#i just think live-actions are so unnecessary most of the time considering the animated films already have SO MUCH MAGIC | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

introvertguide · 4 years ago

Text

Star Wars: The Franchise

Back in the mid 70s around Modesto, California, it is doubtful that George Lucas could have imagined that his idea for a space opera would become the second highest grossing movie franchise of all time. There has been some questionable content, however, since the groundbreaking original, and the returns have not been as great. There were also some one-offs that a lot of the younger fans might not be aware of. For my own sanity and organization, here is a listing of all feature length movies in the franchise:

Star Wars IV: A New Hope (1977) -

Definitely the most successful film (heck, one of the most successful films of all time) that made almost a billion dollars at the box office worldwide...in the 80s. Amazing. The story mimics the hero's journey as described by Joseph Campbell, giving it basically the most satisfying story imaginable. Nobody except for friend of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, thought it would be as successful as it was. This kind of popularity meant there was going to be some sequels and, since George Lucas was the man behind the whole thing, only one man was about to get tasked with future success.

Star Wars Holiday Special (1978) -

This was a TV movie that was made to cash in on the massive popularity of the first movie while the second one was in production. It is terrible. I generally try to hold back judgement and point out subjective opinions, but I think I can say that this made-for-TV movie is objectively bad. It is the equivalent of a variety show, a format which was popular at the time, and it was awful. It is widely considered to be one of the worst visual productions of all time. Just to give a hint of its awfulness, the movie follows the adventures of Chewbacca's Wookie family and they only speak in growls with no interpretation or subtitles. Laughably awful.

The Empire Strikes Back (1980) -

Arguably the best of the films as far as story and plot, this film was actually directed by Irvin Kershner with a George Lucas story adapted to the screen by Lawrence Kasdan. This film is legitimately fantastic and not just new and fun. It is so well written and directed with the famous reveal between Luke and Darth Vader. It also is incredibly downbeat at the end that perfectly sets up the next film. I personally think this is the best example of fine film in the franchise, although it doesn't have as much big action and no giant space laser. Well worth watching and makes the third film a must see.

Return of the Jedi (1983) -

Well, not as good as the first two, but still pretty darn good. This film introduced the Ewoks and the Endor moon battle. Many fans thought that the introduction of living teddy bears was a mistake that distract from the story. What really made the film, apparently, was the whole sequence at the beginning that takes place at Jabba the Hut's palace and involves Princess Leia in a metal bikini. We also find out that Luke and Leia are twins, so that kiss in the second film suddenly becomes kind of awkward. This becomes kind of a theme from here on out: should we disavow canon or put in throwaway lines and scenes to cover things that were mentioned in previous movies. It plagues the prequels.

The Ewok Adventure (1984) -

I get a lot of garbage about it, but I love these movies because I grew up with them. They are not that great and the copy that I saw over and over had ads from the early 80s throughout. Heavy nostalgia. Also, some of the Ewoks were played by established actors from what is now called Episode VI, Warwick Davis as Wicket and Tony Cox as Widdle. It was a lot of fun, but definitely a higher budgeted TV movie. It did become so successful that it got a theater release as Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure. This naming style stuck around for the spin off films that were made in the late 2010s.

Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985) -

Hot dang, they made a second one with Wilford Brimley! Both of the Ewok films were thought up by George Lucas and sold to ABC. Both films were also given special Emmy awards for special effects. I can't fault either Ewok film as far as visuals since both got the ILM treatment. I have stated that I liked both of these movies more than some of the prequels, and I stand by that.

The Phantom Menace (1999) -

The next three films followed the first three episodes in the Star Wars saga and are now generally known as the prequels. They are also pretty widely hated. One reason for that was the introduction of young Anikan Skywalker (eventual Darth Vader) and his growing attachment to Lord Palpatine (Darth Sidious). The problem with the prequels is that it was a path leading to a result that had been established over 20 years ago in the first film. They also introduced a character named Jar-Jar Binks who was just awful. There was a great pod racing scene and an epic Sith vs. Jedi battle that really were the highlights of the film. The music was also pretty epic, but the film was otherwise not that great. It was completely made under the helm of George Lucas and fans were suddenly starting to wonder if he was the genius they had thought him to be. What I consider to be the best YouTube deep dive movie review of all time, a group called Red Letter Media made a seven part review that explains why the movie was such a problem. You can watch the first part and it will auto load all seven here:

(1) Star Wars: The Phantom Menace Review (Part 1 of 7) - YouTube

Attack of the Clones (2002) -

Alright, here is where things really start to go down hill. There is a fine actor by the name of Hayden Christiansen that is just awful in this film. He is given nothing to do for the most part. He is supposed to be this amazing Jedi general, but he spends most of his time walking around speaking in a very monotone voice. He does have some fun piloting scenes, but he is written as such a whiny brat. There are two epic battles (the coliseum and Dooku vs. Yoda) and we get to see a bounty hunter in action. It does seem like a lot of fan service glued together by boring politics and horrifically bad acting.

Revenge of the Sith (2005) -

This is widely considered the worst of the prequel movies and generally laughable at some points. There is supposed to be an epic lava battle at the end, but it is just a bunch of screaming about a failed bromance. We get to see the end of the characters in the prequel and set up the original movies...that were now almost 30 years old. It was unsatisfying and not even slightly worth the wait. It was at this time that George Lucas said that there would never be a seventh episode that would follow the original trilogy.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008) -

There was a very compelling series of Star Wars shorts in 2003 made by Genndy Tartakovsky that did very well. George Lucas saw this and decided that a lot of the most interesting Star Wars events had occurred during the time between the prequels and the original series. Lucasfilm put out an animated movie to test the waters and it was so successful that 7 seasons of great animated adventures were made to show the epic battles that were supposed to take place between the second and third episode. I honestly believe that this was the very best space action of the entire franchise.

The Force Awakens (2015) -

George Lucas sold the Star Wars franchise over to Disney and fans got a new movie that was never supposed to happen. Once Disney came on board, the brand became much more prolific. Until the pandemic, there were plans to put out a Star Wars movie every year for a decade. The first was episode seven and was made by J.J. Abrams. It was similar to the first film (episode IV) in so many ways that fans started to think it was just a remake. It even had a lot of the characters from the original trilogy. It was much better received by fans following the prequels and introduced a storyline that was not already spoiled by previous movies. There was a lot of unnecessary fan service for those who loved the original trilogy. This makes since because it involved Lawrence Kasdan, who helped with the screenplay for episode five and six from the original trilogy.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) -

A full big budget release of a Star Wars movie that wasn't one of the episodes was an interesting idea. It was an entire movie to explain a throwaway line from the original 1977 movie. I lot of people died to get some plans for the big weapon in the first film and people wanted to know exactly how that happened. Actually they didn't. But Disney thought it was a good idea and it seemed like it would make a lot of money (it did). It gave the producers a chance to make a movie with new characters and only mentions of the famous story (this was important because the other actors where making the next episode).

The Last Jedi (2017) -

This was an interesting change of pace from the rest of the films because it seemed to drop the idea of the "chosen one" and say that anyone could be a Jedi. It is basically one giant escape story and is closer to Mad Max in space than it is to the other Star Wars films. It was given in full by Disney to Rian Johnson and it shows. This was the first episode film that had nothing in common with any of the production group from the original trilogy. No Kasdan, no Kirschner, no Lucas, all Disney. It was not very well received.

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) -

The worst performing of any of the Star Wars live action feature length films, this was the story of Han Solo. That's it. There is not a lot of history about the character and he is so cool, fans needed to have a stand alone movie about his youth. That's a lie, Disney wanted a movie to come out between episode eight and nine. This was the best that the suits could come up with and it definitely made money, but it is lame.

The Rise of Skywalker (2019) -

Well, the movie completely helmed by Rian Johnson was not popular enough so there was a total retcon situation and this film basically picked up where episode seven left off. It was the same team from episode seven (since that film was so much more popular) and they made a final film that wraps up with a bow. Sort of. There was definitely room in the film world for more Star Wars movies to be made (it is owned by Disney) and I really don't believe it is finished as a franchise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just in case there are people who were nervous that this was the end of the franchise, there is currently a stand alone film called Rogue Squadron that is supposed to come out in 2023. Thank goodness. There was also the popular Mandalorian series on Disney +. But the franchise has been making huge films for almost 45 years now, so maybe it is time to stop. We have the MCU that has made almost twice as much money as the Star Wars universe, so most movie goers have picked their setting that they want to see. Maybe there could be a crossover (I am kidding, please no) and it would be the most watched film of all time.

#star wars #franchise #lucas #disney #introvert #introverts #movie franchise

17 notes · View notes

the-beskar-alchemist · 4 years ago

Text

Here we go again with my recap ramblings! Had to do a bit of nip/tuck for this one, it’s a bit lengthy.

My opinions, as I've stated before, are based on my limited knowledge of the Star Wars universe. I have NOT seen anything outside of the movie franchise, so please bear with me...

- First off I would like to express my appreciation for this episode going balls-to-the-wall with Ashoka, instead of spending an unnecessary amount of time working towards her introduction. Considering we spent two episodes just GETTING to her, the fact that it was like "BAM! There she is!" was very refreshing.

- Also I would like to thank Filoni for establishing her badassery UP FRONT, instead of having her do some sort of "Surprise! These are my special skills!" maneuver. The concept hit home on the first try, and it hit HARD.

- I know people are iffy with Rosario Dawson (I'm not that caught up on her to know the details myself), but she does bring a certain......presence, I guess......to this episode, but just as the character, not really HER specifically. She seems more powerful when she's silent, versus when she speaks, her portrayal of the dialogue seems kinda monotone for my taste honestly. (I think it's worth mentioning that, while I understand people wish for Ashley, it would involve "black face" makeup on some levels to achieve Ashoka's skin-tone, I don't think it would've worked, no matter how skilled the makeup artists are)

- The ghastly forest makes me think of the lighting technique they used for The Half Blood Prince film

- As I've said, I have not seen the Clone Wars series, so I'm not familiar with Ashoka's animated fighting techniques, but I do love how practical she is with the lightsabers in a dark setting, turning them off to avoid too much attention, and only turning them back on right when she's ready to attack to really take her enemies off guard

- Din narrating to the baby has me in my feels a bit, this dude is really going through the motions isn't he? He's trying so hard to keep it together, acting like he's fine that his whole world is about to change in a way he's not fully prepared to handle.

- Can we take a moment to discuss how observant the baby is? He may not know about circuitry to help with ship maintenance, but he has the wherewithal to know when he's headed to a place that's potentially harmful. Episode 7 in season 1, when Din mentions going back to Nevarro? The baby immediately tries to adjust the ships trajectory to avoid going to a place of which his only memories consist of him being experimented on and possibly almost killed. And NOW? Now he recognizes that the name of the planet Din is taking him to will be where they separate, so OF COURSE his first instinct is to, not only avoid leaving Din's side at the pilot's seat, but to also seek out one of the few tangible objects that brings him comfort: THE METAL BALL FROM THE LEVER........baby boi is so smart, we do not give him enough credit

- Baby REALLY didn't want to leave his papa.......also DIN LET HIM KEEP THE BALL PLS

- Din walking through the town reminded me of the Two Towers when the party arrived at Rohan and Gimli was like "You'll find more cheer in a graveyard"

- I have to wonder what was going through Din's mind upon seeing the prisoners in the electric cages. I'm sure he was disgusted, but everything presented in this series is VERY deliberate, ergo Din was meant to see this to IMMEDIATELY establish that this magistrate was someone he wouldn't want to be allied with, a feat that could've been established with the intro into the town alone, but it seems that the best way to really drive home just how terrible these people are is voyeurism.

- The town versus inside the magistrates gated home? Night and day. The contrast is intriguing, how "dead" the town looks but inside the second gate there's life, somewhat flourishing.

- If Din KNEW that the magistrate was referring to Ashoka, than he basically tricked her into helping him find her under the guise of making a deal. If not, than he figured it out during their first fight upon seeing how she maneuvered around him. Either way, we stan one smart cookie.

- Lang reminds me of Number Two from the Austin Powers series

- BATU BATU BATU BATU

- I love the fact that Din is including the baby in his bounty hunting process, not just telling him they've reached the coordinates, but also letting him know to start looking, IT'S BRING YOUR SON TO WORK DAY......(but like EVERYday for him tho.....)

- Okay but like LOGICALLY I KNEW THAT BESKAR CANNOT BE DAMAGED BY A LIGHTSABER BUT MY HEART STOPPED FOR A SECOND

- DIN PACING LIKE A NERVOUS DAD IN THE DOCTORS OFFICE, POOR BABY

- I have to wonder how the baby "talks" via the Force, is it full "sentences"? Clipped "sentences"? Or is it kinda like Renesmee from Twilight where she "inserted" visuals into another person's head? I know they can "feel" each other's thoughts, but I've always wondered exactly HOW they "feel" them...

- I understand people are a little put-off by the lekku, and that cosplayers have done it "better", but we have to remember that cosplayers aren't doing (multiple) fight scenes, the head-piece has to be practical in its design, as well as authentic. There are stunt-doubles, and having to create multiple versions that not only can withstand constant movement, but also won't break easily. Not to mention when you try to do a live-action based off an animated series, it almost ALWAYS looks "wrong" on some levels (live-action anime? it's awkward af, no matter how hard you try...)

- About the Grogu controversy: I'm on the fence, but will most likely come to love/appreciate the name. Is it within the realm of what I was expecting? Nope. Is it possible that we are ALL projecting our own ideas of what name the baby "should" have had, so much so that almost ANY name they would've given him would've sounded "wrong"? VERY distinctive possibility......this is Star Wars after all, names are meant to sound "weird". Grogu sounds like a Star Wars kind of name, in fact it's kinda fitting for a species that looks reptilian-ish

- THE BABY HEARING DIN SAY HIS NAME FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE WHIPLASH IN THAT HEAD-TURN, BUT LIKE.....I love the slight parallels to Grogu's and Din's name-arc: They both went DECADES without hearing their own names, and the reveal's are so contrasting, Din hears his name during a time when he's in danger, the baby hears his while having a heart-to-heart. I'm curious about how Din was feeling in this moment, thinking about how long Grogu must've gone without hearing his own name, and how Din longs to have someone say HIS name with an almost reverent tone

- YODA NAME-DROP.....but also Grogu looked at Ashoka when she said the name, I wonder if he knew Yoda

- Some people have mentioned Ashoka's lekku not being long enough for her age, I'm wondering if they compensated with the "wrinkles" in it? Can lekku have wrinkles?

- Grogu trying to be good for his papa, but also NOT wanting to use his powers because he KNOWS it would mean that papa has to leave him (and Din's little head tilt to get him to cooperate) I JUST....I CAN'T

- Ashoka telling Din to connect with Grogu, and Din shifting around all like "LOOK ITS BAD ENOUGH I HAVE TO LEAVE MY SON WITH YOU, CAN YOU NOT MAKE THIS HARDER FOR ME???"

- FATHER AND SON GAME OF CATCH AND DIN'S EXCITEMENT WHEN GROGU CAUGHT THE METAL BALL, MY OVARIES CANNOT TAKE THIS MUCH FLUFF

- Subtle Anakin reference, given what happened to the younglings after he went dark, it's a good thing Grogu was taken.......but by WHO???

- Din calling the lightsabers "laser swords" and Ashoka's little grin like, she WANTED to correct him, but she was enjoying Din's dorkyness???

- Din trusted her enough to let her borrow his pauldron??? I HAD A MOMENT

- DIN GUNSLINGER DJARIN

- Did my eyes fucking DECEIVE ME?? DID ASHOKA CUT THE SPEAR IN HALF????? Like this is the second time I'm watching this, the first time I noticed it I was like "No fucking WAY", but I'm seeing it AGAIN, IT WASN'T A TRICK OF THE EYE....so beskar is only lightsaber RESISTANT??

- Lang vs Din was like Johnny Ringo vs Doc Holliday, "You're no daisy!"

- More name-dropping. Did Ashoka kill Elsbeth? They never show her after the exchange.

- Din could've jetpacked his way back to the ship, but chose to walk instead. The way he avoids actually waking up Grogu at first, holding him for a bit, then taking the time to get him ready. Din baby who are you fooling? You're not ready, and you never will be.

- DIN STICKING HIS FINGERS OUT TO LET GROGU HOLD HIS HAND

- Ashoka knows okay?? She KNOWS that Din and Grogu are meant to stay together

- Din calling out Ashoka for trying to weasel out of the deal vs calling out Bo-Katan for changing the deal: No malice in his voice, he barely put up a fight, then sounded relieved after she gave him an alternative, one that could lead to the baby deciding NOT to become like the Jedi and instead choosing to remain with this buir

#din djarin #mando #mandalorian #the mandalorian #the mandalorian series #the mandalorian spoilers #the mandalorian series spoilers #the mandalorian s2 #the mandalorian series 2 #chapter 13 #the jedi #ashoka tano #baby yoda #yodito #grogu #yodito jose djarin

29 notes · View notes

ambssssssssss · 4 years ago

Text

Fifteenth Year

Part 10 | Part 12

Finding a house just outside of town is relatively easy, all things considered. Now that Dani and Jamie have been there for over a decade, the people in the town have grown used to their presence, even fond of them. It probably helps that their union is now civil and thus recognized by law, but there had been a general air of acceptance long before that. Dani and Jamie did their part in the community, lived their lives together and quietly made their way in the town. Turns out, that did more for them than they thought.

Having The Leafling downtown gave them both plenty of time to make connections with the other business owners and patrons in the area, both professionally and a few that they got to know more personally. (They’d established a trade system with the coffee shop across the street, one that had worked for years and garnered both businesses more attention from passing tourists. One small bouquet/arrangement for one small coffee.) When Dani started substitute teaching, they made even more connections with the families in town and it was through them that they learned of a house for sale in one of the nicer neighborhoods. The house was large, two-story with three bathrooms and five bedrooms. A quick stop at the realtors office down the street from the shop, a house tour and a sizable payment later, Dani and Jamie were officially homeowners.

Moving in proved to be a more difficult task. Dani hadn’t expected to feel so nostalgic as they packed up their apartment over the shop but maybe she should have. After all, they had spent close to fifteen years living there, most of that time with a literal ghost. The silving lining existed in the fact that they weren’t losing the apartment, weren’t planning to rent it out anytime soon so they could still come back to it if they wished, but Dani would miss living there. She enjoyed the process of moving, though.

It seemed to be some kind of neighborhood event when they moved in and so they had a lot of help unloading trucks and moving furniture around. It was a great chance to meet all the people they’d be sharing the street with and if Jamie melted a little bit every time one of the neighborhood kids ran up to Dani yelling ‘Mrs. Clayton! Mrs. Clayton when will you teach me again?’ well, no one could really blame her. A few times Dani had pointed Jamie out to the children who were then extra excited because ‘there’s two Mrs. Claytons? Will she teach us too?’ And then Jamie would find herself swarmed by a small mob of children asking her about plants. Both interactions were entirely too adorable and made both women look forward to the days when it would be their own children fluttering back and forth between the two of them on the lawn, entertained with games and snacks while the adults milled around.

With all the help, they were all moved in by mid-afternoon with only the unpacking to do, which Jamie convinced her wife to leave for the next day after they got the bed made up.

“It’s not like we have a new bed to break in,” Dani laughed as Jamie hovered over her, shirt unbuttoned and a toned abdomen on full display. Dani couldn’t help but run her hands along Jamie’s stomach and smiled as she felt the muscles jumping beneath her touch.

“We’ve got a whole house to break in, Poppins,” Jamie leaned down to kiss at Dani’s neck. “Gotta do it now, before we’ve got kids walking in on us all the time.”

Dani laughed again and pulled Jamie into a kiss that voiced her agreement. Jamie had a point, after all.

They spent a few months settling into their new place, getting into the routine of going into town for work and coming home in the afternoon, before they started looking into adoption. There was a lot of unnecessary paperwork and red tape to work through, but they eventually got their license to foster children with the option to adopt later on and so they ended up sharing their first Christmas in their new house with three small children. A six year old boy, a three year old girl, and another boy who was only a few months old. All siblings whose parents had died in a car crash. According to the kids’ files, at least their father had been a drunk and they hadn’t been treated very well while under his care. The social worker thought they might benefit from being in a house without a strong male authority figure.

Dani and Jamie had fallen in love with all three of them on the first day.

The oldest, Jonathan, was bright and cheery and smart as a whip. He wasn’t as used to open affection yet, he still tensed when anyone touched him unexpectedly or spoke in too loud of a voice, but he had started to warm up to them. The girl had the sweetest laugh and looked like she could have been Dani’s biological child, they were so similar. Her name was Hannah. Both women had teared up a bit when they learned her name, thinking back to their old friend. The baby boy, Michael, was just getting to the point where he was trying to sit up on his own and though the sleepless nights and diaper changes were frustrating at times, neither woman could hold onto that feeling for long. Michael was simply too adorable to stay mad at for long.

They had spent Christmas morning piled together in the living room, opening what seemed to be a mountain of presents. Henry, Flora, and Miles had insisted on sending the little ones presents, as did Owen, since they couldn’t be there in person. Dani and Jamie thought it was a bit too soon to introduce the little ones to their extended family. That would have to wait.

In the afternoon, Jamie took the two oldest kids outside to play in the snow while Dani settled Michael down for a nap and then got started on a substitute Christmas dinner for them. She had hot chocolate waiting for the three shivering but happy people who joined her in the kitchen once the novelty of the snow had worn off for a bit and though Jamie was a bit skeptic, they all drank it without complaint. Perhaps there was one beverage Dani could get right.

They spent the evening watching Christmas films together in one large pile on the couch until all three of the children had drifted off, Michael curled in Jamie’s arms, Hannah lying between Jamie and Dani with her feet against Dani’s legs and head against Jamie’s arm, and Jonathan leaning against Dani’s other side.

“They’re ours,” Jamie said, her voice low so she wouldn’t wake them. Dani stretched out the arm Jonathan wasn’t laying on towards her wife, slipping her fingers into short hair.

“They are,” she agreed easily. She felt it the moment they met. “We’ll ask them tomorrow if they want to stay with us.”

Jamie nodded, and gestured down towards Hannah. “Take her, will you? We should get them to bed.”

Dani gently eased Hannah over until her position was almost reversed so Jamie could stand with Michael in her arms. Jamie rounded the couch, pausing to press a kiss against Dani’s hair, and then made her way up the stairs. Hannah shifted against Dani’s side, nuzzling closer to her. Dani leaned down and kissed Hannah’s hair and then repeated the action to Jonathan on her other side. Jonathan stirred at the touch.

“It’s okay, buddy,” Dani soothed him as the little boy looked around. “Jamie’s just putting Michael to bed.”

“And you’re up next, Penguin.” Jamie said as she came back into the living room. Dani smiled at her wife. Jamie had given all of the kids they fostered so far a different animal nick-name and she’d yet to use the same one twice. Jonathan had been dubbed Penguin when he awkwardly flapped his arms the first day they met, looking like a penguin trying to walk. Hannah became Koala bear due to her tendency to hold on to either Jamie or Dani like a koala at any given opportunity. Michael was Monkey because he had a strong grip that Jamie swore meant he’d be climbing all over things as soon as he could. “Say goodnight.”

“Goodnight mom,” Jonathan said tiredly, leaning into Dani as she wiggled her arm free to wrap around him.

“Goodnight buddy,” Dani returned with a kiss against his hair, sure there were tears shining in her eyes. Jamie lifted the boy up into her arms, eyes shining in the same way that Dani’s were, and carried him upstairs to his own room. Dani followed this time after maneuvering Hanna into her arms to carry her as well. Once the girl was tucked into bed, Dani made her way to Michael’s nursery to check on him and kiss him goodnight before she made her way to the master bedroom to wait for her wife. Jamie joined her after a quick stop in Hannah’s room to kiss her goodnight as well.

“He called you mom,” Jamie said, sounding as amazed as Dani felt. “Do you think that means he wants to stay?”

“I hope it does,” Dani changed into something to sleep in and then crawled into bed, quickly joined by Jamie. “They’re ours Jamie, I can feel it. It’s almost like how I felt when I first saw you.”

“And how’s that?” Jamie asks, though she’s heard the story before. She loves hearing her wife say it.

“Like I’d known you all my life, like you were always meant to be a part of it.”

“Ditto Poppins,” Jamie pressed their lips together shortly. “I love you.”

“I love you, too,” Dani kissed her again. “And I love our family.”

Somewhere above them, in the place where she had finally found her rest, Viola Lloyd smiled down at the happy couple as they fell asleep in one another’s arms. She knew that Dani and Jamie deserved to enjoy all the good in life they could get and was happy to see that the same love that had been her salvation was still growing after all these years.

All in all, after fifteen years, their life could only be described as perfectly splendid.

#moonflower #dani x jamie #the haunting of bly manor #fanfic #my fics #ambs writes #part 11 of 12 #i just think they'd be the best moms okay

36 notes · View notes

smokeybrandreviews · 3 years ago

Text

Smokey brand Retrospective: Red Pill Me

Cinemacon has passed and there has been a lot of awesome sh*t revealed. On the top of that list, obviously, Spider-Man: Far From Home has me geeked to high heaven but there were a ton of other noteworthy reveals. There was some Batman reveals, a few Mission Impossible 7 and Top Gun 2 trailers, plus audiences ever got a surprise screening of Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Now, that would be great on it's own but cats even got a little sizzle real for Matrix Resurrections: The long gestating fourth Matrix film. Apparently, this thing is releasing in December. I am lukewarm at best. I have fond memories of the Matrix trilogy as a whole but, since it’s final release some twenty years ago, the Wachowskis have been revealed to be one trick ponies. They kind of suck at film making. I mean, i liked Speed Racer but i just generally enjoy Speed Racer. It helped tremendously that Christina Ricci was Trixie, too, but everything after that was kind of balls. I also really like V for Vendetta but that’s not real their movie, they just adapted it. I guess you can say that about Speed Racer, too. Anyway, in light of there near Shyamalan-esque track record with their films, i wanted to revisit the first three Matrix films and see if they hold up, to try and muster some sense of excitement for what comes next.

The Matrix

Of the trilogy, this is easily the best film. Everything about it is exceptional. The Matrix was a whole ass shift in the cultural zeitgeist. It was a lot of people’s first experience with accessible cyberpunk and I'll always love it for that. I’ll also love it for normalizing Hong Kong style action sequences and giving us the most breathtaking application of Bullet Time I've seen to date. The Matrix s why the theater exists. If you’ve never seen this thing on the big screen, you missed out on something very special. I had just just turned thirteen when it released and checked it out at the dollar theater. I had only ever seen anything like this, in anime. Seeing all of my favorite Eighties OVAs filtered through the big budget Hollywood lens was incredible. I even like the rather pedestrian narrative. I think the story worked for what the movie was trying to do. It’s a shame the Wachowskis have tried to rewrite history about the narrative as of late. I understand the underlying themes of identity and sexuality but come on? That’s some college film theory bullsh*t that got tacked on after the fact. Now, if the original script is to be believed, then, yes, all of that, but what we got is not so profound. This is a basic Chosen One narrative with Dope ass effects that were ahead of it’s time.

A fr as the cast, what can i say? These motherf*ckers were perfect. Keanu Reeves as Neo was inspired. It’s wild to say that because dude is a plank but it works. He’s the POV character, he’s who you see that world through. Making him a blank slate so to speak, helps with immersion and that is a world you definitely wan to be immersed within. This was my first experience with Carrie-Ann Moss and I've loved her ever since. Her Trinity fast became one of my favorite characters and I'm actually pretty excited to see where she is in the new film. Lawrence Fishburne as Morpheus was an interesting choice. I wasn’t mad and it worked perfectly but it was weird seeing him in such an active, action oriented, role. That said, for me, this movie is made by Hugo Weaving. He is absolutely monstrous as Agent Smith. He’s got this scene chewing energy that mirrors Christoph Waltz’s Hans Landa and we all know how much i love that Nazi f*ck so that’s really high praise. To this day, I've got his Humanity is a Virus speech memorized. It was just that f*cking good! The Matrix is an exquisite watch and it is absolutely mandatory viewing if you consider yourself a fan of cinema.

The Matrix Reloaded

Whoo, boy, talk about a drop in quality. Reloaded released four years later in 2003 and it screams Studio Mandate. I was a sprightly eighteen years old when this thing dropped and made it a point to see it opening day. I really enjoyed the first outing so i figured this one would be just as amazing. Indeed, i remember leaving the theater thinking to myself how decent of a sequel it turned out to be. It wasn’t better than the first but it didn’t sh*t the bed like most follow-ups do. Fast forward to present day and, after watching this thing again for the first time in probably fifteen years, it’s kind of f*cking bad. Like, as a cinematic experience, it’s pretty tight Everything is amped up. Tons more action, way more bombastic set pieces, stakes have been raised considerably; The Matrix Reloaded is everything you want in a summer blockbuster sequel. However, that’s it. Everything else is worse. The acting has become way too hammy and the new cast members fit into this narrative like a square peg in a round hole. Why is f*cking Niobe even in this thing? Who even is the Merovingian? Why is Mouse? The pacing is all over the place, too. Like, this thing stops dead in it’s tracks on several occasions but that’s not the worst of it.

The worst thing is the narrative. What the f*ck even is the story trying to be told in this movie? It doesn’t make any f*cking sense. The Matrix was, very obviously, a standalone film. That was a closed narrative. Neo’s story had been told. Everything after that is unnecessary. This movie is an exercise in the unnecessary. I appreciate all of how unchained and manic Smith is in this but, outside of that, what the f*ck was the point of this whole narrative? It’s filler. This movie is filler and it feels like it. The returning cast is serviceable and seeing Zion was interesting. I like how all the survivors are just sweaty black people. I literally hated everyone added to the cast though. Well, that’s not quite true. I rather enjoyed Collin Chou as Seraph. Dude was inconsequential but i love seeing Asian martial artists not name Li or Chan getting some shine. Also, Monica Bellucci is in this and i kind of just love her in general. Her Persephone is absolutely disposable but she looks damn fine in that plastic wrapped dress of hers. I literally can’t be bothered mentioning anyone else. They are that forgettable. This movie is that forgettable. And it’s arguably the best of the two sequels.

The Matrix Revolutions

Talk about going out with a thud. Man, i saw this with my best friend, rest in peace B, and we both hated it. He was an even bigger fan of The Matrix than i was so his disappointment was palpable. I’ll never forget his visceral reaction when that rainbow spread across the super happy Hollywood ending. Dude was hot and he had every right to be. The first Matrix set up this intriguing, immersive, world full of fanatic visuals, great piratical stunts, and a very through provoking premise. The second Matrix was your basic Hollywood sequel; More shine, less substance. But Revolutions? Man this is peak Wachowski fail. You saw hints of this messiah sh*t in the first, it’s literally a Chosen One narrative, but thy went all in on that sh*t in Reloaded. By the time Revolutions finished, this whole narrative was so far up it’s own ass, it didn’t know which way was up. It just f*cking ends. Everyone is dead and it’s over. The Wachowskis went heavy on the Jesus imagery, they were not subtle, and the f*cking conflict just ends. Robot don’t stop using people as batteries. Flesh and blood Humans still have to live in Zion. The only thing that’s changed is Neo’s dead and Agent Smith has been deleted. That’s it. The Matrix still exists, people are still trapped in it, and everything that happened in these films doesn’t f*cking matter. Literally right back at the start of the whole goddamn conflict. Revolutions is so f*cking disappointing, dude, by every measure of that metric.

Hugh Weaving is still pretty good as Smith and Keanu does his best imitation of white bread as Neo but, like, everything else is just so pedestrian. Plus, this thing is long. Like, unreasonably so. Why the f*ck is this movie two hours? The entire trilogy is kind of like that but it’s most egregious in this one. This story could be told in ninety minutes, just like Reloaded. Why the f*ck do i have an extra half hour of bullsh*t in this? Like, that whole “Neo Lost” arc was unnecessary, in both sequels. F*cking why? I don’t hate Revolutions. It’s not a “bad” film per say, it’s just disappointing. It’s the poster child for the law of diminishing returns. The Matrix Revolutions is the what happens when you let creatives with fresh egos, run amok with one hundred and fifty million f*cking dollars. So much spectacle but even less substance that Reloaded and that motherf*cker was a hollow mess. Still, The Matrix Revolutions is better than anything Michael Bay or Zack Snyder has ever made so i guess it’s got that going for it.

#The Matrix #The Matrix Reloaded #The Matrix Revolutions #The Matrix Trilogy #Smokey brand Retrospective #Keeanu Reeves #Carrie-Anne Moss #Hugo Weaving #Lawrence Fishburne

3 notes · View notes

captains-log-reviews · 4 years ago

Text

Disney’s Peter Pan (1953)

Summary/Overview:

I’ve been considering a Hook-themed review blog for some time now, and what better way to start off than with the classic 1953 Disney film? Originally slated to be Disney’s second animated film after Snow White, the idea for a production of Peter Pan was in Walt’s mind long before it hit the big screen. Walt himself had played Peter in a school play as a boy and had retained a fondness for the story ever since. The first major film version to feature a boy (Bobby Driscoll) in the titular role, Disney’s Peter Pan has since become perhaps even more widely known than Barrie’s original. That being said, I think it’s probably unnecessary to give much in the way of a summary, but for the sake of developing a consistent format for my reviews, here’s the super quick version:

Wendy Darling, a young girl with an active imagination and a love for storytelling, is distraught when her practical father decides that it is time for her to grow up and move out of the nursery with her brothers. Later that night, after her parents have gone out, Peter Pan—the flying boy hero of Wendy’s stories—shows up at her window and offers to take her and her brothers to Neverland, a magical island with mermaids, “Indians,” and pirates where they will never grow up. Unfortunately the kids get caught up in the plans of Captain Hook, who wants revenge on Peter for cutting off his hand and feeding it to a crocodile. Ultimately, Hook captures the children and nearly kills Peter with a bomb in the guise of a present from Wendy, but Tinkerbell, Peter’s loyal fairy friend, saves him just in the nick of time, allowing Peter to free the children from Hook’s crew and fight the captain in a final duel that results in Hook being chased off into the sunset by the crocodile. Wendy and her brothers return home safely, and Wendy realizes that she isn’t so afraid of growing up anymore...only to have her father admit that maybe holding onto her childhood a little bit longer wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all.

What I Liked:

Those of you who followed me over here from my other Hook blog, not-wholly-unheroic, already know that I am more than slightly biased when it comes to Disney’s Hook. I distinctly remember the first time I saw him on screen when I was twelve. The sequel had just come out on video, and ABC was doing its usual Sunday Disney movie (and advertising) by showing the original Peter Pan one weekend, followed by the sequel the next. I was bored and had never watched the film before, so I decided to give it a shot...and I was instantly struck by how different Hook was from any Disney villain I’d previously encountered. While most of the classic villains are motivated by greed, vanity, or the desire for power, Hook’s feud with Pan is at least somewhat justified considering he not only lost a hand but also faces the constant threat of the crocodile as a result of our supposed hero’s actions. Additionally, prior to Peter Pan, Disney’s major villains (Queen Grimhilde/The Evil Queen, Lady Tremaine, the Queen of Hearts) were typically rather flat and lacking in personality. We see only their wicked side (or in the case of “Man” in Bambi, we don’t see them at all!). Hook is a major departure from this trend in that while he is clearly made out to be the bad guy, we also see him in moments of fear, weakness, and self-doubt. We see him sick and in pain and ready to give up at times. Suddenly, he isn’t just a villain anymore... He’s a person we can empathize with. Walt himself recognized that the audience would “get to liking Hook” would not want him to die as he does in Barrie’s canon, opting instead to have him “going like hell” to get away from the crocodile but ultimately still very much alive at the end of the film.

Aside from Hook himself, I love the dynamic he has with Mr. Smee. While Hook admittedly doesn’t treat Smee well, there is clearly a bond of trust between them. Early on in the film, for instance, Smee prepares to shave Hook with a straight razor. It’s a moment that is ultimately used for comedic effect, but when one considers that Hook has a crew full of literal cutthroats, it says a lot about Smee that Hook feels totally at ease with this man putting a blade to his neck. Smee repeatedly attempts to intervene to save Hook when he doesn’t have to, and Hook unfailingly looks to Smee when he’s afraid for his life or when he needs to send someone out to complete an important mission for him. It’s a villain/sidekick dynamic that borders on friendship, and I think it adds a lot to the film and to Hook’s complexity as a character.

As far as artistic choices go, it is a rather minor thing, but I love that they kept the stage tradition of using the same actor for both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook, giving the film a rather dreamlike feel and subtly reinforcing the enmity Wendy feels toward her father in real life as she faces off against Hook in the Neverland. Speaking of the actor, Hans Conried isn’t just voice for Hook, as many would assume... He IS Hook as much as any live-action actor could be. I love the old hand-drawn animation style and how they used to use the actors as live-action reference models. (You can see some shots of Hans as the reference model vs the final images of Hook in the film here.) If you’ve ever seen a recording of Hans in one of his other roles, you’ll notice he doesn’t just SOUND like Hook...he makes the same facial expressions (particularly in how he speaks with his eyebrows) and hand/arm motions. It’s small details like this that make Hook (and all the characters) more human and show just how much time, effort, and love the animators put into their work.

What I Didn’t Like:

RACISM. With a capital “R.” There’s no sugar-coating it. Unfortunately, Disney’s film falls victim one of the many problematic tropes of the time when it was made and portrays the island’s native characters as highly caricatured, ignorant, and—in the case of Tiger Lily—romantically exotic people. Their signature song, “What Made the Red Man Red” is lyrically painful to modern listeners with any sense of decency, and the villagers’ character design—from their bright red skin to their large noses and often extreme body shapes (very fat or pencil thin)—along with their badly broken English is highly uncomfortable, to say the least. On the other hand, Tiger Lily, the most realistically drawn native character, is shown dancing flirtatiously for Peter and subsequently rubbing noses with him in what is meant to be a sort of native kiss (based on the concept of the “Eskimo kiss” which in and of itself is not a politically correct term).

Aside from the glaringly obvious issue of racism, my only real complaint with the Disney film is the music. While the songs are pretty standard for films of the day, I personally don’t find most of the music particularly memorable or catchy. “You Can Fly” is alright, I suppose, but the next few songs have their issues. “Following the Leader” and “What Made the Red Man Red” both have racist undertones, and Wendy’s lullaby, “Your Mother and Mine” puts the kids to sleep for a reason... It’s sweet but rather boring and drags on for far too long to keep the audience’s attention. Less time on the lullaby and more pirate sea shanties, please!

On the flip side, Hook is arguably the first Disney villain to get his own theme song, which is pretty cool. The original pirate song (which you can find here) is a bit more sedate than “The Elegant Captain Hook” we end up with and focuses more on the joys of pirating in general than why Hook, specifically, is someone the kids should want to work for. Personally, I’m glad they chose the song that they did, though I do wish they’d given Hook more lines as originally planned. (You can find the lyrics to the full version here.)

Would I recommend it?

Despite its flaws, Disney’s Peter Pan has had a major impact on the legacy of Peter Pan and how we view the characters as well as Neverland itself. It has long been a personal favorite of mine and acted as a gateway into the fandom for me. It introduced me to Hook as a likable, sympathetic, and complex villain and I’ll always be grateful for that. I definitely recommend it to anyone entering the fandom, those with a fondness for the nostalgia of classic Disney films, and kids at heart of all ages.

Overall Rating:

As much as I love the film and want to give it a perfect score, I’d be remiss if I didn’t deduct at least a few points for the depiction of the “Indians.” Otherwise a lovely version of the story so... 4/5 stars

#captain's log reviews #disney peter pan #peter pan disney #peter pan 1953 #disney captain hook #captain hook disney #reviews #disney reviews #movie reviews #film reviews #captains-log-reviews

35 notes · View notes

scottymcgeesterwrites · 5 years ago

Text

10 Underrated Movies of the 2010s

1. John Carter (2012)

Before Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was even produced in 1937, Disney was considering producing an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough’s A Princess of Mars as Disney’s first animated film. During its pre-production stage, producers weren’t quite receptive to the concept. The story was about a man being transported to Mars, where its gravity gave him super powers, and he fought with four-armed green-skinned aliens. Back then, space ideas were the last things on people’s minds in the ‘30’s. They wanted something uplifting from The Great Depression. Disney didn’t quite scrap the story; they shelved it for later and decided to go with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves as Disney’s (and the world’s) first feature-length animated movie. John Carter holds the award for the movie with the longest time spent in “development hell”. For the next 75 years, different directors and producers would try to bring back the classic tale of daring-do on the planet Mars. Growing up reading Edgar Rice Burrough’s novels, I was enthralled to hear that they finally produced a live-action film to be released on 2012 – and it was even near my birthday! March of 2012 marked 100 years since Edgar Rice Burroughs published A Princess of Mars. It was like all the stars were truly aligned for something great. The movie finally came out and it . . . didn’t do well at all. It’s also notable for being one of the most expensive movies ever made – and it was all for nothing. What happened? Most of you reading this may even be unaware of the hero John Carter or A Princess of Mars. I find that the main issue was the problem of John Carter being largely unknown because it has been long overshadowed by Flash Gordon, Superman, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and literally everything else that owes its inspiration to John Carter. Superman got its concept of gravity-granting superpowers from John Carter. Flash Gordon got its human-on-another-planet heroics from John Carter. Star Wars derived nearly everything from Flash Gordon. The domino effect goes on. The further you go, the more people forget the original inspiration, and we live in a world now where people don’t really care about who did it first, but who did it best.

There’s a particular scene in the movie John Carter where the titular hero has to fight monsters in an arena. Many critics were bored of the scene, claiming they saw it already in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones; which is ironic being that the arena scene was written almost a full century before Attack of the Clones. Scantily clad Carrie Fisher in Return of the Jedi? That’s a Deja Thoris reference from A Princess of Mars.

It can be difficult to judge a movie or story by itself aside from other derivative works. When that source material is some obscure adventure tale that is literally older than World War I, you should realize that probably not a lot of people have heard about it nowadays.

The film suffers from two other major points: the runtime and the combination of books one and two of Burrough’s original trilogy. A Princess of Mars is a rather simple tale of a man saving a princess on Mars. Its sequel, The Gods of Mars, goes into more complex matters as the evil Therns are revealed as a group of mysterious aliens controlling all culture and life on Mars for their benefit. The movie John Carter tries to combine the two, and I see why. Modern audiences are uninterested in seeing another adventure tale about a guy saving a princess. Ironically, that would have worked much better in the 1930’s, but the Disney board at the time was like, “Space? What’s that? Mars? What’s this newfangled spaceship business?” John Carter ultimately had the unfortunate and unique experiences of being both too ahead and too dated for its time.

I still highly recommend it because the production value is amazing and it’s still highly entertaining. The score is fantastic (Michael Giacchino), and the performances are great, albeit with some cheesy dialogue. The screenwriters added more depth to the character of John Carter that really pulls some heartstrings, especially during one particular scene where he’s bashing hundreds of aliens to a pulp.Unfortunately, the poor performance of John Carter prevented its sequel and the planned trilogy from ever being produced. At the end of the day, I’m still content with seeing the world’s very first space adventure that ultimately inspired Star Wars finally put on screen. 2. Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

I was frankly surprised when nobody else cared about a Solo movie coming out. Having read A.C. Crispin’s Han Solo Trilogy when I was a kid and having overall grown up loving the character, I thought ANY Star Wars fan would be pumped. That was the issue right away before the movie even hit theaters �� Nobody. Fucking. Cared. The previous year’s Last Jedi left a sour, divisive taste in the Star Wars fandom. Toxic fans threw their hands in uproar and an entire debacle unseen since the prequel trilogy exploded. Like with Jake Lloyd in The Phantom Menace, fans had continually harassed and bullied Kelly Marie Tran for playing Rose to the point where she quit Instagram. YouTube videos nearly 30 minutes long were dedicated to bashing the film and “SJW culture” and “virtue signaling”. The entire debacle was a nightmare that makes me shudder to even think about. It was like everyone was tired of Star Wars by the next year. Some people like to say that “Star Wars fatigue” wasn’t the thing because nobody was tired of Marvel movies. I disagree. First of all, I witnessed immediate responses to people’s reactions at the trailer. They said “I don’t care” and “Why do we need that?”. Second, Star Wars and Marvel are two completely different universes. Marvel has a nearly infinite range of various stories with various atmospheres and moods and characters. One Marvel fan can “specialize” in Doctor Strange while another mostly loves Thor. Star Wars follows the same group of characters over the same damn story that we’ve already known for the past 42 years. Like John Carter, Solo had the same problem by being too confident and throwing too much money into its production. Solo also happens to be on the list of the most expensive movies ever made. Its poor performance and inability to make a return on the total costs scrapped the possibility of any more future standalone Star Wars films. Further dissections of why it didn’t work out vary. Some people hate the droid L3-37 and claim unnecessary SJW content. I disagree with that too. In my rulebook, something in a story is not unnecessary unless it proves crucial to the plot; L3-37 is the reason why the Kessel Run worked. Were it not for her fanatic desire of starting a droid revolution, Han wouldn’t have survived. The idea of revolution is also crucial and foreshadows the coming Rebel Alliance. I wonder if people would have had the same reaction to L3-37 if the movie had been released years before the current political situation; if we would have just seen her as a cool, kooky and rebellious droid instead. Solo: A Star Wars Story reveals that Han has always been around instances of rebellion, which he has tried to ignore. It isn’t until A New Hope that he finally gives in for good. I honestly don’t see why some people say it doesn’t fit with A New Hope when it clearly does. One of my favorite parts is when Q’ira tells Han, “I know who you really are.” From the trailer, you would expect her to say “A scoundrel.” But in the film, she says, “The good guy.” The film cements the idea that Han has always tried to look and act cool but deep down he gives in to doing the right thing, which separates him from the other scoundrels at the cantina. It’s because of this adventure that he ends up helping to blow up the Death Star later on. Also, like John Carter, the score is absolutely fantastic. I could go on about it but that would derail the topic for another time. 3. The Gift (2015)

I ended up seeing this movie on a whim by myself after someone bailed on me at the last minute to hang out. I had nothing to do but wanted to do something and checked what was playing in theaters at the time at my local theater. The synopsis hadn’t told me enough about what was really going on while at the same time enticing me. Jason Bateman though really surprised me in this role.I really don’t want to give anything away other than what you can find on the basic synopsis. Jason Bateman is married to Rebecca Hall and the two share a completely content life, until an old school friend of Jason’s starts visiting them. Joel Edgerton plays the school friend, and it’s quite amazing that he both wrote and directed this film too. 4. Prisoners (2013)

This movie was great – and absolutely nobody talks about it. I recall wanting to see a movie with my mom around fall of that year. We realized there was really nothing interesting in theaters. It was a lull where there was nothing really interesting playing. No blockbusters and no Oscar buzz. We chose Prisoners solely based on the fact that we like Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal, and I guess we also gathered the general sense that it was a mystery.I became glued to the screen during the entire movie. The story revolves around Hugh Jackman’s daughter supposedly abducted by Paul Dano, who plays a mentally ill suspect. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the detective tasked with finding the daughter. With Paul Dano being unable to articulate his thoughts, everyone is left distraught on how to solve this case. Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal take drastically different routes in trying to find the girl.Out of everything on my list of underrated films here, this was the most nail-biting. Highly recommend. That ending. Whoo. 5. Source Code (2011)

This movie is a real mindbender. It might be so much of a mindbender that it’s the reason why people didn’t talk about it more. They probably just thought, “Huh?” and wanted to rewatch the previous year’s Inception again instead.Jake Gyllenhaal is on a mission to find a bomber on a train in a computer simulation. That’s how it starts at least. . . Another movie I probably shouldn’t explain too much, but it explored themes about a post 9/11 world and the nature of self. 6. The Big Short (2015)

This movie was a hit and then everybody forgot about it. Heck, I know a bunch of you didn’t even see it. I find this really concerning. Brought to you by the director of none other than Anchorman, Adam McKay directed a very entertaining but distressing take on the Great Recession. It has an ensemble cast of Brad Pitt, Steve Carrell, Ryan Gosling, and Christian Bale. The movie manages to translate complicated, bullshit concepts in Wall Street into layman’s terms. Every performance delivers, yes, but it was also staggeringly prophetic in what would come a year later in the 2016 election – “I have a feeling, in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks. They will be blaming immigrants and poor people.” This movie should have seriously started a riot. But it didn’t. Watch it. 7. Spectre (2015)

Many Bond fans hated Spectre, and it’s often compared to the supposed high-and-mighty Skyfall. I beg to differ. Spectre brought back the fun in Bond without also resorting to the really obnoxious misogyny. The Daniel Craig era of Bond films went back to Ian Fleming’s original intention of Bond being more of a “blunt instrument” than the tongue-in-cheek action hero he came to be known in the film series. And that’s okay. But you can’t help but be bored once and a while by the recent trend of “making things gritty in the new millennium”. Spectre brought back the evil Blofeld, Bond’s nemesis. Fans hated it because this movie implies that every other Daniel Craig movie has been tied to Spectre, ruining the standalone nature of Skyfall and feeling like Spectre was a shoe-in.

This situation requires a lot of explaining, but I’ll be brief.

The creative entities of Spectre and Blofeld were tied up in a copyright battle for almost half a century. Back when Ian Fleming was still alive, he was working on a script for Thunderball with a screenwriter named Kevin McClory. Long story short, there was a dispute on who created Spectre and Blofeld – Fleming or McClory. McClory won the dispute and MGM (the producers of the Bond films) were prohibited from using the names and characters of Spectre and Blofeld.

The last time we officially saw the character in name was in 1971’s Diamonds are Forever. Blofeld made a cameo in 1981’s For Your Eyes Only but was never mentioned by name, but you knew it was Blofeld because he was always the man with the white cat. McClory did eventually make his own version of Thunderball in 1983’s Never Say Never Again, which was an unofficial Bond movie yet it still starred Sean Connery (crazy, I know).

Fast-forward to when the Daniel Craig era started in 2006 with Casino Royale. Spectre and Blofeld were still under copyright protection of McClory. Instead of using the name Spectre, the writers had to come up with another Specter-inspired evil corporation. So they came up with “Quantum”, the evil company behind the plots of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

BUT THEN, the McClory estate officially settled the matter with MGM in 2013, and Spectre and Blofeld could now be used. The writers jumped on it and that’s why to some Spectre feels like it was a shoehorned at the last minute.In my opinion, Skyfall had more issues being a standalone film. The villain Silva was supposed to be working alone and yet somehow create all these elaborate, time-sensitive plots that was just too much for one man with maybe a few henchmen to pull off. In Spectre, it’s implied that Silva used Spectre’s resources to help him plan his revenge. This would realistically make more sense. After all, it’s in the name: SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. One would go to Spectre in order to enact revenge on someone if one didn’t have the means or resources.

And the whole Quantum being a part of Spectre thing – so what? Quantum was meant to be the same thing anyway. Lastly, there is some dispute on to the nature of Blofeld’s relationship with Bond. Bond suddenly has an evil foster brother now? Some complained about it. I thought it was fine. It gives a reason for Blofeld to go out of his way to torture Bond rather than just shoot him, which is a point always parodied in Bond spoofs. So again, it actually makes sense. I thoroughly enjoyed Spectre. It was virtually not misogynist out of the new Bond films. It treated the main girl, Madeline, very well, as well as the “other” girl Lucia. Yeah, some of the action is dumb and more out of spectacle than realism. It’s still done with the same wit and style of the old Bond films. 8. Shazam! (2019)

Yeah. I get it. Everyone’s tired of the god-awful, insipid DC Cinematic Universe (except for Wonder Woman), which pales in comparison to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But Shazam! was finally a very fresh, funny, and lively DC movie. What makes it stand out to me was how it ended up revolving around the main character’s friends standing together with him, rather than just simply being an origin story of one superhero. Nothing felt like it fell flat. The humor was spot on. The action was good. You had a really pained, terrible villain. Some of the plot may be simple but it had a satisfying ending. Shazam! has the same kind of energy as Spider-man: Homecoming, but by doing its own thing and having its own theme of what a family really means. It revels in the genre by literally putting you in the shoes of a child’s wish fulfillment. 9. Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

I saw this movie on a whim on Netflix. Nobody has made any fuss about it. I think it was fantastic. It’s a quirky sci-fi comedy with Aubrey Plaza playing a newspaper reporter investigating an ad someone put in the classifieds asking for a time travel companion. She goes along with two other co-workers, played by Jake Johnson and Karan Soni (who later becomes the taxi guy in Deadpool). I have to be honest – I don’t find Jake Johnson that funny. In most things I’ve seen him in, I feel like his reactions are forced. But his deadpan deliveries in this movie are on the spot. Mark Duplass was still relatively unknown at this time, and played the oddball guy who placed the ad and firmly believes he made a time machine. The entire movie only costed $750,000! Movies today need to spend over $10 million in order to try and make something as compelling as this. This movie alone influenced the modern indie film industry by combining forces with Netflix. Maybe Netflix and chill wouldn’t have been a thing if it weren’t for this movie. 10. The Nice Guys (2016)

I saved my personal favorite for last. The Nice Guys is my favorite underrated movie that I have seen this past decade. It has everything I love in a buddy film; wit and style. Written and directed by Shane Black, this movie has some real zingers and hilarious deliveries. Ryan Gosling plays a jittery private detective, who unwillingly teams up with Russel Crowe, who beats up people for a living. The story revolves around a missing girl who is a key witness to a grander conspiracy involving the automobile industry. This is one of those movies that never fails to make me laugh. I can rewatch the same scenes over and over and still crack up with laughter. My only gripe is that the final confrontation can be a bit unrealistic at times, which can be close to breaking that border of “Okay, is this witty satire like Coen Brothers or just outright comedy sketch like The Naked Gun?” So to me it felt a little imbalanced in the last quarter. Still, the rest of the movie really hits the right marks.

72 notes · View notes

ronnytherandom · 4 years ago

Text

Media n Stuff

2/1/2021: American Psycho

Excellent, truly. Has a lot to say about those on the top of our social hierarchy, the wealthy and influential and how our modern system facilitates them at the expense of everyone else. A very stylish film, well edited and directed. Rests upon a truly magnificent performance in the case of Christian Bale’s Patrick Bateman, who does a fantastic job of playing something pretending to be human. Soundtrack is a bop.

3/1/2021: Se7en

All right, not my kind of thing ultimately. There are some thoughts about legacy and what doing good means here but I feel its slightly obscure and could be more clearly stated; perhaps I wasn’t paying close enough attention. Directing is top notch. The acting also is good but nothing truly incredible. The suspense is very effective but on occasion can be defeated by pacing, excess time creating boredom. Further it was partially predictable, which harmed the effectiveness of the piece. Though the point of the state of the victims is to inspire disgust this especially did not fit the remit of entertainment for me.

4/1/2021: The Martian

Highly Enjoyable. As usual, weaker than the novel but not to a Golden Compass level. Any work that bends heaven and earth to save a single life is good in my books. Retains the wit and the scientific backbone to good effect to offset the bleakness. Likewise, the back-and-forth structure between Mars and other locations helps to make the survival scenario less overbearing. Star-studded cast, and I think rightfully so here as the performances are generally very good. Matt Damon as Mark Watney has many moments of excellence. Mars is beautiful and I’m glad Ridley Scott captured that well, on top of doing a job that lives up to his reputation.

5/1/2021: Dredd

Good. Though I worry about the implications of a “Not All Cops Bad” message, it could be interpreted elsewise and is decidedly sympathetic to civilians which works in its favour. There is the aspect of portraying Police and Criminals as two sides of the same coin, with Dredd and Anderson existing outside of said dichotomy to some degree, but ultimately implying that the existing system just needs the right people in it without severe reform, though again that’s up for debate. Otherwise, good spectacle and very nice presentation; the film can be beautiful at times and when it isn’t it has excellent action. Something I appreciate is a clear view of the action, rather than the choppy action of modern superhero films, and an unflinching approach to the depiction of gore even if I was flinching at times. Though I’m unfamiliar with the original work I find this an interesting dystopia, even if Dredd himself can be a little cliché. Performances haven’t left much of an impression though.

6/1/2021: The Wolf of Wall Street

Meh? It’s well made don’t get me wrong, everything looks and feels high quality. Of course, Scorsese is a good director. Of course, DiCaprio’s acting is fantastic, as is the rest of the acting to be frank, but it just doesn’t come together for me. I don’t feel like there was a compelling reason to sit through that for three whole hours. I can see meaning in the depiction of excess; of Belfort’s alienation, losing everything that should be dear to him; of the animal nature of people who just want to make money. I can appreciate the powerful performances and the craftwork on display. I just didn’t enjoy it.

7/1/2021: Enola Holmes

Enjoyable. Has a more juvenile tone than I like, that’s to be expected from a coming-of-age story, but it certainly does a far better job with the gifted sister idea than the BBC Sherlock series did. At times this film was truly joyous and inspiring and I would attribute that to a cast of endearing characters and a strong thematic core which is carried throughout the story. However, from a more radical perspective I cannot endorse a seeming admonishment of direct action, as much as I appreciate the idea that getting new blood in politics is a progressive step forward. Performances are good, Millie Bobby Brown does well in the lead, though I am not so keen on her 4th wall asides, and I always appreciate the sight of Henry Cavill. Also, proud to see Burn Gorman portray the most accurate Normal Englishman I’ve ever seen. I also wanted to make note of what id consider good editing, felt very snappy and effective.

8/1/2021: Shaun of the Dead

Very good, but maybe doesn’t quite live up to its reputation. Very put off by the use of F and N slurs even if the prior is in context with English slang at the time. Id say this is the lesser of the Cornetto trilogy films but with such competition it’d be hard to come out on top. Quite dry humour, I don’t think all the jokes land, but there are a few true laugh out loud moments. Similarly, it works emotionally only some of the time but at moments, especially in Philips last words, there’s some genuine power. I do feel like the pace lulls slightly too much at moments but is generally very good and saves itself for a fun final sprint. The Zombies themselves are true to Romero’s style of zombie and though the satire is light in comparison to character-zombie parallels it is still effective. Performances are good, and serve well in demonstrating the range of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in comparison with the later Cornetto films and Bill Nighy is always a treat. I only ever have praise for Edgar Wright as a fan of all his later works, so I’m glad to see even his first feature demonstrates his ability well, stylish young man is our Edgar.

8/1/2021: Avatar: Legend of Korra: Series 1

Not by any stretch a worthy successor but good by its own merit. Has powerful emotional moments and excellent action, I cannot get enough of any kind of bending in this universe. Some characters are likeable; Korra is a good lead, Tenzin is my personal favourite and I want to hug Naga. Bolin, however, can get shafted. his particular brand of comic relief inspires in me an absolute hatred I cannot fully fathom. I have many little gripes though. I find the love “square” (?) plot annoying and do not understand what purpose it serves. Just be honest with each other goddamn! In universe I wonder at the limits of metal bending, but the police are content simply to launch cables with it. Why are the Chi Fighters such an obstacle in the first half and yet become cannon fodder by the end? I also feel like a lot of the “powerful moments” I feel are dependent on nostalgia for The Last Airbender, such as any moment where the original theme is played, or when General Iroh appears etc. This is particularly egregious with the feature of cabbage corp. Really? It is frustrating to me that Korra spends the entire series past the second episode tell-not-showing us she can’t airbend before having it essentially gifted to her, similarly with the avatar state. As much as she does endure hardship, I feel like the series would be improved even slightly if Korra’s bending is taken away completely and she uses the avatar state to rescue Mako from Amon, when she is actually at her definitive low point. I find with most episodes there are moments which I’m absolutely invested in and really enjoying but then a gripe or two will pop up and marginally ruin the experience for me. But again, these are minor and as much as I fuss over these details the ultimate product is enjoyable and watchable. The setting is certainly interesting but (probably by design) New Republic City clashes too harshly with the magic system, and I think it harms the series. The animators and artists however should be lauded, as the spectacle here is magnificent.

9/1/2021: Ex Machina

Magnificent piece of work. This is what I imagine is actual good cinematography, rather than the usual “pretty stills equals good cinematography” take. Every frame a painting indeed, aided in that way by fantastically beautiful set work. Each actor deserves applause but I feel especially Alicia Vikander. As Ava she does brilliant work and at times uses an alien affectation which is an impressive highlight of attention to detail here. The director knows exactly what they’re doing, the whole thing has a kind of spotless professionalism. Special Effects are minimalist but used so very well, especially the work of making Ava and the other AI look so real. I love that this is a film which doesn’t stoop to explaining every little thing and treats the audience as an equal, and how the tension is reflected in all aspects of the piece and builds to such a mighty crescendo, though I was quite put off by the self-harm scene and would rather that were not a thing. Not only all of that but its deeply meaningful with a lot to say about our own minds (I don’t think Nathan passes Turing test) with a decidedly feminist angle too. It really is a treat.

10/1/2021: Sourcery (unfinished)

Even as a fan of early Pratchett, this ain’t it chief. I don’t like it. The jokes don’t land, the only character I like is The Librarian and the whole thing just kind of bores me, so I’ve stopped somewhere just past halfway as I can’t be fussed for the rest. I don’t care about Coin, or the wizards, or Rincewind, even the Luggage has lost that pariah charisma it usually has. Conina feels weird? I feel like there this constant unnecessary sexualisation of her and Rincewind’s affections seem more than mildly inappropriate. I’ve been reading it a week and I’ve barely been able to drag myself to it these past couple of days so I feel its time for something a little fresher.

10/1/2021: The Two Popes

Very good. There is excellence in all aspects of this films craft. Johnathan Pryce gives an endearing performance; Anthony Hopkins is likewise very good as you’d expect. I think this is a film to listen to through a good sound system, the sound work struck me as exceptional in its attention to detail while the soundtrack is good fun. Direction is dynamic and effective most evidently in the camera work which tends to feel Just Right. Dialogue is very well written and feels very organic. I enjoy the themes of change and reconciliation and feel contrasting the character of the two popes expresses this very effectively, however I would much rather see evidence of genuine change that surely must’ve occurred rather than a simple implication of change as we see. There is the argument to be made that fully reconciling the old and the new without altering material reality, beyond giving speeches encouraging others to do so, represents the will to change being co-opted and perverted by the conservative establishment. But its still a nice sentiment and a well made film regardless.

#film #books #series #opinion #american psycho #se7en #the martian #dredd #the wolf of wall street #enola holmes #shaun of the dead #avatar the legend of korra #ex machina #sourcery #the two popes

2 notes · View notes

gojira007 · 4 years ago

Text

Movie Meme

Took me a bit of time, but I was tagged by @bunnikkila to list my nine favorite movies, and since I can’t help but be ridiculously verbose about that very topic, you can see them all under the cut 8D

As for who I tag? Well, as always with the caveat that you are free to ignore if you don’t wanna, I’ll go with: @elistodragonwings @kaikaku @donnys-boy @robotnik-mun @sally-mun @fini-mun @werewolf-t33th @cviperfan and @wildwoodmage

and don’t worry, if you DO go for it, you don’t have to get as Extra as I did about it XD

9.)

Look, the meme is about Favorite Movies, not necessarily the BEST Movies, OK? And for the most part this list consists of films where that division is less meaningful in terms of how I evaluate the other movies on here. But in this specific case, “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie”, which is ultimately not all that different from the “Mystery Science Theater 3000″ TV show it spun off from and thus not particularly impressive as a work of Cinema Qua Cinema, makes the cut primarily because it’s a movie I know so well and have enjoyed so often that I can practically recite the whole thing to you by rote; I quote it all the time in my day-to-day life, I think about it often when I need a little smile, and it’s also become my favorite tool for introducing newcomers to MST3K as a whole since it was designed with a slightly broader audience in mind than the more willfully-eclectic series. And given how much I love MST3K As A Whole, that’s an especially strong factor in its favor.

8.)

Looky looky, @bunnikkila, we (unsurprisingly) have a pick in common! I’m sure this is the one and only time THAT’S going to happen on this list. 8D

Y’know, nearly thirty years (and one fairly useless remake >_>) later, I think the thing that impresses me about “The Lion King” is just how much it is still able to grab me emotionally. Some of that is unquestionably tied up with how strongly I associate this movie with my family, all of whom it became very special to as a Shared Experience. But I also don’t know of a lot of people who haven’t had that same emotional experience with it, and that to me suggests there’s more going on here than just Nostalgia. The mixture of Shakesperean plotting with Disney’s signature strength of Character, for one thing, granting the movie’s story an Epic Scope that never forgets the emotional inner lives of its cast. The music for another, not only its instantly-iconic song-book but also its memorable score, armed with both Big Bombast and Gentle Sentiment. And the unforgettably gorgeous animation, rendering every last element of its world with believable naturalism and strongly-defined personality. All of it, together, makes for what I still personally consider the Crowning Achievement of the Disney Renaissance.

7.)

I think, if I had to name the thing I find most lacking in far too many modern Action Movies, it’s Clarity. They all tend to lard their plots up with a bunch of unnecessary contrivances and complications in hopes of making themselves appear more clever than they actually are, and all it usually does is just dilute the impact of the whole thing. “Mad Max: Fury Road”, by contrast, is all about Clarity. I could sum up literally its entire plot in a paragraph if I wanted, because it is basically One Big Chase Scene from start to finish, never really deviating from that structure for more than a few minutes at a time. And that, combined with its exceptionally well-crafted Action Sequences, means that the full weight of its visceral power hits you full force every time. But don’t be fooled; that simplicity is not to be mistaken for shallowness. Indeed, precisely by getting out of its own way, knowing exactly what it wants to do and why, “Fury Road” also delivers a story that is, in spite of what you might guess, genuinely subtle and smart. Every character is immediately unforgettable and compelling because their role in the story is so well-considered and their personalities all so stark. The world it crafts feels at once fascinatingly surreal and yet All Too Real at the same time because even its most Fantastic elements are ultimately just grotesque reflections of things the audience knows only too well. And most of all, it tells a story with real, meaningful Themes that are deeply woven into each of its individual elements, such that the whole thing is deeply satisfying emotionally, but also piercingly Relevant in all the best, most affecting ways.

6.)

Oh look, another pick I have in common with @bunnikkila! This must be the last one, right?

But yeah, this is just a legitimately great movie, at every level, in every way. Stylistically, it is one of the most radically inventive things to have ever been made in the world of Western Animated Movies, gleefully mixing together a vast array of Aesthetics and Techniques that are at once viscerally distinct and yet coherently connected, all rendered with a fantastic eye toward the world of Comic Book Visual Language that keeps finding new and extremely fun ways to play with that instantly-recognizable iconography. For that alone, I would call it one of the greatest triumphs of 21st century animation. But then, on top of that, the story it tells is one that is simultaneously Arch and self-aware, delivering some of the most fantastically hilarious punch-lines imaginable more than a few of which are at the expense of the very franchise it is working within...but also entirely earnest, sincere, and emotionally affecting. It is, at once, a movie that manages to be about The Idea Of Spider-Man in its totality while also being about just one kid coming to grips with who he is, what he can do, and what his life can be. I don’t know that I can remember the last time a movie so immediately and unmistakably marked itself as an Enduring Masterpiece, but “Into the Spider-Verse” absolutely pulled it off.

5.)

Ordinarily, I would cheat and give this slot to the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy in its totality. But somehow, the fact that this is about “FAVORITE” movies instead of just what we think the BEST one is compels me to narrow it down to just one. And if I had to pick just one, it would be the first of the three, “Fellowship of the Ring”. It’s not necessarily anything that the other two movies get wrong, either. All three of the LotR movies possess many of its keenest strengths, after all. For a starter, there’s the keen understanding of how best to adapt the source material without being enslaved to it; capturing many of its most iconic moments while cleverly tweaking elements to make them more cinematic, knowing what scenes to focus on for the sake of more clearly focusing the emotional through-lines of the story, and knowing what scenes, no matter how good on the page, ultimately don’t fit to the shape the adaptation has taken. There’s also its pitch-perfect casting, each and every actor doing a fantastic job of embodying the characters so well that even as your personal vision of them from the books may differ radically from what is on-screen, they nonetheless end up feeling Right for the part and a strong, compelling presence. And there’s the deft visual hand of director Peter Jackson, who knows exactly how to craft a Middle Earth that feels at once lived-in and real but also Fantastic and magical. “Fellowship”, for me at least, thus wins out mostly because it has the good luck of being adapted from the strongest of the three books, the point at which the narrative is at its most unified and thus has the strongest overall momentum. But also because so few movies have so swept me away with the sense of stepping into a world I have always dreamed of in my mind’s eye, and that’s the sort of thing that can only happen at the beginning of a journey.

4.)

Now here’s a movie that is literally sown in to my very being. It’s the last movie my mother saw in theaters before becoming a Mom. I grew up watching the “Real Ghostbusters” cartoon all the time and playing with the attendant toys; I had a “Ghostbusters” Birthday Party when I was, like, four years old. It has been my annual Halloween Tradition to get myself a big Cheese Pizza and watch this movie for about as long as I’ve had disposable income to myself. There is, quite literally, no point in my life where I don’t remember “Ghostbusters” being a fixture in it. And as a nice bonus? It is, legitimately, a Genuinely Great Movie. I realize that isn’t quite as universally agreed upon these days as it was even a few years ago (thanks, Literally The Worst Kind Of Virulently Misogynist Assholes lD; ), but I still feel pretty confident in saying this one really is That Good. I still find basically every one of its jokes hilarious; even now I could quote just about any one of them and get a laugh. I still find its central premise, What If Exorcism Was A Blue-Collar Business, a brilliant, almost subversively clever one that takes The Supernatural out of the realm of The Unknowable and into a world where even you, an ordinary person off the street, can in fact fight back against it. I still think it’s one of the all-time great examples of how to balance Tone in this sort of High Concept Genre Bender, by allowing The Story to be played relatively straight while allowing the comedy to flow naturally from the characters’ reactions to that story, allowing its Ghostly aspects to land as Genuinely Scary (or at least Worth Taking Seriously) without getting too Stern and Serious about it. And I still listen to that unforgettable Title Song all the time! So yeah, even if I could be more objective about it, “Ghostbusters” would almost certainly make this cut.

3.)

And so we come to the third and last pick I have in common with @bunnikkila, not coincidentally a movie that played a key role in solidifying our friendship, as bonding over our shared love of it was a big part of how we got to know each other on deviantART waaaay back in the day <3

By 2008, I really didn’t think it was possible for a movie or comic or TV show to really become “part” of me anymore, the way things like Sonic the Hedgehog or Marvel Super Heroes or Some Other Movie Character Who Might Be At The Top Of This List had. And then “WALL-E” came along and proved that to be completely, utterly wrong. I didn’t just love this movie, I was inspired by it, to a degree of strength and consistency that I’m still not entirely sure has yet been matched. And to be sure, some of that is undoubtedly because the movie had already basically won the war before I’d even bought my ticket; Adorable Robots In Love is something like My Platonic Storytelling Ideal, after all. But even setting that aside, “WALL-E” is a movie where even now I can’t help but be keenly aware, and gently awed, at the beauty of its craft; indeed, watching this movie in a theater did a lot to make me better understand why movies work on us the way they do, because I left that theater chewing so much on every last one of its elements. Its gorgeous animation, the way it conveys Character through Actions more so than language, the dream-like quality of its musical score (even as i type this i get teary thinking about certain motifs), the clear and meaningful way it builds its theme and story together so harmoniously, and the particular perspective it takes on our relationships with each other, with our environments, and with our own technology...all of it speaks to me deeply and profoundly, and it’s no coincidence that I have seen this movie more times in theaters than any other on this list (twelve times, for the record, and I still remember each and every time XD).

2.)

This one needs no personal qualifications, to my mind. Yes, I have some degree of nostalgic attachment to it for having seen it relatively young with my brothers and being deeply moved by it then, but it’s not at all like the kind of Nostalgia I have for “The Lion King”. “Princess Mononoke” is just flat-out, full-stop a complete Masterpiece, not just my personal pick for one of the single-best animated films ever made, but one of the best films period. It’s almost difficult for me to put into words how great this movie is, certainly in a way that hasn’t been repeated to death by thousands of other smarter people, because no one of its elements quite answers the question of why it is so great, to my mind. Yes, the animation is absolutely gorgeous with a design sensibility that brings Ancient Mythology to life so vividly that its influence can still be felt today (The Forest Spirit alone has been homaged all over the place). And yes, the music is hauntingly beautiful, at once capturing the gentle rhythm of nature but also the elegiac tone of Life Moving On. And yes, the story is an incredible mixture of the Broad Mythic Strokes of an Ancient Legend grounded in all too human Emotions and Ideas about the balance of nature, the full meaning and cost of Warfare, and perhaps most important of all, about how we determine Right and Wrong when everyone involved in a conflict is fighting simply for the right to survive. But all of those things add up together to something even greater than a simple sum, because each one isn’t just good in its own right but because each element so perfectly reinforces the other. And even having said all that? I really could just carry on singing this movie’s praises. Just...an absolute masterpiece, top to bottom.

1.)

I don’t imagine any of you are terribly surprised at this, right? I almost feel like it’d be redundant to explain my love for this movie, given how self-obvious I imagine it is to basically everyone who knows me Literally At All. But heck, I’ve rambled on this long, why not go all the way? Because the thing of it is, “Gojira” (to be clear, the original Japanese movie from 1954 rather than its American edit, “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” from 1956) doesn’t just top the list by being a Great Movie. Though to be clear, it really is. Flawless? No; there’s a reliance on puppetry that even for the time can be a bit chintzier than the movie can really afford, in particular. But brilliant, even so, a heart-wrenching example of Science Fiction Storytelling As Allegory, one that, in a rarity not just for its own genre but indeed for many movies in general, very meaningfully lingers on its deepest, darkest implications. Many a film critic has pointed it out, and it remains true: the stark black-and-white photography heightens the sense of Implacable Horror at the core of the story, and the way the central Melodrama, a tragic love triangle that carries with it many aspects of Class Conflict and Personal Desire VS. The Collective Good, ties back into the main story is truly beautiful in its elegance and emotional impact. Still, for me personally, it tops the list, now and always, because it is a movie that affirmed something for me, that the character I had fallen in love with as a child convincing his family to watch a monster movie with him on television to prove his seven-year-old bravery, really was as genuinely as powerful and meaningful a figure as I had always imagined him to be.

#movies #meme #gojira007

3 notes · View notes

liskantope · 4 years ago

Text

Some not-so-brief reactions to major Disney films 1968-1988

A little while ago I wrote another collection of quick commentaries on major Disney films (which I’m watching one by one through Disney+) from their inception with Snow White in 1937 to The Jungle Book in 1967. I was planning to round off my next collection at another 30-year mark, but the little mini-reviews I’ve been writing are beginning to look so long-winded in aggregate that tonight I decided maybe I should stop at this point. Also, last time, without fully being aware of it, I stopped at the end of what is considered Disney’s Silver Age (coming after Disney’s Golden Age, also included in the last set of commentaries), and apparently 1968 to 1988 is considered Disney’s (Bronze and/or) Dark Age (the Disney Renaissance kicking off with The Little Mermaid in 1989), so there’s another reason it makes sense to cut it off here.

I’ll keep watching the major Disney features, one a day, through the 90′s works, but whether I’ll find time to keep writing about my impressions of each film I watch, I can’t guarantee anything.

The Aristocats, 1970

This is a beloved favorite of mine. I got the video in later childhood, having previously admired the main number “Everybody Wants To Be a Cat” (still the highlight of the movie, from my adult point of view) and having read the story in a Disney book. After seeing it many times in childhood, I rewatched it only a few years ago when it showed up on Netflix. Around that time (or maybe just afterwards), I noticed that my favorite cartoon/Disney reviewer YouTuber Phantom Strider occasionally mentions that he dislikes The Aristocats -- he doesn’t put it on his top 10 worst Disney movie list or anything, but he’s made some disparaging remarks without going into detail. Watching it once again this month on Disney+, my verdict is that, yeah, it’s subpar in quite a few ways, but my more critical adult sensibilities will never override the fond feelings I have for this movie.

Since this is the next movie on the list after The Jungle Book, I couldn’t help constantly comparing the two, and I did see some parallels. In both cases, the story is pretty weak: this time, a family of cats gets kidnapped and stranded far from home by the greedy butler villain and have to pass through several adventures to get back to their owner. In both cases, the plot is a very linear one involving small adventures and minor characters having little bearing on the overall arc (this is perhaps slightly less the case with The Aristocats, where the new acquaintance Thomas O’Malley stays with them the whole time, and at least Scat Cat’s gang makes a return at the end -- minus the unfortunate and entirely unnecessary character of the Chinese cat -- to fight for the protagonists). In both cases, the voice acting is great and includes Phil Harris and Sterling Holloway. In both cases, the villain’s motives are rather flimsily stated -- the butler villain is more comical and slightly more rounded out, and the fact that his motive doesn’t make a lot of sense is perhaps meant to be part of the comedy. The Aristocats has far more filler material, including a useless but somewhat amusing and ultra-cartoonish sideplot about our butler villain losing his hat and umbrella and having to return to the countryside to get them (it’s more amusing than it sounds, trust me).

The Aristocats is simply weaker in almost every way than The Jungle Book. Although I like all the music, including “Scales and Arpeggios” which I only just learned was written by the Sherman Brothers and I appreciated a lot as a kid who practiced the piano every day, the only truly memorable song was “Everybody Wants To Be a Cat” (not written by the Sherman Brothers), whereas in The Jungle Book there are multiple numbers of that caliber written by the Sherman Brothers at nearly the top of their form. This film can also be compared to One Hundred and One Dalmatians and again comes out looking worse -- Dalmations sort of perfected the whole “animals coordinating a rescue” type plot, and The Aristocats only seems to make a feeble attempt at it.

One interesting thing about the pacing of the film that as an adult I’m a bit taken aback by is how quickly the ending of the movie runs. I was shocked when I rewatched this for the first time as an adult on Netflix, got to the ending of “Everybody Wants To Be a Cat”, and saw that there were only 15 minutes of running time left: that includes the late-night discussion between the romantic leads, the arrival at their home, Edgar re-kidnapping them, Roquefort going for help and nearly getting himself killed by Scat Cat’s gang, the whole action sequence of the actual rescue, a final scene with Madame welcoming O’Malley and rewriting the will, and the final song. We don’t even get to see Madame’s reaction at seeing her beloved cats alive and well, which is one of the ways this movie compares unfavorably with Dalmatians. There is some real artistry in The Aristocats, but the amount of effort put in is clearly not up to the standard of Disney’s finest.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks, 1971

I mainly knew this movie through the song “Beautiful Briny Sea” growing up. Eventually I did watch the film one time; I also read the book it was based on (I can’t remember which came first). I remembered very little outside of that one song, the fact that the characters travel in a bed, and David Tomlinson (who I knew well as Mr. Banks) being in it as an jarringly un-Banks-like character. I had entirely forgotten the fact that the story takes place during World War II and that this is crucial to the plot. I knew this as the Disney movie that tried to be Mary Poppins and failed to be anywhere near as exciting or resonant. However, I was still very curious to rediscover, two decades later, what the movie was really all about.

The story is really quite good on a level that appeals to grownups as well as children -- not as deeply as Mary Poppins, mind you, but distinctive and captivating. (I think this has something to do with the story being as much to do with the adult characters as with the children.) The acting is also solid. It only increased my respect for David Tomlinson’s versatility as an actor, in fact, and it was fun to see the likeness of the dignified and proper George Banks display so much awkward vulnerability and eventually get himself into so many slapstick situations. Unfortunately, the only memorable song is “Beautiful Briny Sea” -- I mean that quite literally, as sitting down to write this a couple of weeks after watching, I’m finding it hard to remember much about any of the other songs.

Also unfortunately, the song “Beautiful Briny Sea” is sort of a beacon in a murky area as, halfway through the film when we switch to the animated portion, the movie suddenly gets... quite bad. The live-animation hybrid is consistently done to weak effect, first of all. For some reason, only Mary Poppins made this effect believable, ahead of its time. Secondly, I understand that we have to suspend our disbelief to enjoy a children’s fantasy film, but having the group plunged into water without themselves or their book appearing wet or having any issue breathing is pushing this a bit far. Thirdly, the writing gets rather silly. As soon as they come across an animated codfish who welcomes them to the area, the oldest kid Charles (always the skeptic) says, “Now I’m hearing things! Fish don’t talk.” Nor do fish “walk” along the bottom of the sea with a cane while fully clothed and smoking a cigar, Charlie, so what was your first clue that you’re in a story where things you thought impossible are happening?

The whole crew later gets up onto the animated island of Naboombu, where Mr. Banks Professor Browne is forced to referee a soccer game between teams of anthropomorphic animals as part of his efforts (somehow) to get his hands on the lanyard of the island’s arrogant monarch (who rather resembles Prince John from the next film on this list) which winds up evaporating as soon as they get back to their own world anyway. The ensuing soccer match is by far the most bizarre part of the film, or of any of these films really -- it feels much more like some wacky Saturday morning cartoon than Disney animation. Browne the referee winds up getting (literally) dragged into the game; the live/animation hybrid is done especially poorly here. Once the characters get back to the “real” world, however, the movie becomes good again, with a fantastic climactic conclusion that left me smiling at the overall effect of the film despite its weaknesses.

Robin Hood, 1973

This was a Disney classic that we owned from the time I was fairly small, and that I watched more times than almost any other one, with Alice in Wonderland being the only possible rival I can think of. I went what was probably close to a twenty-year period without seeing it or missing it until a couple of years ago, on a transatlantic flight when it was one of the movie options on the plane. I was taken aback on that rewatching by the fact that... Robin Hood just isn’t that good. When I later saw my parents (I think this was on the way to visiting them), I told them of this revelation, and they told me, “We never thought it was that good either, but you seemed to like it.” I guess I can see some of the appeal to my much younger self, but less easily than I can see the appeal of the some of the other so-so films like The Aristocats -- there is something about Robin Hood that is eye-catching on the superficial level but ultimately shallow. At the same time, I’ll always have to feel a bit sentimental about this one because of the role it played in an early period of my life, introducing me to words like outlaw and in-law and taxes (I vividly remember thinking in early watchings that Taxes was just the name of the unpleasant wolf character), helping to develop my understanding of what poverty looks like, and also introducing me to the concept of political satire (under an anti-free-speech monarchy no less. The scene shown in the video just linked is my favorite scene of the movie, by the way.)

I think my main criticism of Disney’s Robin Hood could be summarized by saying it oversimplifies what could have been a nuanced story, way more than it needs to. This shows most starkly in its clearly-marked division between good characters and evil characters. Naive Good-vs.-Evil plots are very much part of the Disney brand, but I can’t think of any of their other films which takes that aspect to this much of an extreme in developing the characters, so that the entire cast is very openly divided between the white caps and the black caps and (this is the most important part) to the detriment of individuation between the characters. The personalities of all the characters on the Good Side seem pretty much interchangeable throughout the film. Oh sure, Robin Hood has Plucky Hero stamped on him with Designated Sidekick Little John, and Maid Marian has Love Interest stamped on her, and so on. They get into different situations because they all play different roles in the community. But there are no deeper differences between them. Friar Tuck, for instance, is the local religious leader, and you think he might present a more thoughtful, pacifistic, and spiritual point of view to his comrades and enemies. But no, he shouts at the Sheriff and chest-bumps him out of the church and engages him in physical combat just like all the other characters do. All of the people on the Good Side are in complete lockstep throughout, and this makes their part of the story deeply uninteresting.

King Richard is never developed as a character; he is a faraway abstract entity throughout the film, which makes his sudden appearance at the end (which is what really saves Nottingham and finishes the story) very ineffective. (Let’s not get into the fact that he’s described as heroic for going off to participate in the Crusades -- “While bonny good King Richard leads the great crusade he’s on” -- talk about sugarcoating history!) This is part of what I mean about oversimplifying: they could have injected some complexity into the political story beyond “usurper taxes all the money out of the people because of his personal greed until the real king returns and makes everything lovely again”. I strongly believe it is possible to present real issues in a way that is both mature and engaging to children and that it has been done even in other Disney features. Disney didn’t try very hard to do it here.

I’ll give the writers credit in that the three main bad guys, Prince John, Sir Hiss, and the Sheriff of Nottingham, are somewhat individuated, partly I think out of necessity because the Bad Side of any story has to consist of people who quarrel amongst themselves. Prince John is actually well enough developed as an insecure, petulant child with no idea what it means to lead a country that I enjoy watching him even as an adult. The parallels between him and President Trump are unmistakable, and I’m surprised that I haven’t seen more memes about this. Still, by the end of the film, even he was starting to wear on me.

Another aspect of the movie that bypassed my attention as a child but bothers me as an adult is its blatant American-ness in retelling a very old, extremely British story. As in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, all of the accents, except for those of two of the main bad guys, are American. The rooster narrator of the story sounds particularly American and plays folk music throughout of a style that strikes me as the epitome of American.

The way the script and animation deal with bodies and obesity is particularly interesting in this one. Four of the characters I can think of are portrayed as fat, including one of the main bad guys (the Sheriff “Old Bushel-Britches” of Nottingham) but also three of the good guys. Minor quips are made about this by some of the characters, but overall it could arguably be considered a rather positive, good-natured treatment of this issue for its time. It is the source of some physical humor, and some of the body-related physical humor in general slightly raises my eyebrows as an adult -- there is a boob grab, for instance (well, fake boobs as part of a disguise, but still).

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, 1977

I had avoided watching any Disney rendition of Pooh for a long time before watching this one last week. I got to see a lot of Pooh in earlier childhood because of videos given as gifts by other kids’ parents, which my mom (who loves the original books by Milne and hates Disney’s interpretation of them) let me watch only with great reluctance. I soured to the Disney Pooh franchise as I got older and remember in high school getting sick of how many things were decorated with animated Pooh characters, and how few people knew the original books.

Starting to watch this film, I had no idea which of the Pooh stories would be included or whether I would remember seeing them before. As it turned out, I remembered almost none of it: I knew the theme song well and was slightly familiar with the early song about Pooh climbing the honey tree (it must have been on one of the Disney Sing-Along videos) but didn’t remember anything else until vaguely recalling some of the later Tigger stuff (I remembered, before it happened, that Tigger escapes from the tree by sliding down a paragraph of text in the book, one of many instances of extreme fourth-wall-breaking that runs as a theme throughout). As it happens, although The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh seems to go along pretty smoothly given that it makes no pretense of having a unified story arc -- something I give it credit for -- it is actually composed of four short films produced throughout the decade beforehand. This explains why I only remembered the Tigger stuff near the end: we must have had the quarter-length film Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too at my house for a while, but not the other three. (What I actually watched the most, I think, was a video of TV episodes called “Newfound Friends”, which I’ll look up on Disney+ out of curiosity but probably won’t include in this list.)

I remain anti-Pooh[Disney_version], but this anthology film wasn’t as bad as I had thought it might be. The first story about Pooh and the honey tree was actually pretty good. I am not opposed to Sterling Hollaway’s portrayal of the title character. Eeyore’s voice is way too flat, but otherwise most of the characters are portrayed okay. I distinctly remember reading Rabbit as a female character as a kid, and on hearing his voice again I suppose I can understand why. Tigger is the most offensively adapted: he is one-dimensional in a very obnoxious, not-so-amusing slapstick way. His portrayal would have come off better if they had given him more of a child’s voice, which is more appropriate to the book version of his character anyway. The gopher character is pretty annoying as well; he’s rather useless and unnecessary given that he’s not in the books (he even has a fourth-wall-breaking line about not being in the book). Some of the stories from the book are meshed together in a way that does a disservice to each of them, and the movie might have been better if it had committed to adapting fewer of Milne’s chapters. The story about Pooh getting stuck in Rabbit’s front door is done in a distasteful way, with Rabbit turning the back half of his body into part of the upholstery (an idea that Walt Disney had himself when he first read the book!). The songs weren’t great, and I wish that some of Pooh’s poetry from the books had been adapted to song instead.

Leaving those details aside, this is an earnest attempt at turning Pooh into an animated feature which turned out to be not too terrible given my low expectations.

The Rescuers, 1977

I remember watching this once as a kid and almost nothing sticking with me apart from the fact that the main villain (who I remembered nothing about, not even really the gender) had two pet crocodiles. I watched it a second time on Netflix a few years ago, I think within the same week of watching The Aristocats on Netflix.

I have one word for this Disney animated classic: weak. The story is not all that interesting. Having watched Dalmatians and The Aristocats in the few weeks before hand, coordinated animal rescue plots were starting to wear on me. There is no music except for a few forgettable songs not sung by the characters. Eva Gabor makes Ms. Bianca a beguiling character, but the rest of the characters are completely forgettable. The main male character, Bernard, has the blandest voice ever. Even the little girl being rescued, while sympathetic, is not very unique or interesting. (There is something subtly heavy and haunting about having her teddy bear as her best friend through most of the film, though.) At the time of writing, I’ve already halfway forgotten what the villain’s sidekick was like. There are a bunch of other animals who are fun to watch in animation but don’t stick in my mind, apart from Pat Buttram’s drunken rat character (because it wouldn’t be a Disney film of the 40′s-80′s without some alcoholism in it).

The villain, Medusa, is a particular fail here. She is basically a lame Cruella de Vil 2.0: modern, non-fairy-tale-ish, greedy and materialistic, drives like a lunatic, etc. After watching, I found out that the story writers initially thought of simply bringing Cruella back as the villain in this movie, but decided against the idea of it being in any way a sequel to Dalmatians (remember that at this point no Disney sequel had ever been done -- the 1990 sequel to this film was the very first!). I think they should have gone with that idea: bring back one of the most celebrated Disney villains, rather than come up with a new one who is a lot like her but with subtly less pizazz.

Random observation: this has to be one of the only classic Disney stories where the animals can talk to exactly one sympathetic human (the girl) but no other human. If I remember right, I don’t think even Cinderella can understand the words of her mouse friends.

Anyway. Some people say the sequel is much better than the original here. I haven’t seen The Rescuers Down Under yet, but I hope it’s true.

Pete’s Dragon, 1977

This is the first movie on this whole journey that is so obscure that I don’t think I’d even heard of before, let alone seen, and that’s despite the fact that there was a remake in 2016. (The one thing that rang a bell for me while watching was the idea of a dragon playing tic-tac-toe on its belly, an image I possibly saw in an isolated context.) I questioned whether I should watch yet another 1977 Disney film at all, when it would be mostly live-action and was obviously so obscure. In the end, I’m glad I watched this, partly because the story did grip me on some level, but mostly because this film is so very entertaining in how badly done it is.

Pete’s Dragon, in almost every way, is bad -- hilariously bad -- the sweet spot of Bad: the kind of bad that’s actually interesting to examine and yet also shallow enough to make for good Bad Movie Night watching. It’s hard to know where even to begin. The consistently terrible acting of almost everyone, especially in every single line of the boy protagonist (I hate to trash a child actor like this, and part of it was probably bad direction: for instance, someone should have taught him to go easy on the pointy finger). Almost none of the right emotional notes are hit at the right time in what is a very heartfelt story. Only Helen Reddy as the female lead and Jim Dale as the charlatan doctor strike me as good actors doing the best they can with a terrible script and bad acting around them. Then there are the cheesy, poorly-written, often poorly-sung songs. (Did I mention that in one song, each of Pete’s main abusive guardians continue to sing, each in an unperturbed, full-throated voice while being flung in the air by an invisible dragon and plunged into the water?) The awkward choreography. The weak visual effects (as with Bedknobs and Broomsticks, they really didn’t know how to pull of hybrid animation well. I’d go easier on them for this if Mary Poppins hadn’t nailed it 13 years earlier.) I could go on and on.

It made a lot of sense to me when I read afterwards that Pete’s Dragon was originally written as a stage musical, because there is something unusually stage-musical-ish about how the songs are written (for instance, having subsets of the ensemble throw out response lines in unison) and the way the choreography is done. I’ll say as someone who has been in stage musicals that these elements can feel a bit awkward even on the stage; they look to me more awkward in the medium of film; and they’re especially awkward when the songs, choreography, etc. is as poorly written as it is in this film -- someone who hates musicals wanting to teach a friend to hate them too might well choose to show their friend this movie and pretend that it’s a representative example.

Even through all this, I was able to appreciate that the story is pretty good, and I came to care for the sympathetic characters, however badly acted they were. I also enjoyed the atmosphere of a small coastal village in northeast US (called Passammaquoddy, apparently a real bay in Maine). So, by the time I was partly through watching this (fairly long) movie, I felt very committed to continuing, enjoying it as I was just as much for its entertaining badness as for anything else.

I want to end by mentioning one musical scene in the movie that took me by surprise because it was actually good, and funny and catchy and overall entertaining. It’s our introduction to the charlatan Dr. Terminus, and so it’s self-contained. If you want a taste of a part of the movie that I think is head and shoulders better than the rest while reflecting exactly what I mean by a stage-musical-style musical number (not making any claims about how good in absolute terms this scene is, though), here is a YouTube video of it (the song “Passammaquoddy”) (warning: mildly off-color taste on body type and disability stuff). I would actually enjoy leading a song like this in a musical.

The Fox and the Hound, 1981

These more obscure Disney films are getting more and more interesting. I distinctly remember knowing about this one as a kid, seeing VHS boxes of it at friends’ houses, etc., but I never had much interest in actually seeing it. I watched it for the first time on Disney+ with great curiosity, coming in knowing literally nothing about what the story would be about except “a fox and a hound are friends”. I was pleasantly taken aback by the new setting of backwoods American farmland and by unusually quiet, low-key tone.

The main thing I can say about this movie is that it’s far and away the least Disney-ish of the animated ones I’ve seen so far. If nobody had told me which company made this movie, it would never even occur to me that it was done by Disney, except for the presence of Disney icon Pat Buttram’s very recognizable twangy voice (perfect for this movie, not really appropriate for the setting of Robin Hood). It’s hard to explain just why I feel this way. Maybe it’s something to do with the pacing and the sort of quiet story. Or maybe it’s the fact that none of the animals seem to be drawn in the traditional Disney fashion (that is, we’ve seen fox and owl characters before in Disney, and for some reason their counterparts in The Fox and the Hound aren’t recognizable to me.) Or maybe it was the almost complete lack of songs. Honestly, trying to write this, I can’t quite pin down what made this a slightly offputting Disney-watching experience.

Despite feeling affection for the characters from the get-go, I actually found myself rather bored throughout the first half of the slowly-progressing movie. Then I perked up in the middle, actually thinking there might be a death, and of a rather morally ambiguous character too (this didn’t feel like a Disney film, so it might break the rules?). After that I felt enthralled to the point of breaking down and finishing it after having previously decided to leave a bit left over for the next day. I’m really not used to not having any idea how stories will end when going through Disney movies, and I guess I couldn’t handle even that small bit of suspense.

In the end, I thought the story, and how the story was rendered, was pretty good -- not stellar, but genuine. I don’t know about how overly-neatly everything was wrapped up with the main antagonist Amos Slade doing a complete 180 at the end, but after all this is Disney even if it doesn’t particularly feel like it and I shouldn’t be surprised at a happy ending.

Random side note: I wonder if Big Mama (the owl character) could be criticized as sort of an African-American stereotype and thus what Disney+ would call an “outdated cultural depiction”, or if it will be in another ten years.

The Black Cauldron, 1985

We continue with our sequence of more obscure Disney flicks. I guess this era is called the Dark Age of Disney for a reason, and one could say that this movie epitomizes such an era both in its role in the evolution of Disney and in its actual content. I don’t recall even hearing about this one as a child. I’ve heard it referred to as an adult only in the context of its successor being advertised as fun to provide a contrast with the overly-dark box office failure that had just come out, so I came in expecting a not-very-worthwhile movie that would be uncharacteristically dark and un-fun.

All I can say is, wow! The Black Cauldron, while indeed uncharacteristically dark (in ambiance at least, less so in subject matter), is genuinely, seriously good!

Within literally the first two seconds of the film, I knew that I was in a Medieval setting (not having known anything whatsoever about the story prior to watching) both from the music and from the backdrop. This remained the case throughout the movie. Everything in its style is boldly, wholeheartedly Medieval, not like some other Disney movies where the Medieval setting is watered-down and phony *cough*swordinthestone*cough*robinhood*hack. The only other movie on this list so far which comes close to succeeding at this was Sleeping Beauty, but that is such a different type of film, with such a different animation style, that comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. Honestly, I don’t think that the flavor is so thick even in Sleeping Beauty. The art of The Black Cauldron actually feels closer to that of Magic the Gathering than anything else I can think of from Disney. The effects of the animation are absolutely gorgeous -- in a rather dark way, mind you, not bright and colorful like what is usually associated with Disney.

The story is complex by Disney standards and I had zero familiarity with it beforehand, so for the first time I actually had to check myself to make sure I was paying attention. The characters are reasonably developed with engaging dialog (though slightly hesitant and sparse, with unusually little humor). It was a little jarring to hear “the Forbidden Forest” mentioned by one of the characters and remember that Harry Potter wouldn’t be around for over a decade. The main villain is one of the scariest ones of Disney and I would imagine may have been somewhat influenced by Ian McDiarmid’s Emperor, who had made his debut only a couple of years earlier.

I said that the last film on this list seemed distinctly un-Disney-ish, and I can say the same about this one in its own way -- maybe this was an experimental trend at Disney studios during the first half of the 80′s. The Black Cauldron has even less music in it than The Fox and the Hound and may be the only animated feature I’ve seen here with nothing resembling a song at all. One strong impression I got throughout, especially when the dungeon sequence started and the princess was introduced -- and this isn’t exactly a compliment -- is that something about the pacing, dialog, body movements, etc. seriously makes this movie feel like I’m watching a video game. (For personal context, I’ve never been a gamer, and most of my exposure to video games comes from watching college roommates play during the late 00′s.) I can’t justify exactly where I get this feeling. Also, the princess is strangely voiced and feels particularly like a non-player (video game) character somehow. I’m now curious as to whether there have ever been any games based on this movie or whether it had faded too much into oblivion by the time gaming reached the right level of progress.

Anyway, The Black Cauldron may not be especially fun or enjoyable to kids, but for an older person in the mood for some spooky Medieval fantasy animated entertainment, I recommend it as a fine movie.

(Fun trivia: I had believed that the successor on this list was the first animated feature to use computers to assist in animation, in the clock/gear sequence, but apparently this one actually was. Also, to date it was the most expensive animated film created.)

The Great Mouse Detective, 1986

Now for a classic that I had been greatly looking forward to. We didn’t have The Great Mouse Detective at my home growing up, but I know I saw it a number of times and later remembered liking it so much that on a whim in college, around the time I revisited Mary Poppins, I borrowed it from the local Blockbuster. I distinctly remembering feeling a little sheepish checking it out, but the young guy at the register actually said something like, “Yeah, that’s one of the best ones.” Years later, one of my best friends during graduate school was hanging out at my place and the conversation went to us agreeing on how excellent The Great Mouse Detective is and musing over the fact that nobody ever seems to talk about it, and we decided to watch it together as it was on Netflix at the time. We didn’t bother to log out of my roommate’s Netflix account to watch it, and he was later very irritated at me about the fact that Netflix was now constantly offering him children’s animated features. Anyway, it seems I’m far from the only one who has often viewed this one as perhaps the most underrated Disney classic of all time. (Further evidence: it comes second in WatchMojo’s list, with their winner being its predecessor!)

The Great Mouse Detective was billed as “All new! All fun!” to assure audiences that it would be a departure from the heavy seriousness of its predecessor, and in this it generously delivers all the way through. It’s based on the just-silly-enough-to-be-delightful premise that in late Victorian London there was a mouse version of Queen Victoria living in Buckingham Palace and a mouse version of Sherlock Holmes (our title character) living under the human Holmes’ flat in Baker Street. Our villain, the dastardly Ratigan, is hatching a plan to take over all of Mousedom via a plot which is incredibly silly, but the movie, which is consistent in its unpretentiousness, is able to pull this off just fine. All of the characters are nicely fleshed out (there’s a case to be made about Fidget’s character reflecting ableism but let’s leave that aside). Ratigan is the juiciest villain we’ve seen since Cruella de Vil. The plot is actually pretty complex, not at all like the predictable fairy tale / fantasy type plots we’ve often seen, yet not so complicated that it would lose the audience (or if it loses some kids, they will still be entertained by the great voicing, music, and animation). The action is, bar none, the very best I’ve seen so far on the animated movies of this list, and the movie is somehow packed with action -- every single sequence of it is superb, and the climactic scene inside of Big Ben is a revolutionary masterpiece of animation (by the standards that existed at the time). The abrupt transition to that scene, beginning in near-silence, is one of the more delightfully, deliciously chilling Disney moments for me.

This is not one of the great Disney musicals, but all three of its three musical numbers are still very enjoyable. I remember learning in college that the same person wrote “The World’s Greatest Criminal Mind” and “Goodbye So Soon”, but I only just now internalized that the composer was Henry Mancini who I love from The Pink Panther and Victor Victoria. There is a certain type of wit and humor in the lyrics of both of those songs which I don’t know how to characterize in words except to say that it’s sprinkled with phrases either containing self-contradictons (“You’re the best of the worst around”, “You’re more evil than even you”) or redundancy (“No one can doubt what we know you can do”) or just plain wordplay (“Even meaner? You mean it?”, “With time so short I’ll say so long”). None of it makes a pretense of being extremely witty or anything; it’s just mildly dry. I don’t know what to call this kind of humor and can’t think of another example of it, but it consciously (though subtly) influenced the vibe I was going for with the section headings in certain of my earlier Wordpress essays.

Perhaps Lady and the Tramp can make a case for winning the Most Underrated Disney Animated Feature prize, as it seems more mature and elegant, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find The Great Mouse Detective every bit as enjoyable and that I still have enough inner child in me that I can rewatch the movie in my early 30′s and come out of it smiling broadly.

Oliver and Company, 1988

The first major Disney feature that came out in my lifetime! As with The Fox and the Hound, I always knew about this one growing up but was never really interested enough to watch it (even despite the fact that it was somehow loosely based on Oliver Twist, whose musical adaptation I was raised on pretty heavily) -- at least, I don’t think I ever saw any of it until one day in my young adulthood cable days when I caught it on TV. By “caught it on TV”, of course I mean that I probably didn’t see all of it, and it was interrupted by commercials and I was probably doing something else at the same time and not paying much attention. Literally the only thing I could remember was the line “Don’t want to mix with the riffraff?”

It’s just as well because in the grander progression of Disney creations, Oliver and Company turns out to be pretty skipable. Now I will say that I appreciate the variety of locations and cultural backdrops in Disney films and the amount of effort the creators put into carrying them out (something that was mostly lost on me as a kid). In this case, we are transported for the first time to contemporary New York, and it’s clear that the writers, voice actors, and animators went full throttle on making everything seem as in-your-face New-York-ish as possible. I don’t fault them for doing this, but it’s all done in a slightly brash way that doesn’t at all attract me to late-80′s New York culture.

I was struck in the first few minutes by a change I don’t quite know how to describe in words, except to say that the animation and even more the music feel palpably distinctly more modern than anything I’ve visited so far. The animation is simpler and more generic (luckily I have a fondness for kittens and they do succeed in making Oliver look adorable, but otherwise the visuals left me cold), and the music is a sharp reminder of the blander forms of pop music I remember growing up hearing. “Why Should I Worry?” triggered a recognition of the song that I had long forgotten -- apparently I used to know it very well but I’m not entirely sure how. The other songs are forgettable enough that I’ve already forgotten them. Interesting to find out that the principal voices were done mainly by Billy Joel and Bette Midler, marking another step on Disney’s road towards featuring more big-time celebrities in their voice acting (culminating in Robin Williams’ role in Aladdin several years later).

The story is very watered down compared to either the book or the musical version of Oliver -- understandable, I suppose, but I didn’t find it very interesting. The characters were lackluster, and the main villain Sykes managed to be even more forgettable than What’s-her-name from The Rescuers. This movie normalizes hitting on women by making catcalling noises, as done by two of the non-evil characters -- I wonder if this was put in because it’s considered a distinctive feature of New York culture, but either way I found its presence in the film obnoxious. I will say that the character of Georgette (played by Midler) stood out as very funny, and I enjoyed all of her scenes, but I don’t have much else positively positive to say about this one.

#disney films #the aristocats #bedknobs and broomsticks #robin hood #body issues #winnie the pooh #the rescuers #the black cauldron #Harry Potter #episode vi #the great mouse detective #ableism #oliver twist #catcalling #Our Current president #alcoholism

6 notes · View notes

portfolio-ni-rizza · 4 years ago

Text

Netflix’s Death Note: [Personal] Review

Director Adam Wingard's Death Note is basically a Final Destination bootleg with the manga's name. It's flat, unnecessarily gory, and incoherent. Its promising moments are completely swept under the rug of its overall disjointed narrative and out-of-character acting.

I love Death Note. It's one of my all-time favorite series. I even have merch from my weaaboo days (haha). But I've also never been a fan of manga adaptations–not even anime (to an extent; I'm looking at you, Full Metal Alchemist and Shugo Chara season 3), and especially not of Western movies. Hollywood has YET to produce a decent manga adaptation, and this one is right up there with M. Night's The Last Airbender.

I'm not sure how these directors do their research, but by and large their end products wind up looking like their "research" is pretty much just looking up the plot on Wikipedia and making what they will of that. Netflix's DN is the absolute barebones of the wonderful masterpiece that is Ohba and Obata's Death Note. It's even more disappointing if you think about the fact that Death Note's "absolute barebones" is still a good material to work with, and we STILL end up with this bastardization.

First of all, I, at least, have no problem with the setting. To begin with, Netflix did say this was an Americanized version of the original. It makes sense that they'd change the names, considering this is set in Seattle. I did appreciate that 'Mia Sutton' is not too far from 'Misa Amane' as far as the composite letter are concerned lol. My biggest problem was the characters themselves, but I'll focus on 2 to keep this from being indecently long.

Light Turner is not supposed to be Timmy Turner's older, emo brother and is an average kid whom no one understands and happens to be good at Math and doing other people's homework. The core of Light's character is his PERFECTION. He is so far above average that he's completely detached from the rest of the world. That god complex was the entire reason he even took and managed to assume a 'god' character. It's literally the core of Death Note. Light is supposed to be the perfect son, perfect student, perfect citizen. Everyone loves him and looks up to him. And HE knows that. People don't need to tell him; he knows for himself he is BETTER than others. That's how Kira came to be in the first place.

Netflix's Light Turner is a wimpy loser with absolutely no depth as a character. He is completely one dimensional. He responds to dark and violent situations with darkness and violence. He is bullied so he fights back. His mother is murdered so he kills the murderer. It's a completely overused narrative that puts the essence of Light Yagami, antihero extraordinaire, straight into the chopping block.

From the get-go, his character is completely wrong. He is introduced as a nerdy kid who earns lunch money by doing other kids' homework. He has zero charisma. He's at the bottom of the food chain. He has absolutely nothing of what it takes to become the god that is Kira. The way that Light Turner was written would never have let him become anything larger than life; it just made him a vindictive bully who happened to be able to kill.

(A very dangerous combination–but for all the wrong reasons.)

Which just obliterates the central theme of Death Note altogether, and throws out the window the very foundation of what made the original work.

Second, this film is unnecessarily gory. Sure, a certain degree of violence is expected when it comes to murder, but Wingard just made this entire movie a B-rated slasher film with his slow-motion death scenes–something he just PACKS the whole movie with and spotlights on like it's the most important aspect of the story when it's totally secondary (if not completely an afterthought) in the original.

It's not even realistic. Light sees a BULLY (not a criminal; just a run-of-the-mill playground bully) antagonizing a schoolmate, he's handed a murder weapon for a TEST RUN, and he immediately, without a shadow of a doubt, writes 'decapitation' as the method of death? He chooses something that is exceedingly difficult, unnatural, and very, very specific for the first time he's trying to kill someone? He doesn't even UNDERSTAND what's going on; he's just had a massive Poltergeist experience. How was it possible for him to suddenly have enough presence of mind to write down an oddly specific method of death for someone who isn't even evil, just mean? That doesn't bode very well for Light as a person, let alone someone who's about to play god.

Throughout the movie, Light visibly struggles with his actions. He has no certainty. He kills with the Death Note but he lacks the inherent motivation for it; he only does it because he has to. Nothing about the characterization of Light Turner remotely suggested that he has what it takes to rule the world, as what he is essentially doing when he dictates who lives or dies (or tells your story lol). But then–all of a sudden, 5 minutes to the end of the movie and he explains this elaborate scheme where he undoes Mia killing him and transfers the ownership of the notebook back to him and basically just manipulated space and time so suit his needs.

That is a completely Light YAGAMI thing to do (and something he HAS actually done numerous times in the original). Nothing about Light TURNER's character and actions suggested he was capable of that. How convenient that 2 minutes before the police gets to him, he suddenly taps into his inner high-functioning psychopath and concocts an über-complicated plan to not die but kill 3 people and destroy one theme park along the way.

Where did that inner 'HIGH FUNCTIONING' part come from? Nearly two hours to have shown that Light's brilliant mind goes beyond solving Calculus problems and thinking up oddly particular methods of dying, and you choose the last five minutes to cram that in.

How very high school.

But enough about Light. Now we go to another important character–L. Considering that these 2 are the only ones they retain from the original (excepting Ryuk, but that's another point). L is one of the most brilliant minds in the world, but instead the movie showed him as nothing more than a weirdo that throws tantrums and only needs the FLIMSIEST of proofs to say he "knows" and he's "right".

The original L does operate entirely on the gut feeling that Light is Kira, but he sets out to prove that. To him, nothing is ever damning enough and he won't settle for anything less than seeing Light actually murder someone right before L's very eyes. Movie L suddenly "just knows". Nothing about his actions suggests that he has the means to prove that Light is Kira; if anything, he's trying to make it so that things DO go with his conclusion, whether or not it's actually true. The real L is nothing like that. He backed down when his proofs didn't go with his conclusions. L believes in justice, first and foremost. He's almost childlike in his black-and-white convictions (I have a screenshot of this panel, so my receipts are in place). This L just doesn't capture that innocence.

By itself, the movie isn't THAT bad. It only becomes a terrible crapfest when you have the original to compare it with. Netflix's Death Note can stand alone as a slasher/horror/thriller film to Netflix and chill with if you are holding it to itself, but never make the mistake of reading/watching the original brilliance that is Ohba and Obata's Death Note first.

I do have a real concern with the keeping of the name "Kira". Kira is just the Japanese pronunciation of "killer". Japanese people literally were calling Light, "Killer". Why did Wingard keep the Jap pronunciation? What purpose did it serve other than that 5-second line where L says it was to mislead investigation to thinking Light was Japanese? Why is there even a need for that? Was that supposed to be a nod to the Japanese root of Death Note? It may have been a pure intention on the director's part, though, but it was unnecessary, if not even reeking of whitewashing–but I'd digress and hope for the best.

#Writing Samples #Unbeta'd #Series Review #Death Note #Netflix

1 note · View note

ablogcalledrevenge · 5 years ago

Note

I’m so intrigued as to why you hated Peter Rabbit so much omg. Please tell!!

I’m putting this under a read more because it got really long and complicated. Sorry, but I have a lot of feelings and thoughts about this and Peter Rabbit is the vessel.

That being said, if you like the movie, that’s okay! You’re allowed to like it and you shouldn’t let me make you feel bad. I love tons of bad movies! Spice World always makes me smile!

Also I want to say that I am not blaming or mad at the actors, crew, the CGI people. Like they did the best with what they had and I don’t fault them. I mostly blame the writers, director, and producers. Especially the producers.

BUT we can’t forget that, at the end of the day, this movie was a cashgrab, merchandise factory of a movie. This is, as my old roommate coined, a parking ticket movie. Basically the only reason half of the people worked on this movie was because they got a bad parking ticket and needed some quick cash. I do not believe for a second that Margot Robbie or Domhnall Gleeson looked at this script and went “yes, this seems like exactly the kind of children’s movie I’ve always dreamed of doing.” Everyone involved with this film did it for the money or because they were contractually obligated. And honestly, that’s okay. I could live with that. These are their jobs and they’re allowed to make money. But when you do a project because you’re forced to, or for the payout, it shows in the work. We can tell when your heart’s not in it. But the movie had bigger issues than the motivations behind it.

1. The movie didn’t have a good villain. Perhaps this is because I’m older and have more sympathy but Thomas McGregor is a very ineffectual villain. We start the movie, meeting him, as if he were the main character! We see that he’s a bit of a control freak and that he can be a little rude to people and then we see him lose his job and have a mental breakdown. He gets this house in the country and all he wants to do is sell it and move on. The rabbits are actively (and against their own desires, but we’ll get into that later) working against him to make selling the house harder. This guy’s supposed to be the villain? This guy who basically lost everything in his life and just wants to go home and spends half the movie getting electrocuted because he doesn’t want animals in the house when he’s trying to sell it? Maybe it’s because Domhnall can make anyone charming, or maybe it’s poor writing, but I watched the movie asking why I was supposed to hate McGregor. He hadn’t done anything wrong! To be honest, as you go through the movie it seems like the rabbits are the antagonists! If the movie was hoping to make him a Cruella DeVil figure, they failed. Thomas is a sad, broken man and I just felt bad for him. Also I don’t enjoy seeing my husband getting beat up by CGI rabbits, it’s embarrassing, but that’s beside the point.

2. The romance between Bea and Thomas is forced, unnecessary, and unlikely to last. Considering they’re supposed to get married and have a baby in the sequel, I think it’s even more ridiculous. The third movie will have them getting a much needed divorce. Like this is a kid’s movie, I don’t know why it needed a romance?? But basically Bea and Thomas have absolutely nothing in common. This isn’t a cute ‘opposites attract’ thing, this is that their values and morals and desires don’t match up at all. They’re completely different people! The fact that Thomas spends the whole movie basically lying to get Bea to like him should be proof enough that whoever wrote the characters never intended them to be a legitimate couple. They’re pushed together because, idk it’s a movie and we have to have a happy ending which means a wedding because apparently we’re in Shakespeare’s time?? People are allowed to be friends and they work better as friends! Also do you think Bea knows anything about shibari? That’s what Thomas needs and you expect this little granola painter to be able to tie him up and rough him around? Oh please.

3. The movie is just bad. The humor and plot are very weak and the characters are mostly one dimensional. I think I laughed once during the entire time I watched it. I must admit, in an effort for transparency, that I didn’t finish the movie. I had to stop watching after 45 minutes because I couldn’t take anymore. What does it say about your movie that 45 minutes in and the plot hadn’t really even started yet? It was ALL exposition and that’s bad! This is a kid’s movie, the action needs to start sooner! The humor was oddly topical and unoriginal; the whole movie was. It was clear this was a rip off of Home Alone, Alvin and the Chipmunks, 101 Dalmatians, The Minions. If not through plot than through style. Playing a Top 40 song during an opening scene doesn’t make your movie better, it just makes it lazy. It’s clear you didn’t pick “Feel it Still” by Portugal the Man because it added something to Peter’s character. You added it because people know the song and it will make them sing along and smile. The plot is weak too, it doesn’t make sense. The whole point is that the rabbits want McGregor to leave... he does too! They actively sabotage themselves by pulling all these stunts on him. If they had just left him alone for 2 weeks, he could’ve sold the house and left. He probably would’ve sold it to some rich family that wouldn’t care about a garden full of animals! But instead they realize Thomas doesn’t like them and decide to electrocute him and humiliate him because he doesn’t want them in his garden for a specific amount of time that has an end date. Until the rabbits bothered him, Thomas didn’t care about them! If they had left him alone, he wouldn’t have ‘fallen in love’ with Bea and their other problems wouldn’t have happened too! They caused their own misery! What is this plot?!

4. Bea is just an idiot and I can’t stand her. No shade to Rose Byrne because she is literally so pretty but the character is very dumb and annoying. She’s supposed to be Beatrix Potter which is also a very strange inclusion considering Beatrix was a real person and had her own life, just saying. But anyway, we can see early on in the film that Bea can communicate with the rabbits. They respect her and listen to her. So why does she let them, and at times, instigate them towards McGregor’s garden! She knows how dangerous it is and that Peter’s dad died there. They literally have the whole forest and her property and they can’t stay out of a 10 square foot garden? If she cares about those rabbits so much why doesn’t she grow some vegetables? Why doesn’t she stop them from bothering the guy who clearly wants nothing to do with them? She’s so caught up in ‘respecting nature’ and ‘being an artist’ that she’s so oblivious to everything else in her life and completely useless in every other way. Thomas deserves a better partner and Beatrix Potter deserved a better interpretation.

5. The characters are mean. Peter Rabbit is supposed to be a bit of a rascal and a scamp. He’s a troublemaker compared to his goody-two shoes siblings. We know this, it’s in the books. But everyone in this movie, especially Peter, is just so mean! Every other comment he makes is something disparaging against Benjamin or one of the other animals. He spends the whole movie being rude and dismissive and cocky. We’re supposed to root for this character? At times, considering his dialogue, Peter seems like more of an antagonist than Thomas. At least Thomas is nice to Bea, at least Thomas, in the beginning, only tries to keep the rabbits out and not hurt them. Peter’s a jerk and I don’t like his character. I don’t like any of the animal characters, they’re all so sarcastic and unsympathetic. So much of the ‘humor’ comes from one of the characters making fun of another and the jokes fall flat because of it. Beatrix Potter’s characters have such a softness to them, they invoke warm and cozy feelings. This movie was such an insult to her work.

Right before Peter Rabbit came out, I saw the Mr. Rogers documentary. Seeing him be so passionate about children’s media really made me think about the stories we give our kids. They deserve better than this recycled garbage! They deserve better characters and better stories. They deserve to be treated like human beings with brains and feelings and talents, instead of just mindless meat bags we plop in front of a screen to keep them out of our hair. I’m not saying that we can’t have entertainment that’s silly or stupid but when every kid’s movie is exactly the same, I start to feel bad. Children deserve quality!

So here’s my pitch for a Peter Rabbit movie: Up until Thomas goes to drop the rabbits in the river, everything is the same. I would make Peter and his siblings nicer and more inclined to work together as a team but otherwise everything is the same. Then, right before Thomas drops the bag, he stops. What is he doing? What has his life become? He’s about to kill innocent animals because he lost his job? He sinks down on the bridge and starts to cry. He starts telling the rabbits, because he has no one else, how terrible he feels. His job was the most important thing to him. He has no friends, no hobbies, no direction. He doesn’t know what to do with his life now. Maybe Peter pokes his head out and snuggles up to Thomas, showing empathy. Thomas goes on to say that while he enjoyed his job, he realizes now that he wasn’t truly happy and that getting revenge won’t make him happy. He looks down and sees the binoculars, the first gift he’s gotten in years. He looks and sees the rabbits curling up against him and he thinks maybe he doesn’t have to sell the house. Maybe he doesn’t have to go back to his life. So, with the help of his friend Bea and the rabbits, Thomas learns how to calm down and enjoy life. He learns to appreciate the small things and respect the beauty of nature. Maybe there’s a funny montage of Thomas trying to mow the lawn or garden. Maybe he makes everyone dinner with his vegetables and it’s really bad and everyone makes a funny face. It ends (a little like the original ending) with Thomas realizing that he may have lost his successful glamorous job in the city, but now he has friends. Now he has people who care about him and good food on his table. So the movie ends on a toy shop. Thomas is showing a little boy how to fly a remote control plane. Benjamin and Cottontail are in the middle of a tea party with a little girl. Bea is wrapping a gift for customer and Flopsy gets her paw stuck in the bow. Everything seems perfect and wonderful when we hear a huge crash offscreen. PETER! End Credits

#that is why i don't like the movie #domhnall deserved a better movie #everyone did #it's an insult to Beatrix Potter's characters #movies #peter rabbit #sorry for rambling but i really care about this #it's more about the quality of children's media than this specific movie #ah-callie #the tree talks #answered

5 notes · View notes

percentmagazine · 5 years ago

Text

Matrix Pill 2020

The Matrix has you…

The cultural overview over "The Matrix Trilogy" and how it foresaw the social trends.

"The Matrix" trilogy by the Wachowski brothers is the most iconic and groundbreaking movie trilogies in cinema history. Terms like "The red pill", "Dessert of the real", "There is no spoon", "Follow the white rabbit", "Why, Mr. Anderson? Why?" and many other phrases from the film became the golden quotes of the new millennium, shaping the entire culture of the "generation Y"… also known as "the millennials". "The bullet time" effect with fancy acrobatic moves and bullet waves turned into the most quoted gimmick for decades in action films, parodies and video games. The slow motion has never been so cool and slick, as it was after "The Matrix", not to mention sunglasses at night and dark looks with fashionable black leather tailored coats.

Its been 21 years since the theatrical release of the first "The Matrix" film. It came out in November of 1999 (the most revolutionary year in cinema history, since it is the release year of such groundbreaking hit titles like "Star Wars: Episode I. The Phantom Menace" by George Lucas, "Fight Club" by David Fincher, and "The Matrix", of course, by the Wachowski brothers). Four years after the great success of the film, "The Matrix" was reloaded with two worthy sequels: "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions" — turning a movie franchise into a full-time trilogy. There was also "The Animatrix" — an anthology of animated short films set in "The Matrix Universe" directed by highly acclaimed Japanese animators, and a video-game "Enter the Matrix" which told a story that went parallel to the story of sequels, explaining some of the unanswered questions in the films. Thus "The Matrix" franchise has become one of the first inter-media franchises where all available storytelling formats told one epic story from different angles and points of view. And unlike other attempts of creating such inter-media franchise around movies (like it was with "Star Wars Expended Universe" or "The Terminator" franchise) it wasn't just pure merchandising and cash-grabbing schemes with questionable product quality having a famous brand logo on it… no, '"The Matrix" franchise was one well thought out project and story from the very beginning, created and curated by the Wachowski brothers. Nothing more or less.

In the year of 2020 "The Matrix" is being reloaded once again with its new instalment being in production. Internet is filled with shaky mobile phone behind the scenes footage of "The Matrix 4". We see Neo, played by actor Keanu Reeves and his stunt double, jumping of high buildings and riding fancy motorcycle with Trinity, played by Carrie Ann-Moss, while the streets of San-Francisco are being turned into a chaotic war zone with explosions, car chases, extras running all over the streets and helicopters flying.

Usually such big blockbuster film productions are being held in secret in order to prevent unnecessary leaks and story spoilers… most of the extras and crew members don't even know what movie they are filming up until the very end. During such big productions fake movie titles are made. But this time, as it seams, filmmakers don't really care about production secrecy, as actor Keanu Reeves and film director Lana Wachowski keep on hanging out with random people on a street during the filmmaking process. What is it? A new viral social media format of film advertising? Or the new way of entire filmmaking approach? Or maybe both?

Either way — Lana Wachowski is the visionary artist that is going to bring something fresh and unexpected into the cinema format and into the new "Generation Z" culture. The Wachowski brothers have foreseen the future with "The Matrix" film almost in every way possible… and I'm pretty sure they are going to do so again. They spoke of cyber-crimes, data privacy and internet control long before Edward Snowden incident, WikiLeaks, Anonymous group, social medias and etc. They showed aircraft controlled by so called "terrorists" hitting skyscrapers years before 9/11. "The Matrix" also tried to warn us about the dangers of virtual realities, and here we are 20 years later using VR systems and spending our lives in endless MMO RPG games (by the way, "The Matrix" franchise even had its own MMO RPG video game "The Matrix Online"). The virtual values have become much more valuable that the material ones. Bitcoins and Facebook likes are considered to be much more precious then real money and even gold by many. Instagram pages are viewed as the only true portraits of their users, however bright filters, happy faces, flattering camera lenses and photoshop have nothing to do with reality. It is merely a "Residual self-image", as it was named in the film, "A mental projection of your digital self". The person sees himself whom he wants him to be, not whom he really is.

And I think that this topic is the most overlooked topic by critics and contemporary culture scholars.

Just think about it — the Wachowski brothers are the physical manifestation of their own concept of "Residual self-image", as both of them saw themselves as someone different. Both brothers were men, but they considered themselves to be women. Their physical reality didn't match with their mental projection of virtual self. Thus they had to do surgeries and go through sex change procedures. The Wachowski brothers are officially sisters. Nowadays in 2020 it is a common practice that can't surprise anyone, however in 1990s during the production of the first "The Matrix" film it was a big deal… so big that Wachowski brothers had to rewrite the screenplay. In the earlier drafts of the script there was a fully flashed out transgender character. She is still present in the final film, but her role and concept has been reduced. Character Switch — portrayed by Belinda McClory — was a transgender, and her name "Switch" meant too illustrate her constant transitions from one form into another, as she was a female in the real world, but in the Matrix her personal "Residual self-image" switched her into a masculine male. For Wachowski brothers it was a very important topic to explore, since both of them dedicated their lives to transgender worldview, but in 1990's the film studio and producers thought that such concepts would be too confusing for average film viewers and difficult to follow, thus it was all cut out during pre-production. Even their first film "Bound" that featured lesbian love story was met with numerous misunderstandings during pre-production, during its filming and, of course, during its release, since such themes were considered too risky… almost taboo, as they could easily put off many unprepared audiences.

But now… look how the world and culture has changed?! In 21 years everything is upside down. It is almost impossible to find a big blockbuster film or franchise or T.V. series or even a video-game that has no lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, pansexual or any other "something"-sexual character. It is true for both "rated R" and "rated M" media and for media oriented for children. Disney's life adaptation of animated classic "Beauty and the Beast" is the prime example… not to mention more.

I must say that unorthodox sexual orientation of characters were always present in cinema, they were never the subject of prohibition and never will be, however before "Wachowski era" their orientation always played some sort of narrative purpose. No character was supposed to be gay or transexual just for that sake of being such. But nowadays we see LGBT characters all over visual media… and the fact of their orientation rarely enhance the story or add anything to it. For the most part it is just being there for no reason other then being there. No wonder we have so many poorly written stories today. "Chekhov's gun" is the key to good storytelling, isn't it? If you put something into a story, it must heave a purpose, because without purpose it's just a filler, a white noise… this means it shouldn't be there at all. And here I'd like to quote Agent Smith from "The Matrix" films:

"But, as you well know, appearances can be deceiving…" — even here Wachowski brothers point out the previous "Residual self-image" topic. "…which brings me back to the reason why we're here. We're not here because we're free. We're here because we're not free. There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist."

Curious… Wachowski brothers were pioneers in LGBT mass-media, yet even they were smart enough to exclude these themes from "The Matrix trilogy", even having a total creative freedom over the sequels, as they knew that it would serve no purpose in their story. Yet they used much more sophisticated tricks to pinpoint their agenda and worldview. Get ready for some hard drugs! Wachowski brothers urged the protagonist and film viewers to take "The red pill" and "Free our minds". They also urged us to fight against all rules and stereotypes, and young generation loved it. In the film it simply meant "rage against the machines", but in our world where this film was "The red pill" for young people, this fight against the established order had much deeper purpose.

Upon the quick view on the lives of the Wachowski brothers over these two decades we can tell that their "red pill" they were giving us, was simply a androgyne hormone for transgenders and their main "Matrix" they were fighting against, was the sexual orientation stereotypes. They succeeded in their revolution, as LGBT themes are no longer taboo in mass-media. But there were also other important cultural topics Wachowski brothers presented with their trilogy: multiculturalism, racial diversity, feminism and even "toxic masculinity" and war against white men and patriarchy… long before these themes became mainstream in pop-culture.

"The Matrix" franchise had always a diverse cast, didn't it? It also has strong and independent female characters right from the start. And it wasn't just a copycat trend to appeal some social minorities, as it happens today. It was the personal philosophy of the authors. However, despite all their diversity and equality, one social group was shown deliberately one-sided. Just think about it. All evil characters in all three films were male and white. Agents are white middle aged men, Cypher — white middle aged man, Merovingian — white middle aged man, Architect — white man, Bane — white middle aged man, etc. Some can argue on this topic, since white men where also on the side of good guys. True, "but, as you well know, appearances can be deceiving…" says Smith. All white men on the good side of the story are… well, questionable. Whom can we name? Councillor Hamann — played by Anthony Zerbe — is a white man… a father figure in Zion, however he is shown to be an irrational and rhetorical weak old man. Comparing him to other leaders of Zion we can easily see his incompetence. Even Neo makes fun of him, pointing out on a fact that Hamann's solid age doesn't make him wiser (and it is the only time in the whole trilogy when the main protagonist ever trolls anyone). Then there is the Kid — played by Clayton Watson — another white man good guy, but he is just an immature naive boy… in "The Animatrix" he in the moment of danger finds no better way out then a suicide… a very questionable role model, don't you think? Who's next? Mouse — portrayed by Matt Doran — once again a young teenager full of sexual hormones and nothing more. There is also Captain Roland — played by David Roberts — and his ship crew, but a single black woman Niobe — played by Jada Pinkett Smith — turns out to be wiser and much more competent then any of them. Meanwhile all non-white and non-male characters are shown in the positive light. Wait… but what about Neo — the one himself — played by Keanu Reeves — he is a white man — the hero of the trilogy. True. However originally "The Matrix" creators wanted to cast Will Smith for the role of Neo, but Will Smith declined the role and chose to act in "Wild Wild West".

In other words Wachowski brothers brought up anti-white men SJW themes in their films long before such topics became mainstream and part of pop-culture. Thus they weren't even noticed by the time of film release. But it is worth mentioning that Wachowski brothers were depicting anti-white men subplots not because they were following some kind of fashion or social agenda like mass-media does today, but because brothers WERE white and men, and they wanted to do something about it. And they did. For real.

However next generation of filmmakers and artists took the Wachowski brothers' personal issues and turned it into a viral trend, changing the culture forever. It can be even said that the modern SJW and LGBT hysteria is the Matrix, created by Wachowski brothers. I wonder, will their new "The Matrix" film change the world once again?.. and how?

Text: Jurii Kirnev

Omnifinery Editorial: Article 003

#matrix #wachowski sisters #social trends #lgbt #lgbtq positivity #lgbtq community #omni #omniyouomnime

2 notes · View notes