If at the beginning of the year, maybe during the Super Bowl commercial blitzkrieg and perhaps after Nick Collins ran in a 37-yard INT return giving the Packers a 14-0 lead over Roethlisberger’s Steelers, a do-or-die choice decision was posed asking which comicbook movie I would most be looking forward to during the upcoming summer, hands down that selection would have been Warner Bros.’ Green Lantern. Now, with the summer movie frenzy winding down alongside the remaining weeks of extended daylight and four (or thereabout) films later, given that same do-or-die decision, I am unsure if the green ring-slinger would achieve that unanimous fanboy nod.
The Summer of 2011, if perhaps overbearing and even a tad deluged, was a dream for fanboys with eight(!) comicbook-related films but also catered to the general movie going public with three of the four major releases exceeding the $100M mark and the fourth – Captain America – well on its way proving that these once niche-only films can be a financial success. What went wrong? And what went right? And why didn’t Green Lantern deliver?
Looking at that last question first, Green Lantern did deliver, just not as mainstream-receptive or financially-viable as intended. Despite overall horrible reviews (USA Today called it a “lifeless spectacle’) the film debuted in the number one spot with a weekend take of $53 million. Although certainly not in the same class of 2010’s Iron Man 2 ($128 million debut) or 2008’s The Dark Knight ($158 million debut), Green Lantern was not a financial success, but neither a horrendous flop ending with $114 million in North America and $147 million worldwide; Blu-Ray sales will certainly add to those numbers as will all of that green merchandising.
From a fanboy perspective, Green Lantern was a nearly literal adaptation pulling many elements directly from the comics and giving hardcore fans the planetary expanse of Oa, Tomar-Re, Kilowog and thousands of other Lanterns in the Corps, the seduction of Sinestro, Amanda Waller and even Hal’s family and daddy-issues. For the standard movie-goer expecting the next Iron Man or Spider-Man, the film was too slow, contained too many supporting characters (Amanda Waller, Tomar-Re, Kilowog and the complete Green Lantern Corps) and too many unnecessary plot points (Hal’s family and daddy issues). Regardless of how good the film looks, literal comicbook adaptations don’t always make for great films. Watchmen being the perfect example of this and a warning that the second Wolverine film and rumored Daredevil reboot need to heed.
Deciding on what went right, look no further than Thor as the God of Thunder proved that even slightly-silly films that rely heavily on a factor of fun can make a hefty showing ($180 million US and a worldwide total of well over $447 million). Thor had a few pacing issues – the film’s main story only took place over the events of a few days, yet Asgard eternal is worried about the length of the Odinsleep plus the blonde god and the human scientist chick became soulmates rather quickly - but its occasional tongue-in-cheek smile, letting you in on the joke and level-setting that it’s okay to laugh both with and at the principal events, and scoundrel of a main character, again, made for a fun film and set up the next big piece of an on-going saga.
That next big piece, making Thor a connecting bridge from Iron Man 2 into summer 2012’s Avengers, also adds to this film’s success. The fact that there is a connection with events and characters leading into something bigger adds to the excitement and even harkens back to the time of serials during cinema’s Golden Age. Now, instead of waiting three or more years for the next sequel to arrive, fans need only wait as long as a year to as short as month for next that next piece. Tony Stark in The Incredible Hulk. Mjolnir in Iron Man 2. Hawkeye in Thor. Howard Stark and the Cosmic Cube/Tesseract in Captain America. And, of course, Samuel L. as Nick Fury in all of the above.
Perhaps this connection to something larger, something that can now almost be taken for granted in the Marvel Studios films, was one of missing elements that Green Lantern lacked. While Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan was making hot rod ring constructs or blasting away at Parallax in downtown Coast City, there is no mention of a Metropolis. No tease of a Dark Knight guarding a Gotham City or a scarlet speedster racing through the Mid-West. When Green Lantern makes his not-so big debut in trying to prevent a helicopter crash, not even an utterance of a line like, “He can fly like Superman!” was heard. As it stands now, Green Lantern is the only hero in his own little universe. We can only hope that with Christopher Nolan’s third Batman film, some tie-ins to Nolan and Batman screenwriter David Goyer’s upcoming Man Of Steel film are in place.
Captain America: The First Avenger, then, might be considered the most complete package of the superhero films. Whereas X-Men: First Class had a solid story, its shoehorning into the prior film continuity had many fans, myself included, questioning “Why?”. Cap brought about a sense of honesty and kept the superhero fantasy elements down to a more-believable, and ultimately more entertaining, Indiana Jones-style tone. Even though Cap had a more traditional Marvel-style origin - as opposed to Thor, which was a tale of repentance rather than acceptance – the tone of its storytelling, the modern-day bookends, two separate montages, the quick views into the lives of others, broke away from the normal comicbook fare. By having the film be a period piece, the historical aspects lent to a comfortable familiarity that audiences could identify with more so than perhaps Tony Stark’s sophisticated Malibu mansion.
By now, though, most moviegoers can identify with, easily recognize, and might even be a little bored of, the superhero origin story, which is as formulaic as a lost love rom-com. Those that do tend to break away often do so in the sequel; it is considered that X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2 far outshine their first installments story-wise. Green Lantern, as an example, could have fared much better by ditching the whole origin back-story of the universe and Corps and simply focused on an Earthman being granted a cosmic genie bottle. With ramped up action, the origin tale being dealt with as key flashbacks and the introduction of one other Corps-member, ala Sinestro, as a mentor, well, not only do you get the Highlander formula, but perhaps even a better-performing film.
Oversaturation of the genre, if not already here, will quickly bring about ennui and a lack of passion from both fans and filmmakers. The product must be better than good, it must be stellar. Otherwise, this genre will go the way of the Western, where only one or two good films are produced every three or four years. On the other hand, with physical comic book sales hitting market lows, the propagation of movies, even bad ones (yes, I’m looking at you Dylan Dog and Green Hornet), might be the sole savior of the medium.
So how did this summer fare for me? Green Lantern looked the best and Captain America was definitely the most complete, but I’m backing Thor as my final answer. The superhero action coupled with the adult trying to outgrow his boyish ways theme and backed with a good cast, gods and mortals alike, made Kenneth Branagh’s film a hammer-throwing pleasure. The next big question being how will this scoundrel of a god handle taking orders from Chris Evans’ all-too-human Captain America let alone how will his personality mesh with that of Robert Downey, Jr’s hyper Type A portrayal of Tony Stark in next year’s Avengers?
As Always,
theJOE
29 August 2011
25 February 2011
Oscar Rant 2011
Listening to XM’s Cinemagic channel at this year’s nomination breakfast, the co-host made an interesting observation: no matter how good an individual film might be in the year it was released does not necessarily ensure its status as a classic film in the hearts and minds of movie viewers everywhere. Age notwithstanding, winning films of recent years don’t seem to possess that compelling quality that makes you stop-and-watch while channel-surfing. As good as a film as 2005’s CRASH is, and it deserved to win that year, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m going to stop and watch it, particularly Michael Pena’s emotional scene in which he believes his daughter was shot. And after seeing CHICAGO (2002) once, do you really need to tap your shoes along with Richard Gere again?
Maybe the comfort of a well-aged film does lend to its classic appeal. Looking back 30+ years uncovers a host of great award-winning, repeat-viewing classics. Those numbers flow to a trickle as the years become more contemporary. PATTON (1970), THE FRENCH CONNECTION (1971), THE GODFATHER (1972), THE GODFATHER, PART II (1974), ROCKY (1976), ANNIE HALL (1977). Then there is a gap until PLATOON (1986) and again until the 90s brought about SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991), UNFORGIVEN (1992), BRAVEHEART (1995) and TITANIC (1997). The 21st Century might only have one: GLADIATOR (2000). This trend might change now with this new decade that is upon us.
Last year’s addition of five more films to the standing list, although a confirmed ploy to get more viewer ratings for the live telecast, did indeed gather more buzz but also served as a reward to films that probably deserved such merit but in previous years would have been looked over faster than Baz Luhrmann in the editing room. Even though 2010 was still just a two-pony race, films such as DISTRICT 9, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, UP IN THE AIR and A SERIOUS MAN all received credit, a slap on the back from the Academy signifying a job well done. One could only hypothesize that if there were 10 nominations available in 2009, fan-favorite DARK KNIGHT could very well have been on that list.
This year, and perhaps for the first time since 2004, every Best Picture nominee is a solid one and yes, although there are probably only two or three true front-runners, there could indeed be enough momentum for a few of the other nominees to mount a surprise – but certainly not unwarranted – victory.
On top of that, many of these films are solid enough to stand the test of time. The antics and humor in THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, the hip and complete now-ness of THE SOCIAL NETWORK, TRUE GRIT’s classic motifs, the mind-bending trippiness and complexity of INCEPTION and, no more need be said, TOY STORY 3. Can not KIDS be the neurotic 21st Century love story counterpart to ANNIE HALL? Can not the skeevieness of WINTER’S BONE’s Mountain Mafia be compared with Michael Corleone’s Cosa Nostra? The dark thoughts of Nina’s SWAN parallel Hannibal Lecter’s? The strife of the FIGHTER’s Mickey Ward and ROCKY’s, well, Rocky?
As strong as this class may be, there are, naturally blatant omissions. Of those previously nominated, INCEPTION seems to fare the worst with its master architect, Christopher Nolan, being absent from the Achievement in Directing category, as well as not being nominated for editing, which surely must be a bad dream (or a dream within a dream within a dream…). BLACK SWAN, as well, got ignored on the costume front (are leotards and tutus too blasé?) and, the film’s most egregious snub, Clint Mansell’s score went unrecognized (ta-ta, Tchaikovsky).
There were also those films whose representation was entirely, or nearly, overlooked. Case in point, Ben Affleck’s THE TOWN. Affleck’s film had Indie chops but a big-movie feel and was adequately successful in the B.O. bringing in just under$ 100 million domestically. The story, a classic heist caper with a believably-surprising love interest added in, contained drama, action and more than a few stressful scenes. It also proved that Affleck has Indie cred as a sophomore director. Yet aside from Jeremy Renner’s most-worthy nomination, this film failed to pick up director, picture or adapted screenplay nods. You couldn’t get away with a crime like this in Charlestown.
The other absent nominee? SHUTTER ISLAND. Yes, SHUTTER ISLAND was released in 2010. You remember this one: Scorsese, DiCaprio, Ruffalo, a Dennis Lehane story with a creepy mystery occurring in a mental ward. Obviously the real mystery is how this was forgotten.
With that, I’d like to take this forum and provide a few corrections to certain nominations. Beginning with the big gun: Best Picture. With slots available for 10 noms, I’d like to give the aforementioned TOWN and SHUTTER ISLAND some recognition. To do so, I propose that TOY STORY 3, which will already win Animated Feature, be removed. And for that other spot, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT. KIDS is, actually, a very enjoyable film with sharp dialogue and enjoyably flawed characters. Given the choice though, I’d much rather see TOWN or ISLAND in its place. Alternately, THE FIGHTER can be removed, but the Academy does seem to enjoy a good boxing flick (See: MILLION DOLLAR BABY, RAGING BULL, ROCKY, WHEN WE WERE KINGS, CINDERELLA MAN, ALI, HURRICANE).
For Adapted Screenplay, again, let’s remove TOY STORY 3 and this time 127 HOURS to make room for TOWN and ISLAND. And for director, Ben Affleck deserves some recognition here as does Christopher Nolan. I propose both Tom Hooper and the always-enjoyable Coens bow out this year.
Finally, in the Original Score category, add both Danny Elfman’s work on THE WOLFMAN, which incorporated classic movie themes along with his usual dark tones, and TRON: LEGACY’s Daft Punk, whose electronica and orchestration is just as powerful, intricate and completely danceable as that of the SOCIAL NETWORK’s Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Those to be removed would be A.R. Rahman (127 HOURS) and John Powell (HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON). Hans Zimmer (INCEPTION), Alexandre Desplat (KING’S SPEECH) and THE SOCIAL NETWORK are well-deserved nominations. Squeezing in Clint Mansell’s BLACK SWAN would be a tricky task.
Surprisingly, the Academy got all four acting categories right. Peppered within the nominations are fresh faces (SOCIAL NETWORK, TRUE GRIT, WINTER’S BONE), vets (RABBIT HOLE, KING’S SPEECH) and shocks (ANIMAL KINGDOM). And of those four, Supporting Actor is by far the tightest. Any chance a group award can be handed out to these blokes?
The quality of this year’s crop gleaned by the Academy, of course, all has to fall back on the creative process in Hollywood. If writers and directors are able to continue with creative freedom, then actors will produce inspiring performances and moviegoers will continue to pay for movies and rent movies. The business will, and should, follow. Allow the moviegoers to talk about exciting and compelling and original movies. That is what helps define a classic.
Maybe the comfort of a well-aged film does lend to its classic appeal. Looking back 30+ years uncovers a host of great award-winning, repeat-viewing classics. Those numbers flow to a trickle as the years become more contemporary. PATTON (1970), THE FRENCH CONNECTION (1971), THE GODFATHER (1972), THE GODFATHER, PART II (1974), ROCKY (1976), ANNIE HALL (1977). Then there is a gap until PLATOON (1986) and again until the 90s brought about SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991), UNFORGIVEN (1992), BRAVEHEART (1995) and TITANIC (1997). The 21st Century might only have one: GLADIATOR (2000). This trend might change now with this new decade that is upon us.
Last year’s addition of five more films to the standing list, although a confirmed ploy to get more viewer ratings for the live telecast, did indeed gather more buzz but also served as a reward to films that probably deserved such merit but in previous years would have been looked over faster than Baz Luhrmann in the editing room. Even though 2010 was still just a two-pony race, films such as DISTRICT 9, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, UP IN THE AIR and A SERIOUS MAN all received credit, a slap on the back from the Academy signifying a job well done. One could only hypothesize that if there were 10 nominations available in 2009, fan-favorite DARK KNIGHT could very well have been on that list.
This year, and perhaps for the first time since 2004, every Best Picture nominee is a solid one and yes, although there are probably only two or three true front-runners, there could indeed be enough momentum for a few of the other nominees to mount a surprise – but certainly not unwarranted – victory.
On top of that, many of these films are solid enough to stand the test of time. The antics and humor in THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, the hip and complete now-ness of THE SOCIAL NETWORK, TRUE GRIT’s classic motifs, the mind-bending trippiness and complexity of INCEPTION and, no more need be said, TOY STORY 3. Can not KIDS be the neurotic 21st Century love story counterpart to ANNIE HALL? Can not the skeevieness of WINTER’S BONE’s Mountain Mafia be compared with Michael Corleone’s Cosa Nostra? The dark thoughts of Nina’s SWAN parallel Hannibal Lecter’s? The strife of the FIGHTER’s Mickey Ward and ROCKY’s, well, Rocky?
As strong as this class may be, there are, naturally blatant omissions. Of those previously nominated, INCEPTION seems to fare the worst with its master architect, Christopher Nolan, being absent from the Achievement in Directing category, as well as not being nominated for editing, which surely must be a bad dream (or a dream within a dream within a dream…). BLACK SWAN, as well, got ignored on the costume front (are leotards and tutus too blasé?) and, the film’s most egregious snub, Clint Mansell’s score went unrecognized (ta-ta, Tchaikovsky).
There were also those films whose representation was entirely, or nearly, overlooked. Case in point, Ben Affleck’s THE TOWN. Affleck’s film had Indie chops but a big-movie feel and was adequately successful in the B.O. bringing in just under$ 100 million domestically. The story, a classic heist caper with a believably-surprising love interest added in, contained drama, action and more than a few stressful scenes. It also proved that Affleck has Indie cred as a sophomore director. Yet aside from Jeremy Renner’s most-worthy nomination, this film failed to pick up director, picture or adapted screenplay nods. You couldn’t get away with a crime like this in Charlestown.
The other absent nominee? SHUTTER ISLAND. Yes, SHUTTER ISLAND was released in 2010. You remember this one: Scorsese, DiCaprio, Ruffalo, a Dennis Lehane story with a creepy mystery occurring in a mental ward. Obviously the real mystery is how this was forgotten.
With that, I’d like to take this forum and provide a few corrections to certain nominations. Beginning with the big gun: Best Picture. With slots available for 10 noms, I’d like to give the aforementioned TOWN and SHUTTER ISLAND some recognition. To do so, I propose that TOY STORY 3, which will already win Animated Feature, be removed. And for that other spot, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT. KIDS is, actually, a very enjoyable film with sharp dialogue and enjoyably flawed characters. Given the choice though, I’d much rather see TOWN or ISLAND in its place. Alternately, THE FIGHTER can be removed, but the Academy does seem to enjoy a good boxing flick (See: MILLION DOLLAR BABY, RAGING BULL, ROCKY, WHEN WE WERE KINGS, CINDERELLA MAN, ALI, HURRICANE).
For Adapted Screenplay, again, let’s remove TOY STORY 3 and this time 127 HOURS to make room for TOWN and ISLAND. And for director, Ben Affleck deserves some recognition here as does Christopher Nolan. I propose both Tom Hooper and the always-enjoyable Coens bow out this year.
Finally, in the Original Score category, add both Danny Elfman’s work on THE WOLFMAN, which incorporated classic movie themes along with his usual dark tones, and TRON: LEGACY’s Daft Punk, whose electronica and orchestration is just as powerful, intricate and completely danceable as that of the SOCIAL NETWORK’s Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Those to be removed would be A.R. Rahman (127 HOURS) and John Powell (HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON). Hans Zimmer (INCEPTION), Alexandre Desplat (KING’S SPEECH) and THE SOCIAL NETWORK are well-deserved nominations. Squeezing in Clint Mansell’s BLACK SWAN would be a tricky task.
Surprisingly, the Academy got all four acting categories right. Peppered within the nominations are fresh faces (SOCIAL NETWORK, TRUE GRIT, WINTER’S BONE), vets (RABBIT HOLE, KING’S SPEECH) and shocks (ANIMAL KINGDOM). And of those four, Supporting Actor is by far the tightest. Any chance a group award can be handed out to these blokes?
The quality of this year’s crop gleaned by the Academy, of course, all has to fall back on the creative process in Hollywood. If writers and directors are able to continue with creative freedom, then actors will produce inspiring performances and moviegoers will continue to pay for movies and rent movies. The business will, and should, follow. Allow the moviegoers to talk about exciting and compelling and original movies. That is what helps define a classic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)