Trick or Treat! Congratulations! You’ve been tricked because there is only one option, and that is treat. In this economy, I could only afford one of those so you will just have to deal with it. In honor of one of Halloween, one of the High Holidays of the year, I thought I’d give you all a treat! This list will consist of just my Top 10 Personal Favorite Movies (in no particular order), and I really won’t offer many explanations. Everyone has their own favorites for their own reasons and this list will celebrate that! Nothing fancy here, just sharing pure enjoyment, just like you are supposed to do on Halloween. For once, I am not being sarcastic when I say this post is completely non-controversial!
These movies aren’t necessarily the best, just the ones I enjoy the most, which means nothing I say can be wrong! Whether it be because they are easy to watch or they remind me of a simpler time, when we didn’t live in a society. I am sure everybody on the interwebs today will spam your feed with Halloween and spooky themed so this could be a refreshing break from that junk. And I love the idea that everyone will have totally different lists than I will. When you’re done going through my list, why don’t you make your own list and share it in the comments!
The Dark Knight
If you didn’t see this one coming, then I am not inviting you to my next birthday party. There is never a time when I am not excited to see this movie playing on a screen somewhere! It may be the best superhero film ever, but it is also my favorite which is definitely the more important designation.
I acknowledge that “Empire” is the better but I am a prequel Stan at heart. Yeah, some of the dialogue is a bit… awful, but dammit if the film isn’t ambitious as hell! The lightsaber fights, the genocide of children, the John Williams score! When I think of Star Wars, this is the movie I think about most.
Spaceballs
Fun Fact: This is the film I have watched more than any other! I remember when I was 6-years-old, we got my dad this DVD for Father’s Day and by August, I had the entire script memorized. My camp counselor from that year is still my friend now, and he still makes fun of me for how adorably annoying I was saying “MOYCHENDISING!” all the time.
Dodgeball
“If you want to have dodgeball victory, you have to grab it by its haunches and you gotta hump it into submission! That’s the only way!” – Patches O’Houlihan “Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine?… No, but I do it anyway because it’s sterile and I like the taste.” – Also Patches O’Houlihan
Have there ever been more impactful words uttered in film? Simply unmatched in its profoundness.
V for Vendetta
I already wrote a full review about this one, so go check that out if you want details. Just know that when you mix political revolutions, Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, and pre-Zack Snyder DC Comics, you’ve got yourself one enjoyable film!
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery
I couldn’t figure out if I like this one more than I do “Goldmember”, so I closed my eyes and pointed at one of them. Like I said, there are no wrong answers here. When I have family gatherings, the “Austin Powers” movies are the only common ground we can all agree on. It is honestly amazing that I still find them funny considering I’ve seen these movies at least 20 times each.
Inglourious Basterds
Tarantino films are some of my favorite, and the exploits of ‘The Basterds’ are easily the favorite of the favorites. It’s a propaganda movie about propaganda using propaganda to explain the power of propaganda! I know I’m a politics nerd and you have no right to judge me. Simply put, bashing Nazi skulls in and having a group of cunning Jews kill Hitler with the power of movies is hard to top.
Spirited Away
I am mad at myself that I couldn’t find actual clips of “Spirited Away” on YouTube, but you’ll all have to make due with the trailer that is very much a product of the early 2000s. This is my favorite animated movie and it just makes me feel some type of way! There is magic in this movie and I know I am not the only one who feels that way!
Independence Day
Who doesn’t get chills when Bill Pullman gives this speech?! Or when Will Smith punches an alien in the face before smoking a cigar and cracking a one-liner?! Or when Jeff Goldblum does his whole “I’m Jeff Goldblum” routine?! It is just such an easy film to turn my brain off and watch.
Anchorman
This fight scene is one of the greatest productions in any movie ever! “Anchorman” is one of Will Ferrell’s best movies filled with iconic, quotable characters. You’ve all seen it, so I doubt I need to explain myself to anyone. It is just really funny and easy to watch!
And that is my list! We’ve all got our favorite movies and I would love to hear what all of yours are. Maybe we have some of the same and maybe ours look nothing alike. That’s the beauty of this Halloween treat, you can disagree with me and not be wrong!
To put it bluntly, “The Lighthouse” is a special work
of cinema. It is a true accomplishment when a movie effectively communicates
its message to its audience, but it is a rare feat when a film succeeds at
consigning the very feelings of the madness of its characters upon its viewers
as if it were their own. The moment I left the theater, my senses felt out of
tune to reality. The silence felt louder than it did before. Corridors felt
longer than they did before. The colors of the world seemed unnecessary as if
the blue of the sky was just a coat of paint. The idea of speaking out loud was
genuinely repulsive, and so I drove home in a comforting silence that allowed
me to hold onto this ethereal feeling as long as I could. There have been
numerous occasions when a film has made me feel immediate powerful feelings
after my viewing, and while I cannot even be completely sure I can accurately
identify what this sensation even was, I have never experienced any other
instance of leaving a film and feeling anything of this sort before.
The film is about the story of two lighthouse keepers,
played by Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe, in the 1890s who are marooned on
an island with nothing but themselves and their fleeting sanities. The premise
seems so simple, and yet, in the hands of any lesser talents, this could easily
be just another movie. Director Robert Eggers had only ONE other feature film
on his resume before this: “The Witch” (2015). But even with his relative
inexperience, Eggers proves he is one of the most talented filmmakers working
today with this creation. In an interview, he mentions how the original concept
was created by his brother, Max, but he struggled to produce a screenplay he
liked with it. So, Robert, like the good brother he is, asked if he could take
the concept and it is so apparent that he had a clear vision for this film from
the very beginning (Don’t worry. Max is given a screenplay credit on the film).
From the first moments, we are greeted with a haunting, almost purgatory-like environment
encapsulated by a veil of fog that keeps even the horizon beyond the boundaries
of our vision. We are in Robert’s vision and feel exactly what he had hoped we
would.
Pattinson’s Winslow is a former timber man from Canada who keeps going from job to job, hoping he finds something he enjoys well enough to settle down with and start a life. Dafoe’s Tom is a career mariner who can no longer live a life at sea because he injured his leg, and so he works as a lighthouse keeper (They call themselves “wickies”). The two men have an incredible dynamic, oscillating between brotherly affection to hostile mistrust at any given moment. Tom is borderline tyrannical in his authority as Winslow’s superior, and a superstitious man who believes that fighting with seagulls is a bad omen and that the light from the beacon drove his last partner mad. Winslow openly resents Tom at times for his abrasive dictations and believes he spews tall tales to entertain himself and frighten him. And yet, despite this, they still bond over their mutual isolation and hearty doses of alcohol.
While technical stylings can often be considered a
cosmetic afterthought by some audiences, in this instance they are integral to
creating the setting, and therefore the telling of the story. For starters,
Mark Korven produced an unearthly score that compliments every single scene
with a hyperphysical force of the unknown. Jarin Blaschke is also perfect with
his cinematography. The aspect ratio of the film is 1.19:1, which essentially
means the projection is close to a square (1:1 would be a square) as opposed to
the widescreen views we are given in most films, just adds to the sense of
confinement both we and the characters feel. And the film is shot on 35mm film
with a filter eliminating all colors except for black, white, and some blues,
creating an almost authentic feel to the rustic lighthouse location. Most
frames of the film are lit by a single on-screen source, which combined with
the other techniques utilized, completes the ominous and visually stunning
creation.
The environment is as much of a character as the two actual people we know. The titular lighthouse feels alive as if it can interact and sway events by sending a seagull or changing the weather. As if it were a sort of wonderland, this dank, wooden shack seems to exist completely on the periphery of reality. Life does not interact with anything beyond the perimeter of what is visible. Once the characters arrive in the opening scene, there is no proof that anybody else is even aware of its existence. No boats are seen approaching it, no supplies are dropped off, and no communications are ever delivered. It is a wholly isolated area completely shrouded in mystery.
Willem Dafoe delivers one of the best performances of
any actor that I have ever seen. He speaks in a nautical dialect, reminiscent
of old-timey sailors but very believable as a real person. For those of you who
are fans of Greek mythology, he is the stand-in for Proteus, the shapeshifting son
of Poseidon. There are no definitive supernatural qualities to him, but through
the lens of Winslow’s creeping insanity, Tom represents everything he hates,
fears, and desires. This should not belittle Robert Pattinson’s performance
though, who is very much on equal footing as his costar. As, Winslow, he wears
a façade of unassuming calmness to mask layers of aggression that slowly seep
out as the film progresses. It is truly a pleasure to watch these two go at
each other in every single scene of the movie.
A surprising quality of the film is that it is fairly comedic. The drunken antics of the two characters can get decently silly, as drunken antics tend to do. And despite the reputation of modern black-and-white films as being pretentious and taking themselves too seriously, there is an impressive amount of fart and pee jokes. Frankly, it makes the experience feel even more real. What else would expect from two gross people who were trapped together in a small confinement for an extended period? Wisely, the film chooses to acknowledges the unkempt aspects of their communal living as a factor contributing to Winslow’s dive into insanity, and I do not think there is a single person who could blame him for that.
“The Lighthouse” is a hypnotic experience to watch.
Robert Eggers masterfully transports us to a world he creates. We are both
characters, and yet we can relate to none of them. We feel what they feel, even
if it is spurred by an unexpected mood swing. Not everything in the film is explicit,
which is perfect for the subject matter at hand. Having been given no concrete
answers, we are forced to revisit all the experiences we witness and decide for
ourselves what they mean. If you are someone who likes things nicely wrapped up
with definitive conclusions, then this might be disappointing, but I find it
refreshing to know that the filmmakers do not patronize us. They have faith
that we can think things through and come to our own conclusions.
It is tremendously apparent how meticulously crafted this film is. Robert Eggers is extremely well versed in the subject matter and creates such an authentic experience. For an idea as simple as two people going mad, “The Lighthouse” contain so much depth. It is my personal favorite film I have seen this year and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
I give “The Lighthouse” an elite 9.6 out of 10
Starring: Robert Pattinson, Willem Dafoe Directed by: Robert Eggers Rated: R Runtime: 1 Hour and 49 Minutes
In a world of remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, and spinoffs, franchise fatigue has become a regular burden that we all must bear. One day, we will all patronize our grandkids by letting them know that back in our day, we only had four Disney live-action remakes in a year, and not the 3 every week they have. We will serenade them with wild tales of original stories that we got to see in theaters for the first time, then they’ll ask us, all stupid and innocent-like, if any of that ever happened. Then you’ll silently nod and smile, before looking up towards the sky, a single tear running down your check as you face the reckoning of what we have lost. And while you weep for the stories that were casualties in the wake of the unchecked corporate influence on cinema, you’ll remember when James Cameron lied to everyone and said that “Terminator: Genisys” will be a Renaissance for the franchise, and think “That’s it! That was the moment!”. They produced a legitimately bad movie, revealed the plot twist in the trailer, AND had the creator of the franchise blatantly lie to everyone. If all of that didn’t make them stop, nothing can. Game over!
If there has ever been a franchise that really needs to stop, “Terminator” has been making a strong case to be that franchise basically since the end credits of “Judgement Day” rolled on-screen, which came out all the way back in 1991. The best thing anybody can say about anything released with the “Terminator” brand on it since then is that it might not be as bad as people think, but has that stopped the wallet-mongers at Paramount Pictures from making yet another film in the franchise? That’s a negative. And so, now we have a movie called “Terminator: Dark Fate” coming out November 1st, which will supposedly revive the franchise… from itself… by going back to its roots… again. Yeah, let me know how that turns out.
I audibly laughed in the theater the first time I saw that name come on screen during the trailer and some random guy gave me a high five for doing it. That’s the best name you got?! You couldn’t come up with anything more relevant?! If you think a film that’s subtitle is “Dark Fate” is going to be substantial in anyway you deserve to be laughed at derisively to your face. I know that sounds harsh but it is the only way you’ll learn. Names like “Dark Fate”, or “[Star Trek:] Into Darkness”, or anything that vaguely references darkness without specifically connecting to anything in the story is such an insultingly simple tactic to appeal to people who crave ‘edginess’. If your title, the most direct pitch to the public as to what your film is about, is literally about nothing, then I have little faith that the film has anything unique going for it.
And other than an admittedly pretty cool and ominous song in the background, that trailer seems like a repeat of all the mistakes of the fateful “Terminator: Genisys” trailer that spoiled EVERYTHING for the last film. Learning lessons is for losers! Instead of finding out John Connor is a machine now, it seems we are literally just doing the Disney Star Wars route and retelling Sarah Connor’s story by bringing her back to help someone else do exactly what she already did. And another machine-human hybrid is sent back in time to protect this person, and another liquid metal Terminator with an unfeeling stoic face is there, but this time he is somehow even stronger. Oh, and Arnie is back again (Would have been a lot cooler if we didn’t know this already)! Don’t pay attention to the fact that we’ve seen the Terminators take bullets to the face with that exact same effect for decades now. Try not to remember that liquid metal robots were only groundbreaking back in the George H. W. Bush administration. This is the movie we’ve always been waiting for! Everyone is back, doing the same things, saying the same one-liners, but this one will be the game-changer! We’ll like this one because they’ve already shown us all this and we told them we liked it a couple of decades ago.
So, Paramount and Skydance are going to shove the same concepts down our throats again and hope that we don’t realize just how incredibly familiar everything is. Maybe they are even hoping we’ll only find out after we buy tickets! But why even see it? Is anyone still curious about this universe? It was a fun concept but they’ve overplayed their hand. They haven’t had a good film in almost 20 years and popular culture has moved on. They are so afraid to evolve as a franchise because they made a few misguided attempts in the early 2000s to be a little different that failed for so many other reasons. But that doesn’t stop them from continuing to make movies, and it seems their goals are to let us know things are just as we remember from the 80s and 90s. If the films are only good if the same premises are constantly repeated, then maybe new films shouldn’t be made. At the very least, I think it is clear that everyone would benefit from a break from the franchise. I just wonder who keeps telling these people that this is something we all want. How many times do we need to tell you we aren’t interested for them to finally get the message?
Wow, Disney, you’ve done it again! Say what you want about the ‘Star Wars’ films they’ve made, one thing that no one can deny is that they always release some really exciting trailers for their films. Time for me to capitalize on the hype of someone else’s creation by contributing my very arbitrary and potentially very wrong thoughts to something I know very little about! This should be a great time for everybody, so sit tight and listen to the words that spew out of my brain and onto this computer screen!
I remember fondly back to April 14, 2017, when the first trailer for “The Last Jedi” dropped at Star Wars Celebration in Orlando. My friends and I had just camped out overnight in the convention center to have a spot in line for the upcoming panel where the trailer would be released live, and director Rian Johnson surprised the almost 10,000 fans camping out with us by meeting with every single one of us and signing an autograph for everyone. He was with us all from midnight until 5am, when he had to leave to get ready for the panel we were all waiting for. Despite my eventual vocal criticism of “The Last Jedi”, I will never deny the fact that Rian cares about the fanbase and the franchise. Then a few hours later, he showed us the trailer he was sitting on and it blew my tiny, little mind. Luckily, I have that moment captured on an incredibly amateurish phone recording. I hope you enjoy this video and the various strange noises that I made because I lacked the proper social skills to express myself like a regular human being. I would like to thank my friend Marissa for calming me down after that because my head would likely have exploded if she didn’t. Not all heroes wear capes.
As amazing as the leadup for the trailer in 2017 was, last night was essentially my nightmare. Our overlords at Disney forced the public to endure Monday Night Football where the New England Patriots slaughtered the New York Jets. Isn’t it just so relatable when you own ABC and ESPN, you can advertise one of you multibillion dollar media properties on all your other multibillion dollar media properties without having to pay for anything extra! Boy, if I had a nickel for every time that happened to me… Anyway, I hate both teams and forcing me to watch Tom Brady do anything for any reason is the equivalent to what happens to Arthur Fleck when he lives in a society! But, after being subjected to almost an hour and a half of that cruel and usual punishment, halftime came and mercifully delivered salvation in the form of the trailer! And, wow, stuff is definitely happening!
So, there it is! I am not sure what is going on here and it would be totally irresponsible for me to speculate with as little information as we have been given, but that won’t stop me from commenting on what we do know!
Rey certainly looks like she is fighting Kylo Ren a lot in the trailer, and in a few different locations. One could assume that “The Rise of Skywalker” might be setting out to overcompensate for the notable lack of true lightsaber fights in “The Last Jedi”. Even in the few glimpses we’ve been given, it seems the choreography has taken a massive step forward, closer resembling the more highly skilled combat sequences of the prequels as opposed to the slower, less precise wild-swinging duels of the Original Trilogy. I have always been a fan of the more intense choreography because I felt it more closely resembled how skilled warriors with mystical guiding powers would fight than does unathletic adults inefficiently taking turns swinging sticks at each other.
This place looks brand new! I am pretty sure we have yet to see a planet that has both ice and flowing water on it, at least in the films. I always love different locations and when the geography is unique, it makes it even more interesting to explore *cough* STOP MAKING DIFFERENT DESERT WORLDS *cough*. We only get this one glimpse at the new world so it remains unclear how prominent of a role it will play in this film but I am all for greater world building opportunities! It looks like The First Order is really pissed off at that iceberg. They are clearly motivated by avenging the Titanic! (I know, what a timely reference).
Again, it isn’t fair to speculate about the plot while knowing so little about what is happening, but I think I can tell you exactly what is going on here. EVERYTHING. This is the finale and they are certainly leaving everything out there on the field. They are quite literally filling up the entire screen with as many warships as they can think of. No one will ever accuse this film of not trying to go as big as possible! If some is good, more must be better! It is also interesting to note that these ships do not appear to be in space, but rather in clouds somewhere. The sequel trilogy, particularly J.J. Abrams’s films have given in-atmosphere dogfights more of a focus and it appears “The Rise of Skywalker” will continue that trend.
One thing this trailer does is make sure to show the main cast together a few times. “The Last Jedi” had almost no interactions between most of the supposed main heroes, which made the story sort of mismatched and lacking cohesion. It appears that J.J. is making the finale to the trilogy more of a group project compared to the last entry. It is kind of weird that Poe and Rey have only met each other one time at the very end of the second film so far, but luckily they seem to becoming fast friends… because protagonism (?). Let’s hope J.J. shows us how they’ve grown closer, even if it is just implying that it happened offscreen, rather than just pretending like they were always buddies.
C-3PO, the series’ lovable cowardly Oscar Trophy has the emotional punch of the trailer. He says goodbye to all of his friends while it appears there are a bunch of wires coming out of the back of his head and plugged into something offscreen. Maybe this is the scene that turns his eyes red because he’s crying like the rest of us. And if you look really closely at the right side of the frame, underneath the yellow light, you can vaguely see the head of a CIS B1 Battle Droid which is pretty neat!
Here is the obligatory Leia moment in the trailer. Thankfully “The Last Jedi” will not be the last moments we see the late, great Carrie Fisher in the franchise. She deserved so much better than being in a near-universally hated scene where she Mary Poppins-flies through the vacuum of space after taking a missile to the face. Hopefully, “The Rise of Skywalker” is a more appropriate swan song for a character and person of their magnitude.
This moment in the trailer is probably the only real misstep. This appears to be Rey and Kylo working together to destroy something, possibly the Darth Vader mask that Kylo talked to in “The Force Awakens”. Regardless of what the inanimate item is that they are destroying with excessive force, the fact that we see them teaming up together even for a moment totally undercuts where they left off at the end of the last film. This feels like a moment that would be much more impactful if we did not see it in a trailer and instead it was shown to us for the first time, you know, in the actual movie where the story is supposed to be told. But those white floors are really shiny so I guess it’s ok!
This is my favorite moment from the trailer so I saved it for last to discuss. If this location looks familiar, that is because it is very clearly the Throne Room from the Death Star II in “Return of the Jedi” where Luke confronts Vader for the final time. Despite having its core nuclear reactor explode, then plummeting to the ground from thousands of miles above in space, the room is somehow in relatively good condition. Some of the windows even seem to still be in place. Caribbean islands look far worse after a hurricane! (Wow, that’s really dark. Sorry). I am not sure at what point in the movie this takes place, but it seems to be a continuation of the fight we see in the beginning of the trailer where Kylo walks out from a very dramatic torrent of water. And if this is the final fight, how poetic that it takes place in the rotting carcass of the finale of the Original Trilogy… Oh, wait, is J.J. doing that thing again where he copies the exact story of the corresponding entry in the Original Trilogy? Let’s hope not! Well luckily enough of the trailer seems different to what we see in “Return of the Jedi” that maybe this is just paying homage and not full on plagiarism like last time. Fingers crossed!
Well, there you have it! Things were most definitely happening and I am glad I got to share my non-speculative, shameless capitalization on a 2 minute video that is just a hype video for a movie that is still 2 months away! Let me know if you guys found anything interesting in the trailer you’d like to discuss and if you think “The Rise of Skywalker” will stick the landing or not!
Although it is not the most famous film of the 1990s, “True Romance” is a sort of “unicorn” film of the era. We have the odd situation in which the writing credit on this movie is more noteworthy than the directing credit. Director Tony Scott is most famous for homoerotic testosterone booster films like “Top Gun”, which is all well and good, but the writer of the screenplay is Quentin Tarantino, who is on the Mount Rushmore of cinema and is clearly the more important human being. At the time, Tarantino had only directed “Reservoir Dogs” and was not as much of a known commodity, but the fetishized violence and edgy dialogue that has become his calling-card is ever-present. It would be fair to say that “True Romance” is the pseudo-prototype for some of Tarantino’s later, more remembered works such as “Pulp Fiction” and “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood”, and many of the other brilliant stories he seemingly can print out like they are counterfeit 20 dollar bills. Think “American Psycho” meets “Bonnie and Clyde” mixed with the twinkle in Tarantino’s eye that will eventually become “Pulp Fiction” and you’ve got the unadulterated adrenaline rush that is “True Romance”.
The story is a borderline fantasy or vision of escapism for a man named Clarence (Christian Slater) who lives a life of aloof nothingness that is so pathetic that his boss feels obligated to pay for a call-girl for him on his birthday so he doesn’t spend another one alone. A nerdy comic book-loving, Elvis Presley idolizing, Kung-Fu cinema enthusiast who is notoriously bad with women (I wonder where Tarantino came up with this idea), Clarence sets forth on a violent journey with an innocent yet sexually enthusiastic young call-girl, named Alabama (Patricia Arquette), who falls in love with him instantaneously. Along the way, they get caught up with violent pimps, mafia bosses, sleazy Hollywood executives, and $5 million of sweet, juicy, uncut cocaine. “True Romance” is a high energy film that feels like a cinema nerd with severe ADHD and a drug problem put the spiciest foods into a blender and somehow the whole thing came out appetizing.
Clarence is the likeliest surrogate for the audience of the film. He is a lonely nerd who gets a beautiful woman to fall in love with him instantly and then begins to live out all of his impulsive fantasies. He sports a deep “cool” factor that sometimes borders on unrealistic, because most people who view themselves as this kind of cool, rarely are. Seemingly driven solely by his imaginary friend, Elvis Presley, who insists on living as he does in ‘Jailhouse Rock’ where nothing matters “except rockin’ and rollin’, living fast, dying young and leaving a good-looking corpse”. If he were a real person, I feel like most people would be afraid of him. His unpredictability and self-assured righteousness of his actions are very unnerving. He radiates danger which is also his very appeal. While he is never explicitly chasing “release” from his own life, the implied sharp 180 degree about-face he does to go on this wild rampage signifies a man who was exceptionally repressed searching for the faintest rush of life and going overboard.
Slater and Arquette have tremendous chemistry which gives Clarence and Alabama an incredibly entertaining dynamic. Both are so dangerously impulsive that they fall in love after one night and set the whole plot in motion because they dove head-first into the deep end. The love is a bit unrealistic but the fact that they are total strangers is meaningless since the story is essentially about living like you are on fire. Unfortunately, after their initial night together, Alabama is more of a supporting character to Clarence, despite being billed as the co-lead of the duo. She still has scenes where she is able to shine, but ultimately, we do not get to know as much about her in the later parts of the film and it seems as though she goes along with everything because Clarence decides so. However, they are both fun characters that are much smarter and far more capable than they let on which is hidden behind their seemingly inexperienced and naïve demeanor. Is there anything more American than two deranged maniacs who are physically incapable of experiencing fear and can kill you then do the nasty on your still bleeding corpse?
The supporting cast for this film is incomparably deep,
consisting of Oscar winners at every turn. Gary Oldman plays a Rastafarian pimp
with a scarred face, weird voice, and a glass eye. Christopher Walken plays a
mafia crime boss who is not afraid to do his own dirty work. Brad Pitt is an
almost too realistic stoner roommate. And despite having minimal screen time
compared to the leading cast, they are all like magnets drawing your eyes
towards them. Their dialogue is enthralling, giving off vibes of many of the
great Tarantino monologues that he had yet to produce at this point.
Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper engage in a particular exchange that is
dubbed “The Sicilian Scene” which could easily exist in any of Tarantino’s
other films and be amongst the most memorable scenes from that respective film.
Every word has a purpose and each seemingly has been mapped out, utilizing
oddly specific and antagonizing wordage to create an aura of volatility and unease.
It may not be a topic you wish to repeat in public but it is incredibly
entertaining nonetheless.
The most attractive reason to watch this film is that it oozes natural human interest. The vivid color pallet used in the costumes and setting can only be matched by the wild personalities of the characters that inhabit this high-paced world. It is full of pop culture references and criticisms of the movie industry that clearly exhibit what Tarantino thinks of pretentious formulaic award darlings that are produced every year. Wisely, “True Romance” possesses the necessary self-awareness to keep itself from straying into the stilted boringness it keeps preaching against, all while being accessible with only a minimal strain of thought, just so long as blood and violence do not make you squeamish.
I give “True Romance” an 8.7 out of 10
Starring: Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper, Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Val Kilmer, Michael Rapaport Directed by: Tony Scott Rated: R Runtime: 1 Hour and 59 Minutes
I have been suspicious of “Gemini Man” from the moment
the phrase “From the visionary mind of Ang Lee” was placed prominently in the official
trailer. It is not that name-dropping Ang Lee isn’t a power move, but if a
marketing team needs to try that hard to convince you it is special by telling
you directly it will be visionary then chances are it knows damn well it really
won’t be. The concept of having two main characters be played by the same actor
at the same time was supposedly revolutionary and the only thing that held up
production of this film was the technology to de-age an actor, but that is a
tough pill for me to swallow. The ability for one actor to play multiple characters
that have different outward appearances is not all that outlandish considering
Eddie Murphy managed to pull it off in “Norbit”. It really makes one wonder
what was so special about this concept that it still managed to finagle getting
produced after enduring almost 20 years in development limbo littered with
warning signs.
The film comes off as a Will Smith vanity project,
even though he was easily the best part of the whole production and had nothing
to do with the creation of the story. The big selling point of the movie is
that Will Smith plays two main characters, which despite being played for a
mystery in the theatrical release, was made ABUNDANTLY clear in every single
pre-release material. And after watching the concept play out, the only route
they take in execution is that the older version is constantly told how special
he is, and that is the reason they need to make another one. The only thing that
can save Will Smith from himself is himself. It is just a film about how amazing
Will Smith was, is, and will be. It is not that I disagree with that premise, because
I have always been a big fan of him since I was a child, but the notion that a
film is based entirely on that premise feels as though its sole purpose for
existing is to boost the ego of an actor that we are constantly reminded is aging
but could still be the best if he really set his mind to it.
“Gemini Man” is starring Will Smith and… WILL SMITH?!?!? WHAT?!?! What kind of dark sorcery is this?
The worst aspect of the film, however, is the fact
that the plot is insultingly simple but is treated as if it is too complex for
anyone to grasp without at least half of the film’s runtime being dedicated repetitive
exposition. I can’t stress this enough, but the trailer explained 100% of the
plot already! Will Smith is a killer and a younger clone is chasing him. That’s
it! Insisting on overexplaining it with any more information is simply gratuitous
and a waste of everyone’s time. It is so patronizing that the only characters
in the movie each take multiple scenes to slowly deduce the very concept that
everyone in the theater already knew before watching it. The film thinks so highly
of itself that it thinks the concepts of cloning and being a trained killer,
ideas that have been a common theme in cinema for at least 50 years now, are
way more cerebral than they really are.
It is even more frustrating when you realize that none of the events of the film logistically make any sense. I’ll walk you through it all as a personal favor. Older Will Smith, Henry, starts out in Georgia where he lives, and there he meets a friend who tells him he has another friend who gave him some information, but not all of it. The information, obviously being incomplete, compels Henry to ask him where this other guy is, but the friend says the guy doesn’t want to see him, then reluctantly gives him the contact for a guy anyway. The guy lives in Budapest, but first Henry needs to flee to Cartagena, Columbia for a quick action sequence (which I’ll get back to later) before he flies to Hungary for a 3-minute conversation with the guy who had the information. He reveals that the real bad guy was that one guy Henry always knew was evil and was talking about the whole film, and he is waiting for Henry back in his office building that is about 10 miles east of Henry’s home back in Georgia. Why did he need to travel to South America then Europe to get information that he could have easily deduced on his own? And, why did that information have to tell him to go back to his starting point? The answer is to give Benedict Wong’s character a reason for existing since he is their pilot and serves as nothing more than a glorified PowerPoint transition animation. If you think about it, 70% of the movie could have been avoided with a phone call.
With all that being said, you’d be inclined to believe that the special effects of this film would be groundbreaking to carry the necessity of such a large budget. I think it would be fair to say we were given a mixed bag here. Most of the attention is given to the 120fps frame rate that the film was shot in compared to the usual 24fps that most films use, which is definitely different. Is it other-worldly? Not in my opinion but maybe it really hits home for you. The other major special effect is the de-aging effect that was used to render Will Smith’s young clone, Junior, and this one is objectively very convincing. Junior’s facial features and emotions are very clear and well-defined, which is noteworthy with just how many close-ups are used.
Where the effects fail are the action sequences.
Junior’s rendered body movements are a visual crime only comparable to a
bowling alley cutscene that is sped up 3 times its usual pace. He is doing backflips
and bouncing off the ground in ways that just totally suck you out of the
experience. There is one sequence in particular where Junior is repeatedly
beating up Henry with a motorcycle as if it were a melee weapon, which is cool
in concept until Henry does a push-up jump 4 feet in the air to dodge a swing
in slow-motion. I couldn’t help but audibly laugh out loud when this happened. It
is simply perplexing that a film with this sort of budget and emphasis on
computer-generated renderings would allow this to be the final product.
I really do not mean to beat a dead horse, but the
script also offers some remarkably frustrating dialogue. Aside from constantly
retreading the idea of what a clone is, there is a scene where Junior and Henry
first meet and Henry is trying to explain to him what is going on. Junior
responds to him by looking Henry in the eye and saying “you’re just trying to
rattle me”. YOU HAVE THE SAME GODDAMN FACE! What do you mean he is just trying
to rattle you? How many times have you seen a person identical to you, telling
you that you are his clone, that your dad who works for a biologic paramilitary
company was the guy who cloned him, and proving it by repeating ALL of your
most intimate secrets and thinking “Nah, this guy is definitely lying”? Also,
what did Clive Owen’s character think would happen when he sent Junior to confront
Henry? He acts like he had hoped he would never know that he was a clone but
sent him face-to-face with literally the only proof that exists. How could that
man possibly be surprised Junior learned the truth? If you told me that no one
read this script at any point before it was released in theaters, I’d believe
you without much further convincing needed.
It is not that this film is unwatchable, it is just so full of itself that it doesn’t even realize how simple all of its concepts are. The action scenes are underwhelming, the philosophy is ham-handed, and the special effects are much less than advertised. You may be somewhat entertained at a few points but the total sum of this film is wholly unremarkable. Unfortunately, “Gemini Man” is doomed to be a box office failure, but luckily the film will be mercifully forgotten in two weeks.
I give “Gemini Man” a seemingly generous 5.0 out of 10
Starring: Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Clive Owen, Benedict Wong Directed by: Ang Lee Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 1 Hour and 57 Minutes
I really do not mean to patronize anybody with this post
but I have been giving “fringe” candidates a platform to make their case for Oscar
nominations, and it seems that I have been presented with yet another worthy
candidate. It has come to my attention that Goldderby.com, one of the most
prolific odds making sites for the Oscars, currently has “Avengers: Endgame” as
the 16th best odds in the Best Picture category and that is just
asinine. I always say that 50% of people are stupider than average and clearly
those people have significant pull here. I will be as objective as possible
here, laying out the cases for why it should not be nominated and then why it
should, as I always do, but I am really disappointed that I even have to do
that for this film.
WHY IT WON’T HAPPEN
Old people. It is no secret that the Academy has the
reputation of being behind the curve with a few of their social stances.
Everyone and their mothers remember the #OscarsSoWhite controversy of 2012,
where all 20 nominated actors were white. That social pariah stemmed from the
voting population of the Academy being something like 91% old white people. Since
then, the Oscars have made a concerted effort to add more diverse opinions to
their voting population, but they have not lost any of the old voters, just diluted
their influence. While there has been a noticeable change in direction for the
organization, we are still significantly far away from saying the Academy is
progressive. And old people just do not take Marvel films seriously. They rarely,
if ever, give any blockbuster a seat at the big kids’ table and it feels really
naïve to believe they will all of the sudden have a change of heart now.
This is only further compounded by the fact that
Martin Scorsese, one of the most influential filmmakers ever in Hollywood, recently
made a public statement where he declared that Marvel films aren’t even cinema
in his opinion. I understand that most people nowadays would disagree with that
evaluation, but this is Martin Scorsese we are talking about. Who are we to
tell HIM anything about what is and isn’t cinema? And even if everyone
disagreed with him, his words do influence the narrative. When he speaks,
people listen. When you consider that his film “The Irishman” is in a virtual
tie for the best odds to win Best Picture this year, there is little doubt that
the Academy and its voters are paying attention to what he is saying. Like I
said, “Endgame” is only sitting at 16th best odds, 6 removed from
the minimum placing it needs to score a nomination, and all it takes is just a few
voters to consider his opinions to stop the nomination from happening at all.
“It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.” – Martin Scorsese
And a very important fact that most people do not
consider is that these films do not exist in a vacuum, especially when it comes
to these award races. We have to consider the fact that 2019 has been an
exceptionally strong year for film, which is objectively a good thing. There
have already been so many great films released with many more highly
anticipated ones on the horizon, this year’s Oscar races are shaping up to be
incredibly crowded. If the Academy was ever compelled to do something out of the
ordinary such as give a superhero film a Best Picture nomination, it is more likely
to happen in a year when there are fewer films that have a case as well. It is
simple math. If there is less competition, it is easier to stand out. They can
only give out 10 nominations AT MOST (They are not obligated to nominate 10,
just a minimum of 5) and with so many worthy films this year, “Endgame” simply
may not even have any opportunity.
WHY IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAPPEN
The term “Best Picture” is pretty subjective but my
rule of thumb is to go with the film that will be remembered most. Every year,
we get a crop of by-the-book dramas that usually get nominations that push comic
book films out of the conversation even though they are mostly unremarkable. It
is why I am so disappointed by the abject blandness that was “Green Book”
winning last year. The only reason people remember it is because they are upset
it won it all! When it comes down to it, “Endgame” is the film that epitomizes
2019 most. In 10 or 15 years, which film from this year will have the longest-lasting
legacy? There may be some other good ones but you are out of your mind if you
think this isn’t the signature film of the year.
Let’s also look at some of the arguments made against
this. Did you notice that none of those had anything to do with the quality of
the film? And that is because if anybody were to argue that “Avengers: Endgame”
was not the most successful film of the year they would be objectively wrong. “Endgame”
has been met with near-universal praise. No one in their right minds could even
construct an argument to say that it wasn’t an amazing film and an unparalleled
cinematic experience. But let’s not forget that it is now the HIGHEST GROSSING
FILM OF ALL-TIME, a title that actually means something to more than just the
stockholders of Disney. The last two films to carry that title, “Avatar” and “Titanic”
both received Oscar Nominations for Best Picture.
Even if you are like Scorsese and believe that the
genre isn’t sophisticated enough to be taken seriously, you can’t argue how culturally
significant the MCU has been. The franchise has spawned multiple billion-dollar
grossing films that have spanned over a decade, culminating in a complex
overarching story that runs through 21 films. That in itself is an absurd
accomplishment, but the fact that they were able to make a competent and
exciting, definitive conclusion to the first decade of the franchise is both a
monumental achievement in writing and producing that is very much worthy of
recognition. Even if your head is buried so far up your ass that you choose to
belittle the genre, that doesn’t change the fact that it very much IS cinema
and it has had a profound impact on the entire medium. And let’s not pretend
like “Black Panther”, an introductory, solo film of minor “big picture” significance
to the totality of the franchise, was nominated for Best Picture just last
year. Don’t tell me it can’t happen, because it did happen, and it absolutely
can happen again.
FINAL VERDICT
If you can look me square in the face and tell me that
“Avengers: Endgame” isn’t even a Top 10 film this year, then you are a
professional liar and could probably kill a bunny without flinching. If voting
was decided purely on merit alone, this would be a mortal lock. Get out of here
with this nonsense that “Endgame” isn’t even worthy of a nomination. “Endgame” is
the winner of the whole damn thing if I were voting and everyone knows I am the
truest authority on these things. Unfortunately, politics plays such a major
role in the whole process and change is scary, especially to old people. But,
even though Goldderby.com only has “Endgame” in 16th place, I still
have faith that voters will get this right and give it its rightful
recognition.
“You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”. Sir Alec Guiness as the great Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi once uttered this now famous phrase in the original “Star Wars”. Whereas he was referring to a bar full of criminals and lowlifes that he was taking a child he just met into, I am using it to refer to my newest Top 10 List!
We love bad guys! Hell, I even love how dumb the phrase “bad guy” is! In most instances, a film’s quality or memorability is burdened solely on the shoulders of the villain that opposes our hero. When the boy scouts tell you to do your homework and go to bed at a reasonable hour, a great villain comes along to remind you that you look really cool when you smoke and don’t eat your vegetables. Society wants you to hate the villain but that’s only because everybody is a bunch of nerds who will never know what it takes to be cooler than the other side of the pillow!
So, let’s discuss who is the best of the worst! My rankings are mostly based upon iconicism, with a little bit of estimated damage and philosophy sprinkled in for good measure. And like always, there are some Honorable Mentions for this list. They are as follows in no particular order: Annie Wilkes – “Misery” (1990); Nurse Ratchet – “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (1975); Agent Smith – “The Matrix Franchise” (1999 – 2003); Sauron – “The Lord of the Rings Franchise” (2001 – 2014); Loki – “Marvel Cinematic Universe” (2008 – Present); Jack Torrance – “The Shining” (1980); Anton Chigurh – “No Country for Old Men” (2007); Darth Sideous – “Star Wars Franchise” (1977 – Present); Scar – “The Lion King (1994); Yzma and Kronk – “The Emperor’s New Groove” (2000). As you can see, there were some difficult cuts that needed to be made for this list, but that just means we have been given so many great villains in movies! So having said all that, let’s begin!
The T-1000 is so effective as a villain that the “Terminator Franchise” has been riding its coatails since 1991 and simply refuses to go away, despite “Terminator: Genisys” making a rock solid case for the merciful sweet release of death. It takes a real threat to oppose the roided-out 1990s Arnold Schwarzenegger’s T-800 from the original and turn him into a good guy, but just look at how menacing those damn ears are! This liquid-metal, shapeshifting killing machine forged from a future war against humanity is just so damn loveable!
9. Biff Tannen – “Back to the Future” (1985) & “Back to the Future Part II” (1989)
Biff is the epitome of my worst nightmares come to life. He is a high school bully that never grows up and somehow manages to keep cheating his way to the top. Really, the only way for him to get what he deserves is some wibbily wobbly timey wimey shenanigans, and even that seems to have a 50% chance to turn him into a dystopian billionaire with infinite power (who was very subtly based off of someone named Donald Trump, whoever that is). It seems that in every version of the past, present, and future, Biff is a certified asshole that needs serious psychological counseling. Also, it seems to be glossed over frequently, but Biff was definitely trying to rape Lorraine in the first film and he ONLY gets a mean right hook to the jaw. This man needs to be locked up forever.
8. The Xenomorph– “Alien” (1979) & “Aliens” (1986)
The Xenomorph is the only non-humanoid entry on this list and it is the stuff of absolute nightmares. Famous for the two Sci-Fi horror masterpieces that are “Alien” and “Aliens”, the Xenomorph is the titular alien so you can deduce just how important it is to the franchise. Future sequels have strayed away from her importance *cough* “Prometheus” *cough* and they have noticably missed their marks with fans. The Xenomorph is the manifestaion of fear in space, plus its got that freaky second mouth within its regular mouth which has to be worth some points. It’s a shame that the franchise lost its direction for a period because the Xenomorph is truly one of the most legendary film adversaries ever.
7. Dr. Evil – “Austin Powers Franchise”(1997 – 2002)
If you thought comedies couldn’t produce All-Time villains than you are as dumb as you are stupid. Dr. Evil didn’t spend 4 years in evil medical school to be called Mr. Evil, thank you very much! Spawned out of the brilliant comedic mind of Mike Meyers to be a parody of the ridiculous James Bond villain, Dr. No, this bald Belgium evil scientist has easily surpassed the character he was based on to become one of the most memorable film characters of the late 90s and early 2000s. Dr. Evil is always brewing up needlessly complicated schemes to hold the world hostage and destroy his arch nemesis, Austin Powers. He may not always be successful (In fact, he never is) but that will not stop him from coming up with an even wackier scheme next time! With much respect given to Dark Helmet and White Goodman, Dr. Evil is the best comedic bad guy in all of film.
6. Voldemort – “Harry Potter Franchise”(2001 – 2011)
I’ll be honest, I don’t care for the Harry Potter films. You can even go as far as to say that I am a hater, of sorts. The only things I understand about the franchise is that I am something called a Ravenclaw and that Voldemort is doesn’t have a nose. But, anybody who anchors the befuddlingly large fantasy franchise as the primary villain under the moniker “He who shall not be named” deserves to be recognized on this list. I won’t pretend like I know much about what he does or his goals, but apparently everyone loves to see him struggle to take over a boarding school every year but get foiled by one kid who is seemingly always behind the learning curve, at least compared to his much more studious and prepared friend, Hermione. But, Voldemort is a dark wizard played by Ralph Fiennes so I can see why people think this guy is cool. I’ll meet you halfway and give him 6th place, nerds.
5. Norman Bates – “Psycho” (1960)
I personally subscribe to the theory that everybody named “Norm” isn’t normal (Ha! See what i did there?). This guy has some major mommy issues and Anthony Perkins just sells unresolved Oedipus Complex with his unnerving performance. In so many ways, this role was a trailblazer for what films were willing to display their characters doing and its impact on the films that followed in its footsteps cannot be understated. The scene where he stabs Marion in the shower may be the single most iconic scene in all of horror cinema. But really the scariest part about Norman Bates is that Vince Vaughn of all people tried his best to play him in a 1998 and it wasn’t the end of times, which is really suspicious if you ask me.
The puppetmaster of the largest and most successful film franchise ever only placing at a measily 4th place? They don’t even give out medals for that, unless the Millenials with their avocado toast and participation trophies have their way! Thanos has been behind the scenes for the better part of a decade, orcestrating most of the major plot points in the entire MCU, until 2018’s “Avengers: Infinity War” and 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame” when he came out of the shadows, guns-a-blazing and killing half of all life everywhere. I believe that the “Infinity Saga”, specifically “Avengers: Endgame” is the greatest cinematic achievement perhaps ever (Eat your heart out Martin Scorsese!), and Thanos’s presence and impact are largely responsible.
3. Wicked Witch of the West – “The Wizard of Oz” (1939)
Who else remembers the 1930s? Those were some wild times, huh? We disproved the theory of gravity, invented the color purple, and built the great continent of Antarctica by lasoing Hallie’s Comet out of the sky. Go ahead and prove to me that any of that didn’t happen. I’ll wait. Another completely true statement is that “The Wizard of Oz” was the first every fully colorized feature length film, which spawned some of the most culturally significant imagery of the past century. The Wicked Witch of the West has been synonymous with villainy since the moment she first appears on screen with her striking green skin and her high-pitched evil cackling. Her role in the film might not be as deep as most modern villains but she has inspired countless imitations and supplementary materials that have only expanded on her impact. “The Wizard of Oz” may be the most popular film ever, so ask anybody born in the last 4 generations and they will all recognize the Wicked Witch of the West.
2. Joker – “Batman” (1989) ; “The Dark Knight” (2008) ; “Joker” (2019)
Wow, even I thought this one was a given to place number 1, but I like to be unpredictable and wouldn’t you know it, I am just full of surprises! Legendary actors Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and Joaquin Phoenix (I’m not sure who this ‘Jared Leto’ person is) have all delivered other-worldly performances as the greatest psychological menace in Western media. We have been blessed to have gotten 3 seperate, unique takes on the clown prince of crime that have each been perfect in achieving exactly what each incarnation strived to be. Every time this character is in a film, he is bound to captivate audiences which is really all you could hope for from a villain. I am trying to give the Joker the serious description he deserves but really I can’t help but fangirl because I just love this character and so do you.
1. Darth Vader – “Star Wars Franchise” (1977 – Present)
Darth Vader is literally in too much pain to die, which is metal as Hell! The bacon-wrapped torso of Anakin Skywalker is the greatest villain in cinema history, and you can take that to the bank! What he struggles with in breathing issues, he more than makes up for in Dissociative Identity Disorder, casual genocide, murdering children in cold blood, talking his son into jumping into an endless chasm, and having the voice of James Earl Jones. Having his face hidden behind a stoic, unfeeling, black mask just means that any shred of humanity that might exist within that kinky black leather bodysuit will never be shown to anybody except his children he is trying to radicalize. And thanks to the Prequels, we even learn that he was even the kind of guy who also committed an act of genocide as a teenager. Name any planet in the Star Wars universe and Darth Vader has murdered at least 30 people named ‘Jar Jar’ on it. It’s just what he does. We now know that he is more of a tragic villain with a softer side and deeper character motivations, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t wise to get off the tracks when the train is coming through.
How about that list, huh? Quality rankings right there if you ask me. I am sure you perfectly agree with all of my picks, but if for some unholy reason you have a different opinion than me, in my great and unmatched wisdom, you should let me know! Maybe you think I didn’t pay enough attention to any Disney villains or something else that is completely wrong. Either way, I’d love to hear your thoughts!
The Joker is perhaps the entity in western culture
that is most synonymous with villainy. For generations, different narratives
have been crafted about this dubious antithesis to Batman’s stoic calculations
in comic books, video games, and film, all depicting him as a sociopathic
zealot who exists beyond the boundaries of society. Just over a decade ago, the
late Heath Ledger delivered a performance in “The Dark Knight” as a version of
the Joker that is inarguably among the greatest ever single performances in
cinema, and with similarly remarkable performances from Jack Nicholson and Mark
Hamill in different incarnations of the role, the Joker exists in the pantheon
of fictional characters ever created. Now DC Comics and Warner Bros. made the
notably brilliant decision to produce a film as a character study that solely
focuses on the Joker and his psychology.
The anticipation surrounding the public release of this film is nothing short of ludicrous. “Joker”, upon its debut, won the Venice Film Festival Golden Lion (Best Picture), and it is worth noting that the previous two winners were “Roma” and “The Shape of Water”, both of which utterly cleaned house at their respective years’ Oscars. Joaquin Phoenix was even receiving Oscar buzz so extreme that he immediately skyrocketed to the top of almost all of the oddsmakers’ rankings. Then, the film struck controversy, apparently being criticized for glorifying violence and potentially inspiring real-life incidents of aggression. Although the film had yet to be viewed by the public, the narrative was out there and it was considered major news worth discussing. For good and bad reasons, the hype surrounding “Joker” was an unstoppable force that just demanded everyone see what could cause this sort of impact on the social Richter Scale.
How could any film size up to a previewing wave of anticipation like that? Pretty damn well, as it turns out. Very much inspired by the works of Martin Scorsese, particularly “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy”, “Joker” is about the tragic descent into madness by failed clown/comedian Arthur Fleck, played by Phoenix. The film is incredibly intimate, depicting a man who is maliciously thrown to the side by society, and ultimately succumbing to his violent urges to combat the hypocrisy of the world we live in. If you find yourself sympathizing with Arthur, that is the point. The fact that you can understand his plight does not mean you are condoning what he does, but it does mean you see his violent actions for what they are. Instead of claiming that a violent act is so alien that we couldn’t possibly understand how someone could fall so hard, we should recognize what pushes someone there and perhaps do what we can to prevent someone from going down a similar path.
What makes the Joker a character that has been endearing to fans for generations, despite how heinous his actions are is that he is a force of nature that requires you to start thinking. No one is ever truly sure what the Joker is planning on doing next and that sums him up best: He makes us all unsure. We are unsure if he is justified, self-aware, in control, planned out, telling the truth, insane, or even genius. One criticism that a Joker origin story provoked prior to the film was that a character such as him needed us to be unsure about him in order for him to thrive the same way, but “Joker” shows us everything it wants us to see and you leave wondering about so many things. I subscribe to the idea that every version of the Joker that we have seen in media is its own unique possibility, meaning they all have the potential to be accurate or they can all simply be another made up story the Joker tells to add to his lure. So even if the film portrays where he came from, I cannot be so sure that it is the whole truth.
One of my favorite aspects of the film is just how it utilizes its musical score to tell its story. It is no secret that films use music to further communicate emotions, but Joker uses it uniquely. A prominent feature of the madness of Arthur is that he can seemingly hear the score and dances to it. Aside from how eerie his slow dancing is, the fact that he acknowledges aspects of the film that are supposed to be beyond the fourth wall forces you to judge for yourself if anything you are witnessing is true reality or just Arthur’s perception of it. You can just see it as Arthur expressing his embrace of his long sought-after control and the score simply complimenting it for our sakes. However, I interpret it almost as if we are seeing all the events play out through the filter of his own madness, and he is the one adding music to the scenes, which creates a veil of ambiguity as to the authenticity of all of the actions that transpire on screen.
And the film very much understands the cerebral qualities of the character it bases itself on. While the Joker is undoubtedly a chaotic evil in almost all of his many incarnations, he almost always follows a sort of corrupted logic that makes sense through his twisted lens. You may not like yourself for it, but you’ll understand exactly what drives the Joker to do everything he does. It is not the way you would handle yourself, but if you experienced his life, you can definitely deduce why this is his answer. The film is trying to get you to realize that understanding the rationale behind the evil he commits is not simultaneously justifying him carrying those acts out. The world he lives him is cruel and treats him like he is unworthy of decency. Arthur has a line in his journal that is deeply profound: “The worst part about having a mental illness is that people expect you to behave like you DONT”. To the world, Arthur is just crazy and he is treated like he is not even a person for it.
The criticisms of society are emanating from nearly every action in the film. From topical commentary on elitism, classism, mental health and economic opportunity to how little care we give to treating people the right way while still expecting others to treat us well back. We see that no one views themselves as evil in the film, and yet, you may struggle to find a truly good and decent human being in the entirety of the film. It is not as if Arthur is completely an innocent victim before the film begins. It is alluded to that he already was a patient at Arkham Asylum before and hasn’t fully reconciled why. We can assume he performed a criminal act before, which would explain why he isn’t allowed to carry a gun. Thomas Wayne, who is consistently portrayed as an altruistic savior in most other incarnations of Batman lore, is a certified asshole in this film. He calls people struggling in Gotham “clowns” that are jealous of those like him who have found success in life. And yet, he views himself as a hero for Gotham, running for Mayor to save the city. The film wants you to look inwardly and truly evaluate yourself. Are we the heroes of our story or are we contributing to a negative culture that breeds inequality and violence?
Joaquin Phoenix has delivered the best performance I have seen yet this year and the Oscar buzz is most defintely warranted. His physical transformation is frightening, almost rivaling Christian Bale’s weight loss exploits for “The Machinist”, and while that is impressive, anyone can starve themselves. The real muscle of his performance is in the way Phoenix wholly becomes the Joker, adopting mannerisms that put everyone who comes across him on edge. He put in the effort to study real-life instances of patients suffering from Pseudobulbar Affect, better known as pathological laughter, and is more than convincing that he might actually suffer from the neurological disorder. The physical pain he displays when he laughs too hard seems like his body’s genuine reaction to what has become an iconic evil cackling. And he is on screen for virtually the entire film which burdens him with essentially being the entire film.
Artistically, the film is stunning to look at because Gotham City is filthy in the best way imaginable. They allude to a city-wide garbage strike throughout the film and we watch the filth on the streets pile up continuously, which serves as an obvious metaphor for Gotham as a society. Every frame is tinted with an off-cyan glow or ominous flickering of lights to make the audience feel encased in the madness of the world on screen. You feel it is almost possibly that the stench of the garbage buildup is producing the chosen color pallet. There are even a few moments that produce still images that fully encapsulate the very epitome of the Joker as a character that were so magnificent that I could not stop the urge for me to talk about it for hours after I left the theater.
This movie is everything I could have ever hoped it would be. It is one of the most complex and philosophical comic book films ever created and it took a property that has already found success and gave it a whole new means of standing out. DC Comics may have struck gold here but they need to be smart about it. They will never out-cinematic universe the MCU, but they have interesting stories, like this one to tell. If they keep down this path, they will show that they have a whole different perspective on comic book films to offer fans, rather than a lesser copycat. It is very early but “Joker” seems like the type of film that will be remembered for many years.
I would give “Joker” a fantastic 9.2 out of 10
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen Directed by: Todd Philips Rated: R Runtime: 2 Hours and 1 Minute
Is there a better way to kick off a review of perhaps
the most legendary performer of the 20th century than a sobering
take on an entire genre of filmmaking? There probably is but ask me if I care. I
am just about to swear off biopics at this point. It is not that they cannot be
good but I almost feel as though there is a simple-cut-and-paste algorithm
these filmmakers follow to produce these story-less acting highlight reels. I
can live with a film being of poor quality. I can live with a film taking a
risk and falling flat on its face if you can tell the filmmakers genuinely put
their all into it. What I have difficulty stomaching is giving praise to a film
that does nothing to differentiate itself in any way. And unfortunately, “Judy”
is the type of film that has all the flash of an Oscar contender while
providing nothing substantive. The film is so pretentious and aimless that if
Renée Zellweger was even slightly less convincing as Judy Garland, I would
issue warnings to all of you to avoid this film at all costs.
To be fair, Renée Zellweger is perhaps the only positive
aspect of the film. I may question the effort of the filmmakers, but I will not
insult her by insinuating that she did not put every ounce of her blood, sweat,
and tears into this performance. Inarguably, this is the most transformative role
she has ever taken and she immaculately becomes the late, great actress and
singer. As far as impressions go, I sincerely doubt you will ever find a more
accurate portrayal of Judy Garland, which is furthered by the fact that she did
all of the singing herself, and for that, Zellweger deserves our praise.
But her performance runs into some issues with me, that may be more of a personal gripe than an objective critique. Mainly, I feel she is overacting in some scenes. Yes, Judy Garland was that type of flamboyant personality but every action she takes, every line she delivers, and every slight twitch she wears seems to be delivered with the over-the-top showmanship of an amateur Shakespearean stage actor auditioning for Hamlet. Sometimes, it just feels too much, and you wish in the more intimate moments that maybe she would have gone for a more understated approach. But, to be fair, I was never alive at the same time as Judy Garland so maybe this is how she displayed herself at all times, and that would not be the fault of Zellweger.
I guess the reason this bothers me is that the film exists solely for an excuse for Renée to become Judy Garland. There isn’t a clear message or story here, so for this to be justification for the film to simply exist, I feel it needs to be damn near perfect. Some people may say that it is, but I just don’t feel it does enough to warrant me sitting in a theater for 2 hours to ultimately learn nothing. Let us be honest here: the film is just a vehicle for Renée Zellweger to garner award buzz, which she will no doubt get. However, the character of Judy doesn’t seem to learn any lessons, only just endure hardships and sing. She never learns to take responsibility for her own actions or reconcile with her past in any way. She basically suffers and does drugs until consequences find her, then she sings again and people sing along and clap.
And that is a shame because there are significant hurdles set up for her to overcome, but instead of conquering them, Judy just remains the same until we are told the movie is over. They do explore the traumatic experiences Judy had growing up in Hollywood and how it shaped her into the person she is, but none of those subjects are ever resolved, just displayed. This creates a startling contrast to her final line (which you can see in the trailer above) “You won’t forget me, will you?… Promise me you won’t”, which seems so forced. Being forgotten was quite literally never discussed before that moment and it is supposed to be this grand dramatic moment of closure. That is not what this film was supposedly about and I am left wondering why Judy really did anything she did if that was what was motivating her all along. If the blame belongs to anyone, it is director Rupert Goold, who should realize just how out of place and unearned that line is.
There are also many faults with the writing of this film. All of the classic tropes are milked until they are dry and it almost seems shameless. For starters, there is a seemingly formulaic execution of events. Judy will do something publicly that will be followed up by an obligatory intimate conversation in an otherwise silent room. Judy will display significant volumes of emotion that will lead to an eventual drug-induced breakdown, followed by a performance that is either brilliantly executed or embarrassingly fumbled. Then the process is repeated enough times to fill out the runtime and then we are told that Judy dies at age 47, and the credits roll.
Another one of my biggest issues with regards to the writing is with the character of Mickey Deans, who is criminally hackneyed. From the moment he was put on screen I thought I knew exactly what his role in the film would be, and as it turns out, I was 100% correct. It seems there is always a sleazy love interest in biopics that begins as an uplifting force in the title character’s life, but ultimately ends up using them for personal gain until they eventually hurt the main character. A lot of times this character is a manager or an agent, but they always try to profit off of the titular star and transform from a supportive crutch to an abusive leech. It is a routine we’ve seen in “Rocketman” and “Bohemian Rhapsody” in just the past year, and wouldn’t you know it, Mickey fits that token role in “Judy” as well. My issue is that, with these biopics, the filmmakers are always flexible with factual events, so why does this same element always appear? Maybe it is a studio mandate that a character fitting this bill has to be in a film like this but they did not even give us enough time to explore anything about there relationship. I still have no idea what they liked about each other or why they eventually grew to resent each other. The relationship seemingly happens then falls apart with very little mentioning of a shift in dynamics between them.
I do not want to beat a dead horse here but there is
one other issue I feel I need to talk about. The technical aspects of filmmaking
are the elements that most people will not specifically focus on but will
ultimately affect how everyone views a film. The cinematography and video
editing in “Judy” I found to be very lackluster. There is a consistent technique
utilized for all of Judy’s intimate moments, which is the use of shaky-cam. It
is a common technique that is usually implemented to instill a sense of chaos
in a scene. I just found the way it was utilized in this film to be too
obvious. Only the frames containing a close up of Judy’s face use this
technique, which could be effective if not for the seemingly random yet abundant
quick cuts away from her face to someone else’s face who is not displayed in
shaky-cam. Frankly, Renée’s performance is powerful enough that the use of
shaky-cam seems redundant to portray the unease it is aiming for and it comes
off as gratuitous.
To say the film is unwatchable would be unfair because
the leading performance given by Zellweger is certainly worth seeing for
yourself. However, the film objectively fails to accomplish anything other than
giving her a spotlight to act and sing. Many of my issues with “Judy” can
easily be attributed to the entire biopic genre and it may not be fair to burden
this particular film with the sins of everyone else. There are some strands of potential
in the film that no one ever really cares to see through until the end, which
is a shame. When it comes down to it “Judy” does not do enough to differentiate
itself from any of its predecessors and is only worth seeing if you are a fan of
the late Judy Garland.
Shut Up Zach! 