When sequels attack

I think it would be fun to study the psychology of sequels. Books, TV shows, movies, video games, every entertainment medium seems to spawn copy-cats and sequels, where the owner of the original work seeks to duplicate or reduplicate their previous work.

We claim to hate them, at least as it relates to movies. But how often are book sequels good? I don't know, but does Scarlett compare to Gone With the Wind? I know it wasn't written by the same author, but I do think the point holds. That being said, sequels seem to often work out well in literature, but probably fare less well in movies and to a lesser extent video games. TV shows don't really have sequels, but they do have spin-offs, a phenomena that seem to be rarely seen in film. But in a sense, couldn't each season be seen as a sequel? to that first season? Especially seeing as how most TV seasons usually have different storylines.

We often complain about the lack of original ideas in Hollywood. Knowing this, and knowing that we seem to believe and recognize that sequels aren't usually as good as the original movie, why do we go see them? Yes, some are as good as the original, or better; Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future Part II, Spider-man 2, The Godfather, part II, all rate as some of the biggest and better sequels of all time. On a side note, does anyone else find it interesting that the rise of sequels seem to mirror the rise in blockbuster films? Obviously movie has a lot to do with it. In the summer of 2013 the film Smurfs 2 had it's entire production paid for with product placement and cross-promotions even before it opened up in theaters. [1] In such a world the actual critical reception of box office performance of a movie would seem to matter little as a determining factor for deciding when to make a sequel.

It should be no wonder, then, that the Corleone family was revisited in 1990 with The Godfather, part III, 16 years after the previous installment. Was it an unnecessary sequel? Yeah, it was. A, more or less, surefire way to make money? Probably. Bringing Al Pacino and Diane Keaton back together, trading on their massive popularity at that time, with rising star Andy Garcia representing a new generation...Why not? The only main cast member from the previous films who could have reprised his role who didn't was Robert Duvall. I get why they made this movie, and I don't criticize or condemn anyone for making it, even if it was somewhat unnecessary.

When compared to the first two movies in the Godfather series it simply fails. There's minimal continuity with the first two films and it really isn't as well made as them. The story is a little more convoluted and confusing, and while there's a sense of revenge there's no true singular opposition to our anti-heroes. In some ways, they are their biggest enemies, but if that were really true in the film they would destroy themselves, and I'm not sure that truly happened here.

This film has been constantly criticized, but few seem to remember that it was actually nominated for Best Picture at the 1991 Oscars. While that doesn't definitively mean that it is a good movie or even one of the year's five best, I think it does make a statement about the general quality of the movie, and that it was still one of that year's best films. It is an intriguing tale and continuation of the Corleone saga. In addition, Andy Garcia is very dynamic as Vincent Mancini-Corleone. He is, however, perhaps overshadowed by the travesty that is the acting of Sofia Coppola. Winona Ryder was slated to play the role of Mary Corleone, but had to drop out due to illness. [2] It was too late to postpone production so director Francis Ford Coppola went with his daughter to take over the role. I would love to say that isn't her fault, but it kind of is. Her acting was truly horrible. That being said, and I know this isn't really an easy thing to do, but if one were to completely ignore her acting as best they could, the film isn't bad. It's actually decent and above average. That's not much an endorsement, but it's something, and compared to how most people talk about this movie it's actually a ringing endorsement. I think that most of the people who revile this movie and say it's horrible haven't actually seen it.

Its reputation has certainly preceded it. While not nearly as good as the first two parts of the series, when those first two parts are individually almost universally considered to be in the top five of movies ever made, why should we be surprised if this one doesn't exactly match up? Final Score: 7.5/10

The Extent of Familial Bonds

A while back I had great pleasure of seeing Winter's Bone, the second film by Debra Granik (Down to the Bone). Let me just start out by saying that it is an amazing movie.

Jennifer Lawrence is in a star-making role as a teenaged girl (Ree Dolly) who is forced by circumstances to be the head of her household. Her mother is sick and for all intents and purposes incapacitated. Her father is a methamphetamine producer who put the deed to his home up as collateral to a bail bond agency; but he's gone missing. And he's turned rat so the rest of his meth producing family hates him and by extension his wife and three children. Ree has to produce her father and send him back to jail or the bail bond agency will take her family's house and land. The only person in her family (remember, they all think that because Ree's father was a snitch that she'd be a stool pigeon too) willing to help her is her father's brother, Teardrop (John Hawkes). At nearly every turn while investigating her father's whereabouts with her family she is stonewalled at the instruction of the family patriarch Thump Milton (Ronnie Hall).
And I don't want to ruin the ending or some of the more shocking parts, so I'll stop there.

Very stark in appearance and cinematography, it has been called an "Ozark noir." As a film noir fanatic I am somewhat protective of noirs and neo-noirs and what should be included as one. Although I think "Ozark noir" is an alright descriptor, it doesn't fit the typical noir mold. What it is, however, is a detective story through and through. She has to sift through the various branches of her family tree to get to the truth of her father's location.

As the title suggests the film takes place in the winter. There is no green. Everything is brown and barren. You see the ratty and torn winter coats. The mood is wonderfully set.

The shots are very simple; there is no flashiness here. As such it's the directing and acting that stand out. The director Debra Granik, with her second feature length film, demands much from her actors, and boy do they deliver. Three of the main actors (Lawrence, Hawkes, and Dale Dickey) may just be entering the public consciousness. Lawrence's only other major work was The Bill Engval Show, at TV sitcom for TBS; Hawkes has been around in supporting roles in several films, but may best be known for his roles on TV's Lost and Deadwood; and Dickey is best known for her work on My Name is Earl as Patty the daytime hooker.

A little bit of personal history here: I spend four years living in North Dakota. Even though I didn't live in the country, I am familiar with people who do live in the country and that some of their families have lived there for many generations. Many rural areas have, unbeknownst to many city-dwellers, very decently sized meth problems, both with cooking and with using. Another aspect that I recognized was how it seemed like everyone was related to each other. I know people from rural areas of North Dakota, towns of 500 people, and it seems like they are related to at least one quarter of the town.

Because of the the power of the characters and the strength of the performances; because of the direction, and because of the tone of the movie, I give this movie an A, or a 9.5/10.

An American Abroad

Who would have guessed that a movie called The American would be so European in character? It stars a quintessential American actor, but with a Dutch photographer as a director it shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is a callback to older espionage thrillers such as The Day of the Jackal (1973). And quite honestly, it just reminds me of 1969’s Downhill Racer. And I thoroughly enjoyed it.

George Clooney plays…well, it’s never really said out loud what his character’s profession is. Is he an assassin or a hitman? Or does he just facilitate things? The most likely answer is that he is a hitman involved in the criminal underworld. After his hiding place in Sweden is discovered he uses a contact in Italy to find a new safe house in the countryside. Everyone in the small town knows him simply as, “the American.”

As I referenced before, this is more like your father’s espionage movie. Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass may be partly or jointly responsible (with Matt Damon) for creating a new style of spy movie, and action movie in general, with the three Bourne films. We’ve all seen it. Fast cuts and hand-held “shaky” cams. Hardly any time to process what just happened before you are jetting off to a new part of the world. Its influence can clearly be seen in 2009’s The International. To contrast, it’s been said before that the real excitement is in the journey, not the destination, or that we should “stop and smell the roses.” In other words, that the tortoise beats the hare.

Undoubtedly those Bourne movies are very enjoyable and very good. I know I enjoyed them; but I’ve also always enjoyed those political and espionage thrillers from the past. They have a certain deliberateness and pacing about them. They don’t give anything away, and they make you work for the payoff. All this is present in The American.

The American is not free of clichés, one of which is its theme. I’m actually not sure if I would say that it is thematically as deep as those Bourne films. For instance, our protagonist has a butterfly tattoo (yes, a guy with a butterfly tattoo) and more than once he is called “Mr. Butterfly.” Yeah, butterflies represent something in this movie, and it doesn’t take long to guess. But that’s alright, it does what it does, and it does it well. One of the joys found in this movie is in the pacing I wrote briefly of earlier. I wouldn’t call it a slow pace, just deliberate. There are many shots of the Italian countryside and of Clooney’s car driving through it. And those shots of the Italian countryside are another one of the great things about this movie. I think that to truly enjoy this movie, one should not as concerned with the story as they are about the characters. Truly this is a character driven story and a story that is also very heavy with dialogue. By that I don’t mean that everyone is always talking; but the dialogue that is there is important. No word is wasted.

Likewise, no shot is wasted. Anton Corbijn, the director, is a photographer and music videographer by trade and directed the Ian Curtis/Joy Division music biopic Control. His cinematographer is Martin Ruhe, another person with a music video background. He also worked in the same position under Corbijn for the film Control. Music videos and commercials are short and usually fast paced, but this movie is the opposite. Although some would call the pace of the film “slow,” I prefer to say “deliberate” to avoid the negative connotations. Despite the length of the cuts, nothing is superfluous. Everything, every line, every shot, has a point and a meaning.

Another thing I found really appealing about the movie is how you don't know anything about George Clooney or his handler. We even don’t really know his name. We don’t know what jobs he’s done in the past. We don’t know who is trying to kill him and why. All we know is what we sear and hear in the present of the film.

I also like it for using Violante Placido as the prostitute with a heart of gold (another cliché); for those that don’t know, Placido is the daughter of actress Simonetta Stefanelli. Now I’m sure many of you are asking who she is. Well, I’ll tell you. Stefanelli played Apollonia Vitelli…Michael Corleone’s first wife who was tragically cut down by a car bomb in The Godfather (1972). Another great moment in the movie is when Clooney goes into a café that is playing Once Upon a Time in the West, which I consider to be Sergio Leone’s Western masterpiece. Once Upon a Time in the West is another movie that uses deliberate pacing to set the mood; and it was directed by one of Italy’s greatest: Sergio Leone, the man responsible for the Spaghetti Western and bringing Clint Eastwood out of bit Western parts and into the mainstream.

I really did enjoy this movie, and I do consider it to be one of the best of the year. I don’t mind the clichés so much because the movie is simply a solidly well made film. My final rating: 8/10.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The Audiences

What can I say about Scott Pilgrim? I don’t know what I can say. This review will be glowing. I loved it. But what else can be said? Can I even say anything to make you think that I am not just a fanboy (is that even such a bad thing?)? Well, I guess I can defend myself my saying that I saw the film without having read the graphic novels first. In fact, I didn’t even really know the movie was based on a set of graphic novels until the film was nearly released. I guess that is some defense. But I’d have to admit that in a span of several (five?) weeks after I first saw SPvTW that I had read all six graphic novels. I guess my cover is blown. So you can believe what I’m about to say or you can just dismiss it as a love letter; but I hope that you don’t. I truly believe everything I’m about to say and I do believe that I’m looking at this as objectively as I can. And be forewarned, I am going to make some pretty strong statements.

I have not yet read the graphic novel The Crow, though I have flipped through it. The Brandon Lee movie looks to be pretty faithful to the source, but having not read the source material fully I will pass on any judgment at this time. Having said all that, I believe Scott Pilgrim vs. The World to be the most faithful film adaptation of a graphic novel that I have ever seen. Wow. I know, right? It’s up against such stalwarts such as Superman, the various Batman films, Spiderman, X-Men, and the Frank Miller inspired films Sin City and 300. All but the last two probably could’ve stood on their own without the graphic novel. If we lived in a world with no Superman, and someone made the 1978 film from an original idea, I still believe that it would have been a great action movie. Can a comic book movie that stands on its own legs be a great adaption? In some ways sure, but it can lose the feel of the comic book. Sin City and 300 are interesting cases, however. Those were made specifically to replicate the look of a graphic novel on screen. And they did. But the creativity came in how the look was recreated.
The reason why I feel this is the most faithful recreation is not because it is reproduced word for word or that the scenes are exact. In fact, there are times when the dialogue said by someone in the graphic novel is said by someone else entirely in the film. And in a different part of the story. But it works. It is still funny or poignant. The original intent of that line is not lost.

The graphic novels and the movie are full of action, full of humor, and full of emotion. Sometimes the best way to cut to the core of an issue is to use humor and action. And these things use humor and action to great effect.

We’ve all been there. We’ve all broken up with someone. Sometimes it’s for dumb reasons, such as “We were in high school and she had freckles.” Other times we break up with someone because we feel it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes we are cheated on and are the dumped. And it hurts. Even when that happens to us we don’t always realize that we’ve done similar things to others and hurt them too. Sometimes we let our ego get in our own way, and other times we realize that someone is worth the fight.

Ultimately, this, like the graphic novels before it, is just a different interpretation of video games. One of the many successes of this project is the style in which it was completed. Before each “boss battle” there is a “versus” shot that is reminiscent of Virtua Fighter or Tekken games. Scott receives points and coins for each boss and baddie that he defeats. Zelda is referenced to on several occasions. Japanese animation is also referenced in this movie, also to great effect. The fight scenes are superbly choreographed (even the always nerdy looking Jonathan Schwartzmann gets into the act) and the soundtrack is an important part of the movie. More on style, whenever the drummer for Scott’s band yells the cadence “One! Two! Three! Four!” you see text above her. That’s just one example of things found in the movie, and another reminds me of Star Wars. In those classic George Lucas films, whenever two lightsabers met in battle there was a brief flash of light inserted into the frame. It was imperceptible yet drew attention to the fight that was occurring. A similar thing happens when to combatants meet in this movie.

Some have criticized the movie for playing to a younger crowd. I honestly don’t think this is true. Most of the video game and pop culture references will be beyond the experiences of today’s teens and it’s my opinion that most of those references will be understood best by those in their late twenties or in their thirties. It pays tribute to arcade and 8-bit games more than any young person today could recognize.

In my opinion, this is Edgar Wright’s best film. It’s his pièce de résistance. Although all of his works have drawn heavily on other sources, this is the only one that is truly based on something else. Yet it feels like it original. Yes, many of the costumes and set pieces and obviously dialogue and stories are drawn from the novels; but he did not slavishly recreate scenes or dialogue. He made it his own. In many ways taking something that already exists and making it your own is more difficult than creating something new. What more can I saw about this movie except that it rocked my world?

Well, I told you that I loved this movie; maybe too much to be objective about it. But that’s OK. If you can’t geek out once in a while then what’s the point?
My rating is 10/10. That’s right. Full score. I admittedly think that it is the best movie I’ve seen this year.

I'm back!

So I'm back! Well, sort of. The last time I used this site was a long 7 months ago during the Oscars. I'm going to do my best to write reviews for several movies that I've seen in the past few months. Unfortunately I'll be having to do this in my spare time. And there are a few movies I'd like to see this week. The first is Let Me In. It's down to one showing in my town. One. It won't be around next week. Too bad it's at 10:00pm. I work a normal job, getting up at a 6am and getting to bed at 1am can be kind of rough if I need to get up in the morning. But I know it won't be playing past Thursday. I also need to go to Kimball's Peak Three Theater to see Never Let Me Go. I don't think it will be back next week. So I'll have to try and catch Let Me In on Wednesday and Never Let Me Go on Thursday.

The movies that I need to review are as follows:
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Honestly, I'm not sure if I should. I loved it so much on a personal level that I'm not sure I can look at it rationally.
Winter's Bone
Going the Distance
Devil
Easy A
I Am Love
The Social Network

I've also seen The Town in that time, and others on DVR and DVD, and I may hit those, but my first priorities are those first seven (Nine if you include the two I hope to see in theaters this week, and Paranormal Activity 2, which I'd like to see, but not this week).

You could tell that Tom Hanks was up against a time crunch there.

Congratulations to Katherine Bigelow for becoming the FIRST woman to win the Academy's Best Director award. Cool thing is, I know her ex-husband James Cameron is as proud of her as anyone could be.