One of the directors whose work I became more familiar with this past year was the famed Englishman Ridley Scott. Similar to Clint Eastwood, Robert Zemeckis, and others, Scott’s career spans decades and thus there are plenty of good movies to choose from. While many of the movies I’ll be talking about today are well known, there may be some you have never seen or even heard of before.
So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Alien (1979) I have written about Scott’s 1979 sci-fi horror classic before, so feel free to click here to check out my thoughts on Alien from last October (as well as some other classic 70s horror flicks). In many ways, my opinion of the film has not changed since then so I’ll be brief in reiterating why I think Alien is one of Scott’s best films. When I first watched this movie a few years ago now, I found it boring, tedious, and unengaging in terms of the horror factor. Looking back on that initial viewing experience, I have to assume my cinematic sensibilities were not yet fully developed because on a rewatch in 2020 I came away appreciating Alien much more for a number of reasons. No longer was the film boring, but the deliberate pace effectively built tension in the first act. Furthermore, the restricted use of the Xenomorph for most of the movie’s runtime not only makes sense regarding the sketchy special effects of the time but also helps add to the horror element of the movie. Unquestionably, the peak of the film’s horror vibe comes during the now-iconic chest-burster scene. For those unfamiliar with the age-old tale, the actors in the scene (i.e. the crew of the Nostromo) were not told what exactly was going to happen to John Hurt’s character in order to get genuine reactions out of them. And it works more than I thought it would on a rewatch. The panic and cries of pure terror sell that scene so damn well! But what makes Alien more than just a good 1970s sci-fi flick and a genuinely great film is the writing of Sigourney Weaver’s famous heroine Ellen Ripley. During my initial viewing of Alien and Aliens, I thought that Ripley only became a badass in the sequel and her surviving the Xenomorph at the end of the first film was just dumb luck. But my second viewing made me more appreciative of how she is contrasted with the rest of the crew. Whereas they are all, to one degree or another, ignorant of the dangers aboard their ship or too arrogant to care in the first place, Weaver plays Ripley as a woman who knows what they might be getting into. She is the only character to suggest leaving John Hurt’s character behind on the planet because it could ensure the others’ survival. Furthermore, her own survival in the film’s climax is more than happenstance. The last fifteen or so minutes is an expertly done series of tracking shots showing the audience all that Ripley has to do to both evade the Xenomorph, save Jones, and board the escape shuttle before the Nostromo explodes. Even though her presence becomes more action-oriented in Aliens, Ripley proves herself a more-than-capable protagonist in this film. If I haven’t convinced you to watch Alien by this point, I’m not sure what I could say that will. Thelma & Louise (1991) While I was confident that I would like Thelma & Louise before watching it, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much I liked it. Being a female-led buddy-cop crime film from the 90s (and directed by a man), I was worried that the characterization would feel artificial and the plot nonsensical. Fortunately, I was proven wrong. While I would not personally classify Thelma & Louise as a straight-up black comedy, it undeniably has some darkly humorous elements that could allow one to make such an argument. But what keeps the movie light and fun is its use of “classical comedy” to effectively balance out the darker tone and moments in an effort to not overly rely on that. In my humble opinion, the scene that best embodies this tonal balance is when the eponymous protagonists pull over a foul-mouthed, misogynistic truck driver to demand an apology for his obscene gestures towards them. Unsurprisingly, he refuses to express regrets and in response they shoot the fuel tanker on his truck, exploding it, and leave him alone amidst the wreckage. Both the actors’ performances and director’s style could have made this scene either bland or prevent any sympathy towards the lead women. Instead, the dark absurdity of it all is one of the prime examples of this film’s knack for pushing the audience away while pulling them in at the same time. Of course, Thelma & Louise could not work as well as it does without the infectiously spirited chemistry between lead actresses Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis in one of their best roles for each of them (at least from what I’ve seen them in). Davis’s reserved yet likeable Thelma mashes so well with Sarandon’s witty and domineering Louise that the emotional payoff of their friendship evolving so much by the end of the movie makes watching the film more than worth your time. While I was unsure what I would think of the movie before watching it, Thelma & Louise is easily my favorite Ridley Scott film to date. Gladiator (2000) When compared to Scott’s other films of the 21st century, Gladiator stands out for its sheer entertainment value and gripping—albeit somewhat overplayed—melodrama. A story such as that of Roman general-turned-slave-turned-gladiator Maximus (Russell Crowe) would not work as well as it does without the actor playing him grounding his emotional state in something close to relatability. Luckily, Crowe excels here as a man whose family slain out of spite by the piteous new emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) drives him to survive in order to serve his own form of justice (although, personally, I liked Crowe more in films like A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man). When I wrote about the war epic back in August, I emphasized the importance for these types of films to balance compelling, character-driven drama with visually engaging and entertaining action sequences. Needless to say, Gladiator excels in its combat scenes (particularly between the gladiators themselves). By emphasizing the more personal, one-on-one kind of fighting in this setting, Scott creates a unique take on grandiose action from antiquity that distinguishes it from other movies like it. It also serves the story of showing us Maximus’s evolving relationship with violence in search of vengeance which, ultimately, makes the film’s emotional core stronger than most. But I cannot dissect the best elements of Gladiator without shouting out Phoenix’s quasi-cartoonish performance as Commodus. While the film works well enough with Crowe at the helm and Scott behind the camera, I firmly believe that is Phoenix as the villainous Roman ruler that allows Gladiator to excel to the heights that it does. Is it the Oscar-winning actor’s most sophisticated, complex performance? Certainly not, but that is clear from the outset. Instead, Phoenix gives us a flamboyantly evil personification of greed, corruption, and self-serving narcissism that is so much fun to hate. At the same time, however, we as the audience appreciate his performance as an effective foil to Crowe’s exceptionally heroic protagonist. Arguably, one cannot work without the other. While Gladiator did not hit for me as well on a recent rewatch, it was still a thrilling experience and remains one of my personal favorites of Scott’s work. Matchstick Men (2003) When I set out to delve into Scott’s decades-spanning filmography, I certainly did not except a black-comedy crime drama starring Nicolas Cage as an obsessive-compulsive germophobe and con man to reach my top five. However, Matchstick Men turned out to be surprisingly entertaining for a number of reasons. I have enjoyed Cage in a number of roles across the years, from the pessimistic alcoholic he played in Leaving Las Vegas to the family-friendly everyman treasure hunter in the two National Treasure movies. However, it’s conceivable that his quirky, peculiar personality works better in this film than it does in most of his other roles. I especially found his chemistry with both Alison Lohman (Big Fish, Drag Me to Hell), his daughter/conning mentee Angela, and Sam Rockwell (The Green Mile, Vice, Richard Jewell), his business partner Frank Mercer, to be quite refreshing. Their on-screen work together allows all three actors to shine throughout the runtime without any of them overshadowing each other. Of course, the heart of Matchstick Men—Cage’s father-daughter relationship with Lohman—could not work without both actors putting their all into their respective roles. Through Angela’s introduction into Roy’s (Nicolas Cage) life and upsetting his oh-so delicate status quo, Scott crafts an unconventional yet endearing parent-child dynamic. Through Roy’s teaching Angela the ways of the con, he develops a genuine affection for her that keeps the film from hitting below its mark and being simply a darkly-funny crime thriller. Yet it certainly works in that respect as well. Roy’s strained friendship/partnership with Frank and his burgeoning familial love of Angela run parallel in building to the plot’s watershed moment when Roy protects Angela from vengeful businessman Chuck Frechette (Bruce McGill). Roy’s character evolution, therefore, is on full display by this point. Which makes the ultimate twist of the movie all the more shocking and deflating. By the last fifteen minutes of Matchstick Men, Scott has convinced me that it is one of his great films. Certainly, much of the runtime is carried on the backs of Cage, Lohman, and Rockwell, but the strength of the writing (particularly the twist and the aftermath of its reveal) allows the film to exceed expectations and make a lasting impression on those willing to go along with its seemingly basic premise. The Martian (2015) In the last decade, Ridley Scott has returned to his sci-fi roots established with films like Alien and Blade Runner. Not only has he released two prequels to his original 1979 classic in the form of Prometheus and Alien: Covenant, but in 2015 he adapted Andy Weir’s sci-fi survival novel “The Martian” to the big screen. Similar to my viewing of Matchstick Men, I did not expect to like Scott’s take on a Mars survival tale as much as I did. Much of the credit goes to Matt Damon in the lead as botanist Mark Waney who does a hell of a job portraying the complex dimensions of long-term isolation in harsh environmental conditions as well as exploring the psychological consequences therein. For me, it is easy to put Damon’s work in this role on the same level of his performances in films like Good Will Hunting and Ford v Ferrari. Aside from the central performance, The Martian is a very good modern addition to the science-fiction genre. From the seemingly fact-based look at survival on an unforgiving planet surface to the relationship between Watney, his crew and NASA, it makes for a thoroughly entertaining flick of this nature. To be clear, it doesn’t hold a candle to other sci-fi flicks from the decade like Interstellar and Blade Runner 2049, but it is an exceptional movie that surprised me enough to put it in my top-five list for Ridley Scott. With all that being said, here is my ranking of my five favorite Ridley Scott films:
What is your favorite Ridley Scott film? What film of his that I didn’t talk about do you think deserve some praise? 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 Jason King from Pixabay I’ve mentioned in several previous blogs that the only superhero movies that I grew up with were Sam Raimi’s three Spider-Man flicks released from 2002 to 2007. At that age, I’m quite certain that I could not tell between good and bad movies. So, looking back on these three films, I wonder what about them that I enjoyed. Furthermore, by the time that Tom Holland entered the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the web-slinging teenager in Captain America: Civil War, my love for Spider-Man was rekindled. And yet, I found myself again thinking: what is it about this character on the silver screen that continues to fascinate audiences to this day?
What better way to reflect on this question than to delve into all of the (non-MCU) iterations of Spider-Man, from Raimi’s trilogy starring Tobey Maguire to the modern Venom-centric franchise serving as Sony’s attempt to compete with Marvel Studios and Warner Brothers for a commercially and critically successful comic book film universe. Is Spider-Man 3 truly the worst iteration on the character? Is The Amazing Spider-Man 2 underrated, and The Amazing Spider-Man overrated? Is Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse one of the greatest comic book films ever made? You’ll have to keep reading to find out my takes on these essential questions of cinematic nerddom. 😉 So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! The Sam Raimi Trilogy (2002-2007) Growing up with the original Spider-Man trilogy directed by the one and only Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead, A Simple Plan), I was both incredibly excited and rather nervous about revisiting them nearly twenty years later with what I believe are my more sophisticated cinematic sensibilities. While admittedly these movies (notably the middle entry) influenced the direction of the comic book genre today, the prospect of them failing to hold up relative to films from Marvel Studios and Warner Brothers seemed palpable. Still, I dove headfirst and decided to rewatch the trilogy in one day as part of a weekend movie extravaganza. Before I delve into my criticisms of these films, I greatly encourage those who also grew up with them to go back and rewatch them. If nothing else, the experience will be filled with smiles and laughter if one has the right mindset. That being said, there’s no use holding off any longer. What did I think of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy? … Man, if these movies aren’t the pinnacle of “so bad it’s good” then I’m not sure I understand that phrase anymore. While I did my best to toss the rose-colored, nostalgia-soaked glasses aside, it was difficult to remove my personal biases in favor of these movies. I was simply having too much fun revisiting these characters and reliving the cinematic time capsule that was the mid-2000s defined by retrospectively questionable CGI and special effects, charming homage to old-school acting that now comes off as over-the-top, and the dried-out paper towel of a character that is Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker. Needless to say, I don’t think there was a break in me laughing shorter than 30 seconds while rewatching 2002’s Spider-Man. There is so much that does not hold up in the best way in terms of the characterization of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, his creepy and inappropriate relationship with Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), his quasi-1950s/overtly “Americana” dynamic with Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris), and the utterly cartoonish performance of the one and only Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin. I figured going into Spider-Man that I would find the fight scenes to be the most absurd elements of the film. But there were a number of thoroughly enjoyable character interactions (particularly between Peter & Norman or Spidey and Goblin) that put me into tear-inducing jerks of laughter. No offense to the actors (except Tobey Maguire), but I simply cannot understand how Sam Raimi signed off on these performances in all three films. There is so little humanity to grasp onto as so much of both the 2002 film and its two sequels feels pulled straight out of the original comic book or a Saturday morning cartoon. Again, I had loads of fun watching the movies in this new light. But it doesn’t make them good movies. I do want to devote some time in this section of my blog to the question that (in my humble opinion) not enough comic book movie nerds have been asking recently: is Spider-Man 2 actually good? The short answer is no, but I feel compelled to explain my reasoning based on my rewatch because there appears to be a vocal minority that continues to defend this movie as one of the best comic book movies ever made in spite of films such as The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Logan existing now. To highlight the best aspects of Spider-Man 2, it is undeniably a fairly well-structured story focusing on Spidey’s fall with some truly compelling action sequences between him and Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina) such as the famous train sequence. Furthermore, it is the only film in Raimi’s trilogy where Peter has some actually good character moments (I really like seeing him run into the burning building to save those children without his powers because it’s basically the only time we see Peter Parker prove that he’s the hero and not Spider-Man). But everything else about the movie is passable, mediocre or straight-up bad. The humor is very hit-or-miss, Doc Ock’s character leaves something to be desired in light of other comic book movie villains in recent memory (Two-Face in The Dark Knight and Michael Keaton in Spider-Man: Homecoming, just to name a few), and Raimi’s exploration of the theme of what it takes to be Spider-Man lacks a fulfilling end. The answer is essentially that Peter Parker just has to sacrifice being any semblance of normality for his future in order to be Spider-Man, which is a pretty unsatisfying conclusion for the middle entry in this trilogy. Which brings us to one of the contenders for the “black sheep” of comic book movies that is 2007’s Spider-Man 3. To be clear, I am not going to defend this movie as being objectively better than the other two of Raimi’s trilogy. But does it have some redeeming qualities? I think so, and those who have piledrove this movie into the abyss of rejection over the years have failed to acknowledge what it does just as well (in some cases better) than its two predecessors. Notably, Spider-Man 3 is easily the best looking of the films. Not just in terms of special effects and CGI, but its cinematography is damn good (which makes sense as it was done by Bill Pope who also shot The Matrix, 2016’s The Jungle Book, and Baby Driver). I also found the sympathetic angle on the villain Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) to be refreshing as it was severely lacking in the first two films (I particularly appreciated Sandman’s “birth” scene that holds up to this day and is also emotionally resonant). Finally, I am a sucker for Spider-Man teaming up with Harry Osborn/New Goblin (James Franco) in the third act even though it’s pretty unearned. On that note, shout-out to Peter’s fight scenes with Harry which stand out as some of the better action sequences of the trilogy. All in all, Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy is stuck in a moment in time in so many respects that they fail to outmatch many other comic book movies from this century. But, at the end of the day, they are quite rewatchable for the sheer fun of seeing some ridiculous superhero antics play out on screen. They’re by no means quality films, but (in my humble opinion) they perfectly fit the popular concept of movies that come full circle from being so bad that they actually become good again. The Marc Webb Duology (2012-2014) While I grew up with Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, the opposite is true for Marc Webb’s two Amazing Spider-Man movies from the early 2010s starring Andrew Garfield. I never saw them in theaters nor on television or DVD. Simply put, I had never seen either of these films until this year. I had heard a plethora of mixed opinions about their strengths and weaknesses, and thus kept an open mind while watching them. I was pleasantly surprised by 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the caliber of actors is top-notch thanks to the sweet, father-son-like chemistry between Garfield’s Peter Parker and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and the charming, youthful dynamic that Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) has with Garfield. These three actors make Peter’s struggle to accept Uncle Ben’s death and the refreshingly modern take on Peter’s love life palpable and enjoyable to watch. As an origin film, I think that The Amazing Spider-Man does some things better than the 2002 film and some things equally amateurish. For example, the scene where Peter’s powers kick in on the subway was certainly different and less cheesy than Tobey Maguire’s spider-infested dream state in 2002’s Spider-Man. However, it was still pretty awkward and felt out-of-place in what ended up being a fairly dramatic movie. On that point, I know that some people find the darker origin story for Spider-Man to be blasphemous to his comic-book roots. But like other elements of The Amazing Spider-Man it came off as refreshing to me. It added to the movie’s (somewhat) unique identity in the pantheon of superhero films. Certainly not all of it worked, however, such as the involvement of Peter’s parents (which I’ll address more with the second Marc Webb film). I don’t want to move on without highlight the superior writing of Gwen Stacy as an intelligent woman with agency who recognizes when Peter or her father (Denis Leary) are undermining her. I particularly appreciated the moment towards the end when Gwen realizes why Peter is trying to distance himself from her. Such a small change from the stereotypical portrayal of Mary-Jane that we got in Raimi’s trilogy, but it resonated with me and enhanced The Amazing Spider-Man even more for me. I also thought that Peter’s relationship with the villain, Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), achieved what the Spidey/Doc Ock relationship in Spider-Man 2 failed to do in fostering a genuine, believable sympathy that Spider-Man has for his nemesis. Again, just another example of the better writing in this movie compared to other attempts by Sony Pictures to bring the famous web crawler to the silver screen. Unfortunately, my unexpected respect for The Amazing Spider-Man was significantly undermined by the utter travesty that is 2014’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2. With so many solid emotional stakes that were left hanging at the end of the first film, the sequel essentially threw it all out the window in favor of what amounts to a high-budget cartoonish continuation of Garfield’s Spider-Man with a superfluously long runtime. I was really hoping that I would like The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but it just squandered any hope I had for Webb’s duology having anything akin to timeless appeal. From the underwhelming use of Electro (Jamie Foxx) failing to fulfill the potential of the villain’s presence to Peter’s distracting investigation into his parents’ past to the cheap use of Gwen’s death in the climax in an attempt to evoke sadness out of the audience, the film felt like it was trying to do so much without putting any serious effort into any of it. It stretched itself too thin, and fell flat on its face as a result. So, compared to Raimi’s trilogy, Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man films ultimately lack a cohesive identity of their own to help them stand apart. Despite some intriguing elements from the first film and some well-done action in both films, they ended up doing very little for me in the long run. I may rewatch Raimi’s trilogy in ten or twenty years just to laugh out loud; I’ll probably never rewatch these movies again. Venom (2018) When it comes to Sony’s latest attempt to jumpstart a cinematic universe of its own, the 2018 Tom Hardy vehicle Venom is a blasé place to begin. Despite its unforeseen (and, in my humble opinion, undeserving) financial success (it grossed over 850 million dollars at the box office), Venom was critically panned when it was released yet retains some devoted defenders of it to this day. Is it the new Spider-Man 2? Perhaps. 😊 To speak first of the positives, I was somewhat entertained by the quirky relationship between Hardy’s Eddie Brock and the symbiote that infects him. It was certainly a different angle characterizing a parasitic and sadistic alien creature as a lonely underdog who becomes emotionally attached to helping Brock in his fight against Carlton Drake/Riot (Riz Ahmed). Their back-and-forth (particularly in the back half of the movie) was mildly amusing at times. Also, I noticed on my rewatch of the movie about a year ago that Eddie never goes through some sort of fantastical physical transformation into something akin to Chris Evans in Captain America: The First Avenger. He is never sexualized or objectified in that way, which felt different and needed in this modern environment so keen on doing so with many other male superheroes. Onto the negatives, which are plentiful. Overall, I think that Venom is not an utterly horrible and irredeemable movie. But it is nothing if not uninspired, unoriginal, and bland. First off, Brock’s origin story becoming Venom lacks any engaging beats (besides the grim, whacky humor that defines his relationship with Venom) which is never bolstered by nor supplemented with a compelling villain performance from Ahmed. If anything, I would have loved to see a Willem Dafoe-esque performance for Ahmed’s character to at least add some charming camp to the mix of this movie. Instead, he plays it aggressively straight so as to avoid being anything more than a piece of emotional cardboard whenever he’s on screen. Venom is also a prime example of relying far too much on fight scenes dripping with CGI. Obviously, this is needed to an extent when showing a fight between two non-existent alien slime monsters but a more creative and inspired approach to this story would have done unexpected things to make the action more fun and interesting to watch. Alas, we never really get that here. Finally, in terms of its central character and protagonist, Hardy’s Brock lacks any semblance of charm or likeability so as to make him an endearing anti-hero. Rather, he’s a washed-up, incompetent failure of a journalist and relationship partner that I never was rooting for in the film. But maybe I’m being too harsh, and Venom actually is the masterpiece that some people claim it is. How does the sequel fare? Does Venom: Let There Be Carnage justify Sony’s attempt at a Spider-Man cinematic universe without Spider-Man? Before I get to that, I want to first talk about a good Sony Spider-Man movie. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) I recall walking out of the theater nearly three years ago after seeing Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and knowing that I liked it. But I thought very little about it again until a couple of months ago when I decided to rewatch it for this blog. While I enjoyed the movie in the theater, I did not necessarily believe it to be the true masterpiece that many people thought it was. So, have my opinions of Into the Spider-Verse changed with a rewatch? In some ways, yes. Having developed a keener appreciation for the visual art of film animation (from impressive Japanese anime like Only Yesterday and Your Name to breathtaking CG animation like Finding Nemo and How to Train Your Dragon), I did come away this time really loving how Into the Spider-Verse serves up a truly one-of-a-kind style of animation. Not only is it a stunning visual feast (albeit a bit of sensory overload at times), but it succeeds at putting the style of comic book illustrating to the big screen in a way that no other movie that I’ve seen has done and may never will (at least for the foreseeable future). In terms of its story, Into the Spider-Verse may not be the most revolutionary origin story but certainly stands toe to toe with the number of great superhero origin movies made in the last decade plus. It is certainly original in that it uses the premise of a multiverse with other Spider-People to show smart yet reluctantly brave Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) what it means to be a hero. Of course, the standout Spidey mentors are the lonely sad sap Peter B. Parker (Jake Johnson) and the kick-ass, empathetic web slinger Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld) whose experience and youth, respectively, balance out well to offer Miles two compelling versions of the kind of hero he could become (and a taste of what to avoid later in life, in the case of Peter B. Parker’s hilarious apathy). Unlike most of the other Spider-Man movies that Sony has given us, Into the Spider-Verse grounds Miles’s burgeoning superhero life with the presence of his family who serve to either inspire him or challenge him. On this second viewing, I particularly enjoyed Miles’s dad Jefferson Davis (Brian Tyree Henry) reaching out to Miles in the wake of his uncle’s death and the morally complex dynamic between Miles as an emerging hero and his Uncle Aaron (Mahershala Ali) as the Prowler. For Miles, seeing these two very different yet equally important father figures take different paths and have different outlooks on life was really effective at making his choice to be a hero both convincing and a great bouncing-off point. At the end of the day, I think that my favorite element of Into the Spider-Verse was how the filmmakers knew what they were doing and the time and place they were in. By 2018, so many moviegoers are intimately familiar with the basic structure of a superhero origin story on film and have it seen it done expertly, competently, and poorly many times over. So, instead of do that exact same template again with Miles, they subvert our expectations. Not only do they acknowledge how smart their audience is in the first five minutes by making fun of other takes on Spidey’s movie origins (notably the Raimi trilogy), but they introduce these whacky variants of it like Penny Parker (Kimiko Glenn), Peter Porker/Spider-Ham (John Mulaney), and Spider-Man Noir (Nicolas Cage) to go all-out insane with how the Spider-Man character can be done in fun ways that we haven’t seen before. All that being said, I understand why many fans of the character and of comic book movies in general hold up Into the Spider-Verse as one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. In terms of its cinematography and visual style, I wholeheartedly agree. In terms of its story and characters…let’s just say I like the movie. But I don’t love it. In fairness, I can’t quite put the words why this film doesn’t hit with me in the way it does for others. I respect what it’s doing for the genre and have fun with it every time I watch it, but there’s something about the sum of its parts that leave me expecting something more that I can describe as pure, undeniable greatness. Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Venom: Let There Be Carnage.” You have been warned.] Going into the movie theater to watch Venom: Let There Be Carnage, I was hopeful that director Andy Serkis and star Tom Hardy would double down on the off-beat “bromance” between Eddie Brock and his symbiote, improve the action set pieces, and rid themselves of the rest of the poorly-executed trash from its predecessor. And while it mostly did that, it also had some other problems that keeps it from surpassing Sony’s other Marvel movies that are now nearly two decades old. Regarding Eddie’s “bromance” with Venom, much of it worked for me in this movie. In many ways, Hardy’s fairly impressive performance playing off his own disembodied voice keeps the first act moving pretty well. And their “break-up” scene is ridiculous enough to be amusing and enjoyable (even though their third-act reunion feels rushed and forced just to get the two of them to the final action sequence). Without question for me, the other star of this film besides Hardy is Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady/Carnage. Is his characterization well-written or well-executed in this movie? Not at all. But Harrelson does his damnedest to distract me from thinking about the piss-poor writing behind his demented serial-killer character by having a blast mocking Eddie Brock from behind a jail cell, breaking out his psychotic lover Frances/Shriek (Naomie Harris), and joy-riding around San Francisco while running from the police and FBI. Easily for me, however, the standout scene of this ultimately mediocre film was the full-on introduction of our villainous symbiote Carnage. During Kasady’s execution scene, he holds nothing back to help him break out of San Quentin while murdering as many prison guards (and causing as much chaos) as humanly possible…off-screen. Which gets to one of my major issues with Venom: Let There Be Carnage: its PG-13 rating. For some reason, I didn’t care as much about this in the 2018 Venom movie, but it felt much more noticeable here due to the nature of Kasady’s character and Carnage’s love of murder sprees. There were just too many times where Serkis cut away from Carnage right before he bites someone’s head off or rips someone apart. It felt cheap, and I wanted Sony to differentiate themselves from Marvel Studios by committing to a more serious, violent aesthetic but they did not. My more minor critiques of Venom: Let There Be Carnage have to do with the movie’s unbalanced tone and its supporting characters. Regarding the latter, Eddie’s subplot involving him trying to make amends with his ex-fiancée Anne (Michelle Williams) treads too much familiar ground from the 2018 film and feels just unnecessary in this specific movie. I also feel so bad for Naomie Harris because she deserved better treatment as Tia Dalma in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and certainly deserves better in this movie. But her side-villain status lacks justification to be there. Regarding the former, while Venom and Eddie’s dynamic carried this movie’s first act the consequences of their “break-up” in the second act is some of the worst examples of this rom-com trope wherein the two characters spend time alone to help them realize that they need each other. While I won’t delve too deep into this, all I’ll say is watching Venom give an inspirational speech at an underground rave is far too cringe to be funny or entertaining in any way, shape, or form. The last thing I want to say about Venom: Let There Be Carnage is MAJOR SPOILERS regarding the post-credits scene. STOP NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW. … After reflecting on the reveal of Eddie/Venom being transported to the Marvel Cinematic Universe on the drive home, I’ve decided that I have enough faith in Kevin Feige and his creative team to integrate Hardy’s absurd take on the character into the world of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man well enough. However, I fear this is a sign that Sony has gained too much power due to their ownership of Spidey’s film rights to the point that this Venom’s presence in New York City post-Avengers: Endgame will inevitably taint Holland’s very special corner of a fantastic film franchise. But, I suppose only time will tell. … So, when it comes to movies featuring Marvel’s various web-crawlers, my favorite remains Spider-Man Homecoming for reasons that I have addressed before and will address in the near future (CAN’T WAIT for Spider-Man: No Way Home!!). Simply put, the Raimi movies are anachronistic, the Webb movies are disjointed, the Venom films are bland and boring, and Into the Spider-Verse is very good but lacks the emotional punch that better superhero films give me. Will Sony put something forward outside of their collaborations with Marvel Studios that will top Homecoming for me? I doubt it, but I would love my faith in this studio’s mixed bag of a cinematic universe to be restored someday. With all that being said, here is my ranking of Sony’s Spider-Man films:
What are your thoughts on Sony’s Spider-Man films? Who is your preferred Spider-Man? 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 During my deep-dive into the works of famous film directors that has now spanned more than two years, I was most trepidatious about the works of Clint Eastwood. Having only seen four of his movies in the past, I was still familiar enough with his sensibilities as a director to worry whether I would connect with much of his work (particularly his Westerns like High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales and Unforgiven).
While I cannot say this for many directors that I’ve familiarized myself with, I am happy to say that I enjoyed more of Eastwood’s features than I assumed I would. But, there were a handful that really impressed and surprised me that I wanted to highlight on the blog in case others like me are unsure about diving head-first into Eastwood’s directing career. With the release of Eastwood’s latest directed feature, Cry Macho, this weekend I figured it was no better time than now for this venture. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Million Dollar Baby (2004) While there are many sports movies that I love, the genre tends to be a hit-or-miss for me. Fortunately, Eastwood’s 2004 boxing drama Million Dollar Baby was definitely a hit for my viewing experience. It shares the pantheon of powerful, emotionally grounded sports films (alongside the likes of The Wrestler, Warrior, and Creed) in telling the story of Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), a working-class woman who longs for a shot to enter the amateur boxing world and comes under the reluctant tutelage of aged trainer Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood). As a sports movie, Million Dollar Baby spends its first two acts hitting all the right beats without feeling reminiscent of lesser films in the genre or cheesy. In fact, there is very little (if anything) about the movie that comes off as sentimental. The emotionally hardened interplay between Eastwood’s gritty, standoffish nature and Swank’s youthful energy and enthusiasm is infectious to the point that the story’s reliance on some of the more traditional beats of an up-and-comer athlete can be easily ignored and forgiven. In addition to the leads, the movie offers up some great supporting performances such as Morgan Freeman as Frankie’s gym assistant and retired boxer Eddie “Scrap-Iron” Dupris. Despite the film’s framing device being potentially distracting in the wake of other movies like The Shawshank Redemption, Freeman’s narration from start to finish never distracts and only enhances the emotional and thematic core that is Maggie and Frankie’s relationship. My other favorite supporting character (because I loved to hate her) was Margo Martindale as Earline Fitzgerald, Maggie’s selfish and narcissistic mother who plays such a character earnestly so as to avoid falling into the pit of cartoonish antics. But what makes the film truly great is that it transcends any formulaic structure in order to achieve a heightened rawness and intensity based in Swank’s character’s tragic fall due to a near-fatal injury during her title shot against Billie Osterman (Lucia Rijker). Eastwood stated after the film’s release that, at is core, Maggie’s story is a microcosm of the American dream. I can certainly see this in the film’s ending paralleling the emotional stakes of classic tales like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.” And while I understand some peoples’ criticism of how Eastwood portrays Maggie’s death wish, I choose to buy into this allegorical interpretation of the film because it makes sense to me. Furthermore, it makes the movie better because it becomes more than just a great sports movie. Rather, it is transformed into a modern classic. If that hasn’t convinced you to check out Million Dollar Baby, I don’t know what will. 😊 Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) Of the five Eastwood movies I’ll be talking about today, his 2006 war drama Letters from Iwo Jima was the only one I have seen multiple times. Despite that, it remains my favorite of his directorial career and one of my personal favorite war movies of all time. If you’re unfamiliar with this flick, I cannot urge you enough to check it out. As a war movie, Letters from Iwo Jima is unique in tone and style. Its first act alone feels less like a traditional action-heavy war film and more like a quiet, character-driven drama that explores the roots of soldiers’ loyalties and drive in wartime along with the prideful, honor-based culture of imperial Japan. Through the eyes of Private 1st Class Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya) and General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe), the experience of the Japanese people in World War II is gracefully complicated in order to humanize those who were—to the United States—the enemy. Whether it be highlighting the wife and life that Saigo left behind in his village or the admiration that Kuribayashi has for America after spending time there, Eastwood effectively uses these characters’ perspectives to ground Japan’s viewpoint on the war without ever making them out to be angelic or pure of heart. Instead, they are human—just like the American soldiers were. I firmly believe that this accomplishment cannot be overpraised. As other war films have shown, Eastwood could have easily given in to hyperbolizing the more seemingly inhumane elements of wartime Japanese culture (i.e. ritual suicide in place of surrender, hyper-nationalism). But instead, he holds back such temptations in order to show empathy for Saigo and his fellow soldiers just as any good director would do in a more Western- or American-centric story. In my humble opinion, this approach is essential to make Letters from Iwo Jima more than just your average war story. All in all, this film highlights the smaller moments of war to pull off being a relatively quaint war film focused on characters and themes rather than blood-and-gore-soaked violence. For these reasons and more, Letters from Iwo Jima remains one of my personal favorites that is well worth your time on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Gran Torino (2008) As a child, I was familiar with the name Gran Torino because of a story my dad would share about its opening scene that was filmed inside Saint Ambrose Roman Catholic Church at Grosse Pointe Park in Wayne County, Michigan. As my father’s side of the family was partially from Michigan, it turned out that his [great aunt?] can be seen within one shot during the funeral scene. Despite this little family story, I had never seen Gran Torino until about a year ago (admittedly, it was pretty cool watching it knowing that a distant relative was in it as an extra!). And while I was under the impression that I would not like it very much, I was happily surprised by how much I loved it. Without question, Eastwood’s turn as the morally despicable and curmudgeon widowed veteran Walt Kowalski is one of his most emotionally captivating performances that I’ve seen. The journey that the character goes on as a lonely and distant man developing a slow-burn mentor (and then father-like) relationship with Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang), a troubled Hmong teenager in his neighborhood, is compelling due to its morally ambiguous dimensions. Unquestionably, Walt’s past service in the Korean War shrouds the better aspects of his personality in racial prejudice towards Asians and Asian Americans in general. So, watching members of the Hmong community, such as Thao, his grandmother (Chee Thao) and his sister Sue Lor (Ahney Her), warmly embrace Walt into their community over time fosters his transformation into an honorable man who pays the ultimate price to protect Thao from his demented gangbanger cousin Fong, better known as “Spider” (Doua Moua). Of course, I cannot shower praise onto Gran Torino without noting some of the criticisms regarding Eastwood’s portrayal of the Hmong community in the United States. Similar to his work done in Letters from Iwo Jima, Eastwood has tasked himself in this film with humanizing a group of people viewed as different—or “the other”—to many American eyes. On the surface, it should be easier to do in this film as he is putting first- and second-generation Americans on screen versus members of an enemy army. However, I feel that such a task actually has something that makes it more difficult than humanizing Japanese soldiers. In my humble opinion, audiences watching a war movie generally find it easy to empathize with soldiers of any stripes—regardless of which side of a war they fought for—because there are certain character traits (loyalty and bravery, to name a couple) that many soldiers on screen are given. These traits are virtually universally admired by moviegoers as virtues of a good person. However, in Gran Torino, Eastwood is shining a spotlight on a minority community of civilians in which many are decent people but include a handful of degenerates that (through the racially-biased eyes of Walt Kowalski) spoil the bunch. Thus, Eastwood’s direction has to both complicate the narrative of this community in a realistic manner without resorting to romanticizing the crime-ridden elements as shown by characters like “Spider” or exoticizing the other Hmong in order to make them more palatable to viewers. While I think that he largely pulls this off, I understand the criticisms towards Eastwood doing too much of the latter while also injecting some incorrect elements of Hmong culture. At the end of the day, despite its flaws, Gran Torino remains for me one of Eastwood’s best films and possibly my favorite performance of his in a movie. Period. Fight me. 😊 The Mule (2018) If Eastwood’s protagonist in Gran Torino is his most emotionally interesting performance, then his turn as the octogenarian horticulturist-turned-drug mule Earl Stone in The Mule is probably his most comedically consistent and charming. What I think is funny about it is that Eastwood, as both the director and star, plays into some ageist tendencies in portraying Earl as an anachronistic and sentimental man. However, it’s acceptable since Eastwood is essentially poking fun at the fact that he was 88 at the time of filming and thus making fun of old actors as an old actor. This is akin to his 1980 Western comedy Bronco Billy in which Eastwood effectively parodies the many cowboy characters he has played by putting that kind of personality into a modern carnival-like setting. And in the case of both that film and The Mule, I was in for it from the get-go. However, it is not a perfect movie. It lacks any outstanding aspects regarding the central story of Earl being on the run from DEA agent Colin Bates (Bradley Cooper) and his partner Trevino (Michael Peña). It does a serviceable job as a fugitive story, but is not exceptionally great in any respect except for the performances. Aside from Eastwood, both Cooper and Peña stand out in their respective supporting roles which makes The Mule better than any random crime drama. Furthermore, its theme of the importance of making amends for the past no matter how long it has been is nothing unique. But the way Eastwood handles it in both his acting and directing is graceful with his signature grounded touch. For that, the film is better than many others like it. Honestly, I don’t have much more to say about The Mule. While it’s not Eastwood’s best, its impact on my memory is unquestionable and I think it is worth watching even if you’re not a huge Eastwood fan. Richard Jewell (2019) I had approximately equal expectations for Eastwood’s 2019 biopic Richard Jewell that I had for The Mule. As it no longer seems to be his golden period of directing, I was unsure of how I would react to it. Fortunately, its star power makes up for its notable flaws to make a pretty good film for how late it is in Eastwood’s directing career. First and foremost, Paul Walter Hauser commands the heart of the film as its eponymous protagonist due to much of what made Eastwood’s turn as Walt Kowalski in Gran Torino so great. Simply put, Hauser’s portrayal of Jewell as a simple-minded, unambitious security guard whose understated heroism brings him more pain and heartache than acclaim and hero-worship is surprisingly effective. The way I think of it is that I sympathize with Jewell’s plight and how it affects his personal life (specifically his relationship with his mother). And yet the character is not the kind of person that I would care to befriend and hang out with because his personality can be abrasive and straight-up unlikeable. Only a talented actor like Hauser could pull off such a balancing act so gracefully. Arguably, however, the supporting cast brings just as much A-game to Richard Jewell that Hauser does. For me, the standouts are Kathy Bates as Jewell’s enduring and overprotective mother Barbara (which earned her an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress) and Sam Rockwell as Jewell’s witty, smart-mouthed lawyer Watson Bryant. Both of their roles in Jewell’s struggle against the media and the federal government grounds him in a humanity necessary to making the audience empathize with him in spite of his many character flaws. But this film also has some significant flaws that keep it below the other films that I’ve discussed thus far. Notably, Jon Hamm’s turn as the FBI agent in charge of investigating Jewell plays into Eastwood’s cartoonish portrayal of the federal government as a soulless entity that only cares about convicting. While there is arguably a kernel of truth in this, the overt political bias on display here turns me off in the way that some of his other more politically slanted films (lookin’ at you, American Sniper!) do. Also, the film received some well-deserving controversy in its outright character assassination of Atlanta journalist Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde) who is portrayed as giving sexual favors to Hamm’s character in return for the story. The irony of this is that Eastwood’s intention seemed to be to highlight the gross character assassination by the federal government upon the real-life Richard Jewell, and yet seemed to have done just that to Kathy Scruggs in telling this version of his story. An unforgiveable misstep, for sure. All that being said, I believe that Richard Jewell is ultimately a better film than the sum of its parts. Notably, the central performances carry its emotional weight and distract me enough from its on-the-nose political bias and unflattering blurring of the lines between truth and fiction. Reflecting on these films from a classic American director, I wonder if the best is yet to come or if these later swan-song films represent all the creative juices that Eastwood has felt. I guess only time will tell. With all that being said, here is my ranking of my five favorite Clint Eastwood films:
I also want to highlight a handful of Clint Eastwood’s directed features that I feel are both generally ignored and underrated (in chronological order of release):
What is your favorite Clint Eastwood-directed film? How do you think Eastwood’s career in Hollywood will be remembered? 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 OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay When I initially decided to watch the (at the time) eight films in the Fast and Furious franchise, I was highly skeptical and unsure of whether or not I would enjoy any of them. I was never obsessed with racing culture, and thus did not think that I could get into these movies.
I am happy to say that I was sorely mistaken! For the most part, I have been totally suckered into this wacky cinematic universe, and am very excited to share my thoughts on these films. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “F9.” You have been warned.] The Fast and the Furious (2001) The first three films of the Fast and Furious franchise are such a mixed bag for me. None of them can be considered good movies, and thus can only be described as varying degrees of “bad.” So, what about the very first one: the 2001 movie The Fast and the Furious? Well, it’s not the worst thing I’ve ever seen. But it ain’t all that good, either. The characterization is shallow at best, the world building is rudimentary, and the narrative structure pretty shaky and uninspired. But of course, the Fast and Furious franchise is not meant to be Oscar-worthy material. Is it fun, entertaining, and utterly insane? Not quite, the early films in the franchise are (shockingly) more grounded than some of the later entries. The signature Fast and Furious flare and pizazz has not yet been conceived of. Instead, The Fast and the Furious is an overall bland action movie from the turn of the century that only succeeds regarding the establishment of the core character relationships between its four main characters: the undercover cop Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), the heist crew leader Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), Toretto’s girlfriend and crew member Letty Ortiz (Michelle Rodriguez), and Toretto’s sister/Brian’s love interest Mia (Jordana Brewster). While this film is an interesting one to watch in light of where the series goes for these characters, it is interesting only for that reason. So I guess The Fast and the Furious gets credit for that? 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) By the time that 2 Fast 2 Furious was revving up (😊) into the third act, I was pretty sure that I was falling in love with this franchise. If the first movie is an incompetent attempt at being adequate, the second movie is a no-holds-barred, full-throttle (😊) cruise to sheer insanity….and I LOVED IT!! The fact that the franchise got this ridiculous this early was, in my humble opinion, promising. By taking the absurdity of the first movie and ratcheting it up ten times over, 2 Fast 2 Furious serves as a thoroughly entertaining “good-bad” movie. To be clear, this movie is NOT good by typical standards. It lacks a compelling narrative and great acting, and does nothing very original. But, on its own terms, it captures the spirit of what Fast and Furious would become over the next few years so well that I cannot help but admire its gall to just be nothing more than what it should be. On a more serious note, I genuinely appreciate the chemistry between Brian and newcomer Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson) in this film. I found it to be more entertaining and more engaging than Brian’s dynamic with Dom Toretto in the first movie, and looking back on it I think it is a great example of the franchise building out its world of wacky characters for future installments. Overall, 2 Fast 2 Furious is a fun-filled, dumb-as-hell action movie that made me hyped for the rest of the series. The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) I know some fans of this franchise really like and respect what Tokyo Drift did for its future. But I cannot take this movie seriously, let alone admire virtually anything about it. Whereas 2 Fast 2 Furious embraced the silliness to its benefit, the third film in the Fast and Furious franchise takes itself way too seriously to its detriment. To be clear, there are some good things about Tokyo Drift. First and foremost, I greatly admire the talent and craft that went into the practical driving throughout the movie (specifically the drifting). For as much as the plot and characterization in the film is awful, I can’t speak poorly towards the production design when it comes to the racing. Also, the best character of the film undeniably is Han (Sung Kang), an enigmatic Korean gangster/mentor to the film’s American protagonist Sean (Lucas Black). Akin to Steven Yeun’s portrayal of Glenn Rhee on AMC’s The Walking Dead, I love that Han is an example of an Asian character in mainstream American entertainment that counters the stereotypes of said demographic still too strongly associated with Asian characters (albeit with less characterization than Yeun’s loveable pizza delivery boy). Otherwise, I found very little from Tokyo Drift to be enjoyable. Lucas Black was an incredibly poor choice for the film’s protagonist, both in terms of his lack of acting skills and the character’s lack of engaging character arc. Without a doubt in my mind, Black lacks the screen presence of past main characters like Brian and Dom and even falls flat compared to Roman Pearce from 2 Fast 2 Furious and Han in this film. It seems that the creative team behind the story put all of their energy into trying to make a workable narrative structure without trying to seek out a capable enough actor to pull off what they attempted to write. Furthermore, aside from introducing Han and [SPOILERS] a very brief cameo from Vin Diesel at the very end, Tokyo Drift contributed virtually nothing to the overall franchise. Whereas the first film introduced us to Toretto’s inner circle and the second film fleshed out Brian’s character and his inner circle, the Tokyo racing underworld introduced in this movie has NEVER been substantially relevant in any future installment. Overall, Tokyo Drift is a waste of a spin-off for what should have been a tolerable third Fast and Furious film. If only I could erase it from my movie-watching memory… Fast & Furious (2009) While the first three films in the Fast and Furious franchise are some degree of bad, Justin Lin’s second directed film in the series is a solid improvement over its predecessor. Fast & Furious, the 2009 film in which the story refocuses on Brian, Dom, and Mia, felt like a breath of fresh air after watching Tokyo Drift. This film arguably does the best character work of any film in the franchise. Granted, most people do not watch these movies for their character development. However, Lin stunned me with how he revisits these protagonists during rather different times in their lives from when we last saw them. While Brian has been working for the FBI, Dom and Letty have evaded U.S. justice while doing jobs in Mexico. When Dom learns of Letty’s murder, he goes on a quest for vengeance that causes him to cross paths with Brian. Without a doubt, Brian and Dom struggling to make amends is some of the best characterization in the entire series. Seeing these two polar opposite personalities forced to work together to avenge Letty, all the while coming to admire and respect each other in the process, is just so fun. Additionally, I liked how Brian’s romance with Mia feels more genuine and realistic than in the first film. The trio made up of these three characters lays a solid foundation for the series’ primary thematic focus going forward: family. I also really like the addition of Gisele (Gal Gadot) as a compelling example of the femme fetale archetype who serves as more of an anti-hero in this film. By now, the Fast and Furious franchise has fleshed out its world with enough compelling characters spread across the various films (i.e. Roman Pearce, Han, Gisele) that an Avengers-style team-up movie just felt inevitable by the time this movie came to an end. Arguably, this film’s only significant weakness as a Fast and Furious movie is that it lacks the same kinetic action of its predecessors. Whereas The Fast and Furious and 2 Fast 2 Furious offered up some enjoyable racing and action set pieces, and Tokyo Drift added a layer to the “car-fu” with drifting, Fast & Furious feels like an awkward evolution away from the 2000s without having fully formed an identity as a modern, well-shot and well-aced action flick. Still, this movie does enough with its character development and building up for future installments that I actually appreciated its more grounded demeanor as an overall step in the right direction for the Fast and Furious franchise. Fast Five (2011) Fast Five is arguably the best film in the Fast and Furious franchise and one of the best action movies of the last decade. It succeeds on so many levels, perhaps most notably it reinvigorated the franchise by carving out a place for the franchise in the heist genre that made these films palatable for far more moviegoers (including myself). This is evidenced by the fact that Fast Five raked in 626 million dollars, more than the box office gross of the first three Fast and Furious movies combined. I think my favorite thing about Fast Five is that it wholly delivers on the promise of Fast & Furious. Now four films deep, the world built (mostly) by Justin Lin is allowed to come together to make for one hell of a team-up action flick. With the need to organize a crew, Brian, Dom, and Mia bring together all the fun secondary characters from the franchise: Roman Pearce and Tej Parker (Ludacris) from 2 Fast 2 Furious, Han from Tokyo Drift, and Gisele from Fast & Furious. Whereas Fast & Furious fleshed out the relationships between Brian, Dom and Mia, this film gives these side characters some well-deserved attention. Roman’s comedic, love-hate rapport with Tej being established here offers some fun moments in the midst of the heist planning and execution, and the playful yet genuine sexual tension explored between Han and Gisele made me more invested in both of those characters than I was in either of their previous showings in the franchise. The brand new additions are great, too! Elsa Pataky as Elena, one of the only clean cops in Rio de Janeiro, has some great chemistry with Dom as they make for a far more convincing couple than Dom and Letty ever were, if you ask me. But, without a doubt, the best character in the Fast and Furious franchise is Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), a no-nonsense federal agent who has some of the best one-liners of the series. And while his role as the antagonist to Dom’s crew in Fast Five is good, he only gets better in future installments. The other best thing about this film is the utterly ridiculous action sequences. The methods by which Dom and friends go about heisting take what we saw in 2 Fast 2 Furious and turn the dial up one thousand times over. Undoubtedly, one of my favorite set pieces in the entire series is when they hook up a massive safe to two of their cars with a chain and drive it out of Rio. Does it make sense? Hell no! But is it full to watch! HELL YES!! All in all, Fast Five may remain unmatched as the peak of the series’ potential. Not because the future films fail to ratchet up the insanity (quite the opposite!), but because how satisfying the movie is as a well-earned reward after getting through the first four entries in the franchise is perhaps too much for any other of the Fast and Furious movies to beat. (I guess we’ll see with the predictably two-part, Infinity War/Endgame-style finale movies) Fast & Furious 6 (2013) After the absurdly fun experience of watching Fast Five, I was certain that nothing else from the franchise could live up to it. And after watching Fast & Furious 6, I decided that I was right. 😊 To be clear, the sixth film in the Fast and Furious franchise is not one of the worst by far. I just found it double-downing on the ridiculous, action-oriented identity that the series had embodied by this point to be a little bit much. And not necessarily in terms of quantity, but rather quality. A lot of my criticisms about the action in this film come from the third act and the at-this-point infamous “27,000-mile-long runway” scene. In spite of the over-the-top, insane antics of both past and future Fast and Furious movies, this scene just felt so devoid of justification. In other words, Justin Lin gave off the impression to me that he was simply trying to one-up himself versus telling story through an action scene that is compelling to watch. Honestly, I don’t have much more to say about Fast & Furious 6. The story and characters are equally shallow as in (most) previous films in the franchise. Ultimately, I think that this is one of the more overrated movies in the series. Still, it’s super fun to watch and overall deserving of the mantle that is Fast and Furious. Furious 7 (2015) I am almost certain that if I rewatched Furious 7 that I would not like it as much as Fast Five. However, after watching five films telling the story of Brian O’Conner and his burgeoning brotherly love with Dom Toretto, the send-off for both O’Conner and Paul Walker as an actor in the franchise hit me just enough. For making both Walker’s death and O’Conner’s exit from the franchise emotional in spite of this franchise’s plastic, shallow origins, I give this movie a lot of credit. Besides that, however, I found the action set pieces in this film to be far more entertaining than those in Fast & Furious 6. No longer are we chasing Owen Shaw (Luke Evans) through the streets of London, and we are now skydiving in parachute-equipped cars to chase an armored convoy while Shaw’s brother Deckard (Jason Statham) chase them through the forest. HOW CAN YOU GET ANY MORE INSANE?!? Something else I genuinely appreciated about Furious 7 was the characterization in the movie. First off, the death of Han (Kang) at the hands of Deckard Shaw is a great driving force for Dom, Brain, and the rest of the crew. Furthermore, Letty Ortiz (Rodriguez) feels like a character worth talking about finally. As opposed to her scant appearance in Fast & Furious and villainization in Fast & Furious 6, Letty’s rekindling her trust of and relationship with Dom in this movie as well as trying to regain her memories of her past gave the impression that she finally had something closely resembling a character arc. Arguably the best character moment in the film, however, is the payoff of Hobbs’s (Johnson) absence from most of the film by him singlehandedly gripping a Minigun to blow up an enemy helicopter. I mean…C’MON!! Yes, Furious 7 is by no means a perfect movie. But it’s one hell of an entry in the Fast and Furious franchise and (mostly) holds up in today’s hyper-action-oriented Hollywood scene. The Fate of the Furious (2017) For many fanatics of this series, The Fate of the Furious is the black sheep of the modern run of films. Whereas the previous three movies transformed the series into action heist movies, the eighth entry in the franchise can at times feel too crazy even for the franchise that it calls home. I certainly see that perspective, but at this point I could care less because…in this movie…Dom and the crew drive across a sheet of ice chasing a nuclear submarine. LIKE WHAT?!?! I know it’s cheesy, but this film’s use of Dom as a fake villain was more compelling for me than how he had been used in many prior entries in the Fast and Furious franchise. Similar to Letty getting actual, meaningful attention in this film’s predecessor, Dom’s hand being forced by the real villain Cipher (Charlize Theron) provides some great melodrama that made me more invested in his story than I had been since Fast & Furious. Speaking of Cipher, I just love how much Theron hams this role up while also keeping her genuinely terrifying and psychotic. There are also some super memorable scenes in this film when compared to the rest of the franchise. Perhaps the two most notable ones are Hobbs and Shaw breaking out of prison with plenty of absurdly satiating one-liners and badass hand-to-hand combat, as well as the Shaw brothers saving Dom’s infant son from Cipher while giving the baby headphones to block out all of their gunshots. Honestly, at this point in the franchise, all of these movies are practically the same in terms of quality. And as far as ridiculous, over-the-top blockbuster action flicks, The Fate of the Furious ain’t the worst one of the series nor is it the best. It’s there for me to enjoy without loving it, and I’m perfectly happy with that. Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Show (2019) As the Fast and Furious franchise’s first spin-off film, I was cautiously optimistic for what Hobbs & Shaw would offer to the series. A two-hour film emanating the two eponymous characters’ prison break from the previous film? COUNT ME IN! And, for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised. I found the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham to have been kept largely intact from The Fate of the Furious, despite some jokes not landing. But many of them did, and some of them landed incredibly well (i.e. the dual corridor/key card scene). I also appreciated the injection of Vanessa Kirby into the main cast to prevent the group of protagonists from becoming an overwhelming stew of testosterone. Additionally, Hobbs & Shaw mostly succeeded at upping the action insanity and intensity without taking me out of the movie like Fast & Furious 6 did. I particularly enjoyed the helicopter scene involving Hobbs swinging a helicopter with a tow cable. 😉 But, of course, this movie’s by no means perfect. More than anything, I think that the runtime hurts it more so than some of the other films in the franchise. Whereas Fast Five and Furious 7 do pretty well keeping the audience invested well into the third act, Hobbs & Shaw loses a bit of its sheen once the protagonists arrive at Hobbs’s home village in Samoa. While watching Hobbs’s extended family preparing for battle, I just feel that much of the momentum of the movie was sucked out of it at this point. Furthermore, I felt that Idris Elba struggled to embrace the silliness of the franchise and the zaniness of his villain character in the same way that Charlize Theron did in the prior movie which, at the end of the runtime, disappointed me a little. Overall, Hobbs & Shaw is still a super-fun watch and a worthy beginning to the Fast and Furious franchise telling side stories with beloved characters from the series. That being said, I’m excited to see the next spin-off film come and best this one in every way. F9 (2021) As I sat down to watch F9, I was curious if any film in the Fast and Furious franchise could go too far. And while I still really enjoyed some parts of this film, it certainly gets the closest to crossing that line for me. Ultimately, I did not hate watching this film. However, about an hour or so into it I started asking myself, “Why is any of this happening?” or “What’s the point of this scene?” After watching F9, I am convinced that the criticism of this franchise as being too concerned with over-the-top action without devoting enough craft to the characters is absurd. And I know this because (most of) the other films in the Fast and Furious franchise do a better job of establishing interesting character dynamics and entangling the characters into fun-as-hell action set pieces with stakes that make our investment in the characters worth it. I just felt none of that during F9. I found myself having no interest in the central emotional conflict between Dom and his estranged younger brother Jakob (John Cena) that director Justin Lin wanted the audience to care about. Due to Vin Diesel and John Cena’s scenes that are supposed to be the dramatic core of the film falling utterly flat, much of the heart that is found in some of the best entries in the franchise seems to have been sucked out of this one for the worse. Outside of the central characters, I was looking forward to seeing how Han (Sung Kang) and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) were reintegrated into the crew. But, like (most of) the other character work in this movie, their usage in the plot and action scenes generally lacked creativity or inspiration. The explanation of how Han survived Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) attacking him in Fast & Furious 6 is another level of convoluted retconning in a screenplay, and the fact that Mia’s relationship with Jakob is never explored in any significant way is an extreme oversight on Justin Lin’s part. I know most people don’t go see the Fast and Furious films for the character dynamics, but I need a little more in over-the-top action flicks than just explosions and nonsensical physics. I need to care about the characters being put in those absurd situations, and I simply did not care about the fates of these characters for way too much of the runtime. Furthermore, I loved how previous entries kept one-upping each other with their action set pieces (a safe chained to two cars and used as a wrecking ball isn’t crazy enough, so let’s drop cars with parachutes from the sky and hack into every car in New York City to chase Dom and his crew). However, the central action sequences in F9 felt restrained in comparison to films like Fast Five and The Fate of the Furious (and not in a good way). Yes, it was over-the-top, but not always in a really fun way. At the end of the day, I enjoyed my experience watching F9 in the theater with friends enough and I’m still excited for future installments in the franchise. But, it unfortunately joins the likes of Tokyo Drift and a couple of the other entries as films that I have no interest in ever watching again. And I can’t lie; that’s a disappointment. So, what are my thoughts on the Fast and Furious franchise? These are a set of movies that do not deserve the level of success that they have achieved in the context of contemporary blockbuster filmmaking, and yet they kind of do. Ultimately, Fast and Furious is a franchise that seemingly has no limits for how wacky, insane, and ridiculous it can get; people just keep showing up for it. I guess I’m one of them, because I’m all in for what comes next! With all that being said, here is my ranking of the Fast and Furious franchise:
What are your thoughts on this insanely fun movie franchise? What is your favorite (or least favorite) Fast and Furious 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 One of the last films to get any sort of press before the COVID-19 pandemic shut the movies down last March was John Krasinski’s sequel to his beloved horror film A Quiet Place. From what I heard about it, A Quiet Place Part II is a great follow-up to its predecessor. And based on my love of the first film, I was very excited to see the sequel. How do they both hold up? Let’s find out!
A Quiet Place (2018) Having seen it now twice via streaming services, I greatly regret not seeing A Quiet Place in theaters. While I still enjoy the film, I am wholly confident that I would absolutely love it had I seen it in theaters. Still, there’s a lot to like about Krasinski’s third directed feature film. First off, the gimmick (in my humble opinion) is more than a gimmick. Not only does Krasinski’s ingenious use of sound and, more importantly, silence offer a unique viewing experience, but it forces the story to be told as ergonomically as possible. The film has no “fat,” so to speak, but instead emphasizes slimmed-down dialogue (largely conducted via American Sign Language) and visual storytelling to convey the drama and terror of the family’s situation. By making sound the enemy and treating that seriously, Krasinski injects some new life into crowd-pleasing genre horror. Some specific moments with sound that I like are whenever the film shifts to the daughter Regan’s (Millicent Simmonds) perspective. As a deaf character (and deaf actress in real life), Krasinski expertly uses silence to make the audience understand the way that she experiences the world better than before. Also, when the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt) screams in pain while in labor to synchronize with the blast of fireworks is a great way to release the tension of that moment while simultaneously upping the ante going forward. Finally, the methods devised by Lee (John Krasinski) to keep the cries from his newborn child muffled (i.e. a sound-proof dwelling underground, anesthesia in a box) are one of only a number of impressive examples of world building in the movie. Besides the film’s different approach to storytelling, A Quiet Place also offers some interesting characters for the audience to become invested in. With parents Lee and Evelyn devoted to protecting their children Regan and Marcus (Noah Jupe), a story about parenthood, family, grief, and guilt makes the film more than simply an interesting device for heightening the tension in a horror movie. I particularly appreciate the conversation between Lee and Marcus near the waterfall (the first of two spoken conversations in the film). The father-son dynamic explored there, and the son exemplifying wisdom beyond his years by acknowledging that he knows that Regan blames herself for what happened to their younger brother, is one of my favorite tender moments in the film. All in all, A Quiet Place may not be a masterpiece but it is a very good horror flick from the past decade that is worth the watch (hopefully with the best sound system possible). A Quiet Place Part II (2021) I am unquestionably confident that I would not like A Quiet Place Part II as much as I did if had I not seen it on the big screen. But I did, and I really enjoyed it. First, to highlight the strengths of this sequel. Like many other good sequels, A Quiet Place Part II does not (for the most part) just remake its predecessor. Instead, it builds on what happened before while also adding more to the world that it built and fleshing out the characters a little more. Specifically, I think that the characters arc of daughter Regan was handled much better than in the first film. Also, the addition of Emmett (Cillian Murphy), a lonely and helpful yet somewhat mysterious survivor, was welcoming as it added a new dynamic to the family trio as well as offered one of the more compelling arcs in the film. Furthermore, A Quiet Place Part II both recaptures the tension from the first movie and does new things with it due to some expert editing (particularly during the third act) that offers up some of the best of what modern horror cinema can do. Without going crazy with the sound-monsters gimmick, Krasinski manages to keep what could very well be a one-and-done, tacky plot device terrifying and exhilarating. Easily, however, my favorite part about this sequel was the opening scene that goes down as one of my favorite introductions to a film in recent memory. By continuing to use sound in a way that is not overindulgent, it holds back just enough to keep the audience’s curiosity peaked despite the fact that we already know what is going to happen. And yet, by showing the first day of this world going down the toilet through the eyes of Lee (Krasinski) and his family one is brought right back into the suspense-filled world that Krasinski designed three years ago. That being said, A Quiet Place Part II is not without its problems. To highlight a few of them, I found the use of both Evelyn (Emily Blunt) and Marcus (Noah Jupe) in the second act to be not nearly as interesting as either the first or third acts. Whereas Regan’s story was captivating from start to finish, those characters lacked the smart writing or engrossing arc in the middle of the movie which made them pale in comparison. Also, there were some instances of the monsters being used in a way that was just too convenient for the sake of moving the plot along. While it did not fully take me out of the film, those were definitely aspects of it that I feel show the writing of this film is slightly lesser than its predecessor. All in all, I thoroughly enjoy both films in the A Quiet Place series. The world-building is interesting (particularly after watching the sequel) and I am invested enough in the main characters that I would not mind seeing a third entry in the franchise in a couple of years. With all that being said, here is my ranking of John Krasinski’s A Quiet Place duology:
What are your thoughts on A Quiet Place and its sequel? What are some other modern horror movies that you recommend to others? 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
May 2024
Categories
All
|