Category Archives: Film Editorials

Film Editorials, Movies

Can Avatar Be As Popular As We Hope?

Leave a comment

That’s right, another article speculating whether or not these Avatar sequels are going to be worth the wait. And considering the second film is less than a week from when this post is being published, it should be obvious I’m trying to get attention. Better writer probably have better strategies than this but I don’t get paid to write these posts. I’m just a regular guy giving my thoughts on the first film as well as where my thoughts are leaning for these upcoming follow ups. With all of that being said, let’s look back to 2009 when this movie first came out.

Avatar is considered a theatrical experience. Utilizing 3D technology to fully immerse the viewers, James Cameron waited years to make sure the technology was good enough to help bring his vision to life. And to his credit, the visuals and the technology used to bring create them is truly impressive. Even if you are to look at it on a smaller TV screen, the environment & aliens are fully realized. It is remarkable how hard the VFX artists worked to make the CGI look that real and blend it with the practical. If there is one positive legacy that can be attributed to this movie, it’s that people always see it as a film pushing what technology can do. When we think of more recent blockbuster movies that used CGI to create whole new worlds and characters, we do have this movie to thank for that.

But this does bring us to the first flaw of the movie. For years, people have praised this movie’s world building. However, when you stop to think about what it takes to create a fully fleshed out world, this movie doesn’t really do that much. World building in any medium of entertainment has a story create a setting and/or characters that bring new ideas and/or characters that fully engage the audience. There are movies that have very familiar settings but the characters are so unique and entertaining that it sparks thoughts in your head about how they might interact with certain people or in other locations. In that case, it’s the characters that bring something new to a familiar landscape. Even if you have standard characters, the environment around them can be totally unimaginable. We will then be willing to follow the characters just so we can explore how different this place is to our own. When it comes to Avatar, there are only two unique things about the world. How the Na’vi physically connect to their world and animals through their braids and the floating rocks. Aside from that , it’s really just alien equivalent of things we already have on Earth. Even the culture of the Na’vi we meet is just their equivalent of practically any Native American tribe. So the world isn’t that fleshed out but the images do fool the audience into thinking it’s doing more than what it is.

Even if that doesn’t persuade you, I have one word that might help. Unobtainium. The name of the resource that The Company is trying to mine but is unable to get. If you don’t understand why that is a ridiculously lazy name for that substance, then I’m not sure what else I can tell you. Maybe the fact that the organization that Jake Sully works for is simply referred to as The Company in the movie. Or at least, that’s the only way he refers to them. The actual name might have been said and I’ve simply forgot, but I do remember Sully only ever referring to them as The Company. But what do you expect from a main character that’s about as bland as stock as they come. Jake Sully doesn’t display any real personality or thoughts that doesn’t directly correlate to the main story. And it should be worth pointing out that this movie leans hard on the “white savior” trope. The trope where a Caucasian man becomes part of an indigenous peoples’ culture and ends up being the person that saves them from an external threat.

Sad to say, the other characters aren’t that memorable. That’s not to say anyone gives a bad performance. But the writing doesn’t let them stand out. Zoe Saldana does fine in her role, but she is forced to ultimately play the role of being the main character’s romantic partner. The only character that stands out due to their performance is Scott Lang as the in the field antagonist. He stands out because his character’s motivations and actions are so laughably villainous – he is having a ball playing the villain with no remorse or regret.

Having said all of that, the movie overall is good. If it had made just enough to be considered a profit, it wouldn’t have remembered that well in the collective consciousness past a few years. It’s mainly because it became the highest grossing movie that we talk about it. But in the context of people wondering how a movie with a story of this quality earned so much money. Aside from that, there isn’t enough there worth talking about so many years later. James Cameron did once say that Avatar can easily be as popular as any Star Wars or Marvel film. If you are to look back on the first movie for each franchise, it’s actually easy to see how they became a franchise but Avatar so far hasn’t. The first Star Wars film had a brand new galaxy full of new characters and ideas to introduce to people. And a conflict that felt epic and grand. It was only a matter of time before a sequel came out. As for Marvel, if we were to look at Iron Man and compare it to past comic book movies, the movie actually does new stuff that proved it was worth revisiting. Mainly how it approach it’s title character, his character journey, and how he impacted the world around him. The same can’t necessarily be said for Avatar which came out a year after that film.

Now that we have gotten through all of that – this doesn’t mean there is absolutely no way Avatar can’t be a franchise. James Cameron does have a reputation of creating sequel films that are better than their predecessor. And the fact that we have waited this long for these sequels to come out might be good news for the writing quality. Perhaps they did recognize that story and character flaws of the original and worked to rectify it. So to answer my own question…it’s still very possible. It might require James Cameron to work harder than he ever has before, but we won’t know for sure until we see them.

Film Editorials, Movies

The Legacy of a Revolution

Leave a comment

Remember, remember…the 5th of November. One of the most famous quotes from this story. It has practically become married to the story of a masked man looking to incite a country-wide revolt. Alan Moore wrote the original story between 1982 and 1985 in the UK, later being brought over to the US closer to the end of the decade. An appropriate time as the story is about both ending and beginning. Centered around a man simply known as V, he plans a big attack against the fascist government that has long since taken over Great Britain. Although, even though V is the most famous character, it’s really about the people around him that are the focus. Those that are looking to capture/kill him and the few who might be considered allies. It’s a great story, but this story serves as an example of how an adaptation of a comic – when done correctly – can immortalize it.

Don’t misinterpret what I say, the original comic is an impressive one. And I’m not saying the movie is in any way better. There is validity in the argument that is chooses to depict the same themes differently and executes it’s message in a different way, which can turn fans of the original away. But the way that the story is adapted and shown to a much wider audience, at the time it came out, puts this version of the story in a unique position. The movie was criticized by Moore himself that several of the changes made appeared to make it American-centric. And while there is truth in that, those changes play a role in making this a timeless in a certain way. A lot of the changes made to the movie are said to focus on the Bush administration during the 2000s. But looking back on the movie in the 2020s, those changes can be easily applied to a similar administration at any time in the modern age. Just because certain issues got their first major exposure during a certain time doesn’t mean they can’t continue to appear years later.

But I want to take the time to focus on a certain set of changes that have become significantly relevant. Moore’s original story was one about Fascism versus Anarchism. Not meant to sway people to one side or the other. But to show the ideas in context of events that share similarities to some real world events that have recurred throughout history. The movie can be described as one about Liberalism versus Neo-conservatism. But despite how Moore says that taking out mentions of Anarchy hurt the story, that doesn’t mean this version isn’t about extremes. Both sides go to great lengths to advance their own agenda, creating collateral in their wake. Sure, V in the original story is more ruthless and willing to kill everyone who gets in his way, he still kidnaps and holds his closest ally in a cell for an extended period of time. Not unlike how some criminal groups might try and brainwash someone to join them.

But that criticism about switching out the political ideologies is based on a flawed assumption – that they are mutually exclusive. The Conservatives of the modern era are very willing to enforce Fascist-like policies and enforce them in similar manners. The behaviors of many politicians from that side can be described as cartoonish or surreal. Like there is no way that a real person would say that or do that, yet they just did. And while it can be argued that the government is made up of more realistically depicted people, real life has shown that people can be as direct and black & white as the government in the movie version and still retain power. You can also argue that Liberalism in the modern era is playing around with ideas and strategies not that far removed from Anarchy. Mainly methods that propose eliminating or getting rid of institutions and laws that they see as being harmful and destructive. It may not be the same as the way V embodies Anarchy in the comic. But there are still calls to completely dismantle the current systems in power being cried out in the real world that I’m sure V can get behind.

As previously mentioned, V is a much more aggressive character in the original comic. And that was deliberately done by Moore to present ideologies that are both extreme. That doesn’t mean V isn’t any less extreme or violent in the movie. But the important difference between the two versions is that the movie version allows him to hold onto a sense of humanity. I’ve already talked a bit how the criticisms made about the movie have seemingly been more rooted in real life than we thought possible. At least, in terms of how people working in and enforcing the rule of a corrupt government talk and behave. While those who protest against these kind of politicians in the real world certainly support complete dismantlement of something, their motivations are based in wanting to be kinder to their fellow people. Both versions of this story put the blame on the general public for sitting back and allowing these kinds of corrupt governments come into power. But the movie pushes us to make the decisions to act. And that’s where the legacy of this story can be directly attributed to the movie.

The Guy Fawkes mask has become a worldwide symbol of rebellion for people looking to fight back and expose the dark secrets of the corrupted people in power. It’s true that a lot of what has been discussed in this post can be directly attributed to American politics, the characteristics of a corrupt government don’t care for borders or boundaries. There are governments all across the world that are undoubtedly similar. This movie serves as a reminder to always fight for what’s right. And sometimes the extreme is necessary. But it must be done with the intention of wanting to improve the lives of your fellow citizens. Destruction for it’s own sake will ultimately be meaningless. The original comic is a great story, but it serves as an example of how anyone can decide to simply fight against something. The movie, on the other hand, pushes us to fight for a higher ideal. To fight in support of something. And that is the true legacy of this story.

Film Editorials, Movies

The Empty Man Deserves to be Seen

Leave a comment

It can be hard to get a movie off the ground in Hollywood. Sometimes it can feel amazing when a project finally sees the light of day. On the other hand, there are too many stories of ideas and concepts that just fell short of materializing. But what happened to The Empty Man…I would call it cruel. To not let the people be aware of a movie’s existence is not only preventing potential fans from seeing it, but it is also disrespecting the people who put hard work into creating a story they were passionate about. But in order to understand the situation, one must go back to the beginning.

This movie comes from a man named David Prior. For a while, his career was based on making documentaries and special features of various different films, including several David Fincher movies. It’s through this that he would pick up on some film-making techniques that would influence his independent short film AM1200 and his full length feature debut. The feature movie is loosely based on a comic of the same name, but David Prior was less interested in the actual story beats of the comic and more into the themes of what it presented. He then started to work on the film with 20th Century Fox, with one executive who was fully supportive, even if others were less confident. And sometimes, just knowing a guy and having him in your corner can be the key to get a movie off the ground. But during production, Disney officially purchased 20th Century Fox Studios. The executives originally attached to Prior’s film were then replaced with new ones. They forced him to present a 90 minute version of the film, which Prior eventually gave them. But they were unsatisfied with even this version of the movie. Unsure of how to handle a movie like this or how to market it, they decided to release the director’s preferred version in theaters…for one week maybe two at the longest, in massively empty theaters during the height of the pandemic. A trailer released only a week in advance that didn’t properly represented the story at all.

You might be wondering why you should care for a movie with a production history like this. If the studio buried the movie in such a fashion, doesn’t that mean it isn’t any good? My friends, that is far from the truth. It is hard to understand it, sure, and it doesn’t play out in any predictable way. But those alleged weaknesses are in reality the movie’s strengths. The reasons why it is such a unique experience. The Empty Man makes several bold story-telling choices that certainly run the risk of alienating the audience. For example, we have a cold open that focuses on a group of young adults travelling to some mountains in Asia. This cold open goes on for about 20 minutes before we get the title of the movie and then switch our focus to a completely unconnected character in another part of the world. There are several choices like this that you wouldn’t expect from most Horror movies. But it all plays into the ideas you can discover within it’s story.

The overall story, without giving too much away, is this. A former police detective named James Lasombra is still grieving over the loss of his family. However, he finds himself helping a friend of his when her daughter suddenly goes missing, the only clue being a message written in blood – “The Empty Man made me do it.” We then follow James as the movie begins like a noir story. Investigating the girl’s friends, what she had been doing in the days leading up to her disappearance. We then run into a mysterious group of people with odd beliefs that seem to be hiding more than what they reveal. But as James investigates further and learns more about them, he finds himself unprepared for the truths he has to confront.

With a running time of nearly two hours and twenty minutes, this is definitely a slow burn. But that is the nature of an investigation story such as this. We are in the dark just like the main character, and every new reveal pulls you in closer. It makes you want to learn more about what is going on and try to make sense of the slowly growing madness. What begins as a seemingly modern crime noir with a possible supernatural twist…turns into something larger. The Empty Man is a movie that challenges the viewers with questions regarding faith, the meaning of existence, and your perception of reality. And the unconventional story-telling choices it makes are designed to make you engaged and truly feel the full emotional weight and disturbance the movie wants you to feel.

This is, unfortunately, a modern day example of what happens to a movie when a studio can’t understand it. When they can’t find an easily identifiable way to market and make a profit off the movie. While 20th Century Fox at the time did give as much support as they could, it was an easy target following Disney’s takeover for getting buried and forgotten. If you are a fan of Horror movies, especially quiet and slow moving ones, this movie is a must see. If you are just someone who wants to see something different in Hollywood, something beyond the standard blockbuster or a major movie covered in the easily identifiable tropes, this movie is a must see. This movie needs an audience, and if the audience is big enough, then the movie will get what it deserves which is an official Blu Ray release. It’s one thing for a movie to never make it off the ground. But to have it made simply to have a release designed to bury the film into obscurity…that’s cruel and disrespectful to the people who worked on it. Witness the movie and let yourself get lost in the world of The Empty Man.

Film Editorials, Movies

The Feminist Themes of Hellraiser (1987)

Leave a comment

People have described this movie in various different ways, but I doubt many have called it a feminist flick. The story adaptation of a box that opens to another dimension – to beings who can no longer tell the difference between pain & pleasure – is more known for the practical effects and the gore on screen. While it might not go as far as some of the sequels, the original does indeed have it’s fair share of blood and torture. However, many seem to overlook the subtle ideas planted in the movie that elevate it above other films from the same era. In fact, it’s one of the few Horror films that has a genuinely well-executed feminist message.

Before we get into that, we need to understand what Horror was like in the 1980s. Due to the massive success of the 1978 film Halloween, the following decade has an increase in Slasher films. These movies tend to focus on recurring traits and characteristics. A group of people, usually teenagers or young adults, are being stalked by a killer using some sort of bladed weapon. Characters who use drugs like marijuana, who partake in pre-marital sex, or have aggressive personalities usually get killed. The last character is a female, one who typically doesn’t partake in the previously mentioned activities and isn’t aggressive. Referred to as The Final Girl, she fights the killer who is typically a male and will likely use the killer’s weapon against the. The bladed weapon used by killers are usually interpreted as a stand-in for their genitalia, the idea connected to how real life serial killers usually have some sort of sexual motivation for their murders. And the Final Girl using that weapon against them is seen as them taking on male characteristics and using them against them. While various Slasher films switch it up a bit, these traits can usually be found in most of them.

And nothing is inherently wrong with that. Many people watch and enjoy these films for those very things. The point being made is that this type of film dominated the genre at the time. Even if it wasn’t a Slasher flick, most Horror movies tend to focus on a mainly physical threat. There were other Horror films that focused on something more abstract. For example, the 1989 movie Pet Sematary was an exploration of how Death can affect and ruin families/relationships. But these films tend to be the exception and not the norm for the genre for most of the decade. That’s not to say A Nightmare on Elm Street didn’t incorporate interesting ideas or the previously mentioned Pet Sematary didn’t have it’s share of physical violence. But your not exactly looking for something thought provoking in something like Friday the 13th.

This is where the 1987 film Hellraiser becomes unique. First of all, the monsters of the movie – Cenobites, supernatural beings who view pain & pleasure as one and the same – don’t actually play a major role in the movie. The story is mainly focused on two humans. There’s Frank, a man who lived a Hedonistic life that lead him to open up a box that allowed the Cenobites to take him to their dimension. And there’s Julia, a woman married to Frank’s brother that had a brief affair with Frank around the time she got married. She had been carrying around thoughts and feelings for Frank since then. So when Frank finds a way to escape the Cenobites, he is able to manipulate Julia into helping him regain full strength as well as regain new skin.

That’s right, this movie has a major focus on a love story. But it’s not a healthy one. While Frank doesn’t want to live with Cenobites, he clearly no longer has the same human thoughts and emotions you and I would have regarding sex and relationships. He sees Julia as just someone he can use for the time being. We even see him have clear sexual feelings for his niece, Kirsty. Frank is a villain in the movie – he is actively doing wrong and going through on actions to accomplish his own agenda. The Cenobites – despite being inhuman in appearance and feelings – aren’t actually seeking out victims. They only take those who open the box, people who seek them out to experience new pleasure and sensations. Are they antagonists? Certainly. But they aren’t the ones that Kirsty is trying to stop.

As previously mentioned, the box is very important in the movie. And it’s at the heart of the movie’s feminist message. Some of you have probably heard cliched lines from TV and movies about how women are impossible to figure out. That they are something like living puzzles. Coincidentally, the box in Hellraiser is a puzzle box. We’ve seen people in various shows and movies try and figure out how to get lucky with a woman. It might take them a while to do so. But if and when they do, they end up indulging in physical pleasures and lust. Believe it or not, the same can be applied to the puzzle box. Once you solve it, the box will open and you can’t to experience what your looking for – one could say the same thing about a woman opening up her legs for a man. Women can be seen by some as a source of pain for many people, whether it be due to arguments or physical altercations or something else. But they are also a source of pleasure.

This brings us to the climax of the film. The Cenobites aren’t really slashers and they weren’t actively seeking out Kirsty, the Final Girl of the movie. But they still have to face-off against her in the end. Kirsty doesn’t actually use a weapon against them. Instead, she finds a way to close the puzzle box and send them back to where they come from. If solving the puzzle box can be compared to a woman opening her legs, then this acts is the equivalent of a woman closing her legs and denying satisfaction. The puzzle box – the woman – holds the power. And when permission is denied, everything must come to an end. There is a phrase that basically says that everything is about sex except for sex – that is about power. So if most Horror movies had subtle themes and messages regarding sex, then Hellraiser subverts that by making it one of the main themes. And by doing that, it is actually an exploration on relationships and the power a person has in that dynamic. The movie even turned the main Cenobite, a character with no clearly defined gender or portrayed strong stereotypical gender traits, and made them clearly male. Thus adding strength to the movie’s message of how much power woman have with their bodies.

A movie that’s well known for gore and blood ends up having clever ideas on topics not discussed enough in the US and subverts most expectations of the genre. It’s a movie that remains engaging with every viewing, with so much that can be discussed and interpreted. Plus, it’s a genuinely creepy and moody flick. It’s time you either revisit it or watch it for the first time. It has such sights to show you…

Film Editorials, Movies

The Universal Truth of Falling Down

Leave a comment

One bad day. And that’s apparently all it takes. All that’s needed to turn a good, law-abiding citizen into a hard criminal. For friends and family to turn on them. And on the surface, this Joel Schumacher film appears to confirm that claim. All the things that the main character, William “Bill” Foster, happens over one day. But if you actually pay attention to the story, you’ll find that the movie is saying something different. Something else that shows just how things went so bad for Bill Foster.

The movie begins one hot day in Los Angeles in the early 1990s. The heat & noise of a traffic jam early in the morning pushes Bill to leave his car and walk all the way to his destination. But it isn’t until he arrives at a convenience store that he snaps. Enraged by what he claims is an over-priced item, he assaults the store owner and damages a large amount of his inventory. But he pays for hid drink and leaves. From there, he beats a bit on a couple of gang members. And when those gangsters fail to take down Bill later and get hospitalized themselves, he takes their guns. He holds up a fast food place when he’s a few minutes late for the lunch menu. The bigoted owner of a surplus store mistakes Bill as an ally for his Nazi beliefs and ends up being killed by him. Bill damages a construction site, scares an old man into a heart attack, and eventually dies by a cop shooting him at the pier.

I know this all sounds kind of insane. But if you watch the film and listen to how he justifies his actions, you might be inclined to be on his side. He talks about how prices are gauging people and he stands for his rights as a consumer. The gangsters provoke him by denying him the simple right of simply passing through to his destination. He’s not even five minutes late for the breakfast menu and is frustrated when he keeps getting told no. He points out to the old man how the country club is taking up space for a few people when it could be better served to the general public. A lot of Bill’s rants and dialogue do speak to how needlessly complicated and cruel our society can be. Especially when it comes to the day-to-day and common things we might not even think twice about. The narrative from this viewpoint gives us a guy who was fired after years of loyalty, constantly running into situations or people making his life harder, and all he wants is to see his daughter on her birthday. There is a lot about this character that we can connect with and understand where Bill is coming from.

But then the other narrative rears it’s head. The one that shines a light on the flaws of Bill as a character and how he frames himself. Yes, it is true that he is on his way to his daughter. But she lives with his ex-wife. Yet he refuses to actually recognize her as a former wife. He constantly calls her home, making her feel threatened and fearful. And it is through her we understand that Bill has a history of anger issues that have on occasion come close to him hurting her but always fell short. While that is good for her, it does show that there was always rage hidden under the surface. Building up until it boils over like it has during the events of this movie. And we do get to see one instance of him forcing his wife and daughter at a younger age do a few things despite her saying no to him through home video footage. Showing that while he views his marriage as something good, there are issues that he chooses to ignore.

Other contemporary reviews of the movie have pointed to how Bill might also be subconsciously nurturing racist beliefs. Not nearly to the same extent as a Nazi store owner he comes across in the middle of the movie. But more along the lines of claims and statements that the average American might not realize could be based in racism. Like how he argues with a store owner of Korean descent about how much money the US has given to South Korea and that should justify him paying less for his drink. The fact he can’t even confirm how much the US has probably given South Korea can be read as one such claim/belief he might not even recognize as being racist. While I’ll admit there are instances in the movie that could be read as such, I’m not sure that’s the real reason instances like that are in the film.

Bill Foster is a man who thought his life would be great. Have a wife and a family with a good job that involves him doing work for the US military. But he is at a point at his life where he has been fired for a month. Yea, him losing his job doesn’t actually happen in the film. It doesn’t happen on the same day as all these other events. He’s been unemployed and has let the anger build up inside. And we get the idea that over his life, he has failed to recognize just how different the world around him is compared to how he thinks it should be. This has lead to him losing his wife and child and even having a restraining order against him. And at the beginning of the movie, when subjected to heat with no change of getting his car’s AC to work and subjected to noise drilling into his head, he finally decides he no longer cares about following the same rules and laws he has been following. All he has ever gotten out of life that way is a disappointing and depressing life. Why not do things the way he feels is right?

That’s why I think the character is not so much exclusively racist on a subconscious level, but more that he is ignorant of how life has changed around him. There is a scene where he sees a black man protest outside of a bank, dressed in a similar dress shirt and tie like Bill, who was denied a small loan. The sign the man holds show the reason they say he was denied, which was because he was “not economically viable”. Using real world experience and knowledge, we could probably guess this was a cover-up for a bank not giving him money due to his race. When the police take this man away, he sees Bill and asks him to not forget him, and Bill responds back with a respecting nod. I see this as revelation for Bill’s true motivation. He’s a man who sees himself as being screwed over by life in nearly every aspect. And him seeing another guy going throw similar hardship is something he takes as confirmation that he should keep doing what he’s doing. Literally fighting back and damaging places and people he views as abusers of their power that get in his way of his final destination.

This is where I talk about the man pursuing him, Sargent Martin Prendergast. As we get to know a little bit of his life, he seems to have been at the mercy of similar life hardships as Bill. Even a touch worse in certain areas. And while he starts off as seemingly mild mannered, he does gain more confidence by the end of the film. He doesn’t go as far as Bill where he tries and just destroy everything with no plan afterwards. But he does fight back against co-workers going against him, curses out his jerk of a boss on live TV, and finds the confidence to hit the streets once again after years of being behind a desk. He sees that his life is not what he wanted it to be. But he’s taking more appropriate actions to take control of what he can and make sure things go the way he thinks they should. Bill doesn’t have a sense of what is truly right. Yes, he yells about how much of a waste of space a country club is. But he yells this as a guy is suffering a heart attack right next to him. Unable to get his pills because Bill caused the cart carrying them to go into a lake. And he just smirks at him and walks away. Bill is a man who only understands his own anger and life and will justify it until he is confronted into realizing it differently.

And that’s what happens. The Sargent holds Bill at gunpoint at the pier. And it is at this point that Bill is forced to face the fact that today, he is the bad guy. He could decide to let himself be taken in and watch his daughter grow up behind bars. But he thinks about the toll and weight of something like that might have on her. So instead of doing what the law says is the right thing – the same body of laws he used to follow that lead to his current miserable state – he does what he thinks is the right thing. He tricks the cop into shooting and killing him, so that the money from his life insurance can be given to his daughter. His life is done no matter what, but Bill does what he thinks is the best thing for his daughter to hopefully have a better life than his.

This is a movie about a guy who sees himself as a victim. But his actions often contradict that by showing how narcissistic he is capable of being. And while that’s accurate, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some good points. There is a lot about our establishments and society that work against the average citizen like Bill that needs to be taken down and fixed. But that latter part is something that Bill overlooked during his trek across Los Angeles. And that is what we need to take away from this movie. Take down what is broken in our world but then replace it with something better. Bill was a man that life had left behind. Some of that was because life just changes naturally, it evolves. But part of that is also due to life not giving him a chance to realize the changes and adjust. So at the end of the day, Bill is the kind of guy we need to look in order to find a starting point of how to improve our own lives.

Film Editorials, Movies

A Reinterpretation of American History X

Leave a comment

This movie has gotten a fair amount of attention back when it first came out. Critics praised the themes and message that the movie was saying about Hate and the relation to Racism. It was even used as part of a campaign to raise awareness of Human Rights across several college campuses. There were debates about the film, with one group thinking the white gang (Disciples of Christ) were just a marginal group that only represented an extreme. I’m not going to dispute anything that has been previously talked about when others have analyzed the film. But I do believe that following the 2016 US Presidential Election and the aftermath of the 2020 US Presidential Election that there is a new layer of meaning that should be examined regarding the film.

By the end of the movie, the overall message we are supposed to take is that Hate doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t improve anything if we are making actions based on that emotion. And the final scene of the movie illustrates the kind of consequences that come from acting on said emotion. But there is another important lesson that has been pointed out that I want to expand on slightly. In various scenes of the film, Derek Vinyard is shown to be second-in-command of a rising White Supremacy organization thanks to the mentorship of a man named Cameron Alexander. A seemingly average law-abiding citizen with a clean rep sheet that teachers his racist ideology to Derek following the death of the young man’s father. Derek then spreads the ideology to a bunch of lost kids to build the Disciples of Christ. And it is assumed by the audience that Cameron is where that Hate comes from. But there is a flashback towards the end of the movie where we see the real origin.

Back when Derek’s father was alive, there is a conversation about the new history teacher Derek has and the new literature they have to read for the class. The father makes comments expressing his thoughts on what he perceives to be affirmative action. There is even one moment where he claims to black men on his team became firefighters over two white men who allegedly were more qualified. Whether or not that’s true is up for debate. But the point here that other critics have pointed out is that the movie is showing how Hate is taught to the next generation. A cycle of violence based on misunderstanding on only focusing on the pain being inflicted. But I want to point out that this is only part of the cycle that I think is overlooked.

Derek Vinyard had the seed of Hate in him before his father’s death. Following that tragedy, he began giving in more to that emotion and repeating arguments and logic that is fed to him by someone else. A seemingly normal guy from a position of power he has over him in order to spread his own personal agenda. Then Derek goes to prison and slowly begins to realize that the logic he has believed in up to this point no longer holds up. He has been abandoned by his leader – someone who claims to understand Derek and the people of his community. But is later confirmed that he doesn’t share their experiences – experiences that many of them have gone through due to his manipulation. Even though Derek finds people he thought believed in the same things he did, he ends up leaving them and sees them as traitors. Only for him to be (literally) f***** over by the people he believed to be on his side.

This is admittedly a slightly long way of getting to my reinterpretation. If you are ever curious about why so many people follow men like David Duke or Donald Trump…well, this movie shows how and why. Everyone has the capacity to hate and act on logic that is contradictory or flawed because sometimes we don’t know the full context or story. But then someone comes along who presents themselves from a position of strength and understanding. They give us easy targets to project our Hate towards and they can get us to support them and help support their own agendas. Which oftentimes includes plans and actions that the followers no nothing about and would probably perceive as going against what was spoken to them in order for those leaders to get our support.

“American History X” is a look at a huge part of real American history that people choose to ignore. When people were arguing over the topic of Critical Race Theory, they used arguments such as they don’t want children to know this subject matter. Or even argue that there isn’t anymore Racism because the country voted for Barack Obama twice as President. The same country that then voted for a man who ran on messages and promises that completely go against many of the ideas and beliefs Barack Obama was fighting for. All the while not acknowledging the finer details that poke holes in their arguments and not realizing that they aren’t looking at the complete story.

In the end, this isn’t a brand new analysis of the film. But rather one that points out how slightly more current events show how truly relevant it is. A story that shows the journey of how so many people can follow a leader that offers them an outlet for their rage and pain. And how said leader can leverage that into more power and influence that spreads ideas that go against the very same country they claim to be fighting for. This isn’t an easy topic to talk about. And there are no easy ways to start fixing things. But the longer we continue to acknowledge the details many people don’t know about or acknowledge, the longer we keep the cycle going.

Film Editorials, Movies

Which Version of “Superman II” is Better?

Leave a comment

Let me make one thing clear at the start. While neither version is flawless, both versions of “Superman II” are good films. Fun action, entertaining performances, and good character moments. But the reason two versions exist at all is because Richard Donner was fired and replaced with Richard Lester. We won’t get into the story behind production because that will be too complicated. Plus, it really isn’t all that relevant to what this piece is trying to explore. Looking at both versions and identifying what makes them unique, we have to ask the question. Which version is better?

I think the biggest, most fundamental difference between the two is tone. Richard Donner saw the Superman mythos as modern mythology. And I personally believe that all superhero/comics mythos as modern day mythology as well. Stories of Hydras, gods like Zeus & demigods like Hercules have now been switched out with stories about Spider-Man, Batman & metahumans. Admittedly, the two major superhero universes (DC & Marvel) also have Hydras, gods like Zeus and demigods such as Hercules, but you get my point. Back on topic – Donner approached his movie with a more dramatic approach. It still had moments of humor. This is still a movie that has to entertain audiences and he is adapting the Silver Age version of these characters. But Donner was continuing a character focused journey and the obstacles that Superman has to overcome.

Lester’s version had more comedy in it. Much of that comedy did overlap with what Donner’s cut had, but there are some notable differences. The third evil Kryptonian – the mute called Non – had a few more moments int he film that made him come off as more pathetically goofy early one. Some of that had been cut out of Donner’s version as the focus was more on him being pure brute force. In Lester’s version, there is more of a comedic banter between Clark and Lois. Especially when they are at Niagara Fall for a story. Clark himself is more of a klutz in Lester’s version in general. Him being a klutz is actually what helps Lois confirm that Clark is Superman. Donner’s version cut most of the comedic banter out, thought still some. And made sure that the two still generally worked off of each other well. And if we are specifically talking about Lois, well, she is suspicious right at the start that Clark is Superman in Donner’s Cut while in the theatrical it takes her couple of scenes before she gets suspicious. And as for how she determined Clark was Superman? Well…she shot Clark! Granted, it was a gun filled with blanks and she therefore tricked Clark to admitting the truth. But man, Donner really know how to adapt that aspect of Lois’s personality!

Aside from tone, there is a handful of differences you can pick up on. Donner’s Cut had Marlon Brando as Jor-El while Lester’s version had to cut him out and use Clark’s mother. Clark briefly gives up his powers in both versions, but Donner had it more explicitly stated why he chose to do that. Lex Luthor is in the film for roughly the same amount of screen time. Only major difference with him is that a couple of his scenes were rearranged in the beginning. Both versions open with the flashback of showing Zod and his henchmen being imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. Lester’s version included a terrorist attack at the Eiffel Tower where Superman had to launch a hydrogen bomb into space, where it went off and free them from the Phantom Zone. In Donner’s Cut, he used the beginning to show that Superman redirecting one of Luthor’s bombs from the first film is what freed them. Also, Lester’s version had a montage of scenes playing while the opening credits rolled. While Donner’s had a montage before the credits and that montage included audio while Lester’s just showed the visuals.

So you might be thinking that there isn’t too much of a difference between the two. While one might have more comedy, they still shared the vast majority of scenes and the plots are for the most parts exactly the same. But there is a big difference when it comes to how they end. Lester’s version had a big fight between Superman and the Zod’s crew in the city. Then they all went to the Fortress of Solitude where another fight happen. One that utilized very bizarre powers never before used in the film or past film and weren’t used in the following films. But then Superman uses a trick to get rid of his enemies powers and kills them. At the end of the film, Superman plants a kiss on Lois to wipe her memory in regards to his secret identity. Now…the Silver Age Superman did have a lot of bizarre powers. But I have yet to hear of a story where he does that. And it kind of ages badly.

In Donner’s version, he also includes the big fight in the city. And all the main characters do go to the Fortress of Solitude. But there is no fight in the Fortress. It goes into Superman’s trick and killing them. Superman then destroys the Fortress and returns Lois home…and then Superman flies around the world to turn back time just like in the first movie! All the events that happened are reversed and Zod and his crew are still in the Phantom Zone. My problem with this is not only does this repeat the ending of the first movie, but it’s kind of a middle finger to the audience by saying nothing that happened actually mattered.

With that in mind, I have to side with the Lester’s version – the theatrical cut. It does have more goofy stuff in the film and Donner’s does have more character focus. But Lester’s didn’t go so far as to wipe out the entirety of the film’s plot. Lois may no longer remember Clark is Superman but everything else is still intact. But Donner’s Cut is still a very interesting version to watch. And I still recommend you go seek it out. I’m always going to be interested in different takes on certain movies and how things might have played out. And this certainly satisfied my curiosity. You might have a different opinion but that’f fine. “Superman II” is always a fun watch, no matter which version you prefer.

Film Editorials, Movies

Why the Pet Sematary Remake is Important

Leave a comment

The 1983 novel “Pet Sematary” is considered Stephen King’s darkest novel. It’s a story that follows a family that moves to a new home and not long after that, one of their children is killed. It’s an exploration of the heaviest kind of grief, connected to a fear that every parent has and an experience that they hope to never go through. When it was first adapted into a movie in 1989, it stood out for being a Horror movie more focused on emotion than physical violence. Most people really like the film and is considered one of the best Stephen King movies/adaptations. However, when the remake came out in 2019, it has a more mixed response. But I don’t think many of the criticisms are valid.

It’s easy to dismiss a Horror remake and just say it isn’t good or as good as the original. Hell, you can say that about any remake. And there are plenty of examples where that turns out to be the truth. But I think it’s important we keep in mind the quality of the original film as it was. There is a sense of dread and gloom in the film. But there were plenty of times in the original where it came at odds with some of the more campy elements/scenes of the movie. A number of them revolve around Victor Pascow, or rather his spirit because he dies in the first scene he’s in. But he occasionally pops up to offer a more comedic feel to certain scenes. And that can sometimes feel a bit jarring compared to the feel the movie is trying to go for. And there are moments where the acting from some of the main characters are kind of flat.

Keeping that in mind, the remake is actually a better made film in that respect. This version still has a sense of dread but we still have moments throughout the first part of the movie where we get to know the main characters and connect with them. Only this time it feels like the tone of the movie is more consistent. And the acting is also more consistent. Jason Clarke as Louis Creed stands out more compared to Dale Midkiff. The rest of the cast also does a great job with the roles they are in. While John Lithgow is certainly a different interpretation, he is still very likable and feels organic to the way the story is being told.

But now let’s get to the stuff really worth talking about – the differences in this version. In this scenario, there are two major differences in this remake that sets itself apart and is the focus of criticism. The first is the character Ellie Creed. She is the oldest daughter of the Creed family. Unlike her younger brother Gage, who’s still a young child. Ellie though goes to school and hold conversations with her parents. Even talking about some of her fears and anxieties that are more abstract. We get the chance to create an emotional connection that helps us understand and feel for her. She’s a bit more developed in this version than she is in the original film.

And then she dies. Which is a major change since in the original movie and book, Gage is the child who dies. When wandering in the street and a truck doesn’t stop in time. I understand why it was originally Gage who dies, since someone so young – basically still a toddler – is heartbreaking and unthinkable. But from a narrative perspective, it makes more sense for Ellie to die. We’ve spent more time with her and she’s an actual character in the movie. The impact feels heavier. Some may point out that it feels more planned since she sees her cat Church, resurrected from the burial ground and abandoned by Louis a couple of scenes ago,,and goes out to try and get him. I’m all right with that since the Pet Sematary is supposed to have an influence on the people near it and push them to use the soil. I’ll admit though that while we don’t get a close look at her body right after the accident, it doesn’t seem that bloody of a corpse. But I can forgive that since that’s a nit-picky criticism.

That’s what makes the next part of the story that more interesting – the first human resurrection. In the first film, it doesn’t take long for Louis to decide to kill Gage after his youngest child comes back from the dead. But it takes a while for him to realize what he’s done after Ellie comes back. He tries to clean her up when she comes back, she still treats him like the dad she loves. He even goes as far as to think showing his wife Rachel what he did thinking she would be happy about it. Having Ellie be the first one back from the dead makes the confrontation with Jud more interesting. Let’s face it, having Gage being able to take down Jud or any adult in the original film is kind of silly. But this works because not only is Ellie small enough to still sneak around, but she has the intelligence to emotionally manipulate. Her face transforms into Jud’s dead wife and taunts him, intimidating him and eventually getting the upper hand and victory. That same kind of emotional manipulation is also used against her dad when he finally comes back to his senses and tries to kill her. It works well enough to get him to hesitate, leaving room for the opening kill against him.

And now comes the other major difference in this version that’s a source of criticism – the ending. The novel has it where Jud and Gage are dead, Ellie is in Chicago with her grandparents, and Louis takes his wife to the burial ground thinking this time it will be different. It ends with him waiting at home, a hand then rests on his should as he hears her call him “Darling”. The original film is mainly the same. But it ends with the two of them making out – which the resurrected Rachel uses as a distraction as she grabs a weapon and starts bringing it down on him just before the credits roll. But it is very different in this version. Jud is still dead, that’s the same. But as mentioned earlier, Louis is killed in his fight against his resurrected daughter. But Ellie had killed Rachel and dragged her to the burial ground earlier, meaning it is the resurrected Rachel that kills Louis. Mother and daughter drag Louis to the burial ground. The next morning comes and all three approach the vehicle were the still living Gage is sitting in, and the undead cat lands on the hood looking at the young child through the window.

A lot of people view this as kind of silly. Some say that this change was only made just o lazily subvert expectations. I understand that mind-set, especially when several movies or TV shows seems to want to subvert expectations without thinking of a way to do it that makes sense. But let me point this out. Both the original movie and the novel is an exploration of how a tragedy affects a family. How that grief spreads and destroys everyone. In this movie…the grief doesn’t destroy. Instead, it consumes them. And yes, there is a difference. In the original version of the story, grief destroys the relationships between all family members. But this version keeps them united, while drastically changing their personalities and beliefs by extension. While the heads of the Creed family may have lost themselves following Gage’s death, Ellie is actually in the care of her grandparents. There is still hope that she can make something of her life and move on in the years to follow. But not in this story.

All of them have been drastically altered by the tragedy that befell them. Regardless of if they brought it on themselves or if it was unavoidable, they are not the same. The trajectory of their lives are forever altered. There are plenty of people in real life that expect their lives to unfold one way, but then something happens that forces them down a darker path. And sometimes they don’t recover. They just can’t move one and try to grow. They succumb to darker emotions and perspectives. That’s what has happened to this family. Whatever comes next for them, it is objectively far worse than what would have happened to them before the trauma. And seeing how often opportunities have been presented that would have stopped this from happening, you have to wonder if they even wanted to be saved.

And that’s why I think this movie is just as good as the original. In some cases, even better. I know I’m in the minority about this. But maybe you should give it another shot. After reading this, you might view the film a bit differently. Might even realize that it wasn’t a mistake to bring this story back to life.

Film Editorials, Movies

Dual has Two Viewpoints on Life

Leave a comment

SPOILERS BELOW!

I find it kind of ironic that the conflict of this film revolves around a battle involving the actress who plays Nebula. There’s probably something meta you could say that applies to her Marvel character in that franchise. Anyway, this story takes place in a world where clones are a thing. But they are usually only for people who are about to die and want to ease the pain of their loved ones. Our main character – Sara – gets one after being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Ten months later and it turns out she is in full remission. That means according to the law, a duel must take place in a year to determine which one gets to live. Having two of them walking around would just be insane!

Before we get into the meat of things, I gotta say that I do enjoy the humor of this movie. You can call it deadpan. But I think there is a fair mix of ironic humor thrown in as well. And then you get something like a female doctor somehow mansplaining what a funeral is to Sara when she is first diagnosed with her terminal illness. I think the humor of this film is supposed to help us process the vaguely bizarre ideas and concepts that this movie touches on. Helps us find a way to relate to what is going on and make it easier for us to understand.

Something that I found unique about this movie is that it has a theme but it ends up having two different perspectives on it. When we meet Sara, she does seem like a person who might not be fully content or happy with herself. More or less going through the motions or just partially being in touch with her feelings. So when she finds out that she has to fight to death and essentially prove she has a right to exist, her journey can be applied to how we might feel about our own lives. We have no shortage of documentaries or books or whatever it is you consume for entertainment that shed a light on how machine-like the average person goes about their day. Maybe it’s because they have grown comfortable and feel no need to do something new. Maybe they are depressed. But the only way to break out of that is to be confronted with something that can fundamentally change how you view yourself and the world around you. And that’s what happens with Sara. We see her pushed to the point where she is exposed to experiences and people that reshape her mind. Her journey is ultimately about how even though our lives might not seem like it, we have to realize they are worth fighting for.

But then we have the journey of Sara’s double, which is how she is referred to throughout most of the film. We don’t get to see a lot of her own story in this film once the preparations for the upcoming duel get underway. Once she does come back in, however, we do see a different side of things. She confesses to the original Sara about how the problems she might have experienced with her boyfriend and mom are starting to take a toll on her. She even takes them to a support group for people – originals and doubles – that have survived their duels and how that has affected them. Some of this could at first be interpreted as manipulation to try and mentally attack her original. But that doesn’t dismiss the fact that the others from this support group do find themselves not living their lives the way they thought they would. Haunted by the actions they made and even dealing with the consequences of how their originals lived their lives.

It’s not until we get to the final stretch of the film that the idea is fully realized. Sara’s double is ultimately the one left alive. But when we see her some time after the original’s death, it turns out that she wasn’t exactly lying. She does seem to be negatively affected by things that might have pushed the original Sara to be potentially depressed and introverted. The culmination of various factors begins to stress her mind and take their toll. Even to the point where she just stops in the middle of traffic and have a breakdown. It’s Sara’s double story that we explore the idea of what is the point of living if your life seems to be nothing about stress and negativity. If all you are getting our of it is sadness with no fulfillment or joy, then why bother? We have two versions of the same character that both approach the topic of how precious life can be, but they end up coming to two different conclusions. And that is the meta duality of this film. It’s up to you to decide which one is the message you want to take away with.

Film Editorials, Movies

Can Sony’s Cinematic Universe Work?

Leave a comment

It’s no secret that Sony has been trying to create their own cinematic universe. Their most infamous attempt was using “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” as a launching pad. When they began working on Venom, many just assumed it would crash and burn like Tom Cruise’s “The Mummy” being used as the start of Universal’s Dark Universe. But despite getting mixed to negative reactions from critics, “Venom” made a lot of money and seemed to be liked by general audiences. This lead to a sequel, a Morbius film, and 2 more connected films in active development at the time this is being written. I want to explore 3 questions in this post. How has Sony’s universe changed since inception? What are the criticisms of this universe? And what can be done to improve it?

It’s been said that when they began pre-production on “Venom”, it was going to be a legit Horror film. One that took after John Carpenter & David Cronenberg that would have been a true Body Horror, psychological experience. But when “Spider-Man: Homecoming” made a lot of money in 2017, Sony wanted the option of a crossover and altered the film that was more action focused with some Horror inspired moments. I can’t say with 100% certainty if that’s what happened, but that’s the rumor and it does sound on brand for the studio. Every film released so far still has several scenes where it does still have that Horror inspiration. Moments with a dark atmosphere that show the potential of what they could have been if allowed to fully embrace it.

And that leads us to looking at the criticisms of Sony’s universe. So these films ended up focusing on more action than expected. Not a big deal. The movie “Underworld” did that but it still had a unique feel. But unlike that movie, all of the movies from this universe are PG-13. Look, you can have good PG-13 films that lean in a more dark direction. “The Batman” was PG-13 and it had a lot of dark and psychologically interesting material in it. But Sony’s films have an issue of using general plots and outlines that were used by comic book movies from the 1990s and 2000s. In “Venom”, it was executed in a way where it can be seen as an enjoyable throwback. I can’t say it’s an authentic portrayal of the character, but people looking to have fun could say they found it. It worked a bit in “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” but it doesn’t seem to be helping “Morbius”.

If you combine this with the fact that Sony won’t let them be true Horror films, that makes them look kind of stupid. Sure, from a business perspective it makes sense. You have comic book characters you want to adapt, some of them not very familiar with general audiences. The PG-13 rating has worked for a lot of comic book movies and you want to try and make your money back. But this also makes them seem behind the times. The tropes used in Sony’s films feel dated when you compare it to what is being put out today. Hell, movies like “Deadpool” & “Joker” show that R rated comic book movies can be very profitable. And that’s actually one of the main reasons there are so many Horror movies in the first place. They tend to not have very big budgets and it’s almost guaranteed you’ll make a profit. I look at “Venom” & “Morbius” and I see how they can take notes from some of the old Universal Monster films. Sony’s Spider-Man Universe could fill the hole that people wanting more mature content from Marvel are missing.

And speaking of which, let’s actually focus on the Spider-Man part of their cinematic universe. For a while, it seemed like Sony was working on a way to bring Tom Holland’s version from the MCU to their own for crossover. That makes sense from a business perspective as well as pleasing the fans of that version of the character. It seemed like we were going to get that based on what “Spider-Man: No Way Home” was marketing and the when Venom was pulled into the MCU in a post credits scene of his second film. But no, that’s not what happened. Tom Holland’s version is still in the MCU, Venom ended up being pulled back into his universe just as quickly as he was pulled out, leaving behind a sample of the symbiote. The marketing for “Morbius” showed that somehow Michael Keaton’s Vulture from “Spider-Man: Homecoming” ended up in Sony’s universe. The way he ended up in that universe was fine if a bit confusing. But the after credits scene of him meeting Morbius not only doesn’t match how it was shown in trailers, but you can clearly tell it was done at the very last minute. With neither actor actually being on stage together, and their reactions not matching what the other was saying.

Look, we knew their Sinister Six build-up was coming. But it has no real weight in this universe. The Venom movies don’t address the existence of Spider-Man until the post credits scene of the second film, and even then it was for the one outside their universe. And since he wasn’t mentioned until the post credits of “Morbius”, we don’t really know what that character feels about the hero. We don’t know if they have any history together. Sony hasn’t decided on who is playing Spider-Man or even which version of the character their using. How can you call this the Spider-Man Universe when we are 3 movies in and we’ve had only two clear references to the character who hasn’t interacted with either of these two characters? It seemed like they were preparing for Tom Holland to interact with them. But “Spider-Man: No Way Home” made clear that wasn’t happening, even though one of the villains from that franchise is now in Sony’s universe. It’s clear the executives at that studio have no clear idea of what they want to do or what they want to build up.

And finally, we have to ask…what can be done to improve this situation? Right now, Sony has two more films in development for this universe. Kraven, which I believe is filming right now, and Madame Web. I don’t know much about her, but she might be a character that can do some multiverse abilities. Both of these films need to reference Spider-Man, during the main story and not just in a post credits scene. We need to establish there is a web slinger in this universe. We also need to determine which version of the hero we are dealing with. Peter Parker, Miles Morales, Gwen Stacey, Cindy Moon, doesn’t matter. We just need to establish which one and try and shine a light on what kind of history this hero has in this cinematic universe. It would be ideal for Spider-Man to actually show up in one of these upcoming films. Sony needs to make an actual commitment to something that will give audiences one of the things they have been saying exists for a while now.

And there is some work that needs to be done before we jump into a Sinister Six film. We’ll most likely get a Venom 3, meaning we need to use that film to actually address Spider-Man. Maybe a one-on-one fight, maybe build-up so that he can join other character to be a part of the Sinister Six. But we need to show they know he exists, how he views the web slinger, establish tension between them – at the very least. I’ll even go as far as to say we need a similar situation for “Morbius 2”. Yes, I’m advocating for a sequel to that film. The previous film showed he knows about Spider-Man in the post credits scene. For this sequel, we for sure need to have Spider-Man involved in the main plot to establish what kind of relationship the two of them have. If Sony does this – as well as actually address Spider-Man to a significant enough capacity in Kraven & Madam Web – the Sinister Six movie will have some actual weight to it.

Finally, Sony needs better writing for their films. So far, all 3 have just been all right. And they are relying on tropes from over a decade ago. Better writing and stories will get us more involved with these characters and actually get us looking forward to seeing them on screen. Fully embrace the dark atmosphere these characters – these super-villains – are known for. I also would like for them to include R rated movies, but I’ll settle for actually pushing the boundaries of what PG-13 can show. Make bold moves that leave some kind of impact, even if they don’t fully work. Because at least then I will remember these movies and start to actually care for them.

That should be everything. These are all of my thoughts on this cinematic universe, it’s problems but also the potential changes they can make. Hopefully something similar to what I outlined will actually happen.