Top 10 Characters of 2016

2016 brought out the worst in people.

Too many arguments tore apart friendships, too many social media paragraphs brought vitriol to the surface, and too many people died. We lost artists. We gained fear. We became a nation that had to be reminded that black lives matter. Predicting the future is impossible, but I'm sure 2016 will be seen as a turning point in our history. It's tough to see the good in a year like this one.

2016 brought out the best in artists.

As an audience, we were treated to one of the best years of film in recent history. Beyond that, we were handed heart-wrenchingly beautiful music. From Chance the Rapper to Childish Gambino, Bon Iver to A Tribe Called Quest, Clipping to Kendrick, and this track that threw my heart in a blender and promptly pressed purée.

I've been going back and forth on making a list of my favorite and least favorite of the year, so let's start here. These are my favorite characters in film for 2016. I didn't have any guidelines for the characters - some show up for 15 minutes, others have entire movies to themselves. There are spoilers in these descriptions, and I haven't seen every film, but as of right now, here they are.

10. Robert Katende - David Oyelowo - Queen of Katwe

Queen of Katwe deserved a larger audience. Not just because it's a well made film, but because it's an important one. Starring Madina Nalwanga as Phiona in her first role (ever), the film includes an all black cast, one which never needs a white person to come in and save the day. As Phiona's teacher, Robert Katende, David Oyelowo shines. His love for the children he mentors bleeds into every scene. His passion for chess, a game of strategy and thinking ahead, helps guide the theme of the film without overshadowing Nalwanga. By using chess as an equal playing ground for the young and old, big and small, rich and poor, Robert's lessons go beyond knight, king, and queen - they become important reminders about self confidence.

9. The Ancient One - Tilda Swinton - Doctor Strange

The backlash surrounding Tilda Swinton's casting as the Ancient One was fascinating to watch. On one hand, a white actor is taking the role of a traditionally Asian character. With Emma Stone in Aloha and Scarlett Johansson's casting in next year's Ghost in the Shell, white-washing was in the public's eyes. On the other hand, the character came is rooted in racist stereotypes. Do we need another mystical Asian monk who can teach our character how to use his newfound powers? However you feel about the casting of Tilda Swinton, her performance remains phenomenal. Swinton commands the screen with an ease and gravitas that could quickly be taken for granted. Whether she's facing off with Mads Mikkleson or taking on one of the best death scenes in recent memory, the Ancient One brought reality to a universe that contorted the real world and sometimes brushed it off like an unnecessary sidebar.

8. Ricky Baker - Julian Dennison - Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Hunt for the Wilderpeople was one of my favorite surprises of 2016. I've been a fan of Taika Waititi since What We Do In The Shadows, so I tried to stay away from any news about his new film. Near the beginning of the film, I wasn't enamored with Ricky Baker. He didn't have the instant charisma that some of the other characters on this list had. But as Ricky and Hector, played by Sam Neill, fight their way through the wilderness, I started getting it. He's a kid who dreams of being a gangster - so much so that he names his dog Tupac. In the most unconventional way, he gets to live out his dream: he's a rifle-toting outlaw on the lamb from the fuzz with his own catchphrase (albeit one that's been used a thousand times), "Shit just got real." Getting to see Ricky's understanding of the true joys in both the everyday life and the thug - skux - life was beyond terrific.

7. Jillian Holtzman - Kate McKinnon - Ghostbusters (2016)

This is an interesting challenge. How do you separate an intriguing character from an overall uninteresting film. Step 1: Hire Kate McKinnon. She brings joy to a film that needs it desperately. Holtzmann feels as if she's the only character who truly loves what she does. While the film was ultimately uneven, finding unfiltered satisfaction from capturing ghosts might be one of the few things in the new edition of Ghostbusters that makes it stand on par with the original.

6. Brenden - Jack Reynor - Sing Street

The brother that left shoes too big to fill. The one that peaked in high school. On the surface, Brenden is a character we've seen enough times to know what to expect. But John Carney's writing and Jack Reynor's performance round out the character to someone with regrets, passion, and love. It's not so much when he appears on screen, but how he interacts with others. His love for his brother and continued contribution to his success comes across as far more genuine than many of those other brothers we've seen before.

5. Erwin - Hayden Szeto - The Edge of Seventeen

It was hard to pick one character from The Edge of Seventeen, a testament to both Kelly Fremon Craig, the writer/director and the actors. In the end, Szeto's Erwin, a character that in less capable hands could easily be written off as "quirky friend #3," won out. While it's his ridiculous comedic timing that makes Erwin so instantly charming, it's his grounding in reality that sets him apart. He has insecurities: he's unsure of himself, he's unsure of his art, he's unsure of the girl he likes. Making Erwin's defining quality "passionate" and not "quirky" is the decision that sets him apart from all the "quirky friend #3's" of the world.

4. Manny - Daniel Radcliffe - Swiss Army Man

Putting a dead body on an island seems like a weird premise for a film. Pairing that dead body with a suicidal stalker seems even weirder. Keeping most of the film on that island seems downright absurd, even silly. But somehow, magically (okay that's it I'm sorry, no more Potter jokes), Daniel Radcliffe breathes life into the insecurities of a dead body trying to learn how to live. The film is a dive into what makes humans human, and what's so great about life. It's important to remember how easily this character could've been overly creepy or overly dramatized. But we become enamored with life as Manny learns to be enamored with it. For that, Daniel Radcliffe's performance as a dead body is one of my favorites of the year. And that, folks, is something I wasn't expecting to say in 2016.

3. Mia - Emma Stone - La La Land

Damien Chazelle is frighteningly good at creating characters. In Whiplash, he gave us Fletcher, a teacher with only one job: finding, challenging, and cultivating the next great. In La La Land, he's given us two interesting characters in a love story. However, Mia stands out for her ability to love. It's not only her love for Sebastian: it's her love for what she does. Her passion for acting not only catapults her to fame, but it inspires Sebastian to do the same. I could write paragraphs on how stupidly in love I am with this film, this character, and this new voice in filmmaking, but it feels like a disservice to Emma Stone's performance and Mia's story to write anything else other than this song.

2. Chiron - Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes - Moonlight

I managed to avoid all the trailers for Moonlight, and relied entirely on word of mouth. Also - this poster might be my favorite of the year. I had no idea the kinds of emotional intimacy I was going to be treated to. More than that, I was blindsided by the three entirely similar and entirely different actors playing Chiron. His journey from Lil to Chiron to Black is one of the most devastatingly well made stories of the year. It's not one of acceptance, or even one of forgiveness, but it's a story of love and lack thereof. One that hangs on Chiron's ability to tell the story with what he says and, more importantly, what he leaves out.

1. Lee Chandler - Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea

Don't ask me why, but I've seen Manchester by the Sea 3 times. It's not an easy film to watch. It's heartbreaking. It's personal. It's all anchored by Casey Affleck. The pain of loss, the pain of remembering, the pain of moving on, it's so far beneath the surface of Lee that it verges on too subtle. But somehow Affleck manages to bring a contained performance that showcases these emotions without it ever feeling like a showcase. It's a terrifyingly personal film, rendered useless without Affleck's nuanced approach to the character, making Lee Chandler my favorite character of 2016.

A Giant Day

I’ve just arrived home from the ninth year of San Diego Comic Con.  Nine years of lines. Nine years of panels. Nine years of hot dogs that cost about the same as college textbooks. But, most importantly, it’s nine years of passion. Every person who attends Comic-Con is passionate about something, something that elicits joy, awe, or maybe even hatred (*cough* Zack Snyder *cough*). Those who know me know that I’m a bit too excited about films, so Comic-Con is like a welcome base, filled with rebel weirdos who feel the same crazy amount of excitement about comic book films I do. 

But, this post isn’t about the essence of Comic-Con, that’s for another time. This is about something far more insane. 

This is about the time I stood inches away from Brad Bird. 

It was Friday morning. Waking up feeling like I had hit the snooze one too many times, I got ready to head down to the convention exhibit hall at about 9:00 AM. I made my way through the sea of body odor, Harley Quinns, and Pokémon Go users to get in the line for Mondo to snag these incredible posters from Mike Mitchell (@sirmitchell), when I found out I needed to get in line at 11:30 AM. This was terrific because there was a panel starting at 10 AM that I wanted to see called “The Giant’s Dream: Documentary Screening & Chat with Brad Bird.” 

The Iron Giant is my favorite film. It’s a perfect story. The film’s resounding message “You are who you choose to be,” is one of passion, love, and above all, hope. I’ve watched this film approximately 17,000 times - it never fails to fill me with goosebumps and tears.

9:45 hits and I started to wonder if I could make it to the screening. I raced up the stairs, looked for the room, found it, and made my way to the door. I realized there were two gentlemen I was going to run into if I didn’t slow down. So I slowed down and turned to let the two men go before me. To my shock and awe, I saw Michael Giacchino, the best film composer of this generation of filmmakers. I’ve met Michael Giacchino a couple times. Each time he’s happy to speak with his fans, and always kinder than he needs to be. I started to speak with him.

Then I looked a little further left, and my stomach dropped through the floor.

I’ve worked at a few film festivals and a podcast where I worked directly with celebrities, so I don’t usually get starstruck. This was different.

There, standing less than a foot away from me, was the author of my childhood. I’m not someone who has trouble speaking my mind or being too quiet (in fact, the opposite is true in most situations).

Brad Bird.

I couldn’t speak. 

Brad Bird stood less than 12 inches from me, and suddenly I was a nine-year-old boy who just found a giant metal robot. I had about 3 hours worth of things to say to him, and I couldn’t put together 3 words.

A few seconds later, a couple fans ran up to him and started asking for his autograph, the last thing on my mind. So, I turned to Michael Giacchino, thanked him for his incredible work, and made my way to my seat. As Giacchino and Bird made their way to their seats (2 rows in front of me), I thought about what had just happened. Did I just make the biggest mistake of my life? Did I miss out on telling him everything I needed to tell him? 

Then I remembered why I was at Comic-Con. Why everyone is at Comic-Con. We all came because we’re excited about something, something that elicits emotions from us. In that moment, I said everything I needed to say. The silence meant more to me than a handshake or a picture or an autograph. The feeling of pure awe and pure joy said more about his work than any amount of hours spent gushing over it could. 

As the panel ended and we dispersed, I made my way back down to the exhibit hall. I met up with my friend who had waited in line for me at the Mondo booth (yes, I got the posters). I went on with Comic-Con as usual. Too many things about this year's Comic-Con are already disappearing memories. But the pure joy of seeing Brad Bird? That’ll stick around for quite some time.

Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice

I despise Batman V Superman almost as much as Zack Snyder despises Batman & Superman.

(Just a heads up, this contains plenty of spoilers)

For those who don’t know me personally, I’ll let you in on a little secret - I’m not a fan of Man of Steel, Zack Snyder’s attempt at a Superman origin story. It’s visually stunning at points, Henry Cavill is a near perfect choice for Superman but overall, Snyder missed the message that was written right on the Man of Tomorrow’s chest. It started to become clear in Man of Steel that Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer’s definition of a hero might be different, if not downright wrong. If MoS hinted at that fact, Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice hammered it into the viewers until all we could do was cry for help - a cry Snyder’s Superman and Batman would undoubtedly ignore in favor of hitting something harder. 

There’s a lot going on in Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Subtlety. With a running of over two and a half hours, you can feel the attempt at a sequel struggling against the corporate need to set up future properties. At its core, Batman V. Superman is about people who don’t agree looking to resolve their disagreements through fighting, disregard for human life, or flat out murder. Batman is upset with Superman because he believes that Superman is a god that could destroy humanity in a second. Superman is upset with Batman because Batman is a vigilante who thinks he’s above the law. Lex Luthor is upset with Superman because Superman poses a threat. However, those ideas are so far from clear because, on the fringes of the film, there are far too many other ideas fighting to be explored that take time away from an already convoluted and unintelligible fight between the two biggest characters in superhero pop culture, a fight that doesn’t happen until well over an hour into the film.

There are no spectacular performances holding these fringes together. There isn’t a standout in the film - at least not a positive one. Granted, most of this is attributed to terrible writing and weak directing. Each character settles around uninteresting (Affleck’s Batman and Cavill’s Superman) or fatally under developed (Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman), with the exception of Jessie Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor, whose over-the-top insanity hits you over the head with the nuance and subtlety of a sledgehammer. 

Fans of Wonder Woman have been waiting over 75 years to see the Amazonian princess brought to the big screen in all her live-action-feminist-fighting-glory. Fans could’ve waited a little longer, because Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman is nothing more than token feminism brought to convolute the already sloppy plot. She introduces the rest of the Justice League in the laziest introductions of a superhero team in memory. She goes from wearing black-tie gowns to bronzed-battle armor with no character development in between. This lack of character development and focus on universe building is, again, one of the biggest problems with Batman V Superman.

Let’s talk about that core of the film again. Batman fighting Superman. This isn’t a new idea, it’s happened many times in the comics. The definitive version of this battle comes in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, in which a weary Batman takes back his city from gangs, and becomes the Dark Knight once again. The President is upset with Batman’s reign of terror over the city and sends Superman to stop him. 

Frank Miller treats this fight like a war; Zack Snyder, a boxing match. In the boxing match scenario, the fight isn’t even close. Superman can incapacitate Batman in a matter of seconds. Which begs the question, why doesn’t he? In BvS, Lex Luthor has kidnapped Martha Kent and made Batman’s head the ransom. A reasonable version of Superman would stop the fight immediately and explain to Batman why the fighting would just be feeding into Lex’s master plan. But then again, this isn’t a reasonable Superman. Like many things in this film, the fight looks wonderful, but makes no sense.

Snyder picks and chooses which sections of his favorite comic books to use, and this lack of attention to context results in characters making unmotivated choices that defy any sort of logic and reason that exist in the fictional world.

From a purely technical standpoint, this film is a mess. The poor editing results in long stretches of the film where no urgency is felt, even though approximately seventeen different subplots are going on. BvS loses itself in its need to set up the reset of the film and the rest of the DC Universe’s future franchises and, as a result, we never get enough time with any one character to understand their motivations or to care for them. The latter weakness becomes one of the films’ worst parts - the ending of this film begs the audience to care for the characters (with a healthy amount of Jesus imagery thrown in for good measure) to no avail. There’s no reason to care about the character due to the fact that they’ve done nothing to illicit any sort of compassion. Why would you? These are not admirable characters. 

Zack Snyder and David Goyer make the argument that violence and murder is preferable to taking the high road. Batman kills people. Not just any people, henchmen. If Batman can justify killing low life thugs, what’s the point of having Batman villains like the Joker? Surely the Joker deserves death much more than a low level thug, right? It’s in these choices Batman loses his credibility as a hero. Batman and Superman can be better than us, hence the term superhero. Most superheroes give society an ideal to strive towards - they give us hope that someone can rise above us and make the right choice, especially when it’s not the easy one. This Superman seems to be fresh out of hope, but fully stocked in personal vendettas and revenge - Superman is called to the main fight via the Lois-signal (one of the few humans Superman seems to actually care about) triggered by Lois Lane being in some immediate danger (SIDEBAR: The sexism in this film is insane. Not only is Lois Lane reduced to a damsel in distress multiple times, Martha Kent is reduced to a damsel in distress as well. Wonder Woman is brought in for the completely unnecessary and mind-numbingly generic final battle, but for what? She’s a deux ex machina plot device exhibiting no real character traits besides her fighting ability and her stunning visuals - a trait Snyder has consistantly chosen over real substance. END OF SIDEBAR). 

This Batman is also running low on hope, but would love to offer you paranoia and fear mongering. The only reason Batman doesn’t kill Superman (!!!!) is because Superman and Batman’s mothers share a name. If you think that’s an odd choice, aren’t you in for a surprise. Zack Snyder is introducing Batman and Superman to a new generation of children, one that will be wondering why their superheroes aren’t working to protect humanity by providing an example of what to strive for, specifically the Last Son of Krypton. 

Snyder’s disdain for everything Superman stands for is evident in the way he destroys Superman’s fight for truth, justice, and the American way. 

Recently, in an interview, it was revealed that a photographer killed at the beginning of the film is actually Superman’s beloved pal and sometimes sidekick, Jimmy Olsen. In the interview, Snyder explained his choice by saying, “we don’t have room for Jimmy Olsen in our big pantheon of characters, but we can have fun with him, right?”

That’s a quote, folks.

Zack Snyder believes killing off one of Superman’s only supporting characters is having a little bit of fun with him. 

This lack of love and respect for the characters he’s introducing to the public, and the lack of remorse he feels for that lack of love and respect, is offensive and tragic. More than anything, I’m sad that Batman V. Superman exists. It takes a lot for a person to despise something someone else loves, and treat it with the utmost disrespect. 

For Zack Snyder, it’s a bit of fun. 

Straight Outta Compton

Now, I know this might seem like a shock to some of my dedicated fans, but I know next to nothing about the rap group N.W.A. Needless to say, I was blown away by the sheer talent stuffed into one group.

I love seeing films without knowing anything going in. In this day and age, staying away from trailers is difficult enough, not to mention set photos and rumors leaking left and right. I didn’t pay much attention to Straight Outta Compton. So when I got an invitation to see it, I eagerly accepted knowing I’d be going in blind. 

What Straight Outta Compton manages to accomplish as far as well paced storytelling goes is incredible. It’s a long film, but never feels like it’s dragging. The movie has a compelling story and happens to take 2 hours and 26 minutes to tell it.

Biopics are a tricky business. Trying to tell an entire life story in the course of two hours usually leaves the viewer with a film that skims the surface of a compelling story, without diving into deeper waters (see: 42, Lee Daniel’s The Butler, Jobs). Straight Outta Compton shows the rise and fall of N.W.A., without jumping too far ahead or too far behind. This type of filmmaking allows for longer scenes which let the audience feel a bit more excitement when a moment comes to fruition. Understanding the setup is just as important as the punchline is what sets Straight Outta Compton apart. 

My favorite example of this comes when N.W.A. is playing a show in Detroit. The concert begins with a stern talking to from the Detroit police department explicitly telling them not to play the song “F*** the Police”. Imagine that. In any other biopic, they might’ve cut to N.W.A. doing exactly what you think they’d do. Instead, we’re treated to a bit more of the concert and a powerful moment of realization between Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson Jr.) and Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkins) that allows F. Gary Gray to showcase these two incredible talents. When N.W.A. finally plays “F*** the Police,” they’re a group willing to speak their truth even if it upsets people instead of a group that just doesn’t want to play by the rules. They have a message to get across and subsequently they’re going against authority, not the other way around.  

This truth is shaped by their life experiences. There’s a moment when the group is standing outside their recording studio - eating lunch - and three police cars come by and tell them to stop, get on the ground, and put their hands behind their back. This is a reality I can’t and will never understand. But through F. Gary Gray’s wonderful direction, and a pretty beefy selection of songs to choose from, I started to gain insight and understanding of this aggression that stems from injustice. 

It would’ve been easy to portray just the good parts of N.W.A. But Straight Outta Compton doesn’t shy away from the reality of this lifestyle. I however will. Giving it away would ruin some of the most powerful moments in the film. 

Like most films that aren’t Whiplash, there are a few problems. The movie becomes a bit overdramatic at parts, and certain plot points are left dangling. But the emotion that spills into every aspect of this film more than compensate.

The making and timing of Straight Outta Compton are as powerful as they are important. The performances are as out of - sorry, outta - nowhere as the group itself. The film arrives at the intersection of compelling subject matter and terrific filmmaking, and the result is something as powerful as it is entertaining. A-

9/11's Impact on American Cinema

9/11's impact is still going through theaters today. Here are my thoughts on how the events of 9/11 changed film. My thoughts and prayers go out to those who lost a friend, family member, or loved one.


       Throughout modern history, cinema has prevailed as one of the most popular art forms. During the early 20th century, many different events have impacted the world of cinema. Several films that impacted cinema forever: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Casablanca, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. Each one changed either the course of it’s own genre, or the entire way of storytelling. While these are important to consider, it’s also important to look at events that impacted the direction of film. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have had the greatest impact on American cinema.
       After the events of September 11, 2001, there was immediate impacts seen in many aspects of life. Film, especially, shifted focus after these incredible events. For instance, after 9/11 there was great sensitivity even to humor. Though the country hadn’t lost its sense of humor, it was not clearly evident as it had been before the attacks.The film “Zoolander” was removed from theaters seeing as it was “too much too soon” (Pavia 1).
       After 9/11 patriotism was on the rise. This became prevalent in films near the beginning of 2002. Sam Raimi’s film, “Spider-Man” shows the biggest immediate impact. While there aren’t any explicit vendettas cast by the hero against terror, the shot of “Spider Man fastened to a gigantic American flag in the very last scene of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man” shows the immense amount of patriotism audiences felt after seeing, the first post-9/11 big budget blockbuster (Fahim 1).
       Another cultural reflection from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” shows is it’s trailer. In the trailer, a group of criminals hold up a bank within the World Trade Center. They leave the building, escape in their helicopter, and seem to have made it off scott free. A
few seconds later, their helicopter is pulled back, by some invisible force. It’s later revealed the helicopter is stuck in a web between the Twin Towers. The trailer goes on to show some action sequences, but as one can imagine, the image of the Twin Towers illicits recollection of the gruesome images during September 11. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, the trailer was pulled from all films, television, and can now only be found on the internet. This shows one of the first instances of clear, self imposed, industry wide sensitivity to this event in the 21st century (Crum 1). Anything depicting the World Trade Center was taken from the airwaves. An episode of the popular children’s show, Jay Jay the Jet Plane was pulled from the series due to a “plane crash” it showed in the episode (Crum 1). The immediate impacts of 9/11 were visible, but the lasting impacts made it the event that defined the new direction of American films.
       9/11 changed the relationship we have with characters in film. During most films, whether the filmmaker intends it or not, the main character is someone the audience connects to. Usually we know exactly what the character’s goal is, or what the character is up against. But what happens when a character doesn’t know what he’s up against? Or there is no clear enemy in sight? Or, the enemy is there, but the hero has no idea what motivates him, or if he even has motives? This changes the formula for Hollywood blockbusters considerably. Examine Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek: Into Darkness.
       (Spoilers ahead) In Christopher Nolan’s gritty, realistic take on Batman,The Dark Knight, Christian Bale plays Batman again, after 2005’s Batman Begins (Thompson 33). This time Batman is going up against the Joker, a villain that we, as normal human beings, can’t comprehend. He has no motives, no goal, and no end in sight. He’s not
superhuman by any means, as one character describes it “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” (Nolan & Nolan 57). The audience, or at least that part of the audience paying attention, can draw the similarities between 9/11 and the aftermath of 9/11 and Batman’s mission. He has to go after a villain that the general public does not understand, one that has no motives, and causes destruction relentlessly. Later in the film, Batman deploys a sonar device that hacks into every cellular device in Gotham city, the place where Batman lives. This gives him a clear view of everything going on in Gotham, but also shows the hero going to incredible and new lengths to stop a villain - one’s who’s likes have never before been seen. The parallels here are, Joker: Al Qaeda, Batman: The Government, Attacks on Gotham: 9/11 attacks. Even though it may not have been Nolan’s intention to make a film reflecting the Bush administration’s decisions “it brought that image to mind for viewers because of the time and place in which it was made and released” (Donarum 3). Without 9/11, this film might not have been made. It would not have had relevant impact on viewersWhen Batman, or any hero in general, doesn’t know how to take down the villain, the audience sympathizes with him. Blockbuster films usually try to take the fears of the audience, and, somehow, alleviate them. They try to give them an out. With 9/11, this is becoming increasingly difficult.
       Another prime example of the lasting effects of 9/11 is J.J. Abrams’ recent film Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge Spoilers ahead). Not only are 9/11 parallels seen in this
movie, but conspiracy theories are clear within the film: Chris Pine plays Captain Jim T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise. He is up against a terrorist named John Harrison, who was responsible for the bombing of a weapons bay outside of London. Harrison then launches an attack on Starfleet HQ, and escapes to a (seemingly) barren planet. Admiral Marcus, a high ranking officer in Starfleet (the group of space explorers sworn to explore and protect the galaxy) commands Captain Kirk to go after Harrison, using special missiles developed by the government, without starting a war with the indigenous population. It is later revealed in the film that Admiral Marcus was behind the attack the entire time. He was the one ordering John Harrison to bomb Starfleet, just to give Captain Kirk a reason to kill John Harrison. The parallels here are John Harrison: Al Qaeda, Admiral Marcus: The Bush Administration, Captain Kirk & the crew of the Enterprise: The Military. Later on in the film, there’s a shot of a spaceship flying into buildings on the coast of San Francisco. For many audiences, that hit too close to home. Star Trek Into Darkness shows the political undertones that are sometimes placed before an audience, many of which go undetected.
       Films that directly deal with the attacks of 9/11 are often harshly criticized. In the film “World Trade Center” starring Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña, “Oliver Stone tried to make a patriotic film.” (LaSalle 1). He tries to make a film that “celebrated the heroism of those called to action as a result of tragedy.” (Terry 2). Many saw it as a film that
focused too much on the human aspect of surviving, and not honoring to those who were killed during the 9/11 attacks. While it takes courage to directly deal with these attacks, many people viewed it as too much human interest too soon.
9/11 changed American cinema more than any event before it. We no longer see movies themed as in most of the twentieth century. We no longer see the United States fighting armies from within or outside our borders. Rather, we are left to sit in a darkened theater in heightened awareness and movie-induced fear of an enemy we can’t immediately identify. We watch in terror for terror. 

Works Cited

Crum, Steve. "Nightmares for the American Dream Factory." Rotton Tomatoes. N.p., 19 Oct. 2004. Web. 30 May 2013.

Donarum, Nathan. "The Dark Knight Trilogy and 9/11." The Racked Focus. N.p., 18 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 May 2013.

Fahim, Joseph. “A decade in film.” Al Jazeera (Qatar) 05 Jan. 2010: Newspaper Source. Web. 30 May 2013.

 Mick, LaSalle. “How patriotic films change with times.” San Francisco Chronicle (CA) n.d.: Newspaper Source. Web. 30 May 2013. 

Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan. The Dark Knight. Revised Final Script. July 2008. Nolan Fans.  30 May. 2013.

Pavia, Frank. "10 Years After: 9/11's Impact on Film." MSN. N.p., 2011. Web. 30 May 2013.

Prince, Stephen. Firestorm: American Film in the Age of Terrorism. Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2009. Print.

Terry, Joshua. "The impact of 9/11 on popular media." Deseret News 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 May 2013.

Thompson, David. The New Biographical Dictionary of Film. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print.

Fall Movie Preview

With the fall comes the rise of Oscar worthy films. Much like the summer of 2015, the movie theater is where I’ll be spending most of my free time these coming months. Here are just a few of the films I’m looking forward to.

Captain Phillips: This seemingly built-for-film true story is one of survival, desperation, and sacrifice. While the Oscars are no stranger to films “lost at sea” (see Life of Pi or Titanic), this tale of one man’s journey to keep him and his crew free from the harm of pirates is one that won’t be overlooked when it comes to the awards time. Also, having Tom Hanks in the film certainly doesn’t hurt it’s chances.

Romeo and Juliet: While there may not be a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo, the cast assembled for this film brings an aura of excitement more than sorrow. Hailee Steinfeld, someone not foreign to classic dialects (see: True Grit) stars as Juliet, while Douglas Booth is Romeo. The film relies on the chemistry between these two and it’s tough to judge from the trailer. I’d put my money on Damian Lewis, Lord Capulet, giving the stand-out performance in this film. This one poses many challenges, (it's quite the period piece, there've been many adaptations already made, and Shakespeare doesn't exactly scream blockbuster) which makes it one of the most interesting films coming out this fall.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Having read the Hunger Games series, I can’t help but be extremely excited, yet cautious about this film. Easily the best one in the series, “Catching Fire” poses a large amount of hurdles to conquer. With that being said, the casting seems incredibly on point, Francis Lawrence (director) is used to conquering big hurdles (see: I Am Legend), and they’ve got the source material. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence is impossible not to like. You won’t see me at the midnight showing, but I’ll be sure to catch this one opening weekend.

Ender’s Game: Another big budget book adaptation, “Ender’s Game” could go one of two ways. It could be Summit Entertainment’s “Lone Ranger”, or it could end up being a smash hit at the box office. I haven’t read Ender’s Game, but I know enough about Asa Butterfield to say he’s the man for the job. Hugo was one of my favorite films of 2011, and a big portion of that was the faith put into a relatively unknown child actor, much like “True Grit” with Hailee Steinfeld, also in this film. He delivered, she delivered, and I’m sure they’ll deliver again. Plus, with an all-star group of actors like Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Viola Davis, and Abigail Breslin, this makes “Ender’s Game” one of the many films I’m looking forward to this Fall.

Frozen: While there’s not much to know about “Frozen”, it looks plenty like it could be Disney’s rebound from Planes. The trailer shows a rivalry that’s later to be revealed as a friendship between a snowman and a moose. I’m hopeful about this non-Pixar animated film, but relatively cautious. With enough focus on the storytelling, I think Disney could have a terrific Christmas film on their hands.

Saving Mr. Banks: Speaking of Disney, what would be better than a holiday film about Mr. Walt Disney himself? More specifically, the making of “Mary Poppins,” one of the most famous Disney films ever made. Emma Thompson stars as P.L. Travers, the author of the book, and the person Walt must convince to let Disney studios make her beloved book into the Hollywood hit it would become. This seems to be the season of Tom Hanks, and I’m certainly not complaining. If I had to choose one film to see this Christmas, it would be “Saving Mr. Banks”.

The Wolf of Wall Street: There have been three trailers that floored me for this fall. “Don Jon”, “Gravity”, and “The Wolf of Wall Street”. “The Wolf of Wall Street” trailer is harsh, loud, and visually satisfying, making it right up my alley. With the Oscar starved Leonardo DiCaprio starring as a stock-broker with more money than he can deal with, and Scorsese directing, you’d be hard pressed to find a more captivating duo. I can’t wait for this one.

Gravity: This year I, like many other lucky fanboys and girls, made the trek down to San Diego for Comic-Con 2013. One of the most surprising films to receive a raving response from the masses was Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity”. They showed about six minutes of footage from the film and I was absolutely floored by it. What I saw wasn’t a science-fiction/horror film with Sandra Bullock screaming and George Clooney mugging. No, I got an intimate, intense, and irresistibly gorgeous journey. With the already growing Oscar buzz surrounding it, I’m anxiously anticipating the release of this one. (Sidenote: There is no sound in the vacuum of space, and Alfonso Cuaron intends to keep it that way. That’s right, no sound effects.)

12 Years a Slave: A cast of incredible people can’t save a film, and it certainly doesn’t mean the film will be good. A cast of incredible people, however, does not hurt a film when it comes time for Oscar buzz. “12 Years a Slave” has just that. Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Paul Giamatti (who seems to be the Pharrell Williams of film this year, in that he’s in every hit), this story about a man sold back into slavery is already getting incredible reviews. While there hasn’t been a shortage of films focusing on slavery in the past few years, this one is the most intriguing to me. Don’t be surprised if multiple actors in this film get nominated for Oscars.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

As Christmas approaches (and hopefully isn't stolen by the Mayan calendar) we were given an assignment in English class: Write a critical review of the grinch. Best assignment ever. Here it is in it's entirety. Merry Christmas.


I’m submitting a new title for the movie. It’s called “How The Grinch Stole Two Hours of My Life”. While there’s a certain audience for this movie, and I’m not included in it, I don’t think Ron Howard or anyone else working on the film knew who that audience was. It was like watching a rhinoceros attempting to juggle; it failed miserably. 

The film opens on a snowflake when, with a closer look, turns out to be the small town of Whoville. On it rests the materialistic society of the Whos (no pun intended) who uphold Christmas with the same fervor Americans uphold 4th of July. It defines the Whos and their lifestyle. Only one person in Whoville (more like near Whoville) despises Christmas. His name? The Grinch (Jim Carrey). An outcast as a child, the Grinch has hated Christmas since he stuck his neck out on the line for Martha May Whovier (Christine Baranski) and was ridiculed for it. He lives in constant hatred of the Whos and their atrocious holiday until one day, a little girl named Cindy-Loo Who (Taylor Momsen) gives him the benefit of the doubt and invites him to enjoy Christmas with the Whos. Odd though, the film only focuses on ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas’ for about 15 minutes. The majority of the film is focused on the despicable way the Grinch lives his life, while the Whos enjoy the pleasures of Whoville. That’s where the trouble begins.

That’s not to say the film didn’t have it’s moments. A couple scenes when the Grinch, who as Roger Ebert describes him “looks more like a perverse wolfman than the hero of a comedy,” breaks the fourth wall completely are well played (Ebert). Even the Grinch’s best moments are faulted though, seeing as the majority of the audience, children, won’t understand this joke. While I know they’re trying to appeal to a larger audience, that humor doesn’t need to be there. There are many references, including one to the film’s own director, that take away from the experience.

Roger Ebert also describes the films aesthetic aspects spot on. “What is strange is how the inspiration of his drawings has been expanded almost grotesquely into a world so unattractive and menacing,” (Ebert). The oddest portion of the film comes in the Grinch’s lair. It shows him snacking on glass bottles, with everything looking one shade of green or another. The color correction was done to capture the Christmas-y feeling, although all that was accomplished was a thin haze in every shot.

While the film doesn’t entirely deliver, certain portions do. There’s something to be said about a fearless actor, Andy Serkis in ‘Lord of the Rings’ and Sharlto Copley in ‘District 9’ are two of the best examples. Jim Carrey is obviously the stand-out in this film due to the very same fearlessness both Serkis and Copley portrayed. He does an outstanding job in this film, given the material. The problem is, no one else rises to the occasion. Every other actor or actress in this film, especially Taylor Momsen, plays the cuteness of Who’s and Whoville. This goes back to the films main problem; little to no balance. 

A terrible aspect of HTGSC is the annoying, redundant, cliche theme that centers around the entire film. “Christmas isn’t about the gifts, it’s about each other.” “We don’t need presents to make us happy.” “If we sing at the end, everything will turn out alright.” There’s nothing new about the Grinch’s plot, which is good when you’re marketing to small children but, again, the inadequate job of balance makes the substandard plot boring and repetitive. 

While certain features work in HTGSC, the cons far outweigh the pros. Jim Carrey’s performance can only carry so much of the film, and it’s already carrying too much. It strains under the dead weights of unnecessary dialogue, overused themes, and a bar set almost unreachably high. A rare miss in Ron Howard’s directing life. D+

Lone Ranger Trailer #2 Reaction

This summer I had the incredible opportunity to visit the set of the “Lone Ranger” and work as a PA for the visual effects team. I can’t say much about what I saw, so I’ll let the trailer speak for itself.

The most prominent feature of the footage is the aesthetically pleasing atmosphere Gore Verbinski uses in his films. It can be seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean series and his Academy Award-winning animated film “Rango”. 

Another constant theme in his films is the use of Johnny Depp, which no one can really complain about. He’s one of the most fearless actors out there today, which makes him perfect for the role of a Native American sidekick with a bird on it’s head throughout the film. 

While the aesthetically pleasing aspect is incredibly important to notice for this film, the underlying dark tone of this trailer looks to be another crucial element in this adaptation. The first and most obvious example of this would be seeing what looks to be the Lone Ranger’s (Armie Hammer) only family get torn away from him, which also seems to happen to Tonto (Johnny Depp) later on in the trailer. This trailer shows to hurt heroes looking for justice, much like Batman and Robin. Also like Batman, this modern adaptation is much grittier than the rest of the franchise.

The film will rely heavily on Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp’s chemistry, which we got a little taste of on the subject of Armie Hammer’s “resurrection” from the grave Tonto buried him in. There isn’t much chemistry to see in this trailer (mainly because of how action-driven it is), so we’ll have to wait and see in the coming trailers, or just wait for July 3rd, 2013.

I have a few doubts about this film; how far it’s been pushed back, how over-budget it’s gone, but most all of them were put to rest with this trailer. I’m stoked for this film and the only thing the trailer has done is fan the flame. I’ve got faith in Jerry Bruckheimer and I have a fondness for Gore Verbinski’s directing style, not to mention my enjoyment of Hans Zimmer as the composer.

All I’m hoping for is that this film is compared to the Dark Knight trilogy. A darker toned adaptation, with a fine cast, and a well-suited lead. From this trailer, I can’t wait to see more, hopefully before next summer.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFsNSoDZK8

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer

Shots that are completely out of context, with a blaring horn section, and a british voice over (done wonderfully by Benedict Cumberbatch). This is a routine, yet effective teaser trailer for a big budget summer movie like this. While there still isn't much known from the trailer, we can learn this much. The USS Enterprise shouldn't be taking a bath.

The trailer begins ominously with shots of Starfleet Academy. Captain Kirk looks to be receiving some sort of commemoration, most likely for the battle with Nero and the Romulans in the previous film. We're then shown a moment where Kirk and Bones are jumping off what seems to be a giant red island, connected to other red reefs. All this with Benedict Cumberbatch whispering about how their world isn't safe. 

By the end of his monologue, we're finally given a good glimpse at Cumberbatch's character, one who looks nothing like I thought he would. It still isn't completely clear who he is, but one thing does become clear. This is a villain with a purpose, to extract vengeance on someone for something. 

From there we're shown shots of the rest of the crew including Spock brandishing a phaser, Uhura, Scotty, some falling crew members (red coats, we can assume), and a classic shot of the main cabin sparking up whenever the Enterprise is hit.

All in all, this is a perfect teaser trailer. One that captures the dark tone of the second film while not giving much away at all. Hopefully by the time I see the prologue in the Hobbit it'll all become a little more clear as to what's going on.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUwH14wsbc

Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs

A new photo has emerged of Ashton Kutcher in the new film “Jobs” as... well, Steve Jobs, the late co-founder of Apple Inc. I have many doubts about the film “Jobs” and the release of this picture only adds to them. I don’t think the problem is Kutcher not looking enough like Jobs, but looking way too much like Kutcher with a beard. I hope his performance makes up for the lack of Jobs-esque he displays in the released image. I can’t judge anything about the story seeing as there’s still no trailer or any footage, but so far I’m still quite skeptical about their casting move.

Poster Reactions 12/3/12

Today, Warner Bros. released posters for two of it’s most anticipated movies of the year. The first was Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel”. 

The poster reminded me of Loki being voluntarily captured in “Avengers”, not only due to the way they both were cuffed in front, but also the fact that either one of them could have easily avoided the situation. Loki was voluntarily captured, which we later found out was part of his master plan. The same could be said for the man of steel. Those handcuffs are about as much of a threat as an abandoned car is to Godzilla. That being said, the handcuffs could be made of Superman’s only weakness. Or maybe it’s a lack of that good-old-planet-earth-yellow-sunlight that has the son of Krypton looking about as defenseless as Lois Lane in, well, any situation Lois Lane is put in. 

But there seems to be a much larger question lurking in the haze of the poster. Why is Superman being captured in the first place? Especially by what looks to be soldiers from the planet he’s come to protect. And what’s up with the gleaming chip he seems to have on his shoulder? All this talk about soldiers and shoulders is giving me a headache so, let’s move on to the second poster released today.

While there aren’t many things known about Star Trek Into Darkness, or any things to be learned from the poster, you can take a few things from it. The crew of the USS Enterprise is going up against a one man army, much like Batman in “The Dark Knight Rises”. 

Although the more striking impression from this poster is that the marketing team at Warner Bros. seems to be fresh out of ideas for summer blockbuster posters. 

A destroyed building forming a well known symbol of hope is also reminiscent of TDKR. Either the symbol of hope will “rise” out of the destruction, or it’s the symbol that is literally being destroyed. In TDKR’s case, it was a little bit of both, which could mean that “Into Darkness” will follow it’s path. While I don’t think that’ll be the case, I have a feeling this villain (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) will try to break Captain Kirk, or quite possibly, all of Starfleet Academy. 

Star Trek showed the forming of a crew, Star Trek Into Darkness looks to test the crew’s teamwork. A team that has already shown they’ve got it in themselves to fuel a franchise that will “live long and prosper”. 

2012 Oscar Nominations

It's been a long time since I've posted, (mostly due to school, but a few other things) so I thought it would be good to get my predictions for this year's Oscars posted. I'll be giving you my thoughts on who will win and who should win (even if they weren't nominated). I haven't seen all the nominated films (due to my age and time) but I've seen a good deal of them. Without further ado, here are my predictions for this year's Academy Awards.

Picture
Will Win: The Artist
Why: The Artist was the first black and white silent film I've ever seen in the theaters and it was quite an experience. I didn't realize how much power dialogue held in storytelling. I won't take it for granted next time. Every single person in that movie deserves an Academy award due to how much emotion they were able to convey without words. It's also swept up almost every pre-Oscar award, which helps.
Should Win: The Artist

Actor
Will Win: George Clooney
Why: Although I haven't seen The Descendants, it'd be tough to find someone who could beat Clooney this year. Clooney is one of my favorite actors and, from all the acclaim he's gotten from critics and moviegoers alike, I'd put my money on him to win. He's also won a great deal of the pre-Oscar awards.
Should Win: Jean Dujardin
Why: Anyone who can tell such a story with their eyes and their actions deserves an Oscar. He's an incredible actor and I sincerely hope he decides to continue doing US films. I don't mind reading subtitles, I'd just like to be able to hear him talk.

Actress
Will Win: Viola Davis
Why: There's a pretty tight race between Viola Davis and Meryl Streep this year but, Viola Davis gave one of the most moving performances of the year and there has been some backlash against The Iron Lady. But, besides all that, it comes down to who gave the better performance, and I think it was Viola Davis. She deserves it and I believe she'll win it.
Should Win: Viola Davis

Supporting Actor
Will Win: Christopher Plummer
Why: I haven't seen any of the performances in this category besides Jonah Hill in Moneyball. SO this would be the category I'm least qualified to predict. But from all the pre-Oscar awards he's won, I'd be surprised if Christopher Plummer didn't win.
Should Win: Andy Serkis
Why: Before you tell me he can't win because he isn't nominated, let me tell you, I know. It was the most moving performance of the year. It also led to the best moment in the movie theaters I've ever experienced. He deserves the Oscar more than anyone I've seen and it's a shame he didn't get nominated. Hollywood needs to embrace the motion capture animation more (I've been a long time supporter of motion capture) or they're going to miss out on some of the best performances and movies ever.

Supporting Actress
Will Win: Octavia Spencer
Why: The role was funny, smart, witty, and surprisingly moving; Octavia Spencer channeled Minny Jackson in such a terrific way, it would be incredibly surprising if she didn't get an award for it. Then again, surprises are what the Academy is known for. All of these women gave terrific performances (I didn't see Melissa McCarthy's much talked about role in Bridesmaids, nor Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs) and they all deserve it. But the one to take away the award will most likely be Spencer.
Should Win: Octavia Spencer

Animated Feature Film
Will Win: Rango
Should Win: The Adventures of Tin-Tin

Director
Will Win: Michael Hazanavicius "The Artist"
Should Win: Martin Scorsese "Hugo"

Original Screenplay
Will Win: Woody Allen "Midnight in Paris"
Should Win: Michael Hazanavicius "The Artist"

Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxton, Jim Rash, "The Descendants"
Should Win: John Logan "Hugo"

Foreign Language Film
I can't judge this one, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Original Score
Will Win: Ludovic Bource "The Artist"
Should Win: Ludovic Bource "The Artist"

Original Song
Will Win: "Man or Muppet" The Muppets - Music and Lyrics by Bret McKenzie
Should Win: "Man or Muppet" The Muppets - Music and Lyrics by Bret McKenzie

Cinematography

Will Win: Guillaume Schiffman (The Artist)

Should Win: Robert Richardson (Hugo)

Art Direction

Will Win: "Hugo"

Should Win: "Hugo"

Costume Design

Will Win: "The Artist"

Should Win: "Hugo"

Documentary Feature

I can't judge this one, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Documentary Short Subject

I can't judge this one, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Film Editing

Will Win: "The Artist"

Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Makeup

Will Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Both Short Film Categories

I can't judge these, I haven't seen any of the nominated films

Sound Editing

Will Win: "Hugo"

Should Win: "Hugo"

Sound Mixing

Will Win: "Hugo"

Should Win: "Real Steel"

Visual Effects

Will Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

Should Win: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"

The Adventures of Tin-Tin

As this review is posted a week in advance, I won't be giving any crucial plot points away. All the same, if you don't want to know anything about the movie, stop here.

Very few directors create the kind of expectations Steven Spielberg does. The movies he's made in the past have, more or less, redefined the adventure genre. This isn't something to be taken lightly. Think of the adventure movies you remember most as a kid. Odds are they were directed by Spielberg.

Remember the first time you saw Indy run away from the boulder? Or when you realized (Spoiler Alert) E.T. wasn't dead (End Spoiler Alert)? Remember how you felt during those scenes? Spielberg's greatest weapon is storytelling, but his second best is attachment.

In The Adventures of Tin-Tin, his first weapon was extremely evident. But his second wasn't firing at full power.

Now, granted, this isn't a thought-provoking-oscar-winning-tear-jerking drama by any stretch. It's an extremely entertaining animated popcorn movie. By that standard, it surpasses expectations. There were two sequences done in the movie that are truly jaw dropping. First, an incredible scene in which Tin-Tin chases a hawk across a large market on a motorcycle. All done in one seamless shot. I'd argue this is the best chase scene of the year.

The second is a flashback/mirage Captain Haddock (played by motion capture pioneer Andy Serkis) has. Spielberg has the sheer audacity to change a barren desert to a riveting clash on the high seas. It's that audacity that has made him the filmmaking icon he is today. Those 5 or 6 minutes were easily better than the best ship battle in all of Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 3, or even 4.

I've long been a huge fan of motion capture technology. Avatar was a much needed breakthrough for the process. It's one piece of technology Avatar made famous I'm grateful Hollywood embraced. Motion capture allows detail to be portrayed through the mask of an animated character -- it's really remarkable, almost creepy. This new medium is a significant advance for a new era of animated films.

Casting was another great move. Jamie Bell was a wonderful Tin-Tin, Daniel Craig was an evil, menacing, all around great villain, and casting Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as twins was a stroke of brilliance. My favorite character though was, hands down, Captain Haddock. Andy Serkis has a serious leg up on the rest of the cast with his extensive work in motion capture and it really showed in this movie. His performance was my favorite in the film.

If I were to critique it by the extremely entertaining animated popcorn movie standard, I'd say it was an A. But I'm holding it up to the work Steven Spielberg's always delivered. While this is his first animated film, and yes it's harder to connect to an animated character than a real actor, it could've had a bit more substance. I wanted to connect more directly with Tin Tin.

Nevertheless, it's the best animated film of the year I've seen, and it has more than that little bit of magic only a true artist like Spielberg can bring.

Actors: Jamie Bell (Tin-Tin), Andy Serkis (Captain Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivanovich Sakharine)
Recap: B+

Photo Courtesy of Dreamworks Animation