him to stand out from the typical leading man in Disney movies. I particularly liked how Kristoff externalizes conversations with his voiceless pet reindeer Sven, and yet it seems like it’s exactly what Sven would say if he had a voice. Overall, everyone does their job well here and creates a well rounded cast of characters that I know will quickly become popular to fans young and old alike.

So, how come my review sounds a bit down on the film. Well, it’s a complicated feeling that I have about this movie, and it really has to do with where Frozen fits within the Disney formula. Like I’ve said before, Disney’s legacy has been both a blessing and a curse for some of the movies in it’s catalog, and some of that works against Frozen. While I think the story is pretty solid, and does a commendable job of injecting new ideas into the Disney formula, the movie as a whole feels a tad too unfocused. The problem I had with the film is that one character in particular, this being Elsa, was so strong and had such a compelling role to play in the story, that it kind of overwhelmed everything else. And unfortunately, her story-line is not the thing that gets most of the focus in the film; instead Anna’s story-line is given precedence. This would be more of a problem if Anna was an uninteresting heroine, but thankfully she’s better than that. Somehow, I felt that the script put too little emphasis on it’s most interesting character, and that was not a good thing in my book. Also, as solid as the story-line is throughout most of the movie, it does have a rather weak ending. And this comes after a really strong final act that has some really out of left field twists. What I think happened was that the writers didn’t know how to end their story, and instead they just slapped together a really pat and underwhelming epilogue that doesn’t feel at all like it belongs in the same movie.

When it comes to judging new Disney films, I try to leave tradition at the door and just judge a movie on it’s own merits. But when you have movies that rely so heavily on where they stand among other classics, I can’t help but include tradition as a part of my assessment. Frozen tries very hard to be a return to the classic Disney fairy tale standard that was set so high with movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. Unfortunately for Frozen, I feel like it’s striving for something that it really shouldn’t try to reach for. The reason why The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast were such astounding successes in their time is because they weren’t trying to match their predecessors. There was a 30 year gap, between Mermaid and the last fairy tale film before it, which was Sleeping Beauty, so the pressure on it was much less. As a result, The Little Mermaid could play by it’s own rules and in the end it set a new standard for the Disney fairy tale. Beauty and the Beast, likewise, built on that new standard while at the same time sticking to it’s own rules. Frozen, unfortunately, plays it safe and that’s why I feel it falls short of those previous classics. That being said, it comes the closest to that standard than Princess and the Frog and Tangled, and especially Brave ever did.

One thing I will say that Frozen does live up to with the previous classics is with it’s musical score. The songs fit much better in this movie than they have in any other previous Disney musical in the last 20 years, which is quite a feat. Some songs in it are just okay, but there are a few that really stand out. One particular song called “Let it Go,” sung by Elsa during her exile, may just be the best song I’ve heard in an animated film since “A Whole New World” in Aladdin (1992). Yes, even better than any song from The Lion King. It helps when you have a Broadway-trained singer like Idina Menzel singing it, and she uses those impressive pipes to full effect here. It’s the kind of song that will give the audience chills (no pun intended) and in a good way. The songs were written by Broadway vet Robert Lopez and his wife Kristen Anderson-Lopez, both of whom have written some very non-Disney appropriate music in the past for musicals like Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon. Despite their previous work, their musical numbers here actually are very clean and fit right in place in the overall Disney songbook, especially “Let it Go”. Also, I want to add that the visual look of this film is outstanding. This is the first 70mm Disney fairy tale since Sleeping Beauty, and the filmmakers make great use of the wider frame. The landscapes down to the interiors of Elsa’s ice palace are all a wonder to look at, and it really makes this a world well worth delving into throughout the movie.

So, maybe I’m being unfair to the film by having too high a standard, but having grown up with Disney movies all my life, I feel like I have to hold something like Frozen up to some higher scrutiny. The film for the most part does pass the test, but I would be lying if I said that I thought it was a masterpiece. It’s just okay. In the pantheon of Disney films, I would put it somewhere in the middle and maybe a little bit more into the better half. It’s just a testament to how much I care for the Disney legacy, and how many great films they have made in the past. On the bright side, Frozen is one of the better films that Disney has made in the last decade; though I will say, I enjoyed Wreck-it Ralph a tiny bit more. I do hope that the movie does well, and I’m sure that most people will like it better than I did, and they should. It does do well by the Disney Fairy Tale brand, and both Elsa and Anna have earned their place alongside Snow White, Belle, Cinderella, Ariel, and the other Disney Princesses. Despite it’s flaws, it does take the Disney formula in the right direction and elevates the animated medium as well. It says a lot when Disney actually has done something better in the last couple of years than Pixar. For all accounts, this is the movie that Brave should have been. So, while the Disney tradition has clouded my opinion on some aspects of the movie, I do like what Frozen represents, which is a solid story-line with great characters, who more than most films in the last decade, do deserve to be a part of the Disney legacy.

Rating: 7/10

Collecting Criterion

Collecting Criterion – The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

November 24, 2013 James Humphreys

The Criterion Collection is known for being the distributor of some of the greatest and underseen classics of yesteryear, but they also have a reputation for putting out modern films as well. In fact, if you look at the complete collection entirely, you’ll see that a good percentage of the titles are ones from the last 20 years or so. This does open up the debate over whether or not the Criterion Collection has a high enough standard over which titles it includes, considering the fact that it takes time for a film to earn the status of a classic. Some of Criterion’s more controversial choices for inclusion in recent years have included the films of David Fincher (#476 The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, #627 The Game), a film by Girls star and creator Lena Dunham (#597 Tiny Furniture) and also the movies of Michael Bay, I kid you not (#40 Armageddon, #107 The Rock, both now out of print). This begs the question of what makes a film a classic and if Criterion are the ones responsible for making that decision. I’m sure that Criterion would themselves say that they choose titles not because of their status as a classic, but on whether or not it’s a title that will sell well in the video market. The fact that they devote so much time and effort to make the editions of their titles so good is one of the things that has set them apart. And the reason why they choose to release films from contemporary directors is so that they can get the filmmakers’ actual input on the release of their films in the collection, as well as their approval.

One director who has not only had his whole filmography released under the Criterion label, but has also had his career boosted by the Collection as well, is Texas-born filmmaker Wes Anderson. Anderson is a very polarizing director, mainly due to his very distinctive style. His films usually are identified by their quirky story-lines and characters, their unconventional use of pop songs (mainly from the 60’s and 70’s) to underscore a scene, the bold use of colors and deliberate composition in the cinematography, and last but certainly not least, the presence of the great Bill Murray. Some people either love Wes Anderson’s movies in all their eccentricities, or loathe them as being nothing more than style over substance. While I can see how some people dislike Wes Anderson’s style, I for one can’t get enough of it. I have yet to see a Wes Anderson film that I didn’t like; even the one that left me a little underwhelmed (Criterion #450 Bottle Rocket) was one that I could still appreciate. And part of what has made me a fan of Wes Anderson’s work has been the excellent Criterion releases devoted to his films. So far, six of his movies have been released as part of the Criterion Collection: the aforementioned Bottle Rocket (1996), #65 Rushmore (1998), #300 The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), #540 The Darjeeling Limited (2007), and coming next February, #700 Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), which was my personal pick for the best film of 2009. One film in particular does stands out, mainly due to it’s early popularity, as a film that really began to define Wes Anderson’s status as a filmmaker: that being #157, 2001’s The Royal Tenenbaums.

The movie follows the struggling relationship between members of an affluent, but fractured family. The patriarch, Royal Tenenbaum (a perfect Gene Hackman) finds that the funds that have helped to support his decadent lifestyle have been drying up, and this leads him to turning back to the family that he had all but cut ties with years ago. The once proud family, made up of three former “wonder kids” now in their adulthood, are also struggling to take control of their lives. Chas (Ben Stiller) a Wall Street hot shot in his youth, who’s now struggling to keep everything afloat as a single father after his wife had died in a plane crash. Adopted daughter Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) gave up a promising career as a playwright in order to settle down in a now loveless marriage with psychologist Raleigh St. Clair (Bill Murray). And Richie (Luke Wilson), the youngest, had a promising career as a tennis phenom, before he began to lose his game and faded into obscurity. Etheline Tenenbaum (Angelica Huston), the mother, has manged to keep her house in order despite the hard times with the help of her accountant Henry Sherman (Danny Glover), who has suddenly shared his growing affection with her. This prompts Royal to step in and reclaim his family before he loses them forever. And how does he do this? By telling them all that he’s dying of cancer, which is a flat out lie.

The film is a loaded one to be sure, and I wouldn’t disagree that Wes Anderson sometimes struggles to keep everything in check over the course of the run-time. But, The Royal Tenenbaums is nevertheless a very effective and charming movie. What makes it work so well, no doubt is the cast. Gene Hackman is outstanding as Royal Tenenbaum, and he steals every moment he’s on screen. What I love is the fact that Royal is so likable in this movie, even when he’s doing and saying the most horrible things. Wes Anderson’s scripts, which he co-writes on every movie (this time with co-star Owen Wilson), are known for their sly, and rather outlandish sense of humor, and no character better exemplifies that than Royal. I especially like the way that he takes little consideration of other peoples feelings, even when he’s in direct conversation with them. An awkward exchange with Chas at a cemetery in particular is both an uncomfortable and laugh-out-loud funny moment in the movie (“Oh, that’s right. We’ve got another body here.”) Gene Hackman alone would been enough to watch this movie, but the rest of the cast is also excellent. Angelica Huston brings a lot of class to the character of Etheline and helps to give the film its moral center. Gwyneth Paltrow is hilariously deadpan as Margot. Ben Stiller and Luke Wilson deliver some of their best performances as well. And Anderson regular Bill Murray is absolutely hilarious in his few moments onscreen. Add in Owen Wilson as ticking timebomb next-door neighbor and author named Eli Cash, and you’ve got a very well rounded cast.

If the film has a flaw, albeit a minor one, it’s the fact that it feels unfocused. I mainly see this as a byproduct of trying to fit too many things into one film. The cast of characters is enormous, and trying to give everyone enough screen time is a daunting task for any filmmaker. The Royal Tenenbaums was made in the early part of Wes Anderson’s career, at a time when he was still figuring things out. Looking back on the film, you can see that his style was still forming at this point in time. The Royal Tenenbaums would be Anderson’s last film to feature a kind of naturalistic aesthetic look to it, as he began to head in a much more whimsical and cartoonish direction with his next film The Life Aquatic. I think that the more subdued visuals of Royal Tenenbaums is probably why this film has remained to date one of Wes Anderson’s more popular films. It’s undoubtedly his most mainstream film to date, though The Royal Tenenbaums is not a conventional Hollywood movie by any means. But as a part of his overall body of work, I see this movie as one of his lesser efforts. I still love it, don’t get me wrong, but when I think of a Wes Anderson movie, this is not the one that comes to mind. I think of his later films as being the ones that really define him as a director, given how much more assured they are. But, I am glad to see how well this film has held up both as a movie and as a part of the director’s full oeuvre.

What is significant about the Criterion edition of this film is the fact that it was released as part of the collection almost instantly. Like I had said before, sometimes it takes a while for a film to achieve classic status, and only then it may find it’s way into Criterion’s catalog. The Royal Tenenbaums, however, was selected to be a part of the collection right when it left theaters; the shortest window ever for a Criterion title. The choice was made probably because of the fact that Wes Anderson’s previous film, Rushmore, sold so well under the Criterion label in the years after it’s premiere. Adding The Royal Tenenbaums seemed like a no-brainer choice, especially after it’s own successful run in theaters. But, what’s even more remarkable is the fact that Criterion had the exclusive rights to the film’s DVD release, thanks to a deal with Touchstone Pictures who financed the movie, and they made the movie available to the mass market. You have to understand that this was an unusual move on Criterion’s part. Up until that point, Criterion released their titles in small quantities and usually limited the availability to a few select retailers nationwide. In my home town, I would usually only find a Criterion movie section in my local Barnes & Nobles, and that was it. So, the fact that The Royal Tenenbaums was so widely available was a significant game changer for both Wes Anderson and Criterion. I’m sure that for many people, Royal Tenenbaums had to have been their first Criterion title, which opened up the gates for a whole new audience for the distributor.

The Royal Tenenbaums DVD release back in 2002 was an enormous success, making the movie one of Criterion’s best-selling titles. Last year, they revisited the film again with a Blu-ray edition, which helps to give this 12 year old film a fresh new look. The movie is stunning in high definition, as is every other Wes Anderson film. This is probably why the director has become a favorite among Criterion collectors like myself; his bold use of colors brings out the full potential of the color range and brightness in a Blu-ray presentation. The blu-ray edition also carries over every bonus feature from the previous DVD release. Among the extras found here are a Director’s commentary by Anderson himself. There’s an interesting filmmaker profile of Wes Anderson made by none other than acclaimed documentarian, Albert Mayles. There are also a dozen or so behind the scenes clips of the actors at work on the set, along with some interviews. There’s also a fun little faux talk show made by Anderson called The Peter Bradley Show, which highlights miscellaneous people involved with the film like extras, grips, and the late Kumar Pallana, who played Royal’s butler in the movie. Also included in the set are original artwork pieces by Wes Anderson’s cousin and resident company artist, Eric Anderson, whose style perfectly compliments the movie. In fact, the Criterion Collection has used Eric Anderson’s artwork for every one of their Wes Anderson titles, including using some of them as the cover art for each edition, including this one.

So, The Royal Tenenbaums stands as not just an important release for Wes Anderson, but as a groundbreaking movie for their the Criterion brand as well. I’m sure that a lot of people have this film to thank for introducing them to both Criterion and Mr. Anderson. The film has aged very well over the years, though I think that it’s clear that Anderson has clearly moved on to bigger and better movies since then. The Royal Tenenbaums was a launching point for him; an opportunity to show what he can do with more tools at his disposal, and I’m happy that the end result was as successful as it was. My hope is that Wes Anderson continues to stick by Criterion and have every one of his releases available under their label. The one holdout is last year’s Moonrise Kingdom (2012), but I’m sure that a Criterion edition is in the works for it in the near future. The years ahead also looks bright for the director. His next film, The Grand Budapest Hotel is set for release next March and the trailer alone is enough to make me smile. I also like the fact that Wes Anderson’s style has clearly become so identifiable now, that it received a SNL send up this year that was both mocking and reverential at the same time. It even included narration from Alec Baldwin, who was also the narrator in The Royal Tenenbaums, showing just how impactful this film has been. Even if you find Wes Anderson’s style a little too quaint, The Royal Tenenbaums is still worth watching. If anything, this Criterion edition will give this film the stunning presentation that it rightly deserves.

Editorials

Flicks and Picks – The End of the Blockbuster Video Era

November 17, 2013 James Humphreys

Though it was long seen coming, it finally became official this last week. Blockbuster Video is no more. While this is a sign of how things have progressed in home entertainment for mostly the better, with on-demand and streaming video making it easier for the consumer to watch whatever they want, it does also bring an end to an institution that has been at the center of many cinephiles lives. Apart from some independent holdovers here and there, you rarely will find a video store in your local neighborhood today. But back in the day, finding a store devoted to video rentals was as easy as finding a McDonald’s. The decline of video stores over the years certainly has had to do with the advancements in streaming video, but the dominance of Blockbuster Video as a company also played a role as well. In a way, by working so hard to become the top dog of the video rental market, Blockbuster also facilitated it’s own downfall when the market changed once again. Though the end of Blockbuster was inevitable, and needed to happen, it does leave a gap for those of us who’ve built their love for film through renting from their local video store. The video rental experience, while not exactly life-changing, is something that most film lovers have been through at some point in their lives, and this week it has now become a thing of the past. In this article, I will look back on this era that Blockbuster Video defined, and what it’s end means for the future of home entertainment.

In the late 80’s, we saw the emergence of VHS, which gave studios and filmmakers the ability to make films available for purchase after their theatrical release for the very first time. Before, audiences had to wait for airings on television before they could see their favorite films again, and that also meant having to put up with commercial breaks as well. When VHS tapes started to be produced by the studios directly, it led to the creation of a niche market, with stores opening up across the country, directly geared toward filling that public appetite. Being able to own a movie as part of a collection is a commonplace thing nowadays, but when home video sales began, it was an exciting new frontier and it had an influence on the film industry almost instantly. Not only did the rise of home video affect the number of theatrical runs that a movie would have, but it also drove the movie studios towards film preservation and restoration as well, because of course, presentation matters for home viewing.

But, like with most new technology, VCR tape players were very expensive, and buying a movie to play in it was also not cheap at the time. Some retailers even had to pay prices as high as $100 per movie in order to have it available in their stores. So, in order to get more out of their product, and to let audiences have better access to the movies they wanted, video rental services came into being. Like checking a book out from a library, consumers would be able to rent a movie for a certain amount of days at a low price. This business model worked extremely well and led to boom in VCR sales. Video stores popped up all across the country, both locally owned and franchise operated, and home video sales very quickly became a major part of the film industry as a whole. But, it wasn’t just studio films that benefited from this new market. Independent producers saw an open opportunity in this new industry, and before long a whole Direct to Video market opened up, thanks to video stores allowing to indiscriminately sell and rent out a whole variety of films as a way to fill their shelves with more product. In these early days, it was very common to see a diverse collection of independent stores in your hometown, as it was in mine. There were stores that I grew up with in my hometown of Eugene, Oregon that went by such varied names as Silver Screen Video or Flix & Picks, and choosing a rental from these places certainly had an affect on my growing interest in movies at a young age.

But that changed in the mid 90’s when the video rental industry became more standardized. Out of this period of time came a chain of stores known as Blockbuster Video. Blockbuster was founded in 1985 in Dallas, Texas, and started off as just another local retailer like most other stores, before it began to expand rapidly. In the late 90’s, it was common to find at least one local Blockbuster in your area, and by the end of the decade, Blockbuster was unrivaled in the home video market. Their rise had the negative affect of forcing all of the other competition out of business, which benefited them for the time being, but it would come back to bite them in the years ahead. Blockbuster may have been ruthless to the competition, but to become the best in the industry, they did manage to do many beneficial things that did revolutionize the market. For one thing, they were the first national retailer to begin video game rentals. Their standardization of rental pick ups and drop offs also revolutionized the way we rent movies, making the drop off slots at your local store a life-saver late at night. Also, Blockbuster was also the first chain to begin working within the film industry to create exclusive promotions and deals on upcoming releases. Despite seeing a lack of choices in rental stores happen because of Blockbuster’s dominance, I don’t believe that consumers cared much about it as long as Blockbuster still operated efficiently.

Most film lovers will attest that they’ve probably spent a good amount of their time in a Blockbuster store. While many of us could find exactly what we wanted at any time, there was another side effect that also changed how we grew up watching movies after spending time in a Blockbuster, and that effect would be the impulse rental. I’m sure most of you out there have come out of a Blockbuster Video at one time with a movie you’ve never even heard of instead of the one you wanted, simply out of curiosity. Having a variety of choices seems normal now, but not until video rental came about did consumers have that level of control over what they were able to choose. Before, you would have been limited to the whatever was playing on TV or in your local cinema, but stores like Blockbuster made consumer choices as simple as a quick scan through their shelves. For cinephiles, I’m sure that part of their growing love for films started out of making a surprise choice in the local video store, and with stores as big and as well stocked as Blockbuster, those surprises could have come from even the most obscure of titles. Blockbuster was also handy for film students like me whenever we had to watch a film as part of an assignment. Whether it was a film we knew or not, at least we had the comfort of knowing that there was a place we could look for it in a hurry.

In the later years, however, the market began to change again. The internet revolutionized video streaming in the later part of the 2000’s, and our reliance on Video and DVD for home entertainment purposes soon became a thing of the past too. Even though Blockbuster cleared out all comparable competition, they were ill equipped to take on the likes of a Netflix. What Netflix did was to eliminate the middle man in video rentals, and have movies sent directly to the home through the mail, which made it unnecessary for anyone to go out to a store and rent a movie anymore. Blockbuster tried it’s own rent by mail service in response, but by then the damage had already been done. Netflix had surpassed Blockbuster as the number one rental service and the former giant had to begin downsizing in order to survive. Soon, Redbox emerged and took away even more business from Blockbuster, appearing as convenient vending machines in grocery stores for anyone looking for an impulse rental. Like most all other forms of retail, the trend has moved towards online shopping, and Blockbuster is one of the biggest to have fallen, mainly because their business model was one that couldn’t adapt in the digital age. All that’s left for Blockbuster is it’s still recognizable name, and even that is owned by someone else now (it was purchased by DirectTV in 2011 for the branding it’s on-demand service).

Because Blockbuster eliminated much of the competition beforehand, it has actually made the transition to on-demand video renting faster and less rocky. There was no large grouping of various retailers resisting the the changes in the market; only Blockbuster. And now that they are gone, the era of land-based video rental shops has ended with them. Sure there are independent stores in certain areas that still serve nostalgic purposes, but their clientele is limited. Now it is more commonplace to hear that people have a Netflix account rather than a Blockbuster card. But Blockbuster still left a legacy that will not be quickly forgotten, especially among longtime movie aficionados. Many of us can still remember moments when being close to a Blockbuster came in handy; whether it was for a late night impulse rental, or for a quick bit of research, or for merely wanting to see a movie that you missed the first time around. For many people, the first time they watched a particular movie, it was probably not in a movie theater but through a rental from big blue. I can certainly say that I credit my local Blockbuster for helping me experience so many different types of movies. One of my favorite films of all time (Seven Samurai) came to me out of an impulse rental from Blockbuster, and I will always be grateful for that.

So it’s a bittersweet end for the onetime giant. Their closure spells the end of an institution that has been a big part of all of our cinematic experiences, but it’s a closure that was necessary. Netflix and Redbox are just much better and convenient services, and Blockbuster was a relic that was standing in the way. But, as we move forward, will those two also fall prey to the same fate as Blockbuster. My guess is probably not. Blockbuster had the unfortunate circumstance of being the top force in a market that was destined to fall. Netflix and Redbox, however, have relished in the fact that they stand in direct competition with each other, and that has led to new and creative avenues for both companies. Unlike Blockbuster, Netflix has branched out and generated their own exclusive content, including comedy specials and original shows like House of Cards, which not only makes it a great rental service, but also a competitor to broadcast TV. And Redbox is able to make itself available in locations all across the world without having to set up the infrastructure of an entire store chain. And with Amazon and Walmart entering the market with their own video streaming services like AmazonPrime and VUDU, it’s showing that the rental market is one that is going to continue growing in this new direction. Blockbuster is certainly done as an independent company, but without it ever being there in the first place, the rental business would certainly never have gotten to where it is now, and that’s the legacy that it ultimately will leave behind.

Movie Reviews

Thor: The Dark World – Review

November 10, 2013 James Humphreys

Marvel Studios has built something up that we rarely see fully realized in movies and that is a wholly compatible universe where all of their comic heroes can coexist within, while at the same time maintaining their own unique worlds in their selective franchises. From this, we have seen the big screen translations of famed Marvel characters like Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor become hugely successful, with The Avengers movie series being the orbital force that binds everything together. While this has been a strategy that has brought about some very great results in the last few years, such an ambitious project is bound to hit a few pitfalls eventually. For me, that happened this summer with the release of Iron Man 3. While still a huge success at the box-office, the movie suffered from a lack of focus in it’s story-telling and became the first disappointment of the so-called “Avenger Initiative” thus far. My worry after seeing the lackluster Iron Man 3 was that the individual films dedicated to each super hero were only going to turn into bland appetizers in preparation for the Avengers main course; and they would no longer be able to stand on their own as a singular movie. With Thor: The Dark World being released this week, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier following in April 2014, I was afraid that these two characters were going to fall into the trap as Iron Man, and were only going to drag down Marvel’s master plan even more.

Thankfully, my worries proved untrue after watching Thor: The Dark World. This second installment in the Thor franchise is a genuinely entertaining and overall worthy addition to the “Avenger Initiative” project. Following up on the previous Thor film, as well as The Avengers movie itself, The Dark World manages to build upon what we’ve already seen and make it bigger and more epic without ever losing it’s focus. I think that’s what helps it succeed where Iron Man 3 floundered; that ability to keep things under control. The first Thor was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who was an unusual choice for such a project in the first place, given his notoriety as an actor and director of Shakespearean productions and small scale dramas. But Mr. Branagh not only managed to create a successful first outing for the god of thunder on the big screen, his style of directing proved to be a great tone setter for the series as well. The Dark World follows through on that foundation and manages to not only work as a sequel, but also stand very well enough on it’s own as a movie worth seeing.

Picking up right after the events of The Avengers, we find Thor (Chirs Hemsworth) leading his armies in battle in an attempt to restore order to each of the Seven Realms, of which Earth is also included. At the same time on Earth, we find Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a physicist and love interest of Thor in the first movie, discovering dimensional anomalies in the city of London, England. After examining dimensional portals in a warehouse, Jane is pulled through one suddenly, which takes her into a secret vault containing a powerful super-weapon called the Aether. Jane unwillingly is turned into a host for the Aether as it enters her body, and she is sent hurtling back to Earth. In no time, Thor finds her and whisks her away to Asgard, the kingdom of Thor and his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins). There, they keep her safe, as an ancient race of aliens called the Dark Elves arrive to reclaim the Aether for themselves, which they plan to use to destroy the Seven Realms together in one catastrophic event called the Convergence. Disobeying his father’s stubborn orders, Thor knows of only one way to take Jane out of danger’s way, and it means calling upon the help of his treacherous brother, and main Avengers villain, Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

For a very complicated plot such as this one, I’m surprised that the filmmakers involved managed to not lose control of it and have everything end up as a convoluted mess in the end. I believe what helps to carry the story through are the characters themselves. Chris Hemsworth has now had two films to develop the character of Thor over, and his performance in this movie shows just how comfortable he has become with the role. He’s charming without coming across as smarmy or self-indulgent. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t give him much to do until the second half, which would have been more of a problem if there weren’t any other strong characters there to pick up the slack. The rest of the cast is more or less in tact from the first movie, and they all fit well within the story-line without seeming superfluous. Natalie Portman, especially, improves upon her role from the first movie, in that she has an integral part to play this time, other than being the love interest character. I like her resourcefulness throughout the movie and the ways that she avoids being just another damsel in distress. Anthony Hopkins also brings great gravitas to the character of Odin, but you wouldn’t expect any less from an actor of his caliber.

The movie’s brightest spot, however, is the character of Loki. He has been the one that has improved the most over time, and I think that it’s largely because of his evolution, aided by actor Tom Hiddleston. In the first Thor movie, I found Loki to be a rather bland villain; and when it was announced that he was going to be the primary baddie of The Avengers (2012), I was very doubtful of the choice. Thankfully, the character went through a major transformation between the films and not only proved to be a great antagonist for The Avengers, but one of the film’s highlights as well. I think what happened was that they stripped all of the doubt and worry from the character’s persona and just made him unapologetic in his sinister ways, thus making him a much more memorable villain. That characterization has carried over into The Dark World and the movie is better for it. Loki gives the film a significant jolt of adrenaline every time he’s on screen, which helps the movie greatly whenever it starts to slag. He gets all the best lines, and his chemistry with Thor is even more entertaining than the chemistry between Thor and Jane. Tom Hiddleston looks like he’s having a lot fun here with the role, and that sense of fun becomes very infectious for audiences watching the film. I’m sure that the growing number of Loki fans out there will be very pleased with how he’s used in this movie.

The downside of having Loki present, however, is that he steals so much of the effectiveness away from this film’s more principal villains. The portrayal of the Dark Elves is really the one thing that keeps this from being a truly great film. They are very forgettable and uninteresting bad guys on which to center the film around, and sadly, the movie never really delves deeply into them as individual characters. They’re not terrible villains by any means; and definitely not the awful, slap-to-the-face villains that Iron Man 3 presented us. There’s just not much to say about them other than they are mean and they want to destroy. The leader, Malekith, is played by a former Doctor Who, Christopher Eccleston, and he does the best he can with his underwritten character. The problem that I have with their function in the story-line is that we never really get to understand what the Dark Elves are. They are an ancient race bent on destruction, but it’s never explained exactly where they come from or what they plan to do once they have enacted their apocalyptic plans. That being said, their look is unique and they have a very memorable looking spaceship that is used effectively in scenes throughout the film. Perhaps if there wasn’t a better villain already taking up screen-time in the movie like Loki does here, then maybe the Dark Elves would have worked better, but unfortunately they stand as one of the weaker elements in the film.

That being said, I am glad that the movie doesn’t fall into the trap of being just a lead-up to different movie. In some ways, that actually makes it an improvement over the first Thor. Thor (2011) was a wonderful film in it’s own right, but it was also tied a little too closely with the “Avengers Initiative” Phase 1 plan, and that led to some awkward shoehorning of elements from the overall Marvel universe. In this movie, the references to other Marvel characters are minor, allowing the story-line to stay more focused within Thor’s world. Sure, there are mentions here and there of the “New York Incident,” especially when Loki enters the film’s plot, but even these moments make sense in their placement within the film. There’s also a great cameo halfway through the film that I won’t give away, but it makes perfect sense once you see it.

I also think that the film did an excellent job with it’s visual look. Asgard has been expanded upon from the first movie, which rarely left the confines of Odin’s immense palace. In this film, we are given more overview of the surrounding world that Thor calls home and it is beautifully realized. I especially like the different ways that the production design team worked in Nordic styles into the look of Asgard. At one point in the movie, there is a fierce aerial battle in the skies over Asgard and the warships that the Asgardians use to battle the Dark Elves are made up to look like flying Viking longboats. It’s clever visual elements like this that makes Thor’s world feel unique, while at the same time easy to understand. Also, bringing the action on Earth to London helps to blend the visual styles of the different worlds together. The original film brought Thor to New Mexico, which significantly clashed with the scenes set in Asgard. Here, by taking the setting to an Old World city like London, the filmmakers manage to keep the blending of styles consistent throughout the whole movie. Thor feels much less like a fish out of water in the Earth scenes here, which helps with the character’s familiarity with our world in the story. First time film director, Alan Taylor, tackles both sides very well, and while he may not have the same extravagant style as Kenneth Branagh, he nevertheless manages to keep all of the elements of the film working together. Perhaps it’s because he’s worked in both kinds of genres for so long, directing episodes of both Game of Thrones and The Sopranos, that he was able to find that right sort of balance.

Thor: The Dark World may have some faults in the story-line and in some of the characterizations, but it mostly succeeds as both it’s own stand alone film and as part of the Marvel universe as a whole. This was a breathe of fresh air after being severely disappointed with Iron Man 3. What is most pleasing about the film is that the filmmakers were able to actually make a movie that exists more within Thor’s own world than what we’ve seen before. I view this film as being only slightly better than the first in that regard, but both films have about the same strengths and weaknesses. What makes the Thor movies so interesting, and perhaps more interesting than any of the other Marvel films, is that they are grounded more in fantasy than anything else. Iron Man and Captain America are identified as science-fiction works, but the Thor movies play by different rules, and as a result, you can actually get away with more of the cheesy, swashbuckling elements in the plot. Marvel films do deliver consistently on the action front, but when a movie like Thor unashamedly indulges itself in some of the more operatic moments, it feels very natural and appropriate. What I love most here, though, are the little character touches. It’s hard to think that a small thing like Thor hanging his hammer on a coat rack would be so endearing to me in this film, but that’s how well it works. I’m happy to see Marvel pick itself up and do well by their hammer swinging hero, and I hope that it marks an improved trajectory for both “Avengers” Phase 2 and for Thor’s own series as well.

Rating: 8/10

Editorials

Apocalyptic Cinema – Making Disasters Entertaining in Movies

November 2, 2013 James Humphreys

One thing that we often see in human nature are destructive impulses; or to be more specific, we all like to see something get destroyed. Whether it is a benign thing like blowing down a house of cards or something more extreme like an implosion of a building, we just enjoy watching something that was built up be taken down. Hell, we even do it to each other through schadenfreude; whether it’s in politics like the Anthony Wiener scandal, or the rise and fall of a Hollywood star like Lindsey Lohan. Our culture seems to relish destruction as a part of entertainment. I don’t necessarily find this to be a bad thing, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand. And that’s usually what we find in a lot of movies as well. Disaster films have been a staple of movie-making for generations, but in recent years, we’ve seen visual effects work become sophisticated enough to the point where destruction looks authentic enough to be believable. But, when we start to see movies become ever more comfortable showing widespread destruction as a part of their storytelling, there starts to be a question about where the line must be drawn. Is it right for us to feel entertained when we see things like the White House or the Capitol Building being destroyed? How about the entire world? In this article, I will look at the highs and lows of disaster film-making and how the audiences reactions to them reveal the extremes to which people want to be entertained.

A lot of the reason why Disaster films exist is because they are a great showcase for special effects. Going all the way back to the silent era, we’ve seen filmmakers use primitive but successful effects work to create larger than life destruction. You could even look at some of the early Biblical epics like Cecil B. DeMille’s 1923 version of The Ten Commandments as early examples of a disaster movie. The film had a moral message yes, but there were many audience members I’m sure who saw the film just because they wanted to see the grandiose destruction caused by the ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. As special effects have become more sophisticated, so has there been an increase in disaster movies. Soon films were crafted around some of the most famous disasters in history, like In Old Chicago (1937), which depicted the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, or San Francisco (1938), dramatizing the famous 1906 earthquake. It wasn’t until the 1970’s, however, when Disaster films could be declared a genre all to itself. In that period, we saw a glut of disaster related movies made specifically for the purpose of being epic, star-studded extravaganzas, with the latest is special effects work on display. These films included Earthquake (1974), starring Charlton Heston; The Poseidon Adventure (1971), with Gene Hackman and Ernest Borgnine; and The Towering Inferno (1974), with Paul Newman and Steve McQueen, just to name a few.

The rise of the disaster movie genre in the 70’s began to die down in the 80’s, mainly due to the rise of Science Fiction and Fantasy films as a showcase for effects work, but the genre lived on as it began to evolve. In the 1990’s, we saw the emergence of a filmmaker who would go on to not only redefine the genre, but make it all his own. This filmmaker was German born director Roland Emmerich, and over the course of his career, you can see that nearly 80% of his filmography is made up of disaster movies. The movie that put him on the map in the film industry was a film that actually redefined two genres in one, and that was 1996’s Independence Day. The movie was essentially an alien invasion narrative, but what Roland Emmerich did was to use the techniques utilized in popular disaster films as a means to make the destruction caused by the aliens look and feel as real as possible. In the movie, we see catastrophic explosions engulf entire cities, destroying landmarks before our very eyes, including the White House itself. This was a film that not only drew upon our greatest fears of total annihilation, but it also made it feel completely real. Independence Day was a phenomenal success when it premiered, and it made the disaster genre a force to be reckoned with. As for Emmerich, he has stuck mostly with the genre that had made him a player in Hollywood, with mixed results, with successful but ludicrous films like Godzilla (1998), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), and 2012 (2009) all falling into that same mold as Independence Day.

But, what was interesting about the success of Independence Day was that it revealed something about how we react to seeing destruction on film. In the movie, famous landmarks like the Empire State Building are blown to pieces and thousands of people are destroyed in seconds before our very eyes. And this is what we consider entertaining? Maybe entertaining isn’t the right word. I think movies like Independence Day do well because it allows us to face our fears and indulge that sinking feeling of helplessness. It’s not so much the scenes of destruction themselves that we find so entertaining, but the framework around them. While watching a disaster movie, we need to feel the impact of the destruction, and that’s why so many disaster films have to finish with a happy ending. In Independence Day, the colossal destruction closes the first act of the film. The rest of the movie details how humankind copes with the aftermath, and how they fight off the invaders despite the odds against them. You have to go through a lot of darkness before you can appreciate the light at the end of the tunnel, and that’s what has defined the best films in the genre. If a film takes a bleak outlook and doesn’t give the movie a satisfying resolution, then it’s going to fail. This has been the case with other disaster films, like 2009’s Knowing, which leaves everyone dead and earth uninhabitable at the end; sorry to spoil it for you. Even the laughable 2012 left room for some hope for humanity, and not surprisingly, it did much better.

Disaster films have to thrive on that feeling of hope. We become enthralled when we see something grand get destroyed, but it’s what rises from the ashes that makes us feel grateful in the end. That’s why we enjoy watching controlled demolitions; old buildings must come down in order to make way for something better. That’s helps us to understand why we accept destruction as entertainment. Many films skirt that line very often, but the way a disaster film can get the audience on its side is through the characters. Characters in disaster movies must be likable and easy to identify with. It also helps if they are not thinly drawn stereotypes as well, but fully defined people. Emmerich’s films have tended to have lackluster characters, which is why casting makes a difference in his movies, and other ones like them. Independence Day worked well because you had charismatic performances from actors like Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith, who helped to balance the film out by creating characters you wanted to root for. Other disaster films tend to miscast their roles, making their characters’ story-lines a little more hard to swallow. Case in point, John Cusack in 2012. Cusack is a fine actor when a movie calls for it, but when your character is a mild-mannered author who somehow is able to outrun the eruption of a Supervolcano; that I have a hard time buying. Now it’s difficult to say that a character needs to believable in a movie centered around a fictional disaster, but sometimes it does matter. Likability of the characters is what separates the good disaster films from the bad ones, and unfortunately that’s something you rarely see work effectively.

For the most part, disaster films exist because they are showcases for the newest techniques in special effects. The human element in the films are crucial, but they do play a lesser part in the creation of the movies as a whole. But, when the balance of these films aren’t settled in the right way, then they do run the risk of seeming either lackluster or worse, exploitative. This was an issue in Hollywood in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks in New York City, where we saw a level of destruction in real life that we could only comprehend in movies before. Soon after, the Independence Day style destruction of city-scapes in movies stopped for a while, because that imagery became all too real for us and seeing it on the big screen afterwards would’ve been seen as insensitive. Now that time has passed, we are seeing that kind of destruction depicted again, but it took a while for us to get there. What I think makes audiences understand the level of acceptability in disaster imagery is the balance between the level of destruction in the movie and how it functions within the narrative.

Even though it came out months before 9/11, I think that the Michael Bay film Pearl Harbor (2001) feel into that unacceptable exploitation category because it didn’t find that right balance. In the movie, the famous attack is depicted in gruesome detail, but it lacks any resonance because it is just the backdrop to a rather lackluster love triangle plot. A lot more respect could have been paid to the real men and woman who died on that day instead of having everything hinge on fictional characters that we care so little about. Pearl Harbor felt more like a shallow Hollywood attempt to exploit a tragedy for the purpose of creating a film that showcased impressive production values and matinee idol stars. In other words, it was a movie driven more by marketing than actually informing audiences about the real event. If you don’t find that right balance in a disaster movie, than your film will not be believable, as was the case here. Pearl Harbor failed as a movie mainly because it knew what it wanted to be, but the filmmakers didn’t know how to make it work. They were trying to follow in the footsteps of what has ultimately been the only disaster film to date to ever win the Academy Award for Best Picture; that being director James Cameron’s Titanic (1997). The reason why Titanic worked and Pearl Harbor didn’t was because it had a balance to it. The love story at the center of Titanic, while not the most engrossing, did keep the narrative moving and it did endear the characters involved to the audience before the pivotal event happens. Also, James Cameron put so much detail into the recreation of the ship’s sinking, and every moment of that is well executed on screen. No shaky cam or needless destruction is present in the climatic moments of the movie. It works because the film was, dare I say, respectful to the actual disaster and to the victims of the event as well.

Making disaster movies thoughtful turns out to have been a secret to the genre’s success. Going back to my example film once again, Independence Day, we see that the film works despite it’s more ludicrous moments by actually having characters work out logical answers to their dilemmas. It’s not enough to have the characters just move from one disaster to another without explanation, like in 2012 Or to have our characters helplessly standby as the world crumbles around them and inject stale philosophical points about why it all has happened, like in The Day After Tomorrow. We want to see our characters be problem solvers and actually deal with the apocalypse like its something they can come back from. That’s why, despite it’s many flaws, Independence Day succeeds. Mankind coming together to help “Take those sons of bitches down,” is an ultimately inspiring thing. Whether it’s against nature, or the extraterrestrial, or against our own selves, we enjoy watching characters pull themselves out of a struggle. That’s why I think World War Z succeeded this year, despite all the naysayers who predicted it would fail (myself included). The movie looked like another exploitative take on the zombie sub-genre, but the finished film was a more thoughtful examination about how the survivors of the catastrophe try to deal with the problem and learn to survive. Sometimes it helps to treat your audience to a more thoughtful story about survival, rather than just destruction.

Disaster films will always be around as long as there is an audience for them. And as long as filmmakers actually treat its audiences’ intelligence levels more respectfully, then we’ll also see the Disaster genre gain more respectability in the film community. I like the fact that Disaster films have become such an acceptable part of cinematic history, that it’s now commonplace to spoof it as well. This summer, we got not one, but two comedies centered around apocalyptic events: Seth Rogen’s This is the End and Edgar Wright’s The World’s End. Both films are hilarious takes on the genre, but they both know what makes a good disaster film work in the end and they exploit those elements perfectly. It comes down to characters you want to root for and wanting to see them overcome even the complete destruction of society as we know it. Even though the film’s are played for laughs, the same basic elements hold true and the filmmakers who made them know that. Overall, destruction becomes entertainment because we look forward to the process of renewal. Disaster movies fail if they indulge too heavily in the destructive parts or leave the audience with no satisfying resolution. It’s human nature to enjoy seeing something blow up, but we also enjoy seeing something good rise out of the rubble of the destruction, and in the end, that’s why we enjoy good a disaster movie.

Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Favorite Villains

October 26, 2013 James Humphreys

One of the ways that you can gauge the success of a story is in the strength of it’s villain, or more specifically it’s antagonist. A successful and memorable villain is something that can always make or break a good narrative, because when we follow a story-line, there has to be someone or something driving the tension. A lot of the greatest villains that we’ve ever seen have not only effectively filled their role in a story-line, but have also become the thing we’ll enjoy and remember the most in them. Cinema has given us a great variety of memorable villains over the years, and some of the best ones have not only stood out in their own films, but have transcended out into our pop culture in general. I guarantee that the majority of Halloween costumes that are going to be worn in the next week are going to be based off famous movie villains. Take a count next time at a Halloween party and see how many Draculas, or Darth Vaders, or Jason Voorhees you can spot in the room. And it’s understandable; we as an audience love villains. They are usually the most interesting characters and, depending on how diabolical they are, the most entertaining. Actors often say that they enjoy playing the villain more than the hero, because it allows them to indulge in some of the baser aspects of the humanity. In other words, it feels good to act evil.

So, as part of this Halloween season, I would like to share my own list of favorite villains. Interestingly, after looking through them all, I noticed that not all of them are particularly scary characters or overtly mean-spirited. The reason why I chose these characters is because they were the ones that left the biggest impression on me, and were part of the reason why I enjoy their individual films so much. Mainly, these are the villains that I just love to hate. Some are pretty obvious choices, while others might surprise you. I’m was also surprised how so many of the characters on this list also start off seeming so normal at first, until you start to peel the layers back. I think that’s a character development that I enjoy seeing the most; darkness hiding in plain sight.

But before I delve into the list itself, I want to share some of the villains that didn’t make the list that are still worth mentioning: The Wicked Witch of the West (Wizard of Oz), Darth Vader (Star Wars), Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs), John Doe (Seven), Reverand Powell (The Night of the Hunter), Cruella deVil (101 Dalmatians), Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), Saruman (The Lord of the Rings), Max Cady (Cape Fear, both versions), Hans Gruber (Die Hard), Voldemort (Harry Potter series), Annie Wilkes (Misery), and Frank Booth (Blue Velvet). Now, here’s my list for you to read and rip apart if you wish.

10.

MOLA RAM from INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984)

Played by Amrish Puri

Here’s the first choice that may surprise some of you. Of all of the villainous characters in the George Lucas stable, how can I choose this character over Darth Vader? The truth is that Darth Vader may be a great villain and a great character in general, but he never scared me as a child. Mola Ram did. Because of that, he left a much bigger impression on me and to this day, I still enjoy seeing this character every time I watch the movie. Unarguably the best villain in the entire Indiana Jones franchise, Mola Ram stands out because he seems to be the very personification of unchecked evil. His evil nature is shown most clearly in how he holds power over his cult of followers and in how he has exploited everyone towards his dark ambitions; including enslaving children. He even turns Dr. Jones evil at one point, which is quite an accomplishment in itself. Surprisingly, for such a memorable villain, he actually has very little onscreen time. His first appearance doesn’t happen until halfway through the movie, but man what an entrance. Indian actor Amrish Puri makes the most of his limited scenes and steals every moment he’s in. Plus, no one has looked more badass pulling a living heart out of someone’s chest.

“Kali Ma. Kali Ma.”

NOAH CROSS from CHINATOWN (1974)

Played by John Huston

Here’s an example of a villain whose true evil nature is hidden below the surface. Chinatown is a great throwback to classic noir mysteries, and for the majority of the film, we follow along as Detective Jake Gittes starts to believe that energy supply tycoon Noah Cross isn’t the fine upstanding businessman that he pretends to be. But, when the film reaches the final act, we learn that Mr. Cross has done far more horrible things than just illegal business practices. We discover that he had raped his own daughter in the past and that a child out of incest was born as a result. Jake confronts Noah about it, and it turns out he feels no shame about what he’s done. In one of the greatest villainous lines ever delivered, Noah Cross explains the way he sees the world by saying, “Most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of ANYTHING.” The scary thing about the character though is that he’s become so powerful and influential, that he’s now untouchable, and will probably go on doing his deprave things unimpeded until he dies comfortably at an old age. A lot of credit goes to director turned actor John Huston for portraying that aspect of the character so chillingly. Huston was an imposing figure both on and off the screen, and he makes Noah Cross one of the cinemas great villains in a terrifying yet subtle way.

“It’s not worth it Mr. Gittes. It’s really not worth it.”

COLONEL HANS LANDA from INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009)

Played by Christoph Waltz

You know you’re a memorable antagonist when you appear in the same film as Adolf Hitler, and you’re still considered the main villain. That’s the case with Hans Landa, aka the “Jew Hunter”, in Quentin Tarantino’s WWII epic. Brilliantly portrayed by Christoph Waltz in an Oscar-winning performance, Col. Landa is one of the greatest examples of portraying a character in the opposite way than what is usual. The majority of time, Nazis are appropriately portrayed as sadistic monsters; best example being Amon Gothe in Schindler’s List, played brilliantly by Ralph Finnes. What defines Hans Landa, however, is his pleasantness. He’s polite and courteous, even when he’s committing the most evil of acts. Behind that beaming smile we know there lies the mind of a true monster. He lures you in with his pleasant personality, but the moment he turns silent and the smile disappears, that’s when you know you’re in trouble. The only time he reveals his true nature in the movie is the scene where he chokes the double agent actress to death after returning her shoe, and of course once the deed is done, he smiles again like nothing has happened. Both Christoph Waltz and Quentin Taratino deserve a lot of credit for creating a villain like this that changes around character archetypes, and as a result, created a true original in Hans Landa.

“Ooooo, that’s a BINGO. Is that how you say it?”

MALIFICENT from SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959)

Voiced by Elanor Audley

Disney Animation can be credited with creating many of the most memorable villains in cinema history, and it’s mainly due to the fact that their dark villains stand out a lot more in comparison to the usual light-heartedness commonly found in a Disney film. In many cases, that contrast has led to some notably sinister villains and villainesses; some of whom have inspired some of our darkest nightmares in our childhood. And if there was a Disney villain that you could pick out as the gold standard of the bunch, it would be Malificent. The evil fairy from Disney’s Sleeping Beauty has not only become a memorable villain in her own right, but she has gone on to influence many other villains in animated films in the years since. Anytime when you see an animated film’s villain transform into a giant monster at the film’s climax, it calls back to Malificent’s own transformation into a fire-breathing dragon in the finale of Sleeping Beauty. That’s an impact that few other villains have had, and Malificent deservedly continues to be popular to this day. Outside of her film appearance, Malificent has gone on to become the unofficial arch-nemesis of the whole Disney universe, thanks to highlighted roles in things like the Fantasmic show at Disneyland and in video games like Kingdom Hearts. To be considered the top dog in a rogues gallery as impressive as Disney Animation’s, it’s understandable to see how impactful Malificent has been.

“Well, isn’t this a pleasant surprise. I set my trap for a peasant, an lo, I catch a prince.”

KING EDWARD I (LONGSHANKS) from BRAVEHEART (1995)

Played by Patrick McGoohan

Some of the villains on this list have made it here because they scared me as a child while other have made it because I find them so fascinating. In terms of Longshanks, however, he made this list just because I find him so entertaining. The movie Braveheart undoubtedly takes a lot of liberties with history in service of the story, and the portrayal real historical figure King Edward I is no different. The reason why the film works is that it is unashamed about being a romanticized account of history, through both the writing of the story and the portrayal of it’s characters. Longshanks, as he’s called frequently in the film, is probably the most transparent, mustache-twirling villain on this list, but he earns his place for just being so overt and over-the-top in his evilness that he becomes entertaining. Actor Patrick McGoohan is a delight to watch in the role, and he takes such pleasure in being so diabolical. A lot of the character comes out in the writing as well. Every line that Longshanks delivers is a snarky put-down to someone else, whether it’s directed at William Wallace or to his own king’s council. One of the reasons why I hold the film Braveheart in such high regard is because well Longshanks works as a villain. And only the greatest villains are the ones that command repeat viewings.

“The trouble with Scotland, is that it’s full of Scots.”

HAL 9000 from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)

Voiced by Douglas Rain

HAL 9000 is one of the most unusual villains to have ever been conceived for a film. What makes him such a frightening villain is the fact that he is all intelligence and no emotion, which as it turns out leads to the impulse to murder in this film. HAL 9000 was created by scientists to perform all of the higher functions of a space shuttle while it’s crew hibernates on the way to their mission near the orbit of Jupiter. Unfortunately, he was programmed to make sure that nothing got in the way of completing the mission. With out much wiggle room or clarity in that order, HAL saw the crew itself as a threat to the mission’s success, and he begins killing them off one by one by cutting their life supports. Only Astronaut Dave Bowman survives and he promptly shuts down HAL before he can do any more damage. It’s amazing how director Stanley Kubrick could turn such a featureless and zero personality character into such a compelling villain, but the trick works to perfection here. HAL 9000’s cold, emotionless voice helps in selling the chill factor, as does the omni-presence of the unblinking red eye. And given our increasing reliance today on electronic devices in our everyday lives, the concept of a dangerous computer mind like HAL’s doesn’t seem that far fetched nowadays.

“I’m sorry Dave. I cannot do that.”

MRS. ELEANOR ISELIN from THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962)

Played by Angela Lansbury

It’s a chilling thought to think that you greatest enemy in the world could be your own mother. But that’s the case in the brilliant John Frankenheimer film, The Manchurian Candidate. The film centers around a multi-layered conspiracy to assassinate a Presidential candidate that includes brainwashed POW soldiers, Chinese communists spies, a firebrand Senator that’s obviously inspired by Joseph McCarthy, and the Queen of Diamonds. At the center of the conspiracy is Golden Boy war hero Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), who has been displaying unusual behavior since his return home. When the mystery starts to unravel, we soon learn that the one pulling all the strings is non other than Raymond’s mother, Elanor, who is married to the fiercely anti-communist Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate John Iselin. In one of the greatest casting against types ever, Angela Lansbury portrays a truly terrifying mother-figure in Elanor Iselin. She creates a truly nasty character by balancing the motherly aspects of the character with the more vitriolic aspects. She also portrays the Oedipal aspects of the relationship with her son in very fearless, and ultimately grotesque ways. In a political thriller where political games leads to a lot of people doing bad things, Elanor Iselin stands out as a truly dangerous and ruthless manipulator.

“I wanted a killer from a world filled with killers and they chose you.”

THE JOKER from BATMAN (1989) and THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

Played by Jack Nicholson (Batman) and Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

I’m cheating a little bit here, by selecting two different versions of the same character. It was hard to pick just one, so I thought it was better to put the them together. The Joker is not only one of the greatest cinematic villains, but also arguably the greatest comic book villain of all times. A brilliant counter-point figure to the caped crusader, Batman, The Joker has that special ability to be laugh-out-loud funny one minute and then horrifically frightening in the next. There have been 4 cinematic takes on the character (special mention to Cesar Romero in the 1966 film, and Mark Hamill in the 1993 animated feature Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.) But the two most notable version are the ones played by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger. Jack Nicholson seemed to be born to play the part, and his performance in the Tim Burton directed feature proves that to be true. Albeit, he plays up the funnier aspects of the character a little more, but when the movie calls for it, he can be truly terrifying in the role. Heath Ledger, however, was not the choice people had expected when director Christopher Nolan cast him in the role for The Dark Knight, and he had to overcome a lot of doubt in the audience’s eyes. Not only did he prove us all wrong, he set the bar even higher with his performance, creating one of the most terrifying villains to ever appear on screen. Both versions have their merits, but I might rank Heath Ledger’s a little higher, just because of the impact he made. That’s not to say that Jack’s version is any less fun to watch. The great thing about the Joker is that like Batman, he will continue to be remade and reinterpreted in both films and comics for years to come.

“Wait until they get a load of me.”

“You want to know how I got these scars?”

NORMAN BATES from PSYCHO (1960)

Played by Anthony Perkins

Like many of the other villains on this list, Norman Bates doesn’t come across as purely evil, until you start to look deeper. Taking the term Mama’s boy to the ultimate extreme, Norman has become one the greatest villains in cinema history mainly because of how compelling his character is. He seems so normal and harmless at first, which helps the audience to identify with him right away; that is until we see what he’s really capable of. Director Alfred Hitchcock always enjoyed subverting conventional wisdom and Hollywood archetypes, and here he transforms the boy next door into a homicidal killer. We don’t see Norman do a lot of killing in the movie, but that’s not what makes him terrifying. It’s the psychosis behind the character that makes him a chilling villain. Anthony Perkins pulls of that balancing act to perfection. His charming personality in the first half of the film fools us into believing that he is no where near capable of committing murder and that the homicidal one is really his mother. That notion proves wrong once we see his mothers rotting corpse in the basement and him in his mother’s dress with a butcher knife. The most terrifying aspect though is that Norman has progressively been loosing more of himself to his psychosis and that he’s developing a split personality based on his mom. The idea that he sits alone all day having a two way conversation with a rotting corpse is definitely enough to make anyone’s skin crawl and it definitely certifies his place among the most memorable villains ever.

“A boy’s best friend is his mother.”

ALEX DELARGE from A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)

Played by Malcolm McDowell

In most films, a villain will sometimes be a more compelling character than the main protagonist. In Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, the main protagonist just happens to be the villain. In this classic film, we are presented with probably the most compelling and memorable portrayal of a true psychopath, and the journey that his life takes. Alex is an unapologetic violent thug who terrorizes the streets of his hometown along with his gang of followers, whom he calls his Droogies. Much like the Joker, he also takes delight in doing the most horrible things, and never once feels guilty about it. He is just pure unchecked evil, which makes his villainy all the more unsettling to watch, especially considering how young he is; in the original novel, Alex is only a teenager. What makes Alex even more fascinating, however, is what happens to him once he becomes reformed in the latter half of the film. After being arrested, Alex volunteers for a new experimental treatment, which leaves him docile and unable to give in to his more baser instincts. As a result of this, he is unable to fight back, and all the people he has wronged start to take out their revenge in ever more increasingly violent ways. It’s as if Alex is a lightning rod for all evil actions in the world, and if he’s not the one doing it, then he’ll bring it out in even the most good-natured people around him. Malcolm McDowell plays both aspects of the character brilliantly and unlike most other villains, he makes Alex a villain we want to root for. I wonder what that says about humanity; that we value even the most extreme of anti-heroes, or that there’s evil instincts in every one of us that we enjoy seeing others act out. All of this is what makes Alex what I believe to be the best villain in movie history.

“I was cured alright.”

So, these are my choices for the greatest movie villains of all time. I hope that some of these picks are among yours as well. Out of all this, it’s clear that a great villain has to come from a great story, but that’s not always the case. Some mediocre story-lines can be improved upon if the villain is memorable enough. The worst thing that a movie can do is to make their antagonist weak and insignificant, even if their hero is a compelling one. Villains drive the tension of the film, so it’s essential to make them a worthwhile character. For me, the best villains are the ones that are unexpected and multi-layered. Overtly evil characters can work some of the time, but the ones that will frighten us more are the ones that are the most like us, which shows the thin line that we all walk between right and wrong. That’s what makes villainous characters such an integral part of our movie-going experience. We just enjoy watching characters being bad and loving it.

CINERAMBLE

All posts by James Humphreys

The Wolf of Wall Street – Review

Evolution of Character – Ebenezer Scrooge

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug – Review

Tis the Season – Why Some Films Become Holiday Perennials

Frozen – Review

Collecting Criterion – The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Flicks and Picks – The End of the Blockbuster Video Era

Thor: The Dark World – Review

Apocalyptic Cinema – Making Disasters Entertaining in Movies

Top Ten Favorite Villains

This is….