Update: Announcing Westember

     I haven't posted anything for quite some time. The reason for this is that I've been incredibly busy. For one thing, I have been prepping for a super-involved Dungeons and Dragons Campaign (I DM for some of my siblings) and I've also had a big project in development for my YouTube channel, which brings me to the subject of this post.

     Beginning on September 1st I will be posting a new video everyday detailing the history of the western genre. This is something I've wanted to do ever since I first watched Cinemassacre's Monster Madness way back in 2012. Other then Jaws, I had never seen a horror film up to that time and had no real interest in the genre. James Rolfe's passion for the genre was so infectious that I wound up becoming a bit of a fan myself. Being such a massive fan of westerns (as anyone who follows this blog well knows) I hope that this series might do the same for movie fans who are trepidatious about western movies. I've yet to decide if I will post the videos daily or do a weekly round up akin to what I was doing with my comic book reviews not so long ago. Let me know what y'all think.

Here is the announcement video:

And, for the readers of this blog exclusively, here's the first (excluding the introduction) video in the series.

My Non-Review of The Lion King (2019)

     I'm not going to see The Lion King remake in theaters. I've had my mind made up about this for some time. I may or may not check it out when it is released on home video and streaming but I have no interest in supporting its theatrical run. As I have quite liked some (though not all) of the Disney live-action remakes, I felt the need to address this on my blog.

     First of all I have made an informal resolution to watch less Disney films in theaters. There are many reasons for this including the studio's promotion of abortion and other left-wing causes that I find distasteful (to put it mildly) but the main reason is that the corporation (calling it a studio is no longer really adequate) has gained an increasingly dangerous amount of monopolistic control over Hollywood in the last ten years. The acquisition of 20th Century Fox is what really clinched it for me. While many geeks celebrated what would (eventually) mean the entry of the X-Men and Fantastic Four into the MCU, I looked on in horror as the big six Hollywood studios became the big five. Consequently I have also felt compelled to support other studio releases (especially Warner Brothers) more often, not because they're not monopolies themselves (they are) but because Disney is the biggest and most dangerous at this point, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

     With that said I still go to see some Disney films in theaters. Marvel is certainly the biggest exception though I will also probably see whatever their next animated film is out of a (likely misplaced) sense of loyalty for what the studio used to be. But I skipped Mary Poppins Returns and have thus far avoided seeing Toy Story 4 and Spider-Man: Homecoming (my younger siblings will probably drag me to one or both eventually).

     So what is it about The Lion King in particular that impels me to give it a pass? Well, for one thing, I have a lot of affection for the original film (despite not having grown up with it) and I respect how formative it was for many who saw it at a young age. I also resent the cloying appeals to nostalgia that have become so commonplace in Hollywood today. Then there's the fact that, as their are no human characters in The Lion King, a "live-action" remake would really be a CGI remake and, unlike Cinderella or The Jungle Book, which were based on source material that could be further drawn from, The Lion King is a wholly original film. This, along with it's iconic status, seemed to make it likely that the film would be highly unoriginal.

One of these shots has atmospheric lighting, dynamic camera angles and
expressive facial animation. The other ... does not.

     All of this made me wary of the film from the moment it was announced. I held out a certain amount of hope because of the involvement of Jon Favreau who, in my opinion, did an excellent job with The Jungle Book. Perhaps this remake would resemble that film as opposed to Beauty and the Beast, which was essentially a shot-for-shot remake. But the release of the trailer made it pretty clear that this would not be the case. Then there was the Rotten Tomatoes video which compared the visuals of the trailer with shots from the original film showing "how much animation has evolved in the last 25 years" despite the fact that 1) hand-drawn animation and CGI are not remotely comparable and 2) it only served to highlight how bland and expressionless the new film looks in comparison to the original. This was the moment, I think, that I decided I was not going to see the film.

     Now, some might argue that there is nothing wrong with revisiting a beloved story with some new gloss. After all, tribute bands have been a thing for years and popular theatrical plays are revived time and time again. The difference is that plays and concerts are fleeting things. They exist only for the short moment in time that you are watching them. That some might want to recapture such moments is only natural. But film is a different thing. Like books they exist perpetually (as long as they are properly preserved) and, with all the benefits of modern home video technology, one can revisit them at any time. Because of this it seems rather pointless to remake a film that many people consider a peerless classic. If people want to see it on the big screen why not just re-release it? The 25th anniversary of the original release would have been a perfect opportunity to do this and indeed the studio did so two years ago to coincide with the film's 4k release.

     Of course the answer to all of these questions is rather obvious: money. Movie studios have long operated under the conviction that re-releasing a classic film (except in a very limited venue) was a waste of time unless something new was tacked on, whether that was new footage, 3D or updated special effects. Perhaps this explains, in part, why I'm spending more and more of my theater-going expenses on Fathom Events and other classic film series, as if in silent protest to this trend.

     In many ways this is all a natural consequence of my growing disdain for modern Hollywood. Gone are the days when big studios produced films with modest budgets for niche audiences (or even one as broad as a "family"). Now studio's feel the need to pander to the widest audience possible by appealing to nostalgia and vulgar brand recognition. It's hard to argue against this strategy as it has clearly paid off for the major studios but I no longer want to be a part of that equation. Perhaps instead I'll revisit the original film on Blu-Ray. I would invite my readers to do the same.

Saturday Evening Cartoons: Storks (2016)

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I'd been busy getting ready for vacation (I went top Gettysburg a few weeks ago), prepping D&D adventures, and working on a major project I have coming down the pipeline but I watched this random animated movie so I figured I might as well review it...

     Storks was released on September 23, 2016. It is produced by Warner Animation Group (The Lego Movie) and written and directed by Nicholas Stoller and Doug Sweetland. In it Junior (Andy Samberg), the top delivery stork for Cornerstore.com, is about to become the new head of the company when Tulip (Katie Crown), an orphaned girl he's supposed to keep out of trouble, inadvertently activates the old Baby Making Machine, creating a baby girl. Desperate to deliver her before the boss (Kelsey Grammer) finds out, Junior and Tulip race to make their first-ever baby delivery.

     Storks is an interesting animal (excuse the bad pun). On the one hand it seems to have a refreshing message about the importance of family and child-rearing in an increasingly frenetic and corporate world. On the other hand this message can't help but feel a little suspect coming from a big budget studio film like Storks. Consider, for example, the film's climax. Hunter, Cornerstore's CEO, wanting to cover up that the company has created another baby and corners Junior and Tulip in the baby factory. To distract them, Junior activates the baby-making machine, causing it to produce hundreds of babies. In response, Hunter tries to use a giant crane to destroy the factory (and presumably the babies as well.) Now, the site of a corporate CEO trying to destroy a large group of "undelivered" babies might strike the pro-life Christian as being rather symbolic of the abortion industry but I doubt this was intentional.

     The real message of Storks is that parents (surrogate or otherwise) should place the needs of their families and children above economic advancement which is fine as it goes but, again, it feels a bit insincere at times. I have to admit however, that it's fairly well written, contrasting Junior's relationship with Tulip and Diamond with that between Nate (Anton Starkman), who ordered the baby in the first place, and his mother and father.

     The animation is quite good with some really expressive facial work and a lot of fun slapstick. The humor in general is on point with the funniest material provided by Stephen Kramer Glickman's Pigeon Toady, Junior's strange, awkward, nosy coworker, and the wolves played by Key and Peele. The film is well cast all around with Andy Samberg doing a fine job in the lead. His chemistry with Katie Crown's Tulip is reminiscent of old screwball romantic comedies (without the sexual element of course).  Kelsey Grammer is also hilarious as the sadistic CEO. Finally, Anton Starkman, Ty Burrell and Jennifer Aniston provide the film with a (relatively) relatable human element as the Gardner family.

     Another solid addition to modern Warner Animation (even if it will never again reach the creative heights of Chuck Jones and Tex Avery), Storks delivers (no pun intended) a funny and fairly heartfelt family film any accidental subtext notwithstanding.

Score: 8/10

Gods and Generals (2003) Film Review

I recently visited the Gettysburg National Military Park for the 156th anniversary of the battle. I also finally got around to watching Gods and Generals, the much maligned prequel to one of my favorite films...

    Gods and Generals was released on February 21, 2003. A prequel to the hit film Gettysburg it is based on the book of the same name by Jeff Shaara (son of the late Micheal Shaara whose Pulitzer Prize winning novel "The Killer Angels" was the basis for Gettysburg). Ronald Maxwell returns as the writer/director.

     The film chronicles the early part of the American Civil War (commonly described at the time as the War of the Rebellion or the War of Northern Aggression) prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. The extended cut (which is the version I saw) is split up into 5 parts: Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksbug, Moss Neck, and Chancellorsville. It focuses throughout on General Stonewall Jackson (portrayed by Stephen Lang who played Pickett in Gettysburg). Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (played again by Jeff Daniels) is introduced in Part 2, and we see him join the 20th Maine and fight at Fredericksburg along with his brother Thomas and the fictional sergeant Buster Kilrain (C. Thomas Howell and Kevin Conway both reprise their respective roles).

     As in Gettysburg the battle scenes are quite well done, giving the audience just enough information to follow the overall progress of each engagement and portraying the terrible loss of life exacted. This is where Maxwell and cinematographer Kees Van Oostrum really shine. The score, by Randy Edelman along with John Frizzle, is quite good as well, though occasionally a little overly bombastic and generally less consistent then Gettysburg.

     The performances too are quite strong, better, in some cases, then in Gettysburg. The returning actors (Daniels, Howell and Conway) all do a fine job, even if they've visibly aged ten years. Howell, in particular, feels more seasoned and confident in front of the camera then he did in Gettysburg. Robert Duvall is great as Lee, better then Martin Sheen in fact. While I like Sheen's Lee more then some, I have to admit that he lacks the presence and the gravitas to play the legendary general at times. Duvall brings these qualities to the role while still maintaining the characters sense of humanity. Stephen Lang really delivers despite being recast in a much more prominent role as General Jackson. He may not be as eccentric (or borderline crazy) as the historic Jackson but, as written, he puts in a great performance.

     The writing is a bit of a problem as Maxwell fills the film with too many heavy handed speeches and handles the drama with too much stiff solemnity. The characters never come to life the way they did in Gettysburg. Some of the fault for this may lie with Jeff Shaara but, as I haven't read his book I cannot comment on this. Another problem is that the issue of slavery is handled too delicately and the only black characters seen in the film, a house slave played by Donzaleigh Abernathy and General Jackson's Cook played by Frankie Faison, are loyal to the Confederacy. This is not a problem on its own, but portraying some rebellious slaves would have given the film some much needed balance. In general, the southerners are given much more focus in this film. Besides Lee, Jackson and the aforementioned black characters, the Confederate cause is also championed bu John Wilkes Booth (Chris Conner) in a distracting subplot that attempts to serve as a sort of Greek Chorus, but ends up coming across as pontificating and preachy. Chamberlain is the sole spokesman for the Union, and he's not introduced until almost an hour into the film.

     The biggest problem with Gods and Generals is that it is burdened with too much material. Four hours may have been sufficient (if just barely) to cover one, three day battle, but trying to cover the first two years of the war in that time is not really feasible. Consequently, the film can't decide whether to be a Stonewall Jackson Biopic, a character driven prequel to Gettysburg, or an overview of the breakout of the war. In the end, it doesn't quite succeed at any one of these things.

Score: 6/10

Dark Phoenix (2019) Review

     Dark Phoenix is written and directed by Simon Kinberg. The last film in the main line of Fox X-Men movies, it is the second adaptation of the "The Dark Phoenix Saga" from the comics. In it Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) develops cosmic powers as a result of an accident in outer space. When she begins to endanger her fellow X-Men, they must decide whether to turn against her or to stand by her and risk destroying everything they've built.

     At this point Dark Phoenix has a pretty terrible reputation. It is currently the lowest grossing X-Men film and the only one that did not top the box office the week of its release. It is being savaged by critics and largely ignored by audiences. It is also well known as this point that the production was plagued with problems, including multiple re-shoots and delays in the film's release. I'm not going to argue that it's a great film (or even a good one) but it's not as bad as I was lead to believe. It has a very consistent and ominous tone, aided, no doubt, by Hans Zimmer's oppressive score (sadly John Ottman is gone, along with his signature theme) and The action scenes make novel use of the mutants varied powers but are often somewhat lacking in tension, largely as a result of weak writing and poorly established stakes.

     The opening of the film shows a lot of promise. The X-Men are now operating in the public eye and with the cooperation of the U.S. Government. This feels like a natural development of the status quo set up by Days of Future Past and Apocalypse. Xavier (James McAvoy), having finally achieved his lifelong dream has become overly focused on maintaining popularity with the public. On a mission to rescue a failed NASA shuttle launch, he makes a decisions which threatens to jeopardize the X-Men's safety in order to save one of the crew. Mystique has become disillusioned with Xavier's leadership and tries to persuade Beast to leave but he convinces her to stay. But then it turns out that Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), who miraculously survived the mission unscathed, has joined with a mysterious cosmic force which protected her and that threatens to destroy the mental blocks that Xavier established to protect her. When the Phoenix is unleashed members of the team begin to reconsider if Xavier has lead them down the right path and Magneto, who is now the leader of a group of mutant refugees on Genosha, intervenes to stop Jean before something disastrous happens.

     The biggest problem with Dark Phoenix is that the character arcs are rather rushed. Charles has his over confident new outlook shattered when Jean's mental blocks break down, leaving her emotionally unstable. He blames himself for everything she does, but still insists on protecting her. (SPOILER ALERT) He is able to find some closure in the end but has still lost faith in himself and retires from the school and from public life. Many were angered at the films portrayal of Professor X, feeling that he was thrown under the bus for the sake of the plot. I agree to some extent, though I feel that the direction they took could have worked if their had been more time to explore his character and if the resolution of his arc was more satisfying. Beast has an arc that could have been interesting, turning against Xavier after discovering his responsibility for Jean's mental breakdown, but it's far too rushed to really work at all.

     The rest of the X-Men are given short shrift with Cyclops getting the most attention. He is the only X-Man, other then Xavier, who firmly believes that Jean can be saved. Storm disagrees with him, partly because of her experience with Apocalypse but stands with him and Professor X when the chips are down. Nightcrawler does really have any character development at all and is basically just along for the ride. Raven and Quicksliver, meanwhile, are conveniently written out of the film in the first act.

     Jean Grey herself is fares the best overall. The Last Stand made the mistake of focusing too much on Wolverine in a story that should have been about her. This film, at least, avoids that mistake. Jean finds herself without a clear path as she is afraid of endangering the people she cares about and also beginning to loose her trust in them while, at the same time, desperately in need of their guidance and support. Eventually she finds a mentor of sorts in the form of Jessica Chastian's mysterious villainess (whose identity I won't spoil). The main problem with Jean, and with all of the characters introduced in the previous film, is that their relationships have have really been properly established. So, for instance, when Cyclops remarks that Jean is not acting normal in the scenes where they flirt right after the opening mission, we pretty much have to take his word for it.

     Once again Magneto has retired to find a life of peace only to seek after vengeance when someone he cares about is killed and once again (SPOILER ALERT) he eventually sees reason and let's go of his need for vengeance. It's not nearly as contrived or as counterintuitive as it was in Apocalypse but it's not given enough time to develop naturally and feels played out at this point. The same could be said for the franchise as a whole. In one scene, Charles confronts Erik and tries to persuade him to spare Jean's life prompting Erik to say, "You're always sorry Charles and there's always a speech but nobody cares anymore." That statement could very well sum up the current state of this franchise.


Score: 6/10

X-Men: Apocalypse Revisited

     When I reviewed X-Men: Apocalypse back in 2016, my overall impression of the film was that it was "more uneven and disappointing than bad." Over time, my estimation of the film has eroded even more. As I mention in my original review, the only character to get much development is Magneto and his initial arc is really contrived and redundant. Erik doesn't really need more motivation to assert the superiority (as he sees it) of mutantkind. Indeed by the end of Days of Future Past, he appears just as devoted to this cause as ever. It really makes no sense that he would go into hiding and try to live a normal life, as he does in this film. After his family is killed by the superstitious villagers he basically becomes consumed with hatred and, after meeting Apocalypse, sets out to destroy humankind once and for all. The second arc he goes through, being redeemed by Charles and the X-Men, who remind him of who he is (or something), is even more rushed and unconvincing. This is really my core issue with the movie. The series has always been driven by character growth, and this installment is severely lacking in that department.

     It also plays a little like an X-Men greatest hits album. There is another Quicksilver rescue scene that attempts to top the one from Days of Future Past but it ultimately feels less exciting and creative and is, overall, lacking in tension. Once again we deal, briefly, with Wolverine and the Weapon-X program and it is incredibly intrusive and only serves to delay the development of the plot. They even recreate, word for word, the conversation between Charles and Erik at the end of the original X-Men. We also revisit Auschwitz in a scene that is so miscalculated and insensitive to Jewish history that I'm honestly surprised it made the final cut. Portraying Magneto as a holocaust survivor was a good way to emphasize the civil rights allegory and was one of the original movie's better ideas, but having Magneto destroy the remains of Auschwitz in a fit of rage seems to me to a gross appropriation of a powerful cultural symbol for a cheap emotional moment.

     In summary I no longer think that X-Men: Apocalypse works as a film and especially not as a sequel to Days of Future Past. It has some good moments and is certainly better then The Last Stand, but it's a mediocre piece of work overall.

Score: 6/10

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) Review

     X-Men: Days of Future Past was released on May 23rd, 2014. It is directed by Brian Singer and written by Simon Kinberg from a story by Kinberg, Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman. A loose adaptation of the "Days of Future Past" story-line from Uncanny X-Men #141–142, it sees Hugh Jackman's Wolverine sent back in time from a post-apocalyptic future to warn a young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr about an impending threat that will lead to destruction both of humans and mutants.

     After more then ten years, Brian Singer finally returned to the X-Men franchise with Days of Future Past. As such it is a return to the franchise's roots with its combination of social commentary, slick action, and soap opera storytelling. Uniting the casts of the original films with those of First Class, this film attempts to streamline the continuity which was derailed by The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and First Class all of which contained contradictory origins for various characters. It is only partially successful in this. X-Men Origins is essentially ignored and implicitly retconned, getting rid of the discrepancies that existed between that film's depiction of countless characters, including Xavier, Sabretooth, and Emma Frost. The conflicts between First Class and the Singer films remain, but this film, at least, makes things easier for future installments by creating an alternate timeline.

     Days of Future Past is easily my favorite film in the franchise other then X2. This is largely because of my fondness for the first two films. This film, while mainly functioning as a sequel to First Class, is also a send-off for the original cast and it's great to see to see them together one last time. I also love that Xavier is really the central character here. In the first few films he was a mentor figure for Wolverine and the other X-Men but here the roles are reversed, and Logan has to be a mentor for him.

     This film also continues to explore the relationship between Charles and Erik in a really compelling way. At the beginning of the film Xavier has given up on his dream of peaceful coexistence between human and mutant-kind. In First Class his beliefs were shown to be somewhat naive and we see the natural consequence of that here when he loses most of his students to Vietnam and does not have Raven or Moira MacTaggert to fall back on, so he falls into depression and drug addiction (cleverly symbolized by his use of the drug that suppresses his powers). It's only when he communicates with his future self that he is able to face the future with some measure of hope, albeit a more realistic one.

     Magneto meanwhile, in finding out about the apocalyptic future caused by a human scientist's attempt to build a robot capable of defeating them, becomes more convinced of his viewpoint (that mutants should dominate mankind) then ever. Rogue, once again, is caught between the two men. Since the end of First Class she has separated from Erik, who has been imprisoned, and began trying to protect her mutant brothers and sisters from the U.S. Government and particularly scientist Bolivar Trask, who has cruelly experimented on them to create his sentinels. When Magneto learns that her powers are what leads Trask to perfecting his program, he tries to kill her. Unlike Erik, Rogue is not so assured in her beliefs as to be able to commit such unthinkable acts, but she is obsessed with getting revenge on Trask. In the end, Charles helps her to see a better way and she spares his life. This is the moment that he really becomes the Professor from the first three movies, a man capable of inspiring others through his conviction and sheer force of personality.

     I also enjoy the way Days of Future Past plays with historical events. Magneto was imprisoned because he was implicated in the JFK assassination but, as we learn, he was actually trying to save the President (who was also a mutant!) by using his powers to defect the bullet. Richard Nixon, meanwhile, is shown to be the one who approves the sentinel program. First Class reimagined a historical event (the Cuban missile crisis) as a central part of its plot and it's great to see this film continue that trend.

     It is far from a perfect film and continues to suffer from continuity problems. The time-travel logic is confusing in many ways. For one thing, how do Kitty Pryde's phasing powers allow her to send other mutants through time? For another how does Wolverine remember anything from this time, as he hasn't yet got his adamantium claws and had his memories erased through the Weapon X program? Another problem is the idea that Mystique is the key to the sentinel program. We are told that, because of Mystique's shape shifting powers, Trask is able to program his sentinels to adapt mutant powers but Rogue's powers allow her to change her appearance, not to take other mutant powers. The Rogue Cut does alleviate this problem to some degree by revealing that Rogue, who can assume other mutant powers, was also experimented on, but the central premise, that Raven was the "key" to perfecting the sentinels, is still confusing.

     John Ottman returns to do the score for Days of Future Past and it's a welcome one. He provides another stirring score and gives the film a greater emotional connection to the earlier ones. With the exception of some questionable green-screen here and there the film has solid visual effects and once again Singer delivers some great action scenes. The breakout from the Pentagon, where we see Quicksilver save everyone in slow motion, is of course a standout, as is the sentinel attack that closes the film, which features some of the most creative use of superpowers I have seen in an action setpiece. The new additions to the cast are great especially Evan Peters as Quicksilver. Peter Dinklage also does a fine job as Bolivar Trask.

     X-Men: Days of Future Past is both a great political thriller and a clever science fiction film. It succeeds both in continuing the story that began with X-Men: First Class and as a heartfelt epilogue for the original cast. It's one of the best X-Men films and one of my favorite superhero movies of the past decade.


Score: 9/10