I did not grow up fascinated by movie monsters the way some people did. While I knew the names Dracula, Frankenstein, Godzilla and Kong, I related very little to films with these iconic characters in them besides being mesmerized by the senseless violence that they created. The only monster movie I grew up watching somewhat regularly as a kid was Peter Jackson’s 2005 King Kong, which more often than not scared me half to death to the point where I’d look away during many of the best (deadliest) scenes.
But then I saw Gareth Edwards’s film Godzilla when it was released in theaters back in 2014. As a senior in high school, I was mostly bored during much of the film…until the eponymous kaiju came on the screen. Ever since, my interest in monster movies has increased gradually to the point I have gained deep respect and admiration for some of the classic monster flicks like 1931’s Frankenstein and 1933’s King Kong as well as more modern films in this genre, such as 1986’s The Fly, 1993’s Jurassic Park, and 2018’s A Quiet Place. For many filmgoers, however, the films upholding the monster genre in the modern era are the films of Legendary Entertainment’s “MonsterVerse,” a shared cinematic universe of American reboots of the Godzilla and King Kong franchises. So, with today’s release of the fourth (and possibly final?) entry in this cinematic universe, Godzilla vs. Kong, I thought what better time than now to re-examine these four films to see if they work or ultimately fall flat. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Godzilla (2014) Having seen the 2014 Godzilla movie twice since my initial viewing in theaters, it has only become better in my mind. It is by no means a perfect film, but I think the sum of its parts make for a solidly entertaining monster movie with enough human heart and drama to ground the larger-than-life aspects in a story that people can relate to and be invested in from beginning to end. During my most recent re-watch, I appreciated Edwards’s approach to showing Godzilla very little more than ever before. While I do understand peoples’ frustration with this aspect of the film’s storytelling, I find it refreshing compared to most horror movies of the modern era that go out of their way to put the monster that the studio spent so much money on front and center from the get-go. “Look! Look at what we made! Looks good, doesn’t it?!?” It’s tiring and unoriginal. Instead, Edwards teases Godzilla throughout the first act (which ends with the first full face reveal and roar that we hear). In the second act, he shows a little of what Godzilla can do in a fight which makes the audience crave for more. And by the end, the payoff of Godzilla’s final fight with the male and female MUTO so worth the wait. Of course, the other major complaint about this movie from many people is the lack of interesting human characters. Again, I totally get it. Particularly for the second and third acts, Godzilla lacks any super interesting human characters despite some notable people (primarily Ken Watanabe as the main pro-Godzilla human character). Unfortunately, Aaron-Taylor Johnson is unable to take the writing that he was given in force and carry the film. But, I think that the human characters are not meant to be super-fleshed out or interesting. If the film relied too much on human drama for the more dramatic beats of the story, then it would more likely than not falter and utterly fail (I’ll get to this later with this film’s sequel). I think Edwards and the creative team behind Godzilla were smart enough to know that the humans are simply vessels for the audience to vicariously experience the terror of losing their place at the top of the food chain in real time. Ultimately, that serves this kind of blockbuster monster movie better than focusing too much on developing the human relationships to the point that they overshadow our investment in the fate of the monsters that serve as the heroes and villains of these stories. That being said, however, I do genuinely enjoy Bryan Cranston’s somewhat understated performance in the film. His raw emotion at certain points that reflect a broken, guilt-ridden man who only wants an answer to (and thus closure for) his wife’s death is really intriguing. And while his death in the first act is upsetting (and not handled very well by Taylor-Johnson from a performance standpoint) I think it is one of the few things that makes the film’s initial thirty minutes or so bearable. By no means is 2014’s Godzilla a perfect movie. It’s probably not even a great movie. But, for what it is, I find it to be engaging, entertaining, and by the end worth my time every time that I watch it. Kong: Skull Island (2017) If 2014’s Godzilla is a good monster movie, then 2017’s Kong: Skull Island is a really good monster movie. Having seen it twice now, I was equally entertained both times. Without a doubt, it is both an improvement upon its predecessor in the “MonsterVerse” and a thoroughly engaging monster movie in its own right. In many ways, Kong: Skull Island is good because it fixes the “mistakes” (if you want to call them that) of Godzilla. To begin with the monster action, I find Kong to be a far more entertaining monster because of his ingenuity. While Godzilla is powerful and breaths blue fire (which is cool), Kong is creative in how he fights the various deadly creatures on Skull Island. Arguably the best example of this is in the final fight with “The Big One,” or the mother of all Skullcrawlers. By utilizing both his environment and the remnants of man around him as weapons, Kong keeps the audience on our feet with how he will harm, and eventually kill, his many opponents. This points to the fact that Kong is also a more relatable monster than Godzilla. Whereas the latter is a sea creature who lives in the deepest depths of the ocean and lacks much personality, the former’s physical and emotional parallels to primates make him a more empathetic monster that I can root for beyond just wanting to see him destroy buildings and kill MUTOs. However, unlike the original 1933 King Kong, this film does not rely on the “damsel in distress” trope to humanize Kong. Instead, his minimal interactions with ex-British SAS soldier James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and photojournalist Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) show his softer side with a brief yet powerful gaze. Say what you will about which monster is more powerful; I will never be convinced that Godzilla is a more sympathetic creature than Kong. Onto the characters in Kong: Skull Island, who are also far more interesting than those in Godzilla. There are two standouts for me: Samuel L. Jackson as the Army colonel with a chip on his shoulder, Preston Packard; and John C. Reilly as the World War II pilot stranded on Skull Island, Hank Marlow. Both of their arcs are overall satisfying, if not some of the best in film history. Jackson plays Packard as a battle-hungry soldier whose disappointment in America’s humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam gives him a reason to prove to himself and his men that the Army can still do some good. He gives us a solid, if not revolutionary, human antagonist who satisfies the audience upon seeing his final moments facing down Kong. Reilly, on the other hand, is a lovable guy whose mind has nearly withered away but his tragic backstory (and powerful reunion with his family in the mid-credits scene) is enough to be on his side from the get-go. A character that I do think is sidelined in favor of Jackson and O’Reilly is John Goodman’s Bill Randa, the Monarch official overseeing the expediting to Skull Island who hides the truth from virtually everyone involved. In the first act of Kong: Skull Island, he is arguably the most interesting character. There are enough subtle hints dropped that he knows more than he is letting on, which culminates in one of the better scenes of the film when Packard confronts him at gunpoint to fess up about what he knows. Randa reveals his underlying motivation to fix his reputation by convincing the rest of the world that monsters are real, even by risking the lives of Packard, his soldiers, and everyone else who arrived on Skull Island with them. Unfortunately, this is the last time that Randa has any significant screen time. So, I almost forgot that he existed by the time of his out-of-nowhere death in the mass grave. Without a doubt, Goodman is the most underutilized actor in the film as his character is introduced, made to seem important, and then virtually ignored until his last one-liner. A pretty disappointing choice, if you ask me. The other actors are serviceable, although I do want to shout out Brie Larson as photojournalist Mason Weaver. While she does not play a central role in the film’s plot or emotional core, she has great chemistry with the cast (notably Hiddleston and Jackson) and has a cool moment in the fight in the mass grave when her smarts save the lives of those who remain by lighting the Skullcrawler on fire. Overall, Kong: Skull Island is by no means a masterpiece. However, as a blockbuster monster flick, it is up there with the best of the last few decades and is a great modernization of Kong’s mythos. Furthermore, it sets up the stakes of his impending fight with Godzilla very well, but is certainly worth a watch on its own if nothing more. Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) I saw the sequel to 2014’s Godzilla in theaters and thought it was pretty decent at the time. Compared to its predecessor, Godzilla: King of the Monsters had far more monster-on-monster action, and thus seemed at the time an improvement over the 2014 film. Upon re-watching the film earlier this month, I discovered that my initial impressions could not be further off. To be clear, I do not think that Godzilla: King of the Monsters is an utter pile of garbage like some people do. There are some redeemable things about it, namely the third act for reasons that I will get into later. But, overall, it is not a film that I can recommend. My primary trepidation with this film is its approach to the human drama. Even though 2014’s Godzilla lacked many interesting human characters, the father-son dynamic with Bryan Cranston and Aaron Taylor-Johnson made the first act bearable and the use of the humans as on-the-ground perspective rather than story was, in my humble opinion, smart on the filmmaker’s part. But in this movie, the family drama between the Russells (Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, and Millie Bobby Brown) lacks the emotional punch that it should have. While there are scenes that are interesting (mainly those involving Brown’s repudiation of her mother, played by Farmiga), my investment in their fates is next-to-nothing since one of the parents is a neglectful drunk while the other is a psychotic eco-terrorist. (No wonder she’d rather face down King Ghidorah!) The only human character that has a remotely interesting arc is Ken Watanabe as Dr. Ishirō Serizawa. While his use in the first Godzilla film was more plot-centric, Serizawa’s arc in Godzilla: King of the Monsters is more personal. By sacrificing himself to give Godzilla the necessary injection of radiation needed to rejoin the fight against Ghidorah, not only does he show his dedication to the film’s namesake but he also makes the best argument for the role that Godzilla serves in this world: to bring balance to the natural order. His death inspires the other humans (including Chandler’s character, who somehow rationalizes blaming a monster for the death of his son) to finally join Godzilla’s side in battle which is what they should have done in the first place. For the most part, the monster action in this film is better than in 2014’s Godzilla. Mainly because Ghidorah comes off as such an insurmountable creature right up to the third act, and because Mothra’s injection into the final fight against Rodan is fun to see. (I will unabashedly admit that I became emotional watching Godzilla fall from the sky, and when Mothra sacrifices herself to bide Godzilla some time). If anything, I was far more emotionally invested in the monsters than in the human characters, just showing how weak this film is compared to the two before it. So, is Godzilla: King of the Monsters awful? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s good, either. For me, it is the weakest of the “MonsterVerse” movies. Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) Despite the overall less-than-great results from the first three films in the “MonsterVerse,” I sat down in the movie theater genuinely excited to see Godzilla vs. Kong. Based on the minimal promotional materials I allowed myself to see and what the director Adam Wingard (You’re Next, The Guest) has been saying about the film, I started letting myself buy into the image that was being put out regarding what the movie would be. And, for the most part, my expectations were met. To begin with the positives. For those who saw Godzilla and Godzilla: King of the Monsters, did you dislike the convoluted plot threads, hallow human drama, and minimalist approach to the monster action? Well, Godzilla vs. Kong (mostly) does away with all of that. Once the story allows for Kong and Godzilla to converge and duke it out, Wingard and the cast and crew behind the film live up to the promise of its title. And, thankfully, the trailers did not completely reveal all of the best parts of all of the fights between the two king titans. On top of all of this, the fights are actually pretty well choreographed! While in the water, Kong is cornered by Godzilla’s turf advantage and must adapt and evade more than fight him directly. But on land, Godzilla must struggle to overcome Kong’s innovative use of the environment to his advantage. Furthermore, Godzilla vs. Kong does something that I think all three films in the “MonsterVerse” that preceded it either struggled or failed to do: it directly ties in the arcs of the human characters to the arcs of the monsters. For example, Madison Russell (Millie Bobby Brown) is our window into learning the truth behind why Godzilla is attacking humanity without seemingly being provoked. On the other hand, Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) and her crew who follow Kong help us become invested in the king of Skull Island’s journey to find a new home and refuge from Godzilla. Whereas some of the previous films in the “MonsterVerse” tried (and failed) too much to make the audience care about the arcs of the human characters, Godzilla vs. Kong (almost) completely throws those ambitions away in favor of giving us a Kong-centric story that allows both of the titular monsters to shine. As with any film, one of the biggest compliments that I can give to Godzilla vs. Kong is that it left me wanting more. Whereas a movie like Godzilla: King of the Monsters overstayed its welcome, this film does what it needs to be wraps up without completely boring or pissing off the audience. On top of avoiding messy plotlines in favor of intense and fun monster fights, any movie that does this is one worth praising. All that being said, however, there are some things that keep Godzilla vs. Kong from being a great film. While none of the following weaknesses kept me from enjoying what I was watching, they do detract somewhat. My primary comes from the first act, which drags a bit by introducing us to the human antagonists of the movie. While the payoffs are pretty good, they do not fully make up for the somewhat dull first third of the movie. Related to this, the Madison Russell-centric subplot about discovering what the human villains are building almost feels like a different movie than all the Kong stuff. The focus on Madison and Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry) as these fellow conspiracy theorists just felt like a roundabout method of telling this aspect of the story to set up the big battle in the third act. Regarding the writing of Godzilla vs. Kong, I expected nothing revolutionary or life-changing but just a straightforward story that was somewhat coherent and allowed organic ways for the two titans to brawl. And while the movie mostly delivered that, it felt at times that some of the storytelling was rushed to a fault. And while I think the movie improves from its immediate predecessor in terms of minimizing the focus on characterizing the humans, it tends to half-ass developing our new primary human characters to the point where the more I think about the writing the more I ask myself, “Why mention this aspect of their backstory if it’s not at all relevant to the main plot?” All in all, Godzilla vs. Kong was a fun romp with some poor writing but incredible effects and action sequences. In that sense, it fully delivers on the promise of being the culmination of the “MonsterVerse.” But, without a re-watch, I cannot yet commit to believing that it is the best of the franchise. But it’s damn near close. At the end of the day, how will I remember this franchise? I look back fondly on most of these movies. I appreciate the style and approach to suspense of 2014’s Godzilla, I thoroughly enjoy the blockbuster action and intensity of 2017’s Kong: Skull Island, I think back fondly on the third act of 2019’s Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and I revel in the absurdity of this year’s Godzilla vs. Kong. So, while the “MonsterVerse” may not be the most sophisticated, ambitious, or fulfilling cinematic universe of modern history, I think it is largely a successful one. With all that said, here is my official ranking of Legendary Entertainment’s “MonsterVerse”:
What is your favorite monster movie, old or new? Do you appreciate the “MonsterVerse” as much as I do? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
What a year it has been, for so many different reasons. To state the obvious, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken more than one million lives worldwide, devastated the lives of millions more with loss and heartache, and forever changed what we know to be “normal” in our daily lives. On top of that, the more typical turmoil that comes with political instability, racial injustice, and countless other stress-inducing events have made the need to “escape” more necessary to keep sane than perhaps any other year in modern memory since 2001.
Needless to say, various entertainment mediums have satiated that need for many people who spend their evenings temporarily forgetting the stress of their jobs, relationships, or just having the weight of the world on their shoulders. For me, movies have provided that and more. And despite of the seemingly endless delays and cancellations, I have watched over twenty new films this year. So, without further ado, I want to share a sliver of my cinematic journey this year by talking about some of my favorite films from 2020. Bad Boys for Life The first new movie that I watched this year (and one of the few that I watched in theaters), Bad Boys for Life was a surprisingly enjoyable ride that kicked off the year right for movies. To preface with my brief thoughts on the first two films in the franchise, I found the 1995 film Bad Boys to be overall quite boring with some enjoyable chemistry between its two leads: Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. The 2002 sequel Bad Boys II, on the other hand, was far more entertaining for me because it embraced the utter absurdity inherent to the franchise’s concept that its overindulgent two-and-a-half-hour runtime did not distract me in the slightest. The movie had so many “memorable” scenes (notably the opening involving the KKK and the infiltration scene involving ecstasy in a mortuary). Needless to say, I was interested to see what direction the relatively unknown directing duo Adil El Arbi and Bilail Faliah would take the franchise that put Michael Bay on the map. Perhaps what surprised me the most was how emotionally engaging Bad Boys for Life was. Unlike its immediate predecessor, the storyline involving Lawrence’s Detective Marcus Burnett wanting to retire from the line of duty and Smith’s Detective Mike Lowrey dealing with that (on top of his own arc) made the movie far more interesting to watch. And despite assuming that any attempt to ground the franchise would backfire and make it unsuccessful, Adil & Bilail ended up telling a story in Bad Boys for Life that was intriguing but they never let up on the comedic tones and incessant hyper-involved action sequences that define the misadventures of Mike and Marcus. If you are looking for some well-shot action and charming camaraderie from 90s action stars, you cannot go wrong with Bad Boys for Life. The Invisible Man When the credits started rolling upon my initial viewing, I knew without a shadow of a doubt that The Invisible Man, directed by Leigh Whannell (Upgrade) and starring Elisabeth Moss (Mad Men, The Handmaid’s Tale), would be competing for my favorite film of this year. Some of you may already be familiar with my general distaste for horror movies. But, for those who are not, I tend to steer away from most modern horror movies due to their overreliance on jump scares, excessive and unnecessary gore, and convoluted storytelling devices and plot conveniences. However, I am always pleasantly surprised when I discover a horror flick from the previous couple of decades that I genuinely enjoy, admire, and respect. Needless to say, The Invisible Man fits that description very nicely. As I want people to watch this movie knowing as little about it as possible, I will keep my praise as vague as I can. First and foremost, Moss’s performance as Cecilia, a strong woman who is the victim of an abusive relationship at the hands of wealthy business magnate Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), is simply awe-inspiring. Everything about it makes the audience completely invested in whatever comes next in her story. Furthermore, the supporting cast does a great job enhancing the story of Cecilia’s struggle with her own trauma. Specifically, I really liked Aldis Hodge as James, a police officer who offers Cecilia his home as a safe haven from Adrian’s potential backlash. Together with James’s little sister Sydney (Storm Reid), the relationship between those three characters serves as a powerful beating heart for the film’s emotional core. Overall, Whannell’s direction is equally impressive as the main cast. His use of tension in several pivotal scenes to underscore the extended metaphor about processing and overcoming emotional trauma from an abusive relationship is expertly done. His film stands tall and proud among some of the best psycho-thrillers about twisted relationships out there, from Fatal Attraction to Gone Girl. I cannot recommend The Invisible Man enough for fans of both modern horror films, well-made remakes of horror classics, and emotionally fulfilling thrillers. I hope you appreciate it as much as I did. Onward Like many men and women of my generation, I grew up absorbed by the crowned jewels of storytelling that came from Pixar Animation Studios. (Keep an eye out in the very near future for a blog about this topic) So, when the studio announced that their next several films after Toy Story 4 would be original stories I was quite excited for what this new era of Pixar would offer up. And although I did not have the chance to see Onward in theaters before the COVID-19 pandemic affected my area, I was fortunate enough as a Disney+ subscriber to be able to see it in April. To preface my thoughts about Onward, I want to be clear that I LOVE a solid majority of the films that Pixar makes. I certainly have my favorites that I grew up with, but I have stayed relatively invested in the studio’s stories as I have aged because (most of) their films retain an expert quality to them that most animated features lack for viewers over the age of ten. All that being said, I did not love Onward. But, I really enjoyed it. Similar to some of the other lesser-appreciated Pixar standalone films (lookin’ at you, Ratatouille!), Onward presents a perfectly serviceable story with just enough action, humor, and heart to engage a 24-year-old cynic such as myself. As a diehard fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I particularly appreciated the chemistry between Tom Holland and Chris Pratt as the Lightfoot brothers. Easily, the best scenes of the film are the heart-to-heart conversations between them. While the plot was by no means unpredictable or revolutionary, it served the themes of the film well enough to justify the film as quality entertainment over an absorbing, intellectual exploration of brotherhood. Overall, I highly recommend Onward for any parent, Pixar fan, or fellow cinephile like me who just enjoys escapist entertainment from one of the best animation studios in the world. The Way Back As a recent convert to the directorial work of Gavin O’Connor (Miracle, Warrior) who enjoys my fair share of (but does not gravitate to) sports movies, I was cautiously optimistic about O’Connor’s newest feature The Way Back starring Ben Affleck (Good Will Hunting, Gone Girl). It is the story of a former basketball-star-turned alcoholic, blue-collar worker who reluctantly takes the job of head coach for his old high school’s team. This is certainly familiar ground for O’Connor, and on the surface is so for anyone who regularly indulges in feel-good sports dramas (lookin’ at you, Hoosiers!). However, what I think distinguishes The Way Back from some of its genre contemporaries is two things. First, the film has a deeply personal air to it due to Affleck’s own struggles with alcoholism in the past few years. Much of that unquestionably comes off through his portrayal of the ups and downs of Jack Cunningham as he finds a new sense of purpose in life inspiring young men through his unorthodox approach to coaching and mentoring. Second, while I will not argue that the film has a sad ending, I do not think that it has a shallowly happy one, either. Without spoiling the film, The Way Back offers a chance at redemption for Affleck’s Jack but does not assume that he earns it or deserves it, for that matter. That kind of complexity and ambiguity (however subtle or superfluous) is much appreciated from someone like me who needs more than just the sport itself to like a sports movie. I think many types of cinephiles will enjoy The Way Back, from fans of sports dramas to redemption stories. It is certainly worth the watch if you’re looking for that sort of thing. Yes, God, Yes Perhaps the least well-known film on this list, Yes, God, Yes (the directorial debut of screenwriter Karen Maine) is based on a short film of the same name. It stars Natalia Dyer (Stranger Things) as a sexually blossoming teenage girl who attends a Midwestern Catholic high school. Her journey depicted over the course of 77 minutes is defined by confronting her own assumptions about sex and sexuality, the role of her doctrinal education in the formation of such opinions, and her own emotional growth as a young woman trying to figure out what she wants out of life. Seems like just the type of movie for a twenty-four-year-old man, right? Maybe not, but I thoroughly enjoyed this Indie flick (which originally premiered at the SXSW Film Festival last year). Maine offers up a story about sheltered but curious young people whose confinement to a narrow, exclusionary worldview causes their curious natures to be sometimes more harmful to themselves and others than it should be. The film’s sense of humor about itself and its central characters is more than refreshing compared to some other movies in this genre. Dyer’s leading performance is warm and relatable, but there are also some great (albeit minor) performances from other young adult actors like Alisha Boe (13 Reasons Why) as the seemingly brainwashed counselor at the youth retreat which serves as the film’s primary setting. But perhaps what I like most about Yes, God, Yes is its core lesson that everyone hides their insecurities and what is important is for people to treat others respectfully because, in the paraphrased words of Dyer’s Alice, “everyone is dealing with their own shit.” I highly recommend this film for the lovers of the young adult genre; I promise that it will use its brief runtime wisely. Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom How fitting it is to wrap up today’s blog by discussing the film that includes the final performance of the late, great Chadwick Boseman?! Not only was he the subject of one of my earliest blogs, but for millions of people around the world his death back in late August represents the pain and heartache summed up by the year 2020. So, I am grateful that Mr. Boseman helped wrap up my year in film viewing, because his final performance is just one of the great things about George C. Wolfe’s Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom. Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is based on a play by Pittsburgh native August Wilson and is produced by Denzel Washington, who starred in the 2016 film adaptation of Wilson’s play Fences (the subject of another one of my blogs). It tells the story of a hot day in a recording studio in 1920s Chicago as the tensions between members of a blues band and their star, Gertrude “Ma” Rainey (Viola Davis), boil over. All of them, from the hot-headed trumpet player Levee (Boseman) to the mediating trombone player Cutler (Colman Domingo), live cloaked in personal troubles and the pressures of being black recording artists in a white world that wants nothing more than to strip them of their soul for profit. What can I say about this movie except that everyone should watch it?!? ALL of the performances range from very good to fantastic. Notably, Davis as “Ma” Rainey, Boseman as Levee, and Domingo as Cutler bring incredibly nuanced, complex personalities to life before stirring them up together into ninety minutes of infectious and emotional human drama. The interplay between all of the actors (but specifically, Davis, Boseman, and Domingo) births a believable environment seething with pride and catharsis that engrosses you so effortlessly. For those who know my thoughts on Boseman, they are only encouraged after watching his performance in this film. No matter if he has two lines in a scene or offers up a five-minute raw monologue, you always know he is there and just waiting eagerly to see what he says or does. If I have one and only critique of the film, it is that ninety minutes was not nearly enough time for me to spend with these characters. I wanted the runtime doubled, and only wish that the director had the foresight to put Boseman in front of the camera for another hour or so. I cannot recommend Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom enough to y’all. Trust me, you WILL NOT regret it. So, those are some of my favorite films of 2020! There are certainly others; for one, I have already discussed The New Mutants in my very first blog back in August. And I am sure I will be talking about some more of the best 2020 flicks in the future. 😊 What are some of your favorite films from this year? What movies are you most excited for next year? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? 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
July 2024
Categories
All
|