Money is the Root of all Evil; or, Why I’m Fed Up with Comic Book Movies

A while ago now, back when it happened, I had a reader ask me my opinion of Disney’s purchase of Lucasfilms, particularly with regard to the future of the Star Wars franchise. My reader (Hi, Dr. O! We miss you!) is apparently a fan of Star Wars and is enthusiastic about seeing more of Lucas’ universe, and he pinpointed Disney’s successes with Pixar and Marvel as reasons to believe we can expect great things from the revived franchise. I can’t deny any of that. I am also a Star Wars fan (well, the original three movies, anyway), and I get excited about anything new that sounds like it might be good. BUT. I’ve thought about it all quite a lot, and my initial reaction remains the same: all of this still seems like nothing more than a shameless money grab.

Yeah, yeah, we’ve all heard these complaints a thousand times. “Why can’t Hollywood make anything new?” “Why do we have to have a thousand sequels every year?” “Why do they have to keep remaking classics?”

In my opinion, those are all really good questions. And the answer to all of them is: money. Studios prefer to stick with the tried-and-true moneymakers instead of gambling on a new, fresh idea that might not fly. If the first movie made a profit, then why shouldn’t the second, third, and fourth? And if everyone loved “The Nutty Professor” the first time around, surely they’ll love it this time, right? Robin Williams! Everyone loves Robin Williams. It doesn’t matter one whit that the first Star Wars movie came out long before most Twilight fans were born. Everyone’s heard of it, so everyone will talk about it, and hopefully, everyone will go see a new one. Heck, I probably will. You want new movies made? Don’t go see the same four or five rehashed and rolled out anew every August. But of course we all do, and we probably buy the DVDs when they come out, too. There are numerous manifestations of the commercialization of movies, and they’ve been around as long as the films themselves, of course. Who didn’t have a movie tie-in Happy Meal toy as a kid? There are a few “new” practices, however, that are really starting to annoy me, and I’d like to discuss those as part of what I think is wrong with movies today, as exemplified (in part) by the resurrection of the Star Wars franchise.

First of all, there’s this distressing trend toward stretching out a series (often “literary” adaptations) in order to fully realize the source material. Sadly, I think this may have started with the Harry Potter franchise. In that case, I do think the decision to turn the final book into two movies was a good one, although it could be argued that the first installment suffered from not enough action, while the second had the opposite problem. But then came the Twilight movies, who followed the same formula, drawing their series out to the very last, painful (so I hear) drop. And then, my friends, we have The Hobbit.

Now, thanks to my parents I was pretty much a Tolkien fan from day one, but I’m going to be honest with you. Peter Jackson’s Fellowship of the Ring trilogy was really, really boring. It was beautiful and faithful and all that, but it was dull. So when it was announced that he was going to do The Hobbit, I just shrugged. To me, it already sounded like LOTR 2: The Search for More Money, but then it got better. In case you were not aware, The Hobbit is only one book, and not a particularly lengthy one at that. But, the powers-that-be had decided that it would transition to film as not one, not two, but THREE movies. Apparently the use of source material and snippets of information from other works about Middle Earth would be added in to flesh out the story. Seriously? I’m not suggesting that this was all Peter Jackson’s idea (and frankly I hope it wasn’t), but this is clearly a grab for the movie-going public’s hard-earned dollars. Don’t you think there have got to be screenwriters out there who can shrink a book down into a passable movie? Let me just point out that Gone with the Wind is only one measly film, and that book has over a thousand pages. I’ve read it multiple times, and the film does a pretty good job of hitting all the important points. I’m pretty sure we could dispense of The Hobbit in under three hours.

Aside from dragging movies out, I’m pretty fed up with the concept of sequels in general. Sure, sometimes they’re good movies. Sometimes they’re even better than the original. But let’s face it: at some point, if they keep going past two, they all drag the original idea down into the mud and then step on it. But wait! That’s not a problem anymore, because now we can just REBOOT a series and start all over again! Admittedly, when Christopher Nolan revived Batman, he did something notably different with it, and that’s fine, I guess. But come on. Rebooting the Spiderman series after only what, four or five years? That’s blatant commercialism. And yet they’re already at work on the second installment of Spiderman 2.0. Where will it end?

Unfortunately, the comic book genre provides ample opportunity for sequels and reboots and replacements. I’m on record as being a big fan of Robert Downey, Jr. and Iron Man. I liked Thor and Captain America, and I absolutely loved The Avengers. But honestly, it breaks my heart that they’re cranking out more of all of those. There’s simply only so far up you can go before you inevitably go down, and I don’t want to see that. The problem is that they have to keep trying to top themselves by bringing in more heroes, more bad guys, more action. In nearly every instance, this leads to movies of lesser quality. The Avengers was so great. How are they going to top that? Why do they even need to bother? Sometimes it’s ok to just walk away, knowing you did a good job, isn’t it? Or maybe it’s easy for me to say that, since I’m not raking in mountains of cash with each new trailer.

The combination of all these factors, and the mechanisms that the movie-makers use to keep these machines running brings me to my final point. This is something that I only recently realized was making me really, really angry. X-Men 2: Days of Future Past. As I’m sure we are all aware, the original X-Men trilogy started out fine, but was a bloated mess by the third movie. So, in the tradition of such things, a reboot happened. X-Men: First Class was a surprise hit. I really enjoyed it. Naturally, a sequel would follow. The story is apparently based on a popular one from the comics, involving parallel universes and/or time travel, or something appropriately comic-book-y. From a Hollywood perspective, though, those types of things enable the moviemakers to work their own magic and bring back nearly everyone from the original franchise. Now, let’s talk about this. They rebooted the series, bringing in new blood (more on that new blood in a second) because the series had gone downhill, right? So why bring back the old crowd? I know everyone loves Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but do I need to remind you all of the quality of his stand-alone spin-off? It was dreadful, although that isn’t stopping them from producing a sequel, either.

But back to Days of Future Past. I get that there’s time travel and so we’ll encounter some of the characters from First Class in their older incarnations. However. I recently read a story about how some of the stars of First Class were angry about the amount of screen time (and probably consequently money) they can expect to receive in this second movie. And I ask you: how is that appropriate? It’s only my opinion, of course, but shall I tell you what made First Class so very good? Four words. James, McAvoy, Michael, and Fassbender. Their characterizations of the young Xavier and Magneto were beautifully fleshed-out and flawlessly acted. Their changing relationship formed the heart of the movie. And now we’re going to toss that aside so Ellen Page can revisit Shadowcat? Hollywood, please explain this to me, because I do not understand. Never mind all the usual hallmarks of a sequel: more heroes, more villains, more more more. I think (I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong) that fans would be happier with a sequel that maybe stripped things down and followed the progression of those two characters and their efforts. Since Magneto wasn’t actually the main villain of First Class, wouldn’t it be natural for him to be so in Days of Future Past? It’s not as though Fassbender couldn’t handle it.

It’s all just a way to grab as much of the potential audience as possible with little to no concern for things like story, plot, performance, or cohesion. The need to outdo everything that’s come before results in more movies of lesser quality instead of films that everyone involved can be proud of. I know that sounds like I’m trying to elevate the comic book movie to high art, but I think we’ve had plenty of recent examples to show us that the so-called “popcorn movie” can be about a great performance, or a serious and thought-provoking story line, without sacrificing the explosions and fight scenes. Similarly, I’m not trying to suggest that people like Fassbender, Downey, Joss Whedon, and Peter Jackson are not capable of creating something meaningful even in the face of rampant commercialism. I do think I’m safe in saying, however, that the honeymoon doesn’t last forever.

To return to the question of new Star Wars films, hey. I hope I’m wrong. The Star Wars universe spans a large amount of territory beyond the films, and so clearly there is great potential for new and creative movie-making. Using the names and themes already familiar to movie-goers isn’t a crime, certainly. The recent speculation about whether the original stars (Hamill, Fisher, Ford) will reprise their roles feels an awful lot like a gimmick, but ultimately, I suppose if audiences enjoy whatever the studio comes up with, it’ll be a win-win for everyone involved. At least until Episode X, anyway.

Capsule reviews

The Tourist (2010)

I finally got around to seeing The Tourist recently. I scoffed at the concept early on, but decided it looked like it could be entertaining, and that I liked Angelina Jolie and Paul Bettany enough to give it a try. Let me tell you: that was a mistake. This movie is astonishingly dull. Despite boasting a good cast and having a somewhat promising premise, there’s just nothing going on here. Johnny Depp stars as Frank, a milquetoast math teacher, dragged by international woman of mystery Elise (Jolie) into a world of intrigue. Bettany and Timothy Dalton are British agents seeking to bring down Elise and her elusive lover, whom they believe to be Frank. You’d expect a comedy of errors, some great action sequences, and an explosive ending, possibly with a twist of some kind. Instead you get Depp mumbling, Jolie struggling with an accent that has somehow deteriorated since Tomb Raider, and Bettany and Dalton looking appropriately embarrassed to be involved in the whole thing. There are very few laughs, and only a few, weak action sequences. Ok, ok, so there is a twist; by the time you reach it, though, you’ll find you never really cared. I’m really not sure the last time I’ve been so very bored by a movie. I really do think it had promise, but The Tourist somehow falls flat.

Despicable Me (2010)

Initially, I had very little interest in Despicable Me. Animated features aren’t really my bag, and neither is Steve Carell. However, word of mouth was really great, so it got an add to the Netflix queue. In contrast to The Tourist, this addition was not a mistake. Carell stars as Gru, an “aging” villain who is determined to bring off one last heist that will assure his place in history. When he adopts three adorable orphans, Margo, Edith, and Agnes, as part of a plan to steal a shrink ray from a rival villain, Vector (voiced by Jason Segel), he finds his priorities altered. This movie is laugh-out-loud funny. It does a great job of balancing simple humor with more sophisticated jokes for the parents, and doesn’t overdo its ultimately warm and fuzzy message. While it may suffer from comparisons to The Incredibles (Syndrome is a much better villain than Vector, for one thing), it is different enough to stand strong on its own. Naturally, we can expect a sequel sometime this year, so if you haven’t seen the original, I’d suggest doing that. Whether or not I will tune in for more of Gru, the girls, and their little yellow minions (alternately hilarious and annoying) remains to be seen, but that has more to do with my dislike of sequels than my enjoyment with this first installment.

Musical Moment: Happy birthday (RIP), Rex Harrison

Rex Harrison was an important actor for a long time, but today he’s probably best known for the classic musical, My Fair Lady. There’s tons of fun trivia about this movie: despite having performed the role of Eliza Doolittle on stage, Julie Andrews was passed over in favor of a better-known actress, Audrey Hepburn, who then had to have her singing numbers dubbed by Marni Nixon. Andrews would go on to beat Hepburn at the Oscars, winning Best Actress for Mary Poppins. Meanwhile, Harrison also won the Oscar, despite barely singing a note. The film won eight Oscars in all, including Best Picture and Best Director (George Cukor). I’ve always been a fan of My Fair Lady, and today we’ll celebrate the anniversary of Mr. Harrison’s birth with one of my favorite numbers.

The movie: My Fair Lady (1964)
The song: Just You Wait! (‘Enry ‘Iggins)

Happy Birthday: Five Drew Barrymore Favorites

Let’s talk about Drew Barrymore. She occupies kind of a strange place in filmdom: she’s pretty much Hollywood royalty, coming from a family of celebrated actors. She was a promising child actor, but then she through an extended wild (and troubled) period. She’s sort of A-list as an individual, but I guess I would say most of her movies fall into the B-list category. Still, she’s come a long way, and these days she’s something of a media mogul. She directs, produces, and is by all accounts an accomplished professional. Good for her, I say. I actually used to find her extremely irritating, but at some point I became an unabashed fan. She’s a powerful woman in a business largely overrun by men, and she’s always been herself. For that, I salute her and wish her a very happy birthday (we’re the same age!), and in her honor, I’d like to feature some of her movies that I really love. They’re not high drama or exemplary film-making, but they’re entertaining and enjoyable; the kinds of movies you’ll come back to again and again. Let’s have a little fun on a Friday morning, shall we?

The Wedding Singer (1998)
Remember when Adam Sandler was charming? If you’re having trouble, I’d recommend a viewing of this adorable rom-com. It’s got all the goofy earmarks of a Sandler production, but the story is sweet, and Sandler and Barrymore have good chemistry as a pair of good-hearted dreamers. Drew is at her quirky, adorable best here, and if the climactic scene on the airplane doesn’t get you all sniffly, you don’t have a soul.

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)
I think this is the movie that made a fan out of me. Sure, her accent is terrible. But Drew’s version of Cinderella is a delightful tomboy, a reader and a thinker who captivates Prince Henry (Dougray Scott, SWOON) by being unlike every other girl out there. Plus, Angelica Huston and Megan Dodds are deliciously villainous as the evil stepmother and sister, and I just love Melanie Lynsky as the more sympathetic sister. Looking for excellent pick-up lines, guys? Take some notes: Dougray Scott is on fire here. Seriously, how can you not love a Cinderella who wields a sword?

Charlie’s Angels (2000)
A fun, silly action flick starring girls? Sign me up. Barrymore joins Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu for this romp of a reboot of the popular TV show. The long list of supporting players includes Sam Rockwell, Tim Curry, and Bill Murray as Bosley. There’s good action, lots of comedy, and some memorable scenes (Diaz dancing in her Underoos! Lucy Liu dominatrix-ing it up!), too. I hear the sequel is pretty bad, so let’s just stick with this one, eh?

Music and Lyrics (2007)
Barrymore’s up to her usual quirky tricks here, but Hugh Grant shines as a washed-up pop singer looking for a return to the big leagues in this romantic comedy. The plot is pretty straightforward, but Barrymore and Grant have a comfortable chemistry, and it’s well worth watching for the various references and jokes about pop music. Basically, you want to see this movie for the opening credits, but sticking around will be fun, too.

Whip It (2009)
Barrymore’s directorial debut stars Ellen Page as a young woman looking to escape a life of beauty pageants and provinciality who finds herself through roller derby. Barrymore also stars as one of Page’s team members. Whip It is based upon a book written by a derby skater, and although it’s a bit sensationalized at times, I think it captures the fun spirit and camaraderie of the sport (derby friends are welcome to disagree with me). Pretty standard coming-of-age stuff, but there are nice performances throughout, and once again, it’s really all about girl power. The soundtrack’s also pretty sweet.

I want to have a Drew Barrymore marathon right now. How about you? I realize that I haven’t seen some of her bigger movies (Scream springs to mind), so what favorites of yours did I leave off?

Capsule Reviews

Becket (1964)
If you’re going to watch two actors duke it out (both in character and as actors), you can’t do a whole lot better than to watch Richard Burton and Peter O’Toole go at it as Thomas Becket and King Henry II of England. In this historical drama (adapted from a French play by Jean Anouilh), Henry is sure of the loyalty of his friend, Becket, when he elevates him to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, and is astonished when Becket views the appointment as a higher calling and declares a greater loyalty. The film focuses almost entirely on the relationship between Becket and Henry, and allows both actors to perform at the very highest levels. O’Toole is grating but effective as the rather spoiled Henry; a fascinating contrast to his performance, only four years later, of the same man in The Lion in Winter. Clearly, O’Toole’s Henry does some growing up in the interim. Meanwhile, Burton gives an astonishingly deep and nuanced performance as Thomas Becket. He shows great intelligence and wit throughout, and when he takes the mantle of the Archbishop on his shoulders, he makes a marked change from disinterested aesthete to pious servant of God without missing a beat. Both are powerful performances, but Burton (and Becket) proves to have the upper hand, even in giving his life to remain true to his sense of duty. John Gielgud makes an entertaining appearance as King Louis VII of France, providing a bit of (sly and sophisticated) comic relief. As with most plays-turned-films, Becket is light on action, and a little slow at times, but worthwhile for fans of great acting.

Royal Wedding (1951)

I’ve wanted to see Royal Wedding since I was a kid. The “I Left My Hat in Haiti” number is featured in That’s Dancing, and I’ve long been interested in the colorful costumes and the performance of Jane Powell. However, the film as a whole is somewhat disappointing. Fred Astaire and Powell play a brother-sister duo who travel to London to perform against the backdrop of a royal wedding. They’re both marriage-shy, but of course they each meet and fall in love with their perfect mates (played by Sarah Churchill and Peter Lawford). There are some fun and imaginative numbers, the highlight of which is Astaire dancing with a hatrack, but the pace of the movie is slow, and there’s very little going on, plot-wise. Powell’s dancing is great, but her style of singing leaves a lot to be desired. It must’ve been popular at the time, though, because she gets no less than three solo ballads. Apparently, the original copyright for Royal Wedding was never renewed, and as such, the film is now available mainly in poor copy. It’s incredibly dark and in serious need of re-mastering, but as an inferior example of Astaire’s work, it’s probably not high on anybody’s list of priorities.

Open letter to Quentin Tarantino

Dear Mr. Tarantino,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I really dislike you. More specifically, I should say that I don’t enjoy your movies, since I haven’t met you. For all I know you could be an extremely nice guy, although to be honest I kind of doubt that. In the spring of 1994, I went with my boyfriend at the time to a drive-in (remember those?) to see the new movie everyone was raving about: Pulp Fiction. I squirmed when Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta shot all those guys. I dug the dance scene at the restaurant, but cringed when Uma Thurman got that gigantic needle slammed into her sternum. And then, you lost me.

You know that scene where somebody (Travolta?) accidentally shoots the guy in the back of the car? And then thinks it’s funny? Right there is where I signed off. It’s not that I made a declaration to never see one of your movies again, per se, but that’s pretty much how it’s ended up. I’ve seen a few movies you were in; some were fun (Desperado) and some were really, really stupid (From Dusk ‘Til Dawn). But I haven’t really watched anything else that you’ve directed. It wasn’t that it was gross. I’m willing to admit that overall, the movie is very well put together. Everything about that scene, though, just turned me off. A shoot-em-up film is one thing, but it was the “accidental” nature of that particular example that gets to me. A human being’s life was ended, and because the characters involved (much like our society) were so desensitized to death and violence, they thought it was funny, and were merely concerned with getting the blood stains out of their car.

Please understand: I don’t have a huge problem with violence in movies. If it is realistic or necessary to the narrative, I am fine with it. If it’s campy throughout (back to Desperado, which is hilarious), it can indeed be entertaining. My issue is with your particular brand of violence. When utilized as a part of a whole, I can agree that blood and death can be humorous, but not simply on their own merit. Violence for the sake of violence is not funny. The shock value associated with, say, cutting someone’s ear off is something that should, in my opinion, be used sparingly. Death should be treated with at least a modicum of respect; I mean, it’s DEATH. Again, I think it’s the suggestion of a desensitized audience that bugs me. Oh, just some guy with his brains blown out, nothing to see here. But instead of having something to say about the horror or sadness or justice of the situation, you just seem to revel in the blood, Mr. Tarantino. I might go so far as to say you get off on it. I have definitely been known to have a sick and/or inappropriate sense of humor, but something about your sense of humor and mine, well, they just don’t jive.

In the past few years, as I come to a “study” of seeing more movies and generally trying to delve into the medium, my feelings about you have become a bit more complicated. You are seen by many as an “auteur,” and I don’t disagree that you have had an impact on movie-making. As I try to broaden my movie-viewing horizons, I quite often bump up against cult classics like Reservoir Dogs, or films starring people I greatly enjoy, like Inglorious Basterds, or Best Picture nominees like Django Unchained. But I’m just not interested. Perhaps you, as a student of film, would think that my interest is shallow, or that I lack in true taste. Maybe I do. But ultimately, we watch movies because we want to be entertained, and that’s the crux of the matter, here, sir. You don’t entertain me. I think that, if you were at all inclined to do something different, I might be more interested. Most directors aren’t notable for their range in terms of genre, and I respect that. Movie-making is serious and all-encompassing work, so it makes sense that one wouldn’t go bouncing around. But, since you only seem to do things more or less one way, I’m going to have to pass. There will just be one school of cinema that I will remain ignorant of.

I don’t agree at all with the people who think that the seemingly random acts of violence that occur in our society today have been influenced by media or entertainment. Plenty of people have watched a movie where someone gets shot without taking it into their heads to go out and shoot people themselves. But I do think that movies like yours are at least symptomatic of the problem. Again, most of us (yes, myself included) are highly desensitized to violence these days. So perhaps it takes more outre (or just more) violence to get through to us. At the risk of getting way too philosophical, though, I think that we lose a little bit of our humanity when we “enjoy” violence, or when we don’t respond to it with discomfort or sorrow. I believe that art, of any kind, is part of what elevates us beyond mere “animal” status, but when our art appeals to our baser nature, what do we accomplish? Are we moving forward, or back?

Oy, it got all pretentious there for a minute. Sorry about that. I guess I’ll just wrap up by saying that just because I don’t like your vision doesn’t mean that I don’t get that lots of other people like it. Obviously you’ve done quite well for yourself, and I’m sure that my opinion, posted here, will not lose you 5 seconds of sleep tonight. You might say that because I am still mulling over that scene in Pulp Fiction, nearly 20 years after the fact, you’ve accomplished something. Maybe so. If I must, I will thank you for giving me something to think about. I’d thank you more if you’d consider toning it down a little, though. No? Well, can’t say I didn’t try.

Regards,

Me

Happy birthday, Cary Grant: Top Six Movies

As the quote goes, everyone wants to be Cary Grant. The talented actor was the picture of suave urbanity for more than three decades, and is still well-regarded today. I’m a latecomer to the charms of the erstwhile Archibald Leach, but I’ve become a huge fan in a few short years. But what I love about him isn’t his charm or his way with women: Cary Grant is HILARIOUS. He got his start in vaudeville and acrobatics (!), and while he eventually traded in the physical humor, his earlier films are what make him one of my favorite actors. Since today is the anniversary of his birth, I decided to share with you my picks for his six best films. Pay close attention to some of them: if I ever do a similar post for Katharine Hepburn, you’ll see them again. A very happy birthday, Mr. Grant.

Bringing Up Baby (1938)

Bringing Up Baby is a madcap adventure involving a dinosaur bone, a zany and free-spirited socialite (Hepburn, of course), and a leopard. Directed by Howard Hawks, the dialogue is so fast and witty that you’ll need to see the movie more than once. I do recommend doing so: it just gets funnier every time. Also, keep an ear out for the best Cary Grant line ever. I promise you’ll know it when you hear it.

Holiday (1938)

How did Grant and Hepburn manage to make two supremely funny movies in the same year? I don’t know, but Holiday is every bit as hilarious as Bringing Up Baby. This time Grant is all set to marry into a wealthy family, but you’ll figure out quickly that he’s marrying the wrong sister. He gets to show off some of his acrobatic abilities, and Hepburn turns on the charm. Meanwhile, Lew Ayres, Edward Everett Horton, and Jean Dixon all nearly manage to steal the show from its stars. Sadly, I couldn’t find a trailer, so you’ll just have to take my word for it: this is a really good movie.

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

The most famous of the Grant/Hepburn pairings; you knew I couldn’t leave it out. This time we throw in James Stewart just to make it even more awesome. Grant shows up to try and win his ex-wife (Hepburn) back before she marries another man, but a visiting reporter (Stewart) might throw a wrench in the works. Once again, this is fast-paced, brilliantly executed dialogue. Basically, if it’s directed by George Cukor (Holiday was, too), it’s hard to go wrong.

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

In this adaptation (directed by Frank Capra) of a successful stage play, Grant stars as Mortimer Brewster, a drama critic. On his wedding day, he not only learns that insanity runs in his family, but that his two maiden aunts are serial killers. Despite how it sounds, this is a delightfully funny and heartwarming movie, and Grant’s impeccable comedic timing is on full display.

North by Northwest (1959)

Alfred Hitchcock’s tale of an ordinary man mistaken for a government agent is arguably his best film, and Grant’s, too. This is the suave Cary Grant, even as he is thrown into one extraordinary situation after another. Eva Marie Saint is an absolutely scorching femme fatale, and James Mason and Martin Landau are excellent villains. Simply an outstanding film.

Charade (1963)

Ah, that other Hepburn. Audrey, in this case, stars as a young woman whose late husband’s thievery has made her a target for some very bad men. She meets up with Cary Grant (who may or may not be a good guy) and the two must dash around Paris (how awful for them) trying to solve the mystery, outsmart the villains, and perhaps get in a little romance while they’re at it. Walter Matthau and James Coburn co-stars in this smart and stylish thriller, which, thanks to Grant’s wry wit, is also more than a little funny. This is later in his career, but he remains a joy to watch, particularly as he tries to rebuff Audrey Hepburn’s advances. Also, the score is excellent.

So, what’s your favorite Cary Grant? Did I miss it?