Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay While I would not say that I’m obsessed with romantic comedies, I find myself thoroughly sucked into many of them spanning decades of cinema history. From some of the old classics like Frank Capra’s Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Woody Allen’s Annie Hall to some more modern takes on the classic “love story” (Crazy Rich Asians, (500) Days of Summer, and When Harry Met Sally… come to mind), there have been some great “rom-coms” that I have had the pleasure to come across in my twenty-four years on this planet.
One film that I have a specific memory of discovering was the 2018 Netflix romantic-comedy To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before, based on the 2014 best-selling young adult novel of the same name by Korean-American author Jenny Han. In the wake of the release of the third film in this Netflix rom-com series and since today is Valentine’s Day, I thought that there would never be a better excuse to discuss and rank the three To All the Boys films. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before (2018) I saw this movie around the time that I was starting my first full-time job (thus entering the “real world,” if there is such a thing), and it struck a chord with me as an excuse to self-reflect on my own high school experience (not that I mistakenly sent love letters to former crushes 😊). Perhaps it came at just the right time in my life, but I thoroughly enjoyed my first viewing of To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before. Without question, the best thing about this film (and all three of them, really) is the chemistry among the cast. The burgeoning love story between Lara Jean and Peter is incredibly heightened by the interplay between the actors that portray these characters: Lana Condor and Noah Centineo, respectively. In fact, Condor has great chemistry with pretty much all of the characters in the film, from her sisters Margot (Janel Parrish) and Kitty (Anna Cathcart) to her father Dan (John Corbett) and her best friend Christine (Madeleine Arthur). Lara Jean specifically as a protagonist is also very endearing. No doubt she is a flawed character; many of the things that she says and does are questionable, if not downright objectionable. Yet Condor radiates an intense innocence that is so likeable and thus makes many of her less-than-sensible decisions invoke sympathy with the audience. For me, any film whose protagonist is unempathetic suffers as a result. That is certainly not the case with To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before. Furthermore, while the film certainly relies on teen rom-com clichés, its premise provides just enough of a twist on the classic teen love story. The use of Lara Jean’s five private love letters as the catalyst for the film’s conflict is just interesting enough to be both funny and melodramatic at the same time. While other films of this caliber tell the “we were meant to be together” story just as well, this film does it without assuming the end will be what it is. In fact, upon re-watching the movie this week, I was only convinced more of this fact. It is not until towards the end of the second act that Peter’s mutual feelings for Lara Jean are overtly foreshadowed in spite of every aspect of this movie formula dictating that such a reveal happen much earlier in the story. For that, I respect both the writing and acting. Overall, To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before is a fun watch. It may not be the best romantic comedy ever made, but it certainly stands on its own and (in my humble opinion) deserves the praise it gets these days. To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You (2020) Now that the final film in the To All the Boys trilogy is out, I have seen and heard many people refer to its second installment as the weakest of the series. Surely, I understand why some many think this. The first film is fresher, while the third film is more thematically rich. But, I think that To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You retains the entertainment factor of the first without losing the charm that made its predecessor so beloved. In an effort to avoid sounding repetitive, I want to focus more on the negative aspects of this film. While the chemistry among the cast is still here, I found that the creative team this time around concluded that the focus should be more on Lara Jean and Peter’s relationship at the expense of the time spent between Lara Jean and her family and friends that made for some of the funniest and most emotional moments of the first film. Certainly, I love Condor and Centineo’s dynamic, but I missed the amount of her moments with other characters that brought some emotional and situational diversity to the first film. The other major setback of this film in my mind is the “John Ambrose” plotline. I mean no disrespect to the character, as Jordan Fisher does a great job playing the character and his chemistry with Lara Jean in To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You is equally (if not more) intense as what she has with Peter. My critique has more to do with John Ambrose’s use in the story as the excuse for the film to exist. Overall, the film leans a bit too much into melodrama with the tension between Lara Jean, Peter, and John Ambrose due to decisions made by all three characters that just seemed a little too contrived. And at the end, how their love triangle is “resolved” felt a bit empty. On the one hand, John Ambrose is actually left out in the cold while Peter just happens to show up to reconcile his differences with Lara Jean. For a film series that wants to offer a twist on the “fairy tale” notion of true love, it sure did not do that here. If anything, I found the resolution of Lara Jean’s bad blood with her former best friend Genevieve (Emilija Baranac) to be more satisfying. All that being said, however, To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You was still a thoroughly enjoyable continuation of Lara Jean’s world. After re-watching the first two films in the series this week, I was looking forward to see how the story wrapped up with the release of the third film in the trilogy. To All the Boys: Always and Forever (2021) To be clear, I did not hate watching To All the Boys: Always and Forever. Much of it was actually really fun, notably Lara Jean’s interplay with Christine and her younger sister Kitty. As with the second film, I found myself enjoying Condor’s scenes with almost every other character except Peter. Also, the very end of the movie was satisfying because it felt like a grounded take on how people in the real-world handle long-distance relationships: with some semblance of grace and maturity not often found in adults, let alone teenagers on the cusp of adulthood. But I think that To All the Boys: Always and Forever took way too long to get to its satisfying ending and the drama between Lara Jean and Peter that filled everything in between was ultimately not executed well enough to keep my full attention. Now I get why many people seem to prefer this film over the trilogy’s second installment. The conflict here is far less contrived than it was in To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You. The dilemma of choosing a path for one’s future without utterly ruining their current relationships is something that many people face in one form or another as they begin their young adulthood years. In that sense, To All the Boys: Always and Forever succeeds where its predecessor does not in feeling less forced as a story. On the other hand, I kind of prefer the melodramatic approach of To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You. If anything, I found Lara Jean and Peter way too toned down as characters in the third film. It seemed like someone else wrote this movie and decided to go all “DCEU-dark” on the dialogue and tone among these characters. Whereas the first two films had an uplifting effervescence about them, To All the Boys: Always and Forever feels tonally off for no other reason than to break up Lara Jean and Peter (only to have them make up about twenty minutes later because Peter realizes what a jerk he’s being). Just like with the second film, there were certainly some great aspects of To All the Boys: Always and Forever. For one thing, I found Condor’s portrayal of Lara Jean’s inner conflict about college to feel natural. The character’s stick-to-it-iveness was refreshing compared to some other teen romance films that take agency away from the female character for no sensible reason of storytelling. Furthermore, Noah Centineo showed off some of his acting chops in the scene with his distant father (Henry Thomas) enough to convince me that he may have a career outside of Netflix-original rom-coms. Overall, though, I found To All the Boys: Always and Forever less than the sum of its parts. Even though its very end was a satisfying-enough conclusion, I was not engaged enough all the way through to say that I found it to be any better than the first two films in the series. With all that being said, here is my ranking of Netflix’s To All the Boys trilogy:
What are your thoughts on this teen rom-com trilogy? What are some great romantic comedies that you would recommend for others to watch? 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 Adithya Rajeev from Pixabay I would describe myself as a more recent diehard lover of the superhero genre. While I grew up watching Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy like many young boys of the early 2000s, I only discovered the X-Men franchise and the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the last couple of years. I have varying degrees of admiration or trepidation for these superhero franchises depending on which one is the subject of conversation.
But, the superheroes that NEVER captivated me in my youth were the finest of DC Comics. While I loved Spider-Man (still do) and now love the likes of Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, and Rocket Raccoon, I remain largely disinterested in Warner Brothers’s current cinematic universe competing with the likes of Marvel. Today, in the wake of the release of Wonder Woman 1984, I want to share my thoughts on the DC Extended Universe. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! [DISCLAIMER: I have only seen the theatrical cut of “Batman v Superman,” not the Ultimate Edition.] Man of Steel (2013) As early as 2008, Warner Brothers executives began intaking ideas for how to reboot the Superman film series. Pressured by a court ruling forcing Warner Brothers to begin production on a Superman movie by 2011 or lose rights to his origin story, the studio went into high gear trying to do just that. Fresh off the success of his 2008 film The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan (Inception, Interstellar, Dunkirk) was pitched a “modern” approach to portraying Superman in film by David S. Goyer, a screenwriter who helped kick off Nolan’s Batman trilogy by co-writing the screenplay for 2005’s Batman Begins. Nolan, impressed with Goyer’s concept, pitched Warner Brothers who gave hired him as a producer and Goyer as the screenwriter thanks to the financial and critical success of The Dark Knight. By 2010, Warner Brothers was searching for the right director for their Superman reboot. Famous and prolific names, from Guillermo del Toro and Robert Zemeckis to Darren Aronofsky, were considered before Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen) was hired in October. Within the next year, shooting had begun. Despite my initial assumptions about the film that became 2013’s Man of Steel, Goyer and Nolan approached the story in a similar vein they did to Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy in the sense that they wanted to create a world and setting in which Superman was the only superhero. Otherwise, what Nolan emphasized in his own Batman films as the “internal logic” would fall apart. Boy, how things have changed in the world of comic book movies. When I sat down to watch this movie (and thus kick off my dive into the notorious batch of films that make up the DC Extended Universe), I was fully aware of said notorious reputation that these movies had. Thus, I was completely unsure of what my reaction would be to them. So, I was pleasantly surprised when I ended up not completely hating Man of Steel. To begin with what I enjoyed about the film, I greatly appreciated Snyder’s attempt to ground a character such as Superman in some semblance of moral ambiguity. I know many diehard DC and Superman fans were repulsed at the direction they took the character in this movie, but as someone who lacks any sentimental attachment to Clark Kent I ended up enjoying (most of) the character’s journey in the movie. Also, I think that the first two-thirds of the film do a pretty good of making the audience invested in the story of Superman. Starting with a somewhat drawn out, but ultimately satisfying, introduction to the origins of Kal-El on Krypton that perfectly establishes the multiple father-figures of Clark Kent (Jor-El and Zod from his alien homeworld). Throughout the film, Superman develops very differing dynamics with his biological father Jor-El (Russell Crowe), his adoptive father and mentor Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), and his archenemy Zod (Michael Shannon) that make his journey pretty interesting up to the start of the third act. Easily the standout performance in Man of Steel (in my humble opinion) is Michael Shannon as General Zod. He does a good job balancing the zaniness of the character while also delivering some gut-punch moments that humanize his character and exemplify his desperation to continue his species and offer Superman a chance to lead Krypton into the future. Many of the other performances are serviceable, but not necessarily noteworthy or memorable. That is the most praise I can give about this film. It’s too long, and loses a lot of steam during its action-packed and intense finale that ultimately rings hollow. And, unfortunately, Henry Cavill as Superman does not really stand out for me. Having seen both Christopher Reeve (Superman, Superman II) and Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) portray the character in prior films, I think Cavill does not stand up to them very well at all. I mean no disrespect to the actor because I have enjoyed him in other roles, notably in Mission: Impossible – Fallout and Enola Holmes. At the end of the day, Man of Steel is not the worst DCEU in my book. But it’s by no means the best, and I do not think it stands apart from the dozens of other comic book movies of the previous decade. Despite its strong first half, it gets dragged down by its runtime and lack of emotionally hard-hitting story and thus lacks an impact for me when it hits credits. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) After reading up on the origins of the first two films in the DCEU, I think they have a lot to say about how the films ultimately turned out. In the case of Man of Steel, it was a movie meant to revamp Superman with a modern, grounded take on the character á la Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy. And what we got was just that, albeit a bit messier than two of Nolan’s three cinematic takes on Batman. In the case of the 2016 follow-up, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, director Zack Snyder (while initially wanting to make a sequel to Man of Steel) ended up crafting a jam-packed superhero flick toying with several complex ideas in the midst of a convoluted plot that attempts to set up a movie about the famed Justice League. And, in my opinion, that is exactly what we got. But that doesn’t make it good. If Man of Steel made me somewhat interested in the character of Superman, Batman v Superman made me somewhat less interested in both Snyder’s take on Batman as well as how the clash between these two titans of comic book superheroes would set up a global conflict requiring the combined powers of the Justice League heroes to save the world. To begin with some positives, I found this movie to have a slightly better pace than its predecessor. While the first two acts do not come close to the character work accomplished in Man of Steel, it does introduce some interesting things to the DCEU even though (most of) those things lack sufficient setup or payoff going forward. (But I’ll get to that when I address the cons of the film). For me, Ben Affleck’s portrayal of Bruce Wayne is probably the best main performance in the movie. But, unfortunately, it was not enough to make up for Cavill’s lack of charisma or the excessive and frustrating mystery surrounding the likes of Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. But when I put these movies up against one another, the thing I am weighing so much is the extent to which they are successful in making me feel invested in the events I’m seeing on the screen and what is being set up for future movies. And while I overall enjoyed the introductions of Batman and Wonder Woman, I felt pretty empty by the time the film concluded. Despite being less than ten minutes longer than Man of Steel, Batman v Superman feels at least a half-hour longer. And I credit this to the lack of serious emotional stakes in what Snyder gives us in the form of Superman and Batman’s fight (and the build-up to said fight) as well as the set up for the Justice League. While some may find this unfair, I can only compare Batman v Superman to the equivalent films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers and Captain America: Civil War. I like the latter because I feel that my investment in the (at that point) twelve Marvel Studios films that have followed the journeys of both Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is paid off in a fulfilling manner while also making me very excited for how the “break-up” of the Avengers will affect the films down the line. There is no question in my mind that Batman v Superman does not succeed at accomplishing either of these monumental tasks. Regarding the 2012 breakthrough movie The Avengers, I am mesmerized every time I watch it because I am seeing something working that should not work: the satisfying journey of the making of a badass team of superheroes whose involvement in five prior movies make the payoff of them becoming what they were destined to be so worth it. On the other hand, the climactic moment of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman teaming up against Doomsday in Batman v Superman (while cool) lacks the same fist-pumping energy that Joss Whedon gave us in the final act of The Avengers. Simply put, while not the worst movie in the DC Extended Universe, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is not a good movie. And I doubt that I will ever be convinced otherwise. 😉 Suicide Squad (2016) I have very little to say about Suicide Squad. Mainly because almost everything I have to say about it is bad, and thus does not deserve much of my time even criticizing it because that is more energy that I could spend critically thinking about a movie that earns the attention of its audience. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!! In some sense, I wish it didn’t suck as much as it does. I am an admirer of some of the work of director David Ayer, namely his 2012 police drama End of Watch and his 2014 war movie Fury. Having not seen anything else from him, I can only hope that he can salvage his career in the wake of the abomination that is Suicide Squad. From what I learned about the production of the movie, Ayer is not entirely to blame. Warner Brothers gave him only six weeks to write the script and apparently was very hands-on in the post-production process (including hiring a company to re-cut the first trailer for the film to brighten it up in an attempt to misdirect viewers to think that the film turned out good). And while I think Ayer has made some very good movies, he could not save Suicide Squad. The story sucks. The characters suck (and not in a good way). The acting (mostly) sucks. The visuals, cinematography, structure, editing, and villain all SUCK. Perhaps there was a good movie in here somewhere, and I am cautiously optimistic that James Gunn can offer up a much better take on this concept in his 2021 standalone “sequel” The Suicide Squad. All I know is that the two hours I spent watching the third film in the DCEU movie was pure and utter agony. Do not watch it. You have been warned. Wonder Woman (2017) There have been several attempts to make a live-action Wonder Woman film involving several famous creators in the world of cinema, from Ivan Reitman in the mid-1990s to Joss Whedon in the mid-2000s. Eventually, these efforts paid off when Patty Jenkins (Monster) agreed to direct the first female-led superhero film in 2015. According to both Jenkins and Gal Gadot (who portrays the character in the DCEU), what was important to them in the creative process was portraying Diana Prince/Wonder Woman as a woman with “a human heart.” In other words, embracing her humanity. I agree with most people that 2017’s Wonder Woman is the first “good” movie in the DC Extended Universe. And I think much of what is good about this movie boils down to the dedication of Jenkins, Gadot, and the rest of the creative team both in front of and behind the camera to portray Wonder Woman as a flawed yet likeable character. (Finally, DC took some lessons that Marvel Studious learned way back in 2008!) Not only is Gal Gadot physically gorgeous, but she is emotionally beautiful. Her grace, charm, and dedication to humanizing Wonder Woman makes the character one of the best heroes in the DCEU. Her ability to balance Diana’s headstrong devotion to principle with her childish naïveté without coming off as overly cartoonish is quite impressive. Without question, Gadot makes Wonder Woman the movie as good as it is. I also really appreciate that Jenkins pulls off a balancing act of her own. Specifically, she does not submit to making the film’s signature reputation as the first female-led superhero film a “low-bearing fruit” of sorts. Instead, she leans into the strong femininity of the character of Wonder Woman without either overly masculinizing her to please one sect of the left-leaning populace or being overbearing with her femininity. Diana’ physical strength and mental prowess on the field of battle never obscures her deeper flaws and human chemistry with the other characters on screen (notably Chris Pine as Steve Trevor). All that being said, I do not think (contrary to some peoples’ opinions) that Wonder Woman is a great superhero movie. It still relies too much on some of the plot conveniences, themes, and tropes of other mediocre comic book flicks. But, for me, the good really does outweigh the bad in this case. So, while it is not my favorite DCEU movie, Wonder Woman deserves much of the praise it receives and was certainly a hopeful turning point in what was quickly becoming a sad excuse for a cinematic superhero universe. Justice League (2017) And then we get…Justice League. A film that Warner Brothers intended to make for over a decade, going through several different creative visions before eventually lining up with the timing of the birth of Zack Snyder’s cinematic universe that began with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. And while I will not devote several hundred words detailing the storied history of this film’s production, there are many reasons why it turned out so bad (all of them making a lot of sense). As I have said before, I felt very little investment in the story set up by Batman v Superman and did not bring in any childhood love for these characters. Thus, watching Justice League was, to some extent, a nightmare coming to life. And this nightmare gave me an answer to a question that I never really wanted answered: what happens when Joss Whedon is handed uninteresting characters from a morally dark shared universe and forced to make them both likeable and fun to watch? Before starting up this movie, I was optimistic because of what Whedon did in 2012 with The Avengers. I was sorely mistaken to feel any sort of optimism. Justice League, while not as bad as Suicide Squad and not as convoluted as Batman v Superman, is maybe the most boring superhero movie I have ever seen. I have absolutely no investment in the team members (minus Wonder Woman), and despite some of the actors’ (notably Ezra Miller as Flash and Jason Mamoa as Aquaman) best efforts to make something of their dialogue and storylines I just come to the end of this movie feeling nothing. The hype moments are few and far between. It was boring, it was confusing, and it made the time spent watching the four movies before it largely meaningless. At this point, I was questioning if I even wanted to watch anymore of these movies. But I pushed through it and went to the theaters on opening weekend to see what Warner Brothers had to give us next. Aquaman (2018) Sitting in the movie theater preparing to watch Aquaman, I was highly skeptical and slightly dreading what the next two-and-a-half hours would give me. I had only seen one trailer, which was not enough to go on. Furthermore, I had never seen the films of James Wan (Saw, Insidious, The Conjuring) at that point. All I knew was that I was willing to walk out if the first third did not keep me interested. And was I pleasantly surprised! Aquaman ended up being what I think is a damn fun movie. Fun: something that was sorely missing from four of the previous five entries in the DCEU. And it was just what I needed after spending over a month absorbing the likes of Suicide Squad and Justice League. That being said, I do not think that Aquaman is a very good movie. But damnit, I loved watching it from start to finish! I think what makes Aquaman work is what made Wonder Woman (for the most part) work, too. Wan as the director and Jason Mamoa as the title character manage to pull off a pretty difficult balancing act. On the one hand, the film offers up a melodramatic story about family that is just interesting enough to move the plot forward and make what you are watching feel like a real movie. On the other hand, it rarely takes itself seriously enough which allows it to embrace the innate silliness of a man who can talk to fish taking back a mythological underwater kingdom from his vengeful half-brother. Mamoa embraces the silliness of Aquaman, from the nature of his action choreography to his relationship dynamics with his fellow Atlanteans, in order to make him likeable enough for his ebb-and-flow as a hero is thoroughly enjoyable. Undoubtedly, his charisma and lighthearted spirit carries the movie for me. My caveat for this movie, however, is that I have only seen it once in theaters. Perhaps I was feeding off the energy of the crowd, but I had a really good time watching this movie. I am quite certain that I would enjoy it less going back a second time, but why ruin that initial experience? Besides, I have no concrete plans to watch any of these movies again ever. So, Aquaman may very well stay high up in my ranking forever. Who cares?! Not Warner Brothers, that’s for sure! 😊 Shazam! (2019) Coming off of the fun of Aquaman, I was cautiously excited about the 2019 film Shazam! Similar to James Wan, I knew nothing about the movie’s director David F. Sandberg (Lights Out, Annabelle: Creation). But, DC and Warner Brothers were in my good graces with Aquaman and I enjoyed the trailers for Shazam! So, I went to theaters for this one as well. Once again, I was happy when I walked out at the film’s conclusion. Similar to what I liked about Aquaman, the movie brings an undeniable draw in the charisma of its lead actor. Zachary Levi’s portrayal of the titular teenager-turned-superhero did what Jason Mamoa did for Aquaman. In some ways, I believe Levi went even further than Mamoa did in embracing the zany, silly nature of the character in order to make him both relatable and entertaining on screen. The other impressive performance in Shazam! is that of Jack Dylan Grazer as Billy Batson’s foster brother Freddy who mentors him as he familiarizes himself with the powers of Shazam. What Shazam! has that Aquaman does not, however, is the greater emotional investment in Billy’s story as an abandoned foster kid resistant to finding a forever family. And I can certainly see how this particular aspect of the story makes Shazam! a better movie than many other DCEU entries for other people. While it certainly ranks highly for me, it struggled to justify its two-hour-plus runtime during much of the second act. That being said, it was a fun movie (especially when compared to the earlier entries into the DCEU) and its sequel, currently planned for release in the summer of 2023, is one of the more exciting future DCEU films in my mind. Birds of Prey (2020) Birds of Prey was one of the few films I watched in theaters in 2020 (in this case, before the COVID-19 pandemic took over everyone’s lives in the United States). Having seen the trailers for it, I had no strong expectations for it one way or the other. Primarily, I was looking forward to seeing Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street, I, Tonya), one of my favorite actresses to make it big in the last decade, be Harley Quinn again without being dragged down by the pile of trash on fire that was Suicide Squad. Fortunately, my lack of expectations made Birds of Prey a solid superhero flick. I did not love it by any means, but I really enjoyed it the whole way through. One of its biggest strengths in my mind is its respect for the audience regarding the runtime. Of the nine DCEU films that have been released, it is the ONLY one that is under two hours (THANK GOD!!). And in that time, director Cathy Yan and Margot Robbie gives the audience reasons to care about Harley Quinn as both a charismatic anti-hero and an underdog, empowered female character to root for even though she’s rather insane. While I love Margot Robbie in the movie, the standout performance for me is Ewan McGregor as the villain Roman Sionis/Black Mask. Similar to Jason Mamoa in Aquaman and Zachary Levi in Shazam!, McGregor embraces all the zaniest aspects of his character to make him both entertaining to watch and really fun to hate. Most of all, however, he is able to do what Suicide Squad could not. By introducing a villain that is even worse than the anti-heroic protagonist, Birds of Prey makes the audience empathize with Harley Quinn without every fully being on her side yet also rooting for her to claim victory over Black Mask. But this movie has its flaws. Mainly, I found the amount of supporting female “superheroes” (which include a detective, a club singer, and an adolescent pickpocket) pretty excessive. I think if Yan had focused on two (I would have preferred Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Black Canary to be one of them), she would have created a much more focused story and more satisfying climax when they team up because I would be way more invested in each of the members of the titular team of badass women front and center in the movie. That being said, I don’t want to take anything away from Birds of Prey. It is a perfectly good superhero movie and one of the highlights of the DCEU for sure. If only the next entry was as good. Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) Yes, I did not like Wonder Woman 1984. As the final superhero movie of the severe drought that defined 2020, I was quite excited for it. Not only was it going to build off of the adequate foundation of its predecessor, but the movie would not have the burden of telling Diana Prince’s origin story and thus could focus more on developing her character and make the most of her time as a superhero between World War I and the present really intriguing and fun. While it was clear that director Patty Jenkins was going for fun, but I have no clue how she missed the target by so much. With a two-and-a-half hour runtime involving a boring first act, a convoluted second act, and an absolute bonkers third act, Wonder Woman 1984 severely underwhelms and lacks the cheesy but charming, inspiring tone of the first movie. Gal Gadot gives what is, in my opinion, the blandest performance overall that I have seen from her both as Wonder Woman and in other movies that I have seen her in. Certainly, there are some powerful moments but they lack what should be the tear-jerking, powerhouse nature that they should have given what Jenkins, Gadot, and the rest of the creative team are going for. Much of what I do not like about this movie lies in how little it seems to have learned from both past DCEU films and the comic book genre that has boomed since the late 2000s. There is a very distinct, clear, and easy formula that can be followed to make a superhero movie at least fun. Given a compelling moral conflict with relatable thematic overtones, an enjoyable and maniacal villain, some good supporting characters that offer levity or stakes when needed, eye-popping and unique action sequences, and a deserving lead performance, Wonder Woman 1984 could have been a worthy sequel and one of the best films in the DCEU. But it fails to do almost any of that. While both Pedro Pascal and Kristen Wiig have some notable moments as Maxwell Lord and Cheetah, respectively, neither one of them serves as an effective foil to Wonder Woman. Furthermore, the minimal action there is in the movie is either uneventful, unengaging, or uninspired. And on top of all of this, the story being told and themes being addressed feel underdeveloped and thus does not live up to the familiar but engaging story from the original film. So, what are my thoughts on the DCEU? Overall, I lack very strong feelings about most of these movies one way or the other. I really hate one of them, and really like a couple of them. Other than that, however, I think Warner Brothers should take a few years and bring in some unique creative voices to offer up a coherent vision for the future of their venture into competing with the likes of Marvel Studios. But, if they do not, then I’m fine with seeing a handful of these movies every year in the hopes that at least one will be watchable and (dare I say it) entertaining. With all that being said, I have ranked all nine films in the DC Extended Universe below:
What is your favorite (or least favorite) DCEU film? Which upcoming entry in this underdog cinematic universe are you most excited for? 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 As I mentioned in my last blog of 2020, I have been an avid fan of the works of Pixar Animation Studios for as long as I can remember. From the heavily-beloved Toy Story films to some of the more recent one-offs like Onward, I tend to think (most of) Pixar’s movies are anywhere from good to fantastic. Today, I want to share my love for some of my favorite Pixar entries. To be clear, the films I am writing about today are not my top five Pixar movies. Some of them are the “classics” that many people my age reminisce about fondly, while others are some of the (in my opinion) lesser known or lesser appreciated entries in the Pixar catalog. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Image by Chris Flynn from Pixabay Toy Story 2 (1999) Within a month of Pixar forever changing the world of animated cinema with the release of their inaugural feature Toy Story in 1995, John Lasseter (the then-executive producer at the studio who directed Toy Story) and many of the creative and production team at Disney were itching for a sequel. According to Lasseter, he was inspired to re-create the world of Woody and Buzz and friends when he saw a young boy at the airport lovingly clutching a Woody doll and realized that the characters that he helped create were no longer his own but that of millions of children around the world. Despite some initial uncertainty over the prospect of a sequel, it was officially announced to be in pre-production in 1997. Two years later, Toy Story 2 premiered on November 24 to universal praise and ended up raking in just under 500 million dollars on a 90-million-dollar budget. So, why do I love Toy Story 2? A better question to ask is why highlight Toy Story 2 in this blog today? The simple answer: why not?!? Now, I LOVE all of the Toy Story films (yes, even the fourth one). For full transparency, they make up four of my top five Pixar films released thus far. I grew up with the first two, saw the third one with my mom and what I will always remember as a very emotional theater experience, and revisited my childhood over a year ago to see the most recent entry into this animated franchise that defies all expectations by giving us great movies every now and again. To simplify the reputations of these four films: Toy Story is looked back fondly as the groundbreaking piece of animated storytelling that it is, Toy Story 3 is defended by many as the greatest end to a trilogy ever made, and Toy Story 4 is the new one that will (with time and distance) earn its place as one of the best entries in Pixar’s filmography. And Toy Story 2 is the second one. Obviously, pretty much any fan of Pixar will praise all of the Toy Story movies. But I want to briefly expound on why Toy Story 2 is not only a great Pixar movie but the second-best film in this beloved animated franchise. In my humble opinion, a great sequel should add nuance and texture to the world of its story and the characters that live within it while also embracing and honoring the “magic” that made its predecessor so well-renowned. Simply put, Toy Story 2 does all that and more. Not only did the creative team at Pixar effortlessly remind us why we love the original cast of toys (particularly the relationship between Woody and Buzz) and persuade us to love (or love to hate) some new additions (Jessie and Stinky Pete are the clear standouts to me). But they gave us the first taste of what I think was, is, and always will be the secret ingredient of the “best of the best” Pixar films: they offer up a narrative that entertains children, but engages adults on a deeply emotional and intellectual level. With many of my favorite Pixar movies, including the notoriously heartbreaking third entry in the Toy Story franchise, the signature “gut-punch” is what keeps me coming back and never losing interest in both the characters of Andy’s room and the journeys they go on confronting the nature of their existence, their relationship with each other, and what their lives are all about. Long before I hit the ripe age of fourteen and saw Toy Story 3 in theaters, I vividly recall watching Toy Story 2 over and over again on my twelve-inch TV with a VHS player and being reeled by Jessie’s backstory scene. Needless to say, Toy Story 2 is not the most underrated Pixar film. But I do think it has been “shelved” in people’s minds for too long. If I were you, I’d take it off the shelf, fix that squeaker (get it? 😊) and check out Toy Story 2 again. I promise you won’t regret it. Finding Nemo (2003) With four films under their belt, Pixar Animation Studios turned to Andrew Stanton (Pixar’s second animator and its ninth employee hired overall) was given the reins on the next feature film from the studio. Stanton has recalled that the story for his directorial debut has multiple sources of inspiration: childhood fascination with the fish tank at the dentist office, a trip with his newborn son to Marine World (now Six Flags Discovery Kingdom) in Vallejo, California, and a walk with his son five years later in which he regretted not seizing the opportunity for a genuine father-son experience. The personal transformed into the professional as Stanton’s film was in production for five years before being released as Finding Nemo in May of 2003. It grossed over 900 million dollars (multiplying its budget ten times over) and ended up winning the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. It also became the highest-grossing G-rated film of all time until 2010 when Pixar’s Toy Story 3 beat it. When I watched all of the Pixar movies over a year ago, I was more than curious if Finding Nemo would satisfy my nostalgia and how I would take to it all these years later. I am happy to say that it remains my favorite Pixar movie that lacks Toy Story in the title. Why? There are almost too many reasons to elaborate about. Right off the bat, Finding Nemo takes the emotionally-charged scene with Jessie from Toy Story 2 and one-ups it by giving the most tragic, heartbreaking opening to any Pixar film to this day. (Yes, I include Up in that competition). Stanton accomplishes so much in a five-minute opening without showing too much. He establishes the overprotective nature of Marlin (Albert Brooks), the lovable clownfish who suffers the tremendous loss of his wife Coral and all but one of their eggs. A damn-near perfect example of visual storytelling that sets up the emotional stakes of the film so well. Of course, all of the visuals of the movie are so great. From the establishment of environments like the fish tank where Marlin’s son Nemo (Alexander Gould) ends up to the diverse variety of creatures that inhabit the ocean (I particularly enjoy the jellyfish and sea turtle scenes), Finding Nemo offers up one of the richest settings for any Pixar film to date. Stanton was right to be inspired at the aquarium. Without question, Finding Nemo does not work without its characters. The audience, first and foremost, identifies with the complex father-son relationship between Marlin and Nemo despite the fact that they share relatively little screen time together. But the film also packs a heavy dose of likeable and sympathetic secondary and tertiary characters: Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), Marlin’s forgetful travel companion, Gill (Willem Dafoe), the self-serious leader of the tank fish who motivates and inspires Nemo to help them escape, and the stupendous father-and-son pair of sea turtles Crush (voice by director Andrew Stanton) and Squirt (Nicholas Bird, son of Pixar director Brad Bird) who guide Marlin and Dory through the East Australian Current. And so many more that I could spend another few hundred words talking about. But what makes Finding Nemo stand out amongst most other Pixar entries for me is how, after so many years removed from my childhood, it made me cry. It impacted my soul on a deeply emotional level that it did not when I was young. Perhaps because at my age (and even without children) I can relate just as much to Marlin’s longing to make things right with his son as I can to Nemo’s desire for respect from his father. I could say more about Finding Nemo, but I will refrain and simply say go watch it if you haven’t. Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay The Incredibles (2004) During what seemed like the beginning of the end of his filmmaking career, Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol), was inspired to create an animated film that pays homage to comic books and spy movies that he grew up with back in the 1960s. He approached John Lasseter in the year 2000, who gave him the green light on what would become his Pixar directorial debut: The Incredibles. The film was released in November of 2004, making over 600 million dollars and winning two Oscars for Best Animated Feature and Best Sound Editing. Upon re-watching the Pixar catalog, I was perhaps most apprehensive about how I would feel about The Incredibles. I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining it was despite my having seen it countless times as a kid. The voice cast is fantastic, specifically Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson as Helen and Bob Parr, respectively. I also thoroughly enjoy Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) and his love-hate relationship with Mr. Incredible. Furthermore, this is in my opinion the closest that Pixar has come to an action movie and it is a damn good one. The highlight scenes for me are Dash and Violet evading Syndrome’s thugs and Elastigirl infiltrating the secret base to find Mr. Incredible. Also, Frozone as a character lends himself to some really fun action during the film’s climax. Closely tied to the action is the nature of the film as a superhero movie. Not only is it unique compared to many modern films in the genre because it is not based on pre-existing source material, but the world-building from Bird about a world that ostracizes superheroes (while by no means original) plays very well into the story being told in the film. But what might be the best part about The Incredibles is the thematic heart at its core. As Bird has stated before, some of his own life experiences buried in his subconscious may have “filtered” into the film. Regardless, the movie addresses the importance of work-life balance and the strenuous dynamics of family members being pulled in different directions while surrounding it with a quite fun superhero action flick. If you haven’t checked it out, I cannot recommend The Incredibles enough. Image by Petya Stoycheva from Pixabay Ratatouille (2007) Easily the most underrated film being discussed here today, Ratatouille tells the story of an anthropomorphic rat named Remy (Patton Oswalt) who wants nothing more out of life than to become a world-class chef. In order to accomplish this, he teams up with Alfredo (Lou Romano), the newly hired garbage boy for the Parisian five-star restaurant Gusteau’s. To the uninitiated of Ratatouille, I am confident that the premise I just gave you sounds too far-fetched to be real let alone solid entertainment. I assure you that it is both: Ratatouille serves up a steaming-hot dish of family-friendly storytelling. On its surface, the film tells the tale of a French rat teaching an orphan how to cook by pulling on his hair and hiding under a chef’s hat. But, underneath that seemingly ridiculous story concept, it offers up a beautiful approach to a character whose journey is all about the balance between pursuing one’s passion without ostracizing their loved ones. But that is just one of the things that makes Ratatouille highly underrated. I love Remy’s story and the journey he goes on with Alfredo, but the supporting cast are fantastic as well. Ian Holm as the shady Chef Skinner who plots to undermine Alfredo’s rise to chef stardom, Janeane Garofalo as the hard-shelled but soft-boiled Colette, and Peter O’Toole as the subdued but impassioned restaurant critic Anton Ego are all standouts. There is a brilliant irony underpinning the thematic core of the film and serves as its central conflict: the rats, led by Remy’s father (Brian Dennehy), are deathly afraid of kitchens because of humans, yet all Remy lives for is the day when he can work in one as a chef and thus leave his mark on the cooking world. The emotional foundation of Remy’s struggle to both follow his dream and ensure the safety and happiness of his own kind. All in all, Ratatouille makes for a solid entry in the Pixar catalog and is another great animated entry from Brad Bird. Unquestionably, it is worth the watch. Image by Gino Crescoli from Pixabay Inside Out (2015) As early as 2009, animator and current-CCO of Pixar Animation Studios, Pete Docter (Monsters, Inc., Up), was inspired by his pre-teen daughter’s shift in personality which reminded him of his own struggles during early adolescence. The idea about using animation to talk about how emotions shape our lives was very appealing to him. He consulted Drs. Paul Ekman and Dacher Keltner, professors of psychology at the University of California, who offered their insights into human emotions (notably helping Docter hone in on the core emotions of the human experience). With the success of Docter’s 2009 feature Up, Pixar was empowered to let him tell a more sophisticated story. With no input from Pixar co-founder Steve Jobs (who passed away in 2011) and atypically less oversight from then-CCO John Lasseter, Docter went to work on his next major feature film for the studio. After over two years of storyboarding and another couple years of production, Inside Out was released in June of 2015 and was resoundingly successful both critically and financially. Not only did it make over 850 million dollars at a time in the 2010s when computer-animated films (both Pixar and not) were struggling at the box office, but it was also seen by critics as a return-to-form for Pixar in light of its overreliance on sequels and prequels in recent years. I was in college when Inside Out was released to theaters. In many ways, I had grown out of watching Pixar films on a regular basis. So, when I went through the entire Pixar catalog well over a year ago, I was fortunate enough to watch many of Pixar’s entries from the last decade (Brave, The Good Dinosaur and Coco, just to name a few). And no doubt the one I had never seen that impressed me the most was Inside Out. This movie has all of what the best Pixar films do. A stellar voice cast, notably Riley’s emotions: Amy Poehler as Joy, Phyllis Smith as Sadness, Lewis Black as Anger, Bill Hader as Fear, and Mindy Kaling as Disgust. Their embracing of the caricature wrapped into their character sells the premise of the film so well. Easily the standout supporting character is Richard King as Bing Bong, the forgotten imaginary friend of the human protagonist Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) who helps Joy and Sadness on their journey back to Riley’s mind. Similar to other notably Pixar films, from Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. to Coco, the world that is built is not only visually stunning but emotionally and thematically engrossing. Docter and his team of animators construct a brilliantly conceived and diverse world within Riley’s mind that provides a fun place for Joy’s journey with Sadness while also excellently condensing the more complex ideas being explored into easily-digestible settings and environments. Which gets to what is undoubtedly the biggest strength (and my favorite element) of Inside Out. When I initially heard the premise, I thought to myself “How to Earth can Pixar explore human emotions in a movie and make it both fun and powerful?” Of course, my skepticism was ill-placed. Because Pixar’s answer was the simplest, and the best, solution: Pixar embraced the complexity and made it the core of the film. The lesson that Joy and Riley (and therefore the children in the audience) learn is that you can feel happy and sad…AT THE SAME TIME. Sounds obvious, right? But to me, it was not. I could not believe that this movie could offer up a fun story while also teaching an incredibly important part of the human experience. Not since re-watching Toy Story 3 did I tear up as much as I did when Joy sees the birth of Riley’s first dual “core memory” that balances her depression about leaving her home with the knowledge that her parents will always be there for her no matter her struggles. Of all the non-sequel/prequel Pixar entries from the last decade, I recommend Inside Out the most. Please go watch it because it deserves all the praise it gets and more. Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay Soul (2020)
But what would this blog be without sharing my thoughts on the most recent film from Pixar? Due to the pressures on the theater business in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Walt Disney decided to release its newest flick Soul on their relatively new streaming service Disney+ on Christmas Day. Fresh off of his highly-successful film Inside Out, Pete Docter struggled with what his next film would be. While he was inspired to set it in a place beyond space and time while also addressing the philosophy of determinism, Docter admits that part of what one may call a “midlife crisis” factored into his development of Soul. As the newest Pixar entry, Soul lacks the nostalgia that many of the other movies I’ve written about today have (this inevitably reflects where I placed it in my list at the end of this blog). That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed it for a number of reasons. It certainly plays on Docter’s strength that Inside Out had in terms of taking incredibly complex ideas (then about emotions, now about existentialism) and condensing them in a way that young people can grasp. (Although I do not think it succeeds as well as Inside Out does). In many respects, Soul felt like a Pixar movie very different from most others. Its visual style was stunning and unique (specifically how they represent The Great Before), and its approach to highlighting the relationship between jazz and African-American culture was heartwarming and (in my humble opinion) in service of the story. Without delving too much into the dialogue around spotlighting traditionally underrepresented social groups in film, I greatly appreciated becoming familiar with the character of Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) and the people in his community since it is something that Pixar has only recently been willing to do in a meaningful way (lookin’ at you, Coco!). One of my other favorite things about Soul is the seamless integration of jazz music into the story. The more action-oriented scenes involve some fast-paced rhythms from drums and bass, while the quieter moments are enhanced with beautiful piano and saxophone melodies that I most associate with the low-lit stages of inner-city jazz clubs. I firmly add Soul to the other movies (notably Whiplash and Birdman) that expertly utilize improvisational jazz to tell the story just as much as the dialogue and cinematography. All this being said, I am (somewhat) in agreement with many critics regarding the third act. While I thoroughly enjoyed the twist at the end of the first act, I was not as emotionally affected by the final, climactic fifteen minutes that others may have been. Yet I am struggling to figure out why. Perhaps because the message kind of falls flat, but then again I found Joe’s journey pretty meaningful. A human being whose charm and drive do not fully make up for his self-centered view of life and lack of appreciation for the little things in life is highly relatable to me. Maybe Soul is just too new for me to “feel the feels” in the way that I do while watching Toy Story 3 or Finding Nemo. And for that, it is not my favorite Pixar film. Nevertheless, it ranks currently in my top-ten from this world-class animation studio and it very much deserves that spot. With all that being said, I have ranked these six Pixar films from least-best to most-best (undoubtedly, I love all of these movies so the lowest on the list is by no means a bad movie in my mind):
What is your favorite Pixar film? Which of Pixar’s entries do you think are underrated? 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 Since quarantine began back in March (and even after my day job compelled me back to the office in August), I have spent my nights and weekends absorbing the filmography of those considered to be some of the best directors in film history. Just to name a few: the psychological thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock, the powerful dramas of Alejandro G. Iñárritu and Alfonso Cuarón, the high-octane gangster films of Martin Scorsese, the Spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone, and the quirky, dry comedies of Wes Anderson, among others. Needless to say, I feel quite versed in the styles and approaches to filmmaking of dozens of directors at this point. Some I love, some I despise, and some I am rather ambivalent towards. Recently, I worked my way through (most of) the films of acclaimed writer/director Robert Zemeckis, a contemporary, friendly competitor, and friend of Steven Spielberg who are part of what I shall affectionately term “The Big Four” of the 1970s and 1980s (also including George Lucas and James Cameron). The major works of these directors dominated the box office from the late 1970s to the end of the 1980s, including Jaws (1975), the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983), the Indiana Jones trilogy (1981-1989), The Terminator (1984), the Back to the Future trilogy (1985-1990), and Aliens (1986). Many consider the aforementioned films as some of the best in cinema history. So, why write about Zemeckis? It seems that current opinion renders him a talent of a bygone era (especially after the critical and financial disappointment of his two most recent films, Welcome to Marwen and The Witches). However, I think there is something still to discover with some of Zemeckis’s best works. Thus, today I set out to share with you my five favorite (otherwise known objectively as “the best”) Zemeckis films and why they are so great. Without further ado, let’s get started! Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay Back to the Future (1985) With a couple of feature films under his belt, Zemeckis sought to make a film that was both critically and commercially successful. He and his collaborator, write/producer Bob Gale, desired to make a time travel movie that broke the trend set by past films tackling the subject by making the past susceptible to change as well as the present being affected by those changes. This fascination with time travel combined with Gale’s curiosity about the prospect of being friends with his father’s high-school self. These two ideas created the foundation for the first draft of what would become one of the greatest sci-fi classics of all time: Back to the Future. As I am sure many of you know, the film (and its two sequels that were filmed back to back and released six months apart) were praised and profitable. Many critics and film historians consider Back to the Future to be one of the most well-written movies ever put to screen. To this day, it remains one of Zemeckis’s best films. That being said, it is certainly not my favorite. However, I both recognize and appreciate the tight script that takes advantage of every second of screen time whether the lines are used to hint at pivotal plot points, foreshadow events to come, or set up jokes that would not be paid for another hour. I also think, unlike many films of the decade and within the comic sci-fi genre, the acting in Back to the Future expertly balances over-the-top camp and heartwarming enthusiasm. And I’m not just talking about the two leads (although the crazy and ridiculous rapport between Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox is pure comedic gold). Crispin Glover as the stereotypical nerd weakling and Marty McFly’s father George is both utterly irritating and a great underdog character. Lea Thompson embraces the unsettling irony of her role as Marty’s depressed mother Lorraine whose yearning libido makes Marty’s journey to 1955 all the more fun. For me, the standout side character is the antagonist of the entire Back to the Future trilogy: Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen (and the sequels’ variants). Not only does he fully embrace all three versions of George’s bully in childhood and adulthood, but he is easily one of (and possibly) the best zany movie villain of the 1980s. Ultimately, this film succeeds in virtually all aspects: the writing, the acting, the production design, the world-building, and the pure joy of time-travel adventures. I do not have a love of this film from childhood like so many, but I certainly understand why those who grew up with it have stayed in love with it. Ever since the DeLorean hit 88 miles per hour just in time for the lighting to strike the Hill Valley clock tower. Image by Nina Garman from Pixabay Forrest Gump (1994) After the end of the Back to the Future trilogy in 1990 and the profitable but panned Death Becomes Her in 1992, Zemeckis was brought on to direct a film adaptation of the 1986 novel Forrest Gump by novelist Winston Broom. It ended up being a very loose adaptation, with several creative changes to the eponymous character, sequence of events, and tone to make something, according to Zemeckis, less “cynical and colder.” The film became the highest-grossing work of Zemeckis’s career, earning nearly 700 million dollars worldwide. It also garnered six Academy Awards (including Best Director for Zemeckis). Needless to say, Forrest Gump earns its place in this blog today and in modern film history as one of the greats. Famous for his innovations in special effects, Forrest Gump may be one of the few Zemeckis film that relies heavily on visual effects while simultaneously weaving them almost seamlessly into the narrative so as not to draw too much attention to them. This is only one of the many aspects of this film that I simply love. In a matter of seconds into a flashback scene where Forrest meets a U.S. president (for the record, he meets three of them), one watches what is going on and one just believes it. However, selling these and other episodes in the life of Gump may have been incredibly difficult. But for lead actor Tom Hanks, it seems effortless. I hope throughout the life span of this blog I make my love for Tom Hanks well known. Not that this should surprise anyone. I mean really; who doesn’t love Tom Hanks? From his early notable performances in films like Splash, Big, and Sleepless in Seattle to his career-defining performances in Philadelphia, the Toy Story films, and Saving Private Ryan to some of his perhaps underrated roles in The Green Mile and Road to Perdition, Hanks has more than earned his status as one of the most accomplished, prolific, and renowned actors in modern cinema history. And yet, his performance in Forrest Gump might just be his best (even if it is not my favorite). Why do I say this? Simply put, Hanks plays a character who (on paper) should be an intrusive, naïve, and unlikeable dolt. But he makes him sympathetic, relatable, and a joy to watch. Without the grace and nobility brought to the character by Hanks’ raw talent, Gump would not be the sweetheart that he is on screen. Just as important as Hanks’s performance, however, is the message of the film. As someone who grew up watching Forrest Gump countless times on television with my parents, I never thought much about what Zemeckis was trying to say. I only watched and enjoyed every minute of what I was watching. I never thought about the test I had to take the next morning or the new piece I had to learn for Jazz Band. Rather, I was fixated on every moment of the budding romance between Forrest and Jenny over the course of three decades steeped in American nostalgia. And perhaps that is the point. It has always been difficult for me to live in the moment. I am someone who naturally plans out the next six to twelve months of my live in the span of ten minutes. (To answer your question: yes, I know the blogs I will be writing every weekend through March of next year 😊). I enjoy watching movies so much because they help me accomplish that which eludes me throughout much of my day-to-day life; they help me appreciate the here and now. Forrest Gump embodies what it means to be present and enjoy what is right in front of you. Yes, Gump can be unbelievably thick sometimes and quite gullible. Yet one cannot deny that he always lives in the moment. This brings him a life of fulfillment, pride, and accomplishment that some with double his IQ never achieve. When I watch Forrest Gump, that is what I get out of it. A welcome reminder to always try harder to live in the moment. As all great films do, it makes me live my best life. What more can I ask of Zemeckis than that? Cast Away (2000) Six years after Forrest Gump, Zemeckis put Hanks into another fantastic leading role in the 2000 survival drama Cast Away. Hanks plays Chuck Noland, a workaholic at FedEx who leaves Christmas dinner to resolve a work issue and ends up downed in a storm onto an uninhabited island for years alone. Upon returning to civilization, he must adapt to a life turned completely upside down by his absence. I was initially nervous about watching this film since all I knew about it was Hanks yelling at a volleyball with a face on it. To me, it sounded like it could shape up to be one of the weaker performances from Hanks. To my pleasant surprise, I was dead wrong. In my mind, Cast Away ranks up there with some of the best survival movies ever made. Zemeckis makes the second act absorbing by investing the audience in Chuck’s psychological, as well as his physical, survival. The film poses that fateful question: what happens to our minds when we are completely alone? How quickly do we deteriorate when devoid of human interaction? Actors and directors are challenged when putting a single character into such a situation. Many times, films that attempt such a feat tend to falter under the weight of overreliance on introspection or musical scores. Not Zemeckis and Hanks; all of the emotion, the turmoil, the loss of hope is in Chuck’s body language and facial expressions. And while the use of Wilson as a proxy for the audience to understand Chuck’s mental triumph in the face of death is largely effective, I believe Hanks’s performance would be just as powerful without “someone” to talk to on the island. I could say much more about Cast Away, but I would rather let those of you who have yet to watch it to discover it for yourselves. Trust me, it will be worth your time. Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Flight (2012) Some people might say that Zemeckis has petered out in recent years, and that Cast Away was his last great film. I am here today to dispel such delusions by proclaiming that Zemeckis has made not one, but TWO, great films in the last twenty years. To begin with my favorite of the two. Not since 1980 has Zemeckis directed an R-rated film, but he did so very effectively with the 2012 drama film Flight. Loosely based on the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261, Flight tells the story of “Whip” Whitaker (played astoundingly by Denzel Washington), an alcoholic airline pilot who manages to crash land a passenger jet by flying inverted while intoxicated on drugs and alcohol. Much of the film follows Whitaker’s personal struggles as his addiction and the stress of the investigation into the cause of the crash take a toll on his own mental health and his interpersonal relationships. In many ways, this film was Washington’s test run for when he would provide a similar performance in the 2016 film Fences (I have an earlier blog focused, in part, on this film if you feel so inclined). There are many good films following a protagonist struggling with their inner demons, but few as compelling as Flight. This is, in large part, thanks to the sheer grace and humanity that Washington brings to “Whip” Whitaker. If you are looking for a compelling drama about self-doubt and inner conflict and are a Denzel fan (as I am), then you definitely need to take the time to check out Robert Zemeckis’s film Flight. Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay The Walk (2015)
My final Zemeckis film for today is one of his most recent endeavors: the 2015 biopic The Walk, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as famous French high-wire artist Phillippe Petit. The film details the adolescence and young adulthood of Petit growing up in Paris struggling to make ends meet as a street performer who aspires to bigger and better things in life. After meeting the love of his life Annie (Charlotte Le Bon) and receiving guidance from his mentor Papa Rudy (Ben Kingsley), Petit heads to the United States in 1974 and spends months planning and orchestrating his notorious high-wire walk between the newly-built Twin Towers in New York City on August 7, 1974. What I think works rarely in biopics is actually put off pretty well here. Gordon-Levitt’s narration of Petit’s story as Petit himself is rather delightful to watch, for only Petit could tell his own story with a balance of unassuming humility and biting pride. Compared to some of his other films, The Walk feels like a return to form in many ways for Zemeckis. A flawed, yet likeable, protagonist in Petit whose commitment to their passion is infectious in how it reels the audience into the crazy steps that he and his crew of misfits must take in order to pull off the scheme. In this sense, Zemeckis infuses The Walk with vibes of the heist movie, the melodrama, and the avant-garde flick so well that it is just appealing enough for mainstream audiences while also striking at deeper ideas about the meaning of life without focusing too much on it. Of course, we cannot discuss The Walk without addressing Zemeckis’s reputation working with and innovating special effects. Once Petit is on his wire in the third act, you never doubt that he is standing on the top of the world for an instant. Gordon-Levitt sells this with every muscle in his body from head to toes, as he buys into the thrill of the wire as much as the audience is convinced of it. Simply put, the sight of watching him walk between two of the most remarkable accomplishments of human engineering and imagination ever created is breathtaking and mesmerizing. Need I say more? With all that being said, here are my five favorite (or, objectively “the best”) Robert Zemeckis films ranked from least-best to most-best:
What is your favorite Robert Zemeckis film? Which of his films that I did not write about here do you think deserves praise and recognition? 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 Jubayer Abdullah from Pixabay As someone who grew up watching a select number of Disney and Pixar animated films over and over again (looking at you, “Toy Story” and “Cars”!), I felt like I had explored the pinnacle of animated storytelling in feature films. But that all changed when HBO Max launched earlier this year.
Not only did I discover dozens of classic films that I was never exposed to as a child thanks to my humble backroad hick routes, but I was also exposed to the films of Japanese animation company Studio Ghibli. Over the past couple of months, I have consumed the works of famed Japanese directors and animators like Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata, among others, in an attempt to familiarize myself with how animation transcends cultures and has become a staple of Japanese cinema. Honestly, I was nervous about watching twenty plus anime films for someone who did not consider themselves a connoisseur of anime, Japanese culture, or cinema in any way, shape or form. I was unsure if I would connect with this genre of storytelling, but I remained open-minded. So, after watching almost all of the works of Studio Ghibli, did I regret my decision? You’ll have to read on to find out my answer. (I’m such a tease! 😊) For now, let’s start my reflection on Ghibli with the titan of anime himself. [DISCLAIMER #1: I watched the English dubs of all of the films that I will be talking about.] [DISCLAIMER #2: I did not watch the made-for-television Ghibli film “Ocean Waves” nor Gorō Miyazaki’s directorial debut “Tales from Earthsea.”] The Films of Hayao Miyazaki Honestly, my admiration for Miyazaki’s films tends to lean more into the visual excellent of the animation than the story itself. Evidenced by my ranking of the Ghibli films at the end of this blog, I find many of Miyazaki’s films, with regards to story and character, to be less than interesting. However, I want to be clear that I think almost all of his films are stunning to look at and rich with detail and graceful visual storytelling. So, to begin with Miyazaki’s first feature film, “The Castle of Cagliostro,” released in 1979. While technically not a Ghibli film, I include it here because I think it is a place of humble beginnings for Miyazaki. Without his own house to control the animation, he provided his own take on Kazuhiko Katō’s acclaimed manga series Lupin III. This film is one of the few exceptions to what I said in the previous paragraph. In other words, I found the story of “The Castle of Cagliostro” to be of a higher quality than its animation. Ultimately, the film is old and outdated from a visual standpoint and remains a fun romp but will not end up very high on my list due to the many superior films that came later. Next, we have Miyazaki’s second and final pre-Ghibli film “Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.” For me, this was a massive improvement from both an animation standpoint and a storytelling standpoint. Not only is Nausicaä one of the best protagonists of any of the Ghibli films due to her spunky, confident, and capable persona, but Miyazaki does an excellent job of balancing the more personal narrative arcs of the film with more subtle world building without the plot becoming too bloated. Needless to say, “Nausicaä” ends up being one of my favorite Miyazaki films (which says something about much of his later work). Finally, we have the first official Studio Ghibli film: “Castle in the Sky.” Released in 1986, this is one of the few anime films that I had heard about before beginning my personal odyssey with Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. So, naturally, I expected a lot from it. And I found myself realizing about halfway through that I lacked much interest in the steampunk genre. For those of you who are somewhat familiar with Miyazaki’s portfolio, this would come back to haunt me multiple times with future films. Now, onto what is easily my favorite Miyazaki film. The 1988 family-friendly anime “My Neighbor Totoro” is, in my opinion, the most personal that Miyazaki’s films ever become. Partially inspired by a portion of Miyazaki’s childhood when he and his brother moved to be closer to their tuberculosis-stricken mother, the more personal and touching story of “Totoro” shines through thanks to the charming and brilliant sister-duo of Satsuki and Mei (easily one of my favorite character duos of all the Studio Ghibli films). Ultimately, the films that followed struggled very much to live up to “Totoro.” On the backs of “Totoro,” I was excited for Miyazaki’s fifth feature film “Kiki’s Delivery Service.” And while I enjoyed watching it almost all the way through, I felt like its central narrative arc was lacking direction about two-thirds of the way through the film. Which sparked my interest into how Miyazaki plans the stories for his films. And with a quick Google Search, I learned that he in fact forgoes traditional screenplays in favor of storyboarding without knowing the ending to his films. Suddenly, I started to understand why I struggled to connect with most of Miyazaki’s films. While I enjoyed “Kiki’s,” I started asking myself how long it would take for me to begin losing interest in Miyazaki’s works. It began with “Porco Rosso” and essentially continued from there. I have little to say about the rest of Miyazaki’s filmography. “Porco Rosso” was just weird enough to keep me engaged for 94 minutes. “Princess Mononoke” was an overly long and complex story within the first 20 minutes that left me utterly disinterested throughout, and tended to remind me how “Nausicaä” just did the same story much better. “Howl’s Moving Castle” was even more outlandish than “Castle in the Sky,” which made me lose interest relatively quickly. “Ponyo,” while it certainly echoed back to “Totoro” in terms of another great Ghibli duo in the form of Sōsuke and Ponyo, fell mostly flat in the end regarding the emotional journey of the characters. Those who are familiar with Miyazaki’s works may have noticed two notable films missing thus far. “Spirited Away” was the first Miyazaki film I ever saw. And while I was taken aback quite a bit by the strangeness of the world, I really appreciated how much these elements of fantasy and supernaturalism told a very grounded, coming-of-age story for Chihiro. I also loved how much Japanese animism shined through with the visualization of the many spirits unfamiliar to be yet fascinating nonetheless. Truth be told, “Spirited Away” remains my runner-up for Miyazaki. The last of his films I ever saw was, in fact, his final movie to date: “The Wind Rises.” While certainly no action-packed thrill ride á la “Nausicaä” or “Mononoke,” I found Miyazaki’s intended swan song to have some of the best storytelling of any of his films. I appreciated its reliance on more personal touchstones and relationship-building with Jiro and Naoko that made “Totoro” so great. I also thought the animation was some of the best that Miyazaki had ever done. And while it is not my favorite Ghibli film, I will remember quieter, character-driven moments of “The Wind Rises” in a more positive light than much of the rest of Miyazaki’s portfolio of films. So, at the end of the day, what do I think of Miyazaki’s repertoire? I think he is an important figure in the world of animation storytelling whose energies have spent more time developing impressive visuals and a staggering list of empowered female protagonists than competent storytelling for all ages. And, I find him to be an inferior director to Isao Takahata. The Films of Isao Takahata Let me be more specific. Of the eleven Miyazaki films I watched, most of them were underwhelming stories with stunning animation and visuals. The five feature films of Isao Takahata, on the other hand, I have a much more interesting experience with. So, without further ado, let us begin with his first two films. In an effort to save many of my thoughts for a future blog, I will be devoting less time to Takahata’s 1988 directorial debut “Grave of the Fireflies.” To be clear, this is not because this film does not deserve all the praise that it gets. Having little expectations other than knowing that this film took place during the twilight months of World War II, I was unsure of what my reaction would be. I cannot express how much this movie affected me. Watching teenage boy Seita do everything in his power to keep his little sister Setsuko alive and happy while surrounded by the maelstrom of war is both awe-inspiring and heart wrenching. Takahata’s approach to animation to tell such a grounded, human story is perhaps the most fascinating thing about “Grave of the Fireflies.” It is not only an incredible animated film, but also a poignant and powerful anti-war film. (Hold that thought!) Three years later, Takahata released his second feature film: “Only Yesterday.” While not as soul-crushing as its predecessor, this film is a touching look at choosing a path in life to satisfy yourself and not others, about looking to your past for answers about your future, and about finding love for life in the unlikeliest of places. On top of the well-crafted story and well-rounded characterization (namely the budding romance between Taeko and Toshio), “Only Yesterday” has in my opinion some of the most gorgeous frames of animation I have ever seen. Namely, the sunrise over the field. (Just watch the movie; you’ll know what I’m talking about). I cannot recommend this film enough. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for the rest of Takahata’s filmography. First, his third feature “Pom Poko” which may be the strangest cinematic experience I have ever undergone. It is the story of generations of raccoons trying to save their forest from human encroachment. Sounds pretty simple and straightforward, right? Well, I thought it would be, too. I was wrong. “Pom Poko” is so bizarre that, unlike Takahata’s first two movies, I found it difficult to believe that this one was made by the same director. All I will say is if you want to watch two hours of animated raccoons doing things, then be my guest. Otherwise, this film is not for you. Five years after “Pom Poko,” Takahata released his fourth film: “My Neighbors the Yamadas.” A series of vignettes about the eponymous family and their series of misadventures, I certainly appreciated it more as a movie about relatable things like family and relationships. That being said, the story was far less ambitious than Takahata’s last three films and the visual style of the animation was just a bit too jarring for me. But, it was better than “Pom Poko.” Finally, after fourteen years without directing a feature film, Takahata released one last piece before his death in 2018. This film, “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya,” was a fascinating and fitting end to my journey with Studio Ghibli. Unlike “Yamadas,” the animation style here works much better and the story, while feeling familiar, is also enjoyable. The journey of Princess Kaguya is heartwarming, complex, and overall fulfilling. Furthermore, I greatly appreciate this movie as a celebration of Japanese culture and folklore. Ultimately, it is not high on my ranking but it remains an interesting film that I may revisit at some point in the future. So, why do I think that Miyazaki is not as good a filmmaker as Takahata? Well, a few reasons. First, Takahata is more careful in making movies. While Miyazaki’s films often feel too repetitive (three movies about castles?? C’mon, man!), no Takahata film is like the other. Furthermore, while many of Miyazaki’s films look good from an animation standpoint, Takahata is more of a risk-taker visually speaking. Not only do his first three films embrace the best of the traditional anime art style, but his last two push the boundaries of what can be drawn and animated into something that viewers will resonate with. Third, and perhaps most of all, the two best Takahata films have more humanity in them than most Miyazaki flicks. The Other Ghibli Films Having talked about sixteen Ghibli films, I want to wrap up this blog by addressing most of the non-Miyazaki/Takahata movies. I start with the first Ghibli directed by neither of them: Yoshifumi Kondō’s “Whisper of the Heart” released in 1995. Apparently, the hope was for Kondō to become Miyazaki and Takahata’s successor at Studio Ghibli before his sudden death in 1998. It may have even been a contributing factor of Miyazaki’s initial retirement announcement. After watching his first and only directed feature film, I can see why. “Whisper of the Heart” is a touching coming-of-age story with great covers and original takes on one of my favorite songs of all time. The animation is stunning, the characters are lovely, and the writing is effective at telling the tale of young Shizuku and her crush Seiji. Honestly, I have to theorize that Miyazaki believed Kondō understood what Studio Ghibli and animated storytelling is about better than even Miyazaki does. At least I believe that, because “Whisper of the Heart” goes down as one of my favorite Ghibli films hands down. Seven years later, a spiritual sequel to Kondō’s film was released entitled “The Cat Returns” and directed by Hiroyuki Morita. Before even watching this one, I was very anxious about this film based on the premise alone: the main character, the Baron, was merely a figment at Shizuku’s imagination in “Whisper of the Heart” but is now a real anthropomorphic cat in this film. I was very concerned that this movie would never manage to justify its existence. And yet, Morita proved me wrong. While it is by no means my favorite Ghibli film, I enjoyed watching it as a fun adventure with quirky characters that is worth your time if you have under 76 minutes to laugh at a cat with a top hat and bowtie. The next film is 2010’s “The Secret World of Arriety,” directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi who has since left Studio Ghibli and founded his own animation studio. Which is upsetting for me, because I liked both of his additions to Ghibli’s filmography. First, “Arriety” is a delightful film about a fairy (referred to in the film as “Borrowers”) whose family survives by taking what they need from a country home and she befriends one of its human residents, Shō, who is sick and spending time resting in the countryside. While I enjoy the story and the characters, the score of this film is unlike any other Ghibli film (thanks to the French harpist and composer Cécile Corbel). Before getting to Yonebayashi’s second film and the most recent Ghibli release, I want to address Hayao Miyazaki’s son Gorō’s 2011 film “From Up on Poppy Hill.” Due to his directorial debut “Tales from Earthsea” being the only rotten Ghibli film on Rotten Tomatoes, I was very nervous about this one. Luckily, my expectations were subverted. “Poppy Hill” is an enjoyable time capsule of a movie about Japanese students in the early 1960s whose story has a lot to say about the complexities of love and the power of family in a way that helps the viewer see the world through Umi and Shun’s eyes. Needless to say, I am mildly excited for Gorō’s third Ghibli film “Earwig and the Witch.” Finally, we come to the end. The most recent release from Studio Ghibli, entitled “When Marnie Was There” and directed by Yonebayashi once again. A much quieter film than most of Ghibli’s work, I think anyone who enjoys more meditative animation á la “The Wind Rises” and “Poppy Hill” will enjoy this. But, for everyone else, set your expectations realistically because “Marnie” is no action-packed adventure. Rather, it is an introspective character study about teenage angst, our relationship with the past, and finding ourselves through our passions. WHEW!! SO MANY MOVIES!! Finally, we come to the end. Below is my ranking of (nearly) every single Studio Ghibli film and the first two films of Hayao Miyazaki:
What are your favorite Studio Ghibli films? Are you more interested in exploring Ghibli films after reading this? Which of my opinions about Studio Ghibli do you find utterly misguided or moronic? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
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
|