With the release of only her second film this weekend, writer-director Kelly Fremon Craig instantly became a filmmaker that I eagerly watch to see what she does next. Having not yet seen her sophomore feature, an adaptation of the 1970 Judy Blume novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret,” Craig made such a strong impression on me with her directorial debut that she ranks (in my humble opinion) among one of the handful of young/new directors to watch out for. The movie that hit me so hard as to leave this kind of impression years later? It’s none other than the 2016 coming-of-age dramedy The Edge of Seventeen.
Why is this movie worth your time? Keep reading to find out. 😊 What’s It About [NOTE: This section contains minor spoilers for “The Edge of Seventeen.” If you’d rather see the film for yourself, skip to the next section.] The protagonist of The Edge of Seventeen is Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld), a temperamental and self-isolating teenage girl whose only healthy relationship is with her best friend Krista (Haley Lu Richardson). However, a drunken sexual liaison between Krista and popular kid/Nadine’s older brother Darian (Blake Jenner) creates a rift in their enduring friendship and sets Nadine off on a downward spiral of self-destruction and self-discovery. Along the steps of her journey, Nadine makes half-hearted attempts to reach out for advice from people in her life. Notably, she rejects a suitor-turned-friend Erwin Kim (Hayden Szeto), pines for upperclassman Nick Mossman (Alexander Calvert), and develops an awkward (inappropriate) friendship with her teacher Max Bruner (Woody Harrelson). However, her rather off-putting and abrasive personality combines with her insecurities to make for some hilarious antics but also some emotionally intense moments with both her peers and her widowed mother Mona (Kyra Sedgwick). Ultimately, The Edge of Seventeen tells the story of a young woman growing into her own and realizing what she cares about most. Why It’s Worth Watching Given that cliché summary, you might expect The Edge of Seventeen to be just another standard coming-of-age flick that touches on the same themes and utilizes similar plot elements as any of them. But to assume so would be greatly underestimating the sheer amount of talent on display in this film. At its core, the strength of the movie is Kelly Fremon Craig’s awareness of her own strengths & playing into them. Namely, as a first-time director and talented screenwriter, she relies on her incredibly poignant and genuine dialogue (performed by the very talented cast assembled under her supervision) to serve as the backbone of the film. Not that her directing is bad by any means, but it’s certainly not the most original piece of cinema in that sense. However, it doesn’t need to be. The Edge of Seventeen shines in its writing which is more than enough to make it a solid coming-of-age dramedy. But great dialogue & situations for the characters to get entangled with are only as good as the actors bringing it all to life. And while the supporting cast (both young and old) all do well here, the undeniable standout is the great Hailee Steinfeld. As an unabashed huge fan of Steinfeld’s acting chops, I stand by the fact that her turn as Nadine in The Edge of Seventeen is on par with the best work of her career in the Coen Brothers’ True Grit and the Apple TV+ series Dickinson. Given the director’s great dialogue, Steinfeld brings to life one of the most relatable, down-to-earth, and genuine teenage lead character that I’ve seen in a film in the past decade (if not longer). Simply put, her and Crag seem like a great pairing and I can only hope that they team up again in a future project. Honestly, I don’t have much else to say about The Edge of Seventeen. Mainly because I think the writing, directing, and lead performance do more than enough to sell it. On top of that, though, these elements come together to actually transcend the familiar trappings of the coming-of-age flick that I’m pretty aware of by now. But, if you pick only one more movie from this genre to watch for the rest of your life, I don’t think you can go wrong with The Edge of Seventeen. It’s funny. It’s heartfelt. It captures the messy travails of adolescence in a way that many films like this can only dream of. What more can I say? 😊 Have I convinced you to check out Kelly Fremon Craig’s The Edge of Seventeen? What’s a movie that you feel is underappreciated? 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
Image by Vinson Tan ( 楊 祖 武 ) from Pixabay If you’re at all familiar with the biggest names in the history of anime filmmaking, there is arguably no name bigger than Hayao Miyazaki. A co-founder of the acclaimed Japanese animation house Studio Ghibli, he has directed several movies considered the best of the anime genre from the charming coming-of-age tale My Neighbor Totoro to the Oscar-winning fantasy drama Spirited Away. However, in recent years, several other anime directors have emerged & begun making their stamp on the genre: Mamoru Hosoda with Wolf Children and the Oscar-nominated Mirai, Naoko Yamada with A Silent Voice, and Masaaki Yuasa with Ride Your Wave and Inu-Oh. Just to name a few. 😊
However, if there’s one filmmaker that many anime fans agree is “the next Miyazaki,” it is perhaps none other than Makoto Shinkai. Having come onto the scene with films like The Place Promised in Our Early Days and 5 Centimeters per Second, Shinkai cemented his place with the 2016 romantic fantasy film Your Name that remains the third highest-grossing Japanese film (both domestically and worldwide) of all time. And since his newest film, Suzume, debuts stateside this weekend I thought it would be perfect timing for me to shine a spotlight on one of my favorite Shinkai films: the 2013 drama The Garden of Words. Why is this movie worth your time? Keep reading to find out. 😊 What’s It About [NOTE: This section contains minor spoilers for “The Garden of Words.” If you’d rather see the film for yourself, skip to the next section.] With an abbreviated runtime of 46 minutes, The Garden of Words follows two protagonists: the truant student/aspiring shoemaker Takao Akizuki (Blake Shepard) and the self-isolating young adult Yukari Yukino (Maggie Flecknoe). As the rainy season in Tokyo sets in, Takao and Yukari have several chance encounters at Shinjuku Gyo-en National Garden. During these encounters, Takao opens up to Yukari about his passion for shoemaking (including making her a custom pair of shoes). Yukari, on the other hand, remains closed-off about her own life (not even revealing her name to him). When the new school year starts, however, Takao has several realizations about not only Yukari’s true identity but also his feelings for her in spite of the truth about her. Why It’s Worth Watching As I said in the previous section, The Garden of Words is under an hour long (barely a feature film by some people’s standards). And yet, by the time the credits roll, the characters & story that Shinkai tells feel as fully developed as most movies that spin their wheels at over two hours long. Unsurprisingly, the animation deserves much of the credit for this. For those of you have seen Shinkai’s visual style (particularly in recent years with films like Your Name and Weathering with You), his masterful command of using animation to create a vibrant world that feels lived in and grounded will not surprise you in the slightest. With this film, I particularly appreciated the visualization of rainfall as both an aesthetically impeccable part of the frame but also a thematically relevant element of the melancholic tone and narrative. Combined with the lush greenery of Shinkai’s photorealistic take on Shinjuku Gyo-en National Garden in Tokyo, The Garden of Words is certainly not lacking in the visual department. On that note, Shinkai always ensures that the animation is adding to the core story of these two people rather than being the star of the show in an overwhelming fashion. Make no mistake that The Garden of Words is a mature examination of how different growing up can be for different people as well as our need for companionship with fellow humans. And the heart of that story lies with his protagonists, whose burgeoning tease of an offbeat yet believable affection for one another helps elevate Shinkai’s message about the importance of having people who care about you in your life is vital to personal well-being. All of this would be impressive in a two-hour film. But the fact that The Garden of Words accomplishes all of this in a mere 46 minutes elevates Shinkai’s work above many other stories like it. Simply put, his reliance on subtle expressions of emotional development for both the main characters via efficient dialogue and stunning visual cues is what makes this movie (in my humble opinion) one of Shinkai’s best pieces of art and better than many other anime flicks that I’ve seen. Have I convinced you to check out Makoto Shinkai’s The Garden of Words? What’s a movie that you feel is underappreciated? 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 Image by Andrew Martin from Pixabay If you ask any cinephile or movie lover walking down the street which director helped to define the horror genre, there are a handful of names they might say. On the one hand, you have modern magicians of horror like Ari Aster (Hereditary, Midsommar) and Robert Eggers (The Witch, The Lighthouse). In addition, you could call back to the big names of the “New Hollywood” generation like George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead), John Carpenter (Halloween, The Thing), and Wes Craven (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream). But if you want to go back to the filmmaker who arguably laid the foundation for the modern horror-thriller-suspense mega-genre, there is only one name who most film fans would agree on: Alfred Hitchcock.
An Englishman and Essex native, Hitchcock came from somewhat humble beginnings as the son of a greengrocer but an uncle of means with a five-bedroom Victorian mansion complete with a staff of servants. He entered the European film industry at the tail end of World War I, and within ten years cemented himself as a successful avant-garde filmmaker with films like Blackmail and The Lady Vanishes. But it was not until the mid-20th century (both during and after World War II) that Hitchcock emerged as one of the greatest filmmakers ever with instant classics like Shadow of a Doubt, Notorious, and Rear Window. By the time films like Vertigo were released, Hitchcock’s name became synonymous with a signature artistic and cinematic style defined by using framing and editing to create an optimal level of fear and suspense while also immersing the audience in the events onscreen. To be perfectly honest, I’m not the biggest Hitchcock fan (I also haven’t seen all of his films). But, there are several that I either enjoy for what they are or genuinely like them in spite of their age. But there is one that, with two viewings, greatly bothers me. Not because it’s the worst film ever made, but because it’s often revered as one of the best horror-thriller films of all time (and certainly one of the best of Hitchcock’s career) when (in my humble opinion) it is anything but. Simply put, I have a problem with Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Let me explain why. The Premise Released in March of 1963 to mixed critical reception but box-office success, The Birds tells the burgeoning romance of San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) and lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). Yet the romance is caught in the midst of the slow-burn escalation of wild birds attacking the townsfolk of Bodega Bay—the seaside town where Mitch lives with his overbearing mother Lydia (Jessica Tandy) and pre-teen sister Cathy (Veronica Cartwright). Intertwined throughout the narrative, however, is the complications to Melanie and Mitch’s stirring feelings for each other by the presence of local schoolteacher Annie Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette) who also happens to be Mitch’s ex-lover. While the first half of the film largely focuses on the “complex” relationship between Melanie and Mitch with only minor foreshadowing of the emerging avian threat, the second hour becomes nearly fully consumed by a quasi-apocalyptic onslaught of bloodthirsty birds attacking the people of Bodega Bay. By the third act, the initially serene small California town has turned into a natura-disaster site with dead birds and dead people scattered all over and the people flared up in a frightened panic due to the seemingly biblical nature of what their home has succumbed to. The Problems In reading about the thought process behind the making of The Birds, I discovered that Hitchcock himself described the symbolism of the eponymous bloodthirsty avians in the movie as serving as punishment for humanity who take nature for granted. If that’s true, then it only cements my strong dislike for this movie. Especially when compared to the standouts within Hitchcock’s own filmography. In other words, Hitchcock does an expert job exploring strong ideas in many of his movies: the complexities of moral duality (Strangers on a Train), psychological obsession (Vertigo), deception & moral relativism (North by Northwest), and psychoanalysis (Psycho). Yet, in all those other films that I listed, he also spins a compelling narrative that excels by being just as superficially entertaining as it is intellectually stimulating. That is simply not the case with The Birds. Whether I’m watching drab melodrama involving the “blossoming” romance between its two leads or anachronistic special effects to depict inexplicable violence by nature against humanity, I as a viewer am never truly scared, excited, or thrilled by what’s happening and thus never truly invested in the film’s narrative. What also holds The Birds back, especially when stacked up against much of the rest of Hitchcock’s career as a filmmaker, is how little it feels like a Hitchcock movie. The recognizable camera work of his other thrillers is pretty much absent here, resulting in any potential for a heightened level of suspense being lost. Without that, Hitchcock essentially had to rely on (for the time) advanced special effects done by Disney animator Ub Iwerks (who, deservedly, was nominated for an Oscar for Best Special Effects). Unfortunately, these effects don’t really hold up anymore. Consequently, The Birds ends up feeling like the least “Hitchcockian” of any of his movies that I’ve seen due to a noticeable and detracting lack of distinctive visual style. While I blame much of the lack of quality in The Birds on Hitchcock (he was the director after all), some responsibility must be put on the writing and acting. Regarding the former, screenwriter Evan Hunter—who is better known for his police procedural novels—was given the task to write Hitchcock a more complicated plot than the Daphne du Maurier short story upon which the movie is based. Rather than sticking with the straightforward thrills of du Maurier’s allegorical narrative about the anxieties of war-torn Britain, Hunter crafts a bunch of new and wholly unlikeable characters entangled in toxic relationships that offer no reason for the audience to care about them. And perhaps that was the point: to make the human characters of the film so wholly unsympathetic that the viewer starts turning in favor of the birds’ point of view. But, if that’s true, then both Hunter’s writing and Hitchcock’s directing do this thematic approach no favors by never showing us tangible explanations for why or how humanity takes advantage of the natural world around them (aside from the socially acceptable elements of civilization, like driving cars and building roads). In a case like this, a filmmaker may be able to rely on a charismatic cast to carry the lackluster plot. But that’s also lacking in The Birds. Tippi Hedren’s film debut as the crass and nonchalant Melanie lacks the grace to pull off a morally complex anti-heroine (which I don’t entirely blame her for considering this was her feature film debut in a credited role). Conversely, Roy Taylor’s portrayal of the overly attached mama’s boy Mitch does not possess nearly enough grit nor grime to pull off the kind of rough-and-lean leading man of the era. Instead, he comes off as a weak-willed, immature man half-stuck in the past due to how his feelings for Melanie conflict with the daily reminder of his former fling with Suzanne Pleshette’s Annie (who, by the way, might be the most sympathetic adult character in the film since she gives her life to protect Mitch’s younger sister). By the end of that first hour, though, The Birds has given me no reason to care about any of the human relationship explored up to that point. The result? A pretty unbalanced two-hour runtime wherein Hitchcock tries to make the audience care by stuffing the second half of the film with one bird-attack scene after the other. While technically impressive to a point, this surface-level reliance on hammy action just to progress the narrative to its anti-climactic end gets old real fast. So, if the romance doesn’t work and the horror doesn’t work, what does work about The Birds? The Verdict In my humble opinion, pretty much nothing. While admittedly not a Hitchcock expert by any means, I’ve seen enough of his bona-fide classic flicks to be convinced that The Birds represents the start of his decline as an artist and storyteller. Maybe you think that I’m being too harsh on this movie, but I don’t think so. Having seen it twice, I feel reassured in my opinion that it’s Hitchcock’s worst “classic” by far. You want a “Golden Age” romantic psycho-horror flick? Watch Rebecca. You want a chilling 1950s thriller? Watch Strangers on a Train. What about the essential precursor to the modern spy movie? Watch North by Northwest. And if you’re in the mood for an old-school slasher film that still holds up today, you cannot go wrong with Psycho. Just don’t watch The Birds. It’s a pathetic excuse for a romance and a horror-thriller that should keep it a sizeable distance from being ranked alongside the other finest pieces of cinema of the last one hundred years. Need I say more? 😊 What is your take on Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds? What is your favorite (or least favorite) Hitchcock movie? 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 Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay Action movies are as old as cinema itself. One of the most fun things about the action genre is how much they are defined by the time in which they are made. While this doesn’t always allow for such movies to hold up decades later, there are some that stand the test of time. And then there are others that become instant classics. If there are any modern action movies that (in my humble opinion) cemented their legacy immediately upon release, they are the John Wick movies.
Why? I guess you’ll have to keep reading to find out… 😉 [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for the “John Wick” films. You have been warned.] John Wick (2014) The brains behind the John Wick franchise are Chad Stahelski (Keanu Reeves’ stunt double in The Matrix), his (uncredited) co-director David Leitch (Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2, Bullet Train), and screenwriter Derek Kolstad. Together, this creative trio helmed the franchise’s humble beginnings with a modestly-budgeted flick that was both critically and commercially successful and helped relaunch the career of its star. In some ways, I think the first John Wick movie has more in common with Nicolas Winding Refn’s low-budget drama Drive starring Ryan Reynolds than it does with its own sequels. It’s because, in my humble opinion, this movie is a great mainstream example of the “arthouse action” subgenre that stands high above most action flicks made in the last twenty years. While the directors and screenwriter are undoubtedly an essential part of the success of this movie, its backbone is Keanu Reeves as the eponymous retired assassin who is compelled to return to the criminal underworld on a personal quest for vengeance. Simply put, this movie doesn’t work without Keanu’s wholly committed performance. On the physical side of things, his devotion to nailing the gun play and stunt work makes every action beat on screen utterly believable. But I don’t want to understate the emotional work that Keanu pulls off (especially in the first act). Before even the now-infamous killing of Wick’s puppy that sets him off, the way he portrays the character’s silent grieving for the death of his wife Helen (Bridget Moynahan) is pretty impressive considering Wick’s inherent stoicism and violent tendencies. Combined with his physical prowess, Keanu delivers moviegoing audiences one of the most empathetic and ruthless killers in modern cinematic history. Fortunately, the film has more than its lead to thank for its success. To usher in this soon-to-be franchise, Stahelski and Leitch nabbed some pretty great actors to flesh out their cast. While not every supporting character is memorable, there are some big standouts. For one thing, Willem Dafoe’s one-off appearance as Wick’s old friend and fellow assassin Marcus maximizes his limited screen time to get Wick out of several jams just in the nick of time while convincing the ones hunting Wick that he’s on their side. Also, Ian McShane leaves a lasting imprint at Winston, the manager of the assassin-friendly Continental Hotel, whose scenes help flesh out the rules and rituals of the criminal underworld filled with many eclectic killers. Finally, Alfie Allen perfectly captures the arrogant and cruel Iosef Tarasov (the one who killed Wick’s dog) and ultimately upstages Michael Nyqvist playing Iosef’s father Viggo. Most fans of this movie contend that its most memorable (and strongest) quality, however, is its unique approach to action choreography (the principles of which now form the basis of the affectionately-named “Gun fu”). I don’t necessarily disagree (despite the fact that the fighting is less showy in retrospect when compared to its sequels). However, the film’s strongest quality (in my humble opinion) is Kolstad’s screenplay. At a lean 101-minute runtime, Kolstad clearly understands the genre and embraced its best qualities in crafting the eponymous lead character and the assassin-filled world in which he lived. Yet he does so without relying on needless amounts of exposition. Rather, he enhances the visual storytelling of the first act with strong dialogue to build out the world, establish the stakes, and drive the narrative without taking away from the incredible action set pieces that have come to define this franchise. Simply put, John Wick is one of my favorite action movies of all time. It’s not perfect, but it makes for a strong, self-contained story with tons of potential for laying the groundwork for a great modern action franchise. So, where does Wick’s story go from here? John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017) Despite the minimal amount of anticipation for the first John Wick movie leading up to its release in 2014, its sequel got plenty of love from both critics and audiences. Not only did it gross over 170 million dollars, but a third film in the franchise was officially announced only months after its release. Needless to say, Reeves and Stahelski had a franchise-in-the-making on their hands. All that being said, John Wick: Chapter 2 is (in my humble opinion) the awkward “middle child” of this otherwise fantastic action franchise. Why? Well, before addressing the elements of the movie that didn’t work for me I want to start by highlighting what did work. Perhaps most evident is how director Chad Stahelski and his creative team effectively doubled down with making John Wick aesthetically defined by its incredibly entertaining action choreography. Every action scene, from the gunfights to the hand-on-hand combat, is improved upon compared to the first movie (which is saying something). While not always the case with sequels, I think that John Wick: Chapter 2 going bigger in how it constructed its action sequences ultimately made the movie better (despite my other problems with it). My other favorite part of this movie is its cast. While (unsurprisingly) Keanu Reeves brings his best in portraying the physicality of his lead character, I think (some of) the supporting cast outshines him in many respects. For one thing, our returning manager of the assassin hotel Winston (Ian McShane) and its concierge Charon (played by the late Lance Reddick) get more moments to shine in this movie. Their role in the story help build out the world of the Continental and the assassins that inhabit it, but its their chemistry with Reeves’ eponymous protagonist that helps ground the film in some semblance of humanity. Aside from just the returning cast, we get a great nod/homage to The Matrix with the introduction of “The Bowery King” (Laurence Fishburne). Simply put, Fishburne steals the show once he’s introduced as the theatrical but intimidating underground crime lord with a particular fondness for birds. His standoffish chemistry with Reeves offers a sharp yet enjoyable contrast to their dynamic in The Matrix, making Fishburne’s character the undeniable best new member of the cast whose presence only gets better going forward. All that being said, John Wick: Chapter 2 has a number of flaws that hold it back from matching (let alone exceeding) the quality of its predecessor. Unlike the clean and straightforward, three-act narrative of the first film, writer Derek Kolstad seemed to have an idea for a climactic cliffhanger of an ending and then wrote the rest of the story asking himself: “How do I get to that?” While this isn’t necessarily the worst way to write a story, I don’t think it worked very well with particular film. First off, I’m not a huge fan of the narrative decision to keep John entangled in the world of assassins by having Italian crime boss Santino D’Antonio (Riccardo Scamario) blackmail him with a blood debt from his past. In a way, it undermines John’s character that was established in the first movie that would kill anyone who gets in his way. In this case, since he completed his mission of revenge from the first movie, I don’t think he would be all that amenable to being compelled to continue working (yes, even if his house gets blown up) as he would almost certainly deem it a slight to his wife’s memory. Speaking of the villains of John Wick: Chapter 2, D’Antonio just doesn’t work for me. His motive to use John as a scapegoat to blame his sister Gianna’s (Claudia Gerini) murder on him so that he can gain power falls flat. Primarily, this is due to the fact that the power structure and hierarchy of this world of assassins feels underdeveloped which makes it hard for me to fully grasp (and thus be invested in) the ramifications of his rise. Even if D’Antonio isn’t an effective villain, I was hoping for the antagonistic assassins in John’s way—Gianna’s bodyguard Cassian (Common) and D’Antonio’s bodyguard Ares (Ruby Rose)—to pick up the slack. But, they just don’t as characters despite having some decent fight scenes with them. Overall, John Wick: Chapter 2 is uplifted enough by its action and chemistry shared between the lead and supporting characters to make up for a lackluster script and disappointing villains. While the pacing of the first two acts works against it as a whole, Kolstad and Stahelski ultimately accomplished the goal of teasing a great threequel with a propulsive, action-packed third act. So, if nothing else, this movie gave us John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum. That counts for something. But, at the end of the day, it’s my least favorite film of the John Wick franchise and I still overall enjoy it. If nothing else, this should tell you how worth your time these movies are. 😊 John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum (2019) Unlike my first times watching the first two John Wick movies, I saw Chapter 3 – Parabellum in a packed theater on opening weekend. Without a doubt, this enhanced my experience but also worried me that it wouldn’t hold up as well with a rewatch on the 54-inch television screen in my living room. Boy, how wrong I was. Thankfully, Chapter 2 seemed to be a hitch in the process of this creative team. With Parabellum, the franchise finds its footing by offering up the best action sequences of all the films up to this point. In the first hour alone, we get John killing a giant assassin Ernest (Boban Marjanović) with a book, fending off several assassins with just knives and tomahawks, and bringing attackers to their awfully creative ends thanks to some conveniently bucking broncos. But it doesn’t end there. During the second act, we get an awesome shootout with the help of ex-assassin Sofia Al-Azwar (Halle Berry) and her badass German Shepherds. All of this, of course, culminates in the thrilling clash within the halls of the Continental putting the tag team of John and Charon up against the private army of the High Table itself. Undoubtedly, Parabellum gave fans of this burgeoning franchise some of the most entertaining action scenes of the last decade (if not two). Therefore, part of me highly doubts that the cast and crew behind the John Wick series can one-up themselves in the fourth film. But, another part of me hopes that they will. 😊 Of course, it’s no surprise that a John Wick has some amazing action. What impressed me much more was the fact that screenwriter Derek Kolstad (in his, as of now, final outing as a writer for the franchise)—along with his writing partners Shay Hatten (Army of the Dead), Chris Collins (The Wire, Sons of Anarchy), and Marc Abrams—managed to pay off the tease of the second flick. Unlike the inadequate pacing of Chapter 2, the story of Parabellum does a much better job using the action sequences to enhance the narrative rather than drag it along. As such, the story of John on the run from the High Table and a bunch of greedy assassins keeps this two-hour-plus film moving very nicely with rare exception. But the action and narrative are not the only things that make Parabellum a great movie. As with the first two movies, Chad Stahelski assembled a stellar cast around Reeves with a great mix of both new and returning characters. Unsurprisingly, Ian McShane and Lance Reddick do well in their roles but get just some great moments to shine compared to prior films (Reddick in particular). And, to nobody’s shock, Fishburne’s fittingly histrionic return as “The Bowery King” works very well in contrast with the self-serious stoicism of the High Table representatives. But, unlike many of the supporting heroes and villains in Chapter 2, I think that all of the new additions in Parabellum fit in well here. As the lead antagonist, “The Adjudicator” (Asia Kate Dillon) feels very different from any other villain in the franchise but still germane to the bureaucratic, assassin-filled world that has been established. This kind of villain is what the franchise needed at this point to help flesh out the internal politics of the High Table as they impact the ritualistic culture of this world of assassins that John has tried to get away from. On John’s side, however, is a great addition with Halle Berry as his reluctant savior who gets him out of a tough spot while taking every opportunity to absolutely shit on her former friend. Plus, she has two awesome killer German Shepherds. What more can you ask for?!? 😊 All in all, John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum might be the best film in the series thus far (the fourth entry notwithstanding). While it may not have the heart of the first movie, it easily ups the ante with the action and outpaces Chapter 2 in virtually every way. Without a doubt, it lives up to and earns its subtitle with a great tease of an ending. Reeves, Fishburne, and myself are “prepared for war.” In other words, I am very excited to see John Wick: Chapter 4 in the movie theater this weekend. Are you?!? John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “John Wick: Chapter 4.” You have been warned.] Perhaps my expectations were too high for John Wick: Chapter 4. With the best critical reception in the whole franchise, I started to let myself believe that the fourth outing truly could live up to such hype. And while in some ways it did, I do think the quality of this movie is being a bit overexaggerated (at least compared to other John Wick films). To be clear, Chapter 4 is better than most action movies made today. Without question, this franchise stands alongside the likes of Mission: Impossible with a reputation of being the best of the best when it comes to staging, choreographing, and delivering top-notch action set pieces. That being said, one of my biggest issues with Chapter 4 is how, for the first time in the series, Chad Stahelski and his creative team struggled to top themselves. While none of the action is bad by any means, there were multiple scenes of gunfights, swordfights, and fistfights where I found myself wondering: “Is this any better than what Parabellum did?” Unfortunately, most of those scenes are in the first two hours of this just-under-three-hour juggernaut of a flick. Compared to the jaw-dropping knife-throwing battle or Keanu Reeves-Halle Berry tag-team fight with two German Shepherds in Parabellum, none of the action in the first two acts of Chapter 4 goes bigger or badder. It’s all the kinds of “Gun fu” and swordplay that a fan of this franchise has come to expect. If this was the only deflating aspect of Chapter 4, I could see myself still loving the movie because of the third act (which I’ll get to later). Yet there are other choices made that hold it back from being my favorite John Wick movie. For one thing, the decision to introduce tons of new antagonists ends up being something of a mixed bag. There were certainly a couple of standouts: Bill Skarsgård plays his role to a tee as the Marquis Vincent de Gramont, an ambitious member of the High Table who wants to claim the glory of killing John Wick. In his performance, Skarsgård deftly balances a necessary intimidation factor with just the right amount of subdued cheese to his villainy that helps his character outperform Riccardo Scamario’s Santino D’Antonio from Chapter 2 (and perhaps even Asia Kate Dillon’s “The Adjudicator” from Parabellum). The unquestionable standout of the new cast members is Donnie Yen as Caine. In playing a blind High Table assassin who shares a history with John Wick, Yen brings enough quirkiness and heart to the character so as to make him easily the best foil to Reeves’ portrayal of Wick in the whole franchise. In that respect, his role in the movie (but the climactic duel in particular) fits incredibly well. Honestly, if the studio decided to do a spin-off movie with just Yen’s character, I wouldn’t mind because he is just as entertaining to watch kill endless amounts of goons as Reeves (albeit for different reasons). The other new additions—namely Hiroyuki Sanada as Osaka Continental manager and Wick’s ally Koji, Rina Sawayama as Koji’s daughter and concierge Akira, Shamier Anderson as bounty hunter “Mr. Nobody,” Scott Adkins as German High Table member Killa—are by no means bad (with Sanada being the best of the four). Unfortunately, the amount of screen time devoted to their respective scenes (the length sequence with Killa in Berlin, to be specific) takes away precious screen time that could’ve been used to give some of the returning cast a solid farewell. In my humble opinion, Lance Reddick (may he rest in peace) is done the dirtiest. Not only does he have the least screen time of all the veteran characters, but killing off his character Charon in order to advance the plot without giving him a significant amount of presence in Chapter 4 feels lazy and cheap on the writers’ part. Not to mention Laurence Fishburne, who basically gets a cool speech to open the film and then comes it for the third act to give John Wick a new suit and gun and…that’s it. Simply put, if this truly is the last John Wick movie then both Reddick and Fishburne’s characters go out with a whimper instead of a bang like they both deserve (at least Ian McShane’s Winston gets plenty of scenes to chew on 😊). All of that being said, however, I do think Chapter 4 could still have edged out Parabellum as my second-favorite film of the series if not for the runtime. Like I mentioned earlier, most of the action in the first two hours is standard stuff for this franchise. It’s as if Stahelski wanted to save the coolest ideas for the last forty-five minutes of the movie (namely the traffic fight at the Arc de Triomphe, John using “Dragon’s Breath” shotgun shells to massacre assassins in an abandoned building, and the over-the-top staircase battle). And while this approach makes that third act arguably the best of the franchise (on par with the showdown inside the Continental in Parabellum), it does retroactively make the first two-thirds of the film less interesting by comparison. But, does the climax of Chapter 4 make up for all of these flaws? To some extent, yes. I want to be clear here: I am fine with the creative decision to “kill off” John Wick (either in actuality or to leave the door open for future entries; personally, I’d prefer the former). My issue is not with the choice itself but rather its execution. If you expect me as an audience member to watch John Wick experience several instances where he should’ve died—IN THIS MOVIE ALONE—then it feels cheap to suddenly strip away his demigod status for a duel with Donnie Yen wherein three gunshots are what kill him. I just think with some revisions to the final draft of the screenplay that the creative team behind this movie could’ve done a better job at fleshing out the core theme of John coming to terms with the logical conclusion to this path of revenge that he started back in the first movie in order to make his “death” more believable and impactful (lookin’ at you, No Time to Die!). Ultimately, John Wick: Chapter 4 is not my favorite film of the franchise. Is it the best? I don’t think so, but I get why some people do feel that way. However, I still thoroughly enjoyed watching it in the theater despite its flaws. Conclusion Which brings me back to my original contention: the John Wick series is hands down one of the best action franchise in cinematic history. While each movie has its strengths and deficiencies, the series as a whole has more than made its stamp on the genre with outstanding action choreography and stunt work, inspired cinematography, cool world-building, and bringing a solid cast of performers together to play out their rivalries and drama using weapons of all shapes and sizes. Simply put, I love the John Wick movies. I don’t necessarily love any of the individual flicks, but the balls-to-the-wall action of this franchise overall embodies what I think cinema is about first and foremost: entertainment. And these films, whichever you prefer more, are all very entertaining. What do you like or dislike about the John Wick movies? Are you excited about the Ballerina spin-off film starring Ana de Armas? 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 Image by mohamed_hassan from Pixabay Nearly ten years after the release of the sixth (and supposedly final) entry in Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky series, an up-and-coming director Ryan Coogler (of Black Panther fame) ushered in a new era of the “Italian Stallion” and his world by offering a fresh perspective on it through the eyes of the late Apollo Creed’s illegitimate son: Adonis “Donnie” Johnson (Michael B. Jordan). The result? Released in 2015, Creed received near-universal critical and audience praise and revitalized the Rocky franchise for a new generation.
Now, eight years after that, Donnie’s story continues with the highly-anticipated Creed III which officially brings the franchise into its sixth consecutive decade of entertaining moviegoers with stories about underdogs, boxers, and underdog boxers. What better time to dissect each movie in the Creed trilogy as a way to wrap up my overall thoughts on this sports drama series begun by Stallone nearly fifty years ago? So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Creed (2015) When I first watched through this series, I anticipated having mixed feelings about the Rocky movies while liking the Creed movies. However, I was cautiously optimistic due to my lack of love for Black Panther. When the credits rolled on my first viewing, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Creed. And I was even happier when I enjoyed it just as much on a rewatch. First and foremost, the story choice on the part of Coogler and his friend/co-writer Aaron Covington to make the son of Apollo Creed the protagonist is genuinely inspired. Not only does it give the audience a new underdog fighter to root for, but by shifting the franchise’s perspective to a new family name (and, therefore, legacy), the narrative feels fresh and new without ignoring or disrespecting the history of the Rocky movies that came before. And that protagonist is a pretty good character in his debut. Largely thanks to B. Jordan’s solid performance, Donnie carries on the tradition began by Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) back in the first film of proving himself in the ring in order to prove something to himself. To do so, he’s driven by his hunger for a shot in the professional boxing world without riding on his late father’s coattails by using his mother’s name rather than the well-respected name of “Creed.” However, once his truth of his parentage becomes public knowledge, Donnie is confronted with the complexities of his father’s legacy while also making sure that he earns the chances he’s been given to prove his worth facing off against the world light heavyweight champion “Pretty” Ricky Conlan (Tony Bellew). Undeniably, there are several aspects of Donnie’s arc that echo Rocky’s arc from his first movie. While this is somewhat unavoidable given the storyteller’s constraints within the formula of a boxing movie, I appreciate that Coogler, Covington, and B. Jordan push those limits in how they tell Donnie’s inner struggle with his own identity that, ultimately, ends up in him embracing the Creed name. It is this angle of the narrative that helps to distinguish Creed from Rocky, helping it stand on its own while simultaneously feeling synchronous with the atmosphere of the franchise of six films preceding it. In my humble opinion, that seemingly effortless harmony largely goes to Coogler’s credit as a director. While I think his distinctive style comes off a little excessive in Black Panther, it feels like there is a certain level of restraint on display. In particular, I was impressed during my rewatch of Creed how well Coogler manages to balance more modern filmmaking sensibilities with seamless homages to the more over-the-top cinema presented in the mainline Rocky series. The mish-mashing hip-hop music with Bill Conti’s classic Rocky themes makes for some compelling training montages. In addition, the climactic fight between Donnie and Conlan embraces more kinetic camerawork from Emmy-nominated cinematographer Maryse Alberti (The Wrestler, Chappaquiddick) in order to invest more effectively immerse the audience in every single block and jab than the preceding films in this franchise. However, Coogler still knows when it’s just the right moment to invoke the classic Rocky theme song to bring forth the audience’s nostalgic love for the “Italian Stallion” and impose it upon their new favorite underdog boxer. Such a well-intentioned and superb balance of love for the past and hope for the future is all over Creed; what more could fans ask for? Well…Sylvester Stallone, of course! 😊 Unlike his turns in some of the Rocky movies (both in his writing & acting), Stallone does anything but phone it in here. Not dissimilar from the heart he brought to the “Italian Stallion” in the first Rocky movie, he fully embraces the supporting nature of his role in Creed to uplift Donnie’s journey while also stealing much of the movie thanks to an Oscar-nominated performance. In short, he builds off of Rocky’s confrontation with aging and mortality that begun in Rocky Balboa to make the audience suitably emotional over the threat of his character dying from cancer. But, deeper than that, he brings such a vulnerable and relatable beauty to Rocky’s initial reluctance to fight the disease by reminding us just how much he’s lost by now (both his best friends and his beloved wife). Together, Donnie and Rocky need each other. They feed off of each other’s fighting spirits to help the other get through some tough times in their lives. The result? An incredible teacher-student duo that continues the Rocky franchise into a new age with an amount of grace and skill that (in my humble opinion) supersedes all the films in the series that came before. Yet, Creed still honors its predecessor’s thematic roots by making the heart and soul of its story about finding family, love, and purpose. What more could Rocky fans ask for? 😊 Creed II (2018) Despite being committed to directing Black Panther, Coogler stayed on as executive producer for the sequel to Creed. Picking up the director’s hat, Steven Caple, Jr. who by then had only one feature film under his belt. Yet, the faith placed in him by Coogler and the studio was proven worthwhile. Joined by writer Juel Taylor, Stallone also picked up the pen once more to co-write the sequel’s screenplay (as he had done for every Rocky movie up to that point except Creed). Together with the incredible cast from the first movie and some new (or not-so-new) additions, this team managed to deliver another great movie in this series with Creed II. This time around, Donnie’s journey begins with him successfully defeating the world heavyweight champion Danny “Stuntman” Wheeler (Andre Ward) and winning back his Ford Mustang in the process. Now the reigning champ, Donnie possesses the confidence befitting such a sports celebrity. Which makes just the right time for a wrench to get thrown into his life in the form of a ghost from his father Apollo’s and Rocky’s past: Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren), who brings his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) stateside to challenge Donnie’s championship. Despite some pretty absurd storylines of Stallone’s in the previous Rocky flicks, none is perhaps more ridiculous than the “Italian Stallion” himself traveling to the Soviet Union and fighting Ivan Drago to avenge the death of his rival-turned-trainer/friend Apollo Creed who Drago killed in an exhibition match in Rocky IV. On top of that, Lundgren’s Drago is arguably the most memorable antagonist from the original Rocky series. Combined, these factors serve as a direct challenge to writers Taylor and Stallone and director Caple, Jr. to ask the question: “What if the sequel to Creed is centered on a vicarious rematch between Apollo and Drago through their sons?” Only the Rocky series is ballsy enough to make one of the craziest plotlines that spawned the Creed spin-offs the focal point of the eighth film in the franchise. And it shouldn’t work…but it does! 😊 To propel the narrative, Donnie is faced with some adult decisions. Should he just enjoy being champion and focus on his growing family with Bianca (Tessa Thompson), or should he allow pride to cloud his judgment by taking Drago’s needless challenge? While the answer may seem obvious to some, most of us never had the father we never met get murdered in a boxing match by the Soviet Union’s prime fighter. As such, Donnie feels he has no choice but to take the challenge and right the wrongs committed against his father and his name. However, his hubris and overconfidence (in addition to not having Rocky in his corner) cause him to get badly injured in the match with Viktor. Despite retaining his championship due to Viktor being disqualified for misconduct, Donnie’s faith in himself is shattered. Beyond the storytellers’ daring move to utilize the legacy of Rocky IV as the basis for their plot, what I most appreciate about Creed II is that Donnie can only overcome his failure in the fight with Viktor by re-focusing on what matters most: family. While I didn’t say much about it with regards to Creed, I really love the chemistry between Michael B. Jordan and Tessa Thompson. Unlike the rocky (😊) start to Stallone’s dynamic with Talia Shire in the first movie, Donnie and Bianca’s blossoming romance and deep bond in both Creed movies helps ground them in genuine human relationships. Which gets to the subplot of Creed II centered on the Dragos. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that this is the weaker aspect of this film’s narrative when compared to Donnie’s “fall-and-rise” journey. That being said, I appreciate the filmmakers’ ambitions to humanize the Dragos by exploring the effects of generational trauma committed by Ivan against Viktor. Furthermore, this decision produces one of the more emotional moments in the final fight when Ivan, seeing Viktor getting beat up by Donnie, does what Rocky should’ve done for Apollo all those years ago: he throws in the towel to protect his son. Realizing his mistake in putting so much pressure on Viktor to redeem their family name, Ivan reassures him that losing is okay. I don’t think any antagonist in the entire Rocky franchise has ever gotten as much solid writing as Ivan and Viktor did in Creed II. Overall, I think this movie does some things better than the first Creed and some things not as well. One advantage it has, in my humble opinion, over its predecessor is its pacing. While there were a few slower moments in Creed for me, I think Creed II made a slightly more effective use of its runtime with the first act highlighting Donnie’s fall, the second act focused on him rekindling his friendship with Rocky and supporting Bianca through the birth of their daughter Amara, and the third act seeing him train and redeem himself in the rematch with Viktor. Honestly, I think this is somewhat due to Stallone’s involvement in writing the screenplay. Unquestionably, he knows the formula for a good boxing movie (perhaps better than anyone else). As such, his experience telling these kinds of stories shines through in the pacing. On that note, since this is (possibly) Stallone’s final outing as the character, I think it’s fitting that he co-wrote the movie and gave Rocky a pretty good send-off reconnecting with his son Robert (Milo Ventimiglia) and meeting his grandson Logan (Robbie Johns) for the first time. At the end of the day, these are the Creed movies and Rocky doesn’t necessarily need to be in them (at least, I don’t think he does; let’s hope Creed III proves me right 😊). Simply put, I think Creed and Creed II are equally great movies and if I rewatched them both again I could find myself flipping them in my final ranking. However, I personally vibe with Creed II a little more because of Michael B. Jordan’s performance and Donnie’s arc. By the time the credits rolled, it felt like the character found his stride and would be able to carry a third entry in the franchise all on his own. I have yet to see Creed III at the time of writing this, but I hope that it will continue the streak of great moviemaking that these first two Creed movies offered. And with Michael B. Jordan following in Stallone’s footsteps by making his directorial debut in the series starring himself, the sky is the limit! Creed III (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Creed III.” You have been warned.] The third time around, Creed finally feels like a film franchise standing on its own two feet without relying on the events of any of the Rocky movies to flesh out its narrative. To do so, director (and star) Michael B. Jordan and screenwriters Keenan Coogler (brother of Ryan Coogler) and Zack Baylin (King Richard) go all in about making Creed III the most personal story for Adonis. And, for the most part, this pays off tremendously. The core of the film’s story has Donnie facing the haunting specter of guilt from his past for (in his mind) abandoning his best friend Damian “Dame” Anderson (Jonathan Majors) when the latter was arrested while saving Donnie from a vicious beatdown when they were teenagers. Without question, this setup allows the filmmakers to offer plausibility for Rocky Balboa’s absence (that and, of course, his heartfelt reunion with his son Robert, Jr. in Toronto at the end of Creed II). Which is greatly needed to tell this particular story about Donnie dealing with events from his past—not Rocky’s. As such, I greatly respect this overarching creative decision for Creed III because it helps the movie stand out from every other in the franchise in a meaningful way. Of course, this is not the only way that Creed III differentiates itself from previous entries. Making his directorial debut here, Michael B. Jordan not only turns in another stellar performance as the titular protagonist. He also carves out a niche for himself as a stylistic director with unique sensibilities (especially when compared to every other Rocky and Creed flick). In particular, the way he shoots the fight choreography for the boxing in this movie is both more dynamic and immersive (perhaps with the exception of Coogler’s work in the first Creed movie). No offense Stallone, but B. Jordan’s approach to directing here felt much more inspired than any of the Rocky flicks that were directed by their titular star. Simply put, I’m not always impressed when actors put on the directing hat for one of their movies. However, B. Jordan earns it with his work in Creed III by exciting me for whatever he directs next (whether it be another Creed movie or something outside of this franchise). If not for a new addition to the cast of Creed, B. Jordan’s directing would be what most people leaving the theater are talking about. Alas, it is Jonathan Majors’ turn as “Dame” Anderson that not only steals the show from the other actors in this movie but also outshines every other antagonist in all the Rocky and Creed movies. Sitting in the theater on opening weekend, I was engrossed with every second of Majors’ performance from the way his smile would disappear to the light-footed, dance-like way he moved in the ring. Even the crook of his brow or flicker of his eyes is so captivating that it’s clear from the get-go how every ounce of his mind, body and soul are wholly committed to making the audience love and hate Damian simultaneously. As much as I liked Majors’ character, however, he also expertly pulled off the heel turn in the second half of the film. As a result, I was (perhaps for the first time in the entire franchise) more invested in how Donnie and Dame would resolve their beef outside of the ring than how the fight inside the ring would end. In my humble opinion, this just goes to show how good of an idea it was to make the story of this movie so deeply personal. With a lesser performance from Donnie’s opponent, Creed III would not work as well as it does. Thankfully, Majors proves how important it is for the audience to be emotionally invested in Donnie’s opponents in order to make these kinds of movies (and particularly this story) work. If I have any notable criticisms of this movie, it’s with the writing. While the three-act structure of its overall narrative works for me, there are some particular choices made by Keenan Coogler and Zach Baylin that hold back Creed III from completely surpassing its two immediate predecessors. First off, I appreciated the time jump between the second and third Creed movies for no other reason than aging up Donnie and Bianca’s daughter Amara (Mila Davis-Kent). Her and B. Jordan have very good chemistry together. That being said, I feel like Amara’s subplot involving her being bullied should’ve either added several more minutes to the final cut or been cut completely. The way it turned out felt both convoluted and underdeveloped, which only adds to the idea that it was a cheap way to force a sequel involving Donnie training Amara to box. Simply put, I think the actress did a good job but her character’s role in the screenplay was a bit awkward. Furthermore, one of the hidden gems of the Creed trilogy is Donnie’s adoptive mom and Apollo’s widow Mary Anne Creed (Phylicia Rashad) who has some of the more emotional scenes in all three movies outside of the ring. However, the way her character’s end is handled in Creed III came off as pretty forced and lacked the emotional impact that I think was intended by the storytellers. In the same vein of Mickey’s death in Rocky III, I just think the way Mary Anne was killed off did not justify the act of doing it. And the fact that her funeral is the one time in the film where Rocky’s absence actually took away from the scene doesn’t help this particular narrative decision. Ultimately, though, these are some minor critiques for what I think is still a solid sports drama. On top of that, the fact that this movie—a second sequel to an eight-year-old film that itself should not have worked—is as good as it is an impressive feat all the same. While I do think that it falls just short of the first two Creed movies, it certainly avoids tainting the increasingly enduring legacy of this subset of a franchise started by Ryan Coogler back in 2015. And, more important than anything, it’s a damn entertaining movie with great acting and directing and some good (but flawed) writing that shockingly makes me excited for a potential fourth Creed flick (and tenth entry in the Rocky franchise). With all that said, here is my official ranking of all nine films in the Rocky/Creed franchise:
What is your favorite Creed film? Would you prefer Sylvester Stallone to appear in a fourth Creed movie, a seventh Rocky movie, both, or neither? 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 |
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
|