Talk Movies To Me

Category archive

Essays - page 2

Essays on films, filmmakers, themes, etc.

The Argument for Affleck

in Essays by

Adam West. Michael Keaton. Val Kilmer. George Clooney. Christian Bale. Ben Affleck. These names have become immortalized because they have donned the much-coveted cowl of The Batman. No matter what their future brings, their turn as The Bat will always be remembered. The question is, who will be remembered for what?  The best?  The worst? I think it is necesary to exclude Adam West from this argument. While he is recognized as a member of this exclusive club, he belongs to a different era, separated by 23 years from Keaton.  I will also exclude any voice actors who have worked on the animated films and series. There is no comparison to what Kevin Conroy has done for Batman fans around the world for so many years and continues to do so. Kevin Conroy and Adam West, we salute you.

As I was gathering my thoughts for this piece, it dawned on me: more people have worn the cowl than have held the title of 007. That’s right. Only 6 actors have played James Bond in 24 movies in the span of 54 years (yes, I am excluding the 1967 Casino Royale). This fact surprised me, considering that we only have 7 stand-alone Batman films. With so many Bond films, all with different actors who bring their own style to the character, each fan has come to their own conclusion as to what they want to see out of a Bond Character. Some are die hard classic Connery fans, while some are more into the gritty take of Daniel Craig (at the time of this writing, we have not heard from any Roger Moore die-hards).  Batman is similar to Bond in the sense that the character of Batman has been envisioned in many different ways. From the films, to the animated series, and more particularly, the comic books, The Batman has evolved, evolved, and evolved again. There is a plethora of different styles of Batman that fans cling to. The direction the film and actor choose to take the character automatically causes a divide in the fans. Will it be just like the Batman in the animated series they grew up with watching? Will it be just like Frank Miller’s genius take in The Dark Knight Returns? Every fan has in their appetite what they want to see on the big screen. For this reason, every actor who took this role was bound to disappoint some portion of the fans. So, without further ado, allow me to explain to you why Ben Affleck is the best on-screen portrayal of The Bat.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Affleck is yet to have his own stand-alone film.  He has not had a chance to really sink his teeth into it. But Batman v Superman was enough to convince me that out of all the actors to put on the mask, Affleck is the one I am most excited about. There is so much about his take on the character that resonates with the Batman that I want to see more of. Allow me to explain.

1.    He Looks The Part.

It’s about time that we get the grey suit! His size and mass in the suit really bring a sense of brutality to the character. I feel like Bale’s suit was very militarized. While it looks cool, and seems like more of a real-world take, it just doesn’t feel like it is true to the suit that I grew up watching and reading about. Keaton is the next best suit with the black on yellow symbol that makes more of an effort to stay close to the comics. I will avoid talking about the infamous bat nipples from the Schumacher films. While enemies are supposed to fear Batman from the shadows, Affleck in broad daylight is just as threatening. I’m also a fan of the voice changer in the suit. Bale spawned a multitude of bad Batman impersonators, but ultimately I thought it worked in the films. Affleck’s voice changer just sounds so cool.

2.    The Fighting.

There is no comparison when it comes to his fighting style. It only took one scene from BvS to really convince me that this Batman knows how to take on his foes. The only real way to explain it is to show you this clip. You cannot tell me that we’ve seen Batman kick that much tail in such a cool fashion in any of the previous films. You feel every punch in this scene and you buy that Affleck could really pull all of this off. It feels like a perfect blend of tact with a sense of pure brutality. It’s the kind of scene that leaves me pumping my fist and makes me excited to see more of that in his stand-alone film. For comparison, here is a clip from the supposedly epic final battle between Batman and Bane from Dark Knight Rises. For an end fight scene to a fantastic trilogy, it feels so stale and feels like the same fight we see earlier in the film. Very disappointing and nothing to pump my fist over. Keaton’s fight scenes aren’t much different in the sense that it looks like he can barely move in his suit half the time. We can blame that on the full rubber suit. Although he is a contender for having the best looking suit, I think it ultimately worked towards his detriment when it comes to his mobility.

3.    Loyalty To The Cowl.

This might be more of a nitpick. But the fact that Christian Bale’s Batman only fights 3 villains before he throws in the towel really bothers me. I like having the trilogy and being able to see Bale flesh out that character from beginning to end. But when all is said and done, he gives up after going up against a few baddies. Affleck’s Batman, however, has been in the business for 20+ years and counting, which is part of what makes him more interesting. We don’t get his origin, but we assume he has been to hell and back with how many villains he would’ve come across in all that time, as well as the death of Robin. This helps justify why he seems to have drifted off course a little from his hard code of no killing. A lot of fans were upset about this fact, but honestly, it didn’t bother me at all. I like seeing a more seasoned Batman that has been in the business long enough to be willing to break a few rules. Keaton is similar to Affleck in the sense that we don’t get his origin story and we assume that he has been in the business for a while and is more committed to his role as The Bat than Bale’s version is.

I must let it be known that I do have a deep appreciation for the Keaton/Burton and Bale/Nolan collaborations and the precedents they have set for the superhero genre (I have nothing but good things to say about Batman and The Dark Knight). They have made great films that will last a lifetime and have successfully encapsulated the Caped Crusader in their own unique ways. Val Kilmer just happened to be Batman with the wrong director and story, and I don’t think Clooney ever had a chance no matter his situation. But Ben Affleck didn’t even need a stand-alone movie to blow me away. He captured the Batman that I have had in my mind and I cannot wait to see what he does with it. I do appreciate Zack Snyder for being willing to take Batman to the place where we have him now. But if Snyder can get as far away as possible from writing/directing the stand-alone film, it would be much appreciated.

Leonardo DiCaprio is Good, Not Great

in Essays by

In February of 2016, Leonardo DiCaprio won his first Academy Award. It was his fifth nomination for acting. The internet would have blown up with memes had he not won. In The Revenant, Leo plays a frontiersman who is mauled by a bear and strives to survive in the wilderness. Leo had lost every other nomination, much to the dismay of his fans. And while Tom Hardy gave the better performance in the movie, Leo walked away with the gold, as he did not have any real competition that year (Michael Fassbender was terrific as Steve Jobs, but the film lacked the campaigning that The Revenant was guilty of). I am here to say that Leonardo DiCaprio is risk adverse and overrated as an actor. I want to be clear that I am not critical of his career choices. He can do whatever movies he wants. I just think his filmography needs to be examined a little more closely if we are saying he deserves an Oscar every time he is in a film.

Post-Titanic Leonardo took a while to find his footing. It wasn’t until 5 years later that he appeared in his first movie with Martin Scorsese, Gangs of New York. This move shifted his career trajectory of heartthrob (Titanic, The Man in the Iron Mask, and The Beach are a few of the movies he starred in before Gangs). From then on, DiCaprio has only acted in big studio movies with big budgets and big directors. Scorsese, Steven Speilberg, Ridley Scott, Edward Zwick, Sam Mendes, Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood, Baz Luhrmann, Quentin Tarantino, and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu are the only directors he has made feature length films with since 2002.  Leo is talented and can carry a movie, but I think we let him off to easy and just assume he is one of the most talented actors working today.

Leo is in entertaining movies. Inception. Catch Me If You Can. Django Unchained. These are all good movies! But are they good because Leo is in them? Doubtful. When talking about the 2016 Oscars on a podcast, Bill Simmons talked about Leonardo and Matt Damon, who was nominated for The Martian. He wondered what would happen if you switched Damon and Dicaprio in their film roles. Would The Revenant be good if Damon played the lead? Yes. But could DiCaprio carry The Martian and make it as entertaining as Damon does? Simmons argues no. What about with any of their movies? DiCaprio couldn’t have done Good Will Hunting, Ocean’s 11, or Saving Private Ryan. He takes himself too seriously and rarely takes roles where he is the designated lead. On the other hand, it feels like Damon could pull of most of DiCaprio’s roles. Damon has the charisma to float between tones and moods.

Let’s dig a little deeper. How much range does DiCaprio have? Has he done a rom-com? Has he done an indie film since the millennium? Actors like Ryan Gosling, Michael Shannon, and Jake Gyllenhaal work on films with budgets both big and small, directors unknown and known, and show more range in their diversity of genre and roles. Shannon and Gyllenhaal have also had stints on Broadway, an indicator they wish to hone in and improve their craft. Without green screens and multiple takes, actors on Broadway put it all out there.

The first time Leo was nominated for an Oscar was for his work in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? In my opinion, this is Leo’s best acting job. He was up against Ralph Fiennes and John Malkovich, ultimately losing to Tommy Lee Jones. He was up against some of the best in the game. Not a big surprise he lost, especially because he was a fresh face on the scene. His next Oscar nomination came 11 years later for The Aviator. He lost to Jamie Foxx’s Ray Charles impersonation. Did Leo do a better job than Jamie? No. Let’s move on to the next one. Leo was nominated a few years later for Blood Diamond, losing to Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland. There was no way Leo was taking it over Whitaker, as Whitaker became Idi Amin. Then The Wolf of Wall Street came around, and everyone was hoping Leo would finally take home the gold. He had been nominated so much and apparently “deserved” it by now. Matthew McConaughey would take home the little gold man for Dallas Buyers Club. In all of these losses, Leo lost the award to people who gave better performances that year. Plain and simple.

Leonardo DiCaprio is in good movies. He does a good job. I think, however, there is potential for better work from DiCaprio. We have not seen him tested or pushed. I don’t doubt he works hard, but working with big studios and big directors don’t often supply the friction and tension that can come from diverse projects. So how about it, Leo? Get out of your comfort zone and let’s see what you’re made of.

Shyamalan Rising

in Essays by

What do you think of when you hear the name M. Night Shyamalan? For some people, they think The Sixth Sense, Signs, Unbreakable. Others might think, The Happening, After Earth, or The Last Airbender. Depending on what films come to mind, you are bound to get a mixed bag of emotions. When it comes to how his work has been received over the last 18 years, he is one of the most polarizing directors working today. It seems that it wasn’t until The Village where the movie-going public started to diverge. From there, his career would see a long and dark road of box office bombs and little critical praise. It seemed for a while that the Shyamalan we once knew and loved was done for. It wouldn’t be until 2015 until we would see Shyamalan with his groove back when he made The Visit. I was cautiously optimistic after watching that film, although I wasn’t quite ready to tell the world that Shyamalan was back. It was a well-done found footage film that managed to scare and surprise me at the end. Nothing special but worth some praise. It almost felt like he was remembering his roots a little and took his time with a smaller budget.

Then comes January of 2017. Shyamalan released what I believe to be his best film since Unbreakable. I say this because I can discuss this film on the same level as some of his best works. Split is a very entertaining and yet disturbing and original psychological thriller that was like nothing I had seen before. I am going to go into spoilers of this film being that it has had time to marinate in the minds of those who have seen it. If you haven’t seen it, then please stop reading this article, go buy a ticket, and thank me later.

Here are a few reasons why Split is not only great, but also makes Shyamalan relevant again.

The McAvoy

James McAvoy is Oscar-worthy in this film. He plays a man with multiple personality disorder named Kevin Crumb. McAvoy doesn’t hold back at all when it comes to diving deep into each personality and making each one distinct from the other. In some scenes of the film, he is playing a personality pretending to be another one of his personalities. It reminded me of Robert Downey Jr. playing an actor who plays a character in a movie within a movie in Tropic Thunder. He was nominated for his performance and I think McAvoy has the same potential. There are levels to his character that are brilliantly fleshed out. He has a moment where he is changing from one personality to the next right in front of our eyes in one take and it was fascinating to watch him work. I have always liked his movies, but this really showed what he is capable of. It’s also worth mentioning the fact that his character isn’t based on an actual person, making it all the more impressive. Imitating real people for a bio pic is difficult, but creating multiple personas on the level that he does by simply drawing from a well of his own imagination? I’m telling you, it’s Oscar-worthy.

The Storytelling

There are many clichés that come to mind that this film could have easily fallen victim to. The character arc of Casey Cooke, played by Anya Taylor-Joy, is so well done because Shyamalan chose to use visual cues to reveal her character rather than exposition. There’s a scene early on in the film where one of the girls is taken out of the room supposedly to be sexually abused. Casey immediately tells her to pee herself, hoping that it would prevent any sexual advances from one of McAvoy’s personalities. This seems odd at first, but it says so much about what is slowly revealed about Casey and who she is. Shyamalan chose to trust his audience to be smart enough to pick up on little hints here and there instead of hitting us over the head with blatant facts. Her character arc is so well handled up until the last scene, where her face says everything we need to know about how she feels and what she is thinking. It is visual storytelling at its finest.

The Reveal

Yes, as most people know this film does take place in the same universe as Unbreakable. Shyamalan went to great lengths not to reveal this fact until the release of the film because he wanted audiences to experience it as its own story. I respect that. Making a sequel without having to rely on the bigger picture of what’s going on is masterful. I love the fact that someone can enjoy Split without ever knowing anything about Unbreakable. If you notice, the end title sequence shows up right before we get Bruce Willis at the diner. I take this as everything before the title sequence can be taken as its own story. The cameo by Willis tells us that the story we watched and experienced on its own is tied into a much larger story to be told. Split can stand on its own as a great psychological thriller with great characters, never having to rely on the fact that it’s part of something more. That is unheard of in any Marvel sequel that you watch nowadays. Most sequels and its predecessors are simply a stepping stone for the next big film. Most of them struggle to really stand on their own without having to rely on the fact that it’s part of a bigger universe. If I want to watch The Avengers, it requires me to watch a handful of movies to understand each character and where they’re coming from. Marvel movies tend to be more preoccupied about the set up of their universe and forget to make them stand on their own. Deadpool is the exception to this (at least for now). There was never a moment where we had an unnecessary scene that we would only come to understand in a sequel. (Yes, I’m referring to Thor’s vision in Avengers: Age of Ultron) I love how Shyamalan did not use or market this film simply as a stepping stone for a third movie. It would have been so easy to announce that this tied into the Unbreakable universe in order to appeal to fans. But he chose to make it a thriller with interesting characters who possess independent arcs and motivations first, before making it a sequel. I feel like Marvel could learn a good lesson from this. It is not an easy task to tie a film into a universe all while making it enjoyable for the average moviegoer and Shyamalan pulls it off quite nicely.

For these reasons among many others, I think Shyamalan deserves the praise that he once received 18 long years ago. We can only hope that he continues on the rise and has learned from his mistakes. According to a recent tweet of his, he is currently in the process of writing the third and final film in the Unbreakable universe, and I trust that he can pull it off. I finally feel confident enough to say that Shyamalan is back, and he is here to stay.

The Case for “Ouija: Origin of Evil”

in Essays by

Did any of us ask for a sequel/prequel to the film Ouija? This is a question I asked myself after watching the newly released Ouija: Origin of Evil. In thinking about why this new one was made, I was reminded how many times similar questions have been asked in the last decade. For if nobody cares, then why are we seeing a prequel to the terrible 2014 film? The film currently holds a 4.4 on IMDB, so I could maybe understand seeing the next installment to this film go straight to VOD or DVD. Why did the studio think that the world needed to experience the expanded Ouija universe? What is so special about horror movies that we tend to see more sequels and spin offs hit theaters than any other genre? Well, let me put it this way: If you had a chance to put $10 into an investment with a guaranteed return of $10,000 or more, would you do it? Yeah, I would too.  Every single time.

Low budget horror movies tend to take on a lot less risk of return than any other movies, outside of Disney-owned properties such as Lucas Film and Marvel. In fact, I cannot think of the last horror film that got a wide release and did not make a profit. Seriously, google any horror movie that saw a wide release in the last 10 years, good or bad, and see if it came out on top. I doubt you find more than a few that didn’t at least make its budget back. With a significantly lower budget than your average action, rom-com and sci-fi thrillers, the executives are almost always guaranteed to see a return on their investment for some quick cash. Ouija, despite its awful reviews, made an astounding $98,000,000 profit. This trend may have started as early as Paranormal Activity (2007) or even The Blair Witch Project (1999). Both of which had a mere budget of $15,000 and $60,000 respectively. Combined, they both brought in a whopping $442,000,000 worldwide, not including their home video sales. That is an insane return on investment. They made the mistake with Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000) by overblowing the budget with $15,000,000 and banking on the fact that it was a sequel instead of making it any good. It would only see an intake of $47,000,000 worldwide, which is still very profitable, but nothing even closely compared to the first one. Luckily the studios decided to sit on that franchise until of course the more recent release of Blair Witch. With Paranormal Activity, the studios took a different route and wanted to squeeze every dollar that it could out of that franchise. The 6th installment, Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension, is the most expensive with a $10,000,000 budget, and the least profitable with an intake of $78,000,0000 worldwide. For the 6th movie in a horror franchise, that is still a pretty solid return! I mean, can we blame studio executives for greenlighting 3-10 million-dollar projects with a chance to take in a large profit? This is not a trend that will come to an end any time soon.

The studios know exactly what they are doing. Horror movies make quick and easy money, and if marketed correctly, they almost always make a profit. The movie that truly drives this point home is Friday the 13th (2009). It is safe to say that this movie is not only the worst horror movie I have ever seen, but quite possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen and it made more than four times its budget back! We can expect to see more awful reboots and cheap attempts for jump scares down the road because they simply ride the gravy train.

This leads me to my next point. As for the quality of most of these low budget horror films, this is where it tends to be more risk than return for us as an audience. The last horror movie I saw in the theater that truly had me gripping my seat and holding my breath (pun intended) was Don’t Breathe (2016). It is safe to say that there might be one or two horror films each year that don’t end up being mere jump scares and clichés. Yet, it is hard to complain because we still pay the money to go see them no matter what the critics say. There is something about putting yourself through a tense and seat-gripping experience that is worth paying for and sharing that experience with friends and strangers in the dark. 

As far as Ouija: Origin of Evil goes, it’s not half bad! Mike Flanagan really applies his talents to the craft of this movie as well as to the story telling. For a prequel to an awful, forgettable movie, this surprised me. Not great, but surprisingly surpassed my low expectations. 

You might be interested in

Mel Gibson is Back

in Essays by

At one time, Mel Gibson was the kind of actor who could make any movie he wanted. He had the star power to command dollars at the box office and please the critics. If you were to tell somebody in the year 2000 that Mel’s career would soon be taking a hiatus, you would have garnered a good laugh. By the year 2004, Mel’s movies had grossed more than $3,000,000,000 worldwide, with 2 Oscar wins under his belt. The guy had it made! Nothing short of a racist rant while intoxicated would stop him. Unfortunately, that is exactly what led to Mel’s downfall in Hollywood. He has admitted to having an on-and-off drinking problem throughout his life and it finally got the best of him when he was arrested for a DUI in 2006. During this arrest he went on a racist and anti-Semitic rant to the cop arresting him.  The audio went public and damaged his career and reputation for the next decade.  In 2010, he started to see some steady work, but nothing that could free him from his bad reputation and the weight of his past transgressions. For the unforeseeable future, it would seem that Mel’s career would never return to the levels it was at once upon a time. That is, until 2016.

Ever since his rants and moments of shame, he has been very open and apologized profusely on talk shows and interviews. Even then, it is still hard for people to cut him a break. In August of 2016, Mel gave what I believe to be his best performance in the last 20 years, in the film Blood Father. He plays a tattoo artist/ex-con who has been in and out of rehab most of his life. Breaking ties and losing friendships along the way makes for a character that shares some similarities with the actor in real life. The opening scene of the movie is most certainly more than simple exposition. It is an apology Mel is making to his fans and Hollywood for his past mistakes. He has been working to learn and move on from his past, and is simply asking us to forgive him. I think it is time we finally allow Mel Gibson back into theaters. The rest of the movie is a non-stop thrill ride filled with some great action sequences blended perfectly with sentiment and symbolism. It is definitely one of my favorite movies of the year and is a strong vehicle to help put Mel back on stage.  It reminds us why we loved him in the first place.

Lucky for us, Mel would not only be giving us a fantastic acting performance in 2016, but what I believe to be an Oscar-worthy directed film: Hacksaw Ridge. This film tells the amazing true story of a WWII Army Medic, Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield), who goes into battle refusing to kill, let alone touch a weapon, all while saving more than 75 people in the middle of war. We haven’t seen war displayed on the big screen like this since Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan (1998). While the film industry has produced hundreds, if not thousands of movies depicting the horrors of war, Mel still manages to show us that he is a master behind the camera, giving us some original and beautifully crafted shots throughout the film. I have not had a film affect me the way this film did, nearly bringing me to tears at moments. It will definitely allow you to view our veterans in a different light and appreciate even more so what they went through for their country. But beyond veteran appreciation, Mel takes his time with the characters and the story and handles it all so perfectly. I managed to never check my watch even once.  It is a movie-going experience that I will not soon forget. This film is a must-see and most definitely became one of my favorites of the year.

Look, I know there are some people out there that are still offended by the terrible and awful things that Mel has said in years past.  He did say some disgusting things.  But who are we to deny him apology and forgiveness?  Are we not better than the worst things we have done? Do not let Mel’s past actions hinder you from having a satisfying and uplifting movie-going experience. This reminds me of the conversation of “separating the art from the artist.” If you are someone who loves the movies Chinatown or The Pianist, then you have already separated the actions of Roman Polanski from his masterpieces. You don’t have to love Mel Gibson and agree with everything he says or does, but you can appreciate his work and give credit to where credit is due. The fact that he recognizes his wrongdoings and has worked very hard in the last decade to come back into the spotlight is even more reason for me to support him. We all hope that the people we know can forgive us for our mistakes, and I suggest we try and do the same for him. Mel is back, and he’s here to stay.

You might be interested in

1 2 3
Go to Top