Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Retro Trio, Halloween Trilogy: Halloween (1978); Halloween II (1981); Halloween III: The Season of the Witch (1982)

I usually don't go into "horror mode" during this time of year, but this autumn seemed to be an exception. Along with other horror flicks like The Babadook and 1408, I've been scratching an itch to watch some horror films, older and more modern, alike. This has included going back and watching the first three Halloween movies, all of which I had seen but not in many, many years.

The "Look out he's right there!!" tactic of suspenseful film
making can be effective for a little while, but I grow bored
with it extremely quickly.
Halloween (1978)

Director: John Carpenter

I'll likely catch some flak for this, but Halloween is just mediocre to me.

If you're unfamiliar with the story, it tracks the disturbing tale of Michael Myers, who brutally and for no apparent reason killed his older sister when he was a mere six years old. After being locked in a mental institution for fifteen years, Myers escapes and returns to his home town, where he begins to act out his dark fixation with his sister's death again, this time on the local high schoolers. In particular, he stalks Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), a bright and kindly senior who has no idea of Myers's twisted interest in her or his relentless psychopathy. Trying to chase down Myers is Doctor Loomis (Donald Pleasance), Myers's psychiatrist, who feels that Myers in an inhuman monster, completely beyond any sort of rehabilitation.

In watching this movie again, I can't help but feel that time has worn down its effect considerably. In its day, it was a great example of how suspense and dread can be built around a simple idea and some competent direction, despite very limited financial constraints. John Carpenter and Debra Hill put together a screenplay based on the basic premise of a murderous, eerily silent psychopath on the loose in a quiet, tranquil suburban neighborhood. They also used sparing narration about Myers himself, keeping him a nearly complete enigma as to his twisted motivations and homicidal compulsions. The movie also does a nice job in creating the setting, with an authentic small town and fairly realistic, everyday kinds of characters acting the ways that they might in real life, even if the dialogue and acting can be a tad clunky at times. The general feeling, though, does help ratchet up the stakes fairly well.

The simple, non-descript look of the murderous Myers reflects
many of the movie's key components. A killer who is as blank
 a slate as any movie killer has ever been. It also speaks to the
straighforward style of the movie.
All the same, the very simplicity which Carpenter used so effectively also made the movie very easy to mimic in the years to come. By now, nearly forty years later, the concept of the "inhuman, mute psycho killer" has long since been played out. Even this original doesn't offer much by way of explanation of Myers's deeper psyche. Loomis is an effective character in building some sense of Myers's monstrous nature, but I feel that it could have gone even deeper and more disturbing, perhaps through just one or two anecdotes. For me, it's not enough for Loomis just to say, over and over, that Myers is "pure evil." I don't need a complete psychoanalysis of the guy, but at least one or two recollections of what Loomis has seen in his fifteen years working with the killer that made Loomis come to the conclusion that Myers is nto just a hopeless case but a complete abomination.

Then there is the scare factor. I suppose I've never much been one for jump scares, and Halloween relies on this element more than a few times. Admittedly, it does also have plenty of still, creepy imagery, with Myers simply standing in the middle of a street, wearing that iconic white mask, staring at future victims. Or even longer shots of him slowly stalking around the neighborhood. These sequences actually work quite well, though the effect wears of by movie's end. It also doesn't help that this is an approach that has been used, reused, and imitated countless times in the years since Halloween came out.

So the original quite simply doesn't do much for me. I know that this movie still has many loyal and dedicated fans, so there is clearly something still chilling and effective about it for those who keep going back to it again and again. It apparently just is not my kind of horror movie, though.


Most of Myers's many victims in the sequel are devoid of any
real personality to speak of. This keeps the stakes rather low
for much of the movie, with those slain being little more than
cardboard cutouts.
Halloween II (1981)

Director: Rick Rosenthal

Though I wasn't dazzled by my rewatching of the original, I was committed to watching all three of the first Halloween films, so I sallied forth into the first sequel.

Though made and released three years after the first film, the story picks up quite literally where the original stopped. Myers has vanished after being shot multiple times by Doctor Loomis, and Laurie is taken to the local hospital to recover from her injuries at the hands of Myers. While the police and Loomis frantically search for Myers, the killer makes his way to the hospital where Laurie is being kept. As Myers eventually breaks into the hospital and methodically slays the staff, on his way to Laurie, we eventually learn that Laurie is actually Myers's younger sister. She had been adopted after the young Michael had been institutionalized, but now her older brother is after her in an attempt to once again act out his killing of their elder sister fifteen years earlier.

For what it is, Halloween II does just fine. Personally, though, it only served to confirm what I felt after watching the original - that this brand of horror movie just isn't my favorite. I do appreciate that the story adds just a little bit more back story to Myers, without spoiling the enigma of his evil nature with too much information. And the change in setting to a silent hospital ward at night was a wise move, offering a change of pace to the suburban neighborhood.

On the whole, though, the sequel is a slightly paler continuation of the original. It doesn't help that star Jamie Lee Curtis is barely a presence. She's knocked out in a hospital bed for the first hour or so of the movie. When she does eventually become mobile, it is only barely so, making her a forgettable character in many ways. There is also the odd character Jimmy, the handsome young EMT who immediately takes a shine to Laurie, who for whatever reason, quickly returns his playful affections, despite the fact that she is completely traumatized and doesn't know the first thing about him. And Jimmy's reactions to discovering slashed corpses around the hospital is almost hilariously subdued. As if Jimmy weren't enough, we also get his sleazebag partner, Budd, the tactless, oversexed jerk who is all about sleeping with one of the nurses. True to the already-established trope of the genre, these two get killed by Myers the moment they decide to get naked. This was just one of the many "how will this one get killed?" marks that Halloween II uses as its basic formula. Again, this is a type of movie that I lost interest in decades ago, so this sequel did very little to hold my interest.

So on I went to the third of the trilogy. Third in name, though not at all in story continuity.


Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

Director: Tommy Lee Wallace

In a highly risky and unprecedented move, the third Halloween movie broke completely from the story of the original two and presented its own thoroughly independent tale. It follows Doctor Daniel Challis as he slowly uncovers a hideous plot about to unfold on Halloween night. About a week before Halloween, a raving and injured patient is brought into Challis's hospital, where he is later killed by an immensely powerful assassin who then kills himself. Challis starts doing some detective work, with the help of the murdered man's daughter, and they trace the clues to the Silver Shamrock novelty company headquarters in Santa Mira, California. There, they discover that the town in completely dominated by the oversight of Silver Shamrock's founder, Conal Cochran. They also soon learn that Cochran, inspired by ancient pagan traditions of sacrifice on All Hallow's Eve, has imbued Silver Shamrock's millions of children's Halloween masks with occult magic. This spell will activate when children watch the company's commercial while watching the mask, thus killing them in grisly fashion, even turning their bodies into insects and reptiles. Challis manages to destroy the Silver Shamrock factory and seemingly the sinister Cochran. The film ends with Challis frantically calling the TV stations to get the commercial taken off the air; two of them pull the ad, but the third is still running when the movie ends.

This may be a bit odd, but despite this movie's many obvious flaws, I actually liked it more than the original two movies. The main reason is that I really enjoy the plot, which I find to be a rather creative one with a bit of sly social commentary. I also find the ending highly disturbing, just as a true horror tale should be. When I look at the main story arc, I think the mystery elements were done very well, with the strange deaths and gradual uncovering of clues not all coming together until the final act. Several of the deaths are also quite striking, with the most horrifying being the reveltaion about what the Silver Shamrock masks will do to the children, as we see happen to the young child Little Buddy, who is reduced to a pile of crawling roaches and snakes. I even like the notion of Cochran's button-down army and factory staff being composed of soulless androids. It may seem a bit too science-fiction for a horror tale, but it somehow had a logic that fit within the larger theme.

When we finally see exactly what the novelty masks are going
to do to the millions of children wearing them, it is a
genuinely horrifying scene. There aren't many overly gruesome
deaths in this movie, but a couple of them leave an impession.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention that John Carpenter's music score benefits this third movie as much, if not more than, any of the original trilogy of films. While his score for the first two quickly became iconic, I found his score for this third one just as evocative. Maybe even moreso, utilizing the synthesizer in more subdued ways than the sharp piano picking of the original theme.

The movie does have its obvious shortcomings. The dialogue is pretty awful in places. And the acting is shaky much of the time (although the key roles by Tom Atkins and Dan O'Herlihy are played extremely well). The romance between Dr. Challis and Ellie is completely forced and really had no place in the movie whatsoever, beyond an attempt to appeal to base sentimentality or sexual titilation. And there are a ton of little details, or lack thereof, that one could nitpick. But I didn't find that any of these oversights ever torpedo the main plot or the commentary on consumer culture.

This story probably would have been much stronger if two things had happened: one is that it hadn't presented itself as a "Halloween" movie. A little research shows that this was clearly why a large number of fans and critics back in 1982 had a problem with it - they came thinking they were getting the next chapter in the Michael Myers story, only to get a completely unrelated tale instead. The second is that it would have probably worked better as a 45-50-minute TV show, in the the vein of The Twilight Zone, Tales from the Darkside, Tales from the Crypt or some similar program. If they couldn't punch up the dialogue or iron out the many little plot oversights, then streamlining it would have done the story wonders.

I doubt that I'll be going back to watch any of these movies again, since I didn't find any of them to be spectacular horror films. Still, the third is the one that had always stayed with me since I first saw it nearly thirty years ago, and it is the one which I still enjoy the most.


An Outside Commentary

While doing a bit of research, I came across this little article, published on comicbook.com only about a week ago. It argues that, on the whole, the thing that weakened the Halloween series over time was the presence of Michael Myers himself. I actually agrees with much of what the author posits, especially how Myers's very nature was only going to make him interesting for one or two movies. The thing that makes him a bit compelling - the very mystery around his motivation and the utter lack of a personality - could only carry a tale so far. This is probably why I became rather bored with the movies, though I did so much more quickly than the original two films' ardent fans. 

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Marvel Cinematic Universe Villain Countdown

I just recently watched Spider-Man: Homecoming again, and Michael Keaton's memorable turn as the movie's villain got me thinking over the different adversaries which we've been offered in the many films and TV shows of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). It's hardly controversial to suggest that, as well as the MCU has handled certain elements of their shows, their villains haven't been one them.

When it comes to superhero tales, whether in comic books, TV, or movies, the villains have the potential to be just as interesting as the hero. Alternatively, they can also just be dull punching bags for the protagonists to unload their powers upon. When I consider how "interesting" a villain is, I'm not considering their raw power, so this ranking is not meant as my sense of which characters could defeat the others in a fight. Rather, I'm considering how compelling they are, based upon their back stories and how they are presented in these particular movies or TV shows. Of course, any superpowers they may have can be part of the equation, but to me this always takes a back seat to their motivations and other characteristics. Another part of my thinking here is also how much wit and cunning they may have, as I find those traits much more fascinating than sheer physical strength. This can depend upon the writers, to be sure, but that is part of what can make or break any character.

As a brief explanation, I count that there have, up to this point, 33 different "main" villains in the MCU. While some movies have a single, clear-cut, main adversary, there are a few of the shows in which there are two and even three foremost villains. I am dividing them into "films" and "TV shows," since by nature the TV shows have more time for character development, giving them a fairly significant advantage in this department. For the TV shows, I am only listing the main villains who were the primary adversaries for the heroes throughout most or all of a particular season. For example, I'm not including Mr. Hyde from season 2 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. since he eventually broke good by season's end. In only one case is the "adversary" a somewhat nebulous group. So here they are, each with a little explanation:

TV Show Villains


The would-be Moon non-Inhuman, Inhuman conqueror,
Maximus. One of the vey few completely flubbed TV show
villains.
#17: Maximus: Inhumans, season 1

I know this show still has a couple of episodes to go, but I'm confident that my perception won't change. Like nearly everything about Inhumans, Maximus is lame. I don't even lay this one in any way at the feet of actor Iwan Rheon, who seems to be trying. This one, like everything about this series, was severely weakened by half-baked writing, which permeated everything about this show's plot, characters, and dialogue. There was actually a semi-compelling blueprint at work for Maximus, as the powerless member among an Inhuman royal family who all have extraordinary superpowers. Alas, a sloppy and unengaging narrative took any potential wind out of the sails that this character may have had.

#16: Harold Meachum - Iron Fist, season 1

I blame this one on sloppy and/or lazy writing. Over the course of the 13 episodes of the initial season of Iron Fist, Harold Meachum never hit any consistent stride for me. It didn't help that he was yet another "white businessman who wants to take control of things" when this had already been done several times. On top of that, though, he was ineffectual and showed little coherence from one episode, and sometimes from one scene, to the next. I wasn't much of a fan of Iron Fist in general, and Meachum being the primary adversary was a big part of it. His "finale" fight with Danny Rand in the final episode is easily the lamest and most nonsensical final showdown of any MCU product to date.

#15: Johann Fennhoff/Doctor Faustus - Agent Carter, season 1

A sinister manipulator, Fennhoff wasn't exactly well-rounded, evoking no sympathy from us viewers. However, as an unassuming old doctor, he was able to trick, con, and bend other strong characters to his will, making him a villain worthy of a certain respect and ire. It was satisfying seeing him taken down by Peggy and her colleagues at the SSR.

#14: Willis Stryker/Diamondback - Luke Cage, season 1

One of several villains whose potential was not reached. Stryker, a.k.a. Diamondback, was teased for much of the first season of Luke Cage, but was ultimately just an angry dude with some big guns and a powersuit. Being Luke Cage's half brother gave him a little more character, but when he emerges as Cage's main adversary, he's made a bit too crazy and even zany to take overly seriously. This was one whose buildup was far greater than the final product, and he wasn't helped by the fact that he was meant to be a bigger, badder, scarier villain than the guy for whom he took over, Cornell "Cottonmouth" Stokes, who was much more interesting.

Her tortured backstory gave her some weight and a dash of
sympathy, but Jiaying was never an overly compelling
villain during her run on Agents of SHIELD.
#13: Jiaying - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., season 2

An immortal who kept herself alive by sucking the life force out of others, Jiaying was driven by pure revenge. After being tortured and experimented upon by HYDRA scientists, her rage was understandable, making her a more developed character. Still, once her backstory was revealed a bit, she became less compelling, and I could only see her as a vengeful character who had lost all connection to humanity. It became rather dull by the end, and she had no other curious powers to spark any further interest.

#12: The Hand & its "Fingers," Madame Gao, Nobu, etc. - Daredevil, seasons 1 & 2; The Defenders, season 1

This group of shadowy ninja and the sometimes-rotating leadership of its "Fingers" has had potential to be more compelling, but it hasn't quite gotten there for me. Through the first two seasons of Daredevil and the recent initial season of The Defenders, it was a long, slow build towards their nefarious plan to unearth a bunch of dragon bones in order to gain vast powers, even beyond those of immortality which many of its members already possess. Still, the army of ninja itself is rather dull, while its quintet of leaders have been somewhat underwhelming, despite showing some promise from time to time.

#11: Mariah Dillard - Luke Cage, season 1

Another villain with no super powers or gadgetry to convey physical prowess of any sort, Dillard was the political arm of the crime empire co-run by her half brother, Cornell Stokes. Mariah shared much of Stokes's difficult upbringing, which gives her a certain amount of sympathy as a character. She is also a hard-as-nails, clever survivor, making her formidable in her way, despite not being much of a physical threat.

#10: Hive - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., season 3

Hive was one of the more interesting villains, given its power and the fact that it was using the corpse of Grant Ward as its husk on earth. The mystery building up to its true nature was well-executed, and its position as a would-be ruler over Inhumans was also a rather novel concept for the MCU. Its ability to take over and control any Inhuman made it truly frightening, though it was ultimately a purely villainous force. By evoking no real sympathy, it remained limited in just how interesting it could have been as a villain.

Whitney Frost, who I feel had the potential to actually be #1
on this list. With just a dash more imagination and some
tighter writing on season 2 of Agent Carter, she could have
been the most fascinating villain in the MCU TV shows.
#9: Whitney Frost - Agent Carter, season 2

Of the many underserved villains in the MCU, I feel that Whitney Frost was perhaps done the greatest disservice. There was a lot of untapped potential in this character, and the writers only scratched the surface with her. She was a brilliant scientist who, like many women in the Agent Carter world, was underestimated and ignored simply because of her gender. When she merges with the sinister Dark Matter, she becomes frighteningly powerful, even if she can't completely control it. Alas, I felt that her story came to a rather flat ending. With some slightly better writing and a little more imagination, Frost could have been one of, if not the, most interesting villain in the MCU TV shows.

#8: Wilson Fisk/The Kingpin - Daredevil, seasons 1 & 2

Wilson Fisk's story is still unfolding, but the Daredevil series has done him decent justice. I still think that they haven't done the greatest job filling in the gaps of how he went from seemingly-dull, impoverished Hell's Kitchen schlub to and immensely shrewd, dominating, and physically powerful crime lord. I've also never enjoyed the Mommy issues that reared their head in the first season of Daredevil. I expect Kingpin to be beyond such obvious sore spots and be a bit more of a force of sinister nature. I must also admit that I've never completely loved the casting of Vincent D'Onofrio, though this is based mostly on my feeling that he doesn't have the genuinely powerful physique which I hope for in the Kingpin.

#7: Cornell Stokes/Cottonmouth - Luke Cage, season 1

Probably the most surprising plot turn in any Netflix MCU show was seeing Cornell Stokes get killed. It had great impact since I never saw it coming when it did, and he had by then become a very well-developed, strong, and fairly deep character. Not to mention that he had been played so wonderfully by the brilliant Mahershala Ali. Stokes was a self-made made who came from a very rough background but had risen to local power in Harlem through his influence in the criminal and entertainment worlds. When Stokes was taken out, I saw it as a gutsy move by the writers, thinking that an even better villain would take his place. Unfortunately, I was wrong, with Willis "Diamondback" Stryker not being nearly as well-rounded as Stokes.

#6: Elektra Natchios - Daredevil, season 2; The Defenders, season 1

Elektra could be at the top of this list with some slightly tighter writing. She is compelling as an intrinsically homicidal killing machine, who has been trained as a world-class fighter and even brought back to life by the nefarious Hand. Elodie Yung plays the part well, even though I still don't totally buy her physical fighting prowess as a one-woman army. Her entire love/hate, redemption/damnation themes with Matt Murdock haven't completely gripped me the way that I think the writers would like, though the potential is still there.

Far from the most physically imposing,
Kilgrave was the most frightening and
depraved villain we've yet seen.
#5: Kevin Thompson/Kilgrave - Jessica Jones, season 1

Kilgrave was easily one of, if not the, scariest and creepiest of MCU villains, TV show or film. His power to convince anyone to do anything simply by telling them to do so it scary enough, but when added to his complete lack of morals and thoroughly depraved self-absorption, it made for a terrifying adversary. The only thing that keeps him a bit lower on this list for me is that he was almost too completely villainous. Yes, we get some backstory about how he was tortured by his parents, probably leading to his warped view of the world. Still, he remains thoroughly repugnant, and there is never much question as to what Jessica Jones needs to do to put Kilgrave's terror spree to an end.

#4: Brad Garrett - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., season 1

This guy was just plain fun. One of the higher-ranking HYDRA sleeper agents posing in SHIELD, Garrett helped really screw over Agent Coulson and the gang. And he had a great time doing it. Played to a perfectly mischievous tee by the legendary Bill Paxton (R.I.P.), Garrett smirked and wise-cracked his way through stabbing a ton of people in the back, and it was immense fun watching him do it. He was only in about a half dozen episodes, but he made an indelible impression.

#3: Grant Ward - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., seasons 1, 2, & 3

Grant Ward had a really interesting arc. From trusted SHIELD agent to traitor, his story was a surprising and compelling aspect of the show's first season. And while it becomes clear by that first season's end that Ward was a thoroughly warped individual, the writers often suggested that there just might have been some slim chance at redemption within him. Such was not the case, but the possibility made Ward more fascinating, along with his immense skill as a secret agent and combatant.

#2: AIDA/Ophelia - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., season 4

One of the stronger, more unique villains, AIDA was a life model decoy which attained self-awareness and really have the SHIELD agents a run for their money. Initially designed as a prototype android to house a brilliant scientist's visionary artificial intelligence, AIDA came into contact with the occult book The Darkhold, imbuing her with not only a vastly new perspective of the universe but also a sense of self. This origin story alone makes her a curious figure, but the way that she puts the entire SHIELD team through the wringer was pretty epic. And she/it actually becomes a bit sympathetic in a few ways, as cold and brutal as she can be much of the time.

Who would guess that this be-
sweatered sweetheart is one of the
toughest, most ruthless and lethal
assassins in the MCU?
#1: Dottie Underwood - Agent Carter, seasons 1 & 2

Dottie is another character who, while not a heavy hitter, had more character and novelty than most villains in the MCU. Like her heroic counterpart, Peggy Carter, Dottie is in many ways a product of the rampant chauvinism and misogyny that thoroughly dominated the world around them in the post-World War II era. While Peggy fought against this as much as possible, the lethal Underwood used it to her distinct advantage, and she was a really fun villain to watch go to work. I enjoyed that we can see her as what Natasha Romanov/Black Widow would have been if she had remained a ruthless assassin.


Movie Villains

Note: I'm not including "The Mandarin," Trevor Slattery, even though he is initially put forth as a villain in Iron Man 3. Since he is revealed as a fraud, I don't count him (though I loved that plot twist and Ben Kingsley's hilarious portrayal of the drugged-out, washed up actor). 

#18: Justin Hammer - Iron Man 2

What makes me angry about this one is that the phenomenal actor Sam Rockwell played the role. And as good an all-around actor as he is, the Justin Hammer character defies explanation. Hammer is supposed to be a weapons designer and manufacturer somewhere on the same level as the brilliant Tony Stark. And yet he doesn't do a single thing right in Iron Man 2 and is purely a buffoon. They could have done far better with him than relegate him to purely comic relief.

The Destroyer. Fairly cool in terms of destructive power, but
there was absolutely nothing beyond that.
#17: The Destroyer - Thor

Even though it was really Loki pulling its strings, I'm including The Destroyer since it did square off against Thor and his companions in the final act of the original movie. It had a cool look and a few interesting abilities, but it was basically just a mute, Gort-like killing machine. Not much to sink your teeth into there.

#16: Ronan the Accuser - Guardians of the Galaxy, vol. 1

This guy was as dull as they come. Just an angry, super powerful figure who simply wants to destroy things. The movie does allude to a potentially interesting motivation for his anger, but it never delves into it in any way that makes Ronan more interesting.

#15: Malekith - Thor: The Dark World

Similar to Ronan, Malekith is a one-note character who is basically out to destroy the world. We do get a touch more backstory than with Ronan, in how his race of dark elves was nearly eradicated by Odin, but Malekith himself never becomes more than another angry, would-be world-destroyer.

#14: Emil Blonsky/The Abomination - The Incredible Hulk

There was potential for more with this soldier-turned-rage monster, given his decorated military history, but it was mostly fumbled or ignored. What we got was basically just the "bad" version of the Hulk here - a huge, gnarly creature with immense physical strength that could have a huge wrestling match with the Hulk in downtown New York City.

"I know this plan completely failed for Obadiah Stane, but I
think I can make it work!"
#13: Darren Cross/Yellowjacket - Ant-Man

By the time Ant-Man hit the screens, the Darren Cross character blueprint had been stale for a while: a smart, calculating, white guy with a sharp wardrobe and an ax to grind. He really is basically just another clone of Obadiah Stane from the very first MCU film, Iron Man. He uses a suit similar to the hero, in an effort to take over a large corporation. He's also portrayed as overly sleazy and petulant right from the start, making him less compelling.

#12: Obadiah Stane/The Iron Monger - Iron Man

Thanks to some decent writing and a typically solid performance by Jeff Bridges, Stane becomes slightly more interesting than some villains in the MCU, but he was still never totally fleshed out. His motivation for usurping the Stark Company never goes beyond base greed, and just why he thought the final solution was using a giant metal suit to kill Tony is an insult to a character who, up until the final act, was supposed to be extremely intelligent.

#11: Ivan Vanko/Whiplash - Iron Man 2

While Mickey Rourke perhaps didn't do this character too many favors with his odd portrayal of him, Vanko was at least a bit more curious than several other MCU villains. He actually had a clear motivation beyond mere power acquisition, and he was quite intelligent and even physically imposing, even without his arc-reactor whips. Having a shadowy background from grimy back alleys in Russia, he made a curious counterpoint to the born-into-wealth Tony Stark. The writers could have done more with him, but opted to shoehorn in the goofy Justin Hammer character, unfortunately.

Dormammu is likely the most powerful adversary we've seen
in the MCU, even if there's not much else to it as a character.
#10: Dormammu - Doctor Strange

Something of a force of cosmic nature, Dormammu isn't much different from would-be world-destroyers like Ronan or Malekith. The only thing that elevates him is that his nature is on such a massive scale and of such a bizarre, supernatural bent that it becomes a bit more novel. To this point, we haven't seen an adversary with as much raw destructive power as Dormammu, even though there doesn't seem to be anything more to it.

#9: Kaecilius - Doctor Strange

Another villain who had more potential than was actually tapped in the movie. He was the first "occult" villain to really emerge in the MCU, and seemed to be a decent adversary for Doctor Stephen Strange. He was clearly a highly skilled practitioner of the mystic arts, and there is some semblance of a motivation springing from some sort of loss in Kaecilius's background. Ultimately, though, he is just a fantatic. And fanatics, just like Ronan the Accuser, are generally pretty boring. Another semi-waste of a great actor in Mads Mikkelson.

#8: Johann Schmidt/The Red Skull - Captain America: The First Avenger

The Red Skull was basically another fanatic, but at least he was an intelligent and capable one. I found it interesting that he was not only a powerful leader but one who embraced the occult to a point that it led him to the Terreract. He was also the original recipient of the Super Soldier Serum which gave Steve Rogers his considerable physical abilities. Schmidt didn't really have too many dimensions to him, but I found him a worthy adversary for Captain America.

#7: Alexander Pierce: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Pierce has a curious place on this list, being one of the very few villains who has no superpowers, physical prowess, or advanced personal weaponry. He was purely a political figure, but one whose political power and allegiance to HYDRA put him at the center of one of the biggest shakeups in MCU history. Pierce was obviously extremely intelligent and deceptive, and he even made a few compelling arguments for his worldview. As far as comic book villains go, he was imposing in his own way, though not nearly as frightening as certain others on the list.

Though not much of a "front and center" villain,
I appreciated Killian's intellectual and physical
abilities, along with his cunning.
#6: Aldridge Killian - Iron Man 3

The third Iron Man is maybe the most divisive MCU film, due in no small part to the "Mandarin" bait-and-switch plot twist (I loved it, by the way). The man really pulling the strings, though, Aldridge Killian, was actually a fairly interesting villain. Spurred on by a combination of revenge and spite, Killian transforms himself from a smart but frail scientist with almost no confidence into a bio-engineering mogul who, secretly, has imbued himself with considerable powers of strength, regeneration, and even fire breath. He is, unfortunately, yet another villain who lacks much sympathy, but the combination of attributes and his backstory elevate him above many other similar MCU villains.

#5: Ego, the Living Planet - Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2

Next to Dormammu, Ego is the most powerful villain we've seen in the MCU. But he also had a rather fun and curious backstory, with its connections to Peter "Starlord" Quill. Yes, the plot to basically homogenize the entire galaxy into versions of himself is yet another tale of a world-devouring cosmic entity, but there was something of a human touch brought to the character, thanks to some decent writing and a great performance by the legendary Kurt Russell.

#4: Helmut Zemo - Captain America: Civil War

One of my more controversial picks, perhaps, but I thought Helmut Zemo one of the most impressive villains in the MCU. As one of the few adversaries without any sort of superpower or even any high-tech gadgetry, this former Sokovian black operative single-handedly drove a massive wedge between nearly all of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" through surgical planning and immense patience. While his motivation was basically one of revenge for losing his entire family during the Avengers' fight against Ultron, there's actually a bit of pathos to the man. It helped that he was played wonderfully by Daniel Bruhl, and I hope that the character is utilized in the future.

#3: Adrian Toomes/The Vulture - Spider-Man: Homecoming

Many may disagree with my high placement of The Vulture on this list, but I think he's one of the most well-rounded villains in the entire MCU, and arguably the most well-rounded of all of the movie villains. Unlike nearly all others, Toomes is a street-level guy with cunning, guts, and a perfect sense of exactly who he is and where his place is in the MCU world - a lower-tier guy who can stay under the radar with his criminal dealings and support his beloved family. The character was well-conceived, executed, and played brilliantly by Michael Keaton.

#2: Ultron - The Avengers: Age of Ultron

The movie in which he is introduced has its flaws, but I still think Ultron is one of the most imposing, creative villains in the MCU. His origin as an amalgam of alien artificial intelligence and Tony Stark's JARVIS A.I. was certainly creative. The first time I watched the movie, I found Ultron's weird sarcasm and personality quirks confusing and off-putting, but once I realized that they were a warped version of Tony Stark's personality, it made more sense and made the character more intriguing. Add in his physical strength, ability to send his consciousness nearly anywhere on earth, and his unhinged plan to wipe out much of humanity, and you had a villain to be reckoned with.

Loki's MCU incarnation has lived up
to the legend better than any other
villain in the universe.
#1: Loki - Thor; The Avengers

The very best we've yet seen. Loki is exceptionally cunning, strong, and is one of the most well-rounded and charismatic of all MCU villains, thanks in no small part to consistently entertaining performances by Tom Hiddleston. With his background as second-fiddle, adopted brother to the more glamorous Thor, Loki has a long-burning jealousy and hatred of his more beloved adoptive sibling. His dynamic with his family is downright Shakespeareian, and Hiddleston conveys Loki's scheming and charisma brilliantly, which is probably why he's been brought back again and again. To this point, he is really the only true "wild card" among MCU villains, who could switch to either side in a blink, and whom we can root for or against with equal enthusiasm. That's no mean feat.

So there they are - my thoughts on MCU villainy. One observation I had while putting this list together is how much more diverse the villains have been in the TV shows. Out of the 17 main villains, six have been women and three have been African-American (with Mariah Dillard being both). That's opposed to the films, where there hasn't been one single human (or even humanoid) villain out of the 15 possibilities who wasn't a white guy. That's about to change in the next few MCU flicks Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, and 2019's Captain Marvel. It's long overdue, to be sure, and it'll be nice to see more variety.

All told, there have been a few solid baddies in MCU, but this is probably the one main area that Marvel can step up its game. They've pretty well nailed the superhero fantasy aesthetic, fun tone, and heroic characters with impressive consistency. If they can only get deeper and more imaginative with their villains, then we fans of the movies and shows will have some real classics to feast upon.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Before You Die #618: A Throw of Dice (1930)

This is the 618th film that I've now seen out of the 1,199 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.much 

Original Hindi Title: Prapancha Pash

Director: Franz Osten

A rather fun, relatively light drama with a distinctively mythic feel. It doesn't break new narrative or acting ground, but the visual merits are noteworthy.

A Throw of Dice tells the story of two cousin kings living during an unspecified medieval period in India. The elder cousin, the greedy King Sohat, attempts to take over the kingdom of his younger, more handsome cousin, King Ranjit. Through assassinations and other underhanded tricks, Sohat very nearly manages to make a pauper out of Ranjit, as well as taking his beloved Sunita. In the end though, Sohat's various deceptions are revealed, he is defeated by Ranjit's supporters, and Ranjit takes back his kingdom.

The movie has plenty of plot swings, and they come off very much like a condensed soap opera. The pace is fun and brisk, and Sohat makes for a despicabble enough villain to make his demise rather satisfying. The characters are rather one-dimensional, though, with the only real complexity coming from the fact that the otherwise-amiable King Ranjit has a compulsion for gambling. This is what brings him to the very brink of total ruin, although everything does work out in the end. In this way, the movie comes off as a standard cautionary tale that one might tell children, making its appeal a bit more limited than a more nuanced story might hold.

Compared to contemporary films, A Throw of Dice feels rather lavish and exotic, not unlike The Thief of Baghdad. It isn't going to dazzle modern viewers used to much more advanced visuals, but for its time, this movie stood out. I have to think that it had a certain allure to those interested in foreign regions, as such places and customs were simply not seen in moving pictures much at the time. In fact, there are even a few documentary-style sequences which have nothing to do with plot and are presumably put into the film to simply amaze viewers who hadn't seen such footage of elephant riders, snake charmers, and other bizarre figures whom they had only read about or seen still photos of.

A Throw of Dice is a breezy, easily accessible affair from the silent era. It like a silent, black and white version of an extended parable. It won't challenge your values, and it won't expand your views of the world or humanity, but it can entertain your for its concise 75-minute run time.

That's 618 movies down. Only 581 to go before I can die.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Retro Duo: Idiocracy (2006); The Babadook (2014)

Idiocracy (2006)

Director: Mike Judge

Flawed but still funny, semi-forgotten work by one of the great comic minds of our generation.

Mike Judge has a rather singular place in American humor. As the creative mind behind Beavis and Butthead, King of the Hill, and the more modern Silicon Valley, he has shown to be a distinctive voice by tapping into elements endemic to recent generations of the denizens of the U.S. and mining them for comic gold again and again. He also gave us Office Space, the cult hit that to this day, nearly two decades after its release, is perhaps the defining parody of cubicle culture.

Back in 2006, Judge wrote and directed Idiocracy, which was something of a departure from his comfort zones. Instead of lampooning dumbed-down pop culture or office hell, he went for a full-on satire in the form of future dystopia. The story follows Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson), a completely average guy (yes, this makes him an "Average Joe." Get it?) who happily does his meaningless job as an army librarian. Joe is selected for a military experiment in suspended animation, along with a prostitute, Rita (Maya Rudolph), which goes awry and leads to Joe and Rita emerging from their cocoons 500 years into the future. When they awake, they find that the world has been overrun by all of the worst elements of human nature, turning earth into a nightmare of corporate ubiquity and a population too stupid to deal with even the simplest problems. The previously-average Joe, however, is now literally the smartest man in the world, leading the population to turn to him to solve all of their many massive problems.

Joe rides along with President Camacho's cabinet/entourage.
The notion that the highest position in the land is held by the
brashest, most ultra-macho trash-talker isn't such a stretch.
The movie is a fun watch, despite the fact that it noticeably loses steam in its second and third acts. The first ten or fifteen minutes feature some great comic dialogue and typically hilarious Mike Judge-type gags. Once Joe awakes in the hellishly dysfunctional future, there is still plenty of hilarious commentary on the more negative trends towards homogenization, oversexualization, and commercialization that we see today. Hospital nurses who are using a fast-food style picture board to admit patients. An entire TV channel dedicated to watching a guy get his testicles pummeled in various ways. A foul-mouthed, trash-talking president who was a famous porn star and professional wrestler. These bits are as hilarious as they are the logical conclusions of certain disturbing trends in our popular culture.

What takes some wind out of the movie's sails towards the end for me is that the future depicted on the screen is simply ugly. Much of this is by design, as Judge envisioned a world where basic services like garbage disposal and environmental protection have long since been abandoned. That, and the fact that nearly every person and object has been branded by large corporations, create a visually unappealing world. It also doesn't help that the film didn't seem to have enough funding to bring the vision fully alive. In doing a touch of research, it doesn't seem like any funding was pulled from the film, but the effects, sets, and costumed have a rather cheap look to them. The movie is much more about the humor and social commentary, to be sure, but the B-grade aesthetics bring the experience down a notch.

Despite its flaws, I recommend this one to just about everybody. It's fun and silly, with a healthy amount of clever, old-school satire. While its overall scope outstripped its resources, but the ideas and gags are still well worth a look.


The Babadook (2014)

Director: Jennifer Kent

Now that is how a horror movie should be. Subtle when necessary. Profound and thoughtful. And creepy enough to make you soil your underpants.

For those who haven't seen it but plan to, I'll keep this spoiler-free, at least in terms of key plot points in the second and third acts of the movie. The tale follows Amelia, a widow whose son, Samuel, shows some concerning behavioral problems. His active imagination has him afraid of monsters to the point that he creates weapons to fend them off and sometimes acts out his violent defenses. One night, Samuel pulls a pop-up book previously unseen by Amelia off of his reading shelf. The book is titled "Mister Babadook." Amelia begins to read the book, despite its extremely creepy images and haunting narrative, and too late glances ahead to see that the story takes a horribly grim turn. She tries to hide the book, but the damage seems to be done. Samuel is so scared now that after a night of little sleep, he claims to be able to see the Babadook in many other places. As Samuel's behavior concerns and frightens other children, parents, and other adults around him, Amelia grows more and more concerned.

While I could nitpick a few things in terms of the imagery and a few of the connections from one point to another in this story, I found it to be astounding. It's not often that I'm riveted to a screen the way that I was during this picture. I can't call myself a devotee of the horror genre, but I do enjoy a well-crafted and well-executed scary movie that makes my skin crawl, and The Babadook delivers. It does rely on a few conventions, such as the odd squeaky door or shadow-shrouded closet, but the emotional and psychological context I found to be highly original. There is something of a "twist" in the story, I suppose, but it's not of the M. Night Shyamalan variety. Figuring it out early (for me it was about halfway through the picture) doesn't diminish the effect, and the film is subtle enough to not offer a grand "reveal" at any point, trusting us viewers to piece it all together on our own. And just when I was afraid that the resolution was going to be way too tidy, we get an ending that is far from completely comforting.

Little Samuel is creepy at hell much of the time, but you
learn that this impression is a bit of a red herring. This is one
of several clever wrinkles the movie offers the horror genre.
I would love to dig deeper into the psychological elements explored in the movie, as it comprises what I feel elevates this movie above just a genre picture. In the name of staying spoiler-free, though, I cannot write too much. I will only say that this was a brilliant use of the visual medium to convey the terror and confusion that I imagine people might feel when certain foundations of reality begin to crumble around them.

I will point out that this is a grim story. There are no beautiful people involved, and there is nary a joke cracked through the whole film. It is intense, and when one realizes what lies at the movie's heart, one can see why it needs to be intense. For those looking for one of those "fun" horror movies with jump-scares and maybe even a little sexual titillation, this is absolutely not the movie for you.

I'll be keeping my eye out for what the writer/director Jennifer Kent comes up with next, as The Babadook was good enough to make me regret not getting out to see it in theaters a few years ago. 

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Before I Die #617: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

This is the 617th movie I've now seen out of the 1,199 films on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.


Director: Lewis Milestone

The earliest adaptation of an astounding anti-war novel, and one that gets the spirit of the author's work correct, even if it's aged very badly in a few respects.

Knowing that I would soon be watching the movie, I read Erich Maria Remarque's novel for the very first time, and I was blown away. In this 1928 book, I was seeing so many of the seeds that would grow into some of the best anti-war books and films in the decades to come, right up to today. Remarque's novel is told in first-person narrative, from the perspective of Paul Baumer, a bright young German man who enlists in the army in the early years of World War I. In the ensuing couple of years, Pauls' entire view of war and humanity shifts, as he realizes the toll that it takes on young men like him, killing many and leaving the rest physically and/or psychologically maimed for life. Amid these grim observations, Remarque was sure to include plenty of authentic-feeling humor, humanity, and description of the strange and sometimes even touching bonds which form in the midst of brutal warfare.

This first film adaptation was made within two years after the book was published and very quickly became an international sensation. Made by the British film council, it used American and British actors playing the German soldiers. I feel that this adaptation got two things very right: one was not shying away from the ugliest aspects of the war, as detailed by Remarque, who himself fought and was wounded in the trenches. The novel details some truly gut-wrenching passages of comrades dying brutal deaths, both on the battlefield and in the medical centers. It even tackles the topics of PTSD, before that particular term existed, along with the horrifying mental effects of seeing friends and comrades die by the scores on a regular basis. To this point in my movie viewing, the only other film I recall looking at such things was 1925's The Big Parade. That previous movie stood out for its stripping away of the glamour often surrounding war, but not quite with the unflinching gaze that Remarque's novel and this particular film did.

The movie is often at its best when depicting the brutal and
chaotic nature of being in the middle of a massive-scale
firefight. Men get mowed down and blown up without
a trace of glamour or glory.
The other standout feature of this movie is the battle sequences, which are extremely intense in many moments. There are plenty of large-scale action sequences of the front, the chaos found there, and the gruesome tragedies that unfold. The cinematography during such sequences is highly impressive for its time, and even outdo the aforementioned The Big Parade, which had set the prior benchmark in war films. All Quiet offers a variety of close-ups and wide-angle shots, in both the tight-knit quarters of the trenches and the frightening exposure on the open front. Given their limitations, these aspects of the film still stand the test of time quite well, these 77 years later.

Unfortunately, not all elements of the movie were as strong as the themes and the battle scenes. The dialogue and acting are at times painfully bad, with lines and performances that can be sappy, hokey, and sentimental enough to make one wince. The verbal and visual gags are mostly the sophomoric variety, which I suppose went over well with a broader audience back in 1930 but which are now laughably banal. This is a misstep that, oddly, seems to be somewhat common in war pictures. Deft handling of the war elements are in sharp contrast to misguided or simply unimaginative attempts at levity. It overwhelmed the first half of The Big Parade, but it's even noticeable in the very recent Hacksaw Ridge. I guess if you're only going to get one of those things right in a war picture, it better be the war aspects. Still, this doesn't make lame dialogue any more tolerable, especially when performed poorly.

This is one worth seeing for buffs of older war films, as it contains some of the earliest quality work getting the important themes and aspects correct. That said, one will likely have to be patient with the attempts at humor or slower drama, which for me just don't hold up any more. For a more completely and satisfying version of the story, one is better off just reading the original novel.

That's 617 down; only 582 to go before I can die.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Retro Duo (sort of): Paul (2010); Logan [Noir version] (2017)

Paul (2011)

Director: Greg Mottola

This is the fun result of using a film to put together some science-fiction fan/writers with some of the most naturally funny actors in the business.

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (who also co-wrote the movie) play Graeme and Clive, two massive fans of all things science-fiction and comic book, who have traveled from Englad to go on a massive road trip in the U.S., starting at the San Diego Comic Convention and then taking their RV through to and through sites noted in modern extra-terrestrial lore. In the middle of the desert, though, they come across an actual alien, who calls himself Paul. Paul speaks perfect English and has all the mannerisms and outlook of a foul-mouthed, good-timing Gen X-er. He's also quite kind and in possession of several amazing abilities, including invisibility, a sort of telepathy, and the ability to heal others. Paul is on the run from the U.S. government agency which has kept him in captivity for decades, and he plans to rendevouz with a ship from his home planet. Graeme and Clive agree to help him, odd as it seems for these two men of little action.

The movie is good fun, especially for science-fiction nerds. There are plenty of references, both obvious and subtle, to classic sci-fi and fantasy adventure films and shows. The tale itself is interesting enough, and it does use Paul to explore a few headier notions about humans' place in the grander scheme of things. It actually could probably have delved a little deeper in this area had it desired, but the movie seemed to opt for a more comedic tone. And this is where the strengths mainly lie. Pegg and Frost have shown to be strong comedy writers in their past TV show Spaced and their co-written movies with Edgar Wright. Paul is really not different, though it is further enhanced by a great ensemble cast of seasoned comic veterans from the Paul Feig and Judd Apatow crews of regulars. This includes Kristin Wiig, Seth Rogan (the voice of Paul), Bill Hader, Jane Lynch, and a host of other familiar faces from those directors' noted films. As always, they bring razor sharp comic timing, physical humor, and ad libbing abilities second to none. Many of the laughs my wife and I got were from short, simple reactions or facial expressions.

There are some scenes and gags that either don't quite hit or are beaten into the ground a little, but this is fairly standard for this type of comedy. Anyone who enjoyed Pegg and Frost in Shawn of the Dead or the other Cornetto trilogy films will certainly enjoy this one.


Logan (2017) - "Noir" version

Director: Nick Mangold

In a move that I hope other filmmakers embrace, the makers of Logan released the blu-ray version of the film with an additional disc containing a black and white version of the movie. This is great for film nerds, especially those of us who greatly enjoy many movies from the black and white days and classic noir films.  After sitting on this version of the movie for a few months, I finally gave it a shot. My review of the color version is here, so I'll only really comment on the throwback absence of color, rather than get back into the other elements of the movie.

Seeing Logan in black and white is worth it to those who enjoy black and white films, even if I didn't feel that it is a superior version to the original. It's a curious exercise for two reasons. One is that seeing the black and white version does accentuate just how the story does draw from traditional noir tales. Unlike other superhero movies, including the half-dozen X-Men team movies and the solo Wolverine films, Logan features a doomed protagonist who is all but completely resigned to his bloody fate. The figure of the disaffected, wounded anti-hero has been a part of the genre since the days of James M. Cain. This was brought to magnificently dark life in classic noir films in the forties and fifties, most notably Double Indemnity and Out of the Past. Just in terms of basic character, Logan is very much in line with the protagonists of those great stories, and seeing the movie devoid of color drives the point home nicely.

One of a handful of setting where the noir version does
surpass the color version. Black and white filming seems to
be all about light and shadows, and
Logan wasn't truly
intended to place such emphasis on those visual elements.
The second reason it is curious is more cinematic. When one watches those old classic noir films by the likes of Billy Wilder and Jacques Tourneur, it is easy to see how skilled they were at using light and shadow to amazing effect. Truly, the noir genre of films all but requires the absence of color, due to the grim themes and tones that are at its core. The composition of the scenes and sequences is some of the finest work in all of world cinema, as it illustrated a perfect meeting of story, mood, and artistic medium. This, unfortunately, is where Logan can't live up to its noir predecessors. Most likely since it was not meant to be shot only in black and white, there are many scenes that are not enhanced, and in fact are somewhat diminished, by the lack of color. There are a few scenes which bear out the black and white contrast well, such as the early scenes with Professor X in the collapsed water cooler, with its beams of sunlight peeking through an otherwise dark ramshackle prison. Or a couple of visceral fight scenes which take place at night - one at the very beginning of the picture and one in the middle. But the sequences in vibrant Las Vegas or the lush, verdant forests that are the setting for the film's finale lose something in black and white.

Watching Logan this way is something I recommend to fans of the film who want to change it up a bit. I'm certainly glad I gave it a try, but I think all, or nearly all, of my future viewings will be in color. 

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Before I Die #616: The Blue Angel

This is now the 616th movie I've watched from the 1,199 films on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through. 

Original German Title: Der Blaue Engel

Director: Josef von Sternberg

A very well-done, if notably different, adaptation of a classic novel.

The story is based on German author Heinrich Mann's novel Professor Unrat (Professor Garbage, in English), wherein a tyrannical professor in a mid-sized German town becomes enamored of a young performer in a local burlesque house. In the film, Professor Rath (Emil Jannings) follows several students to the burlesque house, the titular Blue Angel, where he first lays eyes on the seductive young performer Lola Lola (Marlene Dietrich), and rather quickly falls in love. The previously stuffy Rath has a lapse of propriety shortly after he begins his affair with Lola, and he soon loses his job at the college. He does marry Lola, but is then forced to simply act as her personal assistant after his savings run out. Over the next few years, growing more impoverished, Rath takes on a role as a clown in Lola's traveling show. Rath has been slowly losing his purpose in life, and the final straws come when the show returns to the town where he was shamed and fired from his former college. Though initially refusing to take the stage and be laughed at by former pupils, colleagues, and neighbors, his manager threatens him with firing. While suffering the on-stage humiliation as a clown, his beloved Lola has also turned her gaze to a new, younger lover - a stage strongman who has ingratiated himself to her. Rath suffers a nervous breakdown. He first tries unsuccessfully to kill Lola, then flees and staggers back to the college where he had previously worked. There, he shuffles to his old desk, lays down, clutches the desk, and quietly passes away. 


Marlene Dietrich as Lola Lola, the alluring burlesque
performer who attracts and eventually shatters the stuffy
Professor Rath.
The movie is obviously a tragedy, and it is one told skillfully and efficiently. The interesting turn in the movie is just how it takes a relatively unsympathetic character, in the bullying professor, and turns him into a figure for whom we ultimately feel some pain. This is quite different from the novel, in which the professor only grows more despicable and hateful as the tale grows on, to the point that even when he meets an undesirable fate, we readers feel little to no sympathy for him. A film version that followed the original story would have been less enjoyable, and frankly probably would not have worked terribly well in the medium as it does in literature. The movie stands out among its contemporaries, regardless. I haven't seen many movies from around this time which dared to tell such a story. Curiously, the ones I have seen - The Last Laugh and The Last Command - feature the very same Emil Jannings who stars in The Blue Angel. Jannings apparently found a niche in playing men who suffer severe trauma, and with good reason. He does an excellent job.

This movie is also notable in that it was the first major, highly successful picture to feature Marlene Dietrich. To me, she is actually more impressive than Jannings in that she represents the subtler, more nuanced, and naturalistic style of acting which would set the very best actors apart in the coming decades. Fans of music in movies are also likely to enjoy a few of the musical numbers included in the film. While I'm generally not a fan of musicals, I had no problem with the tunes included here, as they are quite catchy, and they completely fit the settings in all cases.

The Blue Angel is a movie I would recommend to anyone who appreciates quality humanist tragedies. I would even suggest reading the novel, either before or after viewing the movie. They do differ in some significant ways, but they are both expertly-crafted works of art.

 A side-note - I watched the German-language version of this movie. Curiously, since the stars of the show were quite fluent in English, there is also an English-language version of it as well. It's a rare thing that an entire cast is able to shoot an entire movie in two different languages. This also gives a nice option to English-speaking viewers who can't stand subtitles.

That's 616 down; only 583 to go before I can die. 

Monday, October 9, 2017

New Release! Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

No Spoilers (have no fear)


The movie's titular "blade runner," K, on the job in the big
city. There are plenty of scenes which revive the feel of the
worn-down, tech-opolis displayed in the original.
Director: Denis Villeneuve

An amazing piece of dystopian, speculative sci-fi cinema which I feel is even better than the classic original.

In the original 1982 Blade Runner (I did a very long and thorough review of it here), we had a story of Richard Deckard, a "blade runner" in the year 2019 who tracked and eliminated (known as "retiring") rogue synthetic humans, which are known as "replicants." By that movie's end, Deckard had begun changing his mind on whether there was really much difference between humans and replicants. He even falls in love with a very advanced replicant, Rachel, and escapes the authorities with her.

The new movie takes place, as the title suggests, thirty years after Deckard and Rachel's disappearance. In the thirty years after, the world has apparently suffered a few more trying episodes, including several replicant uprisings, some sort of massive blackout, and a near-famine. A reclusive and enigmatic genius, Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), was responsible for dealing with several of these crises, partly by taking over replicant production and ensuring that they would no longer develop wills of their own. To this purpose, blade runners still exist, whose job it is to track down the few remaining, older-model replicants still at large. The story follows one such blade runner, "K" (Ryan Gosling), who finds himself pulled into a larger battle between a secretive revolutionary group of replicants and the cosmically ambitious Niander Wallace. As he is drawn deeper into this conflict, K's questions about his own identity and purpose grow more troubling and unclear.

This movie lived up to my rather high expectations, though I am not terribly surprised that it had an underwhelming showing at the box office in its opening weekend. It captures a great deal of what made the original so revolutionary but also challenging, while actually enhancing it in many ways. At the heart of what made both so strong is that they perfectly represent the confounding, fascinating, and even frightening questions which emerge when one speculates about how technology does and would possibly impact us as it develops. This is what made author Philip K. Dick, responsible for the source novel, such a brilliant mind. Both Ridley Scott and Denis Villeneuve realized this and placed some of Dick's ideas right at the heart of their movies. But where the surface plot of Scott's original movie was rather simple - a detective trying to track down and eliminate a few rogue cyborgs - Villeneuve offers a more complex journey that touches on even heavier existential themes. This includes notions about self identity, one's greater purpose, and exactly how one is narrating his or her own life. Blade Runner 2049 is cerebral sci-fi at its best.

Inside the offices of the science genius Niander Wallace. This
is just one of many stunning sets which reflect the mental
states or situations of those who dwell in them.
If the movie is so good at these things, why was there a lackluster turnout on opening weekend, despite glowing reviews and a fairly ubiquitous advertising campaign? Hard to say for absolute certain, but it may not have helped its wider appeal that the film is not exactly an action-packed thrill-ride. While the original certainly has its slower, more meditative moments, it never goes more than about ten minutes without a fight of some sort, including a tense pursuit and battle during its twenty-minute climax. While 2049 does have several action sequences, all done extremely well, they are fewer and further between than the original. Anybody showing up to the theater hoping to get a J.J. Abrams-style, Star Wars/Star Trek reboot, action extravaganza was probably not going to be entertained by this movie. In fact, I heard a couple commenting as such as I left the theater with my wife. They were talking about how they wanted "something to happen" for nearly the entire movie. If these viewers general sentiment was reflective of the whole and they communicated it to others, than maybe many people decided to give it a pass. For my money, though, I thought the action scenes were handled well and used efficiently. There is one scene during a penultimate fight that I thought dragged on a bit, but this was the only such case.

Any fan of the original is likely to cite the mood and atmosphere created by the visuals and music score. The sequel makes sure to maintain some very welcome coherence with those aesthetic qualities and even update them brilliantly. With a sizable budget at his fingertips, Villeneuve was able to get the beautifully dark blend of noir and cyberpunk dystopia which Ridley Scott created back in 1982. He even goes beyond it, sending the story to several environments outside of the shadow-shrouded and rain-soaked metropolis where the original completely takes place. These evocative and impressive settings outside of the city help give this sequel an effectively episodic feel. And the music pulls off a similar trick, reviving much of the meditative and synthetic tones of the iconic Evangelis score, while adding some harder-hitting industrial sounds which can reflect the cognitive dissonance of the protagonist.

This movie's stayed embedded in my mind since I watched it three nights ago, and I will likely try to catch it on an IMAX screen while it still lasts there. It does sadden me that it hasn't done terribly well here in the U.S., as I would have hoped that there were still an audience for stunning, mentally stimulating science-fiction. I do hope that it perhaps has legs and that more people give it a chance, maybe seeing it for the incredible movie it is.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Before I Die #615: Pandora's Box (1929)

This is the 615th movie that I've now seen out of the 1,199 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.

Original German Title: Die Buchse der Pandora

Director: Georg Wilhelm Pabst

I love my wife. She saw the rental box for this DVD and gives me a nice, sarcastic, "'Pandora's Box'? What is that, porn?"

No, it's not porn. But things do get rather illicit and dark in this movie. And it's done rather brilliantly, I might add. The movie follows the rise and fall of Lulu, a beautiful young woman whose wanton sexuality and lack of morals bring ruin to nearly everyone around her, and eventually herself. At movie's beginning, she uses her wiles to manipulate a reputable, older editor, Dr. Schon, into abandoning his scheduled marriage to another woman. Once married, however, Lulu continues to actively inspire jealousy in others, leading to the death of her husband. This forces her and a few of her hangers-on to flee Germany and take refuge in a rather seedy shipyard area. When she tries to use her sexuality and charisma to evade her debts, her plan backfires and sends her and her two remaining cohorts on the run once again. The three ultimately end up living in a hovel in a poor area of London. Here, Lulu is eventually approached and murdered by a Jack the Ripper-type psychopath.

The description can tell you just how dark this movie is. What makes it great are a few things. One is that I knew almost nothing about this movie. After the first 15 or so minutes, I thought I had the tone and entire plotline fully predicted, being more or less a Sister Carrie type tale, whereby a young seductress ruins an older, established man via his libido. While this does happen, it is really only part of the larger story, which is a more vicious tragedy. I suppose one could argue that there is a certain misogyny running through a story of a young woman who is at the heart of so much pain for those around her, but one could also argue that Lulu's life and death are a cautionary tale against selfish and greedy behavior. This might be a rather conservative message, but the telling of the story is admittedly riveting. The pace is quite brisk, with very little downtime, with nearly every scene moving things along. The movie is divided into seven acts, and by the end of the third, I was fully invested in the outcome.

Another strength is related to the film's seven act structure. Each act takes place in a very distinctive setting and time in the Lulu's wild life. Act one is in the apartment set up for her by her lovers. Two is in the theater, while three is at the wedding reception which resulted from Lulu's sabotage of her doomed doctor lover. And on they go, with each act and setting feeling like a clear chapter in the life of the ever-devolving affairs of a naive and immoral but enchanting young beauty. Many movies have as episodic feel, but very few of them, especially during the silent era, crystallize so effectively. Enhancing this general structure was some outstanding set and costume designs, captured exceptionally by top-notch camera work.

Lulu's doomed marriage to Dr. Schon falls apart at a break-
neck speed. And he's far from the first or last person who will
suffer from falling under her unconscious spell.
One final standout feature of this movie was it is another of a handful of late silent-era films in which we see more naturalistic acting, rather than the exaggerated variety more common in most movies of the time period (and even, in many cases, for a few decades afterward). Several actors in this movie pull this off rather well, but the feature actor Louis Brooks is the standout. Firstly, she is stunningly beautiful, but that's incidental, if necessary for the plot. There's an alluring, casual air about her manner that I associate with one of my favorite actresses from the very next era - Barbara Stanwyck. Brooks isn't always as smooth as Stanwyck would later be, but she has more natural, authentic magnetism than nearly any starlet that I've seen from the silent era.

When I checked this movie out of my local video store, the eminently knowledgeable clerk stated that Pandora's Box  was probably his favorite silent movie. I can now see why. Even if I might not rate it quite that highly, I would still place it in my top 5 of that era.

That's 615 movies down, only 584 to go before I can die. 

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Idiot Boxing: Orphan Black, season 5 (2017); Ash vs Evil Dead, season 2 (2016)

Orphan Black, season 5 (2017)

And so the story of the many clones ends. I have to admit that this season was a little more of a chore than I had hoped or expected it to be.

The previous season finally saw some trimming of the fat that was added during the third season. By the end of season four, the clones were essentially all focused on resisting the mysterious goals of the Neolution group. While the ultimate goal of this secretive society were still unclear, it was obviously connected to eugenics and trying to genetically engineer a superior human. After a few seasons of splinter groups, false leads, and all other sorts of craziness popping up and then getting bashed down, the remaining Lida clones (Sarah and her "sisters") have essentially discovered the whereabouts of the man behind it all - one Dr. J.P. Westmoreland. This Doctor Moreau of sorts is supposedly over 150 years old, thanks to his breakthroughs in genetic engineering, and he hopes to crack the ultimate code for regeneration and healing. The problem is that he needs Sarah's daughter Kyra to do it. Leading the effort is Lida clone Rachel Duncan, the cold-as-ice, literal corporate creation who has bought into Westmoreland's dream of a genetically superior and nigh-immortal race of humans.

And so begins season 5, with several Lida clones still scattered around in various places but all finally in contact with each other and mostly coordinating their effort to take down the eugenics-obsessed Westmoreland and his devoted Evolution cult. The final ten-episode season includes its fair share of deaths, bloodshed, and emotional rending - all pretty par for the course for this show. Truth be told, though, this final season never quite hit a stride that completely satisfied me. I did find the resolution to the many plot elements fairly satisfying, and the general story was just engaging enough for me to tune in for each episode. Still, I never felt compelled to watch the next episode as much as I was watching out of an obligation born of having seen the previous forty episodes, which themselves went through a few hit-and-miss cycles.

A calm, easy-going sequence serves as an epilogue for the
entire series. This was quite welcome, and I only wish the
show runners and writers had seen fit to find more space
for such slower moments through the course of the show.
In terms of what bothered me, it comes down to a few aspects. One was that the pacing was sometimes out of whack. While I found that the fourth season had mostly gotten back on track after a wildly sprawling and sometimes-fragmented third season, the fifth season was rather herky-jerky. Several early episodes jump around between locales at a blinding pace, as do the emotional plot threads. So much so, in fact, that I found that most of my concern for the characters had dissipated. When certain mainstay characters get killed, I honestly felt little to nothing for them. It didn't help that the show used some rather ham-fisted attempts at sentimentality - something which it has never been good at, even during its best moments. Admittedly, this was also due to a general weakness with the character development on this primarily plot-driven show, but the scattershot rhythms didn't help. Perhaps the most egregious example is when, in the third-to-final episode of the entire series, with several extremely tense plot points coming to a dangerous head, the writers decided to dedicate nearly the entire episode to a bafflingly flippant and light-hearted art show party for Felix (which seemed, by the way, a pretty horrible depiction of a "successful" art show). This was just the most obvious in a handful of strangely out-of-sync segments of this final season. I will say, however, that I was pleased with the slow come-down in the final episode, when all of the dangers are dealt with early on and the remaining clones and their loved ones are processing everything some time later. I was glad that the show runners got this right, washing some of the questionable tastes out of my mouth.

Orphan Black was a solid series that had some fairly obvious flaws, some of which only grew more frustrating towards the end. For all of them, though, it is a unique speculative science-fiction TV series that featured some solid suspense, futurist ideas, and truly virtuoso acting by star Tatiana Maslany. I doubt that I'll ever go back and watch again, but it is an easy one to recommend to those into some disturbingly possible science fiction and are not turned off by some rather graphic violence and depictions of some intense physical suffering.


Great tagline for this season.
Ash vs Evil Dead, season 2

A very strong sophomore season, which I felt was even better than the solid first one (see my review for it here).

Season one of the long-time-coming continuation of the adventures of Ash Williams saw the chainsaw-handed, shotgun-wielding, wise-cracking braggart track down and dispatch a new gaggle of Deadites. Along the way, he had teamed up with former coworkers Pablo and Kelly, and the trio reluctantly accepted the aid of the half-demon immortal Ruby (Lucy Lawless). By season's end, Ash had cut a deal whereby the Deadites and his team of slayers would all leave each other in relative peace.

Of course, that wasn't likely to remain the case. At the beginning of this second season, Ash, Pablo, and Kelly are "retired" in Jacksonville, Florida, where Ash in particular is enjoying himself immensely. This all comes to a screaming, bloody halt when some Deadites turn up and ruin the party. All of this sends the trio back on the road, to Ash's hometown in Michigan and even back to the cabin in the woods where everything began. It turns out that Ruby has lost control of her own demon spawn, who are attempting to use the Necronomicon to summon Baal, a powerful demon of deception. So Ash and his little team have to clean up the mess while dealing with the fact that everyone in Ash's hometown has long assumed he's an insane mass murderer.

Ash in the sanitarium, with his therapy puppet (complete with
little plush chainsaw hand!). Yes, these scenes are pretty much
as funny you think they might be.
This season goes even more over-the-top with the violence and gore, and it's so much the better for it. Sure, there is more violence in TV shows nowadays, but I don't know of any that are willing to concoct the gonzo scenarios and throw literally buckets of fake blood, viscera, and body parts around the sets and at the camera as Ash vs Evil Dead. It truly is a return of the outrageous, which makes it truly hilarious. It reminds me on an old adage that one of the Monty Python members realized when making Holy Grail: if you use too little blood in a scene, it's just disturbing. But if you use a ridiculous amount of blood, it's comedy gold. Sam Raimi and the show runners have taken this idea and run with it. Just to cite on example, one scene has Ash in a morgue, where he is assaulted by a corpse's colon which has been animated by a demonic spirit. The battle goes on for quite a while, growing ever more profane and ever more hysterical. And there's plenty more where that came from.

In addition to nigh-criminal amount of gore, the other calling cards of the Evil Dead shows have been Ash's swagger and the one-liners. Season one did a nice job with these elements, but season two gets it right even more often. I found myself laughing out loud more than once at nearly every episode, or at the very least chuckling at Bruce Campbell's delivery of Ash's signature soundbites. In this season, Dana DeLorenzo, who plays Kelly, also gets a few solid, "in your face, Deadites" zingers.

The entire show is not the novel, quirky masterpiece like it's source films, but I have to admire the dedication to the originals' tone and moxie. It makes me regret not having the Starz channel, in order to watch new episodes as they air. A third season has been announced, and I'm totally on board.