Ruminations On The Road Of Dreams: A Look At Mulholland Drive

It's been about a year since I first viewed David Lynch's Mulholland Drive for the very first time. It was the second of his films that I had seen, the first being his 1986 film, Blue Velvet. While I wasn't new to the idea of surrealism and bizarre creations (Being John Malkovich is still the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in my life), it was still fairly new to the mind of Lynch. While Lynch is a surrealist through and through, he also incorporates interesting aspects of American culture. Our concerning obsession with celebrities and fame, the feelings of small town community, and the idea that everything has a dark side are his most common themes. One could even call them lens to look at the world through. However, I believe Lynch's greatest skill is to grab a hold of the emotion of his audiences and never let go. That is where I believe this movie goes. Mulholland Drive is well known as a film that does not really make sense on a first viewing, maybe not even making sense on repeat ones either. After having seen the movie about five times and calling it one of my top ten favorites, I just wanted to share some thoughts on why I love the movie and why I think it is so compelling. Many a post have been written trying to piece together the plot with the assistance of ten clues that Lynch provided with the DVD. That doesn't interest me particularly, because I feel like the movie is best left a mystery to be solved for the viewer themselves. A definitive explanation of the timeline of events would just take the mood away from the movie and turn it into something very run of the mill with surreal elements. I don't believe that was Lynch's idea when he completed this movie. The film openly invites various interpretations, finally letting the modern audience think for itself.

At the heart of it all, this is a movie about emotions. Emotions of the characters, emotions of the audience, and the emotions that those two parties can share together during the experience. A wide range of these are felt during the film, including happiness, anger, fear, disappointment, and, perhaps most prevalent, sadness. This is a truly sad film, as it deals (supposedly) with the failings of a hopeful, young woman who has found love in the city of dreams. Naomi Watts, in one of the greatest performances of all time (not kidding), expertly helps the audience to empathize with her character(s). This allows us to really participate in Lynch's movie, whose images he has crafted specifically based on ideas aroused by emotions. Even the tagline of the film, "A Love Story In The City Of Dreams," specifically mentions the most powerful emotion of all. There are a few notable instances where Lynch extracts specific emotions from the characters, whom the audience empathize with. The first of these is when we see the man behind Winkie's Diner. The scene is set up with two men, Dan and Herb, talking in the diner, where Dan describes his nightmare to Herb. In the nightmare, there is a horrible man behind the diner who is the source of immense fear and doubt. In order to rid himself of the fear, Dan  convinces his friend to go behind the diner and check, just to be certain that the horrible man isn't real. As soon as we come upon the corner, the man reveals himself, and Dan apparently dies on the spot from a fear induced heart attack.

The first part of the scene is here, coupled with the second part of the scene
Watch closely. Lynch sets up this scene to get the ultimate emotional response out of his audience. In the first part, the camera never stops moving, but its movements are very subtle, creating an unnerving tension in the viewer. Why is the camera acting so oddly? One could even assume that the camera movement indicates that we are, at this moment in the film, occupying a dream itself. Another aspect that helps build to the response is Dan's description of the dream. While we obviously can't see it, his description is so vague, yet delivered with so much nervousness that we know the horrible man must a force to be reckoned with. During this scene, we really empathize with Herb, the person hearing this crazy dream and not really knowing how to respond to it. In a way, we also agree to go with Dan behind the alley to show him that there is nothing to be afraid of. All of this leads into the actual revelation, which is, admittedly, quite a frightening moment. The man's appearance is quite horrific, which, to me at least, calls into question whether we are in a dream or not. Lynch uses this scene to set up one of the emotional tentpoles of the movie, which is fear itself. This is a fear that is lurking, ominous, and lingering. We can't quite get the image of the man out of our heads for the rest of the movie, pondering just how he plays into the story of Betty and Rita, the two main characters.

Another important scene of the movie that sets up one of the emotional tentpoles is where Betty and Rita travel to Club Silencio, hoping to find answers to some of the questions they have about Rita's identity. In this club, a woman comes out onto the stage and begins singing a rendition of the song "Crying" by Roy Orbison. Her delivery is so pure and beautiful that Rita and Betty both begin breaking down, nestling their heads together. This scene illustrates two things. First, and most importantly, it illustrates the love that Rita and Betty have for each other, despite the adversity that they have face in the movie up until this point. This includes the night that they slept together, which is the ultimate sign of affection, in this film anyways. The second aspect illustrated here is just how sad the current situation of the girls is. At this point in the movie, the singer collapses while the song continues, showing that she was miming the whole time. Even earlier in the scene, a man on stage continually yelled about how it was "all an illusion." This scene is usually cited as being evidence that Betty, Naomi Watts' character, has created a fantasy dream world where she gets all that she wants. We as viewers have taken this journey with her, the same one that she met the amnesiac Rita on. We have watched the two grow closer and closer, seen them really develop a loving relationship. At this point in the movie, Betty realizes that it is all a dream and she can't be with Rita, despite the love they once shared. This is all interpretation, of course, but that one makes the most logical sense. I can't imagine anything being as heartbreaking as realizing that you have lost the one you cared for the most, the one that you would absolutely die for. That is what I believe Lynch was trying to create with this scene, that sense of the ultimate loss of love and just how sad and painful that can be.

At the conclusion of the above scene, the movie shifts its narrative to something completely different. Rita pulls out a blue box from her purse, along with a key to the box. Unlocking it, the camera zooms into it, revealing a new world to us. The acting changes, some of the characters have different names, the music becomes more alternative and guitar driven as opposed to the typical orchestral pieces heard in the first half, and the camera focuses more intensely on the faces of the characters. It is difficult to discuss/describe this shift in the form of the film, as it plays in stark contrast to how the movie felt and appeared in the first half. It is within this last piece of the movie where Lynch presents us with a final reminder of fear, realized fully within the mind of our main character. It is assumed that Betty, now being called Diane, is a failed actress that fell in love with Rita, now being called Camilla, who made it big time. Due to their separation, Diane fell into a deep depression (possibly even drugs), and hired a hit man to murder her former lover out of jealousy. The final scene of this film brings back the horrible man from behind the diner and an elderly couple that had met Betty/Diane when she initially arrived in Los Angeles. Using these characters again, Lynch creates perhaps the most frightening scene in the movie.

Diane is sitting at home, knowing that her former lover has been murdered by her order. There comes an intense knocking at the door, presumably detectives. Lightning is flashing and thunder is booming. The camera cuts to the man behind the diner, sitting ominously over a fire. He is revealed to be a simple hobo who lives behind the diner. He is fondling the blue box from earlier, the same one that transported the audience into the new world. Upon putting the box down, microscopic versions of the elderly couple almost float out of the box, surreally moving towards the screen. We cut back to Diane, who has a look of pure horror on her face. The elderly couple, still microscopic, crawls into her home beneath her door as the thunder grows even louder, along with the banging. Diane jumps up from the couch to find the couple chasing her down a hallway, laughing hysterically while she shrieks uncontrollably. This scene is one of pure horror and fear. I honestly can't remember a time when I have been so afraid in a movie. I believe that the scene is so frightening because of how Lynch uses common elements to change normal ideas into frightening ones. We know that an elderly couple is hardly scary, especially if they're your grandparents or parents. By having them laugh manically and move malevolently, he turns them into forces of horror, chasing Diane down the hall. The scene also uses the crack of the thunder and the constant flashing of blue lightning to create a sense of urgency and tension. Will the noises stop if Diane makes it to her room? Will her nightmare be all over? I also believe that the scene works so well because we have empathized with Betty/Diane for almost the whole film. Seeing her shriek uncontrollably and in a state of such absolute fear, we are afraid along with her. There are many metaphorical meanings to this scene, but it interested me more to dissect just why it was so frightening. With this final scene, Lynch finishes up his last trick in the film, showing that Diane's world was built on a lurking fear of something.

These scenes interested me mostly because of how they are able to wring emotions out of the viewer. All three illustrate just how Lynch built his movie around the very idea of emotions and how they can affect the viewing experience. Are they the sole reason why I adore this film? Of course not. The film is a beautiful neo-noir, shot very much like the noir films of the 1940s. It even includes story elements of those movies as well, such as a mysterious woman with no identity, a purse full of money and a blue box, and the film industry. All of that aside, the movie is just so different. We are so desensitized to explosions, simple stories, generic plots, and quick cuts that I am kind of bored of modern movies. Mulholland Drive changes all of these up and constructs an absolute enigma of a movie. Each image is a puzzle piece that may or may not fit together with another one. This lack of logical plot progression, I believe, was Lynch's way of utilizing his images to invest the viewer, based on how they feel about what they are seeing. Who was Rita? Why does the movie shift in the middle? Where does the money come from? Who was the hit man? None of this really matters in the end. What matters is that we, as viewers, responded to the emotions of the characters and empathized with their plight. On another level, the viewers experience unique emotions, such as when the movie shifts and we begin trying to work out the chain of events for ourselves. There is an aura of mystery and intrigue that envelopes this film, one that I find absolutely fascinating. This is a movie I highly recommend because it is just so different. I can't get it out of my head, and it will end up becoming one of my primary influences in whatever I end up creating on the road ahead. It is currently airing on HBO as well as streaming on HBO GO/HBO NOW and it is really a movie that deserves to be seen. I am eagerly awaiting a Blu-ray release of the film, which has been hinted at by The Criterion Collection. In the meantime, I will continue to drive down the road of dreams, pondering just what happened to Betty and Rita. Was their plight a warning against the dangers of love or against the dangers of Hollywood? One may never know. Don't ask Lynch, as he respects the audience enough to let them figure out their own interpretation. All that matters to him, presumably, is how you felt while viewing the images that came alive in his mind. So grab a drink, turn your phone off, and just let go of logic. Really immerse yourself in the movie and I believe that you will find one of the most unique viewing experiences that cinema has to offer. I hope you enjoy my discussion of the film and I hope you can find the time to watch it and hopefully enjoy it as much as I continue to do. Take care and thanks for reading!

Spy Review

Spy is the new movie that reunites Melissa McCarthy and Paul Feig, writer and director of the 2011 smash hit Bridesmaids. It's movies like this that continue to give me hope for the future of the movie industry, which has become so dull and repetitive. Ladies and gents, this movie was flat out hilarious and is one of the more pleasant surprises of 2015 so far. I went in with a certain expectation, as I had read many reviews stating that the movie was a great surprise and an interesting break from the normal role that Melissa McCarthy plays. I'm happy to report that all of these assessments are incredibly accurate. Bluntly put, I laughed my butt off during this movie. The smart, witty humor is a wonderful take on the spy genre, with many homages paid to the James Bond franchise. In the movie, McCarthy plays a successful desk analyst who has to step out of her comfort zone and go into the field. Along the way, she meets a gleefully crass and goofy cast of characters, all of them playing up different archetypical characters from the espionage genre. Without a doubt, Jason Statham was the best part of this movie. He is essentially spoofing every role he has ever played, and my gut was busting every second he was on screen. While I enjoyed his character the most, it is important to note that this role is one that shows us a fresh side of Melissa McCarthy, which couldn't have come at a better time. Her character is one that clearly isn't battle tested, but isn't a complete dope/idiot like we have seen in her other movies like Identity Thief or Tammy. She is a real human with real emotions and a great sense of humor. This is probably McCarthy's best role to date, at least of the ones that I have seen her play. She's so incredibly likable and funny that it gives you somebody to really connect with and root for amongst all the gags and action sequences that pack the screen. The other star of the movie is actually director Paul Feig. His writing and directing is really spot on here, with the laughs coming every minute and the action scenes being well filmed and choreographed. This movie, in a way, serves as a good indicator for the type of movie we can hope to see when Feig and McCarthy return next year in the Ghostbusters reboot. Feig shows a clear love for the spy genre in this film, as his humor hits on all the tropes of that genre without becoming a real spoof, which is kind of interesting to me. Honestly, I find it very hard to review comedies, because I judge them on whether I laughed or not. Based on that, Spy was a great movie. I was laughing for pretty much the whole movie, in addition to quoting the movie with my friends as soon as it was over. That being said, the movie didn't really break any new ground, but in this case, that's quite alright. It was a wonderful surprise and a great part of the summer movie season. If I had to nitpick the movie at all, it would be that I wanted to see more of Statham's character and that the movie was a bit too long. Overall though, Spy was a great time at the movies and I highly recommend that you go see it. We all need time to just relax, turn our brain off, and laugh away. Spy gets a 7.5/10.

Mad Max: Fury Road Review

After thirty years biding his time in the crazed desert of writer and director George Miller's mind, Mad Max has finally returned. Ladies and gentlemen, this movie is it. It's fantastic. Not even going to try and be fancy with my words or anything. I dare say that Mad Max: Fury Road is the best action movie I have seen in a long time. It is kinetic, frenetic, glorious, and absolutely bonkers. George Miller is truly an auteur, one whose style is so wonderfully unique and distinct. The story of the film is simple. Mad Max must team up with Furiosa to escape the vicious Immortan Joe, racing across the desert and interacting with all sorts of crazed characters. This is a movie that, quite literally, never stops moving. Much of the film is dedicated to the main chase, with various action set pieces coming together to form the chase itself. What I think is so impressive is that the film starts out slow (relatively speaking) in revealing some of the craziness, but then rips back the layers during each subsequent stage of the chase, continually one upping itself in terms of sheer insanity and fun.  The performances in the movie are very well done, with Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron really selling their characters and both proving to be great action stars in their own right. Since it is the main part of the film, it is absolutely worth noting that all of the effects in this movie, aside from digitally removing safety harnesses, putting characters in front of crowds, and the sandstorm, are 100% real. The actors are actually crawling underneath trucks zooming at that speed, cars are actually flipping while exploding, and stuntmen are really flinging themselves through the air like rag dolls. There is something to be said about this type of stunt work, especially in an age of CGI stunts and action set pieces. The scenes feel so much more genuine and believable, lending credence to the idea that CGI is best used sparingly and mixed with practical effects. This also helps to create a more believable world. The sets and costumes are beautifully designed in their own grimy way, which helps to give the audience a form of reference in terms of the back story of the film without taking time away from the chase. I found myself trying to come up with my own stories about how the various tribes in the film had come to be and how they lived in the wasteland. Miller masterfully included these elements, really being able to show a lot without having to say a lot, which is a key aspect to any movie. Most importantly though, this movie is fun to watch. We are so bogged down with the soulless CGI spectacles these days, but this movie felt like Miller really put his heart and soul into it. During the first stage of the chase alone, there was a giant truck with four drummers on it and a guitar player shooting flames out of his guitar neck. This eventually escalates beyond all realms of normal human expectations, as we have men on poles swinging between the cars, men jumping on other cars with exploding spears, a blind man driving forward in a car/tank spraying machine gun fire, and soldiers spray painting each other's mouths chrome to prepare them for their upcoming trip to Valhalla. Yepp, that's where this movie goes. It is gleeful, fun, and wonderful. It is the best movie I have seen so far this year. Mad Max: Fury Road gets a 9/10.

Avengers: Age Of Ultron Review

Avengers: Age Of Ultron is the follow-up film to 2012's smash hit The Avengers, both directed by the wonderful Joss Whedon. The movie is the eleventh film in Marvel's constantly growing Cinematic Universe, reuniting all the characters from the first film and throwing a few new ones into the mix to freshen up the proceedings. In the movie, Tony Stark uses the technology of the Tesseract to create Ultron, a peace program AI. However, Ultron's birth goes wrong and he sets out to annihilate the Avengers and the whole world. As a result, the Avengers must band together once again to stop him. About a month or two ago, I wrote a post detailing how I was displeased with the initial news about this movie. I was concerned about how the movie's plot was actively being dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience and to keep the cash cow going. Unfortunately, I was right. However, I was wrong in my thought that it was the director dumbing down the film, as opposed to the studio. Little did I know that the director and the studio clashed frequently over this movie and its production in the months beforehand, as recently revealed by Joss Whedon himself. This conflict of interests and restriction of creative control results in a movie that feels undercooked and underdeveloped, despite all of the events taking place onscreen. This is really a movie that never stops moving, introducing new characters left and right and setting up new plot lines for the future Marvel films in the process. Unfortunately, this really makes the film longer than it should be, taking away from all the fun that is there to be had. A notable example of this is a subplot involving Thor that feels insanely out of place and hurts the overall flow of the movie. In addition to this out of place subplot, the characters of Ultron, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver feel underdeveloped, especially Ultron. His birth scene is so rushed that I was left wondering just exactly why he wanted to kill the human race and his motivations aren't made quite clear throughout the movie beyond the idea that "humans are bad and I must cleanse them from this planet by destroying it." While Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen (Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch) both do a fine job, their characters aren't given enough time to really command the screen, which is unfortunate, because I feel like they could add some new depths of human drama to the team. Surprisingly, we are given a lot of backstory on Hawkeye and Black Widow this time around, which was a nice breath of fresh air and gave Scarlett Johannsenn and Jeremy Renner some room to really flex their acting chops. James Spader gives a typically great performance as Ultron, which is a shame that the performance is wasted on such an undercooked villain who wasn't all that threatening. My final issue with the movie is that, just as I predicated, there is little human drama in this film besides the origin story of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch and the blossoming romance between the two misfits in Hulk and Black Widow. Tony Stark is never shown to have any guilt about the creation of Ultron, despite the robot's desire to kill the entire human race. Stark arrogantly goes about his life, insisting that it was for the good of the world and that he just has to fix it now. I just really wish that Tony was allowed to be human in these films at these points, as a scene featuring him breaking down about how his ultimate peacekeeping initiative went the opposite way would have been fascinating. It would not have only allowed Robert Downey Jr. to play somebody other than the arrogant jerk but it also would have allowed Whedon to show us a new side of the character in a way that only he knows how to. Now, that's all the bad news. To be completely honest, this movie was flat out fun in a lot of places. I was having the time of my life watching the Hulk fight Iron Man in his Hulkbuster armor, which was easily the highlight of the movie's frenetic action. As with the first film, Joss Whedon shows that he understands a team dynamic better than anybody else in screen media, as the interactions between the team members were both hilarious and human. These scenes where the team is just hanging out were just as entertaining as the action sequences, and it is a true testament to Whedon's talent that he is able to handle all these characters and their distinct personalities and get them to mesh so well together onscreen. The jokes come fast and often in this movie, most of them hitting fairly well and only a small amount missing their mark. The action is set on a large scale in this film, much like the first movie. The action scenes are well placed within the movie, expertly balanced with the slower paced talking scenes. Overall, this movie feels like an episode of something, rather than a culmination of elements that have been built up beforehand. It was almost like the producers were standing behind Whedon as he wrote the script with a checklist, making sure he put certain events in the film to further their agenda rather than allow him to make his own film that fits naturally into the Cinematic Universe. Despite all of my gripes (there were a lot, I know), I had a ton of fun with this movie, and it is definitely one of the best action movies to come out so far this year. It is honestly such a joy to see these characters reunited onscreen again, going after the bad guys while still staying true to themselves. The action is a blast to watch and is definitely a highlight of the proceedings. This movie is worth a watch to get you ready for the upcoming summer movie season. I'm still holding out hope that the Universe will tap into some more emotional elements in the coming movies, but for now, this one is just fine. Avengers: Age Of Ultron gets a 7.5 out of 10.

Only God Forgives Review

Only God Forgives, directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, was a film that absolutely split the movie community (critics and mainstream audiences alike) straight down the middle. The naysayers repeatedly used the word "dogshit" to describe the film, pointing out how it had little character, excessive violence, and no story. The champions of the movie named it one of the best films of the year and superior to Drive, the director's previous film that was universally acclaimed. I find the story behind the film's reception fascinating, as it just goes to show the power of cinema and how different people have different opinions and feelings even though they witness the exact same images. For me personally, I fall in the camp that really liked this movie. I am hovering on the cusp of absolutely loved, but that will require repeat viewings. Right from the get go, one notices the absolute beauty of this film. I'm floored that this did not get nominated for Best Cinematography or Best Production Design. Every shot in this film was gorgeous to look at. It really enhanced the world of the film and kept me interested, even when the characters were starting to get on my nerves. What is important to note about this film is that it is filmed and crafted to be an experience. There is so much to unpack in this movie and it will most certainly reward repeat viewings. The story in the film is very simple. Julian, played by Ryan Gosling, runs a boxing club as a front for his family's drug operation. His brother goes off the rails one night and winds up dead. Julian reluctantly seeks revenge, spurred on by his mother. This sets Julian and his mother at odds with an otherworldly police chief who holds quite the reputation in the underground world of Bangkok. To say anymore would just ruin the movie. Right away, one can see how this is a film packed to the brim with metaphors. There are many scenes of surreal imagery and characters most definitely represent ideas rather than themselves. What is important to note is that one should not go into this film expecting Drive or an action movie. That is a certain way to be disappointed. There is violence in this movie, but not necessarily in the form of thrilling car chases or elaborate gun fights. The film definitely uses the slow burn, almost like a Western, with scenes punctuated with violent occurrences. I appreciated the slow burn, as it gave me time as a viewer to ponder the look of the movie and the surreal aspects, trying to note how they all meshed together. Alonso Duralde of The Wrap noted in his review for What The Flick?!? that people who hadn't seen art house films or Lost Highway by David Lynch would watch this movie and think it is "the shit." Duralde, who didn't like the film, is being a little unfair there, I think. His comparison comes from the surreal nature of this film, which is the style that David Lynch specializes in. Having seen parts of Lost Highway (frankly, I don't know why Duralde used this film as a comparison, considering how Lost Highway isn't as fully realized or as well put together as Lynch's masterful Mulholland Dr.), I can still say that I think Only God Forgives is a fantastic experience of a film. I think many people who have seen art films have also really liked this movie and can stand behind it as an example of art cinema. Is it a perfect film? Most likely not. Only time will tell. However, I really get the feeling that this film, much like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, will stand the test of time and be re-evaluated. Some may then call it a masterpiece, but I can't say that in confidence after only one viewing. I have chosen not to comment much on the characters or other elements of the movie, as I feel it is best to go into this one with little to no knowledge of its proceedings or any preconceived notions. This is definitely one of the most interesting films to come out in the past couple years or so, and if you want a break from the typical blockbuster fare or just want to watch a movie that you can interpret for yourself, this is definitely worth at least one watch. With a run time of 90 minutes, it really isn't all that much of a commitment either. It's a beautiful movie with great surreal elements. If you end up enjoying those aspects, I highly recommend watching Mulholland Dr. My overall rating of Only God Forgives is 8.5/10.

Why I'm Not Excited for Avengers: Age Of Ultron and Ant-Man

As should be becoming clear to many movie goers these days, superhero films are all the rage. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is absolutely booming and DC is fast-tracking their own cinematic universe as I write this piece. The pieces are in place and the films are supposed to be hitting cinemas for the next six or seven years, at the very least. Unfortunately and very surprisingly, I am not excited for this in the slightest. While this piece will focus solely on what I think is wrong with the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole, I believe that some of the same problems can be seen in how DC is handling their film universe for their characters. That is definitely a post for another day, as DC has already started to dig themselves in a whole other hole.

I suppose it would benefit to discuss my impressions of the other films before I get to the meat of what I would really like to talk about. At the beginning, I really enjoyed the Marvel films. Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America: The First Avenger, were all very solid action films. The lone stinker of the bunch was Thor, which I didn't enjoy very much for rushed story reasons. Regardless, all of these films, tied together through characters and end credits sequences, culminated in the highly anticipated blockbuster, The Avengers. I absolutely loved this film when I saw it on opening day in a packed theater. I walked out satisfied and knowing I had spent my money well. However, on a second viewing, I noticed that the movie only had two really notable aspects: the interactions between the characters and the action sequences. This is one of those films that really made me realize just how important story, deep characters, and plot are to a film's staying power. The film's story was one we have all seen before: power hungry character wants to take over the world and kill/enslave all of the people in it. That was disappointing enough, considering how it was just an excuse to get all of the superheroes onscreen together. On even more viewings, I began to see the seeds of what has now taken over the Cinematic Universe. That is the Marvel Formula. This consists of a narcissistic hero with a sense of humor embracing their outcast status and saving the world. Now, in theory, this is a really cool idea! My issue is that this formula is at the heart of every Marvel movie and is being used to dumb down the films and keeping the screenwriters and directors from making them more unique and deeper. With the exception of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I have not really loved any Marvel movie in recent memory because each one has essentially the same feeling to it. For example, Guardians Of The Galaxy was one of the most beloved movies of 2014, even being named by some publications as the best film of the year (which is completely wrong and is insulting to all the filmmakers who made better films during the year, like Birdman, Boyhood, and The Grand Budapest Hotel). To me, however, it just felt like a blatant Star Wars rip-off, inserting the Marvel formula character (narcissistic outcast with a sense of humor) into a space opera. That is my dissection of the Marvel formula. What worries me more is where the franchise is headed and how the studio has actively gone out of its way to dumb down their films for the masses.

We now sit in 2015, where the two films Ant-Man and Avengers: Age Of Ultron are poised to come out and rule the box office, just like the other films in the franchise. As I listed out my top ten most anticipated films for the year, these two did not make the list. Why? It is fairly simple. Marvel has gone out of its way to avoid injecting these films with new ideas and directions. This is mostly seen in how the production of Ant-Man played out. A passion project of director Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun Of The Dead, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) that pre-dated the production of Iron Man, pre-production was all set to begin with Wright at the helm. Wright, known for his intelligent comedic writing and interesting direction, was all set to inject new life into the Universe. However, in May, Wright and Marvel parted ways, due to differences in visions for the film. Upon digging further, I found out that the darker aspects of the Hank Pym character, such as his split personalities, one of which abused his wife, didn't sit too well with the filmmakers and the studio heads. As a result of this split, the studio brought in Adam McKay, director of Anchorman and The Other Guys, to rewrite the script. Not a bad choice, considering how those films were fairly funny. Unfortunately, the director brought in to replace Edgar Wright, was Peyton Reed. Reed's most famous film is the cheerleader film Bring It On. Yepp, not an improvement. My question is very simple. Why? Why actively avoid injecting some new and heavier elements in order to keep the Universe interesting and avoid consumer burnout? Luckily, the powers that be are so obvious in their stupidity that the answer became clear right away: money. They just want to put butts in seats. To me, that is just about the worst possible way the production could have been played out. The fun doesn't just stop there. This method of dumbing down the films carries over right to Avengers: Age Of Ultron. However, the active process of dumbing down Avengers begins even before its conception.

I am not a comic book purist. I can definitely accept changes. But I can't easily accept active attempts to make the films dumber for a modern audience. This is the case with the new Avengers movie. In the comics, Hank Pym is the creator of Ultron. However, in the Cinematic Universe, this was impossible to portray on film because, despite Pym being a founding member of the Avengers in the comics, he was left out and his film moved to the second phase of the Universe. Ultron, the big baddie of the new film, became a peacekeeping program that is initiated by Tony Stark. Ultron's ultimate goal in the film, conveniently revealed to us through the trailers, is to take over the world and kill/enslave everybody in it. Sound familiar? My issue with these proceedings is simple. Without Hank Pym, we have no interesting aspect of human drama to balance out the intense action sequences and character interactions. Imagine seeing Hank Pym on the big screen, watching his ultimate creation rampage throughout the world and systematically eliminating the human race. What kind of emotions could an actor tap into for that? That deep guilt, that level of human drama and emotion, has yet to be seen in the Universe. It has been attempted, but poorly so, as Iron Man 3 entertained the idea of Tony Stark's PTSD but pushed it by the wayside to make room for explosions and Ben Kingsley's worst role ever. At the end of the day, it looks and sounds like we are in for a lot of the same of the first movie: great character interactions and fun action sequences, but the simple story that doesn't require a lot of thinking. It is really disappointing to see Joss Whedon, the talented writer behind The Cabin In The Woods and Buffy, dumb down his story for the film when it could have been taken to so many new levels of filmmaking. If I had to guess, I would say that they will attempt to put aspects of that human guilt and drama into Tony Stark, but with poor results.

Overall, am I not excited for these movies? Not really. Will I go see them? Oh, yes. They promise to be very entertaining at the very least. As a film lover, I just wish that the stories hadn't been butchered so as to make them more accessible. I want these films to not only entertain people, but to make them think and to really feel the emotion of the characters. We don't have superpowers or suits of armor, so the only thing left to help us connect to the characters in these films are the emotions they have to offer. Having more emotion in the characters ensures that the memories of them stay with us longer and make us want to return to the films again and again. I could never hope or attempt to be a gangster like Ray Liotta's character in GoodFellas, but it is the conveying of emotions of his character that allows viewers to put themselves in his shoes and get a taste of being a gangster. The same can be said for these heroes. Explosions and large monsters only take us so far. I sincerely hope that these films will surprise me and take the characters to these places that I have mentioned. It will definitely reinvigorate the desire within me to see all these new superhero movies coming out and will ensure that the upcoming summers are kept entertaining with the characters that we not only enjoy watching beat up the bad guys, but enjoy feeling the same emotions as they do.

What We Do In The Shadows

Even though it is only March, I am comfortable saying that What We Do In The Shadows will most likely make it into my top ten movies of the year when it comes time to make that list. I was really looking forward to this one, and I am ecstatic to report that it is even funnier than the trailer initially made it look like. The film is a mockumentary (think Borat) and it follows a group of vampires that live together in a flat in New Zealand. Created by Jemaine Clement and Taika Watiti of Flight Of The Conchords, this is a very loving send up of the horror genre as a whole. As a comedy movie, this one succeeded in spades, as I was consistently laughing and had a big grin on my face the whole movie. There really isn’t much of a plot to follow, but in the case of this film, that works out just fine, as life itself doesn’t really have a plot some of the time. I don’t mean to sound existential at all. Above all, the movie is just flat out fun. The writers took a very practical approach to the screenplay, really looking at what a vampire would have issues with if they were living in our society as normal people. Each of the three main vampires, Vladislav (Clement), Deacon (Jonathan Brugh), and Viago (Taika Watiti), all have incredibly distinct personalities that are perfectly suited to bounce off of each other. I think my favorite overall was Viago, as he has a very motherly attitude and is consistently delivering commentary on the somewhat absurd proceedings of the flat. What I thought was very surprising is how the movie poked fun at reality TV shows that the world cannot seem to get enough of. For example, the trio creates a new vampire on accident one night, and Nick, the new member, has to tell his friend Stu that he is a vampire. This is shot just like a revelation in a show like The Bachelor or Jersey Shore, complete with sappy music. I thought that this was an unexpected source of comedy that was handled very intelligently it. This review may sound very scatterbrained, but I am finding it very difficult, as anybody should, to explain what is so funny about this movie. Comedy shouldn’t be dissected, as it loses much of its impact. If you pull anything out of this very jumbled review, it is that you should see this movie if you have the opportunity. It is one of the funniest movies I have seen in such a long time and it has all the makings of a cult classic. What We Do In The Shadows receives an 8/10.