Zootopia – Review

ZOOTOPIA

The animated movie market is an often perilous road for filmmakers.  On the one hand, it can generate amazing success if one of your films hits with an audience, but on the other hand, you must always be aware of changing tastes in the market.  The unfortunate thing for animation producers is the long gestation period it takes to make an animated film; it can sometimes take 4 or more years to go from development to final product.  And this is even more complicated when you are continually releasing a movie every single year.  For a lot of animation studios, it’s a tough act to pull off; being able to retain high returns with every release.  The unfortunate result is that we find more and more animation studios that are less willing to take risks with their movies; choosing to play it safe and reliable rather than pushing the envelope.  That’s why so many animated films today tend to be formulaic and not groundbreaking, because that enables them to have broader appeal to the average viewer.  Occasionally, you do get a studio like Pixar that does achieve long-standing success by continually challenging themselves with every movie; much like how they managed to do for much of the 2000’s.  But even their success pushed them to the limit and now they are starting to be bit by the formula bug (movies like BraveCars 2, and The Good Dinosaur all falling victim to it).  But, while we do see some giants of animation fall, we’ll also witness the rise of another to fill that gap in quality entertainment, and surprisingly enough it’s tried and true Disney Animation that seems to be the ones delivering right now.

Of course, Disney has had it’s share of pitfalls throughout it’s long history.  In fact, they have usually emerged as the trendsetters of both the right ways and the wrong ways to build an animated body of work.  Coming out of a dark, aimless period in the couple decades after Walt Disney’s death, the Disney Animation Studios enjoyed a massively successful Renaissance period that started with The Little Mermaid (1989) and went all the way through to The Lion King (1994).  At this point Disney believed that they worked out the formula on how to make hit movies year after year, but that proved not to be the case.  Pocahontas (1995), The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) and Hercules (1997) all failed to match The Lion King‘s success and Disney once again found themselves loosing their edge, and they couldn’t reverse course quickly due to the lengthy developments of their movies.  In this time, CGI animation became the rage, thanks to Pixar’s Toy Story (1995), and with the release of Chicken Little (2005), Disney was forced to follow suit in this new era, abandoning the hand drawn medium that their studio was built on.  But, as Pixar, Dreamworks, and all the other animation studios have gone back in forth terms of quality as of late, Disney has continued to refine their art with every film and are once again finding themselves at the top of the pack by doing what they’ve always striven to do and that’s to make quality entertainment for all audiences.  This manifested in a big way with Frozen (2013), Disney’s biggest animated hit ever, but the best thing about this new era of Disney animation is that they are once again taking chances with their films again, both in their content as well as in their art.  And the boldest expression of this so far may be seen in their new film, Zootopia.

Zootopia takes place in an alternate reality where human beings do not exist and that it has been all other species of animals that have evolved over time and built up civilizations.  In the titular city of Zootopia, animals live and work together in harmony with each other, functioning not unlike most other modern societies.  We meet Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin) a spunky rabbit from the country trying to make a life in the big city as the first bunny police officer ever.  Unfortunately for her, she receives little confidence in her abilities from her superior, Chief Bogo (voiced by Idris Elba), who places her in parking meter management.  But, opportunity rises when an abduction case falls into her lap, and with the support of higher up officials in City Hall who want their inclusion program in the police force to work, she is given a chance to solve it by Chief Bogo, but only with the ultimatum that she completes it in 48 hours.  Judy diligently pursues any leads she can find and her only hope of solving the case rests with the trustworthiness of a con artist fox named Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman).  Forced together by their situation, Judy and Nick uncover a conspiracy in the city of Zootopia that is turning the normally civilized citizens into savage, feral beasts, and along the way they must learn to trust one another, despite the fact that they are natural enemies to begin with.  And so, they travel all across the four districts of Zootopia, encountering rodent mafias, a DMV run by sloths, and all other big city obstacles that fall in their way of uncovering the truth, including their own innate prejudices.

Zootopia, to say the least, is a very enjoyable animated film that’ll appeal to audiences of all ages.  There are visual gags galore and a touching story about friendship at it’s core.  But, what I actually took away the most about this movie was not the humor or the lush visuals; it was actually something that usually becomes a flaw in most other animated movies and that’s the socially aware message.  It’s not suggested clearly in any of the advertisements of this movie, but there is actually a very poignant statement made in this film about the nature of bigotry in modern society.  Animated movies  have tackled issues of racism, sexism, and class-ism before, but never quite as profound as it is in Zootopia, and it’s actually quite refreshing.  In the movie, both of our main characters have suffered discrimination in some way, sometimes in very cruel acts.  Judy deals with it by overcoming her limitations and proving her worth, while Nick embodies all the negative stereotypes that are associated with his kind and makes them work to his advantage.  It is only by working together that Judy and Nick manage to tackle discrimination head on, even facing the consequences that their own underlying prejudices that threaten their fragile alliance and eventual friendship.  It’s a profound message that I was surprised to find in such a supposedly silly cartoon.  Despite the best intentions of a society of animals to create a peaceful coexistence together, underlying bigotry still sets people apart and keeps good ones from ever being fully accepted in the society that they deserve to be a part of.  Sure, the cast is filled with animals, but this is an issue that is all too real in our human world, and I’m happy to see this movie tackle it head on.

Sadly, the strength of that message also leads me to my one complaint about the movie, and that’s it’s cop out finale.  I thought that the message of the film was so strong, being that bigotry is the worst enemy of a civilized society, that the movie could stand on it alone, having the characters’ biggest challenge be something larger than any of them could ever defeat.  In other words, this movie could have been a masterpiece if it had broken from the Animated movie formula and have society at large be the film’s antagonistic force instead of standard villain.  But, unfortunately, the movie does have a villain, and a fairly weak one at that.  I won’t spoil the eleventh hour reveal, but it kind of cheats the message of the movie by explaining away a societal woe through an over-arching conspiracy.  Someone in the movie turns prey against predators in a ploy to create an idealized society that favors one class over the other and in turn helps to elevate their own stature.  Given that this movie took over four years to make, I doubt that the filmmakers could have foreseen the rise of Donald Trump, but the revelation in this movie does have the benefit of mirroring current events.  Still, it felt like a cheap excuse to close up plot threads to give the characters a happy ending, whereas I think the movie would have benefited from a more bittersweet finale.  Yes, the main characters come together and solve their differences, but it would have made better sense that the larger issue of the injustice because of bigotry is left unresolved, because it would have made the lesson more profound.  Still, it’s welcoming that the message is here at all and delivered in such a well executed way.  In that sense, I can forgive the film for not sticking the landing in the end.  I just wish they hadn’t gone through that step, thereby minimizing their intentions.

Apart from the film’s message, there is also a lot to love about the visual presentation of Zootopia.  This is a beautifully realized world that is filled with so many clever details.  Just like The Lego Movie (2014) I will bet you that this will be an animated film that audiences will watch again and again just to catch all the peripheral little gags and details in every frame.  Movies that depict alternate worlds like Zootopia have been done before (Cars).  In fact, Disney has used the anthropomorphic animal society aesthetic twice before in their history (1973’s Robin Hood and 2005’s Chicken Little).  But few if any of those predecessors have had this kind of attention to detail devoted to them.  You can tell that the filmmakers devoted a great amount of effort to make this world both authentic and visually stimulating.  It’s so stimulating in fact that you often feel like the filmmakers are holding back as they share it with us.  The movie feels like it merely scratches the surface of this lush, fully realized world and I wouldn’t be surprised if a sequel allows us to explore more of it in the future, because I’m sure that there is plenty of Zootopia yet to be seen.  And that is a mark of a good movie, leaving us wanting more.  For what we do see, it does serve the story well and much of the entertainment value is in picking up the visual gags whenever they appear, like characters using iPhones with a carrot logo on it instead of an Apple, or the little animal versions of contemporary brands; like Mousey’s instead of Macy’s.  Another visual detail that I’m glad that the filmmakers took into account is the fact that all animals are to scale in this movie.  It’s not like other Disney films where we see a four foot tall mouse named Mickey walking around.  No, here Judy Hopps is a normal sized rabbit who sometimes has to deal with animals many, many times her size, including elephants.  It’s details like that which really helps Zootopia stand apart from it’s other like-minded predecessors.

One other bright spot is the well-rounded cast.  Judy and Nick make a great pair of protagonists and their voice actors bring them to life perfectly.  It seems only natural for a slick talking actor like Jason Bateman to play a sly fox con artist, and the role plays perfectly to his strengths.  The more revelatory performance though comes from Ginnifer Goodwin as Judy Hopps.  She commands the role wonderfully, making Judy one of the more compelling heroes seen in any recent Disney film.  Originally, the focus of the film was going to be on Nick Wilde, playing upon the idea of what happens when a fox steps into a society run by rabbits; which could have been an interesting tale in itself, but the filmmakers wisely put the focus more on Judy, because it helps the underlying message of the movie better.  It flips the expected result by having the prey persecute the predators for being different, and that’s more profoundly explained through the eyes of a happy-go-lucky little rabbit who doesn’t recognize her own bigotry at first, because she’s only viewed the world before as the underdog.  Goodwin plays both of those character aspects perfectly and it’s a performance that can illicit laughs from the audience in one moment and tears in the next.  The leads are also given great support from an impressive roster of voice actors including Idris Elba, J.K. Simmons, Nate Torrence, Jenny Slate, Bonnie Hunt, Octavia Spencer, and even Tommy Chung (hilariously playing a naturalist hippie yak).  Pop star Shakira even pops up as a singer named Gazelle, who is exactly what you’d expect her to be.  I also have to give special props to veteran voice actor Maurice LaMarche for his hilarious Vito Corleone impression manifested in the body and voice of a shrew, making it one of the movie’s funniest gags.  For a movie to become a hit, it needs characters that you’re willing to follow, and Zootopia benefits from a very strong cast.

Overall, I would say that Disney is continuing their hot streak with Zootopia, which may very well be their most assured and resonant movie in recent memory.  I’ve been a Disney fan for most of my life and because of that, my quality standards are usually a bit more stringent than other people.  You’ve got to remember, I grew up during the Renaissance period, when it looked like Disney could do no wrong.  That period is still a high water mark for me, and despite the overwhelming success that Disney is enjoying right now, I still have some reservations about their so-called recent “masterpieces”.  I’m one of the few people out there who didn’t fall in love with Frozen for example; I thought it was just okay and nothing special.  At the same time, I feel like the ones that take a chance with their message and visual aesthetic are the Disney movies that I respond to more as an adult.  Wreck-it Ralph (2012) is in my opinion the most underrated Disney film in recent memory, and I felt that Big Hero 6 (2014) had a lot of great elements too, although like Zootopia it suffers from a lackluster villain.  But, taking into account all the elements that I judge a Disney film by, Zootopia gets more right than wrong, and it actually may be my favorite movie of theirs since they’ve switched over to computer animation.  Zootopia is a culmination of all the lessons that Disney has learned about how to make a good CGI animated movie and it represents them reaching the peak of their abilities at this moment.  At the same time, it also just stands on it’s own as a solid story with a compelling lesson at it’s center.  The fact that it addresses the issue of systemic bigotry in modern society makes it almost essential viewing, especially for younger audiences.  If this movie can inspire the youngest among us to not prejudge somebody because they are different, or place blame on them for the same reason, then it will have done something that few other movies have done and that’s to change the world.  And this is something that Zootopia should absolutely be praised for in the end.

Rating: 8.5/10

The 2016 Oscars – Picks and Thoughts

The Awards season has come to a close and all that’s left is the big ceremony awarding the industry’s biggest honor; The Academy Award.  Like every year, every one (including myself of course) debate over who will win and who we think will win, and often there is little consensus and often times some bitter disputes.  Regardless of who walks away with the award, we all have to agree that history will ultimately prove what’s a good movie or not and that the awards are more or less just fancy get-togethers for industry insiders to pat each other on the back and give out glorified trophies.  And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with any of that.  The only reason why the Oscars become a big deal is because we the public have given it the weight that it has.  Like everything else in life, we want to see every year marked by a definitive champion, whether it is in sports or in this case, culture.  The Oscars have become the industry’s barometer of the status of movie-making, and whether or not you view it as on point or out of touch depends on your own tastes in movies.  This can also lead to the Oscars becoming a hot button issue for social political issues, because of that value we put on it as a touchstone of our popular culture.  Certainly, the #OscarsSoWhite campaign generated in the last month since the nominations were announced wouldn’t be so controversial if there hasn’t been so much value put on the Awards itself by our culture.  Regardless of the validity of the controversy, it will be a perfect tee up for host Chris Rock, who I hope delivers a hilarious routine in response.  Like every year, I will share with you my picks for the awards, including who I believe will win and who I want to see win in the biggest categories.  So, let’s begin…

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Matt Charman and Joel & Ethan Coen (Bridge of Spies); Alex Garland (Ex Machina); Pete Doctor, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley, and Ronnie del Carmen (Inside Out); Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer (Spotlight); and Jonathan Herman, Angela Berloff, S. Leigh Savidge, and Alan Wenkus (Straight Outta Compton)

Strangely enough, given the complaint of the lack of diversity in the acting categories, this year’s selection of screenplay nominations couldn’t be more diverse; at least in terms of genre types.  You have your straight forward historical drama (Bridge of Spies), an animated film (Inside Out), an in depth look at the journalistic process (Spotlight), a cerebral sci-fi experience (Ex Machina) and a biopic about rappers (Straight Outta Compton).  Overall, I think that many of these choices are deserving, and I’m pleased that the unappreciated Compton and Ex Machina made the cuts.  As of right now, the clear front runner in this category is the highly detailed and politically charged Spotlight.  While Spotlight‘s status as a Best Picture front-runner has diminished in the last couple months, due to shut outs at the Golden Globes and other early industry indicators, the momentum for awarding it’s screenplay hasn’t, especially after a Writers Guild award win.  Is it deserving of the honor.  I believe that that the work put into it, which must have been years in the making just for the research, helps to make it worthy of the award.  But, at the same time, the movie itself lacked any real drive, which keeps it from being my favorite.  It’s fascinating, yes, but the characters lacked definition and the momentum was shaky throughout.  For a screenplay that resonated more for me, I would say that Ex Machina was the standout in this category.  Straight Outta Compton and Inside Out were both entertaining in their writing too, but Ex Machina was the one that really made me think about it long after I saw it.  It’s a brilliant, understated work from accomplished writer Alex Garland.  So, Spotlight will clearly win, but Ex Machina I think will be my dark horse in this race.

Who Will Win: Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer, Spotlight

Who Should Win: Alex Garland, Ex Machina

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Charles Randolph and Adam McKay (The Big Short); Nick Hornby (Brooklyn); Phyllis Nagy (Carol); Drew Goddard (The Martian); and Emma Donoghue (Room)

Here we find the more traditional nominees for Best Screenplay, all classical dramas, with one major exception.  Each is admirable in it’s own right.  I particularly liked Phyllis Nagy’s understated but poignant gay romance in Carol, a screenplay that could have easily sensationalized it’s subject and wisely chose not to.  I also admire Drew Goddard’s The Martian, which managed to make science interesting as well as fun, which is sadly missing in so many Hollywood films today.  Also, a lot of praise is due to Emma Donoghue for adapting her own novel in such an effective way.  But, for my favorite, I would have to go with the odd man out, and that’s Adam McKay and Charles Randolph’s The Big Short, and thankfully, this one has emerged as the clear front-runner.  What makes it a stand out is the unconventional presentation of the entire screenplay, taking a dry, heady subject like the factors that led to the Housing Market crash and making it accessible to the audience, while at the same time finding the absurdest humor in it all and being able to tell a story with compelling characters.  It’s a remarkable balancing act that the writing team should be awarded for.  Of all the nominees in this category, and out of all the movies nominated in general, I believe that this will be the one that will gain in stature long after the awards are over, and will probably turn into an important movie in the long run, just based on the way it informs us of such a chaotic time in our history and tries to move us towards seeing that it never happens again.  In addition, it would be a special subversive treat to see the man behind Anchorman and Talladega Night walk away this year with an Oscar to his name.  The Big Short is a brilliant and monumental satire and it will be absolutely deserving of it’s award.

Who Will Win: Adam McKay and Charles Randolph, The Big Short

Who Should Win: Adam McKay and Charles Randolph, The Big Short

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Nominees: Christian Bale (The Big Short); Tom Hardy (The Revenant); Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight); Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies); and Sylvester Stallone (Creed)

One thing that you usually see happen at the Academy Awards is the awarding of an Oscar to a seasoned veteran after a long drought or a career completely devoid of any previous nomination.  Sometimes it’s done through an honorary award, but other times it comes in the way of a late career win for sometimes a lesser film.  It’s usually known as a “legacy win” and this year that may fall in this category as the front-runner has long been action film icon Sylvester Stallone in Creed.  Now, some people may be put off by the idea of giving Stallone an Oscar, but those same people may not have seen the movie Creed either.  I certainly wouldn’t mind if Stallone won this year; one, because Creed is an excellent movie and deserving of recognition, two, Stallone gives a touching heartfelt performance, and three, it makes for a great story that Stallone would win an Oscar late in his career for the same role that made him an icon in the first place.  Certainly, Stallone could’ve been awarded for worse, and I think an Oscar here is not only deserved, but maybe even due for the man behind Rocky Balboa.  Now, would he be my personal choice.  Sadly, there is a great field behind Stallone this year, and any other year I would say that each of them could win.  Rylance and Ruffalo are both solid in their roles, and Bale give a delightfully twisted performance in The Big Short.  But my favorite would be Tom Hardy, who really transformed himself for his role in The Revenant and delivers what I think to be the most compelling performance overall.  Also, this category is up in the air for me because my favorite performance of the year (Benicio del Toro in Sicario) wasn’t nominated.  Out of the bunch, Hardy would be my choice, but if Stallone does win, I won’t complain either.  It’s his time to be the champ.

Who Will Win: Sylvester Stallone, Creed

Who Should Win: Tom Hardy, The Revenant

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Nominees: Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight); Rooney Mara (Carol); Rachel McAdams (Spotlaight); Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl); and Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs)

Out of all the acting categories in this year’s Oscars, this is the one that feels the least decided.  Many of the early awards have been split this year, with the likeliest front-runners being Kate Winslet and Alicia Vikander.  Vikander has the benefit of being seeing as the “it girl” of the year, having appeared in many high profile projects last year including Ex Machina and Guy Richie’s The Man from U.N.C.L.E.  Finishing the year with the acclaimed The Danish Girl helped to garner her even more attention and the Oscars usually bestow these Supporting awards to fresh new faces like her.  On the flip side, Kate Winslet is a much beloved Hollywood veteran, having been  nominated several times and won Best Actress prior, and her performance in Steve Jobs is one of her most interesting roles yet, making her a viable front-runner too.  It’s a hard one to choose, but I think Alicia Vikander’s blockbuster year gives her a slight edge, though I would love to see Winslet win just so the under-appreciated Steve Jobs gets some recognition.  But at the same time, neither has locked this up and both could even be overcome by a surprise winner here, which any of the other nominees could end up being.  Out of that group, my surprise pick is also my favorite in the bunch, and that’s Jennifer Jason Leigh’s gonzo performance in Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight.  It’s not out of the realm of possibility; Tarantino has delivered actors to Oscar wins before.  Also, Leigh is a beloved workhorse who’s long gained respect in the industry and her performance is definitely the category’s most unusual and daring.  So, Leigh may not be the odds on favorite, but she would make the most spectacular of spoilers in this open race.

Who Will Win: Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl

Who Should Win: Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight

BEST ACTOR

Nominees: Bryan Cranston (Trumbo); Matt Damon (The Martian); Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant); Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs); and Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl)

If there was ever a category this year that was a lock, this would be it.  After so many years of being nominated and walking away empty handed, despite being one of the most successful actors of his generation, Leonardo DiCaprio will finally win an Oscar this year.  Sometimes people complain that actors who get snubbed for so many years and then finally win usually get it for a lesser performance in a lesser film.  I don’t think that’s this case with DiCaprio this year.  Sure, I wouldn’t call his work in The Revenant to be my absolute favorite performance of his (that would be his incredible performance in Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street), but considering all the other nominees in this race, I would clearly say that he does give the best single performance of the bunch.  It becomes especially apparent that he’s deserving of the award when you learn of all the physical hurdles that he had to go through during the filming of The Revenant, and denying him an Oscar once again after all that passion and pain may be a little cruel in the end.  He’s a deserving front-runner and my own clear choice for the award overall.  Now, is there anyone in this category who could be a potential spoiler, and would they dare come up to accept in the face of the the backlash that could come from loyal DiCaprio fans everywhere.  I would say the only ones who come close would be Matt Damon for his surprisingly charming and humane performance in The Martian, and also Bryan Cranston for Trumbo, just for his beloved standing in the acting community.  But, don’t count on any spoilers.  It’s Leo’s year and it’s been a long time coming.

Who Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant

Who Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant

BEST ACTRESS

Nominees: Cate Blanchett (Carol); Brie Larson (Room); Jennifer Lawrence (Joy); Charlotte Rampling (45 Years); and Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn)

This is another race that appears to have been locked up already, but I wouldn’t say that it as strongly decided as DiCaprio for Best Actor.  The front-runner here is Brie Larson, who has surprise everyone so far by becoming the unexpected front-runner in a category with so many high profile names.  And, she has certainly deserved the praise since being nominated, because it’s a performance that does stand out among the rest.  Playing a kidnapping victim who has lived in isolation for many years in a locked shed in the harrowing film Room, Larson’s role could not have been easy and it’s a great achievement to see her pull it off in the film.  Her performance was also helped a lot with the support of her young co-star Jacob Tremblay, who sadly wasn’t nominated.  If she wins as she is predicted to, it will be deserved and it hopefully will elevate her status in the industry and lead to more challenging roles that will make good use of her talent.  But, is she my pick for the award.  Though I admire her performance, I would say that the one who left more of an impression on me in this category was actually Cate Blanchett in Carol.  Yeah, it seems a little unfair to choose the seasoned, multiple Oscar winner to once again be the best in the category, but that’s just a sign of how good she is.  Her performance in Carol is more heartfelt and more interesting than all the rest, and that’s a sign of someone who has a full command of their art-form.  Brie Larson may have had the most challenging role, but Blanchett had the more resonant performance, which made it stand out more for me.  Even still, a win for Larson will be well deserved and recognition for an under-appreciated film like Room that deserves more of an audience than it has received so far.

Who Will Win: Brie Larson, Room

Who Should Win: Cate Blanchett, Carol

BEST DIRECTOR

Nominees: Adam McKay (The Big Short); George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road); Alejandro G. Inarritu (The Revenant); Lenny Abrahamson (Room); and Tom McCarthy (Spotlight)

It’s hard to believe that of all the directors working in the industry today, that the one who’s best positioned to win the coveted Directing award two years in a row is Alejandro G. Inarritu.  But, as early indicators have piled up, that certainly seems to be the case.  Once a maverick, small scale film director of indie darlings like 21 Grams (2003) and Babel (2006), Inarritu has completely transformed himself as a filmmaker, making far more ambitious projects and delivering the best back to back set of masterpieces since Sidney Lumet made the duo of Dog Day Afternoon (1975) and Network (1976) simultaneously forty years ago.  Having won last year for Birdman (2014), Inarritu has surprisingly emerged as the front-runner again for the ambitious epic The Revenant, and his win would be only the third time in Oscar history that a director has won back to back; the last one being Joseph L. Mankiewicz for A Letter to Three Wives (1949) and All About Eve (1950).  Is it an honor he deserves.  Absolutely.  The Revenant really is a tour-de-force of direction and one of the most incredible achievements in film-making this year.  I think it helps that Inarritu’s only other credible competition from last year (Ridley Scott for The Martian) didn’t receive a nomination, which makes his road to a win less of a challenge.  The only spoiler that I could possibly see in this category is George Miller for Mad Max.  Miller, like Inarritu, showcased the highest form of film direction seen this year in his movie as well, working under equally harsh conditions, and a win for him could also be an acknowledgement of his cherished legacy.  But, I think it’s safe to say that Alejandro is going to defend his title successfully and become the unlikeliest of two-time winners in Oscar history.

Who Will Win: Alejandro G. Inarritu, The Revenant

Who Should Win: Alejandro G. Inarritu, The Revenant

BEST PICTURE:

Nominees: The Big Short; Bridge of Spies; Brooklyn; Mad Max: Fury Road; The Martian; The Revenant; Room; and Spotlight

So, of all the categories at this years Oscars, it’s surprising that the biggest one of them all is also the least predictable this year.  Unlike in years past, when one or two front-runners will have emerged at this point, we don’t have a clear favorite.  Yeah, some of the nominated movies have no chance and are more likely to pick up awards in other categories (Room and Bridge of Spies), but at least half of the nominated movies this year do have legitimate shots at winning this year.  So, how do I think this year’s race will go.  My belief is that the Oscars tend to go for the movie that has the best chance to be a multiple winner in other categories and that has usually been large epic films.  That’s why I think The Revenant will ride the coattails of the assured wins in the Best Actor and Directing categories towards collecting Best Picture.  Is it deserving of that honor.  I think so.  It was my choice for the third best movie of the year in my top ten list, and my favorite film of the year (Sicario) wasn’t nominated, so I have less of an interest in who wins this year as opposed to last year when my favorite (Birdman) was nominated and won.  Unfortunately, I can’t say it’s my absolute pick for the award, because The Martian was also nominated, and I ranked that higher than The Revenant.  Sadly, without a Directing nomination, The Martian is out of the race, but had it had a chance, I would have picked it over The Revenant.  Complaints have also been made that The Martian is too commercial and crowd-pleasing to deserve a win, which is silly because why should the ability for a movie to entertain it’s audience be considered a negative.  As it stands, out of the films that have a chance, I would favor The Revenant and I believe it will win.  Although, The Big Short winning would make an interesting finish to the night, as would a complete curve-ball if Mad Max: Fury Road snuck up and took it.  It’s an unpredictable year and it probably works out for the best that the most suspenseful race is the one that’s saved until the very end.

Who Will Win: The Revenant

Who Should Win: The Martian

So, there are my picks for this years Academy Award winners, as well as my own personal favorites.  In addition, I would also like to run down all my picks for the other awards of the night:

Best Animated Feature: Inside Out (no contest); Best Cinematography: The RevenantBest Film Editing: Mad Max: Fury Road; Best Production Design: Mad Max: Fury Road; Best Make-Up and Hairstyling: The Revenant; Best Visual Effects: Star Wars: The Force Awakens; Best Sound Mixing: The Revenant; Best Sound Editing: Mad Max: Fury Road; Best Costume Design: Cinderella; Best Original Score: The Hateful EightBest Original Song: “Writing’s on the Wall” from Spectre; Best Foreign Language Film: Son of Saul; Best Documentary Feature: Cartel LandBest Documentary Short: A Girl in the RiverBest Live Action Short: Shok; Best Animated Short: World of Tomorrow

So, those are my picks for this year’s Oscars.  Am I going to be pleased or angered by how it turns out.  Well, because my favorite movie of the year was left out, I have less of a vested interest in who wins the big award, but at the same time, I value some more than others.  And one good thing this year is that unlike the previous year I walked away liking each of the Best Picture nominees; I still don’t get why so many people fell in love with a terrible film like The Theory of Everything last year, and worse yet, that it managed to steal an Oscar away from Michael Keaton.  It was a good year for movies and I’m glad the nominations reflected that.  I just wish that they spread their net further and nominated more deserving films like CreedSicario, and Straight Outta Compton.  Maybe then they might have avoided the controversy that fell their way.  They expanded their number of nominees several years ago for the reasons of being more inclusive, so I don’t get why we were limited to seeing only 8 nominated films this year.  Regardless, I hope that the show itself is worthwhile.  They couldn’t have picked a better host for the ceremony this year than Chris Rock, and my hope is that he doesn’t hold back.  If ever there was a year for the Academy to be grilled and mocked by it’s host, this would be it, and he just might get away with it too.  In time, we’ll probably forget about all the controversy and the films themselves will carry their own legacy far beyond what the awards will actually mean for them.  For me, I just like seeing the process unfold and looking at all the new names that join the ranks of Oscar winner.  It’s why I watch in the end.

Top Ten Performances Ignored by the Oscars

broken oscar

The Academy Awards has come under fire many times for feeling out of touch with the movie going public, but this year has been particularly brutal for the presenters of the prestigious Oscars.  For the second year in a row, we have all of the acting nomination slots completely filled with white performers, with no people of color represented.  Is it unfortunate?  Of course it is.  Is it representative of a racist attitude on the part of the academy?  Hardly.  The unfortunate aspect of the Academy nominating process is that they have only a tiny amount of slots to fill and sometimes many worthwhile performances will be left out.  I believe that it has more to do with what kinds of movies Hollywood is able to make each year, and few if any focus on non-white subjects, at least as far as high profile projects.  Of the movies this year that focused on a non-white subject that I felt deserved more recognition from the Academy, I would say that Creed should’ve gotten more in the way of nominations.  But, at the same time, I don’t hold it against the Academy either.  If you look at the whole history of the Academy Awards, they have only ever gotten it right a small percentage of the time.  Despite being the highest honor the industry can bestow, the Oscars have also been responsible for making some questionable choices that don’t always stand the test of time.  And some of their most questionable decisions are not their choices of nominees, but the ones they’ve left out all together, and that extends beyond the factor of race, gender and politics all together in the deciding factors.

For this article, I will highlight some of my choices for the biggest acting omissions ever at the Academy Awards.  Remember, these are my own choices for the most baffling forgotten performances, based on the strength of each role and the legacies they’ve left behind.  These are all iconic roles that have turned into legendary characters that have long stayed with us long after their initial releases, and at the same time were ignored completely by the Academy Awards.  Some of these actors did eventually win the big award (sometimes for lesser roles), but sadly a few others on this list were never even given a nomination throughout their entire career.  Before I get into the list itself, I also want to highlight some of the performances that almost made my list that the Academy also forgot to nominate, but have since become beloved:  Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo (1958), Cary Grant in North by Northwest (1959), Marilyn Monroe in Some Like it Hot (1959), Sidney Poitier in In the Heat of the Night (1967), Gene Hackman in The Conversation (1974), Rober Shaw in Jaws (1975), Laurence Fishburne in Boyz in the Hood (1991), Gary Oldman in Dracula (1992), Jim Carrey in The Truman Show (1998), and Albert Brooks in Drive (2011).  And with that, here are the Top 10 performances ignored by the Oscars.

10.

john cazale godfather part 2

JOHN CAZALE as FREDO CORLEONE in THE GODFATHER PART II (1974)

Here we have an example of a performance that got lost in the shuffle while the movie that featured it was graced with countless praise and awards.  John Cazale is considered today to be one of the greatest actors of his generation and he managed to be a featured player in many of the most beloved films of the 1970’s (Dog Day AfternoonThe Conversation, and The Deer Hunter).  But, his best remembered role is that of Fredo Corleone in the The Godfather trilogy, with Part II being the film that really put him in the spotlight.  When The Godfather Part II made it’s triumphant showing at the 1974 Oscars, nominated for 11 awards including five acting nods (3 alone in the Supporting Actor category), there was one very notable omission, and that was Cazale.  Lee Strasberg and Micahel Gazzo were both nominated for their standout but minor roles, as was eventual winner Robert DeNiro as a young Vito Corleone.  But, Cazale’s role as Fredo in the movie is the far more memorable one in the long run and has much more significance to the plot and it carries over much more from where he started in the first film.  Sadly, it seemed that the flashier newcomers overshadowed his briliant work and Cazale was the odd man left out.  Even still, he was well beloved by his peers and would continue to be given great roles in future movie.  Sadly, his life was cut short by cancer while he was working on The Deer Hunter, so he never got another shot at a nomination.  But the interesting thing about his career is that he only appeared in five films, and all five were nominated for Best Picture.  He was a good luck charm in the end for these films, even if none of that luck fell back onto him.

9.

denzel washington american gangster

DENZEL WASHINGTON as FRANK LUCAS in AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007)

If there is something that is even worse than the Academy’s lack of foresight in their choices over the years, it’s their desperate attempts to correct their past mistakes, which can often lead to even more baffling choices.  One pattern you see in the Academy’s history is the way that they give out Oscars based on whether it’s that Actor or Filmmakers turn or not.  Often this is given out to an actor who has been overlooked for many years and has developed a groundswell of support from fans who are demanding that the Oscars finally take notice, and that leads to the eventual awarding of that said person (we are seeing this play out right now with Leonardo DiCaprio as I write this).  While the actor is without a doubt deserving of an Award for many different films, there also is the unfortunate compulsion by the Academy to jump the gun in their decision and Award the actor for a less deserving role, just as a way to quickly right the wrongs of the past.  I feel that this was the case with Denzel Washington when he won the Oscar for Best Actor for Training Day (2001).  Is he good in that movie?  Yes, but it’s far from being his best work.  It was a showy performance, and one that the Academy responds quickly to, but it’s not representative of the actor’s talent.  I felt that if the Oscars waited a couple years more, they would have found an even better performance to Award Denzel for in Ridley Scott’s American Gangster.  In this movie, Denzel shows what he’s best at and that’s a cool, measured intensity, something which he also showcased in Spike Lee’s Malcolm X (1992).  It’s one of his best roles ever, but because he already got his turn with Training Day, this role was sadly overlooked despite deserving at least a nomination.  In the end, timing became it’s biggest fault.

8.

kirk douglas ace in the hole

KIRK DOUGLAS as CHUCK TATUM in ACE IN THE HOLE (1951)

It’s hard to believe that in all the 99 years that Kirk Douglas has walked this Earth (as of this writing) he has never won an Academy Award; at least not competitively (he given an honorary award).  Though nominated a couple times, the Academy sadly never gave him the Golden Boy, despite being one of the biggest stars in Hollywood.  Some of his nominations were no-brainers (1952’s The Bad and the Beautiful), but some of his omissions were pretty egregious (1960’s Spartacus).  But I think his biggest overlooked role was also his greatest overall, and that’s the one in Billy Wilder’s Ace in the Hole.  Ace probably fell victim to an outdated point of view on the Academy’s part, because the main character that Douglas plays in the film is no hero, and is in fact very unlikable.  Perhaps the Academy was not keen on nominating an anti-hero role like this, but as time has gone on, this kind of character is exactly what appeals to the Academy today.  The shaky morality of Kirk Douglas’ Chuck Tatum is fascinating to watch, seeing just how far the actor will go to become unlikable by the end; it was a gamble on Douglas’ part and he pulls it off extraordinarily well.  Today, you can see shades of this kind of character in Oscar Winning performances from Faye Dunaway in Network (1976) and from Kirk’s own off-spring Michael Douglas in Wall Street (1987).  Had Ace in the Hole had not been released in the less cynical, more moralistic 1950’s it might have been Kirk Douglas’ best shot at winning an Oscar.  Unfortunately, it stands as a standout performance that was too ahead of it’s time.

7.

frank oz yoda

FRANK OZ as YODA in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980)

Apart from the Academy’s bad sense of timing, which can be accidental, there is also the valid complaint that they can be snobbish towards certain types of movies and certain types of performances.  Genre films are especially ignored by the Academy, and they tend to favor performances that are not quirky and are grounded in reality.  That’s why you see so many winning performances from actors playing real life figures as opposed to original creations, because I guess that the Academy believes that the key to acting is the art of imitation.  But, what I find particularly disheartening is when they dismiss a great performance purely because it’s a non traditional form of acting, as was the case with puppeteer and filmmaker Frank Oz’s amazing work as Yoda in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.  Yes, Oz is performing through a puppet as opposed to himself on screen (along with his own voice), but there is talent in bringing a puppet to life and it takes a certain amount of acting skill to pull it off.  His work as Yoda is nothing short of astounding, making the Jim Henson Company created creature feel absolutely real and alive.   Not only that, one would argue that it gives one of the most lively and heartfelt performances in the movie overall.  Sadly, it was not nominated because the Academy saw the character of Yoda as a special effect, and not as a performance.  For the Academy to overlook this purely because they don’t view this as real acting is unfortunate and I’m not the only one who thinks this.  George Lucas himself appealed to the Academy to get Frank Oz a nomination for his work here, but it was sadly for not.  Even still, regardless of what the Academy thinks, Frank Oz gave a standout performance as Yoda and it’s one that remains beloved today.  Indeed, even a special effect can display real emotion, just like any other actor.

6.

Edward G. Robinson Double Indemnity

EDWARD G. ROBINSON as BARTON KEYES in DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)

If one were to pick out the most overlooked Actor in the history of the Academy Awards, it would be Edward G. Robinson.  The versatile actor had an astounding career that spanned five decades in Hollywood, appearing in countless movies, many of which are considered classics today, from Little Ceaser (1931) to Soylent Green (1973).  And all that amazing work resulted in zero nominations for his entire career.  Sadly, the Academy rarely awards performers who fall under the character actor category.  These are the kinds of actors who give valued support and memorable characterizations to many classic films, but rarely are the headlining star, and Robinson is often hailed as one of the greatest ever in this category.  Out of all the overlooked performances he gave over his career, the one that sticks out as particularly dubious on the Academy’s part is his role in the great noir classic Double Indemnity.  As Insurance agency manager Barton Keyes, Robinson takes command of every scene that he’s in, often outshining his costars Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck (who was nominated).  One scene towards the middle in particular, where Robinson rattles off every insurance claim category he knows without a single break in between, is a singular tour-de-force of acting, and yet no nomination.  I’m sure that this is one performance that even the Academy itself would admit they should’ve remembered.  Regardless, Edward G. Robinson is still a valued icon of Classic Hollywood.  Towards the end of his life, that value did earn him the spotlight and the Academy rightly awarded him an Honorary Award.  Sadly, he passed away in 1973 only days after learning he had been given the honor.

5.

ingrid bergman casablanca

 

INGRID BERGMAN as ILSA LUND in CASABLANCA (1943)

Casablanca is rightly considered one of the greatest movies ever made and is still a highly influential production.  It was also a situation where the Academy got the timing right, at least for most of the categories.  Though produced at a time when other movies of the same ilk were flooding the marketplace, the Academy recognized that Casablanca was far superior to the rest and rightly rewarded it with Best Picture, as well as Director to Michael Curtiz and for Best Screenplay, recognizing the film for it’s high quality film-making.  Humphrey Bogart and Claude Rains both received deserved nominations, but there was one glaring omission that year that has only grown more peculiar the longer this movie gains more legendary status, and that’s the lack of a nomination for actress Ingrid Bergman, the film’s female lead.  Though Bogart is the focus of the film, there’s no doubt that Bergman’s Ilsa is the heart, and her stunning screen presence is usually what people take away most from the movie.  Not only that, but it was a star making role for her, announcing to the world that she was a matinee idol worth raving about.  She exuded beauty, charisma, as well as strength in the key role of Ilsa and made the audience believe that she was indeed the kind of girl that the fate of world peace would hinge upon.  All of that should have earned her a nomination in a movie that was already destined for Oscar glory, but it sadly did not turn out that way.  Bergman would be redeemed with 3 Oscar wins over her long career, including one the year after for 1944’s Gaslight.  But, sadly the role she is best remembered for is also the one that the Oscars left out.  Thankfully, it’s a role that stands on it’s own without it.

4.

andy serkis gollum

ANDY SERKIS as GOLLUM in THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (2002)

Like Frank Oz’s Yoda before him, the Academy likewise seemed to view the character of Gollum as just a special effect and not a real performance by an actor.  But that claim feels incredibly dismissive with regards to what director Peter Jackson and actor Andy Serkis accomplished with the character.  In The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson and company broke new ground in the advancement of CGI animation, and no more so than in the field of motion capture animation.  Andy Serkis believed that he was initially just cast as the voice of Gollum, but he soon learned that Peter Jackson intended him to be an on set presence in every scene with the character interacting with the other actors.  Through his movements, the animation team were then able to puppeteer a digital model of the creature Gollum and the end result is an amazingly lifelike character that feels like it’s a part of the real world.  Peter Jackson loved Serkis’ work so much on set that he publicly shared the untouched footage of the actor on set, showing just how much of a real performance he gave as an actor.  It’s particularly astounding when you watch the dual personality conversation scene from The Two Towers, and just how much Andy Serkis’ facial expressions and mannerisms are faithfully transplanted into the CGI Gollum.  Sadly, the Academy didn’t seem impressed, and Andy Serkis’ breakthrough role was overlooked.  in the years since, Serkis has continued to champion the practice, playing other amazing motion-captured characters as the medium continues to be refined, like King Kong and Ceasar in the Planet of the Apes reboot, showing that this is indeed acting just like in any other form.  Gollum still remains his signature role and it’s one omission that I hope the Academy will ultimately regret passing on.

3.

humphrey bogart treasure

HUMPHREY BOGART as FRED DOBBS in THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948)

A lot of the performances I’ve highlighted have resulted in the Academy either ignoring them purely out of bad timing or by unfair standards.  This particular omission is one of the more baffling because it’s the exact kind of performance that the Oscars should have gone crazy for, and yet they didn’t.  Bogart at the time of the film’s making was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and had been honored with many accolades, including a nomination for Casablanca.  When The Treasure of Sierra Madre was released, Bogart’s performance was heralded as his best yet, and to this day it’s widely considered to be the best performance of his career.  With praise surrounding his role, and the fact that he had yet to win the Award, you would think that he was due for the honor finally, or at least be considered with a nomination.  Well, when the nominations were announced, the film was recognized in the Best Picture category, as well as for Director John Huston and Supporting Actor Walter Huston (both of whom ultimately won their awards).  But shockingly Humphrey Bogart was left out.  Did the academy just forget and run out of room in the category, or was Bogart’s intense performance as the greedy and amoral Fred Dobbs too dark for their tastes.  It’s hard to know why, but it’s odd today to see what is widely considered to be one of the greatest performances in movie history be completely ignored by Hollywood’s highest honor.  Bogart thankfully won a deserved Oscar a couple years later for The African Queen (1951), but it’s an honor that he shouldn’t have had to wait so long for.

2. 

bill murray groundhogs

BILL MURRAY as PHIL CONNORS in GROUNDHOG DAY (1992)

One actor who’s developed a ground swell of support from fans who want to see him win an Oscar has been Bill Murray.  The Saturday Night Live alum and beloved comedic actor did finally gain a nod for his work in Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation (2003), but I believe that fans’ (myself included) desire to see him win the Award stems more from this movie than anything else.  Groundhog Day has rightly become a beloved classic of both comedy and fantasy, and at it’s center is a remarkably nuanced performance from Murray himself.  Yes, the movie does play upon his comedic talent, but it goes even deeper than that, taking Murray’s acting abilities into some dark and sometimes personal places.  Murray’s Phil Connors is a very Capra-esque hero, someone who becomes a better person when he learns to think less in his own interests and more about those around him, and Bill Murray brings that out perfectly.  It’s a deeper characterization that doesn’t really fit in with most other categories that the Academy usually goes crazy for, which might have explained why it was overlooked at the time.  That and the fact that the movie was released early in the calendar year and comedic performances tended to be devalued by the Academy.  But, in the years since, people have recognized that Murray’s work in the film is not only Oscar-worthy, but might be one of the best performances of that era in film history.  It certainly has made many of his fans vocal about their desire to see him eventually win an Award.  Hopefully a role will come along in the years ahead that finally answers their prayers.  Regardless, Bill Murray’s work in Groundhog Day is certainly one of the best overlooked by the Oscars.

1.

Anthony Perkins Psycho

ANTHONY PERKINS as NORMAN BATES in PSYCHO (1960)

Of all the performances that the Oscars have overlooked that I’ve highlighted, I would say that this is the most perplexing.  Some of the previous ones had other factors that caused them to be ignored, but Anthony Perkins’ omission was just out of plain ignorance.  Here you have a breakthrough, nuanced performance in what would become one of Hollywood’s most iconic characters in a classic movie from one of the industry’s most filmmakers.  Sadly, Perkins was left out of a nomination that he would almost certainly had run away with.  This was unfortunately a trend with Hitchcock films, with both Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant both being overlooked by the Academy for their career best work in Vertigo and North by Northwest respectively.  But as great as they were, none were as memorable as Norman Bates; one of the most fascinating villainous characters to ever be put on screen.  The brilliance of Perkins’ performance is the subtlety, helping to deceive the audience about what is truly going on with the character.  It’s a performance that not only stood out in the film, but would help redefine cinema as a whole.  Hitchcock’s Psycho redefined the character of a Hollywood murder mystery,as well as redefined what makes a person villainous, and with Norman Bates they showed that the good-natured boy next door could be the monster in the end.  It’s a monumental performance by the perfectly cast actor, and sadly the Oscars didn’t recognize that significance at the time.  In the years since, the Academy has been kinder to darker and more sinister performances, like Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (1991) or Kathy Bates in Misery (1990), but they’re unfortunately opportunities that opened up as a result of this overlooked performance that made a difference.  That’s why it stands as the Academy’s most baffling omission of all time.

So, though the Oscars unfortunately must live and die by their restrictive standards that limit the nominations given out each year, it doesn’t mean that the performances left out are doomed to be forgotten forever.  The Academy Awards are really just a time capsule of how the industry reacts in the moment, and are not a reflection of how the movies will stand over time.  Some of the best movies ever made have become so without winning a single award, and some actors and filmmakers have become legends without ever holding an Oscar in their hands.  But, there are those cases where you just look at the snubs over the years and you wonder what on Earth was the Academy thinking.  Sometimes an actor’s best work is overlooked and is later made up for by awarding them for a lesser film, which is another unfortunate result of the Academy’s sometimes blind ambition to appear relevant to contemporary tastes.  But, there are other times when the industry is moving too fast for them and new types of acting roles push the boundaries of what is considered acceptably worthy in the industry, like say acting through a special effect.  The Academy sometimes tries, and can often get somethings right, like honoring African-American actors long before Civil Rights became the norm in society or honoring Tom Hanks humane performance as an AIDS stricken man in Philadelphia (1993) at a time when the disease still carried a stigma around it.  But, when you are limited to only a handful of nominations a year, some worthwhile choices are inevitably forgotten, some more egregious than others.  The only reason we take this so seriously is just because of the Oscar legacy, which if you look at the whole of film history, it shouldn’t matter all that much.  Even still, with some of these choices on this list, it would have been nice to have seen the Academy share the honors where they were deserved.

Deadpool – Review

deadpool

Today’s comic book movies are pretty much defined by the different approaches that their respective studios have taken with each property.  Marvel has found success by taking a more lighter and comical route with their super hero characters (especially with Iron Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy) which fits well within the standards of the Disney Studio that owns them.  DC on the other hand has managed to bring their characters to the big screen, under the guidance of parent studio Warner Brothers, by taking a much more grittier and darker route, inspired by the direction of Christopher Nolan’s hugely successful Dark Knight Trilogy.  Despite some naysayers on both sides, the different formulas have worked pretty well for both Comic Book giants.  No one is ever going to be able to say that one is purely following the other’s formula, since they’ve both managed to carve out their own style in the cinematic realm.  But, that’s a luxury that has mostly benefited the ones that have a secure home within their own respective studios.  Unfortunately, in the aftermath of Marvel’s shaky early years in the movie industry, they had to make due by selling off the rights to their characters to many different production companies, making it impossible for them to control the creative decisions involved in the adaptations of their characters.  Thankfully, after the purchase of Marvel by Disney, the publisher has managed to gain back most of the screen rights to the characters, save for the few that still belong to one studio; Fox.  This has created an interesting little niche of Marvel Super Hero movies that are unconnected to the larger Cinematic Universe that Marvel has created; resulting in some good (X-Men: Days of Future Past) and bad (Fantastic Four) results.  And standing out even more than these is this special little oddity known as Deadpool.

Deadpool is a lot of different things that you normally wouldn’t find in a conventional Super Hero movie.  It’s irreverent, crude, amoral, full of meta humor and fourth wall breaks, and unapologetic about it. The alias of mercenary Wade Wilson, Deadpool is hyper-violent and merciless in the execution of his duties, but he conducts them with an often sophomoric and carefree sense of humor.  Not only that, but just as in the comics, Deadpool will constantly stop in the middle of the action to address the audience directly and crack a few jokes.  This makes him far and away the most irreverent Super Hero in the entire genre, and that has given him a special little niche of his own that belongs entirely to him.  Created by writer Fabian Nicieza and artist Rob Liefeld for Marvel in the early 90’s, Deadpool has long been used as a tool by the publisher to slyly mock the conventions and icons of the comic book world and get away with it.  Deadpool is the desperately needed cynical voice that helps to keep the other comic book series in check, and that’s what has made him an especially popular character among many readers.  His popularity naturally led to his appearance in other mediums, including a highlighted role in the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), where he was played by Ryan Reynolds.  That movie unfortunately made the huge mistake of revamping the character and removing all the quirky aspects of him to create a muted monstrosity by film’s end, who inexplicably had his mouth sown shut.  Needless to say die hard fans were not pleased.  But, one such fan turned out to be Reynolds himself, who spent a lot of effort in the following years to re-revamp the character and do Deadpool justice on the big screen, and this new film is the result of that.

The new Deadpool movie is your standard comic book origin story, but one that’s self aware of the formula, and it takes some rather novel liberties with this kind of story.  We meet Deadpool in the middle of a planned hit where he must take out a whole convoy of armed security in order to reach his target; a diabolical scientist named Ajax (Ed Skrein).  Over the course of this hit, we flash back to Deadpool’s past life before he took up his Super Hero (or more appropriately Anti-Hero) identity.  We see Wade Wilson meet the love of his life Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), who shares his taste for the wild side, but his happy courtship hits a hurdle when he learns that he’s got an incurable cancer throughout his entire body.  Desperate to find a cure, Wade takes up an offer given to him by a mysterious organization that promises to keep him alive.  Unfortunately, he finds himself in the clutches of Ajax, who is seeking to uncover the dormant mutant genes in Wade’s DNA and turn him into a super soldier under his control.  After numerous torture treatments, Wade’s body does mutate, making him indestructible, but also heavily scarred with burns across his entire body.  After surviving the destruction of Ajax’s lab during his escape attempt, Wade seeks revenge against the man who ruined his life, and to do that he creates a masked identity for himself called Deadpool.  Back in the present day, Deadpool puts his plan into action, and finds help from his bar-tending friend Weasel (T.J. Miller) and a couple of lesser known X-Men; Colossus (Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand).  But, when Ajax discovers the identity of Deadpool’s lost love Vanessa, that plan soon hits a snag.

So, is Deadpool worth seeing or not?  It really depends on what you’re looking for in the end.  If you just want a straight forward superhero or action movie, then you might be put off by the constant irreverent humor throughout.  But, if that is exactly what you’re looking for, then you won’t be disappointed.  I for one highly enjoyed this movie from beginning to end, albeit with a couple reservations.  The best way I can sum up my reaction to the film is that I thought it worked better as a comedy than as a super hero action movie.  Was the action bad?  No, but the movie clearly put more effort into the jokes than the actual staging of the action.  The action was just okay overall.  It’s comically over the top in many points, especially in the gruesome highway scene near the beginning and also one point where Deadpool decapitates one guy and then kicks the head into another guy’s head like a soccer ball, but most of the ridiculous bits seem too familiar.  Honestly, I was more impressed with the over the top silliness of the action scenes in last year’s Kingsmen: The Secret Service, and that might have been due to the creativity of it’s staging.  This movie has some creativity, but not nearly as much.  But, despite being on par as an action movie, the movies is definitely above average as a comedy.  A lot of credit goes to the writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick for packing every minute with one irreverent gag after another.  The comedy does take shots at pop culture in general, but it’s often at it’s funniest when it turns self-defacing.  I especially love the many digs at the X-Men in this movie, especially the constant running gags directed at that franchise’s star Hugh Jackman.  Also, Reynolds poking fun at his disastrous turn as the Green Lantern are also hilarious.

And the comedy is a life saver for this film, because if it wasn’t there, I honestly might not have liked this movie.  I don’t know if there was a disconnect with some larger inside gag about the super hero formula, but some of the plot motivations and tonal shifts in the film tended to not make a lot of sense; at least for me.  At times the movie abruptly shifts gears and turns serious and tense, only to break that tension again with a gag.  I don’t know if those tonal shifts were intentional or not, making the humor feel more unexpected (which at times worked) but the seismic shifts tended to be a little distracting for me and prevented this from being a purely sublime experience.  Not only that, but I felt that the movie had this overall cheap look to it.  Maybe that was intentional, and it does fit the character of the tacky and self-deprecating main hero, but it’s a punchline that I never felt the movie fully developed.  Overall, the movie just looks washed out and basic, never really taking advantage of the flashiness that we usually see in superhero movies and poking fun at it.  But, at the same time, the movie does give the gags the full attention.  Honestly, you will never see a better love-making montage than the one in this movie.  Also, despite the low rent look of the movie, the film never fails to deliver on the fourth wall breaks, which has become the character’s trademark from the comic books.  When it comes to being self aware, this movie manages to make it work and it’s where the humor really shines through.  Some of those moments even look like they are straight out of the comic book, like when Deadpool makes exaggerated gestures with his hands.  You’ll know them when you see them in the movie.  Despite the flaws, the movie does land it’s hits more often than not.

But, the primary reason this movie works overall is because of it’s main actor.  Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool is the sole reason why you should see this movie.  This was a passion project for the actor for many years and it shows.  He completely sinks into this character, relishing every moment.  This is probably the best marriage of comic book character with actor that we’ve seen since Robert Downey Jr. first stepped into the Iron Man suit, and it’s great to see Reynolds let loose as the character for once.  This movie makes a considerable effort to right the wrongs made by X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Reynolds makes that abundantly clear.  This version of the character is intended to be 100% faithful to the comic version and it’s the kind of care given to a character that you’ll only find from a performer who’s a genuine fan.  The best superhero castings have always found this to be true, and Ryan Reynolds proves that here.  But, what he also brings is his impeccable comedic timing as well, which is something that is integral to the character.  Deadpool is exactly the kind of character that embraces a sillier, irreverent side, which Reynolds wears like a glove.  He’s definitely reaching back into his Van Wilder days playing this character, and you can bet that he takes full advantage of the R-rated freedom that the studio has given him.  I especially like the points in the film when Reynolds plays around with some of Deadpool’s more childish reactions to what’s going on.  There’s a hilarious bit in the middle where Deadpool confronts Colossus and takes a few shots, leaving him with some broken limbs; a bit that reminded me a lot of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), and it’s great.

But, Reynolds isn’t the only worthwhile actor in the film.  Really, the entire cast is excellent here.  Morena Baccarin manages to make Vanessa more than just another damsel in distress by giving her an equally twisted sense of humor that compliments Deadpool’s perfectly.  T.J. Miller is also hilarious in his brief moments on screen; his deadpan delivery bouncing off of Reynolds’ more madcap performance very effectively.  I also liked the inclusion of Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (a name that Deadpool especially goes crazy over) into the film.  They serve no other real purpose in the movie other than to connect Deadpool with the X-Men franchise, but their inclusion is still welcome.  I especially like how Colossus is characterized as the straight-laced boy scout of the group (or as Deadpool calls him, the Teacher’s Pet) because of how it contrasts Deadpool against all the other comic book heroes.  Ed Skrein is also effective as Ajax, filling out the role that the movie jokingly refers to as the stereotypical “British villain.”  He’s a suitably intimidating force in the film, but not one that feels out of place in the movie.  One of the best running gags in the film actually centers around Ajax’s real name, which Deadpool playfully mocks the whole way through.  Also, apart from the performances, there are some great parodies thrown around that make fun of other superhero movie tropes, including Deadpool getting gleeful when one of the villains makes what he calls a “super hero landing.”  Also, the movie opens with a spectacular opening credits sequence that not only mocks ones from other Comic Book movies, but all movies in general, saying that the film stars “God’s Perfect Idiot” and was directed by “Some Overpaid Hack.”  All of this of course makes this one of the genre’s funniest entries and one of the best comedies in recent years.

So, overall, I would definitely say that Deadpool is absolutely worth seeing, especially if you want to have a good laugh.  Just don’t go in expecting to see the greatest Comic Book movie ever made.  I would still say that movies like The Dark Knight (2008), The Avengers (2012), and Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) still represent the high points of the genre, but you could make an argument for Deadpool as being the funniest Super Hero movie ever made.  It’s especially pleasing that Ryan Reynolds and crew managed to get the movie made the way that they wanted it; without any studio interference.  If only Fox had learned that lesson when they were making Fantastic Four last year.  Though I would like to see all of Marvel’s properties returned to it’s parent company eventually (Deadpool included), I think it was better at this time for Deadpool to be made outside of the more restrictive standards of the Disney company.  There’s no way that Disney would’ve allowed for an R-rated superhero film, especially one with the content that this one does, so it was probably for the better that Fox made this one instead.  My hope is that when Disney and Marvel eventually gain back their characters from Fox, that it’ll come with the proof of success depicting this character in all his filthy glory and that it will lead them to maintain that tone in the future.  Certainly, if there was a way to make Deadpool work on the big screen in his own movie, they certainly found it here.  My hope is that when they make a sequel that they improve the aesthetic look of it and work out some of the tonal issues.  For what it is, it does do a good job of bringing the character to life and it’s a well-needed piece of parody in a genre that can sometimes get a little full of itself.  And in between these two giant Comic Book companies, Marvel’s bad boy has earned an enviable place in a category all his own.

Rating: 8/10

Focus on a Franchise – The Godfather Trilogy

the godfather brando

As we enter the homestretch of Awards season, you hear a lot of complaints about how the committees in charge of selecting the winners of these selected awards tend to be a little snobbish.  We’re hearing those complaints again, only this year they are in response to the perception that the Academy is too exclusionary to non-white actors and filmmakers.  Not to delve too much into the current controversy, but there is truth into Hollywood’s sometimes narrow minded view of what’s deserving of awards and what’s not.  But, it’s not exclusive to just films that come from people of different backgrounds.  The Academy Awards have long had the reputation of excluding what you would call genre fare in favor of classier entertainment, favoring prestige over box office value.  That’s why many of the big winners over the years have tended to feel out of touch with the public perception, and many of the choices now seem perplexing in retrospect (How Green Was My Valley over Citizen KaneOrdinary People over Raging Bull, etc.).  But there are thankfully genre films that are so monumental that even the Academy can’t dismiss them and they’ve managed to cross the threshold and gain their genre the recognition it deserves.  We’ve finally seen over the years the Academy honor the Western (Unforgiven) the horror film (The Silence of the Lambs), and even fantasy (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King).  But, even more remarkable is when Hollywood can overlook the fact that some of these movies are also part of ongoing franchises, ignoring the whole name recognition and just honoring them as singular cinematic achievements.  And this is especially true for the only time that a movie and it’s sequel have ever triumphed at the Oscars; those being the first two films in The Godfather trilogy.

The Godfather trilogy is one of cinemas most beloved and unexpected franchises.  However, calling it a franchise is often disputed by some critics, who view the different movies as a singular narrative; which can be argued given that the first two movies are both sourced for the most part from the novel written by Mario Puzo.  But, despite that fact, each film in the series is unique and continues the story in it’s own distinct fashion.  And, especially with the first two, it would become of the most monumental pair of films in cinema history.  The movies were made during the renegade early years of the 1970’s, when studios were allowing for a lot more creative freedom to their filmmakers, many of whom were breaking new ground with the kinds of stories being told and the kinds of film-making styles being used.  One of the artists that emerged from that class of film-making was Francis Ford Coppola.  The Italian American director started off as a screenwriter in the industry and he ended up winning an Oscar for writing Patton (1970).  Soon after, he was given his first opportunity to direct and he chose a story that was close to his own roots as a descendant of Italian immigrants to America.  Puzo’s The Godfather was a huge best seller when it was first published, chronicling the highs and lows of the fictional Corleone crime family.  What Coppola found in the novel was this grand sweeping tale of the immigrant experience in America as well as it’s unfortunate ties to the Mafia, and as a result it becomes the quintessential story of America in itself.  In this article, I’ll be looking at all three films of the Godfather trilogy, and how each built upon this magnum opus from it’s larger than life director.

godfather part 1

THE GODFATHER (1972)

Well, what can you say about The Godfather that hasn’t already been said.  It’s a classic in every possible way and rightfully has earned it’s place as one of the greatest movies ever made; if not the best.  Everything about this movie is iconic to this day: the lush and often gritty cinematography by Gordon Willis: the endlessly charismatic Oscar winning performance by Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone; the unforgettable transformation of Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone; the endlessly quotable dialogue.  Nearly everything in this movie has become ingrained into our culture and we are all the better for it.  The Godfather is a movie that illustrates the pinnacle of what film-making can do, and it came at a time when Hollywood really needed it.  During the tumultuous counterculture movement of the 60’s and 70’s, Hollywood was desperate to find an identity that was in tune with the changing times.  With The Godfather, they found a movie that spoke to the new generation while still maintaining a certain bit of old Hollywood prestige.  I think the thing that makes Coppola’s movie so brilliant is it’s earnestness.  Up until that time, Gangster pictures were often played over the top and were dismissed as purely sensational genre fluff.  The Godfather plays with the Gangster flick, and portrays that world in the most realistic sense possible.  It’s not sensationalized or glamorized.  It merely shows us what that world was really like, warts and all.  At the same time, there’s also a truthful current of the importance of family and how morality becomes relative when the law is corrupt and the criminals are more or less responsible for building up our society.  That’s the brilliance in storytelling that Coppola brought out in The Godfather.

But, what people remember most from this movie is the progression of the characters, and in particular, the evolution of young Michael Corleone.  Yeah, Brando’s Vito is the face of the franchise, but Michael is the focus and his story is the most remarkable thing about this franchise.  When we first see Michael at the wedding of his sister Connie (Talia Shire), we see an all-American boy who’s managed to escape the shady family history in order to become his own man.  But, as the film progresses, Michael is plunged back into the world of crime after a few tragedies befall his family; the first being an attempted assassination of his father, and the second being the brutal massacre of his older brother Sonny (James Caan), who was supposed to be the true heir of Vito’s empire.  Michael at first reluctantly returns to this world of organized crime, but with every step he takes, he delves deeper into what he’s capable of, becoming more ruthless and unforgiving, and by the end, he has risen to the top of this empire that he originally wanted no part of.  Coppola takes us on this character journey in a grand and passionate way.  Michael doesn’t just become a criminal, he is shaped by moments that form his character, and in him we see a reflection of what this kind of life could do to a person.  In particular, the brilliantly staged restaurant scene where Michael commits his first murder and the stunning and groundbreaking Baptism montage at the end, both showing us the pivotal shifts in Michael’s character, and both are brilliantly performed by Pacino.  All of these elements make The Godfather the monumental epic achievement that it still is today, and it greatly established Francis Ford Coppola as one of cinemas most unique voices.

godfather part 2

THE GODFATHER PART II (1974)

The Godfather would go on to be a box office success and would win multiple Oscars for Picture, Actor (Brando) and Screenplay; though strangely not for Director (Coppola lost to Cabaret‘s Bob Fosse).  Amazingly when studio Paramount asked if there was a chance to sequelize the film, Coppola actually agreed to it.  Usually a prestige film that wins multiple Oscars will be left to stand alone, but Coppola knew that there was plenty of story left in Puzo’s novel that he had to leave out in the first movie that he could still draw from.  Not only that, but thanks to the goodwill he generated from the first movie, Coppola could not only make a sequel, but he could make it bigger than ever before.  The Godfather Part II is epic in every way, and many regard it the best film in the franchise, and that’s a sentiment that I quite agree with.  It doesn’t have as many of the instantly recognizable iconic moments as the first Godfather, nor the novelty of being our introduction into this epic tale, but it makes up for it in the sheer scale and spectacle of it all.  It’s The Godfather brought to it’s full potential.  What I love best about the movie is not just the story, but the way that it’s presented.  We follow up the story of Michael Corleone where it left off, as he continues to deal with competing forces in the crime world, but that is paralleled with the story of his father Vito as a young man; played this time by then newcomer Robert DeNiro, who won a Supporting Actor Oscar for his work.  The parallel stories are both fascinating, especially when contrasted with one another; Vito’s rise clashed against Michael’s fall.

One other thing that I think is an improvement from the previous film is the way the supporting cast is integrated into the story more.  Robert Duvall’s Tom Hagen in particular gets much more screen-time, as does Diane Keaton as Michael’s long suffering wife Kay, who also manages to get the ultimate revenge on Michael in the end.  But, the true revelation in the cast is John Cazale as Fredo.  Here we see one of the most interesting developments in the Godfather saga as Michael’s elder brother betrays him behind his back and it ultimately leads to probably Michael’s most brutal act of all in this entire series when he retaliates.  Cazale perfectly captures the spitefulness and insecurity of Fredo, and makes him one of the most interesting characters in the whole story.  Newcomers Lee Strasberg and Michael Gazzo also add great support in the roles of Hyman Roth and Frankie Pentangeli, two men who become obstacles to Michael’s rise in power in different ways.  But, of course, Pacino still owns every moment he inhabits in this movie, and watching him turn Michael into an unforgiving tyrant is chilling.  Coppola also takes advantage of the larger canvas that he’s given.  The Godfather Part II utilizes it’s locations much more effectively than the modest budgeted first film did.  In particular, the period detail put into the turn of the century New York City scenes with young Vito is amazing.  The iconic rooftop scene is still a masterpiece of staging, as is the stairway assassination moment that follows it.  The Godfather Part II proved that even prestige films could spark a franchise, and both parts of the Godfather feel like a complete realization of this amazing tale.  The film would become the first ever sequel to win Best Picture at the Oscars, and Coppola would also finally be recognized as Best Director as well.

THE GODFATHER PART III, Al Pacino, 1990, © Paramount/courtesy Everett Collection, GD3 095, Photo by:

THE GODFATHER PART III (1990)

For many years thereafter, Godfather Parts I and II were seen as one of cinemas greatest achievements; a double feature narrative unlike any other.  And for many years, it was thought that the narrative that Coppola wanted to tell was open and shut; that there was nowhere else to go.  That was until Francis Ford Coppola announced that he was creating a third Godfather.  A lot of people doubted that it could be pulled off, especially considering that it had been over 15 years since Godfather Part II had been made and that those films had gained iconic status by this point.  Coppola was also going through a rough patch in his post-Apocalypse Now (1979) years, making diverse and uncharacteristically less successful choices in projects like One from the Heart (1981), Peggy Sue Got Married (1986) and Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988).  Still, he managed to convince Paramount to green-light the project and he got back most of his key players, including Pacino returning as Michael.  The film had all the right elements in play and a lot of potential behind it once it made it’s way to theaters.  Unfortunately for Coppola, all the goodwill he earned for the original two Godfathers didn’t help him much.  The film received a very mixed reception from both fans and critics, and those who hated the film were especially livid by what they had seen.  They saw the movie as a betrayal and have since labeled Part III as one of the worst sequels ever made.  But, is it really that bad?

I think one of the reasons that the response to this movie was so extreme was because of how beloved the first two were.  The iconic nature of Parts I and II set the bar extremely high, and it is impossible for any film to match it.  So, is it the worst sequel ever made? I don’t think so, but it’s nowhere near as good as the first two either.  I merely see the movie as being just okay.  It’s well made and does feel like a Godfather movie for the most part, but it’s also sadly very forgettable too.  There’s no iconic moments that I can remember and overall I feel like this was just a superfluous story not really worth telling.  Coppola’s just rehashing things that made his Godfather films memorable before, but adding nothing new to it.  Most of the hatred aimed at this movie seems to stem from Coppola’s terrible casting of his own daughter Sofia in the key role of Michael’s daughter Mary, and yes she is pretty terrible.  We would learn in the years after that Sofia Coppola would better follow in her father’s footsteps as a director and not as an actor; the response to her acting here possibly influenced that career change too.  But, as bad as Sofia is, I feel that the movie still gets some worthwhile performances overall, especially from newcomer Andy Garcia as Vincent Mancini, bastard son of Sonny Corleone, who proves to be a valuable ally over time to Michael, and possibly an heir.  Talia Shire’s Connie also returns and has her character come full circle, becoming just as ruthless as her brother.  Pacino doesn’t have as great of a role this time as the older Michael (given how Part II perfectly rounded out his character) but his performance still feels genuine, and he does manage to lay to rest Michael’s story in a convincing way.  Does The Godfather Part III betray the series as a whole.  I honestly think that seen together with it’s counterparts that it does hold up as part of the complete experience; it’s just not as strong as the rest of it.  It can be ignored if you prefer the classics, but it’s also not even remotely a betrayal of the series.  It’s just an extended epilogue, and nothing more.

So, overall the Godfather trilogy is a collection of one amazing two part story, and one polarizing final chapter.  Regardless of how well the entire experience holds up, there’s no denying that Francis Ford Coppola’s epic trilogy is one of cinema’s most monumental achievements.  It would go on to influence so much of film-making in the years to come, pushing the boundaries of what kind of stories you could tell and how much the filmmakers can get away with in terms of language and violence.  Numerous filmmakers today look to The Godfather movies as an inspiration and you can see it’s fingerprints just about everywhere.  The films of Martin Scorsese owe a lot to the success of The Godfather, and I’m sure that there wouldn’t have been as much interest in the history and influence of the mob in America reflected in movies like Goodfellas (1990) and The Departed (2006) had Coppola not popularized it first.  Popular shows like The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire also owe a lot to The Godfather as well, and in some cases even share a cast member or two (Godfather Part II supporting actor Dominic Chianese “Johnny Ola” would play the pivotal role of Junior Soprano in the hit show).  And to this day, we still quote this movie endlessly whenever we tell someone to “make an offer he can’t refuse,” or say that someone “sleeps with the fishes.”  The Godfather has held up well over the years and will continue to stand as one of cinema’s crowning jewels.  And it also proved that the Academy can sometimes overlook it’s strict standards and embrace a franchise film every now and then.  It just has to be a movie so good that it can’t be ignored anymore.

Evolution of Character – Queen Elizabeth I

queen elizabeth portrait

Whenever we’ve seen a character reappear in multiple cinematic treatments over the years, it’s usually a character out of fiction.  Fictional characters, particularly from classic literature, enjoy long histories of successful reinterpretations partly because their adaptations merely have to stay true to the character while at the same time being a little more care free with their role in the story or their place of existence.  That’s why we’ve sometimes seen Sherlock Holmes in modern day, or Robin Hood with an all animal cast, or even Romeo and Juliet as either arctic seals or garden gnomes.  But, sometimes Hollywood returns time and again to a character of a different type; that of a real historical figure.  Though not as common, we do sometimes see historical people interpreted in multiple films in many varied ways.  Albeit, the uses of a historical character in a film is more restricted than that of a fictional character, considering that the real history behind the character has to be accounted for.  But, whether they are the center of a true life story, or a background historical element in a work of pure fiction, it is interesting to see how some historical figures are portrayed in different ways on the big and small screens.  It also takes a special, larger than life figure to make it into multiple cinematic treatments and that’s why great leaders and monarchs are the ones who usually turn up in so many movies.  You can point to famous American presidents like Abraham Lincoln, or legendary commanders like Julius Caesar as historical figures who’ve turned up multiple times.  But, the most common example of reoccurring historical characters in cinema would be historical kings or queen of Merry Old England, and none more so than the Virgin Queen herself, Elizabeth the First.

Queen Elizabeth I is one of history’s most revered monarchs, and her reign is considered one of the most pivotal in English history.  The second daughter of Henry VIII, Elizabeth would rise to the throne in 1533 after the short but brutal reign of her half-sister Queen Mary, whom the Protestant rebels who opposed the Catholic monarch dubbed “Bloody Mary.”Elizabeth restored the Protestant reforms of her father as well as reconciled the religious rift in her country and rallied her people together against outside invading forces from France and Spain.  All the while she became a strong patron of the arts and a savvy stateswoman, leading England into a long period of wealth, culture and prosperity that historians now dub “The Golden Age” of English history.  But, beyond her amazing accomplishments, she is also a fascinating character and personality.  She was forward thinking in many ways that few of her male peers we’re at the time, particularly in her interest of exploration of the recently discovered New World.  Because of her, we have to this day a State called Virginia, named in her honor. In many ways, Elizabeth has made an ideal figure for classic romances, because few other woman have held as much power as her in history.  That power dynamic she wields has made her an endlessly fascinating character in many films, and as such, I’ve chosen to highlight a few of her more notable appearances on the big and small screens and see how the iconic image of the Virgin Queen has evolved over the years on film.

queen elizabeth bette davis

BETTE DAVIS in THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX (1939)

This was the most notable portrayals of Elizabeth in the early days of cinema, and the filmmakers could not have found an actress better suited for the part than Ms. Davis.  All-American Bette Davis may not have struck people today as the obvious choice to play the iconic English queen, but one only has to look at the finished product in the film and you’ll see her completely transformed.  Lusciously directed by Michael Curtiz for Warner Brothers in beautiful Technicolor, The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex portrays the often tumultuous love affair between Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex (Errol Flynn).  It’s an old-fashioned, but still engaging classic period drama, and Bette Davis is absolutely the crowning jewel of it all.  She masters the regal-ness of the character, but at the same time explores her humanity in a captivating way.  And the work she put into transforming herself into Elizabeth is remarkable.  She actually had the make-up department shave off her eyebrows and part of her forehead in order to match the image of Elizabeth that we have from her portraits.  Now that’s a commitment to a role that you’ll rarely find in classic Hollywood.  Interesting enough, Bette Davis would return to the role of Queen Elizabeth many years later in the Cinemascope epic The Virgin Queen (1955).  That film isn’t quite as passionate and introspective as this version, but Davis again doesn’t disappoint and the film is worth seeing just for her performance alone.  Overall, for Elizabeth to become an iconic character in the early days of cinema, all Hollywood needed was to give the role to one of their ow reigning Queens, and it was a beautiful match indeed.

queen elizabeth jean simmons

JEAN SIMMONS in YOUNG BESS (1953)

Taking an entirely different view on the life of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Bess portrays the early years of Elizabeth, showing her ascension from princess to reigning monarch.  This film, however, is a little more “Hollywood” than previous versions of this story have been.  By “Hollywood,” I mean that it tacks on an entire romantic subplot that has no basis in history.  As Elizabeth grows into adulthood, she contends with a love triangle between her, the Queen Cathrine Parr(Deborah Kerr) and the dashing Sir Thomas Seymour (Stewart Granger).  Suffice to say, this is purely fictional and has no basis in real history.  Also, the reign of Queen Mary is completely ignored here; Elizabeth follows her brother Edward immediately in succession.  But, despite the historical inaccuracies, the film does attempt to give Elizabeth a dignified portrayal.  Jean Simmons is fine in the role, giving young Bess a sense of the weight of the responsibilities she must hold, while at the same time giving her the innocence of someone who has yet to carry the burden of her position.  Her performance can sometimes feel a little too naive, but Simmons is not a bad actress by any means and she does do the image of the Queen a lot of honor.  Not much is known of Elizabeth’s formative years, but Jean Simmons does portray a believable idea of what the one day Queen might have been like in that time.  Also of note in this film is the casting of Charles Laughton in the role of Henry VIII; a character which he had won an Oscar for playing  nearly 20 years prior in the Alexander Korda produced film, The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933).

queen elizabeth glenda jackson

GLENDA JACKSON in ELIZABETH R miniseries (1971)

Elizabeth was a favorite figure for classic Hollywood, but of course her native country of England has also brought her story to life many times as well.  Though there have been many British films centered around the life of Elizabeth I, perhaps the most ambitious and comprehensive of them all would be this BBC produced miniseries for television.  Though lacking in the sumptuousness of a big screen production values, Elizabeth R more than makes up for it with it’s attention to the detail of the period and the people who inhabit it.  And at the center of it all is two time Oscar-winning actress Glenda Jackson.  Jackson may not be as well known to audiences today, but in the late 60’s and early 70’s, she was the “It Girl” of the time, winning numerous accolades and earning enormous respect from critics and audiences alike.  And then, she walked away from acting completely, instead choosing to pursue a life in politics, which helped her towards a long career as a Member of Parliament.  That political fervor that Glenda Jackson had in real life is well reflected in her portrayal of Elizabeth here.  Elizabeth R shows the Queen at her most commanding, effectively showing us the true might that the real Elizabeth might have wielded during her reign.  The lengthy production also gives us a complete portrait of Elizabeth’s life, both the highs and the lows.  It’s an interesting production, and Glenda Jackson gives a captivating performance.  Perhaps Jackson’s closeness to the character inspired where she would go next with her life, but if not, it’s a strong reminder of the power she had as a performer, which reflects well in the role of a Queen.

queen elizabeth cate blanchett

CATE BLANCHETT in ELIZABETH (1998) and ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE (2007)

Here we find the marriage between real history and cinematic pageantry fully on display.  Directed by Indian born director Shekhar Kapur, Elizabeth and it’s sequel attempt to portray the life of the Queen with an emphasis on it’s visuals.  These are some very beautiful movies, photographed by British cinematographer Remi Adefarasin, but at times the visuals become a little too showy and distract from the drama that’s supposed to be grabbing our attention; this is more true in the sequel than the original.  Had the central role of Elizabeth been played by a less talented actress, this movie would have easily slumped into the “style over substance” category.  Thankfully, the film has one of the best actresses of our time in the role.  Cate Blanchett fits the role of Elizabeth like a glove and gives a commanding performance that stands out among all the pageantry.  She justly was nominated for her performance in both movies, and her mastery of both the character and her place within this world are remarkable.  Physically, she looks the part as well.  With her sharp features and pale skin, it’s almost as if she’s walked right out of a portrait of the Queen itself.  She also commands our attention through every regal speech she gives, playing the queen as both regal and aloof, depending on the situation she’s in.  This was also the film that introduced the Aussie actress to the world at large, so we can be thankful for that.  Had Cate not been a part of this film, I don’t think it would have worked out as well as it did, so it just shows how important it is to get the right actress for the part. For one of the more luscious productions set around the life of Elizabeth, with a truly great performance at it’s center, this will be one to seek out.

JUDI DENCH in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998)

Released in the same year as Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth, we find a film with an entirely different take on the famed Queen.  Here we find a portrayal of Elizabeth in her latter years, slowed down by age, but no less intimidating in her command over her subjects.  The movie of course is more centered around the life of William Shakespeare (played here by Joseph Fiennes) and is a largely fictional tale about a private romance between the Bard and a noble maiden (Gwyneth Paltrow) that inspired the writing of Romeo and Juliet.  Now, some have argued that this movie unfairly robbed Saving Private Ryan of the Best Picture Oscar, and I’m not going to lie, I find myself in that camp too.  This film is delightful and entertaining, but Best Picture worthy?  I don’t think so.  What is less arguable though is the praise given to the portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in this movie, brought to vivid life by the great Dame Judi Dench.  Dench appears in only seven minutes total in the film, but my God does she make the most of those seven minutes.  Her Elizabeth is a force of nature, both intimidating and alluring all at the same time; and also surprisingly funny.  I especially love a bit in the movie where she waits for the men of her court to lay down their cloaks over a puddle for her to walk over, but then she gets impatient and walks across anyway, yelling back at them “too late.”  Dench deserved her Oscar for the role, and the movie is blessed with her presence.  She perfectly portrays the image of a Queen who has the experience behind her and the knowledge of how to wield power, and she steals every scene she’s in.

queen elizabeth helen mirren

HELEN MIRREN in ELIZABETH I miniseries (2005)

Helen Mirren holds the unique distinction of having played both Queen Elizabeths in her career.  She won an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth II in Stephen Frears’ The Queen (2006), and she played Elizabeth I here in this joint BBC/HBO production, directed by Tom Hopper of The King’s Speech (2010) fame.  This miniseries portrays the queen in middle age, focusing mostly on two private affairs that shaped her life during this period; those being the one’s she had with the Earl of Leicester (Jeremy Irons) and the Earl of Essex (Hugh Dancy), who ultimately betrayed her.  What this miniseries manages to accomplish is to show the influence that Elizabeth’s private life had on her ability to govern, showing the way it built her character.  Mirren of course is more than capable of assuming the role, and perhaps more than any actress before her, she managed to convey the person that Elizabeth was, rather than just capture her image.  Bette Davis and Cate Blanchett commanded in the role before, but their performances tended to be in service to the pageantry.  Here the pageantry takes a back seat to the performance, and Helen Mirren creates a vivid portrait of a woman burdened by the responsibilities of her position and how that takes a toll on her over time.  This miniseries gives the best sense of how Elizabeth’s daily life might of been, and how the necessities of her duty as ruler often conflicted with her desires as a person, and how that conflict would sometimes lead her astray.  Naturally, one of England’s greatest modern actress could so effectively find the woman behind the icon, and Helen Mirren’s performance as Elizabeth I is one of the most natural we’ve seen.

938495 -Anonymous

VANESSA REDGRAVE in ANONYMOUS (2011)

This portrayal of the famed Queen is one of the more problematic, not to mention one of the most insulting to history.  Anonymous is a portrayal of the conspiracy theory espoused by the Anti-Strattfordian movement that claims that William Shakespeare didn’t actually write his plays, and that the true author was a nobleman by the name of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.  Naturally, a tale about Shakespeare would involve Queen Elizabeth in some way (given her patronage of Shakespeare’s work during that time), and this movie makes the ludicrous claim that not only was Edward de Vere (played by Rhys Ifans) a bastard child born from Elizabeth, but that he would go on to unknowingly have an incestuous relationship with her many years later.  Yeah, it’s that kind of movie.  The film was directed by disaster movie king Roland Emmerich, and it’s about as unsubtle and factually reckless as his blockbusters like 2012 (2009) and The Day After Tomorrow (2004).  But, perhaps the film’s greatest fault is how it trashes these real historical figures in service of a bogus narrative that purely exists to indulge this insane conspiracy theory.  And worst of all, it wastes the talents of a legendary actress like Vanessa Redgrave.  Here we find Elizabeth at her most corrupt and lecherous.  This is by far the ugliest portrayal of the Queen, showing her as a creepy old woman blind to the sins of her past.  Vanessa Redgrave can do a whole lot better, and could have given Elizabeth a more dignified portrayal, even as a corrupt monarch.  Sadly, this movie gives her nothing to work with, other than to indulge the lunacy of the director’s theories, and it is by far the last place where you’ll find a fitting portrayal of the iconic Queen.

Whether she has been the subject of a true, historical retelling, or part of the background in a work of complete fiction, Elizabeth I has held an interesting place in cinematic history.  What I find interesting about all these different versions is that the role of Queen Elizabeth has belonged almost exclusively to the best actresses throughout film history.  From Bette Davis, to Glenda Jackson, to Cate Blanchett and to Helen Mirren, each one is regarded among the best in their class.  In fact, of all the actresses I highlighted, only one of them had never won an Academy Award in her lifetime (Jean Simmons).  Some of these performances stand out more than others; Bette Davis is the showiest of the bunch, while Cate Blanchett and Helen Mirren are the more intimate.  And Judi Dench’s portrayal in Shakespeare in Love is in a realm all it’s own.  I also think that those interested should check out Glenda Jackson’s work in Elizabeth R; it’s a little drier than the rest, but no less fascinating.  Part of why we love the presence of Queen Elizabeth in the movies of course is because of the performers playing the part, but it’s also because Elizabeth remains a fascinating figure to this day.  Not only was she a unique player in history (a Queen who wielded enormous influence at a time when few women were allowed positions of power), but her legacy would define the period that she lived in.  All these portrayals do an acceptable job of portraying the woman behind the icon (except Anonymous, but that’s not Mrs. Redgrave’s fault).  Hopefully future portrayals continue to delve deeper into this historical tale and make the legendary Queen come alive once again.

Off the Page – War of the Worlds

war of the worlds 1

One type of story element that has been popular to both literature and cinema has been the use of allegory.  An allegorical story has the benefit of addressing issues that affect the reader and the viewer in their present day, without ever being tied down by the restrictions of time or setting, or even reality.  A storyteller can be as fanciful as they want with their tale, but the truths behind it will still be familiar and will resonate with the audience.  Because allegory is an effective tool for addressing important issues, it’s often been used by authors and filmmakers alike to inject social and political messages into popular entertainment.  We may think we’re going to read a story about animals running a farm by themselves after the farmer has left, but instead, we are treated to a meditation on the rise of Stalinist totalitarianism.  We may think we’re watching Batman fighting the Joker, but instead we’re presented with an examination of the corrupting power of paranoia, and how it erodes our moral judgments.  No ones goes into these story-lines expecting to be given a lecture on larger issues, but we’re rewarded with thought provoking ideas that actually enrich the experience overall.  However, though allegory is useful for tackling universal issues, there comes a risk of having that same allegory unfortunately tied to the time and place that it was used.  Now, time does shine favorably on antiquated allegories, because it does cast light on ideas from the past and how storytellers observed the world that they lived in.  But, when one storyteller tries to take one allegorical story and re-purposes that into a different setting or time, well then you start to see problems in the adaptation.

One of the most interesting authors who used allegory to great effect in his work was H.G. Wells.  Wells, along with his contemporaries at the time (Jules Verne, Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Rice Burroughs) created for the most part what we know now as modern Science-Fiction.  But, while Verne wrote about the ingenuity and wonder of science, and Burroughs wrote about the fantastical and otherworldly aspect, Wells was much more interested in the dangers of science.  Wells was a political writer in addition to being a creative one, and he often sought to address larger societal issues in his writing.  But, what set him apart from other political writers was the fact that he always wrote with an eye towards popular entertainment.  When his work was published in the late Victorian period in England, people were far more interested in stories about adventure and exploration, and far less about social issues of the day.  So, with an eye towards allegory, Wells found a way to force these important issues of the day into the public eye by including them in the kinds of stories they would normally clamor for.  His best example of allegory disguised as popular entertainment would be the 1898 classic The War of the Worlds.  Yes it’s got monstrous aliens and tension filled horror that readers would have found engaging, but when you read deeper, you see the intent of what Wells was trying to say.  He lived in a world corrupt by the idea of Empire and exploiting the less fortunate for the benefit of those who had everything.  By flipping the concept on it’s head, and having the seemingly mighty Great Britain invaded by a superior, extra-terrestrial force, Wells was making his audience see their world in a different light.  It’s an allegory that fits it’s time well, but when adapted for another period, like in Steven Spielberg’s 2005 adaptation, you can see how an allegory’s effectiveness can change with it.

war of the worlds 6

“No one believed in the early years of the 21st century that our world was being watched by intelligence greater than our own.”

Steven Spielberg’s 2005 War of the Worlds is a fascinating, if somewhat flawed adaptation of Wells classic novel.  In many ways, it retains a faithful adherence to the tension and paranoia of the original novel, and yet, some of that adherence ends up doing a disservice to the actual message that the director wanted to deliver in his movie.  What is fascinating however is how allegories from another time and place take on a whole new meaning when adapted into something else, and that’s the case with Spielberg’s film.  When H.G. Wells first wrote his novel, England was the dominant power in the world, with an Empire that included territory on every continent across the globe.  In his day, the notion of invasion from a superior power would have seemed foreign and purely in the realm of fiction, but Wells wanted to address this arrogance of such a notion in his novel and the foolish nature of viewing oneself as superior to others.  When Spielberg sought to tackle Wells classic story, England’s empire had long diminished and America had emerged in the years since as the world’s most powerful nation.  But, unlike when Wells had written his novel, in 2005, America was still reeling from the recent attacks of 9/11.  Though the country wasn’t attacked by a superior force akin to Wells’ Martians, it was still an attack that shook the foundations of our country and it’s a struggle that we have yet to shake off even today.  Spielberg adapted the story in a time when even the mighty could be brought low by outside forces, and in a sense, that’s where his adaptation actually gives a fresh new meaning to Wells’ tale.  According to Spielberg in the making of documentaries found on the War of the Worlds DVD, he wanted to create a vision of a refugee experience in America, where survivors of the alien invasion are forced to flee their homes and survive in an increasingly hostile world.  It’s something he says you don’t see in our society today, which is a concept close to Wells’ own intent.  Where Wells addressed a society arrogant in that they never believed they could be invaded by a superior force, Spielberg was addressing a society that felt apathetic towards refugees across the world because they too never thought it could happen here.

war of the worlds 5

“It’s the same everywhere – once the tripods begin to move, no more news comes out of that area.”

Now, with an adaptation, especially one that changes the time and setting of an original story, there obviously needs to be alterations made to both the plot and, specifically with this movie, the characters.  In this aspect, I actually believe that Spielberg did Wells one better.  Wells original novel was less interested in character development, and far more interested in describing the world in which they inhabit.  His main character isn’t even named in the novel, and it’s told entirely from his perspective.  In this case, it’s a presentation that suits Wells novel, because it allows the reader to better identify with the narrator and see the horrors of the alien invasion through a first person account.  It’s a presentation brilliantly re-imagined in Orson Welles legendary radio adaptation, which works because it’s another medium that allows for the audience to paint the picture in their own minds.  However, those same rules don’t apply to film, where we need characters with depth and personality in order to follow their story.  Spielberg and his writers Josh Friedman and David Koepp, created the entirely original character of Ray Ferrier to be the substitute for the nameless narrator.  In addition, they added a family dynamic to the story by having Ray (Tom Cruise) escaping the destruction around him by having his children Rachel (Dakota Fanning) and Robbie (Justin Chatwin) in tow.  Though some of their family drama is cliched in the movie, it nevertheless gives the story a human face it desperately needs, and all credit is due to the cast for believably immersing themselves into the film’s situations.  Tom Cruise in particular manages to put his matinee idol status in check and conveys to us that he’s a broken man who’s desperately trying to stay strong through a perilous situation.  And the movie smartly keeps the story focused on their survival.  It’s not about grander geopolitical ramifications.  It’s about survival, and that fits much better into Spielberg’s refugee allegory.

But, though Spielberg changes the human perspective and creates a whole new story-line with his new main characters, it doesn’t mean that Wells’ story is unrecognizable either.  In fact, much of the actual invasion that takes up most of the movie is pulled directly out of the novel.  The Tripods themselves in particular are almost exactly as Wells envisioned them.  The only difference made about the invading force is their origin, and it’s an understandable change.  In Wells time, Mars was believed to have been an inhabitable world filled with Martian people (a concept that Edgar Rice Burroughs also shared in his John Carter series) and it made sense to him and his audience that an alien invasion could naturally come from our nearest celestial neighbor.  Of course, we now know that Mars is inhabitable, so Spielberg is more vague about where his aliens came from.  And, in the end, it really doesn’t matter.  The tension actually comes out of not quite knowing what’s going on and it’s a story point that serves well both the novel and the movie.  Spielberg almost relishes the overwhelming threat that the Tripod vessels pose to the characters, giving them the sense of scale that they deserve.  From the moment that the first Tripod rises out of the ground, it invokes a sense of true terror into the hearts of anyone who sees it.  And when it begins blasting people away with it’ s heat ray, it is truly shocking.  I think that it’s what makes Spielberg the best possible choice to adapt Wells work.  They both work in the realm of popular entertainment, but they also take in the gravity of their story-lines, and address the fantastical bits with the same seriousness that one would with a real life emergency.  The Tripod attacks are easily the highlights of the movie, and where Spielberg adapts Wells’ vision to it’s fullest potential.

war of the worlds 2

“This isn’t a war any more than there’s a war between men and maggots… This is an extermination.”

But, the problem with transplanting the setting of your allegorical story is that not all the pieces will translate quite as well outside of their original context.  For a lot of people, where the movie actually falters is in it’s later half, after it appears that Ray has lost his son Robbie in one of the attacks.  He and Rachel find shelter in a nearby farmhouse being occupied by a mysterious and somewhat unhinged man named Ogilvy (Tim Robbins).  It’s this scene in the basement that really breaks apart the audience reaction to this movie, from those who love it to those who hate it.  I’ll agree that it is a problematic stretch of the film because it completely shifts gears and slows the story down to a halt.  What was a harrowing adventure about staying alive amid almost certain death suddenly becomes a claustrophobic human drama where the danger becomes more internalized.  I don’t dislike the scene (the part where they hide from the alien probe is spectacularly staged), but it does feel out of place in the film.  But, it’s also strangely enough from the original novel, albeit condensed.  People tend to forget that Wells, like many other authors of the time, published his work in serial form, and War of the Worlds was released in two separate volumes.  His first volume portrayed the invasion; the second, the aftermath.  Spielberg tried to put the two together into one narrative, but the mashing together is very awkward and diminishes the effectiveness of both sides of the story.  More than anything, I think it’s the abruptness that became the problem.   The farmhouse is indeed where much of Spielberg’s allegory of post-9/11 paranoia comes into play, but it does so in detriment to the momentum of the action.  He could have indulged himself in more of the spectacle of mayhem, but he would have lost that crucial allegory in the process.

The film falters, but not for the sake of trying on Spielberg’s part, nor because of trying to force Wells’ novel into modern times.  Adaptations are just difficult to pull off, even when they are faithful and done with good intentions.  For most of the movie, Spielberg actually delivers on the thrills and the sense of awe, but then he ends up undermining the things that he was trying to accomplish within even the very next scene.  I think one of the biggest mistakes he made overall was actually showing us what the aliens looked like.  True, Wells did that as well in his novel, describing the Martians as spindly, grey skinned tri-ped creatures.  It’s fine to be descriptive on the page, but visualizing that on the big screen is different, and will likely please no one.  This movie, as well as the 1953 adaptation produced by George Pal, were at their best when the aliens remained hidden within their machines.  But, you take them out, and show them as the more vulnerable creatures that they are, you lose the menace that they pose.  What Wells wanted to show in his novel was that these aliens were superior to us in every way, and that this superiority is what made them malicious towards us.  It was his critique of the concept of Social Darwinism, which proclaimed that the strong were entitled to rule above others because it is natures will; a perversion of Darwin’s theory of evolution that would go on to inspire many despised philosophies like Eugenics and even Fascism.  By showing humans as the weak instead of the strong, he is able to make us look at how our own arrogance about our place in the world has driven us to do horrible things to those that we view as inferior.  It’s a concept that could have worked just as well in Spielberg’s adaptation, in a world shaken by Terrorism and how confronting an undefinable enemy has left many displaced and disillusioned, but that all goes away once we see the bizarre looking aliens who carry none of the menace that this story needs.  And it’s a strange underwhelming tactic used by someone who has been so good at creating menace out of non-human forces (the shark in Jaws or the raptors in Jurassic Park) in the past.

war of the worlds 4

“When it’s ready, my body will just push it out.”

While there are flaws, you can’t say that Spielberg and Cruise didn’t try their best to bring Wells’ classic to life in the 21st century.  When it does get it right, it does so in a spectacular way.  The Tripod alien death machines are hauntingly realized and could be among the most frightening things we’ve ever seen in any science fiction film.  Some of cinematographer Janusz Kaminski’s best work is in this movie, including the amazing ferry boat scene and the facade of the church being destroyed by the cracking earth beneath it.  I can also praise the unsettling music written by John Williams too.  But, despite high quality work done by all involved, you can’t help but think that the sum of what they had didn’t quite add up to what they wanted.  And some of the fault of that might be in the adaptation itself.  Wells novel was a product of it’s time, but also one that addressed many issues that we still deal with today.  Wells delivered us a harrowing vision of what it might be like to have our securities challenged by something that is greater than ourselves, and he did so in a narrow, claustrophobic point of view.  It works because it puts us into the shoes of a survivor and asks us to see how one has to live when they have nothing.  Spielberg tries to do that by constantly pushing his characters into harms way, but he ultimately undermines his message by rewarding his characters with a happy resolution.  The only time that it doesn’t make things so easy is when Ray must commit a murder to save his own child, but sadly, this character defining moment is underplayed.  And seriously, his son appearing at the end is one of the worst plot twists ever, and more than anything is an insult to what Wells intended.  But, apart from that, I do admire Spielberg’s attempt to find new allegorical meaning in War of the Worlds in the chaotic world that we find ourselves in.  It shows that Wells story was far more prescient and universal than he knew, and that a message worth saying can still find it’s place in blockbuster entertainment.

war of the worlds 3

“By a toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet’s infinite organisms.  And that right is ours against all challenges.  For neither do men live nor die in vain.”

Making the Cut – The Saving Power of a Great Edit

editing film

When watching a movie, it’s easy to see all the many ingredients that go into making the story come to life.   Engaging dialogue from a tightly written screenplay, standout performances from the committed actors, and a vision from the director that helps to make the scene feel as authentic as possible.  But, there’s another ingredient thrown into the mix that doesn’t quite capture the intention of the viewer yet it’s the one thing that affects everything else in the finished product by the end.  That crucial ingredient is film edit.  Without the job of a proper edit, a story has no form or character.  It’s just images without reason.  Editing is what brings out the context of the images that we see and shows us how one thing can relate to another.  And, in the grand scheme of things, editing is probably the hardest job of all for a filmmaker.  While a lot of work goes into the writing and the filming of a story, it’s not until the post-production editing process that the filmmakers are able to find the story that they want to tell.  There, they are able to find the emotion through the contrasting of images or tension through the compression of time, and through that, they are able to get creative with the tools that are available to them.  But, strangely enough, the work of the editor is often unheralded, mainly due to the fact that in order for the editor to do their job well, their work must be made invisible to the viewer.  Unless otherwise made to be seen on purpose, essential film editing must work in service to the story and not overwhelm it, thereby causing many of us in the audience to take the work of an editor for granted.  But, in so many cases throughout film history, it’s been the excellent editing of a movie that causes it to stand out.

Now a lot of people probably think that it’s not that hard at all to edit together a movie.  All you need to do is to plan out your cuts ahead of time and follow the blueprint right?  It’s far more complicated than that.  For an editor to do their job, they must first analyze countless hours of footage, depending on the length of the feature.  Even with a scene mapped out in pre-production, the actual filming must take into account all the necessary coverage from multiple angles, as well as the multiple takes that will inevitably happen, since no one is ever satisfied with just one take.  And it’s from that pool of material that the editor must find the story, taking the best takes out of the mix from the best angles and piecing them together to make it feel like one whole piece.  Not only that, but they must be observant with every bit of footage, looking for continuity mistakes that may undermine the flow of the scene.  Lastly, they must also time their edits perfectly, making each cut feel natural and never abrupt; something that may even matter by only a frame or two.  And this is just the essentials for a practical editing job.  There’s a whole bunch of other tricks of the trade that an editor can use to take things in a more creative direction.  Overall, it’s time consuming and often tedious, but when you find the story forming in front of you, it can also be  rewarding and sometimes even surprising process.  I’ve been through it myself before, and it’s often the process where you see the clarity of what you’re creating come through.  Hell, when I was splicing together film stock as a projectionist a while ago, I could easily see the value of how a couple missing frames might affect the overall viewing experience.  It’s a highly precise art, yet one that must also always support everything else.

From the moment that cinema began, filmmakers have been tinkering around with editing.  The turn of the century often relied on single shot moments to showcase the medium, like a train arriving at a station or a vaudeville performer doing their act, but over time, some visionaries discovered how they could use the moving picture camera to tell a story.  Georges Melies created magnificent stories through fixed camera tableau like his 1902 classic A Trip to the Moon, that didn’t feature much in the way of editing shot to shot but did show that the process could be used in the service of other things like visual effects.  Simple editing remained the norm until American filmmaker D.W. Griffith pioneered the concept of cross-cutting images in service of the story.  With his epic scale production of The Birth of a Nation (1915), Griffith created a new film-making language, having different juxtaposed shots edited next to each other to underline a theme or connect multiple story-lines into one.  Every film since then has followed Griffith’s technique and it has become the standard of modern film editing.  Griffith not only broke ground with his first epic feature, but he would continue to push the medium further with his follow-up, Intolerance (1916), which took the bold step of cutting between four different unrelated story-lines, connected solely by their common themes, showing how far the process can go and still work.  What Griffith discovered was that an edit could convey meaning and it’s something that was explored even further by filmmakers in Soviet Russia.  For the propaganda films of the early Soviet Union, an editing process called montage was developed, which used a mix of images related to theme and edited them in a way to provoke a feeling out of the viewer.  The most famous example of this was the Odessa Steps scene in Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin, where the recreation of a massacre is given extra poignancy by the inclusion of a falling baby stroller amidst all the chaos.  Even in the days before dialogue, and perhaps more so, filmmakers saw the value of how editing could make their stories come to life.

Though extraordinary surprises could come out of an edit, Hollywood more or less standardized the language of editing around the time sound was introduced to the medium.  Filmmakers could use fancy editing techniques, such as in some of the lavish musical numbers found in Busby Berkeley productions, but the limitations of sound recording led to fewer innovations in the process.  Classic style cutting was the norm for many years, and was often effectively used.  Sometimes, filmmakers would get creative with their edits and used them to set up a punchline and pay it off (watch any Three Stooges short to see what I mean) or use their edits sparingly to immerse the audience into the moment (often seen in many tense one-shot mood setters from Alfred Hitchcock).  Montages were also effectively utilized in early Hollywood, mostly as a way to quickly show a passage of time rather than convey an emotion like the Soviets would do.  But, despite the lack of innovation in the art-form of editing, it didn’t mean that the classic style wasn’t used in meaningful ways during this time.  Just look at the final pivotal scene at the end of Casablanca (1943).  For that brief moment between the lines where Captain Rennault (Claude Rains) says to the Germans “Major Strasser has been shot” and “Round up the usual suspects,” we get two quick close-ups of Rennault and Rick (Humphrey Bogart) looking to one another, and then after the pivotal line, a quick pan across to show Rick smiling back.  It’s a simple but elegant moment that’s made entirely possible through editing, and in those two close ups we are told so much without any words spoken.  This is an example where just a basic editing style can effectively tell a story, and it showed that the standardized style did illustrate that artful editing can be found in the simplest of uses.

But, innovation did become more prevalent once editing tools became more advanced and reliable.  The French New Wave brought in new concepts like smash cutting, freeze frames, and slow-motion into the language of editing, and that in turn influenced the film editing styles in Hollywood.  It became an era where the filmmakers felt more comfortable showing the editing process on screen rather than hiding it.  Abrupt cuts between scenes were popularized in the films of Jean-Luc Goddard and Francois Truffaut, and it was adopted by some of the more counter-cultural filmmakers across the pond, because they felt that it gave their movies a grittier, more modern sensibility.  Even prestigious films picked up on the style.  You can credit that famous cut in Lawrence of Arabia (where Peter O’Toole blows out the match and it cuts to a sunrise) to the influence of the French New Wave.  While these processes were always available to filmmakers before, none had been spotlighted as much, and by taking full advantage of these different tools, the same filmmakers helped to increase the awareness of the value of editing in movies.  In many ways, it gave the audience a keen awareness of different styles that a movie can have, and it helped to differentiate how the movies of their era were different than those of the past.  Form then on, innovation in the editing process would underline the advancements of the industry as a whole.  We would see the character of a film or a cinematic movement come out of it’s editing process, whether it be the renegade style of editing from the maverick 70’s or the stripped back style of the indie movement of the late 80’s and early 90’s.  In many ways, a film was more or less dependent on how well it’s editor was in tune with their era, otherwise they would come across as two old-fashioned or too far ahead of their time.

For many years up to today, the director is often reliant more than ever on the work of their editor.  In the past, the editor would usually sit alone in their editing rooms and compile the films themselves and only get feedback later once their initial work is complete.  Now, the editor and the director work in tandem to hammer out an edit of the film, made much easier now that there is a digital intermediate to work with rather than having to re-splice the same film over and over again.  And it’s through this collaboration that a vision can come out of the project.  An editor may sometimes understand the value of a cut better than the director (who might be too protective of every shot they filmed) and their suggestions often help to reign in the story.  There have been many examples over the years of movies that were saved in the editing room after disastrous productions.  Star Wars is probably the most famous example.  Those who worked on George Lucas grand vision often were lost with regards to what they were doing and where the story was actually leading to, and some said that Lucas himself wasn’t entirely sure of what he was getting into.  But, thanks to an expert editing team (which included Marcia Lucas, George’s then wife), they somehow found the essence of the story and condensed it into the solid adventure that we know today.  Sadly, George Lucas has shown less restraint over the years, and we now know what a lack of controlled editing looks like in the Star Wars universe thanks to the prequels and Special Editions.  Apocalypse Now (1979) is another example of a movie saved by an imaginative edit, which paints a beautiful portrait out of what was a notoriously disastrous shoot.  No film is ever lost unless there is a smart, precise edit done to it.  I think that’s why so many directors often reuse the same editors on each film; they need someone they can trust.  Every Spielberg production has seen the dutiful hands of Michael Kahn on it, as has almost every Scorsese pic with Thelma Schoonmaker, and so on.  Sometimes, if you’re the Coen Brothers or Steven Soderbergh, the edit becomes an entirely singular operation too.  Overall, the final character of the film is determined mostly by how well the editor and the director collaborate together.

But, not every collaboration leads to golden results.  Sometimes, a movie is often hindered by a sometimes overzealous editing job.  This has become especially problematic in the era of MTV music videos and quick paced commercials on television that we’ve now been accustomed to.  Many up and coming filmmakers make the wrong assumption that the more editing they use in their movies the better, because it gives their work a grittier, more frantic style.  Unfortunately, quick editing does more to disorient the viewer than it does to engage them into the film.  While it works for some films, like a war picture or a documentary style drama, it can often feel out of place in most anything else.  Editing is meant to establish setting just as much as it is used to convey momentum and emotion to a scene.  If the edits are too wild and can’t focus on it’s subjects, then the audience feels disconnected from the moment.  I’ve complained about the style of Michael Bay a lot already, but his use of editing is a perfect example of this disorienting quick edit style that serves no purpose.  But, even more restrained editing can become obnoxious if misused in a movie.  Sometime filmmakers like to use montages and flashy editing as a way to create poetry in imagery, and it can often backfire and look pretentious as a result.  Even respected filmmakers like Gus Van Sant and Terrence Malick have developed just as many detractors as fans for sometimes getting too fancy with their lyrical editing.  Just look at the pointless long shots of nature in Van Sant’s Last Days (2005) or the showy, meandering editing of Malick’s To the Wonder (2013), and you’ll know what I mean.  Essentially, for an edit to work, there needs to be a purpose behind it, and not just to indulge the filmmaker’s desires.

The editing of a movie is more than anything where the story comes to life.  All the hard work on the production design, the cinematography, the acting, and the dialogue matters little unless it all colludes together as a whole in the editing room.  In the end, the editor’s job is often thankless, but ever so crucial, because they’re mostly responsible for creating the finished product that all of get to see and the success of their job relies on their work not being noticed by the viewer.  Thankfully, with films that celebrate the art of a good edit, we can at least see an editor’s hard work on display occasionally.  In the classic style, it’s always neat to see an edit put the perfect punchline on a well placed gag (Hitchcock’s famous train going into a tunnel innuendo from North by Northwest is a great example).  And in the maverick 60’s and 70’s, it was interesting to see the limits of the art-form explored.  But for me, what I love best about editing is the way that it shows how much even just a few frames of film matter.  There are some moments in movies (like Han Solo’s great surprise arrival at the Death Star late in Star Wars or the final haunting shot of Psycho with Norman’s face superimposed with a skull) that could have been spoiled if they went on just a second longer than they did.  Sometimes it comes down to the one single frame that makes the difference, which is staggering when you consider that 24 frames makes up only a second of film.  My hope is that every filmmaker approaches the editing process with a certain amount of understanding and respect that it deserves.  Play around with what you’re able to do, and you’ll find a completely different story than you might have expected going in.  Many pieces go into the making of a film, but the edit is what puts all those pieces into place and turns that puzzle into the whole picture in the end.

Half the Story – When Hollywood Abandons Incomplete Franchises

golden compass

When Hollywood has a movie that is popular, then it’s a beloved asset.  If it’s a story that’s open enough for a sequel, even better.  Building a franchise, more than anything, is what the big studios strive for, because it guarantees them added revenue for years and decades to come.  The only problem is that not every story is well suited for a franchise.  Some movies are better as singular experiences with clear cut conclusions that leaves no loose threads dangling.  And yet, Hollywood will still try to squeeze every last bit of substance they can in order to stretch their success further.  Strangely enough, some of the movies in the last year have shown that with enough creativity and purpose, some franchises can live on and prosper, even after years of dormancy.  With the cases of Star WarsMad Max, or Rocky, we are now seeing franchises enter their seventh or fourth iterations, and come out of it even stronger than before.  Not only that, but these movies also make the bold assertion that there will be more to come later.  Of course, with some of these franchises, their continuation makes sense because it’s built into their base levels to be ongoing stories.  But, for that to work, the movies have to bank on the expectations of the audience that they’ll be willing to come back again and again.  And in some cases, when a film series is starting from scratch, it becomes a gamble to have your audiences expect more.  Sadly, some of the biggest misfires that Hollywood has ever made have come from the misguided attempts to build a franchise while forgetting to make the movies stand on their own.

Truth be told, this is far too often the result of having too much story for one movie.  Many franchises we see today are based off of works of literature, particularly the kinds that tell their stories over multiple volumes.  When the story is vast enough to guarantee enough plot for a lot more movies, then it appeals greatly to filmmakers interested in starting up a franchise.  But, when the translation happens, those same filmmakers have to take into account a few things; can they get away with telling only part of the story and is that something that’ll please their audience.  For most of these franchises, they all run into the same problem and that’s the opening film hurdle.  The first film in a franchise, especially one that is supposed to start off a planned series, is always the hardest film to make and it’s by far the one film in each series that makes or breaks the entire operation.  Within it, you must devote a huge amount of run-time purely to set up your main cast of characters, the world they live in, the special rules that pertain to said world, the stakes within, and if you’re lucky, hopefully there will be room for some plot as well.  For many wannabe franchises, this first film is often the stumbling block, just because an insane amount of exposition must be applied in order to set up what comes after.  Exposition is a valuable tool when writing a book and is generally accepted when readers come across it on the page, but in movies, it can often be monster.  When a movie stops to explain something, it grinds the film to a halt, thus making exposition a thing that most screenwriters and directors fear.  This is what defines the biggest problem with most opening films in franchises, and it sadly is what prevents many of them from ever finding their footing.

But, if a franchise does get over that hurdle, then it has a chance of succeeding.  And indeed, the best franchises we’ve seen over the years, at least the ones that come from literary sources, are the ones who managed to establish their worlds and characters successfully.  Once that hurdle has been conquered, then anything is possible and chances can finally be taken.  It was the situation that we saw play out a lot in the early to mid-2000’s when this idea of franchises built from multi-volume literary sources suddenly became the rage in the industry.  In 2001, we saw the start of two series that not only gambled and succeeded with their ambitious first features, but would also go on to set the template for the next decade in Hollywood.  These of course were the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises.  Rings you could argue was the more successful because it was the better stand alone movie, but Potter did well enough at the box office to warrant it’s expected sequels and only later did it finds it’s footing with the sequels that took more chances.  But regardless of how good the first films were, the fact that they succeeded allowed for the franchise to breath a little easier going forward.  Rings and Potter improved as they went along, but, they had to gain the trust of their audiences in order to keep going.  That’s what made their opening films so crucial, because if the audience didn’t buy into the story from the start, what need would they have for it to continue.  Fortunately for Rings and Potter, they had the benefit of capable filmmakers behind them who believed in what they were doing.  Most of the failed franchises weren’t so lucky.

Though a lot of franchises have come and gone over the decades, the 2000’s seemed to be an especially brutal one for “one and done” attempts at building a series.  Mostly, this was a result of many studios trying way too hard to ride the coattails of Rings and Potter.  Those films had the benefit of a built in base of support that saw them through their entire run, and the audiences were even rewarded with some better than expected results.  Other franchises failed because they made no effort to distinguish themselves and merely just tried to copy the formula that had come before.  Sadly, this happened too often to franchises that had potential, but were saddled with lame, amateurish productions.  A good example of this is something like Eragon (2005).  On the outside, this looked like a feature that embodied the same spirit and style of Lord of the Rings.  Written by wunderkind American fantasy writer Christopher Paolini, Eragon had all the makings of a great classic series; high production values, a stellar cast (Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Rachel Weisz), and a beloved source novel.  How could it possibly fail?  With lackluster direction and a 90-minute running time that stripped the story down to it’s bare bones; that’s how.  The movie was a cliche filled mess and it drove audiences away, mainly because there was nothing of interest for them to grab onto.  It was all plot and no heart.  Sadly, the lackluster adaptation stop any chance of the series continuing and all we have now is just the first stand alone film.  It probably failed because it added nothing to the fantasy genre that we already hadn’t seen.  Unfortunately, other franchises would likewise fall into the “one and done” pitfall despite having promise.  The quirkiness of Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004) should have helped it stand out, as well as the uniqueness of The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008) modern day American setting.  And yet, uninspired productions sank these franchises two before they could ever get themselves going.

On the plus side, many of these franchises smartly remembered that they were stand alone films in addition to being parts of a larger narrative.  The biggest mistake that a wannabe franchise can do is to leave itself open-ended, making the misguided assumption that the franchise will have legs beyond one feature.  Sadly, there have been many failed franchises that not only ended up with just one feature, but also ones that had that same one film feel incomplete.  Oddly enough, this is a practice that was following in the footsteps of a successful franchise that somehow worked to it’s own advantage.  In The Lord of the Ring: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), the movie left us with an open ending, with the main characters advancing towards the next stage of their journey.  While this was a gamble itself, director Peter Jackson somehow made this acceptable by working everything before feel like a logical conclusion to this phase in the story, allowing the tease at the end to feel more natural.  Unfortunately, not every continuing narrative has these nice and neat breaks to conclude an opening chapter.  Sadly, too many Rings wannabes tried to give themselves these teaser endings to get us excited for what’s next, and having it backfire.  Perhaps the worst attempt at this was a film called The Golden Compass (2007).  Based off the Phillip Pullman novels (which has often been described as Narnia for Atheists), The Golden Compass was New Line Cinema’s misguided attempt to create their own fantasy franchise in the same vein as Rings.  A convoluted adaptation followed and to make it even more infuriating, the movie thought it could conclude open-ended like Rings.  Unfortunately, because they picked a horrible place to cut the story off (which ignores a far more satisfying ending from the book) the movie just feels incomplete as a result instead of being a satisfying experience on it’s own.  This is a perfect example of how not to do a teaser ending, and is the primary reason why The Golden Compass‘ open ending remains so painfully awkward today.

This is perhaps the main reason these failed franchises feel so pathetic in the end; because we know that there is more story to be told and yet we’ll never get to see any of it on the big screen because the openings let us down.  The Golden Compass especially feels irritatingly hollow because it dared to think we’d be clammouring for more in the end, but did nothing to earn it.  But, some movies can get away with it by making each feature feel complete and avoid those ending teasers that only end up infuriating the audience.  Harry Potter had the benefit that each volume of it’s series more or less has it’s own story that only ends up tying together the further into the larger narrative you go.  If the first film, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone (2001) failed and no more were made after, it could still stand on it’s own because the film’s plot was more or less a complete one.  In the end, all films must follow the same act structure as every other film, having a beginning, middle, and ending that all make sense.  Even stories that take in the center of a larger narrative and can get away with it.  Movies that just pick up or leave the story without context will only end up confusing their audience.  That’s what makes every individual Potter film work in the end; their individual narratives.  Some failed franchises withhold elements that could lift the drive of their individual plots in favor of saving them for future installments, and becomes another unnecessary fault that defines them because it robs the urgency of the story.  The only explanation could be that studios want to follow a formula and that doesn’t fit into each stories narrative and you end up with films that feel more like exercises rather than experiences.

The commerce angle behind these franchise makings can also become their downfall.  Sometimes, when the source material is too large to fit into a single feature, or even just a couple, then some productions make the mistake of cramming too much into a movie.  It’s the opposite problem to the hollow withdrawing of material like what happened with The Golden Compass; but it’s no less destructive to the plot of a movie.  Try to tell too much story, and you end up with a plot that never gives the audience a chance to absorb it all, or it tells only a fraction of what’s really there to begin with.  Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events fell victim to this, with many of the 18 novels in the series crammed into a disjointed narrative that never settles into a rhythm.  M. Night Shaymalan’s failed attempt to adapt the Nickelodeon series Avatar: The Last Airbender resulted in a Cliff Notes version of the first season called The Last Airbender (2010) which gave us all the high points with none of the emotion and ended up being loathed by audiences of all kinds.  This is the unfortunate result of trying to force a giant story into the confines of a cinematic format, and again, forcing the story again leads to failure which in turn leads to abandonment.  Thank God George R. R. Martin turned down Hollywood attempts to adapt his Song of Ice and Fire series into a single condensed film, and instead waited for HBO to come calling.  What he proved is that sometimes there are other ways to adapt a lengthy story, including television, and that it matters to give a narrative it’s proper pace and format.  Rings and Potter had their formulas, but they only worked best for their own stories.  Many of these other failed franchises would have done best to establish their own formulas to follow.

In the end, the best thing to do is to think about each film as it’s own story.  Sadly, even ongoing narratives still have to gamble with the changing times.  Harry Potter was lucky to survive for over a decade, mainly by gaining goodwill from the audience by taking chances.  But, even still, time will change perspectives and audiences will ultimately decide if a series is worth continuing.  We did end up with 3 Narnias in this fantasy craze of the 2000’s, but that was short lived, and we may never see the final four that are still waiting.  It’s a gamble in the end, but one that more or less can depend on the willingness of the filmmakers.  If you are purely just in it to follow a fad, then your series will be short lived.  If you believe in the project, and understand the best way to tell the story on screen, then you might have a chance.  Unfortunately, so many franchises make the mistake of putting too much faith in their first film and then abandoning that faith when it doesn’t turn out like they expected.  EragonThe Golden Compass, and Lemony Snicket are the unfortunate lost children of Hollywood’s make-or-break approach to franchise building.  Their failures are only made more harsh by the fact that they feel more incomplete than the average film, the result of a misguided belief that these stories can only carry over into the next chapters.  The reason why we see series like Star Wars continue to stay strong even after a long absence, and is allowed to conclude each film with a more or less open ending, is because it’s earned the right to.  Each open ending does have a sense fulfillment by the end, and audiences accept it.  Nothing is withheld or forced on us, and the plot has been firmly established with a satisfying three act progression.  That’s why when we see Luke and Leia standing together as they plan a rescue for their friend Han Solo at the conclusion of The Empire Strikes Back, it feels like a natural ending without truly ending.  It’s a story worth the cliffhanger, and sadly the formula doesn’t fit all stories despite Hollywood’s attempts to make it fit. There’s nothing more unfortunate in Hollywood than a story that will never be concluded, and that’s the worst kind of cliffhanger that any storyteller can imagine.

Top Ten Movies of 2015

movies 2015

The year of 2015 has come and gone and what a year it turned out to be.  Hollywood of course is pleased with how it all turned out because it ended up being a year for the record books.  No less than 5 movies crossed the billion dollar mark at the world wide box office this year, with a few more nearly reaching that mark as well.  Overall, it was the biggest box office ever in a single year, reaching $11 billion domestic for the first time ever.  And this astronomical number was surprisingly lifted by box office hits that came from long dormant franchises.  This turned into a year where we learned that big business can still be made from franchises that most people thought were done for good, and that fandom should not be underestimated.  But it mattered that these movies also delivered on what their audience was asking for, and it helped that the people making them have long been fans of the titles themselves.  That’s why these movies hit as big as they did; they appealed to the audiences sweet spot, but also made them feel fresh at the same time.  And, in the case of Star Wars and Jurassic World, we are seeing the kings of old dominate once again.  But, overall, this was also a year that delivered some of the biggest surprises as well as some of the most crushing disappointments.  That’s why, here at the end of the year, it made compiling this list more difficult than usual.  Of all the movies this year, a good amount of them made a very strong case to be on my best of the year list; particularly at the top.  It’s just a sign of the quality of entertainment this year; a lot of great films floated to the top, while the rest sank to the bottom, with not a lot in between.  Regardless, I still narrowed it down to my top ten, and it’s a list that I feel confident about now.

Before I begin though, I’d like to share with you all the movies that I did enjoy this year, but felt that they fell just short of my top then.  Some of these were particularly close to making it, and I still strongly recommend that you see them because they are thoroughly enjoyable.  In alphabetical order: Avengers: Age of UltronBlack Mass, Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn, Cinderella, Crimson Peak, The Hateful Eight, Jurassic World, Kingsmen: The Secret Service, Love and Mercy, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, The Peanuts Movie, Spectre, Spotlight, Straight Outta Compton, Trainwreck, and The Walk.  So, with those out of the way, let’s get into my choices of the Top Ten Movies of 2015.  Keep in mind, though I watch more new movies than the average person, I still haven’t seen every movie this year, including some of the late or limited releases, so sorry Room, Beasts of No Nation and Son of Saul; your absence here is purely because I haven’t run across you yet.  And so, let us begin the countdown.

10.

ex machina poster

EX MACHINA

Directed by Alex Garland

Perhaps the most fascinating indie film of the year, Ex Machina is a stunning debut for first time director Alex Garland.  Though the movie can sometimes become a little too languid and ponderous at times, it makes up for it with it’s well executed ideas.  Detailing a bizarre weekend in the secluded compound of an eccentric tech industry tycoon, where said tycoon uses one of his clueless employees as a guinea pig for testing his new invention (an advanced artificial intelligence housed in a nearly human like robot), this is one of the more unique science fiction films to come in recent years.  And what’s great about this movie is that it makes remarkable use of it’s limitations.  Using only a single location (the compound) and only three main actors, this movie feels intimate while at the same time allowing you to contemplate some very big concepts within the story.  But, what makes this movie work most of all are the characters.  Domhnall Gleeson plays a likable sap in his role as the smart but gullible hero.  Alicia Vikander brings remarkable life to the challenging role of the robot, making her feel strangely human but distant as well, perfectly challenging the audience with that same question placed on the hero.  But, the movie truly belongs to Oscar Issac as the eccentric billionaire.  He steals every scene he’s in and gives one of the best and most unpredictable performances of the year.  His bizarre dance scene in the middle of the film may also be one of the greatest moments of the year in my opinion.  It’s a strange little film that should absolutely be experienced, especially for the performances, but also for the interesting questions it raises as well.

9.

carol poster

CAROL

Directed by Todd Haynes

It was a landmark year for gay rights, with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.  But, Hollywood has often had a difficult time bringing gay themes into their films in a believable way.  Sure, Hollywood has long supported gay people for a while now, and some of the reason peoples’ minds have changed over the years towards the issue is because of the way sympathetic depictions of gay characters in most movies.  But, an unfortunate by product of this is that many films from Hollywood that are trying to appeal to the notion of Queer Cinema often are unfocused and rely too heavily on melodrama to accurately portray the gay experience in their movies.  As a result, too many gay-themed films feel inauthentic and often cliched, making their gay characters sadly too one-dimensional.  That’s what makes Carol so refreshing.  This movie could have been handled very poorly, either being too melodramatic, preachy, or just plain old boring, and thankfully it avoids all that and instead just focuses on it’s characters and their story.  Todd Haynes, a pioneer in the rise of Queer Cinema over the last few decades, imbues this movie with a warm rich atmosphere that recalls the classic melodramas of classic Hollywood, and yet he also manages to keep the sentimentality to a minimum, making this the least melodramatic of melodramas.  It also spotlights a segment of the gay community that I feel is underrepresented in Queer Cinema by focusing on a love story between two lesbian women.  The performances are excellent here, especially Cate Blanchett who’s stunning to watch on screen in every scene she inhabits.  Rooney Mara likewise delivers her career best work as well.  It’s Todd Haynes most assured and beautifully constructed film to date that thankfully pays homage to classic Hollywood glamour while also acknowledging the moral distinctions that we’re aware of today, and never once forces the story to be anything other than what it needs to be.

8.

star wars force awakens poster

STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS

Directed by J. J. Abrams

Let’s face it; all of 2015 was leading up to this movie right here.  Right from the moment the movie was announced after the handover of Lucasfilm Ltd. to the Disney Studios, people were excited.  Finally the Star Wars saga was going to continue beyond where it left off with Return of the Jedi.  Then we heard that J.J. Abrams was going to direct, and that many of the original cast was returning as well, and we got more psyched.  And then, over the course of the last year, we were treated to several expertly crafted trailers, that boosted the anticipation even more.  Perhaps no other movie in history has come to theaters with so much hype behind it, which led me to worry that it could also have been the year’s biggest disappointment if it didn’t deliver.  Thankfully, it not only did not disappoint, it was even better than I expected.  There are flaws, sure, but they are so minor compared to all the things they get right.  The characters are the film’s biggest triumph, both old and new.  I’m also amazed by how well the film managed to deal with the expectations put on while still feeling confident enough to not deviate from the story it needed to tell.  There is one particular shocking moment late in the film that I won’t spoil, but I will say that had it been poorly handled, it would have angered fans everywhere and would’ve sabotaged the master plan for the series as a whole.  Thankfully, the moment was handled perfectly and it’s a game-changer that brings stakes back into the franchise and helps to build anticipation for what’s next.  Many have debated what the better revival was this year; Star Wars or Mad Max.  While I do admire what George Miller did with his gritty franchise, I felt that Star Wars hit more of the right notes for me overall.  It was the year of Star Wars in many ways and it’s so refreshing to see a blockbuster that actually is worthy of the hype that preceded it.

7.

creed poster

CREED

Directed by Ryan Coogler

But, despite the amazing work done in both Mad Max: Fury Road and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the best franchise revival of the year belongs to Creed, a remarkably stirring continuation of the legendary Rocky franchise.  Not only does this movie perfectly continue the long running story of boxer Rocky Balboa, but it may actually better than any of the films that have come before it.  The story focuses on the rise of boxer Adonis “Creed” Johnson, the illegitimate son of Rocky’s one-time rival turned friend Apollo Creed, and follows his own underdog story as he trains hard in order to come out of the shadow of his famous father, with the help of none other than Rocky himself as trainer.  It’s a story we’ve obviously seen before, and yet director Ryan Coogler makes it all feel new.  What’s amazing about this movie is how well Coogler manages to revive the feeling of what made the Rocky films great in the first place, but at the same time manages to feel unique on it’s own.  Michael B. Jordan delivers a knockout performance as Adonis, capturing a complex individual who has more to prove about himself than what his name gives him.  However, it’s Sylvester Stallone who stands out the most.  He delivers what is probably his best performance ever continuing in a role that has come to define his career.  His aging Rocky is lovingly reborn in this new film and he reminds us once again why we fell in love with Rocky Balboa in the first place.  Coogler clearly meant this movie to be a love letter to the franchise, and the nods to the past Rocky films are expertly displayed here.  And boy, did this movie pick the perfect moment to include the famed Bill Conti theme.  This movie proves that it’s not just worthwhile to continue the Rocky franchise; it’s essential.  It’s expertly crafted, heartfelt, and brilliantly acted and easily one of the years best.

6.

steve jobs poster

STEVE JOBS

Directed by Danny Boyle

This was probably the most interesting cinematic experiment of the year.  Could you tell the story of a real life person (and cultural icon for that matter) and do it with only three scenes.  That’s the approach that director Danny Boyle brought to his biopic of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, one of the 20th Century’s most influential visionaries.  All two hours of the movie is devoted entirely to three half hour long scenes, showing Steve Jobs balancing both personal and professional dilemmas behind closed doors on the eve of the product launches of some of his most famed creations; the Macintosh computer in 1984, the NeXT computer in 1988, and finally the iMac in 1998.  Jobs meets and clashes with all the same people in each scene and the film turns into a fascinating exploration into how people change over the years and how regrets and grudges tend to grow over the passing years.  It’s a cinematic experiment that works amazingly well, and helps to redefine the rules about how to make a biopic.  Danny Boyle makes good uses of his usually flamboyant style here, but the real key to this film’s success is the sharp as a nail screenplay by Aaron Sorkin.  It’s clear to anyone that nobody writes two sided arguments better than Sorkin does, and there are a few here that are more edge-of-your-seat compelling than a dozen action thrillers, particularly one in the middle between Jobs and Apple CEO Joe Cooley (played by Jeff Daniels).  Michael Fassbender also does an amazing job disappearing into the role, which is especially impressive given the very public identity that Jobs had.  Kate Winslet is also great as Job’s resourceful and long suffering assistant.  And best of all, the movie smartly doesn’t try to turn it’s subject into a saint either.  Steve Jobs accomplished great things, but this movie perfectly shows the monster than he could be in between the moments of brilliance.

5.

the big short poster

THE BIG SHORT

Directed by Adam McKay

It’s hard to believe that the same guy responsible for many of the Will Farrell comedies over the last decade, which includes Anchorman (2004) Talladega Nights (2006) and Step Brothers (2008), could also be responsible for what is the smartest and most gutting and politically charged movie of the year.  Well, as was true in the medieval times, the person best able to speak truth to power when no one else would turned out to be the court jester, and that’s what makes the usually comedic director Adam McKay’s new film such an eye-opener.  The Big Short details the difficult to explain housing market crash of the late 2000’s, an economic disaster that nearly destroyed the entire world economy.  It’s a subject that is difficult to explain to the average viewer, and the movie does a masterful job of explaining the un-explainable in both funny and enraging ways.  What I liked best about this movies is the take-no-prisoners approach to the satire.  Everyone is to blame for the corruption and fraud that led to the market downfall in this movie; the bankers especially, but also the politicians, the regulators, even us in the audience who still remain ignorant to the problem.  The movie has a great gimmick where the film will cut away to celebrity guests who will explain to us the things we don’t understand, showing how the power of distraction was a tool that allowed the problem to go on for so long without being noticed.  A great cast, led by Christian Bale, Steve Carrell, and Ryan Gosling among others portray the men who saw the disaster coming, and the movie smartly shows that even they were just as guilty of profiteering from the disaster as some of the worst offenders.  It’s hilarious, but also enlightening and it will anger you in ways that few other political films do.  It’s a satire of the highest level, and would be laugh out loud if it weren’t so painfully true.  And it shows that sometimes the funny man can be the smartest person in the room.

4.

inside out poster

INSIDE OUT

Directed by Pete Docter

Pixar is one of the most revered brands in all of film-making, let alone the world of animation.  But, after a lull in quality over the last couple years, people were wondering if they were still capable of making classics like they did in their heyday.  Thankfully this year, we were treated to an instant classic called Inside Out, which is not just one of the best movies this year, but one of Pixar’s all-time greats.  The movie is a stunner from beginning to end, taking us into the most unlikely of settings: the mind of a pre-teen girl.  What I liked about this movie the most were the incredible characters.  Each emotion is a fully developed personality, each perfectly embodying the emotion they represent.  The scene-stealer of course is Sadness, whose characterization is just perfection and is brilliantly voiced by The Office’s Phyllis Smith.  In addition, every moment in the movie is an ingenious execution of one great concept after another.  It’s great to see a movie take on a subject like psychology and the workings of emotions and portray it in a way that is both entertaining and informative to audiences of all ages.  This will probably be a great introduction to the science of psychology to children, showing that life shouldn’t be lived by one emotion alone, but through a mixture of all of them.   And there is plenty of drama and knowing humor that will keep the adults entertained as well.  And it’s amazing to think that a movie can make us shed a tear for a character named Bing Bong (“Who’s your friend who likes to play?”).  Director Pete Docter delivers an assured and fully-rounded cinematic experience that is eye-popping and mind-opening from beginning to end.  And it proves once again that Pixar still has it.

3.

the revenant poster

THE REVENANT

Directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu

Director Inarritu is on a career high right now.  After years of making small, mostly non-linear films that featured large ensembles, he decided to change things up recently and try his talents in different genres.  And this has been an experiment that has paid off.  Last year he made Birdman, a dark comedy set in the backdrop of Broadway, and it ended up winning the coveted Academy Award for Best Picture, as well as an Oscar for directing to Inarritu himself.  That film was also my own choice for the best movie of last year, which put a lot of heavy expectations on what he would make next.  Thankfully, he delivered something really spectacular as an encore.  The Revenant is an “Epic” worthy of the word and shows that Alejandro Inarritu is capably of creating a trans-formative film in any genre.  After going light with his last movie, here he goes dark and bloody, telling the harrowing story of Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), a fur trapper in the American wilderness in the early 19th century, who’s left for dead after a bear attack and must fight his way back to civilization in order to kill the man who murdered his son.  The visuals in this movie are stunning, accomplished by back-to-back Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki, and there are many “how did they shoot that?” moments that will leave people amazed.  Really, this was the best visual experience of the year for me.  DiCaprio once again proves why he’s one of the best actors working today, and this shoot must have been a hard one to go through.  But, it’s Tom Hardy who steal the film as the villain, becoming almost unrecognizable in the role.  It’s a brutal cinematic experience, but one that’s rewarding by the end, and it shows that the newly crowned Oscar-winning director still has a lot more to show us.

2.

the martian poster

THE MARTIAN

Directed by Ridley Scott

One of the year’s breakout hits, The Martian also proved to be one of the surprising cinematic experiences as well.  While a lot of people expected this to be a thrilling, action packed extravaganza, I’m sure that no one expected this to be as smart, funny, and ultimately inspiring as it turned out to be.  The film tells the story of astronaut Mark Watney (a perfectly cast Matt Damon) who is left behind when his crew leaves him for dead on the Martian surface after their camp is hit by a sand storm.  After surviving the incident, Mark must find a way to live on the inhospitable terrain of Mars before a rescue team can come and retrieve him; a process that may take up to 4 years.  Much of the joy of watching this movie is seeing the ingenious processes that Mark Watney undertakes to stay alive, and the unwavering determination of the people back on earth to bring him home safely.  It’s the positivity that the characters approach their missions with that makes this movie so refreshing.  While many other science fiction films will often get bogged down in melodramatic contrivances, The Martian instead celebrates the ingenious and cooperative progression that the characters takes.  And best of all, it puts the Science back into Science Fiction.  In a time we live in now when Science is so often villified, whether it’s denying climate change or dismissing the benefits of vaccination or just flat out denying the fact that man has walked on the moon, it’s great to finally see a movie that celebrates the use of science and praises the work of scientists.  Director Ridley Scott of course delivers on the visuals, but it’s also a treat to see him work with a story built around optimism rather than tragedy.  Plus, it’s got a great disco based soundtrack as well.  It’s one of the years finest film-making achievements and one of the more pleasurable cinematic experiences as well.

And finally…..

1.

sicario poster

SICARIO

Directed by Denis Villeneuve

This was one of the most unexpected and haunting cinematic experiences this year.  Sicario was a punch to the gut for me as movies go, and I still haven’t been able to shake it from my mind.  It works on just about every level; from the relentless and oppressive atmosphere, to the deceptively sparse screenplay, to the flat out amazing performances.  It was the movie that stuck with me longer after seeing it than any other this year.  The movie follows a rag tag group of law enforcement agents fighting in the drug war along the U.S./ Mexican border.  The movie starts off with a chilling discovery in a horror house filled with decaying corpses out in the middle of the Arizona desert and it takes us from their into a nightmarish journey down the rabbit hole into the madness of America’s War on Drugs against the ruthless Mexican cartels.  Some of the imagery throughout the movie will stick with you, like the bodies of the Cartel’s victims hanging off the edge of a highway bypass, or the unbelievably brutal final confrontation at the end.  I won’t spoil what happens, but let’s just say it’s the most shocking moment in any movie I saw this year.  And yet, with all this horror and mayhem, it still proves to be a rewarding experience, and that’s because of how truthful it is to both the subject and the characters.  The performances are amazing throughout.  Emily Blunt proves once again how versatile she is and becomes a perfect witness for the audience to identify with through all the craziness.  Josh Brolin also offers some much needed levity as the cynical smartass Agent Carver.  But it’s Benicio del Toro who owns the movie.  His mysterious Agent Alejandro may be my favorite character of the year, and it’ll be a crime if he’s not nominated for an Oscar for this performance.  It’s a cinematic experience all of you should see, and it stands as my favorite of the year in a very crowded field.

But, of course I can’t tell you my best of the year picks without also sharing my picks for the worst.  I usually steer clear of bad movies in the theaters as you know, but there were some that were just unavoidable, even if I could see them coming.  So, here are the Top Five Worst of 2015.

5.

TOMORROWLAND –  Without a doubt the year’s most disappointing film.  Believe me, I wanted to love this film, given the talent behind it.  But sadly, what we got instead was a tired, cliched wannabe sci-fi classic that never fully explored the promising ideas that it only hints at.  I wanted to see a grand adventure, and all I ended up with was a road movie.  Please don’t let us down again Brad Bird.

4. 

ALOHA – Speaking of wasting away a lot of promise, director Cameron Crowe just can’t seem to recapture the creative drive that once made him a standout many years ago with movies like Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous.  Aloha represents yet another poor attempt by Crowe to recapture some of that lost inspiration, but even the pretty Hawaiian locales can’t save this movie from a boring story and lackluster characters.  Not to mention it has the notoriously bad miscasting of Emma Stone as a part-Asian character.

3.

TED 2 – The crumbling of the Seth MacFarlane empire has been going on for a while now, and this lame sequel is just another sign of that.  I did enjoy the first Ted back in 2012, but the novelty has worn off since.  This over long, contrived comedy fails on all levels to be worth the effort.  Only a well-done cameo by Liam Neeson managed to get a laugh out of me while watching the film.  Other than that: crickets.

2.

TERMINATOR: GENYSIS – In a year when we saw triumphant revivals of legendary franchises, the Terminator series was the only one that we saw sink further.  This uninspired sequel manages to have the gall to go back to the original classic and disrupt the timeline, wiping the slate clean.  This might have been interesting had the end result not been so lame.  Yes, it’s nice to see Arnold back in the iconic role, but every other character is a one-dimensional bore.  And how dare they make Sarah Connor such a bland character.  It’s tired, predictable, and a disgrace to the once mighty franchise.

And the worst film of 2015 is….

1.

FANTASTIC FOUR – Yeah, you probably knew this was coming.  I tore this movie apart in my earlier review and the opinion still stands.  This was a trainwreck of a movie on every level; visually, narratively, performance-wise, everything.  Even the people who made it have expressed how horrible the experience was.  The only ones who seem to want to keep this disaster going are the studio heads at Fox, who are just greedily holding onto the rights in order to keep the characters away from Marvel.  It’s a cynical business ploy that represents the worst kind of film-making.  Hopefully, Fox will learn that this no way to make a movie and will give up their grip-hold on these characters, and allow this travesty of a film to be forgotten.

So, there you go.  My picks for the best and worst of 2015.  It was an interesting year that brought us some grandiose and record breaking entertainment.  But, we were also treated to many surprises that also proved to be worthwhile.  Looking ahead now, we begin another year of movies that again looks promising, if a bit less ambitious than the previous year.  We’ll get an extra large helping of Superhero films this year including two big crossover events like Captain America: Civil War (May) and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (March), plus the anticipated sequel X-Men: Apocalypse (Memorial Day), as well as the introduction of a new face to the mix: Doctor Strange (November).  Plenty of sequels await (Alice Through the Looking GlassFinding DoryIndependence Day:ResurgenceStar Trek Beyond) plus a couple of re-imaginings (The Jungle Book) and even a revival (all-female Ghostbusters).  Plus, we’re going to get ambitious new films from some of cinema’s great masters like Steven Spielberg (The BFG), a first ever screenplay from famed Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them), and a stand alone Star Wars flick to help keep us satisfied in between Episodes VII and VIII (Star Wars: Rogue One).  It’s going to be an unpredictable year, and while I don’t think we’ll see some of the box office highs that we witnessed this last year, I’m sure there will be plenty of worthwhile entertainment to be had.  And I’ll be sure to cover as much as I can of it for you my readers.  Happy New Year and let’s all still have a blast watching and talking about the movies.

This is….