Movies – Page 46 – Colin McMahon

End of a Cultural Era: Superhero Movies

Posted on May 1, 2013 by Colin McMahon

With this Friday’s impending release of Iron Man 3, I felt that now was a good time to reflect on a film genre that has dominated cinemas since 2000. For the past thirteen years no other group of films has generated the excitement, or more importantly the dollars, as well as superhero movies. Three of the top grossing films of all time are superhero movies from the past thirteen years (The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Transformers: Dark of the Moon). Point is, the genre has been a juggernaut. Yet nothing gold can stay (except of course Ponyboy – weird reference, I know) and reflecting upon cultural trends, it is inevitable that superhero movies will fade from their height of popularity. I believe the process has already begun.

Let’s rewind the clocks to the year 2000 (that date still sounds futuristic). Director, Bryan Singer delighted audiences with his surprise hit X-Men. The film garnered a fairly favorable critical reception and went on to gross nearly 3oo million dollars at the box office. Not bad for a film that only cost 75 million to make. While audiences cheered and enjoyed themselves, Marvel Studios was watching. Turns out that X-Men was only the beginning: a trial run to test the waters and see whether or not there was an eager market for superhero movies. Turns out there was and since then we have been treated to 25 superhero films from Marvel alone (technically 20 but who’s counting Man-Thing?). Holy crap that’s a lot of superhero movies! Hope you’re still hungry cause there’s three more due out this year (still only counting Marvel films).

So here is the question: how many is too many? Answer: probably close to 25. The superhero genre has a formula that wears thin after repeated viewings. Stop me if you’ve seen this already: a flawed protagonist must overcome an internal struggle with himself (almost always a him). In doing this, he will find the strength to defeat a physical antagonist and save the woman/town/world from certain disaster. This story is nearly as old as recorded history. American mythologist Joseph Campbell actually wrote a book on this phenomena which expresses the ideas quite nicely:

Well worth a read to help understand the popular appeal of "the hero". — Well worth a read to help understand the popular appeal of “the hero”.

Point is: it’s a good story, people like it and its worked for thousands of years. So why don’t I think it will work anywhere? Several reasons. For starters, let’s go back one more time to X-Men. As I said before, that film only cost 75 million (I know right? just 75 million cause most of us I’m sure have that lost in our sofa cushions). While that amount staggers, it really is quite cheap for a blockbuster and is no longer the case for superhero movies. Want to guess at Iron Man 3‘s budget? A cool 200 million. And that’s not including the money spent on marketing and promotion. Wow these things cost money. Will they make it all back? Sure, this time.

When X-Men did really well at the box office, it was a nice surprise. Now, it’s a requirement. The Avengers (220 million), The Dark Knight Rises (230 million), Spider-Man 3 (258 million) – it’s a good thing these films were all blockbusters otherwise people would have lost their jobs.

The funniest face 258 million dollars can buy.

So if a superhero movie under performs financial expectations by even a slight margin: it’s a big deal. Has that already happened: yes. The Amazing Spider-Man took in just over 750 million worldwide. Impressive chunk of change even when you minus the 230 million it cost to make (I’m not sure how much was spent on advertising and promotion but probably at least another 50 million right there). So it still made money but it made less than any Spider-Man film that came before it. This could be blamed on one of two things: confusion at the reboot (a lot of people thought it was a sequel) and leftover bad taste from Spider-Man 3 (the most profitable Spider-Man film ever made by the way). I have a different theory, however.

To me, The Amazing Spider-Man represents the beginning of the end. It was a good film, at least I enjoyed it when I saw it in theaters last summer. The cast was good, it had great effects and cool action scenes. It was a superhero film… that’s it. That’s all I can say about it. There was no greater commentary present in that movie (I’m not saying there should be, it’s Spider-Man after all). But really, did I need to see it: no because I had 25 other options of that movie to watch, many of them (Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man 2) that did that formula better.

Now they’re making another one. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 comes out next summer. And I am completely unexcited for it. Might it be good: it very well might but do I really need to pay 20 bucks to see Spider-Man web-sling around and kick Jamie Foxx (who has been cast as Electro) in the face? No, not really. Electro is a boring character to me. I’ve already seen Spider-Man grapple with his best enemies. The only webhead related experience I would like to see at this point is a movie with Venom in it that, you know, doesn’t suck.

And that’s generally how I feel about most superhero movies. Yeah they’re good but are they all worth seeing? For instance why pay to see Thor: the Dark World, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: the Winter Soldier when I can just wait for the Avengers 2? They’re all going to be cool movies about guys in costumes fighting stuff but Avengers 2 will most likely be the coolest (really excited to see what Joss Whedon does here). They’re all good movies but they’re good superhero movies. Really out of all the films that have been released, there’s only been three that have transcended into great cinema:

Without a doubt the pinnacle of the cinematic superhero era.

Christopher Nolan brought levels to his Dark Knight trilogy that are not found in any other superhero movies. It is awesome that I can watch The Dark Knight as a batman movie AND as a commentary on George W. Bush’s war on terror (I will explain this more fully in another blog post if people would like). The Dark Knight Rises: cool fights between Batman and Bane and really close examinations of growing class inequality in America. Point is: there were more to these movies… and they’re done now. There will never be another Christopher Nolan Batman film. There will be more Batman – Warner Bros. has already announced plans to reboot the character but really? I think I just feel bad for the unfortunate director given that task. Even if he/she does a movie that’s as good as say The Amazing Spider-Man, it will be the worst Batman movie by far that we’ve had this millennium.

Warner Bros. is clearly trying to continue the momentum on in Man of Steel, I’ve already talked about that in an earlier blog post (http://redringsofredemption.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/marketing-method-man-of-steel/) but what if it doesn’t work? What if Man of Steel is nothing more than another good superhero movie? Zack Snyder is not a director of the same caliber as Christopher Nolan. Really, it would be nice to have a good Superman movie (there isn’t one yet in my opinion) but you know we won’t get just one. There will be at least three and then there’s also Justice League if that ever get’s out of development hell.

Directors aren’t the only ones leaving as well. Robert Downey Jr., arguably the strongest superhero actor presence out there, has spoken publicly about ending his role as Iron Man: “[Recasting] would probably be the best thing in the world for me. You know, ego…but sometimes ego just has to be smashed. Let’s see what happens. I take the audience very seriously – I feel bad when I see folks doing movies and the audience is like, ‘Don’t do that anymore.’ I don’t have to overstay my welcome…”

So while he is not walking away, he is expressing the eventuality of it. There will most likely be an Iron Man 4, Marvel has indicated as well… but will we pay for it? When will audiences grow tired of their heroes? The directors are already tired, the actors are getting there. My feeling is that audiences will not be far behind. It’s been a good ride and it will end in a crash. These films have been too popular to not be run into the ground. Do we need a Flash movie? Ready to pony over your dollars for 25 more films? I don’t think so.

Would you really be so excited if it was someone else in the suit?

Crazes come and go in Hollywood. Comic book superheros are a strong intellectual property full of rich stories that benefit from the cinematic experience – but there are other such materials waiting in the wings. My prediction for the next ten years: move over Iron Man, it’s Master Chief’s turn in the spotlight.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

We're Supposed to Like Him but Why? Grandpa Joe (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Colin McMahon

So today being a Monday, I decided to start the week with a not-so-serious article and talk about one of my favorite movies growing up. There are few films that convey “pure imagination” like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (I know… I had to use it). The songs, the sets, the characters, the candy: I love this movie. In my opinion there are few cinematic portrayals that rival Gene Wilder’s enchanting yet haunting Willy Wonka. It’s a performance that is right up there with Anthony Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter, Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow and Heath Ledger’s Joker. But I’m not writing here today to talk about Wilder or the Oompa Loompas or anything so magical. Let’s instead talk about Grandpa Joe.

For any who haven’t seen this movie in a while, Grandpa Joe is one of four elderly invalids living with protagonist Charlie and his mother. It is established right away that this is not a financially secure household. The place is very tiny with all four grandparents having to share one bed. Their poverty is further established by the fact that Charlie, despite his young age, works a job while the other kids play and sing songs with candy vendors. In addition, when Charlie gets his pay raise and spends it on a loaf of bread, his mother refers to the food as “a banquet”. Yeah, he get the idea that the belts are tightened with his family.

This is good character development for Charlie as it establishes him as both responsible and selfless, despite his young age. He didn’t spend any of his hard earned money on candy, no matter how catchy the opening song. No instead he goes home and buys food for his family. In addition, he nobly volunteers to support his Grandpa Joe’s tobacco cost. Nice kid… let’s talk about Grandpa Joe.

Grandpa Joe lives a boring existence. Every day he lies in a bed, chatting with its three other occupants and watching television. He will also talk to Charlie and his mother if they are available (you know, not working to feed him and let him smoke). Let’s talk about some of the conversation he has with Charlie’s mother, in particular his commentary here: “One of these days I’m going to get out of this bed and help him.” Grandpa Joe is of course referring to Charlie, sympathizing with the protagonist. That’s all well and good but as Charlie’s mother responds: “Dad, in all the years you’ve talked about getting out of that bed, I have yet to see you set foot on the ground.” Guess what the response here is: “Well maybe if the floor wasn’t so cold.”

Yep, it’s that damn floor. Ruins so many plans doesn’t it? Here is tiny Charlie, a kid matured passed his age into supporting his family and why? Because that accursed floor holds Grandpa Joe prisoner, preventing him from, you know, being a responsible adult and supporting his family… or at least supporting his own tobacco habits. I never liked the character of Grandpa Joe and I didn’t get why the movie wanted to present him as a good guy. Certainly Charlie loves him but Charlie is a young and naive kid. We’re taught to think all the other kids that go with Charlie to the chocolate factory are horrible, wicked people that get what they deserve but what about Grandpa Joe? Seriously? Those kids may have been jerks but they were like eight. What’s his excuse?

Other reasons why Grandpa Joe cannot leave the bed: the liberal media, violent video games, Barack Obama's socialist policies. — Other reasons why Grandpa Joe cannot leave the bed: the liberal media, violent video games, Barack Obama’s socialist policies.

So Grandpa Joe, despite loving Charlie and sympathizing deeply with his plight, cannot be moved to help. He’s old damn it! Now maybe I’m being harsh. The film appears to establish Grandpa Joe as unable to leave the bed. Sure he has a fighting spirit, but that cannot overcome old age and a potentially debilitating condition. Maybe Grandpa Joe really would like nothing more than to spring out of that bed and help Charlie to support his family, he simply no longer possesses the strength. Yeah, I might be being too harsh.

As soon as Charlie wins the last coveted golden ticket, Grandpa Joe is suddenly more limber than Usain Bolt. Where was this energy when his family needed it? Where was that drive when his grandson was delivering papers or his daughter was up late at night washing laundry?

Grandpa Joe doesn’t get better either. Any who have read the book know that the film differs in more than just its name. There is a whole added sequence involving fizzy lifting drinks which is not present in Roald Dahl’s novel. The scene occurs shortly after Violet Beauregarde as transformed into a giant blueberry and wheeled off to whatever fate awaits her. Point is: this scene occurs after children have failed and been kicked out (or worse killed). So Charlie and Grandpa Joe have reason to be on their toes. Now Charlie is a young kid, young kids are eager, impetuous – stupid. Point is, I don’t fault Charlie for wanting to try the fizzy lifting drinks. It shows that he’s human. Without this error, he would look like a young Christ figure (just watch Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to see what I’m talking about).

Now Grandpa Joe is the adult in this situation and the bulk of the responsibility falls to him. AND IT’S HIS IDEA! “Let’s take a drink, Charlie. No one’s watching.” Really? Really Grandpa Joe? This is the man who, not ten minutes prior, called Violet Beauregarde “a nitwit” for not listening to Mr. Wonka. So what does that make him? Did Mr. Wonka say the drinks were okay? No, no he did not. In fact he said the opposite.

I just nearly got my grandson and I killed for fizzy lifting drinks.

And yet, despite this, when Willy Wonka informs Charlie and Grandpa Joe of their failure to keep to the contract (one that Charlie signed without reading at request of Grandpa Joe), it isn’t Charlie who flips his shit. I know that Charlie is supposed to be the protagonist and he’s an awesome one but this movie can be read with a very cynical undertone. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: a story about how an old man uses his grandson to promote his living status. Think about it.

At the beginning of the film, Grandpa Joe is lying in bed and a small rundown home. At the end of the movie, he is essentially co-owner of Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. Did he do anything to deserve this rise in fortunes: nope. Well he cultivated a good relationship with his grandson… although why Charlie listens to him is beyond me. Why he’s not portrayed far more negatively in the movie is beyond me as well; really looking at everything, he is an antagonistic figure.

I feel Grandpa Joe is one of the people that republicans must imagine when they fear unemployment benefits and welfare. Obviously his guy is taking advantage of not just his grandson but the system too. I can only imagine what happened after Charlie took over the chocolate factory and gave Grandpa Joe a job. What if he put him in charge of something important like keeping track of company income? I can only imagine the ordeal ending with: “Sorry Charlie, I know the factory closed but – the floor, it was just too cold to keep a cost efficient budget.”

Well played Grandpa Joe, well played.

Getting real tired of your shit, Grandpa Joe.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Clever Girl: Why the Stupidity of Jurassic Park Doesn't Stop it being a Classic

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Colin McMahon

Growing up there are few films I remember more fondly than Jurassic Park. I was only 4 when it came out in 1993 (just old enough to know how cool dinosaurs were) so my parents wouldn’t let me see it in theaters. But with two older brothers, rest assured we had that VHS copy as soon as it came out! Even then, there were two scenes in particular that I wasn’t allowed to watch as a child: Gennaro being eaten by the T-Rex and the scene with Samuel L. Jackson’s arm. My parents wanted to protect me. Did it work? No, of course I saw those scenes (I think I saw Evil Dead only a couple years later, I was not a sheltered child). Anyway, what’s the point of my telling you all this? So that you know how much I love Jurassic Park. I think I could quote you most of the movie. I think this is one of the most recent films that can be called a true cinematic classic and, watching it last night on the big screen in IMAX 3D, it occurred to me just how stupid Jurassic Park is.

Stupid is a generic word, what do I mean by it? What I mean is that there are a lot of scenes/sequences in Jurassic Park that make absolutely no sense. You, as the reader, may respond to this claim with: “it’s a movie about genetically created dinosaurs, it’s not supposed to be realistic”. Yes, Jurassic Park is science-fiction fantasy, but any author/director worth his/her salt would tell you: just because your characters exist in an unrealistic world does not entitle them to unrealistic action. I have no problem with the dinosaurs (horrible scientific inaccuracies included). What I take issue with is the sloppiness in several of the action sequences in the movie.

Let’s start with the Tyrannosaurus first, the largest problem in the movie (in more ways than one… sorry for that pun). The T-Rex is incredibly awesome and belongs to several of Jurassic Park‘s more iconic scenes. My issue is not with the film’s use of the actual dinosaur but rather, with this pictured below.

The impact tremor: Jurassic Park‘s iconic method to inform the audience that shit was about to go down. This occurs multiple times in the film, directly before the T-Rex’s first two appearances.

“Anybody hear that? It’s a, um… It’s an impact tremor, that’s what it is… I’m fairly alarmed here.”

Point is, director Steven Spielberg and scriptwriters Michael Crichton and David Koepp created the Tyrannosaurus to be a creature of dread. For the first half of the movie, the T-Rex is not the surprise scare, it is the creature whose coming is foretold – and there’s nothing the hapless visitors of Jurassic Park can do to stop it. The focus on the impact tremor builds the atmosphere of the scene, allowing the audience to feel the fear and enjoy a full wealth of goosebumps before the animal appears. This effect greatly enhances the first two scenes. Now here’s this:

I could watch this ending all day and never get tired of it.

This ending sequence might be my favorite of any movie… but it doesn’t make any sense. As before stated, by both the film and myself, the T-Rex is a creature with presence. The audience knows where it is throughout the film as evidenced by either the iconic roar or the (even more iconic) impact tremors. Yet in this sequence the T-Rex ninjas (yes ninja is now a verb) its way inside a building without anyone, human or raptor, being aware of its presence. Does it make sense: no. Does it detract from my enjoyment of the film: nope. I’ll get back to why that matters at the end. For now, let’s keep the list going with our next item of stupidity:

Of all the failures of common sense in Jurassic Park, I think this one may grind on me the most. Here’s the skinny: the T-Rex knocks the car (with Tim inside) into a tree. Dr. Grant, being the protagonist he is, goes up into the tree to rescue Tim. This he does but not without moving the steering wheel, thus making it so the car is no longer stable. The two must then climb down the tree with the car in hot pursuit. This creates an action sequence with two characters outrunning the destruction in a race for their very lives.

The problem: there is more than one way down a tree, especially a tree as big as the one in the movie. Why, why on God’s good Earth, would anyone choose the path directly below the car? Especially since they didn’t start out there! Dr. Grant pulls Tim out of the side of the car, that puts them beside it. Meaning Dr. Grant took himself and a child into the direct path of a falling vehicle (too many days digging up dinosaurs in the hot sun I guess).

Look at all the branches you're NOT using. — Look at all the branches you’re NOT using.

Obviously this was, again, the movie sacrificing sense for a cool action sequence. Maybe the reason it effects me more is because I don’t think this sequence is nearly as cool as the finale. For one: no dinosaurs. Two: the car falls in a completely unnatural way, which is yet another suspension of disbelief that Jurassic Park is asking me to make. So two lapses in logic for one dinosaur-free action sequence. Again I’m going to get back to why this doesn’t ruin or even really detract from the movie. Moving on.

Let’s skip ahead in the film to near the end. The “UNIX system” scene (anyone who knows computers has another reason to groan here). Lex is trying to lock the doors while a raptor is trying to force its way into the room. Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler are trying to hold the door closed. In the meantime Dr. Sattler is also trying to reach the gun, that Dr. Grant dropped, with her foot but in her words: “I can’t get it unless I move!” So they’re in a pickle. If only there was one other person in the room, someone who is literally doing nothing with himself in a time of crisis. Wait… what’s Tim doing?

That’s right, Tim just stands there. This irks me too. It means that, during filming of this sequence, Steven Spielberg had to instruct Joseph Mazzello (actor who plays Tim) to stand there and look like that. How did Spielberg not realize the problem? He probably did; again it is done to enhance the tension of the scene. The problem is that all tension vanishes when you realize that, yeah Tim is a dumb-ass. Also there are a lot of big windows into that room that the raptor could jump through…

Okay, so I’ve had my fun poking holes in Jurassic Park. There’s more I could do but I think you get the point: it’s not a perfect film. I can’t stress enough how well the movie holds up though. All of these problems detracted nothing from my enjoyment. Yet Jurassic Park has two sequels and… they’re not so well remembered. For all intents and purposes, The Lost World: Jurassic Park (actual full title) and Jurassic Park III are just like the first. They’re all three stupid and contain plot holes. So why is one good and the others not?

I think the answer is not found in the script, or the scene construction (although there may be a bit in the latter) but in the players. Jurassic Park has a phenomenal cast that is just insanely fun to watch. Who can’t get behind Sam Neill as Dr. Grant (the man is like Indiana Jones with dinosaurs). Jeff Goldblum owes the entirety of his fame to his quirky portrayal of Ian Malcolm (Independence Day also deserves some credit). Laura Dern, Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards provide Jurassic Park‘s emotional core while actors Martin Ferroro and Wayne Knight give us characters we love to see get eaten. Add Samuel L. Jackson (no further explanation needed) doing his trademark performance and Richard Attenborough selling the film’s majestic wonder and there is a combination that can’t be beat. The sequels just don’t have that same killer chemistry.

This is what is needed for Jurassic Park IV (yes it is happening). Recreate that same wonder and fun that existed in the first film. Dinosaurs are awesome even when they’re not chasing or eating people. And it’s great to see a cast that look like they’re having fun rather than simply doing their jobs. I hope director Colin Trevorrow is up to the challenge of Jurassic Park IV. Seeing the original in theaters again made me wish for more Jurassic Park, with all the fun and stupidity included.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Also Bob Peck as Robert Muldoon. Never have I seen a man be so serious while looking so ridiculous. Just... his shorts, they deserve their own film. — Also Bob Peck as Robert Muldoon. Never have I seen a man be so serious while looking so ridiculous. Just… his shorts, they deserve their own film.