The Last Jedi (2017) ****/5: This is one the best Star Wars films I've seen in awhile. Rey and Luke Skywalker were the standouts for me. The shifts in perspective were also impressive. Snoke is a unimpressive character.

(image courtesy of Star Wars.com)

The Last Jedi is one of the better Star Wars films I’ve seen over the years. What it does represent is a full break with the past and new battles to be fought by a new generation of heroes. The idea that this is the last time we’ll see the Jedi is  pretty profound historically considering they are the backbone of the franchise with various forces (Sith, First Order) embracing the dark side. Without the Jedi it means that going forward the Star Wars of the future should have its own identity. The character of Rey is so important to this thrust and one can see the possibility of several storylines with the final shot of the film. The Skywalker legacy will still live on through Kylo Ren but the character of Rey represents a fresh break with such an overwhelming family legacy; the Skywalker family story being inextricably tied to the storyline of 6 episodes of the Star Wars franchise. The Last Jedi is also a big improvement over the very derivative The Force Awakens because it’s more original in tis outlook. I didn’t see much traces of The Empire Strikes Back in The Last Jedi but I did see too much traces of A New Hope in The Force Awakens.

The Last Jedi stars, yet again, Daisy Ridley as Rey as she come to terms with her heritage and the force within her while the Resistance led by Leia (Carrie Fisher) faces its greatest test as the First Order is in the ascendancy and hope appears to be extinguished. The biggest name here is Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) who represents the last of the old order of Jedi and represents the bridge between the old and the new as his two disciples will be battling out in the foreseeable future. The other characters return such as Kylo Ren, Finn, BB-8 & Poe. A major newcomer to the team is Rose who will hopefully be featured more prominently going forward. His maturity in this film is impressive when compared to the young, swashbuckling Luke Skywalker of old.

Positives

The main positive for me are the characters of Rey and Luke Skywalker; the new and the old respectively. I was impressed with her story and what it means for the franchise as a whole. Her story represents a significant break with the Skywalker legacy. The story of the Star Wars franchise has been the story of the prestigious Skywalker family and its enduring legacies. There were other major Jedi knights before but once there was the purge and Obi wan Kenobi died then the Skywalkers were all that’s left of the Jedi. After The Return of the Jedi it seems that Luke trained a new cadre of Jedi knights, including Kylo Ren, but this came to an end when Kylo Ren was seduced by the Supreme leader Snoke, one of the most unimpressive new characters. Ren seems to have destroyed all that Luke stood for and forced him into hiding or retreat as a failure. This film finally gives the necessary back story and there is some connection established between Rey and Ren but with the advent of Rey it brings back the familiar adage that a hero can come from anywhere. This is very democratic or a good exercise in expansive story telling. It’s actually a relief knowing that Rey might not be yet another Skywalker. If she is then it would be very limiting to the franchise going forward. There is a moment where Kylo Ren dismisses Rey’s supposedly lowly heritage in comparison to he who is from a very prestigious line. This is a major storytelling element because now that the force has awakened it means that new heroes must emerge. The line of the Jedi might end but the force is still present which means the way of the Jedi may become diffused throughout the universe. It might no longer be seen as a holy doctrine with sacred texts but will become a part of everyday life like all great theories or practices. What will remain the same is that only a few people will be able to use the force. The final shot at the end is telling. Maybe by the time of Episode IX Rey will be much wiser and alongside her will be other individuals strong with the force but not necessarily Jedis.

 I loved the final shot in the film. It reminded me of the good old days as a young person when you would stargaze and wonder about the great universe and then think to yourself if these great stories of Star Wars lore were real or wonder about other forms of life in the universe. Star Wars, and others, did that for many then, and The Last Jedi comes close to being as evocative although I’m much older now. In the case of the child in the final shot of this film there are great battles to be fought. It shows that the resistance to tyranny cannot die. The resistance to tyranny is essentially a democratic movement. There is also an important part of the film where Finn and Rose go to a planet where the citizens are very wealthy and are living lavishly where once it was a cesspool. One would consider that this is a positive but when the truth is revealed showcasing the negative- that it was a haven for war profiteers- my perspective shifted and I became aware that this is a thinking film. It’s the first time a Star Wars film has made me think or made me consider something realistically beyond the presentation of this fictional world through the medium of film.  Normally I watch Star Wars films at a distance but there are several moments where shifts in perspective are so important to understand clearly what’s going on in The Last Jedi. Poe has to learn the hard way as does Kylo Ren and Rey, to some extent. Rian Johnson, the director, deserves a lot of credit.

The action in this film was very impressive, especially the space battles. The opening sequence is the most impressive action set piece I have seen in a Star Wars film, especially as a space battle. The only other major space battle of the Star Wars franchise that made such an impression on me was the battle against the Death Star in A New Hope.

The visuals are also very impressive. I really liked the layout of the island where Luke was located. It has a very organic feel and look.

Negatives

The primary negative is that I still don’t get the First Order. They just appeared out of nowhere led by Supreme Leader Snoke. Snoke is such an unimpressive character and the Emperor of the previous trilogies was definitely more sinister. This is probably because the structure of the story was much more elaborate for the previous 2 trilogies which explains why they are still so influential even now. Snoke and the First Order are like an afterthought. I am just not impressed by their development. It will always stick with me that they are a carbon copy of the original malevolent forces led by the Emperor. The comparisons aren’t so clear cut in this film but the presence of Snoke is so unimpressive. At first I thought he was a giant lizard but he has apparently shrunk in this film. I hope that there is some back story in the next installment explaining how Snoke and the First Order came about. This backstory must have some implications for the films going forward. His bodyguards seem to be very strong with the force as well. This will always be a weak point of this new trilogy: no proper explanation about the rise of the First Order.  Say what you want about Episodes 1-3 but in terms of developing the political backstory they were impressive. An effective resistance movement needs a great tyrannical force. The First Order is going after the rebels but how much of an impact is this having on the wider galaxy. Does the First Order have a major presence throughout the Galaxy? Are their forces stationed throughout? I am just not convinced that the First Order is a major force. It’s just roaming about the universe attacking the rebels. In terms of building the universe it does not seem as effective in its incorporation into the physical environment of the universe; the various planets, moons etc. You just don’t get the sense that the First Order is an ever present force apart from when you see them in space battles.

Without a proper outline of the First Order then the resistance loses shape as well. I was not clear who the allies of the resistance were and how widespread is the rebellion. These anonymous allies better show themselves sooner rather than later. The resistance seems to exist in a vacuum as well. What about the political structures which govern the galaxy? These political structures were in place when the emperor seized control in episodes 1-3 but it’s not clear what they are or were in this new trilogy. After this trilogy it’s something these filmmakers will have to improve on instead of just throwing these new developments in our face.

Justice League (2017) ***½ /5: The DCEU is moving in the right direction but some elements are still rushed. A lot of people will be entertained by this film

Justice League clearly demonstrates that DC/Warner Bros. is moving in the right direction. The main problem is that there is still an element of rushing to get things out in order to compete with Marvel. DC’s failure to effectively compete with Marvel where it matters, $$$, is a good example of  the downside of being competitive. Warner Bros. needs to focus on just making good comic book movies based on DC comic book characters. This is why they should have fired Zack Snyder from the project earlier or given another director a chance. The DC films are mostly under the influence of Snyder stylistically. Man of Steel probably would have been worse if he was the main writer and not Nolan. I have already explained the fundamental differences between the styles of Nolan and Snyder in an earlier blogpost. Suffice to say that Snyder is a second rate version of Nolan. The structure of the DC cinematic universe is being hampered by this rushed and disjointed approach or reaching for things that aren’t there. Again I will make some suggestions of how the DC cinematic universe can reach its full potential without SNYDER; without SNYDER then things will begin to take shape. Snyder leaving this project early as a result of family issues is ultimately a good thing even if the circumstances are unfortunate.

This film stars Ben Affleck (Ben Affleck), Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) and Henry Cavill (Superman) who, along with the newest additions such as CyBorg, Flash and Aquaman, battle the forces of Steppenwolf who wishes to take control of the entire planet. These heroes end up forming the Justice League.

Positives

The main positive of this film is that the DC cinematic universe is moving in the right direction, somewhat. I found the film entertaining for the most part. It wasn’t a drag like the overly serious and poorly conceptualized BvS. Justice League is definitely a more straightforward film than BvS but it’s a bit rushed. It is a film made on the assumption that comic book fans will know about the particulars so that they can bypass building something meaningful. Otherwise it makes for a good romp and does not necessarily run out of gas. Some people will watch this film and be entertained by the jokes and some of the action on display.

I know about the character Steppenwolf since I did read comic books in the heyday of the ‘90s and it’s clear that he had the potential to be a great villain for this film if there was a proper introduction. One can actually see this film trying to emulate parts of Wonder Woman and there is a moment when an explanation is provided about the mother boxes. I heard some people frowning about the idea but at least they explained it. If it’s an absurd concept then it can’t be any worse than the infinity stones in the marvel films. It is admirable that they (DC) are actually trying to build a universe with its own mythos. Diana refers to the Age of Heroes (taken from Hesiod) and it seems fitting since she mentions the earth realms involved in the DC cinematic universe, with two being mythic. There’s some Lord of the Rings vibe when she makes reference to the world of men. So it seems that going forward the present Justice league will be continuing the fight from a historical perspective. There seems to be a lot of old world conflicts taking place. To be fair in Man of Steel it was mentioned that a Kryptonian space ship visited earth 20,000 years ago. It seems that DC is trying to say that Earth has a long history with these more advanced alien civilizations. In DC comics we know that Steppenwolf is from the planet of Apokolips  and in this film it was revealed that he visited earth thousands of years ago. So far, therefore, two dominant alien civilizations have already visited Earth. This means that while Earth is not as civilized it does have some value and ancient wisdom (Themyscira and Atlantis). So I understand what DC is trying to do and it does work based on their own comic book lore. All that’s required is some more explanation weaved into the story which should give the actors more to work with once they internalize it. The admirable thing is that the composition of the league reflects this diversity based on the stories already told about the so called Age of Heroes. They only have to reveal the origins of the Flash correctly and effectively. It is likely therefore that the Flash might have some connection with an otherworldly force. Thankfully there was a reference to the Green lantern corps which means that Green lantern might have a solo film. The diverse composition of the league reveals that the DC cinematic universe has a lot going for it; it just needs to emerge from the shadows by just making a good comic book film. As I’ve said before the storylines in DC comics have always been superior to marvel. There is a richness of material which suggests that the DC cinematic universe should be story centred instead of character centred like Marvel films. A lot of DC comic characters have origin stories that can be translated into good films.

DC films clearly have a look that’s distinct from Marvel and it shows here. There are less bright colours. It definitely has more of a real world feel which is why they need to work on the CGI

I also liked some bits of the action especially when it wasn’t CGI heavy. The action was pretty good but it could have been better in some areas

Negatives

The primary negative is that the film is rushed. A better film could have been made if it wasn’t so rushed. It goes by in an instant and then you’re asked to tag along or keep up. A good 10-15 minutes setting up the story could have done wonders. How did Batman become aware of these creatures who feed on fear? Why are they here all of a sudden? Why did Steppenwolf decide to strike now? If he’s in exile then where has he been all this time? I thought they would have introduced Darkseid by now and made it clear that Steppenwolf is just his emissary. At least that’s what I expected. The problem is that they are telling everything from the perspective of Earth. There is nothing wrong in featuring the planet of Apokolips. It would have been much more effective if Steppenwolf was seen taken orders from a mysterious authority figure. The authority figure would have clearly given the go ahead for Steppenwolf to launch his attack. Real comic book readers would know that the figure is Darkseid. Nothing would have been wrong in actually revealing Darkseid. The origins of Darkseid should come later for Justice League  2 which will probably come after the next round of solo films. It would also be good if there was an actual reason given in the intro as to the importance of retrieving the mother boxes on Earth. Obviously this would mean that Earth is one planet that the forces of Apokolips have been unable to conquer. This frustration would more than likely explain the decision by Darkseid to invade the Earth. He will do so eventually.

It’s clear by his actions that Steppenwolf is some second in command and so the brief 5-10 minute intro should have introduced the planet of Apokolips. Maybe another villain can be featured in pt, 2  followed later by Darkseid in Justice League 3. This will give DC time to build something meaningful while giving the usual hints about Darkseid. The reality is that Justice League should have begun setting up the clash with Apokolips and not just throw Steppenwolf into the mix. This is why an intro to the planet itself would have been a good thing. These filmmakers are trying to make it into a big mystery and so it backfired.

DC should spend the time building the solo films before the next Justice League. They have too much good source material to be rushing to get the next Justice League out.

Batman looks a bit stodgy here. Affleck’s performance makes it clear that Batman is an old man behind the costume. He looks out of place when the pace of the action increases and there are parademons everywhere. I thought batman was going to cry at one point when superman joined the party. Flash and Aquaman really show up batman’s age.

DC need to get rid of Snyder or make him take a back seat.

One problem I had with the CGI is that if you take the real world approach then the graphics must be at a high level, Steppenwolf looks out of place here. What about old fashion makeup and then fill in the rest with CGI. As usual it was probably rushed. Steppenwolf was probably an afterthought. I just hope that Darkseid doesn’t look out of place.

I hope there are not inconsistencies with this film and the origin story of the amazons as told in Wonder Woman.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) ****/5: This is a good film but Hulk is the standout character.It is the Planet Hulk story line that makes the movie interesting.

Thor: Ragnarok is a good film with its twists and its superficial humour (I seriously laughed only once). I watched it weeks ago but only now have I found the time to write about it (I’m not getting paid). One important thing to note is that Thor finally has a film to hold his own with Iron Man and Captain America. Thor has been invested with a lot of time and money by Marvel because he’s technically a part of the “holy” trinity which obviously includes Iron Man and Captain America. The solo movies of these three have more or less helped to define the direction of the marvel universe. There are also the Avenger movies but the trinity still takes up the leadership positions. The Guardians are still on the fringes for the time being since the major pitched battles will have to include the Avengers. Well -back to my original point- Thor has finally arrived as part of the big 3. The key to all of this is the Hulk who has been marginalized for a significant period and is only just now being developed as a character apart from being the rudimentary strong man. With the development of the Hulk character Marvel now seems complete as a universe. With his return to the fold then maybe he can form a part of the elite characters in Marvel, if they can come to some arrangement with Universal (I know it might be too late). A film called Planet Hulk would have done some wonders for the marvel universe instead the original hulk story fits strangely into Ragnarok.

Ragnarok stars Chris Hemsworth as Thor who must battle the forces of Hela (Cate Blanchett), the goddess of death, for Asgard. In this movie he comes to terms with his heritage as a son of Odin and he forms key partnerships with the likes of Loki, Hulk and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson).

Positives

The main positive of this film for me is not the humour but the character of the Hulk. Hulk actually says more than 2 words in this film. The last time I heard him speak was in The Avengers (2012) when he said ‘Puny God’. After that it was all ‘AAAARRRRR’ ‘RAAAAwr’ and ‘Hm’ until Ragnarok. Before Ragnarok he became a rudimentary strong man, almost a secondary character. Bruce Banner was a bit more developed, but he was known for his PhDs and his relationship with another fringe character, Black Widow. The Hulk as a character was hardly developed so it left the Bruce Banner/Hulk conflict undeveloped. It is the Bruce Banner/Hulk conflict which makes the Hulk interesting as a superhero. Here in Ragnarok he is more developed and probably has something to offer going forward apart from his great strength. I’m spending a lot of time with the Hulk because the best parts of the film take part on the wasteland planet of Sakaar which is known to comic book fans because of the Planet Hulk storyline. This really should have been Hulk’s story but they have found a way to get Thor involved. I know about the arrangement with Universal but just imagine if marvel had a movie called Planet Hulk and it was actually good. Ragnarok shows how good it could have been even without Thor’s presence. Without this stopover in Sakaar the Thor franchise would have struggled to reinvent itself even if it had all the comedy in the world.

The movie itself has a fairly interesting story involving Hela. It does go into a lot of exaggerated conflict but it does capture in its own way the original premise of Ragnarok, the destruction of Asgard. The Hela back story is also interesting because Hela is the silent character whose history has largely been forgotten. It does capture the hypocrisy on Odin’s part despite his pretensions to nobility. He needed Hela to conquer but didn’t need her when he became respectable. This goes to show how politics can influence how history is written. One of the good things about the Thor franchise is that it never sought to portray Odin as a heroic figure and the trend continues here in Ragnarok.

The comedic elements are good but they are stronger on the planet Sakaar. A lot of things happen on the planet during the film including a change in Thor’s image and brighter tones normally not attributed to a Thor film. The comedic elements on the planet reflect this change in image for Thor the character and Thor the franchise. The comedy would not have worked without the brighter colours. The character of Valkyrie is also discovered on Sakaar. It seems to be a place where the rejected come and if they manage it they can  be reborn. No character who lands on Sakaar is the same afterwards, apart from maybe Loki. It does apply to Thor, Hulk and the Valkyrie.

The fight between Hulk and Thor in the arena was pretty good. ‘Are you not entertained?’

Negatives

The primary negative is that the film has a superficial quality that does not really fit with a heavy theme like Ragnarok. Now the Ragnarok would have worked if the old style of Thor worked or was successful. Then they would not have needed this sojourn in Sakaar. If the old style of Thor worked then the theme itself would have been more resonant. Ragnarok seems like an afterthought but it gets the job done superficially. What I normally read about the  Ragnarok is much more brutal than it’s portrayed here in Ragnarok. The old Thor style, if it worked commercially, would have captured the pathos of the old Ragnarok. This Ragnarok didn’t have much gravity. This is one of the first Marvel  films where the heroes are incapable of overcoming the villain on their own. So this film is not about who wins; which is good, because of Odin’s hypocrisy. Defeat can be a good thing and so Thor ends on a high. Ragnarok seems like a last gasp for the franchise before going under. Technically a lot of that had to do with the sojourn on Sakaar which is more Hulk’s story than Thor’s. Hulk might come out the better than Thor here. The Hulk has undergone a greater transformation than Thor. Without the Hulk twist then this movie doesn’t work so for me this is just as much Hulk’s movie as it is Thor’s. So while Ragnarok  was a last gasp for the Thor franchise it actually showed what could have been if Marvel was able to release a series of Hulk films.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) ****/5: Good film but could have been more action packed and gotten to the point quicker. The detective work in the film is first rate

(image courtesy of Empire.com)

I liked Blade Runner 2049 because it does expand the world of Los Angeles in this particular dystopian future. This sequel also stays faithful to the original; some might say a bit too faithful. Blade Runner (1982) is my all time favourite sci-fi film, particularly the Final cut version,  and so my expectations were high for the sequel but not that high because one could immediately tell that the aim was to produce a Blade Runner film for 21^st century audiences. What really surprised me- before I went to watch the film- was the budget of US$150 million. When I went to watch the film I was anticipating that the sequel would be more action packed but it never really caught on which means a lot of people will be let down. It’s not easy to spend that much on a film without some significant action behind it. Were the visuals that expensive? The vision of Blade Runner has already been realized fully by its progeny (Total Recall, The Matrix etc) so 2049 probably needed to go in a new direction in order to really develop beyond the confines of its predecessor.

2049 starts with Ryan Gosling as Agent K on the hunt for replicants. While on a standard mission he makes an important discovery that will fundamentally alter the society of Los Angeles. It’s a discovery that unravels all the important events that transpired following the end of the original Blade Runner. He eventually teams up with the original Blade runner, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), while also trying to elude the minions of Niander Wallace (Jared Leto).

Positives

The main positive for me was the detective work in this film. The detective work expands the film as Agent K goes in search of answers to this strange finding. You get to encounter a variety of characters and to visit many locations that wasn’t possible in the first Blade Runner that was limited primarily to the city environs. In 2049 we get a good look on the outskirts of the city and the lives of the marginalized or those not fully incorporated into the  city wide matrix. When you watch 2049 you’ll realize that it’s not a surprise that  replicants account for the majority of the marginalized. There are other characters and groups however that also provide some texture but they are not fully realized. They act more or less like typical scavengers. The revelation of life on the outskirts of a very large city does have some impact because of events that transpired between 2019 and 2049. It’s clear that the city has expanded even further and that some of the old structures that now make up the outskirts of the city were probably inhabited in 2019 up until the massive blackout. This blackout seems to have changed things dramatically; made a sharp division between the old and the new. The mystery at the heart of the film is very well developed. In order to arrive at the truth K cannot simply rely on the available information; he has to go beyond and do some old fashioned research in some cases since a lot of the usual details would have been lost after the black out. A lot of blood is shed to arrive at the truth.

The detective work also takes us into the creepy halls of power. This Mr. Wallace must truly represent the high point of capital in Los Angeles just as Tyrell did for the original. It’s a new division between the old and the new but much more sinister much more exploitative because in the case of the new Wallace seems even more powerful and influential than the oldTyrell. His replicant products are more advanced and he’s clearly into synthetics. One thing that will always be striking about the Blade Runner world is this distinction between master and slave which is developed well in 2049. It is the backbone of the entire franchise and I’m expecting a sequel to this film where the contradictions will become full blown in the form of violence. No more subtle reflections. Wallace said something important about civilizations being built on the backs of an unwanted workforce. Not sure but I’ll look out for it the next time I watch it. This is a very important statement from a historical point of view. I understand why the first Blade Runner just mentioned the off world colonies but it’s time that these sequels show us these colonies so we can get a better understanding of the slave like conditions of replicants.

The detective work makes it clear that this sequel uses the black out to make sharp distinctions between the old and the new world. This distinction is good because the world in 2049 has a somewhat different look and yes the rain is still there. The visuals must be where most of the money was spent along with the salaries for the actors. The many locations in this film have a distinctive feel because of their elaborate design. The outskirts are given a lot of attention in this film and in some cases there is a menacing feel when K goes towards these locations especially an area with a high level of radioactivity. The billboards are much more developed in this film especially for a particular pleasure product. I missed the connection with the off-world colonies in this film which were a standout of the original. The new world of 2049 is somewhat the same with noticeable changes but the core is still there. It’s no longer remarkable apart from the push into the outskirts of the city.

Harrison Ford really embraced the role of an older Deckard really well.

Negatives

The primary negative for me is that this film is too faithful to the original in terms of stylistic approaches. The eyeball in the opening scenes, for instance, is so similar to the original but it’s not effective because it has no bearing on what the audience is seeing. Modern audiences who have not seen the original will not have an understanding of the issues because the eyes don’t reveal anything as spectacular as the original. The music is similar as well as the emphasis on the L.A dystopia, particularly the commercial and industrial landscape where the sun never seems to shine. The final scene involving K is faintly reminiscent of the ‘Tears in Rain’ sequence but definitely not as effective. The mood can be oppressive for those not acquainted with the atmosphere. For me the best way to have lightened this atmosphere was to have more action scenes. The detective work is very interesting but it’s not enough because the film is about 2 hrs and 38 minutes if you exclude the credits at the end. More action was needed to get modern audiences fully on board with the Blade Runner universe. As I mentioned before the Blade Runner universe was successfully built upon by its progeny (The Matrix etc) which placed more emphasis on action while still holding on to themes of control and exploitation.  2049 does have action but it’s of the sort you would expect from a Blade Runner: short and unspectacular.  The hallmark of the series is clearly the detective work but it actually could have developed a distinctive style of action to fill in the universe much more.

The length of the film is somewhat problematic because the original Blade Runner was very economical. The length does seem to be overbearing because there is simply not enough to fill in the gaps even with the new L.A landscapes. More action was required and there were hints towards the end that there will be more action in the third film but it might require a director with a different mindset to pull it off. A lot of time is spent on Agent K’s relationship with a holographic female model, Joi,  but it takes away from what Blade Runner should be about especially if the creators wanted to be faithful. Without too much emphasis on the pleasure model then this film would have gotten moving in the necessary direction much quicker.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) ***½/5: Good film but we haven't seen the best of Spider-Man yet

(image courtesy of  wikipedia.org)

The most refreshing bit about Spider-Man: Homecoming is the  clear evidence that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is moving in new directions. You do get a sense that this is the beginning of a new phase which is still yet to fulfill its potential. It’s removed from the great and fantastic battles of the Avengers and other films. Marvel is trying to get back to basics even though right around the corner is Avengers: Infinity War which is supposed to be as massive as this film is small. Even after Infinity War and Avengers 4 it’s pretty clear that Spider-Man is the future of the MCU as it stands right now. Iron Man is clearly on his way out as the Spider-Man brand comes back to prominence once again.  This film also improves on the previous Amazing Spiderman films but it’s still not on the level of Spider-Man 2 (2002).

This film stars Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, following his participation in Civil War, as he grapples with his new found responsibilities as a hero. It’s never straight forward because he faces his first real taste in the form of the more grown up Adrian Toomes/The Vulture who’s making a killing ($$$) from the Avengers’ mess. Parker also has to grapple with the angst of teenage life.

Positives

The main positive is that this film represents a new direction for the MCU. Yes it’s grounded in high school social life but it’s clear that the time will come when Spider-Man will become a major force in future films as an adult. This will probably occur after the Avengers battle the mighty Thanos. If the MCU has a future then Spider-Man will be leading the way. It remains to be seen how well Black Panther does. Tony Stark/Iron Man is on his way out. His mentoring of Peter Parker is a clear sign. The high school perspective also gives a very good on the ground feel which is far removed from the excess at the top. It was very refreshing even though the inevitable direction of the MCU must be taken into account. The high school perspective does show how the Avengers have manifested themselves in ordinary everyday life.

Michael Keaton does well as Adrian Toomes/the Vulture. He is clearly menacing but he does challenge Peter’s naivete. He exposes it in a good way which wasn’t the case in the previous Amazing SpiderMan films starring Andrew Garfield. Parker’s naivete does run counter to Toomes’ real world, mature experience. Eventually Spider-Man will understand how important it is to compromise. His quest for a perfect moral order might not be how he imagined it.

There is also some good comedy in this film. It explores all the pitfalls of being Spider-Man which are normally featured in the world of memes. For instance how can he do his fancy web slinging when there are no tall buildings around? It also explores the issue of his identity and how important it is that it be kept a secret.

The supporting cast is really good and the homecoming concept keeps the film grounded in the  high school arena.

The diversity of the cast is amazing even though the hero is still white. Lol. The whiteness had to be preserved of course. Like I said in the future (10-30 years) when this race thing is no longer an issue then we’ll see some real challenges to the typical white super hero who is a paragon of virtue.

Negatives

The primary negative is that Parker doesn’t develop much on his own. There’s no origin story and he basically takes his cues from being an aspiring Avenger and in the shadow of Tony Stark/Iron Man. This is the price he had to pay while sharing a universe with so many other powerful heroes. His own adventures apart from waiting for the Avengers call could have been more interesting. It’s only towards the end that we get a sense of who he really is. The suit tailor made by Stark is not of his own design, and he basically takes his cues from Stark on  superhero matters. Tony Stark/Iron Man is still the big man at the moment and so Parker is like a second fiddle. It would have been more interesting to see Peter develop on his own. You still get the impression that he’s a secondary sort of Avenger who thrives on being a joke. More films will have to come along before we see this Spider-Man become his own man.

The action wasn’t that great probably because Spider-Man hasn’t honed his skills yet. Even the goofy and clumsy web slinging is not very exciting. At least they stuck with the web shooter element because one of the mistakes of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films was the absence of the web shooter. At least this film attempts to break down how it came about.

The film runs on too much comedy which takes away from some of the more serious moments.

It will still be interesting to see how this Spider-Man series unfolds in the next couple of years.

Dunkirk (2017) ****/5: Good historical film but there's just too much spectacle and too much British

(photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

Dunkirk is a good historical based film by Christopher Nolan. One gets the sense that Nolan is more interested in the spectacle of Dunkirk as opposed to its deeper ramifications for World War 2. I say this because a significant portion of the film is about the struggles of the soldiers on the beach in a particular moment in time. It’s clearly an episode, along with the succeeding battle of Britain, which is very close to the British. The soldiers on the ground aren’t the ones who give the orders. They are the ones on the ground awaiting some form of deliverance from the war by being evacuated from the Dunkirk beach in France  as the Germans are now in the ascendancy.  Nolan is simply trying to capture the trials of these soldiers. Yes we know its World War 2 but for the moment it’s all about these soldiers crossing that small stretch of water to land on British shores. I would very much like Nolan to follow up this film with one about the battle of Britain. His take on it should be quite interesting but it would also be a bigger picture with more ramifications about World War 2. Nolan would also do well consider that it’s a battle fought primarily in the sky.

This film captures from various perspectives the event of the evacuation of British soldiers from the shores of Dunkirk in France during the early years of World War 2. There is not one true star in this picture although there are the usual Nolan collaborators such as Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Important roles are given to Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance and Fionn Whitehead who offers the grim perspective of a soldier on the ground level.

Positives

This film is technically top notch and you would expect that coming from Nolan. This time around it’s not just about some interesting concept involving human agents but an actual historical event involving real people. Nolan tells the story in his own way of course and it’s  not really straight forward and can make it difficult for some to follow. For instance, there are scenes at night followed by scenes during the day and then for a time it goes back and forth from night to day. Either Nolan is trying to make the story telling economical or he’s simply telling it from different perspectives. After while you come to terms with the different perspectives: the land, air and sea. The mole, which is the point of evacuation on the beach of Dunkirk, is the perspective from the land. The sea involves the trek from the beach of Dunkirk to the shores of Britain which is fraught with danger because of the aerial bombardment from the Luftwaffe, German fighter planes. From the air the Royal Air Force (RAF) try to defend the ships evacuating the soldiers on the seas from the Luftwaffe. It all adds up and towards the end the presentation of the story becomes more coherent. At the beginning however it is mostly chaotic with sinking ships, soldiers scrambling for some support while stranded in the sea and other soldiers trying to find a quick getaway. There is even a French soldier who tries to escape under the guise of being a British soldier. The early stages of the evacuation involved,  primarily, British soldiers apparently. The French had to wait their turn. My brief reading about the episode reveals that a significant amount of French soldiers were evacuated but Nolan is historically correct by making clear the preference for British soldiers to be evacuated ahead of the French. There is also the perspective of the civilians who came to the aid of the soldiers seeking some return home.  There is an emotional moment, which will certain affect some British people, where the civilians show their support for the soldiers with their boats used in transporting some of the soldiers from the beach to the larger warships or to take some home.  This emotional scene does demonstrate that Dunkirk was an episode that affected the nation. It was not an isolated event. Nolan tries to make this clear by referring to the battle of Britain that was expected to follow.

This film does do justice to the overall big picture of World War 2 in its own small way. There are not many films which show the perspective of war where the Germans are in the ascendancy. Normally films show when the tide turns against the Germans.  The film takes place during the early years of World War 2 with Germany  about to conquer France. The German presence is only visible in the air because the German command called off the armoured approach on the ground and left it to the aerial fighters to halt the evacuation by targeting the British  ships and soldiers on the beach. Apparently we are witnessing a German victory regardless of how many German planes are shot down.  It will be good if Nolan can follow this film up with one about the Battle of Britain then we will be able to see the evacuation of Dunkirk as more than just a defeat. Based on Nolan’s take the evacuation of Dunkirk must have represented a turning point because with the evacuation Britain could still continue with the fight against the Germans especially with its man power still intact for the most part. So when someone sits down to watch some films about World War 2 then Dunkirk should be one of the first on their list. This applies if you’re looking at just the war effort involving soldiers. This film captures a moment when the Germans were in the ascendancy and were about to be in total control of continental Europe with Britain being the only European country in the fight before the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the Americans.  There is another film about Dunkirk made in the 1950s but I haven’t watched it. Nolan’s version will probably be more up to date.

The musical score was very good. A return to form for Hans Zimmer. The cinematography was alsoe exceptional and the scenes from the air were very well  put together despite the chaos on the ground level. This is why I think Nolan would do well making a film about the Battle of Britain.

Nolan has shown that he can make a film with real dramatic heft.

Negatives

Why should people outside of Britain be so interested in what happened with the evacuation from Dunkirk? Is this film really that important? The big picture is always important because the film does not seem very connected to the big picture which is World War 2. The Germans are mostly anonymous figures and there is not much battling taking place apart from in the air. What about the perspective from those up top. Yes Nolan wanted to just capture the experience on the ground which is probably more interesting because of the spectacle but for the overall ramifications about the War it is not very effective. Nolan could have done more with the actual battle that led to the retreat.  The German presence should have been made evident on the ground apart from just bullets and aerial bombers. This is one perspective that was lacking. Even a shot just to show that the Germans are in the ascendancy and that France is about to fall. When I say ‘show’ I mean that I wanted to see the presence of the German army. Someone who doesn’t understand the history of World War 2 will be at a loss as to where those bullets are coming from and why there is this major retreat. All you get are shots fired.

The primary perspective of the Dunkirk evacuation is a British one obviously. There is a minor French perspective but the soldier is literally swallowed up. The French perspective could have been given some more dialogue with subtitles of course. In this film the French are literally mute.  The Dunkirk evacuation of British soldiers was not the whole story and so the film has a very British feel about it as if made to inspire Britons. The reference to the Battle of Britain in this film comes before Churchill made his famous speech.  The British weren’t the only soldiers on the beach but the film is concerned primarily with the effort to evacuate British soldiers which is very limiting in scope. Towards the end it is claimed that the evacuation of the French will begin. What? I thought this was the story about Dunkirk not the British version of Dunkirk. This primary focus on the British perspective will eventually affect how this film is viewed by more impartial filmgoers, such as myself of course. The focus on the British perspective makes the film even smaller and less connected to the big picture of World War 2 because a significant amount of French soldiers were also evacuated. Nolan might be planning to make the Dunkirk trilogy. He could have instead told a bigger film instead of one which is just about British heroism.

This film has some real shallow moments because of the limiting perspective, especially the effort of British civilians to save primarily British soldiers. The emotional scenes ring very hollow because of the dominant British perspective.

So all in all a very good film from the point of view of spectacle but the story is very limited to a British point of view. It’s primarily a tale of British heroism as opposed to one about the overall bigger picture of World War 2. 

Wonder Woman (2017) ****/5: There are some hackneyed and inconsequential elements but this is still one of the best superhero films of the modern era.

(image courtesy of vox.com)

Wonder Woman is one of the best superhero films of the modern era that began in 1978.  There are some iconic visual moments in the film that will influence and define the character for this generation. Wonder Woman/Diana Prince bursts forth from relative obscurity and makes a grand impression. You have to take her seriously. She is a powerful character. Some will even start to wonder how powerful she is and if she won’t end up leading the line for DC. For years Batman and Superman led the line for DC films or films based on characters from DC comics and this culminated in the poorly conceptualized BvS released last year. Wonder Woman may have been featured in some series, animated or otherwise, since the beginning of the modern era of comic book films but there was no film produced featuring her heroics. Most comic book readers know that Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman form the holy trinity of DC comics. They tried to bring this forth in BvS last year in preparation for the formation of the Justice League. Wonder Woman is deserving of a good film because she is such an iconic character. This film is also the best superhero film ever made with a female as the lead. Like I said she is a powerful character and even the men will have to accept that even though some will not have seen such display of power by a female lead in a superhero film. It’s time that she was given her due.

The film stars Gal Gadot as the Wonder Woman, the amazon warrior from Themyscira, an ancient island which is home to the amazons who are all female. Diana is unaware of her godly heritage. She learns as she goes along. Diana leaves her secluded, sacred island to fight in World War 1 or the Great War so that she can confront Ares. She is ably assisted by Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) a British spy, who sounds a lot like an American, who crash lands on the secluded island carrying important secrets that will possibly end the war. It is he who informs the Amazons about what’s happening in the world outside especially the war to end all wars.  Several other male characters also line up alongside her and join in the fight and form an unlikely band of warriors with Diana as the de facto leader.

Positives

The main positive of this film are the iconic visual elements that will come to define how Wonder Woman is identified. Obviously the casting of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman/Diana prince has a lot to do with but when she is revealed in all her Wonder Woman glory with all the traditional garb and begins to assume a leadership position on the battlefield then you come to realize how iconic she is. I didn’t have much problem with the final battle because although some people are complaining that it’s typical super hero fare I also saw it as Wonder Woman coming of age where her power reaches its ultimate height. The visual elements surrounding Ares was also significant and seems to be rounded in the visual conception of the Wonder Woman world. The visuals are very important here and so I don’t agree with one critic that the CGI in the final battle could have been from any other film. The visual elements say a lot about Wonder Woman’s world. And when she goes into action you do realize why she is iconic. The bright yellowing light or golden sheen will come to define the character and make her distinctive along with Gal Gadot in the lead. If one looks at the atmosphere of war torn Europe in 1918 with its greying look then you’ll understand why Wonder Woman’s golden sheen look stands out so much. It contrasts with the period.   Gal Gadot does well and she has the look of Wonder Woman and this was immediately identifiable when watching BvS last year. Her naïve charm early on in the film is eventually replaced by the demeanour of a veteran or someone coming into their own and realizing their full potential. The movie does well enough to ensure that Wonder Woman assumes her rightful place. A lot of Diana’s look has to do with the bright Themyscira and it’s good that the filmmakers spent some time explaining how it came into being. I don’t mind exposition because I’m a historian.

I liked the portrayal of European society during World War1. We get a good look at English society and we also get a glimpse of war torn Continental Europe (Belgium and to  a lesser extent Germany) and the contrast between the elites and the casualties of war. There is even some time spent with the Ottomans or in Ottoman territory. I actually liked the character of General Ludendorff (Danny Huston) and what he represents. He is one example of how men are corrupted by war and take relish in destruction. I also understood the Ares element better particularly as the war was coming to an end.

The contrast between Diana and Steve is well played. The ordinary mortal alongside a godly figure. It is interesting and romantic but largely about how he convinces her to embrace the more ordinary aspects of life. Life that is not about the Gods on high or great battles to be fought. Just simple tales of the heart. So it’s well done. And the acting is pretty good.

The action is pretty good. I wasn’t that impressed by some of the slow motion sequences but seeing Wonder woman in full flight is pretty interesting. Seeing a female superhero lead showcase that kind of power is truly something. I didn’t hear much cheers in the audience for what she did but there was quiet acknowledgment that she’s the real deal especially when she was in full flight with bracelet, shield, sword and lasso.

I was pretty surprised that Diana’s heroics didn’t generate as much excitement in the world she inhabited. There was not much question about who is this powerful woman on the battlefield. I’m just glad she wasn’t on American soil. Maybe it was deliberate that she was made into an obscure heroic figure because of the upcoming Justice League films.

Negatives

The primary negative for me is that the film does have some hackneyed elements. Diana clearly doesn’t understand the real world and her message about love saving the world is a bit too corny for my liking. Hopefully in other films they will show how the world is built on racial and class struggles. Wonder Woman does not represent other minorities and is clearly another example of the white race showcasing its power although the island of Themyscira does have a good racial mixture.  Based on Wonder Woman’s reasoning there is not only war to be addressed but the various systems of exploitation all over the world even during peace time. It is these systems that eventually lead to the cycle of war and peace. Her beating Ares did not seem like an earth shattering event. It had to do more with her character than about the fate of the world.  It did not seem as if she achieved much by beating him especially as the war was almost over by the time of their final battle. If Diana’s actions were more effective during the course of the war then the final battle would have been more effective. Was Diana even active during World War 2? Maybe that could be the subject of a sequel. I was not clear why Wonder Woman was made into such an obscure figure. Why was she not celebrated more? This is probably due to her battles being very inconsequential. It would have been good if she went on more campaigns during the war in her quest for Ares and then ending up finding him in the midst of the battlefield stirring up the soldiers. In the film they do mention that Ares is likely to be present at the most intense part of the battle but the war is almost over so then what.

It’s a good origin story but I still wasn’t clear on the role of the Amazons. Diana keeps talking about their purpose yet this race of women prefer to remain secluded. Why are all the gods dead? That shouldn’t necessarily be the case and I think Diana’s world would have been richer if more gods were a part of her world. As a fan of Greek myth I would have preferred if they were still around so that we could have some more insight into how they viewed the world. How is Ares so powerful that he is the only one remaining?  Diana is the sole representative but hopefully the Themyscira will play an important role in future DC films

Overall well done Patty Jenkins.

Why I prefer The Godfather 1&2 to GoodFellas

(Image of the Godfather courtesy of rottentomatoes.com)



(image courtesy of wikipedia.com)

This is one of those posts where I have to briefly get something off my chest. In his review the very influential and popular critic, Roger Ebert, declared that GoodFellas was ‘The best mob movie ever’.  Obviously this was a clear challenge to The Godfather which is not only one of the best mob movies ever made but one of the greatest films ever made. Every time I watch GoodFellas I grapple with Ebert’s statement of opinion not only because I prefer The Godfather 1&2, which I just consider to be one massive film, but because I was influenced greatly by Ebert’s criticism of films. He was my go to critic when I was starting to appreciate the great films. His ‘Great Film’ series influenced me greatly. I also used to scour his catalogue of reviews on the great films of the past as well as the current releases.  I was just beginning to appreciate the great films in my late teens, early 20s period. So when I came across his GoodFellas review where he made that declaration I was stumped for the first time. It is those moments when you realize that you’ll never be able to truly follow someone as completely ever again. You will still go along with what they’re saying and will still agree from time to time but you realize that you have come of age and must challenge those who have influenced you. As I went along I realized that I began to disagree with Ebert on a lot of other points but overall i still find myself agreeing with a lot that he says. I understand now more clearly his middle class position and how that influenced how he reviewed films. There are a lot of reviews where he was clearly biased and tried to instill some relevant moral argument into his reviews. One of the biases in his reviews was his overall love for Scorsese. Need I say  more. I didn’t have to be told because I discovered it on my own just by reading his reviews.

Now to the matter at hand. I do think that GoodFellas is an exceptional film. It is a great film about the mob underworld but it is still not my overall favorite mob film. It has a very high kinetic energy and once it gets started the high tempo never subsides and it moves along quite smoothly. One of its strongest points is the counter narrative by Karen, Henry’s wife. The perspective of an ordinary person drawn into the lifestyle of the mob underworld; taken away by its charm but eventually finding it repulsive. I also like the fall from grace because eventually the glamour of the mob lifestyle, which is essentially presented with a carefree, do what you want sort of vibe is eventually replaced by a more sombre tone as things start to fall apart. The ordinary people who pay their taxes are the suckers until you have to join them once the government gets a hold of you.  It’s a lot like life actually. It is a very good film and it has a lot to say but for me it’s not on the level of  The Godfather 1&2 because it is not a very expansive film. It is quite limited to a small group in the mob underworld: Henry, Jimmy and Tommy. They are primarily enforcers. It’s exciting watching them together but it does not have the big picture feel.  The film is also based on a true story which does make it grounded but in the end it does not say much about the mob underworld and the various intricacies that make it function. The Godfather 1&2 do have that expansive feel where there is a lot of meditation on American society especially how the mob underworld makes its mark. These films do emphasize what the mob underworld represents to society and how it became embedded in American society. It has a lot of meditations on the immigrant experience in America and why family bonds were so important for survival.  GoodFellas might mention the links with Sicily but in The Godfather 1&2 it forms a significant part of the story and we are allowed to see why the links are so important especially how some Italian Americans made the transition from the Old World to the New. Whereas GoodFellas focuses on a particular true story in the mob underworld  The Godfather1&2 is about the mob underworld in general with emphasis on the Corleone family. Yes The Godfather 1&2 are fictional but a lot of it is rooted in the reality of the mob underworld in general or its general history. With GoodFellas only focusing on the enforcers it is difficult to appreciate the big picture. The perspective of the enforcer is much more exciting because it’s more violent but The Godfather 1&2 offer the perspective of the very top which is why you get a better understanding of how the mob underworld comes into being and how it becomes embedded into American society, particularly through its links with the dominant bourgeoisie. So whereas in GoodFellas we get to see how Henry, Jimmy, and Tommy deal small time in drugs and theft in The Godfather 1&2 we get to see how the mob underworld makes real money. Real money on the level of the dominant bourgeoisie represented by the casinos in The Godfather 1&2. Scorsese did make a film about the mob’s participation in the casinos in Casino (1995). Casino was actually the first film where I got exposed to Scorsese.  In The Godfather part 2  Michael even goes as far as making an investment in Cuba. You can’t get bigger than that when explaining the reach of the mob underworld and the dark finance in American society. The money of the mob underworld as highlighted in The Godfather 1&2 makes you wonder about how much money is really circulating in the world economy and how much of it is represented by nefarious activity. The legends about Pablo Escobar’s money are really something. In GoodFellas the trade in drugs is really small time because in The Godfather part 1 they are discussing how the trade will be controlled. Even Paulie in Goodfellas seems like a small timer.

So for me the difference between The Godfather 1&2 and GoodFellas is more about perspective. You realize immediately that the flashy lifestyle of the mob in GoodFellas is really small time and does not offer much in terms of showing the reach of the mob underworld in American society. I mention the 2 Godfather films just to highlight my point about perspective. Even if I was comparing GoodFellas with just 1 or 2 I would still come to the same conclusion. GoodFellas is a very good film and a great film in terms of technique and so on but in terms of perspective it’s not on the level of either The Godfather part 1 or The Godfather part 2. So here I am revealing my own bias for big picture and expansive films. My bias is towards films that say something meaningful about society in general. If it’s based on a true story then even better but here I am revealing my bias for the more epic films. The word ‘epic’ has been taken over by mass media and absorbed in the general culture…. ‘that’s epic’…… but in this sense the epic nature of The Godfathers 1&2 is what I prefer to the small time presentation of the mob in GoodFellas. So yes, I don’t think GoodFellas is the best mob movie ever. Whew! I can finally lay the issue to rest and move on.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) ***½ /5: A visual treat with some weight and dimension added to the characters but still lightweight in some areas.

(photo courtesy of cinemablend.com)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a visual treat but ultimately a letdown because  all the mysteries have been revealed and there is not much to look forward to. I was really caught up with some of the visuals and this film does resolve some of the issues of the first film in the series. The problems I had with the first film are still here although some of the revelations do give the film some heft in terms of characterization. You do realize that there were some mysteries left to resolve. Now that all the mysteries have been revealed and some issues have been resolved then we’ll finally see the Guardians move forward as a distinct,  unified group.

The film stars Chris Pratt as Quill who comes to face certain truths that will give him a new sense of purpose when moving forward with his life. The usual cast returns:   Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Bradley Cooper as the talking raccoon, Rocket, Davie Bautista as Drax the destroyer and Vin Diesel as baby Groot.  Some of the other Guardians have to come to terms with their own “humanity”as well.

Positives

The primary positive for me were the visuals. They are really stunning in 3D. There was a bit too much colour sometimes especially on Ego’s (Kurt Russell) planet. I noticed from the first film that the visuals are really what make the world of the Guardians seems so distinct or unique. The visuals here are clearly the main standout of this series. I don’t mind more of the same in such a case.

The film does give the characters some heft that was missing in the first film. There are various revelations which can’t be spoilt here but the characters come to discover a lot about themselves following these revelations as they are confronted with the truth. The most important revelations obviously have a lot to do with Quill and his father, Ego, and Yondu (Michael Rooker). Some of the other Guardians also have to confront some harsh truths about themselves as well. It does give the characters some weight and they can no longer be seen as mere caricatures.

The film does resolve a lot of the issues and mysteries of the first film and so it does add something new. I don’t get why some critics are asking for something new when they already got that with the template for the first film. The first film already established the Galaxy and so it is the story that must continue and the film does add to the story of the first film. It can’t be remarkably new when it is a mere continuation from the first.

Negatives

The primary negatives are the same that I had with the first film (go and check out my first review). The film still has some lightweight aspects and it’s still very superficial in parts. A lot of superficiality has to do with the comedic aspects which trivializes a lot but this time there is more balance.

I wasn’t really caught up with the plot of the main villain. It was too big too soon for a film such as this. The villain could have definitely been more effective here but everything just seems rushed and trying to compensate for some areas that are clearly lacking. It does tie in somewhat but more subtlety was required at times instead of fireworks.

Fences (2016) ****/5: Great dramatic performances by Denzel and Viola although Denzel does go over the top.

I must have been really out of it for 2016 to miss a film like Fences. What a great example of layered dramatic acting by Denzel Washington who plays the bitter, brow beaten Troy  and Viola Davis as Rose, his long suffering wife.  The film also has a lot to say about the black working class family, particularly their struggles to emerge from the desperate poverty that afflicted most black folks for much of the early 20th century. This was because of the racist white institutional structure that kept them down in a state of abject dependency. I’m not surprised that Davis won the Oscar for best female supporting actress and I wouldn’t have been surprised if Denzel won  for best actor although a nomination was a given.

The film, which takes place in the 1950s,  is basically about Troy Maxson (Denzel Washington) who is bitter about his missed opportunity of being a professional baseball player because he was considered too old when the major leagues started accepting blacks. He then became a lowly sanitation worker but the pain of his missed opportunity eventually takes its toll on his family life which is held together by Rose (Viola Davis), his long suffering wife. Troy’s bitterness extends to his son Cory (Jovan Adepo) who he denies the chance to meet a football recruiter from college because of either his own fear that his son will fail or that he will be jealous of his success.   This film or movie play opens with Troy towards the end and how he deals with things as they fall apart and how his loyal wife Rose keeps everything afloat so that there’s a chance that things can come back together again. Putting up the fence is one way to ensure that things will hold together and the sanctity of the family will be preserved.

Positives

The performances by Washington and Davis are real standouts here although it becomes a bit wordy on Washington’s part. His bitterness  becomes wearisome and makes you really wonder how Rose put up with Troy for so long. Troy is the seed which would not bloom from the cold dry earth. Denzel does capture the anguish of Troy really well because I have some experience with a patriarch who missed his chance at becoming something major in life for various reasons.  I am also aware of what it can do to the household. As Rose says Troy had a big presence and you do get the sense he was made for more than lowly sanitation work. His presence is all pervasive and his sons find it difficult to escape his shadow. Rose is a quiet presence in contrast to Troy’s loud one. She quietly moves and keeps things together while the loud man talks and talks and even messes up from time to time.  Rose does make it clear in the end why she stuck with Troy. They filled gaps. It’s what Rocky would say explaining why he and Adrian were such a good fit. Yes they are different but they complete each other in a real way as opposed to a romantic one.

The supporting cast is very strong and this is a good example of the great talent among African American actors. From Stephen Henderson as Bono, Mykelti Williamson as Gabriel, Russell Hornsby as Lyons and, one for the future, Jovan Adepo as Cory. The strong supporting cast of black actors does provide some much needed perspective about the lives of black folk during the 1950s. In this case it’s a black working class family trying to keep its head above water. Any slip up and it’s down to a life of bitterness, madness, despair and starvation. Rose is so important in keeping things together that it’s not funny because most of the men around her are failed products of society, including Troy. Their dreams shattered in some form or the other. Her loyal son, Cory, does make something of himself and you get a sense that it’s because he was very close to his mother. You also get a general sense of the struggles of black folk in the early years of the 20^th century. When Troy and Bono get together to reminisce on their struggles as young black men growing up in the white man’s world  like loose cannons you do get a sense of how they were drifters or petty criminals before they were finally grounded. Many elements contributed to them being grounded but the most important is major failures and small successes. Small successes like buying a house, building a fence or buying a refrigerator. Major failures like the inability to fulfill your potential and being restricted to a domestic space like it’s a prison. A lot of this is revealed in the very meaty dialogue and one can obviously see elements of the Broadway play in it. Only actors on stage are as verbose as the characters in Fences who inhabit such a tight space. The verbosity is compensated for because it’s very layered and the dramatic performances are strong enough to make this seem like an everyday part of life.

There is also the generational shift which is so important.  Troy, Rose, Bono and Gabriel are like the first generation followed by Lyons and then Cory and Raynell (Saniyya Sidney). There are layers to the family structure and this is always important in moving forward. Despite the struggles they must learn to stay together through the sun and  the rain. If they hold on and stick together then there will be some progress.

Negatives

The primary negative is that this is like a movie play. It’s structured like a play. Nothing much seems to happen beyond the original text of the play. Why is Troy’s mistress, Abigail, off screen all the time? She could have given much needed perspective and Troy wouldn’t have to talk so much. A little deviance from the original play structure would have worked wonders in such a case. Most of the action and dialogue takes place at home and we do get some sense of Troy as a working man but for the most part it’s at home. Cory’s story could have been expanded considerably, as well as Lyons, but this would have taken away from Troy and Rose. It could have been a better film though if these other lives were given more attention. It also would have brought more perspective to the generational shift.

Denzel does go over the top with his performance for me and maybe that’s because he has to incorporate so much into the dialogue. In a film you would expect some of that dialogue to be diffused by imagery or a more expanded setting. Some flashbacks wouldn’t have been so bad. I would have gotten to visualize some of the struggles Troy was always referring to especially his life as an aspiring professional baseball player.

Apart from that it’s a good film but could have been expanded  a bit more to incorporate the other characters better.

Get Out (2017) ****/5: This film is effective as a social critique of racial relations in the US. I was not scared though.

 

(photo courtesy of Imdb.com)

Get Out has probably made a lot of black people feel uncomfortable when surrounded by a sea of white people. It has visualized our worst fears about racism or racial exploitation and the lengths that white people will go to maintain their hegemony as the dominant racial group in America. This is despite some of these whites trying to appear progressive and liberal when it comes to accepting the material progress of some blacks in society. In the culture of the US black culture is very much mainstream right now with a half black president, in the form of Obama, just demitting office. Get Out is making a certain statement that black people should be wary of how much they allow themselves to be caught up with the fact that they are now accepted in a lot of states by white America. If you allow yourself to get caught up as a black man you will become absorbed by the whites because they are still the dominant racial group in the country. With black culture now mainstream the liberal whites are just jumping on the bandwagon and in typical white fashion exploit the natural talents of black people. This is the case being made in the film. So watch out or Get Out.

This film is about the black man Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) going to meet the parents of Rose (Allison Williams), his white girlfriend, somewhere in the American heartland or the white American heartland. The weekend getaway turns sour for Chris because of some very disturbing discoveries and he realizes that his only option is to get out or be put out.

Positives

I was more impressed by the social critique than the horror element. I’m not a big horror film fan because I’m rarely scared and this film is no different. The social critique however is very important. This film is clearly one for the integrationists who call for closer cooperation with the dominant white racial group in America. Closer integration with the dominant white racial group comes at a cost. Obviously this film blows it up from an emotional point of view but when you seek to integrate as a black man or woman you definitely become increasingly isolated in their company. Fitting in becomes even more difficult and in a lot of cases black people merely adapt and begin to act like their white counterparts. They begin to lose their identity and find it even more difficult to interact with their fellow blacks. A lot of them literally believe that by acting white they will be taken more seriously and they become an important instrument in the domination of their own brethren as they are culturally absorbed by the dominant white racial group. Obviously I can’t spoil the mystery elements of the plot but a lot of the horror in Get Out is based on how disgusting black integration with white culture can be. Obviously in this case it is not entirely Chris’s fault but the important message is that you must stay black and preserve your essence or it will be taken or absorbed by the dominant white racial group. An audience member said it perfectly ‘Him nuh black’ or ‘He’s not black’, referring to Chris. The audience member picked up immediately on what the film was trying to say. It’s when Chris starts to act ‘black’ that a lot of the audience members began to cheer. In Jamaica most of the audience members are black or mulatto/ brown people, a mixture of black and white. This is why Chris’s best friend, Rod (LilRel), a TSA agent, is such an important figure in this film because he stays to true to his blackness and this is why he picks up immediately that something is wrong. Credit must go to the character Chris though because he can’t have lost all his blackness if he’s still friends with Rod. So in this film you either Get  Out or be put out. The film reminded me of a quote by Marx when he said that the rule of the dominant class becomes more solid and dangerous the more they can absorb the best and brightest from the dominated classes.

There is also an important psychological element in this film that made the story a bit grounded and made the Chris character more sympathetic. He’s the most developed character in the whole film as a result. This does make the film more than just straight horror. Chris has buried a secret deep in his brain and when it’s unlocked and revealed it brings to the fore all the trauma he experienced on that tragic day. It’s also important how it’s used against him.

I also enjoyed the mystery elements. I was not scared  but the elements in the plot justified its horror film status. The one horror film Get Out reminded me of is Rosemary’s Baby. I found a lot of parallels.

Negatives

Since Get Out is effective as a social critique it can also be challenged on these grounds. I’m not going to get into that debate now but suffice to say one could say that the idea of how integrated blacks get with whites can be exaggerated and Jordan Peele could have balanced it by referring to the role some blacks play to get themselves caught by trying to act white in the first place. Chris does not represent the extreme of some of the oreo cookies out there. Initially I thought Peele was going that route in the film but when the mystery is revealed I realized that it wasn’t the fault of those black individuals why they acted in a particular way.  Also when you look at the fanatical white secret society Peele could have examined the extent that these societies are spread throughout the US. It would show that the struggle goes on despite minor victories. This would mean that there was the big picture. The big picture would have made a sequel possible especially when it comes to getting to the root of these fanatical secret societies. You do get a sense that some characters will never get out but that should also apply to the big picture.

 I also thought that Rose could have been more effective as a character. Even before the big mysteries are revealed she doesn’t seem very engaged or involved from the beginning and that sort of gives her away. She does act naïve initially but when we see the real  Rose she’s not very effective. 

when the mysteries are revealed it becomes a racial slugfest lol. This is why i wanted to see some genuine oreo cookies in the mix.

I wasn’t scared and I don’t blame this film in particular because I’m not usually scared by horror films. The attempt to make things appear horrific and scary in Get Out seemed formulaic to me. You literally expect to see some horrific things or to be manipulated so that you’ll feel scared.

Overall the film was very effective as a social critique. 

Why I like watching the closing credits at the end of a film?

(photo courtesy of Dailymotion)

I just want to briefly explain why the long list of credits at the end of a film always fascinated me. Marvel studios has gotten people to stick around and watch the end credits roll simply because they are waiting for the post-credits scenes. In a lot of cases while they wait for the post-credits scene some people normally talk while the credits roll on. I credit marvel for getting some of the average movie goers to appreciate watching the long list of credits even if they aren’t interested in the various names and positions that helped to make the film possible. I loved watching the long list of credits at the end of the film since I was a very young boy of 8 or 9. One reason is that I simply fell in love with movies after cable was first installed in my community during the mid 90s. HBO was my favourite channel and with lax parental supervision I watched all kinds of films. I became so in love with movies that by the end I would just watch the end credits roll as I digested the film experience. There was a time where I thought every film I watched was a great film; that’s what happens when you’re in love; you embrace everything with desire. This doesn’t matter even when on closer inspection a lot of films weren’t worth the time. One reason I am able to predict a lot of films is because I watched so much. Eventually the all embracing love became more selective and my love was directed at the better films or the ones that had much more quality. These better films made me appreciate the end credits sequence even more. The better films had such an impact on me emotionally that I would normally just watch the end credits sequence trying to process all that I just watched and then build anticipation for my next viewing. The film’s score and music also became important to me, and still is, in allowing me to continue to appreciate the film on an emotional level as it lingered in my head while watching the end credit sequence. I forgot to mention that my appreciation for the better films started in my teen years.

As I got older and left the teen years behind I came to admire the personnel that was being identified in the end credits and would start to marvel at the significant amount of people involved in the production. Creating a film is truly a massive undertaking. In the superficial world most people only focus on the stars because that’s who they see when they watch the films. Some people even have a vague idea of the Director and the Screen writers. Some films get people to appreciate the process by making a film within a film.  In the superficial world however the stars matter the most come awards time. To their credit the stars do carry a gigantic technical apparatus. They are the subjective element that makes all the technical output matter. Without the stars the technical aspects of the film are dead. The stars channel the creative energies of the numerous people behind the scenes so that they can create something distinctive. So I’m not taking anything away from the stars. In the end credit sequence they are truly the first names that the audience sees particularly in the open credit sequence along with the director, producers, screenwriters, cinematographers and editors. These are generally considered the more prestigious occupations in the film industry. The end credit sequence however did give me the opportunity to appreciate the other more technical operators like the stunt men (apart from Jackie Chan films lol). Obviously they are not grand on their own or there wouldn’t be so many and a lot of them are just assistants but the best ones in their field should be known throughout the film industry. This vast number of technical operators makes the creation of a film such a massive undertaking that at times I just have to say out loud ‘look how much people involved’. The vast number of technical operators also reveal how much things have changed. If you watch some of the older films you’ll realize how short the end of credit sequences are and obviously the major additions to the end credit sequence reveals how much the visual component has been enhanced. Visual and 3D effects, Cinematography, Music,  Sound effects, Sound mixing, various designers, art direction, camera men, etc demonstrate that the visual element of film has been considerably enhanced from the days where toys or small models of some structures were a part of production design. The increase in the end credit sequence also reveals that that the average level of investment in a particular film has raised considerably unless it’s primarily a character drama where most of the emphasis is on the actors and their acting ability. The scale of the blockbuster has raised the standard level of investment and the increased visual effects play an important part. So now I have moved from appreciating the amount of people involved in a film production to the amount of investment it takes to just to get a film made unless it’s primarily a character drama of course. When it’s a bad film it must be painful to sit through the end credit sequence because so much work went into producing a product that won’t be embraced by the market and so the investment won’t pay off.

End credit sequences therefore can make us appreciate the film even more from an emotional point of view as well as an appreciation for the numerous people involved in the production and the high level of investment. It all comes to the consumer in the form of a ticket price at the cinema or the price for a DVD or Blu ray. It is these end credit sequences that make it difficult for me to buy pirated material. You’re really playing with people’s livelihood when you do support the illegal activity but it’s such a costly affair to watch a movie at the cinema or buy the original Dvd or Blu ray that some people give in. Kudos to those that make watching the good films a great experience.

La La land (2016) ****½ /5: Suffers from the same limitations as most musicals but this is one of the best musicals ever made. It's right up there with the greats it pays homage to.

La La Land is one of the best musicals I’ve ever seen. For me it’s right up there with Singin’ in the Rain and West Side Story. Visually La La Land is way more advanced than any of the musicals it pays homage to. I’m not really a fan of musicals. I usually tolerate them. The Sound of Music, for instance, is tolerated because of the usual annual viewing. When I was younger everyone was talking about Chicago except me and a few like minded people. I normally find musicals excessively dramatic with their musical and dance numbers. The exceptions for me are Singin’ in the Rain, West Side Story and now  La La Land because there is some genuine dramatic heft in these films, something that resonates with me beyond the music and the razzle dazzle. For the first couple of minutes while watching La La Land I thought this would be another empty bourgeois spectacle but by the end I obviously changed my mind. I’m not here to debate whether this film should have won the Oscar for best picture because I have not watched the more contemporary Moonlight as yet. Like I said I have been a bit late with films released in the latter part of 2016 and I’m not getting paid lol. It’s another foolish dream of mine to write about films and to be taken seriously just like the protagonists in La La Land decide to follow their dreams before waking up. Whether or not the musical genre is dying La La Land will go down as one of the greats. Any musical after this will have to be really good. Musicals are a very elite category now which means one is released every 5 years or so. 

La La Land is a musical about two dreamers trying to make it in sunny California; LA to be exact. One, Mia (Emma Stone), is an aspiring actress and the other Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is an aspiring jazz musician in the old fashioned way who wants to open his own jazz club. Their dreams bring them together but it also tears them apart: The bittersweet price of following your dreams.

Positives

There are many positives about this film especially as I have now called it one of the all time great musicals. The question is: Does that make it a great film? Only time will tell. This film is right up there with the best of its genre. It clearly pays homage to the genre as a whole. I’m not that familiar with the names of the choreographers and musical composers so don’t expect a history lesson from me. If you ever watched a classic musical before though you will understand while watching this film that it’s paying homage to some bygone era. There is a clear historical current particularly with the opening musical number. When I saw that opening musical number I said to myself ‘Not again please. Not in the mood for this.’ Let’s just say I thought I was going to slog through this one as I did with other musicals. There is something else to the film though particularly its contemporary vibe. The Artist was so disappointing for me because it didn’t have a contemporary edge. For me it’s one of the great travesties that The Artist is listed as a best film winner at the Academy Awards. La La Land does pay homage to the musical genre but because of its contemporary vibe it does transcend it in some way. Yeah, the protagonists are actually living in the era of smart phones and so how does the film adapt. Damien Chazelle knows what he’s doing here. He also did some serious research. Yes he just won the Academy award for Best Director and yes it’s fully deserved. He used the historical basis of the musical genre and he transcended it and made something his own. The film actually has something to say about California and how to carve out your own niche in the midst of rapid modernization.

The primary theme that got me is not the one about pursuing your dreams but how important it is to lay a foundation so that you can pursue your dreams. For the majority of the film what we see is a foundation being laid as Sebastian and Mia come together and then drift apart. In the initial stage, or the year they found love and lost it, both characters romantically pursue their dreams. This  is when we hear most of the musical selections for this film and the accompanying choreography. In the romantic pursuit you can see that something is being built, that a foundation is being laid. Their coming together is an obvious part of that foundation. In order to seriously pursue your dreams a solid foundation has to be laid one way or the other.  I also saw a bit of Annie Hall in this film. Apart from the musical numbers and the accompanying choreography we witness some fantastic visual sequences as a result. Things are happening as they try to figure it out. There are the obvious speed bumps along the way but things are still happening and so once the foundation is laid then there is take off. The bittersweet moment comes towards the end though because we witness the price of following their dreams and actually being successful at it. ‘Feels like Old Times’. I have only been moved by two other musical films Singin’ in the Rain and West Side Story. Those films were released decades ago and now there’s La La Land. Does this mean La La Land is a great film? In the context of musicals it does. Others might not see it that way. I have to be emotionally moved by a film to consider it worthy. It should tug at my heart strings a little or resonate with me on a serious level i.e. get me thinking. The bittersweet scene towards the end is probably Chazelle making peace with a genre he loves but is now accepting that times have changed and we have to change with it. If other filmmakers want to bring back the good old days then La La Land has shown them how to do it. Don’t follow The Artist.

I liked some of the musical selections in this film. They do reflect Mia and Sebastian’s story. I particularly like the one where they were referring to the waste of a lovely night. Something like that. I wasn’t keeping track. Mia’s final song was pretty good as well. Overly dramatic but pretty good. 'City of Stars' is pretty good as well.Some of the musical numbers without the lyrics were more up to date

This film really captured the look and feel of sunny California, particularly the Hollywood aspect of it.

Negatives

The primary negative for me is that all the limitations of the musical genre are here as well. The superficiality of the choreography and the music to say something meaningful means that there is no need for dialogue in certain areas. This leads to a lot of exaggerated elements and a sappy attempt to recreate the good old days. It’s a pity that some of the choreography wasn’t more up to date. Tap dancing? Really? In one scene Mia literally swaps her heels for tap dancing shoes. Oh dear! This is where the nostalgic vibe held the film back. As with most musicals there are some empty areas when there isn’t some razzle dazzle. It’s as if they say enough so they can get to the next musical selection. A lot of musicals are guilty of that. The opening number was a bore for me as well as the 2^nd one. I get that the opening number was to introduce us to La La Land. It’s a musical after all. I only really got into some of the musical elements when Mia and Sebastian got together; that’s when there was some magic.

 Initially I thought where is the struggle here? The pressure and pain? It just seemed like some petty bourgeois folks trying to identify with some struggle but not necessarily engaged with it. This is another reason why the musical genre died a slow painful death. All the singing and dancing can be very distracting at times. Distract from the real issues. If someone is down hearted they sing a song or dance. At times it comes across as too upbeat and annoying, too artistic, denying the cold, hard reality. La La Land is guilty of that in the initial stages. Fortunately, the best musicals also have a really good story to tell and that saved  La La Land from ignominy or the shame of basking in its own superficiality. If you’re a contemporary observer who is not a fan of musicals you will only get into this film if you can trudge through the opening 20 minutes or so. 

Still well done to Damien Chazelle. I’m not saying that this film can bring back the genre but it deserves its place among the stars.