Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay I have always been fascinated by films that are based on stage plays. To be clear, I tend to be a sucker for a good musical, but that is not my focus today. (Perhaps in a future blog? 😊) Instead, I want to reflect on and examine multiple film adaptations of theater productions in an attempt to understand what is it about this subgenre of movies that tends to stand out from the others. What makes a mediocre stage play a bad film and (sometimes) a decent stage play a great film?
Let’s find out together, shall we? I have chosen to focus on a select few movies that I have either watched recently, watched awhile but ago but which left an impression on me, or that I grew up with and find myself thinking about several years after the fact. So, without further ado… On Character I had high expectations when I sat down to watch 1989’s Driving Miss Daisy. I had heard only good things about the film, specifically its star performances by Jessica Tandy and Morgan Freeman. And I have yet to come across a Freeman performance that I did not like. So, were my expectations met? For the most part, yes. While this film was not as compelling as I had hoped, I was certainly entertained and invested in the parallel journeys of Miss Daisy Werthan and Mister Hoke Colburn. In my opinion, Driving Miss Daisy relies initially on the natural curiosity of the viewer as to why Miss Daisy is so uptight about being driven around by Hoke. The film certainly takes its time acclimating us to the passive nature of Hoke trying to connect with the crotchety, standoffish Miss Daisy. But, during the second act, it clicked with me why this film works as an exploration of finding love through friendship. [SPOILERS TO FOLLOW] On her way to church, Miss Daisy learns that her synagogue in in Atlanta has been bombed and is in utter disbelief of how anyone could do such a thing. It is Hoke that has to remind her of the realities of prejudice by relaying the story of his childhood friend’s father who was killed by lynching. Tandy plays it very well when she fiercely objects to any sort of commonalities between the two situations. And yet one sees in her face the reluctant admittance of just that. For me, this was when I realized why this film was effective. As it goes on, it becomes less about the tensions between an old Jewish widow and her African-American chauffeur and more about the growing bond between them. Not only do they see themselves as the target of prejudice in a racist, anti-Semitic time and place, but over the course of the film they realize how much their own lack of self-confidence about who they are is reflected in the other’s experience of prejudice. I think that Driving Miss Daisy, while my least favorite of the four films that I will be discussing today, has something to offer when it comes to understanding what is vital to do when adapting a stage play to the big screen. Character is key; like any form of storytelling, if the audience does not buy into the flaws, personalities, quirks, and journeys of the characters than the audience will (more often than not) lose interest swiftly. I plan to revisit Driving Miss Daisy at some point in the future, but not anytime soon. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile film that shows how pivotal compelling characters are to telling a good story either on stage or in film. On Storytelling A solid grasp on presenting compelling arcs for interesting characters, however, is only one piece of this “stage-to-screen” puzzle. In order for a film to show that it understands how to balance the best of the theater and the screen, it must have an essential element central to its presentation: a good story. My favorite film of the four I am talking about today (although perhaps not the best, objectively speaking), is the 1993 coming-of-age crime drama A Bronx Tale directed by Robert De Niro and adapted from Chazz Palminteri’s one-man show (Palminteri also wrote the screenplay for the movie). I have always been a fan of a good gangster flick. (lookin’ at you, Goodfellas!) But I have yet to see another one in this genre that is able to do what A Bronx Tale does. To put it simply, it finds a way to both embrace and transcend the tropes of gangster films and coming-of-age films in order to tell a compelling story. That story is about young Calogero, or “C,” growing up in the Bronx in the 1960s while being torn between two father figures: his biological father Lorenzo (De Niro), and local gangster Sonny (Palminteri). I certainly have a soft spot in my heart for this film, as it was one of the first gangster movies I remember watching with my father because he insisted I had to watch it with him. I remember laughing during some of it, but at such a young age I remember mostly being utterly absorbed by the dramatic tensions explored by De Niro and the actors themselves. This film was one of the first that showed me the complexities of prejudice in the real world, and just how impressionable young people can be when they unconditionally trust the adults in their lives. I feel unqualified to answer the question of whether or not this film is the best stage-to-screen adaptation I have ever seen. But I can say without question that it is, and always will be, one of my favorite films of this style. While it certainly is the one of the four films discussed here that feels least like a stage play, it is by no means hampered by such an approach. Rather, you can watch it without ever thinking how it was translated from stage to screen because (not knowing its production, of course) you could never even consider such a possibility. And, in my humble opinion, that is one of the best traits of this kind of movie. On Cinematography Released in 2011, Carnage is to-date the last English-language film of Roman Polanski. It is based on the play Le Dieu du carnage (“God of Carnage”) by French playwright Yasmina Reza, and tells the story of two pairs of parents whose children were involved in a physical altercation and decide to try and settle the matter themselves through a civil, mature, and adult discussion. However, as time goes on and things between the four of them get more tense, it becomes clear that these four people have more on their minds than just the well-being of their children. One day, I may write about my impressions of Roman Polanski as a filmmaker. But, probably not because most of his movies failed to resonate with me on any sort of meaningful, emotional level. And, to be honest, even Carnage was not the most heart wrenching, tense, or powerful film I have ever seen. However, I thought it was a fascinating approach to adapting a one-set stage play. My recollection of watching Carnage is not one filled with emotional investment in the characters’ personal struggles and flaws. Nor is it one defined by a love for the themes being explored by Polanski and his take on Reza’s story. Instead, I think mostly about the way that the film’s cinematography does such an excellent of capturing the claustrophobia, “in-your-face” atmosphere necessary for this play to be pulled off on the screen. This achievement can be credited to Pawel Edelman, whose thirty-year career includes my favorite Polanski film (2002’s The Pianist) and one of my favorite musical biopics (2004’s Ray, starring Jamie Foxx). Almost every single shot within the apartment of Penelope and Michael Longstreet (played by Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly, respectively) is either close-ups of the characters faces as they express their anger, frustration, guilt, and depression, or corner shots to show just how small the space that the actors are working with is. This type of cinematography, for me, evoked what I was supposed to be feeling throughout the film’s 80-minute runtime. A sense of frustration on behalf of the Longstreets and their guests, Nancy and Alan Cowan (played by Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz, respectively). A desire for these four seemingly capable adults to just set aside their own assumptions about each other and let their better angels prevail. And, towards the end of the film, a longing for all of them to shut the hell up so that their children can resolve their differences without their parents so haplessly intervening on their behalf. It will never be the most impressive stage-to-screen adaptation that I have seen. But, Polanski’s Carnage did its job in showing me the kind of impeccable, important work done by cinematographers on pictures like this to simulate the stage both for the purposes of realism and visual and spatial exploration of theme. On Conflict Of the four films I am discussing today, this last one undoubtedly feels the most like a theater production. Fences, the 2016 Best Picture nominee based on the 1985 Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award-winning play of the same name by August Wilson, is a master class in translating the stage to the screen. In short, it balances everything that makes live theater so engrossing with the advantages of filmmaking. In other words, it embraces conflict in both its craft of storytelling and in its design to pull off an incredibly human tale. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington carry the emotional weight of Fences as wife-and-husband duo Rose Lee and Troy Maxson. Washington’s Troy is a severely flawed man with a brash temper and a chip on his shoulder about never making it to Major League Baseball before the color barrier was lifted in 1947. He constantly argues with his son Cory over the latter’s desire to seek out recruiters for a college football scholarship, and the resulting tensions greatly strain his marriage with his wife. Davis’s Rose Lee is a woman who has given up any notion of dreams of her own, sacrificing all she is for her family. However, Troy betrays her trust which causes her to question the legitimacy of their relationship and her chosen path in life. And yet, it is Troy’s damaged relationships that somehow keep his fragile family ties from disintegrating entirely. Needless to say, Fences has the heart and character one desires out of any good film let alone a well-translated theater production. But, similar to Polanski’s Carnage, the film has a tremendously impressive understanding of space, atmosphere, and editing that both clearly emanates and expertly transcends the confines of the stage. Thanks to the efforts of Denzel Washington (who also directed the film), Fences is quite possibly an enigma. When I saw it for the first time, I could not stop thinking about just how the cast and crew were able to balance the stage and the screen to the point of making what is, in my humble opinion, a modern masterpiece of filmmaking. I could say so much more about this movie, but instead I just want you to watch it. Trust me, you will not be disappointed. So, what do I think makes a perfect stage-to-screen adaptation? My answer will never be limited to one specific quality. Rather, I find the diverse approaches to these types of films to be more intriguing than anything. But, ultimately, I think adapting stage plays into films can be viewed like adapting anything else: it must have compelling characters, an enticing narrative, some top-notch technical work, and the exploration of the human experience that all great films have. What are your favorite films based on stage plays? What stage-to-screen adaptations did I not talk about that you think deserve some attention? Which of my opinions about these films do you find utterly misguided or moronic? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by Jubayer Abdullah from Pixabay As someone who grew up watching a select number of Disney and Pixar animated films over and over again (looking at you, “Toy Story” and “Cars”!), I felt like I had explored the pinnacle of animated storytelling in feature films. But that all changed when HBO Max launched earlier this year.
Not only did I discover dozens of classic films that I was never exposed to as a child thanks to my humble backroad hick routes, but I was also exposed to the films of Japanese animation company Studio Ghibli. Over the past couple of months, I have consumed the works of famed Japanese directors and animators like Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata, among others, in an attempt to familiarize myself with how animation transcends cultures and has become a staple of Japanese cinema. Honestly, I was nervous about watching twenty plus anime films for someone who did not consider themselves a connoisseur of anime, Japanese culture, or cinema in any way, shape or form. I was unsure if I would connect with this genre of storytelling, but I remained open-minded. So, after watching almost all of the works of Studio Ghibli, did I regret my decision? You’ll have to read on to find out my answer. (I’m such a tease! 😊) For now, let’s start my reflection on Ghibli with the titan of anime himself. [DISCLAIMER #1: I watched the English dubs of all of the films that I will be talking about.] [DISCLAIMER #2: I did not watch the made-for-television Ghibli film “Ocean Waves” nor Gorō Miyazaki’s directorial debut “Tales from Earthsea.”] The Films of Hayao Miyazaki Honestly, my admiration for Miyazaki’s films tends to lean more into the visual excellent of the animation than the story itself. Evidenced by my ranking of the Ghibli films at the end of this blog, I find many of Miyazaki’s films, with regards to story and character, to be less than interesting. However, I want to be clear that I think almost all of his films are stunning to look at and rich with detail and graceful visual storytelling. So, to begin with Miyazaki’s first feature film, “The Castle of Cagliostro,” released in 1979. While technically not a Ghibli film, I include it here because I think it is a place of humble beginnings for Miyazaki. Without his own house to control the animation, he provided his own take on Kazuhiko Katō’s acclaimed manga series Lupin III. This film is one of the few exceptions to what I said in the previous paragraph. In other words, I found the story of “The Castle of Cagliostro” to be of a higher quality than its animation. Ultimately, the film is old and outdated from a visual standpoint and remains a fun romp but will not end up very high on my list due to the many superior films that came later. Next, we have Miyazaki’s second and final pre-Ghibli film “Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.” For me, this was a massive improvement from both an animation standpoint and a storytelling standpoint. Not only is Nausicaä one of the best protagonists of any of the Ghibli films due to her spunky, confident, and capable persona, but Miyazaki does an excellent job of balancing the more personal narrative arcs of the film with more subtle world building without the plot becoming too bloated. Needless to say, “Nausicaä” ends up being one of my favorite Miyazaki films (which says something about much of his later work). Finally, we have the first official Studio Ghibli film: “Castle in the Sky.” Released in 1986, this is one of the few anime films that I had heard about before beginning my personal odyssey with Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. So, naturally, I expected a lot from it. And I found myself realizing about halfway through that I lacked much interest in the steampunk genre. For those of you who are somewhat familiar with Miyazaki’s portfolio, this would come back to haunt me multiple times with future films. Now, onto what is easily my favorite Miyazaki film. The 1988 family-friendly anime “My Neighbor Totoro” is, in my opinion, the most personal that Miyazaki’s films ever become. Partially inspired by a portion of Miyazaki’s childhood when he and his brother moved to be closer to their tuberculosis-stricken mother, the more personal and touching story of “Totoro” shines through thanks to the charming and brilliant sister-duo of Satsuki and Mei (easily one of my favorite character duos of all the Studio Ghibli films). Ultimately, the films that followed struggled very much to live up to “Totoro.” On the backs of “Totoro,” I was excited for Miyazaki’s fifth feature film “Kiki’s Delivery Service.” And while I enjoyed watching it almost all the way through, I felt like its central narrative arc was lacking direction about two-thirds of the way through the film. Which sparked my interest into how Miyazaki plans the stories for his films. And with a quick Google Search, I learned that he in fact forgoes traditional screenplays in favor of storyboarding without knowing the ending to his films. Suddenly, I started to understand why I struggled to connect with most of Miyazaki’s films. While I enjoyed “Kiki’s,” I started asking myself how long it would take for me to begin losing interest in Miyazaki’s works. It began with “Porco Rosso” and essentially continued from there. I have little to say about the rest of Miyazaki’s filmography. “Porco Rosso” was just weird enough to keep me engaged for 94 minutes. “Princess Mononoke” was an overly long and complex story within the first 20 minutes that left me utterly disinterested throughout, and tended to remind me how “Nausicaä” just did the same story much better. “Howl’s Moving Castle” was even more outlandish than “Castle in the Sky,” which made me lose interest relatively quickly. “Ponyo,” while it certainly echoed back to “Totoro” in terms of another great Ghibli duo in the form of Sōsuke and Ponyo, fell mostly flat in the end regarding the emotional journey of the characters. Those who are familiar with Miyazaki’s works may have noticed two notable films missing thus far. “Spirited Away” was the first Miyazaki film I ever saw. And while I was taken aback quite a bit by the strangeness of the world, I really appreciated how much these elements of fantasy and supernaturalism told a very grounded, coming-of-age story for Chihiro. I also loved how much Japanese animism shined through with the visualization of the many spirits unfamiliar to be yet fascinating nonetheless. Truth be told, “Spirited Away” remains my runner-up for Miyazaki. The last of his films I ever saw was, in fact, his final movie to date: “The Wind Rises.” While certainly no action-packed thrill ride á la “Nausicaä” or “Mononoke,” I found Miyazaki’s intended swan song to have some of the best storytelling of any of his films. I appreciated its reliance on more personal touchstones and relationship-building with Jiro and Naoko that made “Totoro” so great. I also thought the animation was some of the best that Miyazaki had ever done. And while it is not my favorite Ghibli film, I will remember quieter, character-driven moments of “The Wind Rises” in a more positive light than much of the rest of Miyazaki’s portfolio of films. So, at the end of the day, what do I think of Miyazaki’s repertoire? I think he is an important figure in the world of animation storytelling whose energies have spent more time developing impressive visuals and a staggering list of empowered female protagonists than competent storytelling for all ages. And, I find him to be an inferior director to Isao Takahata. The Films of Isao Takahata Let me be more specific. Of the eleven Miyazaki films I watched, most of them were underwhelming stories with stunning animation and visuals. The five feature films of Isao Takahata, on the other hand, I have a much more interesting experience with. So, without further ado, let us begin with his first two films. In an effort to save many of my thoughts for a future blog, I will be devoting less time to Takahata’s 1988 directorial debut “Grave of the Fireflies.” To be clear, this is not because this film does not deserve all the praise that it gets. Having little expectations other than knowing that this film took place during the twilight months of World War II, I was unsure of what my reaction would be. I cannot express how much this movie affected me. Watching teenage boy Seita do everything in his power to keep his little sister Setsuko alive and happy while surrounded by the maelstrom of war is both awe-inspiring and heart wrenching. Takahata’s approach to animation to tell such a grounded, human story is perhaps the most fascinating thing about “Grave of the Fireflies.” It is not only an incredible animated film, but also a poignant and powerful anti-war film. (Hold that thought!) Three years later, Takahata released his second feature film: “Only Yesterday.” While not as soul-crushing as its predecessor, this film is a touching look at choosing a path in life to satisfy yourself and not others, about looking to your past for answers about your future, and about finding love for life in the unlikeliest of places. On top of the well-crafted story and well-rounded characterization (namely the budding romance between Taeko and Toshio), “Only Yesterday” has in my opinion some of the most gorgeous frames of animation I have ever seen. Namely, the sunrise over the field. (Just watch the movie; you’ll know what I’m talking about). I cannot recommend this film enough. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for the rest of Takahata’s filmography. First, his third feature “Pom Poko” which may be the strangest cinematic experience I have ever undergone. It is the story of generations of raccoons trying to save their forest from human encroachment. Sounds pretty simple and straightforward, right? Well, I thought it would be, too. I was wrong. “Pom Poko” is so bizarre that, unlike Takahata’s first two movies, I found it difficult to believe that this one was made by the same director. All I will say is if you want to watch two hours of animated raccoons doing things, then be my guest. Otherwise, this film is not for you. Five years after “Pom Poko,” Takahata released his fourth film: “My Neighbors the Yamadas.” A series of vignettes about the eponymous family and their series of misadventures, I certainly appreciated it more as a movie about relatable things like family and relationships. That being said, the story was far less ambitious than Takahata’s last three films and the visual style of the animation was just a bit too jarring for me. But, it was better than “Pom Poko.” Finally, after fourteen years without directing a feature film, Takahata released one last piece before his death in 2018. This film, “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya,” was a fascinating and fitting end to my journey with Studio Ghibli. Unlike “Yamadas,” the animation style here works much better and the story, while feeling familiar, is also enjoyable. The journey of Princess Kaguya is heartwarming, complex, and overall fulfilling. Furthermore, I greatly appreciate this movie as a celebration of Japanese culture and folklore. Ultimately, it is not high on my ranking but it remains an interesting film that I may revisit at some point in the future. So, why do I think that Miyazaki is not as good a filmmaker as Takahata? Well, a few reasons. First, Takahata is more careful in making movies. While Miyazaki’s films often feel too repetitive (three movies about castles?? C’mon, man!), no Takahata film is like the other. Furthermore, while many of Miyazaki’s films look good from an animation standpoint, Takahata is more of a risk-taker visually speaking. Not only do his first three films embrace the best of the traditional anime art style, but his last two push the boundaries of what can be drawn and animated into something that viewers will resonate with. Third, and perhaps most of all, the two best Takahata films have more humanity in them than most Miyazaki flicks. The Other Ghibli Films Having talked about sixteen Ghibli films, I want to wrap up this blog by addressing most of the non-Miyazaki/Takahata movies. I start with the first Ghibli directed by neither of them: Yoshifumi Kondō’s “Whisper of the Heart” released in 1995. Apparently, the hope was for Kondō to become Miyazaki and Takahata’s successor at Studio Ghibli before his sudden death in 1998. It may have even been a contributing factor of Miyazaki’s initial retirement announcement. After watching his first and only directed feature film, I can see why. “Whisper of the Heart” is a touching coming-of-age story with great covers and original takes on one of my favorite songs of all time. The animation is stunning, the characters are lovely, and the writing is effective at telling the tale of young Shizuku and her crush Seiji. Honestly, I have to theorize that Miyazaki believed Kondō understood what Studio Ghibli and animated storytelling is about better than even Miyazaki does. At least I believe that, because “Whisper of the Heart” goes down as one of my favorite Ghibli films hands down. Seven years later, a spiritual sequel to Kondō’s film was released entitled “The Cat Returns” and directed by Hiroyuki Morita. Before even watching this one, I was very anxious about this film based on the premise alone: the main character, the Baron, was merely a figment at Shizuku’s imagination in “Whisper of the Heart” but is now a real anthropomorphic cat in this film. I was very concerned that this movie would never manage to justify its existence. And yet, Morita proved me wrong. While it is by no means my favorite Ghibli film, I enjoyed watching it as a fun adventure with quirky characters that is worth your time if you have under 76 minutes to laugh at a cat with a top hat and bowtie. The next film is 2010’s “The Secret World of Arriety,” directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi who has since left Studio Ghibli and founded his own animation studio. Which is upsetting for me, because I liked both of his additions to Ghibli’s filmography. First, “Arriety” is a delightful film about a fairy (referred to in the film as “Borrowers”) whose family survives by taking what they need from a country home and she befriends one of its human residents, Shō, who is sick and spending time resting in the countryside. While I enjoy the story and the characters, the score of this film is unlike any other Ghibli film (thanks to the French harpist and composer Cécile Corbel). Before getting to Yonebayashi’s second film and the most recent Ghibli release, I want to address Hayao Miyazaki’s son Gorō’s 2011 film “From Up on Poppy Hill.” Due to his directorial debut “Tales from Earthsea” being the only rotten Ghibli film on Rotten Tomatoes, I was very nervous about this one. Luckily, my expectations were subverted. “Poppy Hill” is an enjoyable time capsule of a movie about Japanese students in the early 1960s whose story has a lot to say about the complexities of love and the power of family in a way that helps the viewer see the world through Umi and Shun’s eyes. Needless to say, I am mildly excited for Gorō’s third Ghibli film “Earwig and the Witch.” Finally, we come to the end. The most recent release from Studio Ghibli, entitled “When Marnie Was There” and directed by Yonebayashi once again. A much quieter film than most of Ghibli’s work, I think anyone who enjoys more meditative animation á la “The Wind Rises” and “Poppy Hill” will enjoy this. But, for everyone else, set your expectations realistically because “Marnie” is no action-packed adventure. Rather, it is an introspective character study about teenage angst, our relationship with the past, and finding ourselves through our passions. WHEW!! SO MANY MOVIES!! Finally, we come to the end. Below is my ranking of (nearly) every single Studio Ghibli film and the first two films of Hayao Miyazaki:
What are your favorite Studio Ghibli films? Are you more interested in exploring Ghibli films after reading this? Which of my opinions about Studio Ghibli do you find utterly misguided or moronic? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay In spite of the hazardous circumstances for theatergoers in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Christopher Nolan has remained steadfast in his desire for his newest feature film “Tenet” to be shown on the big screen. Alas, after it first opened in the United States a couple of weeks ago, I ultimately found the time and gumption to go see it.
So, I shall endeavor to share my thoughts on all eleven Christopher Nolan films. To begin with his first: “Following.” Released in 1999 on an exceedingly slim budget of six-thousands dollars, Nolan’s directorial debut remains an apt predecessor to his later works. Specifically, Nolan’s writing of the entanglement of the Young Man, Cobb, and the Blonde in a triple-cross ploy was adequate enough to keep me engaged for the 69-minute runtime. However, “Following” is a victim of every single Nolan film that came after it. So, while it is a good first film, it for me lacks enough to entice me to return to it in the future. Nolan’s second feature film, “Memento,” was an unexpected whirlwind for me. I knew nothing of this film before watching it, and was rather impressed by Nolan’s reliance on unorthodox editing to tell the story of anterograde amnesiac Leonard and his relentless pursuit for his wife’s murderer-rapist. Looking back on this film, it is clearly an indicator of not just Nolan’s unique storytelling but also his technical prowess as a filmmaker. And while it certainly is not my favorite Nolan film, it remains a fascinating one that shows just how early in his career that he is here to stay. Now onto (perhaps) one of the more controversial aspects of my thoughts on Nolan’s filmography: I really liked “Insomnia.” Being a rabid fan of Al Pacino in other films such as “Scarface,” “Scent of a Woman,” “Carlito’s Way” and “You Don’t Know Jack,” I found myself far from disappointed while watching Nolan’s third feature film. Not only does Pacino impress with his portrayal of insomniac and homicide detective Will Dormer, but Nolan’s sophisticated storytelling really shined through here for me. The tone of the film, despite shifting from a murder mystery to a psychological drama halfway through, remains consistently evocative and entertaining. However, the hidden gem of “Insomnia” is the one and only Robin Williams’s performance as the prime suspect and Dormer’s personal tormenter Walter Finch. Nolan himself has stated that Williams’s role in this film is one of his more underrated performances due to his association with more comedic roles. And I could not agree more. Watching Robin Williams psychologically manipulate Al Pacino reminded me how good he was in an episode of “Law & Order: SVU” where he played another twisted and manipulative character. Needless to say, I wish Williams had given us more than a few characters like this in his career. Before I continue, I must note that I will be covering the “Dark Knight Trilogy” towards the end of this blog. But I digress… I have another (certainly) controversial opinion about Nolan’s filmography: I found “The Prestige” to be overall unenjoyable and convoluted. Before I go any further, I would like to preface my criticisms of this film by saying that I have no critiques with the cinematography, production value, acting, or story direction. My primary issue with “The Prestige” is the character work in the film. Yes, I agree that Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale effectively portray the pair of competitive, vindictive, and narcissistic magicians who take their rivalry several steps too far. I also enjoy Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, and Andy Serkis in their respective supporting roles. That all being said, I find this film unenjoyable as a matter of personal taste. In other words, I lacked empathy for Jackman and Bale’s characters and therefore remained uninvested in the story from start to finish. Ultimately, all I cared about was seeing who would “win” in the end. [SPOILER WARNING] So when it is revealed in the third act that Jackman’s Robert Angier was killing clones of himself via his “Transported Man” experiment while simultaneously concealing his true identity as wealthy socialite Lord Caldlow, I was underwhelmed. Furthermore, when it is revealed that Bale’s Alfred Borden was a shared identity between twins which allows one of them to escape death while the other is hung for murder, I lacked any energy to care anymore. I thought to myself, “I hate both of these people, so kill ‘em both! Why should one get to live?!?” But I digress. To put it simply, I do not like “The Prestige” and doubt I ever will. So, moving on to a Nolan film I did enjoy: “Inception.” A film that was the subject of countless Internet memes and inside references that the story itself had been hidden from me. Which is how I recommend any newcomer to Nolan watch this film. This 2010 science-fiction film was a visually stunning, action-packed, and emotionally powerful story about a man who will do anything to return to his family include risk the lives of his friends and colleagues. Leonardo DiCaprio (unsurprisingly) was compelling and artful as Dom Cobb, and his performance certainly carried the film for me. And while I enjoyed many of the supporting performances (notably Ellen Page, Cillian Murphy, and Ken Watanabe), it was DiCaprio that put this film so high on my personal ranking of Nolan’s filmography. Having concluded the “Dark Knight Trilogy,” Nolan’s first post-Batman film stunned the world with its special effects and cinematography. 2014’s “Interstellar,” to be honest, is a difficult one for me because I love 75% of the movie but found the other 25% to be somewhat lackluster. That being said, I often struggle with this type of science-fiction film where the big problem is solved with some niche of time-travel or something like it (looking at you, “Tenet”!) because it is often not set up well enough beforehand. However, that criticism alone does not hurt “Interstellar” enough for me to not enjoy it. I think it is easily one of Matthew McConaughey’s best performances (I would also consider “A Time to Kill” and “The Lincoln Lawyer” to be up there, in case anybody was wondering). Also, I found the tidbits of world-building early on in the movie fascinating. I also really enjoyed Jessica Chastain’s performance in terms of her chemistry with McConaughey. Needless to say, “Interstellar” is a worthy addition to Nolan’s repertoire. Nolan’s second-most-recent film, “Dunkirk,” was the first Nolan film I have ever seen. As a huge fan of war movies, I was convinced enough by the trailer to go see this movie when it premiered while I was still in college. Not knowing virtually anything about Nolan’s style or voice as a filmmaker, I was thoroughly impressed by the visual storytelling, minimalist approach, sound design, atmosphere, and non-traditional take on war as less-than-glamorous. But I was certainly worried re-watching it earlier this year because I was genuinely concerned that it would not hold up with a second viewing due to its simple, straightforward manner. So, was I disappointed? Not in the slightest. Besides wishing I could watch it in a theater again, everything I loved about it the first time I saw it I loved once more. And while it certainly lacks some emotional depth and character work, it remains one of the better war films in the last decade for its reminder that war is not an automatic tale of victory. Before I provide my review of Nolan’s most recent release, I want to speak on the “Dark Knight Trilogy” as a whole. As I plan to write about 2005’s “Batman Begins” and 2008’s “The Dark Knight” at some point in the future, I will speak more generally about my experience with these three films. First, on “Batman Begins.” Having re-watched the original “X-Men” trilogy that came out around the same time not long before and being stunningly unimpressed, I was not thoroughly excited for another mid-2000s superhero movie. However, remembering my love for “Dunkirk,” I let myself get a little bit excited. And I am very grateful for my lowered expectations, because I came out of “Batman Begins” thrilled, impressed, and excited for more. Perhaps second only to Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man,” Nolan’s first Batman film will go down in history as one of the best superhero origin films ever made. Admittedly, I started becoming concerned about one hour into Nolan’s follow-up “The Dark Knight.” While the action set pieces were lots of fun and Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker was enticing and unsettling, I was not loving the beginning of this film as much as I loved the beginning of “Batman Begins.” It was not until the film turned into Batman’s race against time to save both Rachel Dawes (played expertly by Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Harvey Dent (played gracefully by Aaron Eckhart) that I realized that this was both a worthy sequel and an improvement over its predecessor. For many, it is Ledger’s philosophically-driven and mysterious villain that makes “The Dark Knight” one of the best comic book films ever made. For me, it is the emotional humanity under Batman’s moral struggles in tandem with Harvey Dent’s loss of faith in humanity. Above all, however, it is in “The Dark Knight” where Nolan’s capabilities as a filmmaker shine through the most. Finally, I have little to say about 2012’s “The Dark Knight Rises.” While there are elements of it that I think are just as good as its two predecessors, the conclusion to Nolan’s Batman trilogy remains the most problematic for me. It is wildly entertaining (largely due to Tom Hardy’s borderline-cartoonish take on Bane) and the action remains fun to watch, but I found all of the characters less engaging the third time around. So, for me, “The Dark Knight Rises” is a good but not a great movie. Whew! So many movies, and so much to say. And now, I wrap it all up with Nolan’s newest theatrical release: “Tenet.” My God, what a confusing mess of a film! I never thought Nolan’s writing could get more convoluted after “The Prestige” or “Inception,” but clearly I was dead wrong. The world that he builds in “Tenet” remains underexplored to the point of the audience lacking investment in what is happening on the screen. Furthermore, as a fan of John David Washington from Spike Lee’s 2018 feature “BlacKkKlansman” I was thoroughly underwhelmed by his character here, not to mention most of the supporting characters who tend to just come off as either two-dimensional or underdeveloped. I could say more, but I think I’ll just leave it at that for now. So, without further ado, here is my personal ranking of Christopher Nolan’s filmography thus far:
What is your favorite Nolan film? Does “The Dark Knight” just outshine all the rest? Which of my opinions on Nolan’s movies do you find utterly misguided or moronic? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Millions around the world were shocked and heartbroken on the last Friday of August when the news broke of the tragic death of Chadwick Boseman. An icon to so many as an up-and-coming actor, his repertoire as a strong-willed, ambitious, and graceful African-American man inspired many through his work in film in an age of racial strife and divisive politics.
Like most of you, I was stunned to hear this news. While part of my reaction was due to Boseman’s age and my mental picture of his physique, I was also humbled upon the revelation that he kept his four-year battle with colon cancer out of the public eye. Within seconds, I gained so much respect for him as a human being; more, in fact, than I ever had for him as an actor. Which gets to the purpose of this post. I am a huge fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Looking back, I firmly believe my two-plus year “odyssey” into the world of film began when I decided to watch the entire catalog of Marvel Studios films leading up to the release of the 2018 megahit “Avengers: Infinity War.” And in the middle of this adventure, I went to theaters opening night to see the highly-anticipated “Black Panther.” And, to be honest, I came out somewhat disappointed. But I’ll get more into that later. All of this being said, I have reflected over the course of this past week about my impressions of Boseman as an actor and begun to question whether or not I have given him a fair shake. So, I decided to devote some time this weekend to watching three of his films in an effort to look back on the highlights of his brief, but eloquent, career and reconsider my thoughts on his acumen as a performer. I have varying relationships with the three films I have chosen to watch for this little experiment. The first of them, the Jackie Robinson biopic “42,” I have seen several times and thoroughly enjoy and am looking forward to watch again. The second one, the James Brown biopic “Get on Up,” I have never seen before but out of love for many other biopics of famous musicians (shoutout to “Ray” and “Straight Outta Compton”) am excited to see for the first time. And the third and final movie is none other than “Black Panther,” the film that made Boseman a household name and allowed him to forever leave his mark on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So, without further ado, I begin my retrospective on the career of Chadwick Boseman. “I’m Here to Play Ball” To put it briefly, I revile watching sports on television and tend to get easily bored watching sports live. However, I LIKE most sports movies. “42” is one of the exceptions; I LOVE it. As someone with a passion for social/cultural history and the ways in which film can highlight important stories from the past, I was immediately hooked by the premise of “42.” I remember first seeing it with my father, who promised me that I would like it despite my less-than-lackluster love of sports. Of course, he was right. “42” hooks you in a matter of minutes, largely thanks to the wise, endearing, and consistently laugh-inducing performance of Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey, the President and General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers who “discovered” Jackie Robinson. In fact, much of my love for the film comes from his performance. However, I am here to talk about Chadwick Boseman. So, how was his performance as the first African-American to play in Major League Baseball? Suffice to say, he was outstanding. Boseman plays Robinson as an incredibly nuanced character. A young up-and-comer who has made a reputation for himself as a cocky base stealer with a quick, fragile temper. Seemingly the far-from-ideal choice for Rickey, Boseman plays the process of being one of the most hated rookies in the MLB with grace, style, warmth, and true humanity. Simply put, he embraces all the good and not-so-good of Jackie’s personality to tell this worthwhile story from American sports history. Having seen the film several times now, I appreciated it even more on this most recent re-watch for what Boseman does onscreen. His grounding relationship with his wife, his embracing of humor to deal with the stress of being subject to prejudice on and off the field, his leaning into Robinson’s temper as his biggest downfall, and his burgeoning friendship with many of the other ball players and the journalist assigned to him. All of these things make the performance one to remember for decades to come. If you are not convinced yet to check out Boseman in “42,” all I can say is the hallway scene between him and Harrison Ford’s Rickey will go down in history for me as one of the best scenes in any sports movie. Period. “I Paid the Cost to Be the Boss” With very few exceptions, I either enjoy or outright love musical biopics. From Barbra Streisand as the hilarious and exceptionally talented Fanny Brice in “Funny Girl” to Jamie Foxx’s emotionally gritty and grounded take on Ray Charles in “Ray,” I have always loved and will continue to love watching films that grapple with the ups and down of life in the spotlight. So, as I queued up the 2014 biopic “Get on Up,” I expected nothing less than satisfying entertainment. And especially coming off of “42” I was excited to see more of Boseman’s range and capabilities as an actor. Needless to say, I was not let down in the slightest. Boseman is practically flawless in capturing the ambitious, talented, and sensational “Godfather of Soul” James Brown. His bravado and charisma perfectly encapsulates the type of personality that makes this type of movie incredibly fun to watch. But the two things that this movie did to win me over regarding Boseman’s performance? His signature voice, and his dancing. It is these pivotal parts of Brown’s effervescent personality that would make or break the movie, and Boseman commits to these aspects of his portrayal perhaps more than anything else to astounding effect. That all being said, the movie as a whole is by no means my favorite musical biopic. Similar to another great biopic of a famed musician, James Mangold’s “Walk the Link” starring Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, I will at least somewhat remember this movie as following the standard narrative arc of the “rise and fall” story spoofed very effectively in “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story.” Now that I’m thinking about it, a lot of the musical biopics I love follow this narrative structure. Perhaps I will expand on my thoughts about this trope in a later blog post? 😊 Alas, that is for another time. Needless to say, “Get on Up” is a satisfying tale of James Brown’s heyday that Boseman elevates with poise, flare, and style that for me cements itself as one of the better lead performances from a musical biopic. “I Never Freeze” Finally, we arrive at the inspiration behind this post. Having not seen Marvel Studios’ “Black Panther” since it first opened in theaters over two years ago, I have intended to revisit it for some time. Why? To put it simply, I did not really enjoy the film when I first saw it. While I respected what it set out to do and was entertained for the most part throughout, I left the theater feeling a bit unsatisfied with where director Ryan Coogler took the first solo outing for Boseman’s newly crowned King of Wakanda. Before I dive into my impressions upon my second viewing, I underwent this weekend, let me first briefly outline what I liked and did not like about “Black Panther” after my first watch. I liked virtually all of the performances. While I enjoyed Michael B. Jordan as the villain Killmonger, (such as the rest of the world did) I quite enjoyed Danai Gurira as T’Challa’s head bodyguard Okoye and Letitia Wright as his wise-cracking genius sister Shuri. I also liked the supporting performances, from Angela Bassett as T’Challa’s mother and Forest Whitaker as T’Challa’s spiritual mentor Zuri to Winston Duke as the new king’s enemy-turned-ally M’Baku. Additionally, I liked the production and set design of Wakanda. I appreciated how much it embraced African culture to create its own very unique aesthetic that fit within the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe as balancing grounded reality with outrageous fantasy. Which (perhaps hypocritically) gets to some of my criticisms of the film. First off, the fact that I was more compelled by the many secondary and tertiary characters than with T’Challa himself was a significant sign for me that I did not love this movie. My initial impressions of T’Challa were that he was simply the mechanism by which the plot of the film revolved around rather than an agent making decisions. In other words, he is subject to the decisions of others driving his actions rather than vice-versa. (The backstory of Killmonger being revealed to T’Challa is, in my opinion, a prime example of this) Simply put, this seemed to be contradicting the film’s intentions as “more than just a superhero movie.” Which gets to my second point. As someone who tends to enjoy, but not love, origin films for superheroes (“Iron Man” and “Batman Begins” being the rare exceptions), I was really excited for this to act in the same vein as “Spider-Man: Homecoming.” Not in terms of humor, necessarily, but in the sense that the introduction of Black Panther in Marvel Studios’ “Captain America: Civil War” gave Coogler justification to not be pigeonholed into making a straight-up origin movie. That being said, my lackluster investment in T’Challa’s journey on my first viewing reminded me of some of the other less-than-good superhero origin films. And yet, scene after scene, the film tried to remind us that it was either “more than just a superhero movie” or that it was failing to accomplish this. Thus, in summary, I walked out of the theaters with this thought: “It was a decent political action movie, but not a very good comic book movie.” So, were my likes and dislikes affirmed on my second viewing or were my initial impressions subverted by watching the film with fresh eyes? … I wanted to love this movie so much. I really did. Unfortunately, much of what I found less-than-satisfying the first time was reaffirmed for me here. For example, I found the first act to be entertaining but ultimately poorly intentioned as it struggles to successfully set up Killmonger’s introduction into T’Challa’s life without spanning nearly half the movie. Also, much of the conflict from Killmonger’s arrival into the throne room in Wakanda onward was somewhat contrived and weakly executed. Simply put, the more political-intrigue aspect that I enjoyed the first time I found far less interesting on the second viewing. I could go on about my other dislikes, but I want to get to what I came here to do. Did I enjoy Chadwick Boseman more as Black Panther than the first time? Yes…for the most part. While I still found some of the other characters more interesting (and better acted, unfortunately), I appreciated the nuances of his performance much more. And the two scenes that for me on my first watch were highlights, T’Challa confronting his father in the ancestral plane about Wakanda’s role in the world and T’Challa showing Killmonger the sunset as he dies, remained just as resonant for me. Ultimately, I did not really enjoy the film any more than the first time I saw it. But, I enjoyed Boseman more on my re-watch. And that alone was worth the time I spent watching “Black Panther” once again. Conclusion While I am devastated by the tragic circumstances that inspired me to watch these three movies, I am happy I did it. For I came out of it with a greater appreciation for Boseman’s range, dynamism, and fervor as an actor who sadly passed long before he should have. So, without further ado, I am listing my ranking of these three films below which is how I view both the films overall and Boseman’s performances in them:
Which of these films do you like the most and why? Are there other performances from Boseman that are your favorites? (I have seen “Marshall” and his other MCU performances, but decided not to include those here). Do you think any of my opinions are absurdly wrong? Please comment below and share your thoughts on Chadwick Boseman’s tragically short-lived career. Until next time, this has been... Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst P.S. My love to Boseman’s family at this difficult time. Rest in Power, Chadwick. You will be missed, remembered, and honored by millions for generations to come. NOTE: Originally published on 9/6/2020 Image by Dia DeLuca from Pixabay My superhero movies growing up (if you don’t consider the likes of Yoda and R2-D2 to be superheroes) were the Sam Raimi “Spider-Man” films of the early 2000s. I never even knew who the X-Men were until watching disparate episodes of the 2009 limited animated series from Marvel Studies “Wolverine and the X-Men,” and until college I had never seen any of the “X-Men” films from 20th Century Fox.
That is, until I saw the first trailer for 2017’s “Logan.” In less than two minutes, I convinced myself to prepare for the release of this gritty, dark superhero story by watching many of the “X-Men” films that preceded it. Now, with the release of (formerly) 20th Century Fox’s “The New Mutants” this weekend, I wanted to gather my thoughts on all thirteen “X-Men” films. Naturally, we begin with the original “X-Men” trilogy.” Spanning the first six years of the 2000s, the first of these two “X-Men” films seem to be dripping with nostalgic praise in comparison to much of the superhero camp that came out of the late 1990s (lookin’ at you, Joel Schumacher!). My understanding of the initial impressions of 2000’s “X-Men” and 2003’s “X2: X-Men United” are that people saw them as successful comic book movies that balanced a more grounded take on superheroes in our world with kinetic action, adequate special effects, diverse performances, and spurts of humor. However, I highly encourage those of you who have not seen these films in years to revisit them. I trust that you will come away with much of your nostalgia dashed at the sight of these attempts at good films. Arguably, the best thing about the first “X-Men” film is the dynamic between Patrick Stewart’s Charles Xavier, the messianic leader of the eponymous superhero team, and Ian McKellen’s “Magneto,” a victim of a tragic backstory who takes his hatred of humanity too far. The love-hate nature of their relationship explores the complexities of friendships injected with ideological differences. It is the one truly grounded and believable aspect of the character work in that first movie. For me, however, my favorite part of the 2000 “X-Men” film is Hugh Jackman’s performance. He fully embraces the rough-and-tough loner archetype to a tee, and he is the only one of the main cast to acknowledge the utter silliness of the world of mutants in which he exists. (Including, but not limited to, his custom nickname for Xavier as “Wheels” and making fun of the impracticality of the team’s outfits). Jackman remains consistently entertaining in every one of these movies that he’s in, no matter the extent of his screen time. The general impression of “X2” is that of a superior sequel that expands on the foundation that the first laid down and presents real stakes for the characters. While I agree that the film’s story is much improved (particularly the addition of Brian Cox as the conniving, hot-headed William Stryker), the rest of the film retains the same problems for me as its predecessor. Notably, the awkwardly flat relationship between James Marsden’s “Cyclops” and Famke Janssen’s Dr. Jean Grey, the slow and plodding action sequences, and the overstretched runtime that makes the third act far less satisfying than it should be. (Shoutout to Jackman once again, and the opening sequence in the White House). However, many fans would agree that it was not until 2006’s “X-Men: The Last Stand” that the franchise took its turn for the worst that it has struggled to come back from ever since. I could not disagree more. Let me explain. Yes, “The Last Stand” is a zany and ridiculous superhero film. However, I interpret this film within the context of the time. No way was Brett Ratner (the director replacing Bryan Singer who helmed the first two films) going to make a gritty and dark superhero tale á la “Batman Begins.” Instead, the film embraced the silly nature that the first two films tried (and failed) to ignore in favor of an over-the-top summer blockbuster. And while I do not defend “The Last Stand” as necessarily a better film than its two predecessors, I find it to be a much more fun watch. With the original “X-Men” trilogy in the bag, we move on to Fox’s first attempt at a spin-off that has gone down in film history as one of (if not the) worst comic book movies ever made: Gavin Hood’s “X-Men Origins” Wolverine from 2009. I have little to say about this movie, but that if you think this film is any worse than the original “X-Men” film or “The Last Stand,” then you should really go back and watch it. Yes, it’s poorly written, relies too much on outdated CGI, and puts some rather awful performances front and center. BUT…If you think Hugh Jackman is the best part of these movies, then this is an absolute joyride of outrageous set pieces and laugh-inducing intensity from Wolverine himself. I will not go as far to say the story of “Origins” is better than “X2” or “The Last Stand,” I find it the most enjoyably watch of these first four films and I will out-and-out defend it as a better movie than the first “X-Men” movie. PHEW! Finally, we’ve gotten through the old and outdated trash that is the “X-Men” film franchise of the 2000s. Now, onto the “good” ones. Well, some of them are good. But I’ll get there. First, the prequel/reboot/“pre-sequel” from Matthew Vaughn: “X-Men: First Class.” On my first viewing of this movie, I greatly appreciated the historical, atmospheric setting of the 1960s and the lead performances of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as the young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, respectively. On my second viewing, I still liked these aspects of the film and came to appreciate Kevin Bacon’s villain even more. However, the movie felt like it was stuck in the 2000s with much of its cinematography and dialogue while trying to employ 2010s special effects to mixed results. Ultimately, it has cemented its place for me an “okay” movie in this franchise. The second Wolverine spinoff, released in 2013 and simply titled “The Wolverine,” is where in my opinion these movies start to get good. Once again, Hugh Jackman delivers an enticing performance as the loner (and after “The Last Stand,” apparently a hermit who befriends bears) who finds himself physically weakened and emotionally isolated in the criminal underworld of Japan. Needless to say, James Mangold pulls off what I consider to be the first modern “X-Men” movie with his writing, cinematography, editing, action, and overall direction. Anyone who’s a fan of hyped-up action movies or longs for a genre-bending samurai/superhero film, I highly recommend 2013’s “The Wolverine.” And then there was “Days of Future Past.” Bryan Singer returned to the directing chair to create what I think is one of the best of the “X-Men” films. My opinion is by no means unexpected or unpopular, so I don’t have much to say that hasn’t already been said about this movie. It’s well-acted, the action is coherent and engaging, and the story is just believable enough while also balancing its sci-fi/adventure backdrop well enough to pull it off. To break the chronological approach that I have stuck to thus far, I want to tackle the two “Deadpool” films together. This is because I think they are essentially the same film. In terms of their tone and overall goal, 2016’s “Deadpool” and 2018’s “Deadpool 2” satirizes comic book movie tropes, the Hollywood studio process of moviemaking, the fanaticism surrounding comic book movies of the last decade, the jumbled continuity of the “X-Men” film franchise, and Ryan Reynolds’ filmography. And both films do so with a lovely wit and fun-loving nature about them. They are both worth a watch, and I think they deserve two of the top spots on my ranking of these movies. But (and this may be unpopular) I think they lack much re-watch value. Still, if you like in-your-face, over-the-top action-comedies, these are certainly worth your time. 2016 was a big year for 20th Century Fox as it released two “X-Men” films. Months after the highly successful and critically lauded “Deadpool,” the studio served up “X-Men: Apocalypse” and received a far less forgiving reception from the fanbase (myself included). I found this movie to be overall boring and unoriginal with a few fun moments here and there. The main case does a serviceable job, but I think “Apocalypse” will be remembered as a sign of the beginning of the end for the main “X-Men” series. I’ll get to “Logan” in a minute. But first, to cap off the prequel/reboot/“pre-sequel” movies that began with “First Class.” In 2019, “Dark Phoenix” came and went with virtually no attention from the press or the public. I waited to see it simply because I lacked the motivation to drive to the theater and spend my dollars on what I was certain would be a forgettable comic book movie. Months later, I rented the disc and blocked out an afternoon for it. And, to nobody’s surprise, my hunch was confirmed. It’s hard for me to decide if I liked “Apocalypse” or “Dark Phoenix” more. The former is a sad excuse for a modern superhero film, while the latter might be the most “so-so” movie I have ever seen. Ultimately, I have decided which one I rank higher but I could care less about both of these films. “Logan” is by far and away the best of the “X-Men” films, and I have yet to find anyone who disputes this. The story, writing, acting, direction, cinematography, action sequences, emotional stakes, and thematic depth of the storytelling all culminate in one of (if not the) best comic book movies ever made. I could write an entire blog on just this movie (perhaps I will in the future 😊). But, for now, I leave it at this screed of unabashed praise for Hugh Jackman’s final outing as Wolverine. Finally, we come to the end with “The New Mutants.” The last “X-Men” film by 20th Century Fox released in theaters this weekend, and given my months-long self-imposed quarantine due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic I was very eager to go to the theaters and see a new movie. “The New Mutants” has a storied history of delay after delay, and rumors upon rumors of reshoots. But, to the shock of many, it is the first major theatrical release of 2020 since the onset of the pandemic. Does it live up to that name? Nah, but it’s still a pretty enjoyable movie. With elements of horror, dark comedy, action, and suspense littered throughout, Josh Boone’s teen superhero movie was a perfectly decent way to wrap up this thirteen-film odyssey that is “X-Men.” So, with all that said I have my final ranking of the 20th Century Fox “X-Men” movies:
At the end of the day, how will I remember this franchise? The early entries were the precursors to the modern comic book movies that I love so much, and as a whole these movies had noble intentions but ultimately lack any lasting impact on me as a lover of cinema. How will you remember this franchise? What is your favorite “X-Men” film? Which opinions of mine do you think are utterly wrong and idiotic? Please comment below and share your thoughts on “X-Men.” Until next time, this has been... Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst NOTE: Originally published on 8/30/2020 |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|