Written by Tyrone BruinsmaBriefly - Australian Cinema HistoryAustralia's place in film is undeniably crucial. Australia was the first country to have a feature length narrative film in the form of The Story of the Kelly Gang by Charles Tait, while the 70s produced influential masterworks like Mad Max and Picnic at Hanging Rock. In the following decades, directors like George Miller, Peter Weir, Philip Noyce, Bruce Beresford, Alex Proyas, Baz Luhrman and Roger Donaldson became some of the most in-demand filmmakers in Hollywood. And it could be argued Australia's biggest export is its iconic actors including Mel Gibson, Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Chris Hemsworth, Margot Robbie and countless more. But from the 2000s onwards, Australia's global film presence was lessened due to Hollywood's dominating output and the industry's often insular storytelling. Whilst films like Mad Max could be global icons and inspire the post-apocalyptic genre (in multiple mediums) for decades to come, many works focused so much on Australian characters and issues that they were barely seen by the world. While some rarities would break the mold and gain international attention like Crocodile Dundee, Wolf Creek, Happy Feet, The Babadook and Mad Max: Fury Road, msot of our output remains unseen. With multiple countries showing that Hollywood and American cinema is not the only dominating presence in the cinematic arts, where's Australia's place in this new world? China - Push for Global Cinema ControlTo get a sense of the biggest push a country has made to rival Hollywood, take China in the mid-late 2010s. While Chinese cinema has a storied history and many acclaimed works and filmmakers, the state-run film productions have pushed to be seen as global blockbusters. While many are inarguably state produced propaganda films, promoting the values of the Chinese Communist Party - other attempts have been broader. The biggest push was the release and production of The Great Wall. Directed by Zhang Yimou (director of Hero, House of Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower) and starring Hollywood A-listers like Matt Damon, Pedro Pascal and Willem Da Foe alongside many big Chinese stars, it's effectively a historical fiction monster movie. While visually impressive and entertainingly goofy, the film's $150 million budget only earned around $334 Million globally and resulted in a loss due to a big media push. Since then, China's film market has turned to producing Chinese focused blockbusters like Operation Red Sea and The Wandering Earth, whilst investing and producing popular American blockbuster franchise films like Kong: Skull Island, The Meg, Fast X and plenty more. China failed in one film's attempt to just be Hollywood, and so turned to a two-pronged effort in gaining cultural ground. The Chinese government's desire to influence the global stage and their treatment of human rights/free speech is its own issue to be discussed, but it cannot be denied that China is producing films that make money and is helping fund many popular global films. Parasite - Korean Cinema and Cultural PopularityTurning to another part of Asia, Korean New Wave in the early 2000s gained popularity with films like Oldboy and Memories of Murder, with the country consistently putting out great films like The Host, I Saw the Devil and Snowpiercer. A spike in the country's cinematic popularity came in 2016 with the impressive zombie action horror Train to Busan, whilst global audiences popularized Korean drama tv series, and K-Pop music from bands like BTS and BlackPink. It culminated in the release of 2019's Parasite by Bong Joon-ho. The darkly comedic thriller focused on classism manages to earn over $260 million (USD) worldwide, critical acclaim, Oscars for Best International Film, Best Original Screenplay and Best Feature Film. The film's winning feat was impressive as it managed to beat out favorites like Martin Scorsese's The Irishman, Quinten Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Todd Phillips' Joker, becoming the first non-English film to win Best Picture of all time. Since then, Korean music, films, television and media as a whole has continued to thrive as one of the most potent of artistic talent in the world. Recent popular Korean films have included the historical thriller Escape from Mogadishu and crime thriller Decision to Leave, showcasing that the country's output is not slowing down. Covid/2020 - The Year an Anime Film Dominated the Global Box OfficeAnd then in 2020, the Covid pandemic struck the world hard. Million died, many have not recovered and cinemas were forced to close (some permanently). While films still released, big attempts at blockbusters like Christopher Nolan's Tenet and Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman 1984 bombed at the domestic box office. While pre-Covid Hollywood films like Sonic the Hedgehog and Bad Boys for Life did decently well and China's World War 2 film The Eight Hundred had success-the biggest film of 2020 was the first Demon Slayer film. Japanese cinema has been popular for years, with anime being one of the country's biggest cultural exports (both in film and television). Demon Slayer Mugen Train made over $500 Million (USD) at the global box office, beating out other anime films like Spirited Away, Your Name, Howl's Moving Castle and Ponyo. Subsequent anime films have also been global hits like Suzume, The First Slam Dunk, One Piece Film: Red, Jujutsu Kaisen 0 and The Boy and the Heron. In 2023, Godzilla: Minus One released as a box office smash and critical darling-earning a Best Visual Effects Oscar, beating out mega budget Hollywood films like The Creator, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.3 and Oppenheimer. The film's success and domination of cultural discussions around film continue to show that America is not the only or most important voice at the cinematic table. RRR - Indian CinemaWhen it comes to Indian Cinema (not just exclusively Bollywood), the country's works have largely been seen as insular-known for their rapid genre/tone shifts and 3+ hour runtimes. Indian audiences view their cinema with serious cultural and artistic importance and very rarely has anyone within India tried to make it work for a global audience. Aabra Ka Daabra from 2004 was a notorious failure that attempted to replicate the success of Harry Potter and 2013's Dhoom 3 aped Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (to the point of filming and setting the film in Chicago) to better results. However, global audiences continued to largely treat Indian Cinema as a curiosity. That was until 2022, when the Telugu film RRR was released. The film was the most expensive Indian film to date, but a massive hit at the box office (the 3rd Highest Grossing Indian film of all time) and became a globally beloved film. The film's narrative, visuals, emotions, action and music hit the hearts of audiences all over the globe. While the film was not nominated for Best International Feature at the Oscars (Last Film Show was the country's entry), the film's popular song Naatu Naatu won Best Original song (becoming the first Indian Film to win an Oscar) RRR continues to be a beloved film for many people, and arguably one of the most important films of the past few years for visual and emotional storytelling-as well as exposing people to global cinema. Talk to Me - Current Australian Cinema and its FutureAnd now we come to Australian cinema. Whilst countries like China, Korean, Japan and India have soared with big bold works-Australian films have largely languished. While there are interesting works like The Dressmaker produced, we often get largely disappointing horror films like Red Billabong, Boar, Black Water: Abyss and The Reef: Stalked. And sometimes Australian filmmakers have attempted big budget genre hits, but they end up being Gods of Egypt or Interceptor and failing.
The most successful recent Australian made films have largely been Hollywood co-productions like Baz Luhrman's Elvis and Mel Gibson's Hacksaw Ridge. While engaging and artistically outstanding works like The Nightingale, Three Thousand Years of Longing, Boy Erased and The Dry are made - they're seen less. Part of the problem is Australia has less resources to make major films than America (or even just Los Angeles itself) and American studios are happy to use Australia's resources to film big budget films for cheaper here. In the past decade or so-Thor Ragnarök, Kong: Skull Island, Pirates of the Carribean; Dead Men Tell No Tales, Alien: Covenant, Dora the Explorer, Trouble in Paradise, Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Elvis, Godzilla V.S Kong, The Invisible Man, Mortal Kombat, Anyone by You, The Fall Guy, and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire have all filmed here, with Mortal Kombat 2 currently filming. This is not a bad thing, Hollywood films have been made lovingly in Australia like The Thin Red Line, The Matrix and at one point a Justice League film by George Miller was set to be made here. The worry is if Australia's cinematic artform will be driven less by making our own films and more by what next $200 Million dollar franchise film can be made here. Australia is a country overflowing with amazing actors, writers, directors, crew and audiences in Australia are craving good content. However, more needs to be done to enable more films to be made and not just for tax purposes from foreign countries. And Australian filmmakers should broaden their horizons to make films less about "the Aussie battler" and instead universal stories. Parasite was a film about the innate toxicity of classicism, while RRR was a film about confronting colonialism and oppression. Both may have been products of their countries and tied into some specific aspects, but were largely broad and very easy to engage. Since the days of Greek theatre-the measure of a successful storyteller is how many people can hear and understand your story. It's why films like Independence Day, Titanic, Black Panther and Barbie impacted so many. And luckily for Australia, there is hope. Many independent filmmakers have avoided studios and begun developing/producing quality films, with every genre at play. Australia's most popular export at the moment is the globally accessible and beloved cartoon Bluey. The show is both deeply Australian, but completely universal for children and adults. In 2023, one of the most popular and talked about horror films in that stacked year was Talk to Me. Directed by Danny Philippou and Michael Philippou (popularly known on YouTube as RakkaRakka), the film was made on a modest $4.5 Million before being picked up for distribution by A24 (the company that released The Lighthouse, Everything Everywhere All At Once, The Whale and Hazbin Hotel). The film garnered critical acclaim and made $92 Million worldwide. The energic and accessible film has already been guaranteed a sequel, whilst both filmmakers are in talks to direct a Street Fighter film adaptation. It's a show that you can make something easy to digest like a supernatural horror film, but with an Australian charm and energy-and make it work as a hit. And later this year will see George Miller return to the Mad Max world again with a direct prequel to Fury Road, with Anya Taylor-Joy playing a young Furiosa and Chris Hemsworth playing the villain. Hopefully this film will bring with it the same global acclaim and box office results the prior film did as it looks to share much of that film's perfection. Australia still has a film industry, with talented people working their hardest. But it's up to creators, investors, supporters, studios and audiences to continue to fight for the biggest, best and most unique visions for our country. The Aussie underdog spirit won't allow these people to give up. Australia will grow as audiences across the planet are demanding the newest and best films, not content with mediocre garbage anymore. And Australia MUST deliver.
0 Comments
Written by Tyrone BruinsmaI don't think I've ever felt a stronger disconnect with emotional resonance of my generation than when I saw tearfully mournful sadness by a huge swath of the internet at the announcement of MatPat retiring from YouTube. So many people were genuinely sad...and I didn't get it. I read people saying that he was their childhood and I get that media personalities you watch from adolescence to adulthood can mean a lot but...I just didn't feel. But then again, maybe that's because I've issues with MatPat for some time and feel like the bearer of bad news whenever I mention his failings. Don't get me wrong, MatPat isn't a bad person and I've got no personal issues with him. He doesn't have disturbing allegations against him or have some record of scamming his audience, and it's clear he loves his audience and work. Even in the media/cultural commentary space he's not the worst like the right-wing outrage merchant grifter mobs who spam 10 videos a day. It's just that there's been a lot of his content I have issues and feel he may have inadvertently lead to a lesser media literacy landscape. If you don't know, MatPat was the YouTube host for YouTube channels like Game Theory and Film Theory where he'd examine a piece of media either based on uncovering a real-world relevance to the material or looking for protentional hidden secrets. This famously started with figuring out "How Fast is Sonic the Hedgehog?" before going into much more elaborate topics. And I do have to give praise for the editing of these videos, the research he and his writers do and the general quality of the videos. And some videos of his I still find engaging like figuring out "How Rich is Scrooge McDuck?" But then there's videos that feel really bad. While he's got embarrassing older works like trying to superficially figure out the gender and sexuality of The Pyro from Team Fortress 2, which weirdly ends in him saying "Bi-Sexual Men are often schizophrenic" which is deeply problematic. My bigger issues lie in how he approaches piece of media as problems to be solved or connected to other media. Five Nights at Freddy'sLet's start with the franchise that MatPat became a huge player in, Five Nights at Freddy's (FNAF). A 2014 horror game by Scott Cawthon that played at a security cam watcher avoiding Chuck E Cheese style animatronics, the game instantly grew popular on YouTube thanks to lets players and theory videos. MatPat's initial video on the game was examining real life parallels to a crime that occurred in a similar venue was interesting. However, the framing of the videos quickly changed to theories about lore, characters and the backstory for everything. While popular and entertaining, this would (in my opinion) create a boomerang effect on the game series and videos. While the sequels would add in more details and hints, MatPat would have his theories presented and it created a feedback loop for the developer, audience and MatPat. This eventually culminated in the 4th game, where MatPat basically theorized the developer's desired conclusion...and didn't like that. This essentially resulted in a rare instance where someone else wrote the story into a corner. The FNAF games seemed to be leading into a point where the entire story were dreams by a child, but because MatPat and audiences didn't like that as an end result-Scott Cawthon had to put in more and more work in future games and books to try and pull something else. I really stopped caring about the series and theories after Sister Location, because it was clear that nothing was ever going to satisfy fans and thus satisfy its developer. What initially was one scary game, because one of the msot popular horror game franchises ever, to the point its 2023 film adaptation made nearly $300 Million at the global box office. Now, part of the problem with MatPat's constant dissections and guess work is that it just tried to fit all the pieces of the FNAF story into a safe, comfortable and easy to understand timeline. But stories (especially horror ones) aren't meant to always to do that. Fan theories (and "plot holes" we'll get to that later) are meant to be a nerd's parlor game to be an amusing conversation. Digging into something so much to the point you declare a media author's intent wrong and inadvertently making them change it is less a parlor game and more fanfiction. Also, all of this ignores elements like themes, characters arcs and more interesting ideas than simply "who became this robot?" I also feel that MatPat basically doing the work in uncovering secrets and easter eggs gave certain developers of games the confidence in doing less work for the same praise. Games like Doki Doki Literature Club and Duck Season (games MatPat did videos on) seem designed to have some sparing background details to imply a far more interesting story than what players are given. Rule of storytelling: "Is this the most interesting part of your character's life? If not, why aren't you showing us that?" Having random details and file names that the average player won't see to imply a better story than what you're actually telling feels lazy and far too many games have done that of late. Cineamtic Storytellinghe more pervasive problem is that eventually, MatPat's work just seemed to fundamentally either pretend that humans didn't make these works or that sometimes creative decisions were not made perfect. Two minor instances of this are videos in which he suggests Dory from Finding Nemo is actually just a liar based on some creative dialogue or that the Ouija movies are in the same universe as The Exorcist films based on genre cliches The Exorcist established. part of the problem is MatPat's videos do have to play to the algorithm of YouTube, so imagine creating videos based on trending films at the time like Finding Dory and Ouija Origin of Evil in 2016 was hard. But, it doesn't excuse poorly thought-out videos wherein you take a few liens of dialogue and horror genre cliches as "proof" of said ridiculous claims. For me, 2017 was the year I finally checked out based on two things. Firstly, MatPat expressed immense dissatisfaction in his theories for the Star Wars films (namely theories he had for The Force Awakens and Rogue One films to "pay off" in The Last Jedi) after Episode 8. Now, this was troubling to me because it felt like he (and his fans) had absorbed some belief that they were correct, as well as misunderstood that Star Wars was not the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and not respecting the creative new decisions Rian Johnson put into The Last Jedi. It was the equivalent of believing your own hype, or in fan community circles: getting mad that your believed head canon wasn't "actual canon". But for me, the worst act of failing to understand media came from his video on 2017's Wonder Woman. The video is primarily a "call out" of a "plot hole" that states that Diana and Steve could never make it from Greece to London in the time the movie says so. Aside from the fact that plot holes are largely a nerd's parlor game (again), this was the least of the film's problems. A lot of film critic/cultural commentator channels use plot holes as cheap critique fodder when it's often just wasting time and not talk about more relevant things. Channels like Your Movie Sucks, CinemaSins and The Nostalgia Critic all do this to some annoying degree wherein they take everything literally/at face value, don't understand something or just straight up ignore the information the film provides. There's plenty of videos that call this out and I'll link some below. SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES (youtube.com) Sustaining Stupidity - Why CinemaSins is Terrible (youtube.com) CinemaSins is (Still) Terrible (youtube.com) If you enjoy these channels or like discussing plot holes, that's fine. But treating "plot holes" (which has become so warped and vague because people now seem to just constantly ask questions about films even if they're answers) as genuine criticism is a sign that you don't have the ability to formulate better ways to express your dislike of a film. So aside from this being a dumb plot hole to try an invalidate a good movie's existence to complain about for over 10 minutes, there's another more pressing problem. See MatPat didn't attribute this "plot hole" to Diana or Steve or an in-universe character like he normally does, he attributed the full blame to Zack Snyder. While Snyder at the time "technically" the DC Extended Universe architect and helped produce David Ayer's Suicide Squad, James Wan's Aquaman and Patty Jenkins' WOnder Woman-he was not the lead creative on those. In regards to Wonder Woman, he served merely as a producer and credited story writer-which was more to keep the film in line with his planned Justice League film (see Zack Snyder's Justice League for that). Plus, Snyder wrote the story with Jason Fuchs and Allan Heinberg (who wrote the final script) and was overseen by director Patty Jenkins. Blaming Snyder for a story plot point that likely NO ONE ELSE in the production of this film cared about is beyond silly. It really feels like either MatPat who the writer(s) of this episode were riding on the Snyder hate-train after the disappointment of Batman V Superman. But that's not how story writing in Hollywood works. At the time Film Theory released its video (September 2017), Snyder actually wasn't handling the finishing of Justice League that would be released later that year. Snyder had stepped down from directing the final version of Justice League in May of 2017 (with rumors speculating that Warner Brothers wanted to fire him before this) because...Snyder had tragically lost his daughter to suicide. Now, this was not recent news or private information. Snyder stepped away from the film to be with his family. So, imagine Snyder not only losing his vision for his film, but more importantly losing his daughter...and MatPat felt comfortable laying into him as the sole pause of an insignificant plot hole. I don't know if MatPat/his team didn't know, didn't care or thought 4 months was enough time to solely blame a mourning father for something that doesn't matter. This has been my biggest grievance against MatPat, because aside from having a massive amount of respect for Zack Snyder...that just seems awfully cruel, mean-spirited and against MatPat's usual positive outlook. And ultimately, this plot hole and lore fixation in much of MatPat's work leads into the negative effect I feel he has had on media literacy as a whole. As I've stated, MatPat largely ignores themes or recognizing stories as emotional journeys for characters. It comes back to old staples of cinema "plot holes" like Indiana Jones being an unnecessary character in Raiders of the Lost Ark or Jack and Rose totally could've fit on that door in Titanic. Those (and other plot holes) ignore the fact that THESE ARE NOT THE POINTS OF THOSE FILMS! Raiders of the Lost Ark is not about the mechanics of the Nazis digging up a relic, it's about Indiana Jones gaining more respect for those artifacts and rekindling a love (even though that last one is problematic due to her age). It's lead to an online culture where people go into movies and games looking for things to find "wrong" with them and treat that as some kind of bragging rights "gotcha". It's like how the stupidest kind of people only recently discover things like Scrooge in A Christmas Carol is a metaphor for "money doesn't bring happiness". For a better idea of this, I recommend Dan Olsen's video on Annihilation that breaks down this frustration further: Annihilation and Decoding Metaphor (youtube.com) Wrapping UpMedia Literacy is in a place where some of the loudest voices in film/game/media/narrative discussions are some of the stupidest, most bigoted and proudly anti-intellectual grifters around. While I don't put MatPat in that category, I worry if MatPat's decade long work has led people to either find ways to prove a story "couldn't happen" or is secretly part of some other universe. MatPat's work might have affected a whole generation of kids and teens who are now adults...but has that made them better storytellers or analysts or media? Considering how much blatant media literacy is out there and how so many new young storytellers obsess over building finely, intricately connected lore instead of story arcs...I'm worried. Stories are not about literal events and 2000 yearlong info-dumps, they're about characters going on a journey and changing them-giving us an emotional reaction.
They're not about realistic gun physics, the reality of travelling across the ocean, or if some random detail means an entire film series exists in another fictious universe - it's about telling an emotional experience that hopefully makes the audience better for it. MatPat has clearly had a large, profound effect on people to where him retiring has given people a massive emotional reaction. I'm not writing this out of anger, rage or contempt-but frustration in not knowing if the body of work MatPat has left behind has been a negative. Frustration at feeling like I'm the only person in the room wanting to speak about the issues of this body of work. As a writer, filmmaker and storyteller - I want these mediums to not just continue to have great works, but for people to engage them with the emotional maturity to handle it well. I don't want new storytellers who make an impactful story bogged down by legions of people harping on an insignificant plot inconsistency or obsessive fans ignoring the work to just slot it into another creative work that it's unconnected to. I hope I'm wrong. I hope the people who grew up with MatPat do know the art of storytelling and don't let concerns over "plot holes" get them down or write a 10'000-page backstory to a story without a plot and instead know that good media engages the heart and mind equally. I wish MatPat, his partner and their loved ones all the best in the future. And to those still reeling from this, his content isn't going anywhere. Written by Tyrone BruinsmaIn the various genres of anime (Harem, Shonen, Isekai etc) comes the "Magical Girl Anime". Popularized by the likes of Sailor Moon and Tokyo Mew Mew (Mew Mew Power in the US), and given deconstructionist takes by the likes of Madoka Magica - the genre remains one of the most popular genres globally and is especially adored by female audiences. The genre's influences can be felt in similar western works like Winx Club, though American live action shows such as Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Charmed, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie and even The Flying Nun also reflect this desire in audience's joy in magical female heroines. Released alongside Tokyo Mew Mew from 2002 to 2003 (Co-currently with a manga adaptation), Princess Tutu starts out as initially a fairy tale version of the Magical Girl formula before transcending into something more. What at first breaks down the cliches of Magical Girl animes instead turns its attention to the concepts of authorship, character motivation, and ultimately the purpose of conflict in stories. The premise of the anime is this: the story takes place in a magical town where a girl named Duck is pining for the affections of an emotionally muted boy named Mythos (pronounced Muto for some reason) at a dance school. But (because there always a "but" in anime) Duck is actually a literal duck who was turned into a human by a dead author named Drosselmeyer to restore pieces of Mythos heart that was shattered into shards. To do this, she'll have to "fight" persons and humanoid animals with emotional problems who have those heart shards within themselves, by turning herself into Princess Tutu. Also, if she makes duck noises as a human, she turns into a duck; but can make herself human again with water. And if that "simple" premise hurts your head-don't worry it's fairly self-explanatory in experiencing the series. If the name Drosselmeyer wasn't a hint for you, Drosselmeyer is the name of a character from Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's adaptation of The Nutcracker and appeared in versions like the 2001 Barbie in the Nutcracker adaption. And through the use of Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker and Swan Lake, it's very clear that this work is a love letter and ode to not only those works, but classic fairytales in general. The bonkers premise and its world operate on a dream like quality similar to Alice in Wonderland where the questions of fiction and reality are largely unimportant...until they are. See, Princess Tutu's trick is that the first half of the first season largely plays out in a Sailor Moon plot structure wherein Duck encounters a character with emotional problems, turns into Princess Tutu and dances with them to heal them of their pain and thus regain a piece of Mythos' heart. But over the course of the story, more and more depth is added in. For instance, while there are comedic characters like Duck's best friends Pike and Lilie, and her dance teacher Mr. Cat; even they get some depth going forward. The two most interesting characters are Rue (Mytho's betrothed girlfriend) and Fakir (Mytho's best friend who acts like a bodyguard). At first Rue seems like a perfect girl and Fakir like a jerk, but the story slowly unravels into more and more layers while the author Drosselmeyer constantly craves conflict-directly speaking to us as the audience. And unfortunately, I can't explain the complexities or intricacies of that depth without spoiling the entire series: so if you want to not be spoiled - please go watch it now. If you've seen it or are ok with spoilers, we'll proceed. SPOILED SECTIONSo, for the first half of Princess Tutu's first season-there's no overarching villain. Drosselmeyer acts more as a narrative foil than anything - pushing the story to where it needs to be. We learn elements like how Duck really was just a duck who fell in love with Mythos as prince, or that if Duck ever proclaims her love for Mythos-she'll vanish into light, which don't come out of the ordinary. But then, Rue turns out to be our seeming villain-as she transforms herself into the villainous Princess Kraehe who doesn't wish for Mytho's heart to be restored.
This adds a sense of my immediate conflict seeing as how Princess Tutu's "fights" are little more than dances of understanding. We also learn that Fakir has been acting akin to a knight to protect Mythos, even to the point where he would willingly shatter Mytho's heart. See, the interesting conflict revolves around emotional fulfilment. If Duck proclaims her love to Mythos (the thing that she craves more than anything and is her driving motivation) she will die. If Mythos regains his heart (and thus his emotions)...well something bad will happen. The first season concludes in a unique showdown where Kraehe/Rue kidnaps Mythos and forces Princess Tutu/Duck to either make herself vanish or she'll shatter the part of Mytho's heart that represents love. This conflict ends in a 'dance fight' of sorts between Princess Tutu and Princess Kraehe, with Princess Tutu winning and freeing Mythos. And while that seems like a happy ending, season 2 gets more complex and more in depth. Because the two big reveals at first are that Kraehe poisoned Mytho's heart shard which taints his soul with that of Kaehe's father...The Raven. See, before he died - Drosselmeyer was writing a story about Prince's battle with a giant Raven that wanted to eat his heart. To prevent this, the Prince carved out his own heart. See where this is going? Because it turns out Drosselmeyer's stories were coming to life and so was this tale...before he was killed. And we haven't even gotten to the truly emotionally piercing stuff. While season follows a similar pace to the first, the new element is Kraehe attempting to feed people's heart to her Raven father and that's who Princess Tutu ends up saving. But more pieces come into play, like how not only did Fakir dedicate himself to protect Prince Mytho since he was a small boy...but he's a descendant of Drosselmeyer with the ability to rewrite stories/reality. We learn that Drosselmeyer may or may not be in as much control of the story as we thought. We learn that there's a secret cult society that seeks to control this town by ensuring Drosselmeyer's power ceases as he's trapepd them in this fictious world. We even learn that Kraehe's abusive Raven father isn't even her real father...but that he kidnapped her as a baby during one of his attacks on the town and she loved the Prince from a young age. Now, if you can process all that-you might be asking "Where's Duck/Princess Tutu?" Well that's this anime's first big meta story trick. Drosselmeyer makes it very clear that Princess Tutu is an entirely new character to help end his unfinished tale. As a writer myself, this is actually a really neat trick as it shows that: 1. Your main character may not seem like the most important cog in the machine, but they are unto themselves. 2. Conflict drives the story. Too many films in the post JJ Abrams era have forgotten this. This will only be a small tangent, but JJ Abrams as a writer made a name for himself by helping bring up writer colleagues like Damon Lindeloff, Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman and "The Mystery Box". The Mystery Box isn't really relevant here, but what is how many of these writers have applied a systemic formula to their scripts that makes them problematic. For instance, Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman's screenplays on films like Transformers, Cowboys and Aliens and the 2017 reboot of The Mummy all suffer from bland lead protagonists with very little conflict, involvement or engagement-but just happen to have/be walking MacGuffins of importance to the plot no one cares about. They barely have arcs and rarely affect the story. Princess Tutu (despite coming out before those) defies that by making the seemingly unimportant main character not only interesting, not only engaging through their motivation and conflict, but by her entry into the story making the characters change for the better. She restores Mytho's heart shards and gives him a personality, she break's Fakir's steely aggressive resolve into a kinder soul, and she even appeals to Rue's heart that becomes essential to the story by the end. The ending climax sees Rue/Kraehe reject her father's goals of eating the Prince's heart and professing her love for him, Fakir accepting his lineage's gift to rewrite this story (even after it's established the raven kill his parents for trying this as a child), and Duck as Princess Tutu reject's Drosselmeyer's attempts to interfere with the story. In the end: Duck, Mytho, Rue and Fakir all work together to destroy The Raven once and for all, finish this story and free the town from this fictious pocket dimension. Despite Duck and Mytho seeming to be destined to fall in love as post 80s fairytale's would, it's actual Rue and Mytho who go on to live on as the happily ever after Princess and Prince. While Duck turns into a duck permanently, living with Fakir who has come to love her. The town reverts into a place in the real world, and Drosselmeyer goes on to maybe write another story as a ghost once more. The main theme that comes through with Princess Tutu is not conflict, or even characters breaking free of their bonds - it's love. Not in a pining, romantic love - but a universal love of humanity. While there have been other stories and series that have attempted this to mixed results (ie. Steven Universe having a protagonist who would try to reason with genocidal monsters) Princess Tutu does it the best. Princess Tutu as a story and character is about how underneath people's unfulfilled goals and struggles is a heart that can be reached. It's an unselfish love as Princess Tutu seeks to repair Mytho's heart without really asking for anything in return, understand Fakir, and just be friend with Rue-even when she knows Rue is the villain. She doesn't fight anyone because she's trying to understand and heal those who are in in pain, that's why this isn't really an action series even if there are scene of that. There's lots of things I didn't cover, like how Mr Cat is a hilarious character with his constant threats to make failing students marry him (with the show giving him depth and even a nice ending), or how there's supporting characters like Miss Adel or Uzura that are delightful. Or that the comedy is seriously gold, with the English voice cast doing an outstanding job. While not as popularized and well known as Dragonball Z, Sailor Moon, One Piece, Bleach, My Hero Academia or Demon Slayer - Princess Tutu maintains a hardcore fanbase to the point in recent years a dedicate team has been producing a fully animated and voiced unofficial 3rd season that you can watch online called Princess Tutu Zwei. It's a good series, one I recommend to fans of Sailor Moon/magical girl animes, fairytales or those who love to engage in dream logic stories that engage in the nature of reality. It's also a really cute, really sweet and really funny series. Its subverted my expectations and view of the characters multiple times-with my favorite being Rue/Kraehe as I feel she's the most complex and truly tragic character of this story. You don't say that about a nothing story where it's boring. It's well paced, avoids some of the worst cliches in anime and is a masterclass in emotionally engaging with stories and characters. The Super Mario Bros. (2023) - Movie Review, Discourse Breakdown and The Adaptation of Video Games.7/10/2023 Written by Tyrone BruinsmaMovie Review42 years his first in game appearance, 38 years after the first game with his name on it and 30 years after a disastrous live action attempt-Mario finally gets a feature length film worthy of his legacy. Produced by Universal and Illumination, directly supported by Nintendo and filled with a star-studded cast: The Super Mario Bros. Movie is an exciting, fast paced and colorful adventure film sure to please children of all ages and lovers of the Mario video game series. Starting from the original concept, Mario and Luigi (voiced respectively by Chris Pratt and Charlie Day) are a pair of plumber brothers from Brooklyn who get transported to a fantasy kingdom with the warring factions being Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy) aiming to protect the Mushroom Kingdom from the evil Bowser (Jack Black). So yeah, it's pretty much the original Mario story since the 80's rolled out in a modern animated adventure style with plenty of nostalgia. This movie is just a ton of fun without a moment wasted, a lean 90-minute-long kids film stuffed with references to the games in visual and auditory fashion. The film looks incredible, easily standing out amongst Illumination's often flat and bland looking franchises with dynamic lighting, variety of colors and better attempts at grandiose spectacle action. The facial animations capture plenty of emotion, with the exaggerated expressions being a reason why you'd make a story like this in animation. The cast is stellar, while Chris Pratt was originally criticized for his vocals as Mario in the trailer-I think he did a great job emulating the character, especially when it comes to scenes opposite Luigi. Charlie Day as Luigi is perfect casting, with the brotherly dynamic being the core theme reminding people that it's the "Mario Bros.". I wasn't initially sold on Anya Taylor-Joy as Peach, she's a great actress; I've just always been a fan of the higher register Peach (Anya would've been my first choice for Daisy to be honest). But the movie proved me wrong and she's easily the most refined and dynamic version of the iconic heroine to date, with plenty of action and humor to balance her emotional scenes. Seth Rogen as Donkey Kong is another great choice, with the Kongs being included at all is a great choice-so we're probably getting a spin-off film/tv series all about them. But yes, the big star of the film is Jack Black as Bowser who completely disappears into the iconic villains as a loveable yet despicable foil to Mario and Peach. The rest of the supporting and cameo filled cast do great too, with Kevin Michael Richardson as Bowser's second in command being another high point. This film easily works as a comedy nearly the whole time, with the entire film bringing a smile to my face-despite the fact that I'm not a hardcore Mario or Nintendo fan. It's not overly serious, has a sincere heart, delivers fun action and the right amount of character development and is a continuing sign of video game adaptations being done right alongside The Last of Us tv series, Rampage from 2018 and Pokemon; Detetive Pikachu. Is the story going to surprise you? Not really. The main subversion from the classic "save the Princess" model is having Mario trying to save Luigi, which does avoid the cliche dynamic and instead bolstering the love both brothers have for each other. But you're not gonna have any world shaping twists or left field subversions, I mean the concept for the Mario series is basically a toddler friendly version of John Carter/Princess of Mars so its legacy is over 100 years old at this point. That lack of subversion/surprise might be a disappointment to some, but considering the film is aimed to be appropriate for audiences as young as 4-I don't think that's an issue. I mean Bluey is a cartoon series aimed at the same demographic and that's beloved by people of all ages across the globe, so is it any real surprise that this film made a billion dollars at the box office? No, I don't think so. This is basically the Mario film fans have wanted to see since 1985 and has been doing that in style. Pretty much the only demographic this doesn't' appeal to is people who've no interest in animated kids films or video games. But I still think this is a massive win for video game adaptations into films as a whole-so let's see how Zelda and Metroid go. 9/10 Dissecting the DiscourseSo, at the time of writing (with the film having been on home media for a while now), The Super Mario Bros. film is currently sitting at a box office total of $1.3 Billion; making it the highest grossing video game film, highest grossing film of 2023 so far, 3rd highest grossing animated film and 15th highest grossing film ever. That said, the film's critical reception is largely mixed; with many wishing the film was less reliant on nostalgia and doing more with the premise. And in some of the worst takes on the film by the likes of Grace Randolph and Adam from YMS, considering it a horrible film. Now the latter two's overly negative takes feel like they're trying to anger people for attention, and both have their own issues where patience more than intelligence is needed to breakdown their problems. A big studio movie that makes huge bank, is a hit with fans and audiences, but doesn't get the best reviews isn't some anomaly. On that Wikipedia list of "List of highest-grossing films" with the top 50 displayed are plenty of films with less than overwhelming praise: Aquaman, Jurassic World, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Disney's remakes of Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King etc. Box office is not a pre-requisite for critical acclaim and visa versa. Box office success merely means that lots of people wanted to go out and see it, with kid's films being an easy win as parents and children are both seeing it. Illumination has made a career off releasing not the best reviewed films that make huge money at the box office. A large amount of critics not liking this film is understandable, not every critic is necessarily a gamer or a fan of Mario so they don't have a predisposed emotional engagement. And the film is relatively simple in its execution compared to similar big brand animated works like The Lego Movies, the Spiderverse films or emotionally resonant works from Disney like Encanto or Turning Red. But many people are happy with it, and unless you're one of the critics who is actively despises audiences seeing a film you don't or are trying to anger audiences who like the movie-it shouldn't bother you. This film was however a fascinating insight into an incredibly niche sector of the online discourse space (even though it's scarily getting noticed outside that sphere) which does involve me having to dissect what's become known as "The Fandom Menace" (I think) and the buzz word "Woke". Sigh. Ok. So, the internet pretty much is a space where people of all interests can get together, discuss their niche interests and enjoy it. The "Fandom Menace" is a nebulous collective of failed comedians, failed journalists, failed game/film critics, failed writers (failed actors even) whose toxic personalities and beliefs led them to becoming "Cultural Commentators" who mostly just throw tantrums online about nothing. They hate everything that's mainstream or progressive, spout buzzwords instead of arguments, support horrible people and basically function as the titular "Right Wing Reactionaries" (Right Wing Hipsters if you will). If someone they hate likes something, they're against it. They're also some of the stupidest people on the planet because they will say "this is an insult to the fandom", while referring to a concept or subject that's always been involved in a franchise or series-because they're not actually fans. They's people who can't find friends or social spheres easily, so they enter fandom communities they barley know about and try co-opting it to fit their backwards beliefs. And if you're guessing these people are so toxic that they don't actually like each other and will attack one another when they're not hating something-you're also correct. All they do is make angry tweets, upload 10 videos a day about a non-topic with clickbait titles and thumbnails to keep those who want to be perpetually angry in that state. It's a "community" full of dumb, hateful, angry bigots who are mad they're not intelligent or skilled enough to make meaningful media-so look to tear it down. It's all a grift to take advantage of those angry enough and stupid enough to keep watching their videos, donating to their streams and buying their merch. Feed the angry hateful piggies their digital slop so they never think or question anything. As for the word "Woke", this is a term that's had a consistent devolution as it's been co-opted by the worst people. It originally started as a term used by black communities online to refer to organizations or people who were "woke", in the sense that they were aware of systemic issues. It then was quickly used by other parties to call out companies and individuals who were pretending to be progressive, before being co-opted by the above toxic group. Woke then become a rapid-fire buzzword bigots used to criticize people, products and anything they didn't like. The word basically acted as a "criticism" in media of non-white characters, LGBTQIA+ inclusivity, female empowerment and basically anything progressive including (but not limited to) giving money to a children's charity or being pro-nature. "Woke" basically became a right-wing buzz word to critique everything the politically right opposes as a barrier to not outright say they're bigots. The word has gotten so much usage that disgusting entities like Ron De Santis use it in a way that implies "Wokism" is some sinister disease corrupting people. And in case you were wondering, yes; lots of people who use this buzz word obsessively as a negative buzz word also have conspiratorial thoughts, anti-Semitic beliefs and supporting outspoke fascists. So, with that context, when the second trailer for this Mario film came out with Anya Taylor Joy's Princess Peach as a proactive character: the toxic online grifter community (who of course contain obsessively sexist bigots who think they're owed women, as well as self-hating women with internalized misogyny) lost their minds. For literally weeks, this niche community spammed social media with their filled diapers thrown in tantrums; complaining that Peach wasn't a damsel in distress, despite her being proactive in the games since the first and this being the model for Disney princesses/animated heroines since the late 90s. They cried and cried in a pathetic and obsessive fashion about how "toxic" it was to show Peach not being kidnapped and rescued because it's "unrealistic for women" (yes, that is disturbing). They used buzzwords like "Woke", "Girlboss" and "Feminist" as insults before moving on to whatever the next target was that week. And when the movie came out, this community that had so ravenously torn this film apart based on a few seconds of trailer footage...did a 180-degree turn. When the majority of reviews for the Mario film weren't positive, these sniveling little grifters changed their tune and started praising the film as a massive success for "anti-woke cinema" and "destroying Disney" (because these people hate Disney in a cult like fashion). Despite pre-hating this movie for Princess Peach, they now claimed that "bias left-wing critics" didn't hate the film for being formulaic, reliant on fan service etc...they claimed that it's because the lead character was played by white man Chris Pratt. Yes...that's the excuse these brain-dead troglodytes pulled out of thin air. While Chris Pratt is a minor problematic entity, critics have largely praised him as an actor and would give glowing reviews for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 not long after. The change of tune was only in a nakedly obvious attempt to not appear to side with mainstream critics. If mainstream audiences and critics like something, they'll hate it. If anyone in the mainstream media space even vaguely criticizes something (or it promotes values these horrible little humans support) they'll praise it and use it to curb stomp the media they hate. So, for these YouTube channels to have a dozen videos like "Mario destroys Woke Disney Cinema!" alongside "Woke Feminist Peach ruins Mario!" without the people who consume this content to not notice it is a DISTURBINGLY accurate rendition of Big Brother from George Orwell's 1984 "The war has always been with East Asia and not Eurasia". And what's annoying is that this kind of braindead propaganda content fills up the online discourse and leaves very little room for more interesting discussions. The moment I finished watching the film, despite loving the film-there was a subject i wanted to talk about. But the cultural oxygen surrounding the film was far more around "Audiences V.S Critics" and people trying to breakdown to garbage spewed by loud bigoted grifters. Because the success of this movie and similar recent works brings into question a far more unique discussion about the nature of adapting video games into films. Adapting Video Games into FilmsWhile adapting stage plays, musicals and books into films has yielded masterpieces and classics, adapting video games into good films has always been considered a difficult endeavor. One could argue that comic books suffer the same fate but considering the likes of Richard Donner's Superman from 1978, Tim Burton's Batman films, the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films and so on-that ideas doesn't hold much water. The reason for video games being a difficult task to adapt into films is removing the interactive element. Similar to making a book out of a film, removing an additional engagement method. And many video game films have been downright disasters between Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, House of the Dead, Hitman, Bloodrayne, Tekken and the cult item-1993's Super Mario Bros. Movie.
The live action Super Mario Bros. Movie from 1993 was such a strange attempt to adapt the rough narrative of the games into a story that turns Bowser into a dinosaur human played by Dennis Hopper with a mohawk is nuts. While it's a cult classic to some fans (largely due to irony and age), I still think it didn't work and felt closer to "Ghostbusters end up in Mad Max 3". But the attempt to realize video game ideas into a then tangible real world was admirable. Ever since, fans of video games have demanded their adaptations be more accurate. While we would get aesthetically fitting versions like 1995's Mortal Kombat, 2002's Resident Evil and the Angelina Jolie Tomb Raider films-they would like the core essence and heart of those games. We would get better films like 2006's Silent Hill and Disney's Prince of Persia before hitting very big attempts in Warcraft, Rampage and Pokémon Detective Pikachu. All three films we big, budgeted projects and while they made money-not as much as the film studios were hoping. And I'd argue all 3 are great films in their own right. Before Covid, the Sonic the Hedgehog film hit and was a moderate success with fans, critics and the box office (even if I thought it was middling) and then Covid shut down a lot of things. But in 2021-we had two accurate video game films in reboots for Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil. Mortal Kombat borrowed the violence and more serious tone of the games, while Welcome to Racoon City evoked many of the creatures, scenes and storylines from the first two games. They received mixed success and reviews, though Mortal Kombat was a hit on streaming. 2022 rolled around and saw Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Uncharted both make over $400 million each. And then, Universal and Nintendo released The Super Mario Movie in March of 2023-becoming a global hit with $1.3 Billion at the box office and God knows how much in merch. And while I enjoy it, maintain it's a great film in its own right and one of my favorite films of the year-I have an issue with it. Due to the two studios (especially Nintendo with Shigeru Miyamoto) overseeing it with the lead creators of Teen Titans Go at the helm and needing to obey the brand-it lacks what you would call a solely unique creative spark or vision. To give another example of what I mean, another 2023 film that gave me the same sensation was Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. A long-awaited reboot of the classic RPG game series, that film is a fun, well made and engaging film. However, due to being overseen by owners Hasbro and Paramount, along with being largely handled by the workman writer/directors behind Game Night and the script for Spider-Man; Homecoming-it too lacks that sense of unique vision. It's a true collaborative effort sure, but no one single vision beyond "Make a fun movie based on this material". Unfortunately, that leaves Honor Among Thieves as only a good but not great fantasy romp that will be familiar to anyone vaguely aware of the fantasy genre. Then again you could argue that's the best any fantasy film can do without breaking the glass ceiling and transcending to a lifetime achievement like Peter Jacksons' Lord of the Rings or a dream scape fairy tale artwork like Ridley Scott's Legend-but that's another story. In fact, both those previously mentioned directors are an example of why even if many filmmakers can achieve good or great films-a director with vision will always be able to elevate a film or make it at least memorable. For instance, while it was largely disliked-I still think Guy Ritchie's take on Arthurian legend in 2017's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is still a unique and memorable take on that kind of fantasy sphere. To use a video game film adaptation: while many fans despised the Paul WS Anderson produced Resident Evil films made film 2002 to 2017-you cannot deny they're his films. Even the 2 installments not directed by him feel like they fit into the story, tone and atmosphere he was creating. Yes, he ignored the storyline and characters gamers liked in exchange for his original character Alice (played by his eventual wife Milla Jovovich) and traded claustrophobic B-movie sci-fi horror for Matrix inspired slow-mo shootouts and fight scenes with latex outfits-but those were his choices. I wouldn't' say the series was good overall (I only liked the 1st and 5th films), they did make money and audiences largely paid to see them with that film series making over $1 Billion at the box office. And I'll always appreciate attempts like this, even if the results are mixed. 1994's Street Fighter tried to turn the fighting tournament game series into G.I Joe and is still kind of fun. Doom from 2005 removes the pure supernatural elements of "Hell" but replaces it with interesting pseudo-science. And even if the 2009 Street Fighter; The Legend of Chun Li failed due to a low budget and bad script-someone did make an attempt. But all these come from creatives wanting to adapt and change the material to fit their mold and vision. However, with the likes of the animated Mario film and The Last of Us tv show being so well received by audiences-I fear all studios and producers with video game rights in their folds will seek to do the same. No looking for interesting creators to bring fresh takes on a video game story-just solid talent who'll crank out a pure one to one product. Similar to how the recent South Park RPG games produced by the original South Park creators feel literally like the animated series in a video game. With projects like Five Nights at Freddy's, Borderlands, Minecraft, The Division and more in the not-too-distant future-this likely won't stop. But, I actually want bold, unique visionaries to adapt games, books, comics and alike into films because that creates some of the most iconic films of all time. Francis Ford Coppola turned "Heart of Darkness" into Apocalypse Now. Ridley Scott turned "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" into Blade Runner. And at the turn of the century, Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi respectively adapted The Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man into films that were simultaneously works fully of their creatives' vision and accurate to the source material. Whether visionary directors create their own unique worlds to play in and tell their original stories like James Cameron and the world of Avatar or getting to adapt popular IPs into their vision like Matt Reeves' The Batman-I want to see them. Those works might not be popular with everyone, but one cannot deny the commitment and vision of their makers. While filmmakers such as Michael Bay and Zack Snyder made divisive films in the Transformers and DC franchises respectively-you cannot deny that those films are entirely theirs and unforgettable. I feel people won't forget lines like "I am directly below the enemy scrotum" (Revenge of the Fallen) and "MARTHA!" (Batman V Superman) any time soon, and I myself do enjoy those films. What I'm saying, is that while I truly love the Super Mario Bros. Movie as a fun, colorful perfect realization of the Mario games-I don't want its dedication to those games (especially under corporate oversight) to make it so that future potential projects are constructed the same way. Creative vision checked in at the door and made an oath to not stray from the canon of the game. I want someone to make their wholly personal vision of Legend of Zelda, or Gears of War, or that eventual Half Life movie. And some of the best cinematic adaptations of video games are made by passionate visionaries. Christophe Gans pleaded to Konami himself to make a story inspired by the games but is its own entity. Duncan Jones cashed in his indie street cred to make a big budget Warcraft film as he loved the games. For better or worse, I want unique talent brought int to interpret a game into a film because they have a story and vision. And while I enjoy IP managed films like The Super Mario Bros. Movie and Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, I don't want all films to be like them. Variety is the spice of life, so let's enjoy as much of it as we can by letting our creatives tell the stories they want to tell. And yes, that does mean paying them what they're worth and not letting AI replace or exploit them. Written by Tyrone BruinsmaPeter Pan and Wendy (2023)So, have you seen Disney's remake of Peter Pan on Disney +? It's pretty good. It's a fun kid's adventure film with an edge that retells the original 1953 film in a style that feels like an 80s film (think The Goonies, Monster Squad or Labyrinth). David Lowery's prior Disney remake Pete's Dragon didn't do much for me as I was a fan of the original and the remake was just E.T with a Dragon. But David Lowery also directed A Ghost Story and The Green Knight so I never doubt his storytelling abilities. But I'm sure some of you have stayed away from this film - complaining about how all remakes suck, or all Disney remakes suck or how all Disney umbrella films suck or (if you're the conspiratorial grifter type) that Disney is some evil wokist cult controlled by Geroge Soros and blah blah Anti-Semitic conspiracy garbage nonsense. Guys, I get it. We group up on Disney films as kids and seeing them remade into often lesser works is disappointing, especially after The Lion King remake was a gorgeously rendered version of a boring retread of the original film. Some of the Disney remakes are absolutely awful: Alice in Wonderland (and its sequel you forgot about), Dumbo, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast and Mulan all failed to match the original works. And if they're not bad, you forgot they made them like the Lady and the Tramp and Cinderella remakes. But Disney has turned out some genuinely good ones, but first I need to explain why 2023's Peter Pan and Wendy is the best cinematic (note I said Cinematic) version of this story. Peter Pan movies kind of suck...sorry.Yeah...sorry to be the bearer of bad news but most Peter Pan movies suck for one reason or another. The original 1953 Disney version will be the most ICONIC (not best) version. It sticks to the beats of the original story, focused on colorful visuals and comedic slapstick. While some moments like Peter Pan meeting the Darling siblings, Captain Hook's encounters with the Crocodile, Peter screwing with Hook and the final fight still works. But it's also a film that largely feels like a random collection of scenes and moments that just operate on "and then this happens" with the barest connective tissue to make us think something is happening. It feels very similar to Alice in Wonderland two years prior, but that film's nonsensical vignettes made more sense. Also, Peter Pan is a little bastard who doesn't grow or learn much of anything. Kind of busted to have our supposed hero be a horrible human being isn't endearing. And Wendy and Tinker Bell's roles in the film are largely to just be jealous of other each other and other girls flirting with Peter, not good female representation. And c'mon...do I really need to point out the big elephant in the room as to why this film doesn't fly today and didn't back then? Ok then. How about some of the most racist caricatures of Native Americans in cinematic history. Every toxic, racist, cartoonish cliche is here and capped off with the incredibly racist song "What Makes the Red Man Red?" I know we all grew up with this film and consciously know it's wrong, but considering the often-continued racist treatment of Native Americans by systemic powers and individuals (look at Wind River for a dark reflection of that) it's just a sign of how media often shapes the minds of those who consume it. And it's not like it was the only time. Remember how Pocahontas not only aged up its title character to justify the Romeo and Juliet romance (and giving her more sexualised features like other women of color eg. Jasmine and Esmerelda), but that entire film being a neo-liberal fantasy of America's colonization? Or remember Johnny Depp playing Tonto in the 2013 Lone Ranger movie? ...Yeah... So yeah, I wouldn't be comfortable showing this film to kids nowadays as it's such a relic. As for the 2002 sequel Return to Neverland? It's alright. I admire the effort to place it during World War 2, but nothing much happens during it. Though the final scene with Peter and a grown-up Wendy is nice. Now I know people love this film because Robin Williams and Steven Spielberg teaming up to make a sequel to the generally accepted Peter Pan story is a good idea. However, I didn't grow up with this film and upon watching it; was disappointed. The cast, production values, direction and thematic core are great, but I found the film's tone and overall story needed to be more cohesive. Is this a fun children's movie where Robin Williams has fun with kids? Oh god I'm having flashbacks to Francis Ford Coppola's Jack. Or is it a darker version of the tale where Captain Hook attempts suicide? I felt that large parts of the film where just me waiting for something to happen after Peter reunites with Captain Hook. It's alright, but it's not the best work of anyone involved. I feel like this only reason people remember this movie is that the actor who played Peter Pan in it (Jeremy Sumpter) was cute. But other than that (and that really weird "I believe in fairies" scene) it's just a boring retread of Disney's version with most of the problematic stuff cut out. I also think the choice of Australian director P. J Hogan to be a strange choice. He was mostly known for the comedies Muriel's Wedding and My Best Friend's Wedding so I'm unsure why he choice this or someone chose him? Overall, it's a fairly mediocre film that a lot of people apparently like for its cute lead. And this abomination is easily the WORST Peter Pan adaptation. The script was apparently a hot commodity as a "radical re-invention" of the Peter Pan story and so Warner Brothers hired Joe Wright of Atonement and Hanna to direct, gave the film a $150 Million budget and it failed spectacularly. The film got slaughtered at the box office by Ridley Scott's masterpiece The Martian and bombed, making under $130 Million. The biggest problem was that the tone was so bizarre, no one could tell if this was a dark fantasy film or some bonkers kids movie. It's like if you made the boring version of Return to Oz. Another issue was the supposed "new" idea was to be a prequel and make Peter Pan a messiah hero...like we'd seen in so many other works. That's not new, that's lazy. Some scenes are so bizarre they're almost entertaining like the Jolly Rodger flying through London while being pursued by the World War 2 British Air Force, the Pirates and workers of Neverland doing a cover of Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit, or the fact the Neverland Natives explode into powder when they die. SPEAKING of the Neverland Natives, the production attempted to fix the potential racism issue by making all the natives a melting pot of nationalities. On paper, this is not a bad idea. HOWEVER, they kept the character of Tiger Lily (an explicitly Native American character) and cast Rooney Mara for the role. Now, this is no disrespect to Mara as she's one of our most talented actresses working today (The Social Network, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Her, Carol, A Ghost Story, Nightmare Alley) but she was born in New York to two NFL founding families. No really, her mother's family founded the Pittsburgh Steelers and her father's the New York Giants. Yeah...this is like when I found out Todd Field, the director of Tar helped invent Big League Chew Gum. Anyway, yeah they cast a Caucasian actress in the role of a Native American character in the name of "diversity" in the way Hollywood often fails at. Mara regretted the decision graciously and I don't hold the decision against her. There's still often the discussion of diversity, representation and accuracy in casting nowadays (that Netflix Cleopatra documentary series stirred up controversy on that), and I'm firmly on the side of representation first. I get the argument for "talent, regardless of background" and if history wasn't history and systemic prejudice wasn't a thing-I'd easily agree with that. But let me put it this way, the filmmakers of Pan made it so that as to not be racist to Native Americans...they removed Native American characters and cast Tiger Lily with another white actor. Think about that. The only objectively good part about this film was Hugh Jackman as Black Beard just inhaling the scenery. But they gave the crocodile (my favorite part of this series) less than five minutes of screentime. Why? JUST WHY!? Oh and those animated Tinker Bell movies...yeah I have no input. But this is all moot, but the best version of Peter Pan doesn't exist as a film...but as a 90's cartoon. Lasting only one season for 65 episodes from 1990 to 1991, Peter Pan and the Pirates is the BEST version of the Peter Pan story we have. I mean it has Jason Marsden (A Goofy Movie, Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, Spirited Away) as Peter Pan and Tim Curry (Legend, Ferngully, Home Alone 2) as Captain Hook. Perfect casting. It's an animated show full of excitement, adventure, fun, danger and new takes on the story we were all familiar with. Seriously, if you've seen this-you know how good it was and if you haven't...you missed out. Disney owns this now so...can we have this on Disney + or Blu Ray Disney? Please? You also haven't released the Aladdin animated show either. The Good Disney Remakes - Maleficent and The Jungle BookBefore I get into why Peter Pan and Wendy works so well, I just wanna cover the rest of the current Disney remake train. Because Disney did do remakes before this money-making trend. They had Stephen Sommers who'd go on to do The Mummy and G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra to do a Jungle Book film and did two decent 101 Dalmatians remakes with a scenery chewing Glen Close. But the real trend started in 2010 with Joe Roth. Joe Roth has been a producer on films since the 70's and is one of those producers who can balance creativity and money-making sense on projects. Around the late 2000's he appeared to have a unique taste for big budget re-imaginings of classic stories. In that time he produced: Alice in Wonderland (2010), Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), Oz the Great and Powerful (2013), Maleficent (2014), In the Heart of the Sea (2015), The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016), Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016), Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019), Dolittle (2020), Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019), Dolittle (2020), The School for Good and Evil (2022) and even Peter Pan & Wendy (2023). His first effort was Tim Burton's remake of Alice in Wonderland that managed to pull in $1 Billion despite bad reviews. I'm pretty sure the film's successful box office turn was: Johnny Depp as The Mad Hatter, Tim Burton doing this story, the blockbuster appeal and Disney's brand name. Also, it was early March and nothing more interesting would be out until How To Train Your Dragon later that month. But the film did well and Disney greenlit a slew of remakes from some of their most popular and iconic stories. Now a question that's asked often is "Why doesn't Disney remake Atlantis: The Lost Empire or Treasure Planet?" Sadly. It's business. Disney are remaking popular films that already made them money. Disney has to keep shareholders happy by assuring them that Disney's films will be successful. Why do you think Warner Brothers lazily announced they'll be remaking the Harry Potter story as a 10-year running tv series? Brand recognition and prior success. Disney can't exactly say that they'll remake Treasure Planet (Made $110 Million against a $140 Million budget) or Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Made $186 Million against a $120 Million budget) when guaranteed hits like a Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast, and Moana remakes can be announced instead. And if you're wondering why Disney keeps making these, it's because they print so much money. Alice in Wonderland, The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King all made around or well over $1 Billion. Maleficent made over $750 Million. Cinderella made over $540 Million. Sure, some have been box office duds like Alice Through the Looking Glass and Cruella (both still made over $200 Million each) and Mulan was a massive bomb making only $70 Million against a $200 Million budget (largely due to Covid), but they all increase the studio's retention and public awareness of the characters and the brand. Disney's just started releasing the smaller scale productions like Lady and the Tramp, Pinnochio, and Peter Pan and Wendy to Disney + both to keep that platform up to date with exclusive content and save its biggest projects for the big screen. Unless you can convince audiences to not see these remakes (and no, hateful lying "reports" don't count) then Disney is gonna keep firing them off. But I will quickly give my thoughts on the remakes before delving into the two best ones.
The problem most of the films suffer from is lack of original ideas in retelling to stories (The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast) or bungling them entirely (Pinocchio and Dumbo). But the best two are Maleficent and The Jungle Book. Maleficent is a project that was less helmed by a singular effort and more a pure collaborative effort by all parties involved. The idea had been kicking around Disney for a decade with the premise being "What if we gave Maleficent her own origin story like what Wicked did for the Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz?". Kickstarted by Joe Roth's handling of Alice in Wonderland, they hired that film's production designer Robert Stromberg to helm the project and soon Angelina Jolie was hired to play the villainess. While there were plenty of other directors interested like Tim Burton, Darren Aronofsky, David O'Russell (no thanks) and Guillermo Del Toro, I'm actually glad they gave a first-time director this project. Stromberg knows how to work with practical and CGI effects for scenes while giving the actors the right breathing room. He did received support and guidance from director John Lee Hancock (Saving Mr Banks, The Founder) under Joe Roth's supervision. It helps that Linda Woolverton (writer of the original Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King) produced a solid script to work from. The story works as its own tale, but largely upends the traditionalist angle of the original Sleeping Beauty that honestly hasn't aged well. It's often slow, plays into patriarchal dynamics that were becoming antiquated then and potentially helped damage the idea of female empowerment. Maleficent is easily the best part of that film, so giving her control of the narrative is the right step. They also expanded the fantasy world, politics of the kingdom and overhauled the ending. It really is an excellent reformation of a classic tale whose fairy tale origins are honestly kind of disturbing. But the big reason this film stands out is a particular moment where Maleficent (a fairy) puts her trust in a man she's known for a long time and he takes her wings so he can become king. The scene was observed by many to imply a sexual assault level defilement and frame the story in what can only be called a Rape and Revenge saga. Maleficent is about the closest to a family friendly version of I Spit on Your Grave or Kill Bill, to where Maleficent's grief in that scene is heartbreaking to all and the adults in the audience can recognize what Jolie's powerful performance implies. One might even infer that the original film's denial of Maleficent's story in context to its embrace of patriarchal power dynamics, that the system of oppression under patriarchy is a sexual violation to all women. In that sense, Maleficent's closest thematic relative is Ridley Scott's 2021 film The Last Duel. This is why Maleficent is the best Disney remake. Take a fairly basic and outdated film, narratively elevate it and give it a dark, edgy, deconstructionist angle that makes it both a dark epic fantasy action ride and a feminist reclamation of one of the classic fairy tales where women are either evil or victims. It was probably the main inspiration in taking Cruella from 101 Dalmatians and giving her a similar treatment, but not really working due to the original character's story and lack of conviction by the filmmakers or studio. While Jon Favreau's Jungle Book isn't quite the firestorm of events and creatives that conjured Maleficent, this is still the 2nd best Disney remake we have. The Jungle Book stories by Rudyard Kipling are a simple to follow series of events: man-cub found by Panther, raised by wolves, forced to leave by man-eating tigers, meets a bear, snake and some elephants and has to face the tiger before becoming a man amongst his kind. The original 1967 film was the last animated film to see Walt Disney's oversight and it remained one of the studio's most iconic and successful films for some time. It does suffer a bit from "and then this happens" story beats which lead to fun songs, comedic action moments before a more emotional 3rd act than other Disney films did. So, by today's standards it is a bit outdated, but not as much as Sleeping Beauty. Favreau's remake doesn't deviate too much from the original story, but largely gives a more expansive take gives all the characters more 3-Dimensional and memorable identities. Mowgli's wolfpack gets more screentime, Shere Khan's power over the jungle is more visible, Baloo and Mowgli spend more time together and the ending is a nice reversal of the original's climax. Aside from Kaa (who is performed terrifyingly by Scarlet Johannson) not having enough screentime, the film improves everything from the original. It helps that the cast is beyond incredible. Young Neel Sethi as Mowgli finds the right balance between naive and stern (while the original Mowgli was a bit more clueless) and Favreau's close work with the actor brings out a great performance. The star-studded voice cast is easily one of the best examples of perfect casting in recent memory. Ben Kingsley as Bagheera, Idris Elba as Shere Khan, Bill Murray as Baloo, Giancarlo Esposito and Lupita Nyong'o as Mowgli's wolf parents and Chistopher Walken as King Louie re-imagined as a Gigantopithecus. They all do an amazing job, and the CGI production work used to bring them to life (which would go on to be used for Favreau's The Lion King) is beyond jaw dropping. It's slightly darker than the original, has a fun adventurous feel and is actually severely underappreciated I feel. Although I feel I can't mention a severely underappreciated Jungle Book film without mentioning another film and getting into one way the "insidious Disney company" has gotten into your brain. Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle and How Disney Tricks YouA passion project by motion-capture actor and director Andy Serkis, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle was envisioned as a darker, more book accurate version of the classic story. It was produced by Warner Brothers and bounced around release dates for a while before being sold off to Netflix. The film featured a more fantasy infused story, while also including a direct reflection of British colonialism in India. The cast was excellent with Christian Bale as Bagheera, Andy Serkis as Baloo, Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan and Cate Blanchett as Kaa; with Serkis using motion capture animation to brign their performances to life. Sadly, the film's streaming only release showed the studio's lack of faith in it despite it being a very unique and engaging watch by a clearly passionate director. There was also an audience backlash who found it too dark and disturbing for kids, some mistaking it for a Disney film. And THIS is an example of how Disney has tricked a large swath of audiences. Disney adapted public domain stories and fairytales into iconic movies and now whenever any other version is made by someone else-that's the version you think of. I've heard numerous people believe that Don Bluth's 1997 Anastasia film was by Disney (Technically it is owned by Disney now), or that 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman was Disney remake of Snow White (despite being produced by Universal) or 2016's The Legend of Tarzan being a remake of Disney's 1999 film (despite being produced by Warner Brothers). Even some of the prior Peter Pan films we discussed weren't produced by Disney. Hook was produced by Sony, the 2003 Peter pan was produced by Universal and Sony, and Pan from 2015 was a Warner Brothers production. But when you hear Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Winnie the Pooh, Bambi, The Jungle Book etc etc...you think exclusively of Disney. Because that was Walt Disney's goal then, and it's the Disney company's goal now buying up Marvel, Star Wars, The Muppets and 20th Century Fox's entire library. Back to Peter Pan and WendyThere's a multitude of reasons why 2023's Peter Pan and Wendy is both a superior film to the original and the best Peter Pan film. While it's largely faithful to the original stories, its few changes make it a step above prior adaptations. For one, Peter actually experiences character growth in the film-giving our hero a sense of growth from a snarky, aloof and disconnected brat to someone who tries to emotionally connect with people. There's no racist depictions of Native Americans, with Tiger Lily not being rendered a voiceless damsel and actually getting to kick some ass in the final fight. Also, I don't know if some minor moments imply she has a crush on Wendy-but their interactions pass the Bechdel Test (Have two women in a film talk to each about something other than a guy). The Lost Boys are a diverse group with girls, children from various ethnicities and even a down syndrome actor playing one. Their performances and dynamic with each other are great, largely reminding us of who the target demographic for this film is. The actors for Peter Pan and Wendy not only have amazing chemistry but are practically star turning roles themselves. It also has some mildly edgy moments like showing the Crocodile actually eating someone and a fairly dark encounter with Hook and Peter Pan at one point. Hook himself is actually the biggest change to the story. Hook, played magnificently by Jude Law is given a backstory to explain why he is the way he is and why he despises Peter Pan so much. It doesn't redeem him, but does make him more understandable, and more tragic with his self-identification as a villain. The original Disney Hook still holds up as a fun, flamboyant villain: but narrative depth is narrative depth. I'm aware with Jack Horner from Puss in Boots: The Last Wish that many people still love morally repugnant and irredeemable baddies who know they're evil-but we can have both kinds of villains in works. I enjoyed Peter Pan and Wendy a lot, I had fun, I laughed, I was emotionally engaged and I think this might be the favorite childhood film for some kids this generation. the msot laughable reactions have come from 40-year-old dudes who sit online all day complaining about movies they're told to dislike. Complaining about Tinker Bell being played adorably by a Yara Shahidi because "fairies aren't black" or "Disney's pushing diversity politics". Guys, aside from the fact that we've had multiple fairies portrayed and played by people of color in media and the fact fairies aren't real...Disney's VERSION of fairies is inaccurate. Disney's version is closer to that of pixies, while Fairies in the Irish sense are absolutely terrifying monsters. Anyone complaining about Tinker Bell being played by a black actress is either a racist or a grifter who is also racist. None of these cretins will admit to it and like to perform mental gymnastics into pretending that inclusivity, diversity and representation are "actually racist"...somehow? Seriously, these online troglodytes just find new reasons to be offended by people of color, women, LGTBQIA+ persons or progressive politics exists, while pretending everyone else is the offended party. If you're some 40-year-old white dude on the internet having a tantrum about a black woman and a diverse group of kids being in a Peter Pan movie aimed for kids...doesn't that just make you a sad strange little man? The Little Mermaid Looks GoodAnd just to cap this off, I think the remake for The Little Mermaid looks great. We won't know until the full film comes out, but the cast and effects are selling me on the film. The original Little Mermaid by Disney is an undeniable classic, but I'm curious to see this retake on the story.
While many have criticized the CGI, overly dark look of the film and some proposed changes to the narrative (these are fair, but wait until the full release), the main "criticism" was the casting of gifted pop singer Halle Bailey as Ariel. Basically, the production team cast a talented black actress and singer for Ariel and racists lost their minds with various non-complaints that expose their racism.
I know this has gone a bit off topic, but when you start letting idiots, bigots and grifters getting their voices out about this stuff, you have to address so that people know they're stupid and also wake up the people who don't see this. We're letting fascists and racists have a platform to scream about why they hate a black girl being a mermaid and some idiots take them seriously. We're currently living in a world where flat earthers, QAnon death cultists, Anti-Semites using the term "lizard people", bigots saying drag queens and trans women are pedophile rapists and LITERAL NAZIS not only have platforms, not only have support, but are recognized by people in power. And we have some very deluded centrists thinking that these kinds of toxic, demented and genocidal people can be reasoned with/lived with. People, Disney is remaking movies made for kids...for the kids of the current generation. If you're a hardcore Disney fan and think that they're ruining prior works for the sake of money, that's fine. If you think Disney is "destroying your childhood", you either need therapy or to grow up. And if you think Disney including more black actresses in movies is something attack on white people to serve the "New World Order" or some other such conspiratorial nonsense, then you're an idiot and a bigot who needs a padded cell. Because despite how bad these movies are, on average: they're fine. People seem to enjoy most of them, otherwise people wouldn't watch them. The Peter Pan and Wendy remake is a good time. Maleficent and The Jungle Book are great. The Little Mermaid remake is probably going to be fine. And if it's bad, it'll be because the writing, direction and execution failed...not because a black actress played Ariel. Written by Tyrone BruinsmaWARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! There are many films from 2022 that still linger with me. I'm still trying to fully understand and appreciate Three Thousand Years of Longing and how it comments on the nature of storytelling. I'm still engrossed by Jordan Peele's Nope that had so much to say on media, exploitation and spectacle. And I'm still amazed at the marvelous drone cinematography used in Michael Bay's Ambulance. But, if there's one film that's frustrated me the most, to where I cannot comfortably say if I enjoy it or not-it is The Menu. Directed by Mark Mylod, written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy (the latter developing the original story), produced by Adam McKay and Will Ferrell and released by Disney Searchlight Pictures, the film is a darkly comedic thriller about a prestigious chef who has invited guests to his exclusive island restaurant to be dined and killed. The film has received a large degree of praise from critics and audiences alike, even ending up on some critics' favorite films of the year lists. The frequent critic line used to describe the film is "Ratatouille meets Saw", which is both correct and not to the film's premise. It honestly feels close in tone and style to Jordan Peele's Get Out from 2017, but without any degree of commentary on racial politics. It's a film largely focused on food, its creation and consumption in relation to artistry, capitalism and the relationship between creator and consumer. While I cannot say the film is subtle in its exploration of these themes and ideas, I cannot say it is clear or concise on its thesis. While it's very easy to enjoy the straightforward narrative about a disillusioned chef seeking vengeance on those who he believes destroyed his work and a passion to cook, deeper analysis always improves a work. No matter what people (usually anti-intellectual, in-curious and outrage merchant grifters) say: all art and thus films have a deeper meaning. That meaning can be artistic, symbolic, sociological, meta-textual and yes: political. No matter how niche or broad a work is, it is more than the sum of its parts as a narrative. Even when a work doesn't intend to have any kind of statement or intent (as does any political stance/act) it still has one as we live in a political world. Art is made by people; people live in the real world and as far back as politics became a part of our world-it became a political world. By an artist's intent or not, their work carries meaning. I would get into the cinematic philosophies of "Auteur Theory" V.S "Death of the Author", but that would take too long so I encourage you to research those if you're curious or ask your film school friend who'll be more than happy to tell you. Short version is that Auteur Theory states that an author (the director) and their intent is the final word on a film, while Death of the Author is that a singular or collective audience decides what a film means regardless of the original intention. So, while I'll not be able to confirm if my reading is the genuine vision of the film's creators or my own attempt to evaluate what this means in my perspective-I still feel it's worth exploring the frustration I had in understanding this film. Because ultimately works that have more to say than just "please watch me" last longer in the cultural space than whatever dreck Steven Seagal was putting out from 2002 to 2019. First, I'd like to explore how meanings in films work to give a reference of where I'm coming from. Ever since I started engaging with films on a more than superficial level, I've developed a fairly good sense of what a film is saying (or appears to be saying) on sometimes a first viewing. I've been able to understand avant-garde art-house films like Only God Forgives, Mulholland Drive, Mother or Mad God. But this also applies to big blockbuster films most would consider artistically bankrupt. Independence Day is a film about how humanity uniting against a single enemy that tore down our symbols of division is better for mankind. Star Wars is a series about how embracing spiritual enlightenment and defying old ways can defeat fascist empires. The Matrix is bluntly a story about modern society's need to control and the importance of defying that system (as well the trans metaphor and the sequels self-deconstructing the original). And in one of the best recent versions - Avengers: Infinity War is a deconstructionist reaffirmation of the "Want V.S Need" story arc as it applies to the hero's journey often used in films (especially comic book films) that says why heroes shouldn't get what they want. And 2022 had plenty of small and big films that had a lot to say: The Batman, Three Thousand Years of Longing, Men and Mad God were the most interesting films for me to dissect from that year. So, what reading did I get from The Menu? To me, The Menu is a film about the difficulty a director has in preparing better films every time to appease audiences that gradually cease to enjoy them. The chef's targets in the film are: -A pair of snobby critics who make and break chef's careers. (The most obvious metaphor in the film for movie critics). -A pair of rich patrons who don't even remember the chef's works. (Film goers who watch and forget films). -Rich businessmen who've been illegitimately profiting off the chef as his angel investor has been both using the chef's business to grossly profit and modify his work. (Likely this is a jab at investors/studios/producers who profit off filmmaker's work and often try to change their art). -A pretentious fanboy who believes the chef can do no wrong but has no ability to create himself. (Film bro types who claim to know a filmmaker's work but could never actually understand or create the vision). -A washed up actor (played by John Leguizamo evoking Steven Seagal's assholish behavior-go look it up) who pretends to know the chef and whom the chef hates for having made a bad film that he saw on his day off. (I'm somewhat torn on this as it could either be people who pretend to know filmmakers personally for clout, but the "I saw your bad film on my day off so you should die" angle is really weird. The one unplanned for target is a woman named Margo who is the fanboy's date but is a substitute for is now ex-girlfriend. As she is unplanned, the chef's intentions around her are unclear. It turns out she is actually a prostitute and so he finds them both to be kindred spirits who 'service' (or in film terms, "entertain") consumers. The climax of the film has Margo (having learned the Chef's happiest days were making fast food burgers that people wanted) challenges the chef to make a cheeseburger and he does so happily, allowing her to leave and live with her burger. To me, the film is expressing the frustration of an artist/filmmaker who has been forced to evolve their work for audiences and critics who don't care and business types who only exploit his work. But when meeting someone who simply craves him to make a simple, cheap, junk food level piece-finds joy in that. So that sounds like I figured it out and that should be the end of it right? Well, no. That's where the frustration comes into effect. While the best conclusion I've come to is The Menu as an expression of filmmakers annoyed with having to make serious, pretentious and important films for people who don't care, when they'd rather make simple fun works, they and the audience for that actually want...it doesn't fit well for me. It's not satisfying as there's many aspects any elements that conflict with that or simply don't fit. Some additional elements that I feel confirm this are things like "The Mess" where a cook who wishes to be the head chef takes his own life knowing he'll never be that-symbolic of how many filmmakers and artists give up their ambitions. There's a very #MeToo inspired scene where the chef allows a female staff member to stab him as recompence for his sexual advances and abuse of power towards her, before having all the male patrons run and hide-only to be captured. But there's things that don't quite add up like a later scene involving a Coast Guard Officer Margo believes she called to help them but is actually one of the chef's staff performing. Maybe that's a metaphor for actors siding with directors? Another is Thai actress Hong Chau's role as the maître d'hôtel who loyally serves the chef but is angry at the attention he gives Margo. I could STRETCH my belief into metaphorically placing her as the director's wife in fear of being replaced by a young actress he chooses as his muse. I mean...young actresses dating/marrying directors is not uncommon. But I can't quite say I'm happy with these. But, the part that makes me hesitant to be happy with this is if this is supposed to be a champion of "junk food level movies" and a middle finger to pretentious film works-why is The Menu looking and behaving like a pretentious film? If this film is satire, it's not exactly working. Being a satire of a film that embodies the genre/narrative is hard work, look at Starship Troopers of Fight Club. If the Menu was genuinely trying to praise junky, exploitative genre works or satirize pretentious works-why didn't it commit to that? Why wasn't it crafted with the utmost needlessly perfect craftsmanship as opposed to the effective filmmaking used? Why is it not indulging on ALL the horror a setting like a kitchen offers? You could've had people cooked, mutilated excessively, cannibalism, gross regurgitation even-but all the few deaths and instances of violence we see are quite plain and restrained. Junk food movies, exploitation cinema, genre films, schlock, whatever you want to call them have merit. From the 60s to the 80s, Italian slashers called Giallo films were highly praised amongst American critics for their artistic values...even though many of those filmmakers were just making the flashiest looking trash they could. Slashers like Halloween, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street had more under their skin than just teens kills. Macho action flicks like Predator and Die Hard actually commented on American action heroes. Monster movies like the original Godzilla, John Carpenter's The Thing and Alex Garland's adaptation of Annihilation have things to say on nuclear warfare, disease and the nature of storytelling respectively. You can make a trashy and seemingly disposable film have something to say. But The Menu doesn't really fit that. 2022 gave us truer versions of this idea in Mad God or Ti West's 70's era slasher X. Trying to break things down, The Menu feels like a safer and less interesting version of other genre films with a message. The killer inviting people to the island to die obviously has the air of Richard Connell's 1924 short story The Most Dangerous Game and all the similar works. Mostly The Menu reminded me of The Hunt from 2020. If you don't remember it or didn't see it, The Hunt was thriller originally set to be released in 2019-but was pushed back due to upsetting then US President Donald Trump and other right-wing pundits when the film's narrative and twist was leaked. The premise was a group of poor people had been kidnapped to be hunted by rich elites, with the twist being the victims are all terrible right-wing degenerates and the elites were left leaning business types looking for personal vendettas. While the film did try to work this out intelligently, people who never saw the film called it racist (Donald Trump proclaiming "Hollywood is very racist") even though the premise was mostly rich white people hunting poor white people. The Menu is certainly a better film and has less of a cop-out ending than The Hunt, but the latter film has more bite to it. Part of me wants to compare The Menu to Battle Royale, but that would be an inherent insult to Battle Royale. The other film it reminds me of is The Platform, a 2019 Spanish horror film available on Netflix. The premise is about a sci-fi prison where prisoners are forced to abide by the levels they live on and a platform carrying food that travels down. Prisoners may only eat what those above did not, cannot save any food and are randomly placed in levels over time. It's a much more blatant capitalism and food metaphor with a unique sci-fi element and various degrees of grossness for that audience. And The Platform isn't a film I enjoyed, but the upfront nature of its themes made me respect it. And committing to the gross elements the premise allows for is incredibly admirable. The Menu is still better, just not as provactive. In the end, what makes me disengage with The Menu on top of its themes not being clear enough for me to be content with its artistic value is the lack of a defining moment. There's no real scene, moment or set piece that lingers with me after I watched it. There's no Batmobile chase from The Batman, no rock conversation from Everything Everywhere All at Once, no tour of Talokan from Wakanda Forever or any single moment I return to with this film. It's occupied my mind not out of a particular interest or love of the film, but for my mental state to be happy. I don't like feeling like I have to figure a film out due to obligation. Even upon inspecting the film's creators, I'm not sure I have an answer. Will Tracey conjured the original story, with his writing experience being for The Onion, The Late-Night Show with John Oliver and Succession. Meanwhile Seth Riess has primarily written for The Onion and other comedy areas. While both writers are clearly versed in comedy and satire-I don't find the film particularly funny nor biting in its satire (hence my frustration). However, I almost came to a satisfying conclusion with its director. While originally, Alexander Payne was meant to direct (and considering his films Sideways and Downsizing-I can see his interest) the film went to Mark Mylod. He's mostly been a tv and comedy show director since the mid 90s, directing the original and reboot series' of Shameless, many episodes of Entourage and the 2005 dark comedy film The Big White. But the works of his that could match up with my thesis would be his work on Succession and Game of Thrones. Succession is a widely praised show that not many people see, and Game of Thrones was an epic genre series that captured the world for almost a decade. But Games of Thrones saw a sharp decline in terms of audience praise come season 8 in 2019. And while Mark only directed episodes for seasons 5-7, I wonder if he was expressing some frustration with the response the series received in the end. He was a director who'd been working for years, getting up to direct big dramas like Game of Thrones and Succession that people praised-but the former was ripped apart online in its conclusion and the latter is only seemingly enjoyed by very few people. But even then, I feel the showrunners for Game of Thrones would have more vitriol to give on the matter and Mark was neither the original creator of this story nor does he appear to be an auteur who would try to make such a bold statement. Filmmakers criticizing audiences/the industry is not new, French New Wave bad boy Jean Luc Goddard practically made that his career from day one. It would be something producer Adam McKay would have something to say on that matter. In 2015, McKay made a jump from silyl comedies (as he'd directed Anchorman and The Other Guys) to a more serious work in The Big Short - a comedic reflection of the American Housing crisis. His two follow up films were 2018's Vice, a satirical biopic about US Vice President Dick Cheney and 2020's satirical disaster film Don't Look Up. I was not a fan of both films as Vice didn't seem to have a point, but an ending scene seemed to blame American audience's love of blockbuster films (literally name dropping the Fast and Furious franchise) for the election of Doland Trump. Meanwhile Don't Look Up criticized people, politicians, social media and humanity in general for ignoring an impending apocalypse. Both films clearly believe they're important satirical works with something to say, but they come off as insufferable and mean-spirited. So, while I can see Mckay's interest in the script-I don't think it would be something he mandated the themes for. In general, films can say political or thematic statements and either no execute it well, or say something with such little impact it might as well not be there. For example, M. Night Shyamalan's 2006 fantasy film Lady in the Water is pretty much a meta-film about how amazing Shyamalan's work is, how he's this genius storyteller and all those who doubted him are mean and deserve to be eaten by a monster. That's the creative intent and only takeaway from that mess of a film. Meanwhile, 2019's Disney remake of Aladdin turn Jasmine and Jafar into a commentary on Hilary Clinton losing to Donald Trump in 2016's US election. Do I agree with the sentiment? Yes. Do I feel it's saying anything meaningful the deepens the film? No, in fact it cheapens it. Intent is important, but if you fail the execution-it just becomes a strike against the work. So, do I think I fix on The Menu? No. I've probably mis-read the whole thing as I'm so deep into this train of thought that I can't see if any other way. I'm willing accept I may never 'get' this film. Can I call it a bad film? No. Its production values, cinematography and performances are far too good for me to outright despise it or even call it mediocre. I would genuinely recommend this film as I feel it's fairly engaging and easy to enjoy, plus I'm deathly curious of people's thoughts on it.
That said, I'm still not happy with the reading I've found for myself or the readings other critics (negative and positive) have made. A lot of skill and craft went into this film, but as to what the secret ingredient of this dish is...I have no clue. Written by Tyrone BruinsmaSo we're in the age of adaptations. We finally got a great Dune movie, Marvel and DC movies are better and more abundant and some of our best movies are adaptations. But I feel that the industry is missing out on a LOT of opportunities to make really great films out of untapped materials. I think the most excited I've been for an adaptation in the past few years was Steve Alten's 1997 novel Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror finally getting to be a big budget movie. So for fun, here's a list of games, books, comics etc that I think would be great when brought to the big screen. 10. Kim PossibleOk, so technically Kim Possible has had two animated features and a live action Disney Channel film-but that's not what I'm talking about. Disney basically has their own version of Alias and James Bond rolled into one and hasn't truly taken advantage of it. The characters of Kim and Ron could easily carry a feature film and with villains like Drakken and Shego...that's a license to print money. You can either directly adapt show or age Kim up so it's basically Lara Croft in Mission Impossible. The series has a fun cast with great dynamics and could easily clean house at the box office. Why Disney hasn't given Kim Possible the big budget treatment, I have no idea. Ideal Director: Lexi Alexander (Green Street Hooligans, Punisher: War Zone) 9. PrimevalFor those who aren't familiar with this show: Primeval is a sci-fi British tv series about prehistoric and future monsters coming to our time. It's pretty much if Doctor Who was scaled back and always a monster of the week show. The problem is that every season ends with a big vague cliffhanger and the now final 5th season left everyone completely unresolved. Solution? Make a modestly budgeted film to wrap up the series. Make something like 2018's Annihilation to give fans closure and go out on a last hurrah as opposed to constantly ending a "too be continued" note. Ideal Director: Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) 8. Batman: The Killing JokeSo The Killing Joke has been officially adapted already as a not very good 2016 animated film and partially inspired the $1 Billion juggernaut that was 2019's Joker. But what I want is the purest form of adaptation told in live action on the big screen. Just make the Killing Joke an exploitation style Batman film like a nastier version of The Silence of the Lambs or Red Dragon. The animated film tried and failed to "fix" this novel so I feel like just giving into to the inherent edgy, trashy exploitative vibes could be something better than attempting elevation. Cast brand new actors for all the characters, keep the budget relatively modest and commit to making it as is. Don't chicken out half way and try to make it more palatable Warner Brothers. Ideal Director: Coralie Fargeat (Revenge) 7. PreySo Prey is basically Michael Crichton returning to his Andromeda Strain novel with nanomachines instead of alien viruses. It's kind of amazing that nano machines haven't been more of a prominent entity in sci-fi horror. Sure they appeared in Avengers: Infinity War and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, but their only major horror role was in the 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. The film is pretty much a confined viral outbreak scenario with tiny killer robots as the villains. 20th Century supposedly has the rights, though under Disney: it's unclear if they'll allow those rights to lapse or actually make this film. Ideal Director: Daniel Espinosa (Life, Morbius) 6. Gears of WarA Gears of War film has been in some form of development since the game's massive success in 2006. At one point, Len Wiseman (director of Underworld and the Total Recall remake) was attached when it was back at New Line Cinema. Universal holds the rights at present, but nothing has been heard of since 2017. Gears of War is kind of the perfect series to get a big studio release; it has a big universe of lore you can play with for a classic "shoot the evil bad guys, save the world" premise. And the fact that films like Dr Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Matt Reeves' The Batman have proven to be successful darker mainstream films on top of R Rated mega hits like the Deadpool movies, Joker and John Wicks films show you can do more violent and darker blockbusters. I mean Gears of War is literally a game whose main weapon is a rifle with a chainsaw. So it's unclear if and when we'll get this possible action juggernaut, but Universal prints money with the Minions, Fast and Furious and Jurassic Park franchise so I think they can afford to spend $200 Million on a film adaptation with an action specialist director. Seriously, I hope the eventual movie turns out awesome. Ideal Director: Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean, A Cure for Wellness) 5. DeathstrokeSpeaking of Deadpool, it's a shame DC and Warner Brothers haven't been able to make money off the character Deadpool was a parody of. Slade Wilson aka Deathstroke is one of the most distinct looking villains in the DC universe and he's rarely gotten used in audio/visual media. Ron Perlman played the character perfectly in the Teen Titans cartoon, he was memorable in the Arrow TV show and Joe Manganiello absolutely fits the character in the DC movies he cameoed in, but he's probably gonna get recast. What they should do is tell his origin story of a super solider experiment turned mercenary from the comics to properly set up him to arrive in Suicide Squad 3 or something as a fully formed bad guy. His origin story is good enough that you don't need to add in extra universe stuff and would easily turn out to be a solid mid-budget action film. At one point Gareth Evans, the director of the two awesome Raid films was somewhat attached, but never officially. And Deathstroke NEEDS to be a villain, both to differentiate himself from Deadpool more and because he's best in that role. And considering the newer version in the comics is a pedophilic rapist...yeah don't try to redeem him or make him an antihero. He's a straight up bad guy who kicks some ass and is gonna lose to the good guys. Ideal Director: David Leitch (Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2) 4. The Great Zoo of ChinaIt's Jurassic Park, but with Dragons. ... What? You don't need more explanation. It's literally the most popular monster movie franchise and premise...but with dragons. Sony either does or did have the rights...and have done nothing. ... How this isn't already on like movie 3 amazes me. Ideal Director: Neil Marshall (Dog Soldiers, The Descent, Doomsday) 3. The Enigma of Amigara Fault and Slug GirlTo those unfamiliar with his work, Junji Ito is a horror manga creator who makes some of the most disturbing works to be printed on paper. While Amigara Fault and Slug Girl aren't his most dynamic or expansive works-I think they're the best suite to the big screen. I also think the Hanging Balloons would also make an excellent films, but that might be too bleak and nasty. The Enigma of Amigara Fault is a story about people mysteriously compelled to arrive at a place where human shaped holes have appeared and people then enter claiming to be for them. It's a simple, but terrifying story that evokes somewhat similar vibes to the Final Destination films or even 2016's Arrival. You'd need a great writer, director and studio committed to this vision and expanding upon it to feature length. I won't spoil the ending of the manga, but I'm deathly curious to see how it would be handled. Meanwhile Slug Girl is a more harrowing version of Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis or David Cronenberg's The Fly where a young girl goes through a horrific body horror transformation involving a slug. Considering body horror is back in fashion with works like Possessor, Crimes of the Future, Mother!, Hereditary and the Suspiria remake-there's room for this in horror cinema. Ideal Director (The Enigma of Amigara Fault): Josh Lobo (I Trapped the Devil) Ideal Director (Slug Girl): Brandon Cronenberg (Possessor) 2. Batman: KnightfallWhile Knightfall saw a partial adaptation in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises, I want a full adaptation of the graphic novel. Because I think a proper Batman: Knightfall adaptation should have Bane as the protagonist of the entire story. Son of a criminal, forced to serve a life sentence at birth, beaten and broken into a beast of a man, breaks out and hunts down a visage of his fear in the form of Batman. You want a real simple pitch? 1983's Scarface, but with a buff genius criminal. Dave Bautista apparently wants this role so I don't see why Warner Brothers hasn't tried to get this project underway. It'll likely become an animated feature first, but I want the big epic cinematic incarnation. Ideal Director: S. Craig Zahler (Bone Tomahawk, Brawl in Cell Block 99) 1. F.E.A.R.A video game action horror series that started in 2005: F.E.A.R. is one of the most underutilized stories in media. A series involving disturbing corporate experiments, psychically controlled soldiers and a little girl named Alma is ripe for a movie adaptation. The games left a lot of the story in the background (the first game using phone call messages to convey a lot of it) while the protagonist went around blasting everything to pieces in slow-motion. While the game itself was influenced by The Matrix and The Ring, I think the films should take a more direct action/horror/corporate conspiracy story. There's enough existing characters, events and lore in this franchise to get a decent new horror series.
Supernatural horror, slow-motion action scenes, corporate intrigue and the room to expand its universe through cinema should not be difficult. Greg Russo, the writer of the new Mortal Kombat film and upcoming System Shock series is supposedly working on an adaptation for the big screen so that's promising Out of all the possible IPs to get a big screen version, F.E.A.R. is the one I'm hoping for the most to be made and be good. Ideal Director: Scott Derrickson (Sinister, Doctor Strange, The Black Phone) Written by Tyrone BruinsmaIn today's culture of cinema, it's been largely determined that genuine artistic films are made as low budget indie works produced by A24 and anything in the realm of "Blockbuster Cinema" is little more than corporate mandated, committee produced, focus tested garbage. Then again the dumber side "cultural discourse" blame a studio and/or creator or a film's "progressive agenda" as some sinister intent by corporation or artist. This is also the same group who throw a bigoted tantrum whenever someone who is gay, trans, black or a woman exists in media and insists everyone else is the crybaby snowflake. Anyway, the concept of of auteur blockbusters is rarely spoken about due to Hollywood largely not giving capital A artist filmmakers that kind of control or project anymore. But even in the golden age of Hollywood, filmmakers like Cecil B. DeMille operated as visionary sole creators with effects heavy blockbuster films like The Ten Commandments. For the record "auteur" was developed as a theory by French Academics as to classify filmmakers who had a style distinctly their own and whose creative intent was the lifeblood of their body of work. There have been counter arguments to this with the most famous example being "Death of the Author", which stated that it doesn't matter what a work means - an audience takes away whatever message they intend. So while it might seem that in the 21st Century that visionary artistic directors aren't present anymore, that's not entirely true. Though there are large $200 Million blockbusters made in collaboration with about a dozen people whose group goal is "make a fun movie", there's been plenty that are lead by singular driven filmmakers. Examples include Gore Verbinski on the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, Mel Gibson's directorial work like Passion of the Christ and Hacksaw Ridge, Alfonso Cuarón on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, The Wachowskis on The Matrix films and Cloud Atlas or George Lucas on The Star Wars Prequels. The most recent auteur blockbuster attempt was this year was awesome, but underperforming The Northman from historical horror specialist Robert Eggers. There's even examples of actors holding more creative vision on a film project like Angelina Jolie on Maleficent or Vin Diesel on the Chronicles of Riddick and Fast and Furious franchise. So yes, auteur filmmakers can still operate at a blockbuster level with studio money to play with and I think they deserve some appreciation. That's not to say auteur films are automatically great as many M. Night Shyamalan films are solely his vision, but 3 of his personal films (Lady in the Water, The Visit, Glass) are just metaphors for people not understanding his visionary status. Some auteur masters like Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick made great films, but Hitchcock was also a perverted stunted control freak of his actresses and Kubrick made his cast emotionally and physically suffer for his "perfect shots". There's also much to be said about auteur cinema being largely dominant by white men due to the old foundations of Hollywood and its stubbornness to grow (but has been getting better at slowly). So, yes: auteur cinema isn't some untouchable regime of cinematic classification. You can make an auteur film and it suck. You can make an auteur film and be a terrible person to work with. But at the end of the day, these films are the creations of the artists with a vision. So let's take a look at the 10 Best Auteur Blockbusters of the last 20 years. And I'm listing them by their director's because that's how auteur kind of works. 10. SAM RAIMI - Spider-Man + Spider-Man 2Horror specialist Sam Raimi made a name for himself back in 1981 with the shocking horror film The Evil Dead. The film was an indie success that showed Raimi's distinct directorial gift in camera work, tone and a genre-leading him to make other unique work like 2 great sequels (Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness), Darkman and The Quick and the Dead. Then after James Cameron, David Fincher and Chris Columbus failed to get their Spider-Man films up, Sony brought in Raimi to handle the web-slinger's blockbuster film. Raimi brought the distinctive tone, direction and personal love of the comic books into his superhero films to make what are both big crowd pleasing box office hits and works wholly Raimi's too. The films use camera work and editing inspired by comic books, contain Raimi's horror/comedy sensibilities and act like monster movies. The Spider-Man 2 scene where Doc Oc first becomes a full monster is both a terrifying sequence and joyously piece of dark comedy that would've been right at home in his Evil Dead trilogy. Unfortunately, Raimi wasn't able to make Spider-Man 3 his own film due to Sony's interference and forced in character of Venom. While that film still carries Raimi's humor, horror and style-it doesn't count as his own project. It makes sense that after Spider-Man 3, he'd make a truly Raimi film in the form of the 2009 supernatural horror movie Drag Me to Hell. Luckily, Raimi would make two more projects with more control given to him in the form of 2013's Oz The Great and Powerful, and this year's Dr Strange and the Multiverse of Madness. I think the special ingrident in making Spider-Man 1 and 2 true Raimi films isn't just the comic book style, use of horror and comedy or camerawork-but how Raimi handles the character of Peter Parker. Raimi understand his human, flawed and nerdy hero better than any other filmmaker has so far. There might be other horror filmmakers who transitioned to big budget cinema, but there is only ONE Sam Raimi. 9. JAMES CAMERON - AvatarA truck driver turned filmmaker (no, seriously) James Cameron is one of the most financially successful filmmakers of all time. Having made Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator: Judgement Day, True Lies, Titanic and Avatar-it's hard to argue with the man's ability to make films or money. Even before he was a box office titan, Cameron had a massive ego and strong commitment to his vision. He worked his way up through departments on the Roger Corman Alien rip-off; Galaxy of Terror, and was a control freak hothead. He was completely entrenched in the goal of storytelling and the use of visual effects. He's pushed visual effects and production values in almost every one of his works. Terminator and Aliens touted amazing practical effects, The Abyss and Terminator 2 had state of the art early uses of CGI, Titanic was a monument to a mix of real and CGI effects, and Avatar was the big digital soundstage 3D event that became (and retains after a Chinese re-release after Avengers: Endgame) the highest grossing film of all time. While much has been said about his (let's say unique) take on feminism, efficient screenwriting and Terminator's Day expression of the distrust in police: it's Cameron's visual goals that earn him the title of auteur. While Cameron's films don't look similar (Terminator 1 and 2 are stylistically different), it's his ability to envision his stories and carry out the painstaking process of achieving them that stands out. He prefers to shoot practically underwater as opposed to CGI, he'll use new effects to show things people have never seen and he'll be a hard ass on set to do it. Apparently on the set of Avatar, Cameron had an artificial wall brought into the studio so that if someone's phone went off during filming (or a take, I assume) that he'd take your phone and nail it to that wall. Cameron's somewhat earned abrasive attitude has been around before he directed his first film has made him very distinctive as a filmmaker. Look at the opinions he's had on DC's Wonder Woman and Aquaman, or pre-emptive criticisms of Avatar: The Way of Water being 3 hours long and it's clear he's an artist all his own. While Avatar was criticized as a bad story that was "preachy" about its anti-colonial and pro-environmentalist messaging while being mostly a "tech demo"-I think that's dismissive of the work Cameron, the effects team and production crews did in achieving Avatar. Avatar is 100% Cameron's vision, a Captain dedicated to the perfection of his visual monument to cinema. You may dislike it (though I think the film is pretty damn awesome), you can't deny it's one of the most successful pieces of visual art. 8. PETER JACKSON - King KongPeter Jackson has often earned the distinction of "The Sam Raimi of New Zealand", but I feel Jackson is somewhat a different beast. While both love gore, horror and contain a gleeful sense of humor-Jackson has a few distinctions from his mad-ball peers. He's clearly a monster lover (possibly fetishistic even) and often attempts new ways to push filmmaking effects like James Cameron. Having started off with near exploitation splatter horror films like Bad Taste and Braindead, Jackson (like Raimi) leapt to blockbuster adaptations with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. While that trilogy clearly had the New Zealander's fingerprints all over it, I don't know if I could 100% claim it as auteur expression with its effort to be faithful to Tolkien's work. I can however state that Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of King Kong is definetley his big blockbuster auteur piece. Cashing in on the $3 Billions he garnered from Lord of the Rings, Jackson aimed to make the big blown out version of 1933 King Kong-a film he might have had too much love for. He expands upon the monster fights, film politics and even a deleted scene from the original film all to his own joy. In the original 1933 King Kong, there was a deleted stop-motion scene after Kong knocked much of the Venture's crew off a log into a ravine where giant arthropods would come out to eat the crew that survived the fall. Depending on who you ask, this scene was either too harrowing for audiences or cut due to pacing. Jackson not only reconstructed that stop motion scene, but made an extended and skin crawling homage in his remake. That scene still gets under my skin to this day and I know Jackson enjoys knowing that. The Ultimate Edition of King Kong is a 3 hour epic that I've come to love as a film truly in love with the original, expanding everything to be a true modern day epic. While Jackson's King Kong only made over $562 Million compared to the success of the Lord of the Rings, I have a feeling Jackson is just as proud and has more personal attachment to the film. I mean, if you were given the chance to make a $200+ Million remake of one of your favorite films-I'm sure you'd put your heart and soul into it. 7. RIAN JOHNSON - Star Wars: The Last JediWhen Disney purchased Star Wars and planned on reviving the series for sequels and spin-offs, many people assumed they'd just print out pure products with no soul. The Force Awakens and Rogue One certainly had energy and life given to them by passionate filmmakers, but neither stood as truly singular visions. However, Disney decided to give Rian Johnson near complete creative control with Episode 8: The Last Jedi and it was the most artistically unique film since The Empire Strikes Back. For those who don't have to observe the internet and its bizarre citizens (I hope you all have happier lives), this film was one many films subjected to "criticism" (angry nonsensical ranting) by anti-progressive outrage merchant grifters and political commentators. Why? Because the film had a more diverse cast and acted as a somewhat darkly cynical deconstruction of Star Wars for most of its runtime. This angry anti-artistic group claimed that The Last Jedi was a terrible film for pushing "SJW Woke Politics" because a Star Wars film had more women and people of color and have done so on any film that vaguely opposes their right wing, bigoted and paranoid insecure minds. This muddied the water because The Last Jedi was a rather divisive film in fan and critic circles. Some people found it worked and some claimed Rian Johnson's attempts just didn't work. It's just unfortunate that those who didn't like it were somewhat placed in the same camp as the angry howling bigots. For context, Rian Johnson is a filmmaker who started out with an indie neo noir film in 2005 called Brick, directed some of the best episodes of Breaking Bad like Ozymandias and gained mainstream attention with the time-travel thriller Looper back in 2012. So everyone who said that Rian Johnson is an idiot and doesn't know what he's doing are disingenuous in that they either don't know his prior work or just say that to be petty. Rian Johnson is not a cookie-cutter filmmaker and while his artistic voice has somewhat yet to be found, the work he has put out is very much about breaking down classic genres and their tropes. His approach to Star Wars was to approach the series from a thematic and meta-textual point of view and deconstruct it. Breaking down elements like the elitist Jedi order, the fact war profiteering and slavery are prominent in this story regardless of who is winning, that Luke Skywalker is more myth than man and how toxic fans are ruining the series. But, the part many people miss is that despite seemingly being a complete tear down, the character of Rey as an in-universe Star Wars fangirls inspires a re-affirmation of the myth of Star Wars to Luke and the audience and why we love it. Star Wars: The Last Jedi is effectively that series' version of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns comic or James Mangold's Wolverine film Logan of the same year. I understand why many didn't like the film, as being so willingly to openly call out elements in a series people love is going to be problematic. Then again, contentious Star Wars opinions have existed as far back as Return of the Jedi so the curve for grading Star Wars is one entirely its own. I'm mostly amazed that after the retread of A New Hope in the Force Awakens, Disney willingly let this very unique writer make probably the best Star Wars film ever and it made a billion dollars. 6. JAMES GUNN - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 + 2 and The Suicide SquadFrom Troma to big budget scripts to underperforming genre films to some of the best blockbusters of the 21st century: James Gunn is just a great filmmaker. Having an anarchic sense of humor, but a genuine love for his characters makes Gunn the genre equivalent to the Coen Brothers. His two Guardians of the Galaxy films for Marvel proved to be fun and well made sci-fi action films, but also showed a genuine humanity for characters who are immensely flaws and broken. While his major influence on pop culture is having more major films bring in classic 70's/80's rock songs into their audio-scape, his real gift is in writing characters. In Guardians of the Galaxy, Gunn wrote Chris Pratt's Peter Quill as a boy who refused to grow up and needed to accept the death of his mother. In its sequel, Gunn pushed Peter further into dealing with further parental detachment, toxic masculinity and the male ego. Whether Gunn was speaking about his own creative or emotional maturity as he's grown in the 20+ years he's been in films or truly knowing the character he built-his voice speaks very loud. After Gunn was wrongfully fired from Guardians of the Galaxy 3 because right wing pundits created a fake outrage machine based on decades old edgy joke tweets because Gunn didn't like Trump, he was given full reign to do the same but more at DC. After 2016's Suicide Squad attempted by be DC's Guardians of the Galaxy, they gladly opted to hire the creators of that film. And because DC was now willing to let their films be righteously violent, James got to being his chaotic humor, love of gore, edgy humor and lover of his cast into one big masterwork with 2021's The Suicide Squad. Maybe it's my own sensibilities, but I think The Suicide Squad is a superior film to his Guardians work. But what I can say is that all three are big budget films where the studio had the confidence in Gunn to let him make the stories he wanted to tell, with the characters he wanted to tell them with. I genuinely am excited to see where he goes with Guardians of Galaxy Vol 3 and beyond as one of the most emotionally in touch filmmakers and writers working with $200 Million + budgets. 5. CHRISTOPHER NOLAN - TenetOne of the most successful and vaguely distinct filmmakers working in the major leagues is Christopher Nolan. After gaining attention with his 2000 neo noir thriller Memento, he went on to direct the Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception, Interstellar and Dunkirk. But I think his ultimate auteur piece of filmmaking is 2020's Tenet. While many attribute Inception as his great auteur work; being that Inception is literally about the process of filmmakers working to subconsciously plant emotional and thematic ideas in your mind. I think Tenet is actually closer to Nolan's personal ethos as a filmmaker, artist and storyteller. Nolan's filmmaking goal is a sense of immersion with tangible practicality, while his storytelling obsessions are the concepts of time and stories that fold in on themselves (as in finish where they started). It really feels like Nolan took all the concepts of time he explored in Memento, The Prestige, Interstellar and Dunkirk; before mixing them with the practical effects work he did in his Dark Knight trilogy to make the pinnacle film of his career. The divisive response Tenet received is the sign of an artistic work, in that people love it, hate it or are entirely mixed about it. It's very rare for action films of this size and scope to receive such a varied response, with similarly polarizing works being Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi, Gore Verbinski's A Cure for Wellness and Darren Aronosfky's Mother! When your ambitious sci-fi conceit in your 70's spy film throwback is inversion (the ability to simply move in the reverse flow of time) and do that all while REALLY crashing a plane into a building, executing forward time vs reverse time combatants with largely in camera effects and cutely having your protagonist literally only be known as that s impressive. Tenet really feels like Nolan was stating his abilities as a storyteller and filmmaker in what he can achieve, the passions he holds and how well he can execte them. If there's anything that says auteur, it's literally a project with everything you love. 4. DARREN ARONOFSKY - NoahDarren Aronofsky is the most "arthouse" director on this list. Starting with the $60'000 psychological horror Pi back in 1998, Aronofsky garnered mainstream attention with his soul crushing psychological drama Requiem for a Dream. How mainstream was it? Well, Warner Brothers was seriously going to let this guy make Batman: Year one as the most realistic and gritty version of the character. Like Batman's costume would be made from garbage and Catwoman would just be a BDSM dominatrix. That never happened, but he did write and produce the horror films Below, create the underrated masterwork The Fountain and achieve critical and commercial success with The Wrestler and Black Swan. Black Swan was such a major hit (grossing $329 Million against a budget of $13 Million) that Paramount gave him $160 Million to make an adaptation of the biblical story of Noah. While religious epics used to be commonplace with Hollywood classics like Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments, they quickly were over taken by pure sci-fi/fantasy/superhero tales. Many religious films of the 21st Century are little more than cringeworthy propaganda and fearmongering to right wing conservative faith audiences. Aronofsky wanted to both return the genre to its epic status, but also make a visionary and daring work. Noah tells a story where God is only referred to as The Creator, angels who rebelled against The Creator are now multi-limbed rock monsters and the world is a post apocalyptic wasteland destroyed by consuming industrial cities of humans. Between Noah and Mother!, Aronofsky is clearly exploring themes of environmentalism and planetary destruction in the fascinating way only he can. Noah is largely respectful to the tale of Noah; but expands it with its apocalyptic world, monsters, visual cues of evolution and Noah's own experience of being close to God driving him mad. In all his films, Aronofsky treats the understanding of God or divinity as both transcendent, but incomprehensible to the human experience. After all, if one could truly understand God...wouldn't that make them less than God? Noah really is a spectacle of both a personal vision that fits into an artist's body of work, but also a big budget VFX heavy action movie that expands upon a story many already know. I know a lot of religious audiences will find the film sacrilegious in how it tries to explores its characters and story the same way Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader did in The Last Temptation of Christ-but that's why I like it. It's an artistic expression that's earnest, but not afraid to challenge, provoke or incite questions into the audiences who watch it. 3. MICHAEL BAY - Bad Boys 2Shut up, no seriously shut up. About the only thing as annoying as people insisting the Transformers films are the worst thing in cinema (alongside every other mainstream supposedly "worse thin in cinema") is the idea that Michael Bay is one of the worst filmmakers with no artistic vision. Like it or not, Bay is one of the most distinctive auteur filmmakers of American Cinema. It just so happens he operates not in traditional biopics, low budget arthouse horror films or anything else typically associated with artistic cinema. He operates in explosions, gunfights, car chases, teal and orange color pallets, broad comedy and his own pop nihilistic viewpoint. His Transformers films were a career move to show his prowess in billion dollar franchises to make his own passionate project, while using the films themselves as tech demos for filmmaking techniques, visual ideas and using comedic actors it unique ways. After the first 3 Transformers films he finally got to make a passion project in Pain and Gain, and its clear films like 13 Hours, 6 Underground and Ambulance also stemmed from a person vision. But I think his true artistic masterwork comes from 2003's Bad Boys 2. Made after his disastrous attempt to be a "serious" filmmaker with Pearl Harbor, Bay put all his style, passion, anger and filmmaking expertise into a $130 million dollar blockbuster that's violent, crude, nihilistically destructive, 2.5 hours long and awesome. Bad Boys 2 follows the characters Bay established in his 1995 directorial debut, but defines them as embodiments of masculinity and vessels to observe or create destruction. The film is full to the broom with visuals many other filmmakers would only do once in a film, but Bay puts them all here. Will Smith throwing off a KKK cloak with both arms outstretched, each holding a pistol to match the burning crucifix behind him? Check. A car chase turned shootout turned back into a car chase where the bad guys throw cars at the heroes and a boat gets destroyed? Check. Two grown black men intimidating a young black man who is take a girl on a date? Check. Multiple scenes with zero respect for corpses? Check. One scene of the heroes having what appears to be a homosexual discussion and another where one is high on X in front of their boss? Double check. Like him or not, you cannot deny that Bay is achieving the vision he has in exactly the way he wants to. While the Transformers films limited him somewhat creatively; works like Bad Boys 2, Pain and Gain, 13 Hours, 6 Underground and Ambulance all reflect the divisive action auteur whose still is often imitated but never duplicated. 2. CHLOE ZHAO - EternalsA criticism often levied at Marvel is that their films often look and feel so similar that the interesting directors they often hire get their voices lost in the pre-visualization heavy, 2nd Unit team directing action, Kevin Feige produced series. But Marvel has let very distinct filmmakers add their style and flair to films more than it's mentioned. They like Kenneth Branagh bring his directorial style to the first Thor, let Shane Black make the kind of soft deconstructionist action comedy he's known for in Iron Man 3, given James Gunn the ability to tell his stories in his vision, have Taika Waititi bring his human and 80's retro aesthetic for Thor 3 and 4, and most recently let Sam Raimi make the closest thing to an MCU horror film. But the most prominent example is Chloe Zhao's Eternals film. After having proved herself on the indie scene and about to start production on Nomadland, Zhao was offered to direct Marvel's long-in development Black Widow film. She turned them down, but pitched them her version of Eternals that Marvel was looking to bring to the big screen. After finishing Nomadland, Zhao filmed Eternals in the form of a true blockbuster in an arthouse style and Nomadland then went on to win Best Actress, Best Picture and Best Director at the 93rd Academy Awards. Eternals opened to mixed reception, more divided than the usually positive reviews MCU films received-but fans largely adored it. While Eternals is a big, action heavy, VFX fueled superhero movie-its style and narrative are entirely that of Zhao's. Influenced by the likes of Terrence Mallick, Ridley Scott's Prometheus and even Nick Cassavetes' The Notebook, Eternals is the strangest beast in the Marvel series. It's not a safe, cookie-cutter blockbuster: it explores concepts like ancient aliens astronauts (without devolving into paranoia), uses music and sound to add an atmospherically richer texture to the already free form directorial style. It made an interesting comparison with Denis Villeneuve's adaptation of Dune that came out around the same time. Both films are big space opera films with ambitious ideas and intentions, but made by wholly different visionaries. Zhao is more interested in making the film have a look and feel that reflects the journey of her near immortal characters to the point scenes seem to transition hundreds of years in a matter of seconds to these characters. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the biggest film series and blockbuster entity largely for just making good films and hiring the right cast, crew, writers and directors under Kevin Feige's producing hands. But I think now is the time more than ever that Marvel needs to give filmmakers like Chloe Zhao the canvas they can provide to make artistic works without budgetary limitations and the biggest audience possible. 1. ZACK SNYDER - 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch and DCEULet's get this out of the way up front, Zack Snyder is an amazing filmmaker who has received far too much in the way of disingenuous negative from people who don't attempt to understand his creative ethos. And in the past 5 years he's unfortunately developed a "fanbase" of Snyder Cultists who also don't actually understand his creative desires and just want surface level gritty, serious and violent superhero films.
Starting out in the 90's at Propaganda Films, Snyder worked in directing music videos and commercials alongside other famous directors like David Fincher, Michael Bay, Gore Verbinski, Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry. After his directorial debut, 2004's remake of Dawn of the Dead-he used his desire to push digital filmmaking by adapting Frank Miller's 300 graphic novel. Less interested in the post-9/11 politics inherent to the West V.S Middle East angle of the comic; Snyder was purely interested in the visuals, representation of masculine strength, gory violence and somewhat critical angle of the Spartans. While in no way a historically accurate or authentic film, 300 is one of the best uses of digital cameras, blue screen backlots and CGI to tell a very simple story. After George Lucas attempted to push the digital backlot with the Star Wars prequel trilogy, Snyder was one of the few successful adopters until that filmmaking approach became mainstream about half a decade later. While 300 isn't a rich narrative or interested in the contemporary politics, it's still 100% Snyder's vision and made a foundation for his distinctive style. In Watchmen, Snyder finally realized the Alan Moore graphic novel into live action cinema after so many had failed. In his youth, Snyder was largely uninterested in classic comics and more interested in works like the Heavy Metal graphic novel and absolutely loved Watchmen. it's clear Snyder has always had an interest in dark, hyper violent and sexualised material as opposed to more traditional work. While Watchmen largely retains Moore's story and dialogue to feel like a mostly faithful adaptation, Snyder changed some elements to be more suited to his creative ethos. But this wasn't entirely in a political commentary sense, Snyder basically told a story about violent superheroes being rejected by humanity as a reflection for divisive artists who tell his kind of work being largely rejected too. Watchmen carries so much of Snyder's visual style, filmmaking techniques and artist's rights messaging that it's a shame it's often considered a lukewarm attempt in the genre. It cannot be denied that Snyder has had a vetted interest in "pro-art" stories, having wanted to adapt Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead for years. But he's also grown up and realized the negative political undercurrents in the work he's had an interest in-disposing of The Fountainhead project due to its creator's right wing political philosophy. And it's strange that many bigots and sexists are drawn to Snyder's work, considering that work reflects that of a many who clearly has nuanced and positive views on feminism. Even as far back as Dawn of the Dead, Snyder has done his best to not let the women in his stories be purely objectified entities of lust. Sucker Punch is easily his biggest stamp on his views of feminism, in what I think is his most personal artwork. Sucker Punch is a film with multiple levels of reality, stuffed with very visual idea Snyder has wanted to create and is a dark, but confrontational look on multiple school of feminism, while still being a visually engaging action film. The way it attempts to tackle how audiences view cinema seems largely an intentional adoption of Nolan's similar work in Inception and works wonders to literally "Sucker Punch" the audience. It feels aspirational and informative to women, while being a slap in the face of men who just want to perversely gawk at the seemingly fetishized live action anime heroines. It's not a safe film, having many dark scenes for a film general audiences can still see and being so thoroughly layered in reality, themes, metaphor and meta-textual commentary. You can certainly argue that it doesn't work, but you can easily recognize the intent and passion Snyder put into this film, and I still hold this as a genuinely great piece of cinema that I'm surprised Snyder managed to get a big budget for. And then we move onto Snyder's ambitious attempts to make the DC Extended Universe. While Man of Steel was narratively and thematically influence mostly by Christopher Nolan who produced the film, Snyder's auteur sensibilities came entirely through the visuals, action and Superman questioning the use of his own powers. Man of Steel for me, was the first time I ever found an interest in Superman and considering how Snyder himself was uninterested in that traditional view of the hero-allowed him to make one of the most distinctive portrayals of the character. After somewhat planning out a universe and series of films, Snyder was able to make Batman V Superman; Dawn of Justice. This film was much more in line with Snyder's own narrative and visual aesthetics; giving us a Dark Knight Returns rendition of Batman, continuing Superman's inability to reconcile his identity, a definitive version of Wonder Woman on the big screen and visuals that still stay within the minds of people. Snyder had an impressively long leash from Warner Brothers in creating his vision, but still needed to somewhat obey studio demands. But everything from the epic score, to visual style and action all stem from his mind and his vision. It's just a shame the film underperformed and received a largely negative reception from critics and audiences. After Snyder's disappointing (to Warner Brothers) attempt to establish a crossover and universe, his then in-production Justice League Part 1 was limited to a single feature and forced to reshoot for a lighter tone. This somewhat halted when Snyder lost his daughter and he stepped down from the project. Justice League would be rewrote, reshot and recut under Joss Whedon and the results were a disaster. Justice League 2017 is a bad film, Whedon's on set behavior was disgusting and it's amazing the DC films managed to recover. In the years following, Snyder spoke about his original intent for the film and his fans (along with bots) seemed to mount pressure against Warner Brothers for "The Snyder Cut". After years of feeling like they'd betrayed a director who'd been with the studio since 2006, and collaborators like Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot pushing for Snyder's vision-Warner Brothers gave Snyder and company the funds to reshoot and reconstruct his vision as an HBO Max special. Released in 2021 as a 4 hour epic, Zack Snyder's Justice League was a gift to those who'd wanted his vision achieved. The film looked amazing after Whedon's Cut was an ugly mess, characters like Cyborg and Steppenwolf were fixed and Snyder's clear grasp of the vision he was making was on full display. While a four hour film might seem indulgent, Hollywood classics like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur used to run for that time, many audiences binge watch several hours of tv shows in one sitting and streaming platform show people will be willing to watch someone for almost an an entire day or more. Man of Steel, Batman V Superman and Justice League might not be universally praise and have given idiot fake fanboys a sense of righteous vitriol, but what matters is Snyder's artistic goals being made flesh. While many either demand or theorize Snyder's return, it's clear with how he's found a home in Netflix with Army of the Dead, Rebel Moon and the future Planet of the Dead that Snyder has felt enough betrayal from Warner Brothers and wants to make whatever he wants. It's very similar to how Nolan left to company in late 2020 and took his $100 Million Oppenheimer biopic to Universal. Director's aren't machines, they're humans with creative endeavors and if you don't respect them-they'll leave. While many audiences want simply well made entertainment, just as many are hungry for visionaries filmmakers to make personal and passionate films that many haven't seen before. Every director's vision is worth fighting. I'd rather live in a world where we discuss the artistic merits of a director's intent and vision, than one where seemingly automated studio films are thrown out like products on a conveyer belt. Written by Tyrone BruinsmaTRUTH OR DARE In 2018, Blumhouse released Truth or Dare-a supernatural horror film that made almost $100 Million on a budget of $3.5 Million. It was shredded by critics, but that didn’t matter as Blumhouse had critical hits that same year with Upgrade, Halloween and BlacKkKlansman-the latter two being financial hits as well. Blumhouse’s model is to make a variety of high concept films, some good and some bad-so the lights stay on and they make as much money as possible. With that said, Truth or Dare was one of the worst films Blumhouse had made alongside the Paranormal Activity sequels and The Visit. It seemed like a winning enough formula so why didn’t it work? Well, let’s take a look. Truth or Dare was directed by Jeff Wadlow, who also contributed to the screenplay. Wadlow is primarily the subject of this essay, so we’ll give him a quick introduction. Wadlow made some prominent short films in 2002 before shifting over to feature films in 2005 with Cry Wolf. We’ll talk about Cry Wolf later, but it was a moderately successful slasher with mostly bad reviews. He then directed films like Never Back Down and Kick-Ass 2, moderately successful films with mixed reception. And in 2016 he directed the Kevin James Netflix comedy - True Memoirs of an International Assassin…a film which has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes…so yeah. In 2018 he made a strong partnership with Blumhouse thanks to Truth or Dare doing so well financially. What’s surprising about the film is Jeff was one of 4 people to contribute to the story. The story and script was done by Michael Reisz whose is mostly known for producing and writing dozens of Boston Legal episodes. Interesting choice to shift from a comedy drama series to supernatural horror, but weirder shifts have happened. Jillian Jacobs also contributed to the script, having helped on Wadlow’s prior bad comedy and who’d also help write his next film Fantasy Island. The last writer was Christopher Roach, writer of the 2014 action thriller Non-Stop that Wadlow executively produced. I originally theorized Reisz wrote the story and script, Blumhouse bought the script and sat on it for a while until Wadlow brought close collaborators to tune it to his liking. In reality, an executive at Universal told Jason Blum to give them a horror movie titled Truth or Dare. Blum took this to Wadlow, who pitched the opening scene on the spot. After that, he brought in the 3 previously mentioned writers to all collaborate on the script. I’m surprised the opening scene was the first idea pitched as the opening is somewhat effective. But from experience, studio executives coming up with titles and demanding they be made into films doesn’t work out. For example, a Paramount executive demanded that a Monster Trucks movie be made where monster go inside the trucks-suggested by his toddler son. By the time that movie was released, the executive was no longer working at the studio and Paramount had made a $123 million loss on the film. Hollywood likes to pretend it’s a well-oiled machine, but sometimes it’s people with no idea on what they’re doing wasting millions of dollars. The premise of Truth or Dare is a group of unlikable college students play the game in a haunted place. The demon haunting that location decides to follow them home to continue playing the game. The premise alone is where the film breaks. The film fits two categories of problems in modern films I dislike. The first is how the horror is entirely based upon a demon. It’s similar to the 2019 horror film Countdown which could have had an interesting motive or ambiguity if the explanation wasn’t just a poorly explained supernatural entity. The second is a term I’m finding applicable to a lot of films, but Jeff Wadlow’s specifically. “Needlessly convoluted, yet ridiculously simple”. Basically, it refers to a film with a very simple story that tries to add unneeded information or pretentiously acts like it’s something more. Recent examples include The Woman in the Window, Escape Room, The Girl on the Train or Spectre. The simple part of the film is “Tell the truth or do the dare, or you die”, the convoluted part is this unnecessary mystery and the defined, yet undefined rules for the demon’s powers and game. It’s pretty much an overly elaborate way of getting to kills in Final Destination…but with no bite. Only one death scene stands out, but the horror is non-existent. A big part of why is when the demon possesses people to ask “Truth or Dare”: it uses a creepy grin face filter you could find on Snapchat. It’s vaguely off putting the first time, but it just comes off as silly the more it’s used. Ultimately, the supernatural element isn’t fun and makes the film worse. The simple change for a better film would be to make it a slasher. This group of friends clearly have personal issues, so take a page from Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer. Have someone from this harmless game of Truth or Dare become a masked psycho killer who toys with them and plays the game before murdering them. It’d be a far better story as the purpose of “Truth or Dare” is to expose people’s embarrassing truths or make them do embarrassing things. Having a demon be the puppet master behind this instead of a tense cat and mouse game removes all the tension. In the end, it’s easy to know why Truth or Dare sucks-it’s not fun, not well made and we don’t like the characters. FANTASY ISLAND But like I said, Truth or Dare was insanely successful at the box office-so Jeff was picked up for another horror film. This time, he and his two prior collaborators were to make a horror adaptation of the fantasy show-Fantasy Island. Fantasy Island was a show were people get what they want, but learn it’s not what they want and there’s a moral lesson. That’s actually not the worst idea to turn into a horror film as many horror stories are characters learning lessons. Once again however, this film adds in supernatural elements that actively make it worse and it’s a convoluted yet simple story. I actually thought the opening several minutes were quite effective, for a while I thought the film would reveal that this is a kind of purgatory for characters meant to face their sins of desire. Unfortunately, that was not the case and the film devolves into all the characters being connected, a magic rock and a pointless quest for revenge. It’s a waste of the premise and license, to where I’m wondering if Jeff Wadlow knows how horror is supposed to work. It’s ok to have a complex narrative like Gone Girl or Tenet, but if you’re just throwing random twists at the wall for the sake of subversion-it doesn’t make anything work. Subversion in narratives can work, but when your “twists” are little more than bland reveals-there’s no point. Fantasy Island could’ve been a powerful story about letting go of the selfish desires we have, but it’s absolutely squandered for twists the writers THINK are cool…but they just suck. It didn’t matter though, despite coming out at the begin of the global Covid-19 outbreak-the film made nearly $50 Million on a $7 Million budget. Critics tore it apart like the creator’s prior film and Blumhouse still made a ridiculous amount of money. CRY WOLF And so, I decided to go back to Wadlow’s only other horror film before his Blumhouse Phase-Cry Wolf. It’s weird how Cry Wolf is almost a Rosetta Stone for how badly Jeff Wadlow handles horror. It’s a needlessly complicated, yet simple story and misuses the horror genre. While it’s not a supernatural horror like his later efforts, it is a slasher that doesn’t know how to function as a slasher. Cry Wolf was the end of mainstream slashers until nostalgic revivals in films like You’re Next and The Terrifier. In 1996, Scream revived the slasher genre after it was killed by lazy 80’s sequels. And so, you had studios trying to recreate and imitate its success, with the only good one being I Know What You Did Last Summer. The Scream sequels sucked, a rip-off attempt called Urban Legend sucked, then a bad slasher called Valentine was released and finally Cry Wolf. Cry Wolf came out in 2005, being outclassed in its genre by Wolf Creek, Hostel and The Devil’s Rejects. Plus, other superior horror films like The Descent and Red Eye kept it in the gutter. Despite those films and negative reviews, Cry Wolf made over $32 Million on a $1 Million budget. Not bad for a directorial effort. But Cry Wolf still sucks, it’s a rehash of Scream and Urban Legend with an email as the inciting incident. It’s an obvious play on the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story, but ultimately resorts to a cliché narrative and motivation that was played out by 2005. Slashers in the 80’s like Happy Birthday to Me, April Fool’s Day and My Bloody Valentine are all far superior in story, let alone the kills. Cry Wolf is a needlessly watered-down slasher, which wasn’t a good choice as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and Saw exposed audiences to violence that hadn’t been prevalent since the exploitation era. Audiences wanted violence again and Cry Wolf did not supply. Cry Wolf set the stage for Wadlow’s career over a decade later-horror films that are the lower tier of the genre. PREY But before writing off Wadlow’s horror career entirely-I found out he helped write a 2007 killer lion film called Prey. Prey was directed by South African filmmaker Darrell Roodt who started out with dramas like Sarafina and Father Hood…to b-movie rubbish like Dracula 3000 and Lake Placid Legacy. My hope was Prey would be a diamond in the rough as it had a good premise, decent director and Robocop himself Peter Weller. Unfortunately, it’s bad. It’s not as bad as the worst killer giant cat films like Man-Eater or Burning Bright…but it’s not as good as 2020’s Rogue or The Ghost and The Darkness. Prey is just a relatively boring thriller about a family in Africa being hunted by a pack of lions. It’s the complete opposite of Wadlow’s other horror works where it’s so simple that it actually lacks interesting story beats. The filmmaking isn’t especially good, the kills aren’t very noteworthy and the performances are very “meh” all round. It’s so weird that Jeff’s scripts all boil down to very simple…but either he overcomplicates them, or they have no meat on the bone. If you need a killer animal film from 2007 set in Africa-I recommend the killer crocodile film Primeval. BLOODSHOT
While he’s written for shows like The Strain and Bates Motel, Wadlow’s “best film” to his name is probably the Vin Diesel film Bloodshot. Another film that released during the early Covid Outbreak, Bloodshot is a lackluster action film with like two good action scenes and one of them was neutered in editing. The strongest parts of the script easily come from Eric Heisserer; writer of Final Destination 5, Lights Out and the incredible Arrival. There’s the germ of an idea to the film in telling the story where all heroes who defy their bosses/organization for personal revenge are just blank slates manipulated for corporate gain. It acts as a kind of subversion for a lot of cliché action hero films…but part of me wonders if that’s just bad writing with unintentionally subversive themes. Ultimately, Wadlow’s career has amounted to a series of half-baked films. When the best thing he has his name to is Non-Stop that he had little involvement with, it’s not a good look. I’m not making this to bash Jeff Wadlow, I have a lot of respect for workman writers and directors like himself. I just think he needs to re-evaluate how he approaches his projects, like the Masters of the Universe film he’s attached to write. Part of me thinks Jeff would be better as a producer to enable people’s visions. In film, knowing the role you’re best suited to is what creates good projects. Some people are visionary writers and directors, some are expert technicians and some are good people with good ideas who need to bring the visionaries and technicians together. Written by Tyrone Bruinsma GRIZZLY DETECTIVE THRILLERS In the 1940’s and 50’s, a genre had emerged in America that would not be classified or appreciated until years later-Noir. Classified by French film scholars-Noir was the genre of gritty, pulpy crime films shot in black and white. Many classics are included in this genre-The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, Strangers on a Train, Double Indemnity, Touch of Evil, The Third Man and Kiss Me Deadly. At the time, these films were considered cheap B-Movie material. Black and white film stock was far cheaper to shoot on than color compared to films like Gone with the Wind or Wizard of Oz. To compensate for the low budget film stock, many directors employed style over pure realism or big budget spectacle. In that space of abstraction, the morally grey plots and ability to be darker-many noir films set the standard for gritty thrillers. The genre in my mind died in 1958 when Alfred Hitchcock directed the color-noir Vertigo and changed how the genre could be seen. With noir dead, neo noir was born. While utilizing much of the same ideas, themes, plots and visual style-neo noir films were allowed to expand and experiment. The genre brought us classics like Chinatown, Blade Runner, Mulholland Drive, Nightcrawler and Heat. But one of the darkest entries in the neo noir genre would come to us from a writer named Andrew Kevin Walker. ANDREW KEVIN WALKER While working at Tower Records, Andrew Kevin Walker finished the screenplay for what would become Seven in 1991. Through help via screenwriter David Koepp, New Line Cinema purchased the script. While director Jeremiah S. Chechik of Christmas Vacation was originally supposed to direct and even Guillermo Del Toro fresh off Cronos was offered the director’s chair too-neither cared for the script. David Fincher, having crawled out of the production nightmare Alien 3 with no passion for film, was sent the original script and loved it. This was a problem for New Line as they wanted the script changed. But Walker, Fincher and the eventually hired cast all demanded the script stay intact. While Seven was being made, Walker wrote other films like the sci-fi horror flicks Brainscan and Hideaway. Walker even wrote unproduced scripts for a Silver Surfer film and X-Men movie. He even wrote the screenplay for a Batman V Superman film in 2002 that would’ve been directed by Wolfgang Petersen of Air Force One. While both writer and director pushed for the film after it was shelved, Zack Snyder’s Batman V Superman permanently shelved Walker’s script. After the resounding success of Seven, Walker then became a reliable script doctor in the 90s. For context, a script doctor is a writer who modifies or improves scripts without necessarily changing the fundamentals. It’s an important part of the industry and many valued creators work in that field. For example, Frank Darabont: writer and director of The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and The Mist was a script doctor on Saving Private Ryan and the 2014 Godzilla film. Walker’s script doctor work included David Fincher’s The Game and Fight Club, as well as Event Horizon. As for the other scripts Walker wrote, they all suffered creative and studio interference. His numerical follow to Seven, 8mm was a noir thriller about the urban legend of snuff films. However, Walker’s truly disturbing screenplay was softened by director Joel Schumacher. Even with those changes, I think the film effectively fits the tone of Seven and is extremely disturbing. Released the same year as 8mm was Sleepy Hollow. This film was originally the passion project of effects designer Kevin Yagher after disowning the production nightmare Hellraiser: Bloodline. Yagher was originally supposed to direct, but Tim Burton took the job after leaving another production nightmare in Superman: Lives. While Burton appreciated Walker’s script, he brought in Tom Stoppard of Shakespeare in Love to tone down the violence. Sleepy Hollow still managed to be super violent movie and one of the best films of the year. After failing to have his superhero films greenlit, Walker’s last major film was 2010’s The Wolfman. A passion project of actor Benicio Del Toro, director Mark Romanek of One Hour Photo was the original director. However, due to budgetary concerns-Romanek was replaced with Joe Johnston of Jumanji and Jurassic Park 3. Johnston hired David Self of Road to Perdition to rewrite Walker’s originally intact script and ironically-the budget grew to over $150 Million. The budget increase was likely due to Johnston wanting to use more CGI over practical effects. Audiences and critics rejected the film alike. What’s strange is how Walker’s distinct dark style is what made him popular…but studios and filmmakers were constantly pushing to remove that darkness. It ultimately leaves Seven as his truest work. SEVEN Going into Seven itself, it’s a simple story. Two detectives played by Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt try to track down a serial killer. The killer’s MO is targets victims “guilty” of the 7 deadly sins. The ultimate finale however is what iconified the film. After being brought into the middle of nowhere by Kevin Spacey’s John Doe, a box containing the wife of Brad Pitt’s detective Mills is delivered. Mills kills Doe and the story ends on a truly haunting note. The story deals with themes of post-modern decay, social apathy, religious theology and nihilism vs optimism. Like I said, it’s a simple story. But the ideas, excellent performances, magnificent direction and truly creepy atmosphere and scenes make it all perfect. The film was acclaimed upon released and was the 7th Highest grossing film of 1995, no joke. It’s surprising for a film with such a nasty and bleak tone to be that successful. The only other dark films that achieved the same feat were Silence of the Lambs, Basic Instinct, Hannibal, Passion of the Christ and 2019’s Joker. With such a successful film, you’d believe a sequel would’ve been made…and one almost was. EI8HT In 2000, Ted Griffin and Sean Bailey wrote a possible sequel to Seven. Ted Griffin was the writer on films like Ravenous, Ocean’s Eleven and Matchstick Men. Sean Bailey meanwhile would become president of production at Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production in 2010 and still holds that position. While written as an original film, New Line Cinema acquired it and attempted to make it a sequel to Seven. The script they wrote was titled Eight, but with the number 8 in place of the G. The script followed a retired Summerset with psychic powers returning to duty to solve another string of murders. That premise alone was what made the production shaky. David Fincher flatly rejected the idea, which caused the script to be changed back into an original story. This isn’t an unheard-of process in Hollywood. The 1992 movie Doctor Mordrid was originally going to be a Doctor Strange adaptation, but the rights had expired by the time filming could commence. Many potential sequels, prequels, spin-offs and more get made into original films or versa-visa. The question is, would this have been a good Seven sequel? SOLACE
Released in 2015 as Solace, the film has Anthony Hopkins play what would’ve been Morgan Freeman’s character. Hopkins plays John Clancy, a man with psychic abilities who retired from helping police after the death of his daughter. He’s brought back by a string of unusual murders that ultimately face him against another psychically powered human. The ultimate reveal is the killer is targeting those who will die painful deaths and is “freeing” them. The question eventually becomes whether or not we play God with people’s lives. The film features a fairly strong cast including Colin Farrell as the eventual psychic killer, Abbie Cornish from Sucker Punch as a rookie detective and James Dean Morgan as Clancy’s cop best friend. The cast does solid work and the story isn’t bad, but it’s the filmmaking that’s easily the most interesting. While the colour pallet and grade aren’t super interesting, the representation of psychic visions and the few uses of a motion-controlled camera are good. The ultimate problem is that it lacks a super dark tone or ultra-disturbing sequence. Most of it is pure dialogue, well written and performed-but often very little action or investigation. It ends up just being a watchable film, but how would it have served as a sequel to Seven. Let’s execute a little thought experiment. Let’s say David Fincher rejected the script, but New Line Cinema looked for a director to suit and it’s 2002. Lee Tamahori had just done Along Came a Spider, but he would’ve been busy with Die Another Day or xXx 2. Joel Schumacher had so many passion projects at that time so he’d be unavailable. Darren Aronofsky from Requiem for a Dream would be good, but he was still developing his eventually cancelled Batman: Year One. Gore Verbinski had just done The Ring, but was instantly working on Pirates of the Caribbean. My personal directorial pick for a viable and available director would have been Brad Anderson. Anderson had released the incredibly creepy horror films Session 9 that matched the realistic, yet gritty style of Seven. Anderson has proven his ability in thrillers with The Machinist, Transsiberian, The Call and Fractured. A series of murders has R Lee Ermy’s police chief (who likely would’ve been James Dean Morgan’s character) coming to Morgan Freeman’s Summerset. Summerset in his time on a farm has somehow developed psychic abilities, possibly due to the traumatising case of John Doe. A young female detective, likely played by Jennifer Love Hewitt or Naomi Watts is brought on to help. As Summerset investigates, he realizes the killer has the same psychic gift as him. Like the original Seven, the killer probably would’ve been a secret celebrity. Someone like Johnny Deep, George Clooney or Russell Crowe at the time. But I theorise that the psychic killer might’ve been Brad Pitt’s Detective Mills. Bear with me here. If Summerset got his abilities from the incident from John Doe, Mills would have too. What if he was admitted to an asylum and either escaped or faked his death, and is now performing these merciful murders. Maybe Mills wants to spare people the fate he has to live with? It’s an interesting idea, but likely the killer would’ve been new to the series and just someone else for Morgan Freeman’s Summerset to stop. In my opinion, Solace would’ve made for an interesting sequel that I’m guessing would’ve been rejected by audiences and critics. Seven is such a hard act to follow that wasn’t calling out for a sequel. It stands as one of the true great original films: it’s not a book adaptation, there’s no remake and it isn’t a series. Seven is a classic, Solace is a decent film-but we’ll never know what it would’ve truly been like if Solace was the definitive sequel to Seven. |
Tyrone BruinsmaThis is the Official Blog/Magazine for filmmaker, writer and content producer Tyrone Bruinsma Categories
All
|