Monday, November 27, 2017

Why 'Django Unchained' is the best blaxploitation movie ever made

I have long called Django Unchained my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie, and despite its wildly popular initial release, I've found that this is a position I've grown increasing defensive of in the five years since it came out.

It's the rare recent movie that easily feels like it couldn't have been made even a year after its debut, especially when 12 Years a Slave handled the topic of slavery so seriously and soberly, and then an influx of similarly-themed material seemed to overwhelm audiences.

This factor, coupled with legitimate questions about authorship and Tarantino's copious use of the n-word has led many people whose opinions I respect to widely condemn this film.

But my experience with the movie has always been a purely emotional one -- I am well aware of its flaws, especially when it comes to the female characters (with few exceptions, not one of Tarantino's strong suits generally) -- but for me, this film was a euphoric, giddy, transgressive joy.

It was a film that captured the essence of what Tarantino had been striving for in Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, the Kill Bill films, and even Inglourious Basterds, which was always viewed as the more prestigious film, even though it was no less politically incorrect than this one.

Tarantino has always been a filmmaker consumed with his childhood passions and none appears to be greater than his affection for the blaxploitation genre, which is inherently problematic, but also undeniably sexy, badass, and all about audience gratification and more often than not about a satisfying thirst for righteous revenge.

I fell in love with Django Unchained during a striking scene where the Django character (played by Jamie Foxx) snatches a whip from a vicious plantation overseer and proceeds to beat him mercilessly and kill him in cold blood. The racially diverse audience I saw it with was rapturously cheering and in this miracle of a moment it dawned on me how radical Tarantino's film was, whether he meant it to be or not.

For the first time in any movie I'd ever seen, we were being encouraged to watch a black man whoop a white man's ass. What's more, the 'magical negro' role was being played by a white German man -- Oscar winner Christoph Waltz. Here was Tarantino taking the once radical racial satire of Blazing Saddles in a totally new direction, culminating with the uproarious performance by Samuel L. Jackson as the deceptively sophisticated 'Uncle Tom' character Stephen, which steals the final act of the film.

While use of the n-word had felt forced and distracting in previous Tarantino films, here it made perfect sense -- the film does take place in 1858 -- and it would be patently absurd to project modern liberal thinking onto to a profoundly prejudiced landscape. Even Waltz's character, nominally the only decent white person in the film, can't help but condescend to Django.

And in the role of a proud man who has nevertheless lived his whole life as a slave, Foxx's character almost has to be docile at first, if only because it would naturally take time for him to gain confidence in his freedom.

Some of these character details no doubt infuriate a lot of viewers -- and are unforgivable to some. But for me they serve the broader story, which invites and even encourages uncomfortable but necessary conversations, which is what any premise dealing with race should require. It can't be pretty or easy and this film never is.

Take for instance the Leonardo DiCaprio villain. In one of his best performances, DiCaprio is both a monstrous, repugnant racist and also quite funny, even charming at times. By having DiCaprio make the arguments that bigots did and do make in defense of slavery and black inferiority of course runs the risk of such beliefs gaining unwanted traction. But he and his cohorts' gruesome fate speaks volumes of how the film and filmmaker wants him and his views to be regarded.

It's not a coincidence that what constituted the alt right back in 2012 was horrified by this movie (as albeit were a lot of lefty black intellectuals too). This film wasn't a stickler for historical accuracy or an expose on the horrors of slavery (although the film doesn't try to sugarcoat the experience either), so on a certain level it wouldn't please a lot of people.

But this film is a great exploitation movie several years late, one that didn't have to make the same compromises that earlier slavery-themed trashy movies like Mandingo had to make.

The best blaxploitation films -- Black Caesar, Foxy Brown and Coffy come to mind -- all were problematic with a capital P, but they provided a certain visceral satisfaction in seeing white oppressors get their just desserts, which simply didn't and doesn't happen often enough, in reality or fantasy.

By choosing to set this particular western revenge fantasy in the slavery context doesn't excuse the culpability of its audience and in several scenes the shifts from comedic tension to pure horror are intentionally quite jarring and brutal. Think of the infamous wrestling scene that comes just over a third of the way through. It's grotesque and kinetic at the same time, which for me makes it more unforgettable than some of the most respectable fare that has attempted to tackle the subject of slavery.

In my humble opinion there there are only a few wrong way to portray slavery, like making it appear to be a condition that the slaves didn't mind (like Gone With the Wind did) or one that wasn't that bad (like Gone With the Wind did). We've certainly had very different approaches to telling the story of the Holocaust, and since this is our uniquely American holocaust, I don't think Tarantino was wrong or insensitive to take such a popcorn approach with this material.

Some of the other quibbles -- that Foxx's Django is too passive, that the movie is overlong, and doesn't do enough to illuminate the central romance with the Kerry Washington character (sex and love are definitely not Tarantino's comfort zone) -- are not invalid, but there is so much to chew on in this epic piece of high wire filmmaking (like its revolutionary reinterpretation of the western hero archetype)that I tend to forgive these shortcomings.

For instance, just when the movie seems like it might start flagging, Jackson's character shows up and presents a wholly new subversive element to the film. The movie is not just taking a simplistic white liberal anti-racism position, it's also taking an anti-complacency and self-hating position, which is just as important, especially today.

In some ways, setting a film in 1858 gave Tarantino a freedom to plumb his own eccentricities, fascinations and feelings when it came to race (and some would argue, to excuse them) that a contemporary film couldn't -- so much so that he continued playing in this same world for The Hateful Eight.

His next film, centered on the Manson murders, is also set in the past. And even his 'modern' films like Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown have a decidedly retro, vintage feel. Tarantino clearly sees the past as instructive and while filmmakers of color may be better suited to tell these stories going forward, I appreciate that he too is grappling with this history, in his own way, and throwing a bit of a bomb into the marketplace of ideas to spark some lively debate.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

'She's Gotta Have It' is yet another letdown for Spike Lee fans

I had moderately high expectations for Netflix's reboot of Spike Lee's debut cult classic film She's Gotta Have It, and then some very positive reviews peaked my interest even more. But after watching just three episodes of the scripted series I was dumbfounded. This show contains all of Lee's worst tendencies, which seem to have been exacerbated in recent years. It purports to be a show about female empowerment and calling out the male gaze, and yet it is one of the most male-gazey shows I've ever seen, including one gratuitously long sequence at burlesque show that serves no story function whatsover. It takes stabs at saying something significant about a legit topic like gentrification, but it fails miserably by casting virtually every white character as an over-the-top racist snob, and doesn't seem to catch the irony that the show's upwardly mobile black characters are just as guilty of gentifying hip Brooklyn neighborhoods as the white ones.

I rolled my eyes of the in-your-face, redundant sex scenes. I cringed at the truly bizarre decision to not just lather the soundtrack in familiar pop songs but then to flash the album cover featuring said song (as if contractually obligated) at the end of the scenes they play in. Oh, and as per usual he drags Isiah Whitock, Jr. in to repeat his famous line reading of 'shit' from The Wire, in a running gag that has grown beyond tired. But what infuriated me the most was Lee's decision to once again put HIS monologues in the mouths of his characters, regardless of story or context.

The most egregious example comes early in the first episode, where our protagonist Nola Darling goes off on a tangent about how Denzel Washington was robbed for the Academy Award in 1992 for his lead role in Malcolm X in favor of Al Pacino. Now, this is not a new argument, hell, I've made it myself. And Lee has made it publicly many, many times.

And keep in mind this is Lee, speaking through one of the characters, talking about one of his own films, how great it was, and how it deserved more award love 25 years ago. It's positively Trumpian.

It doesn't help that the delivery of lines like these (or other tangents about Kevin Durant, and a particularly clumsy introduction of the Black Lives Matter hashtag) are not delivered with any kind of authenticity, restraint or subtlety. They just land like a thud, as does much of this show.

Now, the 1986 source material is problematic and simplistic too. Some of the gender politics of that film would not fly at all today. But it is a wonderful product of its time, and it's Spike Lee trying to find his voice as a very young, undeniably talented young man, so you can forgive its shortcomings.

But the sad fact is that Lee doesn't seem to have matured much in 30 years. Just like Woody Allen has grown incapable of writing believably contemporary people, Lee has also hit a brick wall of self indulgence. Quentin Tarantino is also guilty of forcing his actors to spew pop culture references with abandon, but he seems still skilled enough to have the story and content of a movie not be too
overwhelmed by them.

But this iteration of She's Gotta Have It totally collapses under the weight of Lee's unchecked ego, even with other collaborators and writers in the mix to reign him in. And for some reason, he makes many of the main characters from the 1986 version even less likable and sympathetic here, including Nola, who comes off as an obnoxious know-it-all, when I think we're supposed to view her as confident and poised.

This is yet another project like Red Hook Summer, Da Sweet Blood of Jesus and even Chiraq, which have a lot of potential, look great (as all Lee movies do) but feel incredibly tone deaf for the times we live in.

It's heartbreaking to me because Lee is a filmmaker I revered growing up. Movies like School Daze, Malcolm X, Do the Right Thing, Crooklyn, and Bamboozled (just to name a few) meant a lot to be as a creative person growing up and I think he was and is one of the most under-appreciated talents Hollywood has ever produced.

But alongside similarly-themed shows like Insecure and Atlanta, Netflix's She's Gotta Have It feels like it comes from some sort of alternative universe that in no way represents the one that I'm living in and it certainly isn't one that I want to see.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Why I'm thankful for Denzel Washington, if not 'Roman J. Israel'

In his last major big screen triumph -- Fences -- Denzel Washington gave such an astonishing, all-guns blazing tour-de-force performance (which he also directed) that I wondered if he would have anything left in the tank.

And yet in Roman J. Israel, Esq he manages to do something he's never done before -- play a dork.

Even though his looks have faded, he's put on considerable weight and is well into his 60s, Denzel remains one of Hollywood's most reliable and swaggering movie icons. And in this dark period where many sacred celebrity cows are going down because of their history of sexual harassment and abuse, his relatively squeaky clean reputation makes viewing him on the big screen, at this particular moment, especially pleasurable.

If only he had a better movie to play in. Roman J. Israel, Esq, unfortunately, is one of these middle-of-the-road Denzel movies, where he is sensational but the movie is only so-so. There are some intriguing ideas in it, the bones of what could have been built up to be compelling film, but it keeps collapsing on its own contrivance and heavy handedness.

Roman J. Israel is a particularly vivid character. He's an old fashioned former radical, who never lost his affinity for the afro, '70s funk and deeply unattractive menswear. Although the movie never commits to this concept, he appears to be on the spectrum, but could also just be overtly socially awkward.

Although his outbursts can make you wince, Denzel plays him with such wit and empathy that you really feel for the guy. And it's striking to see Denzel, who almost always plays strong, formidable heroes, look so feeble and morally pliable.

But the movie around him is an unfocused mess. The character is supposed to be this idealist who finds his ethics compromised when he is for reasons that are never really justified brought into a modern shark-like firm to do pro bono criminal work.

Colin Farrell plays his antagonist, but then when the plot suits it he becomes an ally and while Farrell is a capable actor, he never seems grounded in this movie and his reactions in any given scene don't add up. And his role the movie's final moments becomes laughably absurd.

The luminous Carmen Ejogo (who played Coretta Scott King in Selma) is totally wasted here in one of the worst written women's roles in recent memory. She serves only one function in this movie -- to hero worship Roman, and I guess to remind the audience how inspirational he is supposed to be. But her emotional performance and often clunky dialogue, feel totally out place in this movie.

In fact, the movie most comes alive when Denzel's character is morally walking a thin line and begins to make decisions that threaten to permanently derail his legacy. But every time the movie seems to want to go in a darker direction (like the director Dan Gilroy's previous breakout success Nightcrawler) it returns of conventional territory.

And while for Denzel this film film fits solidly in his Oscar bid category, he will be unfortunately returning to the old man action genre with a sequel to The Equalizer, another movie undeserving of his talents, instead of more interesting fare.

That being said, he remains one of my all-time favorite actors and easily one the most exciting star presences working in the movies today. I only wish he would work with some riskier filmmakers on some more challenging material.

Roman J. Israel is some ways a start -- there are no moments where he gets to look or act cool in this movie, which feels revelatory -- but when the script lets him down, it's hard for him and the audience to get back up for the movie.

Monday, November 20, 2017

Jim Carrey earns fresh consideration in revealing documentary

I've always felt like Jim Carrey has gotten a bad rap. When he first exploded as a superstar in the mid-90s his goofy, often lowbrow comedies were dismissed by most critics and when he was one of the first big name stars to attract a $20 million salary, it felt like people rooted for him to fail.

And when his movies occasionally did, it always seemed like their lack of success was overstated and he was rapidly pushed off the A-list, even though he's had several blockbuster hits since his 90s heyday, as well as some powerful dramatic turns in movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

While eccentric actors like Nicolas Cage and Matthew McConaughey have been afforded numerous career comebacks, Carrey has been strangely marginalized. Certainly his more tabloid-friendly antics and flirtation with anti-vaccination conspiracy theories haven't done him any favors. Nor has his gaunt, gone-to-seed look as of late.

But Carrey has always struck me as thoughtful, sensitive guy, whose work as an actor has held up far better than many skeptics would like to admit.

Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman
Man on the Moon, his 1999 biopic about his comedic idol Andy Kaufman, has been viewed for years as one of his misses. It didn't do particularly well at the box office, and it didn't earn Carrey the Academy Award he clearly coveted at the time (he wasn't even nominated). The movie never worked entirely for me the time when I saw it.

I thought Carrey did a phenomenal job portraying Kaufman, but as a diehard fan of the late comedian, nothing quite compared to the real thing and the movie felt more like a greatest hits of the comic's career, rather than a revealing look at his life.

Now, nearly 20 years later, Carrey's performance, if not the film itself, has been redeemed by an incredible behind the scenes documentary currently streaming on Netflix, called Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond.

The film, which features riveting and straight up crazy behind the scenes footage of Carrey on the set of Man on the Moon, totally immersing himself into not just the character of Kaufman, but the other personas he played, all while attempting to replicate some of the high stakes pranks the comedian attempted to pull of while he was alive.

A far more chastened Carrey provides a running commentary, on both his past, his admiration for Kaufman and the freedom he sought in playing him. Watching the film Carrey can seem by turns pretentious, endearing, egotistical and hilarious, and he is also never even a little bit boring.

It's clear now that Carrey clearly was thrown for a loop by fame, and found in Kaufman the perfect vehicle to challenge himself and push his boundaries as a performer. Whether that was the most productive way to make a movie remains to be seen, but the experience was clearly life-changing for Carrey and the documentary, which is both unflattering and flattering towards him, effectively keeps the subject at a bit of a remove, and just presents the footage as it exists, without trying to impose a take on it.

Carrey himself seems to be at peace, with himself and his career -- even some others aren't. And Jim & Andy certainly made me appreciate his talent more, now that the dust has cleared. He may still be a nut, but what a nut!

Saturday, November 18, 2017

'Disclosure' is the movie of the moment 23 years too early

It's easier to watch a movie like Disclosure today and scoff at its dated look and occasionally absurd politically incorrect dialogue. And yet, this complex 1994 thriller was more on the ball than you might expect, and it makes for fascinating viewing amid the current climate where an ongoing national conversation about sexual assault and harassment has outed numerous powerful men in politics, entertainment and media as abusers, creeps and criminals. The fact that this film makes a strong woman the perpetrator of inappropriate sexual conduct doesn't make it any less entertaining or edifying. It's tawdry and transgressive -- but it also still makes some surprisingly salient points about the problematic power dynamics that can turn relationships between men and women toxic.

Based on a popular best-seller from Michael Crichton, the movie was a hit when it came out. Audiences were likely seeking another Basic Instinct reprise, but the movie is more concerned with office politics than sexual titillation.

Demi Moore -- as the object of leading man Michael Douglas desire, as well as the thorn in his side -- gives perhaps the best performance of her short-lived career as an A-list movie star. She chews the scenery with gusto and yet never allows her villain to become purely a caricature.

Douglas of course was dinged at the time for playing yet another man-aggrieved-by-an-aggressive-woman, but with a few decades and some hindsight, it seems as if he was the perfect person to play a character like this. He's a sleaze who doesn't know he's a sleaze, and becomes begrudgingly more sympathetic as the movie unfolds. Douglas never gets enough credit as a self-aware actor. He's clearly playing the satire of the sanctimonious nature of his character. If the part were played by a more unassailable hero of the era (think Harrison Ford) it wouldn't be half as interesting.


The cast is filled out with a host of other great character actors like Donald Sutherland, Dylan Baker and an incomparable Roma Maffia, as an attorney who really could star in her very own movie.

Every time the movie seems like it's about to slip off a cliff, it throws us another unexpected curveball. It has a ludicrously complicated plot involving the merger of a high tech Seattle company; but that's really just a smokescreen for a time capsule of 90s-era gender fears and paranoia.

This movie has everything that you would presumably love to hate -- crappy VR, gay panic, castration panic, Dennis Miller -- and yet it manages to pass the Bechdel text and calls out more benign harassment alongside violent behavior. Hell, the Douglas character even makes a sincere apology for his behavior in this movie, something the president of the United States won't even do in 2017.

It'd be incredible to see how a movie like this would turn out if it were made today, although it's unlikely any movie like this could exist now. First of all, it's an adult movie about adults, which has been out of favor for decades now.

Certainly, the character of Douglas' wife, while not a pushover, would likely have more agency and range than she has here. Hopefully, the ending would be more ambiguous, although there is much to savor in how this film comes to a close, and the most obvious change would be that it'd no longer be necessary to have a white man be the mouthpiece for validating the concept of sexual assault.

Still, this is a wildly entertaining film because of its flaws and also because of its merits. This movie is way better than it deserves to be, and it feels so timely right now, even if its special effects are painfully laughable now.

What isn't funny though is that some of the same conversations that occur in this movie -- about how and when to report an assault, about consent, about crude comments and victim shaming -- are still happening now and often those conversations haven't grown more sophisticated or sensitive.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

'Never Seen It' - Episode 24 - 'Short Circuit' cashes in on 'E.T.' fad

Ahh, you gotta love a derivative 1980s movie -- from Raiders of the Lost Ark to Top Gun, every major hit from the decade usually spawned its fair share of imitators, and 1986's robot feature Short Circuit clearly owes a debt to the 1982 blockbuster E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

Still, the movie was a hit in its own right so perhaps its worth cherishing. My wife, Elizabeth Rosado, and I have never seen it -- for whatever reason this film was not in the regular VHS rotation in our households, but I was intrigued, since it is so of its era, and is exemplary of peak Steve Guttenberg, whatever that means.

In the podcast below Liz and I try to understand his appeal, and what the virtues are, if any, of this 30-year-old kids movie. Click on the YouTube link to hear our hopefully lively commentary:


PREVIOUS 'NEVER SEEN IT' EPISODES:

Episode 1: Some King of Wonderful
Episode 2: XXX
Episode 3: Varsity Blues
Episode 4: Xanadu
Episode 5: An Affair to Remember
Episode 6: Blue Steel
Episode 7: Spy Kids
Episode 8: The Frisco Kid
Episode 9: Rising Sun
Episode 10: The Conjuring 2
Episode 11: Zootopia
Episode 12: Fear
Episode 13: The Cell
Episode 14: Nocturnal Animals
Episode 15: Kindergarten Cop
Episode 16: Clash of the Titans
Episode 17: Silence
Episode 18: King Kong (1976)
Episode 19: The NeverEnding Story
Episode 20: Striptease
Episode 21: The Craft
Episode 22: The Purge
Episode 23: Hostel

Stay tuned for more!

Friday, November 10, 2017

A real reckoning for rape culture in Hollywood

Kevin Spacey in All the Money in the World
Yesterday there was a startling new development in the Kevin Spacey saga. The actor, whose career has gone into a tailspin amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment (largely with underage boys as the victims) was poised to be featured prominently in the Oscar-baity Ridley Scott film All the Money in the World, which was due out next month. But he's being cut out of the film entirely.

In fact, Spacey's performance (he's almost unrecognizable under heavy make-up) was on some short lists as a potential Best Supporting Actor nominee. Now, his entire role is going to be re-shot, with the legendary Christopher Plummer playing his part. Apparently, the entire cast -- which includes Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams -- have signed on to this change, and I imagine the film's producers have also determined that the added cost of re-shoots was worth it to avoid being associated with Spacey. Despite the fact that Spacey seems to have a major role (he is revealed in the trailer with much fanfare), Scott and company plan to re-shoot all his scenes in the next few weeks and still expect to hit their intended release date of December 22nd.

I could be wrong, but a move like this feels unprecedented, and at the same time, totally appropriate for 2017. It's also deeply ironic to me that this development is happening on the same weekend that Mel Gibson -- a person caught on tape abusing women and spouting racism, with a long history of anti-Semitism -- will be appearing in a family comedy opposite Will Ferrell.

The last few weeks have been strange ones for fans of Hollywood movies.

I have been a fan of and continue to be a fan of many movies produced by Harvey Weinstein. Just a few weeks ago I wrote a glowing piece about Dustin Hoffman, one of my favorite actors, only to have it revealed that he has been something of a sleaze for decades.

Several men whose talents I admire and plenty I don't, have been outed as abusers of women, ranging from really inappropriate to downright criminal. And it's led me to the conclusion that you simply can't have heroes anymore when it comes to Hollywood.

Perhaps this was always obvious -- but as an earnest movie fan I grew up romanticizing the images on screen and the movie star personas I admired, without presuming much about the stars' personal lives. At this point, I'll be relieved to know if any of my childhood icons have been on the right side of history -- but I fear that only more revelations will be forthcoming about people who are are near and dear to me.

That doesn't mean I am in anyway ambiguous about these revelations coming forward. As painful as the exposure of Bill Cosby was for lifelong fans like me -- it must have been insurmountable for his actual victims, both those that came forward and those who still remain private.

His crimes won't erase his cultural impact and significance -- just like the allegations against Spacey won't make his roles in films like Seven, LA Confidential and The Usual Suspects any less compelling. But they do provide a real wake-up call for men, and some women, who have convinced themselves that predators only lurk in the shadows. They are more often than not our friends and family. And yes, sometimes they are great artists who have moved us or made us laugh.

And then there is the Gibson issue. Or Casey Affleck, who just last year won a Best Actor award (for a terrific performance, but on the heels of unearthed sexual harassment allegations). These performers aren't being run out of the industry or cut out of movies, which suggests that we're all still grappling with this new terrain, and history will judge many more kindly than others.

And now the once seemingly woke Louis CK is in the hot seat. Here is an undeniably talented comedian, who had won acclaim for sending up male privilege and ignorance, only to be proven just as scummy as any catcalling construction worker. It's all so gross, very sad, but also totally par for the course in a society where so many men have been and are predatory monsters.

One thing is for sure, if there was still some glow and mystique around modern Hollywood, it's certainly been punctured for good in recent years. The past couple have really underlined their lack of diversity and misogyny and now their is a reckoning for its pervasive rape culture as well.

What makes it uncomfortable for so many of us -- who are liberals and movie lovers --is that we'd like to think 'these are the good guys' but we live an age where there are almost no 'good guys' anymore, and what can be defined as 'good' has rightfully been updated considerably over the years.

While I am not ready to disavow movies and shows I've enjoyed in the past -- I have definitely conditioned myself not to have high expectations for the people involved in them. And while I think I don't deserve any kind of pat on the back for that, I suppose it's a start of something new. Every man should be checking their privilege right now, and retroactively examining their actions in the past -- because the old standards of 'boys will be boys' just can't survive.

In the meantime, any actor who's been a creeper over the years should just out themselves at this point, because the truth may not set them free, but it'll free the rest of us.

Monday, November 6, 2017

'Thor: Rangarok' revitalizes the full-blown action comedy

I remember scoffing back when one of my film professors said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that there are essentially about five or six different kinds of stories and its basically the way that you tell them that makes them unique and interesting. There's romance, comedy, horror, suspense, action and drama.

For some time now I've floated the theory that the superhero genre was essentially a revisionist form of the western -- and I think the comparison definitely applies to a film like Logan or even The Dark Knight, which are both meditations on the nature of heroism and feature flawed but noble men in search of meaning.

Then there's Thor: Rangarok, which is in no way deep, but which comes from a completely different world entirely -- the long forgotten art of the action comedy. Action comedies were once Hollywood's bread and butter and somewhere along the way the movies started to tamp down on the humor in order to -- I guess -- appear more badass.

But the Marvel movies have by-and-large, sneakily realized that they have a comic gold mine on their hands with these larger-than-life characters mixing it up with each other. It all started with the casting of the fast-talking, quip-heavy Robert Downey, Jr. in the Iron Man movies, which then broadened out the high stakes office comedy of The Avengers.

Chris Hemsworth as Thor
Now, by tapping the great New Zealand director Taika Waititi (who made the new cult classic comedies What We Do in the Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople), the producers of this sequel have fully embraced the silliness of the form and its titular character, and in doing so they've produced one the most enjoyable entries in their seemingly never-ending assembly line.

One of the only positive takeaways from the recent reboot of Ghostbusters was that Chris Hemsworth (who now can play Thor in his sleep) has great comic timing that contrasts wonderfully with his massive, imposing physique and startling good looks. With each turn as Thor he's become goofier and more lovable, and while he is still very credible in action scenes, the more his lunkheadedness is played up, the better these movies get.

He's aided tremendously by a very vibrant cast -- Tessa Thompson, Jeff Goldblum, Tom Hiddleston and Mark Ruffalo (back as the Hulk) -- all steal scenes in their supporting roles. And the look of the film itself -- a multicolored rainbow of visual delights with arguably the best Marvel score/soundtrack to date -- is also like a breath of fresh air.

Cate Blanchett looks incredible as the big baddie, although like a lot of Marvel villains her character's motivation is lacking and she is pretty underdeveloped, but she's still fun. In fact, nothing in the movie really drags -- because again it has the pacing that action comedies in the '80s and '90s perfected.

They leave room for jokes and for character, but they are always moving. Even a perfunctory but amusing cameo from another major character in the Marvel universe doesn't gum up the works too much. This one aims to please and doesn't miss.

Marvel has simply figured out how to keep these movies from feeling too routine. And with Black Panther on the way there doesn't appear to be any signs that these movies are losing steam. I do wonder what will happen when some of these actors simply want to move on with their lives.

For instance, I don't envy the actor who has to fill Hemsworth's shoes someday as Thor, or Hugh Jackman's as Wolverine for that matter. Part of the reason I think Ben Affleck's Batman doesn't work -- besides the films being subpar -- is it feels as though he can bring nothing to the part that Michael Keaton and Christian Bale haven't already.

It's hard to dispute though how satisfying these movies can be because they spend their enormous budgets right, and they do champion diversity and they are genuinely funny.

What more could you want from a blockbuster right now?

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Five big takeaways from 'The Last Jedi' teaser trailers

A relatively quiet fall movie season is starting to heat up, and easily the most highly anticipated blockbuster movie of this final stretch of 2017 is the new installment in the main canon narrative of the Star Wars saga: Episode VIII, The Last Jedi.

This week we've been treated to a brand new teaser trailer, which like other recent teasers for the film appear to reveal a lot more of the plot than the initial commercials for Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Which I am not entirely sure is a good thing (more on that below).  Still, virtually nothing could prevent me from seeing this movie -- after all, I am an unabashed Star Wars fanatic. I've already bought my tickets for its opening weekend and have high hopes for it.

Here are some of my initial thoughts on what we've seen on this much-hyped event movie so far...

Serious tone - I am a little struck (and wary) of the brooding tone of the footage we've seen so far. One of the takeaways from the original classic trilogy (1977-1983) was that the darker elements were what made them great, especially in The Empire Strikes Back, but what is often overlooked was how funny and lighthearted those movies were, too. The prequels were humorless, which is part of why they failed so miserably to connect emotionally. Still, The Force Awakens looked very heavy handed at first until it turned out to be a totally fun romp once you sat down and watched it. So, porgs aside, I am hopeful that this installment won't forget to keep its sense of humor.

Adam Driver as Kilo Ren
Mark Hamill, front and center - After he was tantalizingly and silently teased in the grand finale of The Force Awakens, Hamill clearly has a much meatier role here. I have always thought he was so underrated in the original trilogy, particularly his soulful, more mature turn as Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi. This could be a great showcase for him and my hope is that his character is not dispatched too soon or in a way that isn't fitting for his character.

As much as I adored Harrison Ford's performance in The Force Awakens, it was very clear that he wasn't planning to stick around long. Hamill's character could and should have a lot more to do, especially if -- as so many people suspect -- he is Rey's father.

Potential fate for Princess Leia - The tragic passing of Carrie Fisher has left a lot of questions marks about what would become of her iconic Leia character. She was somewhat sidelined in The Force Awakens, although she had been elevated to the rank of general. She did reportedly finish filming her role in this film and there will be a lot of pathos to watching what will likely have been her last on screen performance. What surprises me is how overtly the early trailers seem to be hinting at her character's death, most likely at the hands of her estranged son Kilo Ren (played menacingly by Adam Driver). Unless the shots I was seeing were out of sequence, it seems fairly apparent that she will meet the same end her adopted father on Alderaan did all those years ago. I suppose it'll be bittersweet, but I don't love seeing all the original characters getting killed off so matter-of-factly.

No Lando! What gives? - Which brings me to a particularly sore subject for me: my childhood hero Lando Calrissian. Once of the coolest and most complex characters in the Star Wars universe has been inexplicably cast aside for reasons that are a total mystery to me and most fans. Actor Billy Dee Williams, who originated the role, is game to return to the part (he just turned 80, and doesn't have all the time in the world), and Force Awakens screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan has said that he doesn't believe the character is finished. Meanwhile, Donald Glover is playing a younger version of the debonair Calrissian, so it's not like he's being written out of the Star Wars universe. Of course, I'm still holding out hope for a surprise appearance -- even if it's only a cameo -- from Williams, but it appears that he won't get the fitting arc that so many of our other favorite characters have.

A twist towards the Dark Side - The new teasers also strongly hint to some sort of surprising twist -- which of course is nothing new to the Star Wars universe -- but the turn it seems to be deliberately suggesting is perhaps a uniting of Rey and Kilo as allies. For months now there have been rumors that director Rian Johnson was looking to take the Star Wars series into new territory and this would certainly buck the films' overall trend of good guys are good and bad guys are bad. One of the interesting things about Driver's performance as Kilo, is he did portray some more nuance and conflicted emotions than say Darth Vader -- who for most of his run was just about evil incarnate. But, that said, I'm not sure how I would feel about seeing Rey turn to the dark side.

Methinks the trailer's closing line -- "this is not going to go the way you think" -- is being placed prominently there for a reason.

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Hollywood, stop seeing black history through a white frame

Woody Harrelson and Jennifer Jason Leigh in LBJ
I have not seen director Rob Reiner's upcoming biopic LBJ and I suppose if the reviews are phenomenal I might be compelled to give it a chance. I think Lyndon Johnson is one of our most complex and personally fascinating ex-presidents and certainly worthy of a deep cinematic dive.

The thing is that we have already had a near-definitive take on Johnson just last year in the HBO film All the Way, starring Bryan Cranston, not to mention Tom Wilkinson's performance as the 36th president in Selma, and a host of other versions of the drawling Texan in some lesser recent films of note.

From what I have been able to glean from the early ads for this film, it seems to center of Johnson's undeniably significant role in advancing pro-civil rights legislation during his tenure in the White House, and in these same ads, there is nary a person of color to be seen.

My thoughts exactly
Now, Johnson's cabinet was not exactly diverse, and most African-American viewers are not so naive as to think that high-ranking political power brokers were not key to getting these historic bills over the finish line -- but do we really need another narrative about bigoted white men overcoming their prejudices (or refusing to) amid the rise of civil rights?

The success of a movie like Hidden Figures -- which told a remarkable true-life story of black civil rights era heroes -- from their perspective -- should have yet again, once and for all, proved that there is a real interest in seeing films where people of color have agency in their own equality movements.

There is also clearly an appetite for seeing stories we have not already seen told and re-told several times before. Back in 2014, with Selma, we finally got out first film centered on the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And what was the biggest, loudest criticism of that acclaimed film? That it didn't give Johnson enough credit.

Time and again, Hollywood wants to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to portraying the civil rights era. It wants to pat itself on the back for plunging into commercially risky territory by revisiting a dark chapter in relatively recent American history but it also wants to make that journey safe for white audiences by centering the narrative on do-gooder white liberals.

The Help was one of the most egregious offenders. Although it contains two beautiful performances from Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer, it is an Emma Stone movie -- and it was marketed as such.

The sad reality of movies like these is that they are almost always made by well-intentioned liberals. Reiner, a director who has made several films I admire, is one of the most politically outspoken progressives in Hollywood and yet he has made this same mistake before -- his film Ghosts of Mississippi, which is supposed to be about the murder of civil rights icon Medgar Evers, is almost entirely focused on the crusading white lawyer who brought his killer to justice, played by Alec Baldwin.

I am not calling for filmmakers to universally impose 2017 values on stories steeped in the past. I wouldn't watch a film about the Russian revolution and complain about the lack of diversity in it. But to act as if black Americans were largely bystanders in their quest for freedom is foolish at best and a condescending act of contempt at worse.

There are many great untold stories of heroism both big and small that deserve cinematic treatments with big stars and Oscar campaigns -- where is the Fannie Lou Hamer story, for instance? Instead, we are being asked to yet again mythologize an American president, albeit a deeply flawed one who acted out of political expediency just as often, if not more, than out of moral rectitude.

Why? Well, obviously because behind the camera and in the upper echelons of the studio infrastructure, people of color are still scarce. So you have a chorus of largely white people, who, well intentioned or not, have convinced themselves that the only way audiences will flock to see a movie about black people is when there is a white hero to root for at the center of it.

Again, perhaps LBJ is far more expansive than it appears to be and maybe it does a more-than-adequate job of elevating the voices and roles that people of color played in persuading the former president and the public to support the cause of civil rights. I certainly hope so, but I also grow tired of whitewashed takes on black stories.